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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0034556 | The Bulleteers | The story begins as the clock strikes midnight. A strange, bullet-shaped rocket-car blows right through the police department, leaving an explosion in its wake. The paper the next day reports the destruction of the building and bafflement of the police. Perry White calls Lois Lane and Clark Kent into his office. Just as he is explaining the report, the sound of a loudspeaker comes in through the window. The leader of the "Bulleteers", as Lois later calls them, is shown announcing from his hideout atop a mountain outside of town, the demands of his gang. Over the speaker, Clark, Lois, and the rest of the town hear it: Turn over the city treasury or other municipal buildings will be next!
Later, Lois asks the mayor what he is doing about the problem. The mayor announces that he will not be swayed by criminals. That day, policemen all over town setup sandbag fortifications for their machine guns and searchlights in preparation for the Bulleteers. At midnight, the gang strikes again, first destroying the town's power plant, bullets from defending policeman bouncing harmlessly off the bullet-car's sleek surface. Lights in the Daily Planet flicker on and off, and Lois takes off in a car to get closer to the scene, leaving Clark behind. Clark takes the opportunity to enter a nearby phone booth and don his Superman costume.
The Bulleteers take aim now at the city's treasury building, but Superman steps in front of them and knocks the rocket-car off course. As they struggle to regain control, he leaps in the air and grabs its front trying again to force it off-course, but the Bulleteers, through wild maneuvering, manage to shake him off the car to the ground below. Superman lunges to keep them from the treasury, only to arrive too late. Piles of rubble from the explosion bury him.
Lois Lane arrives at the scene in time to see the gang throwing bags of money into their car. She sneaks into its cockpit and tries to smash the controls with a wrench, but the gang returns, taking off with her. Superman, meanwhile, emerges from the rubble and chases after the car, grasping it by one of its retractable wings, and then by its tail-fins to throw it off course. As it spirals downward, he claws his way to the cockpit, rips it open, and pulls Lois and the three gangsters out. The car crashes to the ground far below.
The newspaper next day reports Superman's heroic feat and the gangsters' arrest for their rampage. Reading it, Clark remarks, "Nice going, Lois. Another great scoop for you." Lois replies, "It was easy, thanks to Superman." | psychedelic, violence | train | wikipedia | Superman Versus Perverted Science.
A SUPERMAN CartoonThree evil inventors have developed a fantastic `bullet car' - shaped like a rocket, it can fly and destroy any building by simply crashing through it.
After smashing the Metropolis Police Headquarters, the extortionists demand a huge payment, which the mayor refuses to pay.
In fury, the bullet car begins the destruction of the city.
With intrepid reporter Lois Lane now a prisoner of the villains, can the Man of Steel possibly stop the incredible technology in the hands of THE BULLETEERS?This was another in the series of excellent cartoons Max Fleischer produced for Paramount Studio.
They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots.
Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts..
Superman...Defeated???.
I love the Fleischer Superman cartoons.
The animation is smooth and fluid with vivid colors.
The distinct art-deco style, vintage science fiction imagery, and use of noirish shadows gave them a look unlike any other cartoons.
The music and voice work is superb.
They're fun, accessible, enduring animation classics.The fifth in the series is about a group of costumed criminals known as the Bulleteers.
They have a bullet-shaped rocket car and are terrorizing the city, destroying buildings and thumbing their noses at the law.
They also have the coolest secret lair on top of a mountain outside of town.
The mayor tries to organize the police to stop them but it's no use!
As the Bulleteers' rampage continues, Superman shows up.
But, as he fails to stop them, we have to ask: are the Bulleteers too much for the Man of Steel?
Another great Fleischer Superman cartoon, although a step below the previous entries in the series.
The Bulleteers' rocket car and awesome mountaintop hideout are cool visuals like you expect from this series.
I also loved the scenes of the police scrambling to fortify and fight back against the seemingly indestructible rocket car.
Those little touches are prime examples of the beauty of the Fleischer cartoons.
There's so much going on that's just fun and exciting to watch..
Quit Picking on Lois.
This is quite fun.
Three more mad scientists (why are they mad; perhaps they are just talented with a different agenda) create a threat.
They are extortionists and have developed a car/rocket, shaped like a bullet.
They threaten Metropolis, and when the Mayor refuses to give in, they start by destroying city hall.
This device is really quite the destructive machine.
They want the city to turn over its treasury or they will continue to reek havoc on the fair city.
Fortunately, Superman is around.
Of course, Lois Lane again paints herself into a deadly corner and need to be rescued.
Some have criticized her for her inherent stupidity.
Of course, it is part of the formula.
She is an overzealous reporter, a contrast to Clark, and sometimes Superman needs a little push because we know he likes her.
Solid episode..
Superman #5.
Bulleteers, The (1942)** (out of 4) A maniac scientist creates a "bullet car", which is pretty much just what it sounds like.
Criminals can drive this car, which flies like a bullet, into any building and knock it down.
Naturally Lois finds herself trapped by the bad guys and only Superman can save her.
I'm new to this series and watching them in the order that they were released and there's no question, even only five shorts in, that they all follow the same plot outline with just a new villain added.
The build up is always the same as is the way Lois gets herself involved.
With that said, this short was pretty boring from start to reason.
One reason is that I was disappointed with the animation, which wasn't anything to write home about.
Another reason was the actual story because it just wasn't that good or entertaining.
The villain was the biggest problem because it too didn't add any excitement..
Once again, Lois is an idiot..
In the Fleischer Brothers Superman cartoons, Lois Lane is unusually stupid.
Even compared to the 1950s Lois from TV, this one seems bent on getting herself killed.
And, like in almost all the cartoons, she is saved and doesn't learn a darn thing!
The cartoon begins with a weird bullet-like car/airplane destroying things and then the leader of some weird criminal gang announcing to Metropolis that they must pay him or he'll destroy the town (you'd THINK he'd pick on some town OTHER than the one in which Superman lives!!).
Soon, the Bulleteers appear and begin unleashing terror.
Not surprisingly, Superman comes to the rescue AND Lois gets herself nearly killed in the process.Like the other Superman cartoons of the era, this one is beautifully animated but the story is very, very simple.
One reviewers loved how the action never let up--I just thought it lacked depth.
Mildly interesting..
Starts off quick and never stops.
Right at the very beginning we see a bullet-shaped aircraft smash right through the Police Headquarters, demolishing it.
The evil masked men on it demand all the money from the town hall or they'll attack.
The mayor refuses to pay and the police brace themselves for an all out attack.
It begins and they're no match.
Good thing Superman is around.
And Lois Lane is held captive (again).It's sort of amusing to see Lois always being captured and tied up in these cartoons.
Still, this is quick, tight, full of action and has the incredible animation that we expect.
Fun with incredible sound effects (in the restored DVD version)..
LOOK, UP ON THE SCREEN!
It's a Bird , it's a Plane , it's a Max Fleischer SUPERMAN Cartoon!.
ONCE again we must take the old 'Way-back Machine' into our not so distant past.
Our destination would be Chicago, Illinois in January of 1979.
The Windy City location is the Film Center of the Art Institute; for this is where we had our first viewing of one of those Paramount Pictures' SUPERMAN Cartoons.
In this case it just happened to be 'The Bulleteers'.PRODUCED by Max Fleischer and directed by his brother Dave Fleischer, it just happened to be a part of a Fleischer Retrospective that was put together by the intelligentsia who made up the School of the Art Institute's Film Program.
Other items on the agenda included samplings of OUT OF THE INKWELL with Koko the Clown, BETTY BOOP's on screen evolution and of course some great old B & W Popeye Cartoons.
It was a mid-winter's evening well spent!
BUT please let us have a brief interlude here in order to claim the privilege of doing a little EDITORIALIZING.
Thank You.IT really strikes us as being both ironic and laughable that the contents of these Animated Short Subjects had only a short time earlier been regarded by these same forces in Academia as being strictly trash.
Now ('79) a few short years later, these same "Cartoons" are proclaimed to be "Art".
And I am JTRyan.
End of Editorial * ANYHOW, back to the subject at hand.TODAY'S subject, THE BULLETEERS (Fleischer Brothers Studios/Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1941), which struck us instantly as being stunning, visually exciting and having a good deal of content beyond that of the expected and requisite Action Scenes.COLOR work, character design, backgrounds all meticulously rendered to be brought to life by the Fleischer Magic touch.
Application of their Rotoscope animation system and the Table Top 3 Dimensional process are in evidence.ALL of these visual elements are blended in a most harmonious manner and in the proper style as to be living, moving counterparts of Superman on the printed page.
The care exercised in layout and design has essentially created animated pages right out of Action Comics.
Superman Comics or the Superman Sunday Color Comic Strip!
The level of accuracy in style is just that meticulous.OUTSTANDING musical scores were a hallmark of these Superman Cartoons and this BULLETEERS is certainly no exception.
We can thank Fleischer's Musical Director, Sammy Timberg, for a most befitting Superman Opening Theme as well as the moody and exciting incidental music throughout.AND while we're on the subject of Sound, we must make note of the clear, clean and properly full-volumed dialog recording.
The crisp elocution is rendered in truly beautifully rich tones as clear today as they were when released in 1941.FURTHERMORE the selection of Mr. Bud Collyer and Miss Jane Alexander to give voices to the Superman saga was perhaps the closest choice to perfection.
The pair had done the characters on the Mutual Radio Network's SUPERMAN Radio Show and their choice provided a sort of marriage of all three media; Comic Books/Comic Strip (Printed Page), Radio Show (Electronic & Airwaves) and the Cartoon Shorts (Motion Pictures).
The sound of Bud Collyer's signing off, for example, sounds fresh and vital today.ONE caveat is in order.
It would be helpful to anyone's viewing of any of the Paramount/Fleischer-Famous Studios Cartoons that you do so be screening not more than one at a time.
They just were not designed for multiple running.** If you can, try to see them with other viewers.
IT's probably too much to ask to have a big screen in a real theatre/auditorium setting; as we did it; but don't give up!
After all, there must be some of the intellectually elite near you who are about tom see the light and can include some of these in the local Collegiate Film Festivals.AS for our rating, I say it's a SSSS picture!
(That's Four S's for top Superman Episode!) Me buddy, Schultz strongly disagrees.
(He says that the Rating should be higher!) NOTE * We are put in mind to recall a good friend of ours, the Late Mr. Noel Roy, Chicago Out of Print Book Dealer and proprietor of Acme Book Store on Clark Street.
Mr. Roy had dubbed certain segments of our elitist Academians as being members of the Stupidgencia rather than Intelligencia.AND by the way, since we're openly venting pet peeves, in a related field we have a riddle!
QUESTION: What is the difference between Obscenity and Art?
(DO you Give UP?..................Okay
..Read Below!...........) ANSWER: A Federal Grant!
NOTE ** The only thing that we can think would be a good example would be watching too many 3 Stooges Shorts in a row; when they are ones featuring Joe Besser!
That's even worse than any other; but you do catch the meaning, no?POODLE SCHNITZ!!.
Despite what some people say, this is one of my favorites of this series.
This one seems to either be really loved, or really not liked.
Either way, i love it.
One of my favorites.
Let's see why.The story is about this weird bullet car, that blows right through the police department, leaving an explosion in its wake.
The many newspapers, including the Daily Planet, of course reports about it.
Perry White calls Lois Lane and Clark Kent into his office.
Just as he is explaining the report, the sound of a loudspeaker comes in through the window.
The leader of the "Bulleteers", as Lois later calls them, is shown announcing from his hideout atop a mountain outside of town, that if the city doesn't turn over the entire city treasury, other municipal buildings will be next as their last warning!
Everyone of course, hears it, but the mayor announces that he will not be swayed by criminals.
That day, policemen all over town setup sandbag fortifications for their machine guns and searchlights in preparation for the Bulleteers.
At midnight, the gang strikes again, first destroying the town's power plant, bullets from defending policeman bouncing harmlessly off the bullet-car's sleek surface.
Lights in the Daily Planet flicker on and off, and Lois, wanting the story of course, takes off in a car to get closer to the scene, leaving Clark behind.
And it's now up to Superman to save the day.So even though this one is one of my favorites.
It still has a few flaws.
First of all, there doesn't seem to be many people who have noticed this, but this cartoon use recycled animation from The Mechanical Monsters, and Billion Dollar Limited, a few times.
But this is just a nitpick.
I also think the Bullet car is very lamely designed.
And while all the previous installments brought something new to the screen.
This one has a very average plot.
And this is not really a flaw, but why have 3 men in one bullet car?
Couldn't they have had 3 of these bullet cars, one for each man.
that would be awesome!
However, most of this is just nitpicking, and like i said, this is one of my favorite Superman cartoons.
Although the bullet car is very lamely designed, the mountain hideout makes up for that, and it's really cool and original for it's time.
And the animation that's not recycled, is great as usual.
I also really like the scene where Lois sneaks into the bullet car's cockpit and tries to smash the controls with a wrench.
That's one of her more heroic and useful moments in the series.
But the best thing about this one, like all of these cartoons, is the action.
Infact i think this one has some of the best action scenes, in the entire series.
And just like Billion Dollar Limited, this one has some of the most fast-past action scenes of this entire series.
My favorite scene is when The Bulleteers take aim at the city's treasury building, but Superman punches the bullet-car off course, which make the bullet-car fly off and hit the top of a building.
That shit is great!Although this one has a few flaws.
It still has some of the best stuff, of this entire series.
And that makes this one, one of my favorites.
Extortionists?.
I must say I am a bit baffled by the antagonists in some of these Superman cartoons from the days of World War II.
In this one here, he goes up against a gang of extortionists.
let us keep in mind.
He is basically unkillable and has major superpowers and a random bunch of crooks keeps him busy like that.
I don't believe it.
Also I personally find it repetitive how Lois gets constantly kidnapped.
And we are still supposed to like her?
Despite how she constantly acts naive and dumb and gets caught and relies on Superman saving her?
This 8-minute film here has several problems (more than they usually do) and that is also why I do not recommend it.
Inferiot to other cartoons from 75 years ago.
Thumbs down..
beautifully animated, but with an average plot at best.
This is a cartoon in the Superman series produced by the Fleischer studio.
There will be spoilers ahead:Like all of the shorts in the series, the animation is beautifully done in this cartoon.
The principal problem with this and the other shorts in the series after the first one is that it's a formulaic series and the character of Superman is one-dimensional, which make the shorts resemble one another.This short opens with a mysterious object destroying city hall.
A blackmail message is sent demanding all the city's monies or further destruction will follow.
Lois Lane and Clark Kent are assigned to the story.The city rejects the ransom demand and the villains climb in a bullet-like aircraft (hence the title) to wreak havoc.
Superman makes a late appearance in the short and rescues Lois more than once, because she has a knack for making unfortunate or all too often foolish decisions (done to increase tension, which is silly, because Lois is a regular character, so her survival is never in doubt).Superman thwarts the bad guys again and saves the day again.
In other news, water is wet.This short is available on disc, with multiple options and is worth watching..
The Bulleteers is perhaps not as interesting as the previous four of the Fleischer Superman cartoons.
Just watched this, the fifth Superman cartoon from Max and Dave Fleischer, on YouTube.
In this one, there's a bullet car that crashes into federal buildings.
One of the men goes on the radio ordering a ransom or else.
Naturally, Lois goes in to investigate and gets herself kidnapped as a result.
So, as usual, Clark Kent turns himself into Superman in order to rescue her.
The only unusual thing that happened here is that Supes for once seems defeated when a building falls on him.
That only lasts a few minutes though so it's business as usual in these series of shorts.
So on that note, this wasn't as entertaining as the first four but there's still some interest in seeing how the animators keep things moving with more realistic illustrations as opposed to the more usual cartoony images they're used to.
So that's a partial recommendation of The Bulleteers. |
tt0053351 | They Came to Cordura | In 1916, as U.S. soldiers chase after Pancho Villa, Army Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper) is assigned to be a battlefield observer and reward heroism. He has been suggested for this duty by a Colonel Rogers (Robert Keith), who is 63 years old and impatiently yearning to be promoted to general before mandatory retirement a few months hence.
Rogers leads his regiment in an old-fashioned but poorly planned Cavalry charge on Ojos Azules, a villa owned by Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth) where Villa's men withdrew after a victory over Mexican government troops, enjoying her hospitality. Thorn, excused from the fighting, observes through his binoculars various acts of heroism by Lt. Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. Chawk (Van Heflin), Cpl. Trubee (Richard Conte) and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York) in defeating Villa's men.
Rogers is proud of having personally led the charge, but furious when Thorn won't nominate him for a citation. Thorn insists that leading his regiment in the charge was "in the line of duty" and refuses to consider a citation for the Medal of Honor, awarded for heroism "above and beyond the call of duty." Rogers reminds Thorn that he protected him from an investigation for cowardice, which he did out of respect for Thorn's father, but does not sway Thorn.
Thorn intends to recommend the four soldiers for the Medal of Honor. He is ordered to take along Mrs. Geary, who is charged with "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." A fifth soldier, a private (Michael Callan) also nominated by Thorn for a medal after an earlier battle, rides with them to the expedition's base at the Texas town of Cordura.
This seemingly simple task becomes increasingly complex as the incessant squabbling between Thorn and the men threatens to destroy them all. Eager to learn more about their acts of bravery, Thorn finds the men to be hostile toward him. A series of harrowing incidents make it clear that the apparent heroes were motivated by ambition, terror, or chance while it is the disgraced Thorn who possesses moral courage. The men soon become insubordinate ultimately turning against Thorn, forcing him to fight the soldiers to save his own life. | anti war, violence | train | wikipedia | This is in response to comments on 'They Came to Cordura' regarding its dramatic weakness and flawed camera work and editing.The flaws may be real, but they might not be the fault of the filmmaker (writer-director Robert Rossen).Reportly, the film was taken out of Rossen's hands by the studio and drastically cut and re-cut.
The director's original version, about 1/2 hour longer, was apparently much better, making much more dramatic sense.Further, the movie was shot in CinemaScope, and comments on its poor cinematography and editing are likely based on viewing a crude pan & scan video copy.
Angered by the US President Wilson's increasing support the rising Mexican political leader General Carranaza, the former US darling Francisco Villa sends his group of rebels to raid a town in New Mexico before coming back over the border.
Thorn is keen to get to know more of the men but, with a captured woman in tow, the men are not as simple as their proposed medals would suggest.Despite pretty much ignoring the interesting history that serves as a backdrop to this film, this is actually still quite an interesting film that was a lot rawer than I expected it to be, given the period in which it was made.
Conte, Heflin, Keith and Hunter are among those giving solid turns in support of Cooper and the raw story.Overall then this is not a great film but it is an interesting one.
Due to showing cowardice in battle, Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper) has been assigned the degrading task of "Awards Officer" to the Mexican expedition of 1916 against Pancho Villa...Thorn witnesses the U.S. Army attack on a ranch house which results in an American victory, and selects five men as candidates for the Congressional Medal of Honor...Since Washington wants heroes in a hurry, for a World War I recruiting campaign, Thorn has to guide these men through the perilous border country to the 'out of danger' base at Cordura...Since Villa's men were given shelter in the ranch house of the beautiful Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth), she is accused of treason and is forced to accompany the men on their difficult journey...Before the seven get to the Texas border town, the five heroes are given ample time to show their true colors (cheats, thieves, rapists and murderers) and Cooper (always under great danger) discovers, far from crossfire, their true characters...
Thorn also discovers that he has respect and affection for his prisoner...Rita Hayworth seems, on screen, to be a woman who has seen too much, lived too hard
There are circles under her eyes now, and an indefinable sadness about her presence
But she remains more delicious than ever
She had been the greatest girl of them all, a living summary of all our sexy, dreamy ideals
Now she is a reminder, for an aging generation, of the generous visions of youth
In "They Came to Cordura," Rita gives the best performance of her career as the shady lady surrounded by six men, substituting acting for sex and glamor....
Since many viewers lose their interest in the film at it's current length, why would a longer version improve matters?In 1916, while World War I was occupying most people's attention, President Wilson was concerned with the continuous unsettled state of Mexico, then in the sixth year of it's Revolution.
Instead it concentrates on Gary Cooper's assignment to find five men who should receive the U.S. Medal of Honor for gallantry and bravery in action.
For the Major to be given this quiet assignment is actual an insult - his own courage is being questioned.Soon he finds a battle going on and picks out his five men (Van Heflin, Richard Conte, Michael Callan, Tab Hunter, and Dick York).
He soon discovers that the men are not interested in the medal, and (as they have a long trek to Cordura, where they have to go to finalize the awards), Cooper learns that the men are not very noble at all.
Set in 1916, the film centres on a US military expedition deep into Mexico, a punitive response to Pancho Villa's raid on American territory.
A cavalry charge against the Mexicans looks like dashing American heroism, but might be no more than cynical fakery on the part of medal-hunting Colonel Rogers.
Because his father was a big shot in the army and was killed there, Cooper's actions were covered up and he was given the non-combat assignment of awards officer.So on a raid on Mexican sympathizer Rita Hayworth's ranch where some Villistas have taken cover, Cooper's job is to find worthy candidates for medals.
His job is then to bring them back to the American base in Cordura.The journey reveals the less than sterling character of these men of courage.
Quite a bit happens on the way to Cordura, some of it a little too unbelievable for me.This was one of Gary Cooper weakest films in his last years.
The surface story is reasonably entertaining and the themes are extremely interesting even if they are so poorly articulated that they lose much of the power that they should have had.Like the novel, the film is set in 1916 Mexico with the U.S. Cavalry dashing about in pursuit of Pancho Villa.
Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper) is in charge of escorting five prospective Medal of Honor winners back to the base at Cordura where their heroics can be utilized to fan a recruitment campaign for the looming U.S. entry into WWI.
His past performance causes him to over-compensate as a leader and to soon alienate most of the men under his command; Lt. Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. Chawk (Van Heflin), Pvt. Hetherington (Michael Callan), Cpl. Trubee (Richard Conte), and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York).
Being dragged along with the group is a woman named Adelaide (Rita Hayworth), an American expatriate accused of aiding the Villa.This is not exactly a strong cast, especially for a film that is more character study than action adventure.
Cooper , Hayworth and a large support cast give good performances as a motley group lost in Mexico ..
An army officer (Gary Cooper), himself guilty of cowardice, is asked to recommended soldiers (Van Heflin , Richard Conte , Dick York , Michael Callan, Tab Hunter ) for the Congressional Medal of Honor during the Mexican Border Incursion of 1916 .
Meanwhile , they meet on the way a suspicious lady (Rita Hayworth) with dark secrets .Coooper is pretty well as an Army major sent to find five men worthy of Medal of Honor and Rita Hayworth is attractive as a shady lady .
Robert Rossen directed this unusual Western that explores human conflicts in an intelligent way as representative of this genre such as cowardice and bravery of the soldiers , but is paced with some flaws and gaps , including an unfairly adulterated final .
The real events in which are based this film are the following : For a time Villa,who seemed in line for leadership of Mexico ,enjoyed the sympathetic interest of the US government who then dropped Villa and supported his rival,Carranza.Villa's resentment resulted in the vengeance raid on Columbus.Villa slapped the United States in the face by mounting a surprise raid on the town of Columbus,New Mexico,on 9 march 1916, killing eight American soldiers and ten civilians.In retaliation,President Woodrow Wilson sent General Pershing and a Punitive Expedition into Mexico in hot pursuit of Villa .
The awards officer Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper) is assigned as observer in the battlefield to seek out heroes in the regiment of veteran Colonel Rogers (Robert Keith) during the attack to Ojos Azules villa to be nominated to the Medal of Honor with Pvt. Andrew Hetherington (Michael Callan) that is riding with him.
Thorn identifies acts of heroism by Lt. Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. Chawk (Van Heflin), Cpl. Trubee (Richard Conte) and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York) during the charge.
Van Heflin, Rita Hayworth, Dick York, Richard Conte and Tab Hunter all help to make this a fine character driven piece.Above all else it's the story that works the best, Thorn is carrying around a burden as he strives to take these heroes to safety and ensure they receive their medals of honour.
The rest of the characters are equally unbelievable in the context of the movie- the "act of cowardice" of Maj Thomas Thorn (sorry, but Gary Cooper was just a little too old to portray even a passed over Major) was hardly cowardice but simply proper tactics- take cover until you find out where the enemy fire is coming from.
The expedition was launched in retaliation for Villa's attack on the town of Columbus, New Mexico, and was the most remembered event of the Border War. The expeditions had one objective: to capture Villa dead or alive and put a stop to any future forays by his paramilitary forces on American soil.After contact with the enemy, and after losing many men, five men were nominated for the Medal of Honor.
Since the army needed living heroes to prepare the nation for its likely entry into WWI, Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper), an awards officer, escorts the nominees, Lt. William Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. John Chawk (Van Heflin), Cpl. Milo Trubee (Richard Conte), Pvt. Andrew Hetherington (Michael Callan), and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York), back to headquarters.
This film is the story of that journey, and Thorn's exploration of the character of heroes.Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth), an American woman who owns the ranch where the battle was fought, is sent back with them on charge of treason for aiding Villistas against American soldiers, even though she had no choice.Although Hayworth and Cooper both gave impressive performances, Van Heflin was the standout as a brutish sergeant, especially since he was acting against type, having played decent men forced into heroism during his best-known films, Shane (1953) and 3:10 to Yuma (1957)..
Cooper performs his usual good understated acting and notable screen presence, but he has aged considerably and his health is obviously in decline to the point where you don't believe he could either chase Pancho Villa or handle the rigors of this story's long journey.
Never viewed this film until recently and was completely surprised by the role Gary Cooper, (Maj. Thomas Thorn) played as a rather soft spoken Army Awards officer who was in charge of giving out Congressional Medals of Honor to a group of men.
For being in a desert in sunny Mexico, there is a severe lack of dirt, sweat, and flies in this film.The best part of the flick, is where Hayworth's character discusses bravery with Coop: She says something to the effect that "One act of cowardice does not mark a man as a coward forever, and one act of bravery does not make a person a permanent hero." Rossen, with the talent in this film, could have made that statement in a much more interesting way, but instead he takes two of the greatest actors of all time and gives them shoddy lines and weak characters.Someone stated that Coop was "Too Old" for the part...
Even then I felt there was something odd about an officer accused of cowardice, Major Thomas Thorn played by a very serious Gary Cooper, who becomes the awards officer for the U.S. Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa in Mexico in 1916.
During a battle that is the reverse of the Alamo, Mexicans inside, Americans outside, Thorn observes acts of bravery (through binoculars from a distance) and recommends five men for the Medal of Honor.
Other IMDb reviewers have pointed out historical inaccuracies including the fact that no Medal of Honor was awarded during the campaign.The last two thirds of the movie sees the group wandering in the wilderness with Thorn the most determined and heroic of the men.There were a lot of issues going on around this movie, which may have distracted director Robert Rossen from delivering a more appealing film.
The film is about an unusual topic: the early twentieth century, in the times of Pancho Villa, U.S. military assigned to receive high honor Army, for bravery, form a squad under the command of Major Thorn (Gary Cooper) and will at desert, towards the base of Cordura.
Along the way discovers the fragility of Thorn, by knowing that he would have cowered in battle, causing mistrust of the group at his command, at the same time if the group shows, mostly, without character and capable of low and despicable acts.
Here, then, it creates an interesting situation: the heroes reveal themselves men of bad character, unworthy, especially receiving a medal for bravery, while the coward becomes a hero, dignified, empathetic, courageous, generous.
It's not a 'deep' movie but it is very well-crafted and Rossen certainly has a handle on the material.The central premise, (six men, five of whom are to receive the Congressional Medal of Honour for bravery, and one woman, their prisoner, journey across some particularly wild terrain together), is the stuff of cliché but Rossen keeps us interested in their plight and the cast are top-notch.
Gary Cooper's character Major Thorn enters the scene and we are given a hint of the scorn held for him due to his behavior during Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico.
Finally the aviator might be an anachronism, because the expedition had run out of flyable airplanes by April 20, but I guess that at least was plausible.Long story short, Swarthout and Rossen could have set this in World War I to make their point (well, maybe not with Rita Hayworth), but then nobody could make all those snide little innuendos about macho heroes and elderly superannuated colonels, could they?
Cooper, who was ailing at the time and would make only two more films, is solid as a cowardly officer tasked with finding candidates for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Entrance into WWI is imminent and Gary Cooper plays a major who escorts five men to the the New Mexican base town of Cordura (which means "courage").
The five men are candidates for the Medal of Honor; they've proved themselves courageous in battle and the government wants heroes to promote military recruitment.
Along for the ride is Rita Hayworth, an alcoholic American expatriate charged with aiding the Mexicans.Cooper's character is in incredible agony throughout the picture.
Four of the men become increasingly hostile toward the major, propelled by the authority-hating, rivalrous sergeant (Van Heflin).The film will appeal to anyone who, like me, is into lost-in-the-wilderness type stories.
Cooper plays a Cavalry major in 1916 who is assigned the task of finding five noteworthy men to receive Congressional Medals of Honor in a bid to increase the country's morale before inevitably entering into WWI.
On March 9, 1916, the Mexican revolutionary leader Pancho Villa, angry at American support for his rival, President Venustiano Carranza, ordered more than five hundred of his men to attack the border village of Columbus, New Mexico which was garrisoned by a detachment of the U.S. 13th Cavalry Regiment.
The central character is an American officer, Major Tom Thorn, who takes part in an attack on a hacienda defended by Villa's men.
There is therefore relatively little for Hayworth to do, although the presence of such a glamorous major star must have helped the film at the box office.Gary Cooper, as Thorn, plays his part reasonably well, although I would agree with those who would have preferred a younger man in the role.
The wandering in the desert to find the way to Cordura is mind numbingly boring interspersed as it is with set pieces of every man in the group turning against the Major for one reason or another.And the ending is absolutely ridiculous -- one of the worst, least plausible means to The End that has ever been "submitted for your approval" as the characters who so despised the Major enter some sort of Twilight Zone where the men they have been for 2 hours of the movie are completely transformed (by the scribblings in the Major's notebook!) so that they can drag the Major across the finish line that is Cordura.Don't let the fine cast lure you in lest you lose two hours of your life and a lot of your respect for Coop and Ms. Hayworth..
In 1916, Major Gary Cooper is the awards officer during the pursuit of Pancho Villa into Mexico.
After witnessing two battles he recommends five men for the Congressional Medal of Honor -- enlisted men Michael Callan, Richard Conte, Van Heflin, and Dick York; and a lieutenant, Tab Hunter.
The angry Keith orders Cooper to take his five heroes to the distant base at Cordura, and while he's at it he can take Rita Hayworth too.
Further, a performer who had played iconic American heros does not seem right in the character of a bewildered "coward" Since Cooper is the character the audience is to identify with, and since all of the other male characters have serious personality deficits and Rita Hayworth is a cipher for most of the film, there is no one the audience can identify with.
This polarized aspect to all the men (including Cooper and prisoner Rita Hayworth) just seemed like one huge cliché and as a result, none of the characters seemed real or engaging!
One of the more interesting Westerns of the 1950s, Robert Rossen's "They Came to Cordura" stars Gary Cooper as a US Army officer tasked with leading a small group of men to the frontier town of Cordura.
I probably liked this film more than most, but I thought it had a great cast and a good story.
Major Thomas Thorpe (Gary Cooper) is assigned the task of identifying American heroes to be recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I didn't get the sense that he was cowardly in any way and it required the story to play out in order to show his true colors.Interesting casting for this picture with the likes of Richard Conte, Dick York, Tab Hunter, and Van Heflin who looked like he packed on a few pounds since "Shane". |
tt0062384 | Torture Garden | Five people visit a fairground sideshow run by showman Dr. Diabolo (Burgess Meredith). Having shown them a handful of haunted house-style attractions, he promises them a genuinely scary experience if they will pay extra. Their curiosity gets the better of them, and the small crowd follows him behind a curtain, where they each view their fate through the shears of an effigy of the female deity Atropos (Clytie Jessop).
In Enoch, a greedy playboy (Michael Bryant) takes advantage of his dying uncle (Maurice Denham), and falls under the spell of a man-eating cat.
In Terror Over Hollywood, a Hollywood starlet (Beverly Adams) discovers her co-stars are androids.
In Mr. Steinway, a possessed grand piano by the name of Euterpe becomes jealous of its owner (John Standing)'s new lover (Barbara Ewing) and takes revenge.
In The Man Who Collected Poe, a Poe collector (Jack Palance) murders another collector (Peter Cushing) over a collectable he refuses to show him, only to find it is Edgar Allan Poe himself (Hedger Wallace).
In an epilogue, the fifth patron (Michael Ripper) goes berserk and uses the shears of Atropos to "kill" Dr. Diabolo in front of the others, causing them to panic and flee. It is then shown that he is working for Diabolo, and the whole thing was faked. As they congratulate each other for their acting, Palance's character also commends their performance, revealing he had not run off like the others. He shares a brief exchange with Diabolo and lights a cigarette for him, then leaves. Diabolo puts the shears back into the hand of Atropos, and breaks the fourth wall by addressing the audience, revealing himself to actually be the Devil as the movie ends. | cruelty, murder, haunting | train | wikipedia | Amicus always managed to get great casts for their anthological films especially, and the fact that one or two decent American actors/actresses are present here merely, emphasises the point.Burgess Meredith plays Dr. Diablo with marvellous relish in the linking story about a fairground charlatan who presides over "the sheers of fate" (held by an actress who can't keep still!).Predictably, the stories are of variable quality and, like Dr. Terror's House of Horrors, some of the execution is stagey, mainly because the sets are so cheap-looking.Story 1 about a dead witch who possesses a cat and causes a inheritor to rue his greediness is satisfactorily macabre and entertaining; Story 2 is more mysterious than horrific but the story about androids is, at least, relatively original; Story 3 is a distinctly silly episode about a piano "with a mind of it's own", who kills it's player's lover; Story 4, however, is the "piece de resistance" about the resurrection of Edgar Allan Poe (wonderful idea by Robert Bloch!).
The performances in this story are also worthy of mention - Jack Palance almost puts Peter Cushing in the shade with his eccentric hamminess as a Poe fanatic, but both of them really do bring the best out of the script.Overall, this compendium has it's faults but some of it's excellent acting and inventive script-writing push it to my second favourite Amicus film (behind The House That Dripped Blood)..
A very good anthology of tales, written by Robert Bloch and directed by Freddie FRancis, for Amicus, an icon of this kind of movie.
The tales are uneven, sure, but they are all at least good, till the perfect final one, the Man who collected Poe, with Jack Palance and Peter Cushing, a great idea, and a marvelous tale to watch.
And while the acting in Torture Garden is very varied, Palance, Cushing and Meredith are incredibly strong and are more than enough to make one stick with the film.Overall, entertaining and above-decent but uneven, with one outstanding segment, one great segment and two misfires, along with a compelling story linking them together.
The cat story was a bit weak, whereas the Hollywood tale was pretty good and "Man Who Collected Poe" was probably the best, if for no other reason than it featured a Poe-themed house.Interestingly, we have a being named "malfeasor" (literally "wrongdoer"), which seems to clearly be the inspiration behind the villain in "Witchboard"..
The third story, seen through the eyes of Dorothy (Barbara Ewing), tells of her doomed romance with concert pianist Leo (John Standing), and how their relationship comes under threat when Leo's piano becomes jealous with murderous rage.Torture Garden saves the best story for last, and features two screen heavyweights in Jack Palance and Peter Cushing.
It's worth seeing for Palance and Cushing trying to out-ham each other in what is the only truly engrossing story of the bunch, and Burgess Meredith has fun in what is essentially a re-hash of his Penguin character from the Adam West Batman television series.
It's divided into four segments, and segments two and three aren't quite as punchy, and more amusing than anything; segment one, which is rather leisurely paced, would have been better off as the third in the movie.The ever wonderful Burgess Meredith is a sort of host for the proceedings, playing a sideshow personality named Dr. Diabolo, who takes various customers into his "torture garden" and places them in front of an exhibit that can foretell their futures, and see the darkness buried within each of them."Enoch" stars Michael Bryant as Colin, a man in need of money who thinks he'll get it from his dying uncle (Maurice Denham).
This leads to a real hoot of a revelation, which gives this episode its element of "horror"."Mr. Steinway" is definitely something different: the only story this viewer has seen that can claim to be a love triangle between a journalist, Dorothy (Barbara Ewing), a star pianist, Leo (John Standing), and Leo's piano.
Amicus studios are well known for producing a lot of the very best horror anthologies throughout the sixties and seventies; films like Vault of Horror, The House that Dripped Blood and Asylum are often well revered among horror fans, and rightly so; but this earlier effort doesn't live up to the studio's good name.
More pleasing elements include the fact that the cast features names such as Jack Palance, Michael Ripper and, of course Peter Cushing made the film seem like more of a possible overlooked classic, and I was finally sold on the fact that it was directed by the experienced Freddie Francis, who directed a number of the best films that Hammer had to offer in the sixties.
Omnibus films often don't start with the best tale, and so I was unfazed when the first story - which revolves around a man who wants his inheritance from uncle, but actually ends up inheriting his uncle's cat, didn't really deliver the goods.
After "Dr Terror's House of Horrors", "Torture Garden" of 1967 was the second Horror anthology produced by Amicus, but, besides the very lame "Monster Club" (1980) which was barely saved by the great Vincent Price, it is also the least recommendable one.
This is not to say that "Torture Garden" is a bad film though - on the contrary, it is vastly entertaining if one is looking for cheesy spooky fun, it just isn't scary, and I would recommend all the other Amicus anthologies I've seen (except for "Monster Club") over this one."Torture Garden" begins in an amusement park, where Dr. Diablo (Burgess Meredith) performs a macabre show.
It is merely the fourth story, Jack Palance's segment which also stars icon Peter Cushing, which saves the film.The first story takes place in an old mansion, where a man who is keen on his uncle's wealth encounters a sinister cat.
