imdb_id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 1
92
| plot_synopsis
stringlengths 442
64k
| tags
stringlengths 4
255
| split
stringclasses 1
value | synopsis_source
stringclasses 2
values | review
stringlengths 119
19k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt1881002 | Maggie | In the present-day Midwestern United States, society struggles to function in the aftermath of a zombie pandemic barely under control (Necroambulism). Maggie Vogel (Abigail Breslin) calls her father from a broken city under curfew; her voicemail urges that he not seek her and that she loves him. Her arm was bitten. Knowing she has only weeks before the "Necroambulist virus" turns her cannibalistic, she left home to protect her family. Maggie's father Wade (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has searched two weeks, despite her warning. Finding her in a hospital for the infected, he brings Maggie home to care for her until she must eventually be quarantined. During their return, a zombie attacks Wade at an abandoned gasoline station and he breaks its neck.
At home, Maggie’s younger half-siblings Bobby and Molly (Aidan and Carsen Flowers) are leaving to stay with their aunt. Maggie talks to Bobby, who mostly understands what she is undergoing. She withdraws from her family, struggling to cope with her hopeless situation and torn about contacting her friends. Falling from a swing, she breaks a finger on her infected arm, from which black fluid oozes. Terrified, even though she feels little or no pain, and despairing over her deteriorating body, Maggie cuts off the finger. She flees outside and encounters a neighbor, Nathan, and his young daughter, both senseless with infection. Wade kills both zombies but feels extreme remorse. The responding sheriffs consider Wade blameless, instead blaming Nathan’s wife Bonnie, who hid her infected family from the authorities. Bonnie visits Wade that night, decrying the dehumanizing treatment of the infected and revealing that Nathan had locked himself in with his sick daughter, becoming infected himself, rather than abandon her to death among strangers in quarantine.
A doctor warns Wade that Maggie’s condition is worsening quickly, leaving him three eventual options: she can be quarantined, which Wade refuses; Wade can administer at home the same euthanasia injection offered in quarantine, which he’s warned is painful; or Wade can "make it quick" himself. Wade and Maggie make the most of their remaining days, reminiscing about Maggie's deceased mother. Despite Maggie's physical deterioration (she’s woken by maggots wriggling in her dying arm) she struggles to maintain normality. She attends a bonfire with high school friends Allie and an infected boy, Trent (Bryce Romero), whom Maggie previously dated, and whom she kisses. He tells rumors of horrible conditions at the quarantine facilities, saying he would die before going there.
One day, Maggie smells food near her stepmother Caroline (Joely Richardson), though Caroline smells nothing and muses that Wade must be cooking downstairs. Finding the kitchen empty, Caroline realizes in horror that Maggie has begun to smell living flesh, in this case Caroline's, as food. Maggie receives a desperate call from Trent. At his home, Trent has locked himself inside his bedroom after he too felt hunger smelling another human. Maggie tries to comfort him but watches helplessly as the police forcibly remove Trent to quarantine.
Back home, Maggie encounters a trapped fox in the woods. Later she runs into her home, hysterical and coated in blood, admitting through tears to her frightened parents that she freed the fox but then couldn't stop herself from attacking it. Wade shoots the half-eaten fox. Caroline departs and urges Wade it’s time Maggie is taken away. Two officers arrive and Wade fights one of them before Maggie appears, assuring them she has not yet turned. The sympathetic sheriff leaves Wade with a warning that he’d better decide what to do with her before they next come to check on Maggie.
Wade shows Maggie white daisies he’s grown in her mother’s old garden, "Daisy" being a nickname he sometimes uses for Maggie. She thanks him for the garden’s beauty, but also begs him to promise that he will "make it stop" before she grows worse. Later, Wade sits alone with his shotgun, still unable to use it. He pretends to sleep when Maggie approaches, her skin now gray and her eyes blackened. She lingers over him, smelling him, seemingly on the edge of self-control, before kissing his forehead. She then climbs to the roof and jumps off, her last memories being of herself as a child frolicking outdoors with her mother, picking a daisy. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0075161 | The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea | Much of the story is told following the actions of Noburu Kuroda, an adolescent boy living in Yokohama, Japan, who does well in school but is secretly "Number Three" in an adolescent group of boys who reject conventional morality and are led by their schoolmate, the "Chief". Noburu discovers in his chest of drawers a secret peephole into his widowed mother's bedroom (speculated to have been put there by previous occupants, American troops), and uses it to spy on her. Since Noburu has a keen interest in ships, his upper-class mother Fusako, who owns Rex, a European-style haute fashion clothing store, takes him to visit one near the end of the summer. There they meet Ryuji Tsukazaki, a sailor and second mate aboard the commercial steamer Rakuyo with vague notions of a special honor awaiting him at sea. Ryuji has always remained aloof from the land, and while accruing a substantial savings, has no real ties with other sailors either. Ryuji and Fusako develop a romantic relationship, their first night of sex is spied upon by Noburu at the peephole but the second takes place at a hotel to Noburu's disappointment. The relationship continues but ultimately ends when the Rakuyo sets sail again.
Noburu at first reveres Ryuji, but a chance encounter on the second day of their acquaintance changes his stance. Noburu and his friends have just come from Noburu capturing (and then the Chief vivisecting) a stray kitten, and he has lied about his whereabouts to his household. Ryuji has combatted the extreme heat by dousing himself with water. Noburu takes issue with what he perceives as an undignified appearance and greeting by Ryuji, although he is later thrilled by Ryuji recounting his voyages around the world.
While Ryuji is sailing, he and Fusako exchange letters, and they fall deeply in love. Returning to Yokohama around the New Year, he moves into their house, lets the Rakuyo sail without him, and ultimately decides to marry Fusako (Fusako plans to install him in a managing position at Rex, after Ryuji passes a private investigator audit of his circumstances). This estranges him from Noburu, whose group resents fathers as a terrible manifestation of a terrible position. Noburu is nonetheless able to hide his true feelings behind a mask of youthful innocence. Noburu is discovered in his peephole position (for which he must crawl into his chest of drawers) but Ryuji does not punish him severely despite being asked to by Fusako.
As Ryuji begins to draw close to Fusako, a woman of the shore, he is eventually torn away from the nautical dreams he's pursued his entire life. After an "emergency meeting" of the gang, the Chief determines that the only way to restore Ryuji to being a "hero" is to kill him in a similar manner to the kitten (they will use drugged tea to subdue Ryuji after luring him to a remote location under the guise of asking him for sea stories). The Chief expressly quotes from the Japanese criminal law to show that they, as individuals under 14, cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. Their plan works perfectly; as he drinks the tea, Ryuji muses on the life he has given up at sea, and the no-longer-possible heroic life of love and death he has abandoned. The novel ends, presumably (but not explicitly) with the boys' plan being carried to completion. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0135666 | Takkar | Takkar revolves around the lives of three characters — Ravi Malhotra (Sunil Shetty), Mohini (Sonali Bendre) and Inspector De Costa (Naseeruddin Shah). Ravi is a freelance photographer, in love with Mohini, who works hard to make a living so they can be together. Inspector De Costa is an efficient but corrupt cop who takes advantage of criminals by helping them in return for money and then double crossing them; he pretends to be on the side of the law.
No one is considered strong or wise enough to confront De Costa. De Costa one day notices Ravi and Mohini on the beach, and he immediately falls for her. To keep Ravi away from her, he frames Ravi on the day before his marriage to Mohini by falsely implicating him in a drug deal case in a fake raid. Ravi is sentenced to four years of imprisonment. In prison, Ravi decides to study the law so he can fight injustice. He is helped by hardcore criminals who are in jail because of De Costa and want him dead.
In Ravi's absence, De Costa befriends Mohini. She begins to like and respect him as though he were a good man. After two years, Ravi is released from jail because of good behavior and on recommendation by the circle inspector on Mohini’s pleas. Soon Ravi and Mohini are married. De Costa learns about Ravi’s release from prison and his marriage. Infuriated, he harasses the couple repeatedly to get close to Mohini. But Mohini never gives in to De Costa’s moves. Ravi soon realizes that it was Inspector De Costa who had framed him on the day before his marriage, and he decides to take revenge. He follows De Costa closely, watching all his activities. Being a photographer, he captures the cop on camera.
The circle inspector is killed by De Costa when both of them rescue a group of school children from terrorists holding them captive in a school. This is noted by Ravi, and he makes it known publicly. Soon an enquiry is arranged by the police (on Ravi’s request), and Ravi plays the prosecution lawyer. He traps De Costa in his own words, making him confess his crime. He also provides evidence for the same.
The helpless De Costa is suspended from service. But Ravi and Mohini know that De Costa will never leave them in peace. So they approach his mistress (Archana Puran Singh) for help; she says that De Costa’s desires can be used against him. They hatch a plan. Ravi leaves the house before Mohini, pretending to go out of the city. De Costa learns of this and immediately goes to the couple’s house, where he is met by a surprise reception. Mohini dances with him, pretends to seduce him and, as they enter the bedroom, she screams, and Ravi breaks in. He beats up De Costa badly, and police arrive and arrest the former cop.
De Costa is now jailed. But enemies are not at bay for him. In prison, he comes across the men whom he has jailed, as they are working in the jail compound. The criminals together attack and kill De Costa.
The film ends with De Costa’s burial, as Ravi sticks a cross with De Costa’s name painted on it on the grave. He then says "Everything has come to an end for good" and walks away with Mohini, as the others look on. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0109139 | Another Woman | Marion Post (Gena Rowlands) is a New York philosophy professor past the age of 50 on a leave of absence to write a new book. Due to construction work in their building, she sublets a furnished flat downtown to have peace and quiet.
Her work there is interrupted by voices from a neighboring office in the building where a therapist conducts his analysis. She quickly realizes that she is privy to the despairing sessions of another woman (Mia Farrow) who is disturbed by a growing feeling that her life is false and empty. Her words strike a chord in Marion, who begins to question herself in the same way.
She comes to realize that, like her father (John Houseman), she has been unfair, unkind and judgmental to many of the people closest to her: her brother Paul (Harris Yulin) and his fragile wife Lynn (Frances Conroy), her best friend from high school Claire (Sandy Dennis), her first husband Sam (Philip Bosco), and her stepdaughter Laura (Martha Plimpton).
She also realizes that her marriage to her second husband, Ken (Ian Holm), is unfulfilling and that she missed her one chance at love with his best friend Larry (Gene Hackman). She finally manages to meet the woman in therapy as she contemplates a Klimt painting called "Hope". Although she wants to know more about the woman, she ends up talking more about herself, realizing that she made a mistake by having an abortion years ago and that at her age there are many things in life she will not have anymore.
By the end of the film, Marion resolves to change her life for the better. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | Surprisingly Pleasant.
I was cleaning my workroom this afternoon, and the movie I had put on finished, and "Another Woman" came on.
Not usually watching TV movies, I thought of changing channels, but I was busy.
Imagine my surprise when I realized that, for a Harlequin movie, it was well-scripted and the cast quite good.
Justine Bateman and Peter Outerbridge play the main characters without descending into syrupiness and Amy Stewart was very good as the teenager who has been hurt and strikes back without being bratty.
The supporting cast manages to support well and avoid being bland.
Of course, we all know they will live happily-ever-after.
I mean, it is based on a Harlequin novel.
Still, the script was well-written and the characters well-developed.
The medical information was not accurate?
Not to worry.
This is an escapism movie, not a medical school biology class.
Grab the pop corn, a comfy pillow, and kick back for a relaxing few hours..
A Bit Surprised.
I was actually a bit surprised to find an interesting movie here despite obvious cliche and bad researching (The info on Lisa's medical condition is inaccurate, although in the end it doesn't matter).I always thought that Justine Bateman had some talent and was pleased to find that she was able to use it here.
While the script is not always the greatest she does a fine job with it as do her co-stars.
Peter Outerbridge shows what a fine actor he is, and the young girl playing Bonnie also does a wonderful job.
Her character is nicely developed as is Joe the hired gun.If you are looking for something on a rainy afternoon this might be the ticket..
I really liked it.
First the revelation - I read romance novels and as any serious reader will know it can be quite hard to transfer the emotions described in a book onto film.
This film managed it.
Because the acting was believable, there was chemistry and the story line was entirely plausible.
I own this movie and I am happy to own it and I think the best compliment I could give is to say that as soon as I watched I wanted to watch it again.
This is a feel good movie.
If you're not romantic or a parent you might not get it but I loved it hence my 8 out of 10.
And now I'm off to watch it again!!!
Ps Justine Bateman - need to see her more on TV as she portrays emotions excellently.
Not many actresses cry real tears!.
Pass the bonbons.
OK I admit it, I really found this one charming.
Not great, just a nice comfortable movie to watch while no one was home this afternoon.
The couple is so cute, (although Peter Outerbridge was "cuter" in Better than Chocolate) and you just want them to fall back in love.
Everyone should have such a life!So if you have an afternoon and no one is home, sit on the couch, tuck your legs up and pass the bonbons .
Rather touching, simple story..
I enjoyed this movie.
The performances weren't overblown, they were simple with the awkwardness of a family rediscovering each other.
The scenes as Justine Bateman and Peter Outerbridge fall in love again were believable and touching.
A nice surprise as romance novels made into movies tend to be mawkish!!.
oh no another canadian indie.
These productions are so predictable ...
canadian men are woman mental and physical abusers ..
this is but one of thousands of similar stories ...
makes me ill to watch so it will you as well ...
blech |
tt0000488 | The Land Beyond the Sunset | Joe is an impoverished New York newsboy who lives with his abusive grandmother. While selling papers, he is given a ticket for a children's excursion sponsored by the Fresh Air Fund.
The next morning, Joe sneaks out of his tenement home to join the excursion, where he sees the countryside and the ocean for the first time. After a picnic, an adult volunteer reads the children a story about a young prince who is beaten by an old witch. A group of fairies rescue the boy, take him to a boat, and sail off for "the Land Beyond the Sunset, where he lived happily ever after." Joe imagines himself as the boy in the story.
When the group returns to the city, Joe stays behind because he is afraid of his grandmother. He wanders to the beach, where he finds a rowboat and decides to go to the Land Beyond the Sunset himself. He pushes the boat into the water and climbs in. The film ends with a long shot of Joe drifting out to sea. | fantasy, storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1265998 | Afro Samurai: Resurrection | Afro spent his days making wooden sculptures of historical people and follows the rule of not wearing the No. 1 headband, until Jinno and Sio take the headband and Rokutaro's mandible. Sio tells Afro that she will resurrect and use Rokutaro for vengeance.
Brother 3 cheats the dice game and tells Afro that Shichigoro has the No. 2 headband. After Afro meets to spend time with Kotaro and Shichigoro, both men fight until Afro takes it and Kotaro sadly vows revenge.
Afro destroys three past warriors and revealed as Sio's relatives, while she resolves to resurrect Rokutaro as a mindless robot. After strangling and seemingly killing Afro, Rokutaro impales Jinno and Sio with the broken sword, before Jinno's robotic body gives off an electrical surge through Sio's blood to save Afro. After defeating Rokutaro, Afro retrieves to wear the No. 1 headband, gives the No. 2 to Kotaro and tells him to fight. | revenge, psychedelic, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1407064 | Max Payne 3 | === Setting ===
According to Rockstar's president Sam Houser, it was their intention to start a new chapter of Max Payne's life with the game: "This is Max as we've never seen him before, a few years older, more world-weary and cynical than ever." The press release states that since the last game, Max has left New York City behind and "drifted from bad to worse." The press release goes on to say Max has been double-crossed in this new city and is searching for both the truth and a way out. The game is set in São Paulo, Brazil, several years after the events of ending of the second game. Max Payne now works in executive protection for the wealthy Rodrigo Branco and his family in the hopes of escaping the memories of his troubled past. When a street gang kidnaps Rodrigo's wife, Fabiana, Max is pulled into a conspiracy of shadowy, warring factions threading every aspect of São Paulo society in a deadly web that threatens to engulf everyone and everything around him.
=== Plot ===
Nine years after the events of the second game, Max Payne (James McCaffrey) has retired from the NYPD and spends his days at a bar in Hoboken, New Jersey, nursing his alcoholism and an addiction to painkillers. One evening, a man named Raul Passos (Julian Dean) approaches Max and offers him a new job, which Max turns down. But, during a drunk and violent argument, Max shoots the son of local mob boss Anthony DeMarco (Ray Iannicelli), who puts a price on his head and orders the entirety of New Jersey's crime underlings to kill Max. After killing most of his gang with Passos' help, Max decides to leave his old life behind, taking Passos' job offer as a private security contractor in South America.
Max and Passos work for the wealthy Branco family in São Paulo, consisting of three brothers: Rodrigo (Frank Rodriguez), a real-estate mogul; Victor (Robert Montano), a local politician who aspires to be the city's next mayor; and Marcelo (Dillon Porter), a hard-partying socialite. At a private party, Max saves Rodrigo and his trophy wife Fabiana (Benedita Pereira) from an attempted kidnapping by members of the Comando Sombra, a favela street gang. A few nights later, as Max escorts Fabiana and her friends to a nightclub, the gang attacks again, successfully kidnapping Fabiana and demanding a ransom of $3 million. Max and Passos deliver the ransom to a local football stadium to make the exchange, but the deal is disrupted by the Crachá Preto, an outlaw, right-wing paramilitary unit, who kill the Comando Sombra and steal the money. After escaping the stadium, Max and Passos raid a Comando Sombra base along the Tiete river to rescue Fabiana, but are unable to prevent the gang's leader, Serrano, from escaping with her. After they report their failure to the Brancos, Victor suggests they rely on Armando Becker (Ubirajara de Castro) and his special police unit Unidade de Forças Especiais (UFE) to oversee Fabiana's safe return. Victor, Passos, Marcelo and Becker leave via helicopter, moments before the Crachá Preto abruptly raid the Branco offices.
Max fights off the Crachá Preto and returns to Rodrigo's secured office to find him assassinated. Upon interrogating a wounded Crachá Preto soldier, Max learns that Fabiana is being held by Serrano in the Nova Esperança favela and that the Crachá Preto raid was meant for Max, as vengeance for the deaths of their operatives at the stadium. Blaming himself for what has transpired, Max swears off alcohol, shaves his head, and informs Victor and Marcelo that he is going undercover into Nova Esperança to save Fabiana. He gets lost in the sprawling favela, but is assisted by Detective Wilson Da Silva (Stephen Girasuolo), who reveals that the Crachá Preto have engaged in illicit deals with the Brancos, and suspects that Victor and UFE might also be involved. Max eventually finds Fabiana, only for her to be executed by Serrano. Marcelo and Fabiana's sister Giovanna (Shirley Rumierk) are kidnapped, as the UFE raid the favela. Max follows the raid and witnesses UFE collaborate with the Crachá Preto, selling them the people they arrested during the assault. Max then witnesses the Crachá Preto necklace Marcelo, and escapes with Giovanna. Fleeing from the militia, Giovanna is rescued by Passos, but Max is abandoned, later saved by Da Silva.
Da Silva reveals that Passos worked for Victor until he hired Max. Max remembers that when he and Passos worked as security for Marcelo's yacht party, which was attacked by military brigands in the Panama Canal, he escaped the yacht to find Marcelo and Passos trying to drive away with unknown cargo. Max realizes that he was recruited by Passos to be the fall guy for whatever illicit activity the Brancos were involved in. Da Silva deduces that Max was set up by Passos and Victor, so the latter would gain access to his brother's wealth and garner sympathy for the upcoming mayoral elections. He then informs Max about a rundown hotel where the Crachá Preto and UFE are seen delivering prisoners. After Max discovers it is the base for a black market organ theft ring and corrupt UFE officers are being paid to deliver the detainees for organ harvesting, he frees the remaining detainees, including Serrano, who subsequently kills the corrupt surgeon performing the organ removals.
Max sets explosives to destroy the entire complex, but is held at gunpoint by Crachá Preto's leader, Alvaro Neves. Passos reappears, kills Neves and flies Max out as the building implodes. Afterwards, Passos explains that Marcelo and Victor forced him to cooperate in getting Rodrigo to finance Victor. Passos apologizes to Max, who forgives him, before he flees the city with Giovanna, who is pregnant with his child. Da Silva suggests that Max stage his surrender to the police in order to find incriminating evidence linking the UFE and Victor to the crimes of the Crachá Preto and the Comando Sombra. After doing so, Max escapes into UFE headquarters as planned, finding evidence that a UFE lieutenant named Bachmayer killed Rodrigo. After Max kills Bachmayer, he confronts Becker, but is held at gunpoint by Victor, who explains that he ordered the Crachá Preto to ambush the stadium exchange; the organ harvesting ring was funded by the stolen ransom money.
Victor and Becker escape to the airport with Max in pursuit. After an intense shootout with the UFE, Max catches up with them as they are preparing to board a jet. Becker (toting a grenade launcher) and his men try to stop Max and allow Victor time to escape, but Max shoots and detonates one of Becker's grenades in mid-air, giving the player the option to either kill Becker, or allow him to die from his wounds. With Da Silva driving in pursuit, Max disables Victor's plane, and approaches an injured Victor with the intent to kill him, but he relents after Da Silva persuades him to spare Victor so that he will answer for the crimes he committed. Victor taunts Max that he will be set free, and Max responds by breaking his leg.
A week later in Bahia, Max finds out that the remains of Becker's UFE battalion has been dissolved due to their ties to the illegal organ harvesting ring, while Victor is found dead, hanged in his prison cell. Finally having attained some solace, Max walks into the sunset. | neo noir, murder, violence, flashback, good versus evil, revenge | train | wikipedia | The graphics, are great, good light affect, rain affect, the atmosphere is fantastic and the voice actors did an amazing job in this game, especially James Mccaffery (Mx Payne voice actor).
This got to be one of the best games that you could get today, it has superb multi-player, a fantastic story and some of the greatest voice acting that you could get in a video game ever, this has been one hell of a ride that you shouldn't miss.
The writer of the story show off a great skill at displaying Max's deep and depressed life that he drinks away to an inevitable hangover, and constantly pops pills to try and fill his sad and disheartened hole that won't go away.
Sounds somewhat cliché, but his intense bad-ass-ery makes up for it.When Max gets roughed up, it looks so painful and gritty, you can almost feel it yourself.
They do deserve it though.The story makes this game so damn awesome, Max is a valiant hero by no means, but he does have a sense of good that he tries to make out...
Even the sound track is perfectly picked for this game.-Gameplay-Max Payne is a third person shooter, mostly over the shoulder.
Every gunfight seems like an epic movie scene *untill* you fudge up and smack your head on a wall.Most often, Max will engage a battle guns blazing, leaping through a window or down a roof, hoping to shoot as many bad-guys as possible before hitting the ground.
The fact of the matter is that the only way to really appreciate and avoid some valid criticisms of Max Payne 3, one must see this game as more of a new envisioning of the franchise.What made the original game stand out aside from the bullet time gameplay was minute details; the fact that groups of enemies had hilarious conversations between each other, or the ingenious narrative with catchy phrases that practically defines the noir genre, and the entire dark shades and tones that overtook the graphics- Max Payne 3 does not so much do away with these things as update and modernize the series to meet the standards of today.For some players, immersion may be instantaneous from the hook, and for others, it may take longer, and there may be those who essentially give up because they find it mundane, however; the game is best seen like a playable movie that, by the second disc, truly shines: The narrative becomes more astute, the character of Max Payne becomes polished, and the story begins to pick up with quite some twists and turns.The gameplay is so refined that this game is the pinnacle of its genre and with the graphics and attention to detail being by far the best for action shooters thus far, Max Payne 3 truly shines as the must have and must play for anyone who wants an experience beyond anything out in the market.Another important note is the surprising amount of replay value and goodies, such as collectible "clues" and "golden guns" placed throughout levels that encourage exploration of detailed environments.
However, the fact that there are absolutely no traditional load times throughout any of the levels again strongly contribute to making this game one of the best of its genre, and between this and the 360 degree gameplay, polished and refined bullet time, a duck, cover and blind-fire system that is effective and at times necessary, and a script with clever dialogue that eventually does pick up throughout the second disc, Max Payne 3 is an authoritative must have for absolutely any fan even remotely interested in the genre.Pros Gameplay, production values, graphics, sound, audio , script, replay valueCons Long cut scenes cannot be skippedScore 9.8/10.
I played Max Payne 2 about five times in all difficulties, just to see the alternate ending, that I don't want to spoiler to you.
The game starts pretty well: Max addicted to drugs is a great idea (how many painkillers did we make him take in the previous games?), but there ends the character Max Payne.
I'm not criticizing graphics and gameplay, they're certainly great; but this game could have been named differently, the character could have had blonde hair and here you have a very nice game with a poor story that has nothing to do with Max Payne.
Remedy's not involved but I'm sure they'll give out something worthwhile" and even the location change, I thought it was an odd location but I thought a good story would pull through even with Max looking like the lovechild of Agent 47 and Obidiah Stane...
So Max rescues all but one and the rest of the game is pretty much you running around trying to save this person.Okay, so my biggest problems with this is the story.
Anyone else think we missed a much better Max Payne game in-between the ending of the second one and when he got his job offer in the flashback levels?
That to some people was one of the best things in those games, it showed what Max is really going through.
I am literally suggesting to turn over a new leaf with this series because the story of the first game has a lot of potential (although if the Mark Whalberg movie taught us anything, that can also backfire) and if they did that, while it wouldn't be as good - They wouldn't be screwing the continuity sideways and it would be good to actually see these memorable characters again.Okay, I've gotten angry for three paragraphs (and the worst part is I've only played half of this game...
The added cover system really works and the whole "Last Man Standing" thing when Max enters bullet-time to shoot the guy who would have fired the shot that killed him is a nice touch, I mean it's essentially making it easier but then again you die in this game quite a bit as well.
I might complain about the segments where you shoot enemies in bullet-time while doing something ridiculous like leaping over a car, holding onto a falling water tower or on a boat catapulting through the air but then again this is the same video game series where a guy single handedly shoots up hundreds of mobsters, takes hundreds painkillers without once over-dosing and leaps through corridors while doing it all in a matter of four days (I say four because, three days for Max Payne 1, 1 night for Max Payne 2) so I really didn't mind it.If you want to play this game with the intention of maybe connecting to a video game series you know and love, this isn't it.
Everything about them was awesome, like the never seen before bullet time, the cool looking comic-page cutscenes, and the amazing story and gameplay.
Skip to 2012 and Rockstar release Max Payne 3, this time more different in many ways to its predecessors.
Firstly, while the previous games were set in the cold, dark, snowy nights of L.A., this game is set mostly in the blaring heat of Sao Paulo, Brazil and I didn't really appreciate it because it didn't feel like Max Payne anymore.
Secondly, the comic-page cutscenes are gone as well to be replaced with motion scenes and I was a bit bothered as well by this because it was starting to feel less and less like the Max Payne we knew and loved.
I could keep comparing the game to its predecessors but I think you get my point.Max Payne has a strong storyline supported by great animations and brilliant voice acting.
Picking up the franchise from game developers Remedy, A Rockstar studios collaboration puts out just what old fans have expected from a Max Payne game.
A good story line that is not bad at all.The game- Graphically great tagged with great game play that does not get old and fantastic sound shows the overflowing quality of this product in the single player campaign.
The almost cut scenes which cant be skipped mostly can be an irritation for the player as you just want to get into the game ASAP at least on second and third play through.
When I heard about Max Payne 3, I naturally was interested, I loved the first 2 games and even though Remedy were not the ones working on 3, I still love Rockstar, they are able to tell great stories like in GTA San Andreas or Red Dead Redemption, so I was still very optimistic.
Now, Max Payne 3 is not a bad game, not even close, but I can't deny it did felt like a step down compared to the previous games, the story is interesting at parts but after a while, you start to loose interest, while is a good story, is not as intriguing and engaging as the stories of the first two games and at times it gets pretty boring, the change of location was an interesting choice and they do take advantage of it, but it makes the game feel a bit distant from it's own franchise, thankfully there are some breve flashback scenes that take you to New Jersey and they feel more similar to the Max Payne games, now gameplay is something that has been improved considerably, the shooting mechanics are more polished than ever and the bullet time was perfected here, the graphics look gorgeous and the musical score by Health is great, in regard of technical aspects, Max Payne 3 is a near perfect game, but in regards of story and characters, this game is a bit of a let down, other than Pasos, there aren't many memorable new characters, none of the antagonists feel as unique as Nichole Horne or the Gognitti family or Lupino, none of the secondary characters are as memorable as Vladimir or Mona Sax, and that's a shame since this have always been a strong point in the franchise.
Something I did liked about this game is the kind of story they were aiming, the first game was a neo-noir revenge story, the second game was a neo-noir romance story and this game is a neo-noir redemption story, that is actually a brilliant idea, making the Max Payne trilogy feel like one long story with 3 different acts, the execution though is the problem.
Like I said, Max Payne 3 is by no means a bad game, in fact is pretty good, the graphics, gameplay and attention to detail are amazing, but the story and characters are unfortunately weaker and while the game is a fitting conclusion to Max's story, is not quite as strong as it should have been..
The game is awesome as an action piece, but a lot of the elements from the previous 2 games by Remedy that I fell in love with were lost, like the comic book passages, the gritty noir environments, Max's sense of humor, clever irony and poetic narration, the dream sequences and some other awesome things that made me fell in love with the two Remedy games.
For the first game I give a 9/10, great game, for the second game, a straight and glorified 10/10, flawless in every sense, and even if times had changed, playing these two games today didn't reduce my devotion and admiration for them, but for the third game, sorry guys, it gets a 5.5/10, not that good, it lost many of the identity acquired in the first two, it seemed like a different game to me.
All the voice acting is greatly performed (James McCaffrey steals the show)and it feels realistic, the soundtrack is brilliant(probably one of the best around), the graphics are great(One of the best for a third person shooter) and the attention to detail is amazing like all Rockstar games, the style and direction of the game is very good and keeps it interesting along with the story.Although this is all ruined by the repetitive nature of the game it basically consists of: cut-seen kill people cut-seen kill people.
There are some other issues like: bad frame-rate, lack of exploration, terrible placing of checkpoints(or lack of them) but none of them add up to my overall major negative of this game...........................The difficulty.Personally i like games that challenge me, it makes it feel like I've accomplished something and it gives me a sense of reward but Max Payne is just ridiculously hard.
but max payne 3 is like a modded gta 5 game with extremely poor story..
Max Payne 1 and 2 was one of those (rare) action games with good a la Mickey Spillane stories told very neatly in comic novella style packed in noir surrounding .So what has changed and is Max still filled with pain?9 year after NY events Max is still drowning his sadness in alcohol and painkillers when his old colleague Raul pays him a visit and proposes a new job.
It took me approximately 14 hours to finish the game campaign taking my time which is decent for shooter.If this Max appeared first it would have been great shooter which lacks story, like this we will ad minus for implementing nothing significantly new and plus for upgrading good shooting.Good shooting with disappointing story when taking in mind its origins 8/10..
Greetings from Lithuania."Max Payne 3" (2012) (2012) was one of the best looking games in it's release year.
Gameplay itself is outstanding - shooting, bullet time effects and gorgeous graphics as well as intriguing (but not highly involving) story makes this a must play experience + add a great (and surprisingly very deep) multiplayer.Max Payne itself is the star of the game.
Dialogs and screenplay are excellent.Overall, "Max Payne 3" is different then two previous excellent games.
Cut-scenes go on for way too long and the "faulty video" aesthetic is just annoying.I wouldn't recommend this game.There are 68 trophies featured in Max Payne 3 (21 of them being from multiplayer DLC) though the trophies from the main game are very hard to achieve.
and this happens within minutes of each other, there may be as much time just watching as playing; it will leave you in a bad position, with the worst weapon ready, no reloading and you not having time to do so yourself - and the foes typically already know where you are) and lead you to the next shooting gallery, rinse and repeat(rather than the more varied game-play, particularly in the '07 original where you assault somewhere, complete something vital, and then exfiltrate, trying and failing to do so without causing damage and hurting those you don't mean to).You simply can't choose the approach(it even chooses to spawn more opponents, early on it may even do so in your blind spot, preventing you from getting your bearings - and then expects you to gather ammo, as well as painkillers, that thankfully mean you have to work for health), for the first time in these, and exploration is all but gone.
I play either console games or PC games, and I got this to try out on my newly built puter, and I was disappointed with the overall look and feel of this game, way to many cut scenes, and most times you have to endure them, if you like it or not!
Sure I don't mind a few cut or story scenes, but they drag on way to long, I want more play!
It's very different, but still a Max Payne game.
More killing, more pervasive language, better graphics, and introduces cover system to the series, allowing yourself to peak out to make sure all the bad guys are dead.It's been 9 years since Max Payne and Mona Sax took on the Inner Circle.
i bought this game last month and it is easily the best game of the year until now i really enjoyed every single minute of it ,everytime i sat in front of it i never wanted it to end and keep in mind that this game has a very long campaign and also really brutal ,just ignore the haters this game is as good as the first two ,even the graphics were awesome and The story is phenomenal just like the other Max Payne games.
It's a fine game as long as you don't call it a Max Payne game.
I love the first two Max Payne games.
The game play was innovative and still a blast to play and when it comes to story and characters they're right up there with the likes of Metal Gear Solid and The Last of Us. That's how good they are and are some of the best that Neo Noir has to offer in any medium.
and then I played the gameA lot of fans hate this game and say it doesn't even feel like a Max Payne game and yeah it's hard for me to argue with them.
First of, who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a cover system in a Max Payne game?!
Max Payne is suppose to play like a John Woo movie, think of any heroic bloodshed film and anything inspired by that genre, do the characters ever duck and cover while conserve ammo throughout most of the shootout?
No but it's not suppose to be and that the first strike with this game is trying to make Max Payne more realistic which makes no sense at all.
What made the stories in the first two games worked as well as Red Dead Redemption was that it was personal for both Max Payne and John Marston.
Here it feels more like homework to get to the end of the story Are you starting to see why I think this game was only made for marketing reasons?
Ugh So if R* was going to change so much to the point that it doesn't even feel like a Noir comic book John Woo film hybrid then why call it Max Payne at all? |
tt0125879 | Lulu on the Bridge | Jazz saxophone player Izzy Maurer (Harvey Keitel) is shot in the chest during a performance at a jazz club by a deranged man. Izzy survives the seven-hour operation, but loses his left lung, ending his music career. A young aspiring actress named Celia Burns (Mira Sorvino) walks into the Chez Pierre restaurant in New York City where she works as a waitress. She and her boss talk about the shooting. Later she purchases Izzy's latest CD.
Following his recovery, Izzy stays to himself and avoids his friends. Gradually he ventures outside and adapts to his new life. His former girlfriend Hannah (Gina Gershon) invites him to a dinner attended by a retired famous actress, Catherine Moore (Vanessa Redgrave), who is now a successful film director, and her film producer friend, Philip Kleinman (Mandy Patinkin). For the first time in a long time he has a good time. Catherine is looking for a young actress to play the part of "Lula" in her upcoming film version of Pandora's Box. Walking home that night Izzy discovers a dead body, finds a bag lying nearby, and rushes home in fear. Later he examines the contents of the bag and finds a small box containing a stone with a red mark. As he examines the stone he hears voices speaking in foreign tongues.
That night, as he lay awake in bed, the stone emits a strange blue light and elevates above the nightstand. The next morning he calls the number written on a napkin he found in the bag and Celia picks up the phone just as she's listening to Izzy's CD. He asks to meet, and she invites him over. When he arrives he demands to know what she knows about the dead man, Stanley Mar (Greg Johnson), and the strange rock. He turns out the lights and shows her the rock's mysterious blue light. Drawn to the rock, Celia touches it and encourages him to touch it too. "It's the best thing, it really is. It's like nothing else," she says. They feel elated by the experience, which makes them feel more connected to everything around them. He tells her, "The way I feel now, I could spend the rest of my life with you." After he leaves, Celia runs after him and invites him back to her apartment where they make love. In the coming days, they fall deeply in love. She gets him a job at her restaurant, but when a customer comes on to her, Izzy causes a scene and they both get fired.
Celia is up for a part in Catherine's film, Pandorah's Box, and with Izzy's help and connections, she gets the part of Lulu. Izzy plans to meet Celia in Dublin, where the film is being shot. Shortly after she leaves, Izzy is attacked by men in his apartment demanding to know why he killed Stanley Mar. He is taken away and held prisoner. He meets a mysterious Dr. Van Horn (Willem Dafoe) who tells Izzy how disappointed he is in him. Izzy has no idea what he's talking about, but Van Horn seems to know details about Izzy's past—his real name, childhood incidents, and catching fireflies with his brother at their summer house on Echo Lake. When Van Horn begins to delve into Izzy's relationships with his father and brother, Izzy responds, "Don't do this to me." When reminded that he refused to play music at his father's funeral, he breaks down in tears. One night, Van Horn storms into Izzy's cell and tell him, "You're not worthy. You've lived a bad dishonest life." Having learned about Celia, Van horn now demands that Izzy reveal her whereabouts. Izzy refuses to acknowledge that he even knows her. As he leaves, Van Horn says, "May God have mercy on your soul."
Meanwhile, Celia is unable to reach Izzy and she suspects that something is very wrong. She fears that Izzy has abandoned her. One night she takes out the rock and the blue light appears, but now it only produces in her an overwhelming sadness. Distressed, Lulu takes the rock and walks to Ha'penny Bridge, where she drops the stone into the dark river below. The following day, Van Horn and his men find Celia in Dublin and attempt to kidnap her. They chase her through the streets to Ha'penny Bridge where she had dropped the stone. As they close in, she jumps into the river.
Back in New York, Izzy finally manages to escape his prison. He learns from the producer of Celia's disappearance and nearly collapses. The producer gives him a videotape of some of Celia's scenes. Later at a jazz club, he asks his friends, "Am I a good person or a bad person?" Back at his apartment he watches the videotape of Celia and weeps.
After being shot at the jazz club by the deranged man, Izzy is taken away in an ambulance. On the way to the hospital, his heart stops and Izzy Maurer dies, just as the ambulance passes a young aspiring actress named Celia Burns. She sees the ambulance pass and makes the sign of the cross. | romantic, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | This is mainly a two-actor film with Harvey Keitel playing a low-key (at least for him!) character and Mia Sorvino playing his young girlfriend.
I could not have imagined where the story finally ended up, but it requires a lot of imagination to understand it (think, "Where does the mind go when it loses consciousness?
Izzy's state of consciousness during the film is simply a device -an interesting one- to tell a story.Seeing Dafoe and Keitel working together again (first time since Last Temptation of Christ?) was a delight.
Harvey Keitel delivers a home run of a lead performance as Izzy Maurer, a renowned jazz musician who loses his ability to play after he is shot by a lunatic gunman (Kevin Corrigan) while he is performing his music in a cafe.
The phone number leads him to Celia Burns (the ever excellent and under estimated Mira Sorvino), an aspiring actress who's fallen just south of the success line, and has a taste for Izzy's music.
Izzy is held captive and Celia chased by a mysterious man claiming to have a doctorate in anthropology who wants the magical stone.
It starred Harvey Keitel, whom I especially like and wanted to watch it because of him.
Paul Auster's film is nothing short of genius, both in its unconventional structure and its intelligent examination of a 'life that might have been' through its main character, 'Izzy' and his idyll, 'Celia'.
'Lulu' should appeal to viewers interested in thoughtful stories that work on a number of intellectual and emotional levels.
Paul Auster has earned himself a good reputation for making films about everyday people.
The film continued to haunt me, in a very positive sense, for the next day, and I started to appreciate its qualities: genuine acting, believable characters, and, if you believe in magic (it's everywhere, you just have to look for it), there's a good dose of that, too.
Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino, and, of course, Willem Dafoe, carry this film, but let us not forget the supporting cast of Vanessa Redgrave (she's always wonderful!), Mandy Patinkin, and Gina Gershon.
I rented this movie on a whim because I like Harvey Keitel and Willem Defoe...I found it somewhat reminiscent of Kieslowski's Colors trilogy, or The Double Life of Veronique, and fans of these movies will definitely like this one.
The movie's ending (which I won't give away) turns what you think is an interesting set of plot twists into a dreamy, allegorical tale that stays with you for a while.
Needless to say, the script is superb and Paul Auster shows to be a modern master of the literary genre, excelling as much on the screen as he does on paper (the scenes with Dafoe and Keitel are stunning, Dafoe telling the firefly story is memorable): this movie is all about reality and exactly because it feels so real it couldn't care less about realism.
It has NOTHING to do with "Little LuLu" or kids for that matter.This is a deeply disturbing, involving, dark, mysterious mystery/romance/thriller with some fantasy elements, but totally without glitz or pretension, beautifully filmed and acted, with a twist ending right out of Ambrose Bierce.
she goes through a myriad of hairstyles and styles of clothing, everything from bed-wear (lingerie), to around-town casual, to elaborate film costuming (she acts in a film towards the end of _this_ film), and she is totally convincing, believable, and riveting.Harvey Keitel delivers an absolutely gut-wrenching performance - as good as anything I've ever seen him do..
In viewing the great sculpture of The Thinker, this movie was sculptured with caring hands/thought and designed by a true thinking and uniquely creative artist.One area of imperfection here is that the sex scenes could have been lessened and shortened as I felt it took much away from the movie's fine craft(iness).
After viewing, I asked myself how could the title have been made better, but the symbolism involved of the one scene makes the title appropriate and yet carved with a slight Mona Lisa grin.Harvey Keitel's character was unique and I can't imagine anyone else being able to pull it off as he managed to do.
I watched the movie as it unfolded each new particle of new thought to bridge to another, leaving me with using my own skills to fill in pieces and parts ..
The story is complete, you don't have the feeling to be puzzled as in Lynch's movies and that you're missing the biggest part.This movie had a weird effect on me, some weeks ago (seven years after having seen it), I needed to begin playing saxophone and some days after, a story about a stone such as the one in the movie obsessed me, I'm going to write a novel based on it.I don't really know why but this movie, and only this movie, changed my life.The actress is so beautiful she'll hardly come out of my head too, and I find Harvey Keitel very good in this movie, he fits his role perfectly..
I haven't seen for a long time an american movie I wouln't be able to guess the ending.
LULU tells the same story - how lonely we are on this planet.Second impression - the movie is similar to "The Sixth Sense" in matter of post mortem life.
It's hard to guess what is real, and what is imagination.Great movie for thinking people.
Being an eager fan of Paul Austers writing I was very excited to get a chance to watch a film which he had both written and directed.
The whole story, the script, and especially the pretentious acting made the watching of this film a semi-horror.
Sorry to say, my idol, Paul Auster obviously has achieved a master degree in writing novels, while the form of a movie script seems to suit him all too badly.My hopes for the future are twofold: either Mr. Auster learns from this experience how to do better movies or, simply, he'll stick to what he does best: writing novels!As for all of you who have only seen this film and not read any of his novels: go now!
You can see true love, the one, the best, the last.(Great actors!!!) And all of the magical stuff is just an allegory to the"love at first sight" and the intangible way of falling in love:Izzy isn't handsome...(well, Harvey is full of charisma, but...) Celia is divine(Who couldn't fall in love with her when she smiles?) They are forevermore in love....
I realized it was a film with "Mira Sorvino" so I thought "Ok, this could be good".I quickly realized I was entering the realm of films like "Memento", where you really aren't quite sure what's going on...
I've been impressed with everything I've seen of Harvey Keitel's work; I've only seen Mira Sorvino in this film but so far so good; she was right up to par with Keitel.
As the viewer, you sense, for better or worse, that the characters are inexorably moving toward an end, traversing both love and loss on their journey.
I never thought it was going to be so great, I thought it would be like Smoke but this one is so much better, it is a really magical love story, Izzy makes up this girl while he´s dying but you don´t know if she´s real or if she ever met him, it is really a nice movie.
If you want to see good movies at theaters do not come to Chile because you´ll only see blockbuster films, such as 13 Warriors or Titanic..
Like Julian Schnabel, a painter turned film director, Paul Auster seems to be a logical candidate for bringing his stories to the screen, but as proved by this effort, one hopes he keeps his day time job.The large, talented cast of "Lulu on the Bridge" can't overcome some of the problems the film presents.
The mixture of a thriller with esoterica sounds like an intriguing idea for a film, but as one witness the movie unfolds it's clear these elements don't mix well together under the director's guidance with the screen play he wrote.
The film has moments in which it transcends and shows a promise of working, but in the end, it's too contrived for its own good.Even an intense performer like Harvey Keitel is bogged down by a character that doesn't awake much interest in the viewer.
As much as I like Harvey Keitel, I gave LuLu a run because John Lurie and Richard Edson have a way of ending up in cool off beat films (with the subtle caveat that Edson has done a ton of trash but usually not with Lurie in tow).
That is good that Paul Auster adapted his own movie.
A fine little gem.A Noirish love story with magical overtones that works on many levels.The reference to the classic silent film Pandora's Box with Louise Brooks is fascinating.One thing-On the DVD version there are several "deleted scenes".One has Mira Sorvino as a prostitute in a shabby apartment with two male characters not in the final cut.Where would this have been intended?.
Even trying to complete the story after the end of the film proved almost impossible.
The performances, especially by Harvey Keitel and Mira Sorvino, are truely exceptional and the mystical mood of the film is compelling.The weak spot is the screenplay, which has as many plot holes as a hunk o' swiss cheese.
If you need an example of how a director and script can make excellent actors perform flatly, this is the movie for you.Excellent actors Keitel, Dafoe, and Sorvino have their performances ruined by an indecipherable script and lousy direction.Save your money and your time..
**SPOILERS** Strange little movie that has to do with a man who's forced to see himself for who he really is not who he want's people, as well as himself, to think what's he's really not.
At his apartment Izzy finds that the stone has these strange magical powers that he just can't phantom and then calls the phone number on Mar's napkin to find that it belongs to a Celia Burns, Mira Sorvino.
It's only when Izzy explains to Celia about the stone, that emits a bright and soft blue light and levitates as well as shows her it's strange powers that she realizes, like he did, that it's something beyond the forces of nature!
Celia a struggling young actress who supports herself as a waitress working gets a major part, in fact the leading role, in the movie "Pandoras Box" playing the role of it's star Lulu.
Traveling to Dublin Ireland to do the movie Celia tells Izzy to keep in touch by phone and come visit her but as the days go by there's no word at all from Izzy.
Celia shooting the movie "Pandora's Box" is a sensation on the set but at the same time is worried about her love Izzy who she hasn't heard from since she left New York.
Izzy sobbing and in a state of complete depression sits alone in his apartment watching the out-takes, that Philip gave him, of the movie "Pandora's Box" with Celia in them.
It's then that the biggest surprise of all in the movie "Lulu on the Bridge" is about to come and hit the audience with the force of a sledge hammer right between their eyes!
In Lulu on the bridge, Paul Auster show how simple and incredible things are in our lives all the time.
The cast is game and quite watchable, especially Harvey Keitel and Willem Dafoe, but the story is so convoluted that the viewer (at least this one) is left confused and disappointed..
Harvey Keitel plays a jazz musician sidelined by a gunshot wound who hooks up with waitress/actress Mira Sorvino by chance.
After taking part on "Smoke" and directing "Blue in the face" Paul Auster kept on feeding his cinematographic interests with this "Lulu on the Bridge".
He count one more time on his friend Harvey Keitel who plays a jazz musician whose life gets shattered because of a shot.
The beginning of the movie, when Izzy (Keitel) and Celia meet is much more interesting and moving than the final parts, which are a little bit confusing.Auster demonstrates his talent behind the camera and his good taste choosing actors and music.*My rate: 7/10.
Whereas I agree with many critical voices stating the script would be a bit unlikely, I just loved the mood and atmosphere of the movie.
Ignore the dreck comments about this movie, and especially anythingwhich connects LULU to JACOB'S LADDER, a film whose ending so completely and utterly sucked that you could feel the wind for miles.
But enough about JACOB'S LADDER.LULU is written by a writer, directed by a writer, and features a male character, a directionless Jazz sax player whose life is scum-slathered, gray rest-rooms beneath dungeon-like clubs in NY; one night he sees the photograph of a beautiful woman he does not know taped to a wall while taking a leak.
This young woman captures the hard face of Keitel in her hands and is fulfilled by him, a man like him with nothing to equal what she is, not even his music; in fact, his music means nothing, it is merely how he is able to elevate himself out of the thick dirty rest-room so that this woman can see him and (through a transcendental mutual encounter with a glowing rock, about the only way a man like Keitel might have a chance to be with her: by pure coincidence) love him for his kindness and total devotion and loyalty.Auster's a novelist; he writes damn fine movies.
LULU ON THE BRIDGE is a poignant, believable, and wrenching story of adoration for a woman who seems to drop down like a UFO, all mystery and the unknown (as the connection is made to Louise Brook's dark mistress from PANDORA'S BOX) to abduct Keitel and show him things he'd never know, in his lonely night world.
There is not one superfluous word, but many beautiful close-ups, and all is framed by an engaging story about a musician who has lost his gift of music, an actress who goes to Dublin to play Lulu, and a mysterious stone..
i can think of no movie that better captures an incredibly powerful love between two people.
Beautiful film even if you don't look for Auster's deeper meanings.
And Auster's script is what makes this interaction and the whole mood of the movie possible.Unfortunately people who are not accustomed to Auster's style may find the movie full of plot holes and loose ends which are actually what Auster leaves to his audience to think about and sometimes fill in by themselves, according to themselves.Even for the 'plot holes' and ambiguities, this film is worth watching just for the acting and the mood.
Not that I don't like to work, but this movie has too many loose ends to warrant the praise heaped upon it.
I also think that the first thought is the film is a rather boring piece, but it's true that some of the scenes hit soundly and live in your mind for months, and that the last minute make the rest of the movie more interesting.
I love the many references to Louise Brooks and her film Pandora's Box. Sorivino, in the way miss Brooks was a femme fatale without knowing it, did the same thing with the same sense of innocence.
the cast of character is great: Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino, Gina Gershon, Sophie Auster, Vanessa Redgrave, Willem Dafoe & Lou Reed (as not Lou reed;).
exspecially Harvey keitel & Mira Sorvino are 'extraordinary' good.
the movie refers to Frank Wedekinds drama 'Die Büchse der Pandora' which the man from Izzy's ex wife wants to film new with the title: lulu on the bridge.
like any other stuff from auster the movie works on more than one level.
besides that the movie of course tells a story about the L word, bittersweet.
i don't think that the plot is confusing, in my opinion it is quiet simple, if you learn from auster to watch behind the things and see the obviously hidden.the plot (SPOILER!) - of course simplified:jazz musician Izzy gets shot on a concert.
in the night the stone is glowing blue (a naughty little beggar who things of austers earlier movies smoke/blue in the face;).
she tells him about an upcoming audition she's going to have for a movie: lulu on the bridge (see above).
not the end.if you think this is a sad story, don't forget, it's just a movie, it never really happened.
and if that makes you sad, you may watch a funny movie to cheer you up or better, simply fall in love.
and we can touch it & feeling much better after wards......as you may have recognized, I like the movie, so watch it, if you get the chance!.
I understand the connection but what makes Lulu On The Bridge a better film (in my opinion of course) is that it's not only about Harvey Keitel's character but also about Mira Sorvino's and her longing for someone she can be in love with.
I think the combination and interaction of these two characters makes this film much more intense than Jacob's Ladder.
There are many many hints throughout the film (maybe too many actually) to make sure you understand that it's all just taking place in the head of Harvey Keitel's character.
It's a bit sickening to see that a shallow movie like The Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis is considered as being more subtle than this when it's just as predictable but also much emptier.I'm really looking forward to seeing Paul Auster's next film !.
Too bad it didn't have a better script, it could have been a real good movie and a hit.
I wanted to like this movie more than I did. |
tt0086690 | Cover Up | In a small Midwestern town, Roger Phillips is found dead. When insurance investigator Sam Donovan (O'Keefe) arrives looking into the apparent suicide, all clues lead him to suspect murder. The man was shot, but there are no powder burns on the body (which would indicate he was not shot at close range) nor was a pistol found. Unfortunately, no one wants to assist him with the case, including Sheriff Larry Best (Bendix), despite a double indemnity clause. It turns out the dead man was universally hated.
One of the prime suspects is Frank Baker, who eloped with Phillips' daughter the night of the death when Phillips objected to the marriage. During the investigation, Sam and local girl Anita Weatherby (Britton) are strongly attracted to each other. This causes complications when Anita finds her father's hidden Luger pistol (Phillips was shot with a Luger) while searching for a place to store her diary away from her inquisitive younger sister.
Meanwhile, at the annual town Christmas tree lighting, the residents are grieved to learn that beloved longtime physician Dr. Gerrow has died of a heart attack.
Finally, Sam plants a false story in the newspaper, stating that he has sent for a chemist to find clues of the killer's identity from the floor of the house where Phillips died. The chemist is due very soon, so Sam waits for the murderer at the scene of the crime. Sheriff Best shows up first, but he knew the story was a fake. Next to arrive is Anita's father, Stu Weatherby, followed by Anita. Sam accuses Stu of the crime, but then realizes from the position of the murderer that he had to have been left-handed, which rules Stu out. Then Sam remembers, from his previous investigation, that Dr. Gerrow was left-handed. Stu confirms Sam's guess. Weatherby came upon Dr. Gerrow, just after the doctor snapped and killed the man responsible for so much misery to his loved townspeople. He talked Gerrow out of turning himself in and took the Luger away. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt4616250 | The Perfect Weapon | Jeff Sanders (Jeff Speakman) leads a double life: by day, he is a simple, unassuming construction worker, and by night, an expert Kenpo student and master of his craft.
When Jeff lost his mother as a teenager, he became an outcast and frequently lashed out at his family and society in an attempt to assuage his anger. His father, Captain Sanders (Beau Starr), gained the idea from a mutual friend, Kim (Mako), to enroll Jeff in a Kenpō school to better manage his rage and feelings. However, he got into a fight with a bully who beat up his younger brother, and severely injured him with his martial arts. Displeased with his lack of self-control, Jeff's father forced him to move out of home. Jeff, now estranged from his family and living alone, continued with his courses in Kenpo and eventually gained Kim as a mentor and father figure.
Jeff decides to return to his old neighborhood and visit his mentor Kim when he detects that Kim is in danger. Jeff discovers that Kim is having trouble with local Korean mafia families, due to his refusal to pay them off and use his antique store to peddle drugs. Jeff helps out Kim by beating up the people who attacked his store which leads to Kim being murdered in his bed by hit-man Tanaka (Professor Tanaka).
Jeff vows to avenge Kim's death and is determined to find out who ordered Kim's murder. He remembers a boy named Jimmy (Dante Basco) who lived with Kim, and tries to find him to ask if he knows about the murder. However, Jeff's estranged younger brother Adam (John Dye), now also a cop, is investigating the case, and warns Jeff against trying to settle matters in his own hands. In his hunt to exact revenge, Jeff is approached by a mafia boss named Yung (James Hong) who claims to be Kim's friend and knew of a possible lead to Kim's killer. Jeff is directed to Sam, one of the mafia bosses in Korea town, who was believed to be the one who ordered Kim's death. However, upon breaking into Sam's residence and attempting to kill him, Jimmy appears to reveal that Sam was Kim's friend and was the one who took him in for protection. Jimmy also explains that Yung is the one responsible for Kim's death, and he was merely attempting to use Jeff as a weapon to kill his rival boss Sam.
Jeff now plans to kill Yung, but Jimmy warns him that Yung is always protected by his hit-man Tanaka. In order to eliminate Tanaka, Jeff asks Jimmy to falsely testify (to Adam) that he witnessed Tanaka murdering Kim. The plan is have Adam arrest Tanaka so that Jeff can get Yung alone to kill him. Adam and the police eventually capture Tanaka after a long car chase, but to Jeff's dismay Yung was not in the car with him. Tanaka is attacked with a taser, but later manages to escape from the police by severely injuring Adam and breaking out of the police car.
Jimmy overhears that Yung plans to escape the country by boat, and tells Jeff about Yung's drug factory. Now further fueled for vengeance, Jeff sets out to attack Yung's drug factory, using his martial art skills and various weapons to defeat guards and hitmen protecting Yung. He eventually subdues Yung, but is attacked by Tanaka. Although Tanaka gains the upper hand during their fight, Jeff manages to kill Tanaka by setting fire to a gas tank he was standing next to. Despite initially wanting to kill Yung, in the end Jeff decides to capture him alive (showing he has learned self-control) and turns Yung in to his father, Captain Sanders.
The film ends with Jeff entering the kenpo dojo to visit his former master. | violence | train | wikipedia | No danger of any accidental spoilers here....this absolute rubbish so called movie is a spoiler from start to finish.The most absurd part of it is that the actors seem to be reading from cue cards and are operating under some strange rule that says that they must all speak at the same speed..ie..
so many words per minute.As for story/plot/directing/dialogue etc....the kindest thing I can do is to make no comment.Steven Segal made some decent movies in his early days....then disappeared from the scene only to re-emerge and pollute our screens with incredible rubbish.
There really should be some kind of law protecting the public from this kind of abuse.Additionally, I think that these so called movies are Segals only chance to get his hands on young vulnerable women in naked and semi-naked states without the risk of being arrested.Having said all that.....I strongly recommend that you get hold of a free copy of this so called movie (do not spend any money) and pass it along to as many people as possible with the condition that they also pass it on to as many people as possible.
That way....having watched it, people will never again run the risk of watching another Segal movie which may have the same effect as antivirus/antimalware software, and prevent the release of any more of this rubbish.
All in all bad special effects, bad acting, goofy ripoff plot, really bad 'fight' scenes, yeah, it's a Steven Seagal movie all right.
This has Steven Segal all over it, poor plot line, pacing all over the place and B grade to bone.
I couldn't stay from watching this flick due to Mr. Seagal in sci-fi genre and I really enjoyed it for some reasons.
I like the visual performance of it - it's a new look for Seagal movie and it's with no doubt stylish and fresh.
I ask everybody here not to judge The Perfect weapon in terms of A-list movies because of inappropriate levels of budgets, promotion, stuff etc.
But in a raw of directly to video movies its really decent piece of art that makes a better impression IMHO than preliminary waiting.
I would say comparing to Sniper: special ops, The Asian connection, Code of honor this flick is a really masterpiece (once again tribute to its budget, short shooting period and young director who makes his first steps in action genre).
I mean that during watching ordinary directly to video you decrease the scale of your inner critic to accept the faults every time you suffer from some trademark lacks in professionalism that are usual things for this type of flicks.
We got used to the opposite for the last time and that was young man - Mr.Paar who inspired Steven and offered him the role that fit his physical and mental personality very well so personally I could enjoy his short but decent appearance.
After a war, The Director (Steven Seagal) rules The State by permanent observation of everyone.
The killer Condor (Johnny Messner) fulfils his latest mission to eliminate a politician opposing the Director.
The Controller (Richard Tyson) thinks that Condor needs re-programming to become an effective killing machine again.
Together, they begin a fight against the rule of the Director.This could have been an interesting movie with a better lead actor (Messner is a poor man's Vin Diesel here), three times the budget and a reworked script (it holds some real surprises, but some dialogues made me cringe).
For probably the first time in a decade, Seagal gets a different role than the usual retired CIA agent - but that's not enough to save an ambitious, yet unconvincing sci-fi flick..
Really, really bad action movie, with even worse writing.
On a side note this is the worst "movie" assassin I think has ever been penned to paper, really you are going to go back to your home after escaping?
Every actor spoke at the same speed with no emotion, it almost felt like Steven Segal was their voice coach.
I struggled hard to find something about this movie that was redeemable but I found myself dreading having to watch the inevitable "boss" battle between the main character and Steven Segal's character at least it was brief.
I wish I could send the studio a bill for my time watching this movie.
There were so many executive producers I felt like they had to beg a lot of people for the money just to make this movie..
Steven Seagal has done some good, or at least watchable, films.
He has also done a lot of mediocre and less films, indicative of laziness and that Seagal was well past his sell by date, and a good deal of them are even very bad.'The Perfect Weapon' is one of the very bad ones, though not 'Contract to Kill' awful, almost anything is better than that.
Did not expect much, but watched it because Seagal has shown signs that he can be halfway decent and as said not all his films are bad.
'The Perfect Weapon' is far from that, more closer to a waste of time that shows little signs of trying.Seagal himself, in a role that is much shorter than is advertised (what is it with all this misleading marketing?), gives yet another lazy and wooden performance that shows that he was not interested and wanted to be somewhere else.
1/10 Bethany Cox. Not A Perfect Action Movie With Steven Seagal but still worth watching.
Steven Seagal Sometimes in his new least action movies sometimes he is just cameo in movie.
but not in at all he did only some action in movie i thought it was OK action scenes of him but lead actor (Johnny Messner)was in Anacondas,Tears of Sun.Johnny Messner who plays Hit-man getting contact to kill people i liked action scenes I Liked Actors in movie not just Steven Seagal I Mean we all love him but I wish if he was lead role for fans but no its director film Titus Paar decides to get Johnny Messner as lead role he is good actor i didn't think he is terrible but could of got Seagal as lead role instead.
Pilot and story i like all twist there is a very good twist that you wont expect at all but there is not Punching holes in movie or confusing staff in it.
Story Follows in America 2045 In the not so distant future, society is controlled by the powerful State and a dictator (Steven Seagal)plays like a King or like Dictator character known as the Director.
he got contact to Kill People he Kills a lot of people as i said he is playing Hit-man Agent 47 but expect he doesn't have a Barcode on his back of his head,(Richard Tyson) Controller he is Giving Contacts To Kill People Is Giving Orders to Condor because they say he is Best Hit-man to hire he has connections with Director, Condor had order to kill woman she is Revenant he didn't Kill Her Because It Kinda Reminded of his Past Loved One so he didn't kill her at all.
Controller had a meeting with Director saying make him as Perfect Weapon Make Him Into A Killing Machine Powerful Then He Was Before.
they go together again, Con has loved one in past Nina (Sasha Jackson) thought He killed her but soon happens something else Happens Condor is memory erased that they stole his memory and steal it, it solved everything like it never happened but soon he found out from Nina he is going out there to take out director but he is not really bad guy well kinda, but he is not really main villain in movie.
i really love the great twist in movie pilot that you might think it is going to That Direction But It's Not Same Cliché as what you might think it is but i never want to spoil film it has a lot of great fight scenes well done made there is no fake action scenes or Explosions like code of honor bull crap, Johnny Messner kicked ass in movie specially a lot of combat fighting scenes in movie and a lot of shooting in movie and Condor getting his ass kicked buy director Steven Seagal scene witch i think scene did well no cut to cut crap.
Steven Seagal the only thing i got to say is he talks in movie but doesn't do any big things like he is lead role if he is then he should be doing something in film but he is not lead role, i love idea of scene of movie that you will be like WTF scene where he was talking about in story before Condor became the Perfect Weapon, there was someone else like him but different guy, guy is bold wearing same suit like lead character, Steven Seagal kicks him buy a kill, then you see Young looking Steven Seagal look on his face CGI looks like younger like in his early 90s where he did a lot great films like i am talking about like Paul Walker CGI in Fast 7 but expect this Young Looking Steven Seagal is not best CGI but still did a great job on it and a lot of work but expect it's like 1 or 5 million dollar budget movie not biggest budget but the thing is lead role of movie but Dolph Lundgren was going to be Condor i think he would be better then Johnny Messner Lundgren does anything better in movies it would be Lundgren VS Seagal it's not really Steven Seagal movie but i don't understand why it stars off but i all i understand because he was very popular actor doing great movies way back of days in early 90's.
the plot and twist is so good keeps on watching in a very low budget style but i wish they could of give more Seagal to do in movie i would like to see that happen in movie.
but i don't understand why is cast lead role star's off in poster but in trailers and when you see movie he not lead role it's someone part of movie, but still worth watching movie it's Not Because Seagal And Action It Does Have Style of Action And Story Like Hit-man Agent 47 And Jason Bourne Style of story but it's not a biggest rip off it has noting do with Jeff Speakman Perfect Weapon (1991)i would say 6.10 not best movie to see with Seagal but you still get to see him in action but as lead role in movie is Johnny Messner but still see Seagal in movie but didn't do anything in movie.
action is fun and not to be missed ending there is credits scene of ending of movie that you won't at all still worth watching movie 6.10.
All I could think of watching this was "I saw the movie Hit-man".
I love Steven Seagal movies, I am a fan of his too for decades but this movie was terrible, the futurist movies I hate and Steven plus took a back seat in it.
And when get a Steven Seagal movie I want to see Steven, main person not in the background like some extra, as he was in these two movies.
Next stop 'the future' for Steven Seagal.
In a totalitarian state in the near future the victor of a civil war called "The Director", played by Seagal, aims to destoy his enemies using reprogrammed assassins.
Poor dialogue with ham-fisted exposition mars this picture and it has plot twists that effectively cheat the viewer of an ending.
Otherwise, it has some good action and there is a decent enough story premise, and the visual effects are reasonable.
There are several scenes that are pretty ok but to be honest they could've done better, Yes, Its a Steven Seagal Movie but they just used his name to give this movie a little boost.
Just watch his old movies.
Who knew a movie with almost no plot could have so many twists.
Really cool 90's throwback action movie that fits Seagal!!!.
I watched the movie yesterday and I thought it was great.
Great story, cool action, cool actors and it felt as a throwback to the old action/sf movies.
I really hope he gets to work with Seagal (or other action stars like Van Damme, Lundgren because I like them also) again, because he did a great job and knows how to shoot action.
I watch movies quite often both in cinema and at home.
This is one very unusual, very good movie, produced with extraordinary deep thought and mind.
I really hope he stops making movies like this.
"The Perfect Weapon" begins like a sequel to George Orwell's novel "1984." The year is now 2029, and it is the essence of the mind control exerted by Big Brother, as conceived by Orwell.But instead of developing a strong theme about human freedom, "The Perfect Weapon" is a muddled and excessively violent action/revenge film.The two main characters are named Condor and Nina, and they presumably are the two rebels who value freedom and want to free the world from Big Brother.
In the moment that follows, the film falls completely flat with the decision made by our "perfect weapon" named Condor.This film has received one of the lowest numerical rankings I have ever seen on IMDb. Those low numbers tell the whole story about this film turkey..
"Killer Dogs" director Titus Paar's fifth feature film "The Perfect Weapon" ranks as a subpar, Orwellian, sci-fi thriller set in 2029 America where a repressive totalitarian state maintains 24/7 surveillance.
Condor's lapse in judgment prompts the Controller (Richard Tyson of "Black Hawk Down") to point a gun in his face and tell him he must have his emotions purged.
The Controller surprises both Condor and us when he blasts the top of the Interrogator's head off.
Initially, the Director trounces Condor and then struggles to reason with his best killer.
Mind you, the Director should have killed Condor, but you cannot kill the hero of the movie.
Condor is in the Director's lair when he sees the video of the Controller's revelations.
The film takes place in 2029, however it is more like Orwell's "1984." The Director (Steven Seagal) is watching and uses The Controller (Richard Tyson) to maintain law and order through operators such as Condor (Johnny Messner).
He is tasked to put down the rebellion, those who speak about freedom, although those against government oversight look like organized crime...a film with all bad guys.Condor fails a mission and is destined for "reprogramming" but things don't go as planned.
Once Steven Seagal shows up, the movie goes downhill.
The film has twists you don't see coming, the final one was simply for the sake of having a twist, and it was dumb, most likely a Seagal insertion.Guide: Brief sex and nudity.
I recently caught Seagal's film "A Good Man", and it was a shocker to see how old and out of shape he's gotten, not so good for a former action star.
Like the most inept team of assassins ever, firing upon the story's protagonist, Axon Rey, the Condor (Johnny Messner), and his former girlfriend Nina (Sasha Jackson), somehow miraculously brought back from the dead, until we find out it was a body double that was buried in her place.
Does Steven Seagal actually need the money to appear in and produce a picture this bad?
A Steven Seagal Stinkfest.
And the year of Seagal continues, with this, his take on 1984's Big Brother, and oh my gosh, is it poor stuff......In the not so distant future (is there any other kind of future?), society is controlled by a powerful State and a very strangely haired, goateed, former credible action star dictator known as the Director.
Condor works as a hit-man (47) for the State, but a reunion with someone he thought was dead forces him to consider who his enemies really are.........Seagal has had some stinkers this year, from the Sniper film, to the Asian Connection, to he one with Craig Sheffer in, and another one where the title is part of a weapon.But now he's ventured back into science fiction, and if you thought Attack Force and Against The Dark were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.Seagal is thankfully barely in it, but that means you only have to be intolerant with another 'actor' who is trying to be Agent 47, but comes across as a seriously constipated mute.Everyone is being watched, no one is safe, and in this dystopian future, you really couldn't care less what happens or if Seagal's director will be overthrowed.It all ends with Seagal looking morbidly obese, explaining to Hit-man about life and how good the early nineties were to him, but it tries to fool the viewer with a twist, and if you are a Seagal fan (which you must be if your watching this trash), then you will know the final scene is lifted straight from Marked For Death.And then there's the promise of a sequel..
Bad movie, unless you prepare for a beat the baddies and some "message" from the director.
Other reviews got it spot on, but basically the errors within the movie are painful to watch sometimes.
No good can come from this and the hidden message is clear enough if you understand "police state" and "facebook" + "google"...there are better movies depicking these topics.
this movie is painful to watch, direction errors, people don't seem to talk yet you hear them, somewhat plot holes and the kills...
overall, a bad movie.Who is gonna read my review if others written better ones?
There is some cute blonde girl in the movie and Seagal is fighting bad...
And ..MESSAGE TO Steven seagal: do you really intend for a second movie? |
tt1935065 | Not Suitable for Children | Jonah (Ryan Kwanten) is a young man without a care in the world. At one of his parties, the power goes out because Jonah has not paid his electric bill, but it gets turned back on thanks to his neighbor. Jonah meets up with Becky (Kathryn Beck) and they retreat up to his room away from the party, only for Becky to find a lump in Jonah's testicle. Jonah goes to see a doctor, who reveals that Jonah has testicular cancer. He tells Jonah that they can remove it in time, but Jonah's upset that he won't be able to father children. The doctor suggests that Jonah uses a sperm bank in the event that he would like to have children after the operation.
Now at a sperm bank, Jonah is left in a room to privately produce his semen. After he is finished, he returns home to his best friends and fellow party hosts, Stevie (Sarah Snook) and Gus (Ryan Corr). When Stevie arrives home from work, Gus blurts out that Jonah has cancer, much to Jonah's dismay. Gus asks if he would still like to have the party scheduled for the coming Friday, and Jonah allows them to keep the date, not wanting to explain his condition to party-goers.
Jonah receives a call from the sperm bank and goes in for a meeting. The nurse explains that Jonah falls into a small percentage of men whose sperm cannot be frozen because of biological complications. Jonah asks what other options there are, now very worried that he will never have children. The nurse replies with, "Well, do you have a girlfriend?"
Jonah then begins the complicated journey of finding a woman to carry his child. He first approaches his ex-girlfriend Ava (Bojana Novakovic) who is disgusted with Jonah for even contacting her. He then tries Becky (or "Stalker Becky" as Gus calls her) who rejects him by claiming she never thought of her and Jonah as a couple. Jonah never tells the girls he asks that he has cancer. Jonah goes back to the doctor to ask for more time and moves his operation three weeks.
Meanwhile, Gus, Stevie, and Jonah realize that hosting parties could be their job. After the power went out in the earlier party and party-goers pitched in to help pay, Gus realizes that the three of them could make a weekly salary if they held a party once a week. Jonah's first "paycheck" is worth over $700.
Jonah then begins making lists of all the women he has ever dated or known and asks them if they would ever consider after his child. He is rejected by all the women he asks. Stevie suggests adoption and Jonah looks into it, but soon figures out that in order to be a candidate for adoption you must have a clean health record, and Jonah has "cancer" written all over his. After having no luck, Stevie suggests that Jonah try an "arrangement" with a woman. Stevie says she knows of a lesbian couple at her work who were looking into sperm donation and sets up a meeting for Jonah. The meeting does not go in Jonah's favour and the couple declines Jonah's offer. Stevie suggests another woman at work who wants a child, but is not married and sets up a meeting with her too. Although Jonah goes home with her, he ends up not sleeping with her. He claims that he was too drunk to have sex and couldn't focus.
Stevie starts to like the idea of an arrangement, especially after Jonah claims that he would give his house to the woman who carried his child. Stevie accidentally tips off Jonah that she would be interested in a deal and sends Jonah out of her room to think.
At the weekly party Stevie stays in her room, claiming that she has a migraine. Jonah calls her and tells her that he would give her anything if she would carry the child. The morning after the party, Jonah receives a text message from Stevie asking him to come to her room. It is revealed that the whole night Stevie stayed up and wrote a contract concerning her and Jonah's deal. Jonah reads through the contract and signs it and Stevie tells him that they have a four-day window that Stevie should be ovulating in.
They book a room at a cheap motel for the four days, with the final being two days before Jonah's operation. Stevie and Jonah go to a pharmacy and buy a syringe because Stevie does not want to have sex with Jonah. Back at the motel, Jonah accidentally breaks the syringe. Stevie says that it should be okay, they just missed the first day of a four-day window. Jonah is frustrated and Stevie gives in and says she is okay with natural. They have sex, and for the rest of the four days they meet at the hotel, have sex, and then stagger their arrival at home so Gus doesn't notice.
On the fifth day while Stevie is at work, she gets her period. She calls Jonah and asks him to meet her outside her work. They get into a fight, with Stevie claiming she was happy her period came because she was having second thoughts anyway. Jonah leaves, realizing he is out of time.
Stevie is absent at the party that night, but Gus has made a call to Ava. Ava arrives at the party, first mad at Jonah for not telling her he had cancer and then says she would carry his child if he wanted. They go upstairs to his room and have sex, but Jonah pulls out at the last moment because he realizes he is in love with Stevie. Jonah leaves to go find her, hoping she is home. Jonah asks Ava to stay in his room. Jonah finds Stevie, but Ava comes out of Jonah's room and Stevie storms off, feeling betrayed. Meanwhile, the police arrive to stop the party.
Jonah catches up to Stevie and tells her that he loves her, but Stevie leaves.
The next morning, Jonah's sister comes to pick him and Gus up for the operation. Jonah is sad at first, but Stevie does show up for moral support. Stevie tells Jonah (in front of Gus, who never suspected anything going on between them) that she thought Jonah would make a great father and he should look into sperm donation or adoption with her. They kiss and Jonah is wheeled away into the operating room. The final line of the movie is, "What the f***." Said by a very confused Gus. | comedy | train | wikipedia | I enjoy a good romantic comedy once on a while.The Australian film industry hasn't done much to make a genuine, funny or exceptional film in the genre, example, "I Love You Too" and "Any Questions For Ben".But hearing good things about this film drew me to it, and as a romantic comedy or not it works.
Its the third film Ryan Kwantan has made in Australia for three years now (after Red Hill and Griff The Invisible).
Its the debut feature for Oscar nominated director Peter Templeman.The Story is about a playboy; Jonah(Ryan Kwantan) who finds out on unusual circumstances that he has testicular cancer, This means he's unable to father children properly after surgery.
So when his sperm sample fails to freeze he decides he quickly needs to have a child in 4 weeks before he can have surgery.
But I must mention actress Sarah Snook really steals the show here proving she's someone to have a high profile in the future.
The film is actually really funny and charming and will be able to beat any Rom Com I'll see for a while.
The rest of the cast is really good along with the character development and smart script.
Its one film I do highly recommend people to see, You'll get what you want!
A different romantic comedy - a love affair with balls..
'Not Suitable For Children' is not what you expect but it's what you need to see.
Filmed in a party atmosphere of young abandon, a serious question is treated with life-affirming humor and served up on a plate of romance by two very good friends.
His script shines with experience, knowledge and unlike many Aussie scripts was obviously given time to stew until it developed the perfect flavor.
Under Peter Templeton direction the film feels very contemporary - Young Australia without a single koala - full of life as they know it in a Sydney polished with affection.
The director made smart, funny, caring, gutsy, real and tender choices which hit their mark, every time.
Each of the cast carry their weight perfectly, especially Ryan Kwanten, Sarah Snook and Ryan Corr.
Their total commitment to and trust in their director and writer was obvious and much appreciated although it looks like they're just having a party - perhaps they were..
I mean what better job than arranging parties and enjoying them.
The best part is that it's not some American cooked up XX movie with prom night( or stuff like that ) rather it has a story and delivers the message very profoundly.
'Not Suitable for Children' is about an amiable slacker who discovers he has testicular cancer (it's a comedy, in case that's not obvious) and will be infertile in a matter of weeks.
He sets about trying to convince his many former sexual partners to have a baby with him.
None of them agree - presumably they don't want a baby by someone who possesses such a questionable taste in hats - but meanwhile, his best friend decides, after holding a baby - just once - that she would like to be a mother.
Ryan Kwanten is appealing as the slacker; Sarah Snook, playing his best friend, looks very much like Australia's then-Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
It certainly won't tax the viewer's little grey cells (so that'll be the audience and the scriptwriter, then), but it's an amusing and entertaining film..
Sweet, quirky movie.
Jonah (played by Ryan Kwanten) is a young, carefree playboy.
This makes Jonah want to have children, with time of the essence.Sweet, quirky movie.
Good ending, though it is a touch predictable.
Good performances from Ryan Kwanten (of True Blood fame) and Sarah Snook in the lead roles.Great soundtrack, predominantly by the Black Keys..
This film from Down Under is Under Par..
An artificial contrivance is a manufactured problem, one that wouldn't even occur if everyone just sat round a table and had a good old-fashioned chinwag.
The makers of this film certainly have.
They also seem to have mastered the hugely original plot formulas of such as Falling In Love With Your Best Friend and The Girl You Adore Walking In On You With Someone Else And Getting The Wrong Idea.
Smart guys, those writers.Maybe it's because I can't see the appeal of those bug-eyed little bed-wetters, but I couldn't understand the point of this film.
The main couple were cute, and it rumbles along quite nicely, but aside from the predictable to a tee developments, who could make a decision like having a child in just a few short weeks?
Certainly not the irresponsible, party animal main character, and DEFINITELY not his mate-soon-to-be-shagging-partner, who is staunchly against the whole idea...
Yup.Basically I don't have much time for films I feel weren't made with much care and intelligence.
this film sets the bar high.
There's several very good reasons why this romantic comedy is as totally enjoyable as it is...
Sarah Snook..
and Ryan Kwanten.
They are both such great actors, there are little subtle inflections and mannerisms that just cannot be taught or directed, but are the essence of a well acted performance...
and in addition, they are just so well paired in this film (it's hoped they soon get together again).
Working with an enormously entertaining script, you WILL laugh!!
And their love-making scenes are just so totally natural and sincere.
Not usually mentioned, kudos to the outstanding camera and editing crews, their exceptional work in this instance is impossible to ignore, and when its this good it makes the entire film feel totally alive.
This is a movie for adults of all ages...
and btw, listening carefully, it has one of the best accompanying soundtracks in films.
I agree that it's nice to upvote movies from smaller countries for the variety and attention but honesty gets us way further.This movie is just a stupidly written, badly acted, dull and very annoying piece of wannabe comedy.
The main thin is that you can't really relate to or even feel with the story (COME ON, a guy suddenly wants a kid just like that with anybody because he has to.
We really tried to watch the whole movie.
This movie is also not suitable for Children.
There's nudity in it and sexual situations (read baby making activities).
It also has two leads who might remind you of other actors a bit.
In the case of the male lead it might only be me, but he does look a bit like Chris Pratt, who's now gained a lot of Starlord ...
In the case of the female role, she does look a bit like a (better?) version of Lindsay Lohan.Not meaning any of those comparisons in a bad way of course.
And they should not distract too much from the movie/the story this is trying to tell.
It's funny at times and it has heart.
20-something Jonah (played by Ryan Kwanten) is a self-described "f$%*stick".
Stevie (played by Sarah Snook who is being described by several critics as Australia's answer to Emma Stone) is the cynical best friend while Gus (Ryan Corr) is the clueless other best friend.Jonah discovers a lump in his nether regions during sex and after a visit to the doctor, is told that he has testicular cancer.
This turns his whole carefree, in the moment, partying world upside down and leaves him considering whether he really wants a baby or not.
The catch is he only has a matter of weeks before the operation.Feeling like his future has been snatched from him, he goes through his list of ex's and humorously tries to convince them to be the mother of his unborn child.
Stevie and Gus are both supportive but concerned about the lengths that Jonah is going to in his insane quest over this newfound dream of being a father.
Covering some truths of conceiving and cancer, this film doesn't stray too far from the beaten track.
There are moments of great and awkward comedy, especially played out by Gus who seems to forever linger a bit too much while not having a clue what's happening around him.The success lies in the chemistry between the friends, mainly Jonah and Stevie.
Stevie thrives in this with the moments between her and Jonah feeling natural and real, rather than a forced progression in the story.The dialogue is unassuming but still effective and Sarah Snook and Ryan Kwanten show the complexities of each seemingly simple moment.Fun fact: Sarah Snook was one of a handful of finalists to play Lisbeth Salander in the 2011 Girl with a Dragon Tattoo.Despite how basic this movie may sound, it's definitely worth the watch as you travel with the main characters discovering themselves..
If this film attracts audiences like it should it will speak to the young adult generation as profoundly as modern films like Garden State (2004) have.
Jonah (Ryan Kwanten) lives with his housemates Gus (Ryan Corr) and Stevie (Sarah Snook) and enjoys hosting parties.
One night Jonah discovers something is wrong with his body and is taken to hospital.
He is told that he has testicular cancer.
He only has a limited amount of time before he will be operated on and won't be able to conceive children.
Driven into a panic because of the uncertainty of his future, he attempts to call up as many of his exes as possible to see if they will conceive a child with him.
Both his housemates are gradually drawn into this mess as they try and warn people about Jonah's mindset.
Stevie is roped in the deepest as she reluctantly has to ask someone at work if they will be able to help Jonah.
Not Suitable For Children, a delightful Australian film, is miles away from the local comedies produced in the early noughties.
The earliest part of the decade was a major setback for Australian cinema, as the numerous comedies produced were idiotic and unfunny.
Last year Red Dog was released and people went in droves to watch a film that was clever, funny and accessible.
This film deserves the same response.
It is one of the most entertaining local films I have seen in several seasons.
There's utter professionalism about director Peter Templeman's work here.
Photographed around Newtown in all her glory, the film is shot with utter clarity and precision.
Thematically, that's important because it shows how the world is perpetual, refusing to slow for the characters in the story.
This energised world is most evident in an early party scene, where Jonah moves aimlessly between people, connectionless.
This also feeds into the idea of the uncertainty of adult life as you solely drift between stages, with no one waiting for you on either side.
This concept of belated maturity rests steadily on an original premise and a pitch perfect understanding of comedy.
The film might be about testicular cancer but the brand of comedy is low-key, observational and subtly drawn.
The script and performances opt not for the cheap laughs or gross-out gags but to provide the audience with enough time and space to think for themselves.
Take a scene where Jonah and Stevie talk to a lesbian couple about conceiving a baby.
One of the women is attractive to Jonah, the other is clearly not.
Listen to how loaded Jonah's dialogue is when he asks which one will be carrying the baby.
We have a situation grounded in reality, as all good comedy should be, and what Jonah says is the punch line.
The straight-faced comedy is further complimented by Stevie's confused facial expressions, making it a hysterical scene.
The humour is masterfully controlled and I enjoyed the film a lot for that reason and laughed aplenty.
Adding sophistication and humanity to the rest of the film are the performances.
Kwanten is in fine touch as the dopey and spaced-out Jonah and Ryan Corr (Coby from Packed to the Rafters) provides wonderful moments of pure comic timing.
Yet Sarah Snook as Stevie (who looks not unlike Emma Stone) gives a star-making performance, bringing genuine feeling and plausible motivations to the narrative.
She's caught between her work life and a friend in need, meaning that there's a frustrating inseparability between those once neatly divided identities.
If there is some degree of predictability about the narrative and the relationships, it doesn't matter because there's tension and humour that makes it feel involving and anew again.
I think if this film attracts audiences like it should it will speak to the young adult generation as profoundly as modern films like Garden State (2004) have..
The perfect little date flick!!!.
A very small, independent, Australian romantic comedy featuring a very young, not yet bulked-up Ryan Kwanten (True Blood) as Jonah.
Jonah and his best mate Gus are young entrepreneurs, who have tapped into the grunge party planner/ party throwing market in which tons of 20-something party goers show up to every week to Jonah's house, pay a fee, and get wasted.
One evening during an event, as Jonah is getting some oral satisfaction, his female companion notices an unusual lump on his nether region.
After going to the doctors, Jonah is diagnosed with testicular cancer.
The doctor prescribes immediate surgery to remove his testicle; however, Jonah's sperm cannot survive the cryogenic freezing process.
So Jonah has less than three (3) weeks to find a suitable mate who is willing to sire his offspring, or risk never having children.Ryan Kwanten is the perfect actor for this role of Jonah.
Much like his character is in "True Blood", Ryan (Jonah) is shallow, self-obsessed, non-committal, immature, has nothing going for him except his looks.
All of Jonah hopes end up resting in the hands of one of his housemates, Ava (played wonderfully by Bojana Novakovic).
Ava convinces Jonah of trying some alternative routes, which include providing sperm to a lesbian couple, and seeking a relationship/contract with an "older" more mature clientele.The on-screen charisma between Kwanten and Navakovic works wonderfully, while director Peter Templeton does a wonderful job adding lots of turns and twists into this really well written little rom-com.
I actually really enjoyed this film; and highly recommend it for viewing.
Please be advise there are some really intense sexual scenes in this film, that may not be appropriate for younger viewer (much in the line of Ryan Kwanten body of work in "True Blood").
However, the film would make the perfect Friday Night Date Flick
.
See more of my Movie Reviews on FB at "THE FARIS REEL".
Well, I'm a 22 year old dude who really want to be a dad in a near future, so "Not Suitable For Me"'s main storyline felt quite suitable for me.
Jonah is a relatively shy guy that finds out a testicle cancer, which gives him only three weeks to copulate with someone.
That being said, you can imagine the problems he faces whilst trying to find anyone to be a mother.
The plot is good because it has an original idea and some embarrassing moments, which is what makes this movie occasionally funny.
The fun used in here isn't the laughable one, with nice jokes; the comedy is built by embarrassing situations that main characters get into.
For instance, the lesbian couple scene: Jonah wants to know which of the girls he would have to have sex with, given that there is a hot one and the ugly, and instead of just asking, as he wished, he had to elaborate this question without mentioning the word 'sex'.
That was a funny moment because, as a guy, it feels easy to understand what he was passing into.
The quick moments involving Gus, the ingenuous housemate who wasn't able to see the couple getting along, are also funny.
There are some sexy moments involving Ryan Kwanten and Sarah Snook, and I'm convinced that's why this film is R rated.
Also, I wouldn't ever imagine that Kwanten was Australian; in my mind, he was just a regular American actor.
It's just a shame that filmmakers didn't even approach the adoption subject, which would be quite useful, considering the number of orphan children we have all around the world.
I state in advance that the ending won't be anything remarkable, as the movie also isn't, but the film as a whole is very recommended for young guys who care about this subject..
How would you react if faced with only weeks to map out your life?.
I really enjoyed the movie; I think it provided an honest look at someone in their early 20's living life, thinking they have an eternity ahead of them to do whatever they want and as such they spend their current life having parties, drinking, doing drugs (which I don't condone) and just "exploring" life.When Jonah (the male lead) is given the devastating news about not being able to have children after his chemo treatment, he literally finds out that he has just a few weeks to plan for his future.
I can relate to this situation and I think a lot of people can.
I am a single mother of a 17 year old and am only 37 years old and am at the crossroads where my son will be out of the house potentially in a year and I have only a few years left to decide if I would want to do it all over again.
We only get so much time in this life whether it's only a few weeks or 20 years when we're healthy and young enough to have children and there is always that nagging feeling that if we wait or don't have kids, we'll regret it when it's no longer an option.The awkwardness between Jonah and Stevie (Female lead) during the initial sex scene was very believable and I appreciated watching their comfort level change and grow into something more intimate.
Not very movies make me want to watch them again and again, but I gave this one a 10 because I honestly would watch it again and again. |
tt0079770 | Quintet | The story takes place during a new ice age. The camera tracks a blank, frozen, seemingly deserted tundra until two blurry, distant figures can just be made out. They are the seal hunter Essex (Paul Newman) and his pregnant companion, Vivia (Brigitte Fossey), the daughter of one of Essex's late hunting partners. They are traveling north, where Essex hopes to reunite with his brother, Francha (Thomas Hill).
Essex and Vivia eventually find Francha's apartment, but the reunion is short-lived. While Essex is out buying firewood, a gambler named Redstone (Craig Richard Nelson) throws a bomb into Francha's apartment, killing everyone inside, including Vivia. Essex sees Redstone fleeing the scene and chases him to the sector's "Information Room." Essex witnesses the murder of Redstone by an Italian gambler named St. Christopher (Vittorio Gassman). When St. Christopher leaves, Essex searches Redstone's pockets and finds a piece of paper with a list of names: Francha, Redstone, Goldstar, Deuca, St. Christopher, and Ambrosia.
Puzzled by the mystery, Essex discovers that Redstone had previously checked into the Hotel Electra, a gambling resort in another sector. He visits the hotel and assumes Redstone's identity. Immediately after checking in, Essex is given an unexpected welcome by Grigor (Fernando Rey), who is the dealer in the casino. Insisting that he means no harm, Grigor invites Essex (as "Redstone") to the casino, where gamblers are now heavily involved in a "Quintet" tournament. While there he meets Ambrosia (Bibi Andersson), who always plays the "sixth man" in the game.
Essex is unaware that the current Quintet tournament is a fight for the survival of the fittest. Those who are "killed" in game are executed in real life. Grigor and St. Christopher are aware that Essex is not the real Redstone, so they ignore him and focus on the other players. Goldstar (David Langton) is the first killed, followed by Deuca (Nina Van Pallandt), until the only two players left are St. Christopher and Ambrosia. Ambrosia, however, insists that Essex be counted as a player in the game since he has assumed Redstone's identity. Grigor agrees and informs St. Christopher that he has to eliminate Essex before he can face off against Ambrosia.
Essex and St. Christopher have a showdown outside the city, where St. Christopher is killed in an avalanche. Essex returns to Francha's apartment and finds the same list that Redstone had. Ambrosia follows Essex to the apartment. Essex slits her throat just before she is about to stab him with a hidden knife.
Returning to the Hotel Electra to cremate Ambrosia's body, Essex confronts Grigor to demand his "prize," since he was the winner of Quintet. Grigor reveals that the only prize is the thrill of the game itself. Grigor insists he stay and participate in future tournaments, but a disgusted Essex condemns Quintet and leaves the hotel for good. The film ends with Essex taking a long walk out into the barren distance. | bleak, revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | Altman's Quintet has to be considered more than just flawed: As so many other reviewers have pointed out, the ideas behind the film, even some of the choices in depicting those ideas, ought to work--and yet very little in this difficult film does.
The partially fogged camera lens--I remarked to my wife that it has to be the most distracting directorial conceit I've ever seen--never allowed me to get "into" the film's world.In general there are serious problems with the mise-en-scene employed here.
Just because there's no plasma rifles or space battles doesn't mean the film is bad...Altman's film is an unusual take on Science Fiction genre...More of a play than a film...more of an allegory than a linear storytelling...and it's just keeps getting better with repeated viewings.
I saw this movie years ago on a date while I was in college was completely baffled by it (although I think I was one of the few people who liked it a bit nevertheless).
(In fact, some have pointed out that the same emissions that are causing global warming may end up creating exactly the opposite effect; the continuous fouling of the atmosphere will eventually shut out the sun and a new, deadly ice age will engulf the earth.) That said, the idea of hoplessness - of people having nothing to look forward to except the thrill of their game, makes the actions of the game players understandable, even if they are not sympathetic.
By trawling the other comments about Quintet on the website, you can see that some people have a visceral dislike for the slow pace and unfolding of the film and a discontent with the actions and reactions of characters within it.
Having watched this film again just last night, I agree even more with Altman's vision of where the human race is likely to go - I think he is remarkably prescient.
Like 'Three Days of the Condor', this is a film that has, with the passing of time, become remarkably relevant to the world in which we live today..
I love 70s post-apocalyptic sci-fi, I love Paul Newman, and I love Robert Altman movies.For the record, I loved Zardoz, which is generally regarded as another high-concept misfire, so I had hopes I would like this one in spite of the suspiciously low Rotten Tomatoes score.Unfortunately, RT was right.
Basically, an ice age has enveloped the Earth and everyone passes their time playing a game called Quintet - and people get killed over it.
There definitely wasn't enough there to stand on its own.On top of everything else, it takes itself really seriously, so it even fails in the "so bad it's good" category".I can't recommend watching this movie for any reason whatsoever..
I don't know why i had never heard of this movie before with Paul Newman and directed by Robert Altman.
I would like to know what Newman and Altman would have to say about this movie now and i guess i can see why so many people hated it even though i liked it..
Altman may not be in top form here, but he certainly creates a vision worth noticing.* A point of note - "Quintet" was filmed at the old Expo '67 site in Montréal, Québec, adding to the film's vision of decay and abandonment..
Robert Altman even invented a real game of Quintet for the film, and apparently people still play it.
This is a true example of film aleatoricism, the film was already green-lighted before Altman had been anywhere near the Expo, originally the idea was to shoot in Chicago.Another thing Altman makes an asset out of are his clearly wizened and ageing cast, it lends gravitas because the world of Quintet is one where no-one has been born in at least a generation, it's just something else that he made fit.
As regards what people have said of the Cold War, I didn't hear Altman mention it once, it's a film that works just as well now.
Seeing it again twenty years later, it sparkles as one of Altman's bravest achievements.Set in an apocalyptic snowscape so blasted it makes the Coens' Fargo look homy, it's ostensibly about a loner played by Paul Newman trying to fight his way to shelter or safety, blocked by the survivors' lethal betting game, Quintet.
(Moments of this movie, with their garish, one-of-a-kind production design, suggest the outre fantasias of the great Spanish B director Jesus Franco.) The cinematographer Jean Boffety softens the corners of the lens to create a snowbound, claustral feeling in every image, and Altman conjures scenes that could only have come from dreams: dogs on a snowy hillock feasting on the flesh of dead men in black, forming a living Motherwell painting; a concrete 411 directory made of painted glass charts, shattered and spinning, that tinkle like wind chimes.The composer Tom Pierson's work--alternately elegiac and horrific--equals the finest, most dissonant scores Jerry Goldsmith wrote for Peckinpah.
In QUINTET, Altman throws away all the gifts he'd come to rely on--and time reveals that this daring long shot paid off big..
Stinks On Ice. In a up and down career with all sorts of movies, this is Altman's one try at science fiction, and it clearly shows that it's not his forte.The film is practically incomprehensible.
It seems a disastrous combination of experimental theater pretentiousness and a major studio trying to jump on the post-Star Wars bandwagon (not that this film is at all modeled after that one, but you can imagine that the studio signed on hoping for a much different Paul Newman sci-fi film).
The story is nonexistent, and the characters remain strangers to us all the way through.Altman has packs of dogs feeding on dead bodies throughout the movie, obviously straining to make some sort of POINT.
Not only is the movie clearly filmed out in the snow and ice, but the interiors are kept cold as well.
The plot makes so little sense that there is no point in trying to follow it (something to do with a post-apocalyptic society centered around a game that turns deadly).
This, along with the "music" is, I believe, what provoked my feelings of nausea.About 10 minutes into the film, I realized how awful it really was but I kept thinking that, perhaps, Newman would, at least, be decent.
Now I know the truth: both those films are masterpieces compared to Quintet.I cannot emphasize enough how terrible this movie is.
But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them.
And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman.
Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either.
So when there's a movie that's deeper but you actually have to pay attention to it it's shunned.Quintet is like a lot of the new wave of science fiction that came out of the 60's (I found it especially reminiscent of John Brunner's "The Squares of the City").
There are several shots showing fish being harvested and processed at the beginning of the film, showing that there was an adequate food source for the people who lived in the city.And finally a mention of the Game: there was a feeling of depression to the movie and the inhabitants of the city.
Bookended by figures emerging and dissolving into a frozen wasteland and taking place in a bleak, hopeless near future where society presumably collapsed under the weight of some nameless disaster that left a world covered in ice and a number of survivors trying to survive on it, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Quintet is some kind of dystopian post-apocalyptic sci-fi thriller.
Not only it's not that but it's not really a fully fledged movie as much as a feature length essay on the basic philosophic idea that life can only be fully appreciated under the shadow of death, with a plot deliberately shaped as a chess game and dialogues often as wooden and posturized as something taken out of a Samuel Beckett play.I don't know what came first, the script or the location the movie was shot, a jambled mess of art installations forming the Man and His World Pavilion on St. Helen's Island, Montreal, originally built for the Expo 67 and left standing for years after.
The first half hour can be a jarring experience, asking the viewer not only to abandon all familiar semiotics and landmarks one uses to navigate through a filmic universe much like real life and accept in their stead a convoluted world seen through an annoyingly soft focused lens (no doubt slapped with vaseline on the edges of the frame) where booze for some reason is called booza, people wear old Venezian hats and use a needlessly complicated information center made of revolving glass leaves, but to consider this cardboard version of the future within some realistic context.
His little essay.The hopeless denizens of this bleak future spend their time playing a game called Quintet.
No character is developed more than a pawn in a boarding game, not even Newman the protagonist, curiously wooden and uninterested in what's going on around him, although Ferdinando Rey seems to be enjoying the hell out of his role.Once you get past the slow start the film develops into a peculiarly riveting murder mystery but it never quite makes the cut as something genuinely inspired.
Some of the ideas and themes explored are truly interesting, as for example the notion that it's the markers one carries that determine his identity, something he acquires or even steals (as does Newman who pretends to be Redstone by using his markers in order to take part in the Quintet game and discover who killed his brother) instead of being born with it, the five stages in life attended on all sides by the nothingness of death as explained by St. Christopher to his disciples, or perhaps even more so the idea of a judge tired of judging, wishfully ruminating how he would like for once to take part in the game instead of watch it unfold, perhaps follow the rules instead of interpret them.Obviously Quintet is not among Altman's best and if you'll get anything out of it or not largely depends on what level you're willing to engage it.
The best thing I can say about "Quintet" is that it's not quite as bad as I remembered it being on my first viewing.But that doesn't mean it's good.This weird, sci-fi thriller is not quite like any other movie I've ever seen, which I guess at least gives it the stamp of novelty.
On the DVD special feature about the making of "Quintet," it's clear that even Altman didn't know what the hell the movie was supposed to be.It's set in some distant future when the world is in the grip of another ice age.
The film was shot at the abandoned site of the Montreal Expo '67, and I do have to admit that this gives the movie some interesting production design elements, even if much of it looks like it's being filmed in an iced-over shopping mall.
Soon Newman is caught up in a deadly game of "Quintet," which all of the bored inhabitants play for lack of anything better to do, and the rules of which are never made clear to the audience.
...now I wish it had remained that way.WARNING: If you stumble upon this movie while surfing TV, keep surfing!This isn't even a good one time watch.
The plot points aren't clear in any way until the end when Paul Newman sort of sums them up, but then Fernando Rey tosses it all out by replacing the logic with a philosophical explanation of life, similar to the one John Houseman gave in Rollerball.
Especially during the 70's when he made 13 films in 10 years among them incredibly interesting but uneven pieces like "Brewster McCloud." Don't get me wrong, he has made quite a few fully realized, even excellent, movies but this is more the norm.
Funny, calling a frozen sci-fi film with a bit of murder-mystery noir tossed in `the norm." Around this time Altman was really showing his influences.
Quintet marks the only venture of both Paul Newman and director Robert Altman into the realm of science fiction.
Seals have survived and Paul Newman is a seal hunter on the outside.But hunters do need a little R&R and Newman goes to a futuristic city where things are so boring the natives have some kind of game played with six people and it's a kind of Russian roulette.
At about the same time I started to get into David Lynch and a whole new film universe opened up to me, Quintet is one of those movies.
I would love to talk to Altman about this...I grasp the plot now, and for it's time it really was way ahead of the game.
But the movie sears itself into your brain, and even though you'll never need to see it again after the first viewing (if you're like me), you're not gonna forget it.It should also be mentioned that one of the great feats of Quintet is featuring the very environment itself as an actorly presence, something to be reckoned with - or, more precisely, cold itself as an actorly presence.
If you like your sci-fi cold and bleak maybe this is for you.Quintet is the name of a board game played in a rather empty future.
Maybe it seemed like a good idea on paper: let's represent the cruelty, absurdity and meaninglessness of life with an isolated, post-apocalyptic group of people who addictively play a board game (never described, but apparently requiring no skill) while awaiting their inevitable deaths.
Honestly, people, there have to be 20 better Altman movies you should watch before you try to suffer through this one.
Wow, I never expected to see Paul Newman star in a film like this..
It's just a good sci-fi movie of people trying to pass the time playing a strange game, just because they have no more hope in living for the next day.
Photographed by Jean Boffety with a permanent filter that diffuses the corners of the frame, and shot almost entirely inside the abandoned installations of Expo 67 in Montréal (except for the opening and ending, photographed in frozen exteriors), duplicating the feeling of loss and ruin, while the wardrobe adds the sensation of timelessness and worldliness, "Quintet" is a nihilistic vision of the world that some see as the third film of a surrealist trilogy, also conformed by Altman's "Images" and "3 Women".
If you do that you'll have no problem following the confusing plot, but you'll still probably never understand exactly how to play the game of Quintet.
No. I wouldn't recommend it as a date movie or something to watch with your stoned friends, but if you're a science fiction fan this masterpiece of loneliness and coldness deserves your attention and perhaps a rediscovery by people who don't constantly look for the "Hollywood ending"..
There is nothing left for the remaining population to do but pass the time playing a chess-like board game and wait for the inevitable end.
With nothing else left to spice up their miserable, purposeless existence they take the game one level higher and play it to the death."Quintet" has been categorized as a "Science fiction" movie.
Sure, this was a weird one, but Newman's performance is solid, I like the weird, dreamy filter Altman used on the lens to give the 'looking thru a frozen window' effect.
And this is an unusual set of actors: ask yourself - mathematically, how bad can an Altman movie with Paul Newman, Vittorio Gassman,Fernando Rey, Bibi Anderssen, Brigette Fossey and Nina von Pallandt in furs be?.
I watched it again a day later and thought, "Wow, this movie has a lot going on." I appreciated the underlying theme that life is more than simply surviving - otherwise it becomes a sort of twisted addiction of playing a game with death.
Altman apparently invented the game in complete form only to use it in this film.
Altman loves to deconstruct myths, whether he does so here I'm not quite sure.6/10 – An inferior rip off of Bergman and Tarkovsky's "Stalker", much of this film simply consists of people huddled around a game board or walking in the snow.
Newman was on auto-pilot the whole movie, with this constipated look on his face as he spent a good 50-60% of the his screen time simply walking around one of the most uninspired set designs I have ever seen.
As the game went so did the film.Vincent Canby may have said it best, "All great directors must be arrogant to the extent that they will follow their dreams through to the bitter, sometimes banal end." When considering Quintet was written, directed and produced by Robert Altman, Canby's statement is undoubtedly assured.The banality is felt increasingly with every coming scene.
"Quintet" is definitely not a film most people would find amusing or even interesting for that matter.
There is a world encased in ice, where nobody is doing any meaningful work, except playing Quintet, and the rules to the game are never even hinted.
The music is good and typical of many Altman films (like "3 Women", "Images", or "Vincent & Theo" his best movies, interestingly enough).
(Not that this film's narrative needed a lot of stopping, because anyone who has ever seen it will know that Quintet's narrative drive has pretty well frozen solid before the end of the opening shot.) There are several of those moments in this movie. |
tt5275886 | Under the Gun | At a Miami nightclub, gangster Bert Galvin offers to take singer Ruth Williams under his wing and to New York, helping her career. She agrees once it is made clear that their relationship will be strictly business.
On the road, they stop for dinner at Claude's Restaurant, where Bert knows the owner. The local sheriff, Bill Langley, recognizes Bert and tips off a revenge-minded man whose brother Bert killed. But given a warning by Claude what's about to happen, Bert shoots and kills the man.
Charged with murder, Bert is defended by Milo Bragg, a smooth-talking Southern lawyer. Claude testifies that the killing was in self-defense. Ruth is expected to do the same, but when district attorney Arthur Sherbourne reminds her that she's under oath, Ruth breaks down and tells the truth.
Bert is convicted and sentenced to 20 years in a prison farm. There, prisoners are all literally "under the gun" of a ruthless trustee, Nugent, who is a convict like themselves but carries a rifle. Bert intends to escape, but fellow inmate Sam Gower befriends him and explains that a trustee is promised an immediate pardon if he should kill any prisoner who tries to flee.
As a test, Bert lies to a gullible con called Five Shot that there's $25,000 waiting for him if he can break out. Five Shot is killed by Nugent, who does indeed immediately receive his parole. Bert seizes the opportunity to take his place as trustee.
Bragg, the lawyer, pays a visit, now a drunk, disbarred and desperate for money. Bert has him dig up information about Gower, his fellow inmate. He learns that Gower's family was left in dire financial straits. Bert makes a proposition, saying he will pay the family $25,000 if Gower will try to escape. Guilt-ridden about his family, Gower agrees. He nearly makes it out safely before Bert kills him.
Now paroled, Bert immediately tracks down Ruth, seeking vengeance for her testimony. Sheriff Langley is following, though, as they take a speedboat, then end up on foot in a swamp. Ruth gets her hands on Bert's gun, but cannot bring herself to shoot him. Langley has no such hesitation, taking aim and shooting Bert dead. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0138289 | Ambushed | Mid-level drug dealers Eddie and Frank grow restless with their limited growth potential and set up a meeting with their supplier, Madsen. Instead of negotiating, Frank impulsively murders Madsen and takes his cocaine. Eddie's excitement quickly turns to apprehension when he hears about Madsen's death, but Frank talks him into bluffing their way back into drug lord Vincent Camastra's good graces. At the same time, dirty cop Jack Reiley investigates the murder and is annoyed when DEA agent Maxwell takes over the investigation. As Frank attempts to save his relationship with his naive girlfriend, Ashley, Reiley violently bullies his informants for information, and Camastra sends assassins to kill Eddie. After Eddie engages in a brief gunfight with the assassins, Camastra himself beats Eddie unconscious. Ashley, who has become suspicious of Frank's secretive lifestyle, is shocked when Kathy and Beverly, Eddie's friends, interrupt them to explain that Camastra has kidnapped Eddie.
Beverly, an undercover DEA agent, is in a relationship with Maxwell, who is concerned that she has gone too deep. However, she protests when he requests that she abandon the case. Beverly and Maxwell expand their investigation to include Reiley, but they are forbidden from taking action until they can also get Camastra. Frustrated, they bide their time until Camastra makes his move. Frank visits Camastra, and Eddie successfully buys them two days time to pay Camastra back. At the nightclub Frank owns, Reiley attempts to blackmail him, only to be shot in his hand and left on the side of the road. Unable to explain his predicament, Reiley is put on unpaid leave and learns that Internal Affairs is preparing a case against him. Forced to abandon his plans to retire comfortably, Reiley becomes even more unstable and kidnaps Ashley. He breaks into Eddie's apartment, takes Kathy and Beverly hostage, and waits for Frank and Eddie to return.
As Maxwell and his team race to the apartment, Frank and Eddie discuss their future plans. Frank wants to retire from the criminal life; Eddie, while wishing Frank well, says that he will stay in the business and take over. Frank admits that he will miss the excitement, but he wants a normal life with Ashley, whom he plans to marry. Frank, Eddie, and the DEA agents all enter the apartment within minutes of each other. Panicked, Reiley kills several people, including Eddie and Ashley. In the chaos, Beverly sets Kathy free, and Reiley and Frank escape. Maxwell corners Reiley, and they face off against each other; reinforcements arrive just as Maxwell subdues Reiley. In the last scene, Frank mourns the loss of Ashley and speculates on what he will do next, now that both his main plan and backup plan have been ruined. | violence | train | wikipedia | A movie about racial problems blended with good action..
This movie is generally okay but, it's not a movie I would call fantastic.
The movie generally has a good plot and a bit of adequate directing.
But however, the movie has a very poor setting which makes it look like a typical TV movie.
On the other hand, the movie lets us see the effects of racism and corruption in our American society incorporated into a lot of thrilling action.
It's a movie worth viewing when you are bored but, it's not a movie I would recommend to top action movie lovers..
Good little movie.
Sometimes movies that touches on race-sensitive issues comes out trite and panders to the liberal conscience.
Courtney Vance delivers a thoughtful performance as a cop who is struggling with his own race issues as he works to save a kid brainwashed by the KKK father.
Virginia Madsen is sexy as usual and Robert Patrick (The Terminator, X Files) is excellent.
William Forsythe is also great as a no bullshit cop.
The movie score is cool and reminds me of Ry Cooder.
It is well put together and director Ernest Dickerson deserves credit for that.
I am a fan of his work.
He earned his chops as Spike Lee's DP and if you want to see another Dickerson movie check out "{Never Die Alone".
All in all, "Ambushed" is a fine little movie and deserves audience consideration as a rental.
Check it out.
Tight, taut little character-based thriller that's ABOUT something!.
Clearly a small-budget, big passion undertaking.
Terrific cast.
The KKK milieu surrounds and informs the movie's big relationship--a black FBI detective framed for the murder of a Klansman who must go on the lam with the murdered Klansman's young son.
How the boy begins to question his father's beliefs and how the agent acquires compassion for this white-hating boy in the crucible of their enforced togetherness make for compelling viewing.
Gritty, truthful, iconoclastic offering in the tradition of "to Kill A Mockingbird.".
Prime Schlock.
Actually there have been quite a few features, made-fors, and miniseries shot in and around Wilmington, North Carolina, as this one was.
Wilmington has the second largest assemblage of studios in the country, outside of Burbank.
The problem is, most of the things shot there are turkeys.
Not including "Crimes of the Heart" and "Blue Velvet" and one or two others, which my own performances rendered memorable.
Considering the schlock as a class in itself, this probably rates a B.
It isn't as bad as it could be.
Of course it's filled with clichés.
Shoot outs take place in which thousands of rounds are exchanged with no one having to pause and reload their weapons.
A black detective on the run has to protect the racist 12-year-old son of a Klan member, and we know their relationship will evolve, and we know the direction that evolution will take.
The good guys are completely good, while the bad guys are somewhat less one dimensional -- let's say they have one and a half dimensions.
But it has a few interesting directorial touches; odd angles are used effectively and bodies and objects are moved around with efficiency.The racial issue is nicely handled.
A black man makes tender love to a white woman and it's treated matter-of-factly.
And the movie is as much watchable for what it doesn't include as for what it does: no slow-motion deaths, no car chases.
The acting is not bad, particularly on the part of the twelve-year-old racist.
Just before the climax, Shannon has a line, "Take him out to the cement factory." This refers to a real cement factory on Blue Clay Road which has been used as a location in several other films.
It served as a prison twice, in "Weeds" and again in "Everybody Wins." It's always good to see Dick Olson in a Wilmington movie, and he has a small part in just about every one, in this case, a motel manager.
He's a nice guy as well as a reliable character actor..
Great little TV movie!.
I was pleasantly surprised by this essentially a B-movie.
The acting is uniformly good.
Courtney B Vance and David Keith are particular favourites but the young actor who took the part of Eric was terrific as well.
Its refreshing to see a made for television movie with a good script, good acting and (for once) real driving!
The subject matter is topical, and for a South African viewer surprising in it's passion.
If this is the kind of B-movie Hollywood made I say Keep it up!!.
A waste of time..
"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick.
It's much to bad to be ordinary.
One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing.
The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him.
Guess which one is the good guy.
Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through.
Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser.
Not recommended for anyone..
Not recommended for anyone..
OK, could have been better.
This movie was ok.
It was nothing great, but it was watchable.
If you have anything better to do, don't watch this, but if you're absolutely bored, watch it.
I thought AMBUSHED was 'entertaining' - at times it was suspenseful and it had some good action scenes, but in parts it was also unintentionally funny - ex.
When the KKK is chasing the black policeman, they go through the sewer, and the KKK guy tells his comrade to go first - "Why not you?" "I'm wearing a suit." Maybe the filmmakers were trying to add some humor to this movie.
Whatever it was, I thought it was funny and quite out of place if this movie hoped to be serious and not absurd. |
tt0212123 | Dulhan Ek Raat Ki | Ashok (Dharmendra) and Nirmala (Nutan) meet on a railway platform in Dehradun, and then consequently in town as well, and are attracted to each other. Nirmala discovers that her mother (Leela Chitnis) has mortgaged their house to pay for her education, so she gets a job as nurse to a wealthy blind woman (Mumtaz Begum). This woman has a son Ranjit (Rehman) who is also very attracted to Nirmala. She knows it, but does her best to keep him at arm’s length. Then Ashok gets a job out of town. When he tells Nirmala, he gives her a bracelet and promises to come back for her soon. But after a party at her employer’s home—against her better judgment—she accepts a ride with Ranjit and he rapes her. The bracelet from Ashok is lost and she is left on the cold ground. When she finds out that she is pregnant, her mother takes her out of town, where she gives birth to a still-born child. Meanwhile, Ashok’s father has arranged his marriage with the daughter of a colleague. Ashok’s friend Bansi (Johnny Walker) sabotages the marriage when the girl comes to visit (in a very funny scene) by insinuating that Ashok is an inveterate gambler. This enrages his father, and when Ashok says that he has promised another girl he would marry her, his father retorts that he has promised his friend. At his response, Ashok’s father gets up and leaves without another word. When Nirmala and her mother return home, Nirmala gets a letter from two of her school friends. They are working in Mussoorie at a school, and think Nirmala can get a job teaching there too. She goes there and gets the job at the school. Her friends ask where she has been, and tell her that Ashok went to her house looking for her several times. Ashok is living in a camp in Mussoorie, working as an engineer. The girls and Bansi conspire to reunite them. Ashok is overjoyed to see Nirmala, but of course she has changed. He asks her to marry him; she refuses at first, then says that she will give him her answer in a week and throws herself into his arms, weeping. After some thought, she writes him a letter explaining all that has happened in the past year, leaves it at his camp, and goes home to her mother. Her mother scolds her for telling him everything, but she says that she couldn’t live with him in a lie. When he shows up at her door on Sunday, and says that she owes him an answer Nirmala thinks that he has read her letter and forgiven her, and she agrees happily to marry him. Bansi disguises himself as an astrologer and goes to Ashok’s parents, hoping to trick them into agreeing to come for his wedding. The ruse fails, however, and Ashok’s father refuses. Ashok and Nirmala get married and go to stay in a hotel on their wedding night. As the newlyweds are about to go to bed, the hotel proprietor knocks on the door and hands Ashok a letter from Bansi. It’s about their new house and Nirmala wants to read it; but it also contains her letter, which Bansi found under the carpet when he was packing up the camp. Nirmala is horrified, but gives the letter to Ashok. He reads it and walks away from her, stunned. When she follows him and pleads innocence, he agrees that she is innocent but that she is no longer the same Nirmala he worshipped and alienated his father for; he asks her why she didn’t leave the job as soon as she suspected Ranjit’s intentions. She leaves and goes home to her mother, hoping that he will come and get her—but he doesn’t. Back at Ashok’s, Bansi confronts him. As weeks pass into months, Nirmala decides to leave her mother’s since the neighbors are all gossiping about her prolonged stay. She goes to Nainital where she gets a job as a governess to a man with seven children. She enjoys the children and her new employer is good to her, but she still longs for Ashok. Her new employer’s brother-in-law and niece arrive for a visit, and Nirmala soon realizes that they are Ashok’s father and sister. Ashok’s sister Sudha befriends Nirmala, not knowing that she is her bhabhi. Then one day as Nirmala is out walking, she hears a holy man over the loudspeakers outside a mosque. His words move her, and she goes in to meet him and get his blessing. It’s Ranjit! She flees, but he follows her home and tells her that he is reformed; that after his mother died (she understood very well what kind of man he was) he wandered the world for a bit, and found God, and repented all his sins. Nirmala tells him bitterly that she doesn’t believe him and tells him to leave. A few days later he shows up again. He has transformed himself again from a guru to Ranjit. He tells her that after seeing her, he could not get her out of his mind, and that she is right—his sins are too great for him to be a man of God. He wants to live with her and take care of her. She angrily rejects him, but he keeps visiting. Back at his home again, Ashok’s father has become very ill, and calls for Ashok to come see him. At the house, Ashok sees a photograph of Nirmala which his sister had brought with her from Nainital as a memento of their friendship. He tells her that Nirmala is his wife and explains why they are not together. His sister and father convince him to go get her and bring her home. He sets off for Nainital to find Nirmala. Sudha telegrams Nirmala about this, delightedly she awaits for him. But Ashok leaves without meeting Nirmala. Nirmala hears Ashok going and comes out of house and finds Ranjit who had whisked Ashok away by telling him lie that Nirmala is now happily living with him as he obsessively loves her. Nirmala when is about to leave to stop Ashok, she is stopped by Ranjit who says that she belongs to him forever not Ashok, enraged Nirmala stabs Ranjit to death for ruining her life and separating her from Ashok. As she leaves to stop Ashok her neighbour witnesses the murder. Nirmala stops Ashok and tells him the truth about Ranjit and confesses her crime. Ashok accepts Nirmala and realises his mistake for not trusting her. He then realises that the police are after Nirmala, and ensures her that he will take the blame on himself, but Nirmala refuses by saying that crime cannot go unpunished, and she will surrender to police in the morning and asks Ashok to spend one last night with her together before police separate them. Then Ashok and Nirmala spend their last night together and consummate their marriage. The film ends as dawn breaks. | murder | train | wikipedia | Lovely film!. Dulhan ek raat ki is a heart-breaking but ultimately very sweet movie about pure love being destroyed by an act of wretched callousness, and how it changes the lives of those involved. Nutan is just lovely, playing all the right notes and proving once again that she was one of the great Hindi actresses. Dharmendra is very charming as the simple but good-hearted guy head over heels for Nutan's character. They have great chemistry. The songs are wonderful, especially "ek haseen shaam ko" and "sapno mein agar mere". The story moves at an adequate pace without rushing events. A nice trip back to when love and affection could be expressed completely without being vulgar. |
tt0042539 | Halls of Montezuma | During World War II, a Marine battalion prepares to land on a large Japanese-held island in the Pacific. Lieutenant Colonel Gilfillan (Richard Boone) warns the men that it will be a tough mission, and that they have been ordered to take prisoners in order to gain information about the Japanese fortifications. Below deck, veteran Lieutenant Carl A. Anderson (Richard Widmark), a chemistry teacher in civilian life, questions his former student, Corporal Stuart Conroy (Richard Hylton), who complains that he is ill and cannot fight. Anderson assures him that he has shown courage before and can do so again. In the landing boat heading to shore, Navy corpsman C. E. "Doc" Jones (Karl Malden) is worried because Anderson has been suffering from "psychological migraines" for months. Anderson and his platoon have been fighting since Guadalcanal, and now only seven men remain of the original platoon. Although Doc urged Anderson to seek treatment in the United States, Anderson refuses to leave his men and has been relying on Doc to supply him with painkillers.
The men hit the beach and successfully dig in, despite an initial burst of resistance. As four days pass, the seven old-timers in Anderson's platoon, including Doc, Pigeon Lane (Jack Palance), Sergeant Zelenko (Neville Brand), Slattery (Bert Freed), Coffman (Robert Wagner) and the unstable Riley "Pretty Boy" Duncannon (Skip Homeier), grow weary of the constant threat of hidden Japanese snipers. One day, the men try to take a ridge of hills, but are beaten back by Japanese rockets, which come as an unpleasant surprise to the commanding officers. When Coffman (whom Anderson saved from drowning at Tarawa) is killed, Anderson is forced to take some more of Doc's pills.
Anderson meets with other officers at battalion headquarters, where Gilfillan recounts the troubles they are having capturing prisoners and getting information from them. Sergeant Randolph Johnson (Reginald Gardiner), a Japanese-speaking linguist who uses psychology in interrogating prisoners, questions a POW who has been dubbed "Willie". As Gilfillan receives orders to stop the rockets within nine hours, before the next assault on the hills, Willie informs Johnson that the Japanese soldiers holding a cave stronghold are willing to surrender. Accompanied by Johnson and war correspondent Sergeant Dickerman (Jack Webb), Anderson leads a patrol with the six remaining old-timers and replacement Whitney (Martin Milner) to the cave, but they are ambushed and Zelenko is blinded.
The men capture the remaining Japanese, including a wounded officer, three laborers and a shell-shocked, elderly civilian. Anderson finds a map on the wounded officer. On the return trip, a sniper shoots at Pretty Boy, who kills him during hand-to-hand combat. The confrontation further unbalances him and he attempts to murder the prisoners. Lane then accidentally shoots and kills Pretty Boy while attempting to stop him. Doc also dies from a wound in the shoulder, but not before giving Dickerman a message for Anderson.
Anderson takes his prisoners to headquarters, where the wounded officer commits hara-kiri with a knife he had stolen from Johnson. While map expert Lieutenant Butterfield works on a Japanese map overlay found in Pretty Boy's personal effects, Anderson and Johnson learn that one of the POWs is actually a highly educated officer, and famous Japanese baseball player before the war, pretending to be a private. From the officer's cryptic statements (he speaks perfect English), together with statements made from the officer who committed suicide, Johnson deduces where the rockets are located, and Lieutenant Butterfield matches the location on the map. When Anderson and Dickerman make their way back to the platoon, they learn from Slattery that Conroy has been killed. Anderson takes the news hard, questions the meaning of their sacrifice, and is ready to give up. Dickerman reads aloud Doc's note, however, and Anderson, inspired by Doc's appeal for him to be strong for the sake of those whom he survives and the reciting of the Lord's Prayer by Whitney, throws away his painkillers, smashing them with the butt of his weapon, and again leads his men into battle. Then, as the film closes, U.S. Corsairs fly in and smash the Japanese position, which they were able to attack based on Anderson's men's efforts, Anderson screams to the advancing troops: "Give 'em Hell," which they echo in unison. | violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0036896 | Hare Ribbin' | The short opens with a dog with a Russian accent (a la Bert Gordon's "Mad Russian") hunting for a rabbit by sniffing a trail. He happens upon Bugs who begins to torment the dog. This prompts a chase, which leads to a nearby lake where the rest of the story continues. Most of the action takes place underwater.
Eventually, after a few gags, with Bugs dressed up as a mermaid, playing tag with the dog and throwing the dog into a rock, leaving his feet sticking out and Bugs disguising himself as Elmer Fudd, the dog corners Bugs and demands he gives him a rabbit sandwich. Bugs obliges, and the rabbit places himself between two giant slices of loaf bread with his legs curled next to his body. The dog takes a bite and Bugs screams and fakes his death. The dog becomes instantly grief-stricken and sobs, declaring that he should be the one to die. With this statement, Bugs springs back to life asking, "Ehhhh...do you mean it?", and obliges the dog's death wish (see Alternate endings below). The dog falls to the ground, Bugs plants a flower on his chest and dances away into the distance. As the cartoon is about to "iris out" the dog sits up (revealing that he is still alive), holds the iris before it closes, and declares "This shouldn't even happen to a dog!". He then lets the iris go, but it closes on his nose in the process, making him yelp in pain. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0241307 | Chrono Cross | === Characters ===
Chrono Cross features a diverse cast of 45 party members. Each character is outfitted with an innate Element affinity and three unique special abilities that are learned over time. If taken to the world opposite their own, characters react to their counterparts (if available). Many characters tie in to crucial plot events. Since it is impossible to obtain all 45 characters in one playthrough, players must replay the game to witness everything. Through use of the New Game+ feature, players can ultimately obtain all characters on one save file.
Serge, the game's protagonist, is a 17-year-old boy with blue hair who lives in the fishing village of Arni. One day, he slips into an alternate world in which he drowned ten years before. Determined to find the truth behind the incident, he follows a predestined course that leads him to save the world. He is assisted by Kid, a feisty, skilled thief who seeks the mythical Frozen Flame. Portrayed as willful and tomboyish due to her rough, thieving past, she helps Serge sneak into Viper Manor in order to obtain the Frozen Flame. Kid vows to find and defeat Lynx, an anthropomorphic panther who burned down her adopted mother's orphanage.
Lynx, a cruel agent of the supercomputer FATE, is bent on finding Serge and using his body as part of a greater plan involving the Frozen Flame. Lynx travels with Harle, a mysterious, playful girl dressed like a harlequin. Harle was sent by the Dragon God to shadow Lynx and one day steal the Frozen Flame from Chronopolis, a task she painfully fulfills despite being smitten with Serge.
To accomplish this goal, Harle helps Lynx manipulate the Acacia Dragoons, the powerful militia governing the islands of El Nido. As the Dragoons maintain order, they contend with Fargo, a former Dragoon turned pirate captain who holds a grudge against their leader, General Viper. Though tussling with Serge initially, the Acacia Dragoons—whose ranks include the fierce warriors Karsh, Zoah, Marcy, and Glenn—later assist him when the militaristic nation of Porre invades the archipelago. The invasion brings Norris and Grobyc to the islands, a heartful commander of an elite force and a prototype cyborg soldier, respectively, as they too seek the Frozen Flame.
=== Story ===
Chrono Cross begins with Serge located in El Nido, a tropical archipelago inhabited by ancient natives, mainland colonists, and beings called Demi-humans. Serge slips into an alternate dimension in which he drowned on the beach ten years prior, and meets the thief, "Kid". As his adventure proceeds from here, Serge is able to recruit a multitude of allies to his cause. While assisting Kid in a heist Viper Manor to steal the Frozen Flame, he learns that ten years before the present, the universe split into two dimensions—one in which Serge lived, and one in which he perished. Through Kid's Astral Amulet charm, Serge travels between the dimensions. At Fort Dragonia the use of a Dragonian artifact called the Dragon Tear, Lynx switches bodies with Serge. Unaware of the switch, Kid confides in Lynx, who stabs her as the real Serge helplessly watches. Lynx boasts of his victory and banishes Serge to a strange realm called the Temporal Vortex. He takes Kid under his wing, brainwashing her to believe the real Serge (in Lynx's body) is her enemy. Serge escapes with help from Harle, although his new body turns him into a stranger in his own world, with all the allies he had gained up to that point abandoning him due to his new appearance. Discovering that his new body prevents him from traveling across the dimensions, he sets out to regain his former body and learn more of the universal split that occurred ten years earlier, gaining a new band of allies along the way.. He travels to a forbidden lagoon known as the Dead Sea—a wasteland frozen in time, dotted with futuristic ruins. At the center, he locates a man named Miguel and presumably Home world's Frozen Flame. Charged with guarding the Dead Sea by an entity named FATE, Miguel and three visions of Crono, Marle, and Lucca from Chrono Trigger explain that Serge's existence dooms Home world's future to destruction at the hands of Lavos. To prevent Serge from obtaining the Frozen Flame, FATE destroys the Dead Sea.
Able to return to Another world, Serge allies with the Acacia Dragoons against Porre and locates that dimension's Dragon Tear, allowing him to return to his human form. He then enters the Sea of Eden, Another world's physical equivalent of the Dead Sea, finding a temporal research facility from the distant future called Chronopolis. Lynx and Kid are inside; Serge defeats Lynx and the supercomputer FATE, allowing the six Dragons of El Nido to steal the Frozen Flame and retire to Terra Tower, a massive structure raised from the sea floor. Kid falls into a coma, and Harle bids the party goodbye to fly with the Dragons. Serge regroups his party and tends to Kid, who remains comatose. Continuing his adventure, he obtains and cleanses the corrupted Masamune sword from Chrono Trigger. He then uses the Dragon relics and shards of the Dragon Tears to create the mythic Element Chrono Cross. The spiritual power of the Masamune later allows him to lift Kid from her coma. At Terra Tower, the prophet of time, revealed to be Belthasar from Chrono Trigger, visits him with visions of Crono, Marle, and Lucca. Serge learns that the time research facility Chronopolis created El Nido thousands of years ago after a catastrophic experimental failure drew it to the past. The introduction of a temporally foreign object in history caused the planet to pull in a counterbalance from a different dimension. This was Dinopolis, a city of Dragonians—parallel universe descendants of Chrono Trigger's Reptites. The institutions warred and Chronopolis subjugated the Dragonians. Humans captured their chief creation—the Dragon God, an entity capable of controlling nature.
Chronopolis divided this entity into six pieces and created an Elements system. FATE then terraformed an archipelago, erased the memories of most Chronopolis's staff, and sent them to inhabit and populate its new paradise. Thousands of years later, a panther demon attacked a three-year-old Serge. His father took him to find assistance at Marbule, but Serge's boat blew off course due to a raging magnetic storm caused by Schala. Schala, the princess of the Kingdom of Zeal, had long ago accidentally fallen to a place known as the Darkness Beyond Time and began merging with Lavos, the chief antagonist of Chrono Trigger. Schala's storm nullified Chronopolis's defenses and allowed Serge to contact the Frozen Flame; approaching it healed Serge but corrupted his father. A circuit in Chronopolis then designated Serge "Arbiter", simultaneously preventing FATE from using the Frozen Flame by extension. The Dragons were aware of this situation, creating a seventh Dragon under the storm's cover named Harle, who manipulated Lynx to steal the Frozen Flame for the Dragons.
After Serge returned home, FATE sent Lynx to kill Serge, hoping that it would release the Arbiter lock. Ten years after Serge drowned, the thief Kid—presumably on Belthasar's orders—went back in time to save Serge and split the dimensions. FATE, locked out of the Frozen Flame again, knew that Serge would one day cross to Another world and prepared to apprehend him. Lynx switched bodies with Serge to dupe the biological check of Chronopolis on the Frozen Flame. Belthasar then reveals that these events were part of a plan he had orchestrated named Project Kid. Serge continues to the top of Terra Tower and defeats the Dragon God. Continuing to the beach where the split in dimensions had occurred, Serge finds apparitions of Crono, Marle, and Lucca once more. They reveal that Belthasar's plan was to empower Serge to free Schala from melding with Lavos, lest they evolve into the "Time Devourer", a creature capable of destroying spacetime. Lucca explains that Kid is Schala's clone, sent to the modern age to take part in Project Kid. Serge uses a Time Egg—given to him by Belthasar—to enter the Darkness Beyond Time and vanquish the Time Devourer, separating Schala from Lavos and restores the dimensions to one. Thankful, Schala muses on evolution and the struggle of life and returns Serge to his home, noting that he will forget the entire adventure. She then seemingly records the experience in her diary, noting she will always be searching for Serge in this life and beyond, signing the entry as Schala "Kid" Zeal, implying that she and kid have merged and became whole again. A wedding photo of Kid and an obscured male sits on the diary's desk. Scenes then depict a real-life Kid searching for someone in a modern city, intending to make players entertain the possibility that their own Kid is searching for them. The ambiguous ending leaves the events of the characters' lives following the game up to interpretation.