The last and best segment should be interesting to all Horror fans as it is a great little tale about the writings of the almighty Edgar Allen Poe, starring Jack Palance, and the great Peter Cushing, both of whom play fanatic Poe-collectors...The last segment is creepy and great and would easily deserve a rating of 8 out of 10, but, overall, one good segment does not quite make up for three cheesy and amusing, but mediocre ones.
"Torture Garden" is entertaining enough for fans of Horror omnibuses, but I'd recommend most other Amicus anthologies (especially the excellent "House That Dripped Blood") over this one.
And when I was little, I've seen, many times, so much I liked it, another movie made by Freddie Francis, "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors," with the same Peter Cushing in the cast.
Freddie Francis directed this four-part horror anthology told by carnival sideshow barker Dr. Diablo(played by Burgess Meredith) to his eager patrons wanting to know about their futures.
Cushing is also good in this story, but he's playing straight man to Palance so he doesn't have a whole lot to do other than be foreboding and "Cushingly." The Poe segment was really on the level of the AIP Poe anthologies, and would have fit right in.Mention should also be made of Burgess Meredith as "Dr. Diablo," who gleefully exudes evil and chews the scenery while wearing a top-hat and smoking from a long cigarette-holder (not unlike the Penguin character he was playing at the same time on the Batman TV series).
Niall MacGinnis also puts in an appearance here as Denham's doctor; ambitious Hollywood starlet Adams maliciously takes the place of a friend at an important date that brings her in contact with ageless star Robert Hutton and, being inquisitive of how he has managed to remain at the top for so long, she not only comes to know his diabolical secret but pays for her inquisitiveness with a similarly 'immortal' fate; the third (and weakest) segment involves Barbara Ewing as a journalist who, falling in love with her subject (renowned pianist John Standing) completely distracts him from his musical duties – thus incurring the wrath of his all-too-animated piano that goes by the name of Euterpe!; the final story brings obsessive Edgar Allan Poe enthusiast Jack Palance face to face with the world's No. 1 collector (Cushing) of memorabilia pertaining to the tortured American author and, landing unannounced at the latter's doorstep, gets him drunk intending to go down into the cellar and pillage its precious content.
With its great cast (which includes Jack Palance, Burgess Meredith and Peter Cushing), a script by Robert 'Psycho' Bloch, and direction from Freddie Francis, one would expect this horror anthology from Amicus to be something really special.
Unfortunately, the film completely fails to capitalise on the talent involved, and ends up as one of the company's lesser efforts.Meredith plays the owner of a carnival sideshow, who promises to reveal to a handful of customers brief glimpses of their future, warning, however, that what they discover may not be to their liking.Customer number one is the sponging work-shy nephew of a rich old man who discovers the terrible secret behind his uncle's wealth.
The final tale has Palance as a fanatical admirer of Edgar Allen Poe who turns to murder when he is introduced to a kindred spirit, Lancelot Canning (Peter Cushing), who owns the ultimate Poe collection.A silly finalé wraps up proceedings by revealing that Meredith's character is none other than the devil himself (which really comes as no surprise, given that his stage name is Dr. Diablo!).Torture Garden is a rather unimpressive collection of macabre tales that, at best, will just about hold the attention of fans of the genre, but is most likely to illicit laughter (the jealous killer piano certainly had me giggling) or just bore.Amicus would attempt the horror anthology format several times later during their existence with varying degrees of success, the best of the bunch being 1972's Tales from the Crypt which saw Cushing as a vengeful zombie and Joan Collins being attacked by an escaped lunatic dressed as Santa Claus..
And that's rather unfortunate since this one boasts portmanteau specialist Freddie Francis at the helm, Robert (PSYCHO) Bloch in charge of adapting his own short stories and such big names as Burgess Meredith, Jack Palance and Peter Cushing rounding out the cast.
At a carnival, feisty Dr. Diablo (Meredith) shows off his "Torture Garden" horror exhibit to paying customers and as a special treat allows five patrons to come into a back room to have their futures predicted by a statue of the goddess Atropos (Clytie Jessup - seemingly having a difficult time staying still!), who holds "the shears of fate." We then get four terror tales, two that are decent (though really nothing spectacular) and two that are rather weak.In "Enoch," greedy Colin Williams (Michael Bryant) discovers he's the sole heir of his terminally ill Uncle Roger's (Maurice Denham) estate.
Tale #3 (the silliest of the bunch) is called "Mr. Steinway" and finds Dorothy Endicott (Barbara Ewing) falling in love with pianist Leo (John Standing), only to discover his prized piano is haunted by the spirit of his domineering late mother.The final segment - "The Man Who Collected Poe" - will probably provide the most interest to horror fans.
But soon he takes off some of the excessive clothing to reveal a more sinister looking Dr. Diabolo.It's pretty good horror anthology.Segment 1 "Enoch" A greedy man that is taking advantage of his uncle is faced with a man-eating cat.Segment 2 "Terror Over Hollywood" A woman finds her co-workers are androids.Segment 3 "Mr. Steinway" A possessed piano named Euterpe is jealous over it's owners new lovers.Segment 4 "The Man Who Collected Poe" A man that collects Poe murders another collector of Poe over an unseen Poe collectible.
So, it's a mixed bag of horror delights.Best of the stories involves JACK PALANCE as a man intently interested in the works of Edgar Allan Poe who is determined to solve the riddle behind PETER CUSHING's Poe possessions.
This tale is masterfully performed and is clearly the most interesting section of the movie, providing a suitable climax for the anthology hosted by BURGESS MEREDITH as Dr. Diabolo.It has a "Tales from the Crypt" kind of feeling with two of the stories bordering on the absurd (the jealous piano, the super ambitious diva), but is book-ended by two of the strongest pieces which make the whole thing worth watching.Nice seeing ex-Warner Bros.
Nevertheless, it's a hugely enjoyable horror film with Burgess Meredith, Peter Cushing and especially Jack Palance giving excellent performances..
TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS (1965), THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1970), ASYLUM (1972), TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972, which is my all-time favorite anthology), THE VAULT OF HORROR (1973, second best of the bunch), FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE (1973), and TORTURE GARDEN (1967).TORTURE GARDEN features Burgess Meredith, Jack Palance, and Peter Cushing.The film begins at a carnival side-show, which is Dr. Diabolo's Torture Garden.
I love anthologies; both for the hits and the misses
my general feeling is that about half of the stories work; and, the others not so well.The first story features a man very much in debt; but, a fair bit of luck comes his way after his uncle dies, with a little help, nonetheless.
Most are British, including the ubiquitous Peter Cushing, but Burgess Meredith stars as Diablo (it's actually the best horror I've seen in him) and one of the patrons is played by Jack Palance (not someone you'd readily associate with horror films).Secondly, only the final story and the linking story (thanks to Meredith's camp performance) really succeed.
However when she tries to separate him form his Grand Piano named Utopie the 'Goddess of music' it becomes jealous of Dorothy...Finally it's Ronald Wyatt (Jack Palance) in The Man Who Collected Poe...Ronald Wyatt visits fanatical Edgar Allan Poe collector Lancelot Canning (Peter Cushing) who when drunk shows Wyatt his collection of unpublished Poe. But the date 1966 on the paper makes Wyatt suspicious who ends up making a shocking discovery...Then we're back to the funfair as the fifth person Gordon Roberts (Micheal Ripper) provides one last twist of his own, or does he...?Directed by Freddie Francis I thought Torture Garden is easily the weakest of the Amicus horror anthologies out of Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1964), The House that Dripped Blood (1970), Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), From Beyond the Grave (1973) & The Vault of Horror (1973) all of which are far superior to Torture Garden.
Fourth and best story, "The Man Who Collected Poe" - Jack Palance simply shines as die-hard Edgar Allen Poe fan Ronald Wyatt, who discovers after killing haughty rival Poe aficionado Lancelot Canning (an outstanding portrayal by the always impeccable Peter Cushing) that Poe's resurrected spirit resides in the basement of Canning's house.
All they have to do is stand before a waxwork of Atropos - The Goddess Of Destiny ( Clytie Jessop ) - and all will be revealed.Colin Williams ( the excellent Michael Bryant ) murders his rich uncle Roger ( Maurice Denham ) and is then plagued by a strange cat called Balthazar which keeps ordering him to kill.Sexy aspiring starlet Carla Hayes ( Beverly Adams ) uncovers the existence of a secret Hollywood elite - movie stars who have preserved their good looks by being turned into robots by Dr.Heim ( Bernard Kay ).
Rather than kill her to keep her quiet, Heim gives her the same treatment.Dorothy Endicott ( Barbara Ewing ) becomes secretary to a world-famous pianist ( John Standing ), only to fall in love with him, incurring the wrath of his deceased mother who has been reincarnated - if you can believe this - as a piano.Ronald Wyatt ( Jack Palance ) is an avid book collector, in particular the works of Edgar Allan Poe. He visits fellow collector - Launcelot Canning ( Peter Cushing ) at his Maryland home, and finds a veritable shrine to the late author ( I bet Canning has copies of the Roger Corman/Vincent Price A.I.P. movies stashed away somewhere ).
And good old Penguin himself ( Burgess Meredith ) is always watchable.'Atropos' appears in all four stories - keep an eye out for her.Bloch wrote two more movies in similar vein for Amicus - 'The House That Dripped Blood' ( 1970 ) and 'Asylum' ( 1971 )..
It had been preceded by "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors" and would soon be followed by "The House That Dripped Blood," "Asylum," "Tales From the Crypt," "Vault of Horror" and "From Beyond the Grave." Here, a carnival attraction, the eponymous Torture Garden, is run by the leering, taunting Dr. Diabolo, played with Penguin-like juiciness by Burgess Meredith.
The best elements of the film are Burgess Meredith's musings on the nature of time and the final segment with Palance and Cushing as obsessive Poe collectors.
And just who is the sinister Dr Diablo?The second Amicus portmanteau horror film and it is easily one of the best featuring a very good Robert Bloch script (the author of Psycho) who skilfully adapted four of his own short stories for the screen.
Not quite as successful as "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors", Amicus's previous anthological outing, "Torture Garden" nonetheless boasts its share of chills in four stories penned by Robert Bloch and enacted by a first-rate cast.
(The twist here is that they're all rather nasty people to begin with, and what Meredith shows them are the consequences of the bad decisions they will soon be making.) The big finish, 'The Man Who Collected Poe', is assigned to Jack Palance and Peter Cushing, but the best tale is the least traditional of the four: 'Terror Over Hollywood' remains startlingly relevant today, examining as it does the ugly soullessness of celebrity.
Torture Garden is a four piece anthology film based off Robert Bloch stories.
It's pretty goofy and much weaker than the previous wonderful vignettes.The next story features two big-name actors--Jack Palance and Peter Cushing (famous for his many horror film appearances). |
tt2585548 | Babysitter Massacre | On Halloween, a babysitter is sent several threatening text messages, the last of which reads, "I'm not in the house... yet". Moments later, the sitter is grabbed by a man in a white mask, who duct tapes her to a chair, rips three of her fingernails out, and slits her throat. Elsewhere, Angela chats with her neighbor, Mr. Walker, whose daughter, April, was abducted seven years ago, and has recently been deemed deceased in absentia. Angela was a member of the same babysitters club as April, and when she was taken, every member of the club besides Angela blamed Bianca, who was with April when she disappeared. To try and cheer up the dour Bianca, Angela invites her to a party she is throwing, while out in the woods another girl is slain by the masked man. The killer then breaks into a house, where he murders a couple, mutilating the girl with a straight razor before slashing her throat.
Angela and her friend Lucky prepare for the party, as the killer butchers another girl and her co-worker in an office. Bianca, who had just argued with the victim, spots the murderer (whose disguise is similar to the one worn by the person she saw take April) leaving the building and tries to follow him, but he eludes her. The maniac continues his rampage as Angela and Lucky welcome their first guest, Arlene, and Bianca angrily blows off her ex-boyfriend, Tyler. Bianca visits Angela, but storms off when Arlene taunts her with a Ouija board, afterward deciding to check on the other babysitter club members with Tyler, due to her suspicion that the masked man could be the same one who kidnapped April.
After massacring a gathering of six people, the madman breaks into Angela's house, and chloroforms her, Lucky, and Arlene. Angela and Arlene awaken in the basement, where Lucky, who has been beaten and tied to a chair, informs them that their captor told her that he will free Angela and Arlene if they kill her with a hammer. As it is their only option, Lucky tells Arlene to sacrifice her, which the sobbing Arlene reluctantly does. Bianca has Tyler drop her off at Angela's house, where she is approached by Mr. Walker, who hints that he was the one who murdered April before he knocks Bianca unconscious with a head butt.
Mr. Walker proceeds to enter the basement, strangle Arlene, and unmask himself for Angela. Mr. Walker takes Angela upstairs, incapacitates her by cutting her ankles, and rants about how much he loves her; he murdered all of the others in order to free her from her old life, so that she could start a new one with him, asserting, "You will come to love me, in time". While Mr. Walker pours gasoline throughout the kitchen, Angela stabs him in the stomach, with Mr. Walker doing the same to her. Angela begins crawling away while Mr. Walker takes out a lighter, proclaiming, "The only thing more romantic than running away together, is dying together. Love is a bitch!" The disoriented Bianca enters, but is told to run by Angela, who reassures her by saying, "It's not your fault". The house erupts up in flames, and Bianca goes into hysterics as Tyler tries to console her, and emergency services approach. | violence | train | wikipedia | It is exactly what you think it is!.
You already know if you will like it or not based off the title and trailer.
No smoke and mirror show here, this is a straight up slasher movie.
In this day and age where anyone with a camera phone can make a movie it is hard to create something on a budget that can truly affect the viewer.
Watching this flick, I had the same feeling I had as a kid when renting a big box VHS purely off the title and cover alone.
They were always a gamble and usually always a disappointment.
Babysitter Massacre is everything I love about slashers...furthermore it is the best slasher movie since the Orphan Killer.
Will be watching the director and his works from here on to see what kind of treat he delivers next..
Strong 80s inspired horror movie.
It's Halloween and some guy is kidnapping babysitters, torturing them, and killing them.
He sends pictures of the dead to Erin who thinks they're pictures of Halloween costumes.
Years ago Erin and these girls formed a babysitters club.
One Halloween night two of them went home and one of them never came back.
The surviving girl is traumatized and thinks she sees the killer everywhere, she's now some tough punk chick.
Erin is friends with a kind old guy neighbor who's retired and a widower.This Halloween, Erin's mom leaves for a party and Erin invites three friends for a slumber party.
They play the Ouija board to see if they can communicate with the dead girl and find out who her killer is.
Punk chick leaves in disgust.
It's not long before the killer makes it into Erin's house and takes the three remaining girls.
But this time he has a sick proposition for the three.
One of them is bound to a chair and if the other two don't kill her he will kill them all.
At this point, punk chick returns because she's worried.
The identity of the killer is revealed and the reasons for the killings as well.Babysitter Massacre is a surprisingly strong movie.
If you've watched Alternative Cinema's other offerings you know to expect a low budget movie, uneven acting, troublesome sound and poor cinematography.
As I was watching the previews I worried as some of them look just like the movies by AC from 10 years ago.
But this one is good.
Writer/director Cuoto always had potential.
His previous work always was a step beyond others of its kind.
And I'm glad as years have gone byy the quality of his work has steadily progressed.
Babysitter Massacres looks good, has good audio, and good acting for the most part.
Not only that but it has a good story and some developed characters.
Many filmmakers claim to be horror fans but they give us nothing but sanitized formulaic horror movies.
Babysitter Massacre is done in the spirit of the 80s/90s "The ______ Massacre" movies.
It has gore, violence, nudity, characters to root for, a striking death scene.Of course this movie as C horror movie has weaknesses too.
Some are expected for the budget and filming conditions.
You can always ask for better image/lighting/audio, acting, sets, effects, and so on with these movies.
Perhaps more surprising is how short this movie is.
Too short.
It would have helped to tell us more about the early victims.
We only learn about the first one and a bit about another one as well.
But the other scenes are just some random girl that's grabbed and put on the victim's chair.
The punk chick is a bit to mean and tough, they could have defined her role as the heroine a bit more.
Overall a success of a movie and I hope there will be sequels..
Tales from Amazon Prime #2 (babysitter massacre).
This movie is exactly what it says on the tin, so to speak.
Babysitters do indeed get massacred in this welcome throwback to the glory (gory) days of the slasher films of the '80s to early nineties.
Angela (Erin Ryan) plans a Halloween party hoping to bring her friends closer together, who drifted apart after a childhood trauma.
Unbeknownst to her, there's a masked killer running around murdering....
Babysitters.
Who will survive?
Who is this masked maniac?
Far be it from me to spoil the fun.
Just watch it if you love the horror of the 1980s.Eye Candy: Pretty much all the main actresses show skin and then some.
Everything you could ask from a horror film and then some!.
Babysitter Massacre delivers 100% on what it promises!
This movie has everything you could want from a horror film!
The blood flowing?
Creative kills?
Lots of nudity?
Check.
Check.
Check.
You also some fantastic acting from the cast and you can feel the touch of someone who really understands what horror lovers want (probably because he is one himself!)!
Erin Ryan and Marylee Osborne show that you can have a horror movie that doesn't take itself too seriously without sacrificing the acting.
Their performances really make you care what happens as the story moves along.
If you want a list of others who give great performances, just go down the cast list!
Aside from a few minor parts that were a little overplayed, the acting was solid.
Henrique Coutro pays homage to some great 80's slashers while making something of his own.
Overall, this movie was well worth the watch and the re-watch!.
Watchable low-budget slasher with plenty of nudity..
Years after a young babysitter was murdered in a small suburban town in Ohio the former members of a so-called Babysitter Club are stalked and viciously murdered by white pantyhose-masked killer.An outcast from the group is blamed for being murderer,but the identity of the killer is easy to guess.There is plenty of voyeuristic nudity in Henrique Couto's "Babysitter Massacre".Still the acting is weak and the plot is fairly routine.It's obvious that "Babysitter Massacre" pays homage to early 80's slasher flicks like "Slumber Party Massacre" or "Sorority House Massacre".If you like slasher sub-genre you may give this one a look.6 babysitters out of 10..
The title doesn't lie, but it should have in subtitles (NOT AN ORIGINAL IDEA HERE).
When I see a title like BABYSITTER MASSACRE, I'm expecting a few things.
One is nudity, because if one is going to rip off every 80's slasher film ever, the audience expects it.
I also don't expect great acting (again, not disappointed), finally I want gore.
I want to see organs coming out and decapitations and such.
This movie utterly fails at that.
Fifth graders could have done better SFX.
The killer was slightly unexpected, but by the time the movie ended, I'd long stopped giving a damn..
Cool slasher outing.
A group of young women get back together for a reunion of their babysitters club on Halloween.
However, a vicious mysterious killer starts picking off the gals left and right.
Writer/director Henrique Cuoto relates the familiar, but still fun and effective premise at a brisk pace, draws the personable main characters with surprising and refreshing depth, builds a good deal of tension in the nerve-wracking last third, and delivers oodles of tasty gratuitous female nudity.
The brutal murder set pieces pack quite a savage punch while the downbeat ending manages to be both startling and devastating.
Moreover, it's capably acted by a sturdy cast: The adorable Erin R.
Ryan radiates tremendous sweet charm as the perky Angela, Marylee Osborne excels as scrappy guilt-ridden punk rebel outcast Bianca, and Geoff Burkman registers nicely as the regretful Mr. Walker, plus there are sound contributions from Joni Durian as the meek Lucky, Tara Clark as the brash and aggressive Arlene, and Haley Madison as the bitter Cassandra.
The tight 78 minute running time ensures that this picture never gets tedious or overstays its welcome.
Cuoto's vibrant cinematography provides a pleasing polished look.
The shivery score by Buzz Amato and Rick Hinkle hits the shuddery spot.
Recommended viewing for slice'n'dice fans..
TIS THE SEASON.
Seven years ago April was killed on Halloween by an unknown assailant.
She was part of the babysitters club.
Now they are being killed off with only one suspect.The film lacked the dialog to be a classic, yet at the same time had some weird scenes like the candy scene with Stephanie Michael.
The slasher aspect was mediocre.
What the film had going for it was an abundance of nudity of healthy girls.Parental Guide: F-bomb, No sex.
Full frontal nudity (Erin R.
Ryan, Tara Clark, Odette Despairr, Stephanie Michael, Joni Durian)7 stars for the nudity..
Poor Man's Halloween.
It starts off pretty decently, a twenty-something-year-old babysitter, as the title leads us to believe, strips to take a bath (and might I just say that she has quite a body), right up until she is held captive, tortured, and then murdered in a not to gruesome fashion, by an unknown figure.We then cut to sometime later during Halloween, as we are introduced to our supposed main heroine, Angela, whom I guess had been friends with the girl in the opening (though, through tedious exposition, we are told that it might have actually been someone else), and just so happens to be close to the supposed father of said person.
Yeah, she really isn't that interesting, at least not as much her lesbian-like punk friend, Bianca, and I don't mean that in a positive manner.
Every word that came out of this chicks mouth made it sound like she was a transgender of some sort.
While I'll admit that the main girl's friends were nice to look at (more so than her), I won't be ignoring the fact that both said 'characters' are virtually useless.What irritated me the most was the kills; not the kills themselves, but the specific victims of them.
Not only were the kills sappy at best, most of them had no real purpose.
Whether we know who the person is or not, she (or he) gets axed off within less than a minute: mostly it's the ones played by actresses far more attractive than the 'supposed main heroine'; hell, there is even a nerdy (yet extremely horny) chick who is ten times hotter than said heroine, but I digress.THIS was nothing but a FETISH film.
If T&A are the ONLY good things your movie has to offer, I really can't help but feel sorry for you. |
tt0105622 | Topâzu | A timid Japanese college student, Ai (愛, lit. "love"), works as a specialty prostitute for an exclusive escort agency that caters to wealthy, mostly perverted, Japanese men in Tokyo. To please her clients, she has to play out elaborate fantasy scenarios involving sexual humiliation and light SM/bondage.
The first two-thirds of the film consists in large part of four sex sequences. Two involve dildos and mirrors—one with the man dominant, one with the female dominant. The other two involve erotic asphyxiation with, again, one episode in which the man wants to partially asphyxiate a female and the other in which a man is the recipient. Other sexual acts and interests are involved in some of the scenarios.
However, the actual story revolves around Ai's unrequited love for a married gallery artist who has ended his relationship with her. At the beginning of the movie Ai visits a fortune-teller, played by artist Yayoi Kusama, who advises her to find a "pink stone" then fashion it into a ring. The fortune teller also advises Ai to put a telephone directory under her television and to avoid a gallery in the east. Ai later loses the ring and risks her life to recover it.
The last third of the story is about Ai's problematic attempt to go to the artist's home while she is under the influence of an unidentified drug. Ai has the police called on her but is rescued by one of the artist's neighbors who knows who she is; the other woman's affair with the artist has apparently ended and she tells Ai that she considers her to be her "best friend."
There are at least two versions of Tokyo Decadence, with the shorter one edited more for pacing than for censorship. | insanity, psychedelic, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0047422 | River of No Return | Set in the Northwestern United States in 1875, the film focuses on taciturn widower Matt Calder (Robert Mitchum), who has recently been released from prison after serving time for killing one man while defending another. He arrives in a boomtown tent city in search of his ten-year-old son Mark (Tommy Rettig), who was left in the care of dance hall singer Kay (Marilyn Monroe) after the man who brought him there as Matt had arranged took off for the hills. Matt promises Mark, a virtual stranger to him, the two will enjoy a life of hunting, fishing and farming on their homestead.
Kay's fiance, gambler Harry Weston (Rory Calhoun), tells her they must go to Council City to file the deed on a gold mine he won in a poker game. They head downriver on a homemade log raft, and when they encounter trouble in the rapids near the Calder farm, Matt and Mark rescue them. Harry offers to buy Matt's rifle and horse so as to reach Council City by land, and when Matt refuses, Harry knocks Matt unconscious and steals both. Kay chooses to stay behind to take care of Matt and Mark, and the three are stranded in the wilderness.
When hostile Indians threaten the farm, the three are forced to escape down the river on Harry's raft. That night they set up camp by the river, and Matt and Kay argue about the wisdom of pursuing Harry. Matt questions why she would choose to marry a man who had endangered a child, and she reminds him Harry never killed a man like he did. Mark overhears their discussion, and Matt is forced to reveal the truth about his past to his son, who is unable to comprehend why his father acted as he did.
As the three continue their journey, Kay comes to appreciate Matt's bravery and the tender way he cares for both her and Mark. Along the way, they are forced to deal with a series of trials and tribulations, including a mountain lion attack; gold prospectors Sam Benson and Dave Colby, who are after Harry for stealing their claim; and fighting off a second Indian war party.
After a difficult ride through the worst of the rapids, the three arrive in Council City and confront Harry. Harry shoots at Matt, forcing Mark to kill Harry with a rifle he is inspecting in the general store, and the boy finally understands why his father had to shoot a man so many years before. Kay finds a job at the local saloon. While she is singing there, Matt arrives to take her back to his farm along with Mark, and she happily leaves with him. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097889 | Miracle Mile | The film takes place in a single day and night. The film opens with the two main characters, Harry (Anthony Edwards) and Julie (Mare Winningham), meeting at the La Brea Tar Pits and immediately falling in love. After spending the afternoon together, they make a date to meet after her shift ends at midnight at a local coffee shop, but a power failure means Harry's alarm fails to wake him and Julie leaves for home.
When Harry awakes that night he realizes what's happened and rushes to the shop, arriving at 4 AM. Harry tries to call Julie on a pay phone, but only reaches her answering machine, where he leaves an apology. When the phone rings moments later he picks it up, hearing a frantic man (presumed to be in a missile silo) telling his dad that nuclear war is about to break out in less than seventy minutes. When Harry finally gets a chance to talk and asks who's calling, the caller realizes he has dialed the wrong area code. Harry then hears him plead with Harry to call his father and apologize for some past wrong before he is being confronted and presumably shot. An unfamiliar voice picks up the phone and tells Harry to forget everything he heard "and go back to sleep" before disconnecting.
Harry, confused and not entirely convinced of the reality of the information, wanders back into the diner and tells the other customers what he's heard. As the patrons scoff at his story, one of them, a mysterious businesswoman (Denise Crosby) named Landa, calls a number of politicians in Washington on her wireless phone and finds that they are all visiting South America at the same time. Convinced of the danger, she immediately charters several private jets out of LAX to a compound in a region in Antarctica with no rainfall. Most of the customers and staff leave with her in the owner's delivery van. When the owner refuses to make any stops, Harry, unwilling to leave without Julie, arranges to meet the group at the airport and jumps from the truck.
Harry is helped and hindered by various strangers, who are initially unaware of the impending apocalypse. In the process he inadvertently causes several deaths and is deeply shaken by that, yet still he goes on. When he finds Julie and later tells her, she notes that there is no confirmation of the attack. Desperate to reach the airport and not having a car, Harry finds a helicopter pilot (Brian Thompson) and tells him to meet them on the roof of the Mutual Benefit Life Building. Julie has also tried to find a pilot on her own, and in the moments it takes to find her, Los Angeles descends into violent chaos. There is still no confirmation any of this is real, and Harry wonders if he has sparked a massive false panic in the example of Chicken Little. However, when he uses a phone booth to contact the father of the man who called him (using the number of the booth and the area code the man was trying to use) he reaches a man who says his son is a soldier. Harry tries to pass on the message he was given, but the man hangs up before Harry finishes.
When they reach the top of the Mutual Benefit building they find the pad empty, and the roof manned only by a yuppie (Kurt Fuller) taking every drug he can find. Any doubts about a false alarm are eliminated when a warhead can be seen streaking across the sky. As they fear the end, the helicopter suddenly returns with the pilot badly wounded but fulfilling his promise to come back for them. After they lift off from the roof, several warheads hit and the EMP from the detonations causes the helicopter to crash into the La Brea Tar Pits.
As the helicopter sinks and the cabin fills with natural asphalt tar, Harry tries to comfort a hysterical Julie by saying someday they will be found and they will probably be put in a museum, or maybe they will take a direct hit and be turned into diamonds. Julie, accepting her fate, calms down and takes comfort in Harry's words, and the movie fades out as the tar fills the compartment. A final explosion seems to imply a direct hit has taken place. | cult, comedy, violence | train | wikipedia | Miracle Mile is one of my favourite films -I know it has its rough edges but I fell in love the first time I saw it at the University of Portsmouth film society ten years ago.
Usually the device is used in suspense movies, but has become popular recently in art house cinema like Timecode and Russian Ark.The set-up is simple -after a day when he has fallen in love at first sight, Harry Washello randomly answers a ringing phone at a phone booth.
We don't know until an unforgettable moment, when the film becomes a race for survival.There are some great, truly profound images -such as the dying Wilson scrambling up the down escalator with the body of his sister, or Harry and Julie lost in a department store surrounded by ticking clocks.
It has a soul and an individuality all of its own -can you imagine an episode of 24 ever being scored by Tangerine Dream?This is a film about chance -the chance of Harry falling in love that day, the chance of him picking up the phone.
*click*As the phone went dead, my heart almost stopped as I watched Harry's expression.I have known of this obscure thriller for years, and it gets better every time I see it.'Miracle Mile' is an apocalyptic classic.
Now, years later, I've just rewatched it (this time on DVD) and I still think it's a very good -- but not great -- movie.Admittedly, there's some over-the-top 80's haircuts and costumes, stuff that would be seriously 'retro' nowadays.
Directed by Steve De Jarnatt who made the cheesy but fun 'Cherry 2000', and starring two actors (Anthony Edwards and Mare Winningham) that I feel at best indifferent about, it starts off almost like a John Hughes romantic comedy, and your finger might begin to hover off the "off" button.
Edwards is actually very good in the lead role, and the film is full of all kinds of familiar faces and character actors like Mykelti Williamson ('Truth Or Consequences, NM'), Denise Crosby ('Star Trek TNG'), Robert DoQui ('RoboCop'), even b-grade SF legend John Agar ('The Brain From Planet Arous'), and 'Reservoir Dogs' Mr. Blue Edward Bunker!
The ending is devastating, horrifying and heart warming all at the same time.After seeing this movie for the first time I shivered for hours, and couldn't bring myself to watch it again for 12 years!
And in this case, the differences give it an edge that is quite intriguing.The main character (tom cruise's ill-fated co-pilot in top gun) displays such an acute, personal anxiety that really grabbed my attention and really made the movie hit home.While some of the other acting is less than stellar, in a movie like this it does not detract.This movie really did make me think about what I would do in a similar situation.
This is not your typical big budget,special effects loaded action-vehicle about a full-on nuclear strike but a modest little movie about what happens to a small bunch of people that finds out by accident that their country (USA) has launched a nuclear attack against another unspecified country and are getting back what they've started....If you have your heart at the right place,then this movie grabs you by the throat and won't let go...On the other handiIf you ONLY like comedy's and big budget action movies(which I also like very much)then you're probably going to despise this one...Go now and find this little gem of a movie,I know you want to...Cheers,Dirk.
In Los Angeles, when the musician Harry Washello (Anthony Edwards) meets Julie Peters (Mare Winningham) in the museum, he immediately falls in love with her.
Harry accidentally hears a mistaken phone call and a man tells that the United State has just started a nuclear war sending missiles against Soviet Union and in two hours Los Angeles would be hit by the enemy back missiles.
Meanwhile the rumor is spread out and brings chaos to the city.Today I have watched the cult "Miracle Mile" maybe for the sixth time and despite being dated in the present days with the end of the Cold War, it still impresses how a rumor can be so destructive.
To anyone who has not seen this, I would urge you to try & obtain a copy because it is amazing On the face of it, it would appear to be a simple thriller about whether the Anthony Edwards character has listened to a genuine message that a nuclear strike is about to hit Los Angeles, or whether it is a hoax, and the subsequent panic it causes.
In "Miracle Mile," Anthony Edwards and Mare Winningham create a lot of their own obstacles just by making rock-stupid, and highly unrealistic decisions.
Though most importantly the I love the pacing and suspense where things just start out slowly then go really fast to the point you almost can't take the breath, it's sort of the dictum of calm before the storm.The two main characters I really like, I like the fact that this couple they look like people we would pass by on the street this just makes the sympathy and emphasize level elevate because it makes us feel that what is happened to both of them could happen to us.
One favorite cinematography shot and scene that I thought was both shocking and beautiful was Harry getting up on top of some van and he sees widespread panic everywhere from traffic completely jammed, cars speeding and exploding, looting, psychos killing people for no reason, and a lot of other bad things you can think about.
Your love on a first date becomes stronger than any love because you know time is very short and the honeymoon period kicks overwhelmingly.De Jarnett begins this movie beautifully to set us on our way for what's to come.
I don't understand how someone can give it more than 3 stars.The plot is simple: One afternoon a guy next door meets the love of his life, at night he loses a date with her and accidentally he receives a call in a pay phone saying that a nuclear attack is going to happen in about one hour.
For years I've kept this superb film at the top of my recommended viewing list, and nearly everyone who watches it shares the same admiration I have for it.Anthony "ER" Edwards plays a young musician who meets the girl of his dreams (Mare Winningham).
What makes the film work so well is that neither the hero nor the audience knows until the last moment whether or not the threat of nuclear annihilation is real.Many detractors of The Miracle Mile claim that the movie suffers from too many plot contrivances and illogical situations.
This film really struck a chord with me and went on to become one of my all-time favorites (and not just because I live in the Miracle Mile district of Los Angeles where the bulk of the action takes place).
It's a gem.There is an image that I have been holding in my mind since I first saw "Miracle Mile" ten years ago; of the rooftop parties as the end approachs in the last reel of the movie.
A very hard to describe film, mainly because it defies easy categorisation by avoiding the usual plot lines in this type of film.For a lot of the film the audience knows as little as the lead, not sure if the world is really coming to an end or if it's a hoax, or just a misunderstanding.It's the lack of certainty that makes watching such fun, you can't help but follow the story closely 'cos you are worried what might get missed if you don't.The main cast are all solid if some of the bit parts are less than superb, about what you'd expect for the budget they had.After all the tragedy, all the craziness, all the second guessing it's almost a relief to discover that it was all for real.I saw this film once around the time it came out and it's one of a very few I paid to have tracked down during the long period it wasn't available.
A chilling reminder that human beings are both animal and alittle something more (you'll understand once you've seen the film)....all I can say is that by the movie's end, it took me ten full minutes to think about what I just saw and take it all in.
It takes a nuclear war worst-case scenerio that gets progressively worse over the films' short 85 minute running time.
I am a big fan of the horror genre but this is as frightening as anything you will see in any horror film.Basically it's a love story set over a very short period of time but a love story that takes a decidedly different twist amid the increasing panic that follows the discovery of a nuclear attack that may or may not happen.
Some things to look for include Jeanette Goldstein on the roof (Vasquez from 'Aliens') dolled up but still packing a big gun, Lou Hancock (Henrietta, the human form of the witch in the cellar from 'Evil Dead 2') the rats that suddenly appear on a car bonnet after a tree is bumped etc.The film has proved extremely prophetic in passing years and it simply gets better and better each time i view it since i first saw it in '89.
But the first 10 minutes does not set the tone of the film whatsoever.After the poorly scripted romance stuff is out of the way in the first 10 minutes, Anthony Edwards accidentally overhears of a possible nuclear attack.
I see disaster looming from lots of directions...nuclear, bio-weapons, famine, global warming and a new ice age, mutated insects, extraterrestrials, famine, plague and just the complete breakdown of our civilisation because the power goes off for a week or two.So some of my favourite films are: Dr Strangelove, both Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('56 & '78), the old On the Beach and the latest one ('99) all those virus movies Death In Venice, Day of the Locust...
Run do not walk from this terrible disappointing excuse for a movie!If you want to see a real piece of cinema about Nuclear War, then get yourself a copy of one of the following: American movies "The Day after" & "Testament" or the British films "War Game" or "Threads".Miracle Mile has to be the worst Nuclear War Movie to ever be made.Unrealistic, Terrible effects, None existent plotlines, Just terrible......
Miracle Mile stars Anthony Edwards (before ER and after Revenge of the Nerds) as Harry, a young man who meets and falls in love with Julie, Mare Winningham, at the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles (this area of LA is known as the Miracle Mile).
Harry doesn't know what the truth is, but as he tells those around him what may be happening, all hell slowly starts to break loose in the early morning hours along the Miracle Mile.
After years of reading reviews in books and online about how good Miracle Mile was, I finally got the chance to see it tonight on tv.As someone who was seriously moved by other films dealing with impending nuclear doom scenarios such as Testament, The Day After and Threads, I was really looking forward to seeing this.Imagine my disappointment then to sit down and watch a film with a great premise totally ruined by illogical plot development, ludicrous dialogue and characters who I never got to care about.What is it with modern day moviegoers who would accept such laughable execution of an appalling script?
The sequence of a love story intermingled with dramatic end-world situations that unfolded toward the inevitable ending definitely kept me on my seat's edge.The movie still ranks as an all time fav in my mind (I admit, I haven't seen it in a very LONG time).
And this word is ...mess.And it doesn't make any difference whether this film is really more of a comedy or more a drama, because in the end its flaws are so big to overshadow any intended or potential meaning it could have had.Starting off as a romantic comedy, the plot then steers toward a pretty formulaic race against the clock script where the characters (and the actors who portray them) can't seem to remember they're no more in the comedy and they should stop making cheesy jokes and behaving like scatterbrains - to find this realistic and compelling your name has to be Truman and you spent your whole life in a silly TV series.It is interesting to mention how this turn is goofily delivered upon the unsuspecting audience, just to explain how bad the script is.
and obviously he can't tell this stranger from his father) Of course both the character AND the audience keep thinking this is a joke, until the aforementioned soldier is hastily executed live on the phone, which is when I started to think "awww this can't be true" and realized it was going to be worse than the second-rate comedy I had to endure in the first dozen minutes.The whole plot is then propelled forward by such magnificent(ly bad) narrative devices - you would be tempted to think they were spoiling it on purpose, but it wasn't funny, not even by mistake: if this indeed was the aim, the filmmakers should have made it clear with a "DON'T PANIC" caption appearing on screen every five minutes.Miracle Mile is like one of those weird guys that talk strange like they have some great and deep insight, and watching it is like getting to know him better in the hope he will turn out to be a genius, only to find you had just wasted your time listening to the meaningless ramblings of a clueless drunkard..