=== Relation to Radical Dreamers ===
Chrono Cross employs story arcs, characters, and themes from Radical Dreamers, a Satellaview side story to Chrono Trigger released in Japan. An illustrated text adventure, Radical Dreamers was created to wrap up an unresolved plot line of Chrono Trigger. Though it borrows from Radical Dreamers in its exposition, Chrono Cross is not a remake of Radical Dreamers, but a larger effort to fulfill that game's purpose; the plots of the games are irreconcilable. To resolve continuity issues and acknowledge Radical Dreamers, the developers of Chrono Cross suggested the game happened in a parallel dimension. A notable difference between the two games is that Magus—present in Radical Dreamers as Gil—is absent from Chrono Cross. Director Masato Kato originally planned for Magus to appear in disguise as Guile, but scrapped the idea due to plot difficulties. In the DS version of Chrono Trigger, Kato teases the possibility of an amnesiac Magus. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0299478 | Saraband | The film is structured around ten acts with a prologue and epilogue.
It opens with the camera on Marianne standing by a table covered with photographs. It is a well-lit room, and she addresses the viewer. She picks one picture up after another; they are in no particular order, being just heaped all over the table. Some make her smile, or elicit a comment or a sigh. But then she picks up a photograph of her husband, prompting her to reminisce about how they had been more or less happy, and how they'd broken up. She goes on to recall how his second marriage failed, while she was already married to a second husband herself, and then when her second husband died (by flying a glider off somewhere and disappearing), she reflects that it would be nice to see her first husband again.
Marianne travels into the country to the home of her ex-husband, and father of her daughters Martha and Sara, Johan. Johan is undergoing a family crisis with his insolvent and needy son, Henrik, and granddaughter, Karin. Karin is 19, and Henrik asks Johan for an advance on his inheritance so that Henrik can buy Karin an old Fagnola cello, to make a better impression at the audition for the European music conservatory. The elderly Johan decides to consider the offer and to contact the cello dealer himself. While Henrik is away tending to the orchestra he conducts in Uppsala, Johan has a private meeting with Karin, informing her of a proposal from Ivan Chablov, head conductor in the St. Petersburg orchestra and an old friend of Johan, that Karin join him at the prestigious Sibelius Academy in Helsinki.
While considering this offer Karin also finds an old letter from her departed mother Anna written to Henrik a week before her death. In the letter, Anna asks Henrik to relieve Karin of the unhealthy control he holds over her as her cello teacher. When Henrik encounters Karin again upon his return from Uppsala, where he no longer holds a position as concertmaster, he attempts to convince Karin into performing a concert of Bach's Cello Suites with him. She finally confronts him about his control over her and tells him of her decision to take an opportunity to study with her friend Emma in Hamburg under Claudio Abbado. The final request by Henrik is that Karin play the sarabande from Bach's 5th Cello Suite, which she already knows.
We encounter Marianne and Johan some time later, after Karin has already left for Hamburg. Marianne receives a phone call stating that Henrik has been found in the hospital having attempted suicide with pills and by cutting his wrists and throat. In the next scene a pained Johan suffering from a sort of anxiety attack seeks out Marianne and eventually disrobes along with her and joins her in bed. Next, Marianne is holding a still of the couple in bed and explaining what happened after that episode. She explains how she and Johan had kept in contact until one day she was no longer able to reach him. She thinks again of the departed Anna and recollects a visit to her ill daughter Martha who is in a sanatarium. She explains the contact she shared with her daughter and how she had never really been able to touch her before this moment. | bleak, dramatic, violence, flashback, insanity, romantic | train | wikipedia | Bergman brings back two actors/friends he's worked with numerous times, Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson, and uses their characters from his film/TV series Scenes from a Marriage for a higher purpose than to rake in the bucks.
This time around (unlike Sven Nykvist's perfect work on 'Marriage', a kind of pre-Dogma 95 style to use the camera with the story), Bergman decided to make the film for television (his on occasion work aside from theatre for the past twenty years since Fanny and Alexander) and also decided to implement digital photography.
:-)Bergman weaves a tale of vindictive dependence and of a young girl's decision to finally make her own way in life - despite some very powerful forces preventing such a move.Marianne decides to seek out Johan, meets him and becomes involved in the tug of war over his grand-daughter's future with the girl's father, Johan's depressed son Henrik (wonderfully played by Börje Ahlstedt).A quiet, intensive film.
Mr. Bergman seems to have composed a suite in which the Sarabande movement, which is usually introspective and dark, gives the tone to his account in this new work.If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you should stop reading now.When we last saw Johan and Marianne they gave the impression their relationship was over.
There are a number of serious works at the Festival and they should be judged by an independent panel of experts - there is a discussion afoot to create a new award along these lines - otherwise it is like comparing Beethoven with the Beatles.Saraband, in true Bergman tradition, wrestles with human relationships, using a slow pace, pointed dialogue, and heavy use of symbolism to explore the psychological states of the characters.
The quietness which surrounds this film, the excellent actor performances, the long footages of close-ups of faces, the first cello sonato of Bach (Saraband), the old man who is a bit like Bergman himself; all this makes the film a masterpiece.
"Saraband" is a moving and challenging, successful return by Bergman to the quality of films of an earlier period, like "Hour of the Wolf" or of course "Scenes from a Marriage," with characters held in confessional close-ups, trapped by ego and anxiety.
In the nearby cottage, Johan's son from another marriage, Henrik (Börje Ahlstedt), is living with his daughter Karin (Julia Dufvenious), after the death of his beloved wife Anna.
Along the autumn, Marianne is involved in the troubled relationship between Johan and his son, and Henrik and his daughter.In his last work as a director, Ingmar Bergman revisits the characters of 1973 "Scenes from a Marriage" thirty years older, with Marianne sharing the dramatic and complicated relationship of John's family.
This theatrical movie is a great character study, as usual in Bergman's films, with excellent and emotional dialogs, and ends with many open issues.
Originally shot for television in high definition video, Ingmar Bergman's latest film, Saraband, is about the reunion of a husband and wife after thirty years of divorce and separation.
The film is vintage Bergman with revealing close-ups, emotionally intense dialogue, an old-fashioned style of film-making, and a surfeit of bitterness about the human condition.Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson, the original screen couple from Bergman's 1973 film Scenes of a Marriage, reunite in his summer home for their first face to face contact since their breakup.
Living nearby are Henrik (Borje Ahlstedt), Johan's son from a second marriage and his daughter Karin (Julia Dufvenius), a promising young cellist.
"A saraband is a grave, courtly Baroque dance.." Marianne (Liv Ullmann) and Johan (Erland Josephson), the heroes of "Scenes of a Marriage (1973), meet again after thirty years when Marianne suddenly decides to visit Johan at his old summer house.
The story of Marianne and Johan in this film provides a background for another story which involved Johan's son from his first marriage, 61 year old musician Henric and his 19 year old daughter Karin whom Henric has been giving cello lessons and dreams of her becoming a famous performer.
There is one more character present in the movie, even though she's been dead for two years - Anna, late Henric's wife and Karin's mother who has been deeply missed and mourned by everyone including Johan.This film is dedicated to Ingrid von Rosen, Bergman's last wife who died in 1995.
But there is hope in the movie for young Karin who breaks out of the world that she was forced to believe she belonged to but she did not and she found the strength to leave and to be free and to make her own decisions...As all Bergman's films, "Saraband" does not provide the easy answers to the difficult questions; it does not provide any answers at all but as old Johan in the most moving scene of the film bares his body, Bergman bares his very soul and lets us look inside of it and maybe learn something about ourselves..
The young lady who plays it is Karin (Julia Dufvenius), who's become a cellist like her father, Johan's despised son Henrik (Börje Ahlstedt).
One isn't sure quite how she spends all this time though Henrik and Karin come back and forth for visits and we see them together at home in some scenes.Bergman returns to his strong Strindbergian theatrical roots in Saraband, which is like stage chamber music, highly organized into named and numbered segments and with two people at a time on screen, Marianne occasionally addressing the camera in soliloquies.
It's thanks to Karin that Saraband has a positive, hopeful thrust, and the strong, radiant Dufvenius brings light and energy into the picture.Unfortunately there are no real surprises, and this final work is not cinematic like Bergman's earlier classics.
The story is simple: An old, long-divorced couple (Marianne and Johan) meets again; and Johan's son Henrik from another marriage, recently widowed, and their daughter Karin live nearby.
While this tidbit may further Sweden's alluring reputation, the casual acceptance of this matter is in fact quite unrealistic, as this reviewer was assured by a reliable Swedish source (who even mentioned "jail"!) Karin's mother Anna, on her deathbed, may have had a hunch that something like this was in the wings, but again, we don't learn for sure, since Karin won't read to Marianne (and hence to us) the last page of her mother's farewell letter (which masterful move, incidentally, spared Bergman the writing of it).We can't quite figure out what Karin's notion is about her domestic setup - does she hate the sex but loves daddy otherwise (whom she calls "Henrik", isn't' that cool?), or does she really only hate the daily cello drills (since she just wants to play in an orchestra rather than train to be a soloist, as we hear in her great emotional outburst)?
I have to say that I found this acclaimed swan-song by a great film-maker to be, at best, third-rate Bergman; even the lesser efforts from his vintage period are a good deal preferable to it – at least, they showed a real cinematic sensibility…whereas this feels merely like a piece of filmed theatre (and not a very compelling one at that!).Anyway, the plot follows on from Bergman’s much earlier SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973; which I still haven’t watched because I can’t convince myself to willfully submit to 8 hours of misery!) – but, actually, the central situation here is almost a reprise of AUTUMN SONATA (1978)...only, it’s even less appetizing!
Ironically, I was more drawn in by the performances of the two ‘new’ members of the Bergman stock company of actors and especially the young Julia Dufvenius (though Borje Ahlstedt was actually featured in 6 films written by the Swedish master as well as a TV mini-series, of these the only major title which had Bergman as director was FANNY AND Alexander [1982]) rather than those of old reliables Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson.
Saraband is a strange continuation of that story, in which the two initial characters, Johan and Marianne, played by Erland Josephson and Liv Ullmann, are not so much the focus but the eyes and ears reacting in their own ways to the disintegration of Johan's family, none of whom Marianne has met since she and he separated so many years ago.The narrative follows a similar structure, much more condensed to be sure, and each scene is its own little vignette with its own little chapter heading.
They are showcases of powerhouse acting, on account of not only Ullmann and Josephson, who in their 60s and 80s have yet to give a poor performance that I've ever seen, but also Borje Ahlstedt as Johan's broke and run-down widowed son Henrik, and the beautiful Julia Dufvenius as his trapped and defiant daughter Karin.
Such stagy exposition is not at all characteristic of writer-director Ingmar Bergman, the very antithesis of this overtly theatrical form being the then 84-year-old master's original epic Scenes From a Marriage, which unfolded in the most natural possible way it had to, in the dialogue, in the settings, et.
This is performance that transcends technique.Key characters from 1973 Scenes From a Marriage Marianne (Ullman) and Johan (Erland Josephson) reappear in Saraband.
The sensitivity not just of the import of this scene but the way that Bergman shoots it with the naked Ullman in silhouette, is a masterly piece of cinema.Karin, Henrik's cellist daughter, and Johan's granddaughter, supplies the future dimension of Saraband and is played with an impressive hemmed in vitality by Julia Dufvenius.
The characters are to some extent represented by their musical taste - Henrik with his glorious Bach organ works (and the Saraband he loves), Johann by the booming Bruckner scherzo he is playing before and after a pivotal conversation with Karin.The cinematography lacks some of the exceptional qualities of Bergman's earlier work - I suspect that has to do with the TV format and his advancing years - the great man is probably unable to get quite so involved in camera-work these days.
A sequel to Scenes from a Marriage, when Johan and Marianne meet after not having seen each other in 32 years, but also so much more and a film that stands for itself entirely.As usual it is not only what is shown that grabs you as a viewer but just as much what is only indicated or not even that.
Never has any other filmmaker been so challenging and stimulating as the quiet, serene Swede.In this quiet and serene work, Bergman explores even further the underlying emotions and feelings from the same characters as his great 1973 masterpiece, Scenes from a Marriage.
Marianne is able to open the hearts of Karin, Johan, and Henrik and provide a tender voice that brings a degree of resolution to a family broken.As with all of Bergman's films it is not the story content as the method in telling that makes his films so indelibly and quietly passionate.
'Saraband' serves both as Ingmar Bergman's good-bye to film-making (and indeed, life itself, for he would be dead within four years, aged 89) and as a coda to his massively successful 'Scenes from a Marriage' Swedish TV drama series.The characters of Johan and Marianne return in this film, now withered and battle-weary, and ponder their past, trying to understand why they still feel a connection many years after their divorce.
Marianne even turns to the camera, asking the viewer directly if visiting her ex-husband after so many years is a mistake.Johan and Marianne's interactions in 'Saraband' are more gentle and kind than they are in the comparatively explosive 'Scenes from a Marriage' -- no longer do they feel that they desperately need something from each other; nor do they have to argue or play games; they are open, they simply see each other as people, not as lovers, nor as opponents.Of course, this is Bergman, so nothing is as simple as all that.
Johan has a deeply damaged and bitter relationship with his son, Henrik (Börje Ahlstedt), and openly admits to him in one powerful scene that he'd have no relationship with him at all were it not for his granddaughter, Henrik's now grown-up child, Karin.Henrik's relationship with his daughter is even more dark: both are grieving for their wife and mother who died several years previously and the two have a power/guilt relationship wrapped up in that grief and loneliness; and not unlike in Bergman's 'The Silence', incest is implied, but -- with the exception of one kiss that becomes sexual -- is never explicitly confirmed.
Because of this, Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson don't have a great deal to work with -- certainly a lot less than they had in the lengthy TV series -- but what they do have is very strong.The most moving scene in the film is when, after a disturbing development involving Johan's son, Marianne and Johan share a bed together naked, for the first time in many years.
Josepheon is shown entirely naked at the age of 80, which is extremely brave acting.'Saraband' is not at the high level of quality of some of Ingmar Bergman's late-career classics, such as the experimental and underrated 'From the Life of the Marionettes', the crushing 'Autumn Sonata' or the internationally celebrated 'Fanny and Alexander', but it is a very fine conclusion to the career of one of the all-time greats.And perhaps Bergman had finally come to terms with his existential relationship with God (or the idea of Him): in one scene, Liv Ullmann visits a church, and after a conversion with Henrik that becomes confrontational, stands up facing the altar and looks at an image of Christ, gripping her hands tightly in prayer..
it feels like he got to do this film only because he's ingmar bergman and not because it's a good movie, and that's pretty sad, isn't it?.
Even Marianne, after talking with Johan for ten or fifteen minutes, rehashing old times and so on, takes a moment, when Johan goes to see about dinner, to look at me with a resigned expression and say: "Oh, God, I think this was a mistake." As the story progressed, maybe she had a point.Because she becomes enmeshed between the opposing views of Johan and Henrik (Borje Ahlstedt), Johan's son by another marriage, about the future musical career of Karin (Julia Dufvenius) who is Henrik's only daughter and a talented cellist.
Saraband (2003) **** (out of 4) Ingmar Bergman's sequel/follow-up to Scenes from a Marriage has Marianne (Liv Ullmann) and Johan (Erland Josephson) reuniting after years of not seeing one another.
Marianne, beautifully played by Bergman's muse, Liv Ullmann, visits her ex-husband, Johan (Erland Josephson), whom she hasn't seen in years, for reasons even she can't explain.
And finally, FINALLY, when she sees how riddled with contempt Johan has become, she begins to be able to distance herself from him, think of herself as having a life of her own away from him, and perhaps even understanding that breaking from him was the best thing that could have happened to their relationship."Saraband" doesn't have the devastating quality of "Scenes from a Marriage." It feels more rushed and less developed.
Legendary Swedish director Ingmar Bergman officially "retired" from film-making in 1982 following the release of his highly acclaimed autobiographical drama, "Fanny and Alexander." That was supposed to have been his swan song, yet, since that time, he has made so many TV movies that have been released into theaters in the United States that, for Americans at least, it has pretty much been a "retirement" in name only.His latest such film to be released here, "Saraband," is, technically, a sequel to his earlier masterwork, "Scenes From a Marriage," which was also a made-for-TV work that received theatrical distribution in the United States in 1974.
However, despite the fact that this new film is billed as an extension of the original "Marriage," Johan and Marianne wind up somewhat on the periphery of the real story which involves the incestuous relationship between Henrik (Borie Ahlstedt), Johan's son from a previous marriage, and his beautiful 19-year old daughter, Karin (Julia Dufvenius).
Bergman captures these strange moments in one's personality which seem to make no sense to anyone else but us; he goes deep into his characters and brings out all their complex, confused emotions.The storyline was straightforward: it's about family, about an old couple Marianne and Johan meeting again after several years separated.
It worked very well for me; each unit serves a different purpose while building on the previous one to form the bigger whole; the way Marianne and Karin struck a friendship, for instance, was nicely done; or Henrik explaining to his daughter his fear of being abandoned and how it all relates to his dead wife, Anna.I loved the strange little touches and moments in the movie: Marianne talking to the viewer right at the start was bizarre; her 'one minute longer' scene was funny; Karin's screaming in the middle of the woods was unbearable; seeing her sleep in the same bed with her father took me by surprise; and when she kisses him in the mouth by impulse at the height of an argument, I felt disturbed; Johan's peeing himself at the end left me feeling sad for him, it's these moments of ordinary embarrassment and fear that Bergman seems so good at capturing on the screen.
This wasn't BAD, but in a way it was sad because the scenes between Ullman and Josephson were wonderful and I wanted to see more or this--the acting was so real and these quiet moments were very slow but also very moving.The bulk of the movie involves the sick relationship between Karin (the grand-daughter) and her father, Henrik.
This movie sequel to the television miniseries "Scenes from a Marriage" is also Ingmar Bergman's last film, and I suppose operates as a decent farewell by him too if you're in the mood of viewing it that way. |
tt0104695 | Leap of Faith | Faith healer Jonas Nightengale (Steve Martin) makes a living traveling across America holding tent revival meetings and conducting purported "miracles". He is helped by his friend and manager Jane Larson (Debra Winger), and an entourage of fellow con artists.
Their truck breaks down in the fictional town of Rustwater, Kansas. The place, with its 27 percent unemployment rate, is in desperate need of rain to save its crops. Learning they will be stuck in Rustwater for days waiting for replacement parts to come in for one of the many big trucks of their fleet, Jonas decides to hold revival meetings despite the town's small size in an effort to cut some of their losses while the truck is being repaired. Early on, Jonas meets Marva, a waitress in a local café. She rebuffs his persistent advances.
Local sheriff Will Braverman (Liam Neeson) is skeptical and tries to prevent his townspeople from being conned out of what little money they do have. First, he engages in some legal harassment, sending all of the city and county inspectors to examine his facilities. After seeing the excessive pageantry of the first show and the counting of money by the team on Jonas' tour bus, Braverman decides to investigate Jonas' past. He learns that Jonas, claiming to have been born in a humble log cabin in the Appalachians, is in fact Jack Newton, a native of New York City. Between the age of 15 and 18 he lived a life of crime, including petty theft and drug possession. Braverman shares this information with the townspeople who have gathered for another tent revival. Jonas storms off the stage, soon returning to successfully spin Braverman's report, leaving the crowd more energized than ever, much to Braverman's exasperation.
Jonas also gives back the collections for the day, saying he could not take their money in good conscience knowing that they doubted him and that if his faith was strong God would send them a sign. He also has his crew secretly plant an additional $80 among the crowd, setting up the believers for a miracle the next day. The next morning, the huge crucifix forming the backdrop of the revival tent with Jesus' eyes normally closed is found to somehow have his eyes opened. A shocked Jonas, in front of all the townspeople and numerous television cameras from the region's network affiliates, proclaims it a miracle which is amplified as townsfolk who had money planted on them reveal their unexplained fortunes.
Throughout all of this is a subplot involving Jane and Braverman, who find themselves falling for each other. She becomes enchanted by Braverman's simple farm life and his interest in butterflies. However, after Braverman's disclosure of Jonas' past Jane breaks off their budding relationship. They soon, however, meet again and Jane confesses to Braverman that she is tired of manipulating people. He makes it clear he would like a permanent relationship with her if she will stay.
Meanwhile, Jonas can't understand why Marva won't date him. Marva points to her brother Boyd who walks with crutches following an auto accident in which also their parents died. Marva explains that doctors couldn't find anything physically wrong with him, so as a last resort she took him to a faith healer who subsequently blamed it on Boyd's supposed lack of faith. Marva now detests faith healers, having had one blame her brother for his own psychosomatic disability.
Boyd comes to believe that Jonas can make him walk again. He goes to the revival and implores Jonas to heal him. Jonas finishes the show while pretending not to notice the boy, but is compelled to return to the stage after the crowd begins to chant "one more."
Jonas spins the expected failure to heal Boyd by blaming Braverman, who is present, saying that if a failure occurs, it will be due to Braverman's skepticism. Boyd walks to the open-eyed crucifix and touches the feet of Jesus Christ. He drops his crutches and begins to walk unassisted. The awed crowd sweeps the stage. After the show, an enraged Jonas rails to Jane that he was conned and that Boyd upstaged him. Jane doesn't believe it was a con. The production crew are thrilled with all the money that came in as a result of Boyd being healed and want Boyd to join the show. A clearly annoyed Jonas reluctantly agrees and stalks off the bus. Jane follows him out and they argue.
After the revival, Jonas enters the empty, darkened tent and mocks the crucifix and Christianity. Boyd walks in while Jonas is talking. Boyd thanks Jonas for healing him, but Jonas insists angrily that he did nothing. Boyd says it doesn't matter, that the job still got done. Jonas accuses Boyd of being a better con artist than he himself. Boyd wants to join Jonas on the road, telling him a lot of ways he can help out exist and promising to earn his keep. Jonas agrees to meet Boyd the following morning, implying Boyd can come. Then Boyd's sister Marva arrives. She sends him out of the tent saying that people are looking for him. She thanks Jonas, who tells her that he will not be meeting her brother Boyd the next morning. He asks her to tell Boyd that "just because a person didn't show up doesn't mean that the person doesn't care about them." referencing a set up earlier in the movie where Jane defended Jonas by telling Braverman the story of a five-year-old Jonas waiting in vain for four days for his mother to return, for many years while living in an orphanage holding steadfast to the belief that one day she indeed would. (The line is also found in the 1999 film adaptation of Graham Greene's The End of the Affair.)
Jonas leaves the tent and sees the crowd that has gathered just outside it, many praying, some sleeping in groups, and others feeding the crowd that has gathered. He begins to understand that Boyd's miracle, and the faith that enabled it, are real after all. He packs a bag and departs alone under the cover of darkness, leaving behind his entire road show and most of all of the rest of everything that he owns - including his silver-sequined jacket and an envelope for Jane containing his ring that she had long coveted - and hitches a ride on the nearby Interstate from which they had come to Rustwater at the start of the story. Braverman and Jane drive to Jonas' motel room and find him gone.
Jonas hitches a ride with a truck driver bound for Pensacola, Florida. When asked by the driver if he is in some kind of trouble, Jonas replies "No sir, no sir. Probably for the first time in my life". As they continue to ride along, the drought, threatening the crop harvest that is the centerpiece of the town's economy, comes to a dramatic end in a miraculous downpour. Jonas laughs silently to himself as he realizes the truth, and the film ends as he rides off into the stormy evening, hanging out the truck window loudly thanking Jesus for the rain. | romantic, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0210382 | The Weight of Water | In March 1873, two Norwegian-born women who lived on the desolate Smuttynose Island, one of the Isles of Shoals off the coast of Maine and New Hampshire, were brutally murdered. Maren Hontvedt, a sister of one of the victims, survived by hiding in a sea cave until dawn. The murdered women were her older sister Karen Christensen and Anethe Christensen, their sister-in-law. A man named Louis Wagner was tried and hanged for their murders, mostly on circumstantial evidence. His conviction has been argued about, as some people think he could not have done it.
More than a century later, Jean Janes, a magazine photographer working on a photo essay about the murders, returns to the Isles with her husband Thomas and five-year-old daughter. Thomas is an award-winning poet who has been struggling with alcoholism and not writing much. Hoping to have a small vacation, they travel on a boat skippered by Thomas' brother Rich, who has brought along his girlfriend Adaline.
Jean becomes immersed in the details of the 19th-century murders after discovering a purported memoir of Maren in the library. Gradually, tensions increase among the group on the sloop, with unspoken emotions surfacing. Jean begins to suspect an affair between Thomas and Adaline.
The novel is split into two parts: the present day, told from Jean's point of view and in the present tense; and 1873, told in first person from Maren's point of view, her "memoir." | violence, cruelty, murder, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | In both movies, we get two different stories running simultaneously: one, a mystery set in the past, and, the other, a personal drama located in the present, involving a group of characters reflecting on and trying to make sense of the events that took place a century or so earlier.The story-within-a-story in `The Weight of Water' is a true-life account of a brutal double murder that took place on a remote island off the coast of New Hampshire in the 1870's.
Accompanying her on her quest are her husband, Thomas, a celebrated poet; Rich, his handsome brother whose boat they use to get to the island; and Adaline, the latter's gorgeous girlfriend who also happens to be a devotee of Thomas' literary work and a bit of a `groupie,' as it turns out, in both tone and temperament, attaching herself rather obviously to the talented young bard, despite the fact that his observant wife is on the boat with them.
As in `Possession,' the filmmakers in this film - screenwriters Alice Arlen and Christopher Kyle and director Kate Bigelow - shift constantly between the past and the present, allowing us to piece together the clues as to what really happened on that island over 130 years ago, and, at the same time, to examine the strained relationships among those contemporary figures looking for the answers.The problem with `The Weight of Water' - as it is in many films with this dual-narrative structure - is that one story almost inevitably ends up dominating over the other.
As Adaline, Josh's tawny-haired girlfriend, Hurley looks great in her bikini, of course, but the character is little more than the stereotypical temptress placed there by the writers to serve as a source of strain and tension on the marriage.
What the book and the film are about is human situations that are put to a test.In the story that happened many years ago in a settlement in coastal New England, there was a notorious murder at the center of the narrative.
In the novel the tension comes across much deeply than what one sees in the movie.The amusing thing about the film is that the secondary story is more interesting than the present one.
Of course part of the credit for that has to go to the cast, which is mostly superb (with the notable exception of Elizabeth Harley); Catherine McCormack and Sarah Polley are the best, each one holds her own story together perfectly.
The other takes place in contemporary times and its about a writer named Thomas Janes (Sean Penn) and his photographer wife Jean (Catherine McCormack) who are going to spend time on a chartered yacht with his brother Rich (Josh Lucas) and his sexy girlfriend Adaline (Elizabeth Hurley).
The film goes back and forth telling both stories and the first has a woman named Maren (Sarah Polley) who is married but doesn't love her husband.
When a movie gets itself over certain hurdles, establishing believability, mainly, and creating audience sympathy with/for one or more characters-- I am willing to silence my nagging inner critic, who is perhaps a thwarted pleasure principle raising its head to be fed.Sarah Polley makes this film.
enough for me to rent the film again and watch it again and search for the soundtrack (which doesn't seem to be available) and to buy the best-selling novel this film was based on, to "find out more."How this young girl, who was a "product of her times" and punished for her times, could be misunderstood by all critics and many movie-goers, and people miss the point of how the past meets the present in the human heart, it beyond me.This film deserves a better review than I am giving it right now, and I intend to write one at a later date, after seeing it again.Thank you to all concerned, and to all the actors who gave incredible performances (including Hurley, who, like all the others) - especially our two "heroines," past and present - gave excellent performances, perfect for our times.I have not seen such a perfect film in a long, long time.
As Jean observes, at the time of the killings it was felt that Louis Wagner (Ciarán Hinds) "was in love with one of the women, (and that) murder was the only way he could possess her." "I like that," comments Adaline tritely, unconsciously inviting an echo of this obsessive behaviour towards herself.
It's almost to the point of parody when you're told the harsh life of the main character played by Sara Polley, in one of the film's two intermingled stories.
This is where the movie excels and Polley carries the film so well just be being very believable, that it let's me forgive the not so great acting by some of her counterparts.
Kudos to Catherine Bigelow for pulling this through.Polley/the young Norwegian woman is in the center piece of an ancient murder mystery investigated by the other of the film's two main character's, in the settings that takes place in the modern time of the film, Catherine McCormack.
She looks haunted enough for me to stay interested, and her good intentions manage to keep the plot of the acceptable side of what could otherwise have been embarrassingly banal.If you're looking for a slightly different movie with some suspense, some people you recognize, and at the same time are willing to get exposed to a type of acting and story telling you might not be used to, I recommend The Weight of Water.
Action bounced back and forth between the present with Catherine McCormack, Sean Penn, Elizabeth Hurley & Josh Lucas; and the past featuring Sarah Polley.A murder took place in 1873 and there is no doubt watching the action that Polley committed it.
Unfortunately, a man hangs for the crime instead of her.The present day crew with McCormack doing a great job as a photographer investigating the murder seem to be having some of the same problems that beset Polley.
Her husband (Peen) can't seem to take his eyes off Hurley (and who could blame him as she exposes ample skin to distract us should the story lag - which it doesn't), and there is some indication that more might have happened.Just as things came to a head with Polley and a moment of madness overtook her, we can see the same things happening in the present.The murdered are still be discussed 100 years later and only a couple of people know what really happened.
A challenge for the audience!I didn't see Sean Penn in any movie for about 10 years and never was a fan, but here he delivers a really good performance as the poet.
"The Weigh of Water" interleaves a present day story of two DINK couples on a boat exploring the New England coast where the second story of the murder of two Norwegian women took place 127 years before with the second story.
Unfortunately, the present day story isn't very interesting unless you want to see Hurley sucking on ice and bathing her naked flesh in with it or Penn drunkenly spouting poetry.
He believes he's innocent, but others reject his desperate plea for being saved, as he is to be hanged after the jury in the court reaches a verdict of "guilty." "The Weight of Water" then cuts to present day, where a beautiful photographer, Jean Janes (Catherine McCormack) is going on an expedition with her husband (Sean Penn) and her brother and his girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) to figure whether or not this man who was hanged in 1873 was really innocent or not.
I would say I was more interested in the characters of the present day, than the ones in the backstory.As far as the flashbacks go, I think "The Weight of Water" is one of those better films that actually knows how to use this device well.
Normally flashbacks in films are very distracting, but in this one, they actually help a lot and blend in well, helping us understand what Jean Janes is thinking when she comes to terms in solving this mystery of whether or not this convicted man was innocent or not and if what she believes is true, that a woman did commit the murdering of two women.
After a savage murder has taken place in the cottage, she blames him for the crime and is responsible for his hanging when she testifies against him.A storm at sea threatens to take the lives of those aboard the boating party--but even though the surf is rough, they manage to survive the storm after a brave attempt to save the life of ELIZABETH HURLEY results in the death of SEAN PENN, whose wife has been jealous of the attention he pays to his brother's girlfriend.
But still, the weak link with the past events of murder fails to connect to the present except that jealousy is somehow implied.It's a curious film--with perhaps some deep meaning lurking beneath the story's surface, but the characters in the present aren't really fleshed out as well as those inhabiting the past.
But then a disclaimer at the end of the film tells us that the murders were never actually solved and there is still doubt remaining as to what did really happen.Impressive performances by SARAH POLLEY, CIARIN HINDS and SEAN PENN stand out in the memory when the film is over.
Her performance of the psychologically pressured Maren easily surpasses that of the much-ballyhooed Nicole Kidman's Virgina Woolf in "The Hours" (a performance I liked very much, but Kidman isn't half -- nay, a third -- the thespian Polley is).Unfortunately, this brilliant actress' beautiful performance is in a film whose release was delayed more than a year (and then barely put into distribution) because of the fact that the "modern" story in this bifurcated drama is, to put it simply, simply AWFUL.
The Weight of Water is a pretty good film, it's more in the tradition of Kathryn Bigelow's wonderful 1987 film Near Dark (one of the best vampire movies ever).
In the end, they are as alone as they were in the beginning of the movie, left to rebuild some vestige of themselves knowing they have lost control and lost the very love they sought.Although the double narrative of the film may be less than obvious to the average viewer, you need only follow the dialogue and subtle interactions of the characters to find a good story here.
I guessed the ending early on but still was gripped by the development of the "real story".I thought the performance of Sarah Polley was outstanding..I was mesmerized by her every time she was on the screen.
One for the modern day story with Sean Penn, Catherine McCormack, Liz Hurley and Josh Lucas, and an entirely independent vote for the original mystery in the 1800's centered around Sarah Polley's character.
Frustrating indeed given the excellent work of Polley.The 'story' centers around a couple (Penn and McCormack) whose marriage is troubled and who decide to leave their kid at home for the weekend while they use a photographic assignment that McCormack has as a chance to hook up with her brother-in-law, Lucas and his new girlfriend, Hurley.
McCormack as Jean tries to give her character whatever depth one can in the middle of a masturbatory set of acting sequences but still manages to fail, and surprisingly, at least for me, only Josh Lucas as Penn's younger brother comes across without making you want to put a fly swatter to the screen.
In fact, this side of the plot is so self-absorbed that one wonders why it was even included, besides from the fact that it was in the novel, thus making it necessary to be put down on film (what a waste).All of that being said, the real 'mystery' in this story lies in why after viewing all the footage, Bigelow didn't just decide to put politics aside and focus only on telling the events of the double killing in the late 1800's on Shoal Island.
As I watched this film, I would increasingly be waiting for the 'modern' day bunch to finish spouting off their lines so that I could get back to Maren and the other interesting and diverse characters that comprised the REAL story.
All in all, I believe if Miss Bigelow had just gone with a murder mystery in the 1800's with the extremely talented Sarah Polley delivering the performance she did, this movie would have really been something.
Good performances by Sean Penn, Sarah Polley and Catherine McCormack.Great setting and cinematography..
The acting is pretty good, but in comparison with the overall story, makes a very funny reaction (I found it more a comedy than a drama).If you are interested in very beautiful Norway-like landscapes and ain't worried about the plot, watch it, at least you'll have a few laughs, if you're time is worthy, then pass out and better watch a Kitano movie..
I thought this movie was okay, not bad nor good.The movie is about a woman named Jean James, who is a photographer and is doing a story on some murders that happened in 1873 (I'm almost 100% sure that's the year), where two women were hacked to death.
Another dumb thing about the movie is the connection between the characters played by Sean Penn and Elizabeth Hurley, I mean it looks like they are going to start an affair or something but nothing happens, that's why maybe it would've been better to stay on the modern part and try to develop the characters more.
The real stars whomake this film a winner are Sean Penn as Thomas, an alcoholic andmelancholic poet who hasn't picked up pen in years, and Sarah Polley as aNorwegian immigrant (Maren) who struggles with a cold marriage, adesperate secret and a building internal rage that threatens her sanity.Catherine McCormack is excellent as well in the role of Thomas' wife Jean,a photojournalist researching an old murder case from 1873 (the film isbased on Kathryn Bigelow's book and the murder on the Island of Shoalsactually happened).
The storm scene is a bit forced and seems contrived,but if the viewer can excuse about 13 minutes of the film, the other100 feature performances that border on virtual genius.The only lead that fails as a character lacking any depth whatsoever isRich (played by Josh Lucas), Thomas' brother and Adaline's beau.
Catherine McCormack plays a journalist who, along with her husband (Sean Penn) and another couple (Elizabeth Hurley and Josh Lucas), sails to the location of a century old New Hampshire axe murder that's lone witness was a young housewife (Sarah Polley).
I think that Sean Penn is an excellent actor but here he was acting a totally annoying character, what made him think this film was a good idea!Elizabeth Hurley acted like the muppett she is, sticking her tits out for all the lads and using her sexuality as she has no acting skills.
A photographer investigates the brutal murder of two women in 1873Starring Sean Penn, Sarah Polley, Catherine McCormack, Elizabeth Hurley, Ciaran Hinds and Josh Lucas.Written by Alice Arlen ( Screenplay ) , Christopher Kyle ( Screenplay ) and Anita Shreve (Novel).Directed by Kathryn Bigelow.I have no problem with any of the acting performances and this isn't a bad movie by any length of rope and it just about kept my interest all the way.The problem lies in the two so called parallel stories.
The movie was based on a real murder,however, the location where it was filmed is nothing like New Hampshire.
Weight of Water, The (2002) Catherine McCormack, Sarah Polley, Sean Penn, Josh Lucas, Elizabeth Hurley, Ciaran Hinds, Ulrich Thomsen, Anders W.
Oh boy, this movie is a tough sell, no wonder it hasn't been released cause no matter how you will market it, it will disappoint.Fantastic opening sequence.Kathryn Bigelow is an amazing director but this one fails on certain levels which will kill it.There are two interwoven stories, one set in the past and one in the present day.
After watching the film, I honestly don't know if it is meant to be the case that the Sean Penn character had an affair with the Elizabeth Hurley Character, whether she was trying to seduce him, whether he and his wife are happy, and many more things that are hard to mention without creating spoilers.Watch something else!.
There is a double murder and a clumsy itinerant is charged, tried, and hung.After every few scenes, the story changes to the present, where Jean (Catherine McCormack), her husband Tom (Sean Penn), his brother Rich (Josh Lucas) and Rich's new bed-warmer Adaline (Elizabeth Hurley) are cooped up in a small yacht.
The strong cast in the present story (Sean Penn, Josh Locus, Elizabeth Hurley) has to contend with the platitude in the script and make the best of it..
If I may
(some possible spoilers) To me this movie told the story of two women in two very different times enduring the circumstances of their lives both of which come to a head in the location around the same island.
The whole cast is very professional, with highlights to Sean Penn, whose performance surely brought a lot of mystery to the film, and to Sarah Polley, whose character is the most controversial one.
The Movie had most of it going for it, an interesting story, a great director (one of my favorites) and good actors (not counting Elizabeth Hurley).
Or more importantly, who really cares?!This movie tediously switches between these 1873 murders and the modern day story of a woman investigating the crime over 100 years later.
In reading the book I had a very difficult time imagining the terrain and space in which those events occurred, and hoped that, like some other film adaptations, the movie would fill in the spaces in my imagination and complete the story in a physical way. |
tt3425936 | Él | The film opens during a foot washing ceremony in a Christian church where a man named Francisco sees an attractive young woman from across the room. They have seen each other many times before, and she seems reluctant to engage him. She leaves the church and escapes Francisco, despite his attempt to chase after her. Another day, Francisco finds her again in the church. He works up the courage to speak with her, but she seems uninterested, and insists that they can never speak to each other again. Francisco follows her to a restaurant and sees her meeting with Raul, a close friend of his.
Francisco later meets with Raul, who divulges that he and the young lady, Gloria, are engaged to be married. Francisco conspires to woo Gloria away from Raul by throwing a party and arranging for the couple to attend. When Gloria finds out that Francisco is the host, she seems wary of this ruse, but ultimately falls for his charm and social standing.
The film jumps to the future, where Gloria and Francisco are married, and have been for quite some time. One day, Raul is driving through the city and finds Gloria. As she tells the story to Raul, the film enters a flashback where the first weeks of Gloria and Francisco's marriage are reconstructed. In the flashback, Gloria tells Raul of how horrible her marriage is, because Francisco has turned out to be a jealous, paranoid husband whose socially upright, just appearance falls apart behind closed doors.
Throughout the film, Francisco is in the midst of a lawsuit regarding his property holdings, which causes him considerable duress. For her part, Gloria is frustrated, saddened and ultimately frightened by her husband's treatment. She believes she has always acted innocently and is genuinely surprised by Francisco's accusations, but no one will take her side. Gloria's mother believes Francisco to be a decent man (he is portrayed as an upstanding member of the community), and even their Pastor (Father Velasco) admonishes Gloria for her untoward behavior with other men, and vouches for her husband (while revealing, to Gloria's astonishment, that Francisco had maintained his virginity up until their marriage). After Francisco finds out that she confessed everything to Father Velasco, he shoots her with a revolver loaded with blanks in order to "teach her a lesson." But Gloria tells Raul that Francisco became more caring and forgiving after this episode.
Relations between husband and wife become better for a time, but Francisco's suave veneer continues to fray when he asks Gloria to spend the day with him and takes her to the bellower at the top of a church spire. In a moment of honesty, Francisco finds himself in a misanthropic tirade about the "worms" down below. His rant escalates until he spontaneously begins to strangle Gloria, threatening to throw her over the rail to the sidewalk below to punish her in jealous rage. Gloria pulls herself from danger and runs away. It is only at this point that the flashback comes full circle, and Gloria encounters Raul. After hearing the story, Raul suggests that she leave her husband.
Gloria returns home willingly, but Francisco sees that someone brought her to the house, and demands to know who it was. He is devastated to learn that Gloria had been with Raul. The pattern of Francisco's jealously is unbroken and he contemplates divorce. But he seeks reconciliation after apparently realizing that Gloria has never in fact had an affair. Gloria confesses that "she was confused," but that she had to confide in somebody, and that somebody was Raul. When Francisco realizes that she had told Raul about their marital problems, he regards it as an utter betrayal, and says angrily that he can't forgive her for it.
That night, Francisco attempts to kill Gloria in her sleep with a noose. As he is trying to place the noose, she awakes and screams. This scares him off, and he cowers back into his room for the night in dismay and breaks down, as though his actions are spiraling out of his control. The next morning he finds that she has run away. Francisco gets his revolver, and runs off to search for her. He first goes to Raul's office, but he is not there. Outside he sees Raul and Gloria riding in a car together. In an increasingly unhinged fashion, he chases after them all the way to their destination: the church from the beginning of the film. Inside, he discovers that it is not Raul and Gloria after all, but another couple. Francisco descends into madness, and hallucinates that the entire congregation is laughing at him. He looks deliriously around the church until he finally sees the priest, a good friend of his, joining in the laughter. He charges the altar and attacks the priest, and the congregation rushes to the stage. As they pull Francisco off the priest, the priest continues to stick up for Francisco, saying, "don't hurt him, he's my friend; he's gone mad!"
Much later, Gloria, Raul, and a small child pay a visit to a monastery. It is revealed that Francisco has been taken in by the monks and has been taught in their ways. They meet with the head monk, but do not talk with Francisco, not wishing to reopen old wounds. Gloria and Raul have named their child "Francisco",and is implied that the child may not be Raul's. The head monk later tells Francisco of their visit, which he had already observed from afar. He confirms Francisco's suspicion that the child is the son of Gloria and Raul. Francisco affirms that, ultimately, "time has proven my point." However, he says this not in resentment but in resignation, as he follows with, "but to what avail?" The final shot of the film shows him slowly wandering through the monastery gardens into a dark doorway. | autobiographical | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1678051 | Soldiers of Fortune | Robert Clay, a noble America hero of humble means trying to do his best to help the war effort in the fictional capital Olancho in a small South American republic, but he meets a rich lady and they fall in love during the revolution. Robert Clay is the engineer and general manager of the Valencia Mining Company in Olancho. There are two sisters that come into Robert Clay's life. Both are the daughters of Mr. Langham, the president of the Mining company. The older sister, Alice, is a New York City society girl. Her sister Hope is enthusiastic, generous and sweet. Robert Clay meets Alice just before he sails for South America. He shares his admiration for her. Later, when he learns the family are going to Olancho also, he is very happy. But after getting to know Alice better he is sad. During her visit to Olancho a revolution starts, in this time she shows courage and to be a lady of charter. This attracts Clay to her, he ask her to marry him. | revenge, humor, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | Sean Bean is a good actor and there was some others in the movie that made my wife and I decide to give it a shot.
If the overall quality of the opening sequence wasn't enough to set the tone, the subsequent scene of Christian Slater playing cards should do the trick.My only question is: surely actors have to know during the filming that this is a really, really poor movie, right?
It actually is a technically pretty well made movie, with of course also one truly great cast in it.Believe it or not but this movie actually stars Sean Bean, James Cromwell, Ving Rhames, Christian Slater and Dominic Monaghan all in one special soldiers of fortune team.
I truly think that this movie and its story had far more potential in it, so that's truly a big waste.It's not a particularly spectacular or involving genre movie to watch but it at least isn't boring or offensively bad, in any way or form.
All he needs now is a more decent script and a bigger budget to work with.Not a great genre movie but a good guilty pleasure.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
And, I'm shocked that some of the other cast, who are usually high quality actors, also signed on to this movie.The costumes and weapons are cheap and artificial looking.
The acting is shallow, the score is bad, the script and dialog totally disengaging.I painfully watched 2/3 of the movie and gave up.
I joined IMDb specifically to write a review of this appalling movie.I will hesitate to watch another Christian Slater movie in the future.I feel sick, disappointed and ripped off.
But if you came in for a fun ride with a bunch of washed up actors doing their best to bring cardboard characters to live, a ridiculous plot, hammy jokes and some big bang for your buck, than you 're surely going to enjoy this one.
this movie is so horrible that not only might have ruined several good actors' hard-earned good images but also might fatally ruined their market values and henceforth cast them into the B-level bad movies' official candidates.
first of all, chose Christian slater to be the inevitable leader who would lead a bunch of thrill-seeking rich people to overturn a tyrant of a small island was a horrible casting job.
I have to start by saying that even though the cast is very good and full of well known actors this is still a B movie.
With a somewhat good cast, actors with lot of experience - it is very difficult to watch this film as something other than surprisingly horrible.It is filled with mistakes, uniforms, weapons, really bad effects and also the music seems more bought from a cheap sound library than made specifically for this movie...SPOILER: Well no need to spoil anything, cause everything is way to obvious and nothing new here...I feel kind a cheated for the actors input and also for not having more humor since all characters really plays it up...The 3 stars given is because of the actors is in the movie, and sometimes some beautiful scenery and that I watched it (although I checked my mobile several times and went for more pops) I LOVE movies, but this one and stupid unnecessary violent horror movies is really waste of "going to the movies" and can only range as an amazingly strange B movie.Heroes with a big laugh..
With Christian Slater as the lead, one can expect the movie to be b quality, but this certainly is not his worst performance.
It would not surprise me if this was intended as Uwe Boll's sequel to his Far Cry movie.There are no words to describe how bad the script is to this movie, it flips between "war is hell" to "video games cause evil" and then comments about how bad bankers are.It feels like someone took the top 5 list of topics on Fox News and then asked some one to make a movie out of those in a world where guns work much like in the A-Team TV series..
I am sorry to say I can't believe Christian Slater or Sean Bean can be that broke, that they agrees to such a film, it makes even B-movies look good.
For me, a 6 is not bad.This may not be great, but it's not bad.It didn't start well but somewhere, around a fourth of the movie, when the main actors have come together, the director sort of got a feel of how to do his job.Unless another director came in to save the furniture or some producer said "enough guys".So, at some point, the chemistry kicked in with the satire.Not going to spoil it for you, but the job descriptions of the "clients" cast a welcomed entertaining and humorist light on the whole exercise.This surely isn't the Guns of Navarone, but it was nice and innocent fun as the backdrop of the story gave it a definite iconoclastic taste..
it's good for a LAUGH.Think of most 80's action movies and make them even more silly.An Oscar winner?
Having waited for a long time to get my hands on this movie, I was looking forward to watching it, albeit early indications on IMDb suggested most people were so impressed.
Already the first action sequences were the, supposedly skilled captain McCenzie is introduced, are downright laughable with the captain running around like a monkey shooting people left right and center.The film, unfortunately, continues very much in this style.
One of the reasons I decided to watch this movie was due to actors like Sean Bean and sure enough, they perform as well as can be expected with the rather louse material that they are given to work with.Not a movie that I would recommend to anyone..
really poor movie,dialogue,acting,directing, the lot.overall i can't believe that the cast are seasoned 'A' list professional actors and why they would get involved in such a howler.
obviously made by real amateurs who managed to acquire an 8million budget ,but for sure one movie the entire 'well known' cast will want to erase from their C.V and not want to hear of ever again!there has not been many times when i've wanted to stop the movie half way through with such a cast like that in it but i thought i better see it through til the end and ultimately it actually got 'worse'.will no doubt be up for a 'raspberry but ridicule for sure.times must be tough in the recession for them!!.
This on the other hand masquerades itself as a film you might like to see with Christian Slater and Sean Bean heavily involved.
I like Sean Bean, Ving Rhames, and believe it or not Christian Slater as well.The opening sequence is so laughable, I thought it was on purpose.
The movie looks pretty cheap; probably most of the budget was blown rounding up that memorable cast of actors.
It was a thoroughly poor and disappointing movie, bad action sequences, awful acting and terrible special effects.
The plot: two ex-special forces veterans take a group of rich playboys looking for adventure into the middle of an island's civil war.At first, Soldiers of Fortune is a fun B movie that seems inspired by Verohoeven's campy, violent classics of the 80s.
If you're a fan of low budget action movies, it's likely that you've seen much worse.
Most of the actors are wasted, but it's always fun to see some good actors having fun, even if it's in a bad movie.If you're looking for something that makes logical sense, has a good plot, and big budget special effects, I think you'll just hate this movie.
This movie is basically Call Of Duty on film not bad not good just food for thought..
How is it possible for a film to be this awful, I have really enjoyed performances from Sean Bean, Christian Slater & Dominic Monaghan in the past, why they would sign on to this pile of steaming donkey dung is beyond me.The film is just terrible from the first minute, it was so awful I kept watching hoping that it would get better and redeem it'self but that never happened, it just got worse.It might have helped if there were some laughs but there really weren't any I am at a loss to explain how this film got made and I hope that people come here and read reviews so they don't have to endure the pain others have by watching it..
Christian Slater, Ving Rhames, Sean Bean, Colm Meaney, Domonic Monaghan and James Cromwell should all be ashamed of themselves for taking money to participate in this movie.
James Cromwell, Sean Bean, Ving Rhames and Christian Slater in a movie.
wonder if the movie would have been better with b actors ?Overall i think the story and setup is awful - the writing and acting a joke and the effects and scenery bad as well.I wonder why the cast in this movie have chosen to participate, since the script couldn't have been the fantastic - so the money have been..
Do not waste your time unless you are male and between the ages of 10-14 y.o. Poor actors as well, Slaters been in a few clunky movies before but can usually carry off an action role easily.
Feel bad for the actors who had to partake in this garbage of a film.Anyone giving the creators of this piece of s**t, a job in the film industry again, are just plain stupid and would do the world a service by burning their money instead of fooling people to think it something to watch.I got fooled when I saw the actors names and thought this is an interesting cast and the story could have been fun.But the director made the film not watchable, the scenes where bad, the lines where bad, the cut's where even worse.The only good thing in this film are some of the nature shoots, looks like a beautiful scenery, that's it.I registered here on IMDb just to warn people about this poor excuse of a movie.There are some individuals claiming that the makers have done it as an homage to B-movies, I feel it's an insult even to C-movies.
It took a full hour of my life witch I won't get back until I understood it wasn't going to get better.From now on I will read peoples comments here before watching any movies!!Looks like a bunch of Russian with too much money to spend made this while being totally wasted, with a bunch of hang around wanting to become actors.
It boggles the mind.Christian Slater - Robin Hood, Broken Arrow, The West Wing Sean Bean - LOTR, James Bond, Troy, National Treasure James Cromwell - Babe, Star Trek-First Contact, The Green Mile Dominic Monaghan - LOTR, Lost Colm Meaney - Star Trek Generations and DS9, Con Air, The Commitments Ving Rhames - Mission ImpossibleHow do you take such a talented cast and make such a bad movie?I suppose you do a bad job of directing, fill the movie with tired cliché, make battle scenes that appear like paint pellet championships, and skimp on things like special effects and stuntmen.
The movie honestly has the look and feel of a 70s cop series...The first few minutes is filled with a action/battle scene that I 'honestly' thought they would reveal to be a rich man's paint pellet fantasy game...
it was supposed to be an actual American soldier (Christian Slater) shooting his way through bad guys to rescue one of his men...
I understand that an actor should make money after a reasonable performance in a blockbuster series like Game of Thrones.But after watching Cleanskin and now Soldiers of fortune, I cannot understand why Sean Bean should accept to make such terrible movies.
lots of big time actors in weak B-movie.
American soldiers Captain Craig McCenzie (Christian Slater) and Mike Reed (Freddy Rodriguez) crossed CIA agent Carter Mason (Colm Meaney) and get run out of the military for it.
The rich customers are metals magnate Roman St John (Sean Bean), arms dealer Grimaud Tourneur (Ving Rhames), video game designer Tommy Sin (Dominic Monaghan), and telcom CEO Sam Haussmann (James Cromwell).There are great award-winning actors involved in this.
I don't know how much money they paid to lure these great actors to do a bad movie.
Faces among the team include; James Cromwell, Sean Bean, Ving Rhames -with a decent African accent, Dominic Monaghan and Freddy Rodriguez.'Soldiers' is also a bit of a throwback film to the action movies of the 1980's which was fun; lots of big bright explosions, excess of bullets which never hit the good guys and always find their mark first time on the bad guys who usually fall off something, along with a body count (to the faceless bad guy army) of epic proportions.The story follows Captain Craig McKenzie, (Christian Slater) a former U.S special forces soldier (and user of the cool Captain Kirk roll) who is hired to protect a group of wealthy people wanting to experience the thrills of actual military affairs and warfare.
The basic plot idea is good and could have been done with some style & class, considering the actors involved; but it came off as a straight-to-video actioner, not even credible enough to be a TV movie.
The remake of Total Recall is 20 times more expensive and does the same job like Soldiers of Fortune: Being a loud, testosterone-filled, action-packed movie that has no other purpose than to blow your ears off.
MW is a fine game with a finely crafted plot and script - but this film has neither.The plot - if we can call it that - is that some special forces guys are forced to take on some battlefield tourists who've bought their way into a war experience like they are playing airsoft for the weekend.
I almost didn't watch this movie, because even though I do like Christian Slater a lot his recent movies have for the most of them not been that great.ASSASSIN'S RUN (2012), PLAYBACK (2012), THE POWER OF FEW (2013) and STRANDED (2013) were flat out horrible, so imagine my surprise when I turned this on with a rating of 4.3/10 on here and I found myself actually enjoying it!I mean sure it's flawed in logic and the characters are a little one- dimensional BUT it's good b-movie popcorn entertainment and sometimes that's all you need.A pretty impressive list of cast as well, Christian Slater is joined by Ving Rhames, James Cromwell, Colm Meany, Sean Bean, Dominic Monaghan and Freddy Rodriguez...
And although perhaps none of them make their finest performances of their lifetimes they do seem like they enjoyed making the movie, even Christian Slater (!) and it got some good kills and explosions etc so I can't complain about the visuals either.So yeah overall, nothing that will blow you away but dumb good fun regardless..
The main thing in this movie is manly guns and booms and shooting some badly scripted, badly acted baddies.Normally, this would be worth of 6, but I add: +1 Star for easy and relaxing fun to watch.
I'm a huge fan of military-themed movies and figured with Christian Slater and Sean Bean (2 halfway-decent actors) this would be worth watching.Boy was I wrong.
But, not as funny as the scene where he runs into an open field and picks off several "Taliban" (they looked like characters from an Arab spoof comedy) with a Call of Duty assault rifle.Please save yourself the dollar and time of this worthless junk.Rob. Unemployed Vets Get the Action Movie Treatment.
They will only see the guns and the explosions and actors like Christian Slater, Ving Rhames, Sean Bean, Dominic Monaghan, and James Cromwell behaving like cheesy badasses.
Not a bad B-movie action film.
Despite the impressive cast overall, this movie is clearly carried by Slater on his back much like a wounded enemy combatant in a war zone.Important things you need to know about Soldiers Of Fortune: 1.
liked this movie because it was action and no complicated plot.
I am a huge fan of Slater and i like the fact he isn't a pretty boy trying to play the hero as a James bond actor would.
This as an edge of old eighties action movies and I believe that if rich folk in the future, want to play war, it is possible that the outline plot of this film may become a reality.
Slater does his best with what he as been given and wouldn't be bad in one of the expendables movies , this film as an edge of what expendables delivers on a bigger budget..
The worst performance belongs to Christian Slater (Craig McCenzie), who once again seems to think he is tough guy, but unless it is the cynical type (like in "Broken Arrow" or "Hard Rain") he is not.
The casted people is actually not bad actors but the end product is horrible.You see brand new uniforms a lot of airsoft rifles and people who don't know anytning about being tactical at all,this movie obviously had no attempt to make it feel real at all its more like a bmovie drug dealer action "lets pretend we know what we are doing since we didn't use any advisors on holding a rifle or that clothes in a warzone isn't brand new".The only thing missing is the eye of the tiger theme song really.The story line is poor and leads nowhere.
Look not a great movie but damn was it fun to watch.
Colm Meaney of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" makes a thoroughly loathsome villain named Carter Mason, while Ving Rhames, Sean Bean, Dominic Monaghan, and James Cromwell are cast as wealthy businessmen who want to get a taste of combat. |
tt0280030 | Return to Never Land | In World War II, Jane Darling is Wendy's daughter who refuses to believe in stories about Peter Pan. She is mistakenly abducted by Captain Hook and his crew, who sail through the sky on their pixie-dust enchanted ship, evade an air raid alert and escape back to Neverland.
There, Hook plans to feed Jane to the octopus (who replaced Tick-Tock the Crocodile) in order to lure Peter into a trap. However, Peter rescues Jane and Hook escapes from the octopus, returning to the ship. After recognizing and asking Jane to follow Wendy's footstep, Peter takes her to his hideout to be the mother of the Lost Boys, but Jane refuses and gets stranded. The next day as the boys fail to teach Jane about flying, she upsets them and does not believe in fairies, making Tinker Bell sick. That night, Hook tricks Jane by lying that he will not harm Peter and she agrees to help him find the treasure. Hook gives Jane a whistle and leaves.
Jane asks Peter and the boys to play a game of "treasure hunt", and they wish Jane to believe in fairies and save Tinker Bell. As Jane finds the treasure and changes her mind into discarding the whistle, the boys make her the "Lost Girl" before Tootles finds and inadvertently blows the whistle. As the pirates arrive to capture the boys, Peter calls Jane a traitor and tells her because she does not believe in fairies, Tinker Bell is dying. Jane rushes back to the Lost Boys' home, but gets to Tinker Bell too late. Jane, realizing she is the reason Tinker Bell is gone, breaks down in tears for her, but she revives. They head to the ship and see Hook forcing Peter to walk the plank. With Tinker Bell's help, Jane learns to fly. As Peter drops the anchor on the ship and sinks into the sea, the pirates, riding on a rowboat, are pursued by the octopus.
After saying goodbye to the boys, Peter escorts Jane back home, where Jane reconciles with Danny. Peter and Tinker Bell meet Wendy again, though she is an adult, they say goodbye. As Edward returns home from the war, Peter and Tinker Bell fly back to Neverland. | psychedelic, fantasy | train | wikipedia | I've enjoyed liberal interpretations before - Hook and Finding Neverland, for example - but this movie completely trashed whatever character Peter Pan is supposed to have.
Whatever beautiful messages Peter Pan has about nostalgia and childhood, "Return to Neverland" turns them upside down at worst, and simply ignores them at best.The animation wasn't bad, though..
Jane thinks she's really mature, and it's up to Peter and the Lost Boys to bring out her childish side again.I think "Return to Never Land" is one of the better Disney sequels, as heaps of others have turned out to rip-offs of the original.
"Peter Pan In Return To Never Land" is Disneys animated sequel to their truly classic 1953 adaptation of J.M. Barries beloved childrens story.
Its now World War Two and an adult Wendy is living in London, still telling tales of Peter Pan, Captain Hook, Tinkerbell and all the other inhabitants of Never Land to her two children; Danny, an awe struck little boy and Jane, a more cynical, pragmatic older girl who has no time for fairytales.
With a budget of a mere $20M the film was produced by Disneys TV animation department (who have previously toiled over straight to video/DVD sequels for other Disney movies including "Cinderella," "The Lady And The Tramp," "The Lion King" and "The Little Mermaid"), but this was apparently always planned as a cinematic release.
Overall though "Peter Pan In Return To Never Land" only the second sequel to a Disney feature to be released on the big screen more than deserves a cinematic outing, and will no doubt go down well with the latest generation of Disney fans, who have grown up with a VHS copy of the original at home..
I am a 13 year old kid and I saw the movie and when I saw the war parts I was shocked and sort of felt sorry for wendy because she was in the war area but when the movie got to the where the ship is entering the second star to the right I heard sounds in that scene like: I'll get you for this pan if it's the last thing I do,ticking,and Peter famous line from "Peter Pan": Once you're grown up you can never back.
I liked the lost boys, though in number one they used to fight alot.And pan wasn't mean to Jane he was just upset because tink's light was fading and the ending was almost sad because peter sort of felt that he didn't give a darn about wendy but she cared for him.my favorite lost boy is Slightly he rocks.
Plus the songs were great I liked "So to be one of us" and "now that you're one of us" but My favorite song is the new version of "Do you believe in magic" it's a new version of the song then the oringal.the reason why disney wanted to do a sequal to peter pan is because they thought that we kids and adults might to see peter pan again and take us back to neverland and have us forget what's going in the world like the Terrorism war.The movie was a huge hit at my Regal cinemas in lincoln city,oregon everyone clapped and I yelled "GIVE US MORE PAN".
Rumor has it that disney is thinking about doing a thrid Peter pan movie called: Peter Pan 3, the plot: it is going to be about peter's past,how tink came in his life,how hook and the pirates got to neverland,and how the lost boys got there too..
Sequel to classic history with an enjoyable Peter Pan , adventures , imagination ,astounding as well as gorgeous sets and brilliant images , though it was originally planned as a direct-to-video release in which the protagonist of the story results to be Wendy's daughter and is set in London during World War II .
The film centers about Peter Pan (voice by Blayne Weaver) , a nice adolescent who doesn't want grow up , Wendy , her daughter Jane and brothers .
The plot is similar to Walt Disney's classic replacing Wendy with her daughter Jane who along with Peter undertake several adventures in Neverland ; as Pan with the help of her and the Lost Boys must save his friends by battling with Captain Hook and Smee once again .
Due to controversy over their appearance in original movie , as Disney attracted negative comments for their stereotypical depiction of Indians, as indeed did J.M. Barrie with his original play , it's probably for that very reason that the Indians do not appear in this 2002 sequel , though Peter and Jane briefly visit their places , however ; as they fly over Tipis , Indian tribes and skull monument .
Because most of the original voice cast of the movie had died, including Hans Conried (Hook) and Bobby Driscoll (Peter Pan), an entirely new cast of actors had to be used to film this sequel such as Corey Burton as Hook , Jeff Bennett as Smee , Kath Soucie as Wendy , Roger Rees as Edward , Spencer Breslin as Cubby , Bradley Pierce as Nibs and Clive Revill .
This is a perfect example of why Walt Disney said very clearly "Don't let them make sequels to my movies." He didn't want Peter Pan 2, Snow White 2 and so on.
Although the Peter's animation is a bit off, Hook, the pirates, and the lost boys look, act, and sound amazingly like the originals.
In this sequel, Disney has managed to balance the reality of the Second World War (the blitz, in London) with the make-believe of Peter Pan.
Jane is the daughter of Wendy, and, as a younger child, enjoyed the wonder-filled stories her mother told her about Peter Pan.
The movie is complemented by excellent 'background' songs which enhance the magic, and humour, drama, the quirkiness of the surreal Neverland (the octopus manages to be a little scary, but also, as amusing as the crocodile in the original) and values that appeal to parents and children alike.
Despite that she is still very young, she doesn't believe in Never Land and her mother's tales, but when Captain Hook thinks he grabs Wendy, he grabs Jane and takes her to Never Land to capture Peter Pan. Peter saves Jane and offers her to join the Lost Boys and hopes to restore her faith in his adventures and fairies, but all she wants to do is go home.Return to Never Land is a fun Disney sequel that I have to admit that I was actually more impressed with.
There are still a lot of great laughs and the story is still as adventurous as the first time when I watched the first Peter Pan. It was a little disturbing to hear the big difference of the voices, but I'm getting past it.
Another thing I'd like to add is that I wish there were more sequels to movies that are just as good as the originals, if not better, more often, rather than the other way around.
Wendy tells her children about her experiences with Peter Pan in Never Land, and Danny loves these stories, but Jane has become skeptical.
This sequel is not that bad around the beginning, showing what has become of Wendy since the events of the first film, now a loving mother, and there's some good voice acting here.
Both of them have disappointed many fans of their much earlier predecessors, and I'm sure many Disney fans strongly dislike both theatrical sequels, but personally, while I think neither of them lives up to the originals, this one was probably a bit better than I expected.
Also, it was nice to see Jane follow in the tradition of other Disney heroines and have a strong character.Also, The brief last scene involving Peter and a grown-up Wendy was touching in a way that it's live action counterpart Hook never was.Overall, if you have kids, it's a fun mindlessly entertaining afternoon at the movie theater.
The voices are not that great-especially considering the little girl Jane- Wendy's daughter- is played by what sounds like a forty year old woman, Peter Pan sounds retarded and the lost boys...don't want to even talk about it.
Personally I have been waiting for years to see their work on the big screen (and did for "Timon and Pumba: Stand by Me" and the second to last scene in "A Goofy Movie") They have been animating the studio's sequels for years (Part of Beauty and the Beast: the Enchanted Christmas, Lion King 2, Extremely Goofy Movie, Lady and the Tramp 2 and most of The Little Mermaid 2), but once Disney gave them a feature of there own, they really got a chance to show their stuff and baby, did they deliver!The animation in this film FAR surpasses that of the original.Lianne Hughes animates Jane with a beautiful, comic grace that appears so natural.
And not just in comedy (such as her disbelief at being in Neverland and assumption that she is dreaming) but later, when crying for the presumed death of a character: Just before she speaks, the tears well up and as she does speak the tear flows down her cheek so gracefully that I actually cried- I connected with the character animation that well.Andrew Collins, who tends to animate the lead characters in the sequels (he did Simba in Lion King 2, and Goofy in Extremely Goofy Movie) also shines with Peter Pan (and, to his credit doesn't seem to even try to do what was done before- he just animated Peter his own way and end up a beter handler of the boy that never grew up).And although it's obvious that Bob Baxter (Captain Hook) was trying to match the animation of the original animator, he too brings his own brilliant style to the bad captain.One name that was missing from this film is Kevin Peaty.
Gorgeous animation!) and I would have thought that he would have been the perfect animator for Tinkerbell (also lovely, but the one character not QUITE up to Marc Davis' original animation), alas Kevin Peaty apparently did not work on this film, though I wish I knew why?Adult Wendy's animation itself was also lovely (her animator's name escapes me right now), but her design, I felt, needed a bit of work.I wish they listed the lead animators of Danny or Tinkerbell or Smee, because although Tinkerbell is the one character not improved upon animation-wise, these characters also show you what Australlia is capable of.Anyone that has read this must either think I'm joking (how could the animation of a sequel be better than the first, they laid the groundwork, right?) or am making this all up.
The new mutually empowering relationship forged between Jane and Tink was inspired (yes, it runs 100% counterculture to Barrie's conception of Tinkerbell, but this is not Barrie's turn-of-the-19th-century book; it is a 21st-century family film), and fit well into Jane's ambivalence at remaining a lost girl.The climactic scenes with Hook's crew were even better than in the original, and the animated sequences were extremely creative and impeccable technically.
The only good thing about this movie is the animation and the Peter and Wendy reunion (which happens at the end of the film).
Some thought was put into it, unlike other Disney sequels, and, while the beginning of the film was a bit violent and scary (World War II era bombings) for younger children, it captured some of the magic of the original story.
"Peter Pan" was a special movie that stays with you through adulthood; "Return.." is okay, but probably will not stand out from the normal animated films of the past few years.
However, credit must be given to the writers for not trying to add anything to modernize the characters or make them "hip" in some way, with the exception of the cheesy theme song.After the quick 64-minute running time, you start to wonder why this sequel made the cut to theaters and not others like "Cinderella II", "Little Mermaid II", "The Lion King II", etc.
In this sequel to Disney's Peter Pan we see Wendy all grown up with children of her own.
Was the trip to Neverland all a dream?The animation was like watching one of the many direct to video sequels Disney has done over the years.
For once, disney paid attention to animation, and the characters look like the ones from the original...yet it wasn't as good as it could have been.
It's worth watching this sequel just to enjoy the old-style Disney nostalgia of the final scene when Peter says a last, sweet farewell to the grown-up Wendy.
Then the pirate ship makes it through the skies and onto the roof over the children's nursery--a magical blend of CGI and great hand-drawn animation for this sequence--and eventually Jane (Wendy's non-believing daughter) is whisked off to Neverland where she meets Peter Pan under most unusual circumstances.An explosion of comic scenes featuring Captain Hook (voiced brilliantly by Corey Burton) and his befuddled Mr. Smees and an octopus (just as funny as the old Crocodile) take center stage before we return to the adventures of Jane, Peter and The Lost Boys.It's all stylishly done in bright color with fine attention to detail in all the layouts and settings.
Most trying of all is a song called "I'll Try" sung, if that is the word, by Jonatha Brooke, so as to make the words utterly meaningless since they can't be understood without a caption feature.None of the other songs have any distinction or charm whatsoever and there is even a poor rendition of "The Second Star to the Right" that is used as a throwaway in this version.So, if you can tolerate a Disney film with the worst possible selection of songs, but otherwise up to par in animation and voice characterizations--and just a little below par in the storyline--you'll find some pleasant moments in this otherwise uninspired sequel.And speaking of vocals, Blayne Weaver does a nice job on the Peter Pan voice--as do the animators which make him look strikingly like the original.
Now, we have "Return To Never Land," the sequel to "Peter Pan" go to movie houses.
This movie has Wendy from the original story all grown up, in the era of World War II, and now it's her no-nonsense, mature-beyond-her-years daughter Jane who meets Peter Pan, a character she only knew and wrote off from her mother's stories.
Since the original Peter Pan is my all time favourite Disney animated feature, I was very excited to return to Neverland.
Alot better than the direct to video sequels we have been getting from Disney in the last couple of years.This movie continues with Wendy Darling, who is now married and has children of her own.
If only her conversion had been properly plotted to better coincide with Tinkerbell coming back to life and her defeat of Captain Hook!Though the movie is probably pleasant enough for most kids, none in the audience with me were in any way enraptured by this minor effort, and parents will miss the adult humor and insight that has sparked many animated films since Aladdin.
This one's not going to make Walt Disney roll over in his grave, but it isn't gonna make him stand up and applaud either.Picking up a generation after one of my two favorite "Classic" Disney films, Peter Pan (Sleeping Beauty is the other), this one follows Pan, the Lost Boys, Tinkerbell, Captain Hook, and all as Wendy Darling's daughter Jane is brought to Neverland, kidnapped by Hook in an evil yet doomed to fail scheme to capture Peter Pan. Of course, this one obviously had a narrow escape from the direct-to-video market, but don't let that be a huge drawback.
Don't get me wrong, he was great in the original, but he was less cocky in this and I sorta liked that.I liked how it was Wendy's daughter Jane, instead of the original characters like in most Disney sequels, it was more, I don't know, realistic.Well, like I said, the plot isn't big at all, it's quite simple, but that doesn't spoil the goodness of the movie!
(Where is the magic of Neverland???)Peter Pan lies to her also...in a plot to save Tinkerbell, he tells her he's sorry and wants to make it up to her...but he is just using her and has already explained why and how, to the Lost Boys!I guess this film was made for little girls during a time of war.
Maybe I'm spoiled with the original "Pan" or Spielberg's "Hook" (which is one of my favorite films of all time) - but I think that such a fantastical place such as Neverland needs a bit more exploration for the viewer.
Where is the magic of Neverland???Peter Pan lies to her also...in a plot to save Tinkerbell, he tells her he feels sorry for her and wants to make it up to her...but he is just using her and has already explained why and how, to the Lost Boys!I guess this film was made for little girls during a time of war.
I know a lot of Disney sequels can be really horrible and completely ruin the original movie, but I think that this movie just continues the adventure of Peter Pan. Jane, Wendy's daughter, feels she needs to grow up fast, in order to take care of her family when her father is fighting.
Barry play, Peter Pan, nor the 1953 Disney movie of the same name.The plot focuses on Jane, Wendy's daughter, who is kidnapped by Captain Hook and his band of pirates at the height of World War II....
When I re-discovered this sequel to the original 'Peter Pan' (one of my favourite films as a child) six years ago, I fancied seeing it because I was interested to see how Wendy would look as an adult. |
tt0190419 | Ghulam | Siddharth "Siddhu "Marathe (Aamir Khan) is a Mumbai tapori, a boxing champion. His brother, Jaidev "Jai" (Rajit Kapur), is the accounts manager and right hand man for Raunak "Ronnie" Singh (Sharat Saxena), a former boxing champion who ostensibly runs a travel agency but in reality rules the local community by terrorising people and stealing money from innocent merchants. Other than his boxing practice, Siddhu leads a relatively aimless and wanderlust life. In his spare time, he hangs out with friends, occasionally stealing money from rich people. Siddhu is financially dependent on his elder brother Jai, who lives in Raunak Singh's house but occasionally visits Siddhu and tops up his finances.
The opening scene features a female lawyer Fatima Madam (Mita Vashisht) defending Siddhu in court against accusations of small-time theft. The lawyer tries to convince the judge to show leniency towards Siddhu on account of his disadvantaged background as an orphan. The judge points out that Siddhu has already been shown leniency four times, and is greeted with laughter by everybody, including Siddhu. In the commotion, Siddhu steals Rs. 400 from his own lawyer's purse. Siddhu is let free. Later, when he asks the lawyer what her fees are, she asks him for a fees of Rs. 400, and he is thus forced to part with the money he has just stolen. The lawyer gives no indication of awareness that Siddhu had stolen an equal amount of money. Later, Siddhu, while joking around with friends, gets angry when one of his friends suggests that the lawyer may be receiving sexual favours from Siddhu in exchange for defending him in court.
A few days later, Raunak Singh hires Siddhu to deliver a letter to a local cricket player, and to beat up the player if he shows signs of resisting. Unknown to Siddhu, the letter contains instructions to the player to get out after scoring a certain number of runs, so that Ronnie can win a bet. Siddhu delivers the letter and intimidates the cricket player into agreeing to follow the instructions, breaking the player's bat in the process. Later, while returning, he gets into a motorcycle speed race with a motorcycle gang led by Charlie (Deepak Tijori), which escalates into a dare game to run towards a moving train at night. Siddhu beats Charlie's past record in the game. Charlie chooses to run again, but falls on the train tracks, and seems to be headed for death as the train approaches him. Siddhu rescues Charlie at considerable personal risk. In the process, Siddhu becomes friends with Alisha (Rani Mukerji), also part of the gang, and their friendship blossoms into love. The famous song Aati Kya Khandala is situated during this period, when Siddhu is trying to cheer Alisha up after a fight with her father.
It is revealed that Siddhu saw his own father's death when he was a child which mentally affected him throughout his life. His father's words – "anybody can swim with the tide, but the truly brave person is he who swims against the tide"—remained with him, though he had only been with his father for a little while.
Back in his local community, Siddhu witnesses an incident of some of Ronnie's men beating up a local restaurateur for not paying extortion money to Ronnie's gang. The restaurateur runs for his life as Ronnie's men chase him, but none of the other community people come to his aid. Harihar Mafatlal (Akshay Anand), a social worker, coaxes a police constable to stop the fight. The restaurateur and his two assailants land up on the roof where Siddhu is doing boxing practice, with Hari and the constable following. The constable breaks up the fight and scolds the restaurateur, and Hari is angry at the constable for blaming the victim. The assailants leave, greeting Siddhu on the way out. Siddhu offers some water to the restaurateur and introduces himself to Hari, suggesting to both to avoid getting on the wrong side of Ronnie. Hari speaks of principle and self-respect, and Siddhu is reminded of things that his father told him long ago.
Ronnie is furious to hear about this, and wishes to kill the restaurateur and Hari immediately. Ronnie explains the logic of terror to his henchmen: if even a few people stop acceding to his demands, then that will instill rebelliousness against Ronnie's demands in others. Fear is essential for the kind of respect Ronnie enjoys, and being lenient against a few people who stand up to him based on a short-term cost–benefit analysis will have long-term negative consequences for Ronnie. Jai, however, dissuades Ronnie from taking rash action. In the process, it is revealed that Jai and Ronnie are in the process of bribing politicians and government officials to make Ronnie the owner of a large construction project.
Hari later canvasses some villagers together, trying to get one of them to sign a complaint against Ronnie that can be filed with the police so that official action can be taken against him. Siddhu attends the meeting at Jai's request, but does not inform Jai or Ronnie about it immediately. Instead, Siddhu offers Hari a friendly warning to cease and desist these activities. During the conversation that ensues, Siddhu says that his own motto in life is simple: live and let live. Hari reveals the principle guiding his own actions: whenever he sees himself in the mirror, he should not feel ashamed of what he sees.
Ronnie nonetheless comes to know of the events during the meeting, and is angry. He tells Siddhu to arrange a meeting between Hari and himself (Ronnie) so that Ronnie can dissuade Hari from these activities. Siddhu agrees, and calls Hari over to a bridge, on the pretext that he himself (Siddhu) needs to talk to Hari. Hari arrives at the bridge, expecting to meet Siddhu. Ronnie arrives along with his men, beats up Hari, and throws him from the bridge after which he is crushed under a moving train. Siddhu is furious at Jai and Ronnie, and attacks Ronnie physically, but Ronnie's men control him, and he is allowed to go on account of the fact that he is Jai's brother and he was the one who managed to inadvertently help Ronnie kill Hari. Siddhu, returning home, cannot bear the sight of himself in the mirror, and breaks it. It is also revealed that Hari was the brother of Alisha (Siddhu's romantic interest), something Siddhu had been unaware of because he was living separately. Siddhu confesses everything to Fatima Madam, the female lawyer who had defended him in the beginning of the movie, but refuses to testify against Ronnie in court, for fear of implicating his elder brother Jai. The lawyer tries to talk him into testifying, but fails. She challenges him to reveal the truth to Alisha, which he does, and they break up.
In a subsequent boxing match (against boxing champion "Kala Tiger"), that Siddhu has been preparing for several months, Siddhu is told by his brother, in the midst of the game, to throw away the match, since Ronnie has bet money on Siddhu losing. Siddhu throws away the game, allowing the other boxer to beat him unconscious. He is furious at his brother, and they have an oral confrontation. In the process, Siddhu is forced to confront that his father had betrayed five of his friends in the Indian independence movement to the British out of fear of being tortured, causing all of them to be killed. Siddhu realises that his father was a good man, but, like everybody else, was a coward and lacked the strength to fight injustice. Yet, he knows that his father wanted to instill these values in him, and he vows to bring Hari's killers to justice and complete the task that Hari attempted to begin. He tells Fatime Madam (the lawyer) that he is willing to testify publicly against Ronnie as well as against his own brother Jai, and also confesses to her his theft of Rs. 400 (shown at the beginning of the movie). She expresses pride in Siddhu, revealing that she knew all along about the theft and also knew that Siddhu would reveal it to her some day of his own accord. She tries to get Alisha to forgive Siddhu, but fails. Siddhu, now a reformed man, meets up with the cricketer he had beaten up a while back, presents him with a new cricket bat, and seeks forgiveness.
When Ronnie discovers that Siddhu is the person who has filed a complaint against him, he is ready to kill Siddhu. Jai dissuades Ronnie, reassuring him that Jai himself will dissuade Siddhu from testifying publicly against Ronnie. In an emotional scene, Siddhu, when approached by Jai, confronts Jai instead, accusing Jai of neglecting his duties as an elder brother by encouraging Siddhu to follow himself in a life of crime. Jai realises his error and apologises. Upon returning home, Siddhu discovers Alisha waiting for him, and they embrace and reconcile. Later that night, Ronnie kills Jai and his men also try to kill Siddhu, but the motorcycle gang led by Charlie (whose life Siddhu had saved earlier) intervenes to save Siddhu's life. Siddhu wants to kill Ronnie in person to avenge his brother's death, but the female lawyer arrives in time to dissuade him.
The next day, in court, Siddhu gives his testimony regarding Ronnie's murder of Hari. The court is adjourned until Monday. Coming out of court, Ronnie orders for a local bandh and forces all the shops to close down. He also has Siddhu's home broken into and his belongings thrown on the street. Siddhu, upon seeing this, walks up to Ronnie's house and challenges him to come out and duel alone, rather than hiding behind henchmen. Ronnie agrees, and all the people in the area come out to watch. The two boxers have a long and bloody boxing match, with nobody interfering. As the local people see one man with the courage to fight Raunak Singh, they awaken to the possibility that they too can resist his extortionary demands. Ronnie loses the fight, but he then orders his henchmen to kill Siddhu. The local people, who are much more numerous than Ronnie's henchmen, block the attempt. Together, they beat up Ronnie and his henchmen and force them to flee the area. | murder | train | wikipedia | shows what a great actor amir khan is!.
i was not a big amir khan's fan before this movie but after watching "ghulam" it not only made me amir khan's fan but also at the same he stamped himself as the bollywood ace..."Ghulam" shows the sudden change in the life of sidharth who first being non-serious in his life soon realise the reality of the life and when he becomes more loyal he has to pay for the changes..
emotional scenes are wonderfully executed by amir khan, the way he has tackled difficult scenes shows what a brilliant actor he's been for bollywood...
whereas rani mukherjee looks gorgeous but have little to offer in a brief role..
all in all a very good movie with a good twist and a better second half...
also the climax was very astonishing...
the music is good to ear...
highly recommended to all amir khan's fans!.
excellent remake of On the Waterfront.
When I first saw Ghulam I said finally a good original film but a couple of years I got to see Marlon Brando's "On the Waterfront" and find out a movie's rip off.
Still the movie is definitely a must see for people who like realistic, hard hitting films and not the loveyduvey smoochy films.
Besides that aamir khan gives a brilliant performance as the confused brother trapped in underworld's tactics.
Rani mukherjee is ok.
Her voice is dubbed and one can clearly make out.
Aamir Khan's aati kya khandala is a great highlight of the movie.
The railway track race could have taken his life but he is still alive so have fun and watch this movie.
This is an awesome film.
My Rating 10/10.
Heroic.
I have read the reviews given by different people and I am well versed with the version played by The Great Marlon Brando(On the Waterfront) which won him Oscar for best actor,Ella Kazan the best Director and 6 other categories.
It took almost 44 years to bring out the remake using the finest actor in Indian History.
The fact that remains in my mind is that I had watched the filmfare award ceremony and I was only 13 but still I remember Vikram Bhatt saying that "The Award was only possible due to Aamir Khan's effort.He had taken chance with his life by not duping the Train-race stunt.Even though the train was not running at full speed it had momentum to kill the person hitting it".
The commitment from the side actors are as important as the film script.If this was shot nowadays it could have been more effective with several camera angling.
Aamir knew that if he had to provide justice at least .1% to the original film he had to do this.
These make it almost or equivalent to the "On The Waterfront"..
GHULAM - Guess whose the real hero ?.
Amir plays the role of a confused, frustrated and sensitive "gunda" who lives with the evil but surprisingly knows the difference between right and wrong.
His conscious is alive maybe because of something he saw happening to his dad when he was young.
It casted a lasting effect on him and it stayed with him all his life.
His brother also realizes the difference between the right and the wrong but readily accepts the wrong because he doesn't mind taking shortcuts in life.
Excellent performances by Amir Khan and Rani both.
The real hero, however, is Ronnie.
He gave the best performance of his life.
Every single dialog of his is nothing less than Gabbar's from Sholay.
Not only does this movie have some great acting, but some excellent screenplay, dialogs, direction, storyline, and songs!
One of my favorite Hindi movies of all time.
Rating: ****Poor * Average ** Good *** Excellent **** Masterpiece *****.
Recipe - take `On the Waterfront' treat with Bollywood formula, take all meaning out of it, stretch it to 3 hours and stick in songs that don't fit with the film - et viola - Ghulam!.
Siddhu is a small time felon in Bombay who's morals can be summarised as `every man for himself'.
His lawyer has faith he can change and is trying to help him by keeping him out of jail for petty offences.
Siddhu's brother works for Ronny, an ex-boxer who now runs organised crime in the area.
As a result Siddhu gets some muscle work for Ronny.
One day Ronny's thugs are beating up some shopkeepers for money by Siddhu's house.
Afterwards Siddhu meets the eldest, Hari, and befriends him.
However Hari is responsible for causing Ronny trouble and hence Siddhu unwittingly helps Ronny to kill him.I have only seen a handful of Bollywood films of these I have loved one (Lagaan) and been indifferent to the majority.
I find that they have all the flaws of Hollywood exploitation movies without many of the production values.
Ghulam (The Slave) is a fine example of the standard Bollywood formula - songs, pretty girls, manly heroes, hairy villains, overacting and dramatic music and direction.
As such it is OK but I'm not a fan of these standard formulae.
I'd rather have them with at least a bit of a new spin.
However this film doesn't want to do that and gives it to us straight.
The plot is a basic `do the right thing' film that borrows heavily from `On the Waterfront' in many different ways.The action scenes suggest a Bollywood Jackie Chan but they lack any of his flair and imagination.
The love interest is dropped into the film so heavily that it hits with a heavy clang - the first hour is basically just that, it isn't integrated into the film so much as just added on.
It does allow about 5 songs to occur that don't fit with the tone of the film.
I'm a little biased because I always struggle to tell one from the other with these things.
I know that they films are meant to be whole adventures for an audience but it just felt pretty disjointed to me.The direction is typically hilarious - rushing cameras etc that really play to the traditional Bollywood clichés.
The sound effects sound too fake and don't match the action and the different in sound quality between dialogue and singing is so noticeable that it bothered me.
I know that the singing is mostly done by other people in a studio but can't they at least try and match them up in terms of quality at least.The acting is also very clichéd.
Khan was a good hero in Lagaan but he was helped by the more professional feel of that film.
Here he fits with the mood of the film in that he just overacts where needed - tears, anger, frustration etc, all emotions are on his sleeve for all to see.
The villains are typically bad and gruff and overact like the best of them.
Meanwhile love interest Mukherjee (Alisha) is suitably air brushed, pretty and shot with a constant breeze in her hair and soft focus lens!Considering people make a big deal of Bollywood movies being a big culture.
To me this just smacked of American influence.
Chicago Bulls tee-shirts, T2 posters etc all clutter the sets.
Meanwhile the plot borrows from lots of American films.
Like I said the plot itself is just On the Waterfront without the subtext or drama.
They take it and just throw out anything of value and add songs!
Even the boxing scene sees the opponent being a mickey-take of BRITISH boxer Prince Naseem Hamed.
Even the climax is a mix between a wild west stand-off and a Rocky movie!
Does no one else see the influence of American culture in this film?
It's not a bad thing but why pretend that Bollywood films are something exciting and new?Overall this film will please those who happily accept the Bollywood film formula with all it's weaknesses.
For me I view it on the same level as any other film - it's plot is weak, a basic good versus bad story, with average acting, misplaced songs and not very much to enjoy for an even slightly demanding audience..
Truly a masterpiece and Aamir Khan's best performance.
Ghulam is truly a masterpiece with an excellent theme by Vikram Bhatt.Definitely it is his best directorial venture.The plot of the movie taken from ON THE WATER FRONT fits very well to the culture of Subcontinent,beautifully reflects the hardships & attitude of the society in big cities and also shows the right way to fight against injustice & cruelty.The sole of the film is Aamir Khan's stunning performance.The way he has portrayed the character of Sidhu a confused,tipori is awesome.This performance has for sure declared Aamir Khan as the best actor in history of Indian cinema.Rani Mukherji looked very fresh and beautiful, the only flaw of the film is her dubbed voice which was needless.SharatSexana in the role of Ronak Singh is excellent.Music is very good.All the songs are good with "ab naam mohabbat ke ilzam " & "aati kya khandala" stand out.Overall it is an excellent film.I have seen this film 18 times till date and i recommend it to every movie lover..
excellent.
Fantastic movie -- amir khan is super and fantastic >i advise with watchin this movie.
A decent remake of On the waterfront helped immensely by the awesome acting by the Dangal guy..
Siddharth "Siddhu "Marathe (Aamir Khan) is a Mumbai tapori, a boxing champion.
His brother, Jaidev "Jai" (Rajit Kapur), is the accounts manager and right hand man for Raunak "Ronnie" Singh (Sharat Saxena), a former boxing champion who ostensibly runs a travel agency but in reality rules the local community by terrorising people and stealing money from innocent merchants.
Other than his boxing practice, Siddhu leads a relatively aimless and wanderlust life.
In his spare time, he hangs out with friends, occasionally stealing money from rich people.
Siddhu is financially dependent on his elder brother Jai, who lives in Raunak Singh's house but occasionally visits Siddhu and tops up his finances..
its not as bad as all that.
Sure, its formulaic, but personally I think there is an element of spoof in it.
Look at some of the dance routines.
Especially the one where they are in a log cabin.
They are not taking themselves too seriously here.
And it does have a charm about it.
My favorite song in it is the one about going to Chandala.
And the scene where he enters her window about 16 stories up - it is completely ludicrous but is hugely entertaining and I feel for the right reasons.Amir Khan also appeared earlier in "andaaz apna apna" which was very much a comedy, allthough it did tend to veer to much towards farce at times.Although there was some sort of an action story and a moral theme to it, i think much of it was meant to be a light comedy romance, and those parts of the film worked quite nicely.Sure its not a particularly memorable film and isnt ground breaking cinema, but its not actually a bad film, as long as you arent expecting too much out of it.
And its quite watchable..
On the Khandala-front.
I went through the list of Vikram Bhatt movies, and realized I had seen quite a few of them.
And there isn't a single original storyline in any of them.
Vikram Bhatt isn't happy in just getting inspired by Hollywood movies, he copies them totally.
Sometimes, he does a bad job (Awara Paagal Deewana: The Whole Nine Yards, Deewane Hue Paagal: There's Something About Mary) but sometimes it isn't so bad (Raaz: What Lies Beneath and Ghulam: On the Waterfront).The difference with Ghulam is its treatment.
This treatment is very rustic and non-glamorous.
What you get is a nice, realistic view of the situation, with Siddhu being a very real character.
Aamir Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Rajit Kapoor, Sharat Saxena and Mita Vasisht all turn in pretty good performances.
I remember when I first watched the movie and was impressed by Rani.
Come to think of it, I have been a fan of Rani since then itself, so I'm pretty glad things are working out for her now.Even being a copy, it is a rather good movie with a believable storyline and strong performances.
Worth a peek..
A nice romantic action film.
Ghulam is a story about a wannabe boxer who spends his time among gangsters and does their bidding.
He begins to question his life of crime and meets a girl named Alisha who he falls in love with.Watching it as a youngster I found it quite compelling and exciting; the scene where he plays against death running on train tracks, saving the girl.
Aamir Khan provides a satisfactory performance and Rani Mukherjee sadly is dubbed in this movie...............Its not her voice!She however looks stunning and very very sexy in the songs...Now the songs, the songs are all really good, catchy and romantic...Thats what bollywood does best..
On the Waterfront.
Bhatts have known to remake Hollywood films from time memorial though they have given several great films.
In 1990s Mahesh Bhatt directed many films, many worked like Aashiqui(1990), Dil Hai Ki Maanta Nahin(1991) which were not that great, while Hum Hai Raahi Pyaar Ke(1993) was a superb film and worked well too, he gave flops too like Criminal(1995),Chaahat(1996), Duplicate(1998) and many more.
Ghulam directed by Vikram Bhatt who earlier worked with Bhatts in films like Fareb, Jaanam, Bambai Ka Babu, got his first hit reportedly with this film.
The film is a remake of On The Waterfront(1954) which was earlier remade by the Bhatts as Kabzaa(1988) and Vidhu Vinod Chopra too borrowed a chapter from it in Parinda(1989) and other films too.
Ghulam starts off well, Aamir's character though may seem close to his Rangeela character is different, he plays the typical thug with a heart of gold who does dirty work as told by his brother and then changes his life.
The film also has Aamir's most dangerous stunt, the train stunt which he did himself and missed the train by a second.
The first half focuses more on establishment of characters and does waste a bit more time on romance but the twist in the tale is superb, The second half focuses more on how Munna changes and seeks revenge The ending may be a bit hard to digest but yet is well executed Comparing with On The Waterfront may be tough, the film does copy most of the film but adds it's own masala, love and all but yet it's watchable Direction by Vikram Bhatt is good Music by Jatin Lalit is superb, All songs are seeped in melody, be it Kumar/Alka's songs Aankhon se Tune and Jaadu Hai, or Udit Narayan's superb Ab Naam Mohabbat Ki or the crowd puller Aati Kya Khandala which was sung by Aamir for the first timeAamir Khan portrayed a tapori earlier in Rangeela(1995) but he doesn't repeat himself, he does a superb job as always and brings in the difference, He conveys a lot through his expressions.
Rani with a dubbed voice is okay though she doesn't get much to do Mita Vashisht is superb in her role, Rajit Kapoor is superb Sharat Saxena is effective, Akshay Anand who also starred in Mahesh Bhatt's ZAKHM in the same year is good in his role, Raju Kher is okay in a short role,Deepak Tijori has just 1 scene, perhaps to recreate the JJWS success Amongst rest Bhatts Favourite Ashutosh Rana and Dalip Tahil have cameos |
tt1449175 | Hamlet | === Act I ===
The protagonist of Hamlet is Prince Hamlet of Denmark, son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and nephew of King Claudius, his father's brother and successor. Claudius hastily married King Hamlet's widow, Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, and took the throne for himself. Denmark has a long-standing feud with neighboring Norway, which culminated when King Hamlet slew King Fortinbras of Norway in a battle years ago. Although Denmark defeated Norway, and the Norwegian throne fell to King Fortinbras's infirm brother, Denmark fears that an invasion led by the dead Norwegian king's son, Prince Fortinbras, is imminent.
On a cold night on the ramparts of Elsinore, the Danish royal castle, the sentries Bernardo and Marcellus and Hamlet's friend Horatio encounter a ghost that looks like the late King Hamlet. They vow to tell Prince Hamlet what they have witnessed.
As the court gathers the next day, while King Claudius and Queen Gertrude discuss affairs of state with their elderly adviser Polonius, Hamlet looks on glumly. After the court exits, Hamlet despairs of his father's death and his mother's hasty remarriage. Learning of the ghost from Horatio, Hamlet resolves to see it himself.
As Polonius's son Laertes prepares to depart for a visit to France, Polonius gives him contradictory advice that culminates in the ironic maxim "to thine own self be true". Polonius's daughter, Ophelia, admits her interest in Hamlet, but both Polonius and Laertes warn her against seeking the prince's attention. That night on the rampart, the ghost appears to Hamlet, telling the prince that he was murdered by Claudius and demanding that Hamlet avenge him. Hamlet agrees and the ghost vanishes. The prince confides to Horatio and the sentries that from now on he plans to "put an antic disposition on" and forces them to swear to keep his plans for revenge secret. Privately, however, he remains uncertain of the ghost's reliability.
=== Act II ===
Soon thereafter, Ophelia rushes to her father, telling him that Hamlet arrived at her door the prior night half-undressed and behaving crazily. Polonius blames love for Hamlet's madness and resolves to inform Claudius and Gertrude. As he enters to do so, the king and queen finish welcoming Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two student acquaintances of Hamlet, to Elsinore. The royal couple has requested that the students investigate the cause of Hamlet's mood and behavior. Additional news requires that Polonius wait to be heard: messengers from Norway inform Claudius that the King of Norway has rebuked Prince Fortinbras for attempting to re-fight his father's battles. The forces that Fortinbras conscripted to march against Denmark will instead be sent against Poland, though they will pass through a portion of Denmark to get there.
Polonius tells Claudius and Gertrude his theory regarding Hamlet's behavior, and speaks to Hamlet in a hall of the castle to try to uncover more information. Hamlet feigns madness but subtly insults Polonius all the while. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive, Hamlet greets his friends warmly, but quickly discerns that they are spies. Hamlet becomes bitter, admitting that he is upset at his situation but refusing to give the true reason why, instead commenting on "what a piece of work" humanity is. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tell Hamlet that they have brought along a troupe of actors that they met while traveling to Elsinore. Hamlet, after welcoming the actors and dismissing his friends-turned-spies, plots to stage a play featuring a death in the style of his father's murder, thereby determining the truth of the ghost's story, as well as Claudius's guilt or innocence, by studying Claudius's reaction.
=== Act III ===
Polonius forces Ophelia to return Hamlet's love letters and tokens of affection to the prince while he and Claudius watch from afar to evaluate Hamlet's reaction. Hamlet is walking alone in the hall as the King and Polonius await Ophelia's entrance, musing whether "to be or not to be". When Ophelia enters and tries to return Hamlet's things, Hamlet accuses her of immodesty and cries "get thee to a nunnery," though it is unclear whether this, too, is a show of madness or genuine distress. His reaction convinces Claudius that Hamlet is not mad for love. Shortly thereafter, the court assembles to watch the play Hamlet has commissioned. After seeing the Player King murdered by his rival pouring poison in his ear, Claudius abruptly rises and runs from the room: proof positive for Hamlet of his uncle's guilt.
Gertrude summons Hamlet to her room to demand an explanation. Meanwhile, Claudius talks to himself about the impossibility of repenting, since he still has possession of his ill-gotten goods: his brother's crown and wife. He sinks to his knees. Hamlet, on his way to visit his mother, sneaks up behind him, but does not kill him, reasoning that killing Claudius while he is praying will send him straight to heaven while his father's ghost is stuck in purgatory. In the queen's bedchamber, Hamlet and Gertrude fight bitterly. Polonius, spying on the conversation from behind a tapestry, makes a noise.
Hamlet, believing it is Claudius, stabs wildly, killing Polonius, but pulls aside the curtain and sees his mistake. In a rage, Hamlet brutally insults his mother for her apparent ignorance of Claudius's villainy, but the ghost enters and reprimands Hamlet for his inaction and harsh words. Unable to see or hear the ghost herself, Gertrude takes Hamlet's conversation with it as further evidence of madness. After begging the queen to stop sleeping with Claudius, Hamlet leaves, dragging Polonius's corpse away.
=== Act IV ===
Hamlet jokes with Claudius about where he has hidden Polonius's body, and the king, fearing for his life, sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to accompany Hamlet to England with a sealed letter to the English king requesting that Hamlet be executed immediately.
Demented by grief at Polonius's death, Ophelia wanders Elsinore. Laertes arrives back from France, enraged by his father's death and his sister's madness. Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is solely responsible, but a letter soon arrives indicating that Hamlet has returned to Denmark, foiling Claudius's plan. Claudius switches tactics, proposing a fencing match between Laertes and Hamlet to settle their differences. Laertes will be given a poison-tipped foil, and Claudius will offer Hamlet poisoned wine as a congratulation if that fails. Gertrude interrupts to report that Ophelia has drowned, though it is unclear whether it was suicide or an accident exacerbated by her madness.
=== Act V ===
Horatio has received a letter from Hamlet, explaining that the prince escaped by negotiating with pirates who attempted to attack his England-bound ship, and the friends reunite offstage. Two gravediggers discuss Ophelia's apparent suicide while digging her grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of the gravediggers, who unearths the skull of a jester from Hamlet's childhood, Yorick. Hamlet picks up the skull, saying "alas, poor Yorick" as he contemplates mortality. Ophelia's funeral procession approaches, led by Laertes. Hamlet and Horatio initially hide, but when Hamlet realizes that Ophelia is the one being buried, he reveals himself, proclaiming his love for her. Laertes and Hamlet fight by Ophelia's graveside, but the brawl is broken up.
Back at Elsinore, Hamlet explains to Horatio that he had discovered Claudius's letter with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's belongings and replaced it with a forged copy indicating that his former friends should be killed instead. A foppish courtier, Osric, interrupts the conversation to deliver the fencing challenge to Hamlet. Hamlet, despite Horatio's pleas, accepts it. Hamlet does well at first, leading the match by two hits to none, and Gertrude raises a toast to him using the poisoned glass of wine Claudius had set aside for Hamlet. Claudius tries to stop her, but is too late: she drinks, and Laertes realizes the plot will be revealed. Laertes slashes Hamlet with his poisoned blade. In the ensuing scuffle, they switch weapons and Hamlet wounds Laertes with his own poisoned sword. Gertrude collapses and, claiming she has been poisoned, dies. In his dying moments, Laertes reconciles with Hamlet and reveals Claudius's plan. Hamlet rushes at Claudius and kills him. As the poison takes effect, Hamlet, hearing that Fortinbras is marching through the area, names the Norwegian prince as his successor. Horatio, distraught at the thought of being the last survivor and living whilst Hamlet does not, says he will commit suicide by drinking the dregs of Gertrude's poisoned wine, but Hamlet begs him to live on and tell his story. Hamlet dies in Horatio's arms, proclaiming "the rest is silence". Fortinbras, who was ostensibly marching towards Poland with his army, arrives at the palace, along with an English ambassador bringing news of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deaths. Horatio promises to recount the full story of what happened, and Fortinbras, seeing the entire Danish royal family dead, takes the crown for himself. | tragedy, insanity, revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | Being an American rather new to Shakespeare, I have come to discover that Hamlet is my favorite play, and as of today the David Tennant and Patrick Stewart version provides the breakthrough to understanding this complicated play.
I have watched all versions of Hamlet available and was quick to check out the newest one; however, Patrick Stewart was the only familiar actor to me.
Most contemporary productions of Shakespeare border on silly (Leonardo D's version of Romeo and Juliet) to ridiculous (Ethan Hawke's Hamlet), but this version rocks, to use an overused phrase.I thought the juxtaposition of Shakespeare Old English in a Modern Setting worked amazingly well.
Plus, as a long-time Dr. Who and Star Trek fan, it didn't feel as if I was watching the Doctor or Captain Picard performing.
When one is such a passionate Shakespeare appreciator as I am - and even one who rarely has the opportunity to attend theater performances - the coming of a major new Hamlet production is a Great Event.
I anticipate it with excitement, I pre-order the DVD, and I prepare to let the Royal Shakespeare Company work its dependable magic and sweep me off my feet with a stunning new production.
Tennant being Tennant, however, he was still splendidly entertaining to watch, even if Claudius, Polonius, Horatio and Gertrude all out-acted him quite a bit.In this version, the early scene where Claudius is addressing the court, turns to Hamlet, saying, "Now...", and then arrogantly turns around to address Laertes instead of Hamlet was for me the greatest single moment.
Even Tennant himself, in most scenes, was not quite intense enough to convince me that he really was Hamlet, and I was a bit disappointed with many of the soliloquies, which in most cases are recited almost without gesture, without animation and without the action that would have directed us towards some subtle interpretation of each speech.
I'm probably missing something, though.Also, having the same actor play Claudius and Old Hamlet, essentially making them twins?
Still, for speaking loudly and clearly to a current audience that may be justifiably fed up with the loftier kinds of Shakespeare productions, it deserves high marks indeed.On the one hand it is difficult to do a good Hamlet, but on the other hand it is also difficult to foul up such resplendent material.
A long time fan of Patrick Stewart and David Tennant, I had high hopes.
For American audiences who love Shakespeare (an oxymoron at best!) and Harry Potter, the casting of David Tennant as Hamlet is an intriguing one.
Tennant, who is wildly popular in the UK in the Doctor Who series, is also known to fans across the Isles as Barty Crouch Jr. from Harry Potter fantasy franchise.Pairing David Tennant with Patrick Stewart, who is a double foil as both the slain ghost king father and Hamlet's uncle Claudius is masterful casting in this version from the Royal Shakespearean Company.
As a result, Stewart was nominated for an Emmy as Best Supporting Actor.Besides this quirky casting choice, director Gregory Doran propels this oft-told tale through the tone and inflection that each character brings to the all too familiar silted language of the Bard.
One could easily close their eyes and simply bask in the joy of the rise and fall of phrases and words spun into this delightful audio experience.Yet another pleasure is watching Sir Patrick Stewart literally play against himself - mano y mano - as Hamlet's mournful ethereal specter and the greedy, selfish brother.
Pennie Downie, Mariah Gale, and Oliver Ford Davies provide an excellent counter-point to the brash and bold Tennant/Steward duo.This is a fine minimalist production that should be added to any Hamlet FANatic's collection..
All of this relates to the production but the biggest difference here is that this is being made for television rather than a theatre and this is no small change.Others have commented on the loss of the physical audience as a point in space for the cast but in fairness one would have thought that the focal point of the camera would have actually made this easier – particularly given the way that the stage in Stratford this was on is surrounded by the audience on three sides.
As such it makes for an odd television film and I do think that more could have been done to make it more than just a filmed version of the stage production (which is what the makers said they were trying to avoid the film being).The cast are mostly impressive.
The only slight downside is that the habit of using the same actor for multiple very minor characters is a little more obvious on the screen than on the stage and it does distract at times.Overall this version of Hamlet deserves credit for being produced for prime time on a terrestrial channel and it does have much about it to appeal to viewers.
The DVD version is a very good representation of the stage version but it lacks the magic of watching a live production, the interaction that the characters have with the audience, the emotional responses of a theatre full of people that allows you as an individual to show greater emotion than sitting in front of a TV.
Clarification of a long, elaborate and often confusing tale of revenge is a must for any production of Hamlet, and on this point this Royal Shakespeare Company production can be rated as excellent; the spartan settings seem to clear the boards, giving way to the language, which is expertly managed from everyone in the cast, especially the three leads; Hamlet's madness, always a point of debate, is neatly handled by David Tennant, who veers always on the side of madness, but allows the audience to participate in his essential sanity--I loved how he was able to keep Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on edge, revealing them to be the mealy-mouthed corporate stooges that they are--not just comic figures, but dangerously loathsome in their compliance with requests from Claudius, played with chilly finesse by Patrick Stewart.
Same goes for Hamlet filming the Mousetrap, which just seems like an odd choice thrown in to make it seem more film-y.Having the characters face the camera and breaking the fourth wall sits rather uncomfortably as it isn't done with enough consistency.
Implicating the viewer as a direct audience has to have a real good reason and that just isn't given in most of Hamlet's soliloquies or when other characters try to draw us in.The acting, as well, seems to be more for the stage than for the camera and thus seems a bit over the top, such as Hamlet's histrionics and Claudius' elaborate shrug upon drinking the poisoned wine.
Tennant, especially, is not subtle enough most of the times, hindered by blocking that apparently comes right out of the stage production.What I found intriguing was that it's one of the Hamlets that moves "To be or not to be..." to Act II, an interesting change that can make sense if presented correctly and it made sense here.So, all in all, a credible take on Hamlet, but I feel the director and producers should have decided on either producing a full-scale film version or a filmed version of the stage production.
Another of those little touches (like Claudius' speaking to Laertes before Hamlet, as a previous reviewer noted) that speak volumes about the director's skill."Hamlet," however, no matter how good the direction or the other performances, revolves around its star as few plays do.
Over-acted nearly continuously; almost completely humorless (it puts me in mind of a particularly dreary, and also humorless, Hamlet I once saw in a Russian version); and more evocative of Tennant's portrayal of Dr. Who than of a Danish prince.
People in the UK are lost right now, they think Brexit is a good idea and Dr. Who is as cool as the original Star Wars, to the point they force everyone to go see this evil looking creep, and I mean so evil looking and evil feeling I just can't handle his face and energy for more than a few minutes, had to watch it in spurts, playing the most admirable and beautiful hero of all time, only because he played Dr. Who.
I have performed Hamlet over 50 times in modernist productions in Paris, I can recite the entire text without a single mistake, and I'm so young I haven't even started my film career.
Although it is clearly part of Mr. Shakespeare's intention that Hamlet be seen by the other characters in the play as very likely addled, I think it unwise to present him as definitely so to the audience.
Notable exceptions are Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius), Patrick Stewart (Claudius), and Mariah Gales (Ophelia), whose innate sensibilities for great language apparently immunize them from this all-pervasive plague.
With "Hamlet" I'm used to long adaptations.I actually remember seeing the image of David Tenant about to kill Patrick Stewart being featured on the Fandom Rivalry on TVTropes.
the way Patrick Stuart and David Tennant portray their roles as superb role in this production.
Patrick Stewart, who plays Claudius, already has a strong background in acting with the X-men movie series and the Star Trek TV series on his resume.
As my theatre company prepares to perform Shakespeare's tragedy, I've watched a LOT of Hamlets starring a variety of different actors set in a variety of different places.
I thought David Tennant was brilliant in this production.
Doctor Ham. I enjoyed the modern setting of this production, which, lacking period frills, brings across more of the daily life of the palace than is usually shown; I enjoyed the clarity of the readings, especially in the interactions between Polonius and his children; and I enjoyed Penny Downie's atypically neurotic Gertrude.On the other hand, Patrick Stewart seemed to me a very dull Claudius.
I can't see Hamlet as being at all the same character as the Doctor (Who) in any of his incarnations, and so he probably shouldn't be played in the same way.
Moreover, a lot of what Tennant carries over isn't really the Doctor, but the actor doing whatever he feels like, which usually is to play the prat.
That said I have quite a few critical issues with this particular production:David Tennant's Hamlet was a distraction and a nuisance.
In a way, it felt as though all the other actors did plenty of work in developing their characters, and while I have no way of proving such a claim, I felt Tennant simply waltzed into the theatre memorized and disconnected.This particular production was not in front of an audience.
the pressure of role for David Tennant, the filming angles, Patrick Steward who is not more than a Cladius as too many others are causes for to define it only as a good job.
the pressure of role for David Tennant, the filming angles, Patrick Steward who is not more than a Cladius as too many others are causes for to define it only as a good job.
This Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) 2009 filmed version of "Hamlet" captures the essence of the play vastly better than most versions.
David Tennant's phrasing of each of Hamlet's lines provides an emotional depth of understanding that makes the iambic pentameter accessible in a way that I have only experienced in my own silent readings to myself.
I have committed to memory several parts of various Shakespeare plays, and recite from memory certain soliloquies from Hamlet all the time.
I have so wished that the various actors I have watched over the years speak Shakespeare with an emotional understanding of each word and modern intonation in a way that students could understand the greatness of the language.
I have seen Sir Ian McKellan play "Richard III" live, and even then, as great an actor as Sir Ian is, I felt his phrasing was archaic and only avid fans could fully grasp the heartache and desperation in Shakespeare's characters.The triumph of the RSC's 2009 version of Hamlet is that each actor speaks each line with emotional clarity.
I have watched Sir Patrick live on stage several times, on television and film, and his experience and comfort with the character is obvious.
I saw David Tennant in many roles and I think he's one of the most talented actors in his generation.
Maybe it's my fault but I couldn't see her as the beautiful and intelligent young woman who worth of the love of the prince and who return his feelings so strongly, that when she lost him to the madness she takes her own first step to that way as well.This review gets quite long so just some quick words about the set: I think the modernization worked very well, the black, mirror-like floor, the security camera system helped me to rethink the play from a new viewpoint and showed it like it would be the first time anyone perform it.
It seemed new and fresh to me and I wondered if that was the way (aside from the modern technique of course) they used to perform in the first days before the play was burdened with so much expectation and history.All in all, I highly recommend this movie for those who have never seen Hamlet before and for those who have seen a lot, but are open for some fresh version of it..
The majority of reviews of this wonderful production of Hamlet by the Royal Shakespeare Company are positive, and offer many reasons to watch this filming of the play.
But it depends on how you look at it, I, an English major who is familiar with dissecting Shakespeare's works, found it a sneaky foreshadowing of future events, as well as demonstrating Hamlet's attribute of wearing his heart on his sleeve.David Tennant: though most found his portrayal unique and intriguing, some say it is horrible and over the top.
Patrick Stewart plays the counterpart, the exact opposite, of Hamlet.
The RSC definitely chooses the second option, and David Tennant fills this role exactly, being so mad that the audience just knows its all an act to fool the King.
I had never heard the lines of Hamlet spoken in this type of tone, but after finishing the play, I couldn't believe there was any other way of saying them- from Tennant the words are natural and don't sound recited at all.
The best production of HAMLET, That I have seen.
The sets were amazing, the acting especially by David Tennant and Sir Patrick Stewart was brilliant.
And what's the difference of what costume is worn as long as those beautiful words of the Bard are used, they are the important thing.I thought the supporting actors who played Laretes, Horatio, and Gertrude were great, but I thought the actors who portrayed Ophelia and Polonius were a little too one dimensional.Anyone thinking of buying this movie, will more that get their money's worth.
David Tennant was a wonderfully psychologically intense Hamlet, as were many of the other actors.
Hamlet, in that play within a play scene, films the reaction of Claudius with a grainy hand-held camera.
A nice touch.Maybe all the budget was allocated to Stewart and Tennant, because the production design certainly is limited, although not in the way a stage is.
Starting with the officially saluted personalities in the Royal Court of Denmark, by the original Shakespeare play, absent from the actual stage.
In the original play, it is possible to see this very twist, a challenge for the audience: the real Time Unit is not in the text, but in how a "virtual" time unity could be defined, possibly different from one performance to the next, to specifically make room for the crowning of a Big Absent, (or exposing a bad guy, the criminal king Claudius), larger than life Hero, who could be saluted in any time unit chosen by the company.
Hamlet finishes the story: "you shall see anon how the murderer gets the love of Gonzago's wife." Act-III Scene-2, a reflection, a mere evocation of King Claudius's crime, killing a man to marry his wife.
* PLACE: Denmark, and more generically on foreign land, the Place staged by the Shakespearean Gods, and/or Time Lord(s), the place to which Doctor Who's TARDIS takes us (Doctor Who's time/space travel machine which sets the Time and Space dimensions in Doctor Who TV series, starring Hamlet's David Tennant in 2009).
This version, however, was originally performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company (I have seen their version of a Midsummers Night Dream, and it was brilliant) and they decided to bring the actors from the stage play and make a TV version of it.
I didn't know that this version existed until I searched Amazon and what caught my attention was that Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard and Professor X) as well as David Tennant (Dr Who) had taken major roles in the production.We all know about Hamlet, and a lot can be said of the play itself, however I do not intend to go over old ground here but rather focus on the production itself.
Once again, it is not that Claudius stole the throne, but rather that he killed his father and married his mother.One of the reviews that I read suggested that David Tennant successfully shed the character of Dr Who in this film, however I must disagree.
While I thought Tennant played the role very well, in a number of cases his madness reflected the eccentricity of the doctor.
However, with the exception of Peter Davidson, many of the actors that played the Doctor never really went onto anything afterwards.As for Patrick Stewart, he is brilliant.
Further, when one realises that Stewart is a Shakespearian actor more than the star of a Science-fiction soap opera, one begins to appreciate his acting skills.When it comes to Hamlet, it is not the play, the plot, or the theme that will carry the movie because we all know the play (or I hope we do). |
tt0049743 | Seven Men from Now | Ben Stride (Randolph Scott) walks into a desert cave encampment during a nighttime rainstorm. He encounters two men taking shelter next to a fire and asks to join them. Stride tells the men he's from the town of Silver Springs, which provokes a mysterious reaction from the two men. They discuss a robbery and murder that recently occurred there. The men become suspicious of Stride, and when they realize his intentions, he guns them down.
The following day Stride tracks someone through the Arizona wilderness and comes upon a wagon stuck in the mud. Stride uses the two horses he confiscated from the men at the encampment to help pull the wagon clear, and the wagon's owners, John and Annie Greer, are grateful. Travelers from Kansas City, they admit they are inexperienced at frontier life and ask Stride to ride with them as they head south to the border town of Flora Vista on their way west to California. Greer says he hopes to find a sales job there, but has been taking odd jobs along the way. The mention of Flora Vista arouses Stride's curiosity and he agrees to take them to the border. As the trio travels, Annie shows a growing attraction to Stride. At one point they are stopped by a US Army detail, whose commanding officer (Stuart Whitman) tells them to go back, as Chiricahua Apache have been spotted in the area and he cannot guarantee their safety.
Stride and the Greers travel on, finding a stagecoach relay station and encountering Bill Masters (Lee Marvin) and Clete (Don Barry), two former nemeses of Stride's. As they all spend the night at the station, Masters tells the Greers that Stride was once the sheriff of Silver Springs, and his wife was killed during the robbery of the Wells Fargo freight office. Stride has been tracking and killing the seven men who performed the robbery, and Masters intends to abscond with the $20,000 dollars in gold they stole once Stride has accomplished his task. Annie feels sympathy for Stride, who confesses that he feels guilty about his wife's death because at the time he was no longer sheriff and didn't have another job, so she took one at the freight office and was working the night of the incident. Before the wagon heads out of the station, with Masters and Clete tagging along opportunistically, they are met by Chiricahua warriors. The Apache leave when Stride gives up one of the horses to the hungry tribesmen.
The group encounters one of the Wells Fargo robbers, who is being chased by Indians. Unaware of the man's part in the robbery, Stride saves him from the Apache. The man, however, recognizes Stride and nearly kills him, but Stride is saved when Masters shoots the man in the back.
One night, Masters "reminisces" about a woman stolen away from her husband by a tall stranger, clearly suggesting that Stride is doing just that with Annie Greer. Furious at Masters's impropriety, Stride sends Masters and Clete away into the night.
Masters and Clete reach Flora Vista ahead of the wagon, and there meet with the Wells Fargo bandits waiting for delivery of their gold. Masters tells their leader, Payte Bodeen (John Larch), that Stride is heading in their direction to kill all of them and avenge his wife's death. Bodeen dispatches two of the bandits to meet Stride before he can reach Flora Vista. Meanwhile, Stride leaves Greer and Annie, telling them to continue on without him. Stride rides ahead into a canyon alone and is ambushed by the two bank robbers but kills them both. Wounded in the leg, Stride is knocked unconscious while trying to ride away with one of the bandits' horses.
Bodeen tells Masters that Greer is the man he paid to deliver the gold from the robbery to Flora Vista, and Masters berates himself for letting this escape him. Meantime, Greer and Annie come upon the unconscious Stride and nurse his wounds. Greer admits to his wife and Stride that he was paid $500 to deliver the Wells Fargo box containing the gold hidden in the wagon. Stride takes the gold away from Greer to draw the rest of the bandits out from town, and Greer and Annie head into Flora Vista to notify the local sheriff.
Greer arrives in town without the gold, telling Bodeen that Stride has it, and as he walks down the street toward the sheriff's office, Bodeen guns him down. The last two bandits, Bodeen and Clint, ride out to confront Stride, but are killed by Masters and Clete instead. Masters then kills Clete and walks out into the clearing where Stride has placed the box of gold. They face off, and Stride kills Masters before he can pull his guns.
Stride returns the gold to Wells Fargo and tells Annie that he is going to take a job as a deputy sheriff in Silver Springs. He puts her on a stagecoach bound for California, then rides away. Annie, however, tells the stage driver she isn't going. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0472468 | King Arthur | Arthur (Clive Owen) is portrayed as a Roman cavalry officer, also known as Artorius Castus, the son of a Roman father and a Celtic mother, who commands a unit of Sarmatian auxiliary cavalry in Britain at the close of the Roman occupation in 467 A.D. Arthur is loyal to Rome and a devout Catholic, but follows the teachings of Pelagianism, which many consider heretical. He and his men guard Hadrian's Wall against the Woads, a group of native Britons who are rebels against Roman rule, led by the mysterious Merlin (Stephen Dillane).
Arthur and his remaining knights Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Bors (Ray Winstone), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) expect to be discharged from their service to the Empire after faithfully fulfilling a fifteen-year commitment.
However, on the night when they are to receive their freedom, Bishop Germanus (Ivano Marescotti) sends them on a final and possibly suicidal mission to rescue an important Roman family living north of Hadrian's Wall. Marius Honorius (Ken Stott) faces impending capture by the invading Saxons, who are invading from mainland Europe, led by their king Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård) and his son Cynric (Til Schweiger). According to Germanus, Marius' son Alecto is the Pope's favourite godson and may be "destined to be Pope one day". Though angry, the knights follow Arthur once more but only after he and Lancelot argue over Arthur's deeply held beliefs.
At the remote estate, Arthur discovers that Marius has immured pagans, including a Woad named Guinevere (Keira Knightley) and a small boy named Lucan. Arthur defies Marius and frees the captives before deciding to take everyone, along with Marius' family, back to Hadrian's Wall.
One night, Guinevere takes Arthur to meet with Merlin, the leader of the Woads and her father. At first, Arthur thinks Guinevere has betrayed him, but Merlin has come in peace. It is revealed in a flashback that Arthur's mother had died in a Woad attack when he was a boy. Arthur's famous sword, Excalibur, had belonged to his father and marked his burial mound. Arthur had pulled it from the mound in an effort to rescue his mother from a burning building. Merlin suggests an alliance between the Woads and the Sarmatian knights against the invading Saxons.
Marius then betrays the group, takes Lucan hostage and attempts to kill Dagonet but is shot by Guinevere with an arrow. While moving on to the south, Alecto informs Arthur that Germanus executed Pelagius after being insulted by his teachings of equality. Tristan returns from scouting the area and tells Arthur that a Saxon army is close behind them. The knights stay behind to delay the Saxons and allow the refugees to escape. They soon encounter the Saxons at an ice-covered lake bordered on each side by steep cliffs. Greatly outnumbered, Arthur, Guinevere and the knights attempt to repel them with arrows. The battle is won when Dagonet runs to the middle of the ice and breaks it with an axe at the cost of his life. Many Saxons are also killed, and the rest are forced to turn back.
Upon their return to the wall, Germanus awards the knights their discharge papers and Dagonet is buried. Guinevere attempts to persuade Arthur to remain in Britain and defend the people from the Saxons. The pair share an encounter in Arthur's room, only to be interrupted by the Saxon army's arrival. Despite Lancelot's pleas, Arthur decides to stay and defend the wall, sending his knights away to live the rest of their lives in freedom.
Now in command of the Woad forces, Arthur prepares to face the Saxon army. As the knights are leading the evacuation, they hear the Saxon drums and turn back to join Arthur.
In the climactic "Battle of Badon Hill" set just south of Hadrian's Wall, the Woads catapult flaming missiles at the Saxon army. When the hosts meet, Guinevere engages in combat with Cynric. Cerdic fights and kills Tristan before facing off with Arthur. Meanwhile, Cynric disarms Guinevere and is engaged by Lancelot. Cynric shoots Lancelot with a Saxon crossbow. Lancelot then throws his sword into Cynric and kills him. Lancelot dies with Guinevere at his side. Arthur kills Cerdic and the Saxons are defeated.
While he realises that his ideal Rome exists only in his dreams, Arthur despairs over the deaths of his men. The film ends with the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere, after which Merlin proclaims him to be their king. United by their defeat of the Saxons and the retreat of the Romans, Arthur promises to lead the Britons against future invaders. Three horses that had belonged to Tristan, Dagonet and Lancelot run free across the landscape, as the closing narrative from Lancelot describes how fallen knights live on in tales passed from generation to generation. | violence, action | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2073070 | Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster | Based in a small town in the state of Uttar Pradesh, Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster is a story packed with intrigue betrayal and ambition between a beautiful Raani (Mahi Gill), her Raja husband (Jimmy Shergill) and an ambitious young man Babloo (Randeep Hooda).
The Raja and his Raani live in their ancestral royal house trying to maintain the status and structure their ancestors had left behind. But due to the changing times, some extreme financial conditions and the long gone habit of a royal having a mistress, the Raja tries hard to maintain his status and financial conditions. His rival political party, belonging to Gainda Singh (Vipin Sharma), is on a constant mission to eliminate the Raja and his allies, to get a hold of the administration, which has been with this royal family for decades. Eventually he is left with just one ally, Kanahiya (Deepraj Rana), who is Saheb's most trusted and dangerous servant. Due to the Raja's interest in his beautiful mistress, Raani yearns for his attention and tries to get him to return to her. The Raja starts taking contract killing assignments to be able to cope up with his lifestyle and to be able to get a stronger hold over his political situation while campaigning for the elections, which becomes a difficult battle considering the loss of his allies and deteriorating financial situation.
The drama deepens when the same rival gang plants Babloo (Randeep Hooda) to get information and plot the Raja's killing, as the temporary driver for Raani. Raani, saddened by the lack of her husband's attention and slightly hysterical due to the same, gets into a sexual relationship with Babloo who seems to be giving more of his time to her. In this process, Babloo falls deeply in love with Raani and confesses his assignment in front of Raja. The Raani uses Babloo to get the mistress killed to gain her husband. Babloo manages to fulfill her demand but in turn gets ambitious, wanting the Raani and the power which Saheb now holds for himself.
The climax is set at a point where Babloo has planned to execute Saheb, and succeeds in shooting him and Kanahiya. After intercourse with his mistress, she reminds him of her payment of Rs. 20000 and he reminds her of her stature and that he will return her money the next time he visits. Later, Raani has Babloo shot dead stating that "he can only be a partner in the bedroom, but not as a Saheb". Saheb slowly recovering, as he wins the election. In the end, Raani is shown appointing a new driver for herself, which hints at a sequel. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0045897 | I Confess | Father Michael Logan (Clift) is a devout Catholic priest in Ste. Marie's Church in Quebec City. He employs German immigrants Otto Keller (O. E. Hasse) and his wife Alma (Dolly Haas) as caretaker and housekeeper. Otto also works part-time as a gardener for a shady lawyer called Villette.
The film begins late one evening, as a man wearing a priest's cassock walks away from Villette's house, where Villette lies dead on the floor. Shortly afterward, in the church confessional, Keller confesses to Father Logan that he accidentally killed Villette while trying to rob him. Keller tells his wife about his deed and assures her that the priest will not say anything because he is forbidden from revealing information acquired through confessions.
The next morning, Keller goes to Villette's house at his regularly scheduled gardening time and reports Villette's death to the police. Father Logan also goes to the crime scene after hearing Mrs. Keller mention that her husband is there.
At the police station, two young girls tell Inspector Larrue (Malden) they saw a priest leaving Villette's house. This prompts Larrue to call Father Logan in for questioning, but Logan refuses to provide any information about the murder. Now suspecting Logan, Larrue orders a detective to follow Logan and contacts Crown Prosecutor Robertson (Brian Aherne), who is attending a party hosted by Ruth Grandfort (Baxter) and her husband Pierre (Roger Dann), a member of the Quebec legislature. Ruth overhears Robertson discussing Logan, and Larrue's detective discovers her identity by following her home the next day after she meets with Logan to warn him that he is a suspect.
Larrue calls Ruth and Logan in for questioning, and Ruth explains what happened, narrating a series of flashbacks: She and Logan fell in love when they were childhood friends, but he went off to fight in World War II with the Regina Rifle Regiment and eventually stopped writing to her, so she married Pierre. The day after Logan returned from the war, he and Ruth spent the day on a nearby island. A storm forced them to shelter for the night in a gazebo, and Villette found them there in the morning, recognizing Ruth as being Mrs. Grandfort. The next time Ruth saw Logan was several years later, when he was ordained as a priest.
Villette recently asked Ruth to persuade her husband to help him escape a tax scandal, and when she refused, he tried to blackmail her by threatening to publicize the night she spent with Logan. She met with Logan on the night of the murder, and they agreed to visit Villette in the morning.
Ruth's meeting with Father Logan almost provides him with an alibi, but Larrue has evidence showing that the murder occurred after their meeting, and the blackmail suggests a possible motive for Logan to have killed Villette.
Knowing he will be arrested, Logan turns himself in the next day at Larrue's office. Keller has planted the bloody cassock among Logan's belongings, and when Logan is tried in court, Keller testifies that he saw Logan enter the church after the murder, acting suspiciously.
The jury barely finds Father Logan not guilty, but the crowd outside the courthouse harasses Logan as he leaves. This upsets Keller's wife so much that she starts to shout out that her husband is the murderer, but he shoots her, resulting in her death. He then runs away and is pursued by police officers. Larrue finally guesses that Keller is the murderer, corners him in the grand ballroom of the Château Frontenac, and unknowingly tricks him into confessing his sins as well as his previous reconciliation. A police sharpshooter kills Keller when Keller tries to shoot Logan, and Keller calls out to Father Logan in extremis and dies immediately after Logan absolves him of his sins. | melodrama, romantic, suspenseful, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | "I Confess" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's least famous films, and it's easy to see why: there is no mystery (we know who the killer is right from the start); there is some suspense but no major set-pieces; there is very little humor (no Cary Grant-type wisecracks here).
I wouldn't rank it among Hitchcock's best, but it certainly has some of the best acting you can find in a Hitchcock film: Montgomery Clift is superb in a difficult role, Anne Baxter is warm and utterly believable as the woman who is consumed by her love for him, and Karl Malden is perfectly cast as the nosy (no pun intended) inspector on the case.
In fact, there isn't much of "real" suspense at all, but well-sketched characters, fine acting performances, and captivating plot development are more than compensating matters."I Confess" is a very interesting piece of film making and should be viewed by any Hitchcock fan..
Montgomery Clift is intriguing as "Father William Logan," a Catholic priest from Quebec who hears a murder confession, is charged with the crime himself, and never wavers from his vow to keep confessions private.The question Hitchcock apparently poses with this is is, "Is that still morally right when it means you leave a killer out on the loose?"Complicating the matter is an old girlfriend, played by Anne Baxter, who still loves the priest.
However, once again the cleric remains true to his vows and doesn't get involved with her.Karl Malden, meanwhile, plays a gung-ho cop out to solve the crime.This movie could use a little more suspense and action, plus a bit of the old Hitchcock humor, but still is more than passable..
(Besides, I've never had much time for the objection that a lead character is "too good".) The one thing some people don't know about the seal of confession is that the priest can't mention the sin even to the guilty party, but this is made clear enough in the film in one of the confrontations between Keller and Logan.
Classic and haunting suspense by the master himself , Hitchcock , dealing with tragic events when a priest (Montgomery Clift) takes confession from a man who coincidentally killed a blackmailer who he knew of pre-vows relationship with a married woman (Anne Baxter).
Supporting cast is frankly excellent such as Karl Malden as Inspector Larrue , Brian Aherne as prosecutor Willy Robertson , O.E. Hasse as Otto Keller , Roger Dann as Pierre Grandfort and Dolly Haas played Alma Keller in this film ; Haas was selected to play "Alma" Keller, because of her physical resemblance to Hitchcock's wife Alma Reville .
The motion picture was well directed by Alfred Hitchcock , he was famous for making his actors follow the script to the word, but in this movie the Hitch's method filmmaking clashing with Clift's method interpretation and the result falls short of the Master of Suspense's best pictures and never quite comes off at all .
While it is true that having a priest as the lead character in what was essentially marketed as a suspense thriller may have been a storytelling trait slightly ahead of its time, (the religious connotations must have no doubt caused some mumblings of discontent back in 1953) but it does lead to a simply brilliant and unique story premise: Father Michael Logan (Clift) hears the confession of a murder from a man working in his rectory, but due to the sanctity of confession, can break his trust and tell no one, even when he himself is framed for the murder, unable to clear his own name.
Hitchcock is in familiar territory here as he revamps his trademark "wrong man" plot, but with the interesting tweaking of the lead role - instead of the protagonist fighting to clear his name when he is wrongfully accused, Father Logan must instead struggle in silence, dutifully refusing to breach the confidentiality of confession.
This submission of the lead character did not sit well with audiences, nor Hitchcock himself when the film was first released,but this is ultimately what makes I Confess stand out among so many of Hitchcock's similar thrillers, without ruining the plot in the slightest - the suspense element is still there, albeit slightly more serious (there are no light heated wisecracks here) and subdued, as the audience still clings to the edge of their seats, wondering how Father Logan's name will be cleared without him personally attempting to clear it.
Hitchcock handles his subject matter, (including the priest character being suspected of murder and having an alleged love affair) with just as even a hand, and as careful and classy a touch as in all his other efforts.Also, I Confess proves to be not only Hitchcock's last film in black and white (except for Psycho seven years later) but also one of his strongest films in terms of visual style and feel for the film.
Don't let the alleged religious connotations and occasional bad reviews steer you away - this is one of Hitchcock's strongest works, as the unique variation on his time worn themes, combined with a visually sumptuous look, a quick and intelligent script and a consistently impressive cast easily make the film worth a watch.
Roger Ebert in the Great Movies series has plenty of good things to say about Notorious, Strangers on a Train and other films of this period, but nothing on the only film Hitchcock made with Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter and Karl Malden.
A typical Hitchcock story has characters who seem to have no past at all--they seem to spring to life to fulfill the demands of the script.I Confess starts as a typical thriller, then at the 42 minute mark, the story comes to a halt in Robertson's office as Ruth recounts the story of how she fell in love with Michael Logan, who was not fully in love with her (an obvious parallel with Gene Tierney and Tyrone Power in The Razor's Edge).
The verdict (it should be noted that this is one of the only Hitchcock movies to feature a good portion of the trial, and not just the verdict/sentencing), the verdict sparks public outrage and the ensuing events are shocking indeed.Overall, Montgomery Cliff is excellent as the falsely accused priest, and Hitchcock - although unspectacular - is still the closest thing to a perfect director the film world has seen.
The basic story is established early: Catholic priest Father Logan (Montgomery Clift) hears a confession from the church caretaker, who has just killed a man.
Father Michael Logan is a young priest in the late 1940s Quebec who hears a confession from Otto Keller (Otto Hasse), a poor German refugee who works as a caretaker at Father Logan's church, who tells him that he has just committed a murder of a lawyer by the name Vilette, in whose home he broke in with the intent to rob a big sum of money that would improve his, and most importantly his wife Alma's life, whom he can't stand seeing working hard anymore.
Father Logan (Clift) listens to the confession of a murderer but soon he becomes the prime suspect.I confess is a riveting suspenseful crime drama owing to a tantalizing script, a bravado performance by its central star and some majestic craftsmanship by the master of suspense, who starts the film in a wonderful cameo, no one else does crime quite like Alfred Hitchcock.The opening sees the Brit walking silently through the streets as we flicker through the deserted streets and eventually see one man walking away, silently to the church where Father Logan is and this start sets the picture in motion.The man in question is Otto Keller, a man who confesses to murder and when the body is found and Logan knows the truth he is bound by the rules of the church and we see the police suspicions grow and the script and action getting edgier as the plot builds and builds on glorious suspense.Perhaps comparing this to The Da Vinci Code would do The Hitch an injustice, given the way the Ron Howard picture was rejected.
The rules of the church and his belief allows Logan no freedom to express what he really knows but adds an extra dimension to the character's belief and faith, reflecting well the projecting of right and wrong.Montgomery Clift is finely shot as the Priest, giving this belief system a true working through hard expressions when his personal life coincides with the murder case.
In Quebec, the exiled German Otto Keller (O.E. Hasse) confesses to the Catholic Priest Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift) late night in the church that he has just killed the lawyer Villette that employed him as gardener to steal US$ 2,000.00 dressed like a priest.
The plot itself is already very interesting, ans it's so well-written that doesn't make the viewer bored at all, with great character development and a few clever twists, it's but Alfred Hitchcock's directing makes it even more interesting, with some clever shots at interesting angles, and a film-noir style to it.Montgomery Clift stars here as the priest.
"I Confess" ranks high on my Hitchcock list, with the outstanding Montgomery Clift as Father Michael William Logan, and the under-utilized Anne Baxter as Ruth Grandfort.
This, in turn, is the plot's genius: a priest becomes suspected of murder because he cannot say who the real killer is -- the killer has confessed, thus striking Logan to silence as part of his priestly duties.Clift is a great lead, with an imposing stature.
Supporting him in this interesting movie of murder and confession, are Anne Baxter, as a blonde (Hitch has to have his blonde leading lady), Karl Malden and Brian Aherne.
And, the non-event leading to a blackmail plan amounts to nothing the husband wouldn't have accepted; really, it was nothing.******* I Confess (1/12/53) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter, Karl Malden, O.E. Hasse.
Starring Montgomery Clift with Anne Baxter, Karl Malden, & O.H. Hasse.Unlike many Hitchcock films, this is not a thriller but there is suspense.Logan (Clift) and Ruth (Anne Baxter) grow up in the same Quebec city neighborhood and are longtime boyfriend & girlfriend before WW-II.
It is interesting that Hitchcock combined his Catholicism with his strong suspicions of the police who in this film, victimize a man who is a model of good conduct, as a friend of the woman he once loved and as a Catholic priest.
This all happened when the church handyman German refugee Otto Keller, O.E Hasse, confessed to Father Michael in the church confession booth that he in fact killed Ottawa lawyer Villette, Ovila Legare, in a blotch robbery attempt.What makes Villette's murder even more shocking is that he-Villette-had been blackmailing Michael's former girlfriend, before he became a Catholic priest, Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter) for some five years knowing that she's married to Ottawa legislator Pierre Grandfort, Roger Dann.
Knowing that he can't break the vows of the confession booth Father Michael is left out in the cold leaving it up to Keller to tell the truth about him killing Villette or else be forced to face the hangman's noose if convicted!Ruth risking disgrace and public humiliation breaks the ice by confessing to Ottawa police Inspector Larrue, Karl Malden, her secret relationship with the then just Michael Logan, and being with him at the time of Villette's murder, before the war, WWII, broke out back in 1939.
Upright Canadian Priest (Montgomery Clift) is suspected of murdering a lawyer with a `past' after hearing his presbytery's handyman confess to it, will he break the sanctity of the Confessional to save his own life?The whole thing doesn't work, because there is not much suspense in the machinations of plot and character, only because of Hitch's direction and camerawork.
Although filmed in Quebec City with some nice atmospheric mood and given a cast that includes MONTGOMERY CLIFT, ANNE BAXTER and KARL MALDEN, I CONFESS turns out to be a mediocre Hitchcock film hurt by a script that lacks logic and a pace that is too slow for a story calculated to build suspense.MONTGOMERY CLIFT is unable to do much more than appear confused and hesitant in his role as a priest who is torn by the knowledge he has that a killer has confessed his guilt--but the rules of the confessional means he has to keep his lips sealed.
Alfred Hitchcock directed this drama that stars Montgomery Clift as Father Michael Logan, a catholic Priest in Quebec who finds himself caught up in a murder investigation when the church caretaker(named Otto), after murdering a man whose home he was robbing, flees to the church for sanctuary after confessing the crime to Logan, who tries to convince him to turn himself in to the police, though he refuses.
Much like "The Wrong Man", another Alfred Hitchcock gem, "I Confess" is a classic "what if?" scenario, this time involving a Catholic priest and a confession that completely changes his life.For a basic plot summary, "I Confess" sees Father Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift) hear the confession of murderer Otto Keller (O.E. Hasse).
"I Confess" is a Hitchcock film from 1953 film starring Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter, Brian Aherne, Karl Malden, and O.E. Hasse.The film is based on a French story, Nos Deux Consciences and takes place in Quebec City, Canada.
Feeling guilty about his crime, he confesses his crime to Father Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift), a young Catholic priest known for his willingness to help people.
Without too much comedy and a darker tone than his best known movies, "I Confess" is definitely Hitchcock playing by the rules of Film Noir (pretty much like he would do in another forgotten gem, "The Wrong Man", some years later).
When Ruth goes to provide Larrue with an alibi for Logan, things don't work out as planned..........Clift is very good in the lead as a priest struggling to do the right thing (his face says everything) and it's a very well acted film by the rest of the cast as well, except for 2 young French girls who sound like they are affecting terribly false French accents.
one of the hugest hole in the screenplay is the mystery solved in the second scene and whats left for the audience is to wait through, because you know one of the 2 things would happen in the end and, watch the fate of the poor priest.the script is weak for a thriller, don't why he, Hitchcock, chose it, Montgomery Clift is stiff as a stick, he's always except for one or 2 films of his....he's good looking but, can't act, now the plot, a maintenance guy kills a certain Villette, who's his part time employer too besides the church, accidentally, apparently, and he leaves all the evidence behind, he went in to steal but, guess what, he leaves all the cash intact and takes only 2 thousand dollars to start a new in 1953, why did he wore that robe and the hat when he went to kill him??
However looked closely there are many problems with the film as the screenplay has to overreach to make the priest a suspect, the murderer is a man who the audience has little sympathy for and you do not buy that the priest would himself go to jail to save the snivelling rat.Hitchcock does his best with the thriller genre but the story line hampers him, especially with the flashback scenes with Clift and Anne Baxter whose past relationship returns to haunt them both.Karl Malden is effective as a dogged detective but as a good catholic himself you would have thought that he might have sensed there were other reasons why the priest was not forthcoming..
How about this?I view "I Confess" as being a black comedy about the Catholic religion where Hitchcock wants us to laugh at how preposterous this whole business is when it comes to a priest not being allowed to break the seal of silence from a confessional (even when this concerns the matter of bringing the identity of a murderer to the attention of the law).Anyway - Speaking about slasher films - I really think that "I Confess" needed a psycho of its own to liven things up.
In a brilliant twist of fate Ruth tries to give Michael an alibi to the police but instead gives them a motive for the murder.While there are some common themes by Hitchcock in the movie (the wrong man accused, the final shooting) there are also differences from his other films.
I was also impressed by Otto Hasse who plays Keller as a very creepy and schizophrenic murderer who constantly affects the guilt feelings of Michael Logan.So I Confess is a movie that would be a classic if it was directed by anyone but Hitchcock.
Thus forced into complicity with the murderer, Father Logan behaves as though he is guilty despite his innocence in much the same way Guy Haines takes on some of Bruno's guilt in Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." The film's tension derives from the audience's knowledge of the cleric's ethical problem and its desire to see him break his vows to save his own life...Montgomery Clift makes the clergyman's inner torment apparent simply by the anguished expression in his eyes, and creates sympathy for a man who could be an object of mockery by maintaining his dignity...
Basically in Quebec City, late one night in a his local church devout Catholic priest Father Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift) has a visit from exiled German Otto Keller (O.E. Hasse) who wants to confess a sin, and he confesses that he has murdered lawyer Monsieur Villette (Ovila Légaré).
It's just a question of how the priest will handle a murder confession...particularly when it indirectly involves him in a love triangle that makes him a suspect.Ironically, the best thing about the film is the acting by Montgomery Clift...and Hitchcock reportedly hated Clift's method acting style.
Montgomery Cliff plays Father Logan, a stone-faced priest who hears a confession of murder. |
tt0077289 | California Suite | In Visitor from New York, Hannah Warren is a Manhattan workaholic who flies to Los Angeles to retrieve her teenaged daughter Jenny after she leaves home to live with her successful screenwriter father William. The bickering divorced couple is forced to decide what living arrangements are best for the girl.
Conservative middle-aged businessman Marvin Michaels is the Visitor from Philadelphia, who awakens to discover a prostitute named Bunny unconscious in his bed after consuming a bottle of vodka. With his wife Millie on her way up to the suite, he must find a way to conceal all traces of his uncharacteristic indiscretion.
The Visitors from London are British actress Diana Nichols, a first-time nominee for the Academy Award for Best Actress, and her husband Sidney, a once-closeted antique dealer who increasingly has become indiscreet about his sexual orientation. The Oscar is an honor that could jumpstart her faltering career, although Diana knows she doesn't have a chance of winning. She is in deep denial about the true nature of her marriage of convenience, and as she prepares for her moment in the spotlight, her mood fluctuates from hope to panic to despair.
The Visitors from Chicago are two affluent couples who are best friends. Stu Franklyn and his wife Gert and Mort Hollender and his wife Beth are taking a much-needed vacation together. Things begin to unravel quickly when Beth is hurt during a mixed doubles tennis match and Mort accuses Stu of having caused her injury by lobbing the ball. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0490170 | Love Story 2050 | Karan Malhotra (Harman Baweja) is a spirited and happy-go-lucky boy who does not follow the rules. Sana (Priyanka Chopra) is the opposite of Karan: a sweet and shy girl who lives life by the rules. Even though they are completely opposite, they fall in love, leading to a magical love story.
A scientist, Dr. Yatinder Khanna (Boman Irani), has dedicated 15 years of his life to building a time machine. Sana expresses a wish to time-travel to Mumbai in the year 2050, but she is killed in an accident before her marriage to Karan. Karan wishes to travel back in time and find Sana. Dr. Yatinder, Karan, and Sana's siblings, Rahul and Thea, travel forward in time and reach Mumbai in 2050. They are fascinated by the futuristic Mumbai, with its flying cars, holograms, robots, 200-story buildings and more.
Twists and turns lead to the introduction of Ziesha (Priyanka Chopra), the reincarnation of Sana. Ziesha is a popular singer in 2050 who does not remember her past life, but gets flashbacks of it after meeting Karan. Unlike Sana, Ziesha is an arrogant, headstrong and rebellious girl who does not believe in love. She leads a lonely life after the death of her parents, which has embittered her.
Karan and the others find themselves under the threat of the demi-god, Dr. Hoshi. After Karan tells Ziesha he loves her, he is taken away from her by the guards. Ziesha does not believe him when he tells her about his time travel. However, after reading Sana's diary, Ziesha ultimately remembers her past life. Karan returns to her and she declares her love for him and tells him she is Sana. Dr. Hoshi tries to capture Karan because he wants the time machine. After a wild attempt to catch Karan and Ziesha, Hoshi crashes into a nuclear substance truck and dies. Karan goes back to 2008 in the time machine with Ziesha and the rest of his family. Everyone is overjoyed to see their beloved Sana again and Karan proposes to her. | good versus evil, romantic, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0400717 | Open Season | In the peaceful town of Timberline, 900-pound (408 kg) grizzly bear Boog enjoys a captive, but pampered existence and spends his day as the star attraction of the town's nature show while at night living in the garage of park ranger Beth, who raised him since he was a cub. One day, the sadistic hunting fanatic Shaw drives into town with the one-antlered deer Elliot strapped to the hood of his truck. Boog frees Elliot, at the last minute, against his better judgment, before Shaw catches him. Boog never expects to see his "buddy" again, but Elliot follows Boog home to find him sleeping in the garage. To wake Boog up, Elliot throws rabbits at the window. He tells him to be "free" from his garage captivity and introduces Boog to a world of sweet temptations he has never known.
When Boog becomes sick from eating too many candy bars, events quickly spiral out of control as the two raid the town's grocery store. Elliot escapes before Boog is caught by a friend of Beth, police officer Gordy. At the nature show, Elliot being chased by Shaw, sees Boog, who "attacks" him. This causes the whole audience to panic. Shaw attempts to shoot Boog, but Beth sedates them both with a tranquilizer gun just before Shaw fires his gun. Shaw flees before Gordy can arrest him for shooting a gun in the town. The two trouble makers are released into the Timberline National Forest, only three days before open season starts, but they are relocated above the waterfalls, where they will be safe from the hunters.
Since he lacks any outdoor survival skills, Boog reluctantly takes Elliot as his accident-prone guide to get him back home to Timberline to reunite with Beth. But in the woods, they quickly learn that it is every animal for itself. The two run into their share of the forest animals including skunks, Maria and Rosie, ducks, Serge and Deni, various unnamed panic-stricken rabbits, the Scottish-accented squirrel, McSquizzy, along with his roguish gang, Reilly, a beaver and his construction worker team, a porcupine named Buddy who is in search of a friend and the herd of deer led by Ian and Giselle (who Elliot is in love with).
With each adverse encounter, Boog learns a little about self-reliance and Elliot gains self-respect and they start to become friends. Day by day, Elliot attempts to lead Boog out of the forest, but it becomes evident that he has no clue where they are going. After winding up at Reilly's dam, Boog and Elliot are confronted by Shaw, Boog then loses his toy bear, Dinkleman, as the current makes the doll float out of Boog's paw. They end up in a waterfall, which floods and sends the forest animals falling down it.
At first everyone blames Boog who accuses Elliot of lying to him about leading him home. Elliot admits he thought that if Boog spent time with him, he would befriend him. Boog leaves to unwittingly find Shaw's log cabin. Shaw returns and talks to his gun "Loraine" and says he would take back what is his, discovers him (like Goldilocks and the Three Bears), and pursues him to the city road where Boog happens upon the glowing lights of Timberline. Instead of deserting his companions, Boog helps the other animals defend themselves using supplies taken from an RV owned by two people looking for Bigfoot named Bob and Bobbie's RV while their pet dachshund Mr. Weenie joins "the wilds".
The next day, Boog leads a revolution against the hunters, sending them running after McSquizzy blows up their trucks with a propane tank named "Mr. Happy" ignited by using an emergency flare. Shaw returns for a final confrontation and shoots Elliot in the process, which enrages Boog and leads him to tie up Shaw with his own gun. Boog rushes over to Elliot's body but soon finds that Elliot survived the shot, only losing his second antler in the fracas. Beth returns to take Boog back home where he will be safe, but he decides to stay with his friends, all of the animals in the forest.
During the credits, Shaw is seen tarred, feathered and tied on the top of Bobbie and Bob's RV, mistaken for Bigfoot. | revenge, comedy | train | wikipedia | To me, I really felt relieved to see some humor and scenes similar to the old Looney Tunes cartoons that used to be considered great, but are now considered evil and horrible.I took my 4 year old daughter to see this movie as well, and she absolutely loved it.
Unfortunately, the story was bland and the jokes were only mildly funny, so it will not be one of the best kids movies you're going to see this year.
OK, this year alone probably saw a record number of talking animal animations, with countless of punchlines filled with pop culture references, and big name stars attached to the projects, that it's about time we give the genre a good break, rather than churning them out continuously with more misses than hits.And Open Season, probably the last one on offer this year from a Hollywood studio, suffers from this glut, unfortunately.
Heck, with so much similarities between the movies, you can even spot a familiarity or two from the story lines, taking a a leaf from one of the earlier flop - The Wild, in having one of its stars here, part of a popular animal attraction, and another part from Over The Hedge, where a group of animals must band together for survival and a fight against adversity.The leads for Open Season are a domesticated grizzly bear who has its own teddy bear soft toy (don't ask), and a mule-deer with one half of its horn sawn off.
It's strange that there's a reversal of voice roles here, as Lawrence's Boog the Bear is uptight, while Kutcher's Elliot the deer is built in the same old wise cracking mould as Eddie Murphy's Mushu in Mulan, or Donkey in Shrek.
Don't believe the trailers though, as the war between animals and humans, doesn't take up much screen time.The sad part though, is that there aren't many funny moments to distract you from the rehashed story lines and subplots, but then again, it's a made for children movie.
And you'll only see one in the new Sony Pictures Animation film, Open Season, starring Martin Lawrence, Debra Messing, Ashton Kutcher, Gary Sinise, Jon Favreau, and many more.Martin voices the lovable Boog in the film; he's the main attraction of a show at the zoo with his best friend, Beth (Debra Messing).
I have somewhat of a test for animated movies I've been giving myself over the past few years ever since seeing the water scenes in The Incredibles, and noticing how real it looked, I've started to take an eye to the screen.
But back to the story - after meeting back up with the group of beavers, led by Reilly (voiced by Jon Favreau), some of Elliot's former deer mates (Patrick Warburton and Jane Krakowski), and a few other animals, Boog and Elliot team up and go on the attack against the hunters.
Roger Allers co-directed The Lion King, and has just recently completed The Little Match Girl a short attached to The Little Mermaid.Open Season is a fun and very enjoyable film for kids and families.
When I saw "Open Season", my first impression was that the film looked a bit substandard compared to the higher quality Pixar movies which preceded it.
Because the writing was so good...and it's worth seeing."Open Season" is the story of Boog the Grizzly who was raised by a forest ranger.
The movie follows them on their adventure through the woods, but a hunter named Shaw is on their trail from preventing them to get back home.The film has a lot of adventure, humor and good heart at the end, but it never fails me to see how awesome it can be.
"Open Season" uses more adult and over-the-edge-humor than any other animated movie in the last few years.
Maybe I'm a little forgiving of this movie because of the positive memories it's associated with, but I really do think that Open Season is an entertaining film for parents and children.
I think I laugh one time during the movie and fell a sleep twice.Synopsis: Boog a domesticated bear was release into the wild few days before the open season.
I always thought that high-budget, 3D-animation movies, would never fall so down to be desperate efforts to make money without a story, without humor, without good actors, without anything.
The collective brain cell of non-Pixar animation studios needs to adapt to a few simple facts: --A buddy movie is not the required format for an animated film, and should that format be used, the concept that the buddies are in fact homosexual need not be presented to the four-year-old target audience in a ratio greater than one joke out of four.--The remaining three jokes out of four need not involve bodily functions, indeed of any kind.--Casting animals as protagonists in a story is a time-honoured tradition, although traditional animated deer spend less time making genital-related comments to squirrels, and more time weeping over their deceased parents in a doe-eyed fashion.
However, it reminded me of yet another domesticated-animals-in-the-wild movie "Madagascar" but trust me, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.In the heart of America's natural wilderness lies the sleepy hunting town of Timberline where the star attraction, besides blasting the local wildlife, is the grizzly bear Boog (Martin Lawrence).
During his quest to return home, Boog discovers that he just isn't cut out for life in the wild, especially when Shaw and the other hunters gather for hunting's open season.Strictly by-the-numbers it may be but "Open Season" isn't a bad little film.
So, this fall, instead of wasting 10 bucks on a poor sequel like the Grudge or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, take a shot with a movie that's sure to entertain: Open Season..
Open Season is a prime example of how great animation doesn't make a good film.
Even though she is given top billing and the titular character, she doesn't have any real dramatic moments until the end of the film.I have to say that the best actress of the picture was Caitlin Cutt in her small, but pivotal role.Though I wouldn't call Open Season a masterpiece, I would recommend it to any fan of the genre..
Open Season is far from being the worst animated feature of all time, but with a better story and better characters, it would've been better.4/10.
A grizzly bear named Boog, domesticated by a park ranger, Beth, helps deer friend Elliot escape from the mullet-sporting hunter, Shaw.
Elliott and Boog develop a strong bond not only between themselves but also with the wild animals and attempt to drive the hunters out of the forest.Out of countless animation films released in 2006, I was looking up for this but it was kinda disappointing that it's much more of a kiddy flick than for teens or adult, although there were some inappropriate jokes for the children.The animation in the film was okay, not as good as Pixar's and the action sequences in the film is great but that only appears mostly at the third act of the film, which made the movie a bit better.
"Open Season" is a very entertaining animated film.i like the eclectic mix of characters.i really liked the dynamic between the 2 main characters,A domesticated bear named "Boog"(voiced by Martin Lawrence)and Elliot(Ashton Kutcher)a displaced mule deer with no family.i also though the dialogue was very good in this movie.there are some great one liners.there is also an abundance of action,(some of it very funny) and there are also some dramatic moments.dare i say it,this movie treads very close to being hysterical in some scenes.also,the choice of actors for the voices is brilliant in this movie,especially Lawrence and Kutcher.for me,"Open Season" gets a solid 7/10.
In Open Season, a movie filled with fun and adventure, we see the bond between a local park ranger and her bear named Boog grow strong.
As he tries to adjust his lifestyle from being pampered to living on his own, he meets many animal friends, one being a deer named Elliot, who tries his best to teach Boog the ways of the wild.
The way Elliot the deer explains his fear or being hunted and the way it has affected him was said kind of made me realize that illegal hunting is actually something that goes on nowadays, maybe not specifically in Hawaii, but other states, whether it be in local forests or refuge parks like the one in the movie.
it also made me realized that there are people like Shaw out there in this world that continue to hunt illegally with the intention of building up pride and this movie did a perfect job of portraying that.Another aspect of the movie that really enhanced the notable scenes and portraying the exploration of the outside world came in the beginning of the film when Boog's owner, also a park ranger finally has no option but to give him up to the outside world.
One good example of this is in the scene where Boog, the 900 pound grizzly bear voiced by Martin Lawrence and Elliot the deer voiced by Ashton Kutcher team up to create an action packed scene where they band together convincing the other animals of the forest to fight against the hunters to try and alive being yet another trophy for them.
This is the story of a bear( voiced by Martin Lawrence in english and Mikael Persbrandt in Swedish) named Boog and a deer named Elliot( voiced by Ashton Kutcher in English and Musical theater Actor Jakob Stadell in Swedish).
But one day his Life Change when he frees Elliot who cast been captured by the hunter Shaw( voiced in english by Gary Sinise and in Swedish by award winning Actor Lennart Jähkel)This was the first movie by Sony Pictures Animation who would later make the Hotel Transylvania movies.
The stand out is however Stig Engström who does as great job as the Sheriff.But the plot is predictable and most of the humor is and Unfunny and some are gross.The animation is not but of course taking into account that movie is 12 years old.It's not a very good movie.
Martin Lawrence and Ashton's Kutcher's effort for crazy voices did just a little to help the movie to be funny.
One strange thing I notice is that only Elliot, the one-antler goofed up mule deer that is the animal which stands on his rear feet beside Boog the Grizzly bear.
alright,this was an OK movie.But the idea of talking animals has been wildly overused.Also,the movie had somewhat of a "Shrek" theme.Its the 'im not going to be your friend' but then at the end of the movie the mood changes to 'oh ill be your friend i love you' But while it did have its funny parts (the otter using a chainsaw/right after i saw the Texas Chainsaw Massacre) (the Scottish squirills) ("well need your nuts!" "And your acorns too!") Don't worry,for those of you who saw those lines don't worry,because it was probably,like many children movies,overly advertised on TV and sold cheap toys at Burger King and McDonalds.But like I mentioned before,the movie did have a Shrek kind of feel to it.*as said by myfilm83.
1st watched 12/15/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jill Culton, Roger Allers & Anthony Stacchi): OK, Shrek-like story about a couple of animal misfits who link up with the rest of the animal kingdom in the backwoods to fight against the human hunters when it's open season.
There's something about a technical breakthrough at Sony that made the characters pop out on screen more, but the story is so weak that the critters get deflated.I was wondering if I disliked Open Season because I don't care for Martin Lawrence and Ashton Kutcher.
Voice acting as well seems completely serviceable, with lead Martin Lawrence in particular rising above your typical cartoonish cheese to deliver many genuine moments as the title character Boog, a gigantic, domesticated bear who is having a tough time making his way in the wild after being brought up in luxury.
Open season is one of the worst animation film from last years(if not the worst).This movie is a copy of Madagascar,The wild and Over the hedge.But it seems that the animated movie with animals is a new cliché because coming soon,there are movies like Happy Feet,The barnyard and Ratatouille which are more animated movies with animals.This movie was extremely boring for me and I watched my clock all the time.I don't recommend this pathetic animated film;maybe for little children(from 1 year to 5 years old)the movie is fun.But for older children and for adults this is pathetic and totally boring.Rating:3.
Wild deer Elliot (Ashton Kutcher) leads domesticated Grizzly bear Boog (Martin Lawrence) to the outside in search of candy.
Two comedians give life in this animated film to a bear named Boog and Elliot a very naughty deer.
It turns out that Elliot was lying and does not know the way, it goes on random through the woods where Boog meets the other animals who make fun of him but when they hear that there are a few days and start hunting season everyone allies to ban the hunting.
He is far away from his owner Beth (Debra Messing) and is stuck in the forest with a very annoying mule, Elliot (Ashton Kutcher.) Boog is trying to find a way to get back to his garage and owner, but hunting season is just starting.
I love animated films and think the animation in Open Season is really good.
Open Season is a clichéd animated film about a bear named Boog, who is a pet to a female hunter.
The relationship between Boog and Elliot is reminiscent to the one between Shrek and Donkey.There have been way too many movies with talking animals in the past two years: Madagascar, The Wild, Ice Age 2, Over the Hedge, the Ant Bully and then we still have Barnyard, Flushed Away and Happy Feet, although Happy Feet actually looks quite entertaining.I think it is enough with the talking animal genre.
After getting free tickets to the premiere of 'Open Season', I was expecting to see a great animated film, like Shrek and Monster's Inc. I ended up coming out disappointed.
When you think about Open Season you either love it or hate it there is no in between on it.I first watch the movie when it came to TV and looking back on it I have to say the film just has a mix of awe and disgustWhile it does offer some watchable moments most of the film just feels like it's not right to be a family movie let alone one for adults to watch.The first complain I have is the animation I mean what have I been looking at?
because it sure wasn't animation because most of the character models look unrealistic and down right ugly I mean I have seen much better animationThe voice acting is pretty good which is one of the few things I say was good about this film Humor in this film often feels funny some had the gross comedy which really ruin the movie for me there are some funny bits but the gross comedy just destroy the film While it feature a creative story it just don't feel like a winnerI give Open Season an 5 out of 10.
Boog is out in the woods by himself; or is he?Open Season doesn't try to amaze with flashy animation but the story is good enough to keep it interesting.Perhaps the worst thing going for Open Season is that it seems to portray hunters as bad and that they don't follow the regulations.
I thought that was a very good animated family feature, and decided that afterwards, I would watch "Open Season", another Sony Pictures Animation production which was released the year before, and has animals as the main characters, not unlike the penguin surfing movie that followed.
After the deer disrupts one of the domesticated bear's performances and sends him into a frenzy, the two animals are both shot with a tranquilizer gun by Beth, and then taken to a place in the wild where they will be safe from hunters during open season.
Wearing the 3D glasses, I could see each individual patch of fur on Boog's back and the characters literally came out from the screen.Is this movie good for the kids?
Wearing the 3D glasses, I could see each individual patch of fur on Boog's back and the characters literally came out from the screen.Is this movie good for the kids?
Boorg (voiced by Martin Lawrence), the loving bear who was rescued by a ranger and raised basically like a pet dog, has gotten too big and is now released into the wild during *gasp* Open Season, which is the time when the humans come into the forest to hunt the animals.
This time its the lovable and funny Elliot (voiced by Ashton Kutcher), a down-on-his-luck deer who has been kicked out of his herd and is being hunted by The Big Bad Hunter.
The animal bond, give the hunters hell and all ends well (especially for one of the skunks).Remember how good you thought The Incredibles was?, this movie makes that look like so much ho hum it's not even funny.And if you don't like it, go out and make your own film rather than tear this one apart..
Boog then decides to stay in the forest with everyone else.Overall, this is a fun movie, but it was actually a lot like Over the Hedge.
Besides that, this has great computer animation, a solid cast, some fun scenes, a porcupine who meets a "Buddy," and a bittersweet ending, like a lot of these movies have.
If you're looking for a good animated film to take the kids to this fall, and you like this current talking animal genre, then Open Season is for you! |
tt0238552 | Replicant | Edward "The Torch" Garrotte (Jean-Claude Van Damme) is a serial killer who has a penchant for killing women and setting them on fire. All of his victims are also mothers. Detective Jake Riley (Michael Rooker) is a Seattle police detective who has spent three years chasing Garrotte. Just days before Jake's retirement Garrotte strikes again, but Jake is off the case. During his retirement party, Jake receives a call from Garrotte, who threatens to go after his friends and family. Realizing Garrotte needs to be stopped no matter what, Riley sets out to stop him.
A secret government agency hires Jake as a consultant on a special project. They have cloned Garrotte from DNA evidence found at a crime scene. They need Jake's help to train this replicant, who has genetic memories from Garrotte and a telepathic link to him. The replicant has the body of a 40-year-old but the mind of a child. Jake's job is to help the Replicant track Garrotte down by using the memories stored in Garrotte's DNA.
The Replicant and Jake begin to hunt Garrotte. Jake believes the Replicant could turn on him at any time, as Garrotte's killer instinct may take over. The Replicant tries to understand the world, and his connection with Garrotte. The replicant does not understand why Jake treats him so roughly, since the Replicant views Jake as family. Though Jake is abusive, the Replicant looks to him for protection and guidance as they close on Garrotte. Garrotte and the Replicant confront each other in a bar after Garrotte fails to kill Jake with a bomb. Garrotte kills a bartender, but lets the Replicant live. An origin story shows that Garrotte was abused by his mother, who then killed her unfaithful husband, and tried to burn their house down, which reveals why Garrotte hates women.
They confront each other later in a parking garage. Garrotte tries to convince his "brother" that Jake cannot be trusted. Frustrated that Garrotte got away, Jake asks why the Replicant let him go. The Replicant replies, "We are the same." Jake tries to tell the Replicant that Garrote is a sociopath, but he refuses to listen. They find out Garrotte's real name-Luc Sevard-and go to the hospital to talk with Sevard's mother (Margaret Ryan), but she had already died of a heart attack. Garrotte arrives and beats Jake and also wants his "brother" to join him by killing Jake, but he refuses, forcing Garrote to try and execute both of them. Jake and the killer fight, leading to an ambulance chase in the parking garage. The van crashes into a toll booth, but the killer escapes. He hits Jake with a shovel and plans to burn him alive.
The Replicant and killer fight again in the hospital's furnace room. The Replicant wants to kill Garrotte, but realizes that he is not the killer Garrotte is. The killer hits the Replicant with a shovel, which causes Jake to shoot him. The Replicant suddenly understands that Jake is his real family. An air conditioner, damaged in the fight, explodes, supposedly killing the Replicant after he gets Jake to safety. Upset by the death of his new "partner", Jake decides to retire from his new job as a consultant.
Weeks later, Jake is with his wife Anne (Catherine Dent) and stepson Danny (Brandon James Olson). Jake spots a man in a raincoat put a package in their mailbox. However, Jake realizes the Replicant is alive when he finds the package contains a music box as a gift for Jake's help. The Replicant is dating Hooker (Marnie Alton) as the film ends. | comedy, neo noir, murder, violence, flashback, good versus evil, suspenseful, sadist | train | wikipedia | I used to be Jean-Claude Van Damme's biggest fan back when I was 13 or so, having seen HARD TARGET on video and then watching every subsequent Van Damme movie up to MAXIMUM RISK (which for some reason I just didn't feel like watching).
The problem was that his acting has usually been so stiff that it's hard to root for him as the good guy (watching SUDDEN DEATH I actually was hoping the bad guys would win) - not the case with this movie.No, believe it or not, Van Damme actually displays an amazing, intriguing, and very believable performance (or is it one?) playing the moronic and childish clone.
Michael Rooker, the other reason I broke down and rented this movie, has some really great scenes like when he gets so angered by a call from the psycho-killer that he throws the phone on the ground and smashes it into a million pieces.
The best scenes in the movie though have to be Van Damme as the evil twin cutting a swarth of destruction around the city - like kicking old ladies, shooting corpses, or (my favorite) when he shoots the driver of a stopped car he's running past in an intersection FOR NO REASON!
Replicant stars Van Damme as a killer who is cloned by scientists so that the clone helps capture him.Van Damme scores his best since Sudden Death in this better than average DTV movie.
Ringo Lam delivers some great action scenes and explots Van Damme's physical ability to great affect making Replicant a good movie.Overall Replicant would have been better if it wasn't so long but in anycase Replicant is a nice change of pace for the muscles from brussels.
I'm not going to spoil it for you but let me tell you, this guy is a sick puppy, anyone who has watched Van Damme movies in the past will be shocked at the role he's playing now.
When "Torch" leaves one of his strands of hair at the crime scene, the idea is to clone him and stop him.Van Damme plays the clone like a baby.
"Replicant" walks on a thin line between those extremes.Well, it is the third movie in which van Damme appears in two roles at the same time and it is a strange record for an action star.
Neither do Rooker's relatives and partners who very very rarely wonder why he has a new pet and why it looks like the serial killer everyone's looking for?It may seem strange to go into such deep plot discussions but the movie plays so seriously that it's hard not to do.
And there is a scene in the killer's apartment that questions his motivation, the logic of computers and plot and the the abilities of the clone."Replicant" is a B-movie, that is for sure, but in an unexpected way it is a good one, entertaining, not too much over the top and somehow still convincing.
Replicant is one of the best films by Van damme, Ringo Lam has done a great job with this picture.
this film was amazing ,i have always been a van damme fan.but to be honest his last few films have been really bad,however i did think he delivered a good performance in desert heat (you could see he was trying his hand at acting) well anyway,this film was incredible,i had no idea jean claude could give a performance like this,he portrays the clone effectively and plays the serial killer (torch)brilliantly,good stuff.i think jcvd called on his own life experience with drugs and alcohol to show his two sides,the innocent simple side to vandamme which the public see,i think he used this to show the emotion of the replicant,and his dark side with the drugs and alcohol which the public dont see,i think he used this to portray the serial killers rage and anger.its just good how jcvd came off the drugs and got himself back into fantastic shape!
Jake(Rooker, enjoyable to watch as usual) is a cop, obsessed with a serial killer(Van Damme, who, like we see in The Expendables 2, is a much better villain than hero), Torch(so named because of his MO...
Van Damme is surprisingly convincing in both of his roles (if you thought you could never take him seriously as a serial killer, this may prove you wrong), and the film is efficiently directed by Ringo Lam, who choreographs some high-powered action sequences and one or two outstanding set pieces.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsTo start with,don't be put off by the initial fact that this re-teams the Muscles from Brussells with HK director Ringo Lam,with whom he also made the rather poor Maximum Risk,Replicant is in an altogether different ball game.An original,inventive and intriguing flick,which works on nearly all the levels it sets out to.The two Van Dammes thing is admittently getting a little tiresome,but it really does give the Belgian one ample opportunity to show off his neurtured acting skills here,playing dual roles as both the good guy and the bad guy,and really getting into the emotions of each.The dialogue's a little tacky and the build-up's somewhat sprewed,but you get all you expected and even a little more.On the basis of this,Lam/Van Damme's upcoming feature The Monk should be fine viewing.****.
Van Damme plays the twin roles (a la SUDDEN IMPACT) of serial killer "The Torch" and his genetically engineered clone, assigned to former cop Michael Rooker who has been on the trail of the Torch for years.
I don't usually rent direct-to-video movies, but I like Van Damme and I almost always enjoy his work.
Van Damme is a genetic clone on a hunt for a serial killer - his first and best direct-to-video flicks.
Jean-Claude Van Damme plays double roles as Edward "The Torch" Garrotte the serial killer who kills young mom's and genetic clone version of "The Torch" on a hunt for a serial killer his original version in this sci-fi action-thriller.
I rented Replicant on VHS tape in 2002 in my high school years I love it than and I love it now.Michael Rooker plays Det. Jake Riley on hunt for "The Torch" with the use of a genetic double (also played by Van Damme), a cop has to not only find the killer...but to also make sure that the clone doesn't follow in his original's footsteps.
Det. Jake Riley is a likable hero, he saves a baby and I also support him in his decision not to trust the clone, because it is also the version of the killer and "The Torch" manipulated with the clone.It is the second collaboration between Jean-Claude Van Damme and Hong Kong film director Ringo Lam the first time they worked on Maximum Risk I reviewed that film.
This was the third time seining Van Damme playing dual roles the first time was in Double Impact and second time in Maximum Risk.What I mean was Jean-Claude Van Damme's best performance direct-to-video flicks.
I love in which the clone (Van Damme) protects that call girl from her pimp and his bodyguards, I love the final and the happy ending.Replicant is a solid good action thriller from 2001 was the first direct-to-video flick Van Damme did in 2001.
This is one of Jean-Claude Van Damme's most sensitive and exciting movies and ranks among his best along with Time Cop if not better.
JCVD fans need not fret, as you do get to see him strut his stuff in action and fight scenes, and it will create some amusement watching him attempt to delineate the mentally slow but good-hearted Replicant.Overall, it's passable, although I'm sure it's far from Van Dammes' worst.
It is committed by the first of star Jean-Claude Van Damme's dual roles in this film – he is Edward Garrotte, known as "The Torch" for setting his victims on fire.
You'll have to watch to see if Good Van Damme stays good and helps Rooker capture Bad Van Damme...The violent interaction between the three muscular men is directed by Ringo Lam. He does a fine job moving the story and keeping the level of excitement high – but the emphasis is on violent action and thinly-reasoned martial arts cloning.
Rooker is not only wrong, but also does nothing that would have helped the kid or brought back his Popsicle.***** Replicant (5/11/01) Ringo Lam ~ Jean-Claude Van Damme, Michael Rooker, Catherine Dent, Ian Robison.
Talented director Ringo Lam, who gave us the gritty crime film "City on Fire" and the spectacular tour de force known as "Full Contact" entered the 00's decade with a thoughtful and entertaining sci-fi action film that fared considerably better than the last Van Damme/Lam collaboration "Maximum Risk", a film that succeeded in mood, but little else."Replicant" poses some interesting questions: Who are we and where do we really come from?
Ringo Lam and his team of writers managed to make a film that offers something for pretty much everybody; serious sci-fi fans and those who simply want a gritty, violent (but also polished) action flick that blurs the fine line between the old-school and the new-school.Van Damme helps hold it all together, and in terms of acting, he's never been more engaging.
As the Replicant, he has a couple of campy moments, but is generally believable in such a vulnerable role, where he's essentially playing a child in a man's body, albeit one who is capable of kicking some major ass.Van Damme made two singular films in his career that stand head and shoulders above the rest.
With "Replicant", Van Damme teams up with Hong Kong director Ringo Lam, who had previously done "Maximum Risk" with Van Damme starring.The film takes the serial killer genre & adds cloning to the mix, using the silly notion that a clone can develop a telepathic link with the original.
All the Replicant character ever does is get thrashed, usually by Michael Rooker with his 'Beaker from The Muppet Show' face, occasionally by his evil alter ego and sometimes by any old random passer-by with some aggression to vent.Obviously this is fun to watch, but when it starts leading into scenes that become humiliating for other reasons (the, er, 'abrupt' encounter with the prostitute springs to mind), you can't help but think it's all going too far.
My brother rented "Replicant" from the video store in the vein attempt to see a good movie with Jean Claude Van Damme in it.
So I knew I was in for some below level film.The story to the movie is rather simple Jake (Rooker) is trying to catch the torch (Van damme with one of the lammest hairdos ever) a serial killer who after killer his victims (always mothers) lights the on fire.They have a very cliche'd cat and mouse game where they talk on the phone.
I must admit I didn't walk out.....I was with a friend, and, well, she whispered to me that she kinda liked it, so...well, you know.Jean-Claude Van Damme AKA The Muscles From Brussels defines himself as an actor in this movie.
We'll both be better off.Replicant (2001) is Van Damme's third Direct to Video decent Science Fiction/action movie, that I think is very underrated and bashed off.
The movie starts off about a scientists who create a genetic clone of a serial killer in order to help catch the killer, teaming up with two cops.Replicant is about obsessed serial killer (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and the recently retired cop (Michael Rooker) intent on stopping him.
Jean-Claude Van Damme did a solid job acting performance in this movie, the fight choreographer was good, and the fight scenes where also good.This was the second collaboration between Jean-Claude Van Damme and Hong Kong film director Ringo Lam that they where working together.
I love how smart and brilliant this movie is, that Van Damme's replicant helps Jake (Michael Rooker) catching the serial killer his original clone./: Edward "The Torch" Garrotte (Jean-Claude Van Damme) is a serial killer, who prey's for the female's who are mom's or a single mom's and kills's them.
Replicant is a 2001 American science fiction action film directed by Ringo Lam, and starring Jean-Claude Van Damme and Michael Rooker.
The fight scenes are smoothly choreographed and exciting, with director Ringo Lam clearly aware of what makes a Van Damme movie work.
Replicant is not one of those action movies where everything gets destroyed, there is a lot of character development and it's well made.Jean Claude Van Damme has 2 roles, playing both the villain and the "good" guy, acting snobs will probably notice that JCVD's acting got better.The action scenes are cool and they are directed with a lot of effort and energyReplicant is directed by Ringo Lam, (he did the best JCVD flicks Maximum Risk, In Hell and this movie), a very good Hong Kong director, he did a better American debut than John Woo in my opinion.Overall, Replicant was better than expected is very entertaining and i refuse to say that this is a DTV movie, i think that it deserved a theatrical run, a wide one, not limited !
The movie looked cheap and Van Damme's clone character was embarrasing to watch, especially the dog biscuit eating scene.
The film had the standard Van Damme action and violence sequences but there was actually a plot and I found myself caring about the characters of The Replicant and Jake.
I am usually no big fan of Van Damme's movies, but I really liked this one...Good story, good action and good characters...I specially liked the ending.Go watch it !.
Well I thought, not much to count with until I saw that Replicant is directed by Ringo Lam. Interesting, the only GOOD movie by Van Damme happens to be Hard Target (yeah, flame me, but it's one of the best US-made pure action movies) made by another Hong Kong action virtuoso; John Woo. Perhaps this could be something, but sadly not.
Ringo Lam seems to be a good director for Van Damme - he already made him look like an actor once before in the underrated "Maximum Risk".
This movie is not a Funmovie!!!!It is very dark and not the kind of Beat em up-Movies you would expect Van Damme to do.The Replicant character gets abused a lot after he is put in the World.It is also more thougt provoking than Arnies 6th Day.The Action is maybe a little disappointing to Van Damme-Fans, who surely want more good Fight-sequences.
In this way of thinking, Lam uses the public image of Van Damme and plays with it in the scenes where the clone learns life.
Of course Replicant isn't as good as Lam's Full alert or The suspect but it's for sure the best work of Van Damme and gets above the average of B movies..
He's basically a very lonely man, who has been the victim of a lot of abuse and is now pretty keen to show the world what if feels like to be a victim, which is so cool because it 180% reflects an actual serial killer's mind!There are so many interesting elements to this film, like why does Garrotte get so angered by Riley (played by the legend that is Michael Rooker) talking so bad about him on TV near the start, considering nobody knows his true identity?
Van Damme can still do the moves like a master blaster at 40 years old and he is in tremendous physical condition, car chases and explosions to keep you going all the way.I must also thank Jean-Claude for proving that he doesn't always ruin or damage the career of Chinese directors making American movies for the first time, like people think he did with Ringo, John Woo and Tsui Hark, because he has now done 4 films with Ringo Lam, all of which are great.
Replicant (2001) is the movie that proves Jean-Claude Van Damme has the potential to become an actor.
This by far Van Damme's best acting, and Michael Rooker puts in a great supporting role, as always.
Has hardcore action scenes and some sentimental moments which makes this film the best van damme film and his acting is actually good!
Jean-Claude Van Damme is actually pretty good in both roles and Michael Rooker lends some solid support as the cop on serial killer's trail making Replicant an okay little thriller..
This movie is by no means an achievement in movie making - but it certainly Jean Claude-Van Damme's best effort in quite some time, since Timecop.The premise for the plot of the movie is a good, one, but the movie itself is so full of holes it would take me too long to sit here and talk about all of them - but then again a lot of movies are full of holes.If you have some time to kill and you feel like watching a fairly decent action movie, go ahead and give this a gander.
Not much of a replicant if you ask me...Van Damme's acting is, I give him that, a bit better than his last few movies.
"The Replicant" is an average action film where Van Damme plays two roles; a brutal serial killer and his replicant, who was created in a government laboratory for military purposes.
Collaberating with director Ringo Lam once again, Jean-Claude Van Damme actually has here one of his better Post-Time Cop movies, starring in dual roles, as both a vicious psycho and essentially a child responding to a brand new world alien to him.
This movie features great acting from Jean-Claude Van Damme and Michael Rooker.
It is then he is given an assignment: to watch over the Torch's clone, the Replicant(also played by Van Damme).
The movie stars Jean-Claude Van Dammewho plays the replicant whose purpose is to track down a serial killer named Edward Garrotte (also played by Van Damme) with the help of two cops. |
tt0168856 | Hjælp! Jeg er en fisk | The film follows the adventures of three children: a skateboarding mischief-maker named Fly, his sweet younger sister, Stella, and their cousin Chuck, a cautious, intelligent and overweight genetics prodigy. When their babysitter, Aunt Anna, falls asleep, the three children sneak off to go fishing only to stumble across the boathouse home of Professor MacKrill, an eccentric marine biologist. Reasoning that climate change could melt the polar icecaps within the next century, MacKrill has developed a potion that turns people into fish so they can survive the rising sea level and also an antidote to reverse the process. Unbeknownst to all, Stella drinks the potion mistaking it for lemonade, and painfully transformed into a starfish and gets tossed out of the window into the sea. Since Stella's transformation was caught on camera, the tragedy is immediately discovered, so Fly, Chuck and Professor MacKrill head out onto the ocean in a desperate search. When a storm blows in, Fly recognizes the futility of their search, drinks the potion and jumps overboard, becoming a "Californian Flyfish". The boat capsizes and, because Chuck cannot swim, he's forced to drink the potion to survive, becoming a jellyfish. The Professor, the boat and all of its contents sink beneath the waves.
A Sand tiger shark and a pilot fish come across the leaking bottle of antidote and gain the human characteristics of speech by inhaling the liquid. Using his newfound gifts, the pilot fish, who now calls himself Joe, sets about creating an underwater civilization of intelligent fish. They take residence in a sunken oil tanker and begin to transform it into a monument. Fly, Chuck and Stella are reunited, along with a seahorse named Sasha, but are horrified to discover that the antidote has been lost. If they don't find it before tomorrow's sunset, they will stay fish forever. Some traveling fish tell them about Joe and his "magical potion". Thinking it must be the antidote they are looking for, the children travel to Joe's oil tanker empire. At the tanker, Fly attempts to steal and drink the bottle of antidote, but is warned by Chuck that if they turn back into humans this far beneath the ocean, they'll die. Intrigued by this, the villainous Joe has the children arrested and demands they manufacture more of the antidote or he'll have them eaten by the Shark.
Meanwhile, Fly and Stella's parents, Lisa and Bill, arrive home to find Aunt Anna frantic with worry. They find that Fly's fishing equipment is gone, so they head to the beach to search. There, they meet Professor MacKrill who, having survived the storm, explains that their children have been turned into fish. Though the parents are skeptical at first, a showing of the video recording from earlier validates his story. He and Bill head out to search for the children in a cobbled-together ship fitted with a large water pump.
The next morning, the children manage to escape with the help of Sasha. With no chance of going back to retrieve the bottle of antidote, they decide that their best hope is to find the ingredients to recreate the antidote themselves. Just as they complete the formula, they are found by Joe, the Shark and their army of crabs. During the standoff, Joe and the Shark get into a heated argument as Joe imbibes more of the potion, developing hands and growing in size. Taking this opportunity to escape, the children are stopped by the leader of the crabs who attacks Fly, striking him with his claw, then drinks the antidote himself, growing in size and developing hands and feet. Just as the new "King Crab" and his army are about to capture the children yet again, a tremendous underwater twister, generated by the Professor's water pump ship, sucks all the crabs (and the Shark, who eats the King Crab in the middle of the twister) to the surface. The Shark remains stuck in the tube.
Now alone, with Fly dying, and only twelve minutes until sundown, Chuck realizes their last hope is to make it back to the Professor's lab, where a whole jug of antidote is stored. Showing unexpected courage and determination, Chuck carries both Fly and Stella through the dangerous seawater intake pipes back to the lab. However, they are pursued by Joe, who overpowers them and steals the antidote. While Chuck fights off the Professor's escaped piranhas, Fly manages to catch up to the fleeing Joe as he escapes into a water intake pipe and tricks him into drinking enough antidote to become mostly human by asking him various questions on science. After drinking some of the antidote to answer the questions correctly, Joe becomes near-human, but he is no longer able to breathe underwater, thus, he drowns.
Fly drags the jug of antidote back to the lab and collapses. Chuck uncorks the jug just as Lisa and Aunt Anna open the door to the laboratory, causing everyone to get swept away. As the water drains away, Chuck and Stella have become human once more and are reunited with their parents. After a few tense moments in which a stuffed fish is mistaken for the limp body of Fly, the human Fly emerges from one of the lab's pipes (with a broken leg). Later on, while playing by the beach, Stella is reunited with Sasha, who is turned into an actual horse by the Professor and Chuck. We zoom out to see the beach with Stella riding Sasha in horse form as the film ends. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0027438 | The Charge of the Light Brigade | In 1854, Major Geoffrey Vickers (Errol Flynn) and his brother, Captain Perry Vickers (Patric Knowles), are stationed at the fictional city of Chukoti in India, with the 27th Lancers of the British Army during the period of East India Company dominance over the Indian subcontinent. Perry has secretly betrayed Geoffrey by stealing the love of his fiancee Elsa (Olivia de Havilland).
During an official visit to local tributary rajah, Surat Khan (C. Henry Gordon), Geoffrey saves the rajah's life. Later, Surat Khan massacres the inhabitants of Chukoti (mainly the dependents of the lancers), and allies himself with the Russians, whom the British are fighting in the Crimean War. He spares Elsa and Geoffrey as they flee the slaughter to repay his debt to Geoffrey.
The love triangle and the quest for vengeance are both resolved at the Battle of Balaclava. Aware that Surat Khan is inspecting the Russian position opposite the 27th Lancers, Geoffrey Vickers secretly replaces the written orders of Sir Charles Macefield (Henry Stephenson) to the commander of the Light Brigade, Sir Benjamin Warrenton (Nigel Bruce). Vickers then orders the famous suicidal attack so the lancers can avenge the Chukoti massacre. He writes a note to Macefield explaining his actions and forces his brother Perry to deliver it, sparing him from almost certain death. The attack succeeds in reaching the Russian artillery positions. There, Vickers finds and kills Surat Khan, at the cost of his own life.
After receiving Vickers' note, Macefield takes responsibility for the charge and burns the note to protect Vickers' good name. | violence, cult, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | Errol Flynn, riding high with the spectacular success of CAPTAIN BLOOD, re-teamed with co-star Olivia de Havilland and director Michael Curtiz in this epic tale, owing far more to Rudyard Kipling's prose than Tennyson's poem, or any attempt at historical accuracy.
Flynn, with his trademark moustache restored, is Major Geoffrey Vickers, dashing British Lancer, who, as the film opens, saves the life of Indian ruler Surat Khan (played by veteran screen villain C.
Between assignments, Vickers tries to be the devoted fiancé of beautiful Elsa Campbell (de Havilland), but in a twist from the usual Flynn/de Havilland teamings, she actually loves his brother, Perry (Patric Knowles, who would later play 'Will Scarlet' in ROBIN HOOD).
The love triangle subplot is the least effective part of the story; fortunately, these interludes don't last long!Courting favor with the Russians (represented by Stalin look-alike Robert Barrat), Khan gambles, correctly, that the British would never consider him capable of murdering women and children, so his attack on an undermanned Chukoti, and the subsequent massacre of all the inhabitants (save Vickers and Campbell, thus fulfilling his blood debt), creates a furor that rocks India, and a evokes a vow of revenge from Vickers and the Lancers, who'd lost all of their loved ones.
Arranging to get his brother safely away from the action, Vickers forges orders to have the Light Brigade attack the Heights, and 'The Charge' begins...While the Charge (created by second unit director "Breezy" Eason) is one of the most incredible scenes ever recorded on film, with hundreds of horsemen galloping in formation 'to the guns', there was a deadly price for the spectacle; the buried explosives and trip wires used to create realistic cannon blasts injured many horses, resulting in a large number of animals having to be 'put down'.
Flynn and Niven were great friends, sharing a cottage in Malibu (nicknamed 'Cirrhosis-by-the-Sea', because of their wild parties), and their final scene together is far more poignant than any Flynn/de Havilland moments in the film!While flawed, historically, and unquestionably bloody, THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE retains its position as a 'classic', and proved to the WB that Errol Flynn was not just a 'one hit wonder'.
Director Michael Curtiz went all out in this 1936 version of "The Charge of the Light Brigade", and considering the era, he made a darn good job of it - sure, he threw history out of the window, and created a very fictitious story, but when it came to the actual Charge, it was a masterpiece of staging and direction.
Classic movie with impressive charge into the valley of death by British 27th Lancers in Balaklava during Crimean War. At the beginning the tale is set in Suristan , it could be seen as part of the "Great game" that was fought for nearly a century between the British and Russian empires for control in the Middle East .
The film is dedicated "to the officers and men of the Light Brigade who died victorious in a gallant charge at Balaklava for Queen and Country - A.D. 1856." It is based on Lord Tennyson's famous poem : Half a league , half a league onward , all in the valley of death rode the six hundred .
Good film with lavish production values dealing with events leading up to British involvement in Crimean war with stunning final battle sequence .
The original script used the real-life siege of a British fort at Cawnpore , and subsequent massacre of its survivors , during the Sepoy Rebellion -, a nationwide mutiny of Indian soldiers in the British army - as the reason for the famous Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava during the Crimean War .
The second of nine movies made together by Warner Brothers' romantic couple Olivia de Havilland and Errol Flynn , here playing star-crossed lovers .
It did receive an Oscar for Best Assistant Director for the second unit work in depicting the charge when that was a category at the Academy Awards.Errol Flynn said it was the roughest film he ever made in terms of pure physicality.
Flynn, as Major Vickers, decides to avenge the massacre of British women and children at the fort, thus forging the orders that lead to the famous charge.All of it is strictly meant to entertain, offering political background of a confusing sort to give an idea of the events surrounding the charge.
While all of it has been falsified for the sake of providing a screenplay that makes Flynn the noblest of heroes, there is no denying the epic sweep of the derring do and romance.Flynn and screen partner de Havilland make a handsome couple and they are supported by a fine bunch of actors from Hollywood's British film colony, notably Patric Knowles, David Niven and Donald Crisp.
However about halve way through the movie its story takes a turn and turns into a delicious action filled epic, with the charge of the light brigade at the ending as the icing on the cake.I watched this film without really knowing what to expect of it.
The movie started of just like Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor", with a love triangle story between the Errol Flynn character, his brother played by Patric Knowles and Olivia de Havilland.
But if you can get by that, you'll be cheering the Light Brigade as they thunder forward with the Union Jack flying.(It is said that this is the film in which director Michael Curtiz, the master of malaprops and non sequitars said "Bring on the empty horses".)To quote Tennyson:"Boldly they rode and well,Into the jaws of Death,Into the mouth of HellRode the six hundred"So watch this rousing film and throw aside any knowledge that you may have about the Crimean War or the abilities of Lords Lucan and Cardigan.....it doesn't count here....just enjoy!.
Michael Curtiz directed this fictionalized account of the real-life charge of the light brigade, based on the famous Sir Alfred Lord Tennyson poem.
Max Steiner's score complements the action perfectly."The Charge of the Light Brigade" is quite an epic production, and notorious for the number of horses killed in the battle scenes.
No such measures were ever taken to protect history from the ravages of Hollywood screenwriters: Surat Khan and the country of Suristan never existed, nor did Flynn's 27th Lancers, and although there was indeed a charge at Balaklava, it didn't happen for the reasons depicted in this film.
But then again, any movie boasting the talents of both Errol Flynn AND David Niven is always going to be a treat.My favourite part of Charge of the Light Brigade is at the ball in Calcutta, every man in the place is trying to avoid the interfering old bint (can't remember her name).
The film also did nothing for Olivia de Havilland's career, typecasting her with Warner Brothers as a typical ingénue, when in fact, she was a fantastic actress.Errol Flynn, Patric Knowles, Henry Stephenson, and Nigel Bruce star in the film, along with the aforementioned de Havilland.
Although I also agree that the charge scene is well done, this cannot make up for the fact that this film has an appalling plot, wooden script, and tampers with history with all the finesse of an atom bomb!What annoys even more is that the basic premise, an officer changes an order (and so sacrifices his regiment) to take revenge on a particular enemy officer, is a good one: good enough not to need to be nailed so artificially to a real historical event.Do yourself a favour: watch the Trevor Howard version instead!.
Historically, the massacre of British women and children occurred after the charge of the light brigade in the Crimean War .
This is a magnificent historical adventure based on the homonym poem by Lord Alfred Tennyson, about the famous Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War. Legendary Errol Flynn is dashing and superb as the hero and is surrounded by a great cast (Olivia De Havilland, Donald Crisp, Patrick Knowles and David Niven).
Great performances, great score (Max Steiner), great action sequences and one of the most spectacular cavalry charges in movie history, with over 200 horses brutally killed and one stuntman dead during filming (clips of the charge sequence were included in the music video of Iron Maiden's "The Trooper").Even though is brilliantly directed by Michael Curtiz (who had a lifelong struggle with the English language, and during filming shouted "bring on the empty horses", meaning "riderless horses".
Only a small part of the film is utterly factual or totally fictitious (like the love triangle of Elsa and the Vickers brothers).The main character, Major Geoffrey Vickers (Errol Flynn) brings on the famous suicidal attack because of his quest for vengeance.
Although entirely fictitious, Vickers is based on real life Captain Louis Nolan who indeed served in India before the Crimean War, purchased the horses for the army in Crimea, was aide-De-camp to General Airey, misrepresented the crucial order which led to the attack for unknown reasons and died at the charge.Although the siege and massacre at Chukoti is totally fictional, it accurately depicts the historical events which took place at Cawnpore three years later some 600 miles to the south-east, during the Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Rebellion in 1857.
In the movie, the forces besieging Chukoti are commanded by Surat Khan, a fictional Indian rajah, based however on Nana Sahib who was in fact the commander of the besieging forces at the siege of Cawnpore and responsible for the massacre of British civilians.We have to consider that the movie's most essential themes are historically true: A) In fact, it started for the protection of Britain's over-land route to India.
The charge to the guns at Balaklava is spectacular.Errol Flynn plays the perfect role as a British Lancer in her majesty's service in India and Crimea.
In 1854, the 27th Lancers of the British Army, led by Major Geoffrey Vickers (Errol Flynn) and his brother Captain Perry Vickers (Patric Knowles), escorts Sir Harcourt on a diplomatic mission to Suristan.
Reeves Eason at the top of his form, Max Steiner's stupendous score, Errol Flynn at his most dashing, Olivia DeHavilland at her most Olivia DeHavilland--even the usually terminally bland Patric Knowles, as Flynn's younger brother, seems to get caught up in the atmosphere and actually turns in a good performance, as does a young David Niven, showing flashes of the charm and wit that movie fans came to know and love.
The Charge Of The Light Brigade 1936 is a good military film boasting quality action sequences, it's not a true account of the actual event, and it should be noted there is a disclaimer of sorts at the film's beginning.This telling begins in India in 1850 and leads us up to what would become the Crimean War. Indian chief Surat Khan {C.
Pumped up with revenge, Major Vickers {a dashing Errol Flynn} decides to take matters into his own hands and leads a brave charge on the Russians at Balaclava Heights where Khan has fled into hiding.That's all you need to know as regards the plot, there is a love tryst sub-plot between Vickers, his brother Perry {Patric Knowles} and Elsa Campbell {a radiant Olivia de Havilland}, but this is merely a side issue to add impetus to the bravery of the men in the charge.
Directed by Michael Curtiz and inspired by the immortal poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson it has been heavily criticised by the large number of horses killed during its action scenes and the callous disregard of historical fact , so much so Warner Brothers published a disclaimer caption that the film is heavily fictionalised This has done nothing to reduce the complaints but as a Briton watching this in 2013 I think I can safely say that after watching the likes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS that I failed to notice anything along the lines of " Mr Spielberg and Mr Ambrose wish to apologise for the very American-centric tone of this film .
Movies are all about spectacle and entertainment and if I remember correctly the problem with the 1968 British version of THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE is that it tried too much to be a history lesson of what life was like in 1850's Britain and the frontline of the Crimean War .
Henry Gordon, being based on an interesting subject matter and with direction by Michael Curtiz and music by Max Steiner, 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' had all the ingredients for a great film.It almost was, but to me instead is a very good one.
Patric Knowles is also pretty stolid and bland.However, 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' is beautifully filmed and produced, Max Steiner's stirring music score and Michael Curtiz's assured direction adding enormously.
The screen dissolves into extracts from Tennyson's poem of the same name, emphasizing the doomed nature of the operation, yet asking us to remember how it contributed to a British victory in the end.In truth the film does not have much of a plot, save for highlighting the rivalry between brothers Geoffrey and Perry Vickers (Errol Flynn, Patric Knowles) for the hand of Elsa (Olivia de Havilland).
In THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE he does not disappoint - despite his much-publicized differences with director Curtiz, he sails through the film with a kind of nonchalance (nowadays we might call it "style") that justifies his status as one of Warner Brothers's most bankable stars.The film offers a treat for fans of Hollywood England, with the supporting cast boasting a youthful David Niven (who by then had set up home with Flynn) plus a gallery of familiar faces including E.
Like other Flynn films of the time, most notably "They Died With Their Boots On", it plays fast and loose with the known facts of a historical event to the extent of creating a fictitious pretext for the actual charge of the Light Brigade itself and creating imaginary characters like Flynn's Major Vickers and Indian warlord Surat Khan as the main protagonists in the battle, even the Chikoti massacre which triggered the bloody conclusion is based on events which happened three years after the Battle of Balaklava.
More importantly, the now known facts about the production's incidental slaughter of numerous horses in the climactic battle scenes can make it somewhat distressing to view, as I found myself inadvertently watching for the deadly trip-wires which sent so many of them to a no doubt nasty death.That's a lot to put aside but still I can't help but admit that this is another golden-age Hollywood classic, utterly entertaining in the "Boy's Own" tradition of so many great films of that era, many of them of course synonymous with Flynn as the leading man.
Here, he's at his dashing best as the honourable Major Vickers, for once giving up the love of his betrothed, the ever-present Olivia De Havilland in favour of his weedy brother, in a turn of events as hard to believe as anything else in the fanciful script, who, to revenge the slaughtered innocents by the barbarous Khan, countermands official orders to lead the suicidal attack of his brave 600 cavalrymen into the valley of death, where Flynn inevitably expires in the knowledge that he has at least avenged Khan personally.Excusing director Curtiz's heartless treatment of the poor horses, one can't deny his ability in managing the sheer spectacle of both the massacre at Chikoti and especially the final carnage at Balaklava.
In the days before C-Gen special effects capable of creating imaginary thousands in battle, here you actually see, especially in the long-shots, the actual blood and thunder of war in the raw, which makes the heart race just to watch it.Flynn is of course imperious as the gallant Vickers and there's good support for him too in the familiar forms of De Havilland, Nigel Bruce and in a fairly brief role, the young David Niven.
While British lancer Errol Flynn (as Geoffrey "Geoff" Vickers) is out leopard hunting with his elephant and gun, his fiancée Olivia de Havilland (as Elsa Campbell) and brother Patric Knowles (as Perry Vickers) are falling in love.
Alas, that love triangle has little to do with the film's intent - to depict "The Charge of the Light Brigade" in Alfred Lord Tennyson's famous poem.
Combining good-looks, action, and romance, Flynn and the studio won big at the box office.***** The Charge of the Light Brigade (10/20/36) Michael Curtiz ~ Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Patric Knowles, C.
I recognize this is a work of fiction and couldn't care less whether it's historically accurate or not, but if you create a movie called "The Charge of the Light Brigade", you should at least be creating a fiction based largely on the subject of the Crimean War. Instead, a fictional connection is made to India, which becomes the scene of 3/4 of the movie.
As a follow up to CAPTAIN BLOOD, Errol Flynn's adventure spectacle THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE is an exciting, well made film.
It has a good cast, including Olivia De Haviland as Flynn's (Major Geoffrey Vickers) love interest (Elsa Campbell), and supported by Henry Stevenson (Sir Charles Macefield), Nigel Bruce (Sir Benjamin Warrenton), David Niven (Captain James Randall), Patric Knowles (Captain Perry Vickers), Donald Crisp (Colonel Campbell), C.
The Charge of the Light Brigade is a 1936 action-adventure movie produced by Warner Brothers and directed by Michael Curtiz.
The cast features Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, David Niven, Patric Knowles, Donald Crisp, and C.
But the love triangle is really the sub-plot to the story of the charge of the British lancers who Flynn leads into battle against Surat Khan (a deliciously villainous C.Henry Gordon).
This is a beautifully filmed adventure with a romantic triangle that sets up a rivalry between two brothers (Errol Flynn and Patric Knowles) for their commander's daughter (Olivia de Havilland). |
tt1663647 | Help | The story is set in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1963. Aibileen Clark is an African-American maid who works for Elizabeth Leefolt, a white woman suffering from postpartum depression. Aibileen's best friend is Minny Jackson, a plain-spoken African-American maid known for her culinary skills who works for Hilly Holbrook's senile mother, Mrs. Walters. Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan, a young white woman, returns home after graduating from the University of Mississippi to discover that her mother, Charlotte, has fired Constantine, Skeeter's childhood nanny.
Much to her mother's chagrin, Skeeter aspires to be a writer. After spending time with Aibileen, Skeeter becomes increasingly disgusted with the shameful way her white socialite friends treat their "help", especially when Hilly forwards a letter to the Home Help Sanitation Initiative to install separate bathrooms for the help, and decides to write about the housekeepers' experiences. The maids are initially reluctant to comply, afraid of retribution from their employers, but Aibileen eventually agrees, becoming emotionally attached to the project as it allows her to find closure after the death of her son four years earlier. Minny also complies after Hilly fires her for refusing to go outside in inclement weather to use the help's toilet and subsequently makes false claims that Minny was fired for stealing, making it nearly impossible for her to find another job.
Minny eventually finds work with Celia Foote, wife of wealthy socialite Johnny Foote, Hilly's former beau. Celia is starved for friendship due to Hilly's efforts to ensure she remains a social pariah. Celia befriends Minny during cooking lessons and informs Minny that she is pregnant. Their relationship deepens after Celia miscarries.
Skeeter submits a draft of her book to Harper & Row. Her editor, Elaine Stein, advises her that more maids' stories need to be included. Following the assassination of Medgar Evers and the arrest of Yule May, the maid hired by Hilly to replace Minny, more maids decide to offer Skeeter their insights.
As the writing continues, Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny worry that some maids and their families will be recognized in the book. Minny, as a form of insurance, reveals the "terrible awful thing” she did to Hilly. In a fit of pique over being fired and having her reputation damaged by Hilly's lies, Minny baked her own excrement into a chocolate pie for Hilly, who ate two slices before being informed by Minny of the pie's ingredients. Minny predicts the story will keep the maids safe from retribution, as Hilly will wield her influence to convince her social circle that the story did not take place. With the book almost finished, Skeeter confronts her mother about Constantine's firing. Charlotte reveals that during a lunch with the local chapter of the Daughters of America, Constantine's daughter Rachel arrived and embarrassed Charlotte by disobeying her order to enter through the kitchen. To save face, Charlotte fired Constantine and ordered her and Rachel to leave immediately. Rachel subsequently took Constantine to live with her in Chicago. Charlotte had every intention to bring Constantine back to Jackson, but Constantine died before she could do so.
The book, published anonymously, is a success. Hilly does everything in her power to protect her reputation after reading about Minny's “terrible awful thing”. She becomes unhinged when a check from Celia for one of Hilly's charitable works is made out to "Two Slice Hilly." She then drives intoxicated to the Phelan plantation to confront Skeeter and inform Charlotte about her daughter's "hippie ways". Charlotte implies she knows that Hilly is the subject of the pie anecdote and orders her off the property. Charlotte and Skeeter reconcile, and Charlotte offers to help her prepare to move to Manhattan, where Skeeter has been offered a job with Harper & Row.
Due to the friendship between Minny and Celia, Johnny tells Minny she has a job with them for as long as she wants. This kindness gives Minny the courage to leave her abusive husband and take her children to live with the Footes.
Because Hilly cannot expose herself as the recipient of Minny's excrement-filled pie, she attempts to frame Aibileen for theft and, after pressuring weak-willed Elizabeth into silence, fires her. Aibileen condemns Hilly as a godless, vindictive woman. Defeated and humiliated, Hilly breaks down in tears and leaves. After saying farewell to Mae Mobley, Elizabeth Leefolt's physically and verbally abused daughter, Aibileen leaves Jackson with the hope of becoming a writer. | murder | train | wikipedia | A waste of time!.
This movie is basically a copy of The Grudge and The Ring.
Most of the scenes are taken from these movies, with a bit of bollywood dance masala.
The acting performance of most of the characters was bad with an exception of S.
Goshal.
The story was weak and predictable.
Bollywood should set up a censor-board, which filters plagiarised scenes.
This movie should have never been released.
Bobby Deol should not have taken a role in such a poor script.
This is bad on his reputation.The songs were poorly placed in the scenes where they were not needed.
In one of the ending scenes, the Ghost screams, and the scream pitch was so high, that I can still feel it my head.
It went for almost a minute.
Poor and Stupid script.
Please keep away from it.
Notable work.
Help is a decent attempt from the director.
Even though the movie doesn't have a tight screenplay, is boring at times, but there are certain moments that make your heart beat faster..I watched the movie in my phone, during a late night travel, and it was damn silence all around...
The opening scene of Susan drawing weird pictures and killing herself were damn creepy with its BGM.
That actress who played Susan has a creepy look, and her eyes and the way she looks towards the camera is creepy and disturbing...
There are several other moments also, which makes a kind of uneasiness in the viewers' minds.The movie has Bobby Deol and Mugdha Godse in it, but neither of them has much to perform.
Mugdha at least had some dual scenes, and some stone-expression scenes, but Bobby Deol had nothing to do, he just had to support the flow of the story.
Shreyas Talpade also appears in 6-7 scenes, he also has nothing much to perform.The movie actually belongs to the BGM director and the Re-recordist.
If at all the movie makes some impact in our mind, it is because of the creepy sounds factor.
Ah, Jyoti Dogra who played as Susan deserves special remark, for her creepy looks.The movie partly inspires from 'Mirrors' in few sequences, especially towards the climax.The movie lacked clarity in some points, but the flashback scenes were beautifully directed.There are three songs composed by Ashu, the song 'Kehna Hai' is awesome!!!
The other two tracks are below average...On the whole, an OK- OK kind of movie..
Bollywood's ode to Japanese horror.
Bollywood has certainly jumped in leaps-and-bounds in horror genre, that what you would think if you haven't seen any of the Japanese horror films lately.
Nonetheless, "Help" is a good watch which will certainly make you jump out of seats on a couple of occasions.
Horror genre certainly has started incorporating the suspense element which keeps the audience guessing until the last moment.
Bobby Deol was okay'ish.
I did not fathom why was he a director of horror movies as it did not connect with the actual plot.
Mughda Godse gets a lion's share in terms of the storyline.
Again there wasn't any great shakes about it.
Her choice of costumes to match the character she was playing was out of sync.
Shreyas Talpade had an extended special appearance.
Songs were unwarranted.
The director as said earlier is heavily inspired by the Japanese horror movies and he has cleverly incorporated into his outing.
He has done a good job nonetheless.
Technically the movie scores, no doubts..
Yet another copy of English movie!!!!.
The concept of this film has been taken from the Hollywood film "the unborn".
Even some shots had been copied from the movies like "Mirrors" & "Grudge".
If you are watching this film without seeing these Hollywood once definitely you will appreciate some of the so called creative & imaginative ideas of the director.
The start is OK but as the movie progress its give an ideal example of weak & lethargic script.
Bobby Deol was not up to his potentials & now it is very difficult to understand why he is doing such awful selections.
The only thing which differentiate this horrific horror film from the English once are songs, which no one would like to sing.
Mugdha was OK, trying to boost herself through unattractive body show in one of the song, but unfortunately it did not work.
you may avoid this..
Simply made as per the fixed rules of horror genre in India..
After watching this latest horror flick from Bollywood most of the viewers would like to ask that why such films are still made without anything new or even interesting to offer to the audience?
The answer to this simple question is that though not clearly visible, but there still exists a decent market for horror films in our country, (particularly in many smaller centers) where people even today love watching new horror movies made on the similar pattern started by the famous Ramsay Brothers.
Moreover, there is a big and constant demand of horror movies in the home video circuit too which enables such projects to cover their costs and break-even.The basic structure of horror films in our region normally remains the same, where a spirit or an aatma is in search of her revenge from the people related to her and then makes their life miserable with her own cult powers.
A savior always enters the script as a Tantrik, College Professor or any other learned person who helps the family to get free from the evil clutches of the spirit and then the climax leaves you with something giving a hint of a sequel in store.HELP also walks on the similar pattern with one new and interesting twist in the story written around the actual identity of the spirit.
But sadly this novelty remains the only merit of the movie as the rest of its content is neither able to scare you nor it keeps you glued to your seats out of fear.
Though it starts off with a promising sequence which forces you to be attentive, but then the promise remains unfulfilled in the later reels and the movie ends without making any kind of impact on the viewer.
The climax also leaves many unanswered questions in the mind like what was the relationship between the spirit and the mirrors in which she is trapped in the end and from where did Bobby Deol learn all those rituals to trap her, when the actual knowledgeable professor had died.Director Rajeev Mirani does come up with some well shot sequences in between, but along with his writers and cinematographer the influence of western cinema is clearly visible in his shots.
For instance the twin sisters angle reminded me of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece "THE SHINING" (1980) and the Climax dealing with mirrors indicated its inspiration derived from "MIRRORS" (2008).
The songs are just there as a mandatory clause, otherwise they were not even required in the narration and the background score serves the purpose fine.
Out of the lead pair, Mughda shows huge improvement from all her previous acts and plays it well as the possessed girl.
Bobby Deol, as her husband, once again tries hard to put up a good performance.
Here I have to say that Bobby is a fine example of how a career can get adversely affected due to some wrong choices of projects at the right time.
Shreyas Talpade in a special appearance as the psychic professor is adequate and Jyoti Dogra as the mother is impressive.Overall, HELP is simply made as per the fixed rules of the horror genre in India.
Hence, even if you are die-hard fan of the genre you can still easily wait for its Home Video release in the coming weeks.However, the film and its twist in the tale gave me a brilliant thought to frighten the obsessed families who without giving it a second thought, right away decide to kill the girl child in their women's womb.
So, next time anyone decides to do so, he should be ready to meet the spirit of the unborn girl child soon.(Note : As informed, this is not the first movie to come up with the novel idea about the revenge of an unborn girl child.
The idea was first adopted by another horror movie released in 2007 with the title "GAURI : THE UNBORN" featuring Atul Kulkarni, Rituparna Sengupta and Anupam Kher) |
tt0065054 | Sweet Charity | === Act I ===
The young woman Charity Hope Valentine is a taxi dancer at a dance hall called the Fandango Ballroom in New York City. With a shoulder bag and a heart tattooed on her left shoulder, Charity meets her boyfriend Charlie in Central Park. While Charlie silently preens himself, Charity speaks the pick-up lines she imagines him saying, and tells him how handsome he is ("You Should See Yourself"). Charlie then steals her handbag and pushes her into the lake (usually the orchestra pit) before running off. Passers-by discuss the apparent drowning but do nothing, until a young Spaniard finally rescues her. In the Hostess Room of the Fandango Ballroom, Charity tries to convince both herself and the other skeptical taxi dancers that Charlie tried to save her. Nickie, a fellow dancer, tells Charity that her problem is "you run your heart like a hotel — you've always got people checking in and checking out". The manager, Herman, arrives to tell them it is time for work. The hostess dancers proposition the audience in the front room of the Fandango Ballroom ("Big Spender"). Helene and Nickie try to comfort Charity about Charlie's absence ("Charity's Soliloquy").
On the street, after work, Charity gives to every beggar who approaches her until she realizes she has no money. Just then, film star Vittorio Vidal rushes out of the smart Pompeii Club, in pursuit of his beautiful mistress, Ursula. Ursula refuses to go back inside with Vittorio, who promptly takes the only-too-willing Charity instead. Inside the Pompeii Club, the dancers are dancing the latest craze, The Rich Man's Frug. To everyone's astonishment, the famous Vittorio is accompanied by the unknown Charity. She tries to steer him away from the subject of Ursula. Finally, he wants to dance. Not having eaten since breakfast, Charity faints. There is general agreement amongst the dancers that she needs to be "laid down". Vittorio asks "where?", and Charity recovers enough to prompt Vittorio with "your apartment!".
Lying down on Vittorio's bed, Charity claims she is no longer hungry. She admits she is a dance hall hostess, putting it down to "the fickle finger of fate" (a favorite expression of hers). Vittorio is struck by her humor and honesty. Starstruck, Charity asks for a signed photograph to prove to the girls she was really in his apartment. While Vittorio fetches props from his old movies for further evidence, Charity remarks on her good fortune ("If My Friends Could See Me Now"). Ursula arrives to apologize for her jealousy; Charity is swiftly bundled into a closet before Vittorio opens the door to Ursula. ("Too Many Tomorrows") While Charity watches from the closet, Vittorio and Ursula make love inside his four-poster bed. The following morning, Charity is escorted from the room by a mortified Vittorio. In the Hostess Room, the girls are disappointed that Charity failed to get more out of Vittorio. Nickie announces she is not going to remain at this job for the rest of her life, prompting the girls to speculate on alternative careers ("There's Gotta Be Something Better Than This"), but Herman brings them back down to earth. Charity decides to seek some cultural enlightenment from the YMHA on 92nd Street, where she gets stuck in a broken elevator with shy tax accountant Oscar Lindquist. While trying to calm him down, Charity learns that he is not married. She declares, "Oh Oscar... You're gonna be all right." After helping Oscar overcome his claustrophobia ("I'm the Bravest Individual"), the pair are plunged into new panic when the lights stop working.
=== Act II ===
After being trapped in a broken elevator, Oscar and Charity are finally rescued when it starts working again. Oscar invites Charity to go to church with him, to which she hesitantly agrees. As they walk under the Manhattan Bridge to the church, the faint cries of the next person to be stuck in the elevator are heard. The Rhythm of Life Church turns out to be a thin veneer on hippie culture ("The Rhythm of Life"). A police raid breaks up the meeting. Traveling home on the subway, Oscar proposes another date and tries to guess Charity's job, deciding that she works in a bank. Charity lies, saying she works for First National City, Williamsburg Branch. As they part, Oscar kisses her hand, and dubs her Sweet Charity ("Sweet Charity").
After two weeks, Oscar and Charity have continued dating, and she still has not confessed what she actually does for a living. At Coney Island Amusement Park they become trapped again when the Parachute Jump ride breaks. This time, Oscar is the calm one while Charity is scared — scared that she is starting to depend on him. Once again, Charity loses her nerve about telling him what her real job is. As the crowd look on, the couple kiss. On a slow night at the Fandango, Charity loses the opportunity to snare one of the few customers by a new co-worker, Rosie. Disgusted by the whole business, she quits. However, in Times Square, she wonders what the alternative is ("Where Am I Going?"). Sending a telegram to Oscar, she asks to meet him at Barney's Chile Hacienda. She admits that she is a dance hall hostess; he admits he already knows, having followed her one night and watched her dancing. He says he does not care and wants to marry her. Relieved and elated, Charity leaves ("I'm A Brass Band") and packs a suitcase on which is printed 'Almost Married'.
After a farewell party at the Ballroom ("I Love to Cry at Weddings"), Charity and Oscar walk in the park, whereupon Oscar announces that he cannot go through with the wedding, saying he is unable to stop thinking about the "other men". Eventually, he pushes her into the lake and runs off. Emerging from the lake, Charity, speaking directly to the audience, asks "Did you ever have one of those days?". Realizing that unlike Charlie, Oscar has not stolen her bag, she shrugs and reprises her opening dance.
The stage blacks out onto three neon signs, reading "And so she lived … hopefully … ever after". | tragedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2155391 | The Midnight Game | Perky blonde teenager Kaitlan (Renee Olstead) has decided to invite over a few of her friends after she finds that her parents are leaving her home alone for the weekend. She's planning for a small, relatively quiet get together with her friends Jenna (Valentina de Angelis) and Rose (Shelby Young), but Kaitlan soon finds that Rose has invited boys to the party, Shane (Guy Wilson) and Jeff (Spencer Daniels). Not wanting to seem uncool, Kaitlan allows the boys to stay and party. Eventually Shane suggests that they play The Midnight Game, where participants confess their deepest fears while performing a strange ritual. Anyone who performs the ritual inaccurately runs the risk of running into the Midnight Man, a terrifying figure that can bring the participants' fears to life. They must carry candles and if the candle extinguishes then they must relight it in ten seconds or surround themselves instantly with a circle of salt, or the Midnight Man will catch them. The teenagers originally think the game sounds fun and do not take the idea of the ritual seriously, beginning the game gleefully. Nothing happens for the first hour and a half, yet just as the group is starting to become complacent they begin to hear noises, and their candles start to go out. The boys decide to explore upstairs where they can hear unusual sounds, whilst the girls remain downstairs. Jeff and Shane discover a crucifix upstairs which unnerves them, and they are drawn back downstairs by the sound of the girls screaming; they saw a dark figure moving around outside the house. The candles all start to go out, and the group panics. Kaitlan attempts to end the game by turning on the lights, only to find that they do not work even though the power for the house is still running. After some time has passed, they eventually draw a circle of salt around themselves and huddle together, eventually falling asleep. At 3:33 AM the lights turn back on and the group awakes, thinking that the game is over. They do not realise that having failed to relight their candles in ten seconds and drawing the circle of salt well after they needed to, the midnight man has won the game.
The next morning, Rose awakes to find Jeff is gone. She goes downstairs to the kitchen, and finds that no one knows where Jeff is; Shane assumes that he has gone to basketball practice and texts him, with no response. Jenna, unprovoked, begins to verbally abuse Rose in a bout of sudden anger, accusing her of wanting to steal Shane and always trying to copy her. The others are stunned by Jenna's sudden moodswing, and later she apologises. Shane, Kaitlan and Jenna decide to go for a hike, whilst Rose chooses to stay at the house and take a nap. On the hike, Jenna begins accusing Shane of cheating on her and acts extremely angry for no reason, until her mood suddenly changes and she is abnormally happy, seeing shapes in the clouds that do not exist and skipping along. Meanwhile, back at the house Rose begins to hear strange noises and hallucinate unnerving things. Eventually, she walks into a room and sees the Midnight Man, a demonic pitch black figure. On the hike, Shane receives a text from Rose begging him to help her, and despite Jenna screaming for no reason when he suggests they go back, he and the others return to the house to find Rose huddled in the kitchen, clutching a knife and having a panic attack from seeing the Midnight Man. Shane coaxes Rose to drop the knife, and as she does Jenna begins panicking and acting paranoid. The group deduces that this must be because of the Midnight Game, and Rose decides to go home.
On her way home, Rose starts to hallucinate the Midnight Man again. She sees Jeff at the side of the road and pulls over to talk to him, only to find that he is undead. Rose backs away, and is hit by a car. She then wakes up in the car and realises that this was a hallucination, and decides to go back to the house. Back at the house, Jenna has been growing increasingly panicked and paranoid, hallucinating that Shane cheated on her with Kaitlan. She breaks down, and Shane attempts to comfort her.
The group realise that the reason these things are happening to them is because they did not follow the rules of the Midnight Game, and they decide to play again to see if that will end the chain of horrific events. As they begin the game for the second time, Shane recalls a blog he read on the internet about a boy who did not follow the rules of the game and ended up reliving his worst fears over and over until his death, and the theories he has read that people get trapped in an endless cycle of reliving their death over and over. He fears that this will happen to them. As they play the game, the candles blow out and they are unable to relight them. They intend to surround themselves with salt, but accidentally spill the salt, leaving them trapped to face the Midnight Man. Jenna goes upstairs, where she is taunted by a hallucination saying that everyone is against her and is driven to hang herself. Kaitlan is pushed off the balcony by the midnight man. Shane receives a text from Jeff stating he is in the basement, and discovers Jeff's corpse in a casket. When he returns to the house, Rose States that "he is behind you'", and he turns to see the midnight man. Shane runs out the house, pursued by the Midnight Man.
Suddenly, the clock turns to 3:33, and Shane, Rose, Kaitlan and Jenna all wake up on the floor, still alive. Jeff enters the house with a bottle of wine, and they are shocked to see that he is okay. It seems as though the five have survived the midnight game and that things will return to normal. However, the house is then shown to have been vacated for two years, and a Realtor shows a prospective Tenant around the house. He is put off buying it when he realizes it is where "the incident with the high school kids" took place and discusses the incident with a Realtor; how four high school students died, and one (Shane) disappeared, believed to have killed the others. As the man and the Realtor pull away from the house, Rose's car is shown pulling up to the front as it had at the beginning of the film, and the events from the beginning play out for a few minutes. As the camera pans away from the girls entering the house, Shane's corpse is shown in a pile of leaves across the street, vaguely hinting that the five teenagers are all dead and are stuck in an endless cycle of the Midnight Game. | insanity | train | wikipedia | Underwhelming.
This movie had so much promise with the pagan rituals and the interesting plot.
I had been waiting a good while to find it.
Even though it did bring in the over played teenagers playing a dare style situation on each other and trying to scare the girl into the boys arms, it still maintained value.
Unfortunately, the story line and ending left us feeling wanting.
It seemed to be heading to a great climactic event but it ended so abruptly that I wondered if I had blinked an missed something.
The acting was well done and believable mostly.
I enjoyed it until the anti-climax.
All in all it was enjoyable and great ideas that were not fully developed.
With the climax lacking, 3 stars is all we could agree on..
Dreadful.
Not even watching this on a fun Halloween night with your friends can save this film.
With a half-decent premise and a only a couple good jump scares, this movie is laughable.
Anywhere from the terrible acting to the failed scare tactics to, in my opinion, the dumbest decisions ever made by characters in any horror film I've ever seen, this movie fails on every level.
But like I said, it's pretty funny.
The runtime is 70 minutes, so it never feels drawn-out and knows exactly where to end.
And for the record, the film's conclusion is so confusing and jarring that it takes a rocket scientist to make sense of it, if it makes sense at all.
The film left me disappointed, cheated, and even a little angry.
However, you might have a few fun conversations about the film with your friends the next day, trying to make sense of an insensible, dumb horror movie..
Definitely a Must See. Very rarely do you find a B movie with Grade A horror!
Although this movie has not 1 known celebrity,it should have definitely had a run on the big screen!
At first, you think it's going to be the same old boring "teens incite boogeyman" theme but there's always something scary about performing games that can potentially be authentic in inciting evil entities.
However, after the first 20 minutes, you immediately know that you will be covering your eyes and will potentially be scared to go to bed without the lights on.
I recommend that you watch this with a friend...or twelve!.
Full of foreshadowing....
A-Z Horror Movie of the Day..."Midnight Game" (R - 2013 - US)Sub-Genre: Paranormal/DemonMy Score: 5.1Cast=4 Acting=6 Plot=7 Ending=7 Story=3 Scare=3 Jump=5 F/X=5 Creep=6 Demon=5After playing a pagan ritual on a dare, a group of high school students find themselves trapped in an endless cycle of their worst fears.Full or foreshadowing, this movie was so predictable that it made me laugh.
It was very cliché, but still a fun little movie with a couple of jumps and creeps to raise the heart rate a bit.
I liked how the movie ended, although very predictable.
Is it worth watching...sure I guess for the paranormal fan.
Otherwise, you're not missing anything if you don't.
Personally, I want to play the game for real and see what happens...who's with me?.
Confusing!.
I watched this film with my friend after doing some research on the pagan ritual.
We both found it interesting and gripping to begin with but after the first 30 or so minutes it became extremely confusing.Normally I wouldn't watch a film if it didn't contain some kind of familiar star so this was a first for me.I honestly believe that the ending should have been more clear and less murky.
Other than that the film wasn't as bad as it could have been.
The acting wasn't the best and could have been more convincing.
Some of the scenes when the girl who was going insane weren't as good as they could have been and for me the best parts of the film were the scenes when the jock walked around finding all of his friends dead.
My main question though is was it a dream or was it real because I am so confused and conflicted..
very bad movie to watch.
this movie was the worst movie ever!!!!
don't watch it because it really sucks or if you did already i feel bad for you !!!!
this movie is so stupid i swear!!!
it wasn't even scary to be honest.
when we thought the movie had reached its climax, it ended!!!
-.- i don't even know how you guys would like it because it is very vague.
aren't scary movies supposed to be scary??
well this one wasn't at all!!!
it was just plain stupid and A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY because i rented it on red box.I WISH I COULD HAVE MY TIME AND MONEY WASTED BACK!!!
movies like this get me very mad because instead of spending thousands, maybe millions, they could have given this money to poor people or helped them out you know?.
Incredible.
It's been a long time since I haven't seen a scaring movie like this one.
It was made the way any real good horror movie should be; by isolating people, then by building up slowly an atmosphere of horror around them, incorporating a lot of unexpected twist, all this by using logic and continuity.
The protagonist in the movie begin like every normal people would be by trying to play a satanic game; by distrust and low expectations.
They never made any illogical move or irrational action, they just simply act like normally scared people would act in their place, which made it easy to root for them.
For a movie build the same way as The Shining, I give the same mark as The Shining, a 10. |
tt0323463 | Ocean Ave. | Soap opera actor Timothy Adams plays cop Thomas "Thom" O'Keefe, who is working on the case of a prostitute-murdering serial killer. Thom's father, the police commissioner, Jamie O'Keefe (Marc Macaulay), has been involved in other illegal activities for years. When Thom finds out about his father criminal life, he flips out and tries to kill Roberto Rendon, but everything goes wrong and Thom is shot by Manny Ortega. At the hospital, Thom forgives his mother who left him when he was a child, and he begs Sage to promise that she will leave Macy. Thom then dies. Sage follows through with her promise. She divorces Macy, but helps him to escape from the Russians, Vladimir (Angelo Fierro) and Vega, who are after him for not paying them the money he owes. In the last episode, Sage marries Thom, who mysteriously comes back to life.
It is found later that the psychopath, Manny Ortega, has killed countless people. One of them, Stefan Eriksson, was shot to death in front of his dear son Alex, who blacked out and can not remember the murderer because of amnesia. Alex finally regains his memory and recognizes Manny as his father's killer. Manny then confesses in front of Alex and Elena and tells them he is also behind the explosion at Dev Tech, in Sweden. It is there that Nora, the mother of Chrissy and Alex, died. Manny's plan was to kill Stefan, but he survived until he shot him. Manny also tells Alex and Elena that he was the man who raped Elena's mother, Alicia, and that he then strangled her and planted her car in the water so it looked like she drowned in a car accident. Manny probably strangled Hadley Marx as well, but he never confesses to it. Manny is finally shot to death by his own son, Jimmy Ray, who was sent by Roberto.
The journalist, Crystal Tate (Victoria Jackson), starts her own investigation and finds out many dark secrets about the Devon, O'Keefe, Hamilton, and Rendon families. The secrets date back to 1977 and have to do with the death of bordello girl Jazz De Guise (Heidi Mark). Everybody thinks that Jazz died of a drug overdose but Crystal convinces the police to reopen the Jazz case and the question "Who killed Jazz?" makes the Devons and O'Keefes very nervous.
Later in the series, the Swedish model and actress, Victoria Silvstedt, appears in a few episodes in hopes to boost the raings. She played a sexy detective sent to Miami to help the police with the serial killer case, but she soon falls victim to the killer herself. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0084438 | Oliver Twist | In the 1800s, young orphan Oliver Twist is forcibly brought to a workhouse in an unidentified town In England on his ninth birthday. He and the other resident children are treated poorly and given very little food. Facing starvation, the boys select Oliver (through a lottery) to ask for more food at the next meal, which he tentatively does. This results in Oliver being chastised, and the workhouse officials, who are wealthy, well-fed, hypocritical men, decide to get rid of him. After nearly being sold as an apprentice to a cruel chimney sweep, Oliver is sent to Mr. Sowerberry, a coffin-maker, whose wife and senior apprentice take an instant dislike to the newcomer. After more poor treatment, Oliver snaps and attacks Noah, the snotty older apprentice, for having insulted his mother. Noah howled instantly and brought Mrs. Sowerberry and Charlotte rushing in to drag Oliver away and lock him in the cold dark cellar. The Violent behavior of the orphan was duly brought to the notice of Mr. Sowerberry and also Mr. Bumble. Oliver was beaten, and knowing his life with the Sowerberrys will only get worse, he escapes on foot early the next morning.
With little food, Oliver determines to walk 70 miles to London. After he collapses from hunger and exhaustion, a kindly old woman gives him food and lodgings for the night. After a week of travel, he arrives at the city, barefoot and penniless. He meets Jack Dawkins, or "The Artful Dodger," a boy-thief who takes Oliver to his home and hideout at Saffron Hill that he shares with many other young pickpockets and their eccentric elderly leader, Fagin. Soon, Oliver is being groomed to join their gang. On his first outing with the pickpockets, two of the boys steal a man’s handkerchief and Oliver is framed. However he is proven innocent by an eyewitness, and the owner of the handkerchief (the wealthy Mr. Brownlow) takes pity on Oliver, who had collapsed from a fever in the courtroom. Brownlow, believing that Oliver is innocent, informally adopts him, giving him new clothes and the promise of a good education. However, while out running an errand for Brownlow, Oliver is forcibly returned to the pickpocket gang by Fagin’s associate, the evil Bill Sikes, and the young prostitute Nancy (who is in a complex and abusive relationship with Sikes). Fagin and Sikes worried that Oliver would "peach," and tell the authorities about their criminal activity. Oliver is put under supervision until Bill Sikes discovers the boy’s connection to the rich Mr. Brownlow. During midnight, Sikes and his accomplice, Toby Crackit, force Oliver to aid them in robbing Brownlow’s house. They are discovered and Oliver is wounded in a brief shootout between Brownlow and Sikes. As the three escape, Bill decides to murder Oliver to ensure his silence, but falls into a nearby river before he can take action.
Sikes survives his near-drowning, but is confined to bed with a heavy fever. Fagin, despite treating Oliver kindly, remains crime-focused and plots with Sikes to kill Oliver when Sikes has recovered. Nancy has a maternal love for Oliver and does not want to see him hurt, but she is controlled by the abusive Sikes. She drugs Bill, and goes to Brownlow’s house where she arranges to have him meet her on London Bridge at midnight so she can provide information about Oliver. At the meeting, Nancy cautiously reveals that Oliver is staying with Fagin, and that the authorities will easily find them. Brownlow leaves to call the police. The Artful Dodger, who had been sent by a suspicious Fagin to spy on Nancy, had heard everything and is bullied by Bill Sikes to give up the information. Sikes is furious at Nancy’s betrayal, and brutally beats her to death in their apartment.
The next day, information about Oliver and Fagin appear in the newspaper, along with Nancy’s murder and Sikes is a suspect. Sikes’s ever-present dog, Bullseye, is a dead giveaway to his identity. After unsuccessfully trying to kill the dog, Sikes takes up residence with Toby Crackit. Fagin, Oliver, and the boys are hiding there too, after escaping their previous location before the police could find it. Bullseye escapes his master’s cruelty, and leads a group of police and locals to the group’s hideout. Eventually, Dodger, outraged at Sikes for killing the good-hearted Nancy, reveals their location to authorities. Bill Sikes takes Oliver onto the roof, knowing they won't shoot if the boy is with him. When trying to scale the building using a rope, Sikes, distracted by his dog, loses his footing and accidentally hangs himself to death.
Some time later, Oliver is living comfortably with Mr. Brownlow again. Fagin was arrested for his pick pocketing actions, and Oliver wishes to visit him in jail. Brownlow takes him to the prison, where they find Fagin ranting and wailing in his cell. Oliver is distraught at Fagin’s fate, as he had been something of a father figure to him. Oliver tells Fagin "You were kind to me," but soon, their bond breaks when a policeman initially tells Oliver to leave, thinking that Fagin can play tricks on the boy's innocent mind, and wanting to escape execution. As Mr. Brownlow escorts a tearful Oliver to his own carriage, gallows are being set up in the courtyard. Townspeople begin to gather to watch Fagin’s execution, while Mr Brownlow and Oliver leave to start their new lives afresh. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0250462 | Karnan | Unmarried princess Kunti is blessed by the Sun god with a baby boy, which she abandons in the Ganges to avoid embarrassment. The boy is rescued and adopted by charioteer Athirathan and is named Karnan. Years later, the now-grown up Karnan realises that Athirathan is only his adoptive father and feels heartbroken. He does not want to become a charioteer like Athirathan, and instead chooses to become a warrior. He masters archery and challenges the Pandava prince Arjuna in a contest. Karnan is insulted on account of his lowly birth, but the Kaurava prince and cousin of the Pandavas, Duryodhana, saves his pride, and gives him the kingdom of Anga. Karnan thus becomes the close friend of Duryodhana and his wife Bhanumati.
One day, Indra, the king of the Devas (celestial deities), disguised as a Brahmin, approaches Karnan and asks for his armour and ear rings in donation to weaken and stop him from overpowering Arjuna. Aware of Indra's intention, Karnan yet donates both the items he was born with and which would make him invincible. Pleased with Karnan's generosity, Indra gives him a powerful weapon, Nagastra, but states that he can use it only once. Karnan, disguised as a Brahmin, becomes the student of the sage Parasurama to acquire the Brahmastra; one day, however, Parasurama realises that Karnan is a Kshatriya, a tribe he opposes. Enraged, he renders Karnan incapable of using the Brahmastra when most needed, and banishes him.
Karnan later saves princess Subhangi from an uncontrolled chariot, and they fall in love. Subhangi's parents initially disapprove of their romance, but eventually they accept, and the couple get married. A few years later, Krishna, a supporter of the Pandavas, learns about Karnan's true background. He tells Kunti that Karnan is her first son whom she abandoned. Karnan gets to know about his birth later. Kunti meets Karnan and gets two wishes from him, one that he will not attack any of her sons (the Pandavas) except Arjuna during the impending Kurukshetra War, and that he will attack Arjuna with the Nagastra weapon only once. Karnan refuses to join his brothers, the Pandavas and remains the friend of their enemy Duryodhana.
Before the start of the Kurukshetra war, Duryodhana’s ministry assembles to appoint the generals of the army. Bhishma is appointed the Commander and he starts nominating generals for different battalions. Karnan is insulted on account of his lowly birth and given the command of a low rank infantry. The war begins and in the early days, Bhishma retires and Karnan replaces him. The following day, Karnan goes to war accompanied by his son Vrishasena who fights bravely, but is killed by Arjuna afterwards.
The next day, the vengeful Karnan uses the Nagastra to try killing Arjuna, but Krishna saves Arjuna by preventing the arrow from hurting him. Since Karnan cannot use the Nagastra more than once, he is unable to kill Arjuna. A wheel of his chariot gets stuck in a big hole, and he steps down to relieve it. At that time, Arjuna, under the direction of Krishna, shoots many arrows at Karnan that severely wound him. Krishna tells Arjuna that the Dharma (noble charity) that Karnan performed during his lifetime was protecting his life. Krishna disguises as a Brahmin, goes to Karnan and asks him his virtues as donation. Out of generosity, Karnan donates all his virtues to the "Brahmin". At this juncture, Arjuna shoots a few more arrows at Karnan that kill him. The Pandavas, who realise that Karnan was their eldest brother mourn his death. His mother Kunti also mourns his death, while Subhangi dies due to the trauma of her husband's death in the war. Arjuna remorses killing Karnan, until Krishna reveals that the curses by Indra and Parasurama were also responsible for his death. The film ends with Karnan meeting his father — the Sun in the other world. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0070238 | Jeremy | Jeremy Jones (Benson) is a shy, bespectacled Jewish fifteen-year-old living in a New York City apartment with his parents, who are busy with their own pursuits and leave him mostly on his own. He attends a private high school that focuses on the performing arts, where he is a serious student of cello who aspires to musical greatness. He has an after-school job as a dog walker. His other interests include reading poetry, playing chess and basketball, and following horse racing, where he can consistently pick winners, though he never places a bet himself. At school, he enters an empty classroom looking for chalk, sees a girl (O'Connor) inside practicing ballet, and is instantly smitten with her beauty. They talk briefly, but he is flustered and completely forgets to ask her name. He later finds out she is a new student named Susan Rollins, and that she is older than him and in a higher grade. Jeremy follows her from a distance for a few days, but is too shy to approach her, so his more confident friend Ralph takes matters into his own hands and explains the situation to her, and she sends the message back to Jeremy that he should call her. However, Jeremy decides not to call after seeing her walking with a handsome older boy. Shortly afterwards, Susan attends a school recital where Jeremy plays the cello as a featured soloist. She is impressed by his playing and congratulates him afterwards, motivating him to finally call her and ask her out.
On their first date, Jeremy finds out that Susan's mother is dead, and that she and her father just moved to New York from Detroit so her father could take a new job. Susan and Jeremy enjoy each other's company and they begin walking to school together every day, visiting places such as the park and racetrack, and generally spending a lot of time together for the next three weeks. Jeremy confides to Ralph that he is falling in love. One rainy afternoon while playing chess in Jeremy's room, Susan and Jeremy profess their love for each other and then make love for the first time.
Susan then returns home, only to find that her father has been offered a better job back in Detroit, so they will be leaving New York immediately, within the next couple of days. Susan tries to explain to her father that she is in love with Jeremy, but her father doesn't take it seriously because he thinks that the "three weeks and four days" that Susan and Jeremy have been seeing each other is not long enough to form a deep relationship. The next day a tearful Susan tells Jeremy the news and he is likewise stunned. He tries to reach out to both his father and Ralph to talk with them about his feelings, but neither one is receptive. In the end, Susan and Jeremy sadly say goodbye at the airport and she departs, leaving Jeremy alone again. | romantic | train | wikipedia | There was a girl my age that I liked a lot, that I took to the movie and we both identified with the main characters.
This movie was recently released in DVD.
We've all experienced those feelings in real life and I'd love to go through it all again.
Love coming of age...Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor were perfect in this movie.
You'll like the movie, I promise....
This little gem is one of the rare movies that one sees at a young age and it remains with you (at least if you are a prepubescent girl).
This was released in 1973, when I was 12 years old, and I saw it at a drive-in (believe it or not) and I still remember thinking how awesome (yet sad it was) and how I hoped upon hope that my first love would be a boy like Jeremy (wonderfully and sensitively played by Robbie Benson).The love story is sweet and realistic, Glynis O'Connor plays the female love interest of Jeremy and seems to me she and Robbie Benson were involved romantically in real life during the time the movie made, if so the affection and love they displayed on the screen seemed very real.I remember too that there was a brief nude scene, not graphic, but beautifully displayed, and all of this overwhelmed me at the age I was.
I would love to see this movie released on DVD.Why don't we see more of Robbie Benson?
One of the best teenage love stories ever..
I originally saw this movie in 1973 when I was 17 years old and it moved me deeply.
The sound track, which I have 3 copies of, was done superbly with the actors Robby Benson singing "Blue Balloon" and Glynnis O'Connor singing "Jeremy".
JEREMY is the most realistic and touching film of it's kind, that I had the pleasure of seeing when I was 19.
I understand that it was filmed in 16mm and blown up to 35mm for theatre presentation, which gives the movie an almost documentary - type look and feel.
Combined with understated performances by all involved, and an excellent "real-feeling" script, JEREMY avoids all the schmaltz and hyper-melodramatics usually associated with stories of this type.
I hate to use the phrase "little film", but it does have the charm of a smaller, independently - produced movie.
Before there was "FAME", this film about two students from the New York High School For The Performing Arts, who spend some time together and fall in love, only to be cruelly seperated in the end by unforseen circumstances, has remained a favorite of mine to this day.
I love this movie.
Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor are just great together.
If you like Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor together check them out in Ode To Billy Joe..
sweet little movie about a first love in high school.
I bought this movie on DVD in order to see it after reading about it in a book titled Shyness & Love by Dr. Brian G.
I can't say that I've ever seen a film more than twice in a theater, and that wasn't out of any great affection for those films, just that I'd seen them, and then a group of friends or family were going to see it and I went along.It is a nice movie.
A shy high school sophomore develops a crush on a new girl at school, and with some help from a more outgoing friend and the confidence playing the cello gives him, he asks her out and they date.
Perhaps had I seen it when I was about the same age as the couple, I'd have a great affection for it..
A beautiful story about first love.
A beautiful story about first love.
A beautiful story about first love.
If you like love story, watch this movie.
25 years later and I didn't forget Jeremy's songs.
I was a 12 years old when I saw "Jeremy" - here in Brazil, the title was "Susan and Jeremy - the first love".
I remember I loved the movie, I cried a lot.
After that age (today I'm 37), I've never seen this movie again, but - sometimes - I catch myself singing its song ('The hourglass song', I suppose).
I saw this film after reading the book and loved it just as much.
There are many things I enjoyed about the story/film such as the music, love and the cross town New York bus rides on a Saturday morning.
Bus it was the way Jeremy raced other people in the street as if he was in his own horse race-this may sound silly but worked really well and Robby Benson pulls it off in a brilliant touching way.
It shows a boy/young man in his own world finding someone who loved him for what he is.
The wonderful cello music holds the story together and is not heavy-handed which it could easily have been with a lesser cast and director.I would love to have the DVD and hope when it comes out there are plenty of extras such as location info and (lots)interviews.9.5 out of 10.
I watched this movie when I was 13, four times, in São Paulo...
I searched the record stores for it (and was sneered at, it was not "in" to like such a teen-movie!...), and found it!
I am definitely no fan of love stories, but there is something very special about this one.
Robby Benson portrays a young man who, while immersed in the ultra- (not to say pseudo-)sophisticated world of New York City teen life, manages to preserve a purity of character and honesty with those around him that is almost painful to watch.
I call the performance brilliant because I can't imagine that actor Benson himself could have been very much like this, though perhaps that's unfair: he has gone on to a quite respectable acting and directorial career.
This was Glynnis O'Connor's first movie, and she is lovely as well as sensitive in a quite delicate role.
I finished this movie feeling warm and rather good inside..
30 years ago and nothing has come close to this movie.
Seemingly little-known, Jeremy is a film I encountered through the recommendation of a radio critic to one of his lovelorn listeners (not me, I promise).
Sounding rather interesting, I decided to give it a go.The tale of first love and the enamouring wonder of teenage affection, Jeremy follows the titular character's rapid fall to the beauty of his beloved Susan.
The insistence of Jeremy's music teacher that "there's nothing wrong with being a good musician, you don't have to be great", as well as his father's claims that "you can't do two things at the same time and do 'em both well", lay a poignant foundation for later scenes.
The first time we meet Susan coincides with her and Jeremy's first meeting, an amusingly sweet scene that might, in other less well constructed circumstances, have seemed sickeningly saccharine.
It is from this point that the film's general tone becomes apparent: a tone which almost forces us to feel the same emotions as the characters.
Never overbearing, the film keeps us on the same emotional tier as Jeremy and Susan, their growing love an accurate mirror of the audience's gradual inclination towards loving the movie itself.
Generally, the film would not suffer from a slightly more proficient cast, though this is almost completely forgotten in the warming aura of love's allure.
Perhaps suffering from shortness a tad, the film gives its hero and heroine a little too little time together, though a wonderful central scene of physical culmination represents the beautiful peak of the piece, and of teen romance films in general.Not without its flaws (though what movie ever was?), Jeremy is an eminently likable film which portrays one of the most realistic and memorable relationships the big screen has seen.
Amicable, amiable, affable, and adorable, the film is in every way to us what Susan is to Jeremy: beautiful; irresistible; unforgettable..
"Jeremy" is a lovely story of two rather awkward, sincere teens who meet, fall in love, and part on a very sad note.
Robby Benson is perfect in the title role, smart, funny but not obnoxious, quietly full of feeling for this little girl he's in love with.
The New York City locations add a perfect backdrop to their story.The sweetness and sincerity of the two leads is really something to behold, with no glamorizing or slickness thrown on to wreck it.
For their first date, Jeremy offered a showing of "My Little Chickadee" for crying out loud -- and Susan was thrilled!
I was sad at the end of this not just because of the heartbreaking situation faced by Jeremy and Susan, but because of how far it seems we've all gotten from the simplicity and sweetness seen here..
Bored with the types of movies that are shown on any cable television in any country across the globe (even with 200 channels) I always find it hard to make a decision on what to watch.
This movie was shown on UPC Dutch TV, and reading somewhat good reviews on IMDb, I decided to watch it.At first sight, Jeremy Jones (Robby Benson) a young boy falls in love with a newcomer girl Susan Rollins (Glynnis O-Connors) at school.
After a few awkward meetings, they start liking each other, go together, and its special confused adolescent moments make love, discuss life, know each other, enjoy each other's company before the inevitable strikes.
With so much sadness both this young souls depart.This is a beautiful simple FIRST LOVE story of any young souls.
There is not much coming in the way of their love which is a relieving part of the story.
The supporting cast especially Jeremy friend, his musical teacher and Susan father give a very understated but human character.
Their responses to this teenage love stays with you in formulating your own responses in life.Both Robby Benson and Glynnis O-Connors give the best performances of their career that spans (for both of them) to nearly more than 55 acting projects in last 35 years.
But this role will remain their most loved and well remembered.
Both are so comfortable with each other especially in those delicately filmed love making scenes that it surely must be hard for the director and acting to film that successfully.The Director Arthur Barron has done a very decent job in taking out performances from these young stars who look so natural and full of honest love.
He makes this movie still watchable and relevant, even after 35 years.
This Director made only two feature films in his career, and mainly devoted his time for television.A special mention of the theme song of this movie Hour Glass which is still hummable and pleasing to hear even today.
It is a classic.I would strongly recommend the movie to each and every adolescent to see and make it a part of their growing up years.(Stars 7 out of 10).
Most of the times these movies were dull and boring, but then...
And I still am looking for a chance to see the movie again.
I still remember however how the movie touched me, and I still can do the "horse-sound" by clicking with my fingers as Jeremy did.
Does anybody know if this movie can be bought on DVD?
"I've got The New York Times," warbles Jeremy, the angelic Jewish teenager who gets straight As, reads Thomas Mann and Emily Dickinson, plays classical cello and falls in love with a ballet student.
But don't think that Jeremy isn't a Regular Guy: he also likes rock music, plays basketball, hangs out with street-smart Ralphie and has a knack for picking winning horses (although he never bets: that wouldn't be sweet).
This preening New York self-love, this compound of populism and culture-vulturism--this ingratiating depiction of the ideal Manhattan adolescent--is more irritating now than when I was Jeremy's age: too often, it strikes me as tony, cute and smug.
Nevertheless, after 37 years, the movie still has winning moments, and the young Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor give appealing performances (which they never equalled).
Exceptionally bright teenage boy, a cello student at a professional school in New York City, falls in love for the first time with a newly-enrolled dancer just relocated from Detroit.
Jeremy (nicely played by a young Robby Benson) is intelligent without being a nerd, talented without alienating his friends, and quietly, jokingly rebellious with his humorless father without being a smart-ass.
It gained some recognition once it played on cable in the late 1970s--and after Robby Benson and co-star Glynnis O'Connor were re-teamed in 1976's "Ode to Billy Joe".
Early 70's teenagers coming of age and falling in love in the big city.
Released in 1973, "Jeremy" stars Robby Benson as a 16 year-old cellist in the Big Apple who falls for a new girl in school (Glynnis O'Connor).
Len Bari plays the boy's best friend and Leonardo Cimino his cello teacher while Ned Wilson plays the girls likable father.This has the same tone as 1970's "Love Story," except that it deals with young high school students rather than college-age (interestingly, Benson and O'Connor were the same age as their characters during filming, 16 and 17 respectively).
I like it better than that more popular flick mainly because the girl is more palatable than Ali MacGraw, to say the least; not to mention the story's less downbeat.
This is just a quiet, sweet and beautiful love story of city teenagers that smacks of real life.
I did; several times.This was only Benson's second film and he had what it takes to carry it, along with the winsome O'Connor.
Being only 16, he looks way geekier than later films.
Speaking of which, "Jeremy" is sort of the precursor to 1976's "Ode to Billy Joe" since both flicks star Benson and O'Connor as teen lovers, although they're a year or two younger in "Jeremy," not to mention in the big city rather than rural Mississippi.
While "Jeremy" is good for what it is it's unable to breach the threshold of greatness like "Ode." The film runs 90 minutes and was shot entirely in New York City.GRADE: B.
Rare single on Ebay Blue Balloon Ronny Benson Jeremy Glyniss O'Connor.
Hi On Ebay i saw the rare (never released) promo of the single Blue Balloon (The hourglass song) and on side B: Jeremy sung by Glyniss O'Connor.
Ebaynumber 300604516334 Or just search for Jeremy Robby Benson.
Both songs are beautiful and i think that because of the movie, it would be a huge hit.
Good luck for all your Jeremy fans and keep enjoying the song and movie.
A lovely and moving teen romance gem.
Studious, lonely and awkward straight A student and cellist Jeremy (an excellent and engaging performance by Robby Benson) meets and immediately falls head over heels in love with shy and sweet new girl in school Susan Rollins (a fine and captivating portrayal by the radiant Glynnis O'Connor).
Writer/director Arthur Barron tells the simple, yet touching and compelling story with great heart and sensitivity, placing the key emphasis on the tremendously appealing lead characters.
Moreover, the chemistry between Benson and O'Connor is wonderfully warm, affecting, and utterly convincing (the fact that they were both actual teenagers when they did this film gives the picture a substantial amount of genuine credibility).
Their one big love scene is exceptionally tender and special.
--mild spoilers ahead--But this look at teen-age first love speaks to me very personally (shy west side NYC kid falls for beautiful, popular girl only to lose her to outside forces).
So even such cringe worthy elements as Robby Benson and Glynnis O"Connor singing not-very-good pop odes to love on the soundtrack can't keep this from making me remember and cry.Interestingly, though, talking to others of my generation (I'm 50) I was fascinated to find I was far from alone in having this heart/head split in reaction to the film.
But for a really great look at teen first love, I recommend Roy Andersson's wonderful "A Swedish Love Story" - hard to find, but worth it..
Loved it by the second time.
Well, I own the soundtrack by Lee Holdridge for some years now, so I ordered the DVD to see "Jeremy".
When I first saw the movie a few months ago, I thought to myself: Gee, what a jerk Jeremy is!
When I saw the film again a few days ago, I saw a completely different movie.
A movie made by a director who really cares about the young couple.
You will probably rarely find a film which describes the discovery of love and understanding in such subtle, empathetic and unspectacular pictures.
But at no time - and that is a great quality of this movie - it becomes gooey or cheap.
Once or twice I thought to discover a certain failing in the acting of Robby Benson, but all in all the actors did a very good job!
Later on I told to myself: What a lucky guy Jeremy was to meet a girl like Susan.
I would have given all to meet anyone like her when I was that age, but hey, it's an invented character and not a real person.
By the way it's hard to believe that the director Arthur Barron only made few other films after "Jeremy" and nearly only for television..
I find this movie quite slow and monotonous most of the time.
Maybe part of it because the way it was shot, too much close-ups that I was longing to see the setting as to establish the feeling of place.As for the actors, they are really trying to do a great job until they kiss.
The reason for the three stars is that because the story speaks of love and separation that could happen. |
tt0026385 | Frisco Kid | In San Francisco in the 1850s, a city where gold fever has left shipowners short-handed, Bat Morgan, a sailor come ashore is robbed and nearly shanghaied aboard another ship. Managing to escape, he sticks around town to pay back those responsible and then to take a cut in the action in the vice district. Organizing the various gambling houses (and other forms of vice implied but, for Code reasons, not explicitly stated) into a consolidated enterprise in alliance with a corrupt city boss, Jim Dailey, he comes into conflict with a crusading newspaper, run by Jean Barrat, the daughter of the late murdered publisher, and Charles Ford, the idealistic editor.
Loyal to his friends, even when they are on the other side, Bat Morgan protects the editor, when Jim Dailey orders him eliminated. He also falls in love with Jean, but his way of life and lack of any morality beyond looking out for number one make a permanent relationship all but impossible.
Riled at a judge's snub, he determines to bring his Barbary Coast crowd to the opening night at the Opera House, which the Judge has opened as an alternative place of amusement to the gambling dens. A gambler, Paul Morra, shoulders his way into the judge's box and on a flimsy excuse, murders him. The outrage provokes a public outcry, and when Morra is arrested and jailed and a lynch mob gathers, crying for his blood, Bat arranges his release, not so much because he likes him as because he owes him a debt of gratitude for having started him on the upward rise.
Soon after, Ford is murdered by Jim Dailey in a bar-room fight. Jean blames Bat, holding him responsible for all the evil done by those who work with him. A vigilance movement sets out to clean up the town, rounding up Morra and Dailey, and hanging them both. When the lowlife of the Barbary Coast determine to pay it back by wrecking the press and burning the city, Bat Morgan convinces them to do otherwise. Trying to keep them from fighting back as the vigilantes come to destroy the Coast, he is shot in the back by one of the underworld forces and captured by the vigilantes. Jean Barrat saves him from hanging, and he is permitted to go free, on her parole. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | For James Cagney's second costume picture and first in a 19th century setting, Warner Brothers took him to San Francisco's Barbary Coast for the Frisco Kid. Cagney's first costume role was in the all star production of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Personally though I think this film is better.Cagney is fresh off a sealing ship in for his first visit to San Francisco and nearly gets shanghaied for another long voyage.
Stone rescues him and when Cagney kills Fred Kohler, the man who is in charge of the San Francisco shanghai racket, in a bar room brawl he gains a certain celebrity status.But no matter how far he rises in power on the Barbary Coast, Cagney can't get the woman of his dreams, society gal Margaret Lindsay.
And the battle lines are getting drawn in San Francisco, isolated as it is from the rest of America pre-occupied with slavery and the Civil War.Director Lloyd Bacon had a sure feel for the mood and look of Gold Rush San Francisco.
Besides those mentioned, you'll see some good performances from Donald Woods, Lili Damita, Barton MacLane, and most of all Ricardo Cortez.
His death scene and attitude towards the vigilante mob is may be the highlight of the film.Warner Brothers more than most of the other major studios liked to recycle plots and situations.
I think if one watches Frisco Kid, one will see elements of The Oklahoma Kid and The Roaring Twenties.And those are two pretty good Cagney films also..
Sailor Bat Morgan (James Cagney) wanders into a Barbary Coast saloon and almost gets shanghaied by a trio dedicated to that business.
What's rather implausible is that Sully basically has to teach a sailor that has docked in the port of San Francisco what shanghaiing is and that the Barbary Coast is dangerous.
A seasoned sailor docking in San Francisco has never heard of the Barbary Coast or shanghaiing or why it is profitable for criminals?
Now I'm prepared to see Cagney's character rough up and victimize fellow bad guys in a film, but he usually shied away from making victims of innocent bystanders.At this point the film makes a distinctive turn from where it's been going the first 15 or 20 minutes and becomes less surprising and more of a conventional action picture.
Bat Morgan - who never goes back to his ship - begins to make his fortune on the Barbary Coast by more conventional methods.
At first he works for Barbary Coast saloon proprietor Paul Morra (Ricardo Cortez), then he works his way up by enlarging the take of corrupt San Francisco officials, and uses his part of the pot to build an upscale establishment on the Barbary Coast himself.Meanwhile, the beautiful owner of a newspaper dedicated to wiping out corruption (Margaret Lindsay as Jean) enlists an editor to help her in her goal of cleaning up The Coast and outing the corrupt officials that protect it.
Donald Woods plays the honest editor she hired who never has a chance with Jean once Cagney's Bat Morgan gets a look at her and starts batting his baby blues.
Stone in an endearing role as Cagney's mild mannered and loyal friend the tailor, and Fred Kohler in a minor role as the aptly named Shanghai Duck who looks like he hasn't bathed in a month of Sundays.
Ricardo Cortez gives an overly restrained performance as Barbary Coast big shot Paul Morra, and Lili Damata is wasted here as his wife.
Terrible title for a watchable Cagney vehicle, which seems like so many of his early films, to move at breakneck speed.
Like so many of his major roles, there's a duality at play, with his Bat Morgan character initially winning viewer sympathy by fighting back against bullying gangsters in San Francisco's notorious "Barbary Coast" quarter and loyally looking out for his Jewish sidekick, only to be seduced by the lure of power and money to rise to the top of the greasy pole by being bigger and badder than the competition and getting on-side with the corrupt big-time politician Big Jim Daley.There's love interest too in the prim and proper person of Margaret Lindsay the managing editor of the crusading local paper, whose handsome daily editor Donald Woods serves as uneasy ally, love rival and straight-and-narrow example to Cagney, before invoking one of a series of murdered decent citizens which causes the law-abiding majority to turn to vigilantism in a literally riotous finish with Cagney naturally rejecting the dark-side and even getting the girl.How true the story here is to the growing pains of the real San Francisco, will have to wait until my next visit to the reference library, but the story suffers from Cagney's character whose rise and fall and rise again is too unlikely to seem credible.
You feel a better, more straight-forward film would have concentrated on the zealous editor's story rather than Cagney's flawed hero.
There also seem to be just too many characters, incidents and plot developments telescoped into the film's short playing time which the editing can't bring together coherently.For once I couldn't believe enough in Cagney's character and felt he gives an untypically mixed performance, although the problem here could be in the writing.
Better are Lindsay as the posh proprietor who unconvincingly crosses the tracks for Cagney and Woods as the socially conscious but doomed editor Ford.
The mob-scene finale calls for the marshaling of large crowds of actors which is accomplished believably and effectively, but in the end, the all-loose-ends-tied up optimistic ending let's down the preceding drama.For me this was a welcome chance to see the young Cagney in a rarely-screened film.
Frisco Kid (1935) ** 1/2 (out of 4) The Barbary Coast in San Francisco is the setting in this story of Bat Morgan (James Cagney), the man who would become the countries first racketeer.
Cagney, with a funky little haircut, is in good form but this is certainly not one of his greatest roles.
The supporting cast is in good form and includes Margaret Lindsay, Ricardo Cortez, Donald Woods and George E.
Cortez steals the show as the top guy in town but Stone adds some very good comic relief as Cagney's buddy.
The highlight of the film is a terrific fight sequence between Cagney and a large man with a hook for a hand.
We get another mob scene where they want to hang the bad men and this here is where the film should have taken off but things stay pretty bland and never get too exciting..
In 1854 San Francisco, rowdy sailor James Cagney (as Bat Morgan) is almost shanghaied to China.
Stone (as Solomon "Solly" Green), Mr. Cagney is inspired to open a successful saloon on the Barbary Coast.
Frisco lives up to its reputation as "the wickedest city in the world," with gangster types like Ricardo Cortez (as Paul Morra) operating in vice.
The mixture initially makes money, but politics and murder threaten Cagney's newfound fortune...Director Lloyd Bacon and the crew do a good job in capturing and contrasting the various character types, especially in the opera setting.
It works for Cagney's tailor-made character...There is an interesting hint at a romantic interest between Cagney and Mr. Stone.
Their last scene together has Cagney giving attractive newspaperwoman Margaret Lindsay (as Jean Barrat) a knowing look as he gives Stone an extra, more personal squeeze.
Apart from the subtleties and double takes, "Frisco kid" is ordinary but satisfying.****** Frisco Kid (11/30/35) Lloyd Bacon ~ James Cagney, Margaret Lindsay, George E.
It seems odd this drama from Cagney's main star period would be obscure until you watch it.Cagney is dynamic as ever but those two cinematic black holes Margaret Lindsay and Donald Woods stop the film dead in its tracks whenever they appear in a scene.Lindsay, who Warners tried their damnedest to make into a star, is stiff and affected in the female lead.
As far as the film's storyline it's standard stuff about the clash between the Barbary Coast and Nob Hill society.
period piece which goes off to a good start, but is hampered by a predictable narrative, an unfocused storyline and a lack of exciting moments, not to mention Jimmy's terrible hairdo in the later stages.The picturesque Barbary Coast setting is a plus, though, and this one's the first movie I've seen, that features a lynch mob whose anger you actually understand (though the people are portrayed just as sheepishly dumb as always.) Not Cagney's best hour, to be sure.5 out of 10 hooked hands.
This print is a neat little one with the pairing once again of James Cagney and Margaret Lindsay, a cute couple and they interact well, not as well as Cagney and Joan Blondell but well enough.In the opening scenes we see Bat Morgan (Cagney) taking a nice break from a ship as a sailor in a bar, the bar is a seedy, dingy, smoggy place and hanging around in there is a group of undesirables who Shanghai unsuspecting men, this is a well known way of gaining ship hands back in that time.
They manage to get Bat Morgan onto a small boat but he awakes and escapes and turns tables on them and sells two of them to a ship.He gains work in a large bar/casino on the Barbary Coast and sees how its run and decides to raise some revenue and invests with the help of the community into several places and runs them above the law and not in the gutter.During this time many are jealous and things take a turn for the worse, many in the posh side away from the Barbary coast are dead set against them all as they are the 'lower class' in their eyes.
and so trouble comes and when a judge is shot dead the town rises in a vigilante group and are out to catch those responsible and punish them....how will it all end?of course Cagney nets the Gal, The lovely Margaret Lindsey and although she plays a smaller part she is there through the film.its a great film and entertaining enough for me.
learning about the Shanghai business for me, when i watch a film i research what i see and its usually informative of the times..
I doubt that any other film of the time had as many boisterous crowd or mob scenes as this one.
So Cagney better be a human dynamo or he'll be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, whether it's crowds in big watering holes or lynch mobs hurtling down streets.
On the low end of town is the Barbary Coast, about as sinful and noisy as waterfronts get.
That is, until Cagney's ambitious low-born Bat Morgan schemes his way into both worlds and criminally networks them.
After all, that was Cagney's movie appeal-- his lower class drive against all odds.On the other hand, catch Ricardo Cortez as the one truly slick crook of the bunch.
Had the movie been made a pre-Code two years earlier, I wonder if the ending would have been the same.All in all, the storyline is pretty disjointed, really needing a longer runtime for its networking and class themes to develop.
costumer has James Cagney playing a sailor who narrowly escapes being shanghaied.
Then we have a typical "small-time hood climbs the ranks of the criminal underworld" plot that was used in so many WB gangster pictures, quite a few of which starred Cagney.
Stone is good as Cagney's Jewish tailor friend.
Ricardo Cortez is the criminal saloon owner who gives Cagney his start.
Margaret Lindsay is pretty and likable enough in a bland part as the good girl corrupt Cagney wants to go straight for.
This is not the best film ever made; but, like the curate's egg, it is good in parts.The scene is set not in the wild west but in the early 19th century Barbary Coast of San Francisco.
Bat Morgan is a sailor who has just come off his ship but is shanghaied by a gang led by the hook-for-hand villain the Shanghai Duck.
He escapes, kills the Shanghai Duck in a fierce fight, starts working for a local shark named Morra.
Morra is hanged but Bat Morgan gets a last minute reprieve, after the intercession of his newspaper-owner girlfriend.The plot is patchy and gets silly towards the end, but is rescued by tight direction, catchy background music, and some pretty good performances by some of the cast.
Although in my opinion Margaret Lyndsay is not up to much as the newspaper owner, and Damita has very little to do as Morra's live-in girlfriend, Cagney gives his usual 500 per cent in the leading role.
The fight to the finish with the Shanghai Duck has just got to be Cagney's greatest screen fight.Very watchable..
This movie re-uses elements from 'Barbary Coast', another (and better) Warners film made the same year!
The barroom brawl in 'Frisco Kid' seems to be inspired by the climax of Rex Beach's popular novel 'The Spoilers', which had been filmed before 'Frisco Kid' and would be remade afterwards.James Cagney - always dynamic onscreen, yet not quite at the top of his form here - stars as Bat Morgan, a hustler who came west during the gold rush of 1849 and now finds himself a year later in San Francisco's notorious Barbary Coast.
(Which got its name due to the lawlessness that prevailed: a reference to the real Barbary coast, which was controlled by pirates.) Morgan proves his mettle early on, in a spirited brawl with press-gangman Shanghai Duck, who has a hook for a right hand.