Since I've seen it on video the first time, I've considered Miracle Mile to be one of the most underrated movies of all time.
A movie that few people know about but is worth a look.UPDATE May, 2009had a chance to re watch this film and the screenplay and story are still terrific, but the director should have been blown up with the missiles.
Like so many movies of the 1980's, this had to overwhelm us with cultural aspects of the decade, things that just make this film look silly and to the eyes of a watcher twenty years later, makes you want to turn away (Mare Winningham's haircut is just brutal!).The story itself is solid an gripping, allowing us to become part of what is going on.
we never find out and is another shortcoming of this film.This would be a great movie to be remade with a much better, and cohesive, story.By the way, no happy ending here..
It is unfair to judge "Miracle Mile" for what it should be without realizing what it is - A low budget movie that takes on the monumental task of telling it's tale about the end of the world - without special effects!!With solid casting, story telling, cinematography and outstanding music - it succeeds brilliantly!
But let me end by WARNING all who have not seen the movie, but have read all the positive comments and are considering buying it: PLEASE, for your own sake, DO NOT buy Miracle Mile!
A shame really because it could have been so much better.The movie starts off with the protagonist (Anthony Edwards) narrating his life story.
From the opening beats of Dr Bio Brain showing us how life began, to the heartstopping and hair-raising phonecall taken by Anthony Edwards Character outside the diner, this movie is sheer class, as well as having saprkling dialogue to boot, especially the final scene between Harry and Julie.This is one Miracle Mile well worth stretching your legs for....you won't regret it, and you certainly won't forget it....
This movie looks a little absurd now, living comfortably in the post-Cold War era, but there was a time not 15 years ago when we all knew that total nuclear anhailation was just 45 hair-trigger minutes away.
A good hearted young man Harry (Anthony Edwards) falls in love with a young woman Julie (Mare Winningham) in one faithful day in Los Angeles.
Starring Anthony Edwards(Goose from Top Gun) and Mare Winningham the entire film takes place in real time in the course of one night.
Starring Anthony Edwards(Goose from Top Gun) and Mare Winningham the entire film takes place in real time in the course of one night.
Starring Anthony Edwards(Goose from Top Gun) and Mare Winningham the entire film takes place in real time in the course of one night.
It starts off like any romantic movie- boy meets girl and promise to meet for date 2 which never happens as suddenly there is a threat of nuclear war and a bomb being dropped.
It starts off like any romantic movie- boy meets girl and promise to meet for date 2 which never happens as suddenly there is a threat of nuclear war and a bomb being dropped.
It starts off like any romantic movie- boy meets girl and promise to meet for date 2 which never happens as suddenly there is a threat of nuclear war and a bomb being dropped.
if i may borrow from alice in wonderland, its the only movie i know of that starts at the beginning, goes to the end, and then stops.although highly unlikely, it's oddly believable, mostly thanks a great performance by anthony edwards.
Miracle Mile is a film I saw on video way back in 1990.
My original interest in this movie was the fact that I'd had the score by Tangerine Dream on cd for about a year before I finally watched the film!
This underrated movie is sort of a combination love story and end-of-the-world thriller.
So sadly, that is NOT saying much, considering the cardboard characters of Armegeddon, Miracle Mile makes most films LOOK GREAT.. |
tt0033616 | Footsteps in the Dark | Francis Warren (Errol Flynn) appears to have a normal life handling investments, but secretly he writes lurid detective novels under the pseudonym F.X. Pettijohn. His other career is unknown to wife Rita (Brenda Marshall) or to anyone but Inspector Mason (Alan Hale), who mocks the books, insisting that true crime is much more difficult to solve. A man named Leopold Fissue (Noel Madison) turns up, wanting Francis to help him turn uncut diamonds into cash. Fissue's body is then found murdered on a yacht. The trail leads Francis to burlesque dancer Blondie White (Lee Patrick), who becomes his prime suspect. But her dentist, Dr. Davis (Ralph Bellamy), gives her a solid alibi. Rita becomes sure that Francis is having an affair. Blondie turns up dead, though, after asking Francis to retrieve a satchel from a locker. Rita thinks Francis must have killed Blondie, while her husband believes just the opposite to be true. The diamonds are in the suitcase. Francis concludes that only one man could be behind all this—Davis, the dentist, who promptly tries to kill Francis before the police can figure things out. | suspenseful, mystery, murder | train | wikipedia | a well crafted mystery and a touch of romance and light comedy thrown in for good measure, a hidden gem.
a hidden gem, shows the wide variety of skills errol flynn possessed but was not given credit for until much later.
errol could really act, he had an excellent comedic touch and really makes this well written mystery a lot of fun.
errol was type cast by the studio as a the prototype "super man" and "action hero", which he did better then anyone.
what the studio prevented was errol doing comedy and other roles which he was marvelous at.
A fun and delightful comedy/ murder mystery.
Errol Flynn is a very underrated actor when it comes to comedy.
In Footsteps in the Dark he's very amusing and witty in his role as a person who lives a double life.
In the day he's a insurance investigator, who goes by the name of Francis Warren and to his lovely wife a man who spends late nights at representative meetings.
But in reality by night he's a crime solver/ murder investigator who what he sees he writes into his novels, and his latest book called by the same name of the film has raised eyebrows all over town and everyone is wondering who is this F.X. Pettijohn.
Errol Flynn is absolutely hilarious in this role and Alan Hale, Brenda Marshall, William Frawley, and Ralph Bellamy do a fine job in backing up Errol.
Others include Francis portrayal as a rich Texan named Tex, who Errol Flynn plays with a hick accent and an amusing cowboy walk, which can't be missed.
There is wrong thing though that i don't like about the film, and that is it's lack of crime solving clues and interrogation of suspects.
Still the film is very delightful to watch and funny and I think it's much more entertaining to watch then other the Errol/ Brenda film they did together the year before this, The Sea Hawk.
Probably because it was quite a departure for Flynn and because it was a rather breezy little comedy.
For what this movie tried to be, it did a good job accomplishing it.Flynn has a double life.
Though a rich and socially adept man much of the time, he hides a darker side to his personality--he writes cheap mystery books that poke fun of the very sort of people that he pals around with at the expensive clubs and dinner parties.
When, quite accidentally, he stumbles on a REAL mystery, he feels compelled to prove that he really has the stuff to solve crimes--and nearly gets himself killed in the process!Overall, the film excels due to an excellent case, a breezy and likable script and it's "fun factor"--you just can't help but enjoy the film..
Footsteps in the Dark is the title of a mystery novel that investment banker Errol Flynn wrote under a pseudonym that has become a best seller.
Unfortunately he used as characters some of his wife Brenda Marshall and mother-in-law Lucille Watson's society friends and they'd like to sue the author if they can find him.Errol while trying to see they don't find out what his double life is gets himself involved in another murder of Noel Madison who wanted Flynn to essentially launder the money from some stolen jewels in his banker self.
Flynn spends over 90 minutes struggling to keep his identities secret from those who know him in one guise or the other and solve the mystery at the same time.
The only two who know about his masquerade are his chauffeur Allen Jenkins and his lawyer Grant Mitchell.Flynn had a very good gift for comedy, he had already done The Perfect Specimen and Four's A Crowd and had gotten good reviews.
Footsteps in the Dark was an effort by Warner Brothers to cash in on the popularity and success MGM was enjoying with The Thin Man series.
Flynn and Marshall were good together though there was no further sequels.Best in the film by far is William Frawley as one truly dumb detective that even his superior Alan Hale is frustrated with.
Flynn bounces some great lines off Frawley.It's a different Errol Flynn than normal and not a bad one..
This is my favourite Errol Flynn comedy, OK, he only made four, and they are all worthwhile, but for sheer silly fun, this one is tops.
Flynn was a good actor, far better than he's usually given credit for, and he was especially good at comedy, he could take silly material like this, and make it entertaining and watchable, all the supporting cast are top pros and give great performances.
Don't try to analyse it or even make sense of it, it's a comedy, silly, but fun, with some great dialogue, and everyone seems to be having such a fun time you can't help but be caught up in it too!
Only wish the Warners had given Errol Flynn a lot more comedies, he really was good at it!
Mystery starring Errol Flynn.
"Footsteps in the Dark" is a 1941 film briskly directed by Lloyd Bacon.
It stars Errol Flynn, Brenda Marshall, Alan Hale, Lee Patrick, Lucille Watson, Ralph Bellamy, Allen Jenkins, William Frawley, and Turhan Bey.Flynn plays an investment broker leading a double life as a mystery writer, the author of a book called "Footsteps in the Dark." Only his chauffeur knows the truth.
When he becomes involved in a real-life murder, his situation starts to create havoc at home.This is a pretty good mystery story, though one can figure it out fairly quickly, and it's enlivened by a wonderful cast.
Flynn is delightful and funny, particularly when he's disguised as a Texas oil man, Tex. The unusual-looking Marshall is his frustrated wife and does a fine job, as does the tart-tongued Lucille Watson as his suspicious mother-in-law.
Hale and Frawley are the bumbling police.All in all, good fun, and a nice departure for Flynn..
Errol Flynn with a Bow Tie. Never realized that Errol Flynn made a comedy in 1941 with Brenda Marshall and a great cast of veteran actors who were all in the top of their acting careers.
This is a very funny film about a rich financial investment banker, Francis Monroe WarrenII (Errol Flynn),"Cry Wolf", who also on the side writes mystery books and keeps it all a complete secret from his family.
Brenda Marshall,(Rita Warren), "Whispering Smith", plays the role of a rather dumb wife who begins to get suspicious of her husbands 3 AM arrivals through their bedroom window almost every night.
Ralph Bellamy, (Dr. R.L.Davis),"Rosemary's Baby plays the role as a dentist and does more than pull teeth painlessly.
Alan Hale along with Allen Jenkins give great supporting roles along with a fast paced comedy that is full of laughs and that bow tie on Errol Flynn did me IN!
Enjoyable comedy mystery with Errol Flynn as a man who, unknown to his wife and mother-in-law, leads a double life as an amateur sleuth and writer of murder mysteries.
Errol Flynn shows how well he can do with comedy in a nice change of pace for him that still plays to his strengths as a charming ladies man.
The great supporting cast includes Allen Jenkins, Ralph Bellamy, Lee Patrick, William Frawley, Roscoe Karns, Grant Mitchell, Lucille Watson, and Alan Hale.
Nice seeing Hale in a slightly different role than usual as the police inspector frustrated by Flynn but relying on his help.
Lovely Brenda Marshall plays Flynn's wife and, like Flynn, proves she can handle comedy quite well.
It doesn't bring to the table anything particularly innovative for either the comedy or mystery genres but it gets the job done as lightweight entertainment.
Errol Flynn leads a double life with delightful results.
It seems lots of people didn't like this film very much but I absolutely loved it.
Flynn plays blue blood investment adviser Francis Monroe Warren II with blue blood clients, a blue blood wife, and a blue blood social life.
All of this blue blood is making Francis feel tired and run down, so he leads a double life to spice things up.
At night and at odd hours during the work day he concocts murder mysteries and covers his absences at home by telling his wife that he was at some board meeting.
Francis' antics begin to catch up with him when he is blackmailed by someone who knows about his double life.Pretty soon Francis is involved in a real murder mystery involving stolen diamonds, a burlesque queen, threatening letters from an anonymous person, and clues that seem to point back to his own wife as a suspect.
On top of everything, his wife and mother-in-law become suspicious of his behavior and have him followed, with the detective drawing all the wrong conclusions.This is a very different kind of role for Flynn, but he brought to it all of the things that made his swashbuckling films such fun.
Excellent comedy showing Errol Flynn's gift for humor.
Errol Flynn shows here that he could excell at comedy as well as swashbuckling.Flynn plays an investment banker moonloghting by writing Mystery stories under a pen name, and in the process making such fun of his Wifes' and his mother in law's society friends that they want to find the author and Sue Him!
When the truth comes out his wife is amused but his mother in law says"How can you be such a TRAITOR to your class !".Naturally Flynn gets involved in solving a REAL murder.This is a very underrated movie as far as I am concerned,with an excellent cast.
Flynn and Brenda Marshall make a well matched team, and it is a pity that it didn't lead to a series of films.I understand that one called Ghosts Don't Leave Footsteps was planned but shelved due to poor box office of this film.Perhaps people just weren't used to Flynn inn this kind of film A great pity because I believe that a series of these films would have developed into serious competition for the Thin Man Series.
One of Errol Flynn's rare forays into comedy; it's passable, but hardly inspired.
Flynn is certainly game, but the film only has one very funny scene: Flynn trying to simulate by voice the 12 strikes of a clock.
Flynn & Co. Make Light Footsteps in the Dark.
Errol Flynn, Brenda Marshall, and Ralph Bellamy star in this lightweight comedy mystery, which has Flynn as a mystery writer who's writing under a pseudonym, so that he can keep his money-making habit from his society friends and his uppity mother-in-law, Lucile Watson.
The cast is full of recognizable faces, like Alan Hale, Allen Jenkins, Lee Patrick, Roscoe Karns, Grant Mitchell, and William Frawley.
A foolish and somewhat tiresome script about an aspiring novelist who moonlights as a crime-solving detective in his spare time.
Flynn wanted to play something other than swashbuckling roles so the studio gave in.
The wasted cast includes Brenda Marshall, Ralph Bellamy, Alan Hale and Lee Patrick.
Only Ralph Bellamy manages to inject some dry humor into his role as a dentist--but Flynn throughout appears more foolish than funny.
The only thing that keeps this movie from receiving the worst possible rating is that the fine cast all give first-rate performances.
Seeing the stars of The Sea Hawk from just the year before - Errol Flynn, Brenda Marshall, Alan Hale - try to make this come alive is almost painful.And who thought of trying to pass Lee Patrick, a fine comedian, off as a burlesque queen????
"Zorro" detective style meets the "Thin Man" franchise in this unbelievably bland crime comedy with broad farcical humour that's not funny and a weak murder mystery that's not thrilling.Flynn vehicles are often silly, but seldom boring.
just wanted to make a fast buck!Even Alan Hale looks tired!3 out of 10 idiotic aliases.
By that I mean that the actors are pros, the cinematography is superior, the music is excellent, the opening scene under the credits is neat, the underlying idea is very good - and this mess is like watching someone trying to paint a landscape on a bucking horse.
Errol Flynn's films that are have a contemporary setting didn't seem to be as successful at the box office as his other ones.
Flynn's frequent co-star Alan Hale is a welcome addition but his scenes with Errol aren't their usual because they are antagonists.
Flynn is leading a double life as an author of crime novels and he can't bear to have his wife or mother-in-law find out.
William Frawley is quite good as the slow-witted police officer.
Mystery with light comedy..
That dashing Errol Flynn plays Francis Monroe Warren II, an upper-crust investment counselor that lives a double life away from his high society...rubbing elbows with the police and secretly writing crime novels under a pseudonym.
His recent book Footsteps in the Dark, seems to be ruffling the feathers of the elite; and his own mother hires someone to try and find out who is doing this writing.
His wife(Brenda Marshall)thinks he spends a lot of time at night at stuffy board meetings; while he is actually investigating current crimes and trying to debunk the theories of local police.
In support are: Alan Hale, William Frawley, Roscoe Karns, Lee Patrick and Lucile Watson..
Not exactly a comedy, although very funny.
I liked this movie.Even its beginning is clever.
You assume that Errol Flynn is a cat burglar breaking into a house, but no, he's sneaking in late at night to escape his wife discovering him coming in so late.
In fact, it's nice to see Errol Flynn in a role where in some scenes he could be so silly.There are some other nice performances here, too.
Alan Hale (Sr.) is fine as the detective, and it's always nice to see him in films with Flynn.
And Lee Patrick is fine as the dumb burlesque queen.Highly recommended and a great change of pace for Errol Flynn.
Associate producer: Robert Lord.
Executive producer: Hal B.
U.S. release: 8 March 1941.
96 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A mystery comedy of manners featuring a socialite who writes detective novels (under an assumed name) without the knowledge of his wife and more importantly, his mother-in-law.COMMENT: Errol Flynn made only four comedies in his entire movie career.
Although the comedy is fast and furious, the situations become so believable, the mystery itself turns into a fascinatingly suspenseful exercise.
Also good to see the alluring Brenda Marshall (actually more colorful and picturesque here than in her previous Flynn vehicle, The Sea Hawk), plus the ever-loyal Allen Jenkins.
Co-star Ralph Bellamy, as always, provides some of the movie's principal pleasures.
The script also provides delicious encounters with other appealing players, including Lee Patrick, Alan Hale, William Frawley, Grant Mitchell and sneeringly sinister Turhan Bey (whom we find so much more adept as a slippery villain than a cut-price romantic lead).
Cute Little Mystery/Comedy Packed with Familiar Faces.
In "Footsteps in the Dark" Errol Flynn proves he's more than a swashbuckler (as if his already playing a cowboy had not already proved that).
Anyone who still thinks he's not an actor (a la Alan Swann in "My Favorite Year") and only a movie star should check out this movie, where Flynn heads a fine cast in a slick comedy-mystery.Flynn changes his sword and tights for a nicely tailored suit, playing a broker who, on the side, writes scandalous mysteries.
But he needs to keep his less-staid side hidden from his wife and her relatives, who are up in arms about his last book, which they think pokes fun at them.Like so many crime authors, Flynn's character (under his pen name; as he hides his less savory writing side from his wife, he had to keep his wealthy lifestyle hidden from the cops, with whom he hangs out to pick up hints on police procedure--and, this time around, to prove a death by alcoholism is actually murder.Flynn's wife is played by Brenda Marshall, his lovely costar from "The Sea Hawk." Flynn-movie stalwart Alan Hale Sr. gets a meaty part as the police chief, who is less than ably abetted by a thick-witted policeman (William Frawley).
Also on hand are Ralph Bellamy as a dentist and Sam Spade's secretary Lee Patrick ("The Maltese Falcon") rather inexplicably cast as a sexy singer/dancer (we'd rather have seen Ann Sheridan, especially as they described the singer as having "oomph" .
Other familiar faces include Alan Jenkins, one of those actors who makes movie buffs say, "I've seen him before but can't place him." He gets one of his best roles to date.
Oh, and is that Turhan Bey?--Yes, in an intriguing but ultimately undeveloped role.Is it a great movie?
But it's an inexplicably hidden bagatelle for people who like a bit of fun.
The camera loves Flynn, and that's more than half of movie acting.
Anyone who tires of Flynn playing noble all the time will get a kick out of this one..
Many little things make this just a fair crime comedy.
"Footsteps in the Dark" should be a very good comedy crime film.
Indeed, audiences like that sort of thing – witness the 13-season long TV series, "Murder, She Wrote," that starred Angela Lansbury from 1984 through 1996.
Errol Flynn's Francis Warren has the usual energy of a Flynn character.
Brenda Marshall is fine in her small part as Rita Warren, Flynn's wife.
Alan Hale has a large role as inspector Mason, and he's just too affable and easy going a character.
Errol Flynn does his THIN MAN impression .
Mr. Flynn looks somewhat lost without his sword, and one glance at co-star Brenda Marshall is enough to see why the prop people "kept it real" by placing her and husband DON JUAN in twin beds.
It's too bad Lucile Watson, who plays Flynn's live-in mother-in-law Agatha, wasn't around to take a similar role in TV's BEWITCHED a couple decades later--Ms. Watson makes a far better nag than Agnes Moorehead. |
tt0056595 | The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit | The cartoon begins with a demonstration for the Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit, with which "anyone can now enter the lucrative field of animated cartoons." The items in the kit include the following:
"One mean, stupid cat" (Tom)
"One sweet, lovable mouse" (Jerry)
"Assorted deadly weapons" (a knife, a hammer, and a stick of dynamite)
Coffee and cigarettes (removed from kit and described as being "for the cartoonists")
A slice of watermelon
The narrator says, "First, put the sweet, lovable mouse into a simple situation expressing a natural human need, such as eating a slice of watermelon contained in our kit. The result may not make sense, but it will last long enough for you to be comfortably seated before the feature begins." This statement refers to the original theatrical exhibition of the cartoon, in which it ran ahead of a feature film.
At first, Jerry eats the watermelon and spits the seeds out, hitting and waking Tom, who initially grabs the hammer to hit Jerry but instead flicks him in the back of the head. Jerry swallows the seeds by accident, causing him to turn green for a moment and then make sounds like a maraca when he moves, and goes into a lively dance until Tom traps him in a metal can. Tom uses Jerry as a maraca for his own dance; when the effect suddenly stops, Tom peeks inside only to get a mouthful of seeds spat into his face. He devours the rest of the watermelon and turns his head into a cannon to fire blasts of seeds at Jerry, who takes cover in the kit box just before Tom hits it, destroying the stick of dynamite and damaging the box.
Jerry winds up lying beneath a book named Judo for Mice, studies it, and emerges with enough fighting skill to easily overpower Tom. Even a stint of training at a boxing gym and use of the knife do not give Tom any advantage against Jerry. Finally Tom goes to a judo school in order to face him again. The two have a breaking contest, in which each tries to outdo the other: Jerry with a wooden board, Tom with a brick, then Jerry again with a cement block. The contest ends abruptly when Tom tries to break a huge block of marble, which crashes through the floor and takes him with it.
An unconscious Tom ends up in the battered box. Jerry replaces the lid and the narrator said, "Our next film will be for the kiddies, and will demonstrate a new poison gas. Thank you and good night." On the lid are the words "The End, an MGM cartoon". The music winds to stop as if it was being played on a slowing phonograph record and Jerry bows to the audience in typical Japanese fashion. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | When I saw this cartoon on Cartoon Network, I saw the credits the dreaded words "directed by Gene Deitch" - I thought, this was going to be another stupid Deitch T&J short.Actually, it's a somewhat UNDERSTANDABLE toon that is the best of the Deitch era of T&J - and that's saying something.Sure the Eastern European animation is not up to par with the Hanna-Barbera era (watch a scene set in judo school), but the bizarre sound effects used in the other Deitch T&J's that can put any sane toon nut insane are barely noticed.
The storyline is actually good.
It's too bad that the other Deitch shorts were full of bad stories and bizarre sound effects, which led to MGM dismissing him after only thirteen shorts.Still I prefer the Hanna-Barbera days of T&J..
The ONLY Gene Deitch-produced T & J worth seeing.
Gene Deitch could ruin ALPO.
But, he managed to breathe some fresh air into the vastly overrated TOM and JERRY series, but only in this single cartoon.
Its premise is that ANYONE (even himself, I suppose) could make cartoons.
The bit about coffee and cigarettes for the animators is the best part of the cartoon.
Other than that, it's the same old "Mouse beats up stupid cat" theme that was already years past anything original or valid.Deitch's style is way too eerie and absurd (see his Popeye cartoons--they ain't much better), and should NEVER have been used for a "serious" studio's product.
This is the sole example of where it seemed to work..
Probably the best of the Gene Deitch era, which isn't saying much..
Fans claim that Chuck Jones' Tom and Jerry cartoons were the worst, but for my money the theatrical lowpoint for the cat and mouse were when MGM contracted Gene Deitch and William L.
Snyder to direct and produce a series of low-budget, low-quality Czech-animated adventures.
"Landing Stripling," "Switchin' Kitten," "Sorry Safari," "Buddies...Thicker Than Water," "Down And Outing," "Dicky Moe," "Calypso Cat" ...
painful to behold, all.
(Although they're still better than Filmation's horrid "The Tom And Jerry Comedy Show.")Only two of them are halfway watchable, "Tall In The Trap" and this one, "The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit" (any relation to Bob Godfrey's "Do-it-Yourself Cartoon Kit"?), which supplies animators with a mouse, a cat, and assorted deadly weapons ("The coffee and cigarettes are for the cartoonist"), and leaves them alone to muck about for a few minutes.
Basically, this is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer admitting that anyone could do better than the lot they had under contract, and while it's not very clever and as sloppily animated by Vaclav Bedrich and company as ever, it passes the time less painfully than the others.You should still take the ones made before the 1960s, though.
Creepy, and not very funny..
When I was a kid, I would watch hours of Tom & Jerry every day (between TBS and the local stations, I could probably have spent 12 hours a day watching Tom & Jerry).
I didn't know much about the history of animation, but I figured out a few "styles"...
Early Hanna-Barbera, 50's Hanna-Barbera, Chuck Jones-style, 60's style, Filmation, and...
the Gene Deitch ones.I instinctively didn't like the Filmation ones, but the Gene Deitch vignettes...
these are the things the nightmares of children are built upon.I don't know how to properly convey how weird these things are in the pantheon of Tom & Jerry cartoons.
Gene Deitch was a master animator, but of avant-garde subjects; his angular, flat style just doesn't work- it feels like you're watching a badly dubbed cartoon, rather than new-style animation.
It actually felt like I was watching a cartoon done in a third-world country that "appropriated" the T&J characters- Stalinist cartoons, perhaps.The sounds, too...
Tom & Jerry always had creepy bits (who doesn't remember "Don't you believe it!" after Tom gets blown up by the atomic white mouse?) but the Deitch shorts...
the sf/x all sound synthesized and strange.
If Jerry is confused, what do you hear?
Not a tiny voice going "Hmmm", but a wobbling-sheet-metal sound, as if it were being done in an echo chamber.The over-all effect is the same feeling I get when watching Italian horror/sexploitation flicks, or Jorge Buttgereit's work (Nekromantik, Der Todesking)- this is *definitely* not what I should feel like when watching a Tom & Jerry cartoon....
not that bad.
not that bad.
Okay so it's pretty far out there, but it isn't as bad as the safari one or the one where the same guy is barbecuing.
Those are really, really wretched.
Almost as bad as the series where Tom and Jerry are actually friends.
I don't know maybe I just appreciate weird, but I thought there were a few cool moments in this one..
One of only three Gene Dietch Tom and Jerry cartoons worth watching....
Though that is not saying much, this cartoon is mediocre.
However, along with Tall in the Trap and Calypso Cat it is one of the more tolerable Tom and Jerry cartoons that Gene Dietch made, I can't stand the rest.
The animation is not great but it is better than the animation in the likes of Switchin' Kitten and Sorry Safari, as the colours are not as flat and the backgrounds not quite as static.
The story is also an improvement, it is standard, but it is not non-existent or disturbing.
And Tom and Jerry themselves are at least okay.
However, the music is still rather creepy, the pace is uneven often feeling rushed and the sound effects are bizarre.
While I raised a smile a few times, there was nothing I would deem as hilarious.
Overall, this is not saying much but for me when it comes to Gene Dietch this is one of the better ones.
5/10 Bethany Cox. Ghastly cartoon....
A toy set contains implements for a Tom & Jerry cartoon, including Tom andJerry themselves (hence the title).
The cat and mouse come to life and usevarious items in the kit to outdo one another.That's basically it, and as usual Gene Deitch fluffs it up in spectacular fashion with his barely-fluid animation; diabolical, tinny sound effects and uninteresting story (and when it's not dull it's just plain stupid in a way that even being a cartoon cannot rectify).
And I just wanted to shoot that narrator...URGH!
I can't even imagine kids liking this..
Backgrounds
who needs 'em?.
As the voice-over for director Gene Deitch's The Tom & Jerry Cartoon Kit explains: "Anyone can now enter the lucrative field of animated cartoons".
We know, Mr. Deitch—you're living proof!This one does away with a plot entirely, the cartoon consisting of totally random and surreal action, and keeps the need for drawing to an absolute minimum by making all of the backgrounds flat colour.
Pure white backgrounds?
That would keep the costs down even further.Others here on IMDb seem to like The Tom & Jerry Cartoon Kit slightly more than Deitch's other efforts, but I don't get it, finding this just as wretched..
This one's even creepier without narration..
Growing up, I didn't realize that this short had narration.
When I was watching the same short in another state years later, I suddenly noticed the narration (especially the coffee and cigarettes part) but every time I saw this on the WPIX NY station, there was only music and sound fx.
That made for a trippy ride.
But then again, I grew up on a lot of cartoons that were considered trippy.
A lot of cartoons today are either too talky or everyone's shouting.
But it does raise the question, why was there a version of this without narration?
But this is one of the Gene Deitch T&J cartoons that I remember the most.
It looked like it was set in some sort of two dimensional Be-bop Jazz world, which actually worked for the music that was playing.
It never occurred to me that these were not American made, only that they were different from the Chuck Jones cartoons as much as the Chuck Jones toons were different from the Hanna Barbera (40s-50s) versions.
Of course the classic HB shorts are the best, but I would put the Deitch versions a close second just because I like the atmospheric mood.
It's just too bad that Gene Deitch hasn't been more prolific.
His trippy style, while admittedly unusual for T&J, would have been ideal for serious science fiction adventure cartoons..
Needed more attention to detail animation-wise.
"The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit" is an American/Czechoslovakian cartoon from 1962, so this one had its 55th anniversary last year and despite the age, it is still among the later Tom and Jerry works.
This is also proven by Gene Deitch having taken over at that point already from Hanna Barbera in this MGM production that runs for a bit over 6.5 minutes as they always do.
I would say that story-wise and comedy-wise it isn't too bad and probably not worse than some of the weaker HB original T&J cartoons, maybe even better.
The melon scenes were kinda okay and the martial arts judo stuff wasn't too shabby either, at least at the very end when the ground breaks under Tom. The title is really random though as it only refers to the first minute.
And Jerry must be quite a talented fighter if he picks up all these amazing skills from a book without actual training.
The film's biggest weakness though was not just the background animation, but the complete lack thereof and the longer it goes the more painful it becomes to see.
Eventually it is just the two central characters in front of one background color.
Essentialism is one thing, but I just cannot approve of that.
A bit of a pity as plot- and comedy-wise it was solid for the most part, but the lows are lower than the highs are high, so I give this one a thumbs-down and recommend skipping the watch here. |
tt0084917 | The World According to Garp | The story deals with the life of T. S. Garp. His mother, Jenny Fields, is a strong-willed nurse who wants a child but not a husband. She encounters a dying ball turret gunner known only as Technical Sergeant Garp, who was severely brain damaged in combat. Jenny nurses Garp, observing his infantile state and almost perpetual autonomic sexual arousal. As a matter of practicality and kindness in making his passing as comfortable as possible and reducing his agitation, she manually gratifies him several times. Unconstrained by convention and driven by practicality and her desire for a child, Jenny rapes Technical Sergeant Garp, and uses his semen to impregnate herself and names the resulting son "T. S." (a name derived from "Technical Sergeant", but consisting of just initials). Jenny raises young Garp alone, taking a position at the all-boys Steering School in New England.
Garp grows up, becoming interested in sex, wrestling, and writing fiction—three topics in which his mother has little interest. After his graduation in 1961, his mother takes him to Vienna, where he writes his first novella. At the same time, his mother begins writing her autobiography, A Sexual Suspect. After Jenny and Garp return to Steering, Garp marries Helen, the wrestling coach's daughter, and begins his family—he a struggling writer, she a teacher of English. The publication of A Sexual Suspect makes his mother famous. She becomes a feminist icon, as feminists view her book as a manifesto of a woman who does not care to bind herself to a man, and who chooses to raise a child on her own. She nurtures and supports women traumatized by men, among them the Ellen Jamesians, a group of women named after an eleven-year-old girl whose tongue was cut off by her rapists to silence her. The members of the group cut off their own tongues in support of the girl.
Garp becomes a devoted parent, wrestling with anxiety for the safety of his children and a desire to keep them safe from the dangers of the world. He and his family inevitably experience dark and violent events through which the characters change and grow. Garp learns (often painfully) from the women in his life (including transsexual ex-football player Roberta Muldoon), who are struggling to become more tolerant in the face of intolerance. The story contains a great deal of (in the words of Garp's fictional teacher) "lunacy and sorrow", and the sometimes ridiculous chains of events the characters experience still resonate with painful truth.
The novel contains several framed narratives: Garp's first novella, The Pension Grillparzer; "Vigilance", a short story; and the first chapter of his novel, The World According to Bensenhaver. The book also contains some motifs that appear in almost all John Irving novels: bears, New England, Vienna, wrestling, people who are uninterested in having sex, and a complex Dickensian plot that spans the protagonist's whole life. Adultery (another common Irving motif) also plays a large part, culminating in one of the novel's most harrowing and memorable scenes. Another familiar Irving trope, castration anxiety, is present, most obviously in the fate of one character, Michael Milton. | romantic, comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0116147 | Drive | The unnamed Driver works as a mechanic, a movie double, and a stunt driver, as well as a criminal-for-hire getaway driver. He is managed in all jobs by auto shop owner Shannon, who persuades Jewish mobsters Bernie Rose and Nino to purchase a car for the Driver to race. The Driver meets his new neighbor, Irene, and becomes close to her and her young son, Benicio. Irene's husband, Standard Gabriel, is in prison. After Standard is released, Irene still asks the Driver to visit them.
Standard owes protection money from his time in prison and is beaten up by Albanian gangster Cook, who demands that Standard rob a pawnshop for $40,000 to pay off the debt. Cook gives Benicio a bullet as a symbol that he and his mother are in danger. The Driver, concerned for the safety of Irene and Benicio, offers to act as the getaway driver for the pawnshop robbery.
The job goes awry when Standard is shot and killed by the pawnshop owner while the Driver is waiting for him with Cook's accomplice, Blanche. The Driver and Blanche escape after an intense car chase with a mysterious adversary. The Driver hides with Blanche in a motel, where he learns that the bag contains a million dollars and that Blanche and Cook planned to re-steal the money with the car that chased them. Two of Cook's men ambush them in the motel room, killing Blanche before the Driver manages to kill them both (the first one is stabbed in the neck by the Driver with a curtain rod and the second one is shot dead).
At the auto shop, Shannon offers to hide the money, but the Driver refuses. He hunts down Cook in a strip club, smashes his fingers with a hammer, threatens to kill him, and force-feeds him the bullet that was given to Benicio. Cook reveals that Nino was behind the robbery. The Driver decides to return the money, but Nino dismisses the offer and instead sends a hitman to the Driver's apartment building. Entering the elevator with Irene, the Driver encounters the hitman. He then kisses Irene and brutally beats the hitman to death. Afterwards, Irene exits the elevator stunned and horrified.
At his pizzeria, Nino reveals to Bernie that the money was stashed at the pawnshop by a low-level Philadelphia wise guy from the "East Coast mob" and, since anyone tied to the robbery could lead the East Coast Mafia to them, they need to kill everyone involved. Bernie warns Nino that nobody steals from the Italian Mob. Nino is angry because the Italian Mob has marginalized and insulted him due to his Jewish heritage. He convinces Bernie to follow his plan. Bernie then murders Cook, as he is the sole witness to their agreement. After Shannon refuses to divulge the whereabouts of the Driver, Bernie kills him at the auto shop with a straight razor.
The Driver, disguising himself with a rubber mask from his stuntman job, follows Nino from the pizzeria to the Pacific Coast Highway and T-bones Nino's car onto a beach, then chases him from the wreck to the ocean and drowns him. He makes a phone call to Irene to tell her he is leaving and that meeting her and Benicio was the best thing that ever happened to him. The Driver goes to meet Bernie, who promises that Irene will be safe in exchange for the money. The Driver gives Bernie the money, but Bernie attempts to kill him, stabbing him in the stomach. The Driver in turn fatally stabs Bernie, then drives away, abandoning the money. Irene knocks at the Driver's apartment, but gets no response. The movie ends with the Driver driving away into the night. | cult, suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | It's quite the action experience for direct-to-video fare, the fight choreography is great, Dacascos is at the top of his form and is better than anyone I've seen in the kick-kick genre of late.
As far as martial arts films go this still has the best fight sequences outside of Hong Kong.
Kadeem Hardison co-stars as Malik, who is initially Wang's hostage but they turn out to be best buds, cliché yes, but hey this is an action movie.
He comes out with some great lines, and also some hilariously cheesy lines such as `look its my favourite cheese eating, dick monkey' WHAT?!!The film is pure mindless escapism, it's fast, it's funny, there's genuine chemistry there, and to hell with plot in a film like this, which features some jaw dropping fight scenes.
There's a great cast, who seem to be having a lot of fun, the film pays homage to Jackie Chan movies at points plus the fight choreography is well thought out.The fight sequences are filmed in a very unique way, with the camera moving at very sharp, precise angles, which gives it a unique style.
Although not the best scenes you will see, the combination of humour and good action direction, really show off the skills on offer here.So if you're a martial arts movie fan, and not seen this, give this it a whirl!
American-born director and FX makeup man Steve Wang hooked up with Power Rangers stunt guru Koichi Sakamoto to make Guyver 2, a Japanese manga-inspired sci-fi movie with martial arts.
Their next collaboration was Drive, a low-budget hi-tech action movie that has gained quite a following on DVD.The movie stars Hawaiian martial arts genius Mark Dacascos as Toby, a guy on the run from the evil corporation that killed his girlfriend and implanted him with a 'Bio-engine', a device that gives Toby superhuman strength and speed.
Wang, Sakamoto and Dacascos (is it me or does that sound like the world's weirdest legal firm?) have come up with some of the finest fight action you'll see in a film made outside Hong Kong.
It's quite sickening that Dacascos is mostly confined to 10th-rate direct to video movies while overweight personal trainers and ballet dancers like Steven Seagull and Jean Claude Van Donut still manage to get cast in big-budget theatrical releases (well, maybe not Jean Claude anymore).Fans of The Matrix will no doubt get a kick out of the lightning-fast moves and vaguely sci-fi setting (although it's worth noting that this film predates The Matrix by several years).
Excellent action scenes, good comedy and I don't think I have seen Mark Dacascos ever been in so many great fight scenes before.
The fight scenes are gloriously over the top and well choreographed, so much so I think I was laughing at several points during the film.The plot is about as complex as a glass of water, but forget that for now, this is a film you watch for the action, for the cheesy comedy factor, for the hyper-kinetic, lighting quick scenes of martial arts mayhem.