We find out just how tough this community is when Ricardo Cortez gets killed by a lynch mob due to a misunderstanding.Morgan soon sets himself up as proprietor of a Barbary Coast saloon with a crooked casino.
(I found this absolutely plausible; the San Francisco city government was notoriously corrupt, from Gold Rush days right until the 1906 earthquake.) He also befriends Jean Barrat, the lady owner of the local newspaper.
The newspaperwoman is played by dull unattractive Margaret Lindsay, so the romantic subplot of this movie isn't worth much.Eventually, Judge Crawford - the only honest man in town - gets murdered, and the mob mistakenly decide that Bat Morgan is guilty.
We're meant to sympathise with Bat Morgan, who is genuinely innocent of Crawford's murder, even though we know he's guilty of many other crimes.In 1935, when 'Frisco Kid' was made, lynching was a real and widespread problem in the United States.
(The makers of this movie were probably more concerned about the white victims than the black ones.) 'Fury', an anti-lynching movie made at MGM at this same time, is a much better film addressing the same problem.
Barton MacLane is hissable as Spider Burke, little George E Stone is touching, and the woefully underrated actor John Wray is splendid as an underworld character named Weasel.
(John Wray played another underworld character named Weasel in 'Boys Town': he had a talent for rodent-like roles.) Charles Middleton, Walter Long and Wilfred Lucas are onscreen just briefly enough to disappoint their fans.
With most of James Cagney's early films, his character portrayal is generally a bit flamboyant, even over the top at times.
In "Frisco Kid", it appears that Cagney found a way to take command of his role with some reserve, as his character rises from itinerant sailor to one of the most powerful men in San Francisco of the mid-1850's.
He does it with both his fists and his charm, and at times it's easy to overlook the fact that he's the main villain in the story.The setting is the three block section of San Francisco known as the Barbary Coast at a time when the proper citizenry is just about fed up with the way the local underworld bosses rule their corner of the city.
Early in the picture it appears that Bat Morgan (Cagney) might actually convert to the good guy side when he first meets Jean Barrat (Margaret Lindsay), managing editor of the San Francisco Tribune.
While Morgan states that he'll build the biggest and most lavish gambling house in San Francisco, it seems like the 'Bella Pacific' virtually appears in the very next scene.
His rise to the top of the Barbary underworld also seems like it happened overnight.
One might also wonder why he hadn't done something more on a grand scale before arriving in San Francisco, but then I guess there wouldn't have been a movie.There were some interesting casting decisions made for the film, particularly Ricardo Cortez as the suave but menacing saloon owner Paul Morra.
It was also cool to see a number of character actors that one usually finds in the era's Western pictures, like Addison Richards, Joe King and Fred Kohler.The one thing that struck me some time into the picture had to do with the story taking place in 1854.
In some ways, this film is VERY typical of Cagney's films for Warner Brothers in the 1930s--featuring Cagney as a pugnacious and power-driven guy who manages to make it to the top--we've certainly seen all this before!
And, along with this character, the production values are very high and the film is quite entertaining.
However, at the same time, the film is a bit unusual because the character Cagney plays isn't purely larcenous and mid-way through the film he starts to change his stripes and goes from bad guy to good guy!
Cagney arrives in the Barbary Coast portion of San Francisco in the 1850s--after the Gold Rush has begun and it's in full swing.
Cagney is almost shanghaied when the film starts but because he is the hero, he wakes up in time and escapes.
But, the good people of San Francisco are tired of the sleaze and corrupt government so they resort to the great bastion of freedom and decency--mob rule complete with executions!
When the mob does assume control, everyone not executed seems pretty happy and the film ends! |
tt0116752 | Kauas pilvet karkaavat | Ilona Koponen (Kati Outinen), a head waitress at Dubrovnik restaurant, is married to Lauri (Kari Väänänen), a tram driver. The couple live in a small, modestly furnished apartment in Helsinki. As they both come home from work late one night, Lauri surprises Ilona with a new television which he purchased on store credit. There is a short discussion between the two regarding their ability to meet their financial obligations but they agree that the TV payments are manageable.
Next day, as Lauri gets to work, he learns that the company will be laying off several workers due to non-profitability of certain tram routes and he is randomly chosen as one of the workers to be laid off. The day after Lauri has finished working his last scheduled shift Ilona is informed by the owner of Dubrovnik that the restaurant is being sold to a chain restaurant company and all the employees will be let go since the new company will be bringing in its own employees.
Both of them set out looking for work immediately but with discouraging results. Lauri gets offered a job as a bus driver but is unable to pass the medical exam and subsequently loses his professional driver's licence. Ilona gets a job at a rundown bar/restaurant which doesn't even have a name and is owned by a tax evading crook. After 6 weeks of working there, the restaurant gets shut down by the state and Ilona does not get paid by the dishonest owner.
During their search for meaningful employment, both Lauri and Ilona enter bouts of heavy-drinking, all the while running into their former co-workers who are dealing with similar difficulties. At one point, the two even sell their car and take the money to a casino in hopes of doubling the money but they, however, end up losing it all. Most of their furniture as well as the new TV that Lauri bought is repossessed by the creditors.
One day, Ilona accidentally runs into Mrs Sjöholm (Elina Salo), her former boss. Sjöholm suggests that Ilona should open up a restaurant. Since Ilona does not have the financial means needed for such a venture, Sjöholm agrees to provide the capital for the restaurant to start operating with the understanding that Ilona will pay back the loan to Mrs Sjöholm. Ilona, humbled by her recent experiences, is initially reluctant to accept the offer for fear of the restaurant failing and her not being able to repay Mrs Sjöholm. She eventually does agree.
Ilona names the restaurant Work and hires some of the staff from Dubrovnik, including the troubled chef Lajunen (Markku Peltola), plus Lauri. Filled with anxiety during a slow lunch hour on opening day, Ilona's worries quickly disappear as she watches the restaurant fill to capacity later the same afternoon. After receiving a call from a Helsinki union asking for a reservation for 30 people, Lauri and Ilona exit the restaurant and stand on the front steps appearing emotionless and looking at the skies as more people enter the restaurant. | comedy | train | wikipedia | I never used to like Kaurismäki films, mainly because I didn't understand them and thought they were boring.
The thing with Kaurismäki films is that you can watch them without understanding them and still like them or you can understand them and not like them etc.
There are people like Lauri and Ilona.
Lauri as played by Kari Väänänen is a very typical Finnish male in a way he behaves.
You don't need a million 'I love You's to get the message through, just take a look at his body-language.In the beginning of the film, Lauri has just bought a new TV (with colours) on part payment.
Getting job is difficult, Ilona is being told that she starts to be a bit too old being a waiter,she's 38 (wonderful scene with Esko Nikkari) and Lauri has medical problems.
which reminds me of another Kaurismäki film, Calamari Union where one of the characters called Frank as played by Kari Väänänen says something like I don't drive buses, I am me..
The characters in the film don't talk very much, and at first it really bothered me that they didn't sound natural at all, but I actually know people who speak less than that and it's completely natural!
Great songs throughout the film which really echo the feelings of the characters (too bad the songs have not been subtitled - they could have since in some scenes the characters speaks so little!)I think this is a fantastic film.
The film is dedicated to Matti Pellonpää (little boy in one photo) who was supposed to have starred in the film, but sadly he died before they started to film this...well, he wasn't the first Finnish person to drink himself to death..watch it on DVD!.
Don't look for the obvious here, it's hidden under a layer of Finnish humor so opaque that you have to watch very closely to see even a glimmer of laughter in anyone's eye.The film is gloomy, depressing, bleak, but somehow it does your heart good.
Even when things seem to be at their worst, you can't help but feel that the hardworking and honest couple will manage to somehow get back on solid ground and right with the world.
They simply must, or your poor little heart will break.It's hard to describe this film because nothing much seems to happen, there are only the normal setbacks of life in the low income zone, but by the end you realize that you've seen a great movie and are happy with it.
To truly understand and appreciate Kauas pilvet karkaavat (Drifting Clouds)you need to understand something of the Finnish mindset, and to understand something of the Finns I would recommend this film.
I have lived 10 months of my life in Finland, and I was therefore able to identify immediately with this film through my experiences of Finland and the Finns themselves (my dear friends there).
This film captures the sense of space that Finland itself has, the sense of space that the Finns create around themselves (Finns appear to me to be somewhat unseasy with urban and city living, hence everyone's desire to escape to a kesamokki, summer cottages at the earliest possible time) and the understated, no-BS nature of the Finns themselves, it is the only country I know where it is truly possible to have confortable silences when conversing with people.Silent despair, brought on by the extremes of the climate, Finland's relative isolation, the social problems that DO exist there (despite being a Scandinavian country with all the images of a freedom and social support that that may conjure), the expectation of conformity that exists within such small societies, and yet the strong innate desire of every Finn to truly assert an individual identity over within the framework of this 'organised freedom' are all apparent in this film and are how I observed Finland.
To any Finns out there, this is not meant to cause offense, my apologies if these comments do.Kaurismaki's use of long shots and one takes for a sequence of action (or non-action), and the sense of time and anticipation that they create, until you realise that the anticiption amounts to nothing, which is so in line with the Finnish sense of humour.
But as a small country (in terms of population) with a closely homogenous people, these traits are quite discernable, especially with the impact that the environment and climate brings...Drifting Clouds and the Leningrad Cowboys are two sides of the same coin...I make this disclaimer, the film is actually gloomier than life there..
Aside from Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses, Aki Kaurismäki has never done any real sequels to his films (even though Shadows in Paradise featured one of the minor characters from Crime and Punishment).
Sadly, Matti Pellonpää, who was eager to reprise his role as Nikander, died shortly before filming began, thus abruptly ending a working relationship with the director which had lasted 11 years and 8 movies (The Match Factory Girl and I Hired a Contract Killer were the only ones in which he did not appear prior to his death), prompting Kaurismäki to change the screenplay.Nonetheless, there are still traces of the original project in the finished film, namely the characters played by Kati Outinen (who became the new protagonist of the story) and Sakari Kuosmanen, who retain the names they had in Shadows: Ilona and Melartin.
There are no major problems in the workplace, the only occasional disturbance being the alcohol-induced antics of the cook Lajunen (Markku Peltola, who later played the lead in the trilogy's second act, The Man Without a Past).
Everyone faces unemployment their own way: Lajunen buries himself in booze ("Where are you going?" he gets asked one evening; "As far as the Kossu lasts" he replies, referring to Finland's most popular drink) and Melartin starts looking for another job, while Ilona is confident her husband's income will be enough for the two to lead a decent life.
Unfortunately, Lauri (Kari Väänänen) loses his job as well, causing despair and frustration as his wife tries to come up with a solution that could satisfy everybody.As usual, Kaurismäki depicts contemporary Finnish society with a very pessimistic eye, never once flinching away from the sadness of the situation.
The high point of this is reached in Esko Nikkari's cameo, a scene drenched in cynicism and cruelly black humor where the great character actor tells Outinen (always at her best in these pictures) that once you're past the age of 30, you're completely worthless in the business world.
It's a dramatic sequence which reflects what really goes on in the world every day, albeit filtered through Kaurismäki's peculiar view on life.And yet, for all the misery that permeates the picture, Drifting Clouds is actually the most optimistic of the "losers" films: perhaps remembering what the movie was originally meant to be, the director fills almost every frame (minus the Nikkari scene) with gags, in order to lighten the mood.
And the conclusion stands out as one of the most cheerful Kaurismäki has ever shot, maybe because that is the kind of ending in which Pellonpää, to whom the film is dedicated, would have given another of his understated, hugely affecting, unforgettable performances..
I saw Drifting Clouds at a film festival, and I was truly blown away by the intense and true-to-life emotions this movie portrayed.
This colorful film from Finland's great director Aki Kaurismäki is a warm and passionate (note that passionate isn't the same in Finland as in Spain)story of two working class heroes, Illona and Lauri, with their dog and square life.
The setbacks which haunts the maincharacters are so cruel that only real life can do something like this to people.
Kari Väänänen as her husband is the perfect Finnish hard working man whose life isn't a struggle but an art-form it self.
Finnish melancholic tango in this environment makes almost a conflict between the things happening in the screen and the music.
The story is very clear and therefore not boring - a quality not applicable for every Kaurismäki film.
Yet Ilona and Lauri's fate is surely not a classic example for what happens to Finn worker couples today, I think the bizarre surroundings underline the whole film's quirky and slightly absurd mood.This is the best Kaurismäki film I've seen up to now..
Nor is this a neo-realistic movie made then by Visconti, Lattuada or De Sica though it sometimes looks like one.
Man and wife of a modest couple lose their jobs simultaneously and have to endure a lot of hardship trying to get employment again.
There's a somewhat magical, perversely paradoxical thing that might take hold of a watcher of Kaurismäki films: Which is that one might find oneself so intrinsically entangled in the lives of characters, their trials and tribulations, that it doesn't seem that important anymore whether the story on screen ends with, say, a happily ever after or a joint suicide.
This is true of a couple of equally absorbing social dramas from Kaurismäki comparable to "Drifting Clouds", ranging from "Shadows in Paradise" over "Ariel" to "The Match Factory Girl".
As for "Drifting Clouds": Despite the downward spiral Kaurismäki's ordinary people find themselves trapped in, survival seems to be dependent on primarily one thing: to rely on one another, to give support, faults aside, to pick oneself up, to fight against the odds, to succeed or succumb - together.That's what Kaurismäki losers do: struggle with determination.
Very Finnish, tailored to Finnish lives, and yet it feels universal, because through this lens we become witnesses of something larger.You might look at clouds as they drift away - castles in the sky, pipe dreams they say.
Kaurismäki's film "Kauas pilvet karkaavat" is a slight parody, of course, but it contains a little Finland in it.
Feelings are irrelevant, we Finns are more like Borg than "civilized" people, who can discuss about weather in every possible situation.
I think everyone who comes to Finland, should see this film.
Be merry while you can."I hope that every sad loser in life and every person who is kind but is faced with tremendous misfortune has a happy ending.This film is dedicated to Aki Kaurismäki's most prominent collaborator and friend, Matti Pellonpää, who was supposed to reprise his role in Shadows in Paradise in this film, which was meant to be the sequel.He died of a heart attack and was only 44.
Maybe, after all, Aki Kaurismäki's cinematic lens pale in comparison to real life's tragedy..
Also we are supposed to watch Finnish movies because that's what we are going to be making in the future, and sometimes we forget or ignore our own movies.I have never watched Aki Kaurismäki's films before, but I was already aware of his style.
It's a style, and it works, but it's not extremely realistic, since it sounds like how Finnish people talk in the morning when they're not fully awake yet, or how they talk to strangers.
Even though it can be painful to watch, it's very stylish and suits a film like this.
And also the only reason why it can be seen as painful is because we're so used to the English way of dialogue and acting in movies.Another almost painful thing is the cinematography.
But all in all Kaurismäki captures everyday life during recession well, and even if the acting can barely be called that, the story isn't emotionless.
The Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki has made several films about the "little people" in society, hardworking folk who have a spot of bad luck and risk being overlooked by the state bureaucracy and business development schemes that are ostensibly there to help them.
Ilona (Kati Outinen) and Lauri (Kari Väänänen) are a happy married couple.
We see Lauri and Ilona turned down from one job after another, facing repo men and shady characters taking advantage of their desperation for work, yet in many respects the film is a comedy.
Kaurismäki's humour is extremely deadpan, at some points perhaps too subtle for audiences outside Finland, but it's still generally fun and there are some laugh-out-loud moments.The film has a strong magical realist feel.
But also Ilona and Lauri's insistence on making it on their own, without accepting unemployment money from the state, is plausible but somehow not the expected course of events in 1990s Finland.
Kaurismäki was to emphasize distrust of the welfare state in his later film MIES VAILLA MENESYYTTA (Man Without a Past), but there he was too heavy-handed in his criticism, while here there's more a tone of quiet nobility than bitterness.While the happy ending is too much of a deus ex machina, I greatly enjoyed KAUAS PILVET KARKAAVAT.
What really drives the film is the quirky face of Kati Outinen, who in spite of all her defeats rolls with the punches and whose eyes maintain boundless optimism, like an adorable stray puppy.
Aki Kaurismäki is the most famous Finnish director out there today, he is also a filmmakers with the most international production in the history of Finland.
When he made Kauas pilvet karkaavat (Drifting Clouds) he wanted to find the optimism without forgetting the reality; to make neo-realism in color.
"When I started working on Drifting Clouds I located Frank Capra's emotional story of salvation, It's a Wonderful Life on one fringe, Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves on other and the Finnish reality somewhere in between." One who watches the films by Kaurismäki will see his love towards real cinema.
Even in the scene where the main characters go to Bio Rex (an old movie theater in Helsinki) there are posters from masterpieces such as Jean Vigo's L'Atalante and Robert Bresson's L'Argent.
In Drifting Clouds Kaurismäki wanted to continue his stories about "losers with high morality.": Ilona and Lauri are two lovers living in Helsinki.
The film portrays the recession in Finland in early 1990's: it was a desperate time in Finland, unemployment and inflation was up to the roof but it also portrays the "old" Finland, Finland before it joined the European Union.The story of Drifting Clouds might sound conventional or a bit pretentious to some and that's what it could easily have been, if it wasn't directed by Aki Kaurismäki.
The reason why the film doesn't feel pretentious and conventional is the honesty and sincerity of Kaurismäki, but also the severe Bressonian aesthetics.
The aesthetics in all of his film is Bressonian: minimalist, geographically perfect - not a single useless image; there's nothing insignificant in 'mise-en-scene'.Drifting Clouds tries to find optimism in recession.
The similarities don't just stop at the storyline: there is something similar in the narrative as well, and even that Kaurismäki isn't often considered as a cinematic poet, I think his naturalistic realism has something poetic in it at times.Aki Kaurismäki's films are satires, tragicomedies and many may find them dull and weird.
But in the end I think his films appeal to most of the people: they aren't really challenging or mysterious.
Drifting Clouds is a smart satire about dreams passing by and the optimism which is everywhere - it just needs to be found..
Yet 'Drifting Clouds', which offers a Finnish version of the same old themes (poverty, unemployment, mindless sex, optimism in the face of repeated failure), makes me realise how truly boring an evening in a dark room in front of a flickering screen can be.
A good Finnish film..
Kauas Pilvet Karkaavat (Drifting Clouds) is a moving film about two unemployed folks in Finland.
Finnish films aren't very good, though.There isn't enough real emotions in the movie.
I just don't like the Finnish style of movie-making.
Kaurismaki's best film.
Aki Kaurismaki is undoubtedly a talented filmmaker, but sometimes his films are done in with his mannerisms and his particular obsessions (Finnish tango, classic rock, smoking, old automobiles, working class culture, cinephilia of the 60s variety).
In Drifting Clouds, though, he made as perfect a film as he could possibly have.
The story is about a working class couple, Lauri and Ilona (Kari Vaananen and Kaurismaki regular Kati Outinen, who is wonderful here).
They seem a happy, if impassive couple, though they barely made ends meet with their jobs.
The situations they went through are often comical, and some people might be bothered with making fun of the very real drama of unemployment (when I saw this film in a movie theater, some people reacted tensely at much of the humor and gags).
But I think Kaurismaki's is clearly not poking fun at the two main characters (who are both very noble people) but at the absurdity of the economic system.
There's a happy ending that seems slightly incongruent with what we've seen before, but this is overall a wonderful film.
The film is dedicated to Matti Pellonpaa, a regular of the first films of Aki Kaurismaki, who died during preproduction of this movie.
This was probably the turning point movie for me in dwelling into Nordic films - and what a start.I had to see it again.
Also Bent Hammer's films, and the likes of Green Butchers, the Bothersome Man...
But somehow they speak much about loneliness, in a surreal realistic way.Later on Aki came out with the 2nd and 3rd installments too in which there's another unforgettable funny scene in the Man Without a Past that is just as indelible.This is not a real review but a more a look back to the stick in the sand marker on my starting point toward Nordic Cinema..
it's entertaining and definitely worth watching.However, it is like all Aki's movies.
The newest movie by aki is worse than all the rest...Yes rent it and see if you haven't seen other Kaurismäki movies.
also the cinematography is definitely NOT great.People are like people who live in the country side in Finland.
that the life of this couple may be poor, but definitely not as complicated as could be.Still this is the best of Finnish cinema, which is otherwise not even mentionable. |
tt1821641 | The Congress | Robin Wright plays a fictional version of herself, an aging actress with a reputation for being fickle and unreliable, so much so that nobody is willing to offer her roles. Her son, Aaron, suffers from Usher syndrome that is slowly destroying his sight and hearing. With the help of Dr. Barker (Paul Giamatti), Robin is barely able to stave off the worst effects of her son's decline. Robin agrees to sell the film rights to her digital image to Miramount Studios (a portmanteau of Miramax and Paramount) in exchange for a hefty sum of money and the promise to never act again. After her body is digitally scanned, the studio will be able to make films starring her, using only computer-generated characters.
Twenty years later, as her contract is about to expire, Robin travels to Abrahama City where she will speak at Miramount's "Futurological Congress" and also renew her contract. By then, Robin's digital likeness has become the star of a popular science-fiction film franchise, "Rebel Robot Robin". Abrahama City is an animated zone, where individuals use chemicals to become animated avatars of themselves, entering a mutable illusory state, they can become anything they want to be. While discussing the new contract with Miramount, Robin learns that the studio has developed a new technology that will allow anyone to transform themselves into her.
Robin agrees to the deal but has a crisis of conscience and does not believe she or anyone else should be turned into a product. Asked to speak at the Congress, Robin publicly voices her views, enraging the hosts of the Congress. Shortly afterwards, the Congress is attacked by rebels ideologically opposed to the technology. During the attack, Robin is protected by Dylan Truliner (Jon Hamm) but is soon captured by "Miramount Police". Still in the animated world, Robin is executed; without coming out of the animated world, Robin is shown on a hospital bed, while doctors, also animated, discuss her case. One of the doctors reveals that when Robin was found, she pleaded with her rescuers to execute her. The doctors decide that Robin is so ill that she must be frozen until a time when a treatment for her mental illness is found.
Many years later, still animated, Robin is revived and reunites with Dylan, who guides Robin to a new animated world in which anything is possible and the ego no longer exists. Dylan reveals that he had once been Miramount's lead animator and had used her digital likeness to make movies for Miramount. The two fall in love, but Robin is still desperate to return to the real world and be with her son. The only way to do that is using a capsule that Dylan was given by Miramount, his reward for twenty years of service. The capsule is only powerful enough for one person and Dylan has no more. Dylan gives it to Robin, begging her not to look at the real him when she returns to the real world.
Re-entering the un-animated real world, Robin finds it in extreme disrepair and the inhabitants severely dysfunctional. Those who are still able to cope in the real world hover over its ruined cities in large airships. On one of the ships, Robin finds Doctor Barker, who reveals the state of the world in which most people have changed to an existence in an animated, unreal world. Hoping to find Aaron, Robin's hopes are dashed when Barker reveals that Aaron "crossed over" into the animated world only six months earlier, when his condition had left him virtually blind and deaf. Because Aaron likely created a new identity for himself in the animated world, there is no way for anyone to find him. While Robin can return to an animated existence, she cannot return to the one she left behind, including Dylan, because that world was not real but created by her consciousness.
Dr. Barker gives Robin an inhalation ampule that will allow her to return to the animated world. Taking it, Robin experiences memories of her son's life, being born, seeing his mother for the first time, as an infant watching his mother act, as an older child being taken to Dr. Barker, as a young adult watching his mother leave for The Congress, finding his mother in suspended animation, and finally taking the capsule that will take him away from the real world forever. The story ends with an animated Robin, having the same appearance as Aaron, discovering Aaron in the middle of an animated desert; it is left for the viewer to decide if the reunion is real or a dream. | boring, satire, philosophical, sentimental | train | wikipedia | And when I am saying anti-Holocaust I mean against its use for financial or propaganda purposes, like most Hollywood movies about the subject.The story is weird, wonderful, but a little (a bit more, actually) confusing.
The first half an apocalyptic of cinema's future, the movie continues with a full animated second half in a world where anyone can imagine anything, but produces nothing.It would be pointless to talk about the story line too much, since at the end of the film I had that dizzy feeling of "what the hell did I just watch?" and that most metaphors just flew around my ears and eyes.
She first gets scanned so that her persona can be (ab)used by the funny named Miramount studio in any kind of film they choose and 20 years later she is chemically thrown into a world where reality appears as 1930's animation and everything is possible.
The metaphors come out pouring in a psychedelic fashion that left me completely confused.Yes, there are some similarities to the Stanisław Lem book "The Futurological Congress", but one might argue that there were just as many influences from sources like the movie Brazil, or Matrix, or Roger Rabbit, why not?
While some will find The Congress a bit messy and difficult to follow, it certainly reinforces Folman's innovative and creative approach to story telling and filmmaking.The first half of the movie is live action and the second half is animated.
Harvey Keitel plays the agent, Jon Hamm appears through voice only in the animated sequence, Kodi Smit-McPhee (Let Me In, The Road) plays Wright's son and central plot figure, and Sami Gayle plays his sister.Some will be reminded of A Scanner Darkly, and others of Cool World.
I personally really enjoyed it even though I found it a bit messy at times.The story evolves around Robin Wright, the famous actress we all know and who is playing here, her own self.
Feeling powerless against the passing time, she decides to sell her body image to a film studio in order to remain young forever and come back to a more successful movie career.
On the other hand, I feel like this "other world" is pushed maybe a little bit too far, and it can confuse the spectator.However, this movie passes quite powerful messages about existentialism, being part of a corporation, being dependent of your body image and most of all, it shows, metaphorically of course, what could be the future of the movie industry.All in all, even though it has some flaws, I highly recommend The Congress, it leads you to a unique and unforgettable journey, and I think you'll remember this movie for a while..
The story is unusual and were genuinely intrigued as to where it will lead.From the moment she agreed despite her reservations (she was not exactly enthusiastic about being cloned although the lack of other offers forced her hand) the story took a turn from which it never recovered.Fast forward 20 years, she goes to attend a conference and she suddenly enters an animated world where we remained clueless as to what was real, hallucination, present or past.
The first 40 minutes of the films are in live action where Robin Wright plays a version of herself who's promising acting career didn't really flesh out after her success in the 80's and 90's while her while taking care of her family and the film industry is revolutionizing itself by using scans of actors to make films.
But it's when the animated section starts that we understand that it's actually a much wider problem we are seeing here, it's not just the film industry but the whole world that is forgetting the true nature of being human and is embracing the virtual world of lies.Although it throws some of its concept on your face and may feel a little over ambitious to some it's an epic journey that is truly a unique experience.
This film starts out with a scene in which Robin Wright's agent (Harvey Keitel) is reaming her out for all the bad movie choices she's made.
The whole scenario seemed like experiments, through the movie it doesn't get to any sensible point, absolutely nothing happens and when at some point you finally start noticing something interesting, turns out again nothing is happening or changing, you just remain with hope up to the end to get disappointed and sorry for your wasted 2 hours on this trash.There were so many illogical and unanswered questions at the end, I think the producers thought it would be fun for us to make up and guess the story in our imagination, but NO, it wasn't fun or interesting at all!!Conclusion - totally monotonous, extremely passive (or boring!) and disappointing movie.
I didn't know what to expect at all and was in for a surprisingly odd visual treat that looks mostly like an animated dream.I'm not sure I want to re-watch this film again (I might get a headache), it was quite something to ingest.
The other, more like an animated Being John Malkovich, less quirky but more poetic and equally self- referential (there's references to Robin Wright's actual acting career, she plays herself...).I could live with all it's flaws, because it was quite an intriguing film.
The characters talk slowly, their expression is almost non-existent, the animation is terribly done with cgi (a lot like the early computer animated Simpsons episodes) and the story is as basic as it can get (an actress sells herself to be animated forever, she goes to a congress and gets stuck in the animated world).
Unfortunately the massive change in direction makes the film seem like two separate pieces of work which do not fit together adding to the problems with this film.I'd give it 1 star if it wasn't for the decent acting and lovely animation, but they both deserve a star each..
The Congress also combines animation with live action footage to great dramatic effect, propelling the viewer into an increasingly psychedelic other-world that presents huge challenges to Robin Wright's state of mind.
A movie by Ari Folman, who made the fantastic "Waltz with Bashir (2008)".Robin Wright plays herself in this weird drama/sci-fi movie that is half live action and half animation.The first half of the movie is awful.
Review: I'm really upset with the director of this movie because the first half of the film was brilliant and then it does a complete 360 when it goes into the animation world.
The thing that was so great about the beginning was that it really does seem like its about Robin Wrights true life because they mention a lot of films that she has starred in.
Anyway, it's one of those movies that are hard to explain if you haven't seen it so I would like to know what other people think once they have gone on this really weird rollacoaster.Budget: 8million Worldwide Gross: $456,000 (Terrible!)I recommend this movie to people who are into their emotional dramas about an unsuccessful actor who gives the rights to her life over to a studio so they can make a copy of her and put her in movies to try and make her famous again.
Director Ari Forman, who won his first Academy Award for Waltz with Bashir, crafts a trippy, fascinating story anchored by an astonishing performance by Robin Wright in The Congress.Wright, who plays an alternate reality version of herself, is a washed up actress who takes on her final acting job, digitally capturing herself for a future Hollywood.
The first 45 minutes was actually not bad at all, that part of the movie is filmed with real life people with Robin Wright playing some kind of version of herself.But then she enters a animation zone (I could explain it but I won't as it would possibly spoil something, plus it wouldn't make much sense if I did anyways).Anyways yeah so then the movie including Robin herself turns animated and it quickly goes down hill.First of all the animations to me are downright ugly (to me at least, I'm sure some would disagree) but the biggest issue I have with the movie is the plot...
Harvey Keitel is a good support, especially in the scene where he talks to Robin about his and her various experiences to bring out various emotions in her.It's a good movie, but with more depth or story, it could have been an epic sci-fi surrealist drama.
THE CONGRESS, directed by Ari Folman and starring Robin Wright, is an intriguing film that doesn't have too much of a coherent story, but presents a lot of ideas about human obsession with fantasy and beauty, as well as chemical and technological dependency.
The basic premise of the movie is that Hollywood (here presented as a fictional company Miramount) has developed a process by which they can scan an actor's likeness and other attributes for use in films without having to actually have them on a set.
The film then skips 20 years into the future, with her attending a futurist congress and that's where things get truly interesting (and quite trippy at times).I honestly didn't have any idea of what to expect when I first heard of this film, but now having watched it I have to admire it for its ambition.
It's a combination of live action and hand-drawn animation that was really beautiful to look at, and haunting in its portrayal of a future society where the business of movie-making has become a literal means of escape from the harshness of reality.
With the structure of Hollywood changing (as well as the way movies are being made) the studio plans to digitally scan and sample her, using 'Robin Wright' in any capacity they choose without her real self ever being involved.
Playing herself but with no work at 44 years old, Wright is offered her final contract, which offers to scan all of her, including emotions, to be worked in unlimited ways in films for the next two decades.Because The Congress is adapted from Stanislaw Lem's sci-fi novel, The Futurological Congress, brain-challenging is in order.
Robin, Harvey Keitel, Danny Huston, Paul Giamatti, and director Ari Folman (Waltz with Bashir) succeed brilliantly in bringing a palpable realism to the film even as they delve into visionary elements such as animation.
I seen that it was a Sci-Fi film,which is a genre that I enjoy(along with it's many combined sub-genres like Dystopian,Post- Apocalypse,Future,Colonization,etc.),that's often combined w/mystery,thriller,or even fantasy for a brief examples.I read the few sentence movie summary on Amazon,&thought I'd see what I thought of it,being there really seems like I'm finding few films of the kinds I also like to read in ebooks,too.I did watch the flick the whole way through,even though roughly once it had hit the Animation part roughly half way through.It made the movie less and less interesting,more like a drug induced look to the form of animation in it.Which it both made me think that it stole from the movies actual potential for being better,IMHO.Along with the fact that I kept me saying to myself the times we too have sat there thinking in a almost Mantra-like thought(&wish...),"This has to be getting better soon!!This has to be getting better soon!!" Yet by the time this film to me,just,ended.All I could think was,no,it didn't get better,And regretted even the rental fee it'd cost me!Sad but true,LOL!
Granted,if Id have also looked on IMDb,&seen they have this listed also as Animation,&Drama w/this movies genres.It wouldn't have deterred me from trying it,because the summary I read seemed like it would be a decent movie.But,with my likes,&opinions being different from others,which also means w/out giving up spoilers,unless you watch it,you either agree or disagree w/me.My overall thoughts of this movie was that it had potential to be better in the right hands,being the story had some good ideas there and in a lot of places I would have strongly done changes,to have the mix of some animation flow,intermix more-so,to interact better...Just my thoughts,anyhow!!....
The Congress is one of those art projects that are definitely out there, but contain just enough plot, character development and story so as not to devolve into a straight stream-of-consciousness acid tripping – though there's definitely a lot of that present as well.The movie stars the talented Robin Wright, playing a fictional version of herself as she finds her career slowly but surely dwindling as the years pass and take their toll.
Plus a boatload of money, but that goes without saying.The movie follows Wright throughout the years as she deals with the consequences of her choice and with a world that's slowly adapting the technology to digitize and animate pretty much the entire human population.
Loosely based on a story by Stanislaw Lem, the plot here focuses on Robin Wright (cast as herself) who chooses to sell her digital likeness - a decision that has drastic implications when technology evolves to the point that human beings can drink "milkshakes" that momentarily turn them into any celebrity.
'The Congress' is full of intriguing science fiction ideas, the script features some sharp stabs at pop culture and ageism in Hollywood, and the way the characters reference Wright's career and "bad decisions" since her career high with 'Forrest Gump' is great, however, when push comes to shove, there is far too much going on here.
(In fact it was so random and over the top that I thought we were just watching a short dream sequence or spoof sci-fi film the likes of which she specifically said in her contract that she did not want to be in!) On top of this disconnect between the two stories, the narrative thread falls apart in the animated world.
And while the story isn't terribly unique - a tale of rebellion by one person who is looking for something that the new world they're living in can't give them - there is a twist to the classic ending.This won't win any awards, simply because its probably far to avant-garde to be judged alongside any other films.
Though Folman doesn't follow the book to the letter, the main character is female rather than male and the story of chemical dictatorship is changed to that of the film studio running the world, it does stay true to its core.Robin Wright (played by herself) is approached by her agent Al (Harvey Keitel) for a lucrative role that will make her career.
They scan her body, her personality, her emotions, and essentially all that is the aging actress into a computer to use as they see fit and crank out Robin Wright movies whenever they want.
Now, what you're probably not expecting, much like I wasn't, is once the film has fast forwarded 20 years to when Wright's contract is expiring, that the film would suddenly turn into an Acid-Trip.Yes, the roughly 70 year old Robin Wright in the movie is invited to speak at The Futurological Congress and ingests some psychotropic drug that turns her world into a cartoon.
And the balance between the live-action parts with the animation is simply excellent.Some people say that it would have been better if the "Hallucination" parts were done in live-action, but I disagree: The animation sequences (Which make a marvelous combination of psychedelia with an art style reminiscent of the work of Max Fleischer) not only gives the story a proper dream-like feel to the story (Opposed to a dry and forgettable portrayal of dreams as it was seen in movies like "Inception") but also serve as a subtle commentary about modern-day obsession with escapism: It's something admirably subtle the way the thin line between fantasy and reality fades away as the plot of the film progresses, until the bitter reality is finally showed in a rather heartbreaking manner.
In their dream they can decide who and where they are, while their sub consciousness is reacting to a chemical that transports them into colorful, unreal world of combined dreams.Ari Fulman frames his film around the story of aging actress Robin Wright (she plays herself) who, after extremely lucky break, made number of irresponsible and bad choices and ended up with few options.
Robin, who has two children, an ambitious daughter and a disabled son, decides to let the studio to scan her image to be used in all kinds of computer generated films.Some twenty years later Robin drives her Porsche Cayman into a desert to enter Abrahama City, a city where everyone, with the help of an ampule of chemicals, becomes an animated character; some of themselves, some of others.
Still, if you enjoy combination of animation and action, sci-fi and conspiracy, it might just work for you.Directed by: Ari Folman Written:Stanislaw Lem (novel), Ari Folman (adaptation) , Camera: Michal Englert Stars: Robin Wright, Harvey Keitel, Jon Hamm, Paul Giamatti, Danny Huston and others.
But now, he's back with an incredibly innovative take on how movie industry will emerge in the coming decades and what decisions actors will have to make as a consequence.I think the one thing which makes this film so impressive is how Folman managed to link the live action and animation sequences which may have been unmatched in history so far (not that there are too many films that tried it).
I have to say I wasn't as moved by the plot of Wright in relation to her son as I would have liked to (except the final meeting of Wright and Giamatti's character which was truly emotional) and as the whole film pretty much turned around this storyline, I mainly enjoyed the brilliant animation without really thinking much deeper about the plot there and it may have been a good decision.
It really is dull because of the mess it finds itself in as the film goes on and I did find myself losing interest in all it's fragmented disarray.It really is sad to watch as there was obviously a talented team of creative people which made the great transitions from animation to live action possible. |
tt0205700 | Titus | A boy eating lunch in a 1950s-style kitchen plays war with his surrounding toys. A bomb blast outside the window frightens him under the table from where he is rescued and taken to an Amphitheatre, where an invisible audience cheers. An army resembling the Terracotta Army enters; Romans under the command of Titus Andronicus, the general at the center of the play, return victorious from war. They bring back as spoils Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her sons, and Aaron the Moor. Titus sacrifices Tamora's eldest son, Alarbus, so the spirits of his 21 dead sons might be appeased. Tamora eloquently begs for the life of Alarbus, but Titus refuses her plea.
Caesar, the Emperor of Rome, dies. His sons Saturninus and Bassianus squabble over who will succeed him. The Tribune of the People, Marcus Andronicus, announces the people's choice for new emperor is his brother, Titus. He refuses the throne and hands it to the late emperor's eldest son Saturninus, much to the latter's delight. The new emperor states he will take Lavinia, Titus' daughter, as his bride to honor and elevate the family. She is already betrothed to Saturninus' brother, Bassianus, who steals her away. Titus's surviving sons aid in the couple's run for the Pantheon, where they are to marry. Titus, angry with his sons because in his eyes they're being disloyal to Rome, kills his son Mutius as he defends the escape. The new emperor, Saturninus, dishonors Titus and marries Tamora instead. Tamora persuades the Emperor to feign forgiveness to Bassianus, Titus and his family and postpone punishment to a later day, thereby revealing her intention to avenge herself on all the Andronici.
During a hunting party the next day, Tamora's lover, Aaron the Moor, meets Tamora's sons Chiron and Demetrius. The two argue over which should take sexual advantage of the newly-wed Lavinia. Aaron easily persuades them to ambush Bassianus and kill him in the presence of Tamora and Lavinia, in order to have their way with her. Lavinia begs Tamora to stop her sons, but Tamora refuses. Chiron and Demetrius throw Bassianus's body in a pit, as Aaron directed them, then take Lavinia away and rape her. To keep her from revealing what she saw and endured, they cut out her tongue as well as her hands, replacing them with tree branches. When Marcus discovers her, he begs her to reveal the identity of her assailants; Lavinia leans towards the camera and opens her bloodied mouth in a silent scream.
Aaron brings Titus' sons Martius and Quintus and frames them for the murder of Bassianus with a forged letter outlining their plan to kill him. Angry, the Emperor arrests them. Later on, Marcus takes Lavinia to her father, who's overcome with grief. He and his remaining son Lucius begged for the lives of Martius and Quintus, but the two are found guilty and are marched off to execution. Aaron enters, and tells Titus, Lucius, and Marcus the emperor will spare the prisoners if one of the three sacrifices a hand. Each demands the right to do so. Titus has Aaron cut off his (Titus's) left hand and take it to the emperor. Aaron's story is revealed to have been false, as a messenger brings Titus the heads of his sons and his own severed hand. In Renaissance semiotics, the hand is a representation of political and personal agency. With his hand chopped off, Titus has truly lost power. Desperate for revenge, Titus orders Lucius to flee Rome and raise an army among their former enemy, the Goths.
Titus's grandson (Lucius's son and the boy from the opening), who helped Titus read to Lavinia, complains she will not leave his books alone. In the book, she indicates to Titus and Marcus the story of Philomela, in which a similarly mute victim "wrote" the name of her wrongdoer. Marcus gives her a stick to hold with her mouth and stumps. She writes the names of her attackers on the ground. Titus vows revenge. Feigning madness, he ties written prayers for justice to arrows and commands his kinsmen to aim them at the sky so they may reach the gods. Understanding the method in Titus's "madness", Marcus directs the arrows to land inside the palace of Saturninus, who is enraged by this added to the fact Lucius is at the gates of Rome with an army of Goths.
Tamora delivers a mixed-race child, fathered by Aaron. To hide his affair from the Emperor, Aaron kills the nurse and flees with the baby. Lucius, marching on Rome with an army of Goths, captures Aaron and threatens to hang the infant. To save the baby, Aaron reveals the entire plot to Lucius, relishing every murder, rape and dismemberment.
Tamora, convinced of Titus's madness, approaches him along with her two sons, dressed as the spirits of Revenge, Murder, and Rape. She tells Titus she (as a supernatural spirit) will grant him revenge if he will convince Lucius to stop attacking Rome. Titus agrees, sending Marcus to invite Lucius to a feast. "Revenge" offers to invite the Emperor and Tamora and is about to leave, but Titus insists "Rape" and "Murder" stay with him. She agrees. When she leaves, Titus's servants bind Chiron and Demetrius. Titus cuts their throats, while Lavinia holds a basin in her stumps to catch their blood. He plans to cook them into a pie for their mother.
The next day, during the feast at his house, Lavinia enters the dining room. Titus asks Saturninus whether a father should kill his daughter if she is raped. When the Emperor agrees, Titus snaps Lavinia's neck, to the horror of the dinner guests, and tells Saturninus what Tamora's sons did. When Saturninus demands Chiron and Demetrius be brought before him, Titus reveals they were in the pie Tamora enjoyed, and kills Tamora. Saturninus kills Titus after which Lucius kills Saturninus to avenge his father's death.
Back in the Roman Arena, Lucius tells his family's story to the people and is proclaimed Emperor. He orders his father Titus and sister Lavinia to be buried in the family monuments, Saturninus be given a proper burial, Tamora's body to be thrown to the wild beasts, and Aaron be buried chest-deep and left to die of thirst and starvation. Aaron is unrepentant to the end. Young Lucius picks up Aaron's child and carries him away into the sunrise. | flashback | train | wikipedia | A Ground-breaking high wire act between tragedy and comedy - the best and most unique sitcom since "Seinfeld".
Network: FOX; Genre: Sitcom, Dysfunctional Family Sitcom; Content Rating: TV-14 (for language, violence, nudity, strong sexual content, crude humor & dark, adult content); Available: DVD; Classification: Modern Classic (Star range: 1 - 5);Season Reviewed: Complete Series (3 seasons)If the sitcom is dying, nobody told Christopher Titus.
"Titus" is the spiky-haired comedian's 1-man show, "Norman Rockwell is Bleeding", translated into a 1-set, multi-camera, studio audience sitcom.
Like "Everybody Loves Raymond", "Titus" is a post-modern dysfunctional family sitcom in which what may have been the children of television dysfunctional families 2 decades ago ("The Simpsons", "Rosanne", "Married
with Children") have now grown up and are trying to make their own way - unable to shake their parents and upbringing.
"Titus" is the autobiographical life story of it's namesake lead who grew up with a drunken, abusive father (Stacy Keach) and a deranged schizophrenic mother (played by a different actress in each season).
To help and hinder him along the way are his borderline retarded half-brother Dave (Zack Ward), his effeminate best friend and the show's "normal" character Tommy (David Shatraw) and the grounding support of his fiancé Erin (Cynthia Watros).
This "neutral space" serves as a metaphorical playground of the mind, representing sitcom Titus' thoughts and self-perceptions.
In the tour de force episode "The Breakup" (that will no doubt separate the drive-by sitcom viewer from the show's hardcore target audience) Titus gets into a fight with Erin to sabotage his own happiness and "neutral space" Titus becomes a boxer.
There aren't many places where you will see people thrown through plate glass windows or getting hit in the face with a rake handle (twice!) for a laugh, but "Titus" is goofy enough to go there.
Christopher Titus is new to the game and at times it shows, but he bounds around with endless energy, delivers a fresh voice to the TV landscape and displays a rarely seen naked honesty that fills the lead role of this televised therapy session just fine.
In finding humor in what is essentially a tragic story, it seems that creators Christopher Titus, Brian Hargrove and Jack Kenny have crafted an entire series out the "Very Special Episodes" that would grind any other sitcom to a melodramatic halt.
They do a brilliant thing by wrapping this edgy too-hot-for-Fox material in a stupid-funny sitcom wrapper, giving the audience a tangible chaser to help swallow it all down.
Many times a "Titus" episode would end on a note that glued me to the couch in silence for a few minutes, both out of shock at what I'd seen and out of pride and admiration for how well they where able to pull off this high-wire act.
In one of the episodes of Titus, Christopher Titus tells us that the LA Times has announced that 70% of American families are dysfunctional.
Coming from a family of alcoholism and mental illness myself, I must say that Titus is probably the most accurate and intelligent portrayal of the American family in quite some time.
Titus gets through all that, he tells jokes and presents situations in the way that most people from my economic background do.
Titus was one of the best shows Fox has ever produced.
Where other shows seemed to center around problems such as "Oh no, the landlord of my giant, rent-controlled 2-bedroom apartment has died and the new landlord isn't nice at all because he raised my rent by 5 dollars and now I can't afford that 5th I-pod I've always wanted", this show tackled real problems with some great humor.
I can't say that my family was as messed-up as Titus' was (in real life or in the show) but through what I've seen happen to some of my childhood friends who did have to live with that I can honestly say that if you're not able to shake it off and laugh about it you're going to be sucked down.
Yes, there were the occasional duds and stupid or obvious jokes, but when show employed such a high tempo you can't expect every joke to be a classic.I regret that this show has been canceled but I do understand why Titus didn't want Fox to get involved.
If you ever get a chance to see a rerun watch it, I can't guarantee that you will like because the humor is too dark for some people but most people won't be disappointed.11/10 (yes 11 out of ten, it's that good)..
After years of okay shows and assorted crap, Titus is certainly a breath of fresh air.The premise of the show is certainly unique.
Comedian Christopher Titus narrates various stories loosely based on real life events, while supporting them with a string of humorous flashbacks.
Titus' family, to put it kindly, is pretty damn dysfunctional, and those of us who haven't had to deal with such problems find it amusing, (though a little sad at times too).
Chris Titus put it best in a recent episode when he stated, "Studies show that nearly 60% of American families are dysfunctional.
When armageddon happens, all the so-called 'normal' families will be panicking, while the dysfunctional families will be thinking, 'No one's watching the Cadillac dealerships!'"Don't be afraid of Titus because its another sitcom based on the act of a comedian.
Chris Titus' comedy act is unique, and so is the show that is his namesake.
I just got hit by this show on Fox Portugal and have yet to research on Christopher Titus the person behind most of what's so witty, urbane, universal, hallucinatory and yet basically a healthy self-look at america as it enters/entered the 21st century - but I can already say this has got to be one of my favorite comedies ever.
Although I may not be as experienced in the television field because of my young age, I have seen many, many comedies and Titus has got to be the best I've seen in years.
In fact, if you tone out for more than 30 seconds you'll miss a hilarious squeal from Tommy(David Shatraw) or a silver-tongued comment from the charming Christopher.(Chris Titus) I love the way the show has "real life stuff" in it, completely different from the hit shows "Growing Pains" although that was supposed to be realistic and take a gripping hold on teenage life.
Anyway, I think that Titus in undoubtedly one of the funniest comedies in the current line.
The commentaries on Titus' past are hilarious, like the father giving swimming lessons.
With Children" and "The Simpsons." This is the same network that did its best to get rid of "Titus" for being too edgy?!
That's why instead of seeing quality comedies like "Titus" you'll be subjected to "American Idol 2," "Temptation Island 4," or "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire Who Really Isn't But Has Some Checkered Past That We Can Exploit 7." (Stay tuned for Celebrity Boxing XII!)"Titus" never had bad ratings.
Frankly, it deserved better; Christopher Titus deserved better - but someone high up at Fox obviously didn't agree with that, and buried the show.
His mom's a looney, his girlfriend is all loving and trusting( not a good thing), a depressed drug-selling teenage girl was just forced to move in with him and his best friend can't even tell himself if he's straight, or something else.Welcome to his world.
Titus's life is so full of trauma, it would make a regular man criple in a womanly nervous breakdown, but not for Screwd-Up Man. His lousy childhood( hilarious, I might add) makes him automatically say what we all think, and do what he wants to.
The fact that Titus decided to end it because he didn't want OR need Fox's intervention wasenough for me to want it back (or at least to have it on DVD).
the worst thing FOX ever did was cancel Titus, hopefully the whole series will be put out on DVD or something, its the least FOX could do..
My friends think I am crazy, but I love "Titus." What began as a seemingly half-hour therapy session for its star, Christopher Titus, has developed into a solid 30 minute blend of near-slapstick humor, intelligent writing and light introspection.The cast of "Titus," once somewhat disjointed and contrived (as is the case with many freshman shows), has coalesced into a tight comedic ensemble who riff off each other easily, and help the storylines move along at a refreshing clip.A major strength of the show, (the only one, my friends contend), is Stacy Keach's role as Ken Titus, Christopher's father.
Think of it as Freud on Ephedra, and you'll do just fine.Cynthia Watros's 'Erin' gets my vote for best character development.
Her loving, accepting yet equally madcap persona has flourished into a fully realized partner-in-crime for Christopher, when she could have remained a one-dimensional support figure.Zack Ward as Titus' slow-witted adopted brother Dave is the 'Chrissy Snow' of the show, as he often, unwittingly foils Chris's attempts at revenge or reconciliation with their father.My only complaint is Shatraw's character, who is supposed to be Titus's best friend, hardly gets any exploration or airtime.
Hopefully, the show will be on for a while, so the effeminate and riotous Tommy can be more developed.If you're looking for a half hour of audacious comedy, the likes of which you have never seen on network TV, check out "Titus." Considering most good shows get shelved within a year if they don't get the ratings, you might only have a little time left!.
I hope fox doesn't cancel it like many others, because is one of the best of this season..
I never watched a Seinfeld episode in my life and most sitcoms have bored me with their attempts at humor.
It is very rare that there is an episode of Titus that does not make me laugh myself to tears..
Let's face it, not everyone loves Ray, but Titus is fast, funny and hilarious in the the same irreverent ways that Seinfeld was for the Nineties.
The girlfriend's redneck family with multiple criminal records and appearances on "Cops" (and proud of it too) and Titus's spaced out psycho of a mother round out the show's cast of characters, but another thing I like is how the show shifts from Titus's narration of the events as he lives through them like some sort of Dave Allen At Large.
Another thing that makes the show so great is how the show's event impact Titus the narrator.
This television show is definitely a standout when compared to the volume of reality-based programming and other half-hour length sitcoms.There is a definite comedic chemistry between the lead, Christopher Titus and his father, played by Stacy Keach.
Titus is by trade, a stand-up comedian and we are familiar with Keach assuming more dramatic roles, e.g. Long Riders, The (movie) and Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer (tv).The content on the smallscreen is a combination of a standup comedy routine and the traditional sitcom.
According to the background given in the media guides for this program it is based on the real life its comedic lead, Christopher Titus.
If you like funny, smart and original by all means buy the DVD, or find a way to watch it cause you won't be disappointed at all.
It would be great if they would bring it back like they did family guy..
"Titus" has got to be one of the funniest shows on T.V.
I love Chris Titus' nervous approach to his own clever comedy.
He is truly one of the most gifted young comedians out there.The show is loosely based on Chris Titus' real life.
The father is a multiple divorcee and the best parts of the show are by far the flashbacks to Titus' past.
The flashbacks show Titus as a teen and a kid, and almost all involve his mean father.Totally funny, totally underrated T.V. show, 7.5/10..
The show based on Titus's life always had me laughing, I never laughed so hard in a sitcome.
Cancelling Titus is one of the worst mistakes that the FOX Network ever made..
This personally is one of the funniest shows i have ever seen, hands down, perhaps the funniest.Christopher Titus is a genius.
His insight is deep and sharp.Also this show is reminiscent of the sharp comedy of the past, not the syrupy formulaic laugh track comedy of modern times which is really not that funny.Titus deals with real harsh issues in a very humorous way.
This is simply a heckuva good show, Titus' self-therapy is touching and wonderful and hysterical, Keach is dead-on as the father, and the rest of the cast is perfect in their supporting roles.
not only is Cynthia fabulous but so is Stacy Keach and Christopher Titus.
Stacy Keach was robbed of an Emmy for Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy.
This guy's got it bad: a totally neurotic family, a freaky friend who either needs to come out of the closet or get in touch with his manhood, a good looking girlfriend, and a business that is struggling to get off the ground.
The first season and the beginning of the new one had me coming back for more, time after time, and little did I realize that the series is based on Chris Titus' real life story.
Although, to be fair, I didn't know many people who watched it regularly.Even though the characters might have been poorly developed, and the writing was not of a higher level of quality or subject matter, it was hardly devoid of humor, although it was crude and juvenile at times.
She deserved that Emmy she won for Guiding Light and it looks like she's great at comedy too!
Christopher Titus is funny...
As of this writing, Titus has shown a couple of episodes of it's second season and it's still the funniest thing on TV.
Now when I saw the commercials for this show I thought, "Gee, another dumb sitcom spit out by the fox network in hopes of getting more ratings." However, I don't regret leaving the TV.
Commentary by Chris Titus throughout the show adds to the humor and the flashbacks are silly and entertaining.
Overall I thought "Titus" was a smart move by the Fox Network and I hope they don't cancel it like they have so many other potentially great shows..
Then Fox has the most honest Real family around.
My family never missed an episode,we all recognized the characters.Plus we laughed our behinds off.
Instead of becoming a weepy depressing soap opera-Titus showed us we have to see the humor in REAL life.
Ken Titus-was a real flesh and blood human being,played to perfection by the brilliant actor Stacy Keach Jr. Shame on Fox for canceling this show-shame on television for not running the reruns!!!.
Fox had the best lineup with that 70s show followed by titus.
Only fox could ruin a show as funny as titus..
Titus (the comic himself) IS talented and funny, but once they run out of all his stored-up material, then what???
The show is very inconsistent - weak writing, vibrant cast, Stacy Keach having the time of his life, but I wonder if it'll run out of gas soon.
I too thought it was funny and liked Chris Titus very much.
Titus is one of the funniest shows to come out of Fox.
Christopher Titus' commentary on his "past" is hilarius ("ok Kenny, its time to teach you to learn how to swim"...lol).This show is a funny sitcom.
The FOX Network came out with another "quality" sitcom for the 2000-2001 season.
I remember watching the first episode where Titus says "I think my girlfriend is boning another guy".
This show is stupid the comedy doesn't make sense and titus' jokes are always the same they always seem to be about his mom in a mental hospital or his dad and his five wife's well who cares about that and the dad thinks he's a regular Al Bundy but he's not in my opinion it's one thing to be funny but the comedy has to make sense I won't waste my time watching titus again but judge for yourself.
It was interesting how the show went, with Christopher Titus giving his perspective on the series(in those black and white segments) as well as the actual episode story going on.
This series was my first exposure to Christopher Titus.
Titus and his brother are very funny and seem to actually have a really good on set rapport between them.
While I know there are families that are like the one portrayed here it is sad to learn that some one had to grow up this way.
The show is bested on Christopher Titus' comic routine "Norman Rockwell is Bleeding", and what a routine to base a sitcom on.
"Titus" follows the everyday life of Christopher Titus and his amazingly dysfunctional family: his insanely cruel and politically incorrect but loving father Ken, his moronic little brother Dave, his equally screwed up girlfriend Erin and his effeminate best friend Tommy.
The thing about this show most of the stuff that happens in the show had already happen to Titus in his real life(yes his mom really did kill her husband).I really don't think there was a more underrated show on TV ever.
"Titus" was something very rare in TV Land a Dark Sitcom.
There where very few if any Dark Sitcoms out there and the ones that where/are out there I don't think are nearly as dark as "Titus".
"Titus'" only crime is that it was on the FOX network who is infamous for killing shows and killed the show in it's 3 season w/o a serious finale.
If you grew up with a dysfunctional family,(Like 63% of American Families) know anyone who did or just like dark comedy this a sitcom for you. |
tt0412637 | Delirious | Jack Gable is the lead writer and producer of the soap opera Beyond Our Dreams. Consumed by his work, he harbors an unspoken attraction to Laura Claybourne, the selfish actress playing the lead character, Rachel Hedison.
Jack crosses paths with Louise, who is there to audition for the part of Janet DuBois, a character Jack did not want introduced. Jack then has a contentious meeting with his co-producers, the Sherwoods. The Sherwoods reveal that they are displeased with several elements of Jack's outline for the upcoming season and wish to kill off Rachel, due to Laura's outrageous contract demands. Feigning compromise, the Sherwoods immediately hire Arnie Federman, a rival of Jack's, to make the changes they desire. At the same time, Jack has suggested a new character, Jack Gates, a ruthless tycoon. The Sherwoods make no promise of writing Gates into the show, despite Jack's interest.
Planning a trip to Vermont for the weekend, Jack is contacted by Laura. She has just broken up with her boyfriend Dennis, the actor who plays Dr. Paul Kirkwood on the show, and wishes to accompany Jack. As Jack loads their luggage into the trunk, Dennis suddenly calls out to Rachel. Jack looks up to see them kissing just as the trunk lid hits him in the head. Upon awakening, he leaves for Vermont alone. Not far out of New York, he crashes his car.
Upon waking, Jack finds himself in Ashford Falls Community Hospital, one of the settings of his show. Thinking himself the victim of a prank by the actors, he goes to the window to confirm his suspicions, only to see a real town. Incredulous, he manages to convince Dr. Kirkwood of his good health and checks out of the hospital. He is immediately intercepted by Janet DuBois. She believes him to be Jack Gates, who is seeking to buy a miracle weight-loss formula developed by her late father. Jack rebuffs her, denies he is Gates and says that he is only a writer. As she leaves in frustration, she angrily tells him to "write his way out". On a whim, Jack gets out his typewriter and writes a scene of the local mechanic calling to say that his damaged car is fixed. Immediately after, the mechanic calls and confirms the repairs are finished. Jack realizes that he can control events by writing them.
Jack seizes his new found power to pursue Rachel, saving her from the death arranged for her by Federman. Despite his writing skills, she ignores him. His efforts are redeemed by the attentions of Janet. He assists her in her efforts to avoid the machinations of the Hedisons, including patriarch Carter and his sons, Blake and Ty. The Hedisons own a large pharmaceutical company, and wish to acquire her formula at any cost. The Federman version of Jack Gates appears, but Jack sends him on a business trip to Cleveland.
As Jack works to ingratiate himself to Rachel, he continues to run into Janet. The episodes culminate in a party at the Hedison mansion, where Jack accidentally breaks his typewriter. Helen Caldwell, a nurse at the hospital reveals that Rachel and Janet were switched at birth, with Janet being Carter's actual daughter. Rachel is confronted by a gun-wielding Blake, who has been experiencing side effects of an overdose of medication prescribed by Kirkwood, a scheme orchestrated by Rachel. Blake shoots Janet and she is rushed to the hospital, where Rachel convinces Kirkwood to kill her in surgery. Jack must race against time to repair his typewriter and write Janet back to health. As Jack begins to write, he is confronted by Gates, who is furious at having been sent to Cleveland and shoots at Jack with a shotgun, hitting the typewriter.
Jack wakes up back in New York, on the set of his own show, tended to by Laura and Dennis. He immediately confronts Laura about her behavior, revealing to her that she will be fired from the show. He confronts the Sherwoods about their plans for the show, and ensures that they will do things his way. He finds Louise in a delicatessen, gets her the part of Janet, and begins a relationship with her. | satire | train | wikipedia | In the opening scene I thought I recognized a friend of mine in a minor role and while waiting for him to reappear and see if it was in fact him I found myself captivated with this brilliant little indie until the end.
But in this movie they are well worth taking a closer look at.Les Galantine (Steve Buscemi) is the dregs of the paparazzi.
A homeless guy named Toby (Michael Pitt) weasels his way into Les's life, and his crap hole apartment, and is eventually promoted from non-rent-paying roommate who sleeps in the closet to paparazzi's assistant.
The relationship between Les Galantine and Toby is the centerpiece of the story.
And the flow eventually takes him from homeless guy, to pop diva hanger oner, to star of his own really really bad TV show called "Toby" where he plays a homeless serial killer, named Toby.
Michael Pitt plays Toby with a warmth and sympathy that makes the process of getting a closer look at those around him tolerable.
He expertly ties all the disparate elements of these characters, Les Galantine, the talentless pop diva (Allison Lohman), the casting agent (Gina Gershon) and their stories, together in a very compelling performance.
I have way big respect for him now...It is not explicitly spelled out but I would like to go on record here to say that I think Les Galantine is gay and in love with Toby.
Steve Buscemi, as Les Galantine, is hard to watch and hard to pull away from from beginning to end.
If you like well made, interesting movies, with gobs of talent from beginning to end, watch this one.
By the way, my friend was not in this movie, and the character I thought he was playing never showed up again....
What you get with this movie is a very solid performance from Michael Pitt who plays Toby a homeless kid in his early 20s that through a chance encounter finds a friend in struggling paparazzi Len played by a on fire Steve Bescumi.
The movie follows Toby across a wide range of changes in his life that puts a strain on his relationship with Les and questions how far apart are those in front of the camera from those behind it.
Micheal Pitt really breaks out here playing the role of Toby with a very natural wide eyed enthusiasm that wins over the audience from the beginning.
Steve Buscemi tears it up in this role, as the edgy Les he perfectly portrays a loner who deeply wants to be something more then the despised paparazzi that he is.
I felt entertained and satisfied by the end of the movie, however film takes a a misguided turn at one point and I could fell most everyone in the audience thought it was regretful on the directors part and felt out of place in the movie.
In the end though the film still works, unfortunate plot twist aside, you've got quality acting, fresh cinema and a excellent soundtrack that adds up to a solid experience..
It is amusing to see Buscemi's character Les become unraveled at Toby's success.
Somehow the ending seemed so right, again showing hope and the good side of human nature among the muck of a mercenary, dog-eat-dog world.The cast is excellent and the acting superb.
The movie revolves around the two main leads, Steve Buscemi as the paparazzi Les Galantine, and Michael Pitt as the homeless innocent, Toby Grace.
That would have been a great error as, for my money, this is his most memorable role by far.Mr Buscemi easily captures your attention and holds it throughout the film, not that Les is the most admirable of people.
Michael Pitt plays Toby with affection as though he wishes his real-life counterparts well.
And then there's Alison Lohman as the rising young fan magnet, K'Harma Leeds, and Gina Gershon as the publicist and agent, Dana.
Steve Buscemi's captivating performance, Michael Pitt's innocent yet noble attitude, Gina Gerswin, Allison and Callie's brilliant and lovable performances just drags you into the movie, where you feel a connection with most, if not all of the leads...
It was really late at night; but, I love Steve Buscemi as an actor; and, had to see it, as he got top billing!
He is absolutely passionate within the role of a semi-successful Paparazzi, who takes unstaged photographs of the famous, or nearly famous.His character, Les, is not the most admirable or likable person.
In fact, he is often self-absorbed, spouting off his philosophical beliefs to his assistant, Toby (played incredibly by Michael Pitt).
Alison Lohman plays K'Harma, and does a great job.The twist at the end, which is heightened by the tension between Les and Toby was great.
Tom DiCillo is a cool New York-based independent filmmaker, and he's made some good stuff in the past (most notably as DP for Jim Jarmusch, and as the director of sleepers like the great Living in Oblivion), and I wish him the best of luck on anything he does.
But then it goes a little in a different direction, which I respected and wanted to go along with, as a fable/fairy-tale where Toby (Michael Pitt) is just about the nicest, most generous and fish-out-of-dumpster homeless kid who somehow becomes an 'assistant' to fledgling photographer Les (Steve Buscemi), who shows him the ropes and introduces him to a casting director (Gina Gershon), and eventually- accidentally of course- falls into the company of a pop star (Alison Lohman) as the two all but fall in love on first sight.Good premise, and scenes between Buscemi and Pitt most often work the best, and funniest, as one sees subtle layers peeled by Les's pathetic paparazzi who just doesn't admit he's not ambitious enough to be marginalized as a photographer.
There's a very bitter pill being sent out in, often, very corny and ill-shot scenes (the latter of which I could accept, but for one brief instant, as Toby walks back to Les's place the morning after he's had that whirlwind night with Lohman, I was shocked at how cheesy a scene it turned into).
It's all in good amusement to see the "reality serial-killer" show being directed for "realism", but it all doesn't lead up to anything significant to say past some shallow messages.Maybe I didn't see what others have been; it's become a minor little hit with most, and I'm sure if you have any desire to see actors like Buscemi and Pitt and Lohman (who is also very good) and Gershon (and hey, there's even a really hip and hilarious cameo from Elvis Costello) you'll seek it out anyway.
I'm glad I did, because it was a sweet, very light romantic comedy with a fantasy-type touch.Some of the scenes of Pitt are astonishingly beautiful, and the story, although straightforward and predictable, takes a backseat to the storytelling...
lush, frothy and warm.I'm not as gushing as some of the other commenters, mostly because some of the dialogue was stilted and a few of the scenes fell flat (especially the more "personal" moments between Steve Buscemi and Pitt), but all in all, this is a light-hearted romance that leaves you feeling good inside.Shouldn't we want that from movies sometimes?.
Les (Steve Buscemi) is an amateur celebrity photographer who longs to get better shots that are worth more money.
One day, by chance, Les and a crowd of shutterbugs like him make an attempt to photograph a hot young singing star, K'Harma (Alison Lohman).
No one gets much but Les meets an affable guy, Toby (Michael Pitt).
Turns out Toby is homeless and has a vague inclination to be a movie star.
Soon, every other phrase out of Les' mouth is "rule number one", as he gives Toby pointers about photography and life.
Not long after, Toby actually MEETS K'Harma and she likes his looks.
But, will Toby let Les capitalize on this great chance to photograph K'Harma and those around her?
I would have rated "Delirious" with 4 stars if this movie would have had another 2 leading actors because the plot of the movie is terrible.The performances of Steve Buscemi and Michael Pitt save the movie.
The performances of these actors turn what could have been a boring movie in an entertaining one despite its extremely unreal and naive plot.The plot is about how a paparazzi (Steve Buscemi) and a young bum (Michael Pitt) become friends where the bum works for free for the paparazzi and in return he can sleep at the paparazzi's department, but things are going to change when the bum gets involve with a young woman pop star..
Written and Directed by Tom DiCillo comes an Independent off beat Drama-Comedy, Delirious, which will premiere in theatres in mid-August in New York, followed by Chicago and LA.
The plot follows a minor celebrity photographer Les Galantine (Steve Buscemi) has big dreams, but he can't quite talk himself into the right parties to get that one great exclusive photo.
He meets Toby Grace (Michael Pitt), a homeless kid who is drawn to the bright lights of New York City with a desire to one day achieve stardom himself, and hires him as his assistant.
Alison Lohman also stars as Toby's love interest as a pop musician, K'Harma Leeds, alongside a guest appearance by Gina Gershon.The last we saw of Tom DiCillo (Double Whammy, Living in Oblivion) and Steve Buscemi (Armageddon, Con air) was on the set of Double Whammy (2001) when they collaborated to form a rather mediocre film along with the infamous Dennis Leary.
This time around, with the introduction of Michael Pitt (Bully, The Dreamers) and Alison Lohman (White Oleander, Matchstick Men) along with a cameo by Elvis Costello (Cold Mountain, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me), who also provides some of the music for the soundtrack, DiCillo, a former Sundance winner, is surely here to make his mark.
Delirious has already won awards at the San Sebastián International Film Festival for Best Director and Best Screenplay and is currently sweeping audiences of their feet at The Sundance Film Festival.Delirious explores the theme of dating/exploring the celebrity lifestyle, which has been around in Hollywood for a while, from movies like, Paparazzi (1998/I) to Being John Malkovich (1999) and Almost Famous (2000) among many others.
Bought it at a flea market with no expectations other than liking Steve Buscemi and his choice of rolls, and I wasn't disappointed.
And the story reels you in (film pun intended) and holds you to the end.It is lovely, joyful and refreshing, meaning to be without the heavy hand.Thanks, Steve and thank you whoever left it at the flea market, new and unopened, for me to discover.
Les does so with a purpose: he sees a chance to meet with K'Harma Leeds, the hottest star of the moment.
Doesn't deepen in the friendship between Les and Toby, or in the platonic love of the homeless and the famous singer, and this turns out to be good, since that would makes it the story tedious, and here there is a romantic comedy.
Steve Buscemi too good at being annoying.
Toby Grace (Michael Pitt) is a homeless actor wannabe.
Les Galantine (Steve Buscemi) is a paparazzi.
While Les is waiting for pop diva K'harma Leeds (Allison Lohman), Toby helps K'harma get away.
Later, Toby becomes Les' assistant and even friend.
Eventually Toby becomes famous and a jealous Les vows to kill him.Steve Buscemi is too angry, too pathetic, and too annoying to watch.
Tom DiCillo delivers little more than a passable B-movie..
After a coffee run, homeless hunk Michael Pitt (as Toby Grace) asks to crash with seedy celebrity photographer Steve Buscemi (as Les Galantine).
Buscemi develops a big brother relationship with Pitt, who wants to be an actor.
Pitt is attracted to scantily-clad pop star Alison Lohman (as K'Harma Leeds) and heats up casting director Gina Gershon (as Dana).
When he gets his shot at fame, Pitt's relationship with Buscemi becomes strained...This starts out like it might be a modern "Midnight Cowboy" (1969), then wanders into "Star 80" (1983) territory.
Stay tuned for a coda, appearing after the end credits.****** Delirious (9/26/06) Tom DiCillo ~ Steve Buscemi, Michael Pitt, Alison Lohman, Gina Gershon.
The innovative script throws up many candid reactions and crafts a humane angle to all of this gone to the head star struck business with an unpredictable zip.Les Galantine a small-time paparazzi who prefers the title professional cameraman, where on one of his photo hunts meets Toby, a young homeless man who one day sees himself being an actor.
Les teaches him the ropes of the trade, and they slowly become friends, but in an accidental chance meeting Toby catches the eye of celebrity K'Harma Leeds and there's an instant attraction that could disrupt Les work/personal establishment with Toby.A dependable, stellar cast give it all to their roles.
Steve Buscemi's excellently snappy turn is one of uncertain complexity and vulnerability as the confidence comes from when he has a camera in his hand and along side him Michael Pitt brings quite a sincere, upfront quality that works when he's taken under the wing.
Alison Lohman cosily paints it perfectly as the overwhelmed pop star and a scorching hot Gina Gershon is great as a feisty casting director manager that sees something special in Pitt's character.
Also just after the credits have rolled over, we get a little bit more involving the Les character..
steve buscemi is back to his best as the irascible, selfish maverick wannabe photographer who takes homeless michael pitt in and gives him board and lodging and attitude in return for some free "assistant"work.
Great directing from Tom DiCillo gives their relationship a real "odd couple" situation with great drama infused with some genuinely funny scenes.
Unintentionally while "working" with buscemi, pitt meets casting agent Gina Gershon (who it has to be said looks unbelievable for 46) and pop star/love interest alison lohman.
What makes the movie is the way the story follows Pitt's innocent progression up the celebrity ladder while at the same time chronicles Buscemi's growing jealousy and despair at having lost his only true friend and his antagonism that he (very indirectly) helped him acquire this new found fame and fortune.
Steve Buscemi played the role of "Les Galantine", who's a paparazzi, well.
Steve Buscemi made you not want to like him at times, so again, he played his character well.
Michael Pitt played a very believable, "Toby Grace".
Toby is a homeless man turned actor with the help of Les. It was enjoyable seeing this process take Toby gradually to the top.
Which brings me to, Alison Lohman, who played "K'Harma Leeds".
Toby being at the right place, right time, with K'Harma helped launch his soon to be career.
I also enjoyed, Gina Gershon, who played Dana, a casting director.
His luck is about to change, much to his surprise, when he meets Toby, a homeless young man trying to eke a living in New York.
Things change for Les as he takes Toby into his home, even though he never trusts the kid.
When Les brings Toby to his parents' home.
All the parents want to know is whether Toby, with his good looks is gay.
Evidently, they have their doubts about the strange pairing he makes with their own Les.Toby doesn't realize his life is about to change, when he happens to be innocently standing next to K'Harma at an event he is helping Les to cover.
Les, unfortunately, decided to bring a small camera to take pictures of the celebrities at the party, something that annoys the guests and the birthday girl.
Toby, who becomes a minor celebrity, is reunited with K'Harma as they both attend an event that put them together in the red carpet, while Les who has come to deal with his former assistant, is singled out among the crowd by none other than Toby himself.Tom DiCillo, the director of "Delirious", is a man that is familiar with the trappings of celebrity, as he has shown in some of his other movies.
He is one of the many predators trying to take the shot that will sell in the printed media at all costs.Steve Buscemi is perfect as Les. Mr.
Michael Pitt does an amazing job as Toby, the sweet street guy.
Alison Lohman plays K'Harma.
Tom Aldredge and Doris Belack are good as Les' parents.
Anton Sanko's score blends well in the background.The film is highly recommended to Tom DiCillo's and Steve Buscemi's fans.
Recap: Les Galantine is a wannabe photographer that makes do by selling the odd picture as a paparazzi.
One day his path crosses the one of Toby Grace, a homeless young man that tries to find his place in the world.
Toby becomes Les' unpaid assistant, working for a place to sleep, food and with a dream to become an actor one day.
But for now he follows Les around hunting for celebrity photos, and one day his eyes meet the eyes of young pop diva K'Harma.
Without meeting they seem to have a connection, one that may put Toby's friendship with Les in jeopardy.Comments: Classified as Comedy/Drama Delirious is more drama than comedy.
It is a bit satirical about the paparazzi – celebrity symbiosis and provides a few odd scenes that makes you smile, but most it is almost a sad movie about how people can live in the middle of a great city and be so completely alone.
Without any real connections to anybody else, without any real friends.Once again Steve Buscemi gives a stellar performance even if this is not his best.
However it is a shame that his character in Delirious, Les Galantine, is a pretty sad one.
Buscemi has the talent to give his character a much more comic aspect, but I don't think that that was the idea here.Pitt is also good as the naïve and confirmation seeking Toby. |
tt0119988 | Caught Up | Daryl Allen (Bokeem Woodbine), who narrates, is an ex-con. After serving time on drug charges, he plans to get his life straight, open up a nightclub and be a part of his son Jerome's life. His friend Trip offers to give him money for his business and Daryl accepts. Daryl drives Trip to the bank, unaware he's taking part in a robbery, which makes him furious. The police chase them down and Daryl and Trip are involved in a car accident, which leads Trip getting killed and Daryl sent back to the slammer for a long stretch.
During that period, his girlfriend Trish (Cynda Williams) gets married and moves away with their son. Released after five years, Daryl meets his parole officer (Tony Todd) and is informed that if he gets into trouble again, he will serve 25 to life in prison. Daryl is unemployed when he meets a psychic woman named Vanessa Dietrich (Williams). Daryl and Vanessa seem to hit it off at first but a man in a black jacket and mask shoots and tries to kill them. Vanessa gives Daryl a gun and Daryl uses it to scare the man away. Daryl and Vanessa go to Daryl's apartment and Daryl tells Vanessa that she can stay as possible.
The next morning Daryl wakes up to a man, who puts a gun to his head. The man reveals himself as Billy, who is a friend of Vanessa. Billy tells Daryl that the gun is empty and that he was just testing him. Furious, Daryl hits Billy to the floor when Vanessa walks in and tells him that she has gotten him work as a limo driver. At first, Daryl refuses, since he doesn't like Billy, but he later changes his mind and takes the job. He meets a man named Herbert (Clifton Powell), who also works for Billy. Daryl and Herbert get along real well and find out that they have things in common. Later, Vanessa reads Daryl his future through tarot cards and Daryl realizes that the cards describe him in a lot of ways.
Vanessa and Daryl go to a club so Daryl can see how much things have changed since he went to prison. When they leave, the gunman from before shows up again and shoots at them. Daryl realizes that he gets shot at every time he's with Vanessa, leading him to believe that she knows something. Vanessa tells him that she suspects her ex-lover Ahmad is after her, but she doesn't know how he found her. Daryl doesn't believe Vanessa and refuses to speak or see her again, thinking that she will get him into trouble.
One late night, Daryl gets a call from Billy, who asks him to deliver a car for a client. The car gets a flat tire and Daryl opens the trunk to get the spare tire and finds a dead body in the trunk. While trying to change the tire, a police officer pulls up and asks him what happened. Daryl tries to explain what happened when the trunk opens up and the cop walks over to the car. Thinking that it will lead him to back to prison for life, Daryl picks up a tire iron and tries to knock the cop out, only to discover the cop close the trunk and does not find the body.
Daryl heads to Billy's office, beats him up, threatens him and quits the job. On the way back to his apartment, Daryl is arrested. Herbert walks in and reveals to Daryl that he is really a cop named Frank Lowden, who has been investigating Billy's business for months. He orders Daryl to go back on the job and that he is now working for him.
Daryl goes to Vanessa's apartment and orders her to tell him what has he gotten her into. Vanessa tells Daryl about Ahmad, the guy she mentioned before, and that he gave her a diamond that's worth half a million dollars. Daryl believes her but refuses to get involved in her situation, but he stays the night with her. The next morning, Daryl wakes up with blood on his hands and notices that Vanessa has been murdered. The police show up and Daryl escapes out the window. Daryl is now charged with killing Vanessa and now he has to find out who the real killer is. He goes back to his old hood and buys a gun from an old friend. Daryl goes to Billy's house and asks him about Ahmad, but Billy doesn't know who he is. Billy orders his bodyguard to come and hurt Daryl, but Daryl hides in the closet.
Suddenly, Billy's bodyguard is killed by Ahmad (Basil Wallace), a Jamaican mobster. Ahmad orders his men to tie Billy to a chair and he asks Billy how to find Daryl, since he is wanted for murdering Vanessa. Billy asks him why he's looking for Daryl and what can he do to help. Ahmad tells Billy a story about Vanessa, saying that she was his lover and she had helped him steal a case of diamonds. However, she betrayed him and took the diamonds for herself and disappeared and Ahmad has been looking for her since then.
Ahmad offers Billy one diamond and once again asks him where Daryl is. Billy tells Ahmad that Daryl is in the closet, but Ahmad doesn't believe him. Ahmad tells his men to kill Billy, thinking he is playing tricks on him, but instead he shows Billy a small bottle of sulfuric acid. Ahmad then tells one of his bodyguards to put a little drop of it on top of Billy's head, but the bodyguard accidentally puts too much and kills Billy. Ahmad orders his other bodyguard to check the closet. The bodyguard does and Daryl is hiding on top of the ceiling. As Ahmad and his men leave, Daryl exits the closet.
Daryl decides to leave town since he thinks he has nothing to stay for. He then pulls over and makes a call to Trisha's husband, Roger (LL Cool J). Roger tells Daryl that he and Trish had a fight and Trish left and has been gone for over a week. Daryl then asks Roger if can he speak to Jerome. He tells Jerome to stay out of trouble and hangs up. Thinking he will never be a part of his son's life, Daryl continues to leave town. He starts to have flashbacks and realizes he's making a mistake and goes back to L.A. Daryl goes to Vanessa's grave and digs up her body. He then pulls out a knife and cuts a piece of Vanessa's clothing and is shocked to discover that it is his ex-girlfriend, Trish.
Daryl follows Lowden to a house and waits for him to leave. He enters the house and sees that Vanessa is alive and she's the one who killed Trish and framed him in order to get Ahmad and his crew away from her. Daryl begins to take Vanessa to the police, but he is knocked out and handcuffed by Lowden. Lowden is revealed to be a crooked cop who was actually in on the whole thing with Vanessa and they both planned to sell the diamonds for money. Suddenly, Ahmad and his crew kill one of the guards and confront Vanessa and Lowden.
As Daryl begins to wake up, Ahmad orders Vanessa to give him the diamonds. Daryl notices a lamp on a table next to him. Suddenly, Vanessa, Lowden, Ahmad and his crew have a big shootout as Daryl attempts to knock the lamp over and break it. The shootout involves everyone being killed except Daryl. Before Vanessa dies, she tells Daryl that she never stopped loving him, despite what she has put him through. Daryl takes a bag of money and calls Jake from a pay phone. As Daryl explains the whole situation to Jake, he tells them that Ahmad and his crew were the ones who shot at him and Vanessa twice. However, Jake tells Daryl that Ahmad didn't know where Vanessa was until he heard that she was dead. Shocked, Daryl soon realizes that Vanessa was wrong and it wasn't Ahmad after all. Suddenly, the gunman from the last two times smashes into Daryl's car knocking him out.
As Daryl wakes up, the gunman finally confronts him, aiming his gun at him. Daryl asks who he is and the gunman reveals himself as a former security guard in the bank that his friend, Trip robbed. Trip also shot off the guard's private parts while robbing the bank, which is the reason why he has been stalking Daryl in order to kill him for revenge. Daryl tries to tell the gunman that it wasn't his fault and soon realizes that the gunman's actions resulted in Trish being killed. Angry, Daryl tries to attack the gunman but the gunman shoots him in the river below and commits suicide. Daryl suddenly comes back up and is still alive, due to the bulletproof vest he bought from a friend. With the money he took from Vanessa, Daryl is now the owner of his own club and his son, Jerome, lives with him. The film ends with Daryl saying: "Life is just a game, but to win you gotta avoid getting caught up." | paranormal, revenge, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Bad luck and poor choices.
This is got to be one of the most confusing urban thrillers I have ever seen.
A young man did a five year bid after being involved in a bank robbery thanks to his coke-head buddy.
Daryl plans were to open a nightclub and had a major set back that sent him to prison because of the bank robbery.
But when he got out he hooks up with a fortune teller that maybe change his life around.
Though whenever they were together someone was out to kill him.
Daryl played by Bokeem Woodbine had only wanted to get his life together so he can get back into his son's life and presume to open a nightclub.
Through all the mayhem in the movie he still achieve his goal.
Not a bad ending for a hood movie without the star dying..
A fresh take on the traditional "wrong man" theme.
Director Scott's debut leads us through a well paced maze of mystery.
He keeps our interest by injecting unpredictable twists and turns throughout.
A brave effort that goes against the formulaic grain of the majority of Hollywood releases..
Best One-Liner Ever.
"Caught Up" had that low budget feel but the low key and well paced mystery kept my attention.
Bookem Woodbine (Daryl) was refreshing as a ex-convict trying to go straight but every turn in the road ahead seems to lead him closer back to jail.
Bookem Woodbine has a very deep baritone voice like Earl Jones, and his delivery is rough at times but he was genuine.
I thought this movie was going to be a yawner early on until the part where Daryl barks "I ain't going down like no punk!" That was a delivery of a one-liner comparable to "I'll be back" by Arnold.
Cyndia Willams (Vanessa) was very pleasing to the eye as the mysterious, seductive woman that plays Daryl as the fool.
She is the other reason to watch this movie.
Also, some other notable guest cameo is made the Candy Man, Snoop Doggy Dog, and Ll Cool J of "Deep Blue Sea" (who didn't go down like a punk)..
Painful.
I went to this movie because i have been a long time fan of Tony Todd and Jeffrey Combs.
They had two of the smallest roles in the film.
The film was poorly written and poorly directed.
I can sit back and watch a stupid movie if it is entertaining, but this one wasn't.
I had to fight sleep in the theater.
I didn't expect much from Bokeem Woodbine so i was not disappointed with him.
Cynda Williams was dreadful.
I would have to say that she delivers one of the worst performances I have ever seen.
Joseph Lindsey was the only enjoyable part.
His performance was hilarious, and yet he has gone on to do nothing else.
So in short if you are thinking of seeing this movie, it would be less painful to castrate yourself..
Another dust-collector on videostore shelves..
A poorly written urban crime drama that would have worked better as a sketch in HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE, CAUGHT UP stars Bokeem Woodbine as an ex-con trying to go straight.
Shortly after his release from prison, he meets Trish (Cynda Williams, whose mediocre performance is in sharp contrast to her impressive work in ONE FALSE MOVE), who's, of all things, a psychic being pursued by an evil Rastafarian from whom she stole a huge diamond.
Instead of staying the hell away from this apparently high-maintenance love interest (she's beautiful, you see) and trying to reconnect with his former squeeze, he agrees to help her.
Every stereotype and cliché is used, as well as howlingly bad dialogue ("Nobody was waiting for me but a dude named destiny") and the perfunctory hip-hop cameos.
This film seems to have been made solely to promote its accompanying soundtrack, but with hardly any rap music included in the movie, what exactly was the point of all this?.
Good.
It was basically a decent movie.
The plots keep flipping on you.
The first part is silly, but what can you say about the 'hood'?
That acid on the head was a bit much though.
And they never let us know how the fortune teller finds him.
She had to know about him.
Glad to see that he was able to finally open his club and get his son..
Bokeem Woodbine's Lone Effort.
I liked the movie, despite the critic's abhorrence toward the movie.
I can see Bokeem Woodbine's acting potential stretched even further.
Yet, Cynda Williams role in the movie may be the culprit for the critic's actions.
I didn't like her all that much, and her acting was a bit off.
Though, I believe that her purpose in the movie was to fulfill its "Sex-sells" promise.
But, basically all she is was just a pretty face.
This movie was pretty much all Bokeem Woodbine, as Daryl Allen's journey towards getting his life back together, without getting "Caught Up" of course..
Surprisingly well-structured plot; sharp writing overall.
Gems sometimes crop up in the most surprising places.
"Caught Up" provides the pleasures of a well-structured plot, especially the payoff one gets when something brought up earlier means something important (even clever) later, e.g. the identity of the hitman.
Combine these tasty plot twists with good acting and good dialogue, and you've got a movie worth staying up to watch on cable.
So bad it's good.
The whole idea of taking such film noirs as "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and giving them a modern urban twist sounds quite intriguing.
Unfortunately, in the case of "Caught Up," the execution is poor.
First issue: the casting of Bokeem Woodbine as the lead.
Woodbine has been in other urban films like "Menace 2 Society" and "Jason's Lyric," and he wasn't bad in some of those supporting roles.
He just isn't cut out for being a leading man.
I can tell he wasn't perfectly comfortable with carrying the film on his own two shoulders.
The problem with his flat performance is that his face rarely changes expression and he delivers every line like he's constipated.
His emotions don't come naturally to him, and as a result his performance is totally strained.
The rest of the cast is pretty good.
Cynda Williams is beautiful to look at.
Jeffrey Combs has an amusing cameo.
The script is ludicrous, as it's full of way-too-odd coincidences and implausible plot twists.
I can tell that the director Darin Scott was very passionate about this project and very much inspired by those great noirs of the past, but his direction is over-the-top.
He explains, in his DVD commentary, that he used a hyper-realistic approach since it's narrated by the main character and people tend to embellish details when telling stories - especially ones as spectacular as this one.
His reasons are understandable, but the film still didn't work for me.
If there's anything good I have to say, "Caught Up" is worth some good laughs - mind you, you'll be laughing at it, rather than with it..
Review is right on.
For once, I agree 100% with the review of this movie.
It is dead on.
It was very poorly written although I was a bit intrigued by the twists and turns.
The plot was a deja vu, very similar to some of the old school blaxploitation movies, updated with a modern look, and language.
I did expect the soundtrack, which I didn't care for anyway in the extras on the DVD, to play more of a role, but I can't recall even hearing any music in the entire movie.
Maybe because the plot was so weak I didn't notice the music.I purchased the DVD for like $4.
It was in a bin with thousands of other DVDs collecting dust.
Seeing the beautiful Cynda Williams is worth the $4.
Just put the movie on mute and you're good to go!.
This movie has two rules- eject or dub over..
This is a silly movie that involves a man who has recently been let out of prison.
He meets a girl and gets mixed up in this silly underworld scenario, complete with renegade rastafarians and peel away facial disguises.
But its not as good as it sounds...
you have to put up with a lot of mediocre writing and overacting in order to get to any of the above-mentioned treats.
The story has all of these tricky twists that aim to add depth but really only complicate the already-ailing story.
To tell you the truth, the only reason I watched it was so that I could see the extremely short cameo by rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg, playing the character "Kool Kitty Kat".One funny thing- you should watch for all of the funny faces that the actors make throughout the movie.
Its really strange how often it happens, and I don't know if it is a biproduct of the overacting or an inside joke or what.
In any case, if you for some reason DO decide to watch this movie, its something to do..
Not a good movie and it was very confusing, too..
I watched this movie because it was included in a four pack that I bought at Walmart for five dollars.
I had been curious about this movie for quite some time and I remember seeing TV spots for it back in early 1998 and wondered what the movie was all about.I get the premise of a guy getting out of jail and wanting to go straight but couldn't because some things wouldn't let him.
However, there were so many twists and turns that I was not sure who really was the main antagonist and when you do, it turns out to be a really minor character and while I get the motive and reasons (Sort of) about the true villain, it just doesn't relate to the main plot.The only thing that saved this movie was seeing Cynda Williams naked and the soundtrack was also better than the film.
This movie sucked and I really wonder how this made it to theaters.
As much as I respect Bokeem Woodbine as an actor, I don't really think he is cut out for lead roles and this movie shows..
Clunky, but it has its moments..
A very typical set up - ex-con with a kid, wants to make a new start.
The main character's complete lack of bravado makes him an amiable enough lead, but it's not enough to save the film from clunky dialogue, and some clunkier acting.
However, there are some cinematically nice moments, and it's worth the rental price just to see Jeffrey Combs' hysterical, and very...
memorable...
cameo..
Poor plot line; weak acting..
The general look of the film, set design, locale appear as cheap.
That coupled with a poor plot line and weak acting made this somewhat uninteresting, with the exception of the acting of Cynda Williams.
The obligatory sex-scene was not necessary.
Her acting style was smooth and confident.
All of the actors could have done better with a better script.
Sorry..
Seen it all before..
This was pretty nice, though absolutely everything is seen before.
The plot thins out towards the end, after a bland start.
Of the characters I'd like to pull out "Vanessa" for her good looks, and "Billy" for a good performance.
The rastas are, on the other hand, just plain silly.
Watch this movie if you have nothing better to do.
Screwed Up. Caught Up is bad..really, really bad.
It looks like it was done by amateur and with the exception of competent cinematography everything else about it blows.The story: Darryl Allen(Bokeem Woodbine) is having the worst luck ever.
He loses his moronic friend to a high speed chase accident.
He meets a mysterious woman named Vanessa Dietrich(Cynda Williams) who gets him in the middle of a scandal involving pilfered diamonds from a Jamaican mobster.
He is forced to work for a fruity and shady limousine owner named Wild Bill.
He befriends one of the guys at this job who ends up being an undercover cop named Frank Lewdon(Clifton Powell)posing as some unfortunate bum named Herbert.
On top of all that he keeps getting shot at by somebody(who I will reveal later in this review).You know a movie is in trouble when the cameo appearances by Snoop Dogg and LL Cool J are the best thing about it.
You know a movie is in trouble when a sex scene involving Cynda and Bokeem is better than the rest of the movie.
The acting is awful.
Bokeem Woodbine was great in Jason's Lyric, Panther, Strapped, Gridlock'd etc but he stinks here.
Its not his fault.
The script is a terrible one that causes for him to profusely overact at every scene.
The only scene he fared well in was the scene where he talks to his son over the phone.
Bokeem's performance elsewhere in this movie was hammy.
Now, I love Clifton Powell but he gives the worst performance of his acting career as the unscrupulous undercover Frank Lewdon.
The interrogation scene where he spits back in Daryl Allen's face and slaps him around is laughable to a fault.
Having Cynda Williams play both Trish and Vanessa made the movie all the more confusing.
As a matter of fact that is the biggest flaw of Caught Up: its confusing as hell from start to finish.
The film gets hysterically bad and worse as it progresses.
It has plot holes big enough to fit the state of Texas in.
Let me give you two examples of the huge holes in this story: Vanessa murders Trish and puts her dead body next to Darryl in a motel.
Question: How does she know where Trish stays?
Plot hole #2: Darryl is constantly getting shot at and in the end it turns out to be the same cop his friend shot in the groin earlier in the movie.
Question: how does this wacky cop know where to find Darryl at?
These are the few examples of the many plot holes in Caught Up. A movie so bizarre that it makes you wonder if the director and writer was sloshed while he wrote this tripe.
There is a reason why Darin Scott fell off the map after this movie.
Caught Up is confusing, jumble mess of a movie that adds to the negative stigma attached to low budget movies.
Some low budget movies can be good but this movie is not one of the exceptions.
Stick with the soundtrack.
Its more satisfying than this stinker. |
tt0040582 | Mexican Hayride | Joe Bascomb (Lou Costello) chases con man Harry Lambert (Bud Abbott) to Mexico City, after Harry apparently swindled him (and some friends) in an oil stock scam back in the United States. Joe's ex-girlfriend, Mary (Virginia Grey) has hired Harry as her agent, and is going by the name 'Montana', passing herself off as a toreador. When Joe encounters Harry at a bullring arena, he also sees Mary, who is in the ring. As part of 'Amigo Americana Week', she is about to toss her hat into the crowd where the lucky recipient will be proclaimed 'goodwill ambassador'. Mary is supposed to toss the hat to Gus Adamson (Frank Fenton), another con man whom Harry has arranged to be chosen, but Mary instead throws the hat in anger at Joe. It turns out that Joe, now the 'goodwill ambassador', is also being pursued by American authorities for partaking in the oil stock scam; he uses an alias, 'Humphrey Fish', while in Mexico.
Joe is persuaded to participate in Harry's, Dagmar's (Luba Malina) and Mary's plan to sell fake silver mine stock. While giving tours of the bogus mine, Joe extols its beauty and sells stock to anyone he can. Eventually the authorities track down and incarcerate Joe, along with Harry; Joe manages to escape and, disguised as an old Mexican woman, helps Harry escape. They return to the bullring in search of Dagmar and the stock money. Joe enters the ring, only to be chased by an irate bull. Dagmar, who has the money concealed in her hat, tosses it to him. Harry enters the ring to retrieve the hat from Joe, who is still being pursued by the bull. Eventually, the money is recovered and returned to the authorities. The gang is cleared of wrongdoing involving the silver mine, but are not yet cleared in their oil stock scam back in the States. Dagmar makes reparations for those charges as well, and they are free to return home. | entertaining | train | wikipedia | So It's A Hayride.
I don't know why people think so poorly of this film.
Although it seems a little odd the way it begins in the middle of the story, it ticks along at a good rate; Pat Costello has an effective repartee with Lou, which is very interesting; Luba Malina, Fritz Feld, Sid Fields and Chris-Pin Martin are all funny.
Costello is over the top, yet seems lovable and genuine in this movie.
There are no gratuitous musical numbers to FF through, but there are a couple of comic musical numbers.
It does not have the slow moments or the maudlin handling they had in "Little Giant" (which does have some good moments, by the way); Lou keeps things moving, and I can count 10 good skits off the top of my head--the one with Lou preparing tortillas has something close to a spectacular ending...if only the plot hadn't got in the way.
Even the grand finale with a few rear-projections (and a "trained" bull) turns out pretty funny.It's the logical extension of Abbott's character for him to be an all-around swindler, so that doesn't bother me; their teamwork is still top-rate, and I'm happy to see Costello get the better of Abbott once in a while.
It's also relieving that in this context (and maybe an off-screen agreement?), Abbott refrains from slapping Costello, which would make his character unacceptable.So spend a few bucks and watch it on DVD.
Not a classic, but a good Sunday afternoon comedy with two comedians still at their peak of performance.
And that's not bad..
Some funny moments, but still a weak A&C vehicle.
Fresh from the hit "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," the comedy duo set out on "Mexican Hayride." Costello plays Joe Bascom, who is on the trail of Harry Lambert (Bud Abbott).
Lambert coerced Bascom into swindling friends in Iowa, and Bascom has followed him into Mexico to force him to pay up.
Through a series of misunderstandings, Bascom becomes "Amigo Americano" and is honored and feted.
Lambert sees this as an opportunity for further land swindles in Mexico, and again tries to use Bascom as an unwitting pawn.If this description sounds like an unusual plot for an Abbott and Costello film, you would be right.
The story is based upon a Broadway show.
A&C stalwart screenwriter John Grant does his best to interject A&C humor and routines into the existing Broadway storyline.
Two of his best examples are the scene where Abbott rips off Costello's clothes in an effort to hide his initials, which are sewed on every piece of clothing; and the scene with Fritz Feld as an diction specialist."Mexican Hayride" is considered one of the weakest films in the A&C series, and I agree.
The main problem lies in trying to interject A&C into a Broadway storyline built for other actors.
A&C give it their best as usual, but the storyline simply isn't for them.
One expects Abbott to take advantage of Costello here and there; it was seen in many of their best comedies.
But for Abbott to swindle many people besides Costello simply isn't funny.
There are also many gaps in the humor that result in dull moments.
I really tried to like "Mexican Hayride," but the storyline simply didn't fit A&C snugly, and the humor is not consistent enough to generate many laughs.
Stock Swindling Abbott Hornswaggles Samba Slave Costello.
Before writing this review I took a look at George Eells biography of Cole Porter which has a good reference section listing his Broadway shows and original film productions.
To make this film fit for Abbott and Costello whole sections of the plot and entire characters were junked as well as Cole Porter's entire musical score.
The barebones of the book by Herbert and Dorothy Fields was retained and the whole business about stock swindling and the Amigo Americano was from the musical.
For instance listed as characters in the play were the then Vice President of the United States Henry A.
Wallace and the former King Carol of Rumania and his notorious mistress Madame Lupescu.
I can't even imagine what they might be doing as characters in an Abbott and Costello comedy.Cole Porter's scores rarely made it intact to the screen.
Usually it was because of his risqué lyrics not playing well in Peoria.
However as we learn it was simply because Abbott and Costello fans didn't want their favorites clowning interrupted by musical numbers as they were in so many of their World War II era films.
If that's the case why in heaven's name did Universal buy Mexican Hayride and rework it for them?
I'm sure there must have been any number of Cole Porter fans who wanted to see a film adaptation of one of his Broadway shows.
Once they had bought their tickets and were seated in the movie house, they must have been sorely disappointed.The boys have some good routines here, Costello has some funny moments in an interview with reporter Sid Fields and also with elocution teacher Fritz Feld.
The highlight of the film of course is Costello in a bull ring trying to get money Abbott swindled in some watered stock case.
Problem is the money is in a hat that was tossed in the ring and landed on the bull's horns.One routine they did was previously done in the Bing Crosby film Double Or Nothing by Martha Raye.
Costello won a marathon dance contest doing the Samba for 36 hours and goes into autopilot the exact same way Martha Raye did in Double or Nothing.It's not the best film from Abbott and Costello and boy are those Cole Porter lovers in for a disappointment..
Classic Abbott and Costello.
Two con men selling phony stock flee to Mexico ahead of the law, where they run into a woman friend from their earlier days, who is now a bullfighter.The plots of the various movies don't really matter one way or the other.
What really matters are the gags.
I loved the painting gag, even though I saw the punchline coming.
And the Smith / Jones routine is the sort of back and forth people love from this duo (myself included).I think the comedy duo tends to be best remembered today (2017) for their series of films meeting the Universal monsters.
But let's not forget some gems like this one, which has aged surprisingly well..
Abbott & Costello Go South of the Border.
Lesser Abbott & Costello film sees the boys hiding out in Mexico because Lou is wanted for being a forger and swindler.
Except Lou is just an innocent dupe of Bud, who's the real crook.
Part of the problem with this one lies right there in that description.
Abbott & Costello aren't friends in this and Bud is kind of a tool.
So you have Lou performing several routines with other characters instead of Bud. There are lots of pretty senoritas hanging around, so that's a plus.
Lovely Virginia Grey is another plus.
Some of the gags are pretty corny.
A repeated gag involving Lou and samba music is particularly unfunny.
It's not a bad movie and there are some laughs but something just doesn't click..
South of the Border --- A&C style.
MEXICAN HAYRIDE (1948) **1/2 Bud Abbott, Lou Costello.A&C comedy south of the border with con man Bud bilking samba-loving Lou who unwittingly foils some phony silver stock plans.
Highlight: the bull fight..
This film is a bit unusual for an Abbott and Costello film in that Bud and Lou work against each other.
In other words, they are not friends in the film and Lou is hiding out in Mexico.
It seems that Bud is a swindler and has made it look like Lou is guilty.
Naturally, Lou's goal is to get the money back so that he can pay off everyone back home and get the police to drop the case against him.
Again and again throughout the film, Bud promises to give Lou all the money...in a few days.Complicating things is that the police have just spotted Lou and are hot on his trail.
But, they aren't positive it's the right guy and they are forced to back off when Lou is designated the "Guest of the People of Mexico".
In other words, he was supposedly randomly chosen to be wined and dined as a sign of good will between the US and Mexico.
In a very ironic scene, just when the Mexicans are set to honor Lou, the American police are ready to arrest him.
What stops them is that one of the cops also matches this vague description!
And, in reality, this part is played by Pat Costello--Lou's older brother in real life!
Low points in the film include Luba Malina's performance.
At times, she speaks with a typical American accent and in others she tries (in vain) to approximate a Mexican accent...and fails miserably.
Why the director didn't bother to fix these scenes or notice is beyond me.
Apparently, Malina was Russian-born and lived all around the world and if you listen, you can clearly hear this in her voice!
Another is the scene late in the film where Lou is hiding out as an old lady with a tortilla wagon.
His fake Spanish is really, really lame and sounds like Spanish only to someone with severe brain damage--and it's not really very funny--though the scene otherwise isn't bad at all.
Could audiences back in 1948 have actually thought this was an approximation of Spanish?!
High points are the lack of musical numbers and irrelevant secondary characters in the film.
There is no handsome couple (unless you count Lou and Luba) and the film tends to focus exclusively on Bud and Lou.Unfortunately, though, there aren't a ton of laughs in the film and it is a rather bland affair compared to the rest of the comedy team's work.
An mildly interesting diversion and that is all..
An mildly interesting diversion and that is all..
Don't Get Taken For A Ride..
Abbott & Costello play two con-men who sell phony stock to gullible would-be buyers, who are now pursued by the police.
They then flee to Mexico, where they travel incognito, and meet up with an old friend who is now a bullfighter, which of course creates lots of opportunities for Lou to get chased around by an angry bull, and who also has recently been in some kind of a dance marathon, so now whenever he hears a Samba, can't help himself dancing uncontrollably, no matter the situation.
Entirely forgettable(and forgotten) comedy is competently made but utterly unfunny, and the team play rather unlikable characters this time, despite their ineptitude..
Mexican Hayride (1948) **1/2.
An Abbott and Costello movie that comes off as something of a misfire, especially following right after the great ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, often considered one of their very best.
Based on a play, this story is sort of awkward in the realm of Bud and Lou misadventures.
We have Costello as a fugitive who's just won a contest where he danced a samba for 68 hours, and is now pursued by the police to Mexico.
Of course, it's not poor Lou's fault; he was swindled by the character played by Abbott, and Costello needs to catch up with Bud and get his money back, and clear himself.Naturally we get some gags here and there, but they're not among the comedy duo's finest.
One running joke that really gets boring after the first couple of tries is Lou uncontrollably conditioned to dance the samba from force of habit, whenever hearing the music played.
Another routine has Lou confronting a wild bull in an arena (what else would you expect in a Mexican comedy?).
There are a couple of humorous scenes with assistance from guest stars like Fritz Feld (who attempts to teach Costello how to speak properly), and my personal favorite involving Sidney Fields as a fast-talking interviewer who won't let Lou get a word in edge-wise (Fields would later go on to play A&C's landlord on their TV show).
Lou's brother Pat Costello has a steady role here as one of the cops constantly trailing Lou. He'd made brief appearances in other movies and often as Lou's stunt double, but Pat is pretty much a wooden Indian throughout.
"Go out there like a toreador, face him like a picador, and fight him like a matador!".
I saw this movie when I was a kid back in the Fifties, and even though I was familiar with the bullfighting terms in my summary line, I didn't know what Joe Bascom (Lou Costello) meant when he said "And they'll carry me out like a cuspidor"!
Now that I know what a cuspidor is I have to think to myself, gee, that was kind of icky, wasn't it?
Oh, well.This picture falls into the lower tier of Abbott and Costello's comedies but it still has it's share of laughs.
Bud is at it again with one of his shyster schemes as con man Harry Lambert, this time selling shares of stock in a phony silver mine, with Joe entangled in the mess and on the run from a pair of Iowa cops portrayed by Tom Powers and Lou's older brother, Pat Costello.
For Pat, this was his biggest on screen role; usually he wound up doubling for Lou in a bunch of the A&C films.I liked Sid Fields in the picture as the newspaper reporter who wouldn't let Joe Bascom get a word in edgewise.
He had a similar role in "Little Giant", taking some of the heat off of Bud as a mean spirited partner to Lou. Even so, Bud's Lambert does his best to snooker Joe with all the illegal stuff to make him look like the crook.
After watching this film I clicked on the trailer to see how the movie was advertised back in the day.
It was captioned in both English and Spanish, with the foreign title listed as "Sangre y Harina".
The literal translation for that in English is "Blood and Flour", which made no sense to me at all.
It was the working title of the picture in Chile, but I can't imagine how that title would have brought customers into the theater.
Something else that seemed kind of icky..
Mexican bull ride has A&C as stock swindlers.
One of the less memorable Abbott and Costello(A&C)films, but nonetheless quite worthwhile for A&C fans.
Both boys had preproduction issues with the script or casting.
The boys have separately come to a particular Mexican bull fighting arena, having swindled some investors in an oil well stock issue.
Lou has taken the pseudonym Humphrey Fish.
Two detectives looking for them are already there.
One of the detectives (I assume the short beefy one)is Lou's older brother, Pat, who sometimes doubled for Lou. Lou's ex-girlfriend, Mary(known professionally as Montana), played by Virginia Grey, has come to Mexico to become a real rarity: a woman Matador.
She performs that day, and at the end, throws her hat into the stands to determine who will be the 'good-will ambassador' for the next week.
Seeing Lou in the stands, she throws it at him in anger, and he catches it.
She was supposed to throw it to a con man friend of Abbots, sitting with Abbott.
A reporter interviews Lou, so monopolizing the conversation that Lou doesn't have time to answer one question, before he has another question or comment: rather funny.
Since Lou will have to give speeches during the next week, Abbott hires an elocutionist to improve his speaking.
Of course, it does no good.Dagmar(Luba Malina), who was sitting with Abbott during the bullfight, sings "Is it you or is it me"?, while Lou dances the samba, having won a samba dancing endurance contest.
Lou has hidden the money from selling stock in a bogus silver mine in his hotel room, with a complex series to steps to find it.
While he's there, Dagmar looks around for the money, Lou shows her how to find it, and steps out of the room for a few minutes, while she retraces the path and absconds with the money.
She later claims she took it to prevent Abbott from getting it.A skit has Abbott riding in a car with the 2 detectives.
They have a blow out, and discuss what to do about it, when Costello comes along, dressed as a old women, selling hot tortillas.
He gets going kneading the dough, making a lasso out of it!
and roping the detectives together.
Abbott takes this opportunity to drive off in their car, while Lou hustles back to where he came from.To evade the detectives, A&C dress as Mexicans and pretend to play musical instruments in a street band, near the entrance to the bull fighting arena.
Dagmar is inside, with the money from the silver mine swindle.
For some reason, she puts the money in her hat, and throws it into the ring, it being speared by the bull's horn.(very unclear to me how the money would stay in her hat during and after this action).
Lou goes out in the arena and tries to retrieve the hat.
This is the climax.
Of course, Lou is chased all over the arena, and even rides it for a brief spell.
The takes of the bull are especially good.
I leave the rest of the finale for you to see.
Most of the top comics or comedy teams of this era did one film involving them involuntarily acting as a toreador.
I don't see this versions as being much different from the others.As in most A&C comedies, we have a peripheral romantic couple developing or continuing.
Also, here we have the sometimes romantic pairing of Costello and Dagmar providing some light comedy.
Lou wanted Carmen Miranda to play Dagmar, but she was probably too expensive for the casting director. |
tt0070078 | From Beyond the Grave | Four customers purchase (or take) items from Temptations Limited, an antiques shop whose motto is "Offers You Cannot Resist". A nasty fate awaits those who cheat the shop's Proprietor (Peter Cushing).
The Gatecrasher
Edward Charlton (David Warner) purchases an antique mirror for a knockdown price, having tricked the Proprietor into believing it is a reproduction. When he takes it home, Charlton holds a séance at the suggestion of his friends, and falls into a trance. He finds himself in a netherworld where he is approached by a sinister figure (Marcel Steiner). The figure appears to stab him, and Charlton awakes screaming. Later, the figure's face appears in the mirror and orders Charlton to kill so that he can "feed". Charlton butchers people until the apparition is able to manifest himself outside of the mirror. The figure then explains that Charlton must do one more thing before the figure can walk abroad and join the others like him. The figure says he will take Charlton "beyond the ultimate", and persuades Charlton to kill himself by impaling himself on a knife. The mirror stays in Charlton's flat for years after his death, until the latest owner also decides to hold a séance. Once the séance starts, Charlton's hungry spectre appears in the mirror, indicating the cycle will began again.
An Act of Kindness
Christopher Lowe (Ian Bannen) is a frustrated middle management drone trapped in a loveless marriage with Mabel (Diana Dors). Bullied by his wife, and shown no respect by his son, he befriends Jim Underwood (Donald Pleasence) an old soldier now scratching out a living as a match and shoe lace seller. In an effort to impress, Lowe tells Underwood that he is a decorated soldier. To back up this lie, he tries to persuade the Proprietor to sell him a Distinguished Service Order medal. When the Proprietor asks that Lowe provide the certificate to prove he had previously been awarded the medal, Lowe steals the medal. Underwood is impressed by the medal, and asks Lowe to come to his house for tea. Once there he meets Underwood's daughter, Emily (Angela Pleasence). Over time Lowe is seduced by Emily's frankly rather creepy charms, and they start an affair. Emily then produces a miniature doll of Mabel, and holds a knife to it. She asks Lowe to order her to do his will. Lowe agrees that she should cut the doll. When she does, a drop of blood appears from its mouth. A disturbed Lowe dashes home to find Mabel dead. Underwood and Emily then appear at Lowe's home, and walk in to the sound of the wedding march. Later, Emily and Lowe are married. Lowe's son (played by the future writer John O'Farrell) and Jim Underwood attend the wedding. When the time comes to cut the cake, Emily asks all present whether they wish her to. They all agree and Emily brings the knife down, but rather than cut the cake, she cuts into the head of the decorative groom on top. Blood pours out of it, and Lowe falls on to the table, dead. Underwood and Emily explain to Lowe's son that they always answer the prayers of a child "in one way or another".
The Elemental
Reggie Warren (Ian Carmichael) is a somewhat pompous business man who enters Temptations Ltd and puts the price tag of a cheaper snuff box in the one he wants to buy, whilst out of sight. The Proprietor sells him the box at the altered price, bidding him farewell with a cheery "I hope you enjoy snuffing it" and rings up a 'no sale' through the till.
On the train home, an apparently batty old clairvoyant/white witch, Madame Orloff (Margaret Leighton) disturbs Warren whilst he reads his paper, advising him he has an Elemental on his shoulder. Warren dismisses her, but has cause to call on her services when his dog disappears and his wife Susan (Nyree Dawn Porter) is attacked and choked half to death by an unseen force. Orloff exorcises the Elemental from Warrens' home, and all seems well—even the dog returns. Later though the Warrens hear noises up stairs, and Reggie heads up to investigate. He is knocked down and falls to the foot of the stairs, unconscious. When he awakes, he finds Susan possessed by the elemental. She/It says Reggie tried to deny her life, and kills him before cackling and having a smashing time walking through the front door.
The Door
William Seaton (Ian Ogilvy) is a writer who purchases an ancient ornate door from the Proprietor. He is unable to meet the Proprietor's asking price, but agrees a reduced price with him. When the Proprietor goes to the back of the shop to note Seaton's details, he leaves the till open. After Seaton leaves, the Proprietor starts counting the money in the till. Seaton's wife, Rosemary (Lesley-Anne Down) thinks the door is too grand to lead to a stationery cupboard, but when she touches it seems to be able to see what originally lay behind it. The Door begins to exert a strange fascination over Seaton, and he finds that when he opens it a mysterious blue room lies beyond. There, he finds the notes of Sir Michael Sinclair (Jack Watson), an evil occultist who created the door as a means to trap those who entered through it, so that Sinclair can take their souls and live forever. Seaton escapes, but when he tries to leave his house he finds that the door's influence has spread, and he and Rosemary are trapped. In a trance, Rosemary is unable to stop herself from opening to the door and entering the room, where she is incapacitated by Sinclair. Sinclair carries her through the doorway, mocking Seaton by asking him to follow, as two souls are better than one. Seaton starts to smash the door with an axe, and the room and Sinclair start to crumble. Seaton tries to rescue Rosemary, but is attacked by Sinclair. Seaton has Rosemary continue axing the door, and manages to break free. They continue demolishing the door, destroying the room and turning Sinclair to a skeleton and then dust when they break the door from its hinges. The door is gone, and the two hug warmly in front of what is now just a stationary cupboard. Back at the shop, the Proprietor finishes counting and finds all the money present and correct, hence the 'good' conclusion to the tale.
Between each of the segments, a shady character (Ben Howard) is seen to be casing the shop. In the end, he enters and persuades the Proprietor to hand him two loaded antique pistols. He then tries to rob the Proprietor, who refuses to hand him any money and walks towards the thief. The thief shoots, but finds bullets cannot stop the Proprietor. Terrified, the thief staggers back, is hit by a swinging skeleton, falls into what appears to be a combination of a coffin and an iron maiden, and is spiked to death. "Nasty", the Proprietor says. The Proprietor then welcomes the viewer as his next customer, and explains he caters for all tastes, and that each purchase comes with "a big novelty surprise". | good versus evil, revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0129924 | FernGully 2: The Magical Rescue | Crysta is taking care of three baby animals and demonstrating greater control over nature. She and Pips begin a small contest over who can grow the more impressive plant, while Pips expresses a desire to see more of the outside world.
Suddenly, Batty Koda arrives in a panic, warning that human poachers are right behind him. These poachers show up with their dogs and capture the three baby animals. The first rescue attempt while still in Ferngully fails, and results in a huge forest fire, destroying a huge part of the forest and scarring Mother Kangaroo. Pips and the Beetle Boys volunteer to follow the humans to town and rescue the babies, convincing the reluctant Batty to be their guide. They arrive at a town amusement park. They are so fascinated by the rides, they are reminded by Batty to resume their mission.
All this time the fairies have been healing the rainforest and Crysta finds and helps one of the poachers' dogs (she called him Boof) abandoned and caught in a trap. She takes him on a journey to the town. Pips and the Beetle Boys meet a girl named Budgie who is hard at practicing for the clown act. Pips flies over to her and introduces himself and his friends. She gives them shelter in her trailer. Batty has located the poachers' place but the others ignore him too fascinated by modern human utilities. Bark and Batty go to make a rescue attempt, but Batty is caught.
Budgie tells Pips that she has been working on her clown act for years, but she has never been all that good. Pips tells her that she is trying too hard, and she should just do it. Back at where the babies are, the animals are very scared and fear they will never get back home. Batty overcomes his terror of the situation and manages to reassure them. Then the poachers take all the cages and load them onto a big truck. At the fair, Budgie goes to a contest stand and wins a stuffed kangaroo, which reminds Pips of the babies he's supposed to be saving. He tells Budgie about them and she offers to help him out.
They all reach the old warehouse. The poachers drive off, and Budgie jumps off a ledge and lands on the truck. They drive past Budgie's grandfather, and he sees that Budgie is hanging on the truck tarp, and he drives after them. Budgie manages to get inside the car and frees all the birds in the cages. The poachers see Budgie trying to get in the car and are enraged seeing all the birds flying away. One of them climbs out of the truck and tries to get Budgie off. She manages to get away from him, but he unlatches the car she's on and sends her rolling backwards on the road. She ends up with one side of the car dangling off a cliff. When she falls, Batty catches her and manages to lift her all by himself up to the top of the cliff (in spite of her being double his size) allowing Budgie's grandfather to catch them in his net and bring them safely to solid ground.
The group then head by clown car to the ship where the animals are being loaded. Pips undoes the conveyor catch so that the catches land in Budgie's grandfather's car. A struggle for the cages ensues between the poachers and Budgie. Boof and Crysta arrive to help. The other dog turns against his former master. The boat gets away and the fairies use their magic to stop it growing a gigantic tree. Nugget almost drowns as he escapes. Budgie and her grandfather adopt Slasher and Boof while all the animals and fairies return home. | psychedelic, fantasy | train | wikipedia | The original FernGully is one of my all time favourites, it is funny, beautifully animated, moving and even scary in places.
However, the sequel, while I didn't think was as awful as the cheap and unnecessary Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy To The Rescue, was very disappointing.
Third, the baby animals and Budgie are very sweet and cute.Sadly, that's where the redeeming qualities end.
This sequel did have some very cheesy moments, and lacked the magic of the first film.
The original FernGully's animation was colourful, fluid and solid.
Also in the original, FernGully itself had a sense of wonder, and it was like a Fairytopia, but I didn't get that here.
The writing was also nothing to write home about, and even with the presence of Batty, the whole adventure suffered from a lack of laughs.The villains were rather lame, compared to the terrifying Hexxus.
Hexxus gave me nightmares when I first saw the original at 9 years old, and it was not only how he was animated, but also Tim Curry's (a very talented and underrated actor) imperiously chilling vocal performance.
There are a number of long, drawn out and even pointless scenes, giving the film an uneven sense of pulse.The characters weren't as likable as they were in the first movie, and I did think overall the voice acting was poor.
And in the sequel, most of it was about Pips, seeing that Crytsta is such a great character, there should have been more of her and she should've gone on the rescue mission too.
And although Zak isn't in this sequel, seeing as his and Crysta's relationship was one of the original's main focuses, I was saddened that Crysta appears to have completely forgotten about him.
Secondly, Robin Williams actually made the first movie, he was absolutely hilarious and his humour effortless.
However, I didn't like the new voice actor at all, he lacked the hilarity and vibrancy of Williams, and I found him rather loud and abrasive too.
All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel, with very little of the magic of the beautiful original.
Kids may like it, but fans of the original and adults are guaranteed to be disappointed.
Ferngully is one of my favorite animated films of all time, I loved watching it while I was growing up, it had great animation, wonderful characters, funny moments, terrific songs, and a touching message.
It was such a great movie for kids and I admit that I still watch it to this day.
So I figured I would check out the sequel and see if it would be anything like the first Ferngully.
The story wasn't bad, but without the same voices, it was a bit distracting, and the new characters didn't have the same charm as the first Ferngully.
For the kids, at least under age 7, this film would work for them, but for me, it doesn't.Crysta and her friends are back, Pips is having a bit of a problem excepting his life.
Crysta, Pips, and Batty wanna help restore the forest, Crysta stays home to create her magic while Batty and Pips go to the town to save the baby animals.
There Pips meets a pre-teen girl, Twig, and she helps him out to save the baby animals.FernGully 2: The Magical Rescue isn't really worth the watch, for the kids, yeah, but for those adults who enjoyed the first one, there's no point to it.
when we watched fern gully as a kid we fell in love and watched it at least 20 times, a few years later i rented this movie and didn't bother to finish watching after 15 mins.
Watching them both years later i still love ferngully but ferngully 2 may as well have been made by monkeys.
It has no quality music, no memorable moments, sure it has magic but it's meaningless, there's no deeper meaning, they didn't have robin Williams and the voices are horrible.
The only good thing in this film is about saving wildlife from poachers but the way that they went about it...i expect this kind of stuff from crappy TV series, not sequels based on a truly great filmregards, Reaper.
Let me first start by saying that I am a huge fan of the first movie, The Last Rainforest: with its intriguing animation, original beautiful storyline with the strong themes of environmentalism and deforestation.
The characters were splendid and fresh, and the villain Hexuss, played by Tim Curry, absolutely terrified me as a child.So watching this movie felt like someone was attempting to butcher it beyond recognition.
The first of the many things I saw wrong with this film is the animation.
A few hunters kidnap baby animals (who are not even that cute or worth feeling too sorry for) and the residents of Ferngully have to go and rescue them.
All the actors from the original film have been replaced by less professional voice actors.
Voiced by Robin Williams in the first, the newly voiced Batty in this sequel is just loud and abrasive.
For some unknown reason, his head antenna is missing, he has hands instead claws and automatically overcomes his fear of humans to cheer the animals up when they are locked away.
They are the repeated stereotypical human hunters who view animals as nothing more than object to be killed and sold over for money, with horribly bad dialogue and silly laughs.
I loved the first part a lot so was looking forward to watching this movie.
But i think the quality of this movie is poor.
The drawings of part 1 are bright and nice, in this movie even the wings look crappy and the glowy tail you see when they fly looks horrible.For me i watched it in my own language (dutch) I hated that there where other people for the same characters and the pronunciation of names is all wrong.
I really found the first FernGully movie interesting, and liked the idea it got across to young children.
Now, busy with regrowing trees, FernGully puts the fetching of the animals job on the shoulders of Pips and his gang, along with Batty Koda.Anyways, I was watching this the other night out of boredom, and even laughed some.
I think it is a good sequel that lives up to the first FernGully and encourage parents to buy it for their children to add to their movie collection..
How could you ruin the beauty of which the movie first started off as.
I would love to see a part 3 where they redeem them selves.In the first movie batty was goofier and lost his antenna?
Pips changed totally, he acts like the hero instead of the cocky type of guy we used to know in the past.
Please meet "FernGully 2: The Magical Rescue"!
Perhaps the absolute worst sequel of all time!
So out of respect for the hard working animators, I'm giving this movie an extra point but that's about as kind as I can get for this movie.In all honesty, it still starts off OK enough.
It's incredibly annoying and I just can't see how anyone could ever enjoy this movie, not even little kids.
It gets sidetracked and doesn't ever get back on track on time again.The movie also features some of the absolute worst voice acting I have ever heard in an animated movie!
If you are a person who thinks that it doesn't really matter who voices an animated character, you should really watch this movie!
It might have been possible that the voice actors had to do their lines, before the movie was even finished, so they had nothing to work with yet.
It surely does sound that way, since the voices aren't really always corresponding with what is going on the screen and the characters don't interact very well or naturally with each other.It's also weird to hear all of the the characters from the first movie getting voiced by some completely different people in this sequel, who don't sound at all like the original actors.
This is especially notable for the Batty character, who in the first movie got voiced by THE Robin Williams.Also the songs in this movie are some of the absolute worst ones you will ever hear!
Why do animated movies actually so often feel the need to have songs in it anyway?
There is no good reason for the songs to be in this movie and it's only distracting and annoying, also because it's so absolutely horrendous to listen to.The movie gets all the more worse to watch, when it also decides to be cuddly cute.
It makes you mad to watch, instead of warm and mellow.Believe me, this movie is even worse than I'm making it sound already!2/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
It's been more than a decade since this movie was made, but for the 90s kids who are considering watching Ferngully 2, to be honest...
I read previous reviews before I watched it and they did say that Ferngully 2 was no where near as good as the first one.
But being unbiased as most movie reviews are, I watched it for myself and this was my opinion about it.Ferngully 1 was about all the elements of magic, story telling, eerieness and an amazing message & lesson.
It reminded us of how much we should appreciate animals and the forest.My first impression about Ferngully 2 was it's VERY different.
The first Ferngully was for not only kids, but also for adults as well.
So throughout the movie I was thinking that I was a 3 year old kid watching the movie.
It's about Ferngully in the first 1/4 of the movie and then later on, it's nothing to do with Ferngully and that was the disappointing part.
But because it wasn't based on the forest, my interest in the movie went down and down as I watched it.
I started playing my Xbox 360 towards the end.As mentioned in a previous review, there are new voices.
The original cast like Samantha Mathis who does Crista and Robin Williams who did batty.
They're all gone and there are new voices for each character.
I agree with another review that the change of cast was really distracting throughout the movie.I think it's silly that the director actually thought that he would succeed with this movie by getting a new cast.
When a movie has a sequel, it needs to have the same voices.
It's not going to work and that's what Ferngully 2 did.
The new guy who did Batty sounded almost like Robin Williams, but I would give his voice 6/10 in terms of sounding like the original batty.This was made in 1998.
If I were making the movie, I would contact Robin Williams and the old cast to do the sequel.
Too bad that it's been 20 years and they're all aging and we can't make a better one today.Remember in the first one that animals didn't have those cartoonish eyes like the Simpsons?
Ferngully 2 put those kind of eyes onto the animals in the movie with a bit of eye colour.
This cartoonish eyeball feature brought in the element of a kids movie and I didn't like that at all.In terms of the music, again, it wasn't as great.
It was just simple storytelling music in a kids movie style.
There are a few messages in the movie, but they were not implemented in a way that people would remember it.
The first one's message is to stop killing our forests but these movie's messages weren't treated seriously but just passing messages.What I did like about the movie was one of the characters was Australian.
Overall, I was disappointed with the film and the director should've known that his work wasn't going to succeed.
He should've sat down and watched the first one and ask himself "how can I deliver a message that will impact people like the first one did."I'm really disappointed that out of the 90s movies that came out, this one had to have the terrible sequel..
i really liked the first version of the movie AND the sequel!
sequels are never quite as good as the original, so i don't even take that into account anymore while watching one.
like other sequels, it had a more involved and complicated plot than the original, but not so much that it was confusing.
i thought Crysta's character changed to much; she was too "Now children, let's look both ways before we cross the street" sort of thing.but other than that, i liked it a lot.
the soundtrack was quite good (a few of the songs got stuck in my head for a long time after watching it ^_^), Batty was hilarious, and, being a Pip's fan myself, i loved that his character was more pronounced and featured in this one.also, i would just like to point out that Pips didn't sing that song about the roller coaster.
and don't forget; animated movies rock!
I Liked It. It mite be different from the 1st but isn't that the point of movie series, i am a fan of movies, i liked the story line where Pips & his gang go into town 2 rescue the babies stolen from the forest, it gives u some new elements, it has all the characters from the 1st just different voice actors, the only thing i didn't like was Robin Williams didn't voice batty in this movie, that's something i want 2 c Robin Williams, the town fair always makes me laugh when they land in the cow pies, it's a good movie the only thing it lacks is the original voice cast, but otherwise great movie, great story line, if you like the 1st movie give this 1 a chance i know that it's not movies likes Hangover 2, or Taken 2, or Transformers 3 dark of the moon, but you can't get everything you want in life Laura Erlich as Crysta Digory Oaks as Pips Erik Bergmann as Stump and Captain Connie Champagne as Budgie Holly Conner as Nugget, Bandy, Mrs. K, and additional voices Harry Joseph as Boss Gary Martin as Mac Matt K.
I'm a FernGully fan and found FernGully II to be as, if not more, entertaining and held some deeper character involvement and exposure that i'm certain children "got" but think few "adults" did there are many feelings adults take for granted and "skip over" that remain unanswered, curious and loved by children - they are always hungry for explanation and that's why I am a big animated movie fan I also think it's fun and enjoy knowing the why of every little thing - Pips and Chrysta's relationship skirted perfectly, Chrysta matured just enough, and Pips became her and FernGully's hero (with a little help from his friends of course) I liked the fact that Pips got more attention to date I found the story delightful, frightening but in a "be aware" sort of way and even the ecology of the replanting and re-growth of everything was just enough to introduce children to this topic and make them curious and even the "babies" being taken was an awareness that held a lot of emotion and intrigue for the little ones Kudos to the writers for better scripting and a general "well done" to all involved Lots of magic here if you are really listening OK so we missed Robin - but don't we always and this is about FernGully not him (sorry Robin) -.
The first Ferngully movie was pathetic environmental anti-pollution propaganda, designed to make children hate pollution without knowing both sides to the issue.
Still, at least the first one had voice talents like Robin Williams (Batty) and Tim Curry (Hexxus).
Not only does it still succeed in cramming all that "go green" cr@p in it, but the soundtrack was awful, the characters were horribly drawn and animated, the plot wasn't even complex enough to entertain a four year old and let's face it, how many children really care about animal poaching?
I hated the first one, but at least it had decent voice acting, (and Tim Curry's performance of "Toxic Love").
After having watched it, it didn't look as bad as I thought it would be, despite Pips having his wings missing during the flight to the human world and the wings of the other fairies barely moving at one point, which were flaws the Nostalgia Critic pointed out himself.
By the time I'd finished watching it, I was satisfied with it since I found it on par with the original that I saw as a kid but I found the climax overlong.The animation is decent for the most part with good uses of cel-shading and lip-sync but it is choppy and wobbly in places and has its flaws as I mentioned already.
I was also pleased to see additional human characters such as the poachers (the tall one being the most oddly designed with his super-long chin), Budgie (an unusual name for a girl) and her grandfather while the baby animals are adorable.
The musical score is whimsical and the two most memorable songs are the opening number and the one performed by Batty and the baby animals while they are trapped in their crates inside the poachers' warehouse.
I was happy that the iguana/lizard-type character didn't sing in this film because his song in the original was tuneless and pointless.
As for Batty, he's not quite as funny as he was in the original while Christa and Pips have barely changed since then.
The story is just as decent as the animation with a different environmental message from the original but I felt the first scene of the poachers sitting around the campfire didn't go anywhere and the pace was fairly even until the climax, which made this part of the film drag on. |
tt0103893 | Buffy the Vampire Slayer | High school senior Buffy Summers (Kristy Swanson) is introduced as a stereotypical, shallow cheerleader at Hemery High School in Los Angeles. She is a carefree popular girl whose main concerns are shopping and spending time with her rich, snooty friends and her boyfriend, Jeffrey. While at school one day, she is approached by a man who calls himself Merrick (Donald Sutherland). He informs her that she is The Slayer, or Chosen One, destined to kill vampires, and he is a Watcher whose duty it is to guide and train her. She initially rebukes his claims, but is convinced that he is right when he is able to describe a recurring dream of hers in detail. In addition, Buffy is exhibiting uncanny abilities not known to her, including heightened agility, senses, and endurance, yet she repeatedly tries Merrick's patience with her frivolous nature, indifference to slaying and sharp-tongued remarks.
After several successful outings, Buffy is drawn into conflict with Lothos (Rutger Hauer), a local vampire king and his acolyte, Amilyn (Paul Reubens). Two young men, Oliver Pike (Luke Perry), and best friend Benny (David Arquette), who resented Buffy and her friends due to differing social circles, are out drinking when they are attacked by Amilyn. Benny is turned but Pike is saved by Merrick. As a vampire, Benny visits Pike and tries to get him to join him. Later, when Pike and his boss are discussing Benny, Pike tells him to run if he sees him. Not only this, but a studious girl from Buffy's class, Cassandra, is abducted one night by Amilyn and sacrificed to Lothos. When her body is found, the news spreads through LA and Hemery High, but her murder is met with indifference from Buffy's clique.