There are killer ninja robots, gun wielding assassins who burst through windows on stunt bikes, and a large supply of hapless henchmen who couldn't shoot a barn door at 3 paces.Marc Dacascos shows of his talents in the lead role as Toby Wang, the hero and scene stealer of the film, Kadeem Hardison is on hand as Malik, the out of luck barfly who gets caught up in the ordeal, then there is Brittany Murphy in one pre-famous roles as a the ditsy daughter of a Motel owning couple..
I thought that this movie was excellent, I watched it after a recommendation from a friend.After a slow first ten minutes when we get introduced to the main characters Toby Wong (an excellent Mark Dacascos)and Malik Brody (equally as good Kadeem Hardison) the action gets under way and doesn't stop until the closing credits.The jokes come quick and fast throughout and the film only gets better with the introduction of the fantastic but pretty unstable motel worker Deliverance Bodine (Brittany Murphy).Overall I give it 8/10.
This is a shame, cause the directors cut is awesome.Great action, great witty dialogue, the first (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong) "cattle prod/electric baton" fight scene, and the main char.s name is TOBY WONG.
The main character (played by a skilled martial-arts actor) goes through no less than five large fight scenes worthy of anything done by Jet Li or Jackie Chan.
I believe that `Drive' is an original film that excels beyond anything it is similar to.This relatively unknown masterpiece has raised my expectations for all martial-arts/action movies like The Matrix raised the bar for action.
Considering that "Drive" is a low-budget and fairly unknown action flick from 1996, it has surprisingly amassed a small cult following in the years it's been on the home video after-market.Mark Dacascos, who was the main villain that was most recently seen duking it out with Jet Li in 2003's "Cradle 2 the Grave," has starred in a number of action movies throughout the '90s, but has yet to achieve any stardom.His character, Toby Wong, in this 1996 action thriller (that's straight out of Hong Kong, as is Dacascos' "Wong" character) apparently swims all the way to the United States, where he's forced to take an innocent bystander, Malik Brody (Kadeem Hardison), hostage.
This is by far the best show of Mark Dacascos and his martial arts action.10/10P.S.: Also, be on the lookout for a rather humorous supporting performance from Brittany Murphy as a bored, easily-excited teenager who is also brought along for the ride..
My wife and I both liked this action thriller, which is a fast-paced, witty road movie about a super assassin (Dacascos) hunted down by his own people, teaming up with Hardison and trying to get to Los Angeles.
It was a sort of cross between the Bourne Identity and the Rush Hour films (without all the yelling!), and if you liked those, you will probably like this.Murphy's character added some additional female humour to what was otherwise a male-dominated thriller.I saw the director's cut, so I don't know what scenes were missing from the original.
There were even jokes about this genre of movie - at the end Dacascos makes a typical bad pun ("Time to blow" as some rocket blows up) and Hardison looks at him and says, "Blow?" Another scene Dacascos, on the run, gives police a phony name - "Sammo Hung." Definitely worth the rental price..
Director Wang and star Dascascos have clearly studied Jet Li films very carefully; they fashion a simple chase plot that is still complicated enough to allow for intelligence on the parts of the characters, the actors, and the audience, while at the same time providing enough time for some of the fastest, wildest fight stunts ever made in an American martial arts film.
Just because it is made in the Hong Kong style and it doesn't have any big names like Jet Li or Jackie Chan doesn't make it bad either, they have made some real stinkers too and Hollywood has also made some atrocious actions films with 100 times the budget of this movie and they sucked too, money alone doesn't not ensure quality.Having said that, this is bar none one of the best Hong Kong style action films to be made in the US and it beat Hollywood to the punch this was made 3 years before The Blade and The Matrix and doesn't have those irritating rotating camera gimmicks, ( i like the Matrix don't get me wrong) so the action scenes are much more fluid.OK this isn't art and everyone isn't John Woo, I don't know about you butI watch action movies to be entertained this is one more than fills the bill.
It has a economical plot as a lot of action movies esp Hong Kong films so there all you "elitists" and that is what u want, its just enough plot to hang some framework around some astounding martial arts scenes but not enough to get in the way and slow things down without all that talking crap.
This film has breakneck pacing and fight scenes where each scene outdoes the one before.This film is a Jet Li caliber movie and is better than any of Jet Li's or Jackie Chan's Hollywood films and probably 1/50th the budget.Why Mr. Dacascos was not hired for the role of Neo in The Matrix is a mystery to me, he already knows martial arts and can act circles around Keanu Reeves or most any action star like Seagal, Van Damme, or Arnold.If you love martial arts and Hong Kong action films check this one out there is a reason that this film has won many awards at Asian film festivals Because it kicks ass.
Mark Dacascos stars as Toby Wong, a genetically altered soldier who escapes from the Chinese corporation that built him and is on the run from thugs looking to return him back, also on board is Kadeem Hardison who becomes Dacascos' hostage and partner while top notch martial arts action ensues.
Drive is certainly a fun movie, filled with non-stop martial arts, kinetically staged shoot outs and a good performance from Dacascos in the role.
He kidnaps Kadeem Hardinson to drive him to LA and remove /sell the module for 5 million dollars.In the process of getting to their destination they are pursued by a bad guy that looks like Ted Nugent and there are lots of fine choreographed fights and John Woo styled shootouts.As far as direct to video action flicks go , Drive is better than most.
The fight scenes are easily the best i've seen in a pre-Kill-Bill western movie (and that includes Jet Li and Jackie Chan's Hollywood efforts) - Mark Dacascos is really amazing, the choreography is spectacular, and the editing for once allows us to appreciate it.That alone would be enough for me to recommend this film, but the bits inbetween are an unexpected pleasure as well.
As for Brittany Murphy, i can't figure out if all that stuff was in the script or if she's making it up as she goes along, but again it's pretty funny.Overall, a likable, unpretentious film with great action scenes and more than it's share of laughs.
I have never seen martial arts action as good as this before - move over Jackie Chan - Dacascos is after your crown if this is anything to go by.
Drive was made for a negligible budget, to a brutal schedule, yet the efforts of the cast & crew clearly show and the result is better than a thousand films that cost 10 times the price.The action is clearly the star, with all parties expressing a clear love for Hong Kong cinema.
They have produced an excellent homage containing obvious Jackie Chan and Jet Li influences all executed with grace by Mark Dacascos.The script is pretty weak, though there is some good interplay between the characters, but as it is really used mainly as a framework from which to hang the action it does its job.The UK DVD is a fantastic effort from Hong Kong Legends (abbreviated to HKL for this release), containing a wide array of extras such as interviews and out-takes, as well as restoring the original soundtrack and 16 minutes of footage.
As a fan of 90's B-Action, this movie is an absolute gem that sadly flew under the radar of most people.Mark Dacascos is in top form here, and the addition of the always funny Kadeem Hardison makes their duet shine.
These two groups clashing multiple times over the course of the movie not only leads to your money's worth of awesome action; it carries a side helping of comedy to keep it fresh.If there's one true breakout star of this film, however, it can only be Walter the Einstein Frog!
The main shame of this is that the effects are pretty cheesy and some of the scenes are absurd: primarily the Britney Murphey cheering section of the film (her involvement at all is nothing to brag about) and the singing portions in the bar at the end.Now the upside: this is some of the best action that Dacascos has ever done.
The excellent moves of Mark Dacascos are the main draw (even if you are a novice in the martial arts), but Kadeem Hardison pumps up the humor (and human) factor, and Britney Murphy shines as an endearingly loony teen.
It's one of the best American Martial Arts films of the past decade (not saying much, I know), being one of the first films to mix Hong Kong-style action with an American film.Mark Dacascos' work is top-notch, and he and Kadeem Hardison play well off each other.
because unlike every single other martial arts American movie this film actually seems like it was made in Hong Kong.
Credit must go to the brilliant Japanese martial arts choreographer Koichi Sakamoto and his Alpha Stunt team for their ingenuity, Mark Dacascos is amazing in this film and proves that he could cut it in Hong Kong movies if he wanted too.
Listening to the excellent commentary on the disc and watching the extras, you really can feel for Steve Wang, as well as everyone else who worked on the picture.But for them it seems they had a lot of fun making it, and it shows on the screen, it was such a FUN film, but it wasn't just amazing martial arts action, it had good characters, and the 'talking' bits don't drag the film down, the opposite in fact.
Jackie Chan fans will love this movie, seeing as the crew site him as a major influence in their lives.This is also a funny movie, Kareem Hardison, follows in the steps of Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor, a comedian/actor whose ad-libs are always fun to watch.This is definitely worth watching, i never got bored the whole way through, and if you like action comedies and love really good martial arts fighting, and if you are into DVDs then i urge you to buy the disc.AND PLEASE make sure you watch the Director's Cut, if at the start the main character is looking at a girl on a small video screen, then you are watching the right one.
I hope Steven Wang and Dacascos make another martial arts action movie in the future.
although that's not to say the acting is bad -- it is, in fact, pretty good.After a string of poor movies Dacascos finally shines, giving a performance that is part Bruce Lee and part David Schwimmer's Ross Gellar, and proves himself to be one of the most underrated martial arts actors around.
Fight scenes aside, Hardison steals the show with his Eddie Murphy-esque performance, dealing out some of the best quips I've heard in years, and John Pyper-Ferguson gives us another reliable offering as the not-quite incompatent assassin.In 'Drive' you have a classic merger of Hong Kong and American action that I highly recommend to fans of the action-comedy genre (as well as those who aren't).
It's a semi-buddy movie ( both Dacascos and Hardison work well together) and at times, gets a bit cheesy, but the action is fantastic.
But the very best Hong Kong-style action is found in this little-known low-budget piece.Mark Dacascos (who, I'm sorry, doesn't look remotely Chinese, guys) shows heretofore unseen promise in the hyperaction arena in a nearly endless slew of one show-stopping fight after another.
But what this does do is showcase some of the best martial arts seen in an American movie at the time it was released.
As he attempts to make his way to from San Fransisco to Los Angeles with the help of reluctant hostage Malik Brody (Kadeem Hardison), Toby is hunted by a gang of hit men (led by bumbling baddie Vic Madison, played by John Pyper-Ferguson) sent to capture him alive.The script for martial arts buddy comedy Drive isn't exactly a work of genius, matters getting very silly and rather implausible at times, but the film's relentless Jackie Chan-style fight action (star Dacascos employing a myriad of props to defeat his enemies) is so well choreographed and flawlessly executed, and the protagonists so likable, that the film proves to be a lot of fun regardless of how dumb it gets.
Drive is the best movie Mark Dacascos has ever made.
DRIVE could've been a typical b-action film, but is lifted by great, in-your-face direction from Steve Wang (The Guyver) and the presence of martial arts star Mark Dacascoes, who kicks a lot of *** in this.
the only reason i first watched this movie was because it had mark dacascos in it, hes my favourite actor (besides val kilmer) this film is excellent its funny, violent, exciting and the acting is very good for a low budget film, the bad guy is hilarious and the black guy (kadeem hardison) is great.
This is a very good action movie with plenty of martial arts.
Some of the "acrobatics" seem over the top but then these make the movie even better to watch.There are also a few comedy elements in the film to bring "light relief" after the action scenes.
Drive borrows the origins from the HongKong-movies that means You can easily forget the story in this movie, it's just an excuse for great fighting sequences.I hope the director of this film could get more movies to direct(He can direct the action well, other than many people)..
If you really loved American Ninja and thought the martial arts in Gymkata was great, then you'll love Drive, another bland, direct to video, Hong Kong action imitator.
Well worth watching if you like martial arts films where the action comes thick, fast and well polished..
Also, although the action is very good, its still not really on a par with the better Kung Fu films coming out of Hong Kong. |
tt0033512 | Dangerously They Live | In New York City, German agents arrange for Jane Graystone (Nancy Coleman) to take a taxi driven by one of their own men. The abduction goes awry when the taxi collides with another vehicle. Both driver and passenger are taken to the hospital in an ambulance attended by intern Dr. Mike Lewis (John Garfield). On the way, Jane regains consciousness and claims to have amnesia; she cannot remember who she is. The driver reports this to his superiors. Mike is excited, as this is his area of study, and persuades Dr. Murdoch (Roland Drew) to let him take the case.
John Goodwin (Moroni Olsen) shows up and claims Jane is his daughter. However, after he leaves, Jane tells Mike that he is lying, and that she is actually working for British Intelligence. Mike does not quite believe her, especially when Goodwin returns with a famous specialist, Dr. Ingersoll (Raymond Massey), from whom Mike took a class.
When Jane adamantly refuses to go home with her "father," Ingersoll suggests that Mike go along to ease her mind. Jane agrees to this arrangement. In private, she tells Mike that she wants to find out as much as she can about the Nazi spy ring. Mike finds it suspicious that the Goodwin mansion is heavily staffed, and he is not permitted to go anywhere without an escort. When Steiner, a reluctant German agent, balks at kidnapping, he is kept prisoner at the mansion. He manages to pass a note to Mike, warning him that Jane is in great danger. This finally convinces Mike that she was telling the truth.
Mike manages to get away, but this only confirms Ingersoll's suspicion that Jane is faking her amnesia. By the time Mike returns with Sheriff Dill, the mansion is deserted except for Ingersoll. Still trusting his old teacher, Mike accompanies him to the district attorney. Ingersoll, however, has him committed as a doctor who became too close to the psychotics he was studying. A guard offers to let Mike escape for $500, but turns out to be working for the spies; Mike ends up back in Ingersoll's hands.
By threatening Mike, Ingersoll gets Jane to give him the location of a large convoy, which he passes along to a U-boat wolfpack. Mike manages to wrestle a gun away from a henchman. Jane (after informing Ingersoll she gave him the wrong information) notifies the authorities, who send bombers which sink the U-boats.
Afterward, Mike and Jane are in a car that is rear-ended. Jane once again pretends to have lost her memory ... until Mike starts kissing her. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0044962 | Never Wave at a WAC | A divorced socialite and daughter - Jo McBain (Rosalind Russell) - of a United States senator - Andrew McBain (Paul Douglas) - would like to join her boyfriend, who just left for Paris, where he has been transferred, with two other military comrades. After speaking with her father, he has the idea of her joining the army and getting her an officer's commission in the Women's Army Corps, so that she can be near her officer boyfriend and thereby be transferred to Paris. He sells her this idea, telling her that she would start as a general. Her wealthy and spoiled manners are crushed immediately, when arriving at basic training camp she is told that she would have to start at the bottom. Her father is involved in the telephone chain of people making the decision. Her ex-husband is working as an Army uniforms designer, and he uses his position to disrupt her romantic plans by making her join a group of girls who are testing polar equipment. After she has had enough of her ex-husband's silly pranks, she blows up at her commanding officers and is to be dismissed from the Army. Her contrite ex-husband admit his faults to the disciplinary hearing, but Jo confesses that she was faking being a good soldier so she could go to Paris and be with her boyfriend. She leaves the Army, but she made a lifelong friend in Clara, who tells Jo she will ask her boyfriend to marry her. When she leaves the Army, Jo watches as new recruits are brough in. She realizes that she's still in love with her ex-husband (and he with her). She decides to enroll back into the Army, a genuine attempt at being a good soldier this time, willing to do what the Army ask her to do. She says that later, after her graduation, she may be stationed near Andrew, her ex-husband. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Amusing lark.
I stumbled across this movie one sleepness night and rarely have I ever enjoyed insomnia so much.
It has to be the inspiration for Goldie Hawn's "Private Benjamin" and the innocence of the era in which this movie was made (1952) seems to add to the enjoyment.The film quality and overall production seems to hint at a low budget affair but again this only adds to the charm.
The actors work well together and you can tell that the players enjoyed working together.
Rosalind Russell, as Jo McBain comes through as a real sport by allowing her character to be put through several hilarious and humbling situations.
And most of those situations are created by the doings of Paul Douglas who plays Ms. Russell's likable ex-husband Andrew.
And of course there is the "third wheel" in the story, a love interest of Jo McBain's, Lt. Colonel Schuyler Fairchild who is played solidly by William Ching.
Andrw McBain's actions are driven by a desire to keep his ex-wife Jo and Colonel Fairchild apart.Adding to the pippiness is a cameo by World War II hero General Omar Bradley playing himself.
Old movie buffs who have not seen this work will most certainly enjoy and appreciate it..
The plot of this movie is more than a little similar to "Private Benjamin." It's fun to see Rosalind Russell as a sort of WASP version of Goldie Hawn, indignant at the treatment she's being given in the WACs. The first half of this film is nearly a laugh a minute, but it bogs down in the second half when it does duty as a propaganda film and tries to put a button on the story line.I found a DVD copy of this included on one of those discs that cram several movies on to one disc and cost very little.
The title of the disc is "Comedy Classics" and includes (along with "Never Wave At a WAC") "New Faces," "Hazel Flagg," "The Smallest Show on Earth," and five others.This movie is well worth the effort to locate, if only to see the scene in the doctor's office, Miss Russell with cigarette in hand..
Ex-soldier's civilian job (improving uniforms) requires him to continue co-ordinating with the military.
His socialite ex-wife's boyfriend is a Colonel, ordered to Paris.
To be near the officer, the spoiled gal (Rosalind Russell) joins the WACS, expecting her elbow-rubbing father to smoothen her ride, but dad sees service as a means of tightening the reigns on her, so, she "starts from the bottom." To make matters worse, ex-hubby crosses paths with - and makes life more difficult for - her, although he eventually mellows toward her.
Companion plot follows showgirl-turned-WAC's romance with Sergeant.
But viewers of this film will discover whether Roz seeks boyfriend's or former husband's next stop.
Not terribly deep but not a waste, either..
Not terribly deep but not a waste, either..
Decent Light Entertainment.
This light comedy has some entertaining characters and a few good scenes that make up for a rather slim plot.
The story itself is rather silly - Rosalind Russell stars as a divorced socialite who joins the Army solely in order to be closer to her officer boyfriend.
She quickly finds out that the Army plans to do a little more with her than simply give her passes whenever she wants to see him.
Meanwhile, her scientific ex-husband (Paul Douglas) is working for the Army, and requests her for his project so that he can disrupt her planned romantic meetings.
Since there's not a whole lot to work with, it starts to run out of steam after a while, but remains mostly pleasant to watch.
While it's nothing to take seriously, it's just meant as light-hearted entertainment, and as such most of it works pretty well..
silly but fun.
If you are a fan of Ms. Russell's, then this is one you must see.
If you are looking for a nice little comedy to feel good with, then watch this.
If you are a comedy snob, forget it pal.This is a silly but fun film.
It starts out that Roz is the daughter of a Washington big wig.
She is in love with this major in the army and he has to go overseas for a time.
No way is she going to let him leave without her to fend off the chicks, so she enlist into the Army.
Thinking her Dad can pull some strings in Washington, she thinks she will get a big rank and fly off with her love, but nooooooo.
Her Dad wants to teach her a thing or two.
He feels she is too big for her britches.
So she ends up becoming just a private and staying in the US of A.
She runs into her ex (Paul Douglas) who is working with the Army with some experiments.
Trouble ensues....Throw in Marie Wilson (a Marilyn copy) and get set for a little fun.
For a Roz Russell film it rates a 6 of 10..
This comparatively little known film, with the extremely unlikely storyline is, nevertheless a joy to watch.
It is pure escapism with more than a hint of nostalgia for those of us of a certain age.
The script is good with some nice one-liners, but because the plot itself is obviously rather weak things become a little laboured.
I doubt it would come over as successfully as it does, where it not for the one and only Rosalind Russell - ever able to combine excellent dramatic and comedic acting with the epitome of Hollywood glamour.
And where oh where would it have been without that stalwart, always believable, and I think much underrated actor, Paul Douglas as Russell's long suffering ex husband.If you feel like some light hearted 1950s entertainment you could do a lot worse..
Roz Joins The Army.
Never Wave At A WAC is the apparently weird combination of Buck Privates and Woman of the Year.
The odd thing about it is that it actually works and still will get a few laughs from today's audience.
This might have been a script offered to Katharine Hepburn, but Hepburn never really got as physical in her comedy films as Rosalind Russell does here.
Still the part of socialite daughter of a United States Senator would normally have been something Hepburn might have done.
Yet Russell makes the part all her own.Russell's a bit of a snob and her father Charles Dingle well knows it.
During a party where her ex-husband, Paul Douglas, crashes she meets another socialite friend who has just got a commission in the Woman's Army Corps.
Russell's current boyfriend is another commissioned officer from public relations, William Ching, borrowed from an Ad agency.
Of course dear old dad will pull some strings and make her an officer and a lady.
Except Charles Dingle doesn't want to do it.
He says let her in as a buck private and it takes a bit of getting used to before Russell realizes she's not a VIP on the base.
And when Douglas who is a scientist doing work for the army arrives on her base the fun really starts.Roz has some good physical scenes, check out the one where she and other WACS are part of a Douglas experiment in arctic conditions.
They're not as physical as the ones in Private Benjamin, still Russell gets ample opportunity to display her comic timing.There's also a nice subplot involving Marie Wilson, a stripper who joins the WACs and falls for Sergeant Leif Erickson.
Charles Dingle is always one of my favorite character actors and it was really nice to see him as a good guy for a change.
He's neither in this film, just a nice down to earth man who happens to be a United States Senator and not pleased with the snobbish ways of his daughter.Obviously because he believed in getting more women in the Armed Services, the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Omar N.
Bradley made a guest appearance as himself.
He has a moment when calls about Russell's status reach his ears and he refers them to his good friend Senator Dingle who's on a fishing trip.Never Wave At A WAC though eclipsed somewhat for the current past two generations by Private Benjamin still has a lot of laughs.
And it's a great introduction to one of the best and most versatile stars from the age of studio Hollywood, Rosalind Russell..
Private Rosalind.
Private Rosalind.
Snobby Washington socialite Rosalind Russell (as Josephine "Jo" McBain) joins the Women's Army Corps (WAC) in order to keep an eye on young boyfriend William Ching (as Schuyler "Sky" Fairchild).
Ms. Russell, who temptingly asks, "Can you tell me where to go?" on arrival, isn't prepared for either the rigors of basic training or the interference of ex-husband Paul Douglas (as Andrew "Andy" McBain).
Russell displays some good comic timing, but this re-make of her CBS-TV "Schlitz Playhouse of Stars" (1951) is stretched far too thin.
Moreover, parts of the situation are simply embarrassing, like seeing a towel-clad Russell smoking a cigarette ("inhale, exhale") during her physical.
Bosomy blonde Marie Wilson (as Danger O'Dowd) is an arousing companion.*** Never Wave at a WAC (1/28/53) Norman Z.
McLeod ~ Rosalind Russell, Paul Douglas, Marie Wilson, William Ching.
Mild Comedy.
Certainly can't blame the sparkling Russell if the last part of the comedic hijinks seems labored.
The first part shines, especially the fancy ball where Jo (Russell) flits around like the proverbial social butterfly, while divorced husband (Andy) tries to rescue his dog without anybody noticing.
Too bad Douglas is largely forgotten.
He had about a ten-year period where he played the likable grouch to perfection.It's interesting to compare this film with its male counterpart No Time for Sergeants (1958).
Here Jo is a sheltered socialite who thinks joining the WACS will be a lark, plus put her closer to her colonel boyfriend (Ching).
In No Time
, Andy Griffith is Jo's opposite, a naïve hillbilly who gets drafted, has similarly rude adjustment problems, except his are from the other end of the social spectrum.
Both movies get a load of laughs from sticking unmilitary types into training camp, strict military style.But frankly, I thought the slapstick of putting Jo through the rigors of testing new equipment came across as labored and not very funny.
Nonetheless, rolling around the mud does symbolically rid Jo of her social pretensions, and make it so she and Andy can get back together on a more honest plain.
So at least the testing works on a plot level.Anyway, the film's an okay comedy, produced by Russell's husband and independently distributed, at a time when the studios were unfortunately breaking apart..
I watched this movie not so much for Rosalind Russel, but for Regis Toomey ("The Big Sleep" and "Guys and Dolls").
I barely made my way through this film.
It was painful to watch.
And like a train wreck, I could not stop watching, hoping it would get better.Jo McBain is an incredibly stuck-up blue-blood aristocratic ..um..
She spends most of the movie with her nose high in the air, all but sh*tting on her black servants.
I so wanted to smack her hard several times in the film.I would think that if a recruit showed that much insolence and insubordination that she showed the WAC NCOs and officers, she'd be thrown in the brig until her attitude got adjusted.And don't get me started on Clara Schneiderman and Sgt. Norbert Jackson!
She was insufferable, and he desperately needed a knee in the groin every time he said or did something patently offensive.Yes, I know the movie is a product of its time and reflects the then-mainstream sensibilities.
I've seen other old (read: black and white) films that were not nearly as offensive and painful to watch.
This film needs to be watched with more than just a grain of salt, you need an entire container of Morton's..
Average But Amusing Piece of Fluff and Army Propaganda.
Rosalind Russell became a star at 33 with "His Girl Friday" in 1940.
Before that, she did mostly small parts.
There's a big gap of nearly 20 years in her career before we see her is some of her best later career movies, like "Auntie Mame," "Gypsy," and the "Trouble with Angels" It is nice to see her in a mid-career piece like this from 1953.
I watched it on 100 comedy classics from Mill Creek video.This is a reasonably funny piece about an aristocratic woman who joins the army expecting to be made an officer immediately because of her high social standing in society.
She learns that the army is a democratic institution and goes through normal training as a WAC.Russell is reasonably delightful.
She's given good support by Marie Wilson as a dizzy blond who wants to have a career in intelligence.
Paul Douglas plays her husband, perhaps a little too somber and solemn for a piece like this.
He's usually better in dramas and film noir.For those who have seen Abbott and Costello's "Buck Privates" or "Private Benjamin" or "Stripes," or other army comedies, there won't be too many surprises.
Still, its a solidly amusing piece of work most of the time.
It proves again that joining the army is just like going to summer camp, only with guns..
Russell gets the "Private Benjamin" treatment in wacky comedy....
When ROSALIND RUSSELL wasn't doing heavy emoting in films like MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA, she was doing wacky comedies like NEVER WAVE AT A WAC and proving that she had comic flair even in sub-standard material.This is a forerunner of the "Private Benjamin" type of service story--or the "See Here Private Hargrove" type of thing, where a disgruntled serviceman (or woman) finds life in the Army rough going when given some deliberately hectic chores to do.
MARIE Wilson is another unlikely recruit who's fighting off advances from an overeager sergeant, LEIF ERICKSON.The gags are fast and furious but not too original as Russell is given some challenging assignments by PAUL DOUGLAS, as the man who eventually wins her heart.
None of it is very convincing and Russell certainly had better opportunities in other smarter comedies during the '30s and '40s.Passes the time, but not really worth watching unless you're a Russell fan..
Could have been better.
Rosalind Russell is a talented comedienne, but "Never Wave At A WAC" is a mediocre vehicle for her.
I think it could have been improved by focusing more on the day-to-day struggle with, and gradual acceptance of, military life by Russell's character, and by drastically reducing the role of Paul Douglas, the vengeful but still loving ex-husband.
Douglas not only looks too old for his role (hard to believe he was actually the same age as Russell!), but his character does some humiliating things to Russell's character that are more mean-spirited than funny.
Although he's supposed, at least at the start, to be the "sensible" one while Russell is supposed to be the "spoiled" one, she is easily the more likable character of the two.
And why waste Hillary Brooke in such a small part (she appears only in the opening party sequence)?
She's the hostess with the mostest on the base....
Seemingly influenced by Ethel Merman's success on Broadway spoofing D.C. hostess Pearl Mesta in "Call Me Madam", Rosalind Russell takes on a part that obviously spoofed Goldie Hawn in "Private Benjamin".
She's another pushy broad acting like a brigadier general when she's only a recruit.
No wonder her obviously flustered husband Paul Douglas divorced her!
As a senator's daughter, Russell is totally imperious from the start, desperately in need of a take-down, nor as a woman, but as a human being who is over-wrought with extreme self importance and pretension, especially when she adds President Truman to her list of character witnesses.
While it is amusing to watch her make an absolute fool out of herself, I find the military response to her quite unrealistic.On the opposite end of the spectrum is Marie Wilson ("My Friend Irma"), a dizzy striptease artist who needs more than a little help fitting in.
These two outcasts manage to change in different ways while going through basic training and eventually finding their footing.
Russell's done much better comedy then this, and the story was much better done more than 25 years later..
Silly and light-weight but still kind of fun.
This is a very silly film with a very silly plot and some very silly and impossible to believe characters.
Yet, despite all this, if you can suspend judgment, there is still a decent film there to enjoy--making this a bit of a guilty pleasure.Rosalind Russell and Paul Douglas just divorced and Roz is planning on getting remarried to a stuffy colonel.
However, Paul wants her back and with Roz's father's conniving, a plan is hatched.
Dad convinces Roz that it would be "fun" for her to join the WACs and that with all their political connections (after all, he is a senator and she knows EVERYBODY in Washington who is somebody), she'll be commissioned a colonel herself.
Well, based on this pep talk, she rushes to the recruiting office (despite being 45 and WAAY too old to join).
However, he tricked her as she does NOT get a commission and is a lowly recruit.The problem is not just how contrived all this is as well as Roz's age but how they wrote her character.
She walks around the base and acts like it's the Hilton Hotel.
While having her play a spoiled rich brat was cool, no one is THAT obnoxious and stupid to think that they'd get the army to cater to their every whim!
This could have sunk the film had it not been for the fact that they played it all for comedy--never taking itself too seriously.Cute writing and dialog managed to make this film harmless fun and a very good time-passer.
Sophisticated entertainment?
No way--but still cute and enjoyable. |
tt0137279 | The Woman in White | Walter Hartright, a young art teacher, encounters and gives directions to a mysterious and distressed woman dressed entirely in white, lost in London; he is later informed by policemen that she has escaped from an asylum. Soon afterward, he travels to Limmeridge House in Cumberland, having been hired as a drawing master on the recommendation of his friend, Pesca, an Italian language master. The Limmeridge household comprises the invalid Frederick Fairlie, and Walter's students: Laura Fairlie, Mr. Fairlie's niece, and Marian Halcombe, her devoted half-sister. Walter realizes that Laura bears an astonishing resemblance to the woman in white, who is known to the household by the name of Anne Catherick: a mentally disabled child who formerly lived near Limmeridge, and was devoted to Laura's mother, who first dressed her in white.
Over the next few months, Walter and Laura fall in love, despite Laura's betrothal to Sir Percival Glyde, Baronet. Upon realizing this, Marian advises Walter to leave Limmeridge. Laura receives an anonymous letter warning her against marrying Glyde. Walter deduces that Anne has sent the letter and encounters her again in Cumberland; he becomes convinced that Glyde originally placed Anne in the asylum. Despite the misgivings of the family lawyer over the financial terms of the marriage settlement, which will give the entirety of Laura's fortune to Glyde if she dies without leaving an heir, and Laura's confession that she loves another man, Laura and Glyde marry in December 1849 and travel to Italy for six months. Concurrently, Walter joins an expedition to Honduras.
After six months, Sir Percival and Lady Glyde return to his house, Blackwater Park in Hampshire; accompanied by Glyde's friend, Count Fosco (married to Laura's aunt). Marian, at Laura's request, resides at Blackwater and learns that Glyde is in financial difficulties. Glyde attempts to bully Laura into signing a document that would allow him to use her marriage settlement of £20,000, which Laura refuses. Anne, who is now terminally ill, travels to Blackwater Park and contacts Laura, saying that she holds a secret that will ruin Glyde's life. Before she can disclose the secret, Glyde discovers their communication and becomes extremely paranoid, believing Laura knows his secret and attempts to keep her held at Blackwater. With the problem of Laura's refusal to give away her fortune and Anne's knowledge of his secret, Fosco conspires to use the resemblance between Laura and Anne to exchange their two identities. The two will trick both individuals into traveling with them to London; Laura will be placed in an asylum under the identity of Anne, and Anne will be buried under the identity of Laura upon her imminent death. Marian overhears part of this plan but becomes soaked by rain, and contracts typhus.
While Marian is ill, Laura is tricked into traveling to London, and the plan is accomplished. Anne Catherick succumbs to her illness and is buried as Laura, while Laura is drugged and conveyed to the asylum as Anne. When Marian visits the asylum, hoping to learn something from Anne, she finds Laura, who is dismissed as a deluded Anne when she claims to be Laura. Marian bribes the nurse, and Laura escapes. Walter has meanwhile returned from Honduras, and the three live incognito in London, formulating plans to restore Laura's identity. During his research, Walter discovers Glyde's secret; he was illegitimate, and therefore not entitled to inherit his title or property. In the belief that Walter has discovered or will discover his secret, Glyde attempts to incinerate the incriminating documents; but perishes in the flames. From Anne's mother (Jane Catherick), Walter discovers that Anne never knew what Glyde's secret was. She had only known that there was a secret around Glyde and had repeated words her mother had said in anger to threaten Glyde and then later got the idea into her head that she knew the secret. The reason that Glyde's parents never got married was that his mother was already married to an Irish man, who left her. While he had no problem claiming the estate, he needed a marriage certificate between his parents to borrow money. So he went to a church in a village, where his parents had lived together and where the pastor, that had service there had died a long ago, and added a fake marriage into their church register. Mrs. Catherick had helped him getting access to the register and was awarded a golden watch with chain and an annual payment.
With the death of Glyde, the trio is safe from persecution, but still, have no way of proving Laura's true identity. Walter suspects that Anne died before Laura's trip to London, and proof of this would prove their story, but only Fosco holds knowledge of the dates. Walter figures out from a letter he got from Mrs. Catherick's former employer, that Anne was the illegitimate child of Laura's father. On a visit to the Opera with Pesca, he learns that Fosco has betrayed an Italian nationalist society, of which Pesca is a high-ranking member. When Fosco prepares to flee the country, Walter forces a written confession from him, by which Laura's identity is legally restored, in exchange for a safe-conduct from England. Laura's identity is restored and the inscription on her gravestone replaced by that of Anne Catherick. Fosco escapes, only to be killed by another agent of the society. To ensure the legitimacy of his efforts on her part, Walter and Laura have married earlier; and on the death of Frederick Fairlie, their son inherits Limmeridge. | insanity, romantic, gothic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0287883 | Süper Baba | Charlie McCready (Bob Crane) tries to wrest his daughter Wendy (Kathleen Cody) from her childhood friends, whom he believes have no ambition. He especially disapproves of her boyfriend, Bart (Kurt Russell). Initially he makes a few attempts to bridge the generation gap, but he fails, especially during the surfing scene, where he falls off the surfboard and get washed up. Late in the summer, Wendy receives a letter informing her that she's won a full scholarship to her parents' alma mater, Huttington College. Unbeknownst to her, the letter is fake; her father has paid the first year's tuition himself, and had a friend at the college send the letter to her. He did this so Wendy would not attend City College with Bart and her other friends.
Charlie later visits Wendy at Huttington, and discovers that the college has changed considerably since he attended there. Wendy later discovers his plot, and joins the campus counterculture as a way of getting even. She inadvertently becomes engaged to a hippie artist named Klutch. Charlie attempts to intervene on her behalf, and ends up in a fistfight with Klutch. Fortunately, Wendy's boyfriend Bart comes to the rescue. At this point, Charlie learns that Bart had turned down a scholarship to Huttingdon so he could be near Wendy. The movie ends with Wendy's marriage to Bart. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0146253 | Ruddigore | === Act I ===
In the town of Rederring, in Cornwall, a chorus of professional bridesmaids frets that there have been no weddings for the last six months. All of the eligible young men are hopeful of a union with Rose Maybud, the prettiest maiden in the village, yet they are too timid to approach her. The desperate bridesmaids ask Rose's aunt, Dame Hannah, if she would consider marrying, but she has vowed to remain eternally single. Many years previously, she had been betrothed to "a god-like youth" who turned out to be Sir Roderic Murgatroyd, one of the bad baronets of Ruddigore. Only on her wedding day had she discovered his true identity.
Dame Hannah tells the bridesmaids about the curse of Ruddigore. Centuries ago, Sir Rupert Murgatroyd, the first Baronet of Ruddigore, had persecuted witches. One of his victims, as she was burnt at the stake, cursed all future Baronets of Ruddigore to commit a crime every day, or perish in inconceivable agonies. Every Baronet of Ruddigore since then had fallen under the curse's influence, and died in agony once he could no longer bring himself to continue a life of crime.
After the horrified bridesmaids exit, Dame Hannah greets her niece, Rose, and asks whether there is any young man in the village whom she could love. Rose, who takes her ideas of Right and Wrong from a book of etiquette, replies that all of the young men she meets are either too rude or too shy. Dame Hannah asks particularly about Robin Oakapple, a virtuous farmer, but Rose replies that he is too diffident to approach her, and the rules of etiquette forbid her from speaking until she is spoken to. Robin enters, claiming to seek advice from Rose about "a friend" who is in love. Rose says that she has such a friend too, but Robin is too shy to take the hint. Rose's devotion to etiquette prevents her from taking the first step, and so they part.
Old Adam, Robin's faithful servant, arrives and addresses Robin as Sir Ruthven (pronounced "Rivven") Murgatroyd. Robin reveals that he is indeed Sir Ruthven, having fled his home twenty years previously to avoid inheriting the Baronetcy of Ruddigore and its attendant curse. He tells Adam never to reveal his true identity. Now Richard Dauntless, Robin's foster-brother, arrives after ten years at sea. Robin tells him that he is afraid to declare his love to Rose, and Richard offers to speak to her on his behalf. When Richard sees Rose, however, he falls in love with her himself and proposes immediately. After consulting her book of etiquette, Rose accepts. When Robin finds out what has happened, he points out his foster-brother's many flaws through a series of backhanded compliments. Realising her mistake, Rose breaks her engagement with Richard and accepts Robin.