When Pike realizes there is something wrong with Benny and that he is no longer safe, he decides to leave town. His plan is thwarted, however, when he encounters Amilyn and his tribe of vampires. Amilyn hitches a ride on the hood of his van which crashes into a tree just before Amilyn loses an arm. Buffy and Merrick arrive to rescue him and Amilyn flees the fight to talk to Lothos. After this encounter, Buffy and Pike start a friendship, which eventually becomes romantic and Pike becomes Buffy's partner in fighting the undead.
During a basketball game, Buffy finds out that one of the players, and a friend of Jeffrey's, is a vampire. After a quick chase to a parade float storage yard, Buffy finally confronts Lothos, shortly after she and Pike take down his gang. Lothos puts Buffy in a hypnotic trance, which is broken due to Merrick's intervention. Lothos turns on Merrick and stab him with the stake he attempted to use on him. Lothos leaves, saying that Buffy is not ready. As Merrick dies, he tells Buffy to do things her own way rather than live by the rules of others and he says "remember about the music." Because of her new life, responsibilities, and heartbreak, Buffy becomes emotionally shocked and starts dropping her Slayer duties. When she arrives at school, she attempts to explain everything to her friends, but they refuse to understand her as they are more concerned with their upcoming school dance, and Buffy falls out with them as she realizes she is outgrowing their immature, selfish behavior.
At the senior dance, Buffy tries to patch things up with her friends but they turn against her, and she is dismayed to find Jeffrey has dumped her for one of her friends. However, she meets up with Pike and as they start to dance and kiss, Lothos leads the remainder of his minions to the school and attacks the students and the attending faculty. Buffy confronts the vampires outside while Pike fights the vampiric Benny. After overpowering the vampires, she confronts Lothos inside the school and kills Amilyn. Lothos hypnotizes Buffy again and when the dance music stops, she remembers Merrick's words and is ready to defend herself. Lothos ignites her cross but she uses hairspray to create a makeshift flame-thrower and burns him before escaping back into the gym. Buffy sees everybody recover from the attack, but Lothos emerges again getting into a fight with Buffy, who then stakes him.
As all of the survivors leave, Buffy and Pike decide to finish their dance. The film then ends with the two of them leaving the dance on a motorcycle, and a news crew interviewing the students and the principal about the attack during the credits. | comedy, revenge, cult, satire, murder | train | wikipedia | When I began watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer the TV series, and saw Joss Whedon's true vision for the story, I realize he must have been furious at how the studio basically rewrote his script.
Joss Whedon writing, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, Paul Reubens (playing the dark side of Pee-Wee Herman), then teen-idol Luke Perry (doing an impressive James Dean, or does he always act that way), Hilary Swank, Thomas Jane, and some very special acting from David Arquette, and I believe it is Sasha Jensen, who played newbie vampires either euphorically, or invincibly ~ both being reasonable positions when you discover you now have unbelievable powers.
Scenes that I will never forget simply because they could never happen in real life (thinking especially of "Benny").Lastly, Kristy Swanson, definitely in fine athletic form, with some of her own cart-wheels and a clear transformation from valley-girl into someone who suddenly sees the big picture..
Acting brainless is a little social camouflage so she fits in with her airhead friends.It's fun to watch everyone playing it way over the top: Rutger Hauer is the perfect creepy head vampire, Paul Reubens seems to relish his role as the main vampire henchman, and Donald Sutherland delivers yet another quirky performance in a career full of quirky performances.Oh, and watch for a fairly obvious continuity error about, maybe, halfway through..
Watch the coach at the basketball game for similar humour, and there is an unforgettable vampire staking towards the movie end that's very amusing.The movie looks like it was shot on a shoe-string budget (adding to the camp tongue-in-cheek parody feel) and has none of the production values we'd see Whedon employ later on.
I really enjoyed Buffy, especially since I am not a big horror fan and this movie lightened the scare with humor!
Because I happen to like this movie as a bit of fun popcorn fluff, but reading the posts and other reviews you'd think some people were expecting a vampire genred "Citizen Kane".
We've got some marquis players in the thing starting with Donald Sutherland as the world weary trainer, Rutger Hauer as the upper crusted monster from Slovak nobility, to TV's then very popular Luke Perry, the guy who plays a little role reversal with Kristy Swanson's character.It's essentially boy meets girl meets vampires kind of film.
He, Merrick, and Buffy team together to fight the forces of darkness and one armless Pee Wee Herman.This is just a fun movie.
Hilary Swank is fun to see in a pre-"Boys Don't Cry" role, and it's also great to catch stars like David Arquette and Ben Affleck (don't blink, you'll miss him) before they struck it big.8/10, but don't expect it to be absolute genius..
But when she finds herself responsible with the taking down bloodsucking demons from hell under the eye of a newfound guardian (Donald Sutherland), her extracurricular activities take a serious hit.Something of a cult film today, and the launching pad for a series of actors (including lead Kristy Swanson, and co-stars Hilary Swank and David Arquette)—as well as birthing the wildly popular series—"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a heady brew of teen comedy and vampire splatter-lite.
The presence of Paul Reubens and Donald Sutherland lend the film more credibility than it probably deserves, although Sutherland does feel somewhat out of place here; regardless, you can't knock a film for having Donald Sutherland as a part of its cast.All in all, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a fun and energetic offering of late eighties teen comedy with a splash of vampire blood and some fantastic one-liners; it's a ridiculous, alternate world fantasy, but a fun one at that.
Little did I know when I watched it back in 1992 that it would spawn a TV series five years later.Kristy Swanson did a great job as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
This is of course the original film that sees Buffy turn from high-school cheerleader into slayer.
I have not been a big fan of the 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' TV series, for reasons that I am not sure why.
But that series has to thank for its success, to the 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' movie, made back in 1992.
Being both a good comedy and teen movie, this is a film that any young person can enjoy.Blonde, bouncy Buffy is your typical high school cheerleader - her goal is to 'marry Christian Slater and die' and nothing gets in her way when it is time to shop.
Buffy (Kristy Swanson) was a great choice as the lead character of the movie.
I really liked the way that both Buffy and Pike suited each other, as you wanted them to get together.The vampires in this film, while not being really gory like other vampire movies I have seen, they were still great value and very effective in the make-up of this film's story.
In fact there was an amusing scene involving Grueller in a basketball match, who at one stage is up against an opponent, namely Hollywood star, a very young Ben Affleck.This movie, while showing vampires in a very different kind of light, did a great job in making them look like vampires should.
The main reason I wanted to re-watch this film and even review it, was because I saw a TV special that was looking back on why this movie failed at the box office, but continues to succeed on the video store shelves today.
I am just glad that I was not one of those people.CMRS gives 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer - The movie': 4 (Very Good Film).
Swanson is Buffy (who looks and acts like she's starring in 'Clueless'), who is chosen to kill off the vampires ruled by uber-vampire Hauer.
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (1992)- A mildly entertaining and campy bit of fun, though it is far too uneven and pales in comparison to the now-classic television adaptation..
But it's far too uneven for its own good and ends up an entertaining but incredibly mediocre experience.Buffy Summers (Kristy Swanson) is your typical snarky, privileged Los Angeles valley-girl high-school cheerleader.
And then check out the film if you're interested in seeing the character done in a completely different manner.I give the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie a middle-of-the-road 5 out of 10..
It's almost hard to believe such a wonderful and brilliant TV series was borne from this disappointing movie.Joss has spoken out, saying his script was butchered, but nonetheless I can see trademark Joss written-dialogue throughout the film.The vampires are bordering upon silly though, rather than scary.
Kristy Swanson plays Buffy well, I think, and it was good seeing other familiar faces such as David Arquette, Hilary Swank and Donald Southerland (great actor, but disappointing in his role as Merrick).A film only for those fans of the Buffy television series who are curious to see how it all started..
If not for Josh Whedon, we would be without many great years of Sarah Michelle Gellar kicking vampire butt.Might be one of David Arquettes best performances, though that isn't saying much.
I first watched it when I was twelve and found that the humour and the storyline however far fetched, doesn't get stale (as you would expect it being ten years old and watched by us about 100 times) I would recommend watching this movie to anyone who wants a good laugh..
"Blonde, bouncy Buffy (Kristy Swanson) is your typical high school cheerleader - her goal is to 'marry Christian Slater and die' and nothing gets in her way when it's time to shop.
It's also fun to Ricki Lake waiting tables, Ben Affleck (#10) on the basketball court, and confirm Hilary Swank had those lips from the start.****** Buffy the Vampire Slayer (7/31/92) Fran Rubel Kuzui ~ Kristy Swanson, Luke Perry, Donald Sutherland, Paul Reubens.
How this mess turned into the great Tv series I do not know, but I congratulate Joss Whedon for the feat (I suspect he didn't have much to do with the movie).Oh and it's got David Arquette in it.
Can tell that most of the people seem to have been Buffy series fans and then checked out the movie and disliked it.This movie is excellent, funny intelligent and a good laugh.
This movie is one of my all time favorites; especially with the great acting from Donald Sutherland and Paul Rubens (better known as Peewee Herman...) So if you like hilarious parodies, like Young Frankenstein, Pootie Tang, This is Spinal Tap, and/or Wet, Hot American Summer, you'll love this.
I found this movie to be much better than the series and watch it anytime it comes on television and know most of the lines.
The movie should be fun for fans of the tv series...because you get to see the idea being born...to me it has everything the series does...it's a bit rough but it's a good laugh and goes great with popcorn.
Think about all he's accomplished since this movie, then the TV series which is both like and unlike, good and bad version of this movie's concept as with a title character named Buffy as the Vampire Slayer.
Kristy Swanson stars as Buffy, a carefree high school cheerleader leading the valley girl lifestyle who must put down her pom-poms and pick up a stake in order to fulfil her birthright as a slayer of the undead.Buffy The Vampire Slayer was a hugely popular TV show in the '90s, but this earlier big-screen bash at bringing Buffy to life is nowhere near as slick or as satisfying as the series.Part of the problem was apparently due to the fact that Joss Whedon's original script was re-written against his wishes, rendering certain scenes incomprehensible, but much of the blame must go to director Fran Rubel Kuzui, whose dull direction makes the film rather bland when it should be a whole lot of fun.
She is certainly no worse than Donald Sutherland as her mentor Merrick, and Rutger Hauer as head vamp Lothos, both of whom are capable of much better.Perhaps the most fun that can be had with the film is in spotting the familiar faces amongst the supporting cast: David Arquette (Scream) hams it up as slacker turned bloodsucker Benny, future Oscar winner Hilary Swank plays vacuous high schooler Kimberly, Paul 'Pee Wee Herman' Reubens is Lothos' right-hand vamp Amilyn, and both Ben Affleck and Ricki Lake have blink and you'll miss them cameos..
It is quite difficult to approach the 1992 film version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which predates the acclaimed TV series, with an open mind when even writer Joss Whedon has publicly disowned the big screen rendition of his most famous creation: as anyone familiar with Buffy lore knows, Whedon's original script was heavily modified in an attempt to make the movie "lighter" and more fun, which led to him leaving the set and resetting his vision for a different format.
After seeing the film, however, it is undeniable Whedon had a point: although he is the sole credited writer, the Buffy movie is clearly a patchwork of ideas that just don't add up in the end.After a quick introduction to the Slayer mythology, the proper "action" begins: meet Buffy (Kristy Swanson), a classic shallow L.A. girl who spends her days being a cheerleader, shopping with her friends (including Hilary Swank in her film debut) and flirting with hunky football players.
Buffy dismisses all the information as nonsense, only to realize Merrick might be into something when a group of bloodsuckers, led by one Lothos (Rutger Hauer), decide to feast on the locals.To be perfectly honest, the movie isn't all bad at first (minus the introduction segment, which looks like it was taken from a cheesy adult film): any complaints about Buffy being a stupid girl are off the mark, since she is meant to be like that in the early stages of the story, and Sutherland adds some gravitas to an otherwise thankless role.
Then, once the villains appear, the tonal confusion becomes all too obvious: the scary moments play out as if the film was a spoof of horror movies, whilst the comedy looks like a poor man's version of John Hughes' body of work.
In fact, the plot sort of vanishes after 20 minutes or so, leaving room for a succession of poorly planned, shoddily executed set-ups.The uneven tone shows up in the performances as well: Sutherland and Luke Perry (clearly using his Beverly Hills 90210 image for the role of Buffy's sidekick Pike) take the assignment very seriously, although both are occasionally burdened with terrible lines (again, not likely to be coming from Whedon).
Swanson sort of overplays the stupid side of the character, but manages to walk away rather unharmed (besides, comparisons with Sarah Michelle Gellar are a tad unfair, since the TV Buffy is a totally different person), whereas Hauer (assisted by Paul Reubens) relies too much on the villainous persona established in Blade Runner and The Hitcher to bother injecting some real life (ironic, given he's playing a walking corpse) into a toothless part (pun intended).With hindsight, it's easy to say 20th Century Fox and director Fran Rubel Kuzui (who later redeemed himself by producing the superior TV series) were wrong to think Whedon's original, darker take wouldn't have translated well on the screen.
What else can you say about a film that includes vampires as its main threat and yet forgets to include a reaction of some sort from its hero Buffy, played by Kristy Swanson?
It's true to say that when Buffy is first made aware of vampires' existence, the camera cuts to a shot of one of her few expressions and the face remains emotionless.But before all that, the film has its gang of teenage American girls (one of which is played by Hilary Swank) going to malls and talking about boys and all that other stuff you'd expect from the stereotype.
Here we view the origin of the legend; a cool early show of Whedon's talent, a sneak peak into Buffy's past and a fantastic blast from the past of uber-kitsch - and you've got a fun night in for anyone.Worth a watch for the average viewer, and definitely a must-see movie for Buffy fans..
After having immensely enjoyed the seven seasons of the TV series, I still find myself watching this film and appreciating it even though it did not end up the way the creator, Joss Whedon, originally envisioned.
I have read what looks to be the original script(found on the internet movie script database) and the ending is pretty much like how it happened in the film.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer lacks all the serious elements of the later television-series, but in its cheeziness is an incredibly fun movie to watch.
On the other hand, it's easy to see where the simple approach of the series originated.As an action-comedy Buffy is an okay film..
Kristy Swanson gives Buffy a great change from a airy, flighty Cheerleader to an airy, flighty Vampire Slayer.
Hillary Swank has an early career role as a friend of Buffy, and Ben Affleck has a two second moment as a basketball player.The movie plays with the themes of high school life and growing up.
I own the Buffy The Vampire Slayer theatrical movie on DVD and it's definitely a cute and entertaining movie but the TV series is definitely a lot better!
Kristy Swanson is good in this movie but I prefer Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy Summers in the series and I prefer the series's darker story plots and the dialog is a lot more intelligent!
The movie is enjoyable but it's a little too cutesy and what I have heard people referring as Buffy Lite and I think that is a good way to describe this movie compared to the darker elements of the series!.
Now some eleven years later looking back, having an M.A. in English with a thesis containing a large section devoted to vampires, I don't have that same adolescent preoccupation with Swanson, but I do still defend my position that this movie is a lot deeper than the initial surface look.I did try to watch the series that it spawned, but--and I know I will anger some close friends, including the director of my blessed Master's thesis, in saying this--it just doesn't compare to the original movie.
I rank Buffy the Vampire Slayer the Movie in my top 20 best.
He then was able to make a show, which is completely different from a movie, and with more time and money, he was able to casts people more suited for their roles, write a better story more suited for a series, and it looked better.
I watched this film because I'm a huge vampire fan going all the way back to F.
I've always watched Buffy, the Vampire Slayer series, and then I once watched the old movie.
What the previous reviewer apparently missed is that this hilarious film came out 5 years before the series (based ON this movie) appeared.
If you've never seen this film, and you watch it with the desire to see a serious vampire movie (especially comparing it to the current series) then you're likely going to be disappointed.
The original Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie was not quite what the great Joss intended to create.
The movie is a take on the "valley girl" lifestyle of the 80's-early 90's (yes, like Clueless), Kristy Swanson suits the role to a T, and the appearance by Pee-Wee Herman is a blast.
It's even fun to go back to the Buffy film now, after Ben Affleck and Hilary Swank have become such celebs.Just remember: this is not the TV series.
No vampire in the Buffy series dies as good a death as Paul Reubens in Buffy the film.
"I usually enjoy lameness, but this is leaving me kind of cold.") -- Daniel "Oz" Osborne ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the television series: "Earshot")I watched the original movie on cable. |
tt0159382 | Croupier | Jack Manfred (Clive Owen) is an aspiring writer going nowhere fast. To make ends meet and against his better judgment, he takes a job as a croupier. The interview was set up by his father, a small-time hustler back home in South Africa.
Jack finds himself drawn into the casino world, and the job gradually takes over his life. He goes drinking with Matt (Paul Reynolds), a croupier who he knows is cheating the casino. He sleeps with a fellow croupier named Bella (Kate Hardie) in contravention of casino policy. His relationship with girlfriend Marion (Gina McKee) begins to deteriorate when he lets her read part of his book about a cold, unfeeling croupier who enjoys seeing gamblers lose — a character transparently based on Jack himself. Bella confronts Jack at his apartment, accuses him of getting her fired and tells Marion about the one-night stand.
One gambler, Jani (Alex Kingston), tries to befriend Jack — another serious violation of casino rules. Jani shows him bruises saying she got them from gambling creditors and asks Jack to be the inside man for a planned robbery at the casino. All he has to do is raise the alarm when a gambler cheats at his table. Jack eventually agrees and accepts a £10,000 advance with an additional £10,000 if all goes well. In doing so, Jack notices that Jani's injuries were faked.
Marion reconciles with Jack but discovers that he is involved in something criminal and tries to foil it. On the night of the robbery, Jack raises the alarm anyway and gets beaten by the gambler as a distraction while others try to grab the money. They fail, and Jack and Marion have an argument but she stays with him.
When a late-night knock at the door comes, Jack assumes it to be the casino robbers demanding the return of their advance money. Instead, it is a policeman, who informs him that Marion has been killed in an apparent hit-and-run.
Jack finishes his book and gets it published anonymously. It is a big success, but he doesn't change anything about his life, continuing to work as a croupier and live in his basement flat, not even buying the new car he wanted.
Jack goes on with his life and gets another call, this one from Jani, who congratulates him on playing his part in the attempted robbery and implies that she benefited significantly. Then she puts his father on the phone, and he implies that he set up the croupier job for Jack in order to arrange for the attempted robbery, and he benefited as well.
Stunned but amused, Jack hangs up. Just then, Bella appears from the bedroom and kisses him. | revenge, neo noir, murder, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | Jack Manfred (Clive Owen) is a struggling writer, who on the advice of his father takes a job as a croupier at a local casino, a job he previously held when he lived in South Africa.
Mike Hodges' film 'Croupier' tells the stark story of Jack Manfred, a writer who sells his soul to work in a casino.
He has obviously had a lot of training - only one criticism of his technique - he looks in the wheel as the ball is dropping - a good dealer looks at the layout and watches for late bets, he should be the last person to know which number has come up - he must have eyes in the back of his head tospot a cheat the way he deals!For realism, you can't fault this film - every character, even the peripheral extras are real and believable - it's a tour de force of perfect character sketches - the plot is almost irrelevant - in fact, it is not quite up to the incredible atmosphere created - but it's good enough, the film is well worth your time.
It has a detached character (or even better, two characters) who progressively get involved in a shadowy world from an apparently safe beginning, it has voice-overs, lots of artistic and original swearing, a depressing atmosphere and if you don't feel like lighting a cigarette with a Zippo after the movie is over, you're dead.
Clive Owen gives an amazing performance as the croupier of the title, who is very conscious of his split personalities: Jack, a gambler, the writer who works in the casino to pay the bills, and Jake, a croupier, a man who enjoys watching his customers losing all his money and who makes sure he's always dealing the cards.
British director Mike Hodges returns with his trademark hands-on film noir twisting with Owen part Connery/part Gibson as a contemptuous struggling novelist who takes a job as a casino croupier with much disdain for its clientele and the razor's edge trundling of enjoying the afterhours lifestyle while struggling to maintain his identity from his story's semi-autobiographical character.
This is surely a combination of Mike Hodges directorial skill, the script and Clive Owen's acting ability.The film is essentially a character study, with a front of a gambling film, that examines this character and his relationships with the people in his life, - his girlfriend, boss, father and colleagues, how he sees the world, and how he will cope when presented with certain situations.It is brought to the screen with quality that demands attention and a score that heightens the atmosphere the film creates and really sets the tone..
However, after his father arranges for him a job offer as a croupier in a casino, his life gets completely transformed: His new world and the creatures that live in it begin to devour him, and his character gets gradually reshaped.
A small plot twist in the end adds up to the overall excitement.Clive Owen is simply superb as the icy croupier, who although he tries to be detached, he simply cannot (and probably does not want to) escape from his downhill path.
Also, Clive Owen makes a great lead as Jack, who goes through changes in his careers as a writer and a croupier.
As he drifts apart from his girlfriend he loses himself in the world and starts breaking the rules ultimately getting involved with a patron, Jani, who asks him for help in organising a heist at the casino.Quite often it'll be the UK, European or underground markets that expose an American film as a good film after the US market has ignored it, but with Croupier it worked the other way round.
I can't think of another film that I've seen that uses voice-over to such a degree (and makes it work), usually heavy voice-over use implies that the script and characters were not strong enough to hold the film up by themselves.The clever twisting of Jack/Jake is subtle but done to good effect and was a big part of the reason that this film engaged me.
That said it still works due to his character and some great direction from Hodges who avoids being overly flashy as the gambling world setting often encourages directors to be.Owen is very good and convinces in his many scenes he is the heart of the film and it is to his credit that he manages to do it.
This connected very well with the story telling method the film got across.The fact that early on, his father calls to tell him he's supposedly moving into a new business is not in the slight bit interesting to Jack (Owen) and this also suggests a lack of interest and communication skills with people, most noticeably this time his family.
Other such things include the way we see a conflict towards the end at a gambling table, yet we don't cut away to the following situation in the office where the offender was taken to by the management, like we would've done in films such as 'The Cooler' (2003).There are very few disappointing things with Croupier but one I can't forgive is the scene that the final third of the film builds towards; the actual robbery.
In fact it's pretty dull, yet effective acting from all concerned and this added to the film and its atmosphere it had going on.With most of the good principals Croupier has and very few flaws, the film ends up being a stylish, dark and close to depressing noir tale that delivers..
Hodges turns on the magic, however, making the life of Jack Manfred, struggling writer and part-time Croupier as complex and as multidimensional as any character I've ever seen, as he is sucked into London's gaming underworld.This is a great film - I can't tell you too much or I'll spoil it, because this one twists and turns and doubles back on itself like a rattlesnake in a sack.
Clive Owen is fantastic as the emotionless, stony faced Croupier, and the supporting cast is always believable.This is a low budget film, with minor stars and functional sets, but the quality of the writing, acting and directing shines through and I only loved this film more when I saw it again on cable pay-per-view.
This film has a cool feel to it with Clive Owen's portraying Jack Manfredi as highly intelligent, not easily rattled, observant, but at the same time detached and emotionally cold man.
Its an atmospheric film that draws you into mental workout through some stylish directing - firstly, you feel as if you are inside the casino with Owen, then one feels perched on his shoulder, he then draws you in with his views of those around him, then as the film progresses, you become a friend of his, and through a smooth direction in narative (which seems entirely plausible) you go beyond perching, and venture instead into Owens head - you feel like you are there rooting along side him, as if you are kindred spirits and are reading his mind.......Owen excels as the Croupier, his portrayal FORCES you into joining him, whether you want to or not.The plot is subtle, and I wont spoil the outcome.
Directed by Mike Hodges(Get Carter - 1971) and starring the actor from the BMW Films, Clive Owen, Croupier tells the tale of an aspiring novelist(played by Owen) who gets a job as a BlackJack dealer (The Croupier) at a London Casino where things aren't always what they appear to be.
Through the film's splendid voice over narration, he uses his experience working at the Casino as material for a book.The best things about this film is how it details the job of the Croupier, and the atmosphere of the Casino itself.
It was a heist movie directed by Mike Hodges of GET CARTER fame and it`s a movie that brought Clive Owen to everyone`s notice , but it was a movie I never got round to seeing until a few nights ago when channel 4 broadcast it.Right away I was convinced that I was going to be watching something that was influenced by CASINO , Hodges directing style of this movie screamed at me Scorsese , Scorsese , Scorsese but after the first ten or so minutes that struck me the movie might not be going anywhere it finally finds its feet .
CROUPIER might not be the most compelling movie I`ve seen all year but it is a very interesting drama as we follow Jack Manfred a wannabe writer who works in a casino .
Like I said this is mainly a drama than a crime film and I must say that Hodges has perfectly captured the rather impersonal , empty and lonely atmosphere of London very well , and seeing as Clive Owen seems really at home in a casino wearing a tuxedo he wins my nomination as the next Bond .
Not until I saw 'Croupier', ironically made long before those two other movies.Here he plays the mysterious out-on-his-luck writer Jack, moonlighting at a shifty London casino while writing the confessions of a man of his trade.
Things are good for Jack until a noir like femme fatale makes entry to his world.But 'Croupier' is not your ordinary thriller.
Its not one to be watched for light entertainment, but if you're interested in getting inside the heads of others, you'll no doubt related to, and be interested in, the lead character, played by Clive Owen.The way the game (also know as the film) is played is exquisite.
Clive Owen's Jake provides the narration in the form of the book that he is writing (a nice touch) and analyzes the people that work at and the ones that frequent a gambling casino.
After a great delay in his filmmaking, Mr. Hodges returns with a biting film of twists and turns, that will hold your attention, and (god forbid) have you interested.Clive Owen plays Jack - and Jake - when he so chooses.
Croupier centres around Clive Owen and his character, Jack, a frustrated author who takes a job at a casino arranged by his father.
Jack slowly morphs into Jake, the central character in the book he is finally able to write based on his own experiences at the casino.Owen is in virtually every scene and carries the film well, showing he can make the jump from small screen to big screen.
Casinos really would be an excellent place for a novelist to observe.In this film, the main character is an aspiring novelist that takes a croupier position to pay the bills and to find new material.
The main character in this movie is named Jack Manfred(Clive Owen).
Hodges the director of Get Carter, struggled for many years to get funding for any films in the UK, on this evidence its hard to see why, it's a masterpiece of Neo Noir, Clive Owen gives a stirring performance as Jack, who's brooding character gives us a remarkable insight into his character with the best voice-over I have heard in many moons, Jack making poignant remarks to the viewer almost after every brief dialogue.
The film is also a finely crafted insight into writers block, with Jack unsure of his ability sometimes straying into his novel's main characters guise of Jake,Marion's suspicious nature of his late night liasions and her dislike of his book idea also lend an interesting relationship angle.
It's portrayal of the compulsive gambler, with his hunger, suppression of conscience, and delusional way of thinking, is a perfect antithesis of the movie's main protagonist, a croupier named Jack Manfred (Clive Owen).
Its' plot revolves around a humble stalwart of the Croupiers' who refuses to be corrupted and, so it seems, just wants to get on with life and his eventual aim to be a best-selling author.The film plays a very interesting method of twisting through elements of Jack Carter (Clive Owen) life exploring his relationship between his girlfriend, the casino and more spectacularly, the aftermath when the two combine.As a low-budget film, Mike Hodges uses very surreal atmospheric scenery and mood projections to add a very experienced touch of class.
Although this might be considered overdone in places, this film does serve to give young and inspiration-seeking directors a good taste of how a simple story can be transcribed into an effective projection on the big screen.It is a real shame this piece of work was only given a limited release but this should not dissuade the movie buff to get out and see this film at some time.
Anyway, apart from Clive Owen, Mike Hodges has brought to the screen a really good entertaining story, which, without giving the plot away, has you guessing right to the end..
Croupier is a very good thriller that would have never been seen if it wasn't for Shooting Gallary, and then the film opened in a few muliplexes, remarkable considering this little movie never even got picked up the first time around and now has made 6 million+.
I also loved the acting- clive owens was perfect as the ennui-filled writer/croupier with a good head on his shoulders.
And bloody good it is, too."Croupier" comes to you from Mike Hodges, who also directed the sublime "Get Carter" and the not-so-sublime, but highly amusing, "Flash Gordon." And it's easily one of the best crime movies of the 1990s, especially since it comes without the layer of Hollywood gloss that makes so many movies - even acclaimed ones like "LA Confidential" - seem glamorized and fake.Clive Owen does a superb job conveying much of his character's inner life through tone of voice and facial expression, which is very important in such a subtle flick.
Also, like THE SPANISH PRISONER, once you have accepted the basic air of smart-alecky contrivance, CROUPIER is very enjoyable, in fact even more so, because as a director, Mike Hodges has known greatness, whereas David Mamet has not.Set in the mirror-distorting world of casinos, the film is actually a pretentious rumination on the nature of the artist.
I tried to like those parts, but it became very difficult.From the outside it is a well done film, I mean; directed by a respected British filmmaker (Mike Hodges), an interesting plot, an attractive main character and among other films, poker.
I haven't seen lots of poker pictures, but before "Croupier" I had seen some very good showings of this thrilling card game; for instance, "Rounders" and more recently "Shade".Comparing Mike Hodges' film with the latter ones would only be useful in terms of how the movies deal with the game.
We see everything in Jack's (Clive Owen) life as a croupier, writer, gambler or whatever, and what I think is that the film gets so centered in him that it becomes boring.In the pages of what's close to a screenplay owner of contradictions, Jack walks along in his different facets and Paul Mayersberg forgets about the rest of the people involved in his tale.
It presents the main character's narration that at moments gets confused with the rest of the story, generating big time lines problems.Although it gets tedious, Clive Owen's narration is good, as his performance.
This smart little film moves along quickly, with Owen as the centerpiece involved with three beautiful women, gives insights into the job/life of a croupier, and winds up with a clever ending.
"Croupier" is thinking-person's noir, very much like "Spanish Prisoner" or "House of Games" or "Hard Eight." The voice over doesn't 100% work, but has some rationale as literally a writer's voice.While Clive Owens' intense performance is the primary reason to see the film, it does provide the opportunity to again see Alex Kingston in a role almost as sexy as in TV's "Moll Flanders." It has a nicely complex plot that reverses and turns in and around and keeps you guessing and then swirls back again.It is worth seeing on a big screen.(originally written 5/2/2000)(revised 3/29/2008 as my version submitted on 30 November 2005 offended someone).
The plot has nice twists and turns, but really the best thing about this film is Clive Owen.
Hodges Never Quite Attained Anything Beyond Cult Movie Respect, but Owens, On the Other Hand, is Still On the Rise.It's a Smart, British-Neo-Noir This, With Voice-Over, Snappy Cynical Dialog, Icy-Cool Dames and Characters that Operate on the Fringes, Mostly Struggling with Life and Their Place In It. The Film has Atmosphere and Stunning Scenes in the Casino that Mirror and Reflect a Gaudy but Attractive World that is Forever in Reach, but Slippery.The Story is About a Writer/Gambler Who Writes but Doesn't Gamble and the People that Inhabit His Detachment.
An aspiring writer (Clive Owen) is hired as a croupier at a casino, where he realizes that his life as a croupier would make a great novel.My interest in gambling movies is about average, though I do find them somewhat interesting in the context of organized crime.
Clive Owen is "Croupier" in this 1998 film directed by Mike Hodges.
But although it makes for a good story, the reality is that his life is spiralling out of control.Croupier is known for two main things outside of being a good and interesting film.
Secondly is that it was largely ignored on release in its homeland of Britain, but after America took a liking to Mike Hodges tantalising tale, it scored a re-release and Owen and the film have not really looked back since.Tho not quite deserving of the sleeper gem reputation it has, Croupier none the less is a strong London based thriller set amongst the ducking and diving world of the all night casino.
Every detail - from the seedy background characters of the casino to slick hands of the dealer - come to life seemingly without effort.A tight, minimal script - the film could almost be a stage play - highlighted by strong perfomances makes CROUPIER a minimalist treat.. |
tt0037816 | Incendiary Blonde | A tomboy named Mary Louise "Texas" Guinan lands a job with a Wild West show after proving she can ride a bucking bronco. The rodeo's new owner is Romero "Bill" Kilgannon, who doubles Texas's pay after the attention she gets from saving a toddler's life from a runaway wagon at a show.
Tim Callahan comes along, looking for a job as the show's press agent by promising not to tell what he has found out, that Texas's "heroism" was a staged act, with a midget pretending to be the endangered child.
Texas sends money home to her impoverished family. Tim falls in love with her, but she prefers Bill, unaware that he is legally bound to an institutionalized wife. Tim ends up marrying Texas and promoting her new career on stage in New York.
Bill tries making movies in Hollywood, but things go badly. A gangster acquaintance, Joe Cadden, takes control of Nick the Greek's nightclub in New York and ends up making Texas his headliner there. Her fame grows, but a feud develops between Cadden and two other racketeers, the Vettori brothers, that leads to bloodshed and threats against Texas and Tim.
Bill saves her life, but is arrested and sentenced to jail. His own wife passes away, making him free to marry again, but Texas has discovered that she has an inoperable condition, and that she will die before Tim can get out of prison. | revenge, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0396184 | Pusher II | The film opens some time after the original film with Tonny serving out his last day of a prison sentence. His cell-mate delivers a monologue advising Tonny to conquer his fear. He then reminds Tonny that he owes him money, but has chosen to give him more time out of respect for Tonny's father, the Duke, a vicious gangster. Upon his release, Tonny visits his father's garage business seeking employment. The Duke has a younger son from a different mother now and receives Tonny coldly, but he ultimately allows Tonny to work for him on a trial basis. Tonny steals a Ferrari in an effort to impress his father, but the car is rejected and the Duke berates Tonny mercilessly for his lack of responsibility.
While hanging out with his friend Ø, Tonny is told that he has a child with a local woman Charlotte. Charlotte has raised the child by herself so far and demands that Tonny start paying her child support. Tonny makes empty promises to pay, but soon comes to care for the child. Tonny successfully participates in a car heist for the Duke, but is forced to ride in the trunk of the escape car because there are no seats left.
Tonny helps a local pimp and hoodlum, "Kurt the Cunt", make a heroin deal with Milo, the drug lord from the first movie. When one of Milo's thugs arrives late, a spooked Kurt flushes the heroin down the toilet. Kurt now has no money or drugs to sell and cannot pay back the money he borrowed for the deal. Kurt convinces Tonny to help buy him a gun and shoot him in the arm to convince Kurt's backers that he was robbed. While visiting with Charlotte and his son, Tonny learns how to change his son's diaper. Ø watches and reveals that he is about to marry his girlfriend Gry and have a child of his own.
At Ø's wedding reception, the Duke delivers a toast telling Ø that he thinks of him as a son, and then chides Tonny. Tonny gets drunk and becomes angry as he watches Charlotte neglecting their child to snort cocaine with Gry in the club's kitchen. He insists that she take the baby home, but she refuses by berating and humiliating Tonny. Enraged, Tonny attacks Charlotte before several men pull him away. Realizing that he has once again made a fool of himself, Tonny leaves the party and meets Kurt, who is lingering outside. Kurt convinces Tonny to help him smash up his apartment to further support their story. In return Kurt promises to put in a good word for Tonny with the Smith. After Kurt attacks a prostitute that emerges from his bedroom, he tells Tonny he is going to finish her off and Tonny, wanting no part of it, leaves. Kurt reveals that his financial backer is the Duke and that he has lied so that Tonny will share in Kurt's debt.
Tonny visits his father to find a way to reconcile and pay off his debt. Tonny volunteers to intimidate the Duke's ex-wife Jeanette, who is trying to take custody of his young half-brother, to force her to drop the custody claim. The Duke insists that Tonny kill her, and he agrees. Tonny visits Jeanette where she works, at Kurt's brothel, but he cannot go through with the murder. After returning and admitting his failure to his father, the Duke berates him savagely. Tonny snaps and viciously stabs the Duke to death. He flees and goes looking for Ø, but instead finds Gry and Charlotte getting high. They deride Tonny and then leave the baby unattended. Tonny takes the child and gets on a bus, fleeing the city. The film ends with a shot of the tattoo on the back of Tonny's head which reads "Respect". | cult, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2187884 | Escape from Tomorrow | A montage shows visitors on the rides at Walt Disney World Resort and the many visuals and animatronics that accompany the rides. It ends with a man losing his head while riding Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. On the last day of a family vacation at Walt Disney World, Jim White gets fired by his boss during a phone call on the balcony of the Contemporary Resort Hotel with his family. He keeps the news to himself to avoid spoiling their vacation. The family leaves their room and takes the monorail to the park, alongside two French teenagers, Isabelle and Sophie.
The chance encounters with the girls increase interests and Jim begins to pursue them, he has disturbing visions during the rides, such as the evil faces of audio-animatronic characters and his family talking badly. After fighting with Emily, Jim decides to not to take Elliot to Space Mountain (which gives Elliot motion sickness) in order to keep chasing after the French girls, Jim takes his daughter Sara to the Magic Kingdom and keeps tracking the girls, while Emily and Elliot return to the hotel. Later, the son of a wheelchair-bound man, whom Jim spotted earlier, shoves Sara, who scrapes her knee. Jim takes her to the park nurse to have Sara's knee recovered. Jim and Sara meet a mysterious woman with a glimmering amulet necklace which hypnotizes Jim. He blacks out and regains consciousness mid-coitus with the woman in her room. Afterwards, she claims that the parks' wholesome, costumed princesses are actually part of a secret prostitution ring that services "Rich Asian Businessmen". Increasingly unnerved, Jim and Sara joins his wife and son at the pool, where Jim sees the French girls. He swims closer to converse with them, but Emily sees and berates him.
His family returns to Epcot, where the tension between Jim and Emily comes to a head after a drunk Jim vomits while on the Gran Fiesta Tour. Spotting the French girls, Emily argues with Jim about his obvious interest in them and slaps Sara. Embarrassed, she returns to the hotel with Elliot, leaving Jim and Sara to ride on the Soarin' attraction at Spaceship Earth, where Jim imagines a beautiful topless woman superimposed over the ride's video footage of landscapes, who promises they will be together soon. After the ride, Sophie approaches and invites Jim to come with them. When Jim refuses, Sophie spits on his face and she walks off, Jim notices that Sara disappeared and searches frantically for her, but the park guards use a taser to knock him unconscious.
Jim awakes in a secret detention facility under Epcot's Spaceship Earth, where he sees video screens displaying pictures of the woman he imagined on the Soarin' ride and other images of events that happened earlier. A scientist enters and activates a Spaceship Earth resembling helmet, which covers Jim's head and scans him while images of what the scientist refers to as "the real Jim" appear on the screens, being himself dressed differently and apparently part of another family. The scientist discusses Jim's flights of fantasy and imagination and reveals that he is part of the experiment by the Siemens Corporation ever since he first went to the theme park as a child with his father. His boss is in on the conspiracy and his firing was all part of the plan, and so was the closure of the Buzz Lightyear ride just as he and Elliot approached the boarding area, much to Elliot's distress. The scientist also tells Jim that he had turned in Elliot to them, like Jim's father had done to him as a child.
After damaging the instrument panel with a medical ointment and decapitating the scientist, who turns out to be an android, Jim escapes from the laboratory through the sewer. While searching for Sara, Jim trips next to the wheelchair-bound man, suspects and attacks him. After realizing that he caused a scene and doubts the man's involvement, he returns to the room of the woman, where he discovers she has captured Sara, now wearing a Snow White costume. The woman rambles about her time as a character princess and tells him how bad things happen everywhere, including the decapitation at the park. She again hypnotizes Jim with the necklace, but Sara pulls it off and smashes it, freeing Jim from her spell. He returns to his hotel room and puts his family to bed. Jim suffers with digestive distress, vomits up a large amount of blood and hairballs, which he recognizes as symptoms of the cat flu and realizes that Sophie infected him. He begins to panic and bleed uncontrollably in the bathroom. Elliot enters and Jim begs him for help, but he closes the door on him.
The next morning, Emily finds Jim's corpse, which now has cat eyes and a grinning face. Disney cleaning staff arrive to remove proof of death and fill Elliot's head with false memories of riding the Buzz Lightyear attraction. They take Jim's body to the unmarked white van from the opening. Meanwhile, the valet from the video screens greets the "real Jim", accompanied by the fantasy woman and a young girl, before they check into the hotel as the valet watches the van drive away. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | And this guy is supposed to be a parent.Perhaps Moore wants us to be uncomfortable watching him, maybe there's things to be said about man's desire for young women, but it's not the kind of meaningful discomfort that really makes a viewer think, it feels thrown in there as a character quirk.
It can be interesting and engaging at times, but as a whole it doesn't really work since Moore doesn't have anything to say about the human psyche, just that this would probably be cool if a film shot in Disneyland about bad things happening existed.
If David Lynch and Terry Gilliam had a baby, and that baby grew up in an insane asylum watching Disney movies day in and day out, this is the film I would expect that individual to eventually write and direct.
Anyways, for those who don't know, this was a movie entirely shot in
Disney World/Land which that alone is absolutely mind blowing.
It is the last day of Jim White's (Roy Abramsohn) vacation at Walt Disney World with his wife (Elena Schuber) and two children (Katelynn Rodriguez and Jack Dalton), he wakes up to find out he has been fired from his job.
Written and directed by first-time filmmaker Randy Moore, the majority of scenes within the movie were filmed inside Disney parks without the company even realizing it.
Pairing this concept with fascinating themes, good acting, and impressive production quality considering the circumstances, Escape From Tomorrow is a huge success.Jim White is an average everyman vacationing at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida with his wife, Emily, and their two children, Elliot and Sara.
Things for Jim continue to turn from bad to worse as he realizes that Walt Disney World may not be the "happiest place on Earth" that its slogan implies.Escape From Tomorrow essentially feels like the basic plot from The Shining, with elements of Lolita and any David Lynch surrealist film mixed in, an obviously strange mixture that works surprisingly well.
Rather than being "that movie filmed illegally at Disney World," Escape From Tomorrow is a story about corporate Disney.
The film is a dark fantasy, revolving around the White family who are on vacation at Walt Disney World when the father Jim (Roy Abramsohn) gets a phone call that he won't have a job when he comes home.
Jim begins to eye other women throughout the park, as if he is a hormonal teenager acting on masturbatory fantasies.What unfolds is a nearly-indescribably, surrealist masterpiece, largely predicated on surrealistic sequences (especially during the final act of the film), a certain level of dark comedy, absurd instances of insanity, and the outright sadness and melancholic feelings that come from the pressure and the intoxication while vacationing in the so-called "happiest place on earth." This is essentially what makes the film such a powerful work of fiction in that it takes everyone's thoughts or preconceived notions about Disney and its hugely commercialized theme parks and twists our perception of them entirely.
That would be soul-crushing.Escape from Tomorrow clicked with me because it functions strongly as being a disturbing venture due to its neo-noir cinematography, the intoxicating qualities of Disneyworld which looks like the poster-child for consumerism gone wrong, and the seriously tense and unpredictable story of a typical family facing atypical circumstances.
The only downfall in an otherwise near-masterpiece is that I wish the film had stuck with its original roots of being a nightmarish vacation to the happiest place on Earth, rather than evolving into a surrealistic trance filled with chaotic circumstances and deeply benign visions of darkness.I conclude by saying I have never been to Disneyland or Disneyworld, but have seen Escape from Tomorrow, which I deem just as good.
But then I saw the movie and realized that maybe the reason why this film was allowed a release and writer/director Randy Moore wasn't sued into oblivion, was because his film is so incoherent, that it essentially poses no threat to Disney's entertainment driven demographic.Synopsis: On a vacation at Disney World with his family, a father becomes fixated on two presumably underage girls, begins to see visions during some of the rides and has a spell put on him by a crazy cougar-witch.Beginning with a disclaimer detailing how this movie was filmed at Disney World without Disney's consent, sadly, with the lack of a coherent story, this gimmick is one of the only things "Escape from Tomorrow" has going for it.
This is a fact which Moore didn't seem to comprehend.While the Lynchian initial 40 minutes did keep my attention (if you're not a fan of David Lynch or don't know who the hell I'm talking about, stop reading now) and the surrealist suggestions of pedophilia and sexual frustration occurring in the confines of "the happiest place on earth" was an intriguing touch, the final half is so off-the-wall bonkers, devouring what little strands of coherent plot this film had to offer, that many will be looking for an escape from their theater.Film geekiness aside, on a purely entertainment level, "Escape from Tomorrow" doesn't work at all.
And I can't help but believe that those who will come to the defense of this film (or give it a positive review) forgive a lot of this shoddy filmmaking, lack of story structure and distractingly bad acting (the scariest part of this horror-esque story) simply because it was filmed at Disney World, without permission.Final Thought: In a roundabout way, the fact that one's love or hatred towards the Disney cooperation has no bearing on one's love or hatred towards this movie, is indicative of a larger reason as to why "Escape from Tomorrow" fails as a project.
"Escape From Tomorrow" is a black & white film that was filmed guerilla style, in part, at Disneyland and Disney World.
During all this, the guy seems to slowly lose his mind and ultimately all sorts of weird, paranoid stuff begins happening at the happiest place on Earth.I think the IDEA of this film is very good.
Seeing a likable schmo lose his mind among the chaos, heat and crowding at Disney is pretty funny--but this film was difficult to love because of the characters (especially but not including dad) and icky story elements.
So, overall, it has an interesting idea and the plot is occasionally interesting- -but it's also fatally flawed and probably would not be appreciated by the casual viewer.By the way, if you are nuts about Disney World, you can tell that much wasn't filmed there and that it must have been filmed and assembled well before 2013, as many of the rides changed well before this release date.
This movie seems like it is a film school project that was produced by the kids that skipped class all the time and regard Eraserhead as a stunning achievement in cinematic history.I can admit that not all things are for everyone but this movie makes me want to hunt down the people that made it and demand my hour and a half back..
So if you've heard about this movie, you've probably already heard that its a marvel of guerrilla film making and that it stirred a lot of controversy with Disney, where the movie is largely shot without the prior permission of Disney.What they don't tell you is that filmmakers have tried to make a David Lynch type film-noir/suspense/thriller/black comedy(?) but unfortunately have fallen significantly short of this lofty goal.The story is extremely basic, the effects are cringeworthy, the main leads' infatuation with 2 underage French teens at Disney is uncomfortable and the complete second half of the movie makes no sense whatsoever.I had heard so much about this movie but it didn't even meet a fraction of the expectations i had from the film.
I was intrigued by the premise of Escape from Tommorow after stumbling across a trailer a few weeks ago, with the notion of horror/paronia flooding a family during a day at Disney World sounding unique.After finishing this painfully boring and uncreative slog of a film, I realized the whole black-and-white and "guerilla-style" film making, being a huge selling point of the film, was entirely a gimmick.
I'm expecting most of this film's slim budget went towards getting Disney Park passes for the cast and crew, because the acting is atrocious (especially with the children and wife) the special effects are entry level After Effects, and the writing is piss poor.
I don't need technicolor or car chases or CGI out the wazoo to enjoy a film.Really what you have here is a story about a depressed man on vacation that is dealing with a little midlife crisis and still trying to please his family before hitting them with the bad news.You get into his head and his delusions and, like all indie films, it relies on a smart script because it, well, that is all it has going for it.There are better movies out there, but Escape from Tomorrow is entertaining for what it is and the resources they had to make it with.
I found out a lot of interesting things of this movie and the fact that they didn't have Disney's permission to film and get away with it, blows my mind how they pulled it off.I enjoyed Escape from Tomorrow, I enjoyed it in a way that it feels like a guilty pleasure for me and overall I think this movie is weird, messed up, but still a well done film from a first time director.
Randy Moore first time film and straight away I want to see him doing other films, because he went for it and it didn't back fire on him.Some people may be put off by the weirdness of the film and it's style and it's laughable moments, which is fine because people can like what their want to like, but what the movie dose so well and I think so people might agree on and that is Randy Moore made DisneyLand look like a place to avoid.Overall I enjoyed watching Escape from Tomorrow and I'm not going to give it the perfect rating, because I don't feel that this movie is "amazing" or "the best movie of century", no but the movie is still worth checking out..
I watched this movie because I worked at Disney World for two years and wanted to see how they were going to pull it off.
You have a grown man who has lost his job, at the end of his tether, blacking out and leaving his kids unattended (horror enough), while encountering strange characters including a cougar like drunk, a whaling nurse, naked women and a kooky scientist to name a few.While the story isn't linear, it's a strange trippy ride especially in the latter half where Jim finds himself under The Epcot Centre in a '2001 Space Oddity' and 'Future World' looking environment.
As a low budget affair what is commendable is that director Moore manages to put a David Lynch style chiller together turning something so ingrained as joyous and familiar into something so unnerving and surreal, while still respecting the real life park and big W (it's not a Disney bashing film persay).
One of the reasons I feel that this film has so often been referred to as "Lynchian" is not only the fact that it is extraordinarily surreal and absurd throughout every last scene, but also b/c, like some of Lynch's work, it contains performances that are so odd and enigmatically out-of-touch that they add so gloriously and richly to the world the man behind the camera is attempting to create, despite being otherwise poor performances that wouldn't at all work in any other type of film (of course, there are many exceptions in Lynch's case; e.g.: Sheryl Lee in 'Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me', John Hurt in 'The Elephant Man', Isabella Rosselini in 'Blue Velvet', Naomi Watts in 'Mulholland Dr.', and I could go on and on), and the same goes for some of the visuals (I am mostly referring to the visuals in 'Escape from Tomorrow', although it can be argued that Lynch's new season of 'Twin Peaks' also falls under this "category" of sorts).
Shot on location at Disneyland and Disney World, apparently without permission, the movie is worth checking out simply for the unique spin that the filmmakers place on the popular amusement parks.
The super saccharine perpetual happiness of Disney World then starts to morph into bizarre hallucinations and we find implications that there might be something more sinister going on in the "happiest place on Earth".I never thought I'd get to actually see this movie.
If anything, she helps to keep the character of Jim sympathetic.The occasional awkward dialogue and the cartoonish evil wife weren't enough to spoil the movie for me, though, because I love a good mind-bender and ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW qualifies.
I think 70 percent of the film works, I'd say shooting the movie in black and white seemed to help give it a more disturbing theme to it.
Escape from Tomorrow, filmed guerrilla style at the actual Disney resort in Florida, is part marital melodrama, part horror show, and part surreal oddity.
In "Escape From Tomorrow" we see Jim and Emily with their two kids, Sara and Elliot, on vacation at Disney World.
In "Escape From Tomorrow" we see Jim and Emily with their two kids, Sara and Elliot, on vacation at Disney World.
He rejects the advance, whereupon she spits on his face.The man develops a "cat flu" and coughs up fur-balls into the toilets, wherein he dies.Disney "employees" attend to take the body away, and the son of the man is awarded what looked like a "Buzz Lightyear" badge.The room is cleaned and another family arrive to visit the theme park...Movie ends.I can only say watch it if you are perhaps in an altered state of consciousness or, have absolutely nothing else to watch; including the test pattern on the TV..
English is not my mother language so this will probably be my first and last review, made it out of rage for wasting 1:30 hrs of my uninteresting life with this horrid black and -some shades of- white premature abortion of Crossover (an extremely bad movie for those who ask), and i gotta be honest, not a single movie made by The Asylum force my fingers to submit a raging review.This is not a bizarre movie created by some eccentric brainiac that wants you to think, the plot is just a tangled mess filled with holes and never reaching anywhere, so don't feel stupid because you don't understand it, you simple can't understand a bad writing or decipher the director's mind like the wtf-why-is-in-slow-motion water spit from one of the girls, it just don't fit, looks like an attempt of artistic wannabe scene from the beginning of Antichrist without the art or trying to set an emphasis to something that they simply never develop.CGI is definitely not the worst I've seen on a movie but it's unnecessary and evident on several shoots like the playing kids.Acting...
As was stated in the movie, "You can't be happy all the time," definitely played out in "Escape from Tomorrow." In fact, while in the park, we had glimpses of something evil lurking or having happened in the past.
"Checking in?" "That we are." Opening at Sundance in January 2013, with a reception of mixed reviews afterwards, 'Escape From Tomorrow' is an American fantasy horror film shot in chilling monochrome and shot on location in Walt Disney World and Disneyland...without permission respectively.
I personally have not had my own personal 'Escape' experience when I paid my ticket to see Uncle Walt last summer in California, but I did however smile to myself while waiting in line that I had indeed seen the movie, and the only comparison between the Disney theme parks and that film are this...in that they both exist..
How writer/director Randy Moore went about making "Escape from Tomorrow" is interesting but that's where the good qualities about this production end because the actual movie is a load of stinky, sweaty garbage.But is that a surprise?
It was obvious during the entire time I watched the film that Moore didn't actually care about making a film, he just wanted to create some controversy, some hype and a whole lot of buzz for the film festival circuit.This wasn't a movie, it was a really bad publicity stunt.Hi!
Looking for a means of entertainment isn't supposed to be bad-thing, but this movie acts like it does.
You've heard the stories about this movie: rogue filmmaker stealthily shoots his feature film in Disney World without being caught or somehow sued to death.
I was inspired to go back and screen this after I read about another dark Disney-inspired art piece: Banksy's "Dismaland." I don't live in the UK, so I figured the next best thing would be to experience "Escape from Tomorrow" -- a David Lynchian treatment of "The Happiest Place on Earth" that's sadly more fun to talk about than it is to actually watch.During a family vacation to Disney World, family man Jim is informed that he's being laid off from his job.
Due to its production limitations, I was constantly reminded that I was watching a troupe of guerilla filmmakers putting all their effort into secretly filming a movie at a famous landmark instead of just, you know, MAKING A GOOD MOVIE.I didn't care if Jim made things right with his family, or survived the not-so-hidden horrors that were plaguing him.
While I thoroughly admire the concept – an unauthorized movie filmed within the Disneyland/world Park(s,) I'm still trying to figure out the Black & White.20.
The Movie about Jim White who lost his job and taken his Family to trip to Walt Disney World, he spotted two French girls who suppose keeping eyes on his son, Elliott and daughter, Sara.
Escape From Tomorrow is a movie that feels like they were making the story up as they went. |
tt0035959 | A Guy Named Joe | Pete Sandidge (Spencer Tracy) is the reckless pilot of a North American B-25 Mitchell bomber flying out of England during World War II. He is in love with Women Airforce Service Pilot Dorinda Durston (Irene Dunne), a civilian pilot ferrying aircraft across the Atlantic. "Nails" Kilpatrick (James Gleason), Pete's commanding officer, first transfers Pete and his crew to a base in Scotland and then offers him a transfer back to America to be a flying instructor. Dorinda has a feeling that Pete's "number is up" and begs him to accept. Pete agrees, but goes out on one last mission with his best friend Al Yackey (Ward Bond) to check out a German aircraft carrier. Wounded after an attack by an enemy fighter, Pete has his crew bail out before bombing the ship and crashing into the sea.
Pete then finds himself walking in clouds, where he first recognizes an old friend, Dick Rumney (Barry Nelson). Suddenly becoming uneasy after remembering that Dick went down with his aircraft in a fiery crash, Pete says, "Either I'm dead or I'm crazy." Dick answers, "You're not crazy." Dick ushers Pete to a meeting with "The General" (Lionel Barrymore), who gives him an assignment. He is to be sent back to Earth, where a year has elapsed, to pass on his experience and knowledge to dilettante Ted Randall (Van Johnson) at flight school, then in the South Pacific, where Ted is a Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter pilot. Ted's commanding officer turns out to be Al Yackey.
The situation becomes complicated when Ted meets the still-grieving Dorinda. Al encourages Dorinda to give the young pilot a chance. The pair gradually fall in love; Ted proposes to her and she accepts, much to Pete's jealous dismay.
When Dorinda finds out from Al that Ted has been given an extremely dangerous assignment to destroy the largest Japanese ammunition dump in the Pacific, she steals his aircraft. Pete guides her in completing the mission and returning to the base to Ted's embrace. Pete accepts what must be and walks away, his job done. | sentimental | train | wikipedia | Spencer Tracy is good, so was Van Johnson in that part!
Ward Bond is always so good at anything he dose, he is such a great SUPPORTING actor he supports and complements, he always seems to be the character he is playing.Yet, again I must say Irene Dunne is a Jewel, she does every character in such a believable manner you feel they could be your next door neighbor.
A Girl Named Irene, A Guy Named Spence, and Another Guy Named Van. This is a wonderful romantic picture set in World War II and I have to say Spencer Tracy has almost as much chemistry with Irene Dunne as he does with Katharine Hepburn.
During his career Spencer Tracy was basically two types of character, the cryptic tough guy adventurer and later on a wise father figure.
But he has to get killed before he morphs into his second character.Spencer Tracy is an ace pilot who's over in the European Theatre and his girlfriend, Irene Dunne is also a pilot, a la Amelia Earhart.
It seems as though Heaven has an Air Corps advisory program for ghosts to advise living pilots and Spence's first assignment is Van Johnson.
But it's at this point that Tracy grows into the father figure character we know him better from in his later work.Van Johnson's career got a big boost from this film.
Here she sings a great rendition of I'll Get By which was enjoying a revival of popularity in the World War II years.Rounding out the supporting cast are Lionel Barrymore, Ward Bond, James Gleason, Barry Nelson, and Don DeFore all performing to their usual standards of excellence.A really great romantic film like they don't make any more..
As many viewers I saw "Always", actually several times, before I even learned about "A Guy Named Joe." It is factual that the later film was a remake of the earlier one, but being in more modern times a significant story difference was depicted.
Set in WW II England, "A Guy Named Joe" gets its title from a comment made by one of the British children waiting to talk to Pete after one of his bombing runs over Germany.
In both films Pete dies during a heroic mission and in heaven is sent to help a novice pilot, who ends up romancing his old girlfriend, Drinda.
You just have to go with the fantasy-type theologies, in this story dead people coming back as angels-you-can see.Irene Dunne never looked better, although the soft-focus lens helped her looks.
Spencer Tracy gives his normal strong performance but I liked supporting actor Ward Bond in here better.
Tracy gives an excellent short speech at the end of this film.The special-effects in the aviator-war scenes were not good but, hey, this film was made about 65 years ago.
You could tell the planes were model airplanes on several shots.Note: this film was re-made by Steven Spielberg 40 years later under the title "Always." That was a nice film, too, but I think I'd still take this version..
The whole fact that Spencer Tracy's character loves Irene Dunne's so much that he will watch her marry another man is the most amazing testimony of love.
I don't know how you can watch one of the final scenes; in which Tracy and Dunne are in the plane and he says that their love is too good to make her unhappy; and still call "A Guy Named Joe," a silly movie.
Again, the war was simply a setting, because war in itself isn't very interesting, it is the human experience in war which creates a story.The Fact that Spielberg enjoyed and admired it so much that he remade it also says a little for the film..
"A Guy Named Joe" is a beautiful, sentimental, tear-jerker of a film starring Spencer Tracy, Irene Dunne, Van Johnson, Lionel Barrymore, Ward Bond, James Gleason, and Dom Defore.
Tracy is Pete, a fighter pilot in World War II involved with Dorinda (Dunne), a female flier.
Before he knows it, no one can see him or hear him, he's escorted around heaven and earth by Barry Nelson, and assigned to be an angel for a young pilot (Johnson).For all the warmth of this film, it was fraught with problems behind the scenes.
The second problem was that Spencer Tracy kept coming on to Irene Dunne, which made her furious, and she complained to the front office.
She never worked with him again, which is a pity, because they made a charismatic screen couple.Spencer Tracy is fantastic as a cocky pilot who comes down to earth only when he dies.
One of the nicest thing about "A Guy Named Joe" is some of the lighting effects - the silhouette of Dunne as she says goodbye to Pete; the look of his plane in the distance when she first arrives - these really add to the sense of foreboding.Strangely, when viewed today, "A Guy Named Joe" is a feminist movie in more ways than even it knew.
The film is about a hot shot air force pilot (Spencer Tracy) who is in a squadron commanded by James Gleason.
Gleason also sympathizes with Tracy's girlfriend (Irene Dunne) who wants Tracy to take a quieter job (like training fliers in the states).
After the crew bails out, Tracy (instead of ditching) flies the plane kamikaze style into a German aircraft carrier and sinks it (but he dies).In the afterlife, Tracy is taken under the wing of the "General" (Lionel Barrymore), and is assigned to act like a conscience or guide to budding air force pilots.
Johnson is assigned to a war theater where Gleason's command is, and where Dunne is.
Dunne is mourning Tracy, but their closest mutual friend (Ward Bond) gets her to go out to enjoy herself.
The film follows as Tracy and Dunne finally accept the truth about the ending of their physical contact.
In the end she and Johnson find a new happiness together, while Tracy goes to his next "angel" assignment.
Guy Named Joe, A (1943) *** (out of 4) Well-acted drama has a hot shot pilot (Spencer Tracy) getting killed during a WW2 battle leaving his fiancé (Irene Dunne) all alone.
This film here is certainly sappy and predictable but the wonderful cast makes it very entertaining to watch even though the running time is a tad bit long.
Tracy leads the way with a very touching performance that lets the actor show off various emotions ranging from anger to sweetness to even some nice comic tones.
Johnson steals the film as the new pilot who mirrors Tracy's character too much.
The are a few battle scenes, which look extremely well including the main battle at the middle of the film when Tracy gets killed.
During WW2, fighter pilot Spencer Tracy (Pete) has a maverick streak which causes him problems and gets him sent to Scotland for reconnaissance flights and eventually back to the USA to train junior pilots.
The message of the film is one of acceptance of your situation and Tracy is perfect to lead us through the proceedings as he does indeed help those junior pilots.
He also helps his partner and fellow pilot Irene Dunne (Dorinda) to come to terms with her situation as she has to let go of confinement and share out the love.It's a sentimental film that is sentimental in a good way with ghosts helping out.
However, the film gets going once Tracy is given his final mission and we see the introduction of novice pilot Van Johnson (Ted).
The film is also a story for Tracy to accept his fate as his true love Irene Dunne goes off with another.Van Johnson tells an amusing story of someone who grew another foot and whilst I can see the attraction that he may have had for Dunne, I think that Esther Williams (Ellen), in a non-swimming role, was far more suited to him romantically.
Ward Bond (Al) is good as Tracy's pilot pal who remains with the living but I'm afraid I cannot say the same for Commander/General James Gleason (Nails) who annoyingly barks his way through the film.
Spencer Tracy and Irene Dunne lead the way with Van Johnson, James Gleason, Ward Bond and many more right behind.
What a love story...I also saw the sequels, don't even remember their names but I will NEVER forget this one....They don't make 'em like this any more....Too bad for the younger generation....
Lets hope our film industry gets back to making "worthwhile" movies...
This film is an example of the World War II work of Dalton Trumbo, who wrote the screen play.
It was updated and remade in 1989 by Steven Spielburg as the movie "Always", and "Always" is just as good as this film, if not better, which proves that Trumbo wrote a great story to begin with.
The re-write replaces World War II Carpet Bombing with Rocky Mountain aerial fire fighting, and adds some very sound romance and bonding that really makes the film..
The movie started out really well for an old war propaganda film starring Spencer Tracy.
A Guy Named Joe was a fine World War II drama/fantasy.
Spencer Tracy plays a hot shot pilot named Pete who gets in a little trouble with superior James Gleason.
Ward Bond is his best buddy in the air and Irene Dunne is his fellow pilot girlfriend.
Spencer goes on a mission that...well, I don't feel like spoiling so I'll just stop there and just say I really enjoyed this vintage World War II-made-during movie with all the action, romance, and humor that entails.
Besides the above players, I also liked fellow supporting turns from Lionel Barrymore who, like Bond, was in my favorite movie It's a Wonderful Life, Barry Nelson, Don DeFore, a young Esther Williams as a girl who dances with the enlisted men, Charles Smith as a homesick boy who Ms. Williams tries to cheer up, and Van Johnson who dances with Williams and is guided by Spencer.
Just to make matters worse, there is no one named Joe. Spencer Tracy plays Pete, a WWII fighter pilot with a best friend and a girlfriend (the always irritating Irene Dunne).
And the unusual dramatic triangle where Tracy has to guide Van Johnson through his difficult mission so he can get back to his girl and make her happy is a wonderful dramatic contrivance.
Yeah, I know it was 1943 but take a look at the effects in the next Tracy/Johnson bomber pilot epic, `Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo', made just the next year to see how they could do it right in the old days.
Just Your Average Joe. Spencer Tracy plays a World War II pilot who isn't just killed, but demolished, in the exciting opening of "A Guy Named Joe".
In the process, he has to deal with Mr. Johnson hooking up with his ex (Irene Dunne).The Victor Fleming-directed movie doesn't do anything to differentiate the ghostly Mr. Tracy from the Earthbound players.
***** A Guy Named Joe (1943) Victor Fleming ~ Spencer Tracy, Irene Dunne, Van Johnson.
But watching A GUY NAMED JOE, namely that scene where Spencer Tracy learns he is either crazy or dead up in the clouds (you're not crazy, buddy), one can't help but wonder if this is how people thought the afterlife was in those days.
A Guy Named Joe is a popcorn movie entertainment in the most classic sense.
We are suckered by the maven charm of the inherently self-assured never-miss talent of Irene Dunne, the cocksure wiseguy swagger of Spencer Tracy, the brazen spectacle of the airborne war effort, a creative high-concept plot device and just the romanticism of the whole thing.
Legendary screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, though his script feels rushed to conclude, sketches characterizations that the actors bring to formidable life, and not just the two fiery leads but peripheral characters whose functions in the narrative formula are self-evident, like Ward Bond and Van Johnson.
He learns to accept the hand he's dealt and the heroine is a whole other character of her own with a quest of her own.A Guy Named Joe is still a pathos-filled tale that appeals to the heightened emotions of the audience, but done with a great deal of industry talent, and an implacable, abstract sense of wonder and novelty as a classic American studio picture.
i get some weird things happening to me once in a while.Spielberg's "Always," the remake of "A Guy Named Joe," was just on an Encore channel two nights ago (2/11/2009).Now here comes TCM replaying "A Guy..." right now.weird.anyway, this original is a decent film.
Van Johnson didn't seem to be into his role very much.Irene Dunne was OK.Maybe he was having an off-season for acting.but the real beauty of this film are the flying sequences.
Spencer Tracey does the best he can in a movie that can't decide if it wants to be a drama or a comedy and settles for being neither very well.All actors do rather well with the difficult task of acting like they can't hear the person talking to them, yet somehow get what is being said.
(Example: Irene Dunn mourning Spencer Tracey while he stands behind her telling her all the things he should have said while he could - perhaps the film's best moment.).
Wonderful lead performances by Dunne & Tracy.
Two very good reasons to see this charming movie are a terrific performance by Irene Dunne and the excellent interplay in the romantic relationship between Irene Dunne & Spencer Tracy.
While the World War II background is not the most realistic ever filmed, it still adds to the overall story by evoking the important ways that even small individuals were affected by and contributed to the war effort.Warning spoilers ahead!The movie also showcases an uncommonly mature (for Hollywood) perspective on love as it develops between these complex, grown-up characters.
Tracy genuinely evolves in a believable fashion when he comes back as an angel to advise his loved ones and the rival pilot.
Tracy is touching in their scenes together when he can't be seen by her.Still, it's Dunne who carries this affectionate movie on her very capable shoulders with a simply wonderful, strong, funny performance as an independent woman pilot who holds her own both during the war as well as in the demanding relationship banter.
See this movie to enjoy Dunne and Tracy and an excellent supporting cast led by Ward Bond..
I admire Spencer Tracy and Irene Dunne and found them an agreeably spiky couple for the first half hour of the film evoking memories of Cary Grant and Jean Arthur in "Only Angels Have Wings" but from that gritty introduction to the main characters, the film then "goes Capra" and into a strange fantasy with Tracy winding up in heaven after a bombing mission goes wrong and then getting the job, Clarence-style of chaperoning young buck Van Johnston to fly in his slipstream, not only as a daring pilot but also, eventually overcoming his inbuilt jealous reluctance, to supersede his own place in Dunne's grieving heart.Now I love fantasy films of this ilk, "A Matter Of Life And Death" and "It's A Wonderful Life" prominent amongst them, but here the narrative is just too fantastical and sentimental especially the coincidence of Dunne falling for Johnston, (she looks old enough to be his mother), Tracy getting the job of being Johnston's guardian angel and the ridiculous ending where Dunne carries out Johnson's so-called suicide mission, under Tracy's spectral, but watchful gaze and tutelage and of course defies death in the process.These scenes and more turn the credible into the incredible and even solid acting from the leads and exciting air-sequences couldn't convince me that this belongs in the pantheon of Golden Age Hollywood classics.Sorry Mr Spielberg....
It's an efficiently staged story of Spencer Tracy and his girl friend Irene Dunne in the US Air Force in World War II.
When Tracy dies a heroic death, he's sent to the Command Post in heaven and given the assignment below of shepherding young pilot Van Johnson through his training and subsequent combat in New Guinea.
Irene Dunne shows up and Johnson begins courting her, much to Tracy's disgust.
He ultimately gives up the power he seems to have over her and she and Van Johnson are married.The film is worth a couple of observations.
Well, this is a story about a loved one who was killed in the war, and how much we need to put our sorrow behind us and move on with our lives.
Irene Dunne will never forget Tracy but, after a bit of rough handling by Tracy's friend, Ward Bond, she marries Johnson anyway.
Here's the amazingly silly plot in a nutshell: Spencer Tracy is a hotshot pilot who loves Irene Dunne.
The angels apparently are good patriotic Hitler-haters, so they let Tracy come back as a ghost to help the war effort by letting him look over and secretly guide the actions of younger, more alive, pilots.
BUT, in the process, Johnson now gets Dunne.
It only gets a 5 because I really like p-38s and other cool planes.And finally, I just thought of a really cool movie idea.
Spenser Tracy plays top flying Pete Sandige, who with his buddy Al(Ward Bond), go out on a bombing mission before taking on the assignment of training young pilots.
Hollywood fantasy takes over as Pete's angel guards over young pilot Ted Randall(Van Johnson)in his training; even as he romances Dorinda, who still remains devoted to his memory.
I disagree vehemently (okay, I need a life to get that upset about a goofy movie) with the folks who rave about Irene Dunne's performance.
Here we have a top-budget picture with such leads like Spencer Tracy, Irene Dunne, Van Johnson, Ward Bond and James Gleason that Lionel Barrymore has to be content with sixth billing and Esther Williams with eighth! |
tt0412915 | The Librarian: Quest for the Spear | Flynn Carsen (Noah Wyle), a perpetual college student with 22 academic degrees, is kicked out of college by his professor, who tells Flynn that he lacks real life experience and needs to experience life outside of college. Flynn's mother, Margie (Olympia Dukakis), is constantly worried about her son and encourages him to get a job, find a wife, and be happy.
Flynn receives a mysterious invitation for an interview at the Metropolitan Public Library. Shortly after his odd but successful interview, he is shown the true duties of his new job by a doleful library employee, Charlene (Jane Curtin), and library head Judson (Bob Newhart). The position of librarian, Flynn's new job, is said to have existed for centuries and that his purpose is to protect historical and often magical items in a secret section of the library. Some of the items Flynn is responsible for are Pandora's Box, Tesla's Death Ray, the Holy Grail, the transmuted corpse of King Midas, the Ark of the Covenant, the Golden Fleece, a live unicorn, the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs, Excalibur, the original Mona Lisa (of which the Louvre version is said to be a copy), the original "Little Boy" prototype atomic bomb, a working jet pack, Ali Baba's Flying Carpet, and the Spear of Destiny.
Flynn finds that the job entails more than he expected when one of three parts of the Spear of Destiny is stolen by a cult known as the Serpent Brotherhood. Flynn then soon realizes that whoever has the complete Spear of Destiny will control the destiny of the entire world (it is said in the film that "Hitler had only one" piece of the Spear). As such, he must now track down the remaining two pieces to prevent the Serpent Brotherhood from possessing all three. The only tools he has left to use are his mind and a book written in a previously untranslated language called the "Language of the birds".
On a plane, Flynn is ambushed by members of the Serpent Brotherhood and is rescued by a woman who forces him out of the plane in mid-air. Once they land, he finds that his rescuer, Nicole Noone (Sonya Walger), is a Library employee who blames herself for the death of the last librarian but resists any friendly feelings for him. The two then travel through the Amazon rainforest, where they encounter waterfalls, headhunters, bridge collapses, and Maya death traps, which they manage to survive with little difficulty thanks to Flynn's extensive knowledge and Nicole's physical prowess. However, they are captured by the brotherhood, led by the former librarian Wilde (Kyle MacLachlan), who had faked his own death. Making a deal to find the last piece of the spear and spare Nicole's life, they next travel to the Himalayas, ending up in Shangri-La, all the time proving that Flynn's years of book learning are useful.
At Shangri-La, they receive the last spear piece and flee while the temple collapses from taking it. When Flynn and Nicole arrive at a hotel, they make love only for Flynn to wake up the next morning with both Nicole and the spear piece missing. Unfortunately she has been kidnapped by members of the cult, who bring her to their hideout. The cult then witness Wilde assemble the spear's pieces within a golden capstoned pyramid at their hideout, augmented by a powerful electromagnetic field during a full moon. Coming to Nicole's aid, Flynn is forced to defend himself against the cult, then against Wilde inside the pyramid. Although Flynn is nearly killed by Wilde, the power of the repaired spear damages the pyramid support pillars causing the pyramid to crumble. The capstone then falls onto Wilde, killing him. Flynn reclaims the assembled spear in the name of the Library.
Three months later, Flynn is at a café talking with his mother about his new job at the public library and his girlfriend, Nicole who suddenly arrives by motorcycle, informing him that the 'Death Scorpion Cult' has their hands on H. G. Wells' Time Machine (a real time machine, and not the novel). As Flynn comments on why so many evil groups have insect names, they take off, pursued by several members of said cult. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0454515 | The Noah | As a young boy, Noah witnesses his father, Lamech, killed by a young Tubal-cain. Many years later, an adult Noah is living with his wife Naameh and their sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth. After seeing a flower grow instantly from the ground and being haunted by dreams of a great flood, Noah takes them to visit his grandfather Methuselah.
They encounter a group of people recently killed and take in and adopt the lone survivor, a girl named Ila as their daughter. Noah and his family are chased by the murderers and seek refuge with the fallen angels known as the "Watchers", confined on Earth as stone golems for helping humans banished from the Garden of Eden. Methuselah gives Noah a seed from Eden and tells Noah that he was chosen for a reason. Returning to his tent that night, Noah plants the seed in the ground. The Watchers arrive the next morning and debate whether they should help Noah until they see water spout from the spot where Noah planted the seed. Once a forest grows instantly, the Watchers agree to help Noah and his family build an ark.
After birds fly to the ark, Tubal-cain arrives with his followers and confronts Noah. Noah defies Tubal-cain and remarks that there is no escape for the line of Cain. Tubal-cain retreats and decides to build weapons to defeat the Watchers and take the ark. As the ark nears completion, animals of various species enter the ark and are put to sleep with incense.
With Ila having become enamored of Shem, Noah goes to a nearby settlement to find wives for Ham and Japheth, but upon witnessing the settlers' exchanging their daughters for food, he abandons his effort and begins believing that the Creator wants all of humanity dead. Back at the ark, he tells his family that he will not seek wives for his younger sons. After the flood, they will be the last humans and there will be no new human generations.
Devastated that he will be alone his entire life, Ham runs into the forest. Naameh begs Noah to reconsider but, when he will not, she goes to Methuselah for help. Later, in the forest, Ila encounters Methuselah who cures her infertility. Meanwhile, Ham, searching for a wife on his own, befriends the refugee Na'el.
After it starts raining, Tubal-cain becomes angry that he was not chosen to be saved and incites his followers to make a run for the ark. Noah finds Ham in the forest and forces Ham to save himself, but leaves Na'el to die when she is caught in an animal trap one of the sinners set. Noah's family enter the ark except for Methuselah, who remains in the forest and is swept away by the rushing waters just after he has found berries to eat. The Watchers hold off Tubal-cain and his followers as long as possible, sacrificing themselves to protect the ark from the mob before ascending to heaven. As the flood drowns the remaining humans, an injured Tubal-cain climbs onto the ark and solicits Ham, playing on anger toward Noah for allowing Na'el to die.
Ila discovers that she is pregnant as the rains stop and begs the Creator to let the child live. Noah interprets the ending of the rain to mean he must ensure the extinction of humans and, against his wife's protests, resolves that, if the child is a girl, he will kill her. Months pass, and Ila and Shem build a raft to escape Noah's resolve, but Noah discovers and burns it. Ila then starts feeling labor pains and gives birth to twin girls. In the meantime Ham has called Noah telling him the beasts are awake and eating each other. Tubal-cain emerges and attempts to hit Noah. Noah and Tubal-cain engage in combat. Shem promises Ila that Noah will not harm their daughters and goes to stop him. He attacks Noah as Tubal-cain falls to the ground only to be knocked out. Tubal-cain eventually forces Noah to the edge of the raft, but Ham kills him with a dagger before he can shove Noah in the ocean. Noah picks himself up and immediately goes to find Ila and the babies. He is confronted by his wife who lies and tells him it was a boy but he does not believe her. He goes to find Ila on top of the ark, she cries and tells him to wait to kill them until she can calm them down as she doesn't want them to die crying. Noah prepares to stab Ila's twins, but he spares them upon looking at his granddaughters and only feeling love.
Upon exiting the ark on the new land, a shameful Noah goes into isolation in a nearby cave, making wine in which to drown his sorrows. Ham expresses disappointment for his father's current state of unseemly drunkenness and nakedness before leaving his kin to live alone. Having reconciled at the behest of Ila, Noah blesses the family as the beginning of a new human race and all witness an immense rainbow. | avant garde, allegory, cult, insanity, absurd, psychedelic, satire | train | wikipedia | A poetic comment on the human condition..
Truly remarkable.
A one-man film that held my full attention for almost two hours.
The storyline is deceptively simple given the complexity of the issues raised: the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust tries to cope with his new reality by reconstructing, piece by piece, an imaginary civilization based on his memories, fears and desires.
It is this illusion that will eventually bring him to face his utter loneliness and powerlessness.
Rendered in stark B/W photography, densely punctuated with historical references (including authentic voice recordings of the protagonists of 20th-century history), 'The Noah' is the kind of film that challenges the viewer to see it again and again, each time discovering something new.
I saw it at a CUNY-TV showing years ago.
To my knowledge there has not been another TV showing and there is no VHS or DVD of it anywhere..
Intelligent and original, but painfully boring..
It would be easy to dismiss this film as dull, and although there's no doubting the fact that I found this film very boring, I'm going to try to explain why this film's very unique concept just didn't come together in the end.That's what I've got to give the film kudos for: it's an original idea: not just being stranded on a desert island, but assessing a man's insanity by recreating a world all from his memory and imagination.
Also, you can't fault the filmmakers for having a real stab at this weird way of showing the insanity that comes with isolation, and some of the sequences, especially those using historical recordings, were interesting to see attempted.However, in the end, it just doesn't work, largely because it's impossible to get engrossed in this film.
It's an interesting story, but it's such an inaccessible way of presenting it, with unthinkably slow pacing, and a very pretentious latter stage that borders on the incomprehensible, and that all comes together to not only make this hard to understand, but exhausting to get through, being one of the heaviest film that I know I'll ever see.One of the other things that frustrated me about this film was Richard Strauss' performance.
His chemistry with the voices in his head is weirdly brilliant in the opening stages, and it makes for some intrigue, but it's his descent from isolation to insanity to complete madness as the film goes on that I just didn't buy.His performance is ultimately not only intriguing, but it's annoying.
He shouts his way through minutes on end of dialogue with himself, so loudly and incessantly that it just hurt my ears watching it, and was perhaps one of the most painful and draining periods of a film I've ever seen.www.themadmovieman.com.
The good and the bad.
The Noah is a tale of humanity's sole survivor after world war three.
We find our 'protagonist' (the term barely applies) alone on an island beach, he is an old dog US soldier.
Soon he succumbs to the agony of total loneliness, and this is the film- we are exposed to his delusional and hallucinatory world, made up mostly of nostalgic political/military themed reminiscences.
This is the last movie role for Robert Strauss (a sturdy character actor who was all over the silver screen during the 1950's).
Strauss is the only actor in the movie, a challenge that he pulls off superbly.
The film was made in Puerto Rico in 1968, was never theatrically released, and was first seen in 1975- this is a very obscure film.The beginning and ending suited me nicely, be sure to look for the various cultural icons that are generously sprinkled throughout (The famous Rita Hayworth WW2 pinup poster, busts of chairman Mao, etc.) The ending does contain suspense and a haunting moment, but I don't think anyone under 35 yrs of age will 'get it'.
I gave The Noah five out of ten stars because this film needed to have about 15 minutes edited out, its a tad boring or tedious sometimes..
Worth Watching.
This is not at all what I expected.
The film depicts what happens to one man who finds himself as the last survivor of the planet after a nuclear exchange.
Emerging from a bunker, where the radiation has killed off everyone else, he comes out of a military bunker, begins his search for other life.
This film is especially important today with the Nuclear threat being greater than it has been in 30 years.
The hero is washed ashore on some Far Eastern Island, has food and shelter and nothing else, no animals, nothing.
Is alone and isolated.
I wondered as I watch it, How would I have coped.
By the time the film was half over, I had an overwhelming respect and appreciation for my wife, and dog.
I don't think I will ever be the same after watching it..
I discovered this deeply introspective g e m quite by accident....
I had only known Robert Strauss as one of the funny privates in the movie Stalag 17.
I never knew that he had a starring role of his own in his own movie.
The sad thing about this is that he died right at the time of the movies release.
It's in black and white which adds even more dark contemplation to the mood!
I recommend this singularly unique, unusually different film I've never seen its like before!
Watch it!.
wow is it bad.
I think that someone was trying to be allegorical.
They Failed.The first 2/3 of the film are mildly interesting as Noah invents friends and something resembling _DRAMA_ shows up, you almost feel as if maybe a _PLOT_ might ensue.
There are nascent _CHARACTERS_ and some minor _CONFLICTS_ hinting that a larger conflict could occur.
(Protagonist is up the tree, we know that rocks can be thrown at him..
and we are eagerly anticipating the first volley...) But then....nothing happens.The final third of the film degrades into a cacophony of a history-buff's self-serving game with an audio tape recorder.
All links to plot, allegory, drama, character, conflict, and sanity are severed.
Maybe this is supposed to represent Noah's ever-less-grounded state of mind, but the degree of his grasp on reality was well-established earlier in the film and the noise becomes as annoying as a Phillip Glass composition.Now to 2 small details worth mentioning: 1)There are some weak humorous points such as Noah's ability to construct a latrine or Noah's resemblance to one of the Marx Brothers.
2)The in-your-face allusion to The 10 Commandments was out of place and over the top..
Robert Strauss's Last Movie Role.
I have only seen the last portion of this film on a cable channel about five or six years back (I think it was City College's channel, which frequently runs unusual film courses).
I remember when THE NOAH came out in the middle 1970s.
There was a review of it in NEW YORK MAGANZINE, and it got panned.
But when it was shown on television it was treated with considerable respect.Basically (and ironically, as Strauss died after it was briefly released) it was Strauss's biggest chance to display his own acting skills to their widest.
After his two appearances with Billy Wilder and his THE ATOMIC KID with Mickey Rooney, he was basically relegated to small support roles of a comic nature.
He did have a recurring part as "Charlie Leech" the private eye who discovers that "Samantha Stevens" (Elizabeth Montgomery) was a witch on BEWITCHED, but he was only in a handful of episodes there.
Strauss was always game for acting roles, and was perfectly willing to try carrying an entire film on his own shoulders.
Here it was (except for two voices) as the sole human being left on earth after a nuclear war.One recalls the unfolding, unstoppable tragedy of ON THE BEACH, but there the citizens of Australia did have each other to live with until they all died in the end.
Here Strauss is on an island, well stocked with food and supplies, and with radio contact to the rest of the globe.
But there is no "rest of the globe" to contact.
Initially he meets the situation with vague disbelief, then panic.
But gradually he determines to face the end of humanity (in himself) with dignity.
Our last image of Strauss on film is rather stoical, watching to see if anyone will show up after all, but determined not to give into temptation to make a fast end of it if he can.I wish the film was shown again - it was not as worthless a picture as the critic in NEW YORK MAGAZINE made it seem.
And it gave Strauss a fine coda role to his underused career..
Life as we make it.
This is one of these movies that linger.Following the total annihilation of the human race only one person appears to be alive.
An old soldier, close to retirement, when the bombs start falling, escapes across the sea and finds himself on a deserted island, filled with derelict motor vehicles and empty military barracks showing a history of both chines and Japanese occupants.Loneliness creates an illusionary friend, whom he can be responsible for (and boss around), and by mistake he also makes a woman, who turns out to despise him.
When his friend and the woman couple, he evicts both from his house (his mind).Then he makes a boy, and in quick succession more children, a whole school class, and education system and a graduation day, where he sends all of his students out to (re)populate the earth.
But it soon turns out they make a mess of things - rather than coming to him, their teacher, for advice, they just squabble and murder one another.
So he lays down simple rules - basically the stone tablets of Moses, but voiced as the simple man he is.
But his children pay him no heed.From then on everything just goes downhill - his creations recreate all that went before his arrival to the island; the final third of the film sees The Noah, as his first friend called him, marching around the island trying to bring control at least to his illusionary military troops, while the recordings of global warfare and unrest rack his mind to the point, where he COMMANDS the silence be.He retracts to his bunk in the barracks, and silence falls on his world, the minute he closes his door.
Here he discovers that the radioactive warning tag that he carries on his uniform has gone black.
The rain was radioactive, and now he has no other mission but to wait for death.THIS is a brilliant movie!
Forget the Biblical allegorical stuff and view it in a larger perspective: Whether messages came from a Maker or not, men translated the messages into words.
I.e. Men made the world in their image - they made what they already were.
The singular human being will always create the world in his own image - his loves, his fears, his longings, his desires, all that man makes is himself.The Noah tries to make a new world, and tries to take control of this new world, because this is how he is brought up - he tries to delegate responsibility and is disappointed; he tries to take full control, and is disappointed; he relinquishes responsibility and is disappointed; he closes his door on his creation, his fellow men and all their disappointments, and all he gets from all and everything he did, is death.A very poignant and eternal message: You are what you are, and so is your world.
All changes must then come from within.
We are human beings from how we deal with the perception of our world.
The perception is the world - that is the weak and the strong point.
There is no one reality, no right reality - only different views of wild wild nature.If you are not well versed in Roman languages, or the imagery of WWII and the Cold War, you'lld do best in getting a subbed version, so as to enjoy the cultural commentating embedded in the use of German, French, Italian, Spanish and other war commentators as well as people on the street in wartime.This is not an anti-war movie, as some might think - it's a film about reality..
If You Don't Get It, You're Too Young.
This is a movie about America and generational shifts.
The fact that it was originally shot in 1968 should give you a clue.
Plot: old-school army veteran is stranded alone on an enemy (communist China) island outpost sometime after nuclear holocaust (presumably).
There are several plot-lines which must resolve during the course of the film.The first is, How does a man - any man - deal with absolute loneliness and the hopelessness associated with knowing that no one else exists in the entire world?
Of course, this a step or two beyond Tom Hanks' Cast Away, as there is hope for Hanks, even if the pathos at that movie's end is also debasing.
For Robert Strauss, the tour-de-force participant and titular "The Noah," the resolution is quite dramatic if entirely expected.
I won't spoil the actual progression of Noah's self-awareness or madness, as the case may be, but I would like to comment that it's not as cleverly done as Cast Away.
On the other hand, the impact of The Noah is exceptional, and with subtlety.The second resolution must be, How does a World War 2 dog-of-war deal with the modern (for 1968) age?
This is handled on several levels, some with skill, some with a ham fist - your view on which are which will likely be tied to your birth year.
Those of "the greatest generation" will possibly feel a great sympathy for the lead character, while those of the "hippie generation" could find themselves alternately awed then nonplussed (younger than that, and you'll be lost, except as it concerns fictional empathy).
Not that director Daniel Bourla gave Strauss much more material than playing off old audio tapes from history; or that the screen writing called for a narrow range of emotions, from crotchetiness to self-pity.
This is the main weakness of the film itself.The third resolution must be the filmmaker's (and thus your) view of America, especially in juxtaposition with communism.
Will you be disgusted, cheered, or bored by the "army" of Chairman Mao busts?
Where will you fall in the melange of flags, uniforms, culture shifts, and overarching philosophies?
I found the movie to be quite schizophrenic in this regard, and that added another stratum of complexity to an already meaty subject.
Just to mention one scene, after the "graduation" the "natives" become restless and it appears that a revolution is brewing; the manner in which The Noah attempts to meet this challenge is fascinating but at the same time quite excruciating since there is little doubt on the end-game and therefore not a lot of tension.Other implications from 1968 are apparent here and there: (1) the obvious counter-cultural message from Friday and Anne-Friday; (2) the overbearing war soundtrack; (3) the selection and arrangement of historical excerpts.
Most of this is a bludgeoning message and therefore may be disregarded as so much era-centered squealing.On the very plus side, the finale will mark you.
It is deeply etching and undeniably disturbing.
It is not that it ices a cake, but that it is the cake.
We learn in fact that the entire movie was a baking process leading to a product, which is the final few minutes.
It will make you judge the rest of the film that much more harshly, but maybe that's good. |
tt0355742 | Manmadhudu | Abhiram (Nagarjuna Akkineni) is a manager in an ad agency, owned by his paternal uncle Prasad (Tanikella Bharani). He despises women and expresses his hatred every minute of every day. But his office is populated by women as it is an ad agency and he has to live with it. Prasad appoints Harika (Sonali Bendre) as the new assistant manager and Abhiram hates to have another female employee in his office. He never leaves an opportunity to belittle her and gradually Harika gets fed up and goes to Chairman Prasad to submit her resignation. Prasad asks her to think about it twice and tells her about Abhiram's past and why he deeply hates women.
Abhi lost his parents when he was too young and his grandfather brings him up. He was the only heir to their family business and enjoys life in his own way. He meets and falls in love with Maheswari (Anshu), who is the niece of an employee (Chandra Mohan) in Abhi's grandfather's company. Alarmed that he will just play with her and leave her, Maheshwari's uncle takes her away to his hometown and arranges her engagement with another man. Abhi goes there and tries to bring Maheswari with him assuring her uncle that he is going to marry her. But on the way to his grandfather's home, they meet with a serious accident. When Abhi returns to his consciousness, his grandfather tells him that Maheswari married another person and shows him the invitation card. Abhi feels cheated and starts to hate all the women and thinks that they all are superficial and treacherous.
After listening this, Harika feels sympathy towards Abhi's pain and his child like mind. She decides to stay with the company and Prasad promotes her as manager and demotes Abhi as assistant manager for some time. Though infuriated, Abhi has no choice but stay and goes with her to Paris on a business trip. There they become close and Harika helps him with his phobia of water. Abhi starts to fall for Harika but is disappointed and distances himself from her when she reveals that she is engaged to be married.
After they come back to India, Abhi behaves in a childish manner to get over his disappointment. Harika reciprocates his feelings but is confused about getting married as Abhi won't express his feelings. Meanwhile, Abhi's aunt reveals that Maheswari actually died in the accident they were in and they hid that information fearing that Abhi might not come out of the shock of that news. Abhi realizes it was foolish of him to hate women but is too shocked to express his feelings to Harika. At last Harika dares and tells him that this marriage was her parents choice not hers, indirectly indicating that she was ready to come to him if he asks. Prasad comes to know that Abhi and Harika have feelings for each other and encourages Abhi to go and get her. Finally he asks her to marry him and she breaks her previous engagement and marries him. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0060464 | Gojira, Ebirâ, Mosura: Nankai no daiketto | After Yata (Toru Ibuki) is lost at sea, his brother Ryota (Toru Watanabe) steals a yacht with his two friends and a bank robber, the crew runs afoul of the giant lobster Ebirah, and washes up on the shore of Letchi Island, where a terrorist organization manufactures heavy water for their purposes, as well as a chemical that keeps Ebirah at bay. The organization, known as the Red Bamboo, has enslaved natives from Infant Island to help them, but the natives hope to awaken Mothra (now a full-grown moth metamorphosed from the larva that appeared in Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster) to rescue them.
In their efforts to avoid capture, Ryota and his friends, aided by a beautiful native girl, stumble across Godzilla sleeping within a cliffside cavern. The group devises a plan to defeat the Red Bamboo and escape from the island. In the process, they wake Godzilla using a makeshift lightning rod. Godzilla fights Ebirah, but the giant crustacean escapes. Godzilla is then attacked by Daikondoro, a giant condor, and a squadron of Red Bamboo fighter jets, but destroys them.
The humans retrieve the missing Yata, free the enslaved natives and Godzilla begins to destroy the base. Godzilla smashes a tower that has a self-destruct button that makes the island unstable. Godzilla fights Ebirah and defeats it, ripping off both Ebirah's claws and causing it to retreat into the sea. The natives summon Mothra to save everyone, however, Godzilla challenges Mothra when she gets to the island. Mothra manages to push Godzilla away and carry the people off. Godzilla escapes from the island just before it explodes. | entertaining | train | wikipedia | This movie also features a spectacular safecracking scene in which the bank robber jimmies a lock on what looks like the door to a bank vault, the plucky castaways nip inside -- and then nip outside even faster, saying, "It's a nuclear reactor!!!" I would recommend this film to anyone..
But, other than that, the film is quite good, following the usual trend that the Godzilla movies tend to have much better plots than their american counterparts of the time.
The thief, Yoshimura, is definetly my favorite character in this, and the special effects are pretty good at times (he may be a pathetic monster, but Ebirah looks great).
But sadly this movie is usally overlooked because of the silly opponents that Godzilla fights, like a giant lobster and a giant condor.
Terrorist organization Red Bamboo has enslaved the natives of the neighboring Infant Island to make a liquid repellent that holds off Ebirah, a giant lobster.
The Godzilla suit from Invasion of the Astro Monster was reused and after much water and pyrotechnic damage it looks a little worse for wear, particularly in the scene when Godzilla attacks the Red Bamboo's base.
This film involves Godzilla and two other giant monsters involved with the Red Bamboo who are a group conducting nuclear experiments on a deserted south sea island.
I think that was another political statement that Godzilla Versus The Sea Monster was making.Anyway some 20 somethings who were involved in a dance marathon which opened the film, commandeer a boat that was to be the getaway vehicle of a bank robber to search for the brother of one of them who set sail southeast and was not heard from.
To discourage escape in the meantime, the island is guarded by Ebirah a giant lobster monster.
Shinichi Sekizawa's screenplay continues on the trend of humanizing the monsters, and Ebira's pose before the battle is a caricature of the then popular professional wrestler Toyonobori, and Godzilla rubbing his index finger on his nose is a caricature of Yuzo Kayama's character in Wakadaisho series which usually played at same time as the Godzilla movies as a double feature.
The cinematography is noticeably brighter and the characters are also bit more easy going than Honda's version of Godzilla movies.Ryota (Tetsu Watanabe) who lost his brother in the South Pacific in a fishing boat accident believes in the prediction made by a spiritual medium in Mt. Osore that his brother is still alive.
Yoshimura comes up with a novel plan to wake Godzilla and turn it against the Red Bamboo.In this movie, the fairies that talks to Mothra also changed from The Peanuts (Emi and Yumi Ito) to another twins Pair Bambi (Yuko and Yoko Okada - born 4/19/1944 Nagoya Japan).
Takahashi 6 month earlier played a similar role in Tsuburaya Production's Ultra Q series as a native girl who lost her brother to a giant octopus.In the mid to late sixties, Godzilla movie started to slide to a lighter stories.
You see, this island is protected by the sea monster Ebirah, a giant lobster.
Originally supposed to be a King Kong movie, Godzilla was used when Toho failed to secure the rights at the time..
A lot of humor in this movie, especially the lines "I thought you studied science?" with an answer "But I didn't pass the first year, one thing's for sure."A pretty native girl, played by Kumi Mizuno, is attracted by Godzilla, who gave a little love relationship to her-a love relationship more associated with King Kong (since the story of this movie was originally written for King Kong).
It is when the big piece of seafood tries to take center stage that things start slowing down.By the time Godzilla shows up, the movie suffers from the monsters.
Not only does the original Japanese soundtrack have a habit of playing just about the most inappropriate music for all of his scenes (look, jets are coming, let's play surf rock...he's smashing a base, let's play slow horror mood music); but there is the distinct problem the director has in getting the transition from Godzilla as a monster to a potential hero down right.
The would be rescue party ends up shipwrecked themselves on an island that is guarded by Ebirah, a giant mutant lobster-like creature, thus GODZILLA vs THE SEA MONSTER(USA title).Also on the island is a militia base that is producing nuclear bombs to overtake the world with.
Godzilla is awakened from his nap in a cave to take on the sea monster and destroy the evil soldiers and their bomb factory.My favorite scene is where Godzilla and Ebirah appear to be playing ping pong with a boulder during their showdown.
As well, most Godzilla movies spend *way* too much time and focus on the monsters fighting and rampaging (Godzilla vs.
It's also one of the best dub-jobs I've *ever* seen in a Godzilla movie (or any of the other similar ones).Overall: this is one of the more fun Godzilla films.
This is actualy a fun film if you're a kid, and i loved godzilla when i was i think back to the days of watching those chessy B movies(i havnt realy progresed that far in 10 years) and this was one of my favriotes and now somthing that angers me is it having a 4 point rating i mean kids love this and its fun and next time you get a chance pop one of these in have a good laugh and look back at you're childhood you'll have more fun then you would think.Now that thats gone ill fill you with my memories of this film the specel effects are alright and about what you would expect.
One part that I do like about the film is that it seems to delve right into the monsters, and that's something that any Godzilla fan can really appreciate.
We have Godzilla fighting a Giant bird whose origin is unknown, and we also have a scene where a giant monster actually devours a person.
I totally understand people that hate this entry in the series, but I find it to be one of the most fun Godzilla movies out there!On my Top 10 Godzilla Films list, it is actually included.
Spacegodzilla 8.Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All Out Attack 9.Ghidorah: The Three-Headed Monster 10.(this film.).
This film is the good example how to make a movie with a great merriment.Easy style through all film.Not boring parade of monsters: walking,swimming and flying.Citations from James Bond movies (besides plot turns its ,off cause, surf music score) add for this celebration of good cinema taste more lightness.Unfading colors totally denude this movie darkness which exist in black and white monsters movies like classic KING KONG or FRANKENSTAIN.That is why Godzilla in this film is positive character ( it is not incarnation of evil nuclear dangerous of earliest post war series).Highly recommended for fans of the trash-cinema and for lovers of the fine puppet-animation..
The story is very good and I really love the way Godzilla looks in this film.
This one features four giant creatures: Godzilla who is a sort of prehistoric lizard; the people-friendly Mothra; its cousin, a giant condor; and new to this film a giant lobster.All of these were created or awakened by nuclear activity which was then burned deep into Japanese cosmology.
Number one: the very first and original 1954 "Godzilla" is an unhinged monster- movie classic, and number two: whatever crazy Japanese scriptwriter comes up with scenarios like these must be addicted to some seriously good and mind-broadening drugs!
During a heavy thunderstorm, their yacht is destroyed by the giant lobster monster Ebirah, but they all four miraculous strand at an island.
Godzilla, of course, and then the downright awesome giant lobster/shrimp Ebirah and also the cool Mothra, although he only comes into – important – action during the very last sequences of the film.
The dodge ball game between Godzilla and Shrimpie is definitely an amusing highlight, and so are Godzilla's battle with a giant condor-monster (where the hell did that suddenly come from) and his destructive rampage against a bunch of fighter planes and the Red Bamboo base camp.
Eventually, though, Godzilla comes out of hiding in a bizarre twist that recalls FRANKENSTEIN, and ends up doing battle with a silly giant crustacean named Ebirah.The story was originally written as a KING KONG sequel, hence Godzilla's unusual, humanised behaviour in this one.
The seventh entry in the Godzilla franchise continues the trend toward 'secret agent' plots, diminished budgets, and light-hearted adventure, and because the story originally starred King Kong, the movie departs from the standard Godzilla story in a number of ways.
Through a series of unlikely events, four men end up on an island housing a secret base run by a nefarious organisation known as "Red Bamboo" at which clandestine nuclear warheads are being produced and that is protected by the immense shrimp-like monster "Ebirah".
The Ebirah suit is quite good and the scenes of his giant claws rising from the ocean are the best in the film but the Godzilla suit is a step down from previous versions, with bigger eyes, a pronounced brow, a frog-like face, and the eyes of the actor within are clearly visible at times.
In keeping with diminished budgets, Godzilla spends a lot of time in desolate, undetailed regions of the Island, and although there are some reasonably effective underwater shots, no amount of suspension of disbelief will help with the scenes where he attacks the Red Bamboo base: it's just a guy in a rubber suit stepping on toys.
A young man steals a boat to find his brother, but he and his shipmates become shipwrecked on a mysterious island inhabited by a giant sea monster and a slumbering Godzilla.The film was originally written as a King Kong film, titled "Operation Robinson Crusoe", but Rankin/Bass Productions rejected the project.
Contrary, to the previous comment, Godzilla actually takes on a giant shrimp....or prawn, basically the same thing.Perhaps the thinnest plot of any Godzilla film, and clearly, along with Godzilla's Revenge, a low point in the series.It's sad to say, as the series started out so well with serious classics such as Godzilla Raids Again, and Rodan.Toho's attempt to pander to children, with films such as this, only served to marginalise the terror of what nuclear testing could bring.Unless you're a completist, it's not worth buying.You only need watch them play catch, to be convinced of that....
Anyway, it's a really huge red sea beast with long claws that guards an island where militaristic bad guys toy with nuclear reactors and steal natives off of Infant Island (home of Mothra) to work as their slaves.
Mothra and her two twin girls make a token appearance, but theirs is not much to get excited about if you're a fan.This movie also features some groovy rock 'n' roll muzak as part of its soundtrack, and some amusing monster fights (you've gotta see the handball bit where Godzilla repeatedly bounces a boulder off his head while Ebirah keeps swatting it back to him).
There are times when Godzilla vs the Sea Monster looks to be one of the more compelling and entertaining 'Zilla' movies from the 60's, this despite the fact that the big green guy doesn't show up until 55 minutes(!) into the proceedings.
I think what I responded to most positively were two things, and one of these could have been something of a negative but it isn't: first is that it isn't about monsters fighting over a city, and it doesn't involve those aliens or other beings that popped up in the few entries before this one (i.e. Monster Zero), and would show up later again in things like Mecha-Godzilla.But the other thing, and this may be an aspect viewers won't fully appreciate amid the "B-movie" adventureness of it, is that Godzilla vs the Sea Monster is the first one in the series since, well, could it be the first one(?) that deals with the issue of nuclear energy.
The enemies of the film are scientists from some rogue organization - are they affiliated with the government, or more of a Dr. Evil rogue thing, I'm still not sure, the story is only clear enough to get the main beats across that they're using an island to test out their ready-made disastrous weapons - and they make for good foils for our heroes, who make up stowaways and a thief and one guy on the look out for his brother, who is actually on Infant Island.Does it necessarily mean that director Jun Fukada and writer Senichi Sekizawa are out to make some profound *statement* about nuclear weapons and such?
But it is more about their story, how they're using and abusing the natives on the island as slaves, and that they don't know a literal sleeping giant is in their midst under some rocks.I forget how exactly Godzilla wound up there after the last entry, but no matter: using lighting (what is he, Frankenstein's monster?
Actually, this was meant to be a Toho-produced Frankenstein movie, or a King Kong one, either makes sense), Godzilla is resurrected, and fights Ebirah, a giant crab monster.
In a way the crab monster isn't even the real threat of the movie, despite that it attacks some people on a boat and fights Godzilla a couple of times.
And while Godzilla does get some fun screen time when he shows up, that also comes a little late into the movie which otherwise features this 'Sea Monster' of the title that is little more than a very slightly upgraded version of what Roger Corman cooked up in the 1957 quickie ATTACK OF THE CRAB MONSTERS.
I liked the actors playing the stowaways on the boat with the thief who end up becoming the heroes of their own story, they had believable deliveries and made the characters interesting enough (far as a Toho Godzilla movie of the period allows), and I especially loved the music that plays during some of the fights - in particular, during one of those "oh, they're doing THIS again?" moments when planes come around to fire at Godzilla, surf-Rockabilly grooves come up and it makes it...
Godzilla Vs The Sea Monster,to use the most common title,is a disappointment after the great Godzilla films of the early 60s,when the series was arguably at it's artistic peak and also at it's most commercially successful.
Declining audiences led to Toho cutting the budgets for their films,therefore this one {and the next instalment,Son Of Godzilla}takes place almost entirely on a Pacific island,thus eliminating the need for big destruction scenes.
In one scene,he even shows interest in a human female,something you may expect from Kong but not Godzilla.Still,the film is still fun,with James Bond and castaway-story elements.
Not a serious G movie,but a fun romp in which a non-threatening Godzilla ( who looks like the Cookie Monster!) plays handball with a giant lobster,before dispatching him.There is a nonsensical sub-plot about baddies with a nuclear bomb,but it is acted in such a lame and unreal fashion that I don't think it would bug the kids.The plot was originally written for King Kong,but the production company could not procure the rights for the Kong name.Hence the use of Godzilla,who is referred to as FRANKENSTEIN in a German translation of the title.Is Frankenstein a generic name for a monster in German B-movie language?I cannot imagine any confusion between Boris Karloff and Big G!.
Seventh Godzilla picture sees the big guy being re-awakened by young castaways who became stranded on an island whose local population is being used as slave labor by a terrorist organization called Red Bamboo, who are trying to escape the clutches of a giant lobster named Ebirah.
Change of pace entry is set away from the cities for a change, which was welcome, and the story is most enjoyable, although Ebirah never quite caught on like other Toho studio monsters did (for whatever reason).
This definitely is one of Toho's weaker efforts.However, this film still is a has a lot of great action and it is a pretty decent entry into the Godzilla series..
the Sea Monster" twice today- once with the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew ripping it apart in a veru good but not great episode (the only great bit being the 'Godzilla bop' skit, one of the best skits in the show's early years), and the second time in all its unedited, pure horror.
the Sea Monster (1966) * (out of 4) Japanese versionGodzilla and Mothra team up to fight a huge lobster with bad breathe.
For the Seafood Lover in You. A military regime heads a base on a far away island, away from all and protected by Ebirah, a giant red lobster.
All attempted escapes from the island are halted by the giant lobster monster Ebirah.
Starting from when Godzilla attacks the Red Bamboo base, the suit looks like straight up *&^%!
None the less, the giant lobster looked good in the Toho pool and his duels with Godzilla were entertaining.
It's a rehash of this film; Godzilla on an island with slightly better monsters but Minilla arrives .
At the end of the movie, Ebirah is defeated and Godzilla escapes the island before an atomic bomb is exploded.
(Or not.) Anyway, the characters are fun and engaging.As for the fight between Godzilla and the sea monster, I enjoyed it.
Watching the "big G" swat the planes down like flies was great.Other fun things: Two men getting impaled by the sea monster, a hot girl wearing only bikini for 2/3 of the movie and plenty of good INTENTIONAL humor.Warning: The old VHS release of this movie featured an American dub that was outstanding.
This movie featured the monster tennis match between Godzilla (Giant, mutant lizard with atomic breath capability), and Ebirah (Giant, mutant shrimp with ability to annoy). |
tt4057758 | Renaissance | The film opens in a future Paris with scenes establishing the kidnapping of 22-year-old scientist Ilona Tasuiev, who works for the megacorporation Avalon. The focus transitions to police captain Barthélémy Karas, as he defuses a hostage situation by killing the hostage-takers. Afterwards Karas is given the job of solving the mystery surrounding Ilona's disappearance. Karas begins by contacting Dr. Jonas Muller, a former Avalon scientist familiar with her.
Muller had been working to cure progeria, a genetic condition which affected his brother. Muller worked for Avalon as their top scientist but left after he failed to find a cure and his brother died. He took up new work at a free clinic. Muller tells Karas that "No one ever leaves Avalon", throwing the corporation under suspicion. Karas visits Paul Dellenbach, one of Avalon's CEOs and questions him about Ilona. On suggesting he may have been sleeping with her, Dellenbach replies "I sleep with my wife, I sleep with my secretary, I even sleep with my sister-in-law but I would never sleep with one of my researchers".
After following a series of dead ends, control tells Karas they are tailing Illona's car through Paris. Eventually he captures the driver after a chase which ends at the Eiffel Tower. The man turns out to be a henchmen of Farfella, an Arab Muslim mobster and a childhood friend of Karas. The police captain returns the criminal to Farfella who in return gives him security footage of Illona's kidnapping; it shows her car being stolen by an incredibly old man.
Karas asks Ilona's sister, Bislane, who works for Avalon to break into the company's Archives to discover what Muller was researching. The sister discovers that a Dr. Nakata worked with Muller in a quest to find a cure for progeria. But they destroyed all evidence of their work when some of the children they were testing on started to mutate. Karas and Bislane then escape because accessing the closed file has alerted Avalon security.
Later Karas opens up to Bislane and tells her that he and Farfella were raised in the casbah where they worked with gangs. After a drug run went wrong, they ended up in a holding cell. Farfella escaped but Karas was left to the mercy of the other gang. Karas puts Bislane under false arrest to protect her from Avalon. Meanwhile, Ilona is shown confined in a cyber ball which is being controlled by the old man.
Eventually Karas tracks down Muller. He explains that he took Ilona because through her research she has discovered the secret to eternal life (as he himself did 40 years ago); but knowing what the consequences would be if Avalon acquired such knowledge, he kidnapped her. Karas tries to encourage the old scientist to hand himself in but Muller is mistakenly shot by a police marksman. Karas then deduces that the mysterious old man is Muller's younger brother: now immortal but trapped in an elderly body.
Karas calls on Farfella who hides Bislane from Avalon while also getting a fake passport for Ilona. However the mega-corporation's security are also closing in on the Parisian sewer where Ilona is being held captive. After a short battle, Karas is mortally wounded rescuing Ilona. However she refuses to take the fake passport to start a new life. Instead she tells Karas she wants immortality by giving her discovery to Avalon. Reluctantly Karas shoots her in the back as she walks back towards Avalon security. CEO Dellenbach watches all this happen through a live feed from one of his men's helmet camera.
As Karas lies mortally injured from a gunshot wound, he imagines himself apologizing to Bislane for killing her sister for which she forgives him. The film closes with Muller's little brother living as a tramp, throwing his picture of him and his brother into a burning bin. The final scene shows an advert for Avalon with an old woman becoming young again saying, "With Avalon, I know I'm beautiful and I'm going to stay that way." | tragedy, psychedelic, psychological, storytelling, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0283900 | L'auberge espagnole | Xavier (Romain Duris), a 24-year-old French student, leaves his country for the ERASMUS programme in Barcelona as part of his professional pursuits, despite it being against the wishes of his girlfriend Martine (Audrey Tautou). On the flight there, he meets a young French couple, a doctor and his wife (Anne-Sophie), who let him stay in their home while he searches for an apartment. Xavier manages to find an apartment with other students from England, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Denmark, creating an ambiance of chaos and culture shock. The roommates begin to develop a unique companionship as they struggle together through their cultural and linguistic challenges in their program. Martine pays Xavier a visit and returns disappointed when she realizes things are not the same. Meanwhile, Xavier develops a romantic affair with the French doctor's wife, seducing her using tips he has been learning from his Belgian lesbian roommate, Isabelle (Cécile de France). The English roommate Wendy's brother William visits for some time and turns out to be quite abrasive with his culturally insensitive comments, creating tension among the roommates. Martine eventually breaks up with Xavier, bringing him to depression and hallucinations. When Xavier seeks the French doctor's advice, the doctor reveals that Anne-Sophie confessed everything to him, and tells Xavier to stop seeing her. As discord among the roommates escalates, their friendship is repaired as they team up to help Wendy elude a sticky situation (her boyfriend Alister makes a surprise visit while she was hooking up with an American). After leaving Barcelona and bidding farewell to his many close friends, Xavier returns to Paris and gets the job at the Ministry, but realizes he misses his experiences that now have made him a different person. He subsequently runs away on his first day on the job and pursues his dream to become a writer, recounting the story of his experiences in the Auberge Espagnole. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0073363 | Maynila: Sa mga kuko ng liwanag | Júlio Madiaga is a probinciano, a young rustic from the island of Marinduque, who arrives in Manila. From time to time, Júlio would pass by the corner of Ongpin and Misericordia, as he stares at a peculiar building from a distance. While pursuing his quest, he has to work in order to survive the conditions of the urban jungle.
At first, Júlio lands a job as a construction worker. Not used to such labour, he falls unconscious due to fatigue and hunger. In the site, he befriends Atong, a fellow construction worker who was hired some five weeks before. Another co-worker advises Júlio that city life is quite difficult unless one has the income to enjoy urban comforts. Júlio begins to slowly observe the harsh reality of society, even witnessing the accidental death of one of the workers.
One day, while Júlio and Atong are shopping for clothes in the marketplace, a fat lady dressed in black and wearing sunglasses catches Júlio's attention. The lady reminds him of Mrs Cruz—the woman who brought his childhood sweetheart, Ligaya, to Manila for schooling. Júlio immediately runs through the crowd to follow the woman, and locates her. He tries to approach her, but before he could even say anything, the lady shrieks in distress. Júlio flees in order to prevent making a scene, running back to Atong and leaving the marketplace with him.
This was followed by other chance encounters with Mrs Cruz, leading him to discover that Ligaya was, in fact, brought to the capital for prostitution. Ligaya explains everything to Julio upon their reunion. Julio plots with Ligaya of their return to Marinduque. Both agree to meet at Arranque. However, Ligaya fails to appear at the appointed time.
Júlio returns to the house of a friend, Pol, who informs him the next day that Ligaya had died in the night; having fallen down a flight of stairs during a struggle with Ah-Tek, the brothel owner. Enraged, Júlio stalks Ah-Tek, who he saw at Ligaya's funeral, and successfully dispatches his target. Seeing Julio's crime, a mob pursues and eventually corners him; the film ends with a slow motion close-up of Júlio's terrified face, just as his assailants are about to strike. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Lino Brocka's masterful study of a man's loss of innocence is a centerpiece of great Filipino cinema.
The tale of young innocents traveling to the infamous city of Manila, and losing their way, has been told countless times, but "Manila: In the Claws of Neon" was the first, and this unflinching look at urban decay must have shocked people at the time.
Bembol Roco is heartbreaking in his role as the small-town laborer who travels to Manila in search of his beautiful girlfriend, who has vanished without a word.
With his baby face and puppy dog eyes, he conveys the image of the ultimate naive youth, and Hilda Koronel possesses the same pure quality, as his lost love, Ligaya.Once in the clutches of the decadent metropolis, Julio is forced to either let go of his innocence, or be swallowed up by the ruthless, hardened characters around him.
It is also an honest look at third World poverty, and the desperation that causes people to do things that they might not do otherwise, in order to survive.
One of the film's most harrowing scenes features a scared and sickened Julio, lured into working at a sleazy male whorehouse.
The bloody, shocking climax of this film is one of the most memorable disturbing set pieces in film, and was borrowed from heavily, by Martin Scorsese a year later for his classic "Taxi Driver." Viewed back to back it becomes evident as the scenes in the hallway of the dark apartment tenement are virtually identical.
Brocka's vision came first, too bad so few people are not aware of this beautiful film.
In all the long, hit-and-miss years of Philippine cinema, no other movie made an impact as much as "Maynila".
`Maynila' is the tragic story of Julio (Bembol Roco), a small-town fisherman who went to the big city to search for Ligaya, his sweetheart (Hilda Koronel), losing his innocence and humanity in the process.The acting was not superb, but the plot and storyline carried the cast all the way, making each character as memorable as the next.
The linchpin of Filipino cinema, Lino Brocka's pièce de résistance has been received a well- deserved BluRay treatment, MANILA IN THE CLAWS OF LIGHT is a searing social critique told through the jeremiad of a young fishmonger from a provincial island, Julio Madiaga (the newcomer Roco purveys a deeply affecting performance as a new-in-town tenderfoot) arrives in the big city to search for his childhood sweetheart Ligaya (Koronel), who has been roped into shady prostitute ring from their hometown, only to be overcome by a society infested with moral turpitude and unspeakable vice, belonging to the lowest of the social rung, Julio is inexorably driven to a breaking point when he can only resort to the most radical method to express his fury and desperation, and his ultimate denouement is ominously preordained through the accretion of his violent impulse.
Brocka hones a critical eye in presenting the film's urban jungle milieu, shot in actual loci: the harsh conditions of those construction workers, one of them, Atong (Salvador, Jr.) with whom Julio befriends, lives in the squalid shanty with his younger sister (Mendoza) and their bed-ridden father (a landowner expelled out of his own property by wealthy foreigners), adjacent to polluted water, believe it or not, he is in a well-off situation (before the sorry fate catches on with his family); a chock-a-block local market where bargains for goods soon sour into personal attacks and that particular building where Julio suspects Ligaya is interned by a Chinese Filipino Ah-Tek (Yap), the rare seen ringleader, and its neon-lit signboard.
His pittance is shortchanged by the sleazy honcho and dangled by the intrusive oldest profession, sacked mercilessly when he is no longer needed, Julio witnesses accidental death befalls on the construction site, the indignant fate befalls on Atong and his family, still, he is too wet behind the ears, succumbs to the skulduggery of a policeman imposer on the street.
The crescendo of injustice is which lends this film its cachet and its undimmed relevance, the whole drama probes an unyielding peer into the miasma of unrelieved depravity (just to plumb how pandemic this kind of pathology can reach with a deplorable cri-de-coeur), mirrored through Julio's nostalgic erstwhile memories (ultra-snappy edited), which we all but realize there is no way back.
Eventually, a chance meeting (a rather oddly conceived occasion wanting more context) reunites the star-crossed lovers, and Hilda Koronel recounts Ligaya's ordeal with palpable poignancy in the lengthy close-ups, only to be tritely weighed down by her inextricable maternal attachment, and spoils their final chance of a happier finale.
Upholstered with a perturbing score from Jocson, MANILA IN THE CLAWS OF LIGHT is as harrowing a story as one could envision, but under Brocka's stylish execution, it brims with an urgency to provoke, to shock, to jolt viewers into condemnation, only if he could have curtailed his exasperating anti-China slant, viewed 40-odd years later..
Lino Brocka's 1975 film The Nail of Brightness (aka Manila in the Claws of Neon) is first and foremost a showcase for the social ills of the Philippines, particularly in the urban center of Manila.
The film's main character Julio is only recently arrived to the city having left behind his impoverished but relatively dignified and happy life as a fisherman in a small village to find his girlfriend Ligaya who had herself gone to the city at the promise of a job and some educational opportunities only to disappear completely a short time later.
Julio's episodic experiences in the city give Brocka a chance to exhibit all sorts of social issues as Julio is robbed of his savings before the film even begins and is forced to seek employment at an unsafe construction site where he agrees to work for a low wage and fails to even receive the meager pay he bargained for; the construction company can get away with this because of a lazy, inefficient government that apparently does nothing for its working class people.
As the film continues Julio's misery grows greater; more than one character is forced to turn to prostitution to make ends meet and several major characters are the victims of violent crime.In spite of the didactic nature of the material, Brocka's film is a success because he builds sympathy for Julio through the use of subjective camera techniques.
Brocka's subjective cinema transcends the established techniques of social realism and allows him create one of the greatest doomed characters in film history..
As always with a film like Manila in thr Claws of Light, context counts above all.
The sense of repression in this society makes Italian neo-realist cinema seen quaint, and that is a strength of Brocka's film because he is putting up a lens through how he sees it: this is horrible, this is punishing, and the only thing that can be a light is if people care about one another.
Though the thrust of the story is if Julio will find his beloved Ligaya in Manila, we dont get to that resolution until two thirds of the way into the film.
Primarily this is about how someone who is an outsider to the city as Julio is from a seaside village (though still very much of the culture and time and place), and so we are also those outsiders.
So when Julio is out in the streets, or outside the building where hes mostly certain Ligaya is being stowed away, it doesn't feel like we are seeing something so set apart from a reality we can see.
It's implicit in how so many of the people Julio comes across are mistreated (and of course some corrupt cops here and there who make no bones about stealing money and walking away help along the struggles), and of course for the women exploitation in the world of prostitution is exploitation of workers (just happens to be sex).
He doesnt see any life for himself without her, which makes for a good goal for the story, but is also his weakness - he loves this woman so much that nothing else can change for himself.
So many scenes, in scene after scene, almost it feels like a pattern deliberately where the idea is, "THIS is what is happening to this overworked/underpaid/tragic person being exploited by the ruling classes," and while it could easily dip into propaganda I dont see this as some negative in that Brocka's passion and intensity as a filmmaker, the commitment to realism, takes away a feeling of "this is an *agenda* as it"s about these people who exist.
But all these scenes are really leading up to Ligaya, who was exploitated just about the worst of all - in one long take that seems to last for about seven or eight minutes, she tells her story to Julio in a bedroom, and it's wise to not cut away.
We are here listening to her story, and unlike at other points there is no cutting away; we have to picture this for ourselves.This is a sad and depressing story, but I didnt feel like it is a giant let down to watch because of the anthropological nature of how it's presented and how the melodrama escalates so believably.
The best Filipino film of all time?
But after I have seen "Maynila", everything changed.The film is simply amazing.
Although some moments are like "Midnight Cowboy" inspired, the whole story is very original.The characters are very memorable, though some acting needs some improvement.
Thanks to the late Director, Lino Brocka for making this unforgettable, total human experience.
Maynila: Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag - A film that Triumphs in Art and Social Significance.
ABOUT: Julio Madiaga, a simple fisherman from the province (as played by Rafael "Bembol" Roco, Jr. in his first leading role) goes on a journey to find Ligaya (Hilda Koronel), the woman he loves, after she went away with a mysterious woman promising a better future in Manila.
While Julio relentlessly searches on for Ligaya, the city changes him little by little, becoming like an animal in a wild jungle that lives only for survival.REVIEW: Maynila: Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag (Manila: In the Claws of Light), a film by the late great national artist, Lino Brocka, from the screenplay of Clodualdo Del Mundo Jr.
Reyes), is an examination of the dark side of urban life in Manila, Philippines.
Brocka tackles the social issue of extreme poverty and its effects on the people experiencing it at the time.
The movie speaks about the harsh truth about Manila especially for the underprivileged that life in the city is pleasurable but only if you meet the high cost and that sometime you even have to pay more because what you can give is not enough.
Such is the fate of Julio Madiaga (main character) and basically every character in the story.
He goes on a nightmarish journey to find his love one, Ligaya only to experience things go from bad to worse.
He was able to portray convincingly a character that changes from being pure to being tainted as the film progresses.
Other characters aside from Julio Madiaga are well written and cast also, such as Julio's missing love one, Ligaya, a perfect example of Filipina beauty, Pol, as played by Tommy Abuel, his ever reliable friend, and the elusive Mrs. Cruz, as played by Juling Bagabaldo, whom he has a growing hatred for taking away Ligaya.
Apart from the commendable writing, acting and casting, it is the direction by Lino Brocka that brought these aspects together film.
The underprivileged people in city at present are still affected by poverty among other social illness as it was then.
Sure, it will make a fine exhibit for retrospection when discussing the era when Philippines was in martial law but more than that, because of what the film achieves both in art and social significance, it will continue to be watched by future generations.FINAL WORD: With an flinching portrayal of what is wrong in the society at same time being able to showcase it in cinematic fashion, -Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag (Manila- In the Claws of Light) proves its triumph in film making.
Only a few films and even less in Philippine Cinema have put together social significance together with art and produce a very satisfying experience as this film.
With the recent restoration, the film can be seen in its grandest form and hopefully it will continue to be influential in the years to come.
You can likely catch it in cinemas in the Philippines or as I have read, the Criterion Collection is planning to release the film in DVD/ Blu-ray within this year, so grab a copy when it becomes available..
Big City Dreams, Small Town Heroes, in The Best Filipino Film Ever Made.
The 'provinciano' (literally someone from the provinces, or small town folk) is one of the most portrayed characters in Philippine cinema.
The resulting drama is a great source of material for cinema: the evil, exploitative, capitalistic big city sucking the life out of the fresh, naïve, virginal barrio lad or lass.
Furthermore, considering the history of Filipino colonial exploitation lasting hundreds of years by the Americans, Japanese, and Spanish, the story of the rich (yet morally lacking) exploiting the poor (yet virtuous) is one of the most enduring stories in Filipino culture."Maynila: Sa Mga Kuko Ng Liwanag", directed by Lino Brocka, the most critically respected and well-known filmmaker the Philippines has ever produced, from the novel by another icon, writer Edgardo Reyes, is the embodiment of the great provinciano film and has been hailed as the apex of so-called 'Third World cinema'.The 'provinciano' in our story is Julio Madiaga, portrayed by film veteran (and later in his life the most famous bald Filipino), Bembol Roco.
In this very first (and highly memorable) of his many cinematic collaborations with Brocka, Roco's neophyte status works well on the Madiaga character.
He braves the big bad city in search of his small town sweetheart, the so literally named Ligaya Paraiso (meaning Happy Paradise, as played by Hilda Koronel, at her virginal best), who has mysteriously disappeared after being promised a good job and an education by a woman who looks like a 'baboy' (pig).
Ironically, our savior needs to be saved!Like Mira Nair's masterpiece "Salaam Bombay!", "Maynila" is an excellent portrayal of how man struggles to find his niche in the world or, more interestingly, how he ultimately doesn't fit in, no matter how often and how hard he tries.
Julio, on the surface, isn't alone, for he easily gets along with his fellow laborers but, ultimately, he's among fellow misfits, society's disenfranchised poor living on the edge.
It's this feeling of helplessness and the hope that maybe it will get better which fuels the film."Maynila: Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag", indeed, deserves its place among Filipino cinema's best of the best.
Like Ishmael Bernal's "Himala" and another Brocka film, "Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang", it's a celluloid legend that not only meets but surpasses high expectations.
(Unfortunately, Brocka's "Insiang" falls short of these same personal expectations.) "Maynila" and "Himala" are most often mentioned as the best Filipino film ever made.
And like all great films, they contain memorable, iconic scenes: film legend Nora Aunor's "Walang himala!" ("There's no miracle!") scene in "Himala" and, to a lesser degree, Roco's brief but haunting final shot in "Maynila".
Between the former's increasing crescendo of Third World desperation, Aunor's tightly controlled performance, and false gods/true celebrities religious fanaticism, versus the latter's dark maze of urban entrapment, Roco's gradual withering of brown 'provinciano' innocence, it's a very close, tough call to make.
As beautifully surreal as the deserts of Paoay are in "Himala", though Bernal's intelligent religious commentary connects with me strongly, ultimately, it's the simple story of the brown 'provinciano' swallowed by his sweetheart's big city dreams which affects me more significantly..
This Filipino film, also known as Manila in the Claws of Brightness, is one I found listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and in the description I read it is considered by many as one of the greatest films of Filipino cinema, so I was interested to try it.
Basically Júlio Madiaga (Bembol Roco) is a simple fisherman from the province on the island of Marinduque, in the Phillipines, who travels to Manila.
Júlio appears to be just a young rustic who has to work in order to survive the conditions of the urban jungle, he lands a job as a construction worker, but is not used to such labour, and falls unconscious due to fatigue and hunger.
On the site Júlio makes friends with fellow construction worker Atong (Lou Salvador Jr.), who was hired five weeks before him, and another worker advises him unless one has the income to enjoy urban comforts, life in the city can be quite difficult.
Júlio slowly begins to observe the harsh reality of society, experiencing extreme poverty, hard luck, and the overbearing need to grind to sustain daily, and even witnesses the accidental death of one of the construction workers.
One day, while Júlio and Atong are shopping for clothes in the marketplace, Júlio's attention is caught by a woman reminds him of Mrs Cruz (Juling Bagabaldo), the woman who brought his childhood sweetheart, Ligaya Paraiso (Hilda Koronel), to Manila for schooling.
Many more chance encounters with Mrs Cruz follow, until eventually Júlio discovers that Ligaya was actually brought to the capital for prostitution, she explains everything when they are finally reunited.
Júlio plans for them to get away and return to Marinduque together, Ligaya agrees to meet him at Arranque, however she does not appear at the appointed time.
The next day Júlio goes to see his friend Pol (Tommy Abuel), who informs him that Ligaya fell down a flight of stairs, during a struggle with the brothel owner Ah-Tek (Tommy Yap), she died in the night. |
tt0113228 | Grumpier Old Men | The feud between Max (Walter Matthau) and John (Jack Lemmon) has cooled and both of them patch things up, and their children, Melanie (Daryl Hannah) and Jacob (Kevin Pollak), have become engaged. Meanwhile, John is enjoying his marriage to new wife Ariel (Ann-Margret).
The spring and summer fishing season is in full swing with the annual quest to catch "Catfish Hunter," a rather large catfish. However, the local bait shop closed after Chuck, the previous owner died, and Maria Ragetti (Sophia Loren) has purchased the property with the intent of converting it into a fancy Italian restaurant.
Irritated it will no longer be a bait shop, Max and John join forces to sabotage the restaurant. They are successful at first with their practical jokes. However, when Ariel learns what is going on, she tells John to apologize to Maria at once. He eventually does, but falls asleep at the restaurant after drinking grappa. Max and Maria begin dating due to their shared passion in fishing, while her mother Francesca (Ann Morgan Guilbert) dates John's father (Burgess Meredith).
To complicate things further, Jacob and Melanie call off their engagement due to stress from their parents' involvement. Upon hearing the news, John and Max reignite their feud. Ariel is stressed out because of it and leaves John.
At the restaurant, Francesca is worried about all the time Maria spends with Max. She reminds her daughter of her five failed marriages and worries that Max will make it six. After being convinced to take a long look at herself, Maria reluctantly stops seeing him.
Distraught over losing Ariel, John heads to the lake for his father's advice, but finds him dead. Following the funeral, John and Max call off their feud again and John and Ariel reconcile. After realizing that their own inability to properly plan a wedding is what drove their kids to call it off, they decide to set it right. They help Jacob and Melanie reconcile (the couple later elopes), and manage to catch "Catfish Hunter" and release it, then clarify their own drama. Max marries Maria, and on the way to their honeymoon, discover Max's one-eyed bulldog, Lucky, in the car with them. Ragetti's is reformed so it will also be a bait shop. | revenge, comedy, prank | train | wikipedia | GRUMPIER OLD MEN is a neat follow-up, as we find how Max Goldman (Matthau) finds his new mate, Maria Ragetti (Sophia Loren).
It also settles the future of Max's son Mayor Jacob Goldman (Kevin Pollak) and John Gustafson's (Lemmon's) daughter Melanie (Darryl Hannah), and gives a bitter-sweet farewell to John's father (Burgess Meredith).I think the reason the sequel works is that there is a sense of time and continuity here that is not usually found.
In GRUMPY OLD MEN, the reactions of Lemmon and Matthau to the death of their close friend Chuck (Ossie Davis), who had only recently been their rival for Ariel (Ann-Margaret) showed them to be human beings - not just two good comic actors trading insults for yucks.
In the first film Meredith was always acting like a wild authority figure: over ninety years old, but threatening to tan the hides of the middle aged Matthau and Lennon like they were still kids when he stops them fighting.
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau return as John and Max, the longtime neighbors who in this movie have reconciled their friendship.
But the real scene stealer in "Grumpier Old Men" is the wonderful Sophia Loren as the new Italian woman in Wabasha, Minnesota.
They join forces to save their beloveds bait shop from being turned into an Italian restaurant by its new owner (Sophia Loren) who has just took over.Almost all of the cast from the first movie return, Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are their usual brilliant self, with their usual awesome charisma.
Daryl Hannah and Kevin Pollack both return too, and are both as reliable as you'd expect.Sadly, Grumpier Old Men was Burgess Meredith's final film.
If you watched Grumpy Old Men and know the ending there, you can't imagine how these two curmudgeonly old geezers could get a feud going again, especially after what Walter Matthau did for Jack Lemmon when Lemmon was really down.
And in point of fact the boys seem to lose a step or two from the first film.Still Grumpier Old Men finds Lemmon and Matthau in their superbly timed best just fighting for sillier reasons.
When Lemmon's daughter Darryl Hannah finally ties the knot with Matthau's son you won't believe what's going on with our two leads on the wedding day of their kids.Grumpier Old Men was the farewell performance of Burgess Meredith ending a career that spanned six decades.
His courtship of Ann Morgan- Guilbert is a combination of geezer and caveman.Grumpier Old Men, keeping the Lemmon-Matthau standard of comedy high..
'Grumpier Old Men' Synopsis: John and Max resolve to save their beloved bait shop from turning into an Italian restaurant, just as its new female owner catches Max's attention.'Grumpier Old Men' works well as a romantic-comedy, as it has moments of humour & subtle romance.
Lighten up.Speaking of negativity, another reviewer, whom I won't name here (oh all right, it's John Ulmer), seems to think this movie is nothing more than a "shouting match," and is concerned about the age difference between the Old Men and their lady friends.
Max Goldman (Walter Matthau) and John Gustafson (Jack Lemmon) are still at each other's throats when Italian immigrant Maria Ragetti (Sophia Loren) arrives in town and throws everything into flux.
It is a fitting follow - up to Grumpy Old Men. Matthau and Lemmon shine in this great film.
Grumpy old men was an OK comedy with a nice performance by Ann-Margret, but otherwise forgettable.This film, on the other hand, has some real comic touches that actually also have something to say about the aging process - and life really doesn't end until it ends.But first the bad news: Daryl Hannah.
Consequently, whatever the short-comings there's plenty to remember fondly from this film.Oh, and don't miss the blooper-reel that runs under the final credits - Matthau and Meredith are having a grand old time.Oh, and Sophia Loren is still hot..
John and Max resolve to save their beloved bait shop from turning into an Italian restaurant, just as its new female owner catches Max's attention.We often expect sequels to be weaker than the original.
The first go round was such a hit, that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau got together for this sequel to the 1993 smash hit, "Grumpy Old Men." And "Grumpier Old Men" is every bit as good as the first film.
John (Lemmon) and Max (Matthau) team up for a time in the movie to plan the wedding of their daughter and son, Melanie and Jacob (played by Daryl Hannah and Kevin Pollak).
With the 10 films they made together – especially the nine comedies, Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have delighted audiences for decades.
After the fun of watching Lemmon and Matthau act like kids for less than 2 hours (i.e. from the first movie) I was satisfied, but then due to the success of the first movie the producers decided to give it another twirl, this time the story had the two starting off as friends thanks to the incidents that happened in the ending of the first film, but then some really really idiotic stupid reason, they were at it again.The movie was not funny as it was like a replay of the first, same pranks, similar plot and screenplay made this movie a waste of time.
The movie is directed this time by Howard Deutch, who later worked with the duo in 1998 for Odd Couple II, Deutch other movies also have not been well received like Getting Even with Dad (1994) and The Whole Ten Yards (2004), which are basically the reason why I will not bother seeing My Best Friend's Girl.The movie plot carries on 6 months after the incidents of the first, where both John (Lemmon) and Max (Matthau) were getting prepared for the wedding of their children.
Then a new arrival in town a beautiful lady by the name of Maria Ragetti (Sophia Loren) came in to change things by turning the towns bait shop to a restaurant.John and Max join forces to try and run the new lady out of town, but the issues between John and Max's children marriage plan caused both to reignite their feud as both refused to believe that their child was at fault.Only the ladies are alive till today (February 2013), as both Lemmon and Matthau died like half a decade after this movie release.
Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Ann-Margret, Sophia Loren, Burgess Meredith these actors know what they're doing and they know how to hold a movie together.
Then, where there does seem to be promising originality, it ends up not being sufficiently developed.I thought that the budding romance between John's dad (Meredith) and Maria's mother (Ann Guilbert) had comedic potential, but the two ended up only having 2 or 3 scenes together, and the "stop the restaurant" campaign could have been (and seemed for a moment as if it was going to be) the comedic centrepoint of the movie, but in the end, all we got was about 10 minutes of what were essentially vignettes of the various things John and Max tried to do to stop Maria.
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau return in their twilight years as the ever-battling duo, but this time with the added attraction of Sophia Loren who still looks gorgeous at age 60.
Since Lemmon's already got sexy Ann-Margret as his hot girlfriend, Sophia hits it off with old man Matthau (ah, the magic of movies), who does not look as good for his age (75).
One of the things I like most about sequels is that they give viewers a chance to see the return of their favourite characters as well as being introduced to some new faces.Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon were the perfect choice to play Max Goldman & John Gustafson, their comedic timing was spot on and flawless.
Other cast members Burgess Meredith, Kevin Pollak, Daryl Hannah, Katie Sagona, Ann Margret and Ann Morgan Guilbert delivered top notch performances.Sophia Loren as Maria Sophia Coletta Ragetti is lovely and hilarious, her character is new to town and when she turns the bait shop into a restaurant it makes way for pranks and the unexpected happens when Max falls in love.Many of the scenes during the film are filled with jokes and romance, one scene I found to be poignant occurs when John Gustafson goes to the couch by the lake to talk with his dad, only to discover that he's passed away.
"Looks like god remembered you Pop" was a moving moment as it helped the two main characters to reconcile their feud once again.The film ended with yet another wedding and another prank pulled in the honeymoon limousine, Grumpier Old Men proves that you're never too old for love and laughs.I'd give it a 7.4 out of 10.
I just finished Grumpier Old Men this morning and was expecting a modest sequel, but it turned into a great sequel, pretty much to the point where I enjoyed Grumpier Old Men to Grumpy Old Men. Despite the fact that they use some old jokes, this was a fun plot and I thought the guys have gotten even funnier, including John's father, he's a little dirty, but so much fun to laugh at.John and Max are now best friends again and couldn't be happier with each other, their son and daughter are about to get hitched, and they are overwhelming with the wedding plans.
Ann Margaret is back playing Jack's wife and Sophia Loren is sexy and funny playing Maria Righetti who wants to open a restaurante in place of the beloved bait shop that has been there for years.
Grumpier old men i think is another comedy classic movie.
Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and Ann Margret are back in another comedy squeal.
Good comedy with simple story enhanced by a legendary cast.This sequel was done better than "Grumpy Old Men" and has a funnier script although does not work unless one sees the first movie "Grumpy Old Men" first which one may not like unless one is fammiliar with the lead actors.Ann-Margaret and Sophia Loren look so good for their age and really help brighten this movie.Could have been better with a better screenplay and story.Only for big comedy fans who are fans the past works of the lead actors here......
This sequal is much better then the original Grumpy Old Men (which in most cases is not so with sequals).The jokes are better the plot outline is better the drama is better, this is not even comparable to the 1st one.Walter Matthau is exceptionally funny in this one and Burgess Meridith is just laugh out loud hilarious.You gotta love it.**** out of ****..
However, in Grumpier Old Men, the sequel to the fine comedy Grumpy Old Men, handles the rehashed formula better than many film sequels do.While I'm getting to sound repetitive and out of descriptive words, this is largely because of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau's chemistry together on-screen.
Had the film been a sequel with few returning cast members (say Lemmon and Matthau were substituted by two other actors), this sequel would've likely been a somber affair to view.In a way, I'm thankful the town of Wabasha Minnesota hasn't really changed much since our last outing, with the exception of John Gustafson (Jack Lemon) marrying Ariel (Ann-Margret) from the original film.
The restaurant is managed by Maria Ragetti (Sophia Loren), a gorgeous but uncompromisingly strict woman who catches the eye of Max even as him and Jack plan to foil the restaurant's forthcoming prosperity.Other events (aka subplots) occurring in Wabasha are the wedding between Max's son Jacob (Kevin Pollak) John's daughter Melanie (Daryl Hannah), a plot which would later be used by the same director Howard Deutch in The Odd Couple II, also starring Lemmon and Matthau, along with John trying to get his father (Burgess Meredith in his final role, which was burdened by spouts with Alzheimer's and difficultly remembering lines, some female company as he gets older.
One of Grumpier Old Men's immediate issues is that there is simply too much going on between plot-strands that involve marriage/romance troubles (I counted four including John's brief trouble with Ariel later in the movie) ad others that involve trying to sabotage the bait-shop-turned-restaurant.Grumpier Old Men may have too many new ideas for cutesy subplots, but it keeps the tone and feel of its predecessor alive and well.
Once you minimize your focus on that aspect in the film, you have just an average comedy that, while charming and pleasantly safe (a good and bad quality for this particular kind of picture), is just grateful to be buoyed by two very talented leading men.Starring: Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Ann-Margret, Kevin Pollak, Daryl Hannah, Sophia Loren, and Burgess Meredith.
The pricey cast includes paired couples, Ann-Margaret and Jack Lemmon, Ann Guilbert and Burgess Meredith, Daryl Hannah and Kevin Pollack, and Sophia Loren and Walter Matthau.Although I did not see "Grumpy Old Men," the core of the cast and original storyline continue in "Grumpier Old Men," which is upbeat, outrageous, and a bit smug in never having to say, "prostate." It does have a plot (more than collecting social security benefits), with three principal areas of contention:A.
And, A(2) there is an inter-family wedding (Hannah and Pollack), as a sidebar.B. Sophia Loren (Maria Ragetti) and her mother, Ann Guilbert ("Mama"), have purchased Chuck's Bait Shop, located on one of Minnesota's 10,000 lakes (home of Catfish Hunter), to convert it into an Italian restaurant.
"Grumpy Old Men" was mildly amusing due less to the script than to the welcome return of Lemmon and Matthau who hadn't been on screen together in 12 years.
Anywho, they bicker some more, and we see Jack Lemmon posing nude in one scene (carefully covered by the camera), which I could live for the rest of my life without seeing.They are also arguing because Matthau is in love with a new Italian woman (Sophia Loren) who has just moved in, opening up a restaurant taking place of "Chuck's Bait Shop." The inhabitants of Grump Land don't like this, because the customers will scare away the fish, so they start pulling mean tricks and pranks on poor Sophia."Grumpier Old Men" is the name of this film, as if you didn't already know, and it truly is grumpier.
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are a good comic pairing, but as I said in my review of "Grumpy Old Men," film executives seem to see "The Odd Couple" as a shouting match, when it was so much more.
Sweet and Sad. In this bright sequel to "Grumpy Old Men" we find John (Jack Lemmon) and Max (Walter Matthau) at it again.
Grumpier Old Men (1995) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Sequel to Grumpy Old Men have Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau returning with more fights and foul language.
This time out Lemmon is still happily married but Matthau is on the move and takes a special interest in an Italian woman (Sophia Loren) who has just moved to town.
`Grumpier Old Men' is a film that is a sequel to `Grumpy Old Men.' Reprising their original roles are Jack Lemmon as John Gustafson, Walter Matthau as Max Goldman, Ann Margaret as Ariel, Burgess Meredith as John's father, Kevin Pollock and Darryl Hannah as the children of Max and John.
Always delighting in Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, warmed by their aging and childish pranks, I enjoyed this film which is filled with delightful acting and fun script.It suffers, however, from more than a few silly scenes..
The two titled characters (Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau) once again cause trouble for each other and once again their lives are turned upside down when a cold Italian beauty (Sophia Loren) moves to their Minnesota town.
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are still the grumpy old men in this lovely sequel.John Gustafson (Lemmon) is still happily married to Ariel(Ann-Margret).But Max Goldman's (Matthau) only joy in his life is fishing with no woman.But things start chancing to Goldman with the new comer in town.Sophia Loren plays an Italian waitress called Maria Ragetti.Loren is hot in her role.Too bad she's too old for me.
The late Burgess Meredith can still be seen as Grandpa Gustafson.And he's not leaving without romance either.He finds the romance with Mama Ragetti (Ann Morgan Guilbert).Kevin Pollak and Daryl Hannah are also replacing their roles.Grumpier Old Men from 1995 is a lovely romantic comedy with the brilliant comedy couple Mr Lemmon and the late Mr Matthau.These two know how to make you laugh.And who could forget Burgess Meredith as the grumpiest old man.This movie offers you lots of great moments.Many moments of laughs.Grumpier Old Men is a must see for the fans of Lemmon and Matthau.They won't let you down..
"Good Lemmon & Matthau Comedy Sequel!".
Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Ann-Margret, Sophia Loren, Kevin Pollack, Daryl Hannah and Burgess Meredith star in this 1995 comedy sequel.
At my age, I had not seen most of Walter & Jack's previous films together.It was this film & the original were great.Great fun seeing the Max & John characters going after each other.Daryl, who I am NOT a fan of, dull in the character.The down point to the film was this side track story on getting the 2 adult children to marry.Scenes you can replay is always a plus to me in a film."Catfish hunter".Sophia's character was good, at least smart, but the OVER marriage story line too much.The death of the "Grandpa" character was sad.
However, due to excellent writing, a superb cast and great direction, this film is every bit as enjoyable as Grumpy Old Men. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau made several films together and they worked together extremely well.
I have always loved Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau.
This sequel to Grumpy Old Men is as funny as the original.
Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, and the rest of the cast from the original movie reprise their roles. |
tt0037764 | Hare Tonic | Elmer Fudd has purchased Bugs Bunny at a local grocery store (with a sign visible in the window offering a special on "Fresh Hare") and is taking him home to make a meal. As he walks along, he sings the tune of "Shortnin' Bread", substituting "Wabbit Stew". Bugs pops out of Elmer's basket, munching on a carrot that was in there with him, and asks, "Eh, whatcha got in the basket, doc?" Elmer replies, "I got me a wabbit! I'm gonna cook me a wabbit stew!" Bugs states his "love" of rabbit stew (though he is clearly a rabbit) and then begs to see Elmer's rabbit. When Elmer opens his basket and finds it empty (Bugs had quickly climbed out), Bugs pushes his nemesis into his own basket and then sings the tune Elmer had been singing — but then Elmer realizes he's been tricked, and so he re-reverses the switch. Foreshadowing pranks to come, Bugs tells the audience from inside the basket (à la Red Skelton's "mean widdle kid"), "He don't know me vewy well, do he?"
Once at home, Bugs easily secures his escape by distracting Elmer, tricking him into thinking the phone has rung. However, just as he's about to leave, he decides that the setup's too easy and he just can't leave. He decides to stay and heckle his would-be devourer. Bugs effects a radio broadcast that warns of the dread disease "rabbititis", which is contracted from rabbits "sold within the last three days" and which causes people to see spots and have "delusions assuming the characteristics of rabbits", which is followed by the onset of schizophrenia and depersonalization disorder.This frightens the gullible Elmer and he informs Bugs that he is free to leave. Bugs, however, decides he doesn't want to leave by saying "Oh, no, Doc. Wouldn't think of it. We're gonna brew a stew, remember?", only to make Elmer back away, forcing him to hide on top of his door: "Oh no! Pwease, Mr. Wabbit! Go away! Don't come any cwoser! D-Don't come near me! NOOOOOOOOO!". Bugs, thinking he has B.O., sniffs his glove and tells the audience "Oh, goodness! Don't tell me I offend." just as Elmer pleads with Bugs to "Make twacks. Scuwwy away. SCWAM!" to which Bugs angrily replies as he leaves "OKAY! I CAN TAKE A HINT! I KNOW WHEN I'M NOT WANTED! GOODBYE!". But when Bugs returns, Elmer reminds him that Bugs has to "scwam", but Bugs points to a sign on the door that states "QUARANTINED FOR RABBITITUS (RABBITITIS). NO ONE MAY LEAVE PREMISES."
Thus Bugs stays to torment Elmer, and many hijinks ensue, including Bugs posing as Elmer's shower faucets {"Gurgle, gurgle. Why don't ya' pay ya' water bill, Doc?"} and a doctor ("Dr. Killpatient", parodying Dr. Kildare), painting a room with red, yellow and blue spots to make Elmer think he sees spots before his eyes (which is the 1st symptom of Rabbititus) and pretending to be Elmer's reflection in the mirror (a scene inspired by the famous mirror scene in the Marx Brothers' film, Duck Soup) and his own rabbity image reflected at him in a mirror that's really just Bugs after the glass has been removed. And when Dr. Killpatient (Bugs) tests Elmer's reflexes, Elmer goes into a familiar Russian kick dance, and Bugs decides to join him in a busby hat and boots; the subsequent heys are hilarious! Finally, Elmer sees Bugs' game and chases him out of the house with a shotgun. But Bugs quickly halts the chase and, in an unusually lengthy breaking of the fourth wall, even by Bugs' standards, he convinces Elmer that members of the audience are now afflicted with rabbititis by saying "Hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Look, the people out there in the audience - the lady there with the long ears. They're getting longer all the time. And the guy back there in the seventeenth row with the cute tomato - he's gettin' all fuzzy. Yeah, they've got it. Everybody out there's got rabbititis! Yaah!" which causes Elmer to flee back into his house in a terror of panic.
Bugs then addresses the audience and says the whole thing was "just a gag, of course" and that if the audience really had rabbititis, they'd see swirling red and yellow spots, whereupon red and yellow spots are seen swirling on the screen, and the underscore starts to build dramatically. Immediately after Bugs says, "And then suddenly, everything'd go black!" the screen does suddenly go black, and the music stops abruptly and dramatically, followed by a second or two of dark silence. Bugs snickers and the cartoon ends. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Chuck Jones directs a remarkably strong picture, considering his frequent stumbling early in his career; Elmer Fudd has never been stupider.
Elmer Fudd buys Bugs Bunny from a meat market as he anticipates a nice rabbit stew.
Bugs climbs out of his basket to tell him he's been robbed: the rabbit's gone!
Incredibly, Elmer believes him.
The dope eventually catches on when Bugs shoves him into the basket and then carries it himself.
Somehow Elmer manages to get Bugs home, but the wily rabbit easily escapes.
Why waste a great opportunity?
Bugs returns to "heckle that character." He fools Elmer, through a faked radio program, into believing that there's an epidemic of something called "rabbititus" going about.
Through Bugs's trickery he sees spots, a coat on Bugs's tongue and his own rabbity image reflected at him in a "mirror" that's really just Bugs after the glass has been removed.
But it's we in the audience who may prove Bugs's ultimate dupes.This is a very good short, remarkably so from Chuck Jones, who had not yet hit his stride in 1945 and was frequently bringing out interesting failures or tepid successes.
Elmer Fudd has never been stupider; the hilarious business on the telephone is reason enough to see this.This cartoon is available on the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume Three," Disc 1..
A brilliant cartoon!!
I immensely enjoyed this cartoon, even though there were many Looney Tunes "cliches" involved and there was a predictable storyline, there were many clever verbal jokes, fast-paced and amusing slapstick jokes (there was not much slapstick, but what there was, was good) and the involvement with the audience (even for nowadays, as Bugs Bunny references to cinemas) works very well.
I felt quite sorry for Elmer Fudd in this cartoon, but it made me like the cartoon more as often I do not feel particularly sympathetic for him, great character that he is.The episode begins when Elmer is walking to his home with a basket full of carrots and a rabbit for his rabbit stew.
Bugs Bunny does the traditional "what's in the basket?" joke, going out of the basket and making Elmer look inside it, then wondering where the rabbit has gone etc.
Eventually, Elmer manages to take Bugs Bunny to his house and starts preparing the stew.
Bugs Bunny pulls a fast one by faking a telephone ring with a bell within reach.
While Elmer repeatedly says "hewo?" into the telephone, Bugs Bunny escapes, but then decides he wants to go back and earn revenge on Elmer...I highly recommend this cartoon to any Bugs Bunny fan and to people who enjoy Looney Tunes in general.
If you prefer slapsticky Looney Tunes episodes I do not recommend this so highly.
Enjoy "Hare Tonic"!
A great cartoon about paranoia.....
HARE TONIC is one of the best Bugs Bunny vs.
Elmer Fudd shorts out there.
Bugs convinces Elmer Fudd that "rabbititus", an epidemic of doomsday proportions is sweeping through the nation.
He creates this illusion in Mr. Fudd's eyes by painting the walls a sickly color and dressing up as the bearded, and very dangerous Dr. Killpatient.
Viva Bugs!.
Bugs A Sadist; Elmer, A Dope.
If nothing else, this cartoon points out two basic facts: Bugs Bunny is very sadistic, and Elmer Fudd is extremely dumb.
Immediately, to prove the latter, Fudd buys a rabbit to make rabbit stew but doesn't know a rabbit when Bugs pops out of the basket.
Finally, after some gags, he says, "Oh, you twicked me; you're the wabbit." At least Bugs acknowledges the little man's ignorance with the statement, "He don't know me very well, do he?" (Have you ever noticed how bad the grammar is in many of these cartoons?)Bugs' sadistic side comes into play when he decides to torment the idiot, standing behind Elmer's big radio and pretending to be an announcer, saying the Health Department is warning people against bringing any rabbits into their house.
He then describes the horrible symptoms one would get if infected with this contagious "rabbititus" disease.The gag of the cartoon is mainly BB trying to convince Elmer he's caught the disease.
Funny scenes included Bugs smelling himself and saying, "Oh, goodness; don't tell me I offend;" walking around with the kettle attached to his butt; his "coated" tongue and the '40s expression, "Come on, Jackson, cut yourself a slice of rug!
(which means, let's dance).Not being one who particularly laughs at sadism on display, I thought this cartoon was just "fair.".
A deliciously sick, lesser known semi-classic.
Chuck Jones's 'Hare Tonic' is a brilliant but little known cartoon.
Deliciously sick, 'Hare Tonic' involves Bugs Bunny convincing the hapless Elmer Fudd that he has caught the dreaded Rabbititus!
Taking place almost entirely in Elmer's suburban home, 'Hare Tonic's' success is entirely down to Bugs's inspired heckling.
He is never in any real danger (he forfeits an easy escape early on in the cartoon in order to have some fun torturing Elmer) and is therefore free to carry his devilish bluff to the extreme, convincing Elmer that he is trapped quarantined with an infectious rabbit.
In contrast with cartoons in which Bugs heckles his opponent in a variety of different ways, 'Hare Tonic' simply extends one routine across the whole seven minutes and it works fantastically, right up to the great fourth-wall breaking climax.
While it doesn't quite weigh in with Jones's all time classics (and bear in mind the level of quality that involves), 'Hare Tonic' is still a lesser known piece of sheer brilliance that I would recommend to anyone..
A great Bugs cartoon..
This is a funny cartoon, and one of the better early Bugs Bunny films.
It's very good entertainment.The plot is new and original, and a little bit deeper than the rest of the cartoons.
Elmer thinks he has "rabbititus" and is scared to death of his prey and quarantined inside his own house.The animation is good, though Bugs is basic, but the use of color and spots is excellent.You can get a lot of laughs just by watching with the sound off.
Bugs's "fits" are hilarious, and the classic mirror gag and dance are all there.The script is great, what with the rabbititus report and the gags about Elmer's water bill.
It's very memorable.Bugs's tricks in this cartoon are great and original, which makes this cartoon stand out from the rest.So, all in all, this is an excellent, funny cartoon, an original story with original gags and the old classics.
Great entertainment..
Elmer Fudd returning home after getting Bugs Bunny from the grocery store, with every intention of making him into rabbit stew.
But Bugs soon has Elmer thinking that he will catch Rabbititus from being around rabbits.
This cartoon is hilarious and is among the funniest pairings of Bugs and Elmer out there.
I enjoyed the playing with the audience aspect of the short as well, making me wish I had been alive way back when to see this one in the theaters as it was originally intended for.
This animated short can be found on Disk 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3 set.My Grade: A.
Elmer Should Take Up Another Quarry.
In this cartoon, Bugs faces off against his old friend, Elmer Fudd.
There are efforts along the way to get him, but her routinely escapes.
The best part is when Elmer calls a doctor to treat Bugs.
Of course, Bugs has already escaped and now is paying Doctor Killpatient.
Elmer is made to see spots because he may have "rabbititus." There are some nice little sight gags with the erstwhile hunter getting it from all sides..
Underrated and fantastic.
This cartoon really should get more attention as one of the best Bugs Bunny cartoon, if not THE best.
It is an extremely creative practical joke on Elmer Fudd.
The best moments are when Elmer Fudd continues to stay on the phone asking "Huwwo?", Bugs throwing a fit, and when he breaks the fourth wall at the very end.
An underrated classic..
Yes I agree that the story is predictable, but Hare Tonic is still thoroughly enjoyable regardless.
It starts off wonderfully with classic witty banter between Bugs and Elmer, and everything else is fast-paced slapstick jokes including Bugs dressing up a doctor and tricking Elmer into thinking he has "rabbititus" and one at the end involving the audience.
And you know what, all of them jokes.
The animation is colourful and lively, and the music is very strong.
And the dialogue ranges from good to hilarious.
As for the characters, here you have Bugs at his most sadistic and arrogant and Elmer at his stupidest and you have a perfect pair.
Both characters are on top form, and are superbly voiced by Mel Blanc and Arthur Q.
Bryan.
Overall, very enjoyable, maybe not quite a classic but great all the same.
9/10 Bethany Cox. Strong start but not as strong delivery.
Elmer Fudd is merrily on his way home with a rabbit in hi basket for stewing.
When he gets home, Bugs easily escapes but decides to stay and have some fun with Fudd.
Pretending that he has a contagious rabbit disease, he makes Elmer scared to be in the same room as him.This film starts out very well with some classic banter between Elmer and Bugs about what is in the basket (`there's no rabbit in here doc' says Bugs `you've been robbed') but once Bugs decides just to wind him up with the disease, it does go downhill a little.The material over the rest of the short isn't as strong as the start and isn't as funny.
Only occasionally does Bugs really come across as strong in his japes and tricks, the rest of the time it is pretty basic.
The end of the film resorts to that old chestnut of involving the audience it's OK, but it doesn't work as well on TV.Overall this is still worth seeing because Bugs is Bugs and is still fun to watch, however the promise of the material in the opening scene isn't met by the rest of the film..
we as a society are TOO worried about diseases.
In "Hare Tonic", Bugs Bunny tricks Elmer Fudd into thinking that the latter has a rampaging, deadly disease called "rabbit-itus", going so far as to paint dots all over the room to convince Elmer.
How fun it would be to try that!
Of course, Elmer - the sap that he is - believes just about anything, so maybe it wouldn't be so easy in real life.I have to say that beyond being just a wacky cartoon, this one brings up the issue - if inadvertently - about how our society is too afraid of diseases, and we focus on the wrong things.
People do things like put toilet paper on the toilet seat; it turns out that there are more germs on a computer keyboard than on a toilet seat.
It's a really funny cartoon..
A Long-Time Favorite.
Yet another crazy encounter with Bugs and Elmer Fudd, with that waskily wabbit using the pretense of being infected with "rabbititis" to flummox poor Elmer yet again.
This is one I grew up with, back when televisions were more black & white than color, and one which I get a kick out of to this day.One particular element worth noting is the title music Carl Stalling uses after the Merry Melodies intro.
The potent swing / jazz theme Carl lays down here is at least as infectious as Bugs supposedly was, perhaps more so!
I never heard Stalling rock out like this very often, which makes that rollicking music all the more memorable..
Elmer is good, the rest isn't.
"Hare Tonic" is an 8-minute cartoon from 1945, so this one is already over 70 years old.
And as this is another collaboration between Chuck Jones, Tedd Pierce and Mel Blanc for Warner Bros., you will certainly know already that it is another Bugs Bunny short.
There are basically two stories in here, the first pretty generic one being about Elmer wanting to make rabbit stew and the second about Bugs tricking Elmer into thinking his house is contaminated with a rare illness named "rabbititus".
But Titus kinda fits because Bugs is a real Satan's brew in here and you could almost feel sorry at times for Elmer.
So yeah this one is all about cooking and contamination, even if both is of course not part itself of the story.
Elmer is pretty great in here (or I should say Blanc with his amazing voice acting once again) and he'd have deserved a better rating as it's one of the best I have seen him in.
But sadly the two key stories are so forgettable and it's been a while since I watched a Bugs Bunny cartoon where I found him so forgettable.
The breaking of the 4th wall does not make the dots plot any better, actually more repetitive only.
The mirror reflection scene was fine, the coated tongue joke was a nice little play on words.
Even the title is bad.
Don't watch, this one gets a thumbs-down..
"Mama's little baby loves wabbit stew".
Elmer Fudd is carrying Bugs Bunny in a basket.He has purchased Mr. Bunny from a grocery store, and is now taking him home to make some wabbit stew.Sounds delicious!
But, the rabbit being Bugs Bunny, that wabbit stew is never happening.Gee, ain't that a spoiler!
When at Elmer's home, Bugs comes up with a scheme.He effects a radio broadcast and warns of a disease called "rabbititus".Now Elmer and Bugs are quarantined inside, Elmer being scared for his life.Then arrives a certain Dr. Killpatient.Hare Tonic (1945) is directed by Charles M.
"Chuck" Jones.The voice artists are the regular Mel Blanc and Arthur Q.
Bryan.This Warner Bros.
short contains a lot of fun stuff, like Bugs and Elmer doing the Russian dance.Bugs also does the mirror gag almost better than Groucho Marx did.In the end Bugs suggests we all have the rabbititus.I see 'em spots...And it's all going black..
exceptionally funny.
This is a very funny Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd cartoon.
Elmer catches Bugs and brings him home in order to eat him.
However, Bugs, as usual, has other plans!
He convinces Elmer that there is a disease called "Rabbititis" and that rabbits are the carriers.
Then, he slowly convinces Elmer that he, too, has the disease--by appealing to how suggestible Elmer was and by painting spots all over his glasses when he's asleep!
Elmer puts on the glasses and panics, at which point Bugs enters dressed as a doctor and continues to mess with poor Elmer's mind!
It's extremely funny and ultimately, the film ends with one of he funnier endings in Loony Toons history, as Bugs looks out at the audience and tries to convince everyone that they, too, have Rabititis!.
As a survivor of the Great Onion Scare .
. a few years back, when patrons of a restaurant chain rhyming with "Baco Tell" began dropping like flies and the American Fast Food Foister first blamed onion greens and PERMANENTLY banned them from its already scanty stock of food ingredients WITHOUT DUE PROCESS (and NEVER reinstating them, even after admitting that the onion greens were perfectly nutritious, wholesome, healthy, tasty and edible all along--it was the cheap, lowest-bidder lettuce plucked from fields without Port-a-Johns by Unvetted alien saboteurs which doomed so many; lettuce, of course, stayed in Baco Tell's stew of offerings, since it costs a few cents less per pound than onion greens), Warner Bros.
uses HARE TONIC to warn U.S. consumers of Baco Tell's upcoming shenanigans.
A careful viewer of HARE TONIC will notice how its plot serves perfectly to provide a blow-by-blow report about Baco Tell's perfidy in besmirching the good name of onion greens.
Bugs Bunny labels the symptoms of Baco Tell Lettuce Poisoning as "Rabbititus" in HARE TONIC, but all aspects of Baco Tell Lettuce Disease will be familiar to anyone who suffered and survived it back in the day.
As Bugs says, first you see spots before your eyes.
Next, the spots start whirling around.
This is followed by tics, spasms, convulsions, headaches, nausea, diarrhea, fainting, and--in fatal cases--death with government-mandated cremation as "Toxic Medical Waste." I wish that I had seen HARE TONIC before I began eating at Baco Tell!.
"Oh my goodness!
Don't tell me I offend.".
Directed by Charles M.
"Chuck" Jones, "Hare Tonic" is a fine Warner Bros.
cartoon that once again pits Bugs Bunny against his favorite nemesis: Elmer Fudd.
Fudd brings Bugs home for a rabbit stew, and Bugs easily escapes.
But get this: Bugs actually comes to his senses and realizes that if he leaves Elmer's house, there'd be no cartoon!
So he rushes back and invents a gigantic whopper about a disease knows as "rabbititus", which scares Elmer out of his wits.
Things get even screwier when Bugs poses as a bearded, bespectacled doctor.Here are my favorite moments from "Hare Tonic".
I always enjoy hearing cartoon characters singing, as Elmer does at the beginning of this film with his version of "Mamie's Wittle Baby Woves Wabbits" while he carries Bugs home in a basket.
Bugs then childishly begs Elmer to let him take a peek at the rabbit, after which Bugs stuffs Elmer in the basket and takes over the singing!
(Bugs can't seem to get the song out of his head, since he later sings it while sitting in Elmer's cooking pot slicing carrots.) And when "Dr. Gilpatient" (Bugs) tests Elmer's reflexes, Elmer goes into a familiar Russian kick dance, and Bugs decides to join him in a busby hat and boots; the subsequent "heys" are hilarious!
"Hare Tonic" is a fun cartoon in which Elmer Fudd has somewhat of a different look than usual, but who cares?
Bugs Bunny realizes the need for his audience to be entertained, so he sticks around and makes the most of his "victimhood". |
tt0069159 | Una ragione per vivere e una per morire | This is a story derivative of The Dirty Dozen, but set during the American Civil War. Eli is to be hanged for looting, when he and some other men condemned to death are pardoned, providing that they follow former US colonel Pembroke in an attempt to recapture Ft Holman, which he earlier had surrendered to the Confederate army.
The "volunteers" are a deserter who have killed two sentries, a man who has murdered his commanding officer and raped the wife of the victim, a horse-thief, two looters, one who has stolen medicine so soldiers have died, and an Indian ”bastard” who has killed a white man that sold liqueur to the Apaches. However, the one presented as ”the worst of the bunch” – a religious pacifist agitator - declines the offer and is hanged!
Pembroke holds the group together by saying that he really is after a treasure of gold hidden inside the fort. At Ft Holman Eli gains entrance as a Confederate orderly in a stolen uniform. He realises that there is no gold, and also learns that the present commander Ward used Pembroke’s son to blackmail him into giving up the fort. Then Ward killed the son anyway. When Eli is exposed he produces a paper (also stolen) to show that he is a security officer, and criticises the lack of security. Ward plans to save his own hide by executing the "security officer,” but the others are let in by Eli and attack the garrison. After the battle only Pembroke and Eli stand as survivors. Pembroke kills Ward with his own sword and the two survivors leave together. | western, revenge, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0105932 | The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. | === Background ===
The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., is set in a fictional American Old West of 1893. Robber barons control the financial and industrial interests of the West from the boardrooms of San Francisco's Westerfield Club. The famous U.S. Marshal Brisco County, Sr. (R. Lee Ermey) has apprehended a gang of outlaws and its leader, the notorious John Bly. While transporting them to stand trial, County is murdered and the gang escapes. Meanwhile, in a nearby mine, a group of shackled Chinese workers unearths "The Orb", a large golden globe studded with rods. A worker draws one of the rods from out of the Orb, then touches several of his co-workers with it. As each worker is touched with the rod he is imbued with superhuman strength which they use to break the iron chains binding them, thus freeing themselves. The murder of Brisco County, Sr., and the discovery of the Orb set into motion the major plots of the series.
=== Synopsis ===
Members of the Westerfield Club hire Brisco County, Jr. (Bruce Campbell), the son of the slain U.S. Marshal, to track and re-capture Bly (Billy Drago) and his gang. The Westerfield Club's timid lawyer, Socrates Poole (Christian Clemenson) relays instructions and financial support to Brisco. Another bounty hunter, Lord Bowler (Julius Carry), who is known for his expert tracking skills, also hopes to capture Bly. Bitter over the elder County's fame, Bowler treats Brisco as a rival. The two men often find themselves reluctantly joining forces to achieve a common goal. Later in the series, Brisco and Bowler work together as partners and friends.
In the pilot episode, Brisco tracks John Bly's second-in-command, Big Smith (M.C. Gainey). In a battle on a train car, Brisco knocks Smith off the train and into a river; he is assumed dead until he reappears later in the series. Brisco, Bowler and Socrates hunt the rest of Bly's gang in subsequent episodes. All ten of the gang members are captured or killed, and Brisco's pursuit of Bly, who is seeking the Orb for its supernatural power, frequently puts him into contact with the object. Each encounter with the Orb reveals a fantastic effect on people who use it. In the episode "The Orb Scholar", Bly shoots Brisco and leaves him to die. Professor Ogden Coles, a scientist who studies the Orb, heals Brisco with the device. In the episode "Bye Bly", it is revealed that Bly is a fugitive from the distant future who has traveled to 1893 to steal the Orb. Bly plans to use the Orb to travel back to his time and rule the world. Instead, Brisco uses the Orb to travel through time to save Bowler's life. Brisco eventually kills Bly by stabbing him with a rod from the Orb. Series creator and executive producer Carlton Cuse said that the Orb represents faith and that depending on the intentions of those who use it, the object rewards or punishes them accordingly.
The pilot episode introduces several characters who make recurring appearances throughout the series. Big Smith's moll Dixie Cousins (Kelly Rutherford) is a saloon singer and con artist who has a brief romantic encounter with Brisco. In later episodes, Dixie becomes Brisco's primary love interest. In his first mission, Brisco also meets Professor Albert Wickwire (John Astin), an eccentric scientist who returns to help many times during the series. Wickwire's ideas and inventions play into Brisco's interest in technology and the future, something Brisco calls "The Coming Thing". Pete Hutter (John Pyper-Ferguson) is a hapless mercenary working for Bly. He has a compulsive attachment to his "piece" (pistol), and given any opportunity will pontificate about topics such as art and philosophy. Pete appears throughout the series as a comic foil to trade barbs with the heroes. He appears to be killed three times during the series, but returns each time with a comic excuse for why he didn't die. The second half of the series includes many episodes with Whip Morgan (Jeff Phillips), a young cardsharp whose attempts to assist Brisco and Bowler often end up causing trouble.
=== Signature show elements ===
The show features classic Western motifs such as train robberies and gunfighter showdowns, in combination with atypical elements. Much of the series is devoted to the science fiction plot surrounding the Orb, and it is this mix of the Western genre with fantasy that has helped Brisco maintain its cult status. In almost every episode, the characters discover or are confronted by fantastic technology. In the pilot episode, Brisco and Professor Wickwire modify a rocket to run on train tracks. In the episode "Brisco For the Defense", Brisco uses a slide projector to show a trial jury fingerprint evidence. Professor Wickwire returns many times in the series to assist with technology, including tinkering with motorcycles and rescuing the heroes with a helium-filled zeppelin. Campbell told Starlog magazine, "It's kind of Jules Verne meets The Wild Wild West." The presence of futuristic technology in a Victorian era Western places the series in the steampunk genre; it is one of the few such shows to have aired on prime-time television. At least one-third of the show's episodes contain steampunk or Weird West elements. Though "technology-out-of-time" frequently intrudes into the plots of Brisco, the fantastic machines or methods rarely appear again. Some of these out-of-time technologies were archaic imaginations of those prevalent in the 20th century, and two film researchers, Cynthia Miller and A. Bowdoin Van Riper, suggest that followers of the show may be puzzled that such inventions, so useful in their own lives, are not exploited further.
According to Cuse, the show was purposefully set in 1893, exactly 100 years before the series premiered in 1993. Brisco is meant to be aware of the imminent changes in society and technology and actively looks for them. The writers of the show, and also the character of Brisco, refer to this concept as "The Coming Thing". Elaborating on this theme, Campbell said, "Basically this show is about the turn of the century, when the Old West met the Industrial Era. Cowboys still chew tobacco and ride the range and states are still territories but, over the horizon, is the onset of electricity, the first autos and telephones. Brisco is in the middle of a transition from the past to the future." The collision of cowboy characters with puzzling technology and other anachronisms generates humor throughout the series. The writers made it a point to insert scenes mirroring the pop culture of the 20th century, from the apparent invention of the term "UFO" in the pilot episode to the appearance of a sheriff who looks and acts like Elvis Presley. Speaking about the humor of the show, Campbell said, "I would say 30 percent of each episode is being played for laughs. But it's not a winking at the camera, Airplane-type of humor. We're funny like Indiana Jones is funny; the laughs come primarily from the wide variety of ridiculous, colorful characters that come in and out of this series." | sci-fi | train | wikipedia | Billy Drago was a great villain as John Bly, a character that appeared in a story arc running through the season.
Bruce Campbell and Julius Carry had great chemistry.
I also liked how Brisco and Bowler weren't friends at first, but rather were more like competitors, and only after several episodes of crossing paths and being forced to work together did they learn to like one another and partner up.
Many episodes featured some nice father/son moments as Brisco found himself talking with the ghost of his legendary bounty hunter/father, well-played by Lee Ermy.
It's tame violence and family-friendly stories helped make it an audience favorite and develop a following that continues to this day, but Fox ultimately decided to pay attention to THE X-FILES instead, and they canceled BRISCO after just one season, despite it's big audience and decent ratings.
Each character was eccentric in his/her own way and great fun to watch.There isn't a bad performance in sight!
Great fun, and it stars Bruce Campbell!
Such is Brisco County, a western genre light comedy show with a hint of sci-fi thrown in for good measure.When this show first came out I didn't watch it, primarily because I assumed it was simply another Western series, like Bonanza, or High Chapparal, to which I had been forced to endure by my parents as a kid.
So I missed out (first time round) on something really fantastic.Luckily, I have since started gathering up any episodes I can find and have been able, at last, to appreciate the wonder that is Bruce Campbell.
If ever there was an actor that is deserving of fame and fortune, it is him.As for Brisco County, Bruce's portrayal is surprisingly subtle to those familiar with his Evil Dead work.
I haven't seen all the episodes yet, but I look forward to watching Messrs Campbell and Co eagerly.Look out for Comet, Brisco's horse.
I used to watch it every Friday night--my sister and I started watching it because it starred "that guy from EVIL DEAD", but it wasn't till "Brisco" that I considered myself a Bruce Campbell fan.
The show also introduced me to another favorite actor, Billy Drago, who made John Bly the weirdest Old West villain in TV history.
The camaraderie between Brisco, Bowler, and Socrates was great, and I loved the anachronisms and bad puns ("You got the sheriff!" "Yeah, but I didn't get the deputy.").
Some great guest stars from earlier Old West shows, and John Astin as the recurring Prof.
Bruce Campbell played the title character who was a Harvard-educated attorney turned bounty hunter that fought bad guys in the year 1893.
Most of the episodes were focused on Brisco chasing after John Bly [Billy Drago], the criminal responsible for the murder of Brisco's father during a train robbery, though it was the episodes with more tongue-in-cheek humor that I liked the best.
Bruce Campbell plays Brisco County, Jr. who is a bounty hunter trying to find his father's killer, John Bly.
While Brisco and Bowler travel around looking for John Bly, they run into Dixie Cousins, Brisco's sometime girlfriend and saloon girl, and a host of other characters that make up this show.
In this episode, Brisco and Bowler are aided by Aaron, the sheriff, who happens to dress in leather, has his hair slicked back into a DA, and runs around acting like singer Elvis Presley.
Adventures took the TV Western in a direction that hadn't been seen since Maverick and The Wild Wild West: light-hearted comedy.
Bruce Campbell show she has the stuff to be a series regular, but another strength of Adventures...
Billy Drago has never been better, utterly over the top and so far off the wall that he is in the next room; John Pyper-Ferguson gets to speak some of the most bizarre lines in television history; Bruce Campbell is simply perfect as the titular lead; and nobody lets down the side in acting.
I now see far more than I did then, the chemistry of the cast is superb between Brisco, Bowler, Socrates and Dixie.
A great pity unless you have a multiregion player, but then this series is worth the cost of investing in one.I am now sitting down to watch it again, this time with my stepson who is curious to see "whats it all about".
Bruce Campbell played Brisco County Jr, bounty hunter son of a much revered marshal who was gunned down by a smarmy villain by name of John Bly (Billy Drago).
Brisco forms an uneasy alliance with Lord Bowler (AKA: James Lonefeather), a hulking Civil War Union soldier turned fellow bounty hunter, a lawyer, and a mad scientist played by John Astin in his various missions and personal quest for vengeance that often found him up against various technological advancements like motorcycles and also a funky alien gizmo that looked like a big gold orb with spikes and possessing various "magical" properties.
Kelly Rutherford played Brisco's on again/off again girlfriend.Even though I wasn't big on westerns I was really excited when this show came on and I enjoyed watching it every Friday night.
It had action, adventure, comedy, and the last episode actually had a naked time traveling FBI woman!
A fun series that was just too good to last, with a great assemblage of wonderful character actors including the King, Bruce Campbell (Praise Him)!
Although it's set in the Wild West, it's no more a 'western' than that series was.
Brisco County Jr...ah, we some great times, didn't we?
This show is on my "top 10" shows of all time list...it had a great hero, who would shoot a tree branch, causing it to fall onto someone's head, rather than shoot the villain - violence was not really his bag.
Can you imagine that during the year that Brisco County did it's TV run, it was called "the most violent show on television" by one of those groups that have nothing better to do but protect the world from entertainment?
I don't know if it was intended to continue from the point where we were left but as it stands, the story concludes and the final few episodes found Brisco and friends working for the president!Amazing show with great writing and superb acting (WHY isn't Bruce Campbell a huge star?.
Great News for "Brisco County" fans!.
Similar to the original Maverick TV series "Brisco" did not take himself too seriously.
A spoof of a real life character on Brisco County, and the episode that gave me the biggest laugh, had an Elvis like sheriff with long side-burns and dark glasses who ate hamburgers and whose lines in the show were taken from some of Elvis's biggest hit songs.
Also, like Maverick with his two brothers (Bart and Bert), I thought that the supporting cast of characters on Brisco County was great and that they contributed much to the series.
If you haven't seen it, might take 2 or 3 episodes to understand the character dynamics between Briscoe, his horse, Doc, Lord Bowler and Dixie - but it is well worth it!.
This was a good TV series; not great but rather original.
Some commentators stated that it copied a great deal from the 60's western TV series "The Wild, Wild West" and though there definitely was some influence there I do not believe it was as much as some would think.
Is B.C. Jr. out on DVD?If not, when can we expect it?I watched all of the episodes when they aired, and all of them again whenever they were on.I've been hoping to see it come out on DVD, and would be ready to buy it, as would several other people I know.I've several of B C's other DVD'S and would like to add this title to my collection.His wry sense of humor in this character, reminds me of Nathan Fillion's character in FireFly..
Inspired by 'Maverick' and 'Back to the Future 3' Jeffrey Boam screenwriter ('Funny Farm') created the son of Brisco County's unbelievable adventures.I've seen the pilot film.
Good script (by Boam), witty editing, catching melodies (by Randy Edelman) and so-so acting characterizes this well-done western/comedy directed by the talented Bryan Spicer.The cult-actor Bruce Campbell ('Evil Dead') was the best choice for the leading part.
His humorous performance surpasses Mel Gibson's or James Garner's in 'Maverick'.Altough some bad guy's role is too comics-like (Billy Drago as John Bly is awful), the gags and actions make the viewers want to see the sequels of the film's adventurous events.'Brisco County Jr' has one of the best pilot I've ever seen.
I wish I had seen The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. when it first aired on television.
I was 6 at the time, and it would have been the perfect addition to the lineup of shows I watched from the greatest of all vantage points, my dad's lap: Bonanza, The Rifleman, Zorro, a one-season wonder called Bordertown, and Star Trek: The Next Generation (the western in space).
Unfortunately I didn't discover it until its fortuitous DVD release a few years ago, but better late than never, I suppose.The pitch for Brisco County was probably something like "Indiana Jones in the Old West"--in fact, co-creator Jeffrey Boam penned the screenplay for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Like Indiana Jones, eponymous protagonist Brisco County is armed with an unconventional set of weapons and tools, a quick wit, a square jaw, and a smarmy sense of humor.
The viewer is also treated to inaccurate origin stories for Dunkin Donuts, drive-through windows, and the phrase from which a certain Robert Plant-led rock band took its name.The strength of Brisco County lies in that miraculous intersection of great writing and the perfect cast.
Because Brisco is generally a noble character, the writers tended to invent more clever solutions to problems than simply having him whip out his pistol and shoot someone, and for that reason the show is both more inventive and surprising than it might have been, and also family-friendly.The late Julius Carry is perfect as brash, pompous rival bounty hunter Lord Bowler, another testament to the writing.
Watching the relationship between Brisco and Bowler grow throughout the series, from rivals to grudging allies to, ultimately, friends, is one of the highlights of the show.Christian Clemenson is Socrates Poole.
John Astin is a charming riot as Professor Wickwire, a spacey but forward-thinking brilliant inventor who often shows up to provide Brisco with the "coming thing," usually in the form of futuristic gadgets such as rockets, diving suits, and blimps.
Lee Ermey is great as Brisco County Sr., the father with whom Brisco Jr. had something of a troubled relationship (shades of Sean Connery and Harrison Ford in Last Crusade).In the "odds and ends" category, Brisco has the same brilliant scope as classic westerns of yore, having been shot on the Warner Brothers back lots that, as I understand it, simply don't exist anymore.
No, and there's one big reason for that: the Orb. Apparently the writers didn't think Brisco's quest to track down the members of John Bly's gang was enough to keep the show going, so they introduced a vague, powerful, mysterious artifact, the Orb. It's clear that nobody on the writing team figured out exactly what this plot device did or meant, which resulted in its uncanny ability to do whatever was needed for a particular episode, including resurrecting the good guys, incinerating the bad guys, giving people superhuman strength, and enabling time travel.
It was the failure to clearly define the Orb's mythology or purpose that makes it feel like a clunky, frustrating deus ex machina, and toward the end of the series its storyline starts to get both convoluted and pretty silly, resulting in a very unsatisfying exit for the character of John Bly.That aside, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. is a top notch western/sci fi/adventure/comedy/action/romance with great performances and a unique, fun flavor.
I was about 5 years old when I was watching Brisco County Jr discover the "coming thing" and chasing John Bly & his gang.
He had the quick thinking attitude and the bravery I was looking for in my prince charming :-P Brisco County Jr. is the type of show that really can't be put into a certain one genre of TV shows.
Lord Bowler and Socrates added just as much fun as Brisco did to the show.
Too bad that end had to come too soon, after only one season.Now in order to get my Bruce Campbell fix, I have begun watching the sitcom Burn Notice and he possesses some of those same characteristics as Brisco did.
If you like clever humor and good writing with a little weirdness thrown into the mix, this series may be for you.
Briscoe made for an unusual hero, and Lord Bowler was one of the best sidekicks ever.
When the show returned, it turned into a Wild Wild West thing, with Briscoe and Lord Bowler being made secret agents under President Grant's administration.
This show had all the right ingredients.Iconic genre legend Bruce Campbell in the lead.Cool old west setting.Science fiction subplot about mysterious other worldly objects.Cool supporting characters that were just as interesting and enigmatic as the lead.I could really kick the idiot at FOX that was completely blind to this shows potential.This had future cult classic written all over it..
"Brisco County, Jr." was another show killed off before its time, and really does epitomize the cult classic; but it's gotta be one of the most inspired series, especially, from the early '90s.
It was a great cast, playing a wide array of memorable characters, and the writing was also a contributing factor: that big arc with the orb really swung for the fences.But a big part of its appeal (huge!) was Bruce Campbell - in full leading-man mode.
A TV Show/series that many people liked, but that got canceled anyway.
I'm a big fan of Bruce Campbell and he plays his leading role really great here.
Dixie was/is great and other part time/bit players are thrown successfully into the mix.
Where some really great characters were thrown back on the screen again and a good story was found.
"The Adventures of Brisco County Jr." was great fun, as long as the sci-fi story line continued.Bruce Campbell gave a great performance, as always, and this was the most innovative western show I've ever seen.
With a side kick like Lord Bowler, Julius Carry, and a villain like John Bly, Billy Drago, together with actors like John Astin, as Professor Albert Wickwire, and Christian Clemenson, as Socrates Poole, the show meant incredibly much fun and excitement brought to us by a great set of actors.The love interest Dixie Cousins, Kelly Rutherford, was an almost unbearably beautiful character, just as the actress portraying her, that added quality to every episode she was in.All good things end though.
The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr., was a wonderful show with great writing and fantastic ensemble acting.
The plot of the show was Briscoe County, Junior (Bruce Campbell), who had grown up more or less a spoiled rich boy in the late 1800s USA, finally becomes a man trying to track down the gang who killed his bounty-hunter father, with the help of blustering bounty-hunter competitor Lord Bowler (Curry) and lawyer Solomon Poole (Clemenson).
Billy Drago played a memorably vicious John Bly, leader of the gang Briscoe and Bowler are up against, while Kelly Rutherford turned in bravura performances as Dixie Cousins, the traveling showgirl who Briscoe hooks up with from time to time.The writing and comic pacing of this show were usually spot-on and this show deserved to be on far longer than it was.
It was a shame, too, because Briscoe, Bowler, Solomon, Dixie and Comet the horse deserved to have many more adventures.Those of us who are fans still remember this show extremely fondly, with copies of the series on VCR traded like gold.
It was funny, well acted and the plot, though flawed (which one isn't?), were weird and engaging!Bruce Campbell is brilliant as Briscoe, though Billy Drago steals most scenes he appears in.
The supporting cast is excellent, from Bowler to Socrates.This is a sci-fi, fantasy western with old time serial style cliffhangers.
Still, 27 episodes isn't a bad run.The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. is a western series with a lot of humor, bizarre characters, and several bits of science fiction.
However, this isn't just an imitation.Brisco County Jr. is the son of Brisco County Sr., one of the great bounty hunters of the western territories toward the end of the 19th Century.
And then of course there's Comet the Wonder Horse.One of the reasons this series works is its casting.
Brisco is played by the veteran actor Bruce Campbell.
He brings to his role here a professional and keenly calculated sense of timing and of humor not to mention very athletic performances.Brisco's partner, Lord Bowler, is played by the accomplished Julius Carry.
It's Hollywood's great strength that they have done a lot toward moving away from that sort of pseudo Jim Crowism.Third in the series' trilogy of stars, playing Socrates Poole, is the delightful and talented Christian Clemenson.
Drago is a well-represented film veteran, with 90 films (including some TV work) to his credit.The various episodes are well plotted, full of action and humor, witty lines, good character byplay, and the Orb. The Orb (of which there are 3, although 1 is destroyed early in the series and another vanishes into the future ...
The attempts by Bly to get an Orb for himself and the efforts of Brisco to prevent this form the backdrop of many episodes.The production values of this series are very high.
"Wild, Wild West" (the series and the film) is of course an exception, and so is the Brisco County Jr. series. |
tt0072348 | Tough Guys | Harry Doyle (Lancaster) and Archie Long (Douglas) are gangsters who've served a 30-year prison sentence for hijacking a Southern Pacific train called The Gold Coast Flyer, ready to collect Social Security.
Their parole officer, Richie Evans (Carvey), who seems to be more of a fan of historically notable criminals than a representative of law enforcement, meets Harry and Archie at the gates and offers them a ride. Meanwhile, Leon B. Little (Eli Wallach), an elderly hit man with bad eyesight who still has an outstanding contract on them, immediately tries to kill them. Harry and Archie manage to get away.
At Richie's office, they are informed of the conditions of their parole. Harry, at age 72, is committed to a retirement community; despite his desire to work, he's past the mandatory retirement age of 70. Archie, still allowed to work at age 67, takes a job at an ice cream parlor and later a restaurant. They are told not to have further contact with each other for at least three years.
Both are in for a shock at how much the world has changed from 1956 to 1986—clothing, sexual lifestyles (their favorite bar is now a gay club for men), lack of respect from the younger generation, and the advance of technology. Archie's young restaurant manager treats him poorly while Harry is denied proper food by a nasty orderly and is given even worse treatment by the retirement home's even nastier manager.
Harry reconnects with an old flame named Belle (Alexis Smith), and reminisces about old times. Archie embraces the contemporary scene, listening to new wave music, asking out a much younger woman, Skye (Darlanne Fluegel), and dressing in faddish clothes. Though both their relationships go well, neither Archie nor Harry seems to fit in society anymore.
Tired of trying to adjust, Harry and Archie go back to their old ways. First they try to rob a bank with members of their old gang, but all are now either crippled, invalids or dead. Then they hijack an armored truck, only to find it empty except for a roll of quarters. When the media mock them for their blunder and mistake them for younger men in masks, Archie decides to hijack the Gold Coast Flyer again as it makes its final southbound run. Harry refuses, but Archie decides to do it anyway with or without his help.
Archie stops the Flyer just as it's leaving the railyard and is soon joined by Harry. The media and dignitaries aboard are surprised, but Harry and Archie gladly answer their questions and pose for pictures. To their surprise, Leon arrives and explains why he's after them: an old enemy of theirs paid him $25,000 and he has waited 30 years for them to get out of jail. Deke Yablonski (Charles Durning), the police officer who first arrested Harry and Archie, soon arrives with a full SWAT team. Richie, disguised as a SWAT officer, boards the train and starts it moving again.
Harry, Archie, Richie and Leon temporarily join forces. They decide to take the train to Mexico, but unfortunately the tracks end a few feet from the border. Harry throws Leon from the cab; the hit man vows to get them even if it takes another 30 years. Archie then takes Richie back to the coaches and uncouples the train, advising Richie to tell the police that he was kidnapped. Harry and Archie drive 4449 at full throttle through a fusillade of bullets from U.S. border police. They crash through, burying the engine partially in the soil of Mexico a few feet across the border. A Mexican border patrol arrives to arrest them. A tough guy till the end, Archie kicks the lead officer in the groin. | blaxploitation, revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Italian Poliziotti meets Blaxploitation!.
Uomini Duri aka "Three Tough Guys" is an Italian made action film from 1974.
Isaac Hayes stars as Lee, a framed Chicago ex-cop who teams up with Father Charlie played by Lino Ventura.
Together they fight for answers and revenge in a million dollar bank heist.
Fred Williamson in a rare villain role plays Snake.
This is a very entertaining film.
While set in Chicago and the mob playing second fiddle to the plot, the film is very Italian.
It has the feel of an Italian poliziotti film with in your face action and seedy locales.
There are many veterans of Italian action films including Jess Hahn and William Berger.
Lino Ventura is great as Father Charlie, the priest who can fight and does not hesitate in resorting to violence.
Hayes is very underrated as an actor and its a shame he appeared in only one other seventies blaxploitation film (Truck Turner).
The chemistry between Ventura and Hayes is excellent, a joining of American and Italian styles.
Fred Williamson is good as Snake but his role could have been much more.
He appears far too briefly and is pretty much a supporting villain in this film.
Isaac Hayes scored the movie as well and the music does not disappoint!
The theme "Tough Guys", "Joe Bell", and "Run Fay Run" (used in Kill Bill 1) are highlights on the soundtrack.
Lots of shootouts and action are abound in this film but I would have appreciated a great long car chase in this film.
It would have rounded out the action perfectly!
All in all though a terrific film.
-Note, this film is extremely hard to find as it was never released on video or DVD, worth seeking out..
Spaghetti Blaxploitation.
He will forever be known to people my age as the man who wrote and sang "Shaft." To the younger generation, he is "Chef" from "Southpark." He is the man Isaac Hayes, and, in his first film, he is running with one of Europe's best character actors, Lino Ventura, as Father Charlie.Their enemy is the great Fred Williamson (Black Caesar, From Dusk to Dawn), former football star and blaxploitation actor.Add a lot of Italian actors and an Italian director who worked with Sergio Leone in A Fistful of Dollars, and you have the Italian version of a blaxploitation action flick.Nothing to write home about, but some fun entertainment..
Italian's attempt to make a Black actioner.
I was kind of baffled what Lino Venutra was doing in an Issac Hayes/Fred Williamson film, only to find out this was a Italian film!
Lino toplines as a priest who doesn't want to carry a guy, but he is very two fisted, teams up with Isaac Hayes to solve a mystery that all leads to Williamson.
Wiliamson doesn't play the good guy, so this is not really three guys fighting for good, it's more like two.
Seeing familar character actor Romano Puppo as a thug makes me wonder if all the interior was shot in Rome?
Good music by Hayes as numerous Kung-fu films stole it after this film.
It's not a bad film, but it's no SHAFT.
Check it out if you want to see a standard action film..
Gritty mixture of blaxploitation and "buddy" genres..
Ten-speed-pedaling tough-guy priest (Ventura) and taciturn ex-cop (Hayes) team up to solve a million-dollar bank heist and capture Chicago mobster Joe Snake (Williamson) in Windy City-lensed but Italian-produced action flick.
There isn't much here that you haven't seen before, but the production values are appropriately gritty, the action is fast-paced and bloody, and it's nice to see the image-conscious Hammer cast against type as a bad guy.
Hayes wrote the musical score as well, and released the soundtrack on Enterprise Records..
Brother, can you spare me some LIGHT?
And perhaps an Abacus?.
It's probably due to the cheap and clumsy transfer to the Grindhouse Collection DVD, but the picture quality and lighting of this film are absolutely awful!
I know this is supposed to be some type of "Blaxploitation" movie, but if I'm not mistaken, this term doesn't mean staring at a black screen the whole time!
Several sequences, especially during the first half hour, you have completely no idea what to make of because you only see darkness and vague shadows moving around.
And now that we're pointing out the abnormalities anyway, there's something seriously wrong with the title of "THREE Tough Guys".
Somebody bring on an abacus, because the correct title ought to be TWO tough guys.
At least the soulful theme song got it right.
It's not hard to guess why the producers opted to put the number three in the title, though.
Fred Williamson receives top billing even though he barely has any screen time and he's also referred to as another one of the tough guys in spite of the fact he's not so tough (he beats women and shoots people in the back) and operating on the wrong side of the law.
Williamson's name obviously just served to attract more viewers, as he just scored big Blaxploitation hits with "Black Caesar" and "Hammer", whereas the real tough black dude - Isaac Hayes - would only become a huge star shortly after the release of "Three Tough Guys", namely with his very own testosterone-packed blockbuster "Truck Turner".
Say what you want about these Italian filmmakers, but they are great marketers!
Anyway, onwards with the story, this opens with the cowardly murder of an insurance agent outside a nightclub.
Apparently he was single-handedly investigating a million dollar bank heist and came a little too close to the truth.
His closest friend a tough ex-veteran turned priest swears to catch whoever killed him and starts a nightly private investigation via sleazy bars and dark alleys filled with heavily armed thugs
on his bike, nonetheless!
Father Charlie soon receives back-up from a former cop who has a score of his own to settle.
It's no real secret that all traces eventually lead to Williamson, the über-villain for a change!
"Three Tough Guys" is a neat hybrid between Italian exploitation and Baadassssssss Cinema, although not highly memorable and badly suffering from the lamentable production values.
There are slightly too many tedious sequences to struggle through, but the on screen chemistry between Isaac Hayes and Lino Ventura feels surprisingly authentic and the script contains several funny parts.
The amount of brutal violence and sleaze is quite a letdown, but Hayes' own soundtrack is very catchy and Duccio Tessari's ("The Bloodstained Butterfly", "Death Occurred Last Night") direction is fairly solid.
So far, the Grindhouse Collection box-set is the only way to get your dirty little hands on this film, but I do hope a fully restored version will appear on DVD in the near future, as it deserves to be slightly more known..
Pretty good for what it is.
A film like this never gets any respect from the industry it bankrolls.
Someone tacked the title "Three Tough Guys" onto the film when it obviously should have been "Two Tough Guys" (as the title sequence song by Isaac Hayes accurately reflects).
But someone wanted to the public to think that the film featured as much of Fred Williamson as it did the actual "two tough guys", when in fact, Williamson is barely involved.
I would be surprised if analysis revealed that he was on-screen for more than 10 or 12 actual minutes.
So if you want to see this film just for Williamson, you probably will be disappointed.
But the film has a lot going for it - at least for a genre exploitation film.
I could listen to Hayes read the phone book and enjoy it.He's not really an actor, but he's relaxed and comfortable on camera and he's fun to watch.
It's a shame that his film career didn't go further.
I've never seen the Italian guy before, but he is pretty convincing here as the world's toughest crime-fighting priest; he has a forceful presence that lets him pull off what is essentially a ridiculous role.
A lot of actors couldn't make this part work (even some pretty good ones), but he mixes piety and punching in a way that carries the movie quite well.There isn't a lot of chemistry between the two leads, but the dialog is spare and unsentimental and it hardly ever seems forced.
The screenwriter (and the Italian film industry) didn't indulge in their normal practice of having everyone talk way too much (especially in the English dub) for once, and the results are pretty good for American sensibilities.
There's lots of punching, lots of gun-play, a bit of actual suspense, and some fairly good characterization (for an Italian exploitation flick) even for the minor parts.
(One exception is the "bishop", who is forced to play the exasperated part usually reserved for the rogue cop's chief in standard cop thrillers.
He sucks on toast, but it's not really his fault - it's the weakest and most contrived role in the movie and there isn't much he can do with it.) The DVD conversion in the "Grindhouse Experience" collection is pretty bad - lots of blurring, some scenes so dark you can hardly tell what's going on, some muffled sound here and there,etc.
But I've seen worse conversions - even in this collection - and for once the English dub is pretty good.
If you can't find this movie, don't fret - you aren't missing all that much.
But as a representative choice for a "Grindhouse Experience", this is actually a very strong entry in the collection, easily in the top 5..
going out of my way.
This is to my knowledge Lino Ventura's only American production (though directed by an Italian director):it's amazing for an European to see him play opposite Isaac Hayes ,but the pair works quite well.Ventura portrays a priest ,an updated version of Leo MCCarey's Father O' Maley ("going my way" ) in the seventies ,who does not content himself with celebrating the mass (the way he finishes his second service is very funny) but keeps a close watch on his flock and plays the occasional detective .His colorful character contrasts with his co-star's restrained performance who also wrote the music as he often did at the time.There's also a supporting part of a finally modern bishop.Good actors ,but a very derivative screenplay however..
International co-production with mixed influences.
THREE TOUGH GUYS is a film with varied influences.
Made with French and Italian funding, shot in America by an Italian crew and produced by Dino De Laurentiis, it's a movie that attempts to cash-in on two big genres of the time: the blaxploitation film and the gangster epic.
Thus we get a buddy-buddy cop story in which a hard-fighting priest and a tough black ex-cop team up to battle some gangster types searching for missing loot.
The guy directing this is Duccio Tessari, a guy who pumped out a few peplum and spaghetti western flicks among others during a long and varied career.Despite – or maybe because of – the diverse influences, this film actually works as a fairly good thriller.
It hasn't got much in it that's not been seen elsewhere, but the story moves along quickly and the various shoot-outs and fist-fights are well handled.
It also boasts some interesting leads.
I don't know who Lino Ventura is, but his hard-bitten priest character is definitely tough.
Isaac Hayes, playing opposite him, is a giant of a man with the softest of voices, and contributes some decent music to the proceedings.
The third of the tough guys is Fred Williamson, appearing as a little-seen villain in this.
It's unusual seeing Williamson cast as a bad guy and I wish he'd been on screen more, but there's no knocking his presence.
Character actors familiar from Italian cinema pop up, like William Berger and Jess Hahn.There are a few car chases thrown in for good measure, along with some antagonistic cops and a fantastic interlude in which one of our heroes is very nearly fed into a furnace.
The set-piece finale takes place at a run-down bowling alley, but not before plenty of people have been shot or beaten up.
It may not win any awards for wit or originality, but THREE TOUGH GUYS is a perfectly serviceable entry in both the blaxploitation and crime genres..
I Really Feel This Should Have Been Good, But It Was Not. The Black Moses, The Hammer, and The Preacher Man. They've got their own kind of mean game.This film is directed by Duccio Tessari, assisted by a staff of other unknown Italians.
A whole lot of things you never saw, including a film called "Sundance Cassidy and Butch the Kid".The opening theme sounds like a take on the "Shaft" theme, which is no surprise as it is sung by Isaac Hayes, who stars alongside Fred Williamson.
Mysteriously, the song is about "two tough guys" (not three, as the title claims) and seems to be the inspiration for Hayes' later song about Beavis and Butt-Head.The picture quality, at least on the Fortune 5 DVD, is incredibly blurry or fuzzy at times, especially when light saturation is involved.
Aside from that, it is pretty standard for the time, and almost good considering the notoriously awful quality Italian productions have.Seems to be set in America, but the priest has a thick accent.
A likable, if rather lightweight 70's blaxploitation romp.
Tough, two-fisted Italian Catholic priest Father Charlie (well played with steely conviction by Lino Ventura) and rugged ex-cop Lee Stevens (a solid and charismatic performance by Isaac Hayes) join forces to find out who's responsible for a recent bank robbery in which one million dollars got stolen.
Naturally, these guys find themselves neck deep in all kinds of trouble.
Director Duccio Tessari relates the fun story at a constant snappy pace, makes fine use out of the gritty urban Chicago locations, adds a few amusingly quirky touches (for example, Father Charlie performs last rites on recently killed criminals!), and sprinkles plenty of rousing shoot-outs and rough'n'ready fisticuffs throughout.
Fred Williamson has a welcome change-of-pace bad guy role as the nasty Joe Snake, plus there are sound supporting turns by Paula Kelly as scared hooker Fay, Vittorio Sanipoli as smooth businessman Mike Petralia, William Berger as the hard-nosed Captain Ryan, and Luciano Salce as a disapproving bishop.
Hayes' funky, throbbing, soul-deep score hits the groovy spot.
Aldo Tonti's slick cinematography likewise does the trick.
While this movie is pretty tame and inoffensive compared to most 70's blaxploitation grindhouse fare (there's no nudity, only mild profanity, and the violence isn't that graphic), the breezy tone and engaging chemistry between the well-matched leads make this picture an enjoyable enough diversion. |
tt0101121 | Homefront | Two years after the raids of a gang's meth lab where his cover was broken, former DEA Agent Phil Broker (Jason Statham) and his daughter Maddy (Izabela Vidovic) have moved to a small Louisiana town where Maddy's deceased mother grew up. Maddy gets into a schoolyard fight with a bully named Teddy Klum; when Broker comes to the school, Teddy's hostile father, Jimmy (Marcus Hester), picks a fight with him and loses. Cassie Klum (Kate Bosworth) later asks her brother, a drug dealer named Gator Bodine (James Franco), to scare Broker.
Broker fights off a few of Gator's thugs at a gas station when they threaten him. While he and Maddy later go horseback riding, Gator breaks into their house. He deduces from old personnel files that Broker was the undercover cop responsible for the arrest of Danny T (Chuck Zito) in the raid two years earlier. Hoping to get a wider distribution for the drugs he manufactures, Gator tips off Danny T, who sends members of his gang to kill Broker.
Broker finds Gator's meth lab and sabotages it. He is captured and tortured by the same thugs he fought off earlier, but manages to fight them off and escape. As he and Maddy are preparing to leave, the gang members arrive. In the scuffle, Broker manages to kill most of the gang members and Maddy is kidnapped, but not before she calls the police. She uses her cell phone to call her dad and, from her descriptions, Broker realizes that she has been taken to Gator's meth lab.
Cassie arrives at Gator's warehouse with news of the gunfight. When she discovers Maddy there, she accidentally sets off the booby trap that Broker has set up. The lab and much of the warehouse explode, and Gator watches his business go up in flames. A scuffle ensues and Gator shoots Cassie before fleeing with Maddy in his truck. Broker chases him in a police cruiser until they find themselves stuck on a bridge closed off by the sheriff. Broker beats up Gator badly, stopping short of shooting him in front of the police when he notices his daughter watching.
Gator is arrested and Broker later visits Danny T in prison, letting him know that he will be around when Danny T is eventually released. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Great post-WW2 based drama that ABC killed.
Based on the time period after WW2 ended, different families, all somehow connected, strive to get on with their lives despite personal losses.
A very well written, directed, acted and produced show that kept audiences returning each week to see each new episode, only to be canned by ABC.
It returned for a short time (viewer protests), again with ABC abusing it to cut back the ratings so that they could cancel it again without any complaints since no one knew when it came on anymore..
Homefront was a wonderful post WWII drama.
It showed the viewers what life was like after our "boys" came home from the war.
It was a great character study of the post war era, and how things had changed for America and her people.
This was the story younger people had never seen before, because our grandparents and parents couldn't capture it quite the way this series did.
Homefront is powerful television that simply is not seen on TV today.Yes it was a soap opera but it covered all the bases like no other soap ever did.It takes place right after WW II ended in a small town, River Run,Ohio.
Not one actor or actress is miscast, the African-American race is neither ignored nor invisible as so many shows do yet the writers don't beat you over the head with good or bad race relations.Housing shortages,labor problems,foreign war brides,loss of jobs all these topics are covered beautifully in a show that was only on two lousy years!The pairing of couples was also well done with a few pleasant surprises.Kyle Chandler(jeff)& Tammy Lauren(ginger)were only supposed to get together one time with a pregnancy scare involved.They became a breakout super couple that stole the show and whose love affair had us all laughing & crying til they wed on the very last episode.In the meantime an older actor came aboard as a love interest for Jessica Steen(linda) who is Jeff's sister.He immediately clicked with the actress playing her mother and they were paired up and also married and had a baby on the show.Two great surprises.ABC totally mishandled this show and never appreciated the audience that was watching.However ten years later folks still say this was one of the great ones and I'm glad I have my copies of the show to take me back down memory lane.Now if only we could get the show on DVD!!!!.
I really love a lot of the musicals that came out in the late '40's, and this show was a great series set in the same time period.
The Metcalf family included widowed mother Anne, whose eventual love affair with a Jewish union organizer shocked her grown children.
Caroline Hailey was a British war bride, far more ambitious than her American husband, who was content with his life the way it was.The fashions and hairstyles were wonderfully accurate - I remember one of the actresses griping in an interview that they had to wear vintage underwear, and it was uncomfortable!.
BUT, such was the quality of the storyline, script and actors that I DID sit up until all hours to watch it (I couldn't risk setting the vcr to tape it in case they did change the start time that week!).It's now been 10 years since it has screened here and yet I still hold it fondly in my heart as one of my favourites.PLEASE Warner Bros, release this fine series on DVD!!.
I had to wait 9 years for TVLand to fill my need; this time I taped every episode!
"Homefront" offered fully developed, three dimensional characters, gripping storylines that gave different points of view to the same situation.
By the way, if this change in the values continues for another 50 years, where do we end up..?
The changes in our societies have been very rapid since late forties, and this series shows many nostalgic scenes of that good old time.The music track matches this series 100%.
I'ts been ten years since Homefront aired here in the backside of Scandinavia, and coincidentally i've been kicking myself that same amount of time for not taping it when i had a chance.
Period dramas are quite tricky and i'm still baffled that ABC ever showed green light to this one, and two seasons ain't bad in that context.
If somebody would try to launch Homefront nowadays i wouldn't bet a nickel for it lasting even one full season, the times surely have changed that much since early 90's.
This series offered best production values, damn good drama and ensemble cast that was just amazing.
Let's hope that somebody somewhere will get another brainstorm and get this series in DVD format, like the man says in the song, gotta ac-cen-tu-ate the positive.
This show was one of my all time favorites and one of the best shows ever.
Of course, like a number of past shows on the big three networks, it was rewarded for its excellence by cancellation.
This show was a wonderful portrait of mid American life in the post world War 2 period.
Sometimes, I think TV is a device to make us dumb,and that whenever a good show briefly slips through the cracks, and actually tries to , God help us, provoke thought, it is rapidly canceled, unless the writers come up with a clever enough gimmick, like a mysterious Island, or a suburban Mafia family, or a father and son team of defense attorneys.
Homefront - An excellent series from the golden age.
I remember the first time I saw "Homefront".
I have been interested in the music from the WWII-era since I was a little kid (still do) but I really got a close look at the 1940's through this series and it made me even more fascinated by this era.
I felt that this series gave me a more easier and gentle introduction to the life in the 1940's then the old black and white documentaries do.
I really hope this series is launched on DVD really soon so I can show it to other people I know so there will more fans in the future.
Homefront is one of those shows that rang true from beginning to end.
But watching the 48 hour marathon in May raised my opinion of the show--I had forgotten (or didn't appreciate in 1991) how it drew the viewer in to River Run and the Post War world.
The writing was simply excellent; the social issues delineated so clearly without getting too preachy and the characters so "touchable." In a cast of compelling actors, Kyle Chandler was a standout--very endearing as Jeff Metcalf--heartbreakingly sweet, funny, passionate, AND drop dead gorgeous..
Tammy Lauren is one of the best television actresses and Kyle Chandler was too cute for words (he's still pretty cute on Early Edition).
It seems to be a trend in the networks, killing off the good ones because it doesn't meet their demographic, or they monkeyed with the time slot till it died.
Especially this year with the writer's strike, so many shows got cancelled, not because they weren't good, but because of mismanagement.
I would buy Homefront on DVD if I could find it.
This has been made possible through the release of time period marketing for many products used today!
Finally you add in the war buffs and those that are currently on the homefront and waiting to see when and if their loved one's will come home, and wondering what will it be like when they get here!
It is a story of tragedy, hope, failures, and successes, as well as showing everyone that we would all be better off if we looked out for each other instead of back stabbing and climbing over them to get ahead!
I hope for everyone that they finally agree to release this on DVD.
One of the best shows of all time!!!!!.
Set in small town River Run, OH just at the end of WWII this show had it all: drama, comedy, romance, and history.
Homefront was a show that not only entertained, but educated about life in the 1940's with issues such as racism, feminism, polio outbreaks/scares, & worker's rights, not to mention the lifestyle of the men & women and how they dealt with each other.
We even got to see what it was like to see a television set for the first time, to jitterbug, to try to make it as a starlet in Hollywood, and what radio shows were like.I just have to say that Homefront is one of my very favorite shows of all time (and I only have 3)!
This show just never got a good chance to find an audience due to ABC moving it around so much...too bad.
releases it to DVD soon so that more people can enjoy it.
I have a space saved for the Homefront series next to my Lord of the Rings films and my AA winning Best Picture collection.
(Yes, I also have space for the Hobbit should it be made.) :) If the person who owns the right to the DVD for this series reads this, or you know the person please tell them, "Please release the Homefront series on DVD.
If you make DVDs, people will come.
It had humor and drama and such a good story and the cast was outstanding (especially Kyle Chandler, who will always be Jeff Metcalf to me).
I tried to tell people to watch it, but no one could keep up with the time slots.
I declined as usual because every show I started watching at the time was canceled within 13 weeks.
I do not understand why has taken so long to come out on DVD.
It is well acted, well directed, well cast and as short as it was great history of the times.
At the end of each episode I would feel saddened by the fact that I had to wait a whole long week until I could be with them again!
It's a sad thing when the 'suits' decide to cancel quality programs that have been given a lousy time slot, without attempting to move the show to a night when they wouldn't be competing with one of the top 5 highest rated TV shows on air at the time.
Homefront was one of the all-time greatest TV series.
Post-war life had to have been heart-breaking--learning to live without the son/brother/boyfriend who never came home, and this show managed to convey the hope and optimism which were all some were left with.
It showed a time before unions had become commonplace, and work conditions were often unfavorable to workers.
I was terribly disappointed when this series was canceled and often wish it were available for purchase on tape or DVD..
Like other viewers who commented on this show, I felt that it did not have a proper period of time to settle in and become part of people's viewing patterns.
I was almost ten years old when the war ended, old enough to know that much of what "Homefront" depicted was pretty accurate.
I think it tried to move too fast, charging full-speed into soap-opera-ness, with the characters becoming too involved, too fast, in things like union riots, premarital sex and pregnancy, the polio scares of the period, and so on.
There wasn't time for us to get a feel for life on the homefront during and immediately after the war.
It is absolutely one of the best one-hour drama shows ever produced.
The excellent ensemble cast reportedly became too unwieldy for ABC to handle and the production team wasn't skilled enough to keep it all together.A terrific idea and a great execution of the years immediately after WWII, with all of the adjustments that had to be made by everyone who had been living with a war for four or five years.
Very realistic despite the soap opera feel, it dealt with women being fired from their jobs when the men came home, union organizers suspected as communists, opportunistic British war brides, baseball, and religious hypocrisy.Kyle Chandler as the phenom ballplayer looks exactly like a young Lou Gehrig and Kelly Rutherford looks just like a 40s screen siren.
Homefront is an excellent show with an outstanding cast.
The storyline keeps you wanting more and supplies a great history lesson at the same time.
I ditto everyone else's comments on the plot, characters, writing, producing, awards, hair and dress - the whole genre - WWII, union labor, communism, fuller brushes, post prohibition, red lipstick.
Does anyone know where you can get dvds, VHS, whatever of the entire series?
second it has not been released on DVD when all kinds of other less deserving shows have been released.
come on will somebody please give the OK to release this show for DVD.
i often wondered what it was like to live in America after WWII.
come on give the metcalf's and the people of river run a chance to shine again.
Life on the "homefront" just after WWII ends..
Incredible story line depicting life in the 40's complete with social issues, period fashions, interesting characters, etc.
Homefront was an excellent series that somehow went unnoticed by most people.
I remember watching this show for the first time, not really interested in the program (not a wartime/retro buff), but nothing better was on.
After watching the episode though, I remember thinking "Wow, that was REALLY GOOD." Never before, nor since then, have I felt that way about any television program.
I was hooked on the show, but if I recall correctly, some of the story lines towards the end of the series started becoming too outlandish for my taste.
Still, the show had great potential, and was cut off much too soon.It's been too many years since the show was on, but I still remember bits and pieces.
I'll have to watch this show again to see if it is still as good as I remember..
I couldn't remember exactly what year (s) it was on, and I still can't figure out what network it showed on.
I agree - it needs to be released on DVD!
I loved this series when it was on..
I am constantly looking for this series on DVD and have had no luck finding it.
I absolutely loved this series.
I am a huge Johnny Mercer fan and every time I here the opening refrains of his classic hit "Accentuate The Positive" I get nostalgic for my all time favorite TV show, "Homefront!" The only thing more disturbing than ABC's disregard for the the shows many fans during it's short run, is the continued disregard for the small army of viewers clamoring for it's release on DVD.
There was still a world to rebuild, and it took many more years for all of the soldiers to return to the Homefront and that is when much of the real impact of the war set in for those back home.
You just might find that there is a lot more tolerance in Mississippi then you imagine, and much less in Ohio then you think!That all being said, I would love to have even that sorry DVD copy of the show you weren't impressed much by!.
Homefront on DVD.
I recently obtained a complete set of Homefront on DVD from a company in Canada.
I had forgotten the exceptional quality of the writing and acting of this series.
The only comparable series that comes to mind is American Dreams...and, of course that ended prematurely, too.
With Kyle Chandler now on Frdiay Night Lights, it would seem that you could market this enough to make it worth marketing on DVD.One of the best shows on TV.
This was one of the finest written shows on TV bu it seem as if not many people knew about it.
This was one of the finest written shows on TV bu it seem as if not many people knew about it.
This was/is an incredible series that continues to be my all time favorite.
I really hope someone will wake up and release this series on DVD while the market is hot...they are releasing so many TV series, HOMEFRONT deserves to be on the shelves so we can get it back in our homes!
It was like seeing "My So-Called Life" end...just terrible.
Please release this awesome series on DVD..
The characters are so real the stories so well written-please put this on the air again!
My 13&14 year old boys had much more understanding for the plight of single mothers &minorities from watching this quality drama.
I will definitely buy this series if it ever comes out on DVD.
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com.
Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago.
That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago.
When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either.
Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended.
Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable.
The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something.
Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. |
tt0034465 | Arabian Nights | The story starts at a harem in Persia, where the elderly overseer bids his young charges to read the story of Haroun al-Rashid (Hall) and his wife Sherazade (Montez), unfolding the film's plot in the process.
Sherazade, a dancer in a wandering circus owned by Ahmad (Billy Gilbert) - whose troupe also includes Sinbad the Sailor and Aladdin, who have seemingly fallen on hard times -, had captured the attention of Kamar (Erickson), the brother of caliph Haroun al-Rashid. In his infatuation with her, and because of a prophecy which names her as the future queen, Kamar had attempted to seize the throne, but was captured and sentenced to slow death by exposure. As Haroun visits his brother, for whom he feels pity, Kamar's men storm the palace and free their leader; outnumbered, Haroun is forced to flee. He manages to get near the plaza where Sherazade's circus is performing and is spotted by the young acrobat Ali Ben Ali (Sabu), who finds out his identity and decides to hide him in the circus, confiding only in Sherazade (though he does not tell her about the fugitive's true identity). Upon awakening from the wounds he had received in his flight, Haroun beholds Sherazade and instantly falls in love with her.
Meanwhile, Kamar, thinking that Haroun is dead, assumes the throne of Baghdad, but to his chagrin Sherazade is not to be found, and he orders the captain of his guard (Turhan Bey) to find her. But then the scheming Grand Vizier Nadan (Edgar Barrier) approaches the captain with the order to make Sherazade 'disappear', and upon finding them the captain decides to sell the troupe into slavery. But due to a witness the captain is exposed, and in order to preserve his plans, Nadan first gets him to confess and then murders him.
Haroun, Sherazade, and the acrobats manage to escape the slave pens and flee to the border, where they are found by Kamar's army and taken to a tent city in the desert. Kamar proposes to Sherazade, but she has in the meantime fallen in love with Haroun. Also, Nadan recognizes the caliph and his affection for Sherazade, and he uses this knowledge to blackmail Sherazade into helping him in his scheme: in exchange for Haroun's freedom, she is to poison Kamar during the wedding ceremony, upon which Nadan would assume rulership for himself. In secret, however, he plans to have Haroun killed once he has crossed the border.
Upon learning of this insidious scheme, Ali confides in his fellow performers, and they rush to free Haroun; then Haroun decides to free Sherazade with the help of the acrobats, while Ali is to summon the troops still loyal to him. Haroun and the others are quickly captured, and Sherazade and the retainers learn of his true identity. Kamar engages his brother in a sword fight, while Ahmad and the acrobats set the tents on fire; the arrival of Ali and the caliph's army triggers a massive battle with Kamar's men.
Finally, as Kamar prepares to deliver the deathstroke to Haroun, Nadan shows his true allegiance by assassinating Kamar personally. But as he prepares to finish Haroun, Ahmad and Ali interfere, forcing him to flee. But a spear thrown into his back stops him, and he dies in a burning tent; Haroun, Sherazade, their friends and the loyal subjects celebrate victory. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Arabian Nights is one of the best early Technicolor efforts out of Hollywood and it really shows.
For the men, there's the gorgeous Maria Montez (OK, so the boys will enjoy her too.) For the ladies, the costuming will simply amaze you.
Seeing it on video has allowed me to revisit that past time when as a child the world was uncertain and it was possible to escape into a costume-splendoured fantasy where the hero gets the girl, saves the kingdom and justice is served.
Since I've recently written an article on MARIA MONTEZ, let me quote directly from it to describe this Maria Montez/Jon Hall/Sabu outing:"The fact that she couldn't sing or dance seemed to be no obstacle to Maria since she was brimming with confidence--although aside from voice dubbing, it was later revealed that a dance double was used to perform parts of her routine.With Walter Wanger in charge of its lavish production, she was given "Arabian Nights" ('42), a classic fantasy tale that--fortunately--no one was expected to take seriously.
As if to make sure of that, the trio of stars were supported by one of The Three Stooges (Shemp Howard) as Sinbad.
Another supporting player in the cast was Turhan Bey who would eventually be promoted to co-starring roles with Montez.
The boyish Sabu, no longer under contract to Alexander Korda, proved to be one of the most charming ingredients of the film and played a huge role in the story which had Montez captured by an evil caliph and rescued by Sabu who rides through the desert sands to rescue her.With Montez in filmy silks, gaudy baubles and turbaned headdress looking like a fairy-tale princess and muscular Jon Hall sharing the romantic interludes, audience response was enthusiastic.
The lavish production values, exotic settings and personable trio made the tale satisfying for patrons seeking easy-on-the-eye entertainment.
Lee Mortimer of the N.Y. Daily Mirror noted: 'After her performance in this opus, Maria Montez climbs several steps in everybody's estimation.'And apparently, the public agreed because it was a huge hit."For pure escapism, you couldn't beat these Maria Montez-Jon Hall films with the accent on adventure and romance in exotic settings and all designed to showcase her Latin beauty.
More discriminating viewers noted that the acting was on a grade school level despite the big budget of most of the technicolor films she appeared in.By the way, the article will appear in an upcoming issue of CLASSIC IMAGES..
ARABIAN NIGHTS (John Rawlins, 1942) ***.
I had long wanted to revisit this one since my one and only viewing of it had occurred long ago (back in the mid-1980s) and given that I am partial to Arabian Nights extravaganzas.
Frankly, I was very disappointed that Universal decided to issue this one on DVD by itself a couple of years ago instead of releasing a Franchise Collection comprising several of its equally colorful follow-ups from the same studio; in the end, I didn't pick the disc up but, in view of the problematic copy I eventually ended up with, it would perhaps had been wiser if I did!
Anyway, this movie has a lot to answer for: it was the ideal form of cinematic escapism for WWII picturegoers and reaped big box office returns for Universal which ensured that they went back to the desert of Arabia for many more times thereafter in the next decade or so.
Despite the generic title, the film isn't actually a filmic depiction of one of the classic stories but rather Universal's own concoction with every known ingredient thrown into the mix for added value: so it is that historical figures (Haroun-Al-Raschid) rub shoulders with mythical ones (Sinbad, Aladdin, Scheherazade) and are subverted or sanitized into the process.
Dashing hero Jon Hall plays Haroun-Al-Raschid as a deposed Caliph seeking to regain his throne usurped by his villainous and seemingly love-crazed brother (Leif Ericson); the object of his unrequited affections is Scheherazade which is actually misspelled in the credits!
played by the iconic "Queen of Technicolor" Maria Montez.
Sinbad and Aladdin, then, are incongruously but humorously portrayed as amiable buffoons by familiar character actors John Qualen and Shemp Howard respectively; the latter is always on the point of spinning one of his seafaring yarns yet again before being shut up by his ill-tempered circus employer Billy Gilbert!
The third lead role is taken by exotic Indian star Sabu who had already visited this territory in the quintessential Arabian Nights tale (and definitive film), the magnificent Alexander Korda production of THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1940); what the film under review lacks in comparison to the latter is the omission of wizardry and special effects.As I said, this formula proved so successful that Universal reunited variations of the star combo several times afterwards WHITE SAVAGE (1943), ALI BABA AND THE FORTY THIEVES (1944), COBRA WOMAN (1944; see above), GYPSY WILDCAT (1944), SUDAN (1945; also helmed by Rawlins) and TANGIER (1946).
Another measure of its being welcome at the time of release is the fact that ARABIAN NIGHTS was nominated for 4 Academy Awards in these categories: art direction-set decoration, cinematography (this was Universal's first three-strip Technicolor production and, over 60 years later, the colors still leap off the screen), music (Frank Skinner's score is appropriately rousing) and sound recording.
This ancient fantasy of two brothers who are caliphs-in-waiting is a dazzling, colorful film presented in lush Technicolor.
Maria Montez is the beautiful and exotic Sherazade who desires the trappings of wealth and power as she aspires to marry a caliph.
Jon Hall is a virile and likable hero and Leif Erickson and Edgar Barrier are also good in supporting roles but it is Sabu who leaves the best impression in this picture.
Nature's beauty of deep blue skies, thick white clouds and golden desert sand dunes are well-served in this yarn of palace intrigue and murder as the brothers battle for the kingdom's throne.
Chase scenes, sword fights and comedy are sprinkled throughout the story but it is the vibrant color interiors and exteriors that arrest all attention in this film..
Provided you really don't know or want to know the real tale of Scheherazade, then you'll no doubt enjoy this film.
The actual book, "The Arabian Nights" (also known as "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights"), was supposedly written by Princess Scheherazade and consists of many short stories she supposedly invented each night in order to save her life from her crazy husband.
In this movie there is no reference to this and apart from some of the names of characters from the book (such as Sinbad and Ali Baba), there isn't much similarity between them.
As for me, I enjoyed the silly escapism and learned to ignore all the mistakes in the film and the rather limp love affair between Maria Montez and Jon Hall .
It was nearly non-stop action and fun--complete with perhaps a bit too much slapstick provided by the very large stomach of Billy Gilbert.
However, I did enjoy the references to Sinbad and Ali Baba--especially because over and over, Ali (John Qualen) would grab every lamp he found and rubbed it furiously hoping for a genie.
Also, it was nice to see Shemp Howard in one of his many appearances before going on to replace his brother, Curley, as a Stooge.If you liked this silly adventure film, try watching Hall and Montez in COBRA WOMAN or Sabu in THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD--both of which are better than ARABIAN NIGHTS..
This action-packed adventure film is worth a watch, but it is not exactly a memorable film, and the story line suffers - secondary to all of the action taking place.
(The basic summary is about a man who ends up getting revenge and banding together with some close friends, including a slave girl who is his love interest.) It is a fun film, and the picture (shot in Technicolour) is beautiful.
(Excellent landscapes, colourful costumes, and much more come to life in the vibrant colour that this film was shot in.) If you want to watch something fun that doesn't require much thinking, then this movie won't let you down.5/10.
This film began a cycle for Universal Pictures of making all kinds of fantasy
The studio got its money's worth.Arabian Nights was the first screen teaming of Jon Hall and Maria Montez as
she plays the enchanting Scheherazade and he Haroun Al-Raschid the legendary medieval Caliph of Bagdad.
palace coup involving half brother Leif Erickson and the Wazir Edgar Barrier.Hall seeks refuge in Billy Gilbert's troop of strolling Moslem players which
include Montez and acrobat Sabu.
Shemp Howard as Sinbad who spins tall tales for the crowd's amusement.
you can see quite a bit of comic relief.It still a sumptuous looking film for the eye and the action keeps moving.
Arabian Nights got four Oscar nominations for sound, music score, color
cinematography and art&set design.If your taste runs to fantasy of this kind Arabian Nights is your movie..
Maria Montez and Sabu in splendid technicolor.
I do not understand why the video movie pack shows John Hall when really movie 80% begin to Maria Montez and 20% to Sabu.
Very silly but VERY colorful escapism.
Something about a handsome man (Jon Hall) and his brother both in love with beautiful Scheherazade (Maria Montez).
This was made to entertain audiences and giving them colorful mindless escapism...and it does that!
The picture never stops moving, there's plenty of action and a loud pounding score driving things along.
Hall and Montez are incredibly beautiful to look at but neither of them were good actors.
But worst of all is Shemp Howard (late one of the Three Stooges!) playing Sinbad!!!!
With mediocre acting, sets that appeared to be made out of cardboard and very corny dialogue, I don't see how anyone could recommend this movie.
While some of the characters had the same names as some of those from the book or other movies, their resemblance to anyone in the original story is virtually non-existent.
There were a couple plot parallels that helped the story, but even those could not save this movie.
Save your money and get the book or at least another retelling, called Arabian Nights, with Mili Avital, John Leguizamo and Jason Scott Lee..
What her roles (all of them variations of Scheherazade) required were ingredients she had a surplus of: statuesque bearing, regal demeanor, fiery beauty and, best of all, an unassailable confidence in herself
When one weighed all the things she couldn't do against the thing she did so well, the balance came out in her favor
Her film, "Arabian Nights," is a well presented oriental adventure which has nothing to do with its source material but entertained multitudes in search of relief from total war and was followed by several vaguely similar slices of hokum with the same stars....
NOTES: Nominated for the following prestigious Hollywood awards: Krasner, Skall and Greene for Color Cinematography, losing to Leon Shamroy's The Black Swan; Golitzen, Otterson, Gausman and Webb for Color Sets, losing to My Gal Sal; Bernard Brown for Sound Recording, losing to Yankee Doodle Dandy; Frank Skinner for Scoring of a Drama or Comedy, losing to Now, Voyager.Universal's first three-strip Technicolor feature, and the studio's top domestic box-office attraction of 1942-43.As for the writing credits, producer Walter Wanger stated at the time of the film's New York release that the story was written by Michael Hogan, True Boardman and Eddie Hartmann from a general outline by Alexander Golitzen.
The story is certainly silly enough for kids, but they're likely to take it seriously.COMMENT: "The woman whose beauty shames the glory of the sunset" (to quote some of the rich dialogue in this delightfully escapist yet ultra-lavish and regally elegant slice of eye-dazzling fantasy), namely Maria Montez, here makes her Technicolor debut.
Shortly to be crowned "Queen of Technicolor", Montez presents an exotically fiery, tantalizingly tempestuous personality, extravagantly costumed, exquisitely groomed.
Interestingly, as her box-office appeal was as yet unknown, she is not allowed to dominate the Nights as she did her subsequent films, like White Savage, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Cobra Woman, Gypsy Wildcat, Sudan and Pirates of Monterey.
Here, there's still plenty for Jon Hall and his seemingly acrobatic sidekick Sabu to get their hands on.
Turhan Bey, later to take precedence over Jon Hall as the romantic lead, is also in the cast; Leif (pronounced "Life") Erikson and Edgar Barrier enact the villains; whilst some additional comedy relief (the whole film is just one vast howl) is skilfully provided by our favorite (if impermanent) Stooge, Shemp Howard, plus John Qualen and Sneezy Gilbert.The trailer for this one is also a real hoot, the best of the lot.
How about: "See Bagdad enslaved by Hunnish hordes!" or, as the off-screen commentator breathlessly informs us, "see Romance in the shadow of the torture rack!" Cut to hero Jon Hall as he remarks (with a perfectly straight face) to heroine Maria Montez, "I'm curious why a girl so young, so lovely, should marry the ruthless Khan?" OTHER VIEWS: Lush color, attractive sets and costumes and plenty of action, somewhat offset by corny dialogue and juvenile plotting.
"Arabian Nights" served that purpose.
Most were shot in the spectacular three-strip Technicolor process and had similar plots and casts..Make no mistake about it, "Arabian Nights" is nothing more than a "B" adventure film dressed up in Technicolor with daring heroes, beautiful women and slap stick comedy.
The film could have done with out the ridiculous prologue (and epilogue) where a comedic looking sheik or something reads the story to a bunch of giggling members of a harem.The plot is simple.
Caliph Haroun-Al Raschid (Jon Hall) has put down a revolt by his brother Kamar (Leif Ericson) and has him being tortured in the public square.
With Al-Raschid believed dead, Kamar assumes the throne.Within the entertainment group is the beautiful dancer Sherazade (Maria Montez) whom Ahmad loves and with whom Al-Raschid also falls in love.
That's basically it.With Billy Gilbert (Ahmad), Shemp Howard (Sinbad) and John Qualen (Aladdin) around to provide the slapstick type humor, the story becomes a little more than a Three Stooges comedy.The real villain of the piece is Edgar Barrier as Nadan the scheming "trusted" assistant to Kamar.
A thin Thomas Gomez stands out as the evil slave trader Hakim who tries to sell off the lovely Sherazade as a slave.Sabu made a career out of this sort of role as the friend of the hero who manages to slip in and out of trouble in a likable manner.
Hall, Montez and Bey would go on to make similar such sand and sandal adventure films in the future..
The breath-taking color photography wins massive acclaim here in the first of the Maria Montez/Jon Hall/Sabu pairings where mostly American actors (and certainly none of Arabic background) put on traditional Islam attire and play dress-up in this cartoonish adventure.
Made with the mentality of teenaged boys, this silly but often entertaining adventure, is certainly outlandish, but if you go in expecting realism, you will be sorely disappointed.
It deals with two brothers who hate each other (Hall and Leif Erickson) fighting over the role of Caliph which Hall achieved through being the legitimate heir and Erickson has tried to claim through the assistance of loyal followers willing to resort to the most evil efforts in order to dethrone Hall.
Of course, this never comes, and when Hall visits his brother, he shows a kindness which Erickson literally spits back into his face.Both Hall and Erickson are enamored of the beautiful dancer Montez who only wants to marry the true heir.
When Erickson escapes, Hall is suddenly injured through a sudden thrust of an arrow, and Montez's acrobatic pal Sabu takes off his ring in an attempt to save his life.
Not revealing his real identity, the recovering Hall must now reclaim his throne, and this leads to a battle between brothers to the death.
In the meantime, there's a ton of juvenile style comedy, especially in the casting of Billy Gilbert as the head of Sabu's acrobatic troop.
You know the only weapon Gilbert will most likely use is his big belly which as you guess gives an added sound effect every time he thrusts it out to "boink" somebody off of him.
Then there's Shemp Howard as an aging Sinbad and John Qualen as an aging Aladdin, still searching for his lost lamp.
One funny moment has Qualen rubbing a lamp he's found and the apparent emergence of a genie.Still, the scene-stealer of this colorful caper is the always magnetic Sabu whose youthful personality and beautiful body are exposed while Hall seems to look on in envy.
Sabu and Montez were created for movies like this, and even when they become too silly to believe, they retain a youthful innocence that makes them absolutely charming and a lot of fun to watch.
ARABIAN NIGHTS is a rather routine Hollywood adaptation of the Middle Eastern source material, made with a juvenile audience in mind.
I guess the film-makers were attempting to distract contemporary audiences from all of the bad stuff going on around the world at the time, hence them making this very 'safe' piece of entertainment.Sadly, ARABIAN NIGHTS is simply too routine to be very entertaining.
The film also seems to be a bit miscast in terms of the lead actors.
Jon Hall is a dullish hero and Maria Montez, while acceptable, suffers from playing a one-dimensional Scheherazade.
The romance stuff is sappy and boring.To my disappointment, there isn't any of the magical/effects type stuff to enjoy here, and nor is there much in the way of action.
What we do get are some fun supporting turns from the likes of genre mainstay Sabu (underutilised, unfortunately), Shemp Howard randomly playing a comedic Sinbad, Turhan Bey, Laurel & Hardy comedy actor Billy Gilbert, and Leif Erickson. |
tt1773039 | Sella Turcica | While serving in the Middle East, Sergeant Bradley Roback and his squad vanished while on patrol, their equipment and vehicles being found abandoned, with no signs of a struggle. Days after their disappearance, Brad and ten of the other twelve missing soldiers turned up unconscious outside of their base. When the men woke up in the LRMC in Germany, they were found to be suffering from unexplainable physical impairments. Brad lost the ability to walk, taste and see in color, and is plagued by frequent and severe headaches that are exacerbated by high-pitched noise.
Brad is sent home to his family, where his condition causes some tension, something not helped by his sister Ashley's insensitive boyfriend, Gavyn. As hours pass, Brad's body and mind deteriorate. He has periods of unresponsiveness, suffers from seizures, a wound on his right foot worsens, he becomes more gaunt, his eyes and tongue swell, his fingernails and teeth yellow, and he begins expelling a black fluid from his ears, mouth and anus. In the morning after his return, Brad is found by his mother, Karmen, ingesting a large amount of salt in the kitchen, having apparently entered the room under his own power. As his mother gets his wheelchair from the parlor, Brad returns to his bed, and becomes semi-catatonic, refusing to move and denying that he needs to go to a hospital when his brother Bruce suggests it.
When Gavyn stops by, his blunt comments about Brad's condition and his relationship with Ashley sparks a fight between him and Bruce. After Bruce goes outside to cool off, and gets into an argument with his mother in the yard, Brad (who has just killed and ate the family dog, Fulci) wheels into the kitchen, stands up, and attacks Gavyn. Gavyn's screams alert Bruce and Karmen, who find him dead from severe head trauma, and Brad convulsing on the floor. As Bruce tries to revive Brad, Ashley (who had just arrived home from dance practice) leads their mother out of the room. As soon as Ashley and Karmen leave, Brad springs to life, rips Bruce's lower jaw off, and clumsily stumbles after his mother and sister, emitting animalistic noises.
Brad finds Ashley and Karmen, and kills the former by punching through a door and impaling her through the neck on the splintered wood, subsequently ripping her head off. As Brad struggles to get to her, Karmen bludgeons him with a metal wall ornament, prompting a slug-like creature to burst out of his sella turcica (seemingly confirming Brad's earlier, sarcastic theory that he and his squad were abducted and experimented on by aliens). Karmen beats Brad and the entity to death, and the film ends with home movies of the Robacks, and Karmen's husband returning home to discover his wife has hanged herself in the garage. | violence, cult, psychedelic, romantic, melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0068315 | Brian's Song | The movie begins as Chicago Bears running back Gale Sayers (Williams) arrives to team practice as an errant punt is sent to Sayers. Running back Brian Piccolo (Caan) goes to retrieve the ball, and Sayers flips it to him. Before Sayers meets with coach George Halas (Jack Warden) in his office, Piccolo tells him – as a prank – that Halas has a hearing problem, and Sayers acts strangely at the meeting. Sayers pranks him back by placing mashed potatoes on his seat while Piccolo is singing his alma mater's fight song. During practice, Piccolo struggles while Sayers shines. Sayers and Piccolo are placed as roommates, a rarity during the racial strife at the time. Sayers quickly becomes a standout player, but he injures his knee in a game against the San Francisco 49ers. To aid in Sayers' recovery, Piccolo brings a weight machine to his house. In Sayers' place, Piccolo rushes for 160 yards in a 17–16 win over the Los Angeles Rams, and is given the game ball. Piccolo challenges Sayers to a race across the park, where Sayers stumbles but wins. Piccolo is given the starting fullback position, and both he and Sayers excel. But Piccolo starts to lose weight and his performance declines, so he is sent to a hospital for a diagnosis. Soon after, Halas tells Sayers that Piccolo has cancer. In an emotional speech to his teammates, Sayers states that they will give Piccolo the game ball. After a game against the St. Louis Cardinals, Sayers visits Piccolo's wife, who reveals that Piccolo has to have another surgery for his tumor. After he is awarded the "George S. Halas Most Courageous Player Award", Sayers dedicates his speech to Piccolo, telling the crowd that they had selected the wrong person for the award and saying, "I love Brian Piccolo, and I'd like all of you to love him, too. And tonight, when you hit your knees, please ask God to love him." In a call, Sayers mentions that he gave Piccolo a pint of blood while he was in critical condition. Piccolo dies with his wife by his side. The movie ends with a flashback of Piccolo and Sayers running through the park, while the narrator says that Piccolo died at age 26 and is remembered as he lived, rather than how he died. | prank | train | wikipedia | Billy Dee Williams and James Caan were just starting out their careers and TV movies were still fairly new.
In times of racial trouble, inner family strife, and complete distrust of your fellow man, this movie showed what the world would really be like if people got rid of "oneupmanship" and lived life for life itself.I HIGHLY recommend the original version (1971)The acting was not campy, there was nothing to be really showy about, the football clips were some of the best ever incorporated (they actually became part of the plot), and other male leads were extremely believable in their roles.The females weren't too bad, either..
The film does a fantastic job of establishing a strong bond between the two lead characters, played by James Caan and Billy Dee Williams.
Then, at the end, when Billy Dee says "I love Brian Piccolo..." I lost it!
It is a story of 2 men--Gale and Brian...2 unlikely people to become the best of friends...The actors were well cast--James Caan and Billy Dee Sayers fit their roles to a tee.
I saw a remake of this film quite recently but I think the original movie was much better than the remake..
I still remember sitting down with my family to watch "Brian's Song", the made for TV movie in 1971.
It is a touching tribute to a ordinary football player, Brian Piccolo, who lead a extraordinary life.
Billy Dee Williams (Sayers) and James Caan (Piccolo) give the exact right emotional level to their parts, and it brings the rest of the cast into the story.
I do agree with the previous reviewer that if you can watch Sayers' speech upon winning the George Halas "Most Courageous Player" award without tearing up (or, more accurately, blubbering like a buffoon), you're probably not human.DO NOT watch the remake - it was horrible.
It's a football movie, a buddy movie, a comedy and a tragedy, with actual game footage of the inimitable Gale Sayers.
James Caan and Billy Dee Williams are perfect as the two teammates who become friends and then even more.
The portrayed the guys friendship so well.It's too bad we all can't know a friend like these two had!Watch the original movie!.
It just seems to have a strange effect on men.The film tells the true story of two football players, Gale Sathers and Brian Picola and the struggles they must face as the first Black and White roomates in professional sports.That alone would be interesting enough, as the first half of the movie proves, but there's more to this story than that.
I don't want to give anything away so I will wrap up by saying that both James Caan and Billy de Williams are exceptional in this film and I would highly recomend it to anyone..
It was the story of two Chicago Bears Football players, one black and the other white, who become close friends and room mates until cancer claims the life of one of them.
James Caan and Billy Dee Williams give splendid performances as did the rest of the supporting cast.
The final scene when Piccolo is dying bring tears to my eyes every time I watch the film (I've seen it at least ten times.) It's an unforgettable story of courage and true friendship.
In 1965, Gayle Sayers and Brian Piccolo were rookie running backs for the Chicago Bears.
For I would say two thirds of its short run time (minus TV commercials, it comes in at a little under an hour and a quarter) this is essentially a football movie.
The friendship is well developed, but there's a heavy emphasis on training shots and a lot of really good real football footage, mostly of some spectacular runs by Sayers.
The movie also features a pretty strong performance from Jack Warden as the legendary Chicago bears coach George Halas.
As a big fan of TV-movies from the 70's, you'd think I'd have seen "Brian's Song" a lot sooner.
I finally watched it, and wasn't disappointed.You know the story, two football players, one white, one black, become best buds and help each other out.
James Caan is superb as always, and Billy Dee Williams is pretty good.At first, it seemed a major part of the plot would have involved race.
The whole movie actually is pretty good, and the friendship is built up nicely, We never really know why Caan as Picolo chose Billy Dee to be friends with, but it really doesn't matter.
Like someone else said, I dare ya not to cry during the "I love Brian Piccolo speech"..
Brian's Song is not a football movie.
Brian's Song is as fine a movie as any ever made with big budgets and big stars.I don't think anyone can watch Brian's Song without feeling something touch their soul.
James Caan as Brian Piccolo and Billie Dee Williams as Gale Sayers give two of the finest performances of their careers bringing to life the friendship and courage of these two football players whose lives rise far above the game they play..
Quiet Gale Sayers (Billy Dee Williams) joins the Chicago Bears and is befriended by the brash Brian Piccolo (James Caan).
It starts off with Piccolo playing a joke on Sayers telling him that coach Halas (Jack Warden) is deaf in one ear.
The two and their wives become great friends enduring many challenges.In the ashes of the racial strife of the previous decade, this TV movie hits on the timely subject by showing the healing powers of a post-racial true friendship.
I totally cried my eyes out when legendary Chicago Bears football player Brian Piccolo was stricken with terminal cancer and the other players, especially Gale Sayers, dedicated themselves to do their best to win the game for their fellow teammate and friend.
This classic tearjerker film, Brian's Song, is definitely and absolutely a must for all football fans everywhere, and it is not to be missed!
But if you don't know the story of Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo then I suggest you watch this movie.
The television movie stuck to the story and draws emotion out of you by showing the budding friendship between two men.
The speech that Gale Sayers gives about his love for Brian Piccolo could move mountains with its emotion.
It's nice that a sports movie can be based upon how the camaraderie of the game can create friendships, especially during times of racism.
I think it also portrays how truly nice it is that people who are competing for the same job can appreciate each other for who they are, not what they can do.The story begins in 1965 about two running backs, as the trailer says "one white, the other black." Brian Piccolo, a white running back from the south, and a graduate of Wake Forest, is played magnificently by James Caan.
Gale Sayers, a black, naturally athletic and lightning speed superstar from Nebraska, and graduate of Kansas, is played equally well by Billy Dee Williams.We can see right away that both of these men have opposite personalities: Piccolo is a fun-loving, personable joker with a good sense of humor, and Sayers is a shy, quiet, unprepossessing gentlemanly type.
Sayers is a tremendous athlete, never having problems succeeding in the game, while Piccolo is hard-working, tough as nails, and getting ahead not so much on ability, but through determination and maximum effort.The Bears decide they are going to have players room together according to position, regardless of race.
Sayers, who is very shy at the start of the movie, later becomes more personable, and more comfortable around people.Just when things start to go well for Piccolo, starting at fullback, gaining yards, and scoring touchdowns, tragedy strikes: Brian Piccolo has cancer in his right lung.
Piccolo receives tremendous support from his teammamates, wife, and Sayers, who we now know is a true and loyal friend.The casting of this film was fantastic, and they work together magnificently: Shelly Fabares and Judy Pace are terrific as the supportive wives, and Jack Warden is very convincing as Coach George Halas.
Brian's Song is a wonderful film, not so much because it is about the glory of sports, but about the value of friendship.
"Brian's Song" is a perfect example of this.The story emotionally connects us with Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers almost immediately.
We care about what happens to the characters, and the chemistry Billy Dee Williams and James Caan have together totally sells the viewer on their friendship.
When this film began production,Brian Piccolo had only been gone for six months.As a result,most of the film takes on the atmosphere of being rushed to production.It has an obvious look that they were given a very small time frame to get this film made.They rushed it.Also,you have real,honest to goodness football players trying to act.They are trying to come across as though they are not reading their lines as they speak,but it's obvious that they are.All of that being said,Brian's Song is still an enjoyable film because of it's story.You are watching a friendship develop,evolve,and flourish into a brotherly love.This is the hook that keeps you watching,and ultimately brings you back to see it again..
James Caan was excellent as Bryan, and the chemistry he had with Billy Dee Williams was amazing.
What a waste of an exceptional human being in general, not just an athlete.I recommend this film to anyone that wants to see a real and true story about life.One of James Caan's best performances, and then came Godfather.
James Caan and Billy Dee Williams were great.
Whenever i see James Caan or Billy Dee Williams I am reminded of Brian piccolo and Gale Sayers.
The on screen chemistry between James Caan and Billy Dee Williams rings true, and is very inspiring.
I own this movie on DVD and VHS and watch it 3 or 4 times a year..
If you get the DVD, put on the commentary over the movie.It's James Caan and Billy De Williams narrating and it's great.
James Caan portrayal of Brian Piccolo and Billy Dee Williams portrayal of Gale Sayers touched me emotionally.
Jack Warden also did a fine job as George Halas.If you have never seen Brian's Song and want to see a fine movie about friendship, courage, and the human spirit.....see this one..
The moment in the film when Billy Dee Williams (as Gale Sayers) stands up at a banquet, and states simply "I Love Brian Piccolo"...Well, I don't know.
In a world with so much racial animosity, especially in this country, to see what is possible and what we are truly capable of is moving.This was truly a heart-wrenching story, delivered beautifully by Billy Dee Williams and James Caan.
It's a tragedy what happened to Brian Piccolo and his family, yet he now lives on in all of us, because of these heartfelt performances, and the thoughtfulness and dignity that this movie portrayed.
You get the feeling that this is the way Brian Piccolo would have wanted it.Thank You, Billy Dee and James, and to the filmmakers for a fine job..
Once again I was moved by this movie which has exceptional performances by Billy Dee Williams and James Caan.
The movie does have some good performances by its cast especially the roles of Pic and Sayers, their wives, and the head coach.
I think this could have been a much better movie if it had moved slower and there had been a little more character development to understand why these two guys clicked and became such good friends and then the loss would not seem contrived but real..
Yes, it's melodrama that's written, directed and acted well, but it's still melodrama.The film, as is to be expected of a television movie, pales in comparison with a very similar feature film released around the same time, "Bang the Drum Slowly", which tells a similar story, albeit without a racial element, but also without the slightest hint of melodrama."Brian's Song" is somewhat better known, but "Bang the Drum Slowly" is the true masterpiece.
Still, "Brian's Song" is a solid film, especially of interest to football fans..
BUT who on earth picked James Caan to play Brian Piccolo?
For Brian Piccolo(James Caan) and Gale Sayers(Billy Dee Williams) it's a story to remember.
Chicago Bears quarterback Brian Piccolo(Caan) meets a quiet newcomer Gale Sayers(Williams), both love the game, but both have different personalities for each.
Caan and Williams seem made for their roles, and the inclusion of real game footage of Sayers and Picciolo make this a must watch for football fans!
One of the great sagas in the history of professional sports in America was the friendship that transpired between Brian Piccolo, who was White, and Gale Sayers, who was African-American, while they were competing for the same position on the NFL's Chicago Bears frontline in the mid-1960s.
This is the true-life saga told in the highly acclaimed 1971 made-for-TV drama BRIAN'S SONG, one of the best of its kind, and unquestionably one of the greatest sports films ever made, television or otherwise.Veteran TV/film director Buzz Kulik is at the helm of this film, where James Caan and Billy Dee Williams, both actors well on their way to illustrious careers but at that time not quite so well known, portray the two Bears legends who developed a closeness with one another at the time when segregation of hotel rooms according to race was still standard issue in the NFL, a precedence that was broken by the Bears organization.
Jack Warden ably portrays Halas, and the Chicago Bears, wisely enough, are played by the Chicago Bears themselves.The airing of this film on ABC on November 30, 1971, coming just a little less than a year and a half after Piccolo passed away at the all-too-young age of 27 from the cancer that, despite an operation that removed a cancerous lung and a pectoral, had spread to other parts of his body, was quite a big deal, and rightly so.
With the inclusion of actual footage from NFL Films, courtesy of the legendary Steve Sabol, viewers of the time got a pretty good idea of just how rough the game of football really is up close and personal.
The one that does it for me, is when Billy Dee Williams' character Gale Salyers has to tell his teammates that James Caan's character, Brian Piccolo has cancer.
"Brian's Song", the 1971 version was the rarest of things, an excellent TV movie.
Great cast of stars on their way up such as Billy Dee Williams, James Caan and Shelley Fabares, augmented by Jack Warden, Bernie Casey and David Huddleston, with several actual Chicago Bears.
James Caan is Brian Piccolo, the overachieving, loudmouthed Italian boy.
Billy Dee Williams is Gale Sayers, a gifted, shy African-American All-American, high profile running back who is pestered and ridiculed by Brian in the early stages of the story, but who becomes the ideal friend.
Buzz Kulik did a great job directing this movie, getting fine performances out of not only the real actors, but also the real Bears players and coaches..
And you would think that you are seeing their characters, not actors playing football players, come out to light for real!
Best ever TV movie of all time!
In my opinion, they should have released it in theaters, it probably would've won Best Picture.Brian's Song portrays the friendship between Brian Piccolo and Gayle Sayers, two teammates that fought for the same job.
Most of these parts involve both Sayers and Piccolo, for their bond is so great that they are more than friends, they are brothers.Caan and Williams portray Piccolo and Sayers perfectly; they even resemble them too.I think that everyone should see this movie (and even see the 2001 remake, though it's not as good as this one).There will never be another song like Brian's, but perhaps the lesson taught in the film is that we should always try to be more like Brian Piccolo, by living every day to it's fullest and loving life, because it can be very short..
This is a great movie not only about sports ,but how two men grew to love and respect each other !And I first saw it on Nov.30,1971 and enjoyed it so much .The cast that was headed by James Caan as Brian Piccolo and Billy Dee Williams as Gale Sayers with Jack Warden in his Emmy Winning Best Supporting Actor as the Coach George Hallas and Judy Pace and Shelley Fabares as their wives plus actual members of the Chicago Bears as themselves all did a great job in this truly excellent movie!
It was a good movie to make me think of my own personal life experiences and friendships.
At times after watching this movie...
The movie starts in Chronological order as an errant punt heading past black running back Gale Sayers (Billy Dee Williams) is picked up by white rival running back Brian Piccolo (James Caan) who gives him bogus advice that Coach Halas (Jack Warden) has hearing problem in his left ear.
James Caan does a fine job with the southern drawl although the real Brian Piccolo looks more like Burt Reynolds.
To Quote Gale Sayers in one of his speeches, "I love Brian Piccolo and I hope all of you love him too.".
Parts of this movie concerning the untimely death of Brian Piccolo (James Caan)had me wondering how it could be rated so highly as a tearjerker.
When Gayle Sayers (Billy Dee Williams)breaks the news to his Chicago teammates that Piccolo has cancer, the two actors standing behind him are already in tears before Sayers says the first word (Mr. Director?).
But Brian's Song wins you over despite it being a little dated with a strong performance from Williams and an excellent performance from Caan, who delivers more laugh-out-loud lines than any 70's TV movie-of-the-week has a right to give. |
tt0058648 | The Thin Red Line | United States Army Private Witt goes AWOL from his unit and lives among the carefree Melanesian natives in the South Pacific. He is found and imprisoned on a troop carrier by First Sergeant Welsh of his company. The men of C Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division have been brought to Guadalcanal as reinforcements in the campaign to secure Henderson Field and seize the island from the Japanese. As they wait in a Navy transport, they contemplate their lives and the invasion. Battalion commander Lieutenant Colonel Tall talks with Brigadier General Quintard about the invasion and its importance.
C Company lands on Guadalcanal unopposed and marches to the interior of the island, encountering natives and evidence of the Japanese presence. They arrive near Hill 210, a key Japanese position. The Japanese have placed bunkers at the top of the hill and anyone attempting the climb will be cut down.
A brief shelling of the hill begins the next day at dawn. C Company attempts to capture the hill but is repelled by gunfire. Among the first killed is one of the platoon leaders, Second Lieutenant Whyte. During the battle, a squad led by Sergeant Keck hides behind a swell safe from enemy fire to wait for reinforcements. Keck reaches for a grenade but accidentally pulls the pin and dies in the process. Lieutenant Colonel Tall orders the company commander, Captain James Staros, to take the bunker by frontal assault, at whatever cost. Staros refuses and Tall decides to join Staros on the front line to see the situation. The Japanese resistance seems to have lessened, and Tall's opinion of Staros seems to have been sealed. Private Witt, having been assigned punitively as a stretcher bearer, asks to rejoin the company, and is allowed to do so.
A small detachment of men performs a reconnaissance mission on Tall's orders to determine the strength of the Japanese bunker. Private Bell reports there are five machine guns in the bunker. He joins another small team of men (including Witt), led by Captain John Gaff, on a flanking mission to take the bunker. The operation is a success and C Company overruns one of the last Japanese strongholds on the island. The Japanese they find are largely malnourished and dying, and put up little resistance.
For their efforts the men are given a week's leave: the airfield where they are based comes under enemy artillery bombardment; Bell receives a letter from his wife informing him that she has fallen in love with someone else and wishes to divorce; Captain Staros is relieved of his command by Lieutenant Colonel Tall, who deems him too soft for the pressures of combat and suggests that he apply for reassignment and become a lawyer in the JAG in Washington. He offers to arrange a Purple Heart for Staros, to avoid the unit's name being stained by having an officer removed from command. Witt comes across the locals and notices that they have grown distant and distrustful of him and quarrel regularly with one another.
The company is sent on patrol up a river but with the inexperienced 1st Lieutenant George Band at its head. As Japanese artillery fire falls close to their positions; Band orders some men to scout upriver, with Witt volunteering to go along. They encounter an advancing Japanese column and are attacked. To buy time for Corporal Fife to go back and inform the rest of the unit, Witt draws away the Japanese but is then encircled by one of their squads, who demand that he surrender. He raises his rifle and is gunned down. The company is able to retreat safely, and Witt is later buried by Welsh and his squadmates. C Company receives a new commander, Captain Bosche and boards a waiting LCT, departing from the island. | anti war | train | wikipedia | This version of James Jones' book follows the plot of the novel closely and actually received very high praise from the author himself.
Jones wrote a letter to the director saying "Very rarely does an author get to write a letter to a filmmaker to say that he has captured the author's intention to the highest level possible." Jones was very pleased with the outcome of this movie, while the 1998 version heavily strays from his book.
For example, Witt and Walsh in the 1998 version both quote a lot from another Jones novel, called "From Here To Eternity", and not from "A Thin Red Line".
First adaptation of the James Jones novel about the battle for Guadalcanal on the famous Pacific toll in which a typical crew of Marines fighting the ¨Yellow Menace¨ and it results to be one of the best American films about the Pacific conflict during WWII .
Soldier Doll (Keir Dullea)separated from his recent spouse (Yordan) after only few days of marriage, spontaneously decides that he'll no longer obey the orders of his First Sergeant , following his own will instead .
As battle experience hardens soldiers and Colonel (James Philbrook) orders captain Stone (Daley) leading to the taking of the Elephant hill in the battle of Guadalcanal .
Sgt. Welsh, (Jack Warden) Doll's superior immediate grows the mutual hatred but at the ending the two contenders change to affinity , and getting reciprocal respect .Based on James Jones 's first hand account of the notorious battle is well adapted to screen by Bernard Gordon .
Visually stunning and focused on the battle of wits of a Private and a Sergeant and on men's determination to survive his tour of duty .
The film brings home the true horror of battle and the meaninglessness of it all and effectively portrays the deshumanizing effects of war .
Another tale based on the 1962 novel by James Jones was directed by Terence Malick with star-laden cast as Jim Cazievel as Private protagonist , Sean Penn as the Sergeant , and many others as George Clooney, Nick Nolte and Woody Harrelson .
It condenses about five characters each into the two lead characters in order to make a well rounded film that fairly expresses Jones' ideas on men in war.
Death is still portrayed as a somewhat painless event (with the near exception of one great scene), it leans more to the earlier gung ho war movies than, say, Paths of Glory or All Quiet on the Western Front.
That last shot is the tone of Jones' novels, a tone From Here to Eternity got right all the way through, and Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line also successfully portrayed (But stepped away to alow contemplation, not to experience.) That last scene makes it a good movie, but it couldn've been done better.
Detailing the battle on the South Pacific Island of Guadalcanal in 1943 and the Americans' final success over the Japanese, this is a most poignant and underestimated war film.
I had expected a somewhat jingoistic war film, but was surprised that this turned out to be superior to the 1998 remake in every way but one.
It's quite interesting that this version, coming right before the Vietnam era would be cynical about war but also considerably mindful of the necessity of the particular war it depicts and of the need for the soldiers to do as they did.
Whereas the post-Vietnam 1998 version is also cynical, yet much more so, showing the military as a bumbling bureaucracy of sorts and attempting to depict the battle as pointless, extending that depiction to the war in general, and it actually is an unstated allegory about Vietnam.
Grim psychological study of two Marines on Guadalcanal, each seemingly trying to top the other in body count of Japanese slain, not for God, country, or to win the war, but for the sheer joy of killing.Extremely realistic combat sequences coupled with Dullea's excellent portrayal of the on-the-edge-of-madness Pvt. Doll make this one of my favorite war films..
The Thin Red Line: the insanity of war and what men do to survive..
For those who have read the James Jones novel, you should know that that the production team for this movie paid little heed to the original text.
And, that's a shame, because the true horror and insanity of war as described by Jones is missing: instead, what you see is an attempt at a psychological explanation in the guise of one of the characters, Private Doll (Keir Dullea).Briefly, the story concentrates upon Doll a somewhat nervous but seemingly normal soldier at first -- showing how he gradually degenerates into a killing machine who not only wants to kill the enemy in this case, the Japanese garrison at Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands but eventually the soldiers of his own company as well.
War is hell, as we know, but is that a likely result from the stress of battle and a crazy desire to survive at any cost?
Apparently so, according to the screenwriter and director.Inexplicably, top sergeant Welch (Jack Warden), who in the novel really is as crazy as hell, is portrayed instead as a tough but sincere -- no-nonsense veteran (who's character for the movie is no doubt modeled on Duke Wayne's portrayal of Sergeant Stryker in The Sands of Iwo Jima, [1949]) who pushes Doll to the limits, goading him all the time in order to help make Doll a better soldier and thus survive the war.
And, in a daring departure for the times, the overt homosexuality between Doll and Fife in the novel is actually hinted at, visually and in the dialog, on quiet a few occasions.I liked the black and white cinematography; it brought back memories of the Iwo Jima classic and Duke Wayne.
This film was a slow starter, but a big bombs and guns finale gave a fine portrayal of war at it's worst..
"The Thin Red Line" is a decent war film.
My only serious complaint is that I wasn't quite sure what the story was trying to say...if anything.The story is set during WWII and some marines are aboard a transport ship heading to Guadalcanal, one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the war.
The story focuses on Pvt. Doll (Keir Dullea) and his seemingly sadistic Sergeant (Jack Warden).
The story is extremely violent for 1964--with many scenes that would be tough on the squeamish.What I liked about the film was how savage the fighting was.
I suppose he was just a nobody at that time.This is a highly recommended black and white film for war movie buffs.
The last line in the novel reads as follows:"One day one of their number would write a book about it all, but none of them would believe it, because none of them would remember it that way."Jones was saying that their is a tendency to (for lack of a better term) gloss over what happened in war, and the way people write about war, and the way people film war, is not at all how veterans remember it.This film is not really at all what Jones was writing about.
The film fails to find any horror in the war-- it fails to show the war as written by James Jones.It is rather interesting to watch, because it shares many scenes with the Terrence Malick film (which is the far superior work), and it is fun to compare the scenes.That said, the two actors who play Col. Tall and Stone (Stein in the book, Staros in the Malick film) are both laugh out loud bad, and seem to be completely ignorant of how to effectively portray their characters (Nolte and Koteas, on the other hand, aren't).But to give the film some credit, it features a great performance by Kier Dullea or 2001: A Space Oddyssey fame, and an interesting one from Jack Warden as Welsh.I think that the film tries to show the horror, but the production code, the script, or director didn't want to or couldn't figure out how to.
James Jones also wrote "From Here to Eternity", and this novel has been filmed several times, last time in 1998 in colour, but the two versions compliment each other.
Jack Warden and Keir Dullea clash from the beginning, they are both close to the thin red line separating sanity from madness, and they appear as rather half mad both of them, although Keir Dullea seems more liable, as he loses control a number of times.
Jack Warden's madness is of a different kind, as he rather drives others mad than goes mad himself, and he is the better soldier of the two.It's about the critical battler of Guadalcanal, when more men were lost than even the Americans and theír ruthless colonel could afford.
Titled after what one soldier says about there being only a "thin red line between the sane and mad", this World War II drama focuses on a young soldier who decides to distance himself as much as possible from his platoon's ruthless sergeant - a decision that gradually leads to him becoming a cold-blooded killer.
Keir Dullea and Jack Warden are superb as the young upstart and sergeant respectively with an especially memorable final couple of scenes that capture just how unstable Dullea has become.
With none of the other characters fleshed out in any depth, one's appreciation of the film is likely to rest entirely on how much interest one takes in the dynamics between Warden and Dullea, which admittedly overshadow the historical backdrop and battlefield action.
Edited with nightmarish flashback sequences and full of memorable dialogue (Warden warning of the dangers of letting his privates "start thinking" rather just following orders), this was though clearly intended as a less traditional war movie.