Mad Margaret appears, dishevelled and crazed. She has been driven to madness by her love for Sir Despard Murgatroyd, the "Bad Baronet." She is jealously seeking Rose Maybud, having heard that Sir Despard intends to carry Rose off as one of his daily "crimes." Rose tells her, however, that she need not fear, as she is pledged to another. They leave just in time to avoid the arrival of the Bucks and Blades, who have come to court the village girls, followed by Sir Despard, who proceeds to frighten everyone away. He muses that, although he is forced by the family curse to commit a heinous crime every day, he commits the crime early, and for the rest of the day he does good works. Richard approaches him and discloses that Despard's elder brother Ruthven is alive, calls himself Robin Oakapple, and is going to marry Rose later that day. The elated Despard declares himself free of the curse, as he can now transfer the baronetcy to his brother.
The village gathers to celebrate the nuptials of Rose and Robin. Sir Despard interrupts, revealing that Robin is his elder brother and must accept his rightful title as the Bad Baronet. Rose, horrified at Robin's true identity, resolves to marry Despard – who refuses her: now free of the curse, the ex-baronet takes up with his old love and fiancée Mad Margaret, who is ecstatic. Rose then accepts Richard, as he "is the only one that's left." Robin leaves to take up his rightful identity as Sir Ruthven Murgatroyd.
=== Act II ===
At Ruddigore Castle, Robin (now Sir Ruthven) tries to come to grips with being a bad baronet, a task at which he proves to be spectacularly lacking. Old Adam suggests various evil crimes, but Robin prefers minor acts that are not criminal, but "simply rude". Richard and Rose enter to ask Robin's consent to their marriage, which he gives grudgingly.
Robin's weak crimes stir his ancestral ghosts from their usual haunt of the castle's portrait gallery. The curse requires them to ensure that their successors are duly committing a crime every day, and to torture them to death if they fail. They inquire as to Robin's compliance with this requirement. They are not pleased to learn that the newly-recognised baronet's crimes range from the ubiquitous (filing a false income tax return: "Nothing at all", say the ghosts, "Everybody does that. It's expected of you.") to the ridiculous (forging his own will and disinheriting his unborn son). Robin's uncle, the late Sir Roderic Murgatroyd, orders him to "carry off a lady" that day or perish in horrible agony. After the ghosts treat him to a sample of the agonies he would face, Robin reluctantly agrees. He tells Adam to go to the village and abduct a lady – "Any lady!"
Despard has atoned for his previous ten years of evil acts and has married Mad Margaret. The two of them now live a calm, dispassionate life of moderately-paid public service. They come to the castle and urge Robin to renounce his life of crime. When Robin asserts that he has done no wrong yet, they remind him that he is morally responsible for all the crimes Despard had done in his stead. Realising the extent of his guilt, Robin resolves to defy his ancestors.
Meanwhile, Adam has complied with Robin's orders but has unfortunately chosen to abduct Dame Hannah. The dame proves formidable indeed, and Robin cries out for his uncle's protection. Sir Roderic duly appears, recognises his former love and, angered that his former fiancée has been abducted, dismisses Robin. Left alone, he and Dame Hannah enjoy a brief reunion. Robin interrupts them, accompanied by Rose, Richard and the bridesmaids. He quibbles that, under the terms of the curse, a Baronet of Ruddigore can die only by refusing to commit a daily crime. Refusing is therefore "tantamount to suicide", but suicide is, itself, a crime. Thus, he reasons, his predecessors "ought never to have died at all."* Roderic follows this logic and agrees, stating that he is "practically" alive.
Now that Robin is free of the curse, Rose once again drops Richard and happily resumes her engagement to Robin. Roderic and Dame Hannah embrace, while Richard settles for the First Bridesmaid, Zorah.
Note: In the original ending, all of the ghosts came back to life. In the revised ending substituted by Gilbert after the premiere, only Sir Roderic comes back to life. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0032536 | Go West | A drifter identified only as "Friendless" (Keaton) sells the last of his possessions, keeping only a few trinkets and a picture of his mother. Unable to find a job in the city, he goes west and manages to get a job at a cattle ranch despite having no experience. Meanwhile, a neglected cow named Brown Eyes fails to give milk and is sent out to the field along with the other cattle.
As Friendless tries to figure out how to milk a cow, he's told to go out and help the other ranch hands bring in the cattle. Unsuccessful in riding a horse, he falls off and sees Brown Eyes. Noticing her limp, Friendless examines her hoof and removes the rock that had been hurting her. Brown Eyes proceeds to follow Friendless around, saving him from a bull attack. Realizing that he's finally found a companion, Friendless strikes up a friendship with the cow, giving her his blanket at night and attempting to protect her from wild dogs. The next day, Brown Eyes follows Friendless everywhere, much to the chagrin of the other ranch hands. Friendless accidentally sets two steers loose after they'd been corralled in, but on the joking suggestion of the other hands, brings them back in by waving his red bandanna.
The ranch owner (Truesdale) and his daughter (Myers) are preparing to sell the cattle to a stockyard, though another rancher wants to hold out for a higher price. The owner, no longer wanting to wait, prepares to ship the whole herd out. Friendless, shocked to hear that Brown Eyes will go to a slaughterhouse, refuses to let her go. The ranch owner fires him and gives him his wages. Friendless tries to buy his friend back with his earnings, but is told that it's not enough. After failing to get more money from a card game, he joins Brown Eyes in the cattle car and tries to find a way to free her. The train is ambushed by the other rancher and his men. Friendless and the ranch owner's other hands manage to drive off the attackers, but only Friendless makes it back to the train as the others chase away the rancher.
Arriving in Los Angeles, Friendless frees Brown Eyes and leads her away, using his red bandanna once more to guide the other thousand steers to the stockyard. The townspeople are terrified of the cattle as some of the cows break away and begin entering the stores, but Friendless manages to corral them together. Friendless ties Brown Eyes up before going back to retrieve the other cattle, leaving his red bandanna with her in order to keep her cool. Realizing his mistake, he enters a masquerade store to find something red to attract the cows. Deciding on a red devil's outfit, he exits the store and the cattle begin to chase him. The police attempt to arrest him, but are mistakenly sprayed with hoses from the fire department, who flee once the see the cattle coming.
The ranch owner, realizing his ruin if the cattle are not sold, drives with his daughter to the stockyard. The owner tells him that no cattle have arrived yet. Defeated, the ranch owner prepares to leave when he sees Friendless leading the herd into the stockyard. Overjoyed, the ranch owner tells Friendless that his house and anything he owns is his to ask for. Friendless says that he only wants "her," gesturing behind him to where the ranch owner's daughter is. The owner is surprised and the daughter flattered, but they quickly realize that it's Brown Eyes that he's referring to. The three drive back to the ranch, with Brown Eyes beside Friendless in the back seat. | humor | train | wikipedia | Despite not having a reputation as one of the better Marx Brothers films, I still found this to be a typical MB movie with crazy scenes and a few songs.
Once again, Chico comes up with the funniest lines.I think this is a solid comedy and an underrated Marx Brothers film .
The consensus is that Go West is passable, at least, but not one of the better Marx Brothers films.
Tied up with that is the fact that Go West is a late-career Marx Brothers film.
They ended up doing a couple more films together in the 1940s--A Night in Casablanca (1946) and Love Happy (1949), but the conventional wisdom has it that those were provoked more by a need to pay for Chico's gambling debts than they were by a desire to make a film together (which is not to say that they're not good films).For me, however, Go West is another excellent entry in a long string of Marx Brothers films that are primarily 10 out of 10s.
The consensus tends to evolve over time, despite the fact that the films themselves do not change.Go West has Groucho Marx in his usual huckster mode as S.
Go West ends up being about a number of people attempting to con each other out of money and the deed, in a race to see who can get it to New York first.Of course, the plot is primarily an excuse for a series of gags.
They continually play "games" with the conventions of film in general and the western in particular, making this clear right off the bat--any pretense at holding the plot supreme is joyously sabotaged in the first 10 minutes when Go West becomes an extended gag instead (as the brothers try to bilk each other out of the money needed for train fare).
Buster Keaton's infamous film The General (1927) was an obvious influence, and in fact, Keaton was an uncredited writer for Go West, as Keaton was employed as a gag writer for MGM at this time.
I don't want to give any of the material away here, but it's worth watching the film for the climax alone, and in fact, during the pre-VCR days when 8mm home projectors were all the rage, the ending of Go West was siphoned off and marketed by itself.The Marx Brothers' performances are fine, of course, as are all of the technical elements, but the rest of the cast is great, too.
And of course, like always, it doesn't hurt that there are beautiful women around, even if there not in the film that much.While I agree that Go West is perhaps not the best Marx Brothers film, that's only because they have so many 10s that it's too difficult to pick.
I grew up on the Marx Brothers via my father (even though most of them were made before he was born as well), and ended up liking them so much I eventually bought every movie they made, and most of the documentaries, three single Groucho movies, two sets of 'You Bet Your Life' episodes, and even 'The Story of Mankind,' featuring the three primary brothers, though in small parts in separate segments...(Many books by and/or about them too.) In any case, I'm a huge fan.
And re-watching A Night in Casablanca (which at least a little more time and money was put into for what she really be considered their true final film, rather than the slapped together for quick cash 'Love Happy', which was originally a Harpo solo project), I've come to realize that Casablanca is stronger than I remembered, but still felt stale for much of it compared to their classics.
There's a good song, which isn't common in the Marx Brothers films, and both the piano and harp numbers are good.
They're just like those old friends that will never let you down."Go West" has each and everyone of the essential ingredients of the movies from Groucho and co.
Their unique brand of comedy adapts reasonably well to the Western format though, at the end of the day, a lot more could have been done with this situation; the film suffers in comparison with their 'classic' stuff, but even more so when measured against other comics' brush with the genre particularly two ambitious Buster Keaton masterworks, OUR HOSPITALITY (1923) and THE GENERAL (1927), and Laurel & Hardy's (more straightforward but) equally delightful and inspired WAY OUT WEST (1937)!That said, a number of scenes here deliver the goods: the ticket-office sketch at the beginning, the stagecoach ride, the robbery of the safe and, of course, the climactic train 'wreck; on the debit side: the songs in this one are particularly negligible.My verdict, therefore, is that GO WEST is a worthwhile comedy but a lesser Marx Bros.
As always, Groucho has lots of great one-liners, Chico plays a charming con-man, and Harpo gets up to all kinds of anarchic antics.
Groucho replies, "It's out on the tracks; it seldom comes in here." In previous films, the Brothers' made fun of the circus and the opera; in this film, they play havoc with the conventions of the Old West.
I'd like-a the West better if it was in the East."In contrast to some of their other films, especially "At the Circus," the musical numbers are delightful and catchy.
This latter feature of the MGM films was often tedious and forgettable; happily, that is not the case in "Go West." I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would recommend it to anyone who appreciates the madcap humour of the Marx Bros.
'Go West' was the first movie from the Marx Brothers that I saw.
I don't want to call the movie great but since everything was new to me I had a very good time.Groucho Marx is S.
There is a nice scene with Chico playing the piano in a great and very funny way that gives the movie some spirit again.
It was symptomatic of Mayer's lack of interest in their film work - they were not sent out to test their material.Then in 1940 came GO WEST.The Marx Brothers had not been the first comedians that Mayer disliked.
By 1935 Keaton was a has-been in Hollywood, and by the end of the decade was only appearing in minor films as comedy relief, or used as a gag writer.Possibly Mayer decided (for some twisted reason) to put Keaton on the writing staff for GO WEST.
When it was finished, apparently with a sneer, Groucho said: "You really think that was funny?" Keaton, somewhat crestfallen, replied: "I just thought it might work...you fellows are pretty funny by yourselves." There are Keatonian touches in the movie: Harpo's showdown with the saloon keeper town boss, where he pulls out a shaving brush that fires a shot into the floor.
Possibly he had a hand in the great opening of the film, where Groucho is the city slicker fleeced by Chico and Harpo when he tries to fleece them.
Both of those films are way better than the slow going GO WEST.One wishes that Groucho had been more charitable to Keaton, because the latter did finally find a comedian who listened and worked with him.
In GO WEST we have the opening sequence where Groucho tries to fleece Chico and Harpo, only to get a good screwing himself in the bargain.
I also enjoyed the bit where Groucho and Chico attempt to woo a couple of gals as Harpo attempts to steal a deed from a safe in the next room.
GO WEST (MGM, 1940), directed by Edward Buzzell, capitalizes on the recent popularity of the western genre that began in 1938-39, placing the three Marx Brothers in the old west, circa 1870, shortly before "Don Ameche's invention of the telephone." Although not in the classic western comedy sense as MY LITTLE CHICKADEE (Universal, 1940) featuring Mae West and W.C. Fields, GO WEST (no relation to the 1925 Buster Keaton silent) has something going for it.
No, they didn't get to find out how the West was won, nor do the Marx Brothers get to have their frequent foil, Margaret Dumont, sporting western attire and shooting up the town like Annie Oakley.
Terry (John Carroll), Turner's grandson, wants to marry Eve (Diana Lewis), Wilson's granddaughter, and in order to put an end of the Wilson-Turner feud and amend his grandfather's thievery, he requests the executive board of the New York and Western Railroad Company to link Cripple Creek to the Pacific by ways of Dead Man's Gulch so that Wilson will get $50,000 for his property.
Because Wilson is in need for $10 to buy a grubstake, his helpers, the Panello brothers, Joe (Chico) and Rusty (Harpo), who have come west digging for gold, offer him the money.
The method of how Quale, Joe and Rusty retain the deed remains to be seen.On the musical program: "You Can't Argue With Love" by Gus Kahn and Bronislau Kaper (sung by deep-voiced June MacCloy); "The Woodpecker Song" (piano solo by Chico); "Beautiful Dreamer" by Stephen Foster (sung by Diana Lewis); "Ridin' the Range Together" by Roger Edens and Gus Kahn; (sung by John Carroll); and "From the Land of the Sky Blue Water" (harp solo on loom by Harpo on Indian reservation) by Charles Wakefield Cadman.Placing the Marx Brothers in a western setting is a welcome change of pace.
It shows great promise with its hilarious ten minute opening at the train station where wiseacre Groucho is outsmarted by Chico and Harpo for money (Chico: $9 change please), and redeems itself from prior weakness near the finish with its 15-minute Keystone comedy type locomotive race against time as the wild bunch take over command as engineers with Groucho yelling "Timber" to acquire more wood for the steam engine.
Other comic supplements, ranging from good to average, include Groucho and Chico's flirtation with Baxter's saloon gals while Harpo ("that redhead is a demon" quotes one of the floozies) in the next room searches for the stolen deed before dynamiting Baxter's safe.
One scene worth noting having Groucho getting slickered by Baxter and tripped down a flight of stairs (as in A NIGHT AT THE OPERA), thus, making him the laughing stock of the town, actually takes away from his traditional character who used to make fools of the villains.
Unlike their earlier MGM efforts, the romantic subplot, enacted by John Carroll and Diana Lewis, doesn't take too much time away from the brothers to make this 80 minute comedy drag.
Aside from the Marx Brothers assisting a young couple in need, and showing the tender side of their nature by comforting Wilson's granddaughter after learning the outcome of her grandfather's deed, GO WEST might have misfired altogether had it not been for the aforementioned opening and closing segments.
S. Quentin Quale (Groucho Marx) is a con-man heading west.
He encounters seemingly bumbling brothers Joseph (Chico Marx) and Rusty Panello (Harpo Marx) in a train station and ends up losing his money to them.
Like so many comedians before them, and so many who would follow, The Marx Brothers spoof western clichés in this enjoyable late MGM feature.
Not a classic Marx Brothers film along the lines of "Duck Soup" or "A Night At The Opera," but it is a definite improvement over their weak previous film "At The Circus." The film starts very well with con man Groucho getting conned by Chico and Harpo instead.
features aren't 'movies' in the sense that we understand them today.The idea was to entertain us with the customary skits, fill in the interstices with the peripheral dramatic plot, and provide a platform for Groucho's banter, and for Harpo and Chico's considerable musical talents.To that end, we have an entire scene set in an Indian camp engineered to have Harpo 'discover' a harp (the weaving loom), and captivate the two audiences: the 'indians', and us, the viewers.
But Chico acquits the whole scheme with his piano rags in the saloon - watch how his hands become 'characters'.Also of note is the slapstick 'train chase', constructed in a manner that did Keaton proud, and filmed as a homage to the silent era..
When the apostles of political correctness, and the thought monitors, start destroying film comedies in the interest of 'keeping us safe', let us hope that Groucho, Harpo and Chico find some way to outwit them.
Go West was another funny enough Marx Brothers vehicle.
Oh, and Groucho plays the guitar here, something he didn't do since Horse Feathers, as well as sing a few lines with Chico during a number by one of the romantic leads, John Carroll.
There's a scene early on in a train station where the three do a bit where Chico & Harpo rip off Groucho.
The best part about Go West, which is actually a later, lesser Marx Brothers affair is Groucho's name.
I am a huge Marx brothers fan, but this one seems to last forever with little comedy before the much mentioned, "train scene" finally arrives.
My vote for bottom 3 all-time worst Marx Brothers films along with Room Service and The Big Store..
"I'd like the West better if it was in the East." Wildly Underrated Marx Bros..
Though Go West does have its moments, it's not quite in the same league as the brothers earlier MGM films, A Night At The Opera, and A Day At The Races, let alone their Paramount films.
It's also not as good a western spoof as Laurel&Hardy's Way Out West or Abbott&Costello's Ride 'Em Cowboy.When the Marx Brothers left Paramount, Zeppo did not make the trip, so it was MGM's practice to give the brothers a fourth man who happened to be a singer.
He sings the rather forgettable Rding the Range with accompaniment by the brothers.The plot of this film has to do with the Brothers trying to help Diana Lewis get the deed to her grandfather's property that they mistakenly turned over to villains Robert Barrat and Walter Woolf King so Harpo could get a 10 cent beer.
At one point, while gagging a train driver, Groucho looks to the camera and declares "This is the best gag in the picture." Sadly, he's right.So despite a great opening and good ending, Go West is just another nail in the Marx's coffin..
The sad fact about the Marx Brothers is that after the movie A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, their career was all downhill.
The film is a by-the-book effort where the Marx Brothers travel west in search of fun and adventure.
Useless because folks who go to see Marx Brothers films really don't want romance--unless it involves Groucho or Harpo chasing women.
The Marx Brothers in the old west.
"Go West" isn't the best Marx Brothers film, but it has some wonderful moments, including the train sequence in the finale.This is one of their MGM films, and while most people prefer their Paramount days, I like the MGM movies better.
Of course there are moments of inspiration here and there (Groucho's finish of the song "You Can't Argue With Love", Harpo's "discussion" with the Indian chief, the scene where people keep entering a room and drawing a gun on the person in front of them, etc.), and the climactic train chase, although overextended, features lots of good stuntwork and special effects.
As a Marx Brothers comedy, "Go West" is in my opinion great, considerably better than the critics make it out to be.
Keaton's contributions here do not become crystal clear until the last 15 minutes of the film, the climactic train chase.There are lots of similarities between gags from Our Hospitality (the train leaving the track yet still running), Steamboat Bill Jr (Harpo escapes being run over as the train with a house stuck on the front comes at him by opening a front door, then opening a back door, calling to mind the falling building facade Buster faced in the earlier film) and, of course, the General (chopping up the train for firewood), but the thing that's most noteworthy about The General is just how long Keaton can sustain a chase (it virtually runs the entire film), and the Go West sequence is marvelously sustained comedy.The Big Store also has the Brothers doing physical shtick, but the absence of the surreal makes them look like nothing more than slightly more sophisticated three stooges.
Something like watching the train go off the track and then go into a circle as merry-go-round music plays just seems like pure Keaton and pure Marx.Although not Duck Soup (what is, other than Duck Soup?) the film to me is the best thing they did between A Night at the Opera and A Night in Casablanca.
Okay not all of the Marx Brothers movies were really funny.
Dead Man's Gulch is the locale for this Marx Brothers western spoof, and whoever holds the deed to the town at the end of the show is a rich man.
Go West is probably the best AND worst of the final three MGM films, a movie that manages to contain both mild hilarity and extended dull patches.When Irving Thalberg brought the Marx Brothers over to MGM, the retooling of their characters was notable, but not detrimental.
Go West has plenty of strong material: there's the amusing "money changing" scene at the start, some funny interplay with Groucho and a wild west bar clientèle and some overtly adult gags, such as Chico's line "She looks like she knows plenty, but not about the deed!" Then there's Groucho's explicit "I'm not in business for love, you know.
Even the enchanting/impressive/tiresomely formulaic musical numbers have an uninspired feel about them, with Chico's segue line of "I'ma so happy I'd like to play the piano!" supremely lazy on behalf of the scriptwriter.The final climactic chase may be less tedious than other similar endings in Circus and Big Store, but you're never for a minute convinced that you're watching the actual Marx Brothers, only their stunt men. |
tt0111897 | Blue Seed | Momiji Fujimiya thought she was just an ordinary high school student. One day, she is confronted on her way to school by a cat-eyed man with blue magatama beads embedded in his hands, who then attempts to kill her. Momiji is confused and terrified this strange man's sudden desire to kill her; he also refers to her as Kushinada, confusing her even further. Momiji is saved by the sudden appearance of two government officials, one of whom shoots the man in the arm and sends him fleeing.
Momiji is intrigued as to why she was referred to as "Kushinada". She discovers that "Kushinada" refers to an ancient princess whose blood holds the power to stop the ancient monsters known as Aragami by sending them to an eternal sleep. Momiji dismisses the idea that she could be such a person, despite the fact she lives with her mother and grandmother in a shrine in Izumo. However, she soon changes her mind after vines begin to appear from every crack and opening attempting to capture her as they whisper "Kushinada".
Momiji tries to escape, not knowing that the vines are being employed by a powerful Aragami known as Orochi. Fortunately, she is saved by the man with the magatamas embedded into his hands, who introduces himself as Mamoru Kusanagi. He confronts Orochi using Momiji as bait. The plan fails and the government officials appear again. They reveal themselves to be members of the Terrestrial Administration Center (TAC for short), and manage to subdue Orochi. However, with the last of its strength, it makes a final attempt on Kusanagi.
Momiji saves Kusanagi by taking Orochi's blow. Impaled by the Aragami, instead of dying, she is instead fused with the magatama, more specifically identified as a mitama, which gives Momiji the ability to sense the presence of other Aragami. The TAC agents explain that they are an organization dedicated to defeating the Aragami, who seek to destroy humanity. The current Kushinada, Momiji, must aid them because the other Kushinada, Momiji's twin sister, is now dead. Momiji, wishing to discover more about the twin sister she never knew and also to fulfill her destiny, agrees to join the TAC under the protection of Kusanagi, who wishes to destroy his former masters, the Aragami.
The story becomes increasingly complex with the appearance of Murakumo, a man with eight mitamas who kills any Aragami he comes across for his own personal reasons. Kusanagi repeatedly attempts to kill Murakumo. Kaede Kunikida reappears along with a strange energy field in Tokyo, and Murakumo and Kaede's plans soon become clear – they intend to resurrect the god Susanoo and purify the world of humanity's influences, with Kaede acting as the leader of the movement.
There is also a three episode OVA, Blue Seed Beyond, which takes place two years after the end of the TV series. It concerns what seems to be a resurgence of aragami (actually created via biotechnology), and introduces a new character, Valencia Tachibana. Like Kusanagi, she was implanted with a mitama without turning into a full aragami. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | If you like this sort of thing, you'll love this.
I must always say, when dealing with anime, that it's an acquired taste.
Not everyone enjoys it; some folks down right despise it.
But if you enjoy it, well, this is a high quality piece of action/sci-fi.
The american dub is pretty horrendous at spots, and it's a touch gory, but if you can haul through 26 episodes (and that doesn't count the movies), you'll have experienced quite a story line.
It'd be a cardinal sin to spoil it here.
;) Oh, and hang on at the end of each tape for the Omake Theatre.
A series what spoofs itself...amazin' stuff!.
Similar to Neon Genesis, but not quite as artistic.
Blue Seed is a revisionist updating of the Susano-Oh/Yamato-no-Orochi tale, and it is in some ways like Neon Genesis Evangelion (for instance, a main character in each is played by the incredible Megumi Hayashibara).
Giant monsters rampage through Japan (in this case, totally isolated to the country of Japan, unlike Neon, where the entire world is in danger), bent on recreating the world in their own plant-like image.
Like Neon, teenagers are at the center of the struggle-Momiji and her older sister Kaede are the secret weapons against the plant-monster Aragami, who will be banished from the earth if either one of them dies while still a virgin (that's why the mother is safe!
LOL).
If the major complaint with major complaints with Neon Genesis could be summed up with the fact that so many animation sequences are re-used over and over (I got so sick of that damned penguin eating that same fish), then Blue Seed's major fault is that it sticks to the monster-appears/introduce-new-characters/new-weapon-is-created/monster-is-defeated formula for at least ten episodes after the initial two-episode introduction.
Not that they're bad episodes, but they really don't add much to the overall story (though the relationship between Momiji and Kusanagi is deepened).
Neon, even when introducing more characters and sticking to the same formula, was constantly evolving every character and revealing more and more of the government conspiracy and the motivations of Shinji's father.
On the other hand, Neon was much more confusing and didn't really answer all the questions it posed, whereas Blue Seed is more straightforward (this could be a bane or a blessing, depending on your tastes).However, the one thing that Blue Seed has that Neon doesn't is the Omake (`Extra') Theater, a set of thirteen 3-minute self-parodies/music videos that were apparently made for the show when it appeared on video.
Seeing Kusanagi sell semi-nude pictures of Kaede and Momiji to TAC leader Kunikida is so freaking hilarious that I almost died laughing, just as Kusanagi does in a different Omake.
The Susano-Oh OH-NO short and the Jong Jong Majong were also crazy!.
A Very Fun Show.
A very good anime.
Older look, cell-shaded animation style gives it a sort of "classic" look.
It does start a little slow, but that's because the first half dozen or so episodes are written out to help introduce each character.
It really picks up after those.
The music and soundtrack is kind of hit or miss, but its there when it needs to be.
But what I liked most about this series.
It was well planned.
It told the whole story, then ended.
So many anime series go on dragging out every fight far too long and have 100+ episodes and surprisingly little content.
This is a nice self contained story that lifts elements from Japanese folk tales and really hits the spot..
I remember going online and trying to find anime that I might be interested in, and coming across reviews of "Blue Seed".
After reading some reviews it seemed like an anime that was up my ally, action, comedy, some romance and many reviews praised it's story.
So, being excited for a new anime to get invested into, I went and bought the box set and started a weekend of anime.I watched 4 episodes and then pulled the DVD out and went back to get a refund.
This anime is GARBAGE.
I just don't understand why people loved it so much.First, let's get into the artwork.
It's crap.
This, somehow, looks WORSE than Dragonball.
(I apologize if you're a fan of Dragonball, but really, it sucks).
The characters don't look good, the animation is not fluid, and I found myself not interested in any of the artwork except the occasional Aragami.
It's bland and, quite frankly, repulsive.Second, let's look at the story.
THERE ISN'T ONE.
Sure there's something about monsters called Aragami and a Government agency that fights them, but seriously every episode is another monster hunt.
No character development, no deep plot, no plot twists, no emotional impact.
I have read that the story comes in at the last quarter of the series, but to get to it you need to watch the series from the beginning.
I have to sit through over 9 hours of crap to get any story out of this?Let's compare this to a GOOD anime like: FullMetal Alchemist or Mai Hime.
They have their episodes that are fillers, but generally the story is paced out across the entire series and the filler episodes let you get to know the characters better.
Even Full Metal Panic Fumoffu, which didn't really have a central storyline, it was just a bunch of small stories while Sousuke was in school with Chidori, had better situations than this crap.
(By the way, Full Metal Panic is another excellent anime series).In this series you don't get anything more out of the characters.
The main girl, Momiji, is a whiny little girl who is clumsy and always complains about her panties being shown off when she falls down, and yet she still wears ridiculously short skirts.
BORING.
Considering that she's supposed to be the main character in which the story hinges on, this is intolerable.There were other characters, but in reality NONE of them were interesting enough to make them memorable, hence I already forgot about them.Honestly I'm baffled by the reviews I've seen for this series.
It's dull, boring, and it doesn't look good.
I only see this as being enjoyable by all those people who love Dragonball, Pokemon, and other worthless anime series of the same like.
If you want to see a GOOD anime series watch FullMetal Alchemist, FullMetal Alchemist Brotherhood (which is closer to the Manga, but really just read the Manga), Full Metal Panic, Chrono Crusade, Mai Hime, Scrapped Princess, or Witch Hunter Robin and leave this crap in the garbage where it belongs..
not a bad spoiler just info on what it's like..
I think that with any anime it generally sounds better with the original voice actors (ie the Japanese) and having English subs...
which is how OI watch most of my anime...
It may be good for the non Japanese watchers (or those who don't know a lot about Japanese myths) to look up Blue Seed on Wikipedia (link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Seed)) and look at the parts about the Kusanagi (link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanowo)) It will give you some back ground information before you actually watch it...
beware this is another "Japan/Tokyo is the Centre of the Universe" story...
L.O.L. It's kinda like InuYasha...
Myths, High School Girl, Guy, Weapons of mass destruction, love, "Miko's" (Priestess), monsters.....
Whats not to like...
by the way...
lots of pantie shots...
God, can that girl keep them on while she is getting into a fight/almost being killed. |
tt0758798 | Weirdsville | Nothing much happens in the lives of 20-something pals Dexter and Royce except for getting high and hanging out with Royce’s girlfriend, Matilda ('Mattie'). This all changes one evening in Northern Ontario town Weedsville when Mattie overdoses on a stash of Dexter and Royce’s drugs — drugs fronted by local drug kingpin and tough-guy Omar to sell in order to cover their previous drug debt. Thinking her dead and knowing that calling the cops would only land them in jail the pair decide to bury her in the boiler room of the closed drive-in theater where Royce used to work. The two set off to deal with Mattie’s dead body.
While the boys begin to dig a grave downstairs, a Satanic cult led by another former employee and (former classmate of Dexter and Royce) Abel enters the supposedly abandoned drive-in and begins a ritual involving pentagrams and human bloodletting in the upstairs concession stand. Their plan is to resurrect Jason Taylor (hippie turned reluctant but rich Internet entrepreneur and Abel’s unwitting hero) out of his coma. However, when Dexter walks in mid-sacrifice, everything goes awry.
Dexter and Royce are captured, gagged and duct-taped and Mattie’s corpse is discovered. But when some of the sacrificed follower’s blood unexpectedly 'awakens' Matilda an all out chase ensues. Royce and Dexter get to her first, and the trio escapes. After safely stowing Mattie in Dexter’s apartment, the boys run into Omar and his beefy sidekick Garry, who deliver a few swings of a curling stone and an ultimatum — debt (plus interest) paid by last call or he will severely injure the pair. Knowing that millionaire Jason Taylor has a safe full of money at his place, Dexter and Royce take off to break in and steal it, a plan previously mentioned by Mattie, who knows the combination to Taylor's safe.
With a few unexpected bumps along the way, such as running into, accidentally knocking out and then getting high the nephew of Taylor, who was housesitting, Dexter and Royce successfully manage to steal the safe. En route back to Dexter’s apartment to grab Mattie, they run into Abel. A classic car chase causes our boys to seek refuge in a mall where they encounter a midget security guard named Martin. After winning his trust (Martin has unresolved issues with cults himself) he lets them leave without further trouble.
Meanwhile at the New Age Resource Centre, Mattie (having been kidnapped by Abel) has been tied to an upside-down cross along with an unconscious Jason Taylor. Abel's plan is to offer Lucifer Mattie’s life in exchange for Jason’s. Dexter and Royce arrive to try and stop the ritual and rescue Mattie. Omar shows up looking to collect his debt and he brought Gary — and his gun — with him. In hot pursuit of Abel and his cult, Martin and his (physically) diminutive friends arrive only to crash into Dex's car, propelling the safe from the trunk into the New Age Centre, crushing Abel.
With Abel plan’s ruined and his life saved, Taylor gives Dexter and Royce the okay to hand off the safe with all of his money to clear their debt to Omar. They happily flee the scene with Mattie in tow. | comedy, flashback | train | wikipedia | I liked Trainspotting when it came out, but if there was one criticism you could make it was that the film took itself a little too seriously.
If you're looking for an enjoyable and refreshing 90 minutes that restores your faith in low budget films, buy a ticket..
From Jaws as a lady, to a Canadian romp of Satanists, gangsters and fighting midgets, Weirdsville certainly lives up to its title.
Allan Moyle, the director of 1990's Pump Up the Volume, directs another tale of disaffected youth featuring a pair of junkies as an entertaining double act, Royce and Dexter (Wes Bentley and Scott Speedman).
Trying to steal money to pay back their thumb threatening local gangster, the plot includes over doses and slap dash midnight burials in reference to 90s film-cool, Shallow Grave and Pulp Fiction.
Music video quality moments are depicted in beautiful shots of drug fuelled euphoria including Dexter skating bare foot through the snow sprinkled streets of an Ontarian cityscape.Occasionally the visual tricks jar in a Family Guy style but the interjections are smoothed over by our fortunately endearing duo and their dumb but smart dialog.
By turns genuinely engaging and laugh out loud funny, Weirdsville is daft but brilliant..
(The gritty darkness really suits the adventures of two junkies, anyway.) Scott Speedman and Wes Bentley build a real chemistry that grows on you and it's really good to see Bentley in a role that is FINALLY likable.
Taryn Manning also does a good job, although I fear she's going to get pigeon-holed into similar roles.
The rest of the cast does a solid job with no obvious weak link.Finally, people are going to draw a lot of similarities to other movies.
It has a couple of introspective, deep moments, but balances it out with lighter, playful moments the rest of the time.Really, if you ever "got the joke" of "Dude, Where's My Car?" or even found some sick humour out of the head trip of "Fear And Loathing..." check out "Weirdsville".
I went to the movie thinking, this is gonna be stupid i just know it.
for a movie surrounding an illegal substance, i think it was really great.
coming up with originality and intrigue is hard to do and i think Wennekers and Moyle both did a great job.
What a fabulous movie full of oddball characters and realistic dialog that is very funny.
Every twist in this movie is a turn into something bizarre and unexpected and delicious.I love the character of the female Satan worshiper Treena she's able to kick some ass and nothing looks sexier on a woman than some spirit like that.
One of the great things that keeps this movie together is the dialog between old party buddies, it felt very real with the games they play on each other all the time and the continual verbal sparring adds a nice jump to the flick's pace.This movie reminded me of Pulp Fiction or Killing Zoe or Love is a .45, or Way of the Gun in the way it's an indie style road movie with weird characters all over the place..
I was amazed by the outcome of every situation and I think there should be more movies like this one.
I also really like it when the makers put something useful to know in the movie and in this one, they certainly did, but what I liked most is that the piece that the mouse (or rat) played in the story, without it, the movie would have been less meaningful and I think it's really great that people can come up with these things to put in their movie which completes it ...
I've not seen a movie quite like it to date.
Great job on this movie!.
This friend of mine told me about this movie, he got some kind of a screening pass, I don't know...
I never thought a movie about junkies would be that funny and out there.
It's so much more than one of those 'don't do drugs' movies Hollywood makes - it's got car chases, gangsters, guns, and there's Satanists and midgets dressed like knights, it's messed up.
Scott Speedman and Wes Bentley were hilarious, they played off each other really well - they were funny and it didn't even look like they were acting most of the time, they looked like they've known each other their whole life.
The music is pretty cool too - The Dears is in it, so is The Constantines and Shout Out Out Out Out, it's about frigging time somebody started using cool Canadian bands in a movie.
If you want to rent a good comedy, rent one WITH 'Weirdsville' because you won't laugh at this one.
I'd really have to look long and hard to find a movie I've enjoyed less.
A lot of Canadian film is good, but this is sadly not up to par.
The most positive thing I can personally say regarding Weirdsville is that I did at least keep watching until the end.
I mean a good movie of the stoner genre is wickedly funny and built around likable stoner buddies, i.e., Cheech & Chong, Harrold & Kumar, Bill & Ted...et.al.
The ensuing situations just were not especially funny (NOT like the Blues Brothers which was uber-hilarious).Granted I'm not the primary audience this flick is aimed at, I mean I'm 48.
However, I know a good stoner flick when I see it and this misses the mark.
Weirdsville = = the off kilter of After Hours + turns of 2 Smoking Barrels + twists of Trainspotting + a dash of Reservoir Dogs + the warmth of Broomstick Boys + a shake of Run Lola Run + a sprig of Fargo and Office Space.Not what i expected in a small movie.
Drugs, crime, gangsters, prostitution, Satan cult and murder all felt like being at a cozy winter slumber party.
not in thriller suspense as much as the constant 2 hour smile and ongoing hearty feel-good laughs like i was on a crazy roller coaster of tickles in the Scooby-Doo haunted house...
As for a stoner black comedy, the Canadian made "Weirdsville" is as customary as you can get in how it goes about trying to weird you out.
Of course what happens is random, wacky and just bizarre (encounters with Satanists and dwarfs), but not too surprising when compared to films of the same ilk.
Mainly for the combination between Scott Speedman and Wes Bentley, who work off each well enough of as the two junkies involved in a crazy night of unimaginable incidents.
Stoner Dexter and Royce accidentally assume their friend Matilda has died from an overdose on the stash they are meant to sell to payback their drug dealers.
While in the process of burying her in the basement of a drive-in movie theatre, they disrupt a satanic ritual sacrifice and Matilda awakens making the Satanists believe it's the work of Satan.
At times it feels like a home video.
Still Moyle shows great pacing and flashy touches, as the visuals show some creativity, especially the drug- fuelled hallucinations and this suit's the fragmented style of the unusual narrative with numerous droll characters (Matt Frewer is very amusing in his small part).
The main problem with it is that all the weird situations feel contrived, like someone without much imagination sat around trying to think of weird things.