As far as dialogue-heavy war movies go, 'The Thin Red Line' might have nothing on Samuel Fuller's masterpieces of the prior decade, but it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath at least as a film that taps into the psychology of war..
Set during the Guadalcanal campaign of World War 2, Private Doll is a raw recruit.
I couldn't imagine a real-life First Sergeant taking all that crap from a private.Good performance from Jack Warden.
Plot: Tough company sergeant Jack Warden and maverick infantryman Keir Dullea battle their way – both with the enemy and each other – across the killing fields of Guadalcanal during World War II.Review: Not quite the classic I expected.
Thankfully it is held together by the two lead performances – Jack Warden (a Hollywood stalwart) and Keir Dullea (better known as the astronaut Dave Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey).The movie graphically depicts the horror and mercilessness of combat, an experience which gradually sends Dullea round the bend.
Warden, a good character actor most familiar as one of the jurors in 12 Angry Men, must have drawn a lot on his own experiences as a sergeant in WWII.I'm not sure what the movie was trying to say, but it definitely cannot be accused of glamorising war.
The film doesn't seem to follow the book all that well, but is an excellent movie.
This version of _Thin Red Line_ might be useful for seeing what was possible for Cinemascope, mainstream (if black and white) war movies made for a North American audience ca.
It is a kind of initiation story for Keir Dullea's Pvt. Doll: going crazy to replace Jack Warden's Sgt. Welch as an appropriate soldier.
(If war is madness, it's best fought by the mad.)Psychology wins out over politics, but at least this _Thin Red Line_ makes clear that the land fight for Guadalcanal (from an Allied point of view) wasn't all done by US Marines.Save your money and rent the late 1990s remake.
There are certainly a number of points to this version that stand out, never mind the one or two actions sequences that aren't technically up to the flashiness of today's films.
Men who have been in the military will no doubt identify with the characters, from the C.O. played with hardened determination by James Philbrook, to Jack Warden's combat wise sergeant, and down to Keir Dullea's survivalist mentality in the face of an enemy that takes no prisoners.
Opposing Dullea's character, Warden is a career NCO who plays by the rules of war, but who in the end loses his life after shielding Dullea from a Japanese soldier unleashing lead.
When you wanted to portray toughness, the late Jack Warden was one of the first actors who came to mind.
When some green and incautious solders in his platoon want to pick up some war souvenirs at the start of the film, it is the sergeant who casually demonstrates that the soldiers have come within an ace of getting themselves blown up.
The Army was left to clean out what remained of the Japanese on Guadalcanal, particularly a strongly held natural feature: Mt. Austen, called the "Dancing Elephant" in the movie but in history the "Galloping Horse" because of its shape.The story centers on the taking of Mt. Austen by the Army, with the full horror of facing for the first time an enemy determined to fight to the last man.No movie I have ever seen captures so perfectly the grimness of war, its squalor, occasional moments of exultation and the byplay of men at different levels of command but all trapped in an essentially insane situation..
The trend today is to add realism into war movies in order to make them moving.
Now we come out of the movie house with a tingling in our gut and a head full of imagery and dialogue and get fooled into thinking we just saw something of value, when in fact, we're queasy from the blood and our ears are ringing from the THX surround sound at freight train levels.The Thin Red Line moves you and sticks in your mind without using the smoke and CPU cycles that are the main tools of filmmakers today.
He and his war hardened Sergeant are thrown together time after time and both effect each other.In the end, Doll reaches a place that his Sergeant has just come from.
They have a few words as Sergeant Walsh takes his last breaths, and the humanity inside Doll dies as he drags Walsh's dead body away as the credits roll.The most memorable line in the entire movie is when Doll's commander instructs him to take some men to capture a strategic point.
No loss of focus here." – "Meditations in Green" (Stephen Wright)Film lags behind most other fields, mediums and art-forms, and so its no surprise that even over half a century after its release, few war films have been able to match the power of James Jones' novel, "The Thin Red Line".The second book in his WW2 trilogy, Jones' novel told the story of Charlie company and their participation in the battle of Guadalcanal.
This polarity is typical of war novels of the era, the theme of individuals as mere cogs in the war machine introduced by master authors like Dos Passos ("Through the Wheat" and "Three Soldiers") and Thomas Boyd and carried on in the works of artists like Norman Mailer, Joseph Heller, Stephen Wright, William March, and James Jones.
Observe how he has one pair of characters embody different philosophical positions: for one soldier, if a human's actions are beyond his or her control, then the cause of war is irrelevant and inescapable.
Another pair of characters, for example, battle over whether or not war is ever morally justifiable.
It doesn't have the thematic weight or dramatic power of Jones' novel, but in the context of the other (mostly dumb) war movies released in the late 50s and early 60s, it's a remarkable film, an odd clash between grungy New Wave aesthetics, raw (not quite method) acting, and the stiff conventions of Old Hollywood.
Unfortunately the film received little promotion and quickly faded into obscurity and is today mostly known for featuring an early performance by actor Keir Dullea.Decades later, "Line" would once again be adapted, this time by director Terrence Malick.
Upon its release, many derided Malick's film for revoking or reversing the philosophy of Jones' novel, writers painting Malick as some kind of hippie spiritualist who turned war into a "natural", "poetic thing", a stark contrast to the cold, industrial and absurdist universe of Jones.
In fact, while Malick's film never explicitly reveals what the film's title means, Marton's film wastes little time in explaining, via Captain Stone, that the phrase is from an old Midwest saying, 'There's only a thin red line between sanity and madness.' The DVD, by Simitar Entertainment, has some interesting extras, such as bios on Dullea and Warden, but also six clips from genuine World War Two documentaries- the most interesting being a clip on the rescue of an American who evaded capture for 31 months, after the Japanese originally invaded Guam.
It is best watched as a curio piece (especially for fans of Dullea's career), and a companion to the infinitely superior Terrence Malick film of 1998.
In all fairness, I enjoyed this movie but that might be because I have a soft spot for B&W war flicks from the 60's.The acting isn't worthy of an Oscar but it is passable, other than the guy portraying Doll.
In fact, he was the one character that I wanted to grab and shake because he was over-acting his part to the point where really just wanted to hurt him.What I could not understand about this movie though were the mistakes by the armourer of the flick.
(Now this one COULD be forgiven because maybe they could have captured them from the Marines who came before the army, although I'm pretty sure the Marines were using M1917 during Guadalcanal.) However, the ONE mistake that could not be explained away was Doll and Welsh and some others using German MP 40's and MP 3008 Machine Pistols. |
tt0403217 | Last Days | Grunge rocker Blake escapes rehab and walks home through a long forest, also swimming through a lake then lighting a fire for the night. The next day, he gets home and changes his clothes. He walks around in the house with a shotgun pointing it at his sleeping roommates Scott, Luke, Asia, and Nicole. He is greeted by Yellow Pages representative Thadeus A Thomas who talks to him about placing an ad in the upcoming book. He receives a phone call from his record company telling him that he and his band have to do another tour and that it is important they make the booked dates, but Blake hangs up. He goes upstairs and falls asleep on the floor in one of the rooms. Asia awakes and finds him asleep as two boys arrive at the door. Scott and Luke answer the door and the two boys talk to them about their church down the street. Blake changes into different clothes and leaves the house for the shed outside as the Christian boys leave.
Scott, Luke, Asia, and Nicole leave and Blake goes back into the house. His friend Donovan and a private detective come to the house and Blake leaves as they look around the house for him. He waits for them to leave before he enters the house again. He messes with the guitars and drums putting them on loop with his vocals. He stops when his record executive (Kim Gordon) comes over and tries to have him leave with her but Blake refuses. Blake goes to a rock club that night where a friend of his comes up to him and tells him about how he went to a Grateful Dead concert. Blake leaves before his friend can finish telling the story. Blake goes back home where Scott takes some of his money and Luke asks help from Blake on a song.
Scott tells Luke that Donovan had a private detective with him and that they should leave. After Scott and Luke have sex with each other upstairs, Blake plays acoustic one last time before walking out to the shed where he sits quietly, watching his roommates leave. They spend the night at their friend's house, and awake the next morning to see the news announcing that Blake committed suicide and an electrician found his body. Scott, Luke, and Nicole get in a car and leave, driving down a highway while Luke plays the guitar in the back seat. | avant garde, storytelling | train | wikipedia | Van Sant has drawn this fall out over 90 minutes where, lets be honest, not a great deal actually happens.To some viewers this has given the film a tragic and haunting quality that has produced a lot of insight into the man Blake.
Van Sant has written these last days and based them on Kurt Cobain but I would have liked him to have imagined a bit more detail in his character and perhaps done more than delivered some stroppy teenager silently moping around the place until the inevitable happens (and even that is done in a very low key way).
It is hard to fault the intimate nature of Van Sant's filming but this is very different from getting into the character and actually benefiting from this degree of perceived intimacy.Pitt does as he is told and spends most of the film looking through his hair in a sort of creative and tragic way.
With some amazing scenes, look out for the Venus in furs scene and the amazingly shot and framed acoustic song performed by Blake in the studio with probably one of the best little pieces of improvisation I've ever seen, this is a brilliant and touching portrayal of a great man left to fall to pieces by those who should have helped him stay together.
I haven't seen Gerry or Elephant, but this time he has created a masterpiece.The movie follows Blake, an isolated young rebel, who is a "rock-and-roll cliché", during the last days of his life.
"Last Days", Gus Van Sant's experimental film loosely inspired by Kurt Cobain's, err, last days, is not one of his best, but it's certainly not the worst (the "Psycho" remake, anyone?).
"Last Days" is slow, hard to watch, "boring" as some people say, but that suits a brave attempt to show some moments of a troubled musician, "Blake" (Michael Pitt, from the wonderful "The Dreamers"), who seems completely lost and away from reality, trying to escape from himself in his house, surrounded by "friends" who are only interested in his money.
Nothing "happens", like everybody says, throughout the film, and Van Sant partially succeeds in showing us the big empty inside and around Blake with bitter, raw strength.
SPOILER WARNING....Now i will be commenting on a few things in the film but whether or not they can be considered spoilers i will leave up to you, my own personal opinion is that a film must first have a plot before it can be spoiled in any way.----------- ------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------- Well i just finished watching this film 20 minutes ago so i'm writing this fairly fresh and still haven't completely formed an opinion of it, its probably best me writing these comments in this state of mind because most of you will probably be thinking the same thing.I watched this film without reading any reviews seeing any ratings or hearing about it through word of mouth, after 2 minutes of seeing Micheal Pitt as "Blake" you will clearly see Kurt Cobain, 30 minutes later you will be slightly confused by just what the hell you are watching and for a time this movie will seem like a chore to watch and if i'm honest it just carry's on like that.So why then did i give it 7 out of 10?
Even though I really like some of Gus Van Sant's older movies (DRUGSTORE COWBOY, MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO,...) and I do appreciate the fact that he dares to do something different (in terms of stepping away even further from mainstream cinema) with his more recent work, he more or less lost me with LAST DAYS.
And then, after the 'movie' is over and we have absolutely learned nothing about our protagonist, Gus Van Sant has the pretension to show us some written text explaining that this movie is based on the last days of Nirvana's Kurt Cobain.
It's true that last Days isn't a film for everyone, nirvana fans are best to stay well away as the sight of their icon in a dress might send a shiver down their spines, but those who are willing to simply be with the character of Blake, body and mind, for 90 mins are in for something special.
I've never been a big fan of Gus Van Sant's and this looked like his most pretentious project yet, but beyond the events the films based on and all the conspiracy theories that come with it Van Sant has chosen to just tell a story of a lonely isolated man.
Pitt's great song fits so well into the film you would think he wrote it about Cobain, (and he probably did) it's a scene you'll wanna watch over and you'll find yourself singing the song when the movie's finished.
Gus Van Sant does a remarkable job with this film - "Last Days." Nothing much happens, there is not a lot of dialogue but what we see, experience, is the slow demise of an individual into oblivion.
I know that Gus Van Sant's films can be a little slow, and of course, you don't need a million miles an hour action for a great film (case in point, "Wings of desire").
I get what Van Sant was trying to do - representation of the monotony of Cobain's final days, and the mundane existence of a washed out/drug addled rock star, but fundamentally this film lacked any kind of passion or devotion to it's subjects.
A movie about the last days of Blake, which are similar to Cobain's last days, directed by Gus van Sant.
Let us say you put Last Days in a vault and this said vault re-emerges some billion years later when the memory of Kurt Cobain is long gone, do you think any form of intelligent life is going to give a damn about a movie featuring some bumbling waste named Blake?
I do not know if every details of the movie are real or if Gus Van Sant just figured out how the last days were but all seems so unique and finally the truth is not so important.
One part of this movie that was horrible in particular was when the Blake character was in his bedroom (druged up on something) watching a Boys 2 Men video and Van Sant zooms to the t.v and the viewer is watching the B2M video for about a minute and a half.
That said, I think the character "Blake" falls short of capturing the tortured life of Cobain.Van Sant's distant shots of Pitt are worth while as, like in an intentionally slightly out of focus work of photography, the image allows the viewer to reflect and imbue it with subtle indirect connections.
Thank God, by the way, the video included on the DVD was not included in the film itself -- it disrupts any Cobain/Nirvana vibe Van Sant might have achieved, and is downright embarrassing.On a positive note, I do like seeing Cobain portrayed by the use of simple detailed activities.
I cannot believe I just wasted 2 hours watching this movie and still do not know what really happened to Kurt, but now if I had been mumbling around my house for days - wearing a dress I might have to kill myself too!
The fine line of this balancing act gives a film that fails to add anything new to what we already know of Cobain's last days, in fact Sant tries to steer clear of events such as the 'Tough Love' from Cobain's friends and family and the final gunshot.What I was amused by was the ability of cinema to force us to sit through any rubbish it happens to throw out; The Chronicles of Riddick, Van Helsing...
Here are the tragical Colombine school events.It's not about this but it shows that we live in a society that enables people taking other's life as fun."Last Days" uses the same method, by taking the icon figure of Kurt Cobain as an example in a movie that deals with loneliness, despair, futility of living.
Gus Van Sant completes his trilogy of films revolving around the theme of death and friends (Gerry, Elephant, Last Days).
Empty of ideas but filled with self-importance, "Last Days" is, without a doubt, Van Sant's least impressive work to date and an "art film" in the worst sense of the term.
This is really what it must have been like for Kurt, what a drag, all he wants to do is chill and get wasted, alone, and heres this yellow pages dude totally harshing his buzz" dialogue from his movie audience.For anyone who does not think this is an overly pretentious, self absorbent piece of junk.
Talents (for making what was once interesting into the biggest pile of pretentious nonsense I have ever witnessed) This film is dreadful from the start.I was a big fan of Kurt Cobain, I remember lying in bed and a news flash came over saying he had shot himself, had he still been alive and seen this movie he would have shot himself again.
If not then feel free to waste a perfectly good couple of hours that could be spent watching paint dry or kettles boiling or maybe even watching the washing machine spin.It is a shame the film sucks so badly because Michael Pitt is a great young actor with a great future in Tinsletown but I dare say he will leave this out of his C.V. when approaching movie producers/directors.
And for no apparent reason.Someone should let Gus know that there are ways to show time passing in a film without actually making an audience sit through boring, pointless scene after boring, pointless scene.I'm a Nirvana and a Cobain fan.
Kurt Cobain has just became a stereotypical idea, a image, a type of clothing, and this movie is more of the same.Like Tim Burton, Gus Van Sant has no more original idea's.
It's a good thing that it still works brilliantly after these last three films.Although he barely speaks three full, coherent sentences throughout the film, Michael Pitt still brings a performance packed with immediacy and strength to a character who, at this point in his life, has neither.There are three musical sections in the film (four if you count the lingering shot of a TV playing a Boyz 2 Men video)...the first is Blake, apparently on a whim, playing one instrument at a time until each one is layered upon the others, creating this incredibly powerful sonic improvisation.
This was necessary and in my opinion the only conceivable way to accurately and respectfully reenact the last days of anyone, let alone someone famous.I also think Van Sant was a little too "artsy" with this film.
This movie is terrible.its way too pretentious everything the director tries to do is misplaced and does not work at all he focuses on the cinematography way too much and does not seem to care at all about the movie as a whole.Movies in my opinion are a sum of their parts score actors style script.this director has focused on shots and thrown everything else away.Some more time should of been spent on the story as it goes nowhere at all.I know its supposed to be about Kurt Cobain but the movie is so hollow than you cannot feel for the characters at all.The scenes in the car where the shot is taken from outside the car are utter crap other directors do not use it because it does not work it takes focus off the actors and furthers are disengagement from them.This is truly one of the worst movies i have seen.I cannot believe it got good reviews especially from the guardian shame on you.Forgive my rant but i cannot believe this movie was released.
Pitt's (or whoever it was, though he plays in a band in real life so it could've been him) voice sounds just like Kurt's, and the music is the perfect underground grunge sound of Nirvana.This is not a traditional movie, it doesn't follow any of the classic steps.
The fact is that I started watching this movie with great expectation, but the only thing that I rescue is Michael Pitt's role as Kurt Cobain or (Blake); both the physical aspect and his character, but the history is practically vague, too much silence, which doesn't give us to understand thoughts and feelings of the singer, the opposite: it leaves us with a displeasure, the same question ever: what happened really????
A magician rarely fools another magician.Simply put, this is a cynically-made, cynically-constructed movie which uses art-house filmmaker techniques as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that there's no actual feature-length film here.This movie could've made its few heavy-handed points about depression, despair, alienation, and exploitation in half the time, even keeping a number of the extended locked-camera shots which intentionally never cut.For all his artistic pretensions in Last Days, director Van Sant doesn't even sense the irony as, like the characters he attempts to criticize, he exploits Kurt Cobain's life, dysfunction, and death to make money and further his own career.This is a substandard USC Student Film desperately insisting that it's something more.
While I'm sure Cobain's last days were lonely and bleak, this movie portrays "him" as a stumbling post-lobotomized zombie - some tribute!Shuffling & mumbling for 2 hours, we watch Kurt (ahem, Blake) dry his underwear by a fire(!) dig something up(!) fall down(!) try to make mac & cheese, fail miserably and eat the inedible mess(!) dress up in a slip(!) fall down(!) talk(?) with Yellow Pages salesman(!) fall down(!) sit by a lake(!).
I loved Nirvana - and this is NOT Nirvana's music or much like it at all.This had to be the most boring movie I have ever seen - and I have seen lots of documentary films.Truly awful as little to nothing happens for two hours and when something does happen it is so repetitious or inane it is just dumb.Don't waste time - re-rent the Flintstones, or better yet that horrible exposition - Westender.
Gus Van Sant has serious issues in his own life that he needs to sort out before he makes another movie..
the new gus van sant movie 'last days', is a film based on the final moments of kurt cobain's life leading up to his suicide (or murder for those less convinced).
but van sant's stumbling and mumbling blake (not kurt, only 'based' on him) as played by michael pitt, never tries to state more than he knows he reasonably can, but simply puts to vision a sensitive impression of a disconnected soul on his last days on earth..
There's a lot of interesting things in the movie that really make you think deeper and each scene has a hidden meaning and people are criticizing the film because they can't understand it they should open their eyes and minds to be a little more educated.
Why wasn't his family in the movie, Van Sant Butchered the Image of Kurt Cobain!!.
If you think Gus Van Sant is the most brilliant director of all time AND you are completely fascinated with every trivial piece of Kurt Cobain's life - you might enjoy this film.
This is the worst film I have seen in a long time, and I watch a lot of movies.
yet this movie lacks plot, characterization, dialogue for the most part, any thread of narrative, and any point aside from tossing pretty people on-screen in a lame attempt to re-examine the suicide of Kurt Cobain.Gus Van Sant has made some truly gifted films: Drugstore Cowboy, My Own Private Idaho, and Elephant.
It's a shame that Gus Van Sant is going to make money off of this just because it is based on Kurt Cobain, not that you can tell from watching this horrible flick.
first of all I'm a big nirvana and Kurt fan, second of all even after reading the IMDb reviews that dissed this movie something awful i still had an open mind when i watched it, sadly though, it didn't deliver, hardly any dialog(which appears to be just simple laziness from the filmmakers, and not an artistic expression)no character development(even on Blake, the main character), and hardly any portrayal of the truth, which basically makes this film not a film about kurts last days but almost a film about a guy that dressed like Kurt and lived in a similar house, apart from that the similarities end there, i watched this film Right through to the end and it just trys to be arty and stuff but hardly ever pulls on any strong emotion(if ever) an absolute rubbish 'tribute' or what ever the hell its supposed to be, note for the record, this film kinda gives you an insight to severe depression, but not kurts mental illness.
Repeating scenes from different perspectives, as writer/director Gus Van Sant did in "Elephant," just makes them seem even more culpable in their neglect.With real world references, there's amusing irony when "Blake" turns on the TV and a Boys II Men romantic video plays, perhaps commenting how absurd it was that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" became an MTV staple.Pitt doing his own songs acoustically recalls Cobain's "unplugged" take on Leadbelly's haunting "Where Did You Sleep Last Night." At the very least, one certainly sees the depths of the anguish that produced Cobain's tortured music and suicide.
The third time I watched it I really payed attention to it, really looked close at all of the feelings and emotions Van Sant and Pitt were trying to convey through Blake.
I'm trying to think of a film more boring than Gus Van Sant's Last Days, but I'm having trouble.
That's kind of what it was like watching Gus Van Sant's Last Days.
The camera angles are amazing (there are actually certain times in the film where Michael Pitt looks exactly like Kurt Cobain), the general absence of music works surprisingly well, and Blake's mumbling and aimless wandering mirrors Cobain in his final days. |
tt0485887 | Creepshow | === Prologue ===
A young boy named Billy gets yelled at and slapped by his father, Stan, for reading a horror comic titled Creepshow. Stan reminds his wife that he had to be hard on Billy because he does not want their son to be reading such "crap". As Billy sits upstairs cursing his father with hopes of him rotting in Hell, he hears a sound at the window, which turns out to be a ghostly apparition in the form of The Creep from the comic book, beckoning him to come closer.
=== "Father's Day" ===
The first story, "Father's Day", is an original story by King written for the film. Nathan Grantham, the miserly old patriarch of a family whose fortune was made through bootlegging, fraud, extortion, and murder-for-hire, is killed on Father's Day by his long-suffering spinster daughter Bedelia. Bedelia was already unstable as the result of a lifetime spent putting up with her father's incessant demands and emotional abuse, which culminated in his orchestrating the murder of her sweetheart, Peter.
The sequence begins in 1979, when the remainder of Nathan's descendants—including Nathan's granddaughter Sylvia, his great-grandchildren Richard, Cass, and Cass's husband Hank—get together for their annual dinner on the third Sunday in June.
Bedelia, who typically arrives later than the others, stops in the cemetery outside the family house to lay a flower at the grave site and drunkenly reminisce about how she murdered her insufferable, overbearing father. When she accidentally spills her whiskey bottle in front of the headstone, it seems to have a reanimating effect on the mortal remains interred below. Suddenly, Nathan's putrefied, maggot-infested corpse emerges from the burial plot in the form of a revenant who has come back to claim the Father's Day cake he never got. Grantham slowly avenges himself on Bedelia and the rest of his idle, scheming, money-grubbing heirs, killing them off one by one (which includes some apparent supernatural abilities such as making a heavy tombstone move by will) before finally attaining his Father's Day cake, topped with Sylvia's severed head.
While the ending is left ambiguous in the film, with Nathan gloating over a terrified Cass and Richard in freeze-frame, the comic based on the film gives a vague hint that Nathan's next act was to "blow out their candles."
=== "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" ===
Based on the short story "Weeds". Jordy Verrill (played by Stephen King himself), a dimwitted backwoods yokel, thinks that a newly discovered meteorite will provide enough money from the local college to pay off his $200 bank loan. As the meteorite is too hot to touch, he douses it with water, causing it to crack open and spew a glowing green substance that comes into contact with his skin. He then finds himself being overcome by a rapidly spreading plant-like organism that begins growing on his body. Jordy is eventually cautioned by the ghost of his father not to take a bath. But when the itching from the growth on his skin becomes unbearable, Jordy succumbs to temptation and collapses into the bathwater. By the next morning, Jordy and his farm have been completely covered with dense layers of the hideous alien vegetation. In despair, he reaches for a shotgun and blows the top of his head off, thus killing himself. A radio weather forecast announces that heavy rains are predicted and the audience is left with the dire expectation that this will accelerate the spread of the extraterrestrial plant growth to surrounding areas.
=== "Something to Tide You Over" ===
Richard Vickers, a vicious, wealthy psychopath whose spry jocularity belies his cold-blooded murderousness, stages a terrible fate for his unfaithful wife, Becky, and her lover, Harry Wentworth, by separately luring them out to his secluded beach property and then, at gunpoint, burying them up to their necks below the high tide line. He explains that they have a chance of survival—if they can hold their breath long enough for the sand to loosen once the seawater covers them, they could break free and escape.
Vickers sets up closed-circuit TV cameras so he can watch them die from the comfort of his well-appointed beach house. However, Richard is in for a surprise of his own when the two lovers he murdered return as a pair of waterlogged, seaweed-covered revenants intent on revenge. He tries to shoot them, but they remind him: "You can't shoot us dead, Richard, because we're already dead!" The final scene reveals that Richard is now the one buried in the beach, facing the approaching tide— and the sight of two sets of footprints disappearing into the surf. While the tide is rising, he laughs hysterically, his sanity shattered by the experience, and screams: "I can hold my breath for a long time!" The frame freezes into animation and the flipping comic pages stop on the title of the next story.
=== "The Crate" ===
Based on the short story "The Crate". A college custodian, Mike, drops a quarter and finds a wooden storage crate, hidden under some basement stairs for 147 years. He notifies a college professor, Dexter Stanley, of the find. The two decide to open the crate and it is found to contain a lethal creature resembling a Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, which despite its diminutive size promptly kills and entirely devours Mike, leaving behind only his boot. Escaping, Stanley runs into a graduate student, Charlie Gereson, who is skeptical and investigates. The crate has been moved back under the stairs and Gereson is killed by the creature as he examines the crate. Stanley flees to inform his friend and colleague at the university, the mild-mannered Professor Henry Northrup.
Stanley, now traumatized and hysterical, babbles to Northrup that the deadly monster must be disposed of somehow. Northrup sees the creature as a way to rid himself of his perpetually drunk, obnoxious and emotionally abusive wife, Wilma, whom he often daydreams of killing. He contrives a scheme to lure her near the crate, where the beast does indeed maul and eat her. Northrup secures the beast back inside its crate, then drops it into a nearby lake, where it sinks to the bottom. He returns to assure Stanley that the creature is no more. However, it is subsequently revealed to the audience that the beast has escaped from its crate, and is in fact alive and well.
=== "They're Creeping Up on You" ===
Upson Pratt is a cruel, ruthless businessman whose mysophobia has him living in a hermetically sealed apartment controlled completely with both electric locks and surveillance cameras. During a particularly severe lightning storm, he finds himself looking out over the concrete canyons of New York City, as a rolling blackout travels his way. When it hits his apartment tower, the terror begins for Mr. Pratt, who now finds himself helpless, when his flat becomes overrun by hordes of cockroaches. As the situation rapidly becomes worse, he locks himself inside a panic room, only to find the cockroaches have already infested the room as well. With no way to escape, he is swarmed upon by the roaches which induce a fatal heart attack. Later, as electricity returns to the building, Pratt's corpse is shown in the panic room, now devoid of roaches. However, Pratt's body soon begins to contort, as roaches grotesquely burst out of his mouth and body, re-enveloping the panic room.
=== Epilogue ===
The following morning, two garbage collectors find the Creepshow comic book in the trash. They look at the ads in the book for X-ray specs and a Charles Atlas bodybuilding course. They also see an advertisement for a voodoo doll, but lament that the order form has already been redeemed. Inside the house, Stan complains of neck pain, which escalates and becomes deadly as Billy repeatedly and gleefully jabs the voodoo doll as he finally gets revenge on his accursed father for his past abuse. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0213090 | The Meaning of Life | The film begins with the short film The Crimson Permanent Assurance, where a group of elderly office clerks work in a small accounting firm. They rebel against yuppie corporate masters, transform their office into a pirate ship, and raid a large financial district. The rest of the film is split into seven chapters made up of distinct sketches.
The first, "The Miracle of Birth", features a woman in labour being ignored by the doctors in favour of impressing the hospital's administrator. In Yorkshire, a Roman Catholic man loses his jobs and returns home, instructing his children on the church's opposition to contraception, leading to the musical number "Every Sperm is Sacred", before selling his children off for scientific experiments. Meanwhile, a Protestant man and his wife discuss having non-reproductive sex.
In "Growth and Learning", a class of boys are taught school etiquette and then watch their teacher make love to his wife as part of their sex education. One boy laughs, and is forced into a violent rugby match against the teachers as punishment. "Fighting Each Other" first focuses on a World War I officer trying to rally his men to find cover during an attack, but they insist on celebrating his birthday; then, an army RSM attempts to drill his platoon but ends up excusing them all to pursue leisure activities. In 1879, during the Anglo-Zulu War, a soldier finds his leg has been bitten off. Suspecting a tiger, despite being in Africa, the soldiers hunt for it and find two men suspiciously wearing two halves of a tiger costume.
"The Middle of the Film" briefly introduces a segment called "Find the Fish", a surreal scene where bizarre characters asks the audience to find a fish hidden in the sequence. "Middle Age" involves a middle-aged American couple visiting a dungeon-themed restaurant and dislike the literal conversation offered by the waiters about the meaning of life. "Live Organ Transplants" involves two paramedics visiting Mr. Brown, a card-carrying organ donor, forcefully removing his liver whilst he is still alive. Brown's mother speaks with a musician who performs "Galaxy Song" while discussing man's insignificance in the universe. The Crimson Permanent Assurance return to invade a corporate boardroom discussing the meaning of life, but a tumbling skyscraper ends their assault.
"The Autumn Years" features a posh restaurant being visited by the horribly obese Mr. Creosote, who vomits continuously and devours an enormous meal. When the maître d' gives him a wafer-thin mint, Creosote's stomach explodes, the maître d' then giving him the bill. Two staff members clean up Creosote's remains while discussing the meaning of life. One leads the audience to his house, spouts some philosophy, and then angrily dismisses them.
"Death" features a condemned man choosing the manner of his own execution: being chased off a cliff by topless women and falls into his own grave below. The Grim Reaper enters an isolated country house and invites himself to dinner. The guests try to guess who he is until the Reaper tells them they all died from food poisoning. They accompany the Grim Reaper to Heaven, depicted as a Las Vegas-style hotel in perpetual Christmas, where a Tony Bennett-lookalike performs "Christmas in Heaven" to the cast.
"The End of the Film" epilogue features the host of "The Middle of the Film" being handed an envelope containing the meaning of life. She reads it out: "Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." She then introduces the end credits. | comedy, psychedelic, philosophical | train | wikipedia | Amplify the Ping Machine!. I really don't think there is a better exposure you can get to British humor than the Python group and while I'm sure I'll be threatened with many a flesh wound, this movie is their most hilarious, mostly because instead of telling a cohesive story, it contains shorter vignettes of the stages of life that allowed them to pack in the lunacy without being contained within an extended storyline. There's the absurd and unsentimental miracle of birth, bashing Catholics and a musical number about sperm, live demonstration in a sexual education class, the casual nature of British military commanders, the repulsive last meal of the world's fattest man, organ donation and finally, death and a glimpse of heaven. So much timeless ridiculousness. If you haven't seen it, get your head out of your arse and do. 9/10. Not classic 'Python,' but still better than most of today's offerings. First of all, are you a 'Python' fan? If the answer is 'no' then you'll probably hate The Meaning of Life. If, on the other hand, the answer is 'yes' then there stands a chance that you'll like it.Casual fans of the Pythons may not have followed their exploits over their six TV series and only seen their previous films - The Life of Brian and The Holy Grail. Those two were indeed classics - brilliantly written, with plenty of laughs and a great (if surreal) storyline.Perhaps that's the reason The Meaning of Life was not as well received. For a start it's not a story. It's basically a sketch show, loosely tied together with the theme of searching for the meaning of life (obvious, huh?). And, with any sketch show, some of them work and some don't.Even a die hard Python fan such as myself couldn't see the humour in the opening (short) film entitled 'The Crimson Permanent Assurance.' I actually skip that opening segment completely as I barely raise a smile at any of it.However, this is Python after all and, with every 'miss' there are still plenty of 'hits,' most famously of all the (disgustingly) hilarious 'Mr Creosote' sketch which deserves a mention simply because of its brilliant make-up.So, if you're not expecting a film up to Brian/Grail's standards and are prepared for a few lulls in the humour, then give this a go. It may not be up to the highest standard of Python, but it's still better than most of the 'comedies' around today.http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/ |
tt0238891 | I cento passi | The film opens with Peppino as a small child singing the popular song “Nel blu, dipinto di blu” with his brother in the back seat of a car on the way to a family gathering. The family is one of good standing in the social community and they are celebrating the fact that they have such a good life. In this scene the relationship between Peppino and his uncle Cesare is established. His uncle is a Don or Mafia boss in the small town of Cinisi where the story is set. In a scene soon after the happy family gathering we see don Cesare blown up by a car bomb which was planted by a rival Mafia boss. This ends Peppino’s time of innocence. Even as a small child he is thrust into the realities of life in the Mafia.
After his uncle’s funeral he goes to a local painter, Stefano Venuti, who is also a very outspoken member of the communist party in Sicily, to paint a picture of Cesare. Stefano refuses to paint it but does not really give him a reason. He did not get along with Cesare when he was alive because of their great difference in political views but he cannot really tell this sad stubborn little boy why he cannot paint him. Stefano ends up taking Peppino under his wing and puts his stubborn persistent energy to use in the aid of the Communist Party in Sicily. The story then jumps to when Peppino is a young adult in his early 20s protesting against the government expropriating land that belonged to local farmers to build an airport with his Comrades in the Communist Party. They all end up in the local jail where Peppino is bailed out by his father.
After this incident Peppino brings Stefano an article he has written for a local propaganda newspaper titled “La Mafia è una montagna di merda” or “The Mafia is a pile of shit” which Stefano deems to be too extreme and very dangerous to publish. This is the point where there is a break between Peppino and Stefano. Peppino becomes more and more extreme in his hatred for the Mafia and his need to expose all of the corruption that is happening in the town. Peppino and his father get into a big fight because of this article and this begins break between Peppino and his family.
Peppino’s next step to expose the Mafia was to create a radio station with his friends called “radio Aut” which condemned the Mafia and told about don Tano’s participation in the drug trade. At this point Peppino’s father is under a lot of pressure to make his son stop what he is doing. Peppino gets kicked out of his family’s house. His mother is still looking out for him. She brings him books and keeps him hidden from his father. Meanwhile Luigi cannot handle the situation that Peppino has created at home so he goes to visit his relatives in America. They tell him that they can get Peppino a job in radio in America if he wants.
Shortly after Luigi returns from America, he has a conversation with Peppino and then gets hit by a car on his walk home from his restaurant. Peppino does not acknowledge his father's Mafia friends at his funeral. This was not unexpected from him and it was rude and dangerous. By this point Peppino starts to doubt in the people's commitment to resist the Mafia. He feels like he is all alone in his resistance. He decides to run for office in a local election running under a very small leftist party while continuing his radio crusade.
The Mafia eventually gets tired of Peppino and decides that life would be easier without him. They have men follow him in his car one night and when he stops at a railroad crossing they drag him out of his car beat him until he cannot move, tie him to the railroad tracks with TNT and blow him up. His friends realize that something's up and go looking for Peppino. They cannot find anything until the morning when they find the police in the spot where Peppino has been killed. They can see the blood on the ground from where he was beaten. They protest vehemently to the police to investigate it as a murder (as it obviously was from the evidence) but the police, having been influenced by the Mafia, rule the case terrorist act, and then later on as a suicide and leave. At his funeral there is a huge demonstration of support from the many people who he had made an impact on in his ten years of anti-Mafia and Communist party work.
Peppino Impastato was killed on May 9, 1978. The case was originally treated as a suicide and no one was convicted for his murder until 1997 when the case was reopened and Gaetano Badalamenti was convicted and given a life sentence for the murder of Peppino Impastato. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0094958 | Dayavan | After having witnessed his dad being killed by the local police, and being orphaned and homeless, Shakti Velu develops a hatred and distrust of the police in India. He is befriended by another homeless boy named Shanker, who asks him to accompany him to Bombay's slums, where they live with a kind-hearted Muslim named Karim Baba, and his daughter, Shama. This is where Shakti and Shankar spend their childhood. When they mature, they take to petty crime. Here too, Shakti witnesses police brutality and atrocities, especially at the hands of sadistic, alcoholic, and womanizing Police Inspector Ratan Singh. When Karim Baba is arrested, jailed, and found hanging by his neck in police custody, Shakti hunts down Ratan Singh, and kills him in broad daylight in front of the several hundred people. An investigation is launched, but no one comes forward as a witness. Thus Shakti gets his reputation as a Don with a good heart i.e., Dayavan. Shakti marries local prostitute, Neelu, and has two children, Suraj and Sarita. He becomes even more powerful and influential all over Bombay, and his working partners are powerful criminal dons who have ruled over Bombay for eons. Shakti eventually replaces these dons, and becomes Bombay's only Don. This creates enemies for him and his family, but he believes since he has not really done any harm to anyone, he and his family will be safe. It is this belief that will take a heavy toll on his life and that of his family, when the truth dawns that he, himself, is responsible for being kind to a man, who will ultimately bring forward ruin to the Velu family. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Perhaps Vinod's Best.
It is perhaps Vinod's best movie.
Vinod was a talented and original actor but it was pity that he left the film industry for a long interval.
This interruption caused much damage to his career otherwise he might be among great heroes.
Dayavan is a good movie telling the crude realities of criminal and poor life.
Perhaps it is a remake of Kamal Hassan's movie and Vinod is successful in recreating the character of Shakti.
Film runs on pace and plot twists grip the movie-goer but the last part of the movies seems a bit weak.
Perhaps discredit goes to Adita Pancholi's weak acting.
Overall, movies is worthy to be collectd and a must see for those who want real life action and story..
a superb movie.
It's a great saga .
The story of a hero among the poor and the exploited.
It keeps you engrossed throughout.
A fast paced movie, Superb screen play ,real depiction of life.The fight scenes are superbThe songs are just situational and not inserted just like that like in some movies.there are hardly 2 songs.
It's nice that the director hasn't wasted time on songs and focused on the content.
It's a complete story.It's not just a love story;it includes a love story as a part of the main plot.All other sub plots are equally interesting.You will find almost all situations in life here It shows all kinds of people.It is said to be based on Kamal Hassan's movie in Tamil.
Kudos to Feroz Khan and Vinod Khanna for making this movie for Hindi audiences..
A Hindi Remake Of The Original Famous Tamil Film Nayagan(1988) which Starred Kamal Hassan And Was Directed By Mani Ratnam..
I saw Nagayan Hindi dubbed version, and now I can make a comparison between the two.
I also recommend that you see this excellent Hindi dubbed version of Nayagan before you watch Dayavan.
The main comparsion between the two films is that Nagayan is a more-to the-point film, whereas Dayavan like all Bollywood films has masala (spices) added to it to make it more appealing.If you ask me frankly, I would say that Nayagan is a better film in all respects and brilliantly acted and directed as well.
I should advise you to see and own both Nagayan and Dayavan.(Everyone is entitled to his/hers own opinion.)Changes: the role which Kamal Hassan played as the main figure is now replaced by the excellent veteran actor Vinod Khana.
This is one of his most famous roles.
The film also stars the actor and director of the film, the late Bollywood Legend Feroz Khan whose loss is still deeply felt to me.
Feroz Khan's career in Bollywood is legendary and his movies are all blockbusters.
I like his style of direction and the way he introduces characters in the film.
This film is also one of his biggest contributions to Bollywood.Maduri Dixit is stunning as always.
And her acting is on a different level altogether.
She still is the best actress in Bollywood and the pace-setter.The songs in the film are the highlight.
"Aaj phir tum pe pyar aaya hai..." is my personal favorite.
This song is sung by the Legendary Pankaj Udhas.Plot: After having witnessed the tragic death of his father by the local South Indian police, and being orphaned and homeless, Shakti Velhu develops a hate, and distrust of the police in India.
He is befriended by another homeless boy named Shanker, who asks him to accompany him to Bombay's slumlands, where they live with a kind-hearted Muslim named Karim Baba, and his daughter, Shama.
This is where Shakti and Shankar spend their childhood.
When they mature, they take to petty crime.
Here too, Shakti witnesses police brutality and atrocities, especially at the hands of Police Inspector Ratan Singh.
When Karim Baba is arrested, jailed, and found dead in police custody, Shakti hunts down Ratan Singh.
An investigation is launched, but no one comes forward as a witness.
Thus Shakti gets his reputation as a Don with a good heart viz.
Dayavan.
Shakti marries Neelu, and has two children, Suraj and Sarita.
He becomes even more powerful and influential all over Bombay, and his working partners are powerful criminal dons who have ruled over Bombay for eons.
Shakti eventually replaces these dons, and becomes Bombay's only Don. This creates enemies for him and his family, but he believes since he has not really done any harm to anyone, he and his family will be safe.
It is this belief that will take a heavy toll on his life and that of his family.Full 10/10: a must have film for all Hindi film lovers, and Feroz Khan and Vinod Khanna fans..
A poor remake of Tamil Original.
I had watched this movie while I was studying in Madras (Tamil Nadu).
This movie is a poor copy of an excellent Tamil movie named Nayakan.
The problem is that Dayavan movie pretended that it is not a copy and did a very poor job of copying.
Dayavan is produced and directed by Feroz Khan who made some mega productions like Qurbani and Jaanbaaz.
In this movie Feroz took the short cut and copied a widely popular movie without putting any though on his own.
I was very impressed by the photography of the original Nayakan which captured the loneliness of a boy while keeping things dim.
Dayavaan failed on the photography front.
Nayakan starred Kamal Hassan who very deftly portrayed his characters with equal measure of strength and hesitation.
Vinod Khanna in Dayavan doesn't even come close to Kamal in capturing the range of emotions.
Watch a scene in the movie where Kamal and Vinod grieve for their dead son and note that Vinod was copying Kamal and still did a bad job of it.
Original movie had excellent score provided by Illayaraja and it was poorly copied in Dayavaan.
Overall I was very disappointed to see this remake/copy..
Cant be compared to Nayakan but yet a good film.
Feroz Khan as a filmmaker made some few decent films like Dharmatma & Qurbani, After JAANBAAZ he made this film which was a remake of Nayakan The film had ageing superstar Vinod Khanna with newbie Madhuri, Aditya Panscholi and of course Feroz Khan.
The film is also claimed to be based on real life gangster Varadarajan Mudaliar, strangely even Amitabh seems to have copied his gruffy voice in Agneepath.
The film starts off with Vinod and Feroz both slowly making into the world of crime after some atriocities.
Then he becomes a Godfather type image, there are several twists and turns, In many ways it's different from Feroz's normal films, here the focus is more on drama less on style and himself.
The film is well handled by Feroz Khan, I wont compare it to Mani Ratnam's Nayakan but yet its a good film Music is decent, Aaj Phir Tumpe is a superb song sung by Pankaj Uddhas and Anuradha Paudwal, other songs are good tooVinod Khanna is exceptional, he has always been superb as an actor, he gives it his all and is superb Feroz Khan is decent in his small role, Madhuri is okay, she gets less scope, Tinnu Anand is good, Amrish Puri is okay in a brief role Aditya Panscholi is okay |
tt3958918 | The War Within | The War Within is the story of Hassan, a Pakistani engineering student in Paris, who is apprehended by American intelligence services for suspected terrorist activities. After his interrogation, Hassan undergoes a radical transformation and embarks upon a terrorist mission, surreptitiously entering the United States to join a cell based in New York City. After they have meticulously planned an event of maximum devastation, the members of the cell are arrested, except for Hassan, Khalid, and their cell leader Izzy.
With no alternative and nowhere else to turn, Hassan must rely on the hospitality of his former best friend Sayeed, who is living the American dream with his family in New Jersey. To go forward and carry out his own attack, Hassan takes advantage of Sayeed's generosity while plotting his strategy and amassing materials to create explosives. Eventually, Hassan's skewed religious fervor clashes with his feelings for Sayeed and his family, especially Sayeed's young son Ali, his eight-year-old daughter Rasheeda, and Sayeed's sister Duri, with whom Hassan begins to fall in love.
When Izzy is arrested, Khalid and Hassan decide to use the explosives in a suicide attack on Grand Central Station. Duri discovers Hassan mixing the explosives in her brother's house. When Sayeed tries to stop him, Hassan knocks him out and runs away. Duri follows Hassan to stop the attack. At the last minute, Khalid loses his nerve and Hassan goes to the target alone. Duri arrives at Grand Central Station just before Hassan detonates his explosive belt. After the attack, Sayeed is held by the police, who believe that he helped Hassan. | christian film | train | wikipedia | Wow!
This movie blew me away....
This film is incredibly well done and full of powerful truths.
I would highly recommend this movie to anyone!
This is one of the best Christian films that has been made.
I look forward to sharing it with friends and family, both believers and non-believers.
This is great film for anyone...
It is a movie that is enjoyable, challenging and inspiring!
The cinematography is captivating and gives you a clear sense for how the circumstances in the characters' lives impact them internally, affecting their relationships with those who matter most to them.
The characters are true to life and the "war within" is realistically and powerfully portrayed.
The story is amazing and the quality is excellent.
It is definitely worth watching!!!.
Best Feature, Best Gospel Presentation, and Audience Choice.
This movie took three awards at the Christian Worldview Film Festival in 2014.The first was Best Feature.The second was Best Gospel Presentation.And the third was Audience Choice.I was glad because it was my favorite film at the festival.
I even watched it twice.
I look forward to seeing it again.I love how it uses film and special effects to demonstrate what is going on inside.
I could really relate a lot of the time.
I also enjoy movies that make me think and this is one of those..
That elusive soul.
The War Within looks like a Varvel family project.
Star Michael Varvel plays our protagonist lead a syndicated cartoonist who is having a nice war inside himself.
Varvel also plays one of the inner characters called Heart.
Various other Varvel family members play other aspects of the inner being conscience, will, emotion, etc.
More properly the heart should have been called the soul.
I suspect it was to get other than Christian audiences interested.The war going on concerns Varvel's faith which is in jeopardy after the death of his and Rebecca Reid's daughter.
At issue in the marriage is Reid's lack of faith, she never goes to church with husband and daughter.
I was impressed with the film with the amateurish special effects I wasn't expecting anything of Hollywood quality.
The acting of this cast of Varvels and other unknowns wasn't bad all things considered.
But I have to say the message of what God got in the way of sacrifice to save someone's soul was off putting to say the least.I think non-believers will agree..
Unique and Brilliant.
Wow - this film was much more than I expected!
A brilliant work that uses imagination and metaphor to relay truths about the human mind/heart/soul.
The War Within delves into the many aspects of a human and follows one man's journey as he struggles in the aftermath of a dark event in his life.
The movie breaks down the parts of a man's being (Conscience, Emotion, Will, Memory, Heart, Mind) as they go to war with one another as the man struggles for emotional survival in the wake of a tragedy.
I particularly loved the actor that played "emotion" and the way in which the film displays the complexity of an individual.
I love that the movie did not oversimplify; most movies cheapen out and characters are painted with one brush - not here.
I cannot imagine anyone who couldn't relate to this examination of the human experience put forth without pretension.
Finally, the film shows, first metaphorically and then literally, how faith is gained and how it effects the different aspects of a person's being.
Creative, complex and smart.
I highly recommend..
What a movie.
Wonderful movie of the war within, any writer can definitely take from this movie.
Expresses the never-ending war going on inside of us.
Would recommend to anyone who has experienced tragedy, faced loss, or has been through a divorce.
Surely a movie that will make you question life.
Would also recommend to any Christian. |
tt0406375 | Zathura: A Space Adventure | Brothers Walter (Josh Hutcherson) and Danny (Jonah Bobo) can never seem to get along with each other, or with their older teen-aged sister, Lisa (Kristen Stewart). While staying at their divorced father's home while he is away at work and Lisa is asleep, the boys discover an old clockwork-driven space-themed board game called "Zathura" in the basement. The two begin to play the game, the goal to be the first to reach the final space named Zathura. During each turn, the game provides a card with instructions, but the two quickly realize the cards affect reality, starting with a meteor shower. They soon discover the house is floating on a small rock alongside Saturn. Meanwhile, Lisa looks out the window, and believing it is merely dark, goes to shower for her date. When the boys try to warn Lisa about what has happened, they find she is frozen in cryonic sleep as a result of one of the cards. The brothers realize that the only way to end the game and hopefully return to Earth is to reach the end space of Zathura.
As they continue to play, Walter and Danny avoid the dangers that the game's cards throw at them like a defective robot (Frank Oz) and the house coming under attack by a race of reptilian aliens called Zorgons. Another card brings aboard a stranded astronaut (Dax Shepard) who goes about eliminating the house's heat sources (during which Walter turns down the house's heating thermostat) and setting a couch on fire and pushing it outside into space to lure the Zorgons' ship away with its heat signature (since Zorgons are attracted to heat).
As the brothers' tension rises, Walter accuses Danny of cheating by moving a piece prematurely, but when Walter tries to correct it, the game reacts as if Walter was cheating and ejects him out of the house into the vacuum of space, but the Astronaut rescues him. On Walter's next turn, he receives a card that allows him to make a wish, and considers making a wish to make Danny go away. The Astronaut quickly warns him that he and his own brother had played the game years before, and he too had received the same card. He wished his brother away, but this caused him to be stuck in the game forever without a second player. The brothers agree to work together to finish the game quickly.
Lisa wakes from her stasis, and unaware of the current events, turns up the thermostat. This causes the Zorgons to return, anchoring their ships to the house. The four evacuate to the upper floor but realize they have left the game downstairs. Lisa falls in love with the Astronaut. Danny uses the house's dumbwaiter to sneak past the aliens and retrieve the game. Danny manages to get the game aboard one of the ships, but is caught by the Zorgons when he attempts to get back on the dumbwaiter. Walter uses the "Reprogram" card to get the self-repairing robot to attack the Zorgons, and the aliens retreat. As the brothers continue to play the game, Walter receives another wish card. He uses it to bring back the Astronaut's brother, which turns out to be Danny. The Astronaut explains he is an older Walter from an alternate timeline. Danny and Walter touch their counterparts causing them to disappear.
The Zorgons return to the house with a large fleet intent on destroying it. Danny makes a final move to land on Zathura. It is revealed that Zathura is a giant black hole that sucks up the Zorgon fleet and the house.
The three children then find themselves in the house as it was before they started the game on Earth, just as their father arrives home and their mother comes to pick them up. After they leave, their bicycle, which had been orbiting their house when it was in space, falls from the sky. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097778 | Look Who's Talking | Mollie is an accountant living in New York City who has an affair with Albert, a womanizing executive who is married with two children, and becomes pregnant. During her pregnancy, Mollie and Albert keep their indiscretion secret, under the idea she was artificially inseminated, and that Albert plans to leave his wife Beth and their two children to be with her. Mollie and her friend Rona happen to catch Albert fooling around with his interior decorator Melissa and he admits he is planning on living with her after his divorce is finalized. Mollie leaves upset, and immediately goes into labor. She gets into a cab where the driver, James Ubriacco, recklessly speeds through downtown traffic in order to get her to the hospital on time, and he is inadvertently a witness to her son Mikey's birth. Mikey then begins to make commentary on his life and interacts with things through an inner voice which can also communicate with other babies.
Hoping to get her life back on track, Mollie becomes a dedicated single mother; refusing to be superficial about hopeful fathers, but rejecting several men over small quirks that may reflect badly upon Mikey in the future. She meets James again at her apartment building and discovers he used her mailing address to set up residency in order to get his grandfather Vincent into a nice care home. She agrees to continue the ruse when he agrees to babysit Mikey, which almost comes to a halt when he takes the baby out to the airport, where he is a part-time commercial pilot while she is taking a nap (leading her to believe he'd kidnapped Mikey). A year passes, and James, realizing his feelings for Mollie cause him to start sabotaging one of her dates, she soon realizes the bond he and Mikey share and decides to give him a chance. After a visit to James' grandfather at his new home, James takes her for flying lessons and she realizes she's falling for him, but when they become intimate, she imagines their life together and resists. James tells Mollie that he loves her, but she says she only wants what is best for Mikey and kicks him out. Back at work, Mollie is forced by her boss to continue to work with Albert, who insists upon seeing Mikey and she agrees. But when Albert visits, he meets James and the two get into an argument, the secret upsetting James he asks Mollie if she loves Albert and she claims she does not know. When he suggests the idea of being the closest thing to a father Mikey has, Mollie tells him that he's like a big kid and is not responsible enough to be a father. James calls her out for using Mikey to push men away including himself and he storms out. At the playground, Mikey is told by his friends what "daddies" are, and he realizes he wants James to be his daddy. James comes to the apartment and tells Mikey that he won't be around any more, and Mollie listens over the baby monitor as he pours his heart out to Mikey who admits he will miss James too.
Mollie takes Mikey to Albert's office to meet him, but when Albert claims he doesn't want the responsibility of being a father, Mollie realizes he hasn't changed and she and Mikey ruin several pieces of his furniture before storming out and putting Albert out of their lives for good. Back at home, she receives a call from Vincent's home telling her that he's a disruptive influence and abusive to the staff, and she rushes over to clear up the error, managing to convince them to keep Vincent as he was given a chocolate stash that James had earlier instructed an orderly (who didn't speak English) not to let him have more than one a day or it would cause these outbursts. James arrives and he and Mollie make up. Meanwhile, Mikey wanders off on his own, searching for James when he sees a taxi cab outside. After making his way out to the alley he gets into a car and is towed away while Mollie and James search frantically for him. After spotting him, James and Mollie give chase in his cab and eventually cut off the tow truck, but discover Mikey had gotten out of the car and is now standing in the middle of heavy traffic. James and Mollie run to reach him and take him to safety, where Mikey unofficially asks James to be his father by saying his first word "Da-da". James and Mollie realize that Mikey already sees James as his father, and they decide to give it a chance, kissing passionately while Mikey considers telling him he needs a new diaper, before deciding to wait.
Nine months later, Mollie gives birth to her and James' daughter Julie. When Mikey greets his half-sister she "tells" him she had a day he wouldn't believe. | comedy, fantasy, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0246729 | Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi | Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is about the deadly game of survival in a ruthless world of crime and sleaze. A criminal don, Maya (Rekha), hosts illegal wrestling matches in U.S (New York) and has the full support of the local Police Commissioner. Ajay Malhotra has relocated to U.S and has started his own orchestra with the help of some of his friends.
His brother, Akshay (Akshay Kumar), decides to visit him on hearing that he wants to marry his beloved in Canada; on the airplane he meets Priya (Raveena Tandon), and both fall in love. Once in the U.S., Akshay finds out that the police have a warrant for the arrest of Ajay and want to question him. Akshay's attempts to locate Ajay lands him with Maya, who happens to be Priya's sister. Apparently Maya is holding Ajay and will only release him after he hands over incriminating documents. Akshay soon wins Maya's confidence by rescuing her from attempts on her life made by King Don (Gulshan Grover), and Maya begins to like him and trust him. Akshay then proposes to her, to which Maya agrees, much to the disappointment of Priya.
Soon Akshay kills Maya's men when they get to know of his true identity. He also organises a fake kidnap drama with Ajay's friends, who kidnap him and demand that Maya come to meet them with Ajay. By now Maya realizes that Akshay is Ajay's brother, and Priya actually loves Akshay. At the end, Maya commits suicide, and before dying she hands over her sister Priya to Akshay. | violence, cruelty, sadist | train | wikipedia | Possibly the best Indian action film!.
Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is a pleasure to watch.
It is one of the best Indian action films, and who would be a better choice for the leading role in the film if not the action hero himself, Akshay Kumar?
The film is well shot, well cast, with great and catchy songs, good camera work, relatively high production values and superb locations.
It was quite racy and surprising in many aspects.
First, the WWF sequences with real undertakers who make appearances throughout the film.
Secondly, Rekha, in a completely different role.
Thirdly, the unusual locations, including Canada and Russia, which were quite refreshing for the times.
Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi, in a brilliant mix of romance, comedy, thriller and of course action, tells the story of Akshay, an army officer who flies to USA for his brother's marriage.
On his way he meets and falls for the beautiful Priya.
He later finds out that his brother has disappeared, and the one responsible for this is a vicious and cruel criminal commonly known as Madam Maya, coincidentally Priya's sister.
There starts the story of Akshay getting close to Maya, all in order to reunite with his brother.This film is complete entertainment.
It moves at a very steady pace, it never bores, and is overall an interesting and compelling flick.
The action sequences are terrific and evidently well-invested.
Akshay Kumar, the film's main protagonist, is fantastic in this "angry young man" role, which he plays in his own special style.
He is good-looking, impressive, and proves yet again his superior prowess as an action star.
This is one of his most underrated works at that time.
Raveena is beautiful and attractive but does not really have much to do in terms of acting.The film, however, entirely belongs to Rekha who is astonishing as the vicious and merciless Maya.
She is convincing, stylish, beautiful, glamorous, and kudos for the courage romancing the much younger Akshay.
And boy, I'm still shocked when I get reminded of her explicit clip with Akshay, when they mud-wrestled like heated animals and then had a joint shower!
They literally took a shower together!
Akshay is so lucky, man!
She was sizzling and so sexually attractive, even at her forties.
This actress never feared controversy, and here she emerged as a complete winner!All in all, Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is a must-watch.
It represents the magic of Bollywood's 1990s cinema.
Whether you're a Rekha fan, an Akki fan, a fan of action films, a fan of Hindi films, or simply someone who looks for entertainment, you can't miss this film..
The best action movie from my favorite actor.
This is the best action movie ever made in Bollowood industry.
The father of all action movies in Bollywood AKSHAY KUMAR delivers his best.
A must watch for all action action lovers.
A super solid movie that will remain in the mind of all the people.
I wish the existing Bollywood producers make a sequel to this old Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi.
Love to see Akshay Kumar in a sequel to this.
These days the movies are that great compared to the action movies of 90s.
I wish if they ever make a sequel, they should include all the real wrestlers unlike The Undertake which is not a real one from the WWE.
Please someone from the Bollywood make a sequel to Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi.
I would be the first one to see it in the multiplex.
Love you so much my dearest Akshay Kumar....
Best Khiladi Movie Ever.
Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is highly entertaining action movie of 90s.
It is one of best action movies from Bollywood.It is no doubt why this movie was among biggest hits of 1990s.Direction - Umesh Mehra directed this movie extremely well and is among his best works to date.Story - Story is nothing novel but still it is very entertaining.Music - Music is good.
Hum hai seedhe-saadhe akshay is best of lot.The Song between akshay and rekha is good too but i don't know why many hated the hot scenes.
It was needed according to storyline.Performances - Akshay Kumar rocks as Khiladi.
His stunt scenes are highlight of the movie.
The ones with Undertaker are classic and will be remembered for long time to come.
Rekha is show stealer with her negative performance.
She looks ravishing and gorgeous and inspite of the fact that she is quite elder than akshay in age both still make great pair.
Raveena Tandon was okay.
Due to Rekha's total dominance in movie she was almost sidelined.
Rest (Gulshan Grover, Inder Kumar etc) gave good support.The Highlight of this movie is its mind blowing stunt scenes which were so novel and thats why i rate this movie so highly.A Great action movie which will be remembered for long time to come..
Rekha's performance alone is worth watching..
This is Rekha's first movie in which she plays a negative role.
She looks beautiful as always and her performance as a crime lord is very convincing.The movie had too many fight sequences.
All the songs were bad except for one.
The one that Rekha and Akshay Kumar dance to.
The music video is great too.
I can see why censors had a problem with this film.The story is about Akshay's brother Ajay.
He thinks that Rekha has kidnapped him and to get to him, he tries romancing Rekha.
Raveena Tandon is Rekha's younger sister, whom Akshay is really in love with, but he pretends like he doesn't like her so that he can get to Rekha.
Akshay and Rekha had great chemistry and look great together.Also, the wrestler known as The Undertaker is in this movie.
He plays a wrestler hired by Rekha to fight in a wrestling match she bets on.Personally, the best think about this movie is Rekha.
She changes through many costumes and wigs of different colors, but always looks classy and beautiful.
Though the begining is slow, the story picks up.
As said before, there are too many action sequences.
but you can fast forward that.
I would recommend that anyone rent it specifically for Rekha's performance..
Action Classic!.
'Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi' (Player of Players) is an action movie starring Akshay Kumar, Rekha and Raveena Tandon.
First of all, let me tell you that it's rating as of now is only '5.4' which I disagree with.
It should have at least a '6' just for its action.The movie starts slow with a wrestling match between two wrestlers and some other stuff here and there.
The real fun and entertainment begins when Akshay enters the frame.
The plot is not brilliant but it is fine.
It is about Akshay (Akshay Kumar) trying to save his brother from the webs of underworld don, Maya (Rekha), who also turns out to be Priya's (Raveena Tandon) sister, whom Akshay has already fallen for.The movie does have flaws.
The songs are too much and not that good.
The movie's start is very slow as well and it could have been edited better.
Rekha gives the best performance out of the lot and is stupendous as the villain.
Raveena is fine.
Her chemistry with Akshay is just fantastic.
The BEST thing about the movie, though, would be the action sequences with Akshay 'Khiladi' Kumar.
My 3 favorites would be the 'Car Street Fight', '10 Steps Fight' and 'Full Leg Split Combat'.
Truly great action.
Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi was a super hit in its time and it deserved to be..
Great.
After watching 'Khiladi', the first in the khiladi series, I had incredibly high hopes.
Needless to say that I wasn't disappointed.
The performances by Rekha and Akshay Kumar are great.I was particularly impressed by Rekha who plays underworld don Maya incredibly well.
Gulshan Grover is good as is Raveena Tandon; you couldn't expect much more from them.
Brian Lee is good as the wrestler called undertaker.The action is great.
The story is, of course, very good.The screenplay is great as is the cinematography.
The music, on the other hand, could've been better.
Verdict: watch it if you liked 'Khilad' (1992).
one of the best action movies ever.
KKK is a great action movie.
This was another movie of khiladi FRANCHISE and this movie was a huge hit and really AK's each khiladi movie used to do better than the previous khiladi movies.
For example- main khiladi tu anari grossed more than khiladi and sabse bada khiladi grossed more than main khiladi tu anari and this movie grossed more than sabse bada khiladi.
What i liked in this movie was the lavish sets ,the unique concept of the film a film based on the wrestling and gangsters and smugglers involved in it , a film like this hasn't been made yet,the songs were good in which seed he Sade akshay song was the best ,it is actually made for akshay kumar, akshay's acting was like okay but his action was epic ,i bet no other bollywood actor can do that type of action that he did lifting undertaker although he was fake but lifting him also is really tough because he will be easily weighing more than 250 pounds and lifting a man whose weight is 250+pounds is a big deal.
In this film akshay's action rises above the script other actors are okay and undertaker's dubbing in Hindi was horrible i was laughing out loud man, this film clashed with srk's chahat and chahat bombed at the box office and this movie shined at the box office.I can say this for sure that if this movie would have released in 2014 with 4000+ screens and on a holiday/ festival this would broken all possible records it would have easily done 2 Billion rupees at the box office, this movie could have earned more if it had not clashed with srk's movie although even despite a clash it was the 5th or 6th highest grosser of the year and without clash it would have been in the top 3 highest grossing movies of that year.
It is one of the best action movies and best khiladi movies.
Singh is kinng off 90's.
In the 90's mad films dominated, Akshay Kumar did several stupid and some entertaining filmsThis can be put in the entertaining list but it's lot stupid tooThere are some crude scenes, especially the Akshay-Raveena portion in the plane and also several more lots of fight scenes and of course Akshay vs Undertaker which is a highlightThe main story is good and well handled but the film gets too much many times especially the finale fight where Akshay is shown like a tigerDirection is decent Music is okayAkshay Kumar looks ugly with that long fringe and fat body those days and overacts in comedy(like he did those days) and does okay in serious scenes Raveena is her usual self Rekha is the highlight, she excels in a negative role Gulshan Grover is okay Inder Kumar is okay in his first film.
Best Indian/Hindi action film.
Best Indian action movie ever made.
Amazing stunts by Akshay Kumar.
Great work by action coordinator Akbar.
Foot tapping numbers by Annu.
Excellent locations.
Good work by Rekha, Raveena.
Action scenes especially WWF ones were too good.
Film is the story about two brothers.Akshay's younger brother is missing in Canada and he came for his rescue.
Though it was loud at times but overall it was a nice movie for action lovers.
Few scenes were really kicking like climax scene and WWF fight between Akshay and Undertaker.
This movie is extensively shot in Canada and is one of the best movies of Akshay's Khiladi series.This will be considered as a hallmark movie in his career..
A noteworthy action flick from the 1990s.
Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi was a major action film which was very popular in the mid 1990s.
The film relied on it's martial arts type stunts which were lauded during those times.
However, Khiladiyon ka Khiladi is far from perfect because it succumbs to mediocrity.
This is mainly because there are some needless elements which could have been eliminated.Khiladiyon ka Khiladi is the story of two brothers, Ajay and Akshay, Akshay's brother has a girlfriend and they are supposed to be hitched very soon.
Akshay gets the news and comes to America to attend his brother's weeding.
Unfortunately, his brother is missing and even his brother's friends can't find him.
In the meantime, two rival dons, Maya and King Don keep clashing with each other.
Ajay used to work for Maya but he went missing ever since he decided to be a police informer.
Will Akshay be able to find Ajay?
Is Ajay even alive?
Khiladiyon ka Khiladi answers these questions through some twists and turns.
Umesh Mehra's direction is good but some scenes lack the required steam.
For instance, the entire track of Akshay faking his love for Maya seems a little rushed.
On the other hand, there are some directional goofs.
For example, Ajay's friends have stated that they search every corner of the city to find him.
However, this is preposterous since Ajay was resting in a location which was not difficult to find.
However, most of the scenes are coherent and a smooth flow is decently maintained.
Anand S.
Vardhan's dialogues are commonplace but they fill the bill.
Anu Malik's music is good with one memorable track, Seedhe Saadhe Akshay.
Aaj Meri Zindagi is a silly song with hilarious choreography.
In the Nigh No Control is incredibly sensuous which created a huge stir back then.
The other songs are alright.
Peter Pereira's cinematography is pretty good for the 1990s.
The other technicians in the film have done their jobs effectively.
Akshay Kumar performs the stunts with élan but his dialogue delivery is off in some scenes.
There are some scenes which have him go over the board with his laughing and crying.
It was unnecessary to show him as a tiger towards the end.
However, he is amazing in the action scenes.
In addition, he shows some flair in the serious scenes.
However, it seems that initially, he was very uncomfortable with comedy.
Raveena Tandon looks beautiful and does her bit properly.
However, it is Rekha who steals the show.
Her menacing act as Maya is simply amazing because she does it very convincingly.
I wish she did more antagonistic roles such as this one.
Gulshan Grover is hilariously effective as King Don. He does a much better job here compared to his idiotic act in Sabse Bada Khiladi(1995).
Anjana Mumtaz plays the same old role of a mother and she barely gets any scope.
Deven Verma also only has a few scenes.
Tiku Talsania is hilarious in the initial comedy scenes.
Brian Lee is effective as the intimidating undertaker.
The rest provide decent support.On the whole, Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is one of the biggest Khiladi successes which worked because of the interesting plot and the commendable action scenes.
This film does not make very good use of Akshay Kumar's acting but the film still has a significant amount going for it..
Watch once.
As usual, like all the 90's films, a nearly 3 hour long entertainer,KKK is one of the few movies in the 'Khiladi' series that can be watched.No I am not full praise for this, but compared to other Khiladi films,this one is OK.Apart froM this I feel one can also watch 'Sabse bada khladi' and 'khiladi' .No other.Story revolves around Army officer Akshay who comes to the US to attend his younger brother's wedding,meets Priya on the way and it's love at first sight, but soon realizes that nothing is right, and so he jumps into a game of deception and danger to rescue his brother Ajay and Ajay's fiancée from the wicked Maya,a "don ruling the US" and incidentally Priya's sister, and King Don,Maya's rival.The makers have tried to use the WWF mania to their advantage to hype this film,but I think the wrestlers are all fake.Some of the dialogs between Akshay and Rekha are good.
Songs are really noteworthy.Some action sequences are fake.
Quite a lot of overacting too.
And imagine an old lady trying to romance a young man!!!thoo thoo!!!That is really disgusting.Overall the concept is not bad but the film has its flaws,like I mentioned above.I don't think this film would've done well.You can watch it once. |
tt0193995 | Hansel and Gretel | Hansel and Gretel are the young children of a poor woodcutter. When a great famine settles over the land, the woodcutter's second, abusive wife decides to take the children into the woods and leave them there to fend for themselves, so that she and her husband do not starve to death, because the kids eat too much. The woodcutter opposes the plan but finally, and reluctantly, submits to his wife's scheme. They were unaware that in the children's bedroom, Hansel and Gretel have overheard them. After the parents have gone to bed, Hansel sneaks out of the house and gathers as many white pebbles as he can, then returns to his room, reassuring Gretel that God will not forsake them.
The next day, the family walk deep into the woods and Hansel lays a trail of white pebbles. After their parents abandon them, the children wait for the moon to rise and then they followed the pebbles back home. They return home safely, much to their stepmother's rage. Once again provisions become scarce and the stepmother angrily orders her husband to take the children further into the woods and leave them there to die. Hansel and Gretel attempt to gather more pebbles, but find the doors locked and find it impossible to escape.
The following morning, the family treks into the woods. Hansel takes a slice of bread and leaves a trail of bread crumbs for them to follow home. However, after they are once again abandoned, they find that the birds have eaten the crumbs and they are lost in the woods. After days of wandering, they follow a beautiful white bird to a clearing in the woods, and discover a large cottage built of gingerbread, cakes, candy and with window panes of clear sugar. Hungry and tired, the children begin to eat the rooftop of the house, when the door opens and a "very old woman" emerges and lures the children inside, with the promise of soft beds and delicious food and a hot bath. They do this without knowing the fact that their hostess is a bloodthirsty Hag who waylays children to cook and eat them.
The next morning, the hag cleans the cage in the garden out from her previous captive. Then she throws Hansel into the cage and forces Gretel into becoming her slave. The hag feeds Hansel regularly to fatten him up, after three weeks Hansel gets nice and fat. On the final night she mutters to her self that he will be good to eat. The next day the witch prepares the oven for Hansel, but decides she is hungry enough to eat Gretel, too. She coaxes Gretel to the open oven and prods her to lean over in front of it to see if the fire is hot enough. Gretel, sensing the hag's intent, pretends she does not understand what she means. Infuriated, the hag demonstrates, and Gretel instantly shoves the hag into the oven, slams and bolts the door shut, leaving "The ungodly creature to be burned to ashes", screaming in pain until she dies. Gretel frees Hansel from the cage and the pair discover a vase full of treasure and precious stones. Putting the jewels into their clothing, the children set off for home. A duck ferries them across an expanse of water and at home they find only their father; his wife died from an unknown cause. Their father had spent all his days lamenting the loss of his children, and is delighted to see them safe and sound. With the hag's wealth, they all live happily ever after. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | Hansel and Gretel: Made in the United States.
Despite its European, "old world" look, Hansel and Gretel was made in New York City.
Indeed the comments to the contrary are a tribute to the filmmakers' success in evoking a genuine fairy tale style.
Nonetheless, the film was shot using conventional stop-motion puppets (notwithstanding the producer's claims to using some sort of mysterious "electronic" method) in the main room of an abandoned courthouse which is still standing at the corner of Second Avenue and Second Street in New York City.
The large set was built in the main chamber on the second floor (now the largest of several theaters in what is currently (2005) the Anthology Film Archives).Apparently electromagnets were used to hold the stop-motion puppets in place during some sequences, but normal procedures were used for the rest.
This and some hype that lured in backers may account for the mistaken report that they are electronic puppets.
They were solid, armature puppets and not clay (or "claymation") dolls.The set survived the production and actually toured county fairs as a fairy tale exhibit for many years after the completion of the film..
This was the first full-length stop-motion feature made in the United States.
In spite of other comments posted here Mybergh's "Hansel and Gretel" was filmed entirely in New York City.
The film was done sequentially and as funding for the production dried up and the release date drew nearer the animators were forced to speed things up.
The animation becomes quite hurried and sloppy near the end and if you look closely you will notice that both the angels from the Dream Pantomime and the Revived Gingerbread Children are only multiple castings of both Hansel and Gretel redressed.
There simply was no time to do original sculptures for these characters.This was to be the first in a series of full-length stop motion features by Mybergh's production team, but despite it doing exceptional business in Germany it failed to ignite at the box office in the United States.
According to members of the Mybergh Estate most of the original elements are still intact and we can only hope that someone will take it upon themselves to do a proper restoration of this amazing film to replace the shoddy, amateur DVD edition that is currently available.
Anna Russell's vocal performance as Rosina Rubylips is one that is unlikely to ever be equaled and Evalds Dajevskis' set designs definitive..
Magical version of "Hansel and Gretel".
"Hansel and Gretel" was not always easily accessible to kids.
Although it had sporadic television showings back in the days of black and white televisions, kids normally had to wait about every three years for it to be theatrically re-released to see it.
I remember seeing it once on television back in the days before we had color television sets and then seeing it several years later on the big screen (in all of its Technicolor splendor) and it captivated me by being the definitive version of the famous tale.
I liked it so much that when they re-released it some years later I went to see it again!
After the mid-seventies it more or less disappeared and it seemed to have become a forgotten film (shown occasionally on early cable T.V.).
However, in the early eighties I was surprised to see it on VHS through a company called Media Home Entertainment.
Sadly, their print had a terrible mono soundtrack making the film inaudible and the scene where the the stars form in the heavens (after the Sandman floated away) looked like it was set in the daytime instead of at night-time.
Later, in the eighties a no-frills video company released the same print with a marginally better soundtrack.
When HBO showed it in the early nineties, they showed a restored quality print.
One with perfect sound and with the stars in the heavens forming in the evening (keeping to the evening setting of Hansel and Gretel asleep under a tree in the forest).
Not long afterward, that restored version was put on to VHS by Vestron and I was delighted.
Too bad that Vestron didn't hold on to the rights long enough to put out a DVD edition of the film.
It has since fallen into the hands of another company and they've evidently used a not exactly perfect VHS print of the film as the master source for their DVD presentation of "Hansel and Gretel".
The evidence of VHS decay are sporadically obvious during the film.
It's annoying that the company probably had the means to give us "the" perfectly restored version of the film on DVD, but instead decided to gyp us with a low-budget video to DVD transfer of it.
I hope that another company will obtain the rights to this film and put a good copy of it on the market soon.
"Hansel and Gretel" must have been a pretty big hit in its day (1954).
There was a comic book and a record album of this film.
I know that the two times that I saw it in the theaters it played to packed movie houses.
Let's hope to see a restored DVD edition of it the near future!.
It was made in New York, I was there..
Although this film may look like it was from Eastern Europe, it was definitely made in New York City.
I was a member of the Apollo Boys Choir in 1953(we were from Palm Beach, Florida), and I remember visiting the studio in New York while the film was being shot.
We came up from Palm Beach in the fall to record our part of the sound track.
The choir director, Coleman Cooper, was a perfectionist, and we worked harder on this music than any other set of pieces I can remember.
Unfortunately, by the time we got to New York we were pretty sung out.
The recording session was long, and during it the producer decided that our sound needed some bolstering, so he brought in several female members of the Metropolitan Opera Chorus to help out.
We boys were a little disappointed too.
Charming Children's Film.
When I was growing up, we had a battered old VHS copy of this film that someone had had the presence of mind to tape off of the television one day.
Even though I was born over twenty years after this film was created, it still captured my imagination and I remember watching it many times over with my older sisters.This film is a retelling of the classic story of Hansel and Gretel, with a few whimsical additions and a musical score.
The stop-motion animation used to create this film, is both primitive and charming at the same time.
Although nowadays much smoother looking animation can be created on the computer, the claymation creatures in this film do not suffer in comparison, any more than claymation classics like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
The wonderful thing about this little film is the atmosphere created by the animated visuals, and by the lovely soundtrack.
It's enchanting and creepy at the same time, which was an irresistible combination when I was a child.
Although it's been years since I've seen this film, to this very day I still remember the songs word for word and can recite from the script.
I think any child fond of fairy tales, or fantasy stories would enjoy seeing this little film.
A wonderful children's movie!.
We had the sound track when I was growing up.
My older sister burned CDs of the sound track for us all a few years ago.
The angel pantomime still gives me goosebumps, it's so very, very beautiful.
The witch was played for laughs as much as for being scary.
My friend's children always love it when I give them my imitation of her cackle.I was priviledged to actually see the movie once in a theatre, a children's matinee.
How I wouldn't love to have a copy of it.
The music and vocalizations are timeless, beautiful, thrilling.
I'm sure any child would love this classic as much as I and my siblings did!.
Correction re the boys' choir used in this movie.
I found the other comments to be enlightening, especially with regard to the hurry-up conclusion.However, I know for a fact that the boys' choir used in this movie was no a European choir, but the Apollo Boys Choir, originally of Palm Beach, Florida, that moved to Dallas, Texas until its director, Coleman Cooper, retired.
During the Depression, the choir toured the United States in limousines, not buses, and sang for President Roosevelt at the Hot Springs resort where he escaped the pressures of Washington DC.
The choir accompanist, Mr. Bert Hallack, is a resident of Palm Beach.One famous former chorister of this choir is George Bragg, who founded the Texas Boys Boys (of Fort Worth)..
Movie in limbo.
Its hard to find this movie.
It was an import (from Eastern Europe somewhere) but you'd never know it from the care in dubbing.
It's the opera, but trimmed to essentials and clearly aimed at children.
But then TV prints left a lot to be desired.
It was a lovely looking movie.
The record was available on LP for ages.
Pity young people can't get to know this charming stop-motion film..
The story/fairy-tale is one of the best-known and is a timeless one, while Humperdinck's opera still enchants me after being first acquainted with it 11 or so years ago.
It is also one of the most accessible operas(with the music not too heavy and it's a story almost everybody knows) and one of the few to translate well into English.This 1954 film does get a little hurried visually and narratively at the end, but is overall one of the best versions of both the fairy-tale and the opera(I personally saw it for the first time recently so don't have nostalgic bias for it).
The visuals are beautiful and clever, charming in the lighter parts and atmospheric in the darker parts.
The amount of effort put into making the film is more than evident throughout.
Humperdinck's music is enchanting and is not trivialised whatsoever here, it's played with energy and depth by the orchestra and beautifully paced.
The choral singing is well-balanced and committed, if recording the music was indeed punishing it doesn't show at all in the singing.Hansel and Gretel(1954) works well also in the writing and story departments.
The script is whimsical and witty, enough to make one laugh, bite the nails and occasionally cry(not exactly emotionally but because there are scenes done so beautifully that it does evoke some emotion, notably the dream pantomime).
The storytelling is close in detail and spirit to both the fairy-tale's story and the opera and captures the essence of both.
Filled with cute animals, charmingly lovely moments like the dream pantomime(figuratively and literally heavenly here), funny moments- both light hearted and dark- like with the chemistry between Hansel and Gretel and especially the witch, whimsy and darkly scary moments like with again the witch, there is enough to captivate children and adults alike, not making the mistake of making it too scary for children or too juvenile for adults.All the characters engage in personality and there is a real attempt to make them individual, the most memorable and most colourful character being quite easily the witch.
All the acting and singing is top-notch, several have picked out Anna Russell as the standout and I am going to whole-heartedly agree, Russell is hilarious and genuinely creepy as the witch and was clearly having a whale of a time.
That does not mean though that the likes of Mildred Dunnock, Frank Rogier and Christine Brigham didn't excel, they certainly did in fact with Dunnock an authoritative and no-nonsense mother-figure, Rogier is a Father that is easy to feel sorry for and Brigham's Hansel and Gretel are both spirited and appealing.
Overall, fantastical in every sense, for lovers of the story, the opera or both this is a version that is not to be missed.
This is a stop-motion animation film of the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale, done, apparently, somewhere in Europe--the Austrian Apollo Boys Choir does the background vocals, so the film could have been made there or in nearby Hungary or Czechoslovakia, both of which were producing well-done animation films--but passed off as an American film, which it is not.
Considering the time it was made and the conditions existing in Europe during that period, it is an admirable attempt indeed.
The stop-motion, while not up to the standards of Ray Harryhausen, who was doing similar work at the time, is still well-done, and great care was obviously taken in the dubbing and scoring of the film.
The background music is at times a bit overpowering, and there are spots where the dialogue is drowned out by it, but there are some imaginative touches throughout and and some visually beautiful moments.
Children who are used to today's high-tech computer animation may not be impressed technically, but the film overall should appeal to them.
I first watched this film as a child in the 80's.
I loved it and a few weeks ago heard something that reminded me of this story.
I rented it from NetFlix and watched it last night.Although they film quality is poor, it was a great film for it's time and this movie still entertains me today.
My daughter also watched this film and I saw the same emotions in her that I remember feeling as I watched it as a child.
Fear of the wicked witch, the amazement in her eyes when she saw the witch's house and the giggles at the little bear and goose.
It just took me back to a time long ago when those little things made me happy and I'm glad I was able to find this film to share it with her.The story is timeless, the film is excellent and I just love it!
Among the creepiest puppets ever put on film.
I have to admit that I didn't watch this animated version of the Engelbert Humperdinck (the original composer, not the modern-day singer) opera in all seriousness.
That's because I was thoroughly creeped out by the animatronic puppets used in the story, which are the most disturbing I've ever seen.
Thus despite the music and the staging, I could take none of this seriously, and instead was left feeling uneasy throughout.
The bad dubbing over the top doesn't help much either.
This truly is the stuff of nightmares and I've been unable to stop thinking about it afterwards..
One of the most disturbing folktales.
I have found this version to be carefully crafted and relatively appealing, though the characters were unlikable, beginning with the kids and their pets, and so perhaps it's not a cartoon to elicit exalted admiration, but just a bit of amusement for a cool evening; anyway, it has the mandatory blandness one would expect.
For a moment, I thought of discussing European folktales instead of discussing this flick; but why not discuss them both, and give everybody a good time here?
I am a folklorist by training, a movie buff by vocation, so take the joyride!
This 'Hänsel and Gretel' is a puppet show, which only adds to the delight and supplies the necessary merriment to be found even in such a dreadful succession of events.
The German Romantic imagination was immoderate and wild (which is why some of us like it so much, enjoy it immoderately, for which I, beginning at age 19, can testify); but then again so were the folktales, the genuine folklore of the nations—immoderate, disturbing and lurid.
And, hand in hand with Hänsel and Gretel, we step into some of its most lurid and disturbing territory.
Of course a kids' movie isn't willing or ready to deal with such stuff.
As an aside, the German Romanticism was a huge attempt at recovering the genuine feel of these folktales; an attempt stifled by the bourgeois 19th century's pedagogical obtuseness and inconceivably harmful hypocrisy.
In the center of 'Hänsel and Gretel' reigns a particularly disturbing symbol: the hag, the old—woman who 'eats children'.
So these European peasants liked their tales spicy and weird!
Two children are chased away from home by their angry mother, chased and sent away to go looking for strawberries and provide for the family's meal; they are led astray partly by their own carelessness and negligence, as the witch seems quite moderate in using her powers and spells, as if she cunningly misguides but doesn't force one out of his way, she doesn't really kidnap the children but more or less fools or deludes them, lures them away, and these magical worlds have their own behavioral codes.
Now you see how kids raised with suchlike tales would grow up to write or read voraciously Gothic novels.
HANSEL AND GRETEL is a very Gothic fairytale, very violent, cruel and disturbing, the way these German folktales knew how to be, very engrossing and taut, about, among others, the appalling terrors of the Teutonic forest, and one is reminded of the Apostle of Germany (S.
Boniface, I think) taking down a tree, cutting it himself; the American genre cinema also has the notion of the forest, the wood being a dreadful place, and there are countless flicks about the monsters lurking in these environments.
Most of the kids' adaptations aren't really ready to deal with the truly Gothic nature, unrelentingly disturbing, of the story in H & G, trading it for the commercially safer cuteness.
So, can H & G be made into a kids' movie?
There are literally lots of screen adaptations, including an erotic version, and some were made by giants like Lotte Reiniger and Harryhausen, so that the cinema archivist will find joy in this chapter.We see that our ancestors were very intent on scaring the children with the fairy tales they told them.
Nowadays vampire—sagas seem pretty bland by comparison. |
tt0248568 | Treasure Island | Young Jim Hawkins Jackie Cooper) and his mother (Dorothy Peterson) run the Admiral Benbow, a tavern near Bristol, England. One dark and stormy night, during a birthday celebration, the mysterious Billy Bones (Lionel Barrymore) arrives and drunkenly talks about treasure. Soon after, Bones is visited by Black Dog (Charles McNaughton) then Pew (William V. Mong), and drops dead, leaving a chest, which he bragged contained gold and jewels. Instead of money, Jim finds a map that his friend Dr. Livesey (Otto Kruger) realizes will lead them to the famous Flint treasure. Squire Trelawney (Nigel Bruce) raises money for a voyage to the treasure island and they set sail on Captain Alexander Smollett's (Lewis Stone) ship Hispaniola. Also on board is the one-legged Long John Silver (Wallace Beery) and his cronies. Even though Bones had warned Jim about a sailor with one leg, they become friends.
During the voyage, several fatal "accidents" happen to sailors who disapprove of Silver and his cohorts. Then, the night before landing on the island, Jim overhears Silver plotting to take the treasure and kill Smollett's men. Jim goes ashore with the men, and encounters an old hermit named Ben Gunn (Chic Sale), who tells him that he has found Flint's treasure. Meanwhile, Smollett (Lewis Stone) and his loyal men flee to Flint's stockade on the island for safety. Silver's men then attack the stockade when Smollett refuses to give them the treasure map. While the situation looks hopeless, Jim secretly goes back to the Hispaniola at night, sails it to a safe location and shoots one of the pirates in self-defense. When he returns to the stockade, Silver's men are there and Silver tells them that a treaty has been signed. The pirates want to kill Jim, but Silver protects him. Dr. Livesey comes for Jim, but the boy refuses to break his word to Silver not to run away. The next day the pirates search for the treasure hold and when they find it, it is empty. When some of the pirates mutiny against Silver, Livesey (Otto Kruger) and Gunn (Charles "Chic" Sale) join him in the fight. Smollett then sails home with the treasure, which Gunn had hidden in his cave, and with Silver as his prisoner. Unable to stand by and let his friend be hanged, Jim frees Silver. As he sails away, Silver promises to hunt treasure with Jim again some day, as Honest John Silver. | action | train | wikipedia | This two-hour commercial from the Isle of Man Tourist Bureau bears only a superficial resemblance to the Stevenson novel.
And Jack Palance rasps out an engaging Silver but it's disappointing to see his name spelt wrong in the credits.
Palance fans might like to see him tackle one of literature's most famous old coots, but Stevenson fans should leave this one alone..
Treasure Island seems to draw the attention of movie and TV people at reasonably regular intervals and it has even been "muppetised".This is easily the worst version of the lot,mainly due to a tired and lethargic stab at Long John Silver by the usually relaiable and compelling Jack Palance,who simply looks too old and frail to be right for the part..I see no reason ,other than the American film and TV industry'S anti-Englishness for so radically altering the characters of the Squire and Doctor from the stalwart types of the book to the cynical opportunists they are portrayed as here.I am enormously pro-American but hate the way Englishmen are shown in the media in the States.This particular instance is just another example of this The Isle of Man is a poor stand-in for the Caribbean and everybody seems to be going through the motions Perhaps it is time to give this particular book a rest until somebody comes up with the money to do it properly.
But I had forgotten the conversion this film takes until I watched it again, and I'd sure give the tape away for nothing.While there are moral ambiguities in the story, personified in Long John Silver, this follows after Shakespeare's witches in MACBETH: "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" say they.
The 2 characters in the novel who prevent blanket torture and murder of all loyal to the ship's command are Captain Smollett and Jim Hawkins.
So it's rather angering to shift the story to where the pirates were the "good guys" and Smollett and those loyal were villains.
That's a completely different personality than Stevenson's story-telling character.Squire Trelawney is the one character of the "faithfuls" whom I wouldn't mind being given a more critical portrayal than most cinemas of this story.
After all, it was only through coincidence (overused in the novel) that he happened to be right there at the discovery of the treasure map and was probably the only one who had the means to organize an expedition to find it.
But this movie does not develop that, and instead it goes after the one man of authority with foresight, the Captain, and makes him into a manipulative crook willing to let innocent blood be shed to make himself rich.
Obviously a different treasure island to the one I was thinking of..
The end is completely different and gave me the impression the budget ran out and they had to kill the cast off and finish the film as quickly as possible rather than stick to the story.
I watched them making the film on the Isle of Man and bought the DVD to see what they had produced.
In "Treasure Island" 1999, Jack Palance follows such notables as Robert Newton, Orson Wells, and Charelton Heston as Long John Silver with this second-rate knock-off of the R.L. Stevenson classic novel.
An unfortunate attempt at film making, this version plods along dutifully telling the story without the passion, mystery, and intrigue penned into the pages of the novel.
This version of Treasure Island is poor for trying to hard to be original with an existing story.
It's one thing to have new scenes at the beginning that show Captain Flint supervising the burial of his treasure, and Billy Bones inflicting Pew and Long John with their disfigurements.
It's also bothersome that this version of Long John is played out rather weakly, including how meekly he gave up leadership of the pirates to George Merry and how difficult he is to even understand in some scenes, how morally questionable the doctor, squire, and captain are in this version, how Jim and the doctor are more concerned with the map than in Mrs. Hawkins' death, how Jim joins the pirates, and how the whole ending is changed.
In that, it doesn't make sense that only three people can sail the ship at the end, and that Long John doesn't resent Jim and Ben for not revealing earlier the locations of the ship and the treasure which would have avoided the battle and some of the deaths..
This film does not stray from the original story until the boat lands on Treasure Island!
It was a bit shocking at first, but Long John Silver's (Jack Palance) and Jim Hawkins' (Kevin Zegers) superb acting makes this a very enjoyable fantasy to watch!
And Long John Silver is not some evil minion, but a man of honor who believes in democracy, no less!
It certainly makes you think about Treasure Island in a totally different way!.
Ain't Treasure Island the best story ever about a bunch of adults trying to kill a child?
This is a version from the nineties that I picked up for seven pence, with Jack Palance as Long John Silver.
I'm still holding out for a copy of that Italian one set in space, because there's no way that can't not be not good.You know the story: Some fud called Jack works in a doss house in Cornwall while his mum lies in bed claiming Employment Support Allowance.
One day this tosser turns up and gets wasted and tells Jack to watch out for a guy with one leg (whom I'd imagine is also claiming some sort of disability benefit).
Before you know it loads of guys turns up and try and kill everyone and Jack ends up with a map and so on and so forth.
After nearly being killed several times by various pirates, Jack ends up on a ship with a small crew of English gentleman and a much larger crew of obvious pirates who are definitely not just waiting to kill the gentry and get a hold of that map.
Jack Palance shows up as definitely not the leader of the pirates and they all head of for some island.
Following some man on man love action that was cut from most versions of this film (they are at see for months you know and no one likes to be alone), they all finally get to the island so they can start killing each other.
By this time Jack's run off and met this arsehole called Ben Gunn, Silver's got his pirates up against the gentry, and there's a battle on the beach where only a few live to travel the sea once more.
The End. What you'll notice first is that the island is this version of treasure island is a bit
Nothern European.
I had it pegged as Ireland but it turns out to be the Isle of Man (you know, that island where everyone has three legs).
The most bizarre Treasure Island adaptation, as well as the worst.
That the story is such a classic and that it had Jack Palance in it were two reasons enough to give this much-maligned adaptation a try.
Unfortunately, this adaptation of Treasure Island just doesn't work at all and by far the worst version, to me the only really bad one as well.
The locations are beautiful indeed if not always tropical enough, the Hispagnola is fantastically rendered and the adaptation is well shot, the start is quite strong and there are a few good performances with Kevin Zegers' appealing Jim Hawkins, Walter Sparrow's humorous Ben Gunn and Patrick Bergin's gusty Billy Bones.
Jack Palance is the big name here, he certainly tries his best as Silver and looks the part in a role that on paper he was perfect for but he deserved much better scripting and direction than what he got.
Characterisation is incredibly weak here and not really in the bland sort of way but in the grossly distorted sort of way, where we have the least frightening Blind Pew imaginable and interesting characters like Squire Trelawney now one-sided caricatures, and the less said about the good guys now bad thing the better.
What was really disappointing was the lack of development in Silver and Jim's relationship, crucial to the story and very interesting and potentially poignant but hardly seen.
And you know something's wrong when you can't really tell whether Silver is good or bad, no other adaptation of Treasure Island has had that problem.
But other than the bizarre treatment of the story and characters the main problem with this Treasure Island adaptation was how lazy it felt.
The script is one corny muddle with some parts only feeling like padding which only succeeds in slowing down the pacing, and the story is plodding and completely lacking in adventurous spark, intensity and mystery that would have been there if just a little if the stockade assault had not been left out.
When it comes to the changes, changes to a story is not a problem but it can be if the changes are basically useless and drag the adaptation down and that was exactly the case with this Treasure Island.
The adaptation is hurt even further by too much focus on Black Dog, a secondary character originally and it feels like it, an incredibly rushed and anti-climatic final battle and a very tacked-on and toe-curlingly cheesy ending that leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
All in all, lazy and uncomfortably weird, a very bad version(even on its own terms) and not worth bothering with unless you are a fan of Palance or one dead-set on seeing every Treasure Island adaptation available.
It's a well done adaptation of the famous novel by Robert Louis Stevenson (although the final is different).
The actors have made a good job of work, overcoat Kevin Zegers (Jim Hawkins); and there are beautiful images from the Isle of Man. Unlike other adaptations, it doesn't fall into infantilisms that only make laugh the children; however, I think it's a good movie to watch with all the family..
In fact, the only version of this novel I knew was a comic book version where Dennis the Menace was Jim. And I don't even remember anything about that except that Long John hit one of the other pirates for showing Jim his long underwear, and that Ben Gunn looked like he hadn't seen another person in years.And this type of adventure movie is not really for me.
I thought Kevin Zegers did quite a good job as Jim, and while I was surprised Long John was so old, Jack Palance did a fine job with the role as it was written here.I thought most of the actors did a good job, particularly David Robb as the doctor and Walter Sparrow as Ben Gunn.
I also had trouble figuring out who was on what side--at times Long John seemed to be one of the good guys!
Sparkling new version of an old classic.
Jack Palance is magnificent as Long John Silver in this sparkling new adaptation of an old classic.
Packed with a stellar cast of great British character actors and three Hollywood stars, it must rank among the top 5 versions ever made of Robert Louis Stevenson's legendary novel.
It's true that the Isle of Man location left a lot to be desired, but it was fresh, different and added a surprise zing to the action.
One of the worst literary adaptations ever filmed (*** SPOILERS ***).
*** SPOILERS ***(I'm not sure if SPOILERS really applies to a story that's about 150 years old, but I don't want to overstep the guidelines.
If you don't know how "Treasure Island" ends, and you want to find out when you see the film, then skip the rest of this message.)*** SPOILERS FOLLOW ***What can you say about a version of "Treasure Island" where Captain Smollett blackmails the Squire and Doctor into giving Jim's share of the treasure to him?
And where Jim really does end up joining the pirates in earnest, because he overhears their conversation?
And where ALL the "good" guys -- the Captain, the Squire, the Doctor, and all the rest of them -- get killed in the last five minutes, and Jim, Long John Silver, and Ben Gunn go off by themselves with the treasure in tow?Not to mention where Long John has a wooden leg and an occasional crutch instead of NO leg and a truly can't-move-without-it crutch?The Captain comes to a particularly painful end, with a broadsword (thrown through the air like a spear) through the guts.
Another good guy gets a jarringly nasty wound in the face, basically blasting his left eye away -- something you get to see for a brief moment before he falls.This is without question one of the WORST literary adaptations ever filmed.
I don't mind filmmakers making changes to a story to make it flow better on screen, or even just to be more engaging or interesting, but the changes made here are simply bizarre.It's a shame, because Jack Palance could have made a great Long John Silver.
And the locations (I think on the Isle of Man) are wonderful.
The only reason to watch a film of "Treasure Island" is for the story, and this one will give you heartburn..
Stevenson's classic is loved by generations for many reasons and this retelling of the story cuts all those reasons out.Spoilers: First, the treatment of Jim by the Doctor, Squire, and Captain is all wrong.
They take advantage of him, sell him out to the pirates, cut him out of his share of the treasure and try to kill him.
Jim was never in league with the pirates and the gentlemen (Doctor, Squire, and Captain) remain honest and help Jim in the story.
Only when he slips away to get to the ship do they think he may have gone over to the pirates.The action is also a bit lackluster.
The group's escape from the ship felt anti-climatic...almost like a leisurely departure with a few shots.Then there is no assault on the stockade, which was a major part of the original story.And the bargaining between the Doctor and pirates isn't quite explained...why would they give up the map for Jim, whom they already have disowned?
In the book, they exchange the map for free passage out of the stockade (already knowing that the treasure was gone because Ben Gunn had joined them).And just where did they film this movie?
It looks like it could be off the coast of Newfoundland or something...hardly the tropic environment of the original story.The only redeeming value of this film was Jack Palance.
Too bad they couldn't have built a better film around him..
Don't watch this version if you loved the classic.
Having read the book recently, I've gone back and watched the original film and the Disney remake.
Jack Palance is about as good a substitute for Long John Silver as the Isle Of Mann is for a tropical island with a few hot house plants stuck in the background.
I'd say there were some strange films coming from there lately, but this is ten years old and strange doesn't begin to describe it.
Instead of Jim Hawkins sailing back to England with the good guys and the treasure, they kill the bad guys and good guys, and he runs off to Panama with it with Long John and Ben Gunn.
And Long John doesn't even know the names of the sails even though he's supposed to be a sailor.
The good guys are bad.
When i saw the commercial for this one on TBS i thought, "Ok i know it wont be as good as the first adaption or the book but ill watch it anyway." So I'm watching the movie and so far its alright a few things i didn't like but then it took a huge turn for the worse.
And it ends with a corny, childish, watered down, happy ending of Silver, Ben, and Jim sailing off alone into the sunset!
It made the Doctor, Captain Smullet, and the Squire (couldnt remember how to spell their names) out to be the bad guys only after the treasure in the end!
Completely unlike the book and the original movie where the doctor was a close friend of Jim's and his mother.
I cant believe they took a childhood story and a movie that i used to watch with my grandfather, hacked it up, and served it to me as an obviously low-budget piece of garbage.
Poor old Jim (played by Kevin Zegers---Hey I like this guy, Zegers, he seems to have some talent) has to keep EVERYONE from cheating him in this version.Now it does have it's slow moments and I'm sure there was a lot of room for improvement on some of the characterisations.
Read some of the other reviews for more details on the technical stuff.What I really liked most about this version is that Jim (along with Ben Gunn and Long John) gets the treasure.
I've read the book a few times, I saw the movie from 1934, 1950 and 1972, and all of them were at least close to the book.
It starts with Jack Palance as Long John Silver, there is no charismatic and intelligent pirate leader.
The story details have totally changed - they really let the key characters, Trelawney, Smollet and the doctor die and Long John Silver, Ben Gunn (his enemy) and Hawkins get the treasure and sail the ship home.
Jack Palance's last movie appearance finds him in the lead role of Long John Silver in this well-produced account of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel directed by award-winning TV writer/director Peter Rowe.
Nevertheless, Rowe makes impressive use of a real, full-sized sailing vessel, and there is plenty of action for young and old. |
tt0059727 | The Skull | In the 1800s, Pierre, a phrenologist (Maurice Good), robs the grave of the recently buried Marquis de Sade. He takes the Marquis' severed head and sets about boiling it to remove its flesh, leaving the skull. Before the task is done, Pierre meets an unseen and horrific death.
In modern-day London, Christopher Maitland (Cushing), a collector and writer on the occult, is offered the skull by Marco (Wymark), an unscrupulous dealer in antiques and curiosities. Maitland learns that the skull has been stolen from Sir Matthew Phillips (Lee), a friend and fellow collector. Sir Matthew, however, does not want to recover it, having escaped its evil influence. He warns Maitland of its powers. At his sleazy lodgings, Marco dies in mysterious circumstances. Maitland finds his body and takes possession of the skull. He in turns falls victim as the skull drives him to hallucinations, madness and death. | psychedelic, flashback | train | wikipedia | The Skull is probably the best film Amicus produced,based on a chilling short story by Robert Bloch and directed with visual flair by Freddie Francis it tells the story of a writer on Demonology ; Christopher Maitland(Peter Cushing excellent as usual) who is offered a skull and a fleshbound book originally belonging to none other than the Marquis de Sade for a mere £500,at first he is skeptical of its provenance but finally agrees to buy it from Marco a shifty character(memorably played by Patrick Wymark)who previously stole the skull and book from Sir Matthew Phillips(Christopher Lee)who had fallen under it's sinister spell in the past and was glad the skull and book had been stolen,Matthew tries to convince Christopher of its evil power and advises him to get rid of it as soon as possible,but to no avail,Christopher keeps the skull and begins to come unstuck, he starts hallucinating and having bizarre dreams.
Amicus may be better known for their omnibus films, and indeed this story does feel a little stretched over its 85 minute running time, but in spite of that; The Skull is undoubtedly one of the studio's better feature length efforts.
Christopher Maitland is a collector of rare and occult items, and when his supplier; the dodgy Anthony Marco brings a skull to him one day; he is interested because it once belonged to the Marquis de Sade.
But he finds to his peril that skull is dangerous, as it leads its owner to kill...Freddie Francis directed a number of films for both the big British studios, Hammer and Amicus, and it's not hard to see why he often gets hired as the quality of his direction is not too far behind heavyweights Terence Fisher and Roy Ward Baker.
He's got a good creative partner in novelist Robert Bloch, who wrote the story 'The Skull of the Marquis de Sade', upon which this film is based - as well as the far better known novel 'Psycho'.
This film doesn't feature a career best performance from either horror heavyweight, but Peter Cushing fits his role as the occult collector brilliantly, while Christopher Lee delivers his usual forceful, scene-stealing, method of acting.
But the movie works surprisingly well, first of all due to an excellent script based on a story by Robert Bloch ("Psycho"): Maitland (Cushing) shares an interest in the occult with Phillips (Lee) who warns him to get rid of a skull possessed by a demonic spirit.
This was among the first vintage horror films I recall watching, but it took me this long to re-acquaint myself with it (after I had foolishly abandoned the prospect of a second viewing as part of a late-night Italian TV program hosted by two amiable ghouls the same thing would also happen with Hammer's FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL [1974], which I then had to wait some 13 years to catch up with!).Anyay, though the film's premise, in itself, is rather daft that of a host of antiquarians being 'possessed' by the skull of the Marquis De Sade the result is very stylish and altogether one of Hammer rival Amicus' most satisfying outings.
Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky (the latter also scripted, from a story by Robert Bloch of PSYCHO [1960] fame) again recruited Hammer's two most popular stars, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, for this production.
As ever, they play extremely well off each other even if Lee, ostensibly, is only a "Guest Star" delivering typically committed performances: Cushing has fun acting crazy under the influence of the skull towards the end (and also during a surreal nightmare sequence in which he's forcefully taken before a judge who promptly hands him a gun to play at Russian Roulette!), whereas Lee gives surprising poignancy to his role.
Supporting them is a splendid cast indeed led by Patrick Wymark, who actually matches the stars with his seedy supplier of generally weird artifacts, and the brief (albeit equally welcome) presence of the likes of George Coulouris, Michael Gough, Nigel Green and Patrick Magee!While Francis creates wonderful atmosphere via the cinematography (particularly when shooting through the skull's eyehole) and the set design (the film starts off as a period piece but then reverts to a modern-day setting for the central plot line), I do feel that the possibilities presented by the nonetheless intriguing theme are regrettably constrained by censorship and budgetary restrictions so that the Marquis De Sade's legacy seems somehow to have been mixed up with that of Jack The Ripper!
Based on a story by Robert "Psycho" Bloch, directed by horror veteran Freddie Francis, starring British horror icons Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and featuring such sterling character actors as Michael Gough, Nigel Green, Patrick Wymark and Jill Bennett, it would seem like a can't-miss proposition.
In it, Cushing plays an occult investigator who comes into possession of the 150-year-old, particularly nasty-looking skull of the notorious libertine the Marquis de Sade, and comes under the influence of its baleful and hypnotic powers.
(Indeed, it's more like the skull has come into possession of him!) The film features strikingly handsome sets, a justly celebrated and Kafkaesque dream sequence, stylish direction from Francis (dig those skull's head POV shots!), and, near the picture's end, a very interesting and suspenseful 20-minute segment largely devoid of dialogue.
In 1965, in London, the dishonest antiques dealer Anthony Marco (Patrick Wymark) offers to the collector and writer of occultism Christopher Maitland (Peter Cushing) a book with skin made cover about the Marquis de Sade.
Maitland meets his friend and also collector Sir Matthew Phillips (Christopher Lee), who tells that the skull had been stolen from him but he does not want it back since he was free of its evil force.
But the fate puts the skull on Maitland´s hands affecting his entire life in tragic way."The Skull" is a creepy British horror film by Amicus to compete with Hammer with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. The screenplay is well-written and the tragic conclusion is announced from the moment Maitland meets his fellow collector and friend and keeps the interest on the skull.
Whatever possessed Robert Bloch to ever write such a charming short story I'll never know – it was more in the mind with his stories, the film of course had to be more supernatural and a darker shade more dramatic.It was a fine Amicus production with great roles for both Peter Cushing & Christopher Lee (and also a memorable part from Patrick Wymark) with many atmospheric scenes and images – as a pair of collectors of objects d'art the production values had the opportunity to be and were sumptuous.
"The Skull" definitely isn't on par with the other contemporary Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee pairings, from Hammer or Amicus or whatever other production studios, but it nevertheless remains an interesting and worthwhile slice of 60's Brit-horror.
Music is scored by Elisabeth Lutyens and cinematography by John Wilcox.When collector of occult artifacts Christopher Maitland (Cushing) acquires the Skull of the Marquis de Sade, he gets more than he bargained for.......Out of Amicus Productions, The Skull represents one of the more successful ventures for the studio away from the portmanteau formula they would become regarded for.
It's a very under valued turn from Cushing as it features a different string to his acting bow.With shady characters, suspenseful silences (the opening pillaging of de Sade's grave is excellently macabre) and visual treats aplenty, The Skull is well worth checking out.
Based on the Robert Bloch's story "The Skull of the Marquis de Sade", this film really thrills and chills.
Peter Cushing stars as Dr. Maitland, a demonologist who comes across the skull after it has been stolen from his friend Christopher Lee.
I feel that "The Skull" is one of the finest films Cushing and Lee have ever done together, and the best horror film that Freddie Francis has directed.
It has a good story by Robert Bloch as the basis for the script, some fine acting from Peter Cushing in the lead and Patrick Wymark as a disreputable salesman, good character roles by George Coulouris, Patrick Magee, Nigel Green, Michael Gough, and particularly Christopher Lee, some imaginative direction from Freddie Francis, and some very stylish set pieces and costumes.
Peter Cushing (Dr. Christopher Maitland),"Monster Island",'81, gave a great performance as a collector of Horror items and came into contact with the young looking Christopher Lee, (Sir Matthew Phillips),"The Gorgon",'64, who also had a very large collection of strange and mysterious items of murder and devil worship.
Based off of Robert Bloch's story titled 'The Skull of the Marquis de Sade' the film follows an Occult Researcher (played by Peter Cushing) who crosses paths with a particular item of interest from a "mutual" friend of his, and Christopher Lee's, who sells him rare artifacts of the strange and wonderful.
An early attempt by Amicus at a Hammer style horror movie, The Skull opens in wonderful Gothic mode with a night-time grave robbing scene, complete with unkempt, windblown cemetery, creaky metal gate, random owl hoots and a howling dog (the foley artist really went to town on this one).
The desecrated grave in question turns out to be that of the infamous Marquis De Sade, the reason for the illicit exhumation being the retrieval of his skull, which is apparently host to an ancient demon called Baalberith, who drives men to commit blasphemy and murder.Unfortunately, the enjoyably excessive Gothic atmosphere of the film's opening scene is virtually abandoned when, many years later, said skull falls into the hands of obsessive antiques collector Dr. Christopher Maitland (Peter Cushing), who becomes possessed by the demon and proceeds to do its evil bidding.
The film's most interesting aspect—the involvement of a secret satanic society—goes absolutely nowhere (and seems to exist purely to pad out the weak story to feature length).It says a lot when my favourite scene in the whole film is Maitland playing snooker against fellow antiquities collector Sir Matthew Phillips (played by Christopher Lee): despite owning his own snooker room, Phillips seems to possess zero skill at the game, randomly hitting balls to no avail (although he does rack up some points on the score-board, the cheat!).
It is still as brilliant as I remembered.The base story is taken from real life - the skull of the infamous Marquis was indeed exhumed for scientific examination (phrenology - the belief that a persons character can be determined by the shape of their skull, which was popular many years ago) and subsequently lost, its whereabouts remaining unknown to this day.The late, great Peter Cushing plays a researcher into the paranormal who becomes compelled to own the skull when it is offered to him (after convincing himself of its provenance) even though he knows it could destroy him.
The Skull is directed by Freddie Francis, and stars Peter Cushing as Christopher Maitland.
The Skull also features a guest appearance from Christopher Lee as Maitlands friend Sir Matthew Phillips, who despite being in only a handful of scenes leaves a lasting Impression upon the film.
Freddie Francis directed this thriller that stars Peter Cushing as Dr. Maitland, a collector of unusual objects who comes into possession of the skull of the Marquis De Sade, a reputedly evil man with supernatural powers.
Indeed, he is best known to laymen as the author of perhaps the most famous psychological horror novel of all time, "Psycho." Interestingly, the story arc of THE SKULL follows Bloch's literary trajectory in that it begins in the tradition of romantic gothicism but ends in the darkly absurdist realms of Kafka, Orwell, Dali, and Max Ernst.The basic plot of THE SKULL details the various unpleasant fates that befall subsequent owners of the skull of the infamous Napoleonic-era pornographer, the Marquis De Sade.
A demon who still dwells in the eponymous skull and who still retains a taste for dark ceremonies and murder.Peter Cushing plays Dr. Christopher Maitland, an occult researcher and collector who comes into possession of the skull through the offices of one Marco (Patrick Wymark), a shady 'dealer' in obscure objects d'art.
Christopher Lee portrays Sir Matthew Phillips, friend of Maitland, and former owner of the skull, who warns its new possessor of the item's destructive powers.
Mr. Lee's role as the doomed Phillips, who meets a violent end at the hands of the friend he tries to help, is crucial to the overall structure of the plot and flawlessly performed.The highlight of the film is a nightmare sequence that could have been taken straight out of Kafka's "The Trial." Here Mr. Cushing gives a world class performance that echoes his earlier triumph as Winston Smith in the BBC television production of Orwell's "1984." This segment is gripping in the extreme and still carries a tremendous emotional wallop nearly 40 years later.With stellar performances by Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee; standout supporting and cameo roles by Jill Bennet, Patrick Wymark, Nigel Greene, Peter Woodthorpe, and Patrick Magee; a thoughtful and literate script by Bloch and Subotsky; and measured, restrained direction by Freddie Francis, THE SKULL is an outstanding example of contemporary, modernist horror.
Sit through this unbearable prologue, and you're in for an excellent film.The film then picks up in the(then)present where at a very symbolic auction, we meet the film's central characters; Christopher Maitland(Peter Cushing), Matthew Phillips(Christopher Lee) and the unscrupulous antique fence Marco(Patrick Wymark).
We see a graveyard, with the requisite grave robbers; and, their client, a doctor (albeit a phrenologist).Peter Cushing plays Dr. Christopher Maitland, an occult researcher and collector who comes into possession of the skull by way of a suspicious dealer in such objects.
"The Skull" is one of the finest Gothic horror films ever.**SPOILERS**Offered a rare skull, Christopher Maitland, (Peter Cushing) is told it belonged to the Marquis de Sade, and despite assurances from friend Anthony Marco, (Patrick Wymark) he doesn't believe it.
The story moves forward to contemporary England where old friends Professor Maitland (Peter Cushing), a writer about demonology and Sir Matthew Phillips (Christopher Lee) are attending an auction sale of macabre exhibits.
Maitland later discovers that his fellow occult collector, Sir Matthew Phillips(Christopher Lee, billed here as a guest star, when in fact he has one of the strongest, albeit despite a small amount of time on screen, roles in the film)once had the skull, but it was stolen by Anthony Marco(Patrick Wymark)the very one who wishes to sell it to him.
But, Maitland shrugs off Phillips's warnings of the skull's danger as superstitious mumbo jumbo, and discovers for himself how all too real this evil truly is.Well, I'll say this, Peter Cushing and director Freddie Francis give it everything they have despite a rather hokey premise of a skull having supernatural powers.
"The Skull" is good if not great Amicus horror, based on a story by Robert Bloch.
Cushing plays Christopher Maitland, a collector of items related to the occult who is presented with a skull that he learns just may belong to the infamous Marquis de Sade.
However, much of the rest of the cast is under utilized, including Michael Gough as an auctioneer, Patrick Magee as a police surgeon, Jill Bennett as Maitlands' wife, and Nigel Green as the inspector.Still, "The Skull" is a reasonably fun, eerie film, that does have its moments, beginning and ending fairly well and entertaining enough to watch.Seven out of 10..
"The Skull" is an atmospheric--if somewhat monotonous--vehicle for Peter Cushing, the Gentleman of British Horror and my favorite star of fright films.
Meeting up with Maitland,Marco reveals that he has tracked down an item just for him:the skull of the Marquis de Sade.View on the film:Lining up (most of) the biggest stars in British Horror, Patrick Wymark/ Patrick Magee/ Michael Gough/Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee each give great performances,with Wymark making the skin crawl as slime ball Marco,whilst Gough and Magee give the film a touch of class in their small roles.
Meeting up at auction, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee both give splendid performances as Phillips and Maitland,with Cushing sending Maitland into a cold sweat over getting his hands on the skull,and Lee casts a shadow of unease over the tightly coiled Phillips.Made from an "outline" by Amicus studio's co-owner Milton Subotsky's take on a Robert Bloch short story,un-credited writer Freddie Francis cracks open a head filled with eerie Occult Horror,as Francis wisely decides to avoid focusing on the origins of De Sade's power,to instead look at the horrific reactions,turning Maitland from a mild mannered gentlemen into a wide-eyed mad man.Although the visible wires making the skull "float" do pull some of the chills down,director Freddie Francis & cinematographer John Wilcox paint De Sade's skull in dazzling psychedelic Art-Deco,glowing in red,black and green patterns breaking Maitland's madness in extreme close-ups,as the skull sets its sights on a new victim..
Occult object collector Dr. Christopher Maitland (the always excellent Peter Cushing) gets his hands on the skull of the infamous Marquis de Sade.
The fine acting by an ace cast of top British thespians rates as another substantial asset: Christopher Lee as gloomy fellow collector Sir Matthew Phillips, Patrick Wymark as sleazy antiques dealer Marco, Jill Bennett as Maitland's concerned wife Jane, Nigel Green as the hard-nosed Inspector Wilson, Peter Woodthorpe as pesky landlord Travers, Patrick Magee as a perplexed coroner, and Michael Gough as an auctioneer.
Has anyone ever done a scorecard of how many films Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee did together, and how many times they killed each other?
This is an amicus production and stars the two horror great, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. The basic story is about a skull that i offered for sale as an antique curio.
By far not a Hammer film, but it does have that dynamic duo of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. The skull of the one and only Marquis de Sade is robbed from the grave and a shady dealer(Patrick Wymark) offers it to a collector of the occult Christopher Maitland(Cushing).
This Amicus entry is directed by Freddie Francis and features both Peter Cushing AND Christopher Lee (as a "guest star")and while it's thoroughly entertaining, one can't help but feeling a bit cheated by the lack of thrills. |
tt0044426 | Blackbeard, the Pirate | The film follows British Navy Lieutenant Robert Maynard (Keith Andes), who sets out to earn a reward by proving that privateer Henry Morgan (Torin Thatcher) also engages in piracy.
Maynard poses as a surgeon on board the ship of pirate Charles Bellamy, who he believes is in league with Morgan. Once Maynard and fellow spy Briggs come on board, they discover that the pirate Blackbeard has murdered Bellamy and taken over as captain.
Also on board is Edwina Mansfield, a pirate's daughter,who was going to marry Bellamy. Blackbeard knows that Morgan loves Mansfield and will pursue her.
Blackbeard orders Maynard to remove a bullet from his neck, and demands sailor Gilly watch him. Gilly slips Maynard a note begging him to slit the pirate's throat, but Maynard declines.
Maynard slips into the Blackbeard's quarters and finds Bellamy's logbook, which he hopes will contain evidence that Bellamy gave Morgan stolen goods.
Maynard then defends Edwina against the unwanted advances of a lecherous pirate, killing him with his dagger. She tells Maynard that she agreed to marry Bellamy to escape from Morgan, from whom she has stolen treasure, which is now hidden in a clothes chest.
Blackbeard breaks open one of Edwinas chests but discovers only letters in which Edwina implicates Morgan as Bellamy's ally. Maynard tries to steal the letter, but Blackbeard stops him, noting that if Morgan were arrested, all of his loot would go to the King.
Blackbeard finally identifies the treasure chest and claims it. | violence, action | train | wikipedia | It's just a VERY good showcase for the ultimate pirate actor, Robert Newton, who fits the role so perfectly as to become THE pirate to be imitated in every pirate movie to follow.
Every scene belongs to him and every word of dialogue he speaks is the learning base for future "pirates" of the silver screen.Not a Newton fan?
He is an overpowering and magnetic force when he plays his pirate to perfection.AWWWWWRRRRRRRRRR.Being a big fan of the man I enjoyed this movie thoroughly.
Hollywood turned out dozens of pirate adventures in its heyday, most, such as The Black Swan, The Spanish Main, Captain Kidd etc etc, were flat and routine swashbucklers that lacked the kind of acting presence, story, and edge that made MGM's 1934 version of Treasure Island, and Warner's Captain Blood from 1935 standards of the genre.
The pirate movie throughout the 40's, much like the western, was in need of something fresh.In 1950, Robert Newton made a stalwart impression as Long John Silver in the British remake of Treasure Island, released through Disney.
Though the film was not nearly as good as the '34 MGM version, Newton managed to surpass the performance of Wallace Beery's Silver, which was no easy feat as Beery was exceptional in that role.Coming off of that success, RKO paired Newton with hit and miss director Raoul Walsh to make Blackbeard the Pirate.
Newton's performance in the title role was even better than his turn in Treasure Island - a definitive portrayal of the pirate captain that continues to predominate the genre.
Not a single actor from Wallace Beery to Victor McLaglen to Charles Laughton to Peter Ustinov to Dustin Hoffman to even Geoffrey Rush and Johnny Depp have managed to usurp the pure overbearing sea scenery chewing double-dealing rapscallion that is Robert Newton as Blackbeard.
There is a plot going on here (albeit not exactly an airtight one), and some fine supporting performances from William Bendix (always watchable), Linda Darnell, and Keith Andes, a mostly forgotten actor who apparently could do it all in show business from sing and dance to swordfight.
The cast and crew must have had a ball making this flick, since it has so many funny bits in it.Just listen to this exchange between Robert Newton doing his never-equaled pirate character as Blackbeard, and the lovable lug Bill Bendix, of Life of Riley fame, as Worley, the dim-witted first mate.
Blackbeard is pulling up a rope that the hero has used to climb into the Captain's cabin, and says, "I be fishin' for a rat!" Worley: "Why, are ya hungry?" Don't miss The Funeral at Sea ("For distance this time!") Watch Edward Maynard eye Linda Darnell's lavish expanse of bosom and say, "Never mind the measurements!"And while you're thinking about the plot...how _did_ they ever get off that island?.
Within the 17th century a reformed pirate known as Sir Henry Morgan is given the role of governor in Jamaica and the job of ridding the ocean of Blackbeard the pirate.
A young surgeon Edward Maynard believes Morgan is still a pirate and takes the assignment of becoming part of Blackbeard's crew to get his large award and hopefully take care of these two men.
Torin Thatcher, Irene Ryan and Skelton Knaggs give capable support."Blackbeard the Pirate" is far from flawless, but definitely an entertaining foray my matey..
Robert Newton was born to play a pirate.
No one comes close to his wild pirate performances and the film Blackbeard provides this in spades.
If you liked watching him as Long John Silver in Disney's Treasure Island, you will absolutely love him running amock in Blackbeard..
Between the opening credits and the first scene of "Blackbeard, the Pirate" viewers encounter the following verse:The meeker the man, the more pirate he Snug in his armchair, far from the sea, And reason commends his position: He has all of the fun and none of the woes, Masters the ladies and scuttles his foes, And cheats both the noose and perdition!It's called "The Armchair Pirate" and it serves as notice that what you're about to see isn't the true story of Blackbeard, but rather an everyman's fantasy of life on 18th Century seas.
Most of the credit for this goes to Robert Newton who delivers a wonderfully unrestrained performance as Blackbeard.
Critics routinely dismiss Newton's work as hamming, but it's the choicest, most savory ham acting you'll ever see.Newton is ably supported by Keith Andes, Linda Darnell, William Bendix, and especially Skelton Knaggs as Blackbeard's henchman, Gilly.
Well paced, cleverly plotted, and brimming with action, "Blackbeard" is the most entertaining pirate film of all.
This is a lot of fun,but is not for those who insist on subtle acting.Newton has the time of his life as a drunken psychotic.He really does go over the top.The dialogue is rather good,all things being considered,and the plot is better than one might have expected.There are only 3 or 4 loose ends.Darnell,Andese,and Thatcher all do quite well with their roles,and the pirates are as grisly a crew of jackals as you could imagine.(Gilly,in particular,not only acts well,but is nicely creepy,besides.)The only major disappointment is bendix;this fine performer wasn't suited for costume dramas.A good picture for kids ages 12 and under,or for those with a broad sense of humor..
Central character of the pirate Cap'n Teach is absolutely mesmerising (his end is especially so), a completely eccentric and idiosyncratic performance by Edward Newton.
Film best seen in the colour version, so that we can see 'the Mansfield gal' (Linda Darnell) in all her lascivious purity tempting 'the sawbones' Edward Maynard.
The supporting cast is filled with reliable character actors who add color to their roles with William Bendix, Alan Mowbray and Torin Thatcher all getting their moments in the spotlight.
An actor of great skill most of the time he's obviously relishing the chance to let loose, he sort of cornered the market on this type of role with Treasure Island and Long John Silver also on his resume, and at least this is the kind of picture that lends itself to that sort of no holds barred performance.
Despite the fact that Sir Henry Morgan and the infamous Edward Teach aka Blackbeard operated in different centuries and that Teach was a mere six years old when Morgan died in 1686 don't worry about historical accuracy.
This is a film to be savored and enjoyed especially by those who are true devotees of ham.Robert Newton who could also restrain himself and give good performances turns off all restraint in this rollicking and colorful pirate portrayal.
He blasts everyone else off the screen, not easy to do when you consider Linda Darnell's beauty and William Bendix who usually steals the films he's in.The plot such as it is has Keith Andes looking to obtain evidence that Henry Morgan is still a pirate after getting a King's pardon.
Morgan who is also played by another scene stealer Torin Thatcher, is real interested in Darnell and he's held at bay somewhat by Newton having her as hostage.Newton is a guy who thinks fast on his feet and is not above double crossing his own crew.
Even a ten year old could discern the broad elements of self-parody, and the motley collection of Dickensian characters....Equally important, the movie contains one of cinema's greatest one-liners: "I am the King of Spain!", perhaps second only in the low budget genre to "Slowly I turned." Yes, am a self-admitted Abbott & Costello fan as well, but "Blackbeard" outshines "Abbott & Costello Meet Captain Kidd" (1952)in almost every category.
Of all the Hollywood actors who have portrayed Caribbean pirates, none have ever surpassed the over the top performances of Robert Newton.
Despite being forever linked with Long John Silver in Treasure Island, in this movie he plays equally notorious villain Edward Teach Aka, " BlackBeard The Pirate.
In this story written by DaVallon Scott and superbly directed by Raoul Walsh, we catch up with the notorious privateer as he unsuspectingly takes on a new crew member and doctor Maynard (Keith Andes who signs on with the intention of gathering enough evidence, that Sir. Henry Morgan (Torin Thatcher) is also a pirate.
Enough has been said by other reviewers about Robert Newton's performance, so I want to make some comments about Linda Darnell's appearance in this film.
An old newspaper description of this movie went "Robert Newton hams his way through every pirate cliché in the book." Quite true, and just what is wanted in this type of movie.
What no one seems to have noticed, or mentioned, is what a great job Newton does in portraying a character who one minute seems to be a jolly buffoon, but can in the blink of an eye reveal himself as a cold blooded killer without the slightest trace of a conscience.Sends chill up your spine looking at the expression on his face.Blackbeard isn't really a psychotic killing for the fun of it;he doesn't do that.He always has a reason;it just doesn't bother him to slaughter anyone in cold blood when it serves his purpose.
Uniformly good, judged as a simple , but superbly done kids adventure story that adults can enjoy if they will let themselves be kids again for awhile.Suspend your disbelief, forget about the historical anachronisms(Yes, Morgan and Blackbeard lived in different eras and were never partners),and enjoy yourself watching a movie depicting not how things really were but the way THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN..
Robert Newton' performance of Blackbeard is reason enough to see this film..
Blackbeard the Pirate is an average film about pirates but Robert Newton will captivate you with his portrayal of the title character.
Robert Newton is playing Blackbeard for all he's worth.
It's a poor and confused plot, extremely unlikeable and unrealistic, but Linda Darnell lifts the show by her beauty, counterpoising the exaggerated savagery of Newton and the pirates.
The story is a pastiche on all the earlier piracy films, like "The Black Swan" and "Treasure Island", and the main reason for the film seems to have been to give an opportunity for Robert Newton to excel in his special personal savagery of acting outstanding crooks..
Newton's iconic pirate saves Blackbeard from sinking..
Raoul Walsh's direction is sloppy in this technicolor high seas adventure that never gets much wind in its sail outside of the outlandishly wonderful scenery chewing performance by Robert Newton as the title character.
Newton who would go on to play more benign pirates (Long John Silver) is deliciously duplicitous from start to finish as he attempts to outfox all around him including his crew who hate but fear him more.Director Walsh who helmed some excellent adventure dramas in the past seems to settle for anything mixing haphazard seriousness with mawkish romance and some dark comedy that Newton drives home with gusto.
There's a decent sea battle, Linda Darnel displaying cleavage and Irene "Granny" Ryan scoring a few laughs as her lady in waiting but the film remains a burlesque most of the way with Newton thankfully center stage going over the top throughout before receiving a fitting exit befitting the most dastardly of screen pirates..
If you thought Robert Newton had created the original pirate in 1950's Treasure Island, technically you're right.
If every ten sentences in Treasure Island, he added an "Aarr!", in Blackbeard, the Pirate, his imitable, incomparable sound was included every ten words.
As the famous villainous Blackbeard, Bobbie cackles, sings, and is even more disheveled than he was as Long John Silver.If you're familiar with pirate legends, you probably know Blackbeard had a rivalry with Captain Morgan, and in this film, a woman comes between them.
His cohorts, led by William Bendix and Skelton Knaggs, who bears an eerie resemblance to Frances McDormand, are much more wicked than he is.While there's no topping Treasure Island, I really enjoyed Blackbeard, the Pirate.
A rip-roaring piratical romp with Robert Newton, after playing Long John Silver for Disney's "Treasure Island" cashing in this time as Blackbeard a.k.a. Ned Teach leading his very motley crew into dangerous adventure on the high seas.Also on board are the statuesque Linda Darnell as the resident damsel in distress and her protector and lover Maynard (called Mainyard throughout by old Blackbeard) played by while the main protagonist of all and sundry appears to be the gentleman pirate captain Morgan, pillar of society by day and treacherous plunderer by night.Director Raoul Walsh ushers the action along in his typical no-nonsense style, with the ship battle scenes and hand to hand fighting among the pirate hordes especially memorable, give or take the odd jarring juxtaposition of ship models, back projections and less than bloody sword-fights.Newton completely dominates the cast.
Despite wearing a less than terrifying set of little red flags on his beard, Newton revels in the Teach part, knowing that no one trusts him and everybody fears him.I was confused for a time by the appearance of Richard Egan (later to captain his own boat into danger in "Jason and the Argonauts" some years later) as Maynard's friend as both men look so like one another.
Robert Newton does his pirate schtick in this not-so-true-to-life story about Edward Teach, AKA 'Blackbeard'.Boarders on Blackbeard's ship try to escape at the first opportunity, but get dragged into the inevitable search for treasure when Blackbeard reaches the island where his stash is hidden away.
Linda Darnell is beautiful as the token damsel-in-distress, Irene Ryan is funny as a matronly drunk, and Skelton Knaggs is excellent as a derelict pirate, but 'leading man' Keith Andes and deckhand Bill Bendix are less impressive.
As for Newton, he looks the part and delivers the "shiver-me-timbers" dialogue, but you've seen his act before in 'Treasure Island' (1950) and he did it again in 'Long John Silver' (1954).OK 50's adventure movie, in color, too.
its basic virtue remains the performance of Robert Newton who creates the perfect pirate image.
but it has the gift to be more than an another movie with pirates, adventures and victory of good guys.
The main character Blackbeard (Robert Newton) lines was crisp nor was dry and very boring.
He played the same character in "Long John Silver" and "Treasure Island".
Blackbeard is essentially a story of a reformed pirate Henry Morgan becoming the Governor in the West Indies to get rid off other pirates especially Blackbeard (Robert Newton.)A young ship's surgeon Edward Maynard is tasked to become part of Blackbeard's crew to deal with both Blackbeard and Morgan who he also suspects of still being a villain.Blackbeard manages to kidnap Morgan's adopted daughter which leads to a romance subplot with Maynard.
At all times Blackbeard shows ruthless cunning and double dealing.Newton hams it up nicely as Blackbeard who has set the pirate standard.
William Bendix provides fine support, Linda Darnell is very nice eye candy but the whole thing is just too silly even though its a bit risqué here and there and rather strong in some of its violence.The film ranges from daft to dull, the final fight scenes with Blackbeard and the rest of the crew is dumb but his drowning scene is rather startling..
The boat scenes are pretty well done though.Newton is the prototypical celluloid pirate with his outings in the definitive Treasure Island.
Robert Newton IS Blackbeard.
Raoul Walsh's 1952 film "Blackbeard the Pirate" doesn't strive for any historical accuracy, but it's high in the entertainment category and one of the best of its kind.
Robert Newton has literally a "field day" as Blackbeard and he set the standard for all future screen pirates.
Also in the cast is William Bendix ("The Life of Riley") as a pirate with a Brooklyn accent, but he fits right in with Blackbeard's motley crew.
The two main pirates in this yarn are Blackbeard and Henry Morgan.
Nonetheless, why not have probably the 2 most famous pirates who operated in the Caribbean tangle with each other in a classic tale, irrespective of the historical impossibility......RKO was taking advantage of the success of the mesmerizing characterization by Robert Newton of Long John Silver" in the 1950 hit "Treasure Island" to hopefully produce another pirate tale hit.
Throw in a ravishing Linda Darnell as a major player, to spice things up even more....Keith Andes is criticized by most reviewers for being too bland in his role as the romantic lead Robert Maynard.
Torin Thatcher makes an excellent Henry Morgan, while William Bendex is OK as Blackbeard's first mate.
Linda claims to be the daughter of one time pirate captain Edwin Mansfield.
This name is a slight alteration of Edwin Mansvelt: an actual pirate captain of these times........Blackbeard finally gets his due from his crew for being excessively greedy with the treasure.
The ultimate fate of the treasure is ironic......Robert Newton would get yet another opportunity to display his unique charisma as a classic pirate 2 years later in "Long John Silver".
Ha-Harrr, me buckos, that there brigand Robert Newton be playing the likes of Blackbeard with red ribbons in his fuzzy black beard and a liking for sturdy legs of ham, so he does.
Even that ever-reliable one-eyed old dog Raoul Walsh, director of so many classic Warner pics of the thirties and forties, can't salvage more than a few decent action scenes from a hodge-podge of comedy, romance and adventure that never really catches the wind in its sails.That rascally Blackbeard is out to shiver the timbers of that old foe of his, Harry Morgan and to salvage for himself a chest of treasure his mateys believe is buried with a dead man but which he's secretly buried beneath some polystyrene rocks.
Handsome (but bland) Keith Andes is after Blackbeard's hide and manages to sneak himself aboard the crusty old mariner's ship.
Newton looks like he's having the time of his life, ah-harring for all he's worth, and he alternates between straight and humorous, leaning mostly toward the comical despite the essentially serious nature of the story. |
tt0094080 | The Survivalist | The film takes place when oil production has ceased, which has resulted in a total economic collapse, the fall of society, and a severe drop in the population.
The Survivalist is first seen burying a man's body. He is then shown to be living efficiently in the wild. He harvests crop for food (as animal meat is scarce), forages berries, washes clothes in a nearby stream, grows seeds with semen, lays traps against intruders around his small farm's perimeter, and lives alone out of a small cabin he has built.
One morning, The Survivalist hears noise outside his cabin, and rushes out to find two women. An old woman named Katherine and a younger woman named Milja which Katherine claims to be her daughter, ask him if he could spare any of his crop, and attempt to trade for it too, to both of which he declines while holding them at gunpoint. Katherine suggests they stay the night, implying that he uses Milja for sex in return for food & shelter. The Survivalist agrees, but only for one night.
The following morning, The Survivalist tells the women to take their belongings and leave. After Milja caresses and shaves his face, he agrees to let them stay indefinitely if they help him with the farming. Over a few days, Katherine and Milja secretly conspire to kill The Survivalist in order to reduce supplies being used. The following morning, after Katherine briefly contemplates murdering him, The Survivalist is alerted a footprint in the mud, just as Milja is taken hostage while washing in a nearby stream. The Survivalist is shot in the stomach, but in turn, kills the assailant. Milja and Katherine treat The Survivalist's wound, prying the bullet out and cauterising the wound. After the wound becomes infected, he gathers maggots to eat the infected tissue. As he recovers, temperature drops, and they huddle together in bed to stay warm.
One night, raiders arrive and The Survivalist, Milja and Katherine gather and discuss their options. Six raiders are counted, and the survivors only have a shotgun with 2 shells, a pistol with one bullet, and two knives. They have no choice but to keep quiet while the raiders steal most of the crop and attempt, but fail, to break into the cabin. In the following days, while they work to save the farm, Milja discovers she is pregnant. Katherine again floats the idea of killing The Survivalist due to lack of food, and advises her to attempt an abortion. Milja attempts abortion with a copper rod, but fails.
The following morning, Katherine tells The Survivalist that she and Milja are leaving. Milja tells her she wants to stay, and that she has also poisoned Katherine. Overcome with despair from this, Katherine tells The Survivalist to cut her wrists and bury her after she dies. Following this, The Survivalist finds that one of his bear traps has caught a rabbit, meaning all three could have had enough food to survive. He returns to the cabin, and tells Milja about his brother, Augustus - the man he buried at the film's opening - He tells her they used to steal from camps, and when caught and chased, The Survivalist cut Augustus's Achilles tendon and left him to the pursuers in order to escape. He modestly assures her that she did the right thing in poisoning Katherine.
Eventually, the raiders return to the farm while The Survivalist and Milja are out foraging when they notice the raiders' presence. They sneak into the back room of the cabin for the storage of crop seeds, but Milja alerts them while leaving. The raiders give chase, and The Survivalist tells Milja to run. Drawing the raiders with a harmonica, he kills one and the rest follow the sound of the shot. One stumbles onto Milja's location, but she lures him into a bear trap and makes her escape. The Survivalist is eventually shot with a crossbow bolt - As his dying body is looted next to a large spit and fire made from the cabin's wood, it is strongly implied he is cannibalised by the raiders.
Milja wanders the wild herself over the next few days, and eventually makes it to a survivors' compound, complete with guards, doctors and a large farm. As she waits to be let in, a female guard notices Milja is three months pregnant, and asks if she knows what she will call the baby. As the film ends, Milja answers, "If it's a boy." | cult, murder | train | wikipedia | This could only have been made in the Cold War 1980s.
Not to be confused with the pulp novel series.
A small nuclear device is detonated in Siberia and sends the world into a cold war panic.
Back in Texas, Jack Tillman (Steve Railsback), a sort of doomsdayer-lite, is fully prepared for the chaos erupting.
He gets his family together to go save his son at a summer camp.
But when his wife and daughter are killed by random roaming ruffians, he is forced to go on the run with his doctor friend Vincent (Cliff De Young) and his wife Linda (Susan Blakely).
Of course, not before offending National Guard nut (and former 'Nam nemesis) Lt. Youngman (Marjoe Gortner), who decides the biggest priority in this worldwide panic is to kill the man who crushed his motorcycle with a backhoe.
This is a film that seems like it could have only been made in the '80s.
Director Sig Shore (producer of SUPERFLY) gets the most out of the barren locations, but ineptly handles the rioting masses (which seem to be about 12 people).
The screenplay is credited to one John V.
Kraft (amusingly, a copyright search finds a script from 1986 with that title credited to an equally pseudonym sounding Louis J.
Mayo...mmmm, Kraft and Mayo) and it seems really confused as if Tillman is the hero.
I assume they wanted this to be a FIRST BLOOD (1982) type flick, but Tillman is so mean to nearly everyone he meets that it is hard to like him.
Railsback is his usually self and the supporting turns by De Young and Blakely are better than one would expect..
Classic survivalist movie!.
This movie is great for many reasons and anyone who knows anything about survivalist issues will enjoy it.
Most liberals will hate this one for it sure tells it like it is.Based loosely on the paperback book series: THE SURVIVALIST.
Railsback brings to life the hero and Marjoe Gortner plays the perfect over the top villain as usual.There is violence and a brief nude scene with Blakely which really does lift the film for its own reasons.If you are a fan of big government or dislike survivalists...stay away from this one.If you like holocaust survival movies or like to see what survivalists are really like..
check this one out.
I do hope they will put this one out on DVD someday..
A lousy movie saved very little by Susan Blakely.
I watched this movie expecting a good storyline and action.
I received lots of action but no story line.
The actors in this movie were better quality than this picture.
David Wayne who played on Ellery Queen as the father is a better actor and so is Susan Blakely.
She has a nude scene in the movie near the end, but I could only give this movie two stars which means it was saved by her endowments and not the storyline.
Do not rent this movie expecting any sense, but lots of lousy action and some steam..
Come, Armageddon!
come!
Come, come, come - nuclear bomb!.
Really corny and bad low budget film that feels more like a piece of confused NRA-propaganda than post-apocalypse.
The world is cast into chaos, violence and confusion after the threat of nuclear war between the US of A and the Soviet union.
Everybody is freaking out, except...
Jack Tillman!
(his name is repeated in absurdum)...
who's a survivalist who's been preparing for this crap and now gets to play with weapons, build campfires and protect his family and blah-blah-blah...
If you are a 40 year old guy in army pants who lives with his mum and have strange ideas about most things, and who's biggest hobby is to hang around in the forest and build knives, this might be right up your alley...
Everybody except that guy and the most tragic of post-apocalyptic movie collectors needn't bother.
A few unintentionally funny scenes and the fact that this ultra-low budget film takes it self 110% serious saves it from being a complete waste of time..
A strictly so-so sci-fi end-of-the-world survivalist flick.
A potentially potent and exciting "Panic in Year Zero"-type premise gets fatally hamstrung by a lackluster execution in this merely passable doomsday thriller.
Steve Railsback (who also toplined in the futuristic Aussie "The Most Dangerous Game" variant "Escape 2000" around the same time) stars as Jack Tillman, a tough and fiercely self-reliant take-charge Texas suburbanite who's more than ready when the news of an imminent nuclear war causes society to degenerate into a barbarous every-man-for-himself mass hysteria state.
Martial law is declared, looters run rampant in the streets, the cops fail to maintain order, and Tillman's wife and daughter are killed in the ensuing violent fracas.
So Tillman makes a perilous cross country trek to the North to find his son before it's too late.
Wimpy idealist doctor Cliff De Young and his more sensible nurse wife Susan Blakely tag along for the dangerous ride.Jack V.
Kraft's neatly though out script offers a few inspired and interesting touches (e.g., vengeful National Guard soldier Marjoe Gortner uses the dire situation as a golden opportunity to track down and kill longtime nemesis Tillman and the National Guard are forced to recruit a rowdy biker gang as deputies out of absolute necessity).
Alas, the promising material is greatly undermined by "Superfly" producer Sig Shore's tepid direction, Tony Camillo's mechanically spare and redundant synthesizer score, and Benjamin Davis' drab cinematography, all of which squeeze the juice out of the solid subject matter.
Moreover, the film's flat TV movieish quality severely diminishes both the sense of vigor and feeling of urgency crucially needed to make the story gripping and effective.
Worse yet, a good cast mostly turn in strictly blah performances: a paunchy'n'pudgy way past his 70's prime Gortner looks haggard throughout and even the usually wired Railsback appears to be cruising on thespic automatic pilot.
Only veteran character actor David Wayne rises above the blandness with his pleasingly crusty cameo as a helpful elderly backwoods gas station owner.
Overall, this picture isn't a really bad movie; it's ultimately just an awfully mediocre one. |
tt3114390 | Kill La Kill | Honnouji Academy (本能字学園, Honnōji Gakuen) is a fictional high school situated in Tokyo Bay, Japan on the island of Honnō City. The school is dominated by its fearsome student council led by Satsuki Kiryuin. Its students wear Goku Uniforms (極制服, Gokuseifuku, from gokusei (極製?, "finest quality") + seifuku (制服?, "school uniform")) which give their wearers superhuman abilities because they are constructed with a special material known as Life Fibers (生命戦維, Seimei Sen'i, lit. "Life Battle-Fibers"). Vagrant transfer student Ryuko Matoi, who wields a scissor-shaped longsword that can cut Goku Uniforms, challenges the council as she searches for her father's killer. Although she is initially easily defeated, she finds a sentient sailor uniform that she names Senketsu, a Kamui (神衣, lit. "Godrobe") which is completely made of Life Fibers and transforms her so that she can face Kiryuin and her trials and obstacles. She is befriended by her hyperactive classmate Mako Mankanshoku and lives with her family.
When Satsuki reorganizes the allocation of Goku Uniforms through a battle royal and king-of-the-hill event known as Naturals Election, Ryuko faces the members of Satsuki's Elite Four, who wear powerful Three-Star Goku Uniforms, in a series of duels. Her final fight is interrupted by Nui Harime, the wielder of the other Scissor Blade and the murderer of Ryuko's father. In the ensuing fight, Ryuko transforms into an uncontrollable monster.
With the Tri-City Schools Raid, Satsuki annexes the major schools in the other regions of Japan, and quashes Nudist Beach (ヌーディスト・ビーチ, Nūdisuto Bīchi), a paramilitary organization led by Ryuko's homeroom teacher Aikuro Mikisugi. She arranges for a festival that will host her mother Ragyo, the academy's director and the CEO of REVOCS Corporation (REVOCSコーポレーション, Ribokkusu Kōporēshon), a clothing manufacturer that has dominated the worldwide market. Mikisugi reveals that the Life Fibers, which have been woven into all REVOCS clothing, are actually alien parasites that consume their wearers. When they devour the festival audience, Satsuki turns on her mother, revealing her end goal has always been destroying Ragyo, but the rebellion is short-lived as Ragyo has fused with the Life Fibers to attain tremendous power. Ragyo recognizes Ryuko as her own daughter and Satsuki's younger sister, who survived the termination of a Life Fiber experiment and was raised in secrecy by Ragyo's missing husband Isshin Matoi.
A month later, Ragyo and the Life Fibers have devastated Japan and have captured Satsuki, leaving the Elite Four without Goku Uniforms and forced to hide out with Ryuko and the others at Nudist Beach. When they rescue Satsuki, Ragyo captures and brainwashes Ryuko into fighting her. After Ryuko frees herself, she and Satsuki challenge Ragyo, who plans to use a space satellite to command all Life Fibers to consume their human hosts and detonate the Earth in order to propagate the Life Fibers throughout the universe. After taking down the satellite transmitter and blasting the cocoon that houses the Original Life Fiber, Ragyo absorbs Nui and flies in to space to manually activate the satellite, but Ryuko chases Ragyo into space and defeats her, causing the Life Fiber clothes to perish. Following the battle, Senketsu sacrifices himself and burns up on atmospheric re-entry to return Ryuko to Earth.
In a follow-up OVA episode, Ragyo's secretary Rei Hououmaru disrupts Honnouji Academy's graduation ceremony, using leftover Life Fibers to create doppelgängers of Satsuki and the Elite Four. However, they are defeated by Ryuko, the real Elite Four, and Nudist Beach, and Satsuki convinces Rei to abandon her struggle. Honnouji Academy is shut down during the sinking of Honnō City and everyone leaves to live out normal lives. | brainwashing, revenge, flashback | train | wikipedia | This is that sort of anime that can be serious at times but shouldn't be taken seriously by the audience.
The animations is somewhat rough but impressive although some 3D models of backgrounds look bland but it shouldn't put off the viewer considering that fact that its not the reason they are watching this.
The action sequences are the highlights though, they are super stylized and insane to watch.
Considering I only checked this anime out because its made by the same guys who made gurren lagann, i had really high hopes for it.
It doesn't take itself seriously and its more of a parody of every single anime in existence however it still manages to maintain an original story.
Also the main character, Ryuko is totally bad ass although really cliché.
But for an anime thats full of (good) clichés, its fun to watch..
Many believe that the story of Kill La Kill isn't the strongest, whereas I believe that it is one of its better areas.
(IMDB states that 1985's 'Sukeban Deka' was an influence to the creators, but I have never heard of this series before, and it ended in 1982, leaving a void to fill) Kill La Kill has certainly filled this gap.
The first episodes very quickly set the precedent and foundations of the story, while remaining entertaining.
Ryuko and her lovable though overly-obsessive friend Mako lead us on a very enjoyable ride through Honnouji Academy, where Ryuko aims to discover the identity of her father's killer.Overall, a very absorbing, riveting story, combined with relatable and lovable characters and simple yet sharp animation creates a perfect mould for an extremely fascinating TV show.
With the series looking to be running into late March/early April 2014, there is still plenty of time to start from the beginning to catch the end before the season draws to a close.If you can look past the possible over-sexualisations and spontaneity, I thoroughly recommend this anime, even for those not necessarily of the anime persuasion..
It is a show for people well versed in anime as a lot of the fun lies in understanding the moments of parody.
The whole parodies conventions of anime especially fan service.
The show only tries to do one thing and that is to create one epic fight scene after another and in this regard it is unmatched in any anime since maybe Dragonball Z only unlike DBZ the fight scenes take 10 minutes not 10 episodes to end.
In spite of being a pretty light hearted show it manages to create some really well rounded characters with understandable motivations and an underlying symbolism related to female sexuality but none of that should distract you from the absolute joyride of an anime.
If you happen to like anime like Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagan or FLCL, this looks like another show for you.
Five episodes in, I am already enjoying the story, although you can clearly tell that the focus is not there.The main selling point of this show is mostly it's animation, which, as usual with TV shows it gets a bit worse after the first episode.
All in all, i recommend Kill La Kill, especially for fans of quick paced, weird anime like the ones i mentioned before..
It's a fan, action packed thrill ride that's a must see for any anime fan.
The show is about a teenage girl who is looking for the murderer of her father and ends up at an academy run by a fascist student council.
The series has very likable characters and solid humor, though Mako can get slightly annoying at times.
The animation is solid and the music is memorable.
Fair enough, it should be first noted that a series that takes absolute liberties with mocking stereotypes and clichés will go a little overboard; Transformation-scenes go to lengths to display more-than-almost nudity at times, half a lake worth of blood is collectively spilled in only 24 episodes and any object might just explode (Most of them do).Then again, that's the whole point.
More than being a simple parody however, KlK does sport a decent story line complete with plot twists, decent character development (albeit absurd, of course) and a well-matched soundtrack.
You'll love KlK, if the absurdist nature is your thing and you're not quickly offended by over-the-top anime clichés..
Best anime I have seen..
I'm new to anime and this show happened to be the first I've watched but damnnnnnnnnnnnnn I fell in love with this anime, I was sooooo hooked with the show and allllll characters.
Since then I've watched other popular anime but it was not as good as kill la kill, I was no where as hooked as I was with kill la kill and would recommend this anime to everyone.
There where times when i'm watching show and thinking if this person dies or something im gonna cry xD.
At times the show can get pretty serious but the show has so much comic relief I forget I'm watching this huge battle .
upon the suggestion of a good friend, I decided this might be a good anime to watch, and he wasn't wrong.
its a story about a girl named Ryuko Matoi who is on a journey to find her fathers killer, armed with only half of his scissorblade.
I watched it with the intention of passing time, knowing only that it was short and expecting not to care for it.
But one episode in and I was laughing my head off (and that doesn't happen often) and by the second or third I was in love.And I never wanted it to end.
For a idea that makes little to no sense most of the time it somehow manages to create a reasonable story that works perfectly.
And the story wasn't overly predictable (Although I could call some of the plot points in advance, the shear amount of unexpected things that happened outnumber them spectacularly) and most importantly, the action was spectacular.
There was not one thing about this show that frustrated me (aside from it's short length, but 25 amazing episodes is better than 200 meh ones).Simply...
From the minds who brought you the absolute absurdity of Gurren Lagann comes Kill La Kill, a show where an extremely attractive, essentially naked teenager beats the crap out of people with half of a giant scissor with the help of a talking sailor uniform.
The story is very unoriginal and kind of follows Gurren Lagann's plot structure now that I think about it, but that isn't the point of this show.
It wants to slam you over the head with beautifully animated, epic fight scenes while doling out plenty of fan service.
Ryuko Matoi, Satsuki Kiryuin, and the Elite Four are entertaining thanks to their awesomeness in battle,and Mako Mankanshoku and her family bring some truly hilarious comic relief to the table.
That, and I didn't like one thing about the ending.
The characters and story are all over the place, but manage to be consistent and interesting.
Kill-La-Kill might be my favorite anime!
It's over-the-top, hilarious, action-packed and has amazing animation.
Ryuko and Mako's friendship is absolutely adorable and I love seeing them together!
Definitely a must-watch for anyone who loves something extremely over-the-top..
As over-the-top anime go, Kill la Kill is one of the best!.
In the same vein as Gurren Lagann, Kill la Kill takes ridiculous extremes to make it as visually memorable a show as possible.
Considering that this show actually carried over a lot of the same people who made Gurren Lagann it's no surprise that it's similarly enjoyable to its Mecha-cousin even if there's not all that many similarities in terms of story.To put simply in a short and sweet manner: great anime that's actually very appealing to animation aficionados in general..
Its not too complicated to follow, but the absurdity of it can feel like a little too much at times.
Art, 8/10: Really good, from character designs to backgrounds to the animations ,this is one of the strongest aspects of KLK.
They are able to make what would otherwise be bland and simple setting look much more grand then they should.Sound, 10/10: The soundtrack is amazing, I don't really have anything negative to say about it, I mean whenever I hear "Don't loose your Way!
My biggest issue is with Mako, the comedy relief of the show, sometimes she is entertaining while others see is just annoying.Enjoyment, 8/10: I had fun watching this show, more than I thought I would to be honest.
The art, sound and characters made this show, the only reason I didn't rate it higher is mostly because of the story, but also there were times when the nudity felt a bit much..
After watching the first 3 episodes I can say that this is a mindless show with too much fan service and forced funny parts(i laughed only at some jokes, the rest was just too stupid).
Animation is just average and the story is kinda weak.
Some characters like that girl of the main protagonist are really annoying.
The good parts of kill la kill that it has some good action sequences(especially in the third episode) and the soundtrack is pretty good so far.
I will continue to watch this show till the last episode(I am an optimist, maybe the show will be better over time).
This anime's art style alone is just so nice and exciting and the movement and fight scenes feel so fluent.
The story is well paced and it never feels stretched out or too short.
It's really an awesome show and it's a shame that there aren't many other anime that feel so satisfying to watch..
just watch it if anime fan.
interesting different types of cartoon styles.lot of thinking and imagination.-1 because way too much nudity and sex allusions regarding females but at the same time what make it what it is.
definitely more for a male oriented viewer but hopefully some female viewer will enjoy the sometime a bit pervert style of this anime.
Best anime I have seen in a long time..
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann turned it up to 11; Kill la Kill takes things "one louder" (to quote Nigel Tufnel).It is everything one could expect from the team who brought us Gurren Lagann.
It presents a show about the bonds of friendship, and pursuing one's goals to the very end, against any and all odds.Ryuko Matoi brings us a synthesis of Kamina and Simon, with Mako Mankanshoku as her companion (not quite Simon, but with many of his characteristics as a youth), as Ryuko faces off against Kiriyuin Satsuke and her assembled team of Super High School Student Council Members.And there are very complex character interactions, as is common for Imaishi and Nakashima.
The interplay between Ima Gamagoori and Mako Mankanshoku is an endearing and compelling interplay between the two.The action is even faster and more chaotic than in Gurren Laggan, with some darker themes as well.And, like Gurren Laggan, there are common jokes that run throughout the series, such as Mako's frenetic exposition during times of moral outrage at the wrongs of the world and people's behavior.Invest the time in this show.
This series follows protagonist Ryuko Matoi as she joins the Honnouji Academy; a school dominated by head of the student council Satsuki Kiryuin; she rules with the help of the 'Elite Four'.
Ryuko however has her own special uniform; it is sentient and made entirely of Life Fibres; using this she plans to take on the ruling elite and ultimately discover who is responsible for the death of her father.This series is over the top crazy
that is the whole point of it!
The costumes are fairly skimpy but the animation style means it is mocking fan service rather than pandering to it.
This style is quite different to most anime; backgrounds are imaginative but less detailed and the movement is more frenetic than most series; this gives the show a western feel similar to that used in 'Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt'.
As this seems to be one of the most talked about series of the moment and plenty of people are raving about it I'd definitely recommend checking it out even though I found it a bit too much at times.These comments are based on watching the series in Japanese with English subtitles..
The style is great, all of Triggers shows have really good styles and this show isn't an exception.
The animation succeeds in two different; it's probably the most visually funny.
And by just speeding her transformation animation just a little, they make it look like she's in a hurry and funny.
They also manage to REALLY make it look like all the powerful are really happening.
Both OP's had good animation, but the first one was more interesting IMO.
There were also small things that I really liked, but it wasn't perfect.My biggest con with the visuals was the sexuality.
The buttons on Ryuukos suit even looked like nipples.
I also didn't like how Ragyous hair was rainbow colored, there were some digital zooms that looked bad and sometimes they would repeat an action shot 5 times in a row which looked really weird.Oh, and the action was really good too.Music: 8
It was interesting, I really like Ryuukos relationship with Senketsu, Tsumugu's intent in the beginning isn't evil which makes him turning over to "her side" not feeling too weird, I like that the person wearing the suit can get too angry for the suit to handle (so it's good that it only happens once when Ryuuko meets her fathers killer the first time), I like that the academy was basically an experiment to see how humans could take the power life fibers, the plot twists were unpredictable (IMO), Ryuuko and Satsukis relationship in the end and Senketsus death was handled really well and emotional.
But there were many small things I didn't like, like that they throw in Mako if anything bad happens to Ryuuko.Characters: 8
I really like that when Satsuki becomes friends with Ryuuko and her gang, her personality doesn't change too much.
But Mako wasn't funny, mostly when she did those blue background comedy scenes.
Ragyou also feels like a character I have felt a hundred times, otherwise, I liked her.Overall: 9.
I've watched this anime three times now, and each time it feels fresh and new.
I have to say, this anime was literally badass like i want to be Ryuuko's friend and have her badass cape (although i dont want a revealing suit and have a cape only power up for my blood lol).
Her scissor weapon was class too as well!The anime can be pretty over the top too and does have its hilarious moments.
I just love how Ryuuko's friend Mako puts herself into dangerous situations and makes such daft remarks about things that make you laugh your head off wuth confusion lol!
As annoying as she may look and act, she has a good heart I suppose lol!It's funny as well how there's so much nakedness on this and we don't actually get to see real genitalia which is kinda odd in a way.
Moving on, I just thought this anime was very entertaining that it won't leave you bored and make you skip a couple of episodes (which I normally do to not waste time).
However I didn't really care, I just wanted to watch the action in this and it was not dissapointing!This anime deserves a 8/10 from moi!
Now kill la kill looks a lot like Gurren Lagann that's because the writer and director both worked on Gurren Lagann another bad anime with a moronic plot and bland two-dimensional moronic characters that don't develop at all and remain bland two- dimensional moronic characters.
So the story go like this; Ryuko's father apparently created the goku uniforms that give the wearer super human strength, speaking of Goku I'd much rather be watching Dragon Ball Z or Goku Midnight Eye both of which are much better anime.
But back to Kill La Kill so Ryuko's father made the super suits that everyone uses in this anime but made another suit that no one knows about and of course it's black because it has to be edgy.
Her father was also murdered because he didn't like how they were using them or whatever.
So this edgy girl name Ryuku comes to the Honnouji Academy of Stupidity and Idiocy to avenge her father or whatever she also carries around a ridiculously big looking pair of garden sheers that's supposed a sword further cementing her as an edgy teen with daddy issues.
So Ryuko fall down a shaft or something and finds the black edgy suit and it bonds with her but takes some her blood in the process then she goes up to challenge the evil school of uniform wearing morons.
So even though Ryuko and Satsuki have been rivals for the majority of the show they team up to beat the bigger bad guy.Like Gurren Lagann from here on stupid fights occur there's nonsensical action explosions and other michael bay esque garbage.
So the secretary shows up in a giant robot and captures whatsherface the anti anti hero then she beats Ryuko who is about to fall to her death in the best moment in the entire show but is cut short by the edgy uniform which turns into an absurdly large pair of scissors to save Ryuko but not to cut a grand opening ribbon with but to beat the bad guy.
If you want to watch an anime about a dark brooding anti hero with a giant sword go watch the 1997 Berserk series or read the manga, if you want a story about a whiny edgy teen with a giant pair of scissors I guess you can watch kill la kill. |
tt4694618 | Annie | In 1933, during The Great Depression, a young orphan named Annie is living in the Hudson Street Orphanage in New York City. One night, Annie comforts one of the youngest orphans by singing to her. The orphanage's cruel and alcoholic supervisor Agatha Hannigan hears the singing and punishes the orphans by making them clean up the orphanage. Later while trying to flee in a laundry truck, Annie rescues a dog being tormented by a group of boys. She names him Sandy after convincing a dogcatcher that he is hers and the pair is escorted back to the orphanage. Soon after, Hannigan discovers Sandy and threatens to send him to the sausage factory. However, Grace Farrell, a secretary to billionaire Oliver Warbucks, arrives, saying that he wants an orphan to stay at his mansion for a week to help his image. Despite Hannigan's objections, Grace picks Annie and allows Sandy to accompany her.
Upon arrival, Annie, Sandy, and Grace meet Warbucks' bodyguards Punjab and The Asp, butlers, maids, and servants. Annie quickly endears herself to everyone there. However, Warbucks disapproves, as he originally desired a boy orphan. Meanwhile, Hannigan is visited by her brother, Rooster, and his girlfriend, Lily St. Regis; both are obvious con artists, who ask Hannigan to borrow money.
Back at the Warbucks Mansion, Annie and Sandy thwart a Bolshevik assassin attempt to bomb the mansion. Warbucks and Grace take Annie to Radio City Music Hall to see the Rockettes and a film.
The next day Grace asks Warbucks if they can adopt Annie. Warbucks agrees to adopt her and goes to the orphanage to get the adoption papers signed. Despite Hannigan's attempt to seduce him, Warbucks blackmails her into signing. He goes back to the mansion to tell Annie and is about to give her a Tiffany's locket, but the orphan says she wants to find her real parents. She shows Warbucks the broken locket she wears; she tells him her parents have the missing piece of the locket, and that they will use it to prove their identities when they return to the orphanage someday to retrieve her. Deciding to help, Warbucks makes an announcement on a radio show and offers a $50,000 reward to her parents.
A crowd of would-be 'parents' arrives at the Warbucks mansion. To get Annie away from the sensationalism, Warbucks and Punjab take her by auto-copter to the White House to visit President Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Roosevelt tells Warbucks and Annie about his plans for a social welfare program to help the poor and wants Annie to help as well. Annie performs for Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Back at the mansion, Annie learns that the search for her parents has not yet been successful.
Meanwhile, the Hannigans and Lily plot a scheme to collect the reward, drown Annie, and split the money three ways, and Hannigan reveals that Annie's parents perished in a fire many years back. Hearing what has happened, the other orphans attempt to go to Warbucks's mansion but are locked up by the Hannigans and Lily. The orphans flee and find out that the Hannigans have captured Annie and the money. Warbucks puts out an APB on the felons, and he and Grace search for them while Punjab and another servant search from the auto-copter. Rooster and Lily are sent to jail.
Annie gets her wish of a good family at a party. The Roosevelts, her orphan friends, and the servants are enjoying themselves; Hannigan is reformed; and Grace and Warbucks further develop their relationship. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0106763 | Double, Double Toil and Trouble | Kelly (Mary-Kate Olsen) and Lynn Farmer's (Ashley Olsen) parents, Don (Eric McCormack) and Christine (Kelli Fox), are deeply in debt and in danger of losing their home. During the Halloween season, they visit Christine's cold and cruel Aunt Agatha (Cloris Leachman) to ask for a loan, which is immediately refused. While the girls wait outside, they meet Agatha's grave digger (Wayne Robson) who tells them the story of Agatha's twin sister Sophia (also played by Cloris Leachman) who is trapped inside the house. He explains to the girls that Agatha’s home once belonged to a powerful witch who, before being burned at the stake 200 years before, had hidden her moonstone, the rare gem which gave her power. As children, Agatha and Sophia, tired of being twins, heard the tale and began looking for the stone in hopes of using its power to no longer be identical anymore. Agatha found the moonstone but hid it from her sister and instead began using the magic it possesses to make her sister’s life miserable. Years later on Halloween, Sophia and her fiancé George, now Agatha's butler, prepared to elope and begin their life together, but Agatha, out of jealously and rage, cast a spell that banished her sister into the netherworld through a mirror, which she keeps hidden in the attic. On the 7th year at midnight, this Halloween, the spell will become permanent and there will be no way for Sophia to be rescued.
Back at home, Kelly and Lynn learn of their parents' financial problems. Christine expresses that if Aunt Sophia were still around, she'd be able to help them. Knowing this, the girls begin a rescue mission to free Aunt Sophia before it's too late. The spell can only be broken by twins who have possession of the moonstone, so Kelly and Lynn’s ultimate goal is to apprehend it. The only problem is, Aunt Agatha wears the gem around her neck at all times. While out trick or treating, they swap costumes with two other kids so they are able to get away from their parents. The first person they meet is a homeless man who dreams of money and stardom, Mr. N (Meshach Taylor), who offers to help the girls because they shouldn't be on such a dangerous journey without an adult. The girls carry with them a toy magic wand that they won at a Halloween party days before, which actually has unexplained genuine magical powers. Kelly, Lynn and Mr. N visit a phony psychic to ask where they are able to find the witches gathering that Aunt Agatha will attend that night, but Lulu is unable to answer, so instead, they use the wand to find the location and set off again by secretly hitching a ride on a pumpkin truck. They get dropped off near a woodland and find a small house deep inside, the home of a man named Oscar (Phil Fondacaro) who wishes to be taller. They tell him the whole story and he agrees to go along with them. Meanwhile, Don and Christine discover the girls have gone and inform the police.
Aunt Agatha overhears the girls' plan using the magic mirror and starts doing anything she can to get rid of them. She is threatened by their presence because she knows that the power of twins combined is superior to her own. Kelly, Lynn, Mr. N and Oscar turn up at the gathering in costumes in hopes of fitting in better and they oversee the events inside. Aunt Agatha reveals the story of her spell on her sister to the crowd while Mr. N and Oscar create a plan to try to get her to hand over the moonstone, which she does, intrigued by their promise to double her power. However, they are soon found out and get chased through town. They decide to split up; Lynn, who has the moonstne, with Oscar, and Kelly goes with Mr. N.
Followed by Agatha and her butler, Kelly and Mr. N run into a dead end at an abandoned warehouse. He goes out to confront her but she turns him into a crow, leaving Kelly alone. Later on, Aunt Sophia appears to Kelly, expressing that Aunt Agatha has freed her, but Kelly realises it's a trick and that Aunt Agatha has transformed herself to try and catch her. She manages to tie Agatha up with the magic wand, which messes with her power, but Kelly then gets caught by George when she flees from the building. Mr. N, as a crow, finds Lynn and Oscar to tell them what's happened, and Lynn starts to panic, since her and Kelly have never been apart and Kelly is probably scared all by herself. In the same part of town, Lynn finds where Mr. Gravedigger lives and goes to ask for his help since he knows his way around Aunt Agatha's house more than any of them. On their way, the police officer looking for the girls sees them driving away. She informs Don and Christine where she saw them, and Christine realises it's near Aunt Agatha's mansion so that's probably where they're heading.
Fifteen minutes to midnight, the group break into the house to search for the mirror. Lynn hears Aunt Sophia crying out for help in the attic and she goes to investigate. The good news is, Lynn has the moonstone, but the bad news is, Kelly isn't there, and she needs both twins to free her. Minutes later, Agatha, George and Kelly arrive, and Agatha attempts to poison them with jealousy and resentment toward one another. She tries to persuade Lynn into betraying her sister, but Lynn refuses, since she's realised Kelly is the most important person in her life. Still, she promises to hand over the moonstone if Agatha lets everyone go, which Agatha agrees to. Lynn places the moonstone on the floor and then Aunt Agatha breaks her end of the promise, threatening to turn everybody into animals forever. Mr. N flies down the staircase and snatches the moonstone away in his beak, while Kelly escapes from George's watch and the girls flee upstairs to free Sophia together. They ask Sophia what the incantation is, but Sophia reveals that it has to come from their hearts.
Aunt Agatha bursts into the room laughing, revealing that it's after midnight. Lynn and Kelly tell each other that they love each other and want to be sisters no matter what anybody else says or thinks; the power of love and loyalty transcends all, and Sophia is finally freed. Lynn explains she pushed the clocks ahead five minutes, so it wasn't too late after all. Enraged, Agatha attempts to push her sister back into the mirror, but the twins fight back and Agatha falls into the mirror herself. All of Agatha's evil magic is undone and the mirror is shattered, thus dooming her to spend the rest of her life in solitude in the netherworld.
Don and Christine arrive at the mansion to find Sophia safe and happily returned. Everyone keeps what happened a secret, preferring to tell them that Agatha went on a long trip to "reflect". Kelly and Lynn thank their new friends for helping them out; Mr. Gravedigger for his courage and bravery when standing up to "you know who", Oscar for his fabulous plans and distractions, and Mr. N for being their first companion who looked out for them on the road. He tells them he's also learnt that money is just money and that friends are more important. Aunt Sophia and George fall in love all over again, and redecorate the mansion so it's a second home for the whole family. She also agrees to give the Farmers the money they need to save their home.
Days later while enjoying family time in the garden, Lynn and Kelly are cleaning up the broken mirror in the attic and they see Aunt Agatha in one of the broken pieces. She asks for help, but the twins say "No chance" and walk out of the attic while holding hands and the magic wand. The movie ends with Aunt Agatha shouting, "I hate Halloween!" | good versus evil, flashback | train | wikipedia | Hmmmm....
The Olsen twins are at it again - this time though, they're quite a bit younger (made when Full House was still being aired) - about six - yet still manage to put in okay performances despite their young age.Here the play sisters (*twin* sisters, even!) who run away from their parents whilst trick-or-treating to help their Aunt Sophia, who is trapped inside a mirror thanks to Sophia's twin sister (who happens to be a witch).Along the way they meet up with Mr. N(Meshach Taylor) and Oscar(Phil Fondacaro) who come along for the ride in hopes of setting their Aunt Sophia free.
Kids seem to like it, Mary-Kate and Ashley would've been complaining and amusing one-liners throughout to keep adults from falling asleep..
Lynch's Favorite Olsen Twins Movie.
This was so cute, clever, funny, and fun, it made me ask something I never thought I would ask myself: do I need to watch more Olsen Twin movies???.
You can skip this one for your children.
Recently rewatched this since my childhood.
As a kid I loved it, but after watching it again, it's concerning.
First of all, I have major issues with Mr. N: why did they name a black man "Mr. N" and then turn him into a crow later?
And then having the little person live in a little house?
And how did those girls' parents not notice for the longest time that their children were missing?
This movie is actually kinda creepy and disturbing when you think about it.
Do not show this movie to your kids if you don't want them to be subjected to racism in film and terrible characters..
This is a GREAT movie.
This is a GREAT movie.
Anyone who has a bad word to say about it is a total moron.
Watch it, it's good.
The entire cast makes this movie wonderful.
Cloris Leachman is very convincing as both Aunt Agatha and Sofia.
It's hard to believe this movie is already 10 years old!.
Sweet Movie.
This movie totally made my childhood Halloween!
Even now when I watch it I think its a bit lame but its still a sweet movie.The acting is alright, but in a movie where the stars are under 10, what else can be expected?
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are adorable as the girls in this movie.
Despite their age their acting is as good as any 20-something star on a daytime drama and no one really complains about their acting.Some scenes still make me laugh with my sister when we watch it, and we always rent it for tradition on Halloween.
Seriously, it doesn't deserve the bad reviews.
Its a sweet kids movie, if you want intensity and drama go watch something else..
Olsenfans will love it, non-Olsenfans: give this movie a chance!.
If you're a fan of Mary-Kate and Ashley, you'll love this movie.
If you're not a fan, you may think it's not such a great movie, but think twice: there's more to Double, Double, Toil and Trouble than just the Olsen Twins!
The movie begins with money problems for the parents of Lynn (Ashley Olsen) and Kelly Farmer (Mary-Kate Olsen).
Their only hope is a loan from old Aunt Agatha, but she's very mean.
While their parents are visiting Agatha, the girls hear about witches and the moonstone.
Aunt Agatha is said to be a witch who locked her twin sister, aunt Sophie, into a mirror, using the moonstone.
Of course, Lynn and Kelly decide they want to find it!
What's next, is a fun movie, taking place on Halloween, full of adventure for the girls, new friends and magic as well.
The storyline may seem a bit childish sometimes, but in the end you'll discover that the girls are right: friends are more important than money.
So, in conclusion: a movie Olsenfans will love, but non-Olsenfans should definitely give it a chance!.
Another Childhood Favorite!!!.
As a child, I loved this movie, Olsen twins, and HALLOWEEN.
Now that I'm older, I still do!
The twins star as Lynn and Kelly.
Their parents are about to lose their house.
They ask Aunt Agatha for a loan, but because she's an evil witch, she doesn't.
During that time, the twins meet a grave digger who tells them about the Moonstone, which gives Agatha her power.
Agatha had a nice, sweet twin sister named Sophia, who is trapped in a mirror in the attic.
On HALLOWEEN the next day, The twins try to find the witches' gathering, get the Moonstone, and save their sweet aunt by midnight with the help of Mr. N, Oscar the Clown, and the grave digger.
If you love the Olsen twins, witches, and HALLOWEEN, you'll love DOUBLE, DOUBLE, TOIL AND TROUBLE!!!.
Lots of talent from the adult actors, but a cheesy and lame film.
This film (on VHS) was a staple of my childhood every Halloween along with Goosebumps episodes.
While it certainly has nostalgic merit, anybody over the age of five probably won't get much out of these two obnoxious little twits and their cringey one-liners.
The adult cast members of this film is where all the real talent lies, and Cloris Leachman is perfect in her greed vs.
elegance double roles.
Wayne Robson as the unnamed "Gravedigger" is quite eerie and creepy, but in a friendly way appropriate for kids.
Many older Canadian horror fans will recognize him from numerous works unique to the country.
Meshach Taylor was also really delightful as "Mr. N".Had the film toned down the cheese and pulled the spotlight away from the Trollsen - oops, I mean Olsen Twins - I think this would have all the meanings of a tried and true classic.
It has a good soundtrack, good morals for viewers of all ages, and it's silly and a lot of fun to watch all things considered.
But it's hard to enjoy a film when its two protagonists are intolerable at best and snotty smart alecks to everyone they meet. |
tt1047494 | Meet the Browns | In Chicago, Brenda Brown-Davis (Angela Bassett) is a struggling single mother of three (Mike Jr, Lena, and Tosha). One day she receives a letter stating that her father, whom she has never met, has died. On the same day, the plant where she and her friend Sheryl (Sofia Vergara) work closes so she loses her job which adds to her existing financial difficulties. As they discuss how they will get by, Brenda is approached by Miss Mildred, the woman who watches Brenda's youngest child in her home daycare center. Miss Mildred is upset that Brenda has not been paying for daycare and states that she will no longer watch Tosha.
Later, they all go to Mike Jr's school basketball game where he is a star. A scout, Harry (Rick Fox), takes notice of Mike Jr and comes to his house to speak to him about his future and ends up asking Brenda out. Brenda has no interest in hearing about the possibility of going pro and walks away. She takes her daughter to Miss Mildred and begs for her to watch the girl so she can go get money from her ex and pay the woman back. Miss Mildred relents and Brenda and Sheryl go to the construction site where Mike Sr works. It is revelaed that Brenda has never received any assistance from her ex and he again refuses to provide any financial support.
Brenda decides to take her children to Georgia to attend her father's funeral. She is met by his other children who were unaware of her existence. As she gets to know her newfound relatives, she is surprised to run into Harry but learns that he lives in the same town and is on good terms with her father's family. At dinner, it is revealed that the eldest son of "Pop" Brown, LB, was the only one who knew about Brenda. On his deathbed, their father confessed to LB that he had been a pimp in Chicago and that Brenda's mother, his mother, and a number of other friends of their father's that they had known were all his working girls. The family now recognize Brenda as one of their own and offer their support and encouragement.
Brenda and her children return to Chicago. Mike Sr has considered Brenda's words and attempts to take an interest in his son's life but is still not willing to provide much assistance. Mike Jr rejects him and leaves. In an attempt to make money to help his mother's situation, he turns to his friend Calvin who is a drug dealer. Harry sees Mike Jr selling drugs and counsels him. While Harry and Brenda go on a date, Mike Jr tells his friend that he no longer wants to take part in illegal activities and he is shot. This leads to a further breakdown in the relationship between Brenda and her ex.
Harry reaches out to the Browns to ask for help in getting her father's old place for her and her kids. They renovate the home and surprise Brenda. Despite this gesture, Brenda's insecurities and family gossip lead to her having doubts about Harry's motives and they split up.
A league representative comes to visit Brenda and Mike Jr and offers him a million dollar contract. She finds out that it was Harry who referred Mike Jr to the league. On signing day, Mike Sr shows up to be photographed with his ex and son but Mike Jr announces to the press that he doesn't know his father and that his mother had raised him without support. Upon leaving, he tells his mother that Harry is a good man and more of a father figure than his actual father had been. Brenda goes to see Harry and they reconcile, ultimately leading to marriage. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | My theater that I work at got Meet the Browns, I have never ever seen a Tyler Perry movie, so this would be my first.
I just don't understand why people are being so harsh with this movie, I felt like it was just a decent and uplifting film.
Angela Bassett, who must of made a deal with the devil to look that good at 50, pulls in a great and heart felt performance as a mom who is just trying to do right by her kids despite the hard times she's facing.Brenda is a single mom in Chicago who is just struggling like crazy to take care of her three kids, trying to do the right thing, she looses her job, her electricity has been shut off, she's being judged by everyone, and the dad of her son just refuses to pay any child support what so ever.
But when she finds out that her dad(who she never met) died, she and the kids go down to Georgia for the funeral, and she finds out that he gave her a house, which her family and a handsome family friend pull together to put her dreams back into place and to give her star basketball son a great future.Meet the Browns is just generally a good film, there are things that are a little off key, but it's all good.
I would recommend Meet the Browns, it's a fun film that I'm sure will make you feel good, please ignore the harsh rating, this is a totally misjudged film.6/10.
I always give his films the benefit of the doubt, and I really enjoyed "Why Did I Get Married?" This movie though, "Meet The Browns," could have been an ABC Television Network After School Special.
The characters were CARICATURES of real people.I laughed here and there in this movie, but overall, I was vastly disappointed in this effort.
It's like Mr. Perry just "threw this movie together" without much thought..
After seeing last year's excellent Daddy's Little Girls and Why Did I Get Married I thought Tyler Perry had finally come into his own as a film maker.
Sadly even an A-list actress couldn't save Meet The Browns from being a trite affair that may hugely disappoint Perry's fans.
Maysie Hoy who edited Perry's two previous films comes of as a first timer here which is ironic because she's been doing movies since 1992 and has worked with talented directors such as Robert Altman (The Player)and Theodore Witcher (Love Jones).
Tyler Perry has the potential to be one of the strongest black filmmaker in Hollywood, he knows a good story, has a knack for finding talent hence Lammon Rucker and Lance Goss who will both go on to do great things.
Unfortunately, my first Tyler Perry movie.
Sadly, she spent the whole rest of the evening over coffee and cannoli reflecting on how great Tyler Perry's OTHER movies were.
I forgive her - we're friends.This movie was OK - it had its funny moments and good Lord don't we ALL have those family members?
I don't care if you're black, Italian, Jewish or white-bread American - we've ALL got that same cast of characters sitting around our family table.And OK, i understand that unless i saw the other movies i would not have a clue who Madea is or why she's being chased by the police.
But that's OK - i can let an inside joke slide, especially considering the huge hoot and roar that accompanied her appearance.Overall, i understand that this was not Tyler Perry's finest hour.
Angela Basset was terrific as well as Rick Fox. The Leroy Brown character was funny at first and then he just got annoying.
I don't want to go in to the movie that much because I don't want to spoil it, but Brenda is a single mother that is struggling with money and finds out that her father that she never knew had died.
Frankie Faison, Margaret Avery, Jenifer Lewis and Angela Bassett are all well seasoned actors but their acting roles in this movie was that of an amateur.
I was SO upset when I saw this movie because it's like Tyler took three of his plays (Meet the Browns, What's Done in the Dark, and Madea Goes to Jail) and used the SAME LINES in most cases.
I was expecting more from a Tyler Perry movie..
I have seen all of Tyler Perry's movies (that I know about) and have enjoyed them all...until now.
Angela Bassett was very good in her role and I enjoyed the young man who played her son, but the rest of the relatives were WAY too over the top!
One of the things I like about Mr. Perry's movies is the likable, believable characters...but Leroy and Vera?
this is the worst tyler perry movie yet!
-- i'll still support it, but i feel like i wasted my money going to see this one..:( ...my favorite movies have definitely been diary of a mad black woman followed by family reunion.
Tyler Perry's Meet The Browns was such a wonderful movie.
I thought the acting was played pretty well and loved the idea of having Rick Fox star in this movie.
I am not sure why Tyler Perry keeps making movies.
People obviously see things in Meet the Browns and its comedic/dramatic leverage that I have yet to find; wouldn't be the first time..
Meet the Browns is a tolerable albeit thoroughly bland effort by Tyler Perry, that manages to touch on sensitive, vital issues in the black community but also shortchange a great deal of those involved in the community into broad forgettable caricatures.
Concerning the Brown family, as the title suggests, the film follows single-mother Brenda (Angela Bassett) living in Chicago with her oldest son Michael (Lance Gross) in high school and her two young daughters.One day, Brenda receives a death notice that states the father she has never met has died.
Brenda is welcomed with open arms to meet a good-natured clan known as the Brown family, which also provide her with a release from Chicago's hectic environment and introduce her to the slower ways of Georgia.Meet the Browns is sufficient for both basic cable entertainment in addition to Tyler Perry's filmography, which always seems to find ways to incorporate more and more questionable film entries in there.
Perry paints in broadstrokes here when he should be refining detail.Having said that, Meet the Browns does a nice job at telling us (or maybe reminding some) that there is a vicious cycle in the black community that is sad but true.
However, with Meet the Browns, he hit a goldmine in terms of popularity, eventually incorporating the film's premise and characters into Perry's second sitcom, which went on to do solid numbers on Television.
People obviously see things in Meet the Browns and its comedic/dramatic leverage that I have yet to find; wouldn't be the first time.Starring: Angela Bassett and Lance Gross.
Brenda, who is played by Angela Bassett, is a single parent with 3 kids and with no help from dads she has to work.
That all I'm going to tell you, overall it's a great movie for any family, it shows the ups and downs, Friendship and trust with people you barley know.
"Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns" starts off well enough with Angela Bassett playing a strong-willed single mother struggling to raise her three children amidst poverty and unemployment on the South Side of Chicago.
And that simply doesn't make for very compelling drama.Of the actors, Bassett is nicely restrained and understated as always, and Lance Gross exhibits some genuine talent as Brenda's principled teenage son, but David Mann, Jenifer Lewis, Sofia Vergara, and even Perry himself, in a pointless cameo appearance as both Medea and Uncle Joe, are allowed to spin so out of control in their various shticks that they turn whole sections of the movie into little more than a circus freak show.Noble intentions notwithstanding, "Meet the Browns" is a true "drag" of a romantic comedy - in the most negative sense of that term..
She thought it would cheer her up after losing her pet Pomeranian to a pack of wild coyotes.This movie is about what you would expect from a light hearted romantic comedy, with one exception - it stars Tyler Perry!!!
let's just cut to the chase, knowing that Tyler Perry was playing the part of "Medina" was disturbing to say the least.
Apparently Tyler Perry enjoys dressing like and old woman and running around in support hose tossing out one-lines and acting like a fool...
Don't waste your time on this movie, You'll want to sue Tyler perry for your money and time back.
I remember being leery of this movie via the previews that started out as a good story but then turned to the quirky characters.
I just happened to catch it on TNT, and I was so taken by the story that I had to write.This movie plugs into Tyler Perry's "Madea" franchise, but only on the very edges.
Based on the quality of this story, which comes from Perry's original play of the same name, I now feel I will have to watch some more of his work.The story has several sections...I was happy that just as I felt the story might be winding down that yet another story segment shows up.
Now, I watched it on YOUTUBE but the fact is that I've already seen this material so it's really like 'Great, you put a compilation of what you've already done just established more in the film' I feel that the family could have been highlighted a little more because of the fact of the Title Meet The Browns.
I do feel as if this is not the worst that he's ever done, but it is one of the ones I would put down there with Diary Of A Mad Black Woman the Play.As far as Brown, I don't think that he should be in movies.
I am not in film but I do know that in a play there is a certain suspension of reality that is expected but in a movie, it is expected to be as real as possible while being fictional enough to entertain you.
This movie kinda flirts between the two, Any of the playgoers you may see some of the interplay between the plays Meet The Browns and What's Done In The Dark.
This is really not what I expected, also Angela Basset does a great job that I almost believe that she's a young woman though I think they should have cast a younger actress, I think that Kimberly Elise could have played this part very convincingly The film opens up with Brenda getting her 3 kids off to work and her sidekick Cheryl making sure the bus doesn't leave without her.
She comes to her son's basketball game and he shows some promise (Michael) so much so that a recruiter tries to get Brenda to sign him up, she flat out refuses.She tries to bounce back when her lights get cut off and at one point a daycare woman played by the great Irma P Hall says 'I'm not gonna take your child in if you don't pay' but she makes a change of heart when she realizes what kind of woman she is.Needless to say she gets down to GA and gets a house.
I mean, I wondered about this but Michael did say that he is going to take care of his Mom and Sisters I just thought that Brenda would get herself a good job in GA.This was my perspective on the movie.
Overall it was nice but Tyler Perry needs to stop using the old material from his plays as he did with WHY DID I GET MARRIED AND DIARY OF A MAD BLACK WOMAN AS WELL AS MADEA'S FAMILY REUNION.
a good movie typical tyler.
Look it doesn't matter what they did,for someone who didn't watched any of the movies listed in the previous comment,this movie is awesome...It's good,everything is good,the acting,the story,the whole movie,most of the movie you will end up,first in a tears but latter,laughing and having a nice time...The actors are great including Rick Fox.....What else you want?If you feeling kinda low and want some good movie to cheer you up,this is the perfect match!!!
Yes folks, Tyler Perry is back, with all the wifebeating, moralizing, home cookin' and inappropriate jokes about drugs and assault that his target audience (y'know, churchgoin' black folk) has come to expect and cherish (albeit with diminishing returns) from his films.Surprisingly here, he had a solid cast and a decent enough script that it could have been just as touching and funny as Madea's Family Reunion unexpectedly was, if he could just avoid the maudlin twists of melodrama, the manufactured strife that continually frustrated the film's otherwise successful attempts at ingratiation.
Just when everything is going good, when you're touched even as the manipulation shows its seams, the find finds something to bring you down, be it a dredging of past, a miscommunication or even a preposterously-timed shooting, there's just something that makes you go, "Why?" Leave it be, it's working." The acting is not impeccable (that there's not a lot of subtlety or nuance involved in the proceedings goes without saying), but it has a charming down-home vibe to it; these characters feel lived in, even if they're obvious constructs.
Just something to think about.The film, like all of Perry's, is easy to watch and never becomes a chore, but where Diary of a Mad Black Woman was an ungainly monster that gave you whiplash in its genre shifts, and where Madea's Family Reunion managed to put it all together, Meet the Browns is situated right in the middle, with enough success to be pleasant, but enough mistakes to make you wish it was better.{Grade: 6.25/10 (high C+) / #19 (of 57) of 2008}.
You cannot give any movie with great actresses like Jenifer Lewis and Angela Bassett a bad rating.
The Brown family was crazy throughout the movie.
And this movie is more like the plays than the others.
I love Tyler Perry's plays.
Although I will always support Tyler since I find that his message is good, I wish he would spend more time making the movie really funny and instead of over the top with things we can not relate to.
********Spoiler Ahead********* I am a big Tyler Perry fan, and have supported all his work.
I don't understand the inconsistency of Tyler Perry's movies..
His DIARY OF A MAD BLACK WOMAN and WHY DID I GET MARRIED are well written; they are also good looking movies.
I gave it a five in respect for the talented cast that includes the always wonderful Angela Bassett.The dialogue was poor, the character of Brown did not translate from the stage to film.
And the outtakes were the worst I had ever seen, ever.Tyler's other movies are in between DIARY/MARRIED and BROWN.
"Meet the Browns: The Movie" was released, exposing the world to the character Mr. Brown, hilariously played by David A.
Well...I have to be honest, of all of the Tyler Perry movies at the time, this one felt like the weakest.Now, that's not to say this movie is bad at all!
What about the people coming to this movie who don't know who Brown is?
The audience for Tyler Perry's productions began when he was touring his theatrical plays, but they grew when he began making movies.
In the movie, we can't laugh at that because we don't know who Brown is.
In the play, it's funny thinking a man like Brown comes from this type of family.
Something else that I've heard people talk about is that this movie is not spent enough on Brown or his family, it's about Brenda.
Rather than meeting the Browns, we're looking at Brenda's story.
I always thought of it as Brenda being as low as she can go until she finds faith and hope by meeting the family she never knew about, the Browns.
In Brown's first movie, I really would have liked to see a lot of him!
For the most part, we're looking at Brenda and her family; it's a great dramatic story, but where's Brown?
Or if Brenda is going to be here, even the dramatic scenes out with some comedy provided by Brown; I think this comedy-drama is more dramatic than comedic.I do have to say that what makes this film good is the realness of it.
I know, I keep saying Tyler Perry's stories and characters are so very realistic, but that's because it's true!
Only now, we see them on the big screen.Like I said, the movie is good.
I'd highly recommend it, but only after you see Tyler Perry's other plays; productions like "I Can Do Bad All By Myself," "Madea's Family Reunion," "Madea's Class Reunion," "Meet the Browns," and "What's Done in the Dark." After you've seen those, take a look at this movie.
Despite a shameless plug to promote Tyler Perry's next Madea film (Madea goes to Jail) with a chase sequence which spoofs O.J Simpson, and that it veers towards major melodrama in the second half (especially with Michael the son) I really enjoyed this movie.
Meet the Browns is all about family values, and being a good Mother.
Angela Bassett is remarkably good as a struggling Mother, just looking to barely make it by every month, and make ends meet.
If you're looking for a good Tyler Perry film, this is a great selection.
In the first 15 minutes of MEET THE BROWNS, Angela's character is in a heartbreaking situation.
MEET THE BROWNS remains a jarring uneven mess until the end.The thing that is most sad about this film failing to deliver is that it contains such a mega-talented cast.The other thing to note is that Angela Bassett's character is an upstanding honorable person. |
tt1675192 | Take Shelter | In Lagrange, Ohio, Curtis LaForche (Michael Shannon) has apocalyptic dreams and visual and auditory hallucinations of rain "like fresh motor oil", swarms of menacing black birds, and being harmed by people close to him. He hides all of this from his wife, Samantha (Jessica Chastain), and their deaf daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart). He instead channels his anxieties into a compulsive obsession to improve and enlarge a storm shelter in his backyard; however, his increasingly strange behavior - including a tendency to cut ties with anyone in his life that has harmed him only in his dreams - strains his relationship with his family, friends, employer, and the close-knit town. Curtis grudgingly sees a counselor at a free clinic, with whom he talks about his family's psychological history. His mother (Kathy Baker) suffers from paranoid schizophrenia that surfaced in her at about the same age that Curtis is now.
In order to get the expanded storm shelter done, Curtis breaks work rules by using equipment from his construction job at his house and gets a home improvement loan he can ill afford to start building the shelter - all without telling his wife. Sam becomes angry when she discovers the project. After Curtis takes more than the prescribed dose of a sedative and suffers a seizure, Sam calls an ambulance. He recovers, then finally explains the truth to her, including his dreams.
Curtis begins to miss more work, causing tensions with his boss, as he and Sam make preparations for the cochlear implant surgery Hannah is to undergo in six weeks' time. Having been informed of the borrowed work equipment, Curtis's boss fires him and gives him only two weeks' worth of medical insurance benefits, after placing Dewart (Shea Whigham) (the close friend and co-worker whom Curtis asked to help him start construction of the shelter) on two weeks' unpaid administrative leave.
Curtis buys gas masks for his family and extends his previous employer's health insurance policy for a few extra weeks. Finding that his counselor at the free clinic has suddenly transferred and been replaced with a new one, he walks out. Tensions linger between Curtis and Sam over his loss of a job/income at such a crucial time for their family. Sam gets Curtis to see an actual psychiatrist and demands that they attend a social function so she can restore some sense of normalcy to their strained, increasingly isolated life. At a Lions Club community gathering, a bitter Dewart (who has been spreading a whispering campaign about Curtis being crazy) angrily provokes and punches Curtis. Enraged, Curtis knocks Dewart to the floor, overturns a table and unleashes a frightening verbal tirade upon everyone present. He prophetically shouts that a devastating storm is coming, insisting that none of them is prepared.
Later, a tornado warning sends him and his family into the shelter. After they awaken, Curtis reluctantly removes his gas mask, prompted by Samantha. They go to open the shelter doors, but he still hears a storm outside. His wife implores him, insisting that there's no storm and that he needs to open the door. After a tense standoff, Curtis throws open the doors into the blinding sun; a strong-but-bearable storm has passed, and neighbors are cleaning up broken tree limbs and other yard debris as power company trucks restore electricity along the street.
A psychiatrist advises the couple to go through with their planned, annual beach vacation but that Curtis will need to get psychiatric care in a facility away from his family upon their return. At Myrtle Beach, while Curtis is building sand castles with Hannah, she signs the word "storm". As Samantha exits their beachhouse, the thick, oily rain that Curtis spoke of begins to fall, staining her outstretched hand. Sam looks up to a bigger version of the ominous storm clouds Curtis had seen, massing over the ocean; tornado-like waterspouts reach down to the ocean's surface, and the tide pulls back as a tsunami looms in the distance. Curtis and Sam exchange knowing glances. | psychological, depressing, boring | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0060862 | The Professionals | During the Mexican Revolution, Rancher J.W. Grant hires four men, who are all experts in their respective fields, to rescue his kidnapped wife, Maria from Jesus Raza, a former revolutionary leader-turned-bandit.
Henry "Rico" Fardan is a weapons specialist, Bill Dolworth is an explosives expert, the horse wrangler is Hans Ehrengard, and Jake Sharp is a traditional Apache scout, skilled with a bow and arrow. Fardan and Dolworth, having both fought under the command of Pancho Villa, have a high regard for Raza as a soldier. But as cynical professionals, they have no qualms about killing him now.
After crossing the Mexican border, the team tracks the bandits to their hideout. They witness soldiers on a government train being massacred by Raza's small army. The professionals follow the captured train to the end of the line and retake it from the bandits. Some move on to the bandit camp and observe Raza and his followers—including a female soldier, Chiquita. At nightfall, Fardan infiltrates Raza's private quarters but he is stopped from killing him by Maria, the kidnapped wife. Dolworth concludes, "we've been had."
Fardan escapes with Grant's wife. Back at the train, they find that it has been retaken by the bandits. After a shootout, they retreat into the mountains, pursued by Raza and his men. The professionals evade capture by using explosives to bring down the walls of a gully, thus blocking the bandits' path and delaying their pursuit. It is then revealed that they had not rescued Grant's kidnapped wife but Raza's willing mistress. Grant "bought" Maria for an arranged marriage only for her to escape and return to her "true love" in Mexico.
As Raza and his bandits pursue the retreating professionals, Dolworth fights a rearguard action to allow the other professionals to escape with Maria. In the battle, Raza is wounded. As he and Chiquita attempt to escape, she is shot by Dolworth. Weakened, Raza is captured by Dolworth.
The professionals, with Maria and Raza, reach the U.S. border to be met by Grant and his own men. Grant tells Fardan that their contract has been satisfactorily concluded, even before Maria is safely handed over to him. As Maria tends the wounded Raza, Grant says to one of his men, "Kill him." Before the man can fire, the gun is shot out of his hand by Dolworth. The professionals step in to protect Maria and Raza. They collect the wounded Raza, put him on a carriage and, with Maria at the reins, send both back to Mexico.
Grant calls Fardan a bastard, to which Fardan retorts: "Yes, sir, in my case an accident of birth. But you, sir, you are a self-made man." The professionals follow the departing carriage to Mexico. | romantic, humor, action | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1606610 | Heavy Rain | === Characters ===
There are four main playable characters. The player controls one character at a time, generally playing different characters in each chapter of the game. The characters were voiced, motion captured, and modeled after several actors; the three males are modeled after their voice actors, while the female is modeled after a professional model. Some chapters in the game have the players play as multiple characters.
Ethan Mars: A professional architect who lives with his wife Grace and sons Shaun and Jason. After Jason dies in an accident that also leaves him comatose for several months, Ethan abandons his career and wife, moving into a smaller house with Shaun. He constantly fears for Shaun's life, develops severe agoraphobia, and suffers from unexplained blackouts. When Shaun is abducted by the Origami Killer, Ethan is forced to undergo a number of trials (danger, suffering, brutal suffering, murder, and sacrifice) for a chance to save him. He is both portrayed and voiced by Pascal Langdale.
Scott Shelby: A former police officer and Marine veteran who suffers from asthma. He is currently working as a private investigator, investigating the Origami Killer on behalf of Lauren Winter, the mother of the killer's second victim, Johnny Winter. He is both portrayed and voiced by Sam Douglas.
Norman Jayden: An FBI profiler sent from Washington to assist the task force hunting the Origami Killer. He uses the ARI, or "Added Reality Interface", an apparatus which consists of experimental augmented reality glasses and a single right hand glove that allows him to reconstruct crime scenes and process evidence quickly. Overuse of the ARI, however, has also left him addicted to triptocaine, a drug that temporarily cancels out the side effects of augmented reality. He has an antagonistic relationship with his partner, police lieutenant Carter Blake, which only worsens his addiction. He is both portrayed and voiced by Leon Ockenden.
Madison Paige: A young photojournalist who lives alone. She suffers from chronic insomnia, which occasionally manifests as nightmares about her own death. Her investigation into the Origami Killer is initially aimed at revitalizing her career, but she eventually develops feelings for Ethan; in fact, two of the game's endings involve them either grieving Shaun's death or living together as a family. She is portrayed by Jacqui Ainsley, but her facial animations and dialogue are provided by Judi Beecher.
GamesRadar praised the Origami Killer's role as an antagonist, putting them in their 2013 list of the best villains in video game history at number 42. That same year, Madison was ranked as the 41st greatest heroine in video game history by Complex.
=== Story ===
The day after celebrating his son Jason's 10th birthday, Ethan Mars and his family go shopping at a local mall. While buying some balloons from a clown, Ethan notices that Jason has wandered off and frantically searches for him. Eventually, he finds him outside in the middle of the street, right in the path of an oncoming car. Ethan tries to push him out of the way, but Jason is struck and killed. After waking up from a six-month coma, Ethan, blaming himself for Jason's death, divorces his wife and moves into a small suburban house. He develops severe mental trauma and starts experiencing blackouts at an alarming rate. Two years later, while at the park with Shaun, Ethan suddenly blacks out. When he wakes up, Shaun has vanished.
To his horror, he soon discovers that Shaun was kidnapped by the "Origami Killer", a serial murderer whose modus operandi consists of abducting young boys during the fall season, drowning them in rainwater, and leaving an orchid on their chests and an origami figure nearby as calling cards. FBI profiler Norman Jayden, brought in to assist with the hunt for the killer, investigates the death of another Origami victim and concludes that he died the same day as a violent rainstorm, which flooded the cell where he was kept. Based on weather patterns, he estimates that Shaun has only three days to live.
Besieged by reporters, Ethan checks into a motel. He receives a letter from the killer, which leads to a shoebox containing a mobile phone, a handgun, and five origami figures. The killer calls him and explains that each of the figures contains instructions on how to complete a trial, which will allow him to determine how much Ethan loves his son. If he chooses to complete them, then he will receive a piece of the address where Shaun is held. The trials force Ethan to make increasingly difficult moral decisions, including driving against traffic at high speeds on the highway, crawling through a maze composed of active electrical pylons, cutting off one of his fingers, breaking into the apartment of a drug dealer and murdering him in front of his family, and drinking a glass of poison on camera. While undergoing the trials, he meets Madison Paige, a journalist who occasionally checks into the motel to deal with her chronic insomnia. She sympathizes with Ethan's plight, and decides to conduct her own investigation into the Origami Killer.
Jayden and his partner, Lieutenant Carter Blake, investigate several suspects, including a butcher and a religious fanatic, but nothing pans out until Grace Mars arrives at the station, fearing that her former husband is involved in Shaun's disappearance. After Ethan's psychiatrist reveals that his patient has a history of blackouts, Blake and his superiors put out a warrant for his arrest. Unconvinced, Jayden continues to investigate other leads. During these events, private investigator Scott Shelby meets with the families of the Origami Killer's victims, collecting the letters and other items they received when their loved ones were abducted. One of them, a prostitute named Lauren Winter, persuades Scott to let her accompany him. Their investigation leads them to an attention-seeking playboy who claims to be the killer, but when they try to question him, they are knocked out and wake up in a car sinking to the bottom of a river. After getting Lauren to safety, Scott tracks down the kid's father and forces him to confess that he was responsible for an accident that occurred years before in which a little boy was killed.
=== Ending ===
Throughout the game, the player experiences two separate flashbacks that reveal the true nature of the Origami Killer. The first takes place 34 years earlier, with two twin brothers playing in a construction site. One of the two, John Sheppard, falls into a broken pipe and gets his leg trapped, just as a rainstorm causes the pipe to begin filling with water. The second occurs shortly after, with John's brother running home to warn their father, only to find him too drunk to help. Scared and confused, the boy could only watch helplessly as his brother drowned. Thus, the Origami Killer was born: a killer who searches for a father willing to sacrifice himself. He kills his victims the same way his brother died. The boy turns out to be Scott; after he reached adulthood, he changed his surname to Shelby. His actions as an investigator are not meant to get justice for his victims; rather, he needed to collect the evidence of his crimes, which he burns in his office wastebasket.
The final chapter of the game, titled The Old Warehouse, serves as the climax. Each of the three main characters (Ethan, Madison, and Norman) have the opportunity to find the warehouse where Shaun is, rescue him, and stop the Origami Killer, depending on their actions and choices throughout the game. In all, there are eight possible endings. If Ethan goes alone, he can either save Shaun or watch him die, and either spare or kill Shelby. Regardless of what he does, he will be shot dead by the police when he tries to escape. If all three make it, Ethan and Madison will have to save Shaun while Norman deals with Shelby. If Ethan fails to arrive or Norman dies, Madison can help the other one rescue Shaun and fight Shelby, and if neither arrive, Madison will perform the rescue and the fight herself. Once the chapter is complete, a series of clips and news reports will play, and then the player will learn what happened to each character. Each ending is determined by what occurred in the final chapter. The best ending shows Ethan and his son starting a family with Madison, Lauren spitting on Scott's grave after cursing his memory, and Norman retiring from the FBI to focus on treating his addiction. The worst shows Madison and Norman dead, with Ethan being successfully framed as the Origami Killer by Blake and Scott escaping in the chaos. Giving in to his pain, Ethan commits suicide in his cell.
=== Heavy Rain Chronicles ===
The Chronicles are prequel segments that take place during the initial murders of the Origami Killer. The first one, The Taxidermist, was released on 1 April 2010, available for purchase from the PlayStation Network. It was also included with the original game when pre-purchased from selected retailers. The original intention was for there to be four episodes which would focus on the main characters' backgrounds. In July 2010, David Cage of Quantic Dream announced that future downloadable content would be put on indefinite hiatus due to Heavy Rain: Move Edition taking up the production time allocated to the Chronicles. Once the Move Edition development was completed, the team planned to either go back to working on the Chronicles or move on. Ultimately, the team decided to cancel the rest of the series so that they could focus on Quantic Dream's next title, Beyond: Two Souls. In October 2014, Cage announced that Heavy Rain Chronicles has been cancelled and confirms that the team is currently not working on it.
The first and only episode, The Taxidermist, follows Madison as she visits Leland White, a taxidermist, to question him about the Origami Killer. Finding his house empty, Madison breaks in and discovers an upstairs area containing several female corpses, stuffed and posed in various positions (including a freshly killed cadaver in a bathroom), which Leland created in order to satisfy his agalmatophilia fetish. After collecting information, Madison hears Leland's car return. From here the player's actions can lead to several different endings – she can surprise Leland and kill him, be killed herself and added to his collection, escape, or contact the police and wait for them to arrest Leland. Regardless of what happens, it becomes clear that he has no connection to the Origami murders. | violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0103303 | Year of the Gun | In 1978, David Raybourne is an American novelist who lives in Rome and works as a journalist in a small English-language newspaper. He is romantically involved with Lia, the estranged wife of an Italian Industrialist, and befriended by Italo Bianchi, a politically left-leaning lecturer at a Rome university.
The movie re-creates the backdrop of politically charged atmosphere and student unrest, in which the infamous Red Brigades commit their spate of violent attacks which rocked northern Italy in the 1970s, culminating in the kidnapping and later murder of Aldo Moro, former Italian Prime Minister.
As part of a plan to write a commercial novel and raise money to marry and support Lia in the style to which she is accustomed, Raybourne researches the activities and organization of the Red Brigades. He writes the draft of a novel, realistic but fictitious, with the plot centered on the kidnapping of a central political figure by the Red Brigades. During this time David Raybourne meets a beautiful and sexually provocative young photojournalist, Alison King. She is eager for a news story and is introduced by Raybourne to Italo Bianchi. Alison King becomes convinced that Raybourne knows something about the Red Brigades and is hiding a potential scoop from her, so after a sexual dalliance she searches his apartment and finds Raybourne's novel draft. She brings this to the attention of Bianchi who, despite his mild manner and seemingly moderate politics, is actually collaborating with the Red Brigades. He delivers the draft to a Red Brigades contact and the similarity of his fictitious plot to their actual kidnap plans causes them to conclude that their plans have been leaked. Raybourne realizes he is being hunted when the Brigades shoot his boss Pierre Bernier dead at the newspaper office, moments before Raybourne himself arrives. He then attempts to escape with Alison King with the aid of his romantic connection, Lia.
It turns out that Lia is even more deeply involved with the Red Brigades than Italo, and after a chase, Raybourne and King are captured. They are held while the kidnapping of Aldo Moro takes place. After this is achieved the Brigades leadership accuses Lia of the leak and shoot her for her apparent betrayal right before Raybourne's and King's eyes. They force King to photograph the body and instruct Raybourne to publicize the story as a warning to any future traitors.
The movie ends with Raybourne being interviewed on American television regarding the successful publication of a now non-fiction book about the Red Brigades and his contact with them, with a postscript saying that Aldo Moro was found shot to death in the trunk of a car nearly two months after his kidnapping. | murder | train | wikipedia | Tepid drama based on terrorism in Italy.
This is a rather two dimensional drama about some Americans who find themselves embroiled in the terrorist activities of the Red Brigade in Italy.
The Americans are passionate idealists who have a lot of sex and the terrorists are the usual wooden movie sociopaths.
The plot is interesting enough to hold your attention and the acting is convincing.
The cinematography is very nice and holds it together enough to make it all worth while.
There are very many nice shots of the streets and countryside of Italy..
An interesting and thought provoking thriller.
Year of the Gun was a thought provoking film that swept you into a political mind frame.
I felt as if i was in Italy in 1978 and being taken on a tour of all of italy's troubles back then.
The film is a mix of drama and suspense, it has enough of both to keep you entertained.
It is fast paced with a lot of twists and turns and explores many different themes including politics, violence, love, treachery and sex.
The only sour note comes from Andrew McCarthy, who doesnt have quite what it takes to be in a film like this.
Valeria Golino is ok as McCarthy's italian lover and Sharon Stone, once again delivers a great performance as a photo journalist..
A Messy Political Thriller.
The Red Brigade ( Brigatte Rosse ) was an Italian left wing terrorist organisation that in the 1970s launched a terrorist campaign to over throw the government of Italy and in its place have proletarian dictatorship that would lead to a classless Utopian society .
Like its idealogical counterparts in the German Red Army Faction Brigatte Rosse had a problem mobilising the masses .
This was undoubtedly due to the fact that hard left wing intellectualism fails to strike a chord in the human condition .
Compare this to nationalist instincts that makes people in Northern Ireland want to join the IRA or the UVF or people living in the Gaza Strip or West Bank who join hard line Islamic terrorist organisations .
By one of life's ironies the idea of left wing revolution in a democratic European state fails to appeal to few people except left wing middle class intellectuals hence the masses of Germany and Italy fail to mobilise and the terror caused by the German RAF and Italian BR quickly fizzled out YEAR OF THE GUN starts off by telling the audience that Italy in 1978 was on the brink of revolutian but was it ?
True there was shootings and bombings and angry demonstrations against capitalism but as a potential revolution France in 1968 and Northern Ireland in the early 1970s both came closer than Italy in the late 1970s .
As the story progresses the audience finds itself becoming more and more clueless to the situation at the time .
Why are demonstrators flying red banners fighting with well dressed young men carrying crowbars ?
You see the story soon starts ignoring Italian geo-politics and concentrates on the character of David Raybourne an American who has lived in America for several years and is in a loving relationship with an Italian woman .
In fact there's so much time taken up with David's relationship you find your self looking at your watch wondering when something is going to happen There's two problems with the story , or rather one problem with the plot and one problem with the story telling .
The plot when you stop to examine it becomes faintly ridiculous .
David is writing a novel revolving around the Red Brigade and by an unlikely series of events the terrorists jump to the conclusion that he's a spy because the kidnap target in his novel is someone in real life the Red Brigade are planning to kidnap .
I guess you're not supposed to think about this too much but aren't political thrillers supposed to be thought provoking ?
The story telling itself is very poor because when Italian characters ( Who are almost always Red Brigade members ) get together they start speaking in Italian .
Okay this is logical because for some reason in the cinematic world foreign characters suddenly start speaking in English when there's no English speaking characters present .
Only problem is there's no subtitles and these frequent Italian speaking scenes mean any non Italian speaker won't have a clue as to what's going on which is a pity because I was wondering why the female terrorist likes to have men watch her when she goes to the toilet !
No I'm not kidding , there's a scene where this happens John Frankenheimer was once a highly regarded director who made THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE , BLACK Sunday and SECONDS and who would later make the highly entertaining RONIN .
Unfortunately at this stage of his career he was making rubbish like the ecological horror movie PROPHECY and Marlon Brandos swan song that featured a bunch of genetically engineered mammals having acid house parties and shooting each other ( You know the movie I'm talking about ) and in terms of directing this is no different except perhaps that it resembles a TVM in standards .
The sound mix is rather poor too A messy political thriller that won't educate you about 1970s European politics and almost certainly won't thrill you much either.
Suspenseful with a plot that twists like a wild cat..
The acting is solid and the film well directed except in one place: The photojournalist survives a hail of machine gun bullets by hiding behind a car while taking picture of a bank robbery.
Normally this would be OK, except the parts of the car she is hiding behind are the windows!The story is tight and very believable as it is set to the historical background of the capture and killing of Aldo Moro (Italy).
The sequence of events is built on a series of coincidental events that demonstrate how you cannot trust anybody if you really want to keep a secret.
The film also proves the saying ` if you play with fire you will get burned'.Filmed on location in Italy, the street scenes and interiors add the authenticity of the film.Secondarily, the film also explores the sexual weapon that women sometime use to achieve their own ends, and the unfaithfulness of men that succumb to it so easily.
I gave this a 9..
an underrated 90' political thriller.
this may not be john frankenhiemers best work but is not one to overlook.
i feel at the time of its release andrew mccarthy career was already over and although he does a fare job of it he did not help it's release and sharon stone was not yet a house hold name.plus Italian politics of the 70's doesn't really sound that inviting.however this little film is exiting,intriguing and well plotted.
you feel for andrews plight and you feel lost in a world you don't really understand just like andrew.
weather intentionally or not it works for me i don't it want all laid out.
the actions of the red brigade are not answered just like the news we watch every night.
john frankenhiemer made the best of a hard subject and the last third of the movie is very tense.
with a good twist and a message that has not dated.also the DVD quality is very good but where are the subtitles and how about some extras, the deleted scene is odd to say the least.
if your a sharon stone fan its a must one of her better early performances..
Frankenheimer with Sledgehammer makes Idiot Cartoon.
John Frankenheimer made two beautiful films in his 40 years as a director, "The Birdman of Alcatraz" and "The Fixer".
Both of these were about terrible conditions faced by a man in prison.
Both of these films glorify suffering and the individual's ability to adapt and survive.
They are both well worth seeing.It was when he stepped out of prison that Frankenheimer had trouble.
He was considered an action director, but the action in his films generally matched the average action scenes in a television police show of the period.
He also tended to have witless one-dimensional characters, either all good guys or all bad guys.
Among his witless and tedious concoctions were "the Manchurian Candidate," (Good Americans against evil Chinese Communists) "French Connection II," (Good Americans against Evil French Drug Dealers) and "Black Sunday" (Good Americans against Evil Palestinian Terrorists).This movie has to be ranked as the worst of all these racist artless, thriller-less Conservative Catholic diatribes.
In it, we have a good American against evil Italian Communists - the Red Brigades.Frankenheimer wants us to know that he considers the Red Brigades evil.
So he has to make them do something evil or sadistic in just about every single scene.
See the Red Brigades attack police at demonstrations.
See the Red Brigades attack and burn cars and smash store windows.
See the Red Brigades kill innocent bystanders, See the Red Brigades kidnap and kill politicians, See the Red Brigades paint graffiti on walls...According to Wikipedia, in the 70's and 80's, about 75 people died over a ten year period due to the Red Brigades - this total probably includes members themselves who were killed by Italian police.
This movie shows the Red Brigades killing about 75 people in one week.
None of the serious political issues of the time period are shown.I lost a lot of respect for Andrew McCarthy, Sharon Stone, and Valerie Galina for being in this boring and stupid cartoon.You might enjoy this film if you have been captured by the Red Brigades and they have given you a choice of torture or watching this movie.
Well, actually, they would probably would not give you a choice, but would torture you by making you watch this movie.
The fiends!.
How very Chinese.
From right away, I wanted to yell at this film: get your plot straight, and tell it properly!
OK, so, it would seem that David(Andrew, who returns to Rome to author a book, that turns out to be fictional - though it uses the real names of people, seeming to potentially get them in serious trouble...
and in a twist that wouldn't have played out in a Saturday morning cartoon, what he writes is mistaken as documenting it) is with this chick who is divorcing a wife-beater and who she has a son with.
And terrorists(who are only made out to look pure evil, which I could have understood if this had been made back in '78, but not in '91, where it was becoming clearer that calling such individuals and organizations freedom fighters can be more reasonable) are causing bad stuff to go down in Italy, though it's never made clear to what end, or if the government really *is* corrupt.
All we know is that they're Communist, rendering this potentially a propaganda tool for the red scare.
If we could at least care about the characters, however, the very introductions to our main characters ensures that they are wholly unappealing human beings(Stone is almost getting herself killed taking freaking photographs, obnoxious McCarthey wants to blow people up that we know nothing about(at that point or at all), etc.) and I couldn't care about them for the rest of this.
Not one person in this had me engaged.
Frankenheimer does infuse some scenes with tension and excitement...
although this is definitely a thriller, with next to no real action, if it can be effective when it is there.
The filming isn't bad, and the editing, as well(if some of the FX shots and stunts are poorly hidden).
There is some moderate to strong language and a little female nudity and sexuality(at least one of the sequences is hot and with Sharon(the two are connected) in this.
The DVD comes with a trailer.
I recommend this to those who never support the people rising against those in power.
Despised film.
An intriguing film and despised.
I do not understand why not give due weight to this film.
Already I watched several times and every one of them I realize their best value.
The story is very good, comes to political issues of an Italy relatively new, still very much alive in our memory.
And the treatment of the film is very close to the reality of the facts.
The cast works very competently.
Sharon Stone is one of his good moments.
Valeria Golino may have done their best work here and Andrew McCarthy surprised with his performance.
The action scenes are well done, with some small mistakes, but perfectly acceptable in situations such as those portrayed in the film.
In summary this is a great film, but you need to give a little more attention to it..
don't really care about American characters in Italian drama.
It's 1978 Rome.
Violence is in the air threatened by the revolutionary Red Brigade.
American David Raybourne (Andrew McCarthy) returns to write for a small paper and a fictional book about them.
His friend Italo Bianchi (John Pankow) is a leftist American lecturer at an university.
His girlfriend Lia (Valeria Golino) is the estranged wife of rich and powerful Marco.
Photo journalist Alison King (Sharon Stone) is also after the Red Bridgade and sees Raybourne as a possible lead.
This is a fictionalized account of events leading to the real kidnapping and murder of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro.The directing from John Frankenheimer seems inferior or obsolete.
The tension needs to be higher.
This feels more like a 70's movie.
Instead of three lead American characters, I would prefer to see a movie about Italian characters in this Italian drama.
I'm not that interested in these Americans although the political intrigue seems compelling.
The Americans can always walk away from any danger.
It's an extra layer that separates these characters from the intensity of the story..
Point blank photos.....
David Raybourne is an American journalist covering political news in Italy during the 1970's.
He gets involved with the Red Brigades when trying to help Alison King, who photographed them in action and discover the mafia net is at all levels...Wow.I've seen some bad films, but Frankenheimer has made some decent movies in the past, and this was supposed to be factual, so it had my attention.McCarthey is woefully miscast in this, and the film consists of him and the bloke from To Live And Die In L.A, eating sandwiches and drinking wine.It's supposed to be some controversial movie about the Red Brigade movement, but in fact it's nothing more than McCarthey being a dirty old man and pursuing Stone while Golino is waiting at home for him.Dialogue is beyond bad, and its filmed in such a way, it looks really really cheap, like true movies cheap.It's a torturous watch, and its no wonder McCarthy didn't really get any more starring roles after this, and Stone had to be more...revealing.Avoid..
Never has history been so BORING!.
SPOILERS!There are three redeeming features about this terrible film.
1. An exciting fight scene, ending in sex.
2. A Student riot.
3. A Speedy motorbike chase, ending with a murder.Apart from that, this film is surprisingly unpromising and McCarthy delivers one of the worst performances i've ever seen he might as well be a plank of wood for all he's worth.
The location of rome could be shot well, but in dank, dark colours and photos of run down cobbled houses, he fails at th easiest of opportunities.
This is almost as boring as the videos they show in history lessons at high school!Frankly, Disappointing. |
tt1407972 | Wai dor lei ah yut ho | In Hong Kong, Cheng Lai-sheung (Josie Ho) works two jobs with the hope of earning enough money to buy her own apartment with a view of the Victoria Harbour. In mixed chronological order, we see scenes from Lai-sheung's past. In her childhood, her family and friends are evicted from their low-rent housing so that developers can build expensive flats. Later in life, she vows to buy her mother and father a new apartment, but is unable to fulfill her promise before her mother dies. When her father becomes ill, she begins searching in earnest for a new place, having an obsession for the Victoria Bay No. 1 high-rise address from a childhood vow that she would one day buy a flat near the harbour so that her uncle would not have to walk there and back on a daily basis and not needing to search for him every evening.
The bank will only give her a 70% mortgage and payments would reach over $15,000. Unfortunately, because of an oversight in declaring her father's medical history, she no longer has insurance to pay for his expensive treatment and has to take a second job. After Lai-sheung does save enough for a down-payment, her father's medical bills become excessive. When she asks her married lover for a loan to cover these, he refuses. One night her father has trouble breathing and, instead of giving him his oxygen, Lai-sheung allows him to die. The insurance payment now adds enough money to her current savings to purchase her dream flat.
On her way to finalize the purchase, there is a hike in the stock market that makes the owners decide to raise the price. This sends Lai-sheung into a frenzy where she goes to the flats and attacks people who live and work there, killing them with low-tech, household items. During the course of the final killings, the police arrive at the flat, demanding entry. A struggle ensues during which both officers are killed.
Returning to her day job, Lai-sheung receives a call from her agent saying the owners of the flat she wishes to buy are willing to sell after all. Lai-sheung suggests that they might want to sell for a lower price, since there were 11 murders in the building the previous evening. That night, Lai-sheung's lover comes round to pick her up, but she turns her back on him and walks away, ending their relationship. The film concludes with Lai-sheung staring out at the harbour as newscasts discuss how America's worsening subprime mortgage crisis is beginning to have global repercussions. | violence, satire | train | wikipedia | The bloody mainframe of the film's structure is accompanied by an interesting side-story that serves to justify all the bloodshed and also to provide some social commentary, but all this is secondary to the rivers of blood.
And God saw it was good.Ho-Cheung Pang's "Dream Home" proves that well-made genre pictures satisfy a basic human need: they can focus our attention, for a while, to a sequence of events that entertains because we know, roughly speaking, what to expect, what kind of experiences are in store for us.
The overall result is an impeccably paced, brutal but surprisingly uplifting story, beautifully shot against the backdrop of Hong Kong's endless arrays of high-rises and apartment blocks.The main character, played by an air of focused innocence by Josie Ho, has been saving up to buy an apartment with a nice seaside view, and she is working very hard to realize her dreams.
Blood is spilled.There is nothing much more to the plot than a general arch to justify the gore, but it all works out very well, and doesn't feel dragged out or phony or needlessly second-rate; in fact, the acting in this film is actually quite good for the most part, with the exception of the actress who plays the main heroine: she is VERY good.
None of the social commentary is especially realistic or intelligent, but the splatter format can function as a kind of primal scream therapy, and thus bring some aspects of our repressed social anxieties to the bloody daylight.Finally, one aspect of the film deserves special attention: the cinematography, editing and directing.
Cheng Lai-sheung(Josie Ho)is desperate to buy a flat in the famed Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong.He works two jobs and is already in debt.Not enough money for her dream home prompts her to spill the blood of the rich."Dream Home" is one hell of a gory slasher.The killings are extremely vicious and insanely bloody.The murderous rampage of the main character leaves nothing to imagination.The cinematography is stylish,the acting is fantastic and the score provide some chills."Dream Home" paints an ugly side of corrupted society with some of the bloodiest murders ever captured on screen.8 blood sprays out of 10.A must-see for horror fans with an iron stomach..
What I mean by that is that it's a slasher film with a point, as it contains all the outlandishly kills from famous slashers like Friday the 13th (it probably goes further actually) but all the excessive blood and violence has a point, and a very valid point about the current house market in Hong Kong.
Still, it illustrates the point of the film further as the age old issue of money has seriously taken its toll!Dream Home has an interesting structure which I don't know if it entirely worked.
In its favour it did add a nice layer of mystery to the film, and also helped to balance out the drama-heavy scenes with the horror-heavy scenes, allowing us to take a break from the last gruesome massacre and look forward to how it's all going to pan out!
Dream Home showcases some of the most inventive kills I've seen on screen for a long time.
There's some lovely cinematography of the high-rise buildings which could also be metaphorical as it seems so out of her reach!Dream Home is a highly successful slasher and one that I'd be happy to revisit again.
The basic story is a woman becomes so obsessed with buying a home with a view of the ocean she will go to any lengths to get that home....I'm a huge fan of ultra violent horror movies and this one did not let down on that front by any means.
Still we are not prepared for the "helter skelter" sadistic cruelty she unleashes.Lastly, let me say that it was hard to feel sympathy for this woman because of her sadism (some of it, it seemed to me, spiteful and gratuitous) towards people who had nothing to do with thwarting her dream except maybe they were able to rent where she wanted to live.
The plot is quite simple: A young cute, sexy female telemarketer in Hong Kong has a deep, disturbing, obsession to buy a condo with a water view in a hyper inflated housing market, and she is willing to do anything from car blow jobs to multiple, egregious and gruesome multiple murders to buy one.
There is a kernel of truth to that as in Russia, some renters were actually killed for their apartments, and without a view.The story is an old one: developers tear down old, shabby buildings and build new ones, and woe to the people that move in the new condos, when stalked by the dispossessed.Although the director, Ho-Cheung Pang has created an exquisitely crafted movie, in terms of lighting, composition, scene development, story line, music track, editing and great actors, the movie disturbs our psyche unlike any other slasher/gore films.
If you want "hilarious" in a housing movie, check out Duplex with Ben Stiller.If you giggled when Sharon Tate was stabbed in the belly while pregnant in the Manson movie, you will howl during the pregnant killing in dreamHome , when a pregnant woman is killed by Cheng Lai, aka The Condo Killer, as she sucks the life out of her with a vacuum bag as she wiggles for air like a worm while tied up on the hardwood floor.
If only she would listen to You Can't Always Get What you Want.You may wonder, why the graphic scene descriptions, because that really is the film, and one could do some pseudo economic poor/rich commentary, but that pales compared to the total visceral experience of this movie.If you can stand gore and I mean really stomach gore, this is a very well crafted movie.
Though I wasn't familiar with "Dream House" prior to finding it by sheer random luck on Amazon, and decided to get it as it sounded interesting and was at an okay price.And to make it all the more interesting, then the movie is based on true events that shook Hong Kong, and I got that confirmed from a friend living there, so it wasn't just something that was flaunted in the movie to make it more interesting - there was some truth behind it.The story in "Dream House" is about Cheng Lai (played by Josie Ho) who has been saving money her entire life to buy her own dream apartment, a home of her own.
I, personally, do not care much for Eason Chan (playing Siu To) and his acting skills (or lack thereof).The movie is filmed in a great way that makes it come off as right in your face, almost as if you were right there with the actors.
That scene was just so amazingly nice.And as a major plus, for all gorehounds out there, then there is a rather good amount of gore and really good effects in the movie, which makes it well worth checking out for the mayhem alone.
When going in to seeing this film, I knew the general outline of the plot and much talked about death scenes, what I did not expect was a genuinely well-made, acted, written and shot horror movie with a great blend of comedy and social context.
Dream Home is one amongst a recent slew of fantastic Asian horror films, and shows that it is the foreign horror filmmakers who are making the top quality movies.Ho-Cheung Pang (who directed and wrote) has made a simple story very entertaining.
Cheng Lai-sheung (an incredibly beautiful Josie Ho) works two part time jobs in order to save her money to buy an apartment with an ocean view.
Unfortunately, with market prices the way they are she can't really afford the price being asked, and her obsession turns into a madness which only blood can satisfy.Dream Home is not told in a chronological manner, rather, the story is told in bits and pieces, slowly revealing how Cheng became the murderer we are seeing.
Speaking of the killings, this movie contains some extreme violence which most fans of this genre will love, I know I sure did.
The majority of these are over-the-top and comic in the way they unfold (apart from the most talked about scene involving the suffocation of a pregnant woman), most of the scenes go for a few minutes, in which we see Cheng is not that adept at killing, and she will only get the upper hand out of luck.
Although it wasn't terrible, it was obvious and did detract a little in some scenes, but that's just me being finicky.Dream Home is not just about the death scenes, the film is technically well-made in all aspects.
The scenes in the apartments where the all the murders take place are filmed in a variety of ways and angles, giving these scenes an intense, claustrophobic and sometimes surreal feel.
The acting is fantastic from everyone, especially Josie Ho, who turns her psychopath into someone that at times you can sympathise with.This movie, while being a great horror film, is also a very relevant commentary on the future home owners issue.
The new film from Hong Kong director Pang Ho-Cheung, Dream Home, depicts the unsettling descent into madness of a seemingly ordinary young woman as she endeavours to secure the sea-view apartment of her childhood dreams.
Despondency and desperation at a stressful, overworked lifestyle, Hong Kong's ever- rising house prices and her insufficient savings prove so overwhelming that her sanity begins to wane, and she ventures down a more direct, murderous route to reach her goal.With its satirical portrayal of Hong Kong's booming property market, and the extraordinary lengths to which aspiring owners will go to get on the ladder, this film is a neat piece of social commentary.
The film relates her day-to-day trials, and as she grapples with two part-time jobs, a callous, terminally ill father, an uncaring partner and dwindling chances of obtaining her dream home, we gradually uncover the rationale for the killing spree on which she will later embark.Underpinning Dream Home is an artful tension between our sympathy for this cute, hard-working idealist and our revulsion at the savage, merciless psychopath she becomes.
Her asphyxiation of a pregnant woman, by the ingenious use of a plastic bag and vacuum cleaner, and her severance of a young man's genitalia, however, fall well beyond the realm of comprehension.It can only be concluded that in Pang's excitement at his first film venture into the world of horror, a sense of proportion was the unfortunate casualty.
Conversely, horror fans might find the film too bogged down by backstory, as impressive as the special effects may be.If you're one of that select group for whom a large dose of senseless, grisly bloodshed and a moderate sprinkling of intelligent social observation makes compelling viewing, go and see Dream Home right away.
A Hong Kong woman has wanted to own a high-rise apartment for most of her life, and she's not going to let anyone stop her from achieving that dream.Not only is Dream Home wince-inducingly entertaining, it also has a story that actually makes sense.
The film jumps between the childhood of the main character, more recent events in her life, and the murderous rampage happening in the present, and it all ties together quite nicely.
I highly recommend this to slasher fans looking for something beside the usual set-ups and characters and those looking for a foreign movie with a little more bite, but those with a tender disposition or no stomach for on-screen violence need not apply..
Gore-hounds and violence enthusiasts should enjoy this one a lot, except that all the horror plot points are interrupted by a lot of story and social commentary about rising home prices in Hong Kong.
Dream Home is a serious and thoughtful drama with a lot of blood.The flashback narrative technique doesn't serve the film very well except for the fact that it lets the blood start flowing from the opening scene.
the basic premise of the film is as a young girl the main character was kicked out of her house by the sea and since that day she has had a dream of buying it back.
The problem being that houses are super expensive around the time it is set and several events tip her over the edge as she will do anything to accomplish her dreams.The plot is extremely well scripted in my opinion and the gore effects are over the top.
The whole film is satirical and the people killed are considered evil in the directors eyes.
All the characters are like typical people you would meet in Hong Kong adding a sense of realism furthermore the director says he got the idea from a news article so its based on real events.
The music is all composed by the lead actresses band which is quite a nice touch.In the end you are left with a controversial film with some nasty gore scenes with hints of black comedy and an original believable plot that stands out from typical slashers and will keep your attention throughout the film.
Brutally graphic blood and guts is balanced well with dark comedy.Negatives:Jumping back and forth through time is often confusing.The claim that it's based on a true story is a complete fabrication.Bottom Line: This is a brutal and stylistic film.The story is interesting enough although the jumping through time is a little jarring at first, but the real fun happens when Cheng Li- Sheung is murdering her way through apartments.
On one hand, Dream Home is a poignant drama about a young Hong Kong woman's life of hardship and her dream of living in an apartment overlooking the bay; on the other, it's a gore-drenched tale of obsession and madness, the lady in question going to extreme and very bloody lengths in order to achieve her goal.
As a whole, the film works brilliantly as a shocking slice of social satire on the difficulty of getting on the property ladder (although it's not as far fetched as it might seem: the film is apparently based on true events!).Josie Ho plays Cheng Lai-Sheung, who, ever since she was a child living in a run-down high-rise, has longed to move with her family to No.1 Victoria Bay, an apartment block affording views of the sea.
So when the opportunity arises, she does whatever it takes to secure her dream home at an affordable price—by killing off the other inhabitants to drive down the property values.The emotional drama is sensitively handled by director Ho-Cheung Pang, with touching flashbacks to a childhood friendship, Cheng's relationship with her ailing father, her unfulfilling job, and intimate moments shared with a married man, but for me, Dream Home is all about the gritty violence, which, along with the true-story connection, lends the film an atmosphere not unlike that of a classic Cat III movie.
Desperately trying to own a fabled flat in a high-rise apartment in Hong Kong, a woman begins a deadly rampage against those that try to keep it from her and try to make her fantasy come true of living in the building.This ended up being quite a genuinely enjoyable effort with a lot to like about it.
The stalking scenes in the rampages are a lot of a fun anyway, really making for some great gore set-ups, a series of bloody murders and a lot of action within to make for some real highlight moments, especially at the stoner's loft where there's a huge rampage against the inhabitants which is just a total blast.
As a person with a right mind i would say not as far as the main character Sheung go but that not really the case here cause for Sheung it not just a dream home but also her life goal as well.Sheung is a hard working girl there no doubt about it and the more you know about her the more you want her to archieve her dream although the methor she uses very wrong and sadistic.Blood and guts gonna spilled everywhere in this extreme horror movie from Hong-Kong so hold on tight to your sit and remember do not eat or drink before watching Dream Home.
DREAM HOME is a modern-day homage to the nasty Category III boom of the 1990s which saw Hong Kong film producers making such tasteless products as THE EBOLA SYNDROME, RUN AND KILL and BUNMAN.
The film follows a young girl who wishes to purchase an apartment in crowded Hong Kong and will do anything to get the property she desires.The acting is decent throughout and you feel a certain empathy with the killer even though you know you really shouldn't.
The killings themselves though far fetched and bloody are gruesomely enjoyable.Yes if you wanted you could pick plenty of plot holes but I don't watch films for realism just escapism.
But a woman who kills people just so she can live in her dream home?
The background of her character is worked out well, based on true facts of the practice of rich people forcing out home owners in Hong Kong in the '80s.
A young Hong Kong woman has her heart set on an apartment with a sea view.
In its own small way, "Dream Home" could be one of the stranger Category III movies from Hong Kong.Sure, there's no black magic turning people's heads into penises, nor centipedes crawling in and out of girls' mouths, or men with superhuman strength turning heads into a red spray.There is, however, a strange young woman going on a killing spree because she can't afford to buy an appartment or...
Perhaps the filmmakers thought that if they made the movie confusing enough, people would assume that there was an adequate explanation for the carnage in there somewhere and they just didn't notice it.The plot is something to do with a young woman who really wants to buy an apartment overlooking the ocean in HK. |
tt0867418 | Scooby-Doo! Pirates Ahoy! | Fred is treating the Mystery Inc. gang to share in his birthday present: a mystery cruise, compliments of his parents Skip and Peggy. While preparing for the ship launch, Scooby and Shaggy have a creepy encounter with a sinister-looking cloaked man, whom the duo are sure is up to no good. The gang meet the hyper Cruise Director, Sunny St. Cloud, and the captain, Captain Crothers. The Captain says they are bound for the Bermuda Triangle, and St. Cloud promises some creepy intrigue. A montage of sloppy "mysteries" that are staged by St. Cloud and Captain Crothers follow, which the gang solves with ease. This peeves the other guests, who have no mysteries to solve now. Soon they rescue Rupert Garcia, a man lost at sea, who tells of an encounter with ghost pirates. The gang naturally assumes that this is a setup to another mystery. He is taken below deck as a man in a jetpack appears from the sky and lands on deck. He turns out to be Biff Wellington, an English billionaire who is known to be fun-loving yet eccentric. He plans to stay on the ship as well.
That night, the gang attends a costume party dinner. The creepy cloaked man appears on stage, who turns out to be Mister Mysterio, a famous hypnotist. Shaggy and Scooby are picked from the audience to demonstrate his powers, but they prove immune to his hypnotism: yet the audience falls under the trance. Mysterio dispels the hypnotism and disappears in a puff of smoke. The creepy fog then engulfs the cruise ship. The ghost pirates wreak havoc, chasing the cruise guests, who all mysteriously disappear. Skip and Peggy are kidnapped, and the pirates retreat back to the galleon and leave (after destroying the cruise ship). At this time, the gang realizes it is a real mystery, and they and Garcia are the only ones left aboard the damaged ship.
With his help, they follow the glowing trail left behind by the galleon and arrive in a secret harbor. There, they find Garcia's old ship, and then are captured by the ghost pirates, who take them aboard their galleon. The pirates are looking to find a meteor of mystic power, which fell into the triangle ages ago and could be pinpointed using Garcia's map. The gang is tied to the mast along with Skip, but there are no other cruise guests around.
The galleon enters the heart of the triangle, and begins to see past ghosts from the triangle: The USS Cyclops, Flight 19, even a sea serpent. Amidst this, the gang manages to escape and explore below deck. They find a lot of modern equipment that was used to project the ghostly images just witnessed. The ship enters an odd ring of rocks, and pulls up the meteor, which glows golden yellow.
The gang then engineer a trap, which fails. The pirates then attempt to re-capture the gang, leading to a trademark Scooby-Doo chase sequence, in which the entire pirate crew are captured by Scooby and Shaggy. Captain Skunkbeard is revealed to be Wellington, and Wally is revealed to be Mysterio. The rest of the pirates turn out to be the cruise guests (including the Captain, St. Cloud and Peggy), shipmates of Garcia, and past conquests of the pirates. Wellington explains that Mysterio convinced him that he was the reincarnation of a pirate years ago, and could use the meteor to teleport back in time. The crew were just hypnosis victims under Mysterio's power. Mysterio's motive was that the meteor itself was pure gold and he was going to steal it to make himself rich. Mysterio, still free, attempts to take the meteor for himself, but is stopped by Scooby.
At this time, a fierce storm hits, and the gang deduces the forces of the triangle want the meteor back, so they drop it back in the water, and some steering by Fred narrowly gets the galleon out of the ring as it crumbles into the sea. The cruise guests use the galleon as a large party boat as they sail back to Miami to drop off the villains to the authorities. | psychedelic, horror | train | wikipedia | Yo ho ho and a whole load of Scooby fun!.
I really enjoyed Scooby Doo: Pirates Ahoy!
and I honestly think it is one of the better movies in the Scooby Doo franchise.
Like any film with pirates, it was fun, colourful and hugely enjoyable, and my only complaints are that it is too short, and I wasn't hugely keen on Frank Welker's Scooby voice, I much prefer Don Messick.
Still, the animation is very colourful, and the music is great.
I loved the plot, about the gang cruising in the Bermuda Triangle, and falling foul of ghost pirates.
The voice acting was fantastic, Casey Kasem is just a hoot as Shaggy, and Dan Castallenetta was excellent as Magician Mysterio.
Ron Perlman was not only charming as Biff Wellington, but deliciously sinister as the villainous pirate captain, and his laugh was quite scary- and I thought Tim Curry's Pennywise's laugh was scary.
All in all, despite a couple of minor flaws, an unexpected delight for Scooby Doo fans, a similar thing I said about last year's Goblin King, and I do recommend it.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Arr, Matey!.
I wasn't so keen on watching this Scooby adventure as it has the shortest running time of all of them so far and I figured that it couldn't possibly have a substantial mystery worth taking an interest in.And while that's true for the most part, they do make a huge effort to keep the viewer guessing by throwing in lots of distractions, more so than any other Scooby adventure.
And despite it's brief running time it does manage pack in a fair amount of characters and guest voices, so in a sense they give more AND less.The Mystery Inc. gang head off on a tropical cruise for Fred's birthday but things turn sinister when they pick-up a drifter floating in the water.
No one believes his tale of ghost pirates (they're on a "mystery cruise" and are becoming quite jaded to the novelty), but only when said pirates show up do they gradually accept that it's real.There's a few more in-jokes than normal in this one too.
And while I usually hate in-jokes it's forgivable, and perhaps welcome, in a Scooby-Doo mystery.
I am aware that the infamous Bermuda Triangle was the focus of a lower-wattage mystery in the third season of Scooby-Doo back in the early 70s, but this one is considerably better.It looses points for being short, but it's still a worthy mystery..
An Honest Review.
It hurts!!!!
It hurts!!!!
Turn it off it hurts!!!!!
OK, so it's not THAT bad, but there are parts of it that do make you feel like you're Linda Blair, strapped to a bed, and getting doused with holy water.So much of it is a big old FAIL that it's hard to believe they released it as a movie and not as, well, a throw away episode of one of the shows.Just run away from this one..
One of the Best Scooby Movies.
(2006) *** (out of 4) Scooby and the gang are invited on a cruise by Fred's parents but soon the ship is taken over by dead pirates.
They kidnap Fred's parents so the gang must go after them and try to learn why they've come back from the dead.
When reviewing these Scooby movies I have to keep in mind not only my opinion but that of my three-year-old son.
His opinion of this movie is that it quickly became his favorite of the series and each time I asked which one he wants to watch it's this here.
In fact, I think we're working on about fifteen times in a row he has selected this one so obviously kids should love it.
I've seen the film on a number of occasions with him and I do think it's one of the best out there.
The actual story here is a very good one and I really liked how they took the pirate theme and mixed it with zombies as well as the entire Bermuda Triangle thing.
The animation is top-notch from start to finish and also shows a lot of imagination.
The actual look of the pirates is without question the highlight of the film as the detail in the costumes and their look is great.
This one here also features a lot of famous names doing vocal work including Tim Conway, Arsenio Hall, Freddy Rodriquez, Ron Perlman and Kathy Najimy.
SCOOBY-DOO!
SCOOBY-DOO!
PIRATES AHOY!
PIRATES AHOY!
will certainly entertain fans of the series and kids should really enjoy it as well..
Better than I thought it would be.
I can honestly admit that I don't like "What's New Scooby-Doo" at all, as well as the direct-to-video Scooby movies from 2004 to the present.
The last two direct-to-video Scooby movies were not that good.
They mostly focused more on Fred, Daphne and Velma, rather than Scooby-Doo himself(who is actually my favorite character!).
However, this movie is a slight improvement over the last two.
It's still basically an extended-length episode of "What's New Scooby-Doo," but not much like "Aloha Scooby-Doo!" or "Scooby-Doo in Where's My Mummy." In this installment, Scooby-Doo is given more attention and screen time than the last two in the series!
He also has plenty of dialogue, too.
When I noticed this as I was watching, I couldn't believe it!
The only flaw is, as usual, Frank Welker's Scooby-Doo voice (you know, like Brain from "Inspector Gadget!") I sure hope this isn't Casey Kasem's last time he does Shaggy's voice, what with Scott Menville (aka Robin from "Teen Titans," Larry and Steve from "Rugrats," etc.) starting to do a horrible Shaggy impersonation.
However, it's not like Daphne, who sounds a bit like Vicky from "The Fairly Oddparents," and Mindy Cohn providing Velma's newer, slightly dark-sounding voice.
However, I thought Fred's parents were pretty goofy (I loved the running gag with their camera flash temporarily blinding people!), and there was that crazy tour guide who reminded me of Ms. Frizzle from "The Magic School Bus." However, they STILL didn't use the old "Castle Thunder" sound effects, like the last three movies!
I mean, they used it on a couple of episodes of "What's New Scooby-Doo" and on "Loonatics Unleashed," and since pirate movies tend to have thunderstorms in them, this would've been perfect for it!
But I also enjoyed seeing references to classic Scooby villains (not Redbeard, thankfully, but Captain Cutler, the Ghost Clown and a werewolf from an older episode).
Also, I am very grateful that they didn't use the gawd-awful new designs from "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue." That would've sucked!
But I am still find it weird they keep using the old 70s Hanna-Barbera logo at the end of the movies.
I will say it again: HANNA-BARBERA DID NOT PRODUCE THIS MOVIE!
It was all TERMITE TERRACE!
Nonetheless, if you liked "Scooby-Doo and the Cyber Chase" or are just a fan of the new series, you will like this then..
One of the best...?.
If you don't like the What's New Scooby-Doo?
series, you probably won't like this much.
I'm pleased to say I love the series, and this film was one of the best I've seen.It's Fred's birthday, and his parents have invited him and the rest of Mystery Inc. along on a 'Mystery' cruise, but are suspicious travellers joining them?
As the title suggests, pirates are not far behind - and they're of the ghostly variety.The recent Scooby-Doo films (from 2000 onwards) combine quality animation and great voice acting.
What I've come to expect from Scooby-Doo films is the storyline involving real ghosts or magic of some sort, like 'Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King'.
What on earth was that film all about?
Pardon me for being a party pooper, but isn't that sort of completely the opposite of what Scooby-Doo is all about?
Scooby-Doo is about finding a logical explanation; finding clues and using intuition.
It's like a watered down version of Miss Marple; small mysteries that the audience can try and solve before the gang do.
The mystery in this film, and one of the main reasons why I liked it so much, has a logical explanation.
It's just like old times with the gang - like a real episode.This film is for all ages too.
The colourful animation and slapstick should appeal to younger viewers - though they usually miss most of the dialogue.
If you're older, you'll be able to appreciate it - because it sure needs appreciating.
It involves much more Scooby than most of the other films, but each member of Mystery Inc is represented equally and all are hilarious - I mean, isn't Daphne usually the picky, whiny one?
One of the funniest scenes is down to her.
And Fred is beautifully protective of his 'Fred-ness'; many moments are fan based jokes, which I must say I felt very special to be able to understand.I know this is different from the old Scooby-Doo series, but I can't help thinking that this is much, much funnier and so much better put together; the animation is so smooth.
The facial expressions are, well, expressive, and the gang are so much more lovable this way; they're silly and human (even Scooby, if you think about it) and it's a breath of fresh air to watch a mystery that seems to make some kind of sense (another hint that this isn't just for kids - they never understand the story line anyway).Again, let me say that if you don't like the new Scooby-Doo, then you probably won't want to try this.
But if you think that Mystery Inc. are supposed to be funny, endearing and above all, logical, you may as well give it a go.
So, What's New Scooby-Doo?
A pretty good straight to DVD film, that's what..
Just to plain.
No matter what I will always love Scooby-Doo even if the cartoon leaves me feeling dry, this one wasn't all bad.
Right from the beginning I was sceptical about this one, it just seemed off.
The movie follows a concept I've always been fascinated with; the Bermuta triangle, but it just lacks the interest I was hoping for, it only has a few good jokes, it feels a bit to dragged out, and it's just way to predictable I knew the whole mystery about 20 mins in, it's a very straight forward cartoon that lacks twists and turns.
Regardless of the flaws I found it an OK movie, with an interesting plot and great voice over actors.Scooby and the gang are off to set sail on a tropical mystery themed cruise where they find a mysterious cast away who speaks of a terrifying experience he has had in the Bermuda triangle, where his crew has been abducted by ghost pirates.
The gang at first think it is just a part of the mystery themed cruise but they soon realize the cast away speaks the truth and the passengers, the crew all get taken away by the ghost pirates, but this time it's personal as Fred's parents have been taken.
The gang is on the case.Let me first off by saying once again I was very pleased by the great talent of the voice over cast.
This is one of the biggest reason why this cartoon was merely OK, but also it turned out to be its biggest flaw, you'll see about 20 mins in.
Once again we have Frank Welker as Fred and Scooby-Doo, Grey Delisle as Daphne, Mindy Cohn as Velma, and of course Casey Kasem as Shaggy, who all once do a fabulous job.
Joining the great voice over cast we have Ron Perlman as Captain Skunkbeard/Biff Wellington, Dan Castellaneta as Mr. Mysterio/Woodenleg Wally, Edie McClurg as Peggy Jones, and Tim Conway as Skip Jones.
They all do a wonderful job but in the end it gives the entire mystery away as soon as it starts which left me feeling stale about the whole thing.The storyline the movie follows I found was interesting but I feel it could have been a much better cartoon if they had to go with aliens instead of pirates for the Bermuda triangle but regardless I found it mildly interesting just because it was the Bermuda triangle.
The storyline really lacks twists and turns there is only one which is the ending which can be seen a million miles away, there is only a few jokes, and it just seems to dragged out which I hate seeing in a Scooby-Doo cartoon.
I feel they could have easily expanded on the mysteries surrounding the Bermuda triangle.All in all an OK cartoon.
If you are a Scooby-Doo fan you should at least give it a go once and maybe you will love it, everyone has their own opinions, but in the end for me the only good things were the voice over actors who also made me feel sour about the whole cartoon, and the interesting concept of the Bermuda triangle which could have been explored more.
So make sure you really consider renting or buying Scooby-Doo Pirates Ahoy and give it a whirl at least once.Overall score: ***** out of ********** **1/2 out of ***** |
tt0069765 | Bang the Drum Slowly | Henry Wiggen (Moriarty) is a star pitcher for the New York Mammoths, a fictitious Major League Baseball team. He is a valuable player to his manager Dutch but is in a dispute with the team's ownership, holding out for a new contract and more money. Henry has a sideline as an insurance salesman working for the Arcturus Corporation, with ballplayers as his clients. Henry's friend Bruce Pearson (De Niro), the team's catcher, is a player of limited skill and intellect. Teammates call Henry by the nickname "Author" because the brainy pitcher once wrote a book, although Bruce misunderstands and, with his thick Southern drawl, often calls him "Arthur" instead.
Henry and Bruce leave the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where Bruce has been told he is terminally ill with Hodgkin's disease. They drive to Bruce's hometown in Georgia, because Bruce always wanted his only friend to see it. On their first night there, Bruce burns his old baseball memorabilia to acknowledge the inevitable end of his life.
The team knows nothing about Bruce's fate. At spring training, Dutch is preparing to release Bruce in favor of a hot young prospect, country boy Piney Woods. So management is amazed and confused when Henry ends his holdout and agrees to a new contract on one condition: that he and Bruce come as a package. If one is on the team, so is the other. If one is traded or sent down to the minor leagues, the other goes, too.
Dutch tries everything to make Henry reveal why he insists that Bruce catch for him. In the meantime, the Mammoths are losing games and have a low morale, with teammates quarreling among themselves. Knowing that he is dying, Bruce wants Henry to change the beneficiary on his life insurance policy from his parents to his girlfriend Katie. Henry knows she is interested only in Bruce's money and is taking advantage of his circumstances, so Henry only pretends to change it.
One day when a player teases Bruce, a frustrated Henry blurts out the fact that Bruce is dying. He asks that it remain confidential, but quickly teammates and Dutch all learn the news. They begin to treat Bruce differently and each other as well, and the team's play and mood both improve. Near the end of the season, Bruce becomes too ill to continue playing. The team eventually wins the World Series, but Bruce returns home to see his parents. After the season is over, he dies, and Henry vows that he won't "rag" on (tease) anyone again. | dramatic | train | wikipedia | Both are nice to watch, playing very easy-going non-offensive characters.Moriarty plays a pitcher on a pennant-contending team who lovingly looks after his not-so-smart-but-dying teammate and friend (De Niro).
As nice a film as it is, there is one warning: a lot profanity by the manager (Vincent Gardenia) but it's not a kids' movie anyway.I watched it years ago and then again recently when it came out on DVD.
Most of us, at the end of the 20th century, know Robert DeNiro as an actor who has portrayed countless tough guys onscreen, in movies such as Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Mean Streets, and even up to Ronin.
But before Bobby was cast (and cast and cast and cast)as Hollywood's chief badfella, he co-starred in this adaptation of a novel by Mark Harris as a simpleton baseball catcher who may be dying.Many people feel that playing a sick or handicapped character is relatively easy for an actor, but in truth there's more to acting than simply limping or slurring one's speech.
His best friend is played by Michael Moriarty, whose character is a seasoned, talented pitcher.
Moriarty learns of DeNiro's fate during an off season, and decides to do all he can to help his friend, to make what life he has left a pleasant one.Both actors turn in magnificent performances, but you can't beat this film for an excellent foretelling of a major talent.
Robert De Niro does an outstanding job, in one of his first real big hit next to 'Mean Streets', as Bruce Pearson, the ignorant country boy (you can tell he used the same accent in 'Cape Fear') from Georgia who is dying of Hodgkin's Disease, and Michael Moriarty is also fantastic as Henry Wiggen, the tough talkin' hot shot New Yorker.
New York Mammoth star Pitcher Henry Wiggen (played by Michael Moriarty of future "Law and Order" fame) learns from that his friend and catcher Bruce Pearson (a young Robert De Niro) is terminally ill.
Although the setting is baseball (and writer Mark Harris is one of the best authors of baseball fiction) the story is really about friendship and what a man will do for a friend when he knows that more is at stake than winning games.
Its story is simple - Henry Wiggen, the intelligent and savvy ace pitcher of the New York Mammoths, learns that his best friend on the team, simpleminded, kindhearted catcher Bruce Pearson, has terminal cancer and a year to live.
The baseball elements are well-done, to be sure, the teammate's show a realistic mix of cockiness and genuine concern for a teammate, and the plot involving the manager's spirited investigation of Bruce's off-season activities, not yet knowing he was at a cancer hospital, is funny and realistic at the same time.
However, the reason to watch this is the simple but powerful human drama - the baseball season can't help but take a back seat to that.Aside from the stellar story, this movie is memorable for the acting.
Playing any other character, Gardenia's work here would have been absurd, but his zany acting is totally appropriate for a famous baseball manager, a line of work where flamboyant, over-the-top behavior is essentially a job requirement, regardless of what era of baseball you're talking about.While I don't know if we could ever definitively determine a "best" baseball movie, because a lot of it comes down to personal taste.
DeNiro (as Bruce Pearson) and Moriarity (as Henry "Author" Wiggen) really shine in their roles and have great chemistry in this story about a journeyman catches stricken with Hodgkin's disease, and his friendship with his star pitcher teammate.
Much of the humor in the movies evolves from the attempts of the team's coach to find out his motive.Robert DiNiro plays the dying catcher.
Robert DeNiro underplays the dying catcher to perfection and Vincent Gardenia, as the coach, plays a pretty stock role just as required.There is nothing to criticize about Bang The Drum Slowly.
Based on an early '50s novel by Mark Harris about a fictional N.Y.City Baseball Team (The Mammoths) the movie's focal point is the friendship between the team's star pitcher and a dying catcher, a naive, backwoods boy lacking in the social graces.I'll never forget Michael Moriarty's Henry Wiggen in a scene where he reaches out to embrace a distraught, frightened Bruce Pearson (Robert De Niro), trying his best to console his dying roommate.
" We're all dying " , Wiggen says to his friend, and thus begins and shortly ends one of the most tender scenes ever filmed between two men, in a movie about baseball, no less.
And yet it's really not about baseball at all; yes, there are the obligatory scenes of the team at play and a humorous locker room speech by the team's crusty manager (the wonderful, late Vincent Gardenia, who received a supporting actor Oscar nomination for this film).
The team support and management along with ridiculous sky rocketing salaries and apathetic treatment of sports fans has changed everything for the worse; this sweet little movie touches on a more innocent time.
It was not a copy-cat production and in fact was virtually word-for-word the way the novel read.The second problem suffered by this great film was that it was released during a New York area newspaper strike and didn't get the attention it deserved.Robert De Niro, like many intense actors, often is at his best when playing a subdued, controlled type of character.
And though it still somehow gets centered mainly on Moriarty until the pivotal points of the movie, DeNiro still amazes, as the slow witted catcher with a problem that he doesn't want to tell anyone, so as not to get pity.
When Author, played by one of my favorite actors, Michael Moriarty, finds out that Bruce (played amazingly by Robert DeNiro), his catcher on the fictitious New York Mammoths Major League Baseball treat has terminal cancer, he sets about trying to make his last year on earth as normal as possible.
From the salad days of both Robert DeNiro and Michael Moriarty comes Bang The Drum Slowly, a novel about a star pitcher and his buddy, a dying catcher.
Doesn't attract from the beauty of the performances.Moriarty is the star pitcher and back in those days before big money for a year could set you up for life, ballplayers had to both have another income for the off season and a career plan once your playing days are over.
It's like they were giving two halves of one performance.Vincent Gardenia plays their manager and he got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
Which is why we saw Yankee style pinstripes and a home park that looked like old Yankee Stadium.Bang The Drum Slowly is one of the finest baseball films ever done.
Mark Harris's story about a star pitcher (Michael Moriarty) who helps a slow-witted catcher (Robert De Niro) with a terminal illness make it through a season could have been maudlin but instead is intensely moving.
In this picture Bruce Pearson, (DeNiro) plays the role of a simple minded catcher who was made fun of by all of the team players except one guy, Henry Wiggen, (Michael Moriarty) who stood by Bruce and gave him all the moral support and good advice to deal with his situation.
Being a baseball fan for 30+ years; i really enjoyed this movie, it's a good baseball story about a relationship between the ace pitcher and a catcher, the movie features various quirky players and such, but mainly focuses on these two.
If you're not a baseball fan , then maybe the story about the friendship between the two will draw you in,, if on the other hand you are looking for lots of action, crashes , stuff like that,, look elsewhere, this is one of those movies that is very touching to the soul, makes you think about life in general; Robert Deniro gives an excellent performance as Pearson the catcher, maybe not his best performance but way better than average,, the rest of the cast features Michael Moriarity, a small bit from Danny Aiello, and a few others who i can't remember, but all in all it was a good touching story about a catcher trying to help his team with the World Series.
For example, I think the ONLY time in the movie that does get sentimental, is when the SENTIMENTAL singing cowboy baseball player gets ready to sing the title song (brilliant title), and No one wants to hear it--remember Henry with the accent, "AWW, Come on, it's a cawn-bawl sawng", everyone besides Bruce understanding the significance.
Fantastic picture about a Cy Young caliber pitcher, Henry Wiggen (Michael Moriarty), who befriends a lesser known catcher, Bruce Pearson (Robert DeNiro), who was just diagnosed with cancer prior to the 1972 baseball season.
It still has the compelling idea that friendship is the basis of true sportsmanship.A slowly dying, so-so catcher on the team is protected by the ace pitcher and able to fulfill his dream of playing in the big leagues.
Michael Moriarty (underrated) and a fairly young Robert De Niro have a great screen chemistry as the streetwise pitcher and the innocent, tragic catcher.
Underrated Gem. Bang the Drum Slowly (1973) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Depressing but eventually uplifting tale of a star pitcher (Michael Moriarty) who befriends a dimwitted catcher (Robert DeNiro) who is dying.
The thought of watching someone dying from a terminal illness might keep some people away from this movie but that would be a real shame because the film does a beautiful job of teaching about how we should treat people.
This film certainly deals with the topic of death but it also deals with the spirit of life and it also works very well as a baseball movie.
There's been plenty of talk about DeNiro working out with the Cincinnati Reds in order to make himself look like a baseball player and he also succeeds on this level.
Michael Moriarty has a good costarring role as a close friend who helps DeNiro aspire to make his dying wish come true.
A much a more accurate depiction of baseball life than the natural; most of the old movie stock characters are better here-- crusty manager; tough coach; wise talking dames..
Henry 'Author' Wiggen (Michael Moriarty) is a pitcher and his best friend Bruce Pearson (Robert De Niro) is a catcher on the major league baseball team New York Mammoths.
Paul Newman, in one of his first big roles, addresses the audience on a darkened stage and explains why "he", (Henry Wiggins, a star pitcher for the New York Mammoths), wrote this story of what happened to his catcher and friend, Bruce Pierson, (Albert Salmi in what would become atypically fine performance), who succumbed to an unnamed disease that somehow didn't prevent him from playing baseball for another season.
Robert de Niro was pretty good as Bruce Pearson, a big league catcher who struggles through one last season after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Yeah, there's a bit of a fight to keep him on the team, and star pitcher and Bruce's friend Henry Wiggen (Michael Moriarty) - who at first is the only one who knows Pearson's condition - has to fight to keep him on the team, finally ending a contract dispute only when the team agrees to keep Pearson.
Pearson finally does get sick and leaves the team before the World Series, which they apparently won, but none of that is portrayed - which was appropriate, since the movie wasn't about the team and whether or not it won, but about Pearson.I thought that as a drama, the movie could have gone for more emotion, and I've seen far better baseball movies (right off the top of my head I'd cite "Pride of the Yankees," "Eight Men Out" and "For Love Of The Game.") This one has its moments and it does a decent job of portraying the struggles of the baseball season as this apparently very talented team sort of meanders through the season without really generating any chemistry or putting it all together until the end.
Then again, the baseball team that Robert De Niro plays for is not the New York Yankees.
Similar to the little white lie the movie falls upon us with the New York Yankees, the role of Robert De Niro's character is far from a leading role.
Even the relationship between De Niro and his pitcher / friend played by Michael Moriarty takes a back seat to his relationship w/ the coach of the baseball team played by Vincent Gardenia.
The complexity of his character is so subtle and played with such low energy that it's easy to miss (Moriarty comes off like a poor man's John Voigt).His decision not to let anyone else know that De Niro is dying, for example, is based on his own prejudices and limitations as a human being.
***SPOILERS*** Very probably the best of the slew of a loved one dying of an unnamed and incurable disease movie of the early 1970's Bang the Drum Slowly predated the grand daddy of all those five handkerchief tearjerker-"Love Story"-by some 15 years.
The 1973 movie was originally shown on TV's United States Steel Hour in September 1956 staring Paul Newman and Albert Saimi in the leading roles of Henry Wiggen & Bruce Pearson.It's when New York Mammoth star pitching ace Henry Wiggins, Michael Moriarty, held out sighing his yearly club contract during spring training that it was suspected that he wanted something far more then the money, 70,000 smackers, that his team offered him.
All Pearson now wanted was to not only finish out the season as the club's first string catcher but be a part in helping the team win the league's pennant as well as the World Series.With the cat now out of the bag in what Pearson is going through, in him having a few months left to live, the Mommoth players stop their bickering with each other as well as picking on and needling the good natured and friendly Bruce Pearson and instead get down to business.
This movie,"Bang The Drum Slowly", is about much more than a baseball season.
These are all stories about friendships among men, at a time when those men need those friendships.When Michael Moriarty learns his friend Robert De Niro is incurably sick and will soon die, he makes a decision to give his friend a final season of friendship and support.
Hancock.The screenplay centers on professional baseball player Bruce Pearson and his team mate Henry Wiggen, who supported Bruce to the bitter end after learning that the young catcher was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease and would soon die.
The film is a touching melodrama that explores the inner workings of a baseball club and its players' personalities with remarkable depth.It is sentimental and predictable, but it's also very well acted by it talented cast.Finally,it is good to see a young Robert De Niro showing the talent that has made him one of our best actors..
And even the movie fans look at me funny when I mention one of my favorite actors from the 70s, Michael Moriarty.But there are only a handful of truly fine sports films, and of course even fewer in the sub genre of baseball.
Many a night especially later in the lives of the young when sleep will not come and you're alone in the dark you'll slip this movie in and have a warm feeling even if sleep never comes.The story of mediocre catcher and a great pitcher going through their final season together as the lesser-talented player is dying of an unspecified disease.
Nominally a baseball movie, this is actually more of a human interest story focusing on the relationship of a couple of teammates who hang together through the thick and thin of catcher Bruce Pearson's (Robert DeNiro) bout with Hodgkin's disease.
I'm not sure if a real life ball player could have pulled off the contract demand that Wiggen did by forcing the owner and manager to agree to his terms for keeping 'Bill' employed, but this was made over forty years ago when money hadn't yet become that big a deal.Now I'd never heard of Big League Tegwar before seeing this picture and I don't know if it was simply made up for the story, but it looks like it could be a lot of fun.
From the eye-catching novel by Mark Harris, the narrator and protagonist Henry Wiggen (Michael Moriarty) often used that repeated quote, "Lay it on thin boys." He takes a great caring for his ailing teammate Bruce Pearson (Robert DeNiro)with the insecure belief that his teammates of the fictional team, the New York Mammoths might overdo their sympathy after mistreating the poor man for so many years.
Such is the story here added with the complication that the catcher Bruce, shyly but beloved character played by Robert De Niro, is dying of Hodgkins Disease.
It's really a standout performance.Michael Moriarty is the faithful pitcher and Vincent Gardenia received a well deserved supporting nomination as the suspicious manager of the team who hires a detective to find out what's going on between these 2 guys.Inevitably, the team finds out and attempts to come to the rescue of the stricken catcher.This is certainly one of the best of the baseball pictures as in the case of Pride of the Yankees, it explores tragedy and the human relationship among team players than can develop during such adversity.Selma Diamond is on hand as is effective in her brief 2 scene appearance as the sly telephone operator who knows something is amiss.The one disappointment was that when the inevitable occurs during off season, other than the Moriarty character, no one else attended the funeral..
Pro pitcher Henry Wiggen(Michael Moriarty)and catcher Bruce Pearson(Robert De Niro)are as different as night and day. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.