It doesn't have the bizarre, what-comes-next edge of a Tarantino or Lynch movie; each time something happens that is supposed to be weird, it's just banal.The acting, production and other aspects of the movie are fine; it's the script that suffers from a lack of weirdness.
No doubt it sounded funny on paper.The movie is watchable and better than a lot of films I've paid more to see.
Director Allan Moyle describes Weirdsville as, "Trainspotting shot in Canada but with more heart." It concerns Royce and Dexter, two deadbeat junkie types who "couldn't hold down a job if they were tied to it." Royce's girlfriend Matilda goes on 'business dates' - a term she prefers to 'hooking.' Meanwhile tough guy drug-dealer Omar is hassling them for their drug debts.
Mattie overdoses and, in the middle of a cover-up, Royce and Dexter come head-to-head with some self-styled murderous 'satanists.' A security guard midget called Martin and his diminutive friends complete the chaotic clashes of interests.Weirdsville starts off with the now familiar sequences of sudden camera moves and spaced-out montages that are meant to imply drugged confusion and get us in the mood.
Trainspotting drew on fine literary sources for a powerful script and projected the 'young male in crisis' with great conviction, ultimately providing a benchmark movie.
Weirsdville has poor characterisation, an average script, and a plot that looks like a mish-mash of every slackers movie so far.
Although it may appeal to some fans of drug-culture films, it has few other redeeming qualities other than the fun which cast and crew obviously had in putting it together."Are we in hell?" asks Mattie as she comes round from a death defying amount of toxic substances.
"No," comes the reply, "We were at the drive in." Not watching this movie, I thought.
need I say more?This pic'll put you in the mood for undergraduate thrills -- why is it college students are more open to experience, but that tone is so hard to catch on purpose?If you haven't seen an Allan Moyle picture since "Pump Up the Volume," this movie won't disappoint.
The basic story of "Weirdsville," is 2 stoner junkies owe one odd drug dealer money and must find a way to come up with it by last call that night.
It turns into an all out scramble through the city involving everything from their dead hooker girlfriend, a satanic cult, and a troop of little people.
Oh, and of course it all happens in the only place in the world it could...Canada.The Good: This movie was entertaining.
The acting was pretty good considering this was more of a fun movie than anything else.
The plot is a little basic but that is to be expected due to the kind of movie it is supposed to be.
It's comedy and entertainment folks, not rocketry and mathematics so if you decide to watch it than you already know what you are getting.
Get out the bong, and get ready to melt into the couch and have a good time with "Weirdsville!".
Taryn Manning is great, I have always trusted the movies she's been in (minus Crossroads) and this just validates it.
The partners in crime are brilliant and completely believable as addicts, and every character that comes in and out of the plot brings even more color to the film.
Weirdsville might come off as another stoner comedy to some, but to me it's more then that.
The story goes like this, two friends think that the girl has died from an overdose, so they go to bury her in a drive-in.
It doesn't sound like much, but it was both fresh and entertaining.Canadian films get the label of always being 'too artistic' or even for a lack of better words 'too Canadian' but Weirdsville in some sort of way breaks that mold.
Because of its review on scifi.com,I thought Weirdsville would have supernatural elements which made it a twist between a thriller and a horror film.But,the film was not like that.I would say it belongs to the genre of modern thrillers with a lot of twists and drug use,like Go and Spun,but shaken with the style of surrealistic comedies like After Hours.The final result may not be an excellent movie,but it's a very entertaining and satisfactory experience.I did not recognize his name at first,but I later noticed that Allan Moyle,the director of Weirdsville,is the same guy who made very entertaining and underrated movies I have liked pretty much,like Empire Records,Pump Up the Volume and Times Square.Weirdsville is not at the same level of that films but what it shares with them is the non-stop energy which makes it very enjoyable.I also appreciated that the screenplay exposes some valid commentaries about drug use,ambition and the friendship.The actors were very well chosen.In 1999,Wes Bentley appeared as a very promising actor because of his brilliant performance in American Beauty.But,after that,Bentley appeared on supporting roles in crappy movies,where he did not have much to do,like Ghost Rider or Soul Survivors.But,in Weirdsville,we finally back to see his talent because he brings enormous enthusiasm and conviction to his character.I had never paid too much attention to Scott Speedman because of his anonymous performances in films like Underworld,The Strangers or xXx : State of the Union.However,his performance in Weirdsville is excellent because his character is always credible and Speedman never seems to be acting.The rest of the cast is very good,specially Maggie Castle and the great Matt Frewer.The only fails I found on this movie are on the screenplay.Some elements feel forced while other elements could have been better developed.Still,I can recommend Weirdsville.It may not be a great movie,but it is very entertaining because of its energy,its humor,its atmosphere and its excellent performances..
this could have been a really fun/funny movie - a lot could have been done with the premise & story.
i was all depresed 'cause my supposed best friend had slept with my ex-girlfriend and lied to me about it.SoRonnie was getting me drunk on straight vodka and we decided to put in "Weirdsville" and holy Sh*t I gotta say this is one of the coolest damn movies ever!
I mean Scott Speedman, Wes Bentley and Taryn Manning are a perfect trio!
One of my favorite films is "Trainspotting" so of course I thought I'd like this film as well.
There are some "Trainspotting" elements, like similarity between characters Spud and Royce, throughout the film and a couple of funny scenes but while I was watching it I kept waiting for it to end as soon as possible.
Also, I recently watched "Felicity" and I have to say that Scott Speedman is almost the same in both roles as Ben and Dexter which in my opinion isn't good since those are two very different roles.
Overall experience of this film wasn't good..
It's been a long time since I was in college and encountered stoners as hapless as the heroes of "Weirdsville." The movie takes about 50 minutes to find its groove, but once it does it's quite enjoyable.
Their sordid lives and a preposterous plot -- fleeing from murderous Satan worshipers -- tempted me to turn off "Weirdsville" in the first half-hour.
Thankfully there are directors like Allen Moyle who have no problem telling a strange little story sprinkled with junkies, a burn out hippie with a head wound, Satan worshipers, talking mice, winking gnomes, and a drug dealers with strange accent who likes to curl (that sport with a big stone a brooms) in his spare time.You just don't know where this film is going most of the time, yet it's easy to follow.
Virtually every character is inept, even the drug dealer and his muscle, but they all (well most all) muddle through somehow.Not so special scenery (Canada in winter *yuck*), but it's not needed the fine cast of characters and odd little story carry the film...beautifully.
Besides that the two lead actors are pretty funny I hated most bits of this movie.
Unlike in Trainspotting these characters just act stoned and I think if they were on heroin as much as depicted they wouldn't be able to drive, communicate or function.
The movie starts out letting us know 2 guys are going to break into a home, then it goes into a flashback to one week earlier.
These two men, Dexter and Royce (Scott Speedman, Wes Bentley) owe $1700 to a drug dealer (Raoul Bhaneja), but can't pay.
Cult movie.MF, F-bomb, adult themes, a little bit of drug use (just every other scene), no nudity, Canadian..
Likable, interesting, original characters, some crime story (with little visible violence), beautiful pictures, great music, fun, craziness, orderly spick-and-span satanists, Larpers, a nightly visit in a mall, a visit in an abandoned drive-in movie theater, a cute mouse (which as the end credits reassure was not harmed in the making of the movie) - what more can you ask for?
This is not just a movie, it is a crazy, thrilling, beautiful, heartwarming fun ride, that you want to go on forever.
WARNING: I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.Weirdsville was overall a pretty good and entertaining movie.
It ended up being nostalgic for me because, well, when the movie started off, I really didn't know what to expect.
I had read what it was about and after I did the movie seemed very promising, but the feeling I got from the opening just wasn't a good one, or to be more kind, a weird one, which is understandable from the obvious title.
As the film progressed, it was kind of like a roller coaster.
At points (When the Satan-worshiping cults fist come in; the midget cop and when he rounds up his medieval posse; all the Taryn Manning scenes) I was very interested and entertained and was loving it.
At others though, it was just so and quite hard to tolerate, because the characters are quite annoying and the plot really doesn't suck you in that much.I love the whole concept, though; A cult wanting the blood of a girl who they believed was brought back by Lucipher himself, while at the same time her screw-up friends who are constantly high are on the mission to pay off a guy who they had a drug dealing with and at the end the stories all collide into one; It was just so chaotic and fun.
Well, I enjoyed it to an extent and I enjoyed Taryn Manning for she made the movie so much better, but overall there are a lot of greater films I could have spent my time with. |
tt0401244 | The Baxter | Eliot is a dependable and reliable—though thoroughly average—young man with a streak of bad luck, terminally typecast as a nice guy in a life that mimics the clichés of typical romantic comedies. In high school he was stood up by his date on Prom night when her ex-boyfriend, the most popular kid in school, swept her off her feet while Eliot was getting drinks. In college, his next serious girlfriend's ex-boyfriend wooed her during a pep rally by announcing that he would abandon Lacrosse in favor of attending her audition to Juilliard. During business school, he and his then-girlfriend are intercepted by one of her ex-boyfriends with a puppy. Losing three girlfriends to their ex-boyfriends has made Eliot defensive at the proposition of being abandoned (yet again) and having his heart broken.
About a week before his wedding to his girlfriend, Caroline Swann, he discovers that she had a long-lost love in high school, Bradley, from whom she was inseparable. Eliot tries to keep himself composed, but even Caroline's reassurances do not convince him that her feelings for Bradley are buried. Though he makes a last-ditch effort to convince her to elope, she refuses, and Eliot starts bracing himself for the worst when Bradley drops by and begins trying to win Caroline's affections again. In frustration, Eliot has a chance encounter with an office temp, Cecil (Michelle Williams), who shares the same elevator with him while he blurts out his unfortunate past. As he resigns himself to losing Caroline to Bradley, Cecil offers him a ray of hope: she does not believe in "Baxters" and thinks that his predicament is avoidable.
The two meet up again later that night at a small club where Cecil likes to perform her original songs to finish their conversation, and Cecil states her theory: Eliot needs to take more risks. His problems began in High School when he didn't ask his first girlfriend to dance because she was on crutches, and this provided the opportunity for her ex-boyfriend to reignite her passion. Eliot decides to take more risks, though he is unsure on when and how to do so due to his reserved habits. When Cecil has a fight with her boyfriend later that night, Eliot offers to put her up for the night.
The next morning, Caroline and their wedding planner (Peter Dinklage), show up early to finalize their plans. Cecil wakes up Eliot, and he rushes to get ready in time for their arrival, and even though the night before had been completely innocent, he panics while getting ready and accidentally puts on Cecil's underwear instead of his own. After an accidental spill, the wedding planner spots the panties on Eliot, which completely breaks down Eliot's calm. During the meeting, Eliot makes a string of awkward suggestions, ranging from asking for a "funk" music theme and "baja cuisine" for their dinner plans. Caroline, visibly upset, begins to doubt their relationship and almost runs into the hiding Cecil a few times, though Eliot manages to cover.
After the meeting with the wedding planner, Caroline calls off the wedding. Eliot, having been stood up for a dinner with his parents, goes out to a bar with his friends from work where he accidentally runs into Cecil's boyfriend, Dan (Paul Rudd), and Bradley with his current girlfriend. Though awkward at first, Dan dismisses any conflict when he realizes that Eliot is "the Baxter" that Cecil mentioned and actually thanks him for letting her stay at his house when they fought. Dan and Bradley (now revealed that Bradley's girlfriend is an old friend of Dan) insist that the groups spend some time together and chat, much to Eliot's chagrin. Both Dan and Bradley laugh and joke with Eliot's friends, until one of them mentions that Caroline left him. Depressed and upset, Eliot leaves and contemplates suicide until he is interrupted by his friend, Louis (David Wain), who gives him a pep talk on behalf of Caroline, who was worried about him.
On Louis' advice, he buys flowers, candies, and plans to take Caroline wherever it will take to make things right. When he arrives, he finds Bradley already at Caroline's apartment, swooning over Caroline and upset about breaking up with his girlfriend. They cancel his reservations to an expensive restaurant and go instead to a burger place that Bradley knows well. Eliot feels awkward because of Bradley's personal connections to the owner and patrons, while Eliot's refined tastes clash with the blue-collar atmosphere. Even with the owner's help, Eliot continues to feel out-of-place and eventually calls Cecil from the back of the restaurant, confessing that he feels that his marriage will be over before it begins.
The next day, Eliot arrives at work to find that Cecil is his temp again due to a flu going around the office. When she proposes that they both go out and have a drink to celebrate their mutual misery, Eliot explains that after his phone call, the night actually got better for him. After their somewhat disastrous dinner, Bradley and Caroline demanded to go dancing and accused Eliot of being neither spontaneous nor romantic; he stands up for himself and defends his actions and firmly states that he is trying his best to change for her. At the end of his speech, he also reveals that he has changed his mind and now wants to go dancing with them, having convinced himself to try even harder to change for her—and reminding himself that his problems began when he didn't ask his first girlfriend to dance when he had the chance. Though embarrassed, the throws caution to the wind and accepts a lighthearted dance-off against Bradley, a former break-dancer. By accident, Bradley's final move, a spinning windmill, bumps Eliot in the face, both knocking him to the floor and bloodying his nose. Bradley apologizes and reveals, to everyone's surprise, that he will leave the next day with his science team.
Though happy for him, Cecil is saddened by the news because, like Eliot, she has always seen herself as a "Baxter" and hoped that the two could commiserate together. When Eliot asks what she'll do next, she mentions that Dan has a new job in Cincinnati, and she'll probably follow him there to resume her singing there.
At Caroline and Eliot's wedding, Bradley crashes the ceremony and declares his love for Caroline—a split second after Eliot has started his own objection—and Bradley and Caroline live happily ever after, according to Eliot. He takes off immediately to catch Cecil before she leaves town, and after a near-miss, finds her at her apartment. The two talk for a moment and Eliot declares his love, when the sudden appearance of one of Cecil's old boyfriends interrupts them. Eliot, refusing to let history repeat itself, simply chases him off rather than let him get started with another speech. The film closes with the pair performing in the same club where they had their first date, with Cecil singing one of her songs and Eliot playing the piano to back her up.
In a mid-credits scene, the film returns to Eliot catching Cecil about to leave with Dan for Cincinnati. Narration begins, mirroring the narration done by Eliot in the beginning of the film, with Dan revealing himself to be a Baxter as well, describing his lament at losing the girl (Cecil) to the leading man (Eliot). | whimsical, romantic, psychedelic, satire, flashback | train | wikipedia | I'm actually looking forward to bringing my parents to see it, because not only do I think they'll really enjoy it, but I feel like it's finally one of those "movies their weird artsy daughter likes" that I can show them and know that they won't be either appalled over or baffled by.This is in NO way intended to imply that The Baxter is boring or sappy or in any way oversimplified completely the opposite.
Like any good character study, the film makes the most of its preordained plot by reaching those ends through uniquely-developed means.One of the reasons that so many movies that could be labeled "family appropriate" are so bad is because the fact that they're so decent feels so contrived like the raunchy and disturbing parts of life are taken out, and what's left becomes the plot of a PG movie.
It's good, and it's damn good, because, among other things, like excellent costume and set designs, great characters, ridiculous attention to detail, and beautiful directorial choices, it doesn't cater or pander to any one sort of person or audience it's a clever take on a timeless theme, and it's executed in a way that that just about anyone can appreciate.
It's sincere, it's honest, it's believable, it's incredibly moving, and it's memorably unique it also just so happens to be extremely polite, because some movies, like some people, are just polite by nature, and that's what makes them who they are.
But in this movie, you fall in love with the characters who seem a bit out of step, and it makes you want to bitch-slap the pretty people.
There aren't a lot of uncynical comedies out there, and this is a welcome one.It's also valuable for people casting in the New York area -- there are enough engaging performers in here to cast three or four movies..
The Baxter This is probably one of the most underrated films I've seen yet, considering that it's style is basically generic romantic comedy (meaning the makers underrated it themselves), it's gotten little to no viewership...
I never even heard of it before I picked it up off the wall (it was next in line).Anyway, you know all those movies about how the man and the woman love each other but can't figure it out, so the woman almost marries the wrong person before the man crashes the wedding and sweeps her away?
Well this is the story of the guy left at the altar, and his search for the "right woman" as well when his character is defined as the safe, content "nice guy" that women are supposed to erroneously try to marry when their lively romantic relationships go awry.
Basically that's the long way of saying that this guy is an accountant who spends his time reading the dictionary as a private pleasure, and now he realizes that he'd like to actually get the girl too.What's absolutely wonderful about this film is that Elliot knows that his problem is that he's such a harmless nice guy, but he knows that being a harmless nice guy is a really great thing to be if you don't take into account that that means losing a lot of relationships because women are more interested in romance risk-takers.
So he has to battle his own personality with his own personality while his friends give him TERRIBLE advice that sounds good (we've been there, now haven't we?), he surrounds himself with completely superficial people because superficiality is the only way he knows to fit in, and he totally doesn't notice the direct and not-so-subtle advances from the "right girl" who is, also, way too nice to take risks as well.In short, it's an absolutely delightful sort of aside in the whole romantic comedy industry, but still uses a lot of the tropes and techniques usual to the form to keep it simple and enjoyable for everyone.--PolarisDiB.
The wonderful thing about browsing video stores is coming across films that never came to your local theater - because they were filled with garbage such as "Fever Pitch" and "Be Cool" - and finding out these small films are actually pretty good."The Baxter" is certainly one of those films.
Just take a look at turn in "The Station Agent" (2003).The film gets wonderful supporting work from Elizabeth Banks, Justin Theroux - his entrance is priceless - and a genuinely funny cameo from Peter Dinklage."The Baxter" isn't the greatest comedy, but it's certainly better than most of the fare that's in theaters right now.
Of course, they're movie people but they add something unique to this special little film..
I really like "The Baxter." Now, I am a confessed Showalter, Wain, Black, The State, "Wet Hot", Stella fanatic, so I obviously have a history with these guys and their particular brand of humor.
Showalter is charmingly awkward and perplexed throughout, as a "baxter," one of the guys who are always left alone at the altar when their brides' true loves return to abduct them.
As a new kind of romantic comedy that doesn't necessarily play by the rules, The Baxter succeeds in many ways..
The Baxter (2005) written and directed by Michael Showalter, is a very predictable--but enjoyable--movie.Director Showalter has cast himself as Elliot Wendall Sherman, "The Baxter." "The Baxter" is the man who, although perfectly decent, gets left behind at the wedding altar when the romantic hero appears at the last possible moment.Elizabeth Banks plays the elegant Caroline Swann, who falls in love--sort of--with Elliot.
The plot is weakened by unlikely premise that someone like Caroline would consider marrying Elliot.Michelle Williams is delightful as the innocent young thing, and it would be quibbling to demand cinema verite from this film.Just enjoy it for what it is--not memorable or ambitious, just pleasant and enjoyable..
Though I originally saw "The Baxter" based on the fact that I loved the Internet shorts "Stella" I wasn't disappointed when the styles of comedy differed.
Baxter takes such a clever angle at filming the tired romantic date movie.
This fallows the rules of new comedies that concentrate on oddballs to be there focus, movies like "Napoleon Dynamite" & "Punch Drunk Love".
The Baxter is a fun little movie with a great knowledge of film (even if it doesn't practice perfect cinematography) and a good heart.
It's the type of romance that we want to believe in, and it's very funny.Written by, directed by, and starring Michael Showalter, he's a baxter.
The movie begins with him meeting two women, Michelle Williams who has the same awkwardness and quirky charm, and the beautiful Elizabeth Banks.
He's captivated by Banks' beauty, but immediately wary of her "perfect" ex-boyfriend (Justin Theroux).It's a comedy of exes and trying to hold on to true love, whatever that may be.
It's the classic romantic comedy tale, except told from a different angle - the point of view of "The Baxter".
My recommendation is to watch it, and to watch all the way through to the end of the credits - they add another little twist which most romantic comedies aren't self-aware enough to include..
The humor is subtle; the movie is more funny in how people react to statements people say, or the way that Mike Showalter says certain things ("I had a dream that Bradley was at the bar!") and how terribly geeky he is ("Let me just put my driving cap on.").
Justin Theroux, David Wain, and Paul Rudd are all wonderful as usual.I should also mention that Tim Orr did the cinematography, and his art direction is usually fantastic (e.g., All The Real Girls).I wish I'd known about this movie before hand.
I think the boys have found the perfect showcase of their brand of humor in this film because the absurdist aspects are thoughtfully sprinkled on top of a solid foundation of a cookie cutter romantic comedy story.
"The Baxter" is an unconventional romantic comedy, it is a little dark but it is quite funny at the same time.
If you've seen The Baxter, you know there is a scene at a bar in which Paul Rudd and Justin Theroux play a strange game which has two steps: a rhythmic, nonsensical prelude (tapping elbows on the table, pinching one's nose, etc.) followed by a non-sequiturial comment uttered in a cartoon voice.
The two ladies were quite good, though, especially Michelle Williams, who was so effective every time she was on screen that she almost seemed like she was in a different movie that everyone else.
My friend does not really like Stella-type humor and she liked the movie better than I did, so maybe it was kind of an expectations problem as well..
Maybe half a star for Theroux (for somehow coming off sleazier than Showalter) and another half for Ian Black (who shows us what got him those Sierra Mist commercials), but I'm not good with fractions so FTS and besides The Baxter gets stripped of at least one full star due to Peter Dinklage's WAY over the top, stereotypical turn as Benson Hedges, the gay, midget wedding planner (he set us back 50 years).
You don't remember that name invoked in the recent 40 Year-Old Virgin; well, it should have been because Steve Carell's Andy is not only a virgin but also a Baxter until his friends teach him a thing or two about women.Michael Showalter's a certifiable comic, proved in his successes with the comedy troops Stella and The State.
But some girls do love him, in particular the Naomi Watts look alike, Elizabeth Banks as Caroline, a preppy energy bunny engaged to Sherman, and Michelle Williams's Cecil, a wholesome temporary secretary in love with him.As in most films that play with the concept of the loser destined to become a winner, it's difficult to believe these two attractive women could fall for a Baxter.
I had never heard of one, but all of the characters in the film spoke of baxters like everyone knows what they are.
The reason the movie is so predictable is because you have probably seen the million romantic comedies the film is playing off of.
I could see how you could miss this fact if you were unfamiliar with any of Michael Showalter and Stella's other works, but it was pretty obvious throughout the entire film.
Also, Baxter is a term made up just for the movie, as stated on Michael Showalter's personal website.
It takes the typical romantic comedy and actually makes it funny while also telling a nice story..
Writer, Director and Lead Actor Michael Showalter ("Wet, Hot Summer", "Stella shorts") attempts to deliver the whole package with this one - even billing it as a Howard Hawks type screwball romantic comedy.
Throw in Michael Ian Black (looking pretty rough in the colored briefs) and Paul Rudd (fresh off great reviews for "The 40 year old Virgin") and you see what I mean about the supporting cast.The idea of a "baxter" being the guy (or girl ...
The scene in Elliot's apartment when Carolyn (Banks) ALMOST discovers Michelle Williams while arguing with Elliot is pure screwball physical comedy at its very best.This is definitely one to see and you will laugh a few times and smile many, but it will leave you wondering ....
Showalter plays a subtle and nuanced Elliot, whose mannerisms crack you up much like Barry Eagan's in PT Anderson's Punch Drunk Love.
Micheal Ian Black, David Wain, and Paul Rudd provide most of the laugh out loud moments, where as Michelle Williams and Justin Theroux keep a non-stop smirk on your face with their fully developed quirky characters.
I mean, the main character is really a dope, a geek, the type of guy that even romantic comedies make fun of.
And this one does too, a little, however, he meets the girl of his dream in the end just like in any other romcom.This movie has a lot of potential.
A dorky character surrounded by nasty, egocentric people like in the real world is a great setup for real comedy, with real humour, one that you can relate to.
Or Jackie Chan.Bottom line: it was a nice try to escape the pathetic and ridiculous stereotype of romantic comedies, but it ultimately failed, being an unromantic, long, humourless, boring movie..
The same year, State/Stella alum Michael Showalter (aka Doug, perhaps the best remembered recurring character of The State) wrote and directed The Baxter.
While it begins with a common rom-com convention - a girl is getting married to a boring guy when her true love bursts into the church to declare his love - it focuses on the third wheel, played by Showalter himself.
The thing is, though, that, when the film flashes back to the beginning of the story, the girl he's marrying (Elizabeth Banks) is the shrew.
The real love interest is played by Michelle Williams, as a sort of manic pixie dreamgirl who pops into Showalter's life occasionally.
Does for the romantic comedy what "Wet Hot American Summer" did for the summer camp movie.You know how in romantic comedies there's always the guy standing next to the girl as her true love makes a dramatic speech and whisks her away, that poor s...(read more)ad sap, is what is called a Baxter.Elliot Sherman has always lost girls in this manner, and he'a all set to get married until the viscous cycle begins anew with the return of his fiancés long time old flame Bradley.
Elliot then does his best to avoid falling into Baxterdom, and seeks advice from Michelle Williams, a quirky temp, which only complicates things.The absurdity is toned down a lot here from the "Wet Hot" days, but all of the actors(many from the previous film, Micheal Ian Black, Paul Rudd, etc), all give great comedic performances.
Elliot in the end will be "the Baxter" of the title, because he is the man who will end up without getting the luscious Caroline.This wonderful comedy written and directed by Michael Showalter, came and went without much fanfare.
Its heart is in the right place and Mr. Showalter got excellent acting from his ensemble cast.The director, like Woody Allen, just to mention another writer-creator, could have done better by staying behind the camera and casting his Elliot with another actor.
Not that he doesn't do a good job, but perhaps he would have made Elliot a more lovable character than what comes in the screen.Michelle Williams steals the film.
Zak Orth, Paul Rudd, Havilland Morris, and especially Peter Dinklage, are all wonderful in supporting roles."The Baxter" is a delightful film thanks to the talented Michael Showalter who will no doubt will go far in whatever he decides to do next..
He tells us the story about meeting the girl he was going to marry and how her former boyfriend Bradley (a good looking lad, the very opposite of Elliot) comes again into her life.
But there's this other girl that seems more honest and sincere than his fiancée, but she has a boyfriend...I would say that the movie has spoiled itself because we know from the start that Elliot is get dumped.
Even professional reviewers seem to have missed this.I am not sure that this will spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it yet, but I did check the "Contains spoiler" box, just in case.In any event, the hero defines a "Baxter" as the nice guy who doesn't get the girl in the end.
I really like the fact that this film highlights that being a "baxter" is an inevitable occurrence in life.
The post-credit bit with Paul Rudd's character beginning the story again from his perspective very effectively punctuates the intent of the film: Life truly is on a continual loop in many ways, with each person's decisions impacting everyone around him (or her) and helping to create what would seem to be a collective destiny.
If you have discerning tastes about storytelling, humor, acting or plot, then this "film" will make you wish you had opted for an evening of anything mediocre on CBS instead.Interestingly Showalter gets Michelle Williams, Paul Rudd and Elizabeth Banks to completely waste themselves in this drudgery of white-collar ...well...
So he refuses to see the love in front of him that is in fact the (here it comes again) awkward dork played (rather well, thank you, since she's actually a capable actress) by Michelle Williams.One saving grace of the film is a bit of underwear clad Williams.
A compromise to "true love." The epitome of "settling." Shorthand for a bachelor with lots of exes, who's kind of a loser.Quote from the movie, The Baxter.A little indie film that is on the dry side.
I think I only noted two or three cuss words in the whole movie.It is a silly little film.
THE BAXTER (2005) ** Michael Showalter, Elizabeth Banks, Michelle Williams, Justin Theroux, Michael Ian Black, Peter Dinklage, Paul Rudd.
The Baxter is really a humorously written and acted film.
To error is human and at least we and they can do a good job about making some humor of it, because in the end, these characters are likely serious about the sentiment, wanting to be happy in love..
One of the worst uses is telling the whole story as a flashback (since we saw the ending in the start); sure that ruined the whole movie, making it dead predictable.The story till the accident of the wedding planner was so well, after that things grew less importantly, the pace went lame, and the comedy became real poor.
But no such luck.(Michael Showalter) made a lovely character.
And compared to other American romantic comedies, like (A Guy Thing – 2003) which's nearly has the same story, it missed the same things.
But even knowing the story outcome and being cool with that, I just wanted a few character surprises to intrigue me enough throughout the movie's middle. |
tt0086944 | Be Somebody... or Be Somebody's Fool! | Be Somebody touched upon about a dozen key points:
Shyness - A young actress asserts herself by using her temper.
Roots - Mr. T says "Ya can't know where you're going if ya don't know where you're from" and explains the symbolism of his gold chains.
Anger - Mr. T tells kids to use their anger, not lose it, but fails to fully employ this when a fly continues to bother him.
Frustration - Throughout the video, Mr. T tries to play the cello, eventually succeeding.
Styling - Mr. T encourages youngsters to dress up and express themselves.
Peer pressure - A group of kids on a pier take beer and cigarettes from the garbage, while nearby, Mr. T shakes his head and New Edition sings a song disdaining peer pressure.
Recouping - When a kid trips on the sidewalk, "Dr. T" shows how one can preserve their dignity after an "absoludicrous" mistake by playing it off as a break dance move.
Creating - A group of teenagers breakdance and encourage Mr. T to try some moves.
Treat Your Mother Right - Mr. T sings Treat Your Mother Right, a segment that was widely circulated on the Internet in 2005 and 2006.
Workout - Mr. T encourages lazy kids at a bus stop to use a boom box as a free weight and balance a bag of popcorn on their heads.
I Am Somebody/Rapping - Mr. T raps "I Am Somebody", as well as offering a few guidelines of rap.
Friendship - Mr. T gives his definition of "friendship", while a girl sings a song about it.
Mr. T's Tale - Mr. T tells his version of Romeo and Juliet and gives a pro-reading message.
Daydreaming - Mr. T explains how having dreams and goals contributes to success. | cult | train | wikipedia | I have to say that because I am a real fan of this movie, I read through all the comments on it here, just because I am really curious to see what people think of it.
Most of the people I've showed it to (and believe me, this tape saw some heavy action during college years at St. John's in Santa Fe; some of you out there may vaguely remember something like that) have really enjoyed it.
A lot of people, like myself, seem to be drawn to it as if by some kind of strange drug, so that when it is showing somewhere we will manage to wander in and see it.
It's a truly great cult movie with a very small cult -- mostly because it's very hard to find copies of this film on video at present.
Someday there'll come along an 80s retro period strong enough to bring this film back into distribution, and on that day -- may the forces of the disrespecting, momma-hating, punks fear because Mr. T will be back to teach them how to behave.
I won't go through all the advice that Mr. T gives in this film -- suffice it to say that Mr. T shows us how to use our anger and imagination to our own advantage and how to make it look like we mean to do everything we do and are always in control, even when we're confused or making horrible mistakes.
Reading his autobiography (which was obviously written by Mr. T himself; if you don't believe me pick it up) which came out about the same time as this film has convinced me that he is sincere.
He truly lives his life by the words he says and by what he shows in this movie, and if you and I follow it we will all be powerful, independent, individuals and probably rich ones too.
We'll ALL "BE SOMEBODY"This is not a bad film.
Although all agree that this movie is hysterically funny and not to be missed, I am compelled to defend it from the implication that it's one of those "So-bad-it's-good" movies, a la Showgirls or the one where Rupert Everett gets Madonna pregnant.
When the video started rolling, I was really ready to make fun of Mr. T, to suggest he was on drugs when he filmed this, or that he had to make it to pay off gambling debts, but this movie is truly good, good lessons, good feelings, good attitudes, good fun.
I only hope that more people find out about it so it can get the recognition it deserves, and so that more people (especially kids) will be exposed to Mr. T's lessons of self-esteem, his perpetually hopeful spirit and his silly sense of humor..
This piece gives us an in-depth look into the philosophy and psyche of this modern-day thinker and performer, Mr. T.
We see a man of great vunerability trying to gain acceptance with his gold.
"Hey you, you with the teeth"...any film beginning with the incomparable Mr. T addressing you in such a way can safely be deemed a classic.
Parents, there is no doubt that you want your children to grow up to be somebody.
Do them the ultimate favor, show them that you truly love them, and watch this video together as a family.
Next to Caddyshack, the Blues Brothers, Animal House, and most of the early stuff from John Hughes, this might be the most comedically entertaining films to date.
The one thing that sets this cinematic masterpiece apart from the group mentioned above, is, that for the most part, "Be Somebody, Or Be Somebody's Fool" wasn't created to be intentionally funny...
The scenes are perfect, the quotes are memorable, and the acting isn't that great, but that didn't really bother me, since I was laughing to hard to notice.
Randy showed up with this video and said that we had to watch it.
What better name for the band than "Mr. T's Be Somebody Or Be Somebody's Fool"?
So there it was, we learned all the songs from the movie, and went for it.
We even had matching t-shirts made with the movie's poster on the front.Those were some good times, inspired by a life changing film.Thanks Mr. T!
I guess there's more money in filthy mouthed, mother hating, thugs than a man who wants to help, educate and make the world a better place.However the other comments are a bit in error, there's plenty of places to find this gem online, you just have to look around a fair bit.I guess this tape is long since out of reproduction and if they ever figured out who owns the rights I doubt if they'd care if there was a market for a DVD release, but it is out there!
Teaches little kids that in order to be somebody, you have to learn how to break dance, wear absoludicrous clothing, make up stories about your hair, and above all respect your mother (all while avoiding peer pressure, and walking through the surf in all your clothes).Mr. T did not make this movie to help little kids.
He strips down to red hot pants and works out.Another example, Mr. T trys to play the cello.
T CANNOT SIT IN A CHAIR.Mr. T also offers kids advice, such as: Use anger, don't loose it!
respect your mother, and if you trip while skipping down the street and you happen to be wearing a jumpsuit, just breakdance, you won't look like an idiot then....The best part is the Styling part (pronounced stylin).
Here the kids give a fashion show, but Mr. T tells them that Calvin Klein wouldn't wear clothes with your name on them so you shouldn't wear his name on your clothes, or something like that.
He comes up with some great ones like "Xena and Zena are dressed up for that exciting walk to the grocery store" and "In her mustard socks and ketchup sash, she's a real hot dog" I am not making this up.This segment single-handedly made 80's fashion so awful.
The best part of the segment is Jeff who is about 25 years old, wearing a plaid shirt, suspenders, and pegged jeans who dances around like he's doing a cross between ballet and epilleptic seizures.
If you ever watched the A-Team, you'd see his character repeatedly clobbered in the head with lead pipes and he wouldn't flinch; but he also tried to branch out into a strange kind of motivational programming for children, even inspiring a tasteless breakfast cereal.
"Be Somebody, or be Somebody's Fool" is one of Mr. T's bizarre efforts to teach little kids how to be better people.
If you can find this tape, it's worth watching just to see how bad children's programming can get.
Plus, the hilariously bad rap songs may inspire you to donate something to the "Blacks Without Soul" fund..
If you're looking to play Mystery Science Theater 3000 The Home Game, this is your film.
You have constructed a work of genius that can be treasured be afficianados of film and children alike.
There are a thousand things I could say about this film.
This video teaches values and will show the young'ns the right way towards life.
Through many song and dance routines, Mr. T enhances the way of living for all that watch.
Of course it isn't entertaining in the way it was meant to be, but its definately great to watch!
Tato Chip!" Then you have the great scene where the kids find a full, unopened beer, AND a pack of cigarettes, in the trash can!
Then the kids of course sip on the beer and smoke the cigarettes, and try to talk the only "smart" kid into doing it, while Mr. T is off to the side shaking his head, apparently only seen by the one kid.
Then enters the line of black guys singing "peer pressure!" Oh and I cant forget the scene where Mr. T gets mad at a fly and slaps his hand into the potato salad, then into his own face, covering himself in potato salad.
There is a part where Mr. T talks about being yourself, and not worrying about brand names, cause they are stupid and meaningless, just wear what clothes you like!
Mr T ain't nobody's fool, he IS somebody learn from his chaises.
this is the best movie of all time.
this is the best movie of all time.
Trat you mother right song is funny.
teaches kids the importance of being honest, dealing with anger, and of course, the art of RAP.
It's bad, but it's funny and makes a few good points.
T tells you to treat your mother right, workout, daydream, and whole bunch of other things that make sense.
This is a truly inspirational video that brings Mr.T's collective talents to the small screen.
In this video Mr.T raps, dances, sings, and acts, all using his classic T-style.
He teaches you to respect other people, whether they are male, female, black, white, or your mother.
Mr.T also inspires all, young and old, to get up off of their behinds and start working out.
After watching this video I now have the motivation and the drive to get my own icecream sandwich on hot days, instead of asking my mother to get me one.
I have a strange feeling that his 1984 film, "Be Somebody" will have an affect on the future like Bill and Ted's "Be Excellent to each other" statement.
This film is utterly the best thing ever committed to celluloid.
6. Mr.T can play the cello.This film is worth twice it's weight in gold and diamonds.I'd be remiss if I didn't say, "I pity the fool who don't buy this tape.".
For those who still regards David Lynch as of one the greatest masters of surrealism in film, this video is gonna blow your head.
(you can't get better than this).From the opening song (just listen Mr T singing the chorus), to the last song (a hilarious rap song), Mr T gives you some bizarre tips for severe problems as anger, peer pressure, shyness and the like.
What is more, all these situations become more and more surreal due to the erratic behavior of the host (the scene with the cello is creepy), who tries to show himself as a sensitive guy by not being sensitive at all(amazing huh?).Don't get me wrong, this is not just another 80's fest with bubblegum pop songs, break-dance moves, colorful clothes.
On the contrary, this is an instructional video with bizarre situations, surreal dialogues, deep messages, forgotten glories from the past (New Edition), and of course, a guy named Mr T.
not really, but as you could've seen in his TV show "I pity the fool", his energetic character struck like lightning into the pitiful situations where the families in that show sank into a long time ago.
! He's so overwhelmingly serious at "educating" those children, you wont doubt it for a minute, that he does it totally honestly.So, despite it's a B video, give Mr T.
a chance, I'm sure you'll like it.
I pity the fool who doesn't like this.
It's seem like a parody out of a SNL TV Funhouse live action skit, but this was indeed a real life 1980's motivation video hosted by Mr. T.
He can't really act, dance and or sing as its shows in this film.
Mr. T is famous solely for his insane crazy personality, so I guess the true meaning to this video is to stand out even if it makes you look like a fool.
The movie focus on message help kids out.
It seems like they are sending the wrong message in some of the sequences.
Then the movie has a scene where a kid gag spring snakes his mother and scare her senseless.
In the break dancing scene, stiffly moves his arms around for a while, before he finally gives up and just flexes his bicep.
There is a lot of this, even in the styling sequence, calling a young woman, 'hot ice cream'.
Who put this into a kid's movie?
Another good example of bad advice is the Shyness sequence that has a young girl asserts herself by using her temper.
One scene look like they would tackle a serious issue like street gangs, and it end up talking about reading.
The Asian girls look like cheap Chinese hookers.
Then there is one that looks like a hot dog to the point that even Mr. T agrees.
I don't think Mr. T is the best advice for what looks nice in the 1980 fashion sense.
Most of the movie, he wearing awful camouflage boot camp-style or in his shiny speedos, which I don't want to see, either.
The movie use new wave and R&B culture of the mid-1980s to appeal to children, but it rarely works.
I love the opening song, 'Be Somebody', and love 'Peer Pressure' from New Edition.
The break dancing sequence is just out of place.
I guess, the next time, I ever do something completely humiliating, I should just turn it into a break dancing move so I can make myself look like a fool even more.
Great one liners like Hey, you!
Watch this movie if you want a laugh.
An educational film on the values of individuality, respect, and break-dancing - hosted by Mr. T.
This Saturday-morning style freak-show is possibly the most bizarre and entertaining film I've ever seen.Mr. T talks to a bunch of kids about commendable topics but in such a way as to make absolutely every situation completely laughable.
There is far too much ridiculosity to even begin to mention here - suffice it to say, if you are in the mood for something that will have you on the floor laughing, while still learning something (sarcasm...), then this one's for you.It's sad that Mr. T hasn't gotten too much work lately, BE SOMEBODY definitely showcases his unique "talents".
I didn't honestly think that something geared towards kids could be this entertaining, but it is.
The nostalgia value alone is worth the price of admission for this one, especially for anyone who was a kid in the early 80s.
and of course, i'll try to find my personal rap...Truly terrible, but so much so that it is excellent..
A video like this probably wouldn't be made these days, but what a trip back.
This tape features Mr. T attempting to breakdance, New Edition on peer pressure, Mr. T's video for the pseudo-electro-rap song "Treat Your Mother Right", ghostwriting by Ice T and two appearances of the word "absoludicrous"."Be Somebody.." is pretty tough to track down, and was originally referred to me by someone who bought their copy from a video store (where no one else rented it).
They just don't make videos like this anymore!.
This is a classic kid's educational video starring the one and only Mr T.The whole premise of BSoBSF is that Mr T (or Doctor T or Coach T, depending on which hilarious persona he is at the time) teaches the viewer about things such as respect, friendship, and daydreaming (?).Mr T carries this thing, and that is what makes this funny.
Ever want to see T smear egg salad on his face, or attempt to do the robot, or smile and take pictures of kids in slacks while talking about his 'cool style'?
And Stacy Ferguson, aka Fergie, is supposedly in this, but I couldn't pick her out.Other highlights include T being completely owned by a 8 year old kid in dancing, not saying words correctly when acting as a teacher, doing crouches while balancing popcorn on his head, the whole Style segment of the most hideous 80's style ever put together, T badly singing a song about respect your mother, a terrible Jackson 5 impersonator, and a fat kid who can't do rudimentary things like go down a slide correctly, or do a jumping jack.Basically, the whole thing is a hoot if you enjoy really corny and bad edutainment films, or like Mr T (ie everyone).8/10.
A majority of these well-meaning, but moronic life lessons are set to either sickeningly sappy pop slop tunes or hideously bad rap songs that are further enhanced by eager beaver teens cutting loose something stupid with all these cheesy, spastic, herky-jerky break dancing moves!
Mr. T himself barks choice rap music verses in a fierce, husky, guttural growl that's anything but melodious and comes across like an arrogant, egocentric, unbearably self-important and self-centered jerk (highly revealing narcissistic verse: "If you want to be cool/Just like me/Ya gotta try real hard to be somebody").
I don't think so, man.Broken up into various segments, Mr. T gives advice on assorted pertinent subjects by grunting lots of stale, obvious, hackneyed folksy platitudes; said topics include roots ("Ya can't know where ya going if ya don't know where ya from," the all-wise Mr. T sagely remarks, explaining that all the gold chains he wears symbolize the shackles put on his slave ancestors when they first came to America!), style ("Clothes express your personality, so express yourself, not someone else," Mr.
Other hysterically dopey highlights are: a gust-busting "Just say no" evil dope section on peer pressure in which a bunch of stoners try to force a reluctant fat boy to partake in the debauched pleasures of swilling beer and smoking weed, Mr. T coming down real forceful on talking trash about anyone's mother ("Mother, I'll always love her," Mr. T tunelessly wails while an off-key chorus of dowdy moms supply crummy background harmonies), an especially mawkish passage concerning friendship (deathless hokey aphorism: "Friendship is like a clear day; you look forward to it"), and Mr. T making a gaggle of lazy kids engage in an impromptu curbside workout session by having 'em bench press a boom box and balance a bag of popcorn on their heads while bending their knees! |
tt0070165 | Heavy Traffic | The film starts out in live action, introducing the protagonist Michael Corleone, a 22-year-old virgin (inaccurately referred to as 24 in the movie's trailer) playing pinball in New York City. The scene then transitions into animation. New York has a diseased, rotten, tough, and violent atmosphere. Michael's Italian father, Angelo "Angie" Corleone, is a struggling mafioso who frequently cheats on Michael's Jewish mother, Ida. The couple constantly bicker and try to kill each other. Michael ambles through a catalog of freaks, greasers, and dopers. Unemployed, he dabbles with cartoons, artistically feeding off the grubbiness of his environment. He regularly hangs out at a local bar where he gets free drinks from the female black bartender, Carole, in exchange for sketches of the somewhat annoying Shorty, Carole's violent, legless bouncer devotee. One of the regular customers at the bar named Snowflake, a nymphomaniac transvestite, gets beaten up by a tough drunk hard-hat who has only just realized that Snowflake is a man in drag and not a beautiful woman. Snowflake loves it, but the drunk causes property damage Shorty throws the drunk out and the bar's white manager abusively confronts Carole over this. Fed up with her manager, Carole quits.
Shorty offers to let Carole stay at his place, but not wanting to get involved with him, Carole tells Shorty that she's staying with Michael, and that they've been "secretly tight for a long time." Michael is turned on by her no-nonsense attitude and strong sense of self-reliance. This relationship also arouses his father's racist fury, as well as the jealousy of Shorty. But Rosa comes over to have sexual intercourse with Michael while Angie slaps Ida in the face with a gun. Michael and Carole decide to move out of Michael's parents' house and try to earn enough money to move to California, in order to avoid Shorty. Michael gets a chance to pitch a comic strip idea to an old executive lying on his death bed, who seems enthusiastic enough to listen to the idea.
Michael's story is too much for the mogul and he dies during the pitch. Meanwhile, Carole tries to work as a taxi dancer. Michael, acting as her manager, tries to pass her off as "the fourth Andrews Sister" ("'cause she was black, they kept her in the background"). A quick flash of her panties gives an old man a heart attack, and Carole gets fired. Meanwhile, Angie tries to use his Mafia connections to put a murder contract out on his son for "disgracing the family" by dating a black woman. The Godfather refuses to do this, because the hit is "personal, not business". However, Shorty eventually meets up with Angie, and agrees to do the contract.
Michael and Carole turn to crime as a means of getting by, with Carole taking the role of a prostitute. Carole flirts with a sleazy businessman and brings him to a hotel room, where Michael beats him to death with a lead pipe. The two walk out into a pinball background with the dead man's cash. Just then, Shorty shows up and shoots Michael in the head with a gun that Angie gave him to finish the job before Ida chases him; the bullet is seen going through Michael's skull in slow motion. Many of the movie's characters run around in a circle and a kaleidoscope of shocking images and horrifying events proceeds before reverting to the live action story. The "real" Michael destroys a pinball machine after it tilts and walks out onto the street, bumps into the "real" Carole, and follows her into a park. The two are seen briefly arguing before they finally take each other's hands and begin dancing in the park. | pornographic, cult, violence, psychedelic, humor, satire | train | wikipedia | Bakshi's most personal work is a completely outlandish, crude, overtly abstract New York satire.
Heavy Traffic is, like many of Ralph Bakshi's films, a like it or hate it affair, but for those that respond to it, the film provides many a surprising attack on sensibility, decency, and what it means to get by in urban sprawl.
It's almost too personal; one can see Bakshi or friends of his having gone through some of the little things in the lower ranks of New York City's daily life (particularly Brooklyn life) as depicted here.
But it's this connection to a personal reality- and then a TOTAL adherence to turning this reality on its head and making it as wild, violent, and sexually deviant as possible- that is the key to the success of Bakshi's film, the best of his I've seen so far.
His main character, Michael, is probably loosely based on himself; a young, would-be underground cartoonist who lives with insanely irate parents (Italian father and Jewish mother), and interacts with the neighborhood he's in with a casual attitude and a little reluctance to join in the mayhem that goes on with such kooky cats.
It all leads up to an ending that isn't expected, though a sort of double-piling of shock and pleasant surprise.Heavy Traffic outlays Bakshi's outlook on life in a skill that could be called animated exploitation film-making.
However, it's through this overloading of characters *meant* to be unattractive, sexually piggish, wretchedly racist (and, on the other side of the coin, sexist), and violent in the tradition of the Looney Tunes cartoons with the worst taste, that the film gets to the guts of the matter.
Scenes like Michael being pressured to get it on with the girl on the mattress on the roof, and the outcome as a sort of running gag; the scene with the song Mabeline playing, as Baskhi puts out drawings that are without much color, and look incredible for the reason that there's seemingly little effort put into the animation with the random over-the-top sexual positions; the little bits in the feuding with Michael's parents, the mother with her Jewish-star knife-holster and the father with his dedication to the "Godfather", who eats little people in his pasta, over anything really with his family; and when Michael presents "religious" cartoons to a dying old man, which to any prurient Christian taste is hilariously offensive and, well, cool.Bakshi is so personal at times, with his taste in color schemes, in over-lapping images with film clips, combining live-action and animation (usually with dancing ladies on one side and a lurid little twerp gawking on the other), and even likely real family photos from his own family laid in, that it levels going too far.
But deep down, past the creative madman in Bakshi, is also a heart; his film ends on a touching note, as abstraction turns real and a totally live scene reveals another level to Michael and Carol, as real outcasts who are both totally stubborn, and somehow meant for each other.
A few previous critics of this work by Bakshi slam it for being "stereotypical" and thereby negative as a whole by implementing foul humor, language and at times even suggest that because it's a cartoon that it owes something to child-oriented animation.
Bakshi's vision in Heavy Traffic is to present life on the streets as he knows it.
By using animation, Bakshi is exercising his artistic abilities while setting it in times and themes he is familiar with.
An "underground" cartoonist contends with life in the inner city, where various unsavory characters serve as inspiration for his artwork.Another reviewer said that people who review this film poorly are either offended by the nudity or just do not get it.
On the second point, it is possible I do not get it.While I understand the animation was innovative for its time and that the film shows urban decay -- both with cartoons and actual locations -- I cannot help but think that it just has not aged very well.
It balanced out to be average at best.The New York Times called it the "most original American film of the year." Could they look back now and say that again?
A Lost Animated Gem. Heavy Traffic is only known by the hardcore Ralph Bakshi fan base and the occasional art house folk, but not by much else.
From the music, to the animation, Heavy Traffic proves that its more than a cartoon, but a microcosm of urban life in the cruelest decade to live in it.
laced with some kind of bizzare sexual reference every other second (it seems) as well as totally insane violence, this brutal, bizarre and strangely sad film is worth one viewing, if for no other reason that to show that in the early '70's, Bakshi was pointing towards a concept of animated film that is only now hinted at.I would suggest (okay, I AM suggesting) that a lot of Anime, and the useage of animated clips in both Natural Born Killers and Kill Bill (vol.
I) point back to this particular film.My take: watching the hero in "real time" is what the film is showing, with the animated bits being more inside of his head, until the end, where he is blown off by the beautiful woman that he dreams of, where we see one event that exists in his head (notice that it fails, but begins with an act of violence against the pinball machine, and also notice that the man playing with the artificial gunfighter is gunned down while a man >?< is getting naked in the photo booth) and another that ends with a sense that in a few seconds the Mary Tyler Moore theme song is going to begin.What is real?
Made after the X-Rated animated film, "Fritz the Cat," Ralph Bakshi's "Heavy Traffic" is considered to be his greatest work.
Like all of Bakshi's films, it emerged amidst a storm of controversy due to its sexual and violent animated content.
However, once the viewer gets beyond the shock of seeing an animated film with adult attitude, the symbolic details and creative genius of the work becomes apparent.The film follows a young animator as he struggles to get out of his domestic situation, and to sell his films.
The film is an extremely personal account of director Bakshi's own early life.
This is all a symbolic representation of Bakshi's own struggle to have his bold and adult natured animated films accepted among critics and the film world.As for the creative efforts of the film, it is incredible and fascinating.
Bakshi brilliantly meshes a wonderful musical soundtrack with all styles of creative animated symbolism, without losing its personal human touch.
This is the second adult-oriented animated movie I've seen with "heavy" as the first word in the title and which is also chock full of gratuitous sex and violence.
I'd read Bakshi was lead animator for Paramount and worked for many years at Terrytoons.
"Heavy Traffic" certainly seems to draw inspiration from the old Paramount toons in terms of style, though he cartoon characters are deliberately cruder.
Made in the mid-70s, it's a West Side story told mostly in animation from the imagination of the lead character, Michael.
While not my favorite style of animation, Ralph Bakshi does a pretty good job of conveying confusion and an overwhelmed sense of trying to fit in.
The live action sequences and old film mesh with the cartoon aspects to give a visual punch to this.
Though, I usually watched family-oriented animated films; but I guess, I am like wholesome vs taboo.
I first encountered Ralph Bakshi's films when I was a teenager; I don't know how old.
And I watched on YouTube: "Fire & Ice," "Cool World" (live action/animated) and this film "Heavy Traffic." Well anyway, Heavy Traffic is a film which begins, ends, and occasionally combines with live-action, explores the often surreal fantasies of a young New York cartoonist named Michael Corleone, using pinball imagery as a metaphor for inner-city life.
Is there anything that separates Bakshi's Jewish mother from any other stereotype of a Jewish mother that you've ever seen?I found this film a complete waste of time..
Heavy Traffic(not to be confused with the title of the animated film Heavy Metal) is a visual journey that contains plenty of sex and violence.
This is considered by many Ralph Bakshi's(Fritz the Cat) best work.
Although he seems to dislike many of them, they're so broad and colorful and wired, they translate easily to caricatures.Bakshi takes us to all the usual haunts we visit in his movies--trashy ghetto neighborhoods with buildings that look condemned, dirt-cheap apartments, behind the wheel of cars, rooftops, nightclubs, bars, brothels.The lives of all of the Bronx inhabitants: Jews, Itallians, blacks, drag queens, junkies, vagrants, hookers, cops, thugs and the like.
And by using animation, Bakshi (and Michael) sort of illustrate their world and their eccentricity, which is so dangerous, it borderlines on insanity.I wasn't particularly crazy about the disco remix of "Scarlbrough Fair." What can I say?
Bakshi uses a lot of shots of Michael playing pinball.
She's not just an ethnic joke.Like all bars, there are lots of colorful locals there, plenty of dangerous ones to be sure.Michael tries to score free drinks with his art.
Now there's a true loving father for you.Michael has an eye for Carol (many people at the bar she tends do), not because he's dying to get laid like nearly every other male.
Angelo wants his son to be more of a "man's man." Like all of Bakshi's films, this contains a lot of graphic violence and sexual images, as well as caricatures in the ethnic vein.But surprisingly, in the strangest way, it contains real heart, as well as some sweetness.
Just like Michael's life is up to him.The characters in the city are so damn cartoonish and erratic already, they transfer them into cartoon characters without losing anything in the translation.Bakshi doesn't paint a pretty picture of the city and it's locals.
but of the best.--For Ralph Bakshi, for film, forever, Dane Youssef.
It is jammed pack with a confusing story about sleazy city dwellers.The movie combines live action and animation, though the majority of the film is animation.
It opens with a scene at an arcade, and Mike, the main character (both in the live action and animated segments) is playing a pinball game.
Bakshi cartoons are known for excellent animation, especially as you see it in American Pop, but Heavy Traffic, while fitting for it's day, doesn't have that same beautiful artistry as American Pop (even though there is about a twenty-five year difference between the release dates of the two films).
Heavy Traffic is Ralph Bakshi's second animated feature film.
Rather than a feature film, it comes off more like an animation student's demo reel.
The characters you could care less about, but there was one sequence that I thought was absolutely brilliant.A black and white animated strip (like watching a flip book) set to the tune of Chuck Berry's "Maybelline"My advice- check out Fritz instead and "American Pop" is definitely the best..
Ties with American Pop as Bakshi's best film.
In fact it ties with American Pop as my personal favourite of Ralph Bakshi's films, with Hey Good Lookin' and Coonskin not far off.
The soundtrack always has been one of my things-to-look-for in animated movies and here it is wonderful, beautiful but also moody and atmospheric.
Animation always at its dirtiest, complete with full frontal nudity, endless foul language, poor stereotyping of Jews, Italians, blacks, the handicapped, gays, the homeless and other sorts of street people, a dizzying melange of live action and animation (none of it coherent), and all this contributed to the X-rating 30 years ago when it was released, as did his debut feature, "Fritz the Cat." This is the story of Michael, both shown live action and animated.
Escaping from his feuding parents, a cheating Italian gangster father and domineering Jewish mother, Michael sets out to make a life of his own, and falls for a black woman who works at the local black bar, and more trouble awaits them.
The movie, like Bakshi's latter projects "Wizards" and "Lord of the Rings," makes too many shifts in animation styles without any sense of coherency, unlike the better "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," a cartoon for adults and kids, where everything links together without any gimmicks, something Bakshi does all too well, let alone his crude animation and story styles.
This is the best adult cartoon I've ever seen, though also what I like here, is our main character Michael and his girl are also seen a little in human form as well.
22 year old virginal Michael (there's a few floating around) is a gifted cartoonist, who's just ain't cutting it with the ladies, and I could identify with that too, watching the character in human form, in what little screen time, here was offered.
Michael is a likable character, and it's the well devised characters that really make Heavy Traffic work.
There's just a lot more here than the other adult cartoon films.
Ralph Bakshi's Heavy Traffic almost manages to beat his earlier 'Fritz the Cat' with its downbeat, very dark urban look and outrageous humor about different sides of life.
It combines animation of different techniques and real-life footage with snippets of pop art, comics, advertisements and classic old movies.
The main character Michael gets to know some hard facts of life while pin-balling between crazy home life and even crazier city life.
Bakshi's handling of the rather short but winding story and his technical ability to create memorable adult animation deserves repeated viewings in my eyes..
Originally X rated this animated film follows a half-Jewish/half-Italian 22 year old man dealing with his battling parents and growing up in a tough section of NYC.
He gets a black girlfriend and things go totally out of control.Probably writer/director Ralph Bakshi's best work.
Second, I grew up in the inner city so no points off for grittiness.However, I do want to watch a movie with something interesting to say other than people are mean to each other and out for their own self-interest.
No real plot, basically a collection of events from the life of an angry young Italian-Jewish man named Michael inter-spliced with him playing pinball in an arcade, the one bright spot in his life being a black hooker named Carole.This is one mean, nasty, disgusting little film that is so relentlessly bleak and uncompromising in telling the viewer that life is a hopeless Hell that it's unbearable, and the incredibly bad animation does not help.
Some genuinely funny dark humor isn't enough to relieve the strain.While I applaud Ralph Bakshi's efforts & desire to use animation for adults and show it could be used for more than just entertaining kids, he really drops the ball with this one, allegedly his personal favorite.
Michael is an underground artist in New York City who draws strips of the people he sees around him.
He hooks up with the beautiful Carol, but she loses her job in a bar and so the two go searching for the high life.Bakshi's films are hard to find, but it's more than worth the effort.
Outside of Japan, he's really the only director in the world who has managed to make adult-oriented animation features, and his films are completely unique.
It's really just a slice-of-life series of observations; some satirical, some gross, some tragic and all rendered in a wild array of visual styles - traditional cell animation, live action, multiple composites, filters and negatives, pencil-tests (the Maybellene sequence), near-subliminal stills, real movie clips (the film Michael watches in the empty cinema is Red Dust, with Clark Gable and Jean Harlow), stock shots, what have you.
An acquired taste, for sure, but a must for real fans of animation, and check out any of Bakshi's other films (particularly Wizards and Cool World)..
Seemingly underseen underground animation; Bakshi's best film.
The moral disconnect here and the many undercurrent conflicts, (like the conflict of Michael's parents in their guiding their son) disorient the viewer but provide an ample amount of thought-provoking messages, many of them subliminal in the visuals.The look of the film is tremendous, perfectly capturing a grubby city, but also giving a stylized verve to the characters.
Good Bakshi film but not his best.
Rated R for Graphic Violence,Nudity,Language and Brief Drug Use Heavy Traffic is another adult animated film from Ralph Bakshi.I have seen plenty of Bakshi films.I first got interested in Bakshi when I saw Fritz The Cat.I really enjoyed that movie and it is still Bakshi's best in my opinion.Coonskin was good but nowhere near as good as Fritz.Hey Good Lookin is another great Bakshi film as well.I plan on viewing American Pop next(if I can find it) and then Bakshi's fantasy films like Wizards,Lord Of The Rings and Fire and Ice.Heavy Traffic has a decent enough story and some funny scenes.
and if you like Bakshi's other films, you should check this one out.The film is about Michael, a pinball playing virgin with an Italian father and a Jewish mother.His mother and father are always fighting and trying to kill each other.Michael is friends with a black bartender named Carol who gives him drinks in return for his sketches.After Carol gets fired, she stays at Michael's place where his father dislikes carol.So Michael and Carol leave and Carol becomes a prostitute.They end up robbing and killing a man for cash and then Michael gets shot.The film mixes live action and animation.The ending is fairly weird and does not make much sense but Heavy Traffic is a fun animated film that you should check out if you can find it. |
tt0366996 | The Saddest Music in the World | During the Great Depression in 1933 in Winnipeg, Canada, baroness Helen Port-Huntley (Isabella Rossellini) announces a competition to find the saddest music in the world, as a publicity stunt to promote her company, Muskeg Beer, as Prohibition is about to end in the United States. The prize is $25,000 "Depression-era dollars" and musicians from all over the world pour into Winnipeg to compete. Chester Kent (Mark McKinney), a failing Broadway producer, decides to enter the contest representing America, even though he is Canadian and originally from Winnipeg. An old fortune teller predicts his doom, but Chester mocks this prediction by having his nymphomaniac amnesiac girlfriend Narcissa (Maria de Medeiros) masturbate him. Also entering the contest are Chester's father Fyodor (David Fox), representing Canada, and his brother Roderick (Ross McMillan), representing Serbia as "Gavrilo the Great" (even though he is also Canadian).
It is revealed that Fyodor is in love with Helen, who he had once hoped to marry. However, Helen and Chester had an affair, and an accident involving the three occurred when Fyodor stepped out in front of Chester's car as Helen was performing oral sex on Chester. Helen's legs were both amputated as a result, and Fyodor became an alcoholic, while Chester left for Broadway. With Chester returned, and his relationship with Helen renewed, Fyodor swears off drink and fashions prosthetic legs filled with beer in an attempt to earn Helen's love.
Roderick meanwhile discovers that Chester's girlfriend Narcissa is his missing wife, who has forgotten both their marriage and their son after the boy's death (Roderick carries the boy's heart in a jar, preserved in his own tears). Helen rigs the contest to favour Chester/America, and Fyodor/Canada quickly loses after singing "Red Maples Leaves," although Roderick/Serbia advances. Although Roderick and Narcissa have sex, she still doesn't remember their marriage, and he accidentally breaks the jar containing his son's heart (which is pierced by a glass shard), and although Helen loves her new glass beer legs, she still hates Fyodor. Fyodor then drinks a leg's worth of beer and falls through the concert hall rooftop to his death.
Helen appears in Chester's final performance, but her legs leak and explode when Roderick plays. Roderick then changes his tune to play "The Song Is You," which he had sworn not to perform until reunited with his wife. The song recovers Narcissa's memory and Chester, meanwhile, is stabbed to death by Helen (using a long shard from her glass legs). Chester refuses to let this sadden him, and staggers away, accidentally setting the building on fire with his victory cigar. Chester dies playing "The Song Is You" on the piano as the building burns. | comedy, avant garde, depressing, flashback, absurd, psychedelic, melodrama, romantic | train | wikipedia | I would have to see the film again, but I would like to go back and see it again to determine the link between the scenes which are suddenly shot in color as compared to the grainy black and white images that grace the rest of the film.Despite the quizzical looks from the three fellow moviegoers who occupied the theatre, I found myself laughing out loud quite a few times at the film's caustic humor.
The idiotic commentators obnoxiously chatter over a loudspeaker even as the musicians are performing, delivering such priceless wisdom as "Siam is known for its dignity, twins, and cats."The themes of the film revolve around the separation between the rich and the poor (one character enjoys a psychic connection with her tapeworm), American excess, Canadian self-loathing, humanity's relentless desire for the trivial and superficial over the meaningful and spiritual, the global domination of American pop culture, how the mass media controls the world, etc.
What could only be titled as Cinema of the Ridiculous, Maddin's latest masterpiece, about a no-legged beer queen who hosts a Winnipeg-set competition to see which nation has the saddest music in the world, is filled to the gills with wacky ideas, but the reason it's a great film is because of the heartfelt feeling behind it.
Maddin manages to balance the grotesque comic caricature of Mark McKinney as the shady mustached businessman who tries to win the competition, and Maria de Medeiros, who gets life advice from her tapeworm, with the pathetic goth character that's McKinney's brother, who's had to deal with the loss of a son, and the glamorous Isabella Rossellini, who's had to deal with the loss of her legs.
I feel like I can't believe I've actually seen it -- waking up dizzy at 2 PM today on a Saturday and pondering this movie.All I remember is the wonderful music, the great one-liners, and those fanciful legs.
The fusion of content and style is so brilliant, clever, and emotional, the film has to rank as one of the best of 2004 even with the year not yet being half over.Set in 1933, "the depths of the Great Depression", the location is Winnipeg, Canada, home of Lady Port-Huntly (Isabella Rosselini), the astoundingly wealthy beer baroness of Canada, who decides to hold a contest to select the saddest music in the world--for business reasons, of course.
The show-stopper is the version by Chester near the end, a big band production that fuses influences, in typical American fashion, from all over the world.Familial tensions converge with unrequited love, and with the most peculiar prostheses anyone has ever seen--either in real life or on film.
Lady Port-Huntly is a double amputee, and he whose reckless mistake resulted in her unfortunate current condition fashions for her a pair of legs that must be seen to be believed.The entire film is shot using a blue-haze filter, with a faux stereopticon effect that narrows the viewing screen to that resembling what one would see from the early days of film, and with the faintest, subtlest and tiniest of lags in action-speech synchronization that makes this uncannily resonate as a work fusing a 30s setting, a pre-20s style, and a contemporary sensibility that knows how to combine these elements in the first place.
Canadian writer/director Guy Maddin ("Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary,' "Archangel') has created a film like no other this year except possibly `Triplet's of Belleville.' `The Saddest Music in the World' is a `musical' set in Winnipeg in 1933, where Lady Port-Huntly (Isabella Rossellini) is holding a contest to award $25,000 to the saddest music performer.
Shot in distressed mode with 8 mm blown up to be grainy and silent movieish, `Saddest' has blue-grays and silvers and occasional bursts of washed-out color that give it an otherworldly cast meant to satirize the old movies and create a new look built on nostalgia and freedom from convention that some call expressionism.Some of the bizarre acts vying for the prize are Fyodor (David Fox), a veteran of World War I representing Canada, who plays a deathlike version of ''The Red Maple Leaves'' on an upright piano he has turned over, and Indian singers in Eskimo costumes, who dance to ''California Here I Come'' with sitars and banjos commemorating a 19th-century kayaking accident.
All the time an iris lens blurs the edges of the film to recreate the ancient look of film found in a vault after 50 years.That Lady Port-Huntly needs artificial legs is not as bizarre as the back story of how she came to need them, and that the new glass legs have local beer coursing through them is just another creative and absurdist touch.
Experiments, madness, comedy, drama, musical and some more.I was unaware of Guy Maddin movies until I saw this one, so from the start to the end I was in awe about a director that came to me from nowhere and managed to surprise me.
I am saying this as I have seen quite a few (1000's maybe) movies, and I am very hard to be surprised by something.Without any doubt the movie IS one of the most original ones I've seen in years, and beside the strange techniques used (black/white grainy film, alternating with color-grainy as well, theater-like sets, etc..) the originality of the director is never the less amazing.Of course quite a few people left the theater during the movie, but that's understandable, as this is just for the die-hard fans of good/art films.
Very few filmmakers attempt to use it at the length he does, or to such seemingly limitless invention, and all the while he has in mind an aesthetic somewhere in the middle of an expressionist silent film director and someone looking to break a little ground with a music video.
But its aesthetic is so bizarre and, indeed, eclectic to tastes of modern and pre-WW2 cinema that it has to be seen and heard to be believed.The premise is that a "Lady" in Winnepeg (Rossellini) is hosting a contest for everyone around the world to come to Winnipeg to sing the saddest songs known anywhere, and the winner will receive 25 grand (in "Depression-Era" money).
It has the dark, disturbing and mutedly surreal quality of Ishiguro's best novels - particularly The Unconsoled - and enough barely-glimpsed instances of homage to keep whole covens of film buffs happy for many a winter's evening.In some senses a riff on Moulin Rouge, Saddest Music is also disturbingly reminiscent of those Japanese game shows which sometimes surface, like weird fish, on UK television.
--Minor Spoilers Ahead-- The Saddest Music in the World plays out more like a short story than a film.
Most of his films, I hear, recreate the look and feel of 1920s silent cinema and early talkies – 'The Saddest Music in the World (2003)' is no exception.
A Canadian beer company, under the instruction of baroness Lady Port-Huntley (Rossellini) (who lost her legs in unfortunate circumstances), holds a competition to discover the "saddest music in the world." Competitors arrive from every country to vie for the $25,000 prize, including a smug washed-up Broadway producer (Mark McKinney, of 'Kids in the Hall' fame); his cellist brother (Ross McMillan), a hypochondriac nursing a broken heart (quite literally); and their father (David Fox), an alcoholic war veteran who is in love with Lady Port-Huntley.
'The Saddest Music in the World' is a kind of pastiche of 1920s film-making, with interspersed scenes in cod-Technicolour; but to really give a flavour of its oddness, I should say that it's the tale of an amputee brewery heiress with a pair of glass legs, filled up with beer (writer Kazuo Ishiguro borrowing from one of his own novels in the story of how she lost her originals).
But you certainly won't see too many other movies like it; and director Guy Maddin makes brilliant use of the heart-shaped face of Maria de Madeiros, which he makes look as if it really has just heard the saddest music ever..
His films have an interesting visual style and some amusing ideas, yet I always find myself restless and bored, not because Maddin fails in what he's trying to do but because he succeeds at doing something I find unappealing.Saddest Music has a typical Maddin approach.
Saddest Music basically plays like a rather pretentious student film that should be about 20 minutes long.
Isabella Rossellini demonstrates one thing: she actually looks sort of like her better-looking mom, and that she chooses vehicles like the tiresome movies made by her dad, which today I find painful to watch.The DVD contains three shorts that are much more amusing than the film they accompany (especially "Sissy Boy Slap Fest"), and the two "about the film" features have a "look-at-me-I'm-wonderful" air about them, narrated by some idiot who obviously would like to do a one-man "evening with Vincent Price" show in a bathhouse.Gee: did I like this movie?
It's about how if you throw enough money and bring in some solid actors and a good cinematographer -- and make sure it's based on the work of writer with talent so there's an actual story there -- even somebody who has proven he can't make a good feature to save his life if left to his own devices, can end up with a mediocre quirky feature.Having said all that, I actually can recommend Guy Maddin's shorts, believe it or not.
In 1933, in Winnipeg during the American Great Depression, the legless baroness of beer industry, Lady Helen Port-Huntley (Isabella Rossellini), promotes a contest to choose the saddest music in the world and find where the real drinkers are.
People come from all parts of the world, including her former lover Chester Kent (Marc McKinney) representing USA with the nymphomaniac amnesic Narcissa (Maria de Medeiros); his brother, who misses his dead son and his vanishing wife, Roderick Kent / Gravillo the Great (Ross McMillan), representing Serbia; and his father and the man who sever her legs in a car accident, Fyodor Kent (David Fox).
During the competition, Roderick finds his missing wife."The Saddest Music in the World" is certainly one, if not the most, of the weirdest movie I have ever seen.
I thought this was a visually stunning movie, with a lot of stylized sets and the "look" was very 30's.Unfortunately, not so much attention was paid to the script...not only was it all over the map, it was self-referential and self conscious...(Honestly, who in the Depression Era would use the term "Depression Era Dollars?" The plot wandered off, wandered further off, and finally went into the forest and died of hypothermia.Most of the music that was supposed to be sad wasn't even, which was disappointing, and a bunch of terrific actors were wandering around lost in the wilderness as well, uttering lines that didn't make any sense at all.On the other hand, it was completely original...but so is a shoe sandwich...and not a lot of people eat those..I'd recommend turning the sound all the way down and playing some genuinely sad music and just watching..since the cinematography is the really interesting part of this movie..
Sad, really sad.I think that this director has a distorted world view and that people who like the film have the same problem.
It is set during the depression in Winnipeg with the premise being a contest to entrants from all different countries to find the saddest music in the world, with the prize being a then princely $25,000.
I really liked this film because it explores black and white visual techniques that I hadn't seen before and the plot and character relationships were tight as a Shakespeare tragicomedy and represented through both psychology and physical attributes.
In the standard Guy Maddin style (go Winnipeg go :) the black-and-white imagery is very visually interesting, particularly if you are familiar with the old black and white films.
In general the plot was sublimely ridiculous, as the winner of each heat are rewarded for their sadness with a slide into a vat of beer, and when Isabella Rossellini performs a dance on glass legs filled with beer, but this silliness is acceptable in the alternative reality created by the style, era and effects of the film.
The story, based on an original screenplay by Kazuo Ishiguro (perhaps they should have stuck to the original), felt like it was concocted by different people trying to outdo each other with silly ideas (tapeworms, beer-filled glass legs, sleeping in the snow, a character based on Gavrilo Princip - you quickly stopped asking why) - but that wasn't the problem either.The film might have been a collaboration between David Lynch, Orson Welles, Eisenstein, and the Brothers Quay - each of them disagreeing what the film should be about.
I quickly got used to the extremely smudgy effect - as if the lens had been smothered in vaseline - and I appreciated Isabella Rosselini (looking and sounding like her mother) and the big-eyed Maria de Madeiros.The backdrop was a music contest between international contestants to find the world's saddest music.
The Saddest Music in the World 4/5This is the latest film by celebrated Winnipeg director Guy Maddin, but it's not for everyone.The film is deliberately grainy black and white, with some of the outer edges of the frame out of focus.
Like a dream where things are unrealistic, this film intertwines the five main characters in a most surreal way, but it isn't incredibly interesting.
The film manages to be funny, sad, and sexy while never straying too far from, or into, the absurd, to lose its narrative coherency.Watching a string of stereotypically costumed performers from around the globe trek to Winnipeg, to perform in a tournament-style music competition is something I'll not soon forget.
Guy Maddin is a true cinephile who employs a retro visual style consisting of grainy mostly black and white images in this film.
That may sound really artsy and high-falutin', and certainly the film acquits itself well at that level, but at the same time there is a wonderfully absurd, anarchic humour that evokes great TV parody comedy like SCTV, Saturday Night Live (during its occasional moments of excellence), Kids In The Hall (whose Mark McKinney stars in this is perfect), Codco (another Canadian Patric TV show from the 90's that was truly brilliant), etc.
If you like those films, there's an excellent chance you'll also find "Saddest Music" very satisfying and very funny..
I don't think this movie had a lot of meaning, but I was never bored, and that is the best thing.My favorite things: the mood (it out-Lynches David Lynch), Isabella Rosellini (she was superb), the guy who played Rodderick (who is he?!), the bubbly legs, seeing Mark McKinney play an absolute cad, the sad music, and the set up of the contest (wacky!
Still, this isn't as sensual as his Dracula film, which I think is largely because it's too cold to be sensual in Winnipeg.The plot wackiness (how much is Ishiguro's and how much is Maddin's is hard to guess) is generally amusing, but the gags don't add up to much - even the timely satire of American imperialism is mid-level South Park at best.
I think the problem here is that Maddin doesn't love songs like he does movies (but what do expect from someone who adores the silents?).
There is a beer baroness who organized a contest to find the saddest music in the world with a contest prize of @25,000 and there were many groups who competed in this crazy contest.Despite the fact that this film is depicting the Depression Days, there is some dark comedy and a musical melodrama by the famous director, Guy Maddin.
I haven't laughed so hard or enjoyed a movie quite so much as this very bizarre pastiche flick by Canadian Guy Maddin, (notably and unmistakably produced by Atom Egoyan) "The Saddest Music in the World".
In this case, beer baroness Lady Helen Port-Huntley (Isabella Rossellini) wants to find out who can play the saddest music possible - offering a $25,000 prize - so people from all over the world come to take part.Sound like a strange idea?
The Saddest Music In The World, is a great looking film.
Story is suppose to take place during the Depression in 1933 where in Winnipeg a legless beer baroness named Lady Port-Huntley (Isabella Rossellini) has created a contest where contestants from each country will try and win $25,000 by playing the saddest music in the world.
The contest ends with brother against brother, Serbia versus America!This film is directed by the incredibly imaginative Guy Maddin who makes films like you have never seen before and this is another visually interesting effort.
Add to this Maddin's typical self-deprecating love of his country (Canada) and city (Winnipeg) and a plot involving a contest to find "the saddest music in the world" and you've got the makings of something that only this demented director could dare to dream.The mutilated woman happens to be beer baroness Lady Helen Port-Huntley (Isabella Rossellini, channeling Jean Harlow and perhaps a bit of Marlene Dietrich), and her would-be-lovers are Canadian WWI veteran Fyodor Kent (David Fox) and his estranged son Chester Kent (Mark McKinney) whose name is taken from the character played by James Cagney in the 1933 Berkeley-choreographed Footlight Parade and who also has dreams of Broadway grandeur.
So although I wasn't really sure where the story was going until well into the film, I was pretty much not surprised by who would win the contest in the end.Kazuo Ishiguro co-wrote the screenplay with Guy Maddin.
So, it is no surprise that his hundred minute long 2004 film The Saddest Music In The World is not good, not bad, simply weird. |
tt1496872 | Siva Manasula Sakthi | Siva (Jiiva) and Sakthi (Anuya) meet on a train from Coimbatore and strike up a friendship. Siva introduces himself as an army officer and Sakthi as an air hostess. The two part ways on arrival in Chennai, but Siva promises to meet her soon. He pays a visit to the airline company where Sakthi claimed to work, with his mother Kalyani (Urvashi) and best friend Vivek (Santhanam) tagging along. When asking for Sakthi, they are instead greeted by another woman with the same name (Shakeela). Siva realizes that he has been tricked.
In reality, Siva is a courier deliveryman and Sakthi, a radio jockey. When they learn of each other's deception, they swear to get revenge on each other. A series of humorous incidents happen as Siva teases Sakthi live on her radio show and gets her in trouble with her father; and she retaliates by tattling on him to his family and using him as a driver. When Siva defeats a handful of goons in a tough fight to save Sakthi’s brother (Sathyan) and helps organize his marriage, Sakthi develops genuine feelings for him.
She reveals her feelings by planning a surprise birthday party for Siva, but learns that he had lied about his birth date. Humiliated in front of his family, she leaves angry and bitter. Siva learns of her true feelings for him and attempts to reconcile with her, but she ignores him. Siva grows upset as well, fights with his mother and sister, and continuously destroys Vivek’s new mobile phones (they forgive him eventually). However at one point when he visits her office, he is drunk and misbehaves with the people around. He tells Sakthi's assistant to call Sakthi, but the latter, enraged upon Siva's behaviour, sends a man to beat him up and throw him out. Siva loses all his love and care for Sakthi.
Some time later, Sakthi’s father arranges for her to meet a prospective groom Arun (Arya). Siva coincidentally runs into Arun and is introduced as Sakthi’s "close friend". He proceeds to tell Arun about all her good qualities, never mentioning anything negative. Sakthi, realising his true love, leaves Arun and asks Siva to marry her. He is still angry about the time she sent a man to beat him up and because he believed she accepted Arun. She apologises and Siva forgives, but he asks her to go to a nearby temple where they can get married the next day. She visits the temple early the next day, but Siva does not visit, calling her up and saying that he "refuses" to marry her. Disappointed, Sakthi returns home, but sees that Siva organised a surprise birthday party for her. The two of them have sex that night. The following morning he plays another prank on her; she realizes that he will never take any relationship seriously and runs away from him.
Some months later, Siva arrives at Sakthi’s house with his family, to formally ask for her hand in marriage. During this time, Sakthi faints and is revealed to be pregnant (as a result of sex with Siva). When both their families learn this, they humorously surround Siva and beat him up. As the credits roll, a scene set two years later reveals that Siva and Sakthi are married and have a son, to whom Siva brags about how he successfully "got the girl". | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0073636 | Rooster Cogburn | Because of his drunkenness and questionable use of firearms, aging U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) has been stripped of his badge. But he's given a chance to redeem himself after a village in Indian Territory is overrun by a gang of violent, ruthless criminals, who've killed an elderly preacher, Rev. George Goodnight (Jon Lormer). His spinster daughter, Eula Goodnight (Katharine Hepburn), wants to join Cogburn to track the criminals down, becoming his unwilling partner. But Rooster must use care, because the criminals, led by Hawk (Richard Jordan) and Breed (Anthony Zerbe), have stolen a shipment of nitroglycerine. Rooster rides by the following morning, while Eula and Wolf mourn their friend's and family member's deaths. Rooster convinces them to come, but he attempts to drop them off at Bagby's Store, but the trio follow him close behind. Meanwhile, in a scuffle between two bandit men, one of them is wounded by a stab wound. The wagon also hit a rock, but the men manage to fix it. Rooster, Wolf, and Eula stake out at a crossing in the woods, barricading the path with logs. The bandits are stopped and Rooster threatens to blow up the wagon unless the men dismount, which they do. A man attempts to shoot Rooster in the back, but Eula makes the perfect shot and kills him. Another man tries the same, but is killed instantly by a bullet to the chest. Rooster cries out "Posse!" and his two partners fire into the air, causing the men to actually think he has a posse, which they flee. Rooster captures the wagon.
The men carry on back to their leader, Hawk. He orders Breed to investigate the tracks, which he finds out there was not a posse, much to Hawk's disdain. Hawk, Breed and the bandit which got stabbed ride on to town, while the other men attempt to fix the axle, which they eventually do. The stabbed man cannot make it, causing Hawk to shoot him, saying "Let the buzzards have him" to Breed. That night the men kidnap Wolf, saying they will let him go if they give him the wagon, but are actually planning to get the wagon back, and to kill the three heroes. Wolf shoots the man who is holding him with the 5-shot Pepperbox handgun Rooster previously gave to him to protect himself and Eula if need be. He gets back to camp safely. Rooster has him hitch up the horses, while the bandits retreat because he fired the Gatling gun at them. They escape safely. The next day, Rooster "borrows" a raft from an old man, stashing as much dynamite as possible on board. The men attempt to ambush the three, but they fire the gun at them and they manage to escape around the corner. Breed and another bandit set up a trap across the river to capture Rooster and his gang. As the bandit is about the kill Rooster in cold blood, but Breed shoots him in the back in return for Rooster saving his life years prior. That night, Breed returns to the outlaws camp and Hawk realises that the other bandit must be dead. After checking Breed's gun and seeing one expended bullet, Hawk knows Breed killed him. Hawk then kills Breed by kicking down into a rocky ravine. They encounter massive rapids the following morning, causing enormous waves to fall on the raft, practically sinking it. They get through safely, though at the cost of losing the Gatling gun. They realize Hawk is planning to hold them up upriver, so they dump the dynamite overboard. They pretend to surrender, saying Rooster is sick. He jumps up and shoots the explosives, causing a massive wave to knock the riders over and blowing up the bandits. A few days later, Judge Parker gives Rooster's job back. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | As the gang of outlaws bid a hasty retreat, they stumble upon Eula (Hepburn), her minister father, and several Indians including a teen-aged boy named Wolf.The plot is simple and had their characters been played by any other actors besides Wayne and Hepburn, the film would have been mediocre at best.
Well, maybe it's just good acting.In any event, the film is a nice way to pass some time for those unfamiliar with Wayne or Westerns and a must-see for all Wayne and Hepburn fans..
That's not saying a whole lot since this was a vehicle created for the two stars and only the two stars in this film could have brought it off.It was a happy marriage of convenience with John Wayne's character of Rooster Cogburn from True Grit being so popular that a sequel was inevitable given Wayne's health holding up and Katharine Hepburn looking for something she could co-star with Wayne.Hepburn was one of John Wayne's biggest boosters of his talent, politics aside.
Coming from her, I've got to believe that's the best compliment she could offer.Wayne as Cogburn is on the trail of a gang that massacred an army patrol and stole a gatling gun and nitroglycerin for use in a planned bank robbery.
The gang headed by Richard Jordan with Anthony Zerbe who used to scout for Wayne go to an Indian settlement with a missionary school headed by father and daughter preacher and teacher Jon Lormer and Katharine Hepburn.
The gang shoots up the place and kills Lormer.When Wayne comes he gets a lot more than he bargained for when he finds himself saddled with Hepburn and young Indian boy Richard Romancito.
They accompany him on the trail of Jordan and his gang and get enough adventure to last a lifetime.Everyone compares Hepburn as Eula Goodnight to her portrayal of another missionary, Rose Sayer in The African Queen.
Don't get me wrong, True Grit is a good western and worthy of its classic status, but I've always found John Wayne's first go round as Rooster Cogburn to be uneven, at times colorfully into character but just as often just playing John Wayne.
Forget the plot, it's passable enough but very much secondary, this story gets along strictly on the strength of the two lead characters and it's worth seeing again and again just to watch these two Hollywood legends banter and spar in their one and only movie together.This was the first John Wayne film I ever saw in a movie theatre (I was 9 years old in 1975) and it made me a lifelong fan.
The film is a first-rate western , is the following-up to ¨True grit" in which Wayne won an Oscar , Academy Award , for his acting.
The movie is a remake from "African Queen " in which Hepburn did couple with Bogart , here Wayne and Katharine hand similar roles , even there is one dangerous runaway by a river.
John Wayne and Hepburn set out in pursuit the evil people : Richard Jordan , Anthony Zerbe and Jack Colvin .
Although not a cowboy movie lover, I am an avid John Wayne fan, and I consider this his very best work.The relationship between Rooster and Miss Eula has such chemistry you just can't take your eyes off the screen.
Someone in Hollywood had the bright idea of taking the leading character from "True Grit" and putting him in a story redolent of "The African Queen", casting a much older Katharine Hepburn, then experiencing a revival in her career, in the same part she played opposite Bogie.
Hired to track down a vicious gang, federal marshal Rooster Cogburn reluctantly lets a missionary and a Native American lad accompany him after their mission is ransacked by the gang in this belated sequel to 'True Grit'.
The villains are not particularly interesting and the plot is no great shakes; in fact, 'Rooster Cogburn' feels more like a remake rather than sequel to 'True Grit' at times with Hepburn also seeking vengeance for a father killed.
And, they didn't even try to disguise it very well, as Kate Hepburn pretty much plays the same part she did in the original AND John Wayne is playing a part in a movie that should have been re-titled "TRUE GRIT PART II".
This trivia tidbit tells it all:-- Director Stuart Millar insisted on so many takes that eventually John Wayne snapped, "God damn it Stuart, there's only so many times we can say these awful lines before they stop making any sense at all." --A better director might have been able to get truer performances out of these great stars, but Millar, a fine producer but apparently a talentless director, got little more than worn pennies.
In African Queen there was some tension in the initial relationship between Hepburn and Bogart, two odd fish brought together, but both transform the other, so you get personality development in the film.But in Cogburn there is no personality development, and way too much chatter that makes you want to fall asleep.
Rooster Cogburn, unfortunately, barely rises above a B movie, even with the heavy lifting of its stars.The low point in the movie is a plastered Wayne doing skeet shooting and never missing, but who can't stand up on his own, and then drives off with a wagon full of nitroglycerin, which could have blown up even with the most careful, sober handlers.
It is really that bad.Still, John Wayne and Katherine Hepburn could have been great in a Western together.
Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Clint Eastwood to name but three have all improved with age but both Wayne and Hepburn did not with this one.For large parts of the film it looked like they were simply reading the script and both of them were clearly having difficulty in merely getting up and walking.
If you do want to see these stars at their best, watch Wayne in "True Grit" and Hepburn in the "African Queen" instead..
John Wayne and Katherine Hepburn in a movie called `Rooster Cogburn'?
Top Drawer All The Way. Rooster Cogburn is top of the line entertainment of the "old school" of movie making.Every character, every scene and every piece of dialog is top drawer story telling at it's best.
Suffice it to say, Rooster Cogburn / The Shootist are fitting movies to end John Wayne's career...a career that defined the Western male lead.Wayne's character epitomizes the raw American Individual Spirit that takes on the task because it is noble and right, regardless of the odds.No other actors other than Wayne and Hepburn could carry this movie...a movie made in the twilight of each of their careers.
as much as i liked True Grit,i was much more impressed with this followup.it's much more epic, a lot more fun,has a great story,and plenty of action.the witty banter between Cogburn (John Wayne)and Eula(Katherine Hepburn)is is great fun to watch.Hepburn and Wayne really work well off each other.as great as the movie was,it's easy to see that Wayne was on his last legs physically at times,and in pain due to the cancer that would eventually take his life.but,he stuck it out and put in a good performance.when you add it all up,this was a much better movie than i expected it to be.for me,Rooster Cogburn is a well deserved 9/10.
Unfortunately, the chances are that they had more fun making this film than many of the audience will have watching it.What we basically have here is a remake of The African Queen disguised as a sequel to True Grit, and both the previous films were better.
The minister's daughter Eula Goodnight (Katharine Hepburn) insists on joining Rooster with Indian boy Wolf.Wayne and Hepburn have some good banter but it overtakes the movie.
The best asset of the film is easily the performances and chemistry of John Wayne and Katherine Hepburn, who are wonderful individually and together, and I was also impressed with the handsome cinematography, beautiful scenery and rousing score.
"True Grit" is one of the finest Westerns ever made, and definitely features John Wayne's best performance.
Unfortunately, the sequel to "True Grit", titled "Rooster Cogburn" is not a film that works out so well.
True, John Wayne was still top-notch as his ever-famous character and Katharine Hepburn, one of the best actresses of all time, was great in her role, the film is spoiled by others factors.The plot of "Rooster Cogburn" is not particularly original, but then again, neither was "True Grit".
They were just there to be there.I watched it for three reasons: John Wayne, Katharine Hepburn, True Grit sequel.
That would be John Wayne and Katharine Hepburn, two of the greatest stars of all time.
The sequel to "True Grit" (far from a masterpiece itself) has John Wayne returning as the titled one-eyed U.S. marshal.
They accompany him, despite his complaints, to catch the gang.After giving him the Oscar for True Grit (mostly a sentimental vote I feel, but I don't know who else was up in that year) someone clearly felt that Wayne deserved a rerun of his character and thus this film was born.
Zerbe and Jordan are less of a threat than needed and the final showdown lacks True Grit's sense of fun.Overall this is an OK western but far from Wayne at his best.
The film retreads True Grit for no real reason and Hepburn clearly isn't giving her all and seems to have a far away look in her eyes as she remembers The African Queen..
Stuart Millar ("When Legends Die") directs this great sequel to True Grit.The best thing in the film is the chemistry between Hepburn and Wayne - I had read somewhere that Hepburn was surprised how well she liked The Duke - She hadn't expected to get along with him.But the story is a great story, the crooks are great crooks!
And Wayne is Rooster Cogburn just like in True Grit!
Released in 1975, "Rooster Cogburn" stars John Wayne as hard-drinking, but formidable Marshal Rooster Cogburn, who reluctantly teams-up with a missionary, Eula Goodnight (Katharine Hepburn), and a Native orphan, Wolf (Richard Romancito), to take down a band of ruthless outlaws who stole a wagon of nitro and guns in the Oregon wilderness.
Still Worth Watching Forty Years On. Rooster Cogburn" was John Wayne's penultimate film; his last was to be "The Shootist" from a year later.
I suspect that Eula (whose father is still alive at the beginning of the film) was originally supposed to be younger than Cogburn, but the role went to Katharine Hepburn, who was the same age as Wayne.
She is, however, excellent here, playing in one of her few Westerns a character similar to the one she had created in "The African Queen", one of her few war films, more than twenty years earlier.
There was to be no Oscar for Wayne this time, but he is at least as good as he had been in "True Grit".
The film could easily have ended up as the sort of dull, derivative Western adventure we had all seen too many times before, but Wayne, Hepburn and Millar combine to produce something which still remains worth watching forty years on.
It seems that the success of True Grit (the Oscar for John Wayne included) made people think about a sequel.
John Wayne as a rascally old rouge,Katherine Hepburn doing an encore of her role in the African Queen .Two super stars at the end of their careers.
I really can't blame the filmmakers for bringing Wayne back in his Oscar-winning role from TRUE GRIT but I do question why they also seemed to want to remake THE African QUEEN since Hepburn is playing the same type of role and the two films share some other connections.With all of that said, this here is the basic type of Western that you'd expect to see Wayne doing.
Those who watched African Queen will understand from where this movie came from,this sequel of True Grit,they tried explore the chemistry of those greatest actors Duke and Kate and they got it,no doubt about that,the movie is funny and every characters are engaged in their roles,especially John McIntire as judge and Strother Martin as McCoy the wise balsa man...they are superb...Rooster and Eula are on fight every time,both have a own way to think about the right and wrong and they are completely opposite each other....about the movie???
John Wayne returns to his iconic, Oscar winning character of one eyed, colorful deputy marshal "Rooster" Cogburn in this passable sequel (of sorts) to "True Grit".
Roosters' biggest problem: a spinster named Eula Goodnight (Katharine Hepburn) insists on tagging along, because her minister father (Jon Lormer) was murdered by the Hawk gang and she wants to see that they're properly punished."Rooster Cogburn" is no "True Grit", not by a long shot, with a rather redundant story (by actress Martha Hyer, writing under a pseudonym).
In 1975, John Wayne and Katharine Hepburn had one big movie left apiece to make in their long careers.
"Rooster Cogburn" wasn't it, yet this manages to showcase both stars in an amiable-enough timekiller.Sometime after the events of "True Grit," our title protagonist (Wayne) loses his badge but gets a chance to get it back when a band of outlaws make off with a wagonload of nitro.
En route to sell the explosives, they happen upon a church community, killing the reverend and making an enemy of his crusty Yankee daughter Eula Goodnight (Hepburn).Never mind the serious-sounding set-up: "Rooster Cogburn" is more playful than earnest, last in a long line of cowboy romps starring Wayne.
"You will have need of it before we are through.""She sings a loud tune!" huffs Cogburn.Watching Hepburn and Wayne work together for the only time is plenty of fun.
"I wish this thing had a little more giddyup to it," Cogburn grunts, meaning a raft he and Eula are riding with their Indian companion, Wolf (Richard Romancito) but perhaps referencing the other vehicle they find themselves on.Still, you do get a lot of fun moments along the film's ever-winding way, with Wayne and Hepburn settling in comfortably to their respective corners.
Given how disparate their characters are, you expect more in the way of fireworks than you get, but Millar's emphasis on fun seems the right approach.Screen heavy Anthony Zerbe has a good turn as one of Hawk's riders, while Strother Martin shows up late in the film to pleasing effect.
Executive Producer Hal Wallis bought together John Wayne and one of the other great stars of the era Katharine Hepburn for this movie.
It is wonderful to see the great Hepburn riding a horse and sparring with John Wayne in this film.
Katharine Hepburn who in her long career worked with James Stewart, Cary Grant, Peter O'Toole, and her great love Spencer Tracy among others is equal to John Wayne in all matters in this film.
I've seen almost every picture John Wayne made after 1939 but waited until near the last to watch this one because I just couldn't believe it would live up to True Grit and it doesn't.
My main problem with this movie is that I would have preferred it not to be a sequel to True Grit -- that story and the Rooster Cogburn character is somewhat sacred to me and if they weren't going to be true to them, why not just make it a generic John Wayne vehicle of the time?
This time around there's actually quite a bit of chemistry between him and Katherine Hepburn, much more so than Wayne and Kim Darby in the first film.
After catching "True Grit" on TCM one night, while in the mood of a great Wayne Western, I was more then delighted at the wonderfully colorful character of "Rooster Cogburn" his drunk cat and his litigious and all too pushy boss "Mattie Ross".
Katharine Hepburn is magic as always, and though I don't know much about John Wayne, I thought he did a good job here.
Recalling the final scene of "True Grit" when John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn and horse jumped the fence without assistance from special effects or stuntmen, a reprise of the Oscar - winning role was keenly anticipated.
First off, let me say that it was a pleasure to see John Wayne & Katharine Hepburn in the same movie for the only time in their careers.
Although, they were too old to play these parts, that doesn't change the fact that any movie they were in was infinitely better simply due to their presence.However, I felt that the plot was generally inferior to True Grit, which the character of Rooster Cogburn in based from.
And third, the plot was very haphazard, making little to no sense in several parts.With all that being said, this is still a very good movie and one any fan of Wayne or Hepburn should definitely see.
"True Grit" was a great western...though not as great as films like Wayne's "Rio Bravo".
But, I guess that's where the suspension of disbelief comes in.The attraction here is not the story, but the two lead characters: John Wayne adn Katharine Hepburn.
If you have seen the engaging True Grit, then you will probably like this not great, but good sequel.
In this village is Eula Goodnight (Katharine Hepburn, playing a character similar to that in The African Queen), who had her father Rev. Goodnight (Jon Lormer) killed by the villains, and she and Wolf (Richard Romancito) are the only survivors.
Rooster Cogburn has John Wayne reprising his role as U.S. Marshal Reuben J.
So says John Wayne, repeating his "True Grit" role as "Rooster Cogburn".
This is a reminder of how much fun movies USED to be.The basic storyline, an official sequel to "True Grit", is a re-tread of "The African Queen" with Wayne back as Rooster, taking over what Humphrey Bogart did in John Huston's 1951 masterpiece.
Between Humphrey Bogart (African Queen) and John Wayne's previous films (Hatari!l, et al), this story has been done and done. |
tt0100456 | The Rainbow Thief | Rudolf Von Tannen is an eccentric millionaire who cares for no one but his dalmatians. One night he welcomes his guests - all of them related to him, expecting to cash in his fortune once he passes away - to a dinner party. The dogs are fed caviar and the people are given bones to eat. This sends them away in anger. Then Rudolf's predilect brothel service arrives, the Rainbow Girls, big-breasted women dressed with the colors of the rainbow. After dancing and partying with them, Rudolf has a heart attack that leaves him comatose.
The relatives gather to argue over the will, but since Rudolf is alive but in a coma, nothing can be done. The relatives suspect that Rudolf will leave all of his fortune to his equally eccentric nephew, Meleagre. Meleagre arrives in time to overhear the back-talk, and walks away unnoticed with his dog Chronos.
Five years later, Meleagre and Dima (a petty thief) live together in the sewerline. Chronos has died. Together they wait for Rudolf's demise and the subsequent inheritance. Dima has set to stealing in order to make a living for the two of them, and takes advantage of carnivals and traveling circuses in order to do so. He has frequent run-ins against a bartender (played by English rock musician Ian Dury), whom he owes large amounts of money, as well as several low-life individuals (a midget, a giant, phony blind beggars) and Ambrosia, a large woman whose love he exploits for money.
One night, as he escapes one of his many persecutors, he reads about Rudolf's demise, and sets out to spend his savings in a dinner with Ambrosia. However, upon close inspection of the newspaper, he finds out that Rudolf has left his entire fortune to the Rainbow Girls (as long as they take care of his dogs). Upset, Dima confronts Meleagre, feeling betrayed by him, although Meleagre argues that the fortune he once promised was not money or gold, but paradise and eternity. Outraged, Dima forsakes him and decides to leave him and the sewers for good by taking a ship to Singapore. Feeling guilty for leaving Meleagre behind, he jumps off the train and hurries back to the sewers, where his friend awaits death with his dog's corpse.
The couple set to find a way out of the flooding sewerlines, but to no good. They eventually reach a ladder leading upwards. Dima manages to climb up to safety. Meleagre happily accepts his fate and hurls himself into a strong current that sweeps him away. Dima climbs up and sits catatonic in the middle of the street for hours, shocked.
In the very end, as Dima walks by the docks, he spots a very much alive Chronos swimming in the water. The dog and the thief reunite and walk happily away by the pier, under a rainbow. | allegory, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | while only director, it still is, and feels, looks and sounds like, a Jodorowsky film, a very good one. How criminal is this - the only format that has *ever* been available for The Rainbow Thief in America is on VHS. Imagine this, a film starring Omar Sharif, Peter O'Toole and Christopher Lee, regardless of who directed it (though in this case the iconoclast/cult-icon Alejandro Jodorowsky), never got released in *theaters* let alone as of late on DVD. It's not that one must see it because it's a great lost masterpiece and yada-yada. It actually isn't. It's not as great a film as Jodorowsky's own Santa Sangre or The Holy Mountain. But as far as projects go that have been neglected by a major studio, Warner Brothers, this is one of the most notable to my mind. Especially because, when it comes down to it, it's quite possibly the filmmaker's most "accessible" movie to a mainstream audience.This doesn't mean necessarily that it's like ET or something, since if only on the peripheral side of things it's as much a Jodorowsky movie as ever. In this story of a petty thief who robs and steals little things (i.e. an egg or a newspaper) to big things (i.e. an old record player belonging to a circus midget), we're put in a society where we're focused in on the outsider(s). We're mostly with Sharif throughout the picture as he goes along this lot of folk who live in the dregs, poor, destitute, or in the circus or the freak-shows, or working at the local pub. And the most significant scene showing someone living in a bourgeois setting, which is early on with Christopher Lee, it's in deranged excess with the Rainbow girls surrounded by Dalmatians and riding some motor-car. Even as someone else wrote it, and he was a "hired gun" as they say, this is nevertheless a Jodorowsky picture (for better or worse depending on the viewer).But what makes it different from something like the Holy Mountain is, first, that Jodorowsky isn't out to blow minds away or find some kind of other consciousness through the power of cinema itself. This time he's telling a story that might have been written by Dickens; it has some of the qualities of a fable while also taking note of squalor and filth and the realities of living on the street and being among folk who dwell in the urban setting. Not to mention, of course, that Sharif and O'Toole spend their years waiting on the possible inheritance money from Uncle Rudolf in the sewer, with O'Toole doing ventriloquism with his (seemingly) dead dog. Second, for the first (and unless King Shot gets made only and last) time in his career, the director is working with major stars- reuniting Lawrence of Arabia's big names- and he deals with them as he would any other actor in his films, which is to let them go off in whatever direction they can to make it a better picture.And, thankfully, their performances are wonderful, as is the bulk of the picture. While, yes, it is in some parts sentimental, particularly with the very end as one of those coda scenes that has that "it can happen in movies!" quality, it earns whatever sappy feelings come out because of how rich and full of life the film is. I say that it's his most generally accessible since one doesn't need to be a big art-house buff or into the ostensibly surreal midnight-movie scene to "get" it. The Rainbow Thief, with the possible exception of Tusk which I and most others have yet to see, is the only Jodorowsky film I'd be pretty happy to show to my mother. This may or may not come as strong praise, but at the least it's something of a minor crime that others can't have the choice to decide for themselves on DVD or at a revival screening somewhere.. rainbows over Europe. This is a film which has immediate respect as a Europena art house film. Often this hides flaws which can be disastrous. This is not the case here. Peter O Toole is in it. Even at his worst laziest over the top performances he is still watchable. Some may call Alexandro Jodorowsky's piece sentimental and self indulgent. Indeed in its attempt to fulfill magical realism there are some oddities parading through this. The use of a circus as a parable for Christ's compassion and attempt to help an insane world is used for an excuse for indigence and longueurs. The rainbow girls are all very pretty models and I already knew about them from painting of Kirsten Imrie, Rachel Garley an Bridgette Barclay by th e actor Stephen Armourae who promoted this film because of its abstract arty script and the use of Tarot,as he is also a psychic. Alexandro Jodorowsky attempts here again to use imagery and animals to convey a message, this makes it memorable if somewhat obscure. The trouble is the people who need to receive his message are not going to have the patience for a Europena art house film with all its obliqueness.. Omar Sharif is outstanding. Being a fan of both Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif, I had seen the film before, but I never much liked it. Maybe it has something to do with the general unlikability of all the characters. The only really fun part is Christopher Lee's big scene early on. That's worth seeing at least once for the sheer craziness of it.When I re-watched the film recently, I still couldn't much like it as a whole, and I couldn't shake off the feeling that Peter O'Toole was in it solely because he had signed a contract and couldn't get out of it. He plays his part, but his heart doesn't seem to be in it. I can't say that I blame him. His part is a rotten one. For his fans, this film is likely to be a disappointment.But I was struck by Sharif's performance. He owns the film! Right from the beginning his acting is amazing - some of it is almost the stuff of pantomime. What a strange part this is for him, and how wonderful he is in it. And what a great actor he was when he got a chance to show it. A pity that he didn't get parts like this earlier on in his career instead of the playboys and infatuated lovers he played in so many big budget productions.No, it's not a great film. Not one of Jodorowsky's better ones. But it may be worth watching for the delightful performance of Omar Sharif. If you don't go into it with high expectations, and you don't expect a plot that makes sense (there is none), you might actually enjoy it. |
tt0061955 | La mariée était en noir | As the film opens, Julie Kohler (Jeanne Moreau) tries to throw herself out of an upstairs window, but is stopped by her mother (Luce Fabiole). Julie is dressed in black and is obviously grief-stricken. In the next scene, she is more composed, telling her mother she is going on a long trip, and counting out five piles of money. She gets onto a train, but right afterwards steps down on the opposite side, hidden from onlookers.
The next time Julie is seen, her hair is different, she is wearing white, and looking for a man called Bliss (Claude Rich). He is a ladies' man who is having a party on the eve of his wedding. When Julie arrives, aloof but attractive, he cannot resist approaching her. When they are alone on the balcony of Bliss's high-rise apartment, she tells him her name and pushes him off the balcony.
Her next victim is Coral (Michel Bouquet), a lonely bachelor. She lures him to a concert and they agree to meet the following night. Before their rendezvous, Julie buys a bottle of arak and injects a syringe of poison into it. When she meets Coral at his apartment, she serves him the drink. When he collapses in agony, she reveals her identity to him. He begs for his life, explaining that it was all an accident. In a flashback, there is a wedding procession on the steps of a church; a single shot rings out and the groom falls to the ground. Julie is the widowed bride.
The next man is Morane (Michel Lonsdale) a would-be politician. She follows his wife and young son home, befriends the boy, and gets the wife to leave by sending a fake telegram that the wife's mother is ill. Julie poses as the boy's teacher Miss Becker, and offers to cook dinner for Morane and his son. Afterwards she plays hide-and-seek with the boy, hiding in an enclosed small closet underneath the stairs, before putting the boy to bed. As she is leaving the house, she pretends that she has lost her ring. Morane helps her search, crawling into the closet where she had hidden earlier. She slams the door and locks him inside. Julie reveals her true identity, and he pleads for his life, saying what happened was an accident.
Another flashback reveals that Julie's husband was killed by a rifle shot fired by Delvaux (Daniel Boulanger), member of an informal hunting club that also included Bliss, Coral, Morane and Fergus. The five men were carelessly horsing around with a loaded rifle in an upper room across the street from the church. After the incident, they went their separate ways, intending never to reveal their involvement in the groom's death. Remorseless, Julie uses duct tape to seal the door of Morane's closet, and he suffocates to death.
Julie waits in Delvaux's junkyard, planning to kill him with a handgun, but he is arrested by the police. Julie moves on to find the fifth member of the hunting group: Fergus (Charles Denner), an artist. Julie models for him as the huntress Diana, eventually shooting him in the back with an arrow. She cuts her face out of his painting to remove the only evidence of her presence. When she discovers that Fergus had painted a mural on his wall depicting her reclining in the nude, she gets some paint to cover the mural's face, but changes her mind and leaves.
Julie attends Fergus' funeral and allows herself to be arrested. She admits that she murdered the four men, but refuses to reveal her motives.
Inside a prison, a meal cart is making its rounds. Julie is a prisoner in the women's wing, and Delvaux is on the men's side. When Julie works in the kitchen, she hides a knife. When the cart makes its rounds with Julie as one of the attendants, it turns a corner out of our sight. After a brief pause, a man's scream is heard. | revenge | train | wikipedia | The Bride Wore Black (1968) is noted as being director François Truffaut's gleeful homage/pastiche of the cinema of Alfred Hitchcock, with the usual characteristics of deception and retribution, cool cinematography and a lush score by none other than Bernard Hermann all being co-opted alongside some nicely subtle allusions to the broader aspects of the thriller and mystery genres.
I expected from the plot-outline that the film would be incredibly dour and austere but that really isn't the case; with the mixture of lurid, almost B-movie style subject matter, revenge and farce managing to come together fairly well for the most part, as Truffaut tinkers with the expected codes and conventions of the thriller genre in much the same way that Antonioni did with the much superior masterpiece Blowup (1966).
For example, in one particular scene, in which our central character stalks one of her victims through the junkyard where he works, we get Truffaut setting up a series of shots that continually teases us with the slow-build of the sequence, the cut-away to the gun and the impending moment before the expected gunshot and then - unexpectedly - the police arrive and arrest the man before any retribution can be taken.This idea of setting up something potentially very thrilling and exciting, only to then subvert it by way of knowing farce and arch genre references is used throughout The Bride Wore Black, creating an odd juxtaposition between light comedy and cold-blooded murder that probably won't be to all tastes.
Then we have the ultimate revelation of the event that drove the character to seek revenge and the almost broadly comical rendering of the scene and the complete disregard for any kind of logic and reason.Was the reason that Truffaut denounced the film simply because he felt it was uncomplimentary, almost mocking of Hitchcock's work, or did he simply feel that the games within the narrative and the combination of murder and farce were simply unsuccessful on this particular project?
Regardless, the film succeeds on an entirely perverse level, as we watch Jeanne Moreau step into the role of the iconic "Hitchcock blonde" and plot bloody revenge on those that have wronged her.
Although the broader ramifications of the narrative remain vague and enigmatic even through to the end, the fun of The Bride Wore Black is not in its characters or storytelling capabilities, but in the gleeful subversion of the iconography of the Hollywood thriller by way of the Nouvelle Vague and of course, those constant allusions to Hitchcock and his work..
Francois Truffaut's THE BRIDE WORE BLACK is an excellent gift of a film to fans of Hitchcock and even to the master himself.
Jeanne Moreau plays a miserable middle-aged woman, both suicidal and murderous, looking to avenge the death of her life-long companion and husband.We see the murder of the husband repeatedly throughout the picture, studied from different angles and vantage points.
Truffaut extends Hitchcock by showing us in more graphic detail some of the killings and the relentless mission this woman is on is not stylized the least bit.Check out the poisoning scene and tell me you don't see Ingrid Bergman looking at Claude Raines circling and bellowing in expressionistic ways.
After a failed suicide attempt, The Bride (a couple of charecters in the film refer to her by this moniker) makes a vow to god that she'll find the men that are responsible for his death and avenge him in the only way she know's how.
Bride Wore Black, The (1968) *** (out of 4) Truffaut's homage to Hitchcock deals with a mysterious woman (Jeanne Moreau) who, after a failed suicide, decides to track down and kill the five men responsible for her husband's death on their wedding day.
Truffaut was one of William Irish's greatest fans;he wrote a preface for an edition of the American writer's short stories.Not only he directed this movie but he also adapted "la sirène du mississipi" .There's just one problem.Irish's absolute tragic side totally eludes Truffaut.A critic wrote that this writer's endings did not put an end to horror,but prolongated it.Nothing comes close to Irish's desperate universe here.Jean Delannoy Truffaut despised a lot,did a better job with "obsession" .Jeanne Moreau is not Irishian at all.She's too self-confident,too full of joie de vivre to portray such a character.I've always dreamed of what Alexandra Stewart -who plays a small part as a teacher here- could have done with it.Obviously,Truffaut's directing is a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock,but I'm not sure that the Hitchcockian treatment was adequate here.It worked in "rear window" because this movie was ,in the beginning ,one of Irish's short stories and the master could develop it as he wished,but in the full length of a whole novel,the treatment destroys the emotion and the "lost in advance" feeling which emanate from this tormented soul-Irish spent all his miserable life in an hotel room with his mother;an homosexual,he never found true love-.The cast is appealing but most of the actors are wasted ,be they Michel Bouquet or Jean -Claude Brialy.Of course ,it is watchable,there's some suspense,but if you're searching for Irish's world,you must move on..
Once l'd read somewhere that Truffaut gave and interview where he explained how remarkable were Hitch's works, curiously in that time the master of the suspence for many reasons wasn't had a propper respect from american critics, after that point everyone stayed astonished over such Truffaut's valuable comments,loud and clear, therefore all critics change of mindset about Hitch, in this picture was well designed around such bright fingerprints of the master, even an older Jeanne Moreau she was in great shape to the role of a revengeful woman, the plot is plenty acceptable in many ways, l would like to say that Truffaut wasn't my favorite director neither, however it's hard don't recognize a fine picture like that over such suspicious of the great Alfred Hitchcock!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.
Whatever one says "La Mariée était en noir" is a big bore which would even fail to impress Alfred Hitchcock,a man for whom it was made.The biggest trouble lies in the depiction of the title role played by Jeanne Moreau.She acts in a very bad manner as she displays a whole lot of wooden performances.There is hardly any suspense at all in this film.It is absolutely clear from the outset that as a disgruntled bride would be heading on a killing spree there should have been somebody who would be willing to fight with her.It is a pity that Truffaut did not work hard on removing such a minor glitch while he was directing this film..
This story is about a young woman (Jeanne Moreau) who was widowed on her wedding day when her husband was killed accidentally by five guys messing around with a rifle; she then seeks to kill them one by one, in revenge.
Moreau is captivating, the dialogue is fun and in keeping with 1968 France, and Truffaut is a master at capturing great shots - but I have to say, he didn't match Hitchcock in creating tension or emotional drama, so this film ends up being a bit 'too cool', and thus falls short.
I'm a big fan of French cult cinema, I'm a huge admirer of director François Truffaut and I'm truly keen of actress Jeanne Moreau
And yet, the absolute number one reason why I desperately wanted to see "The Bride Wore Black" is because it formed one of the main influences for Quentin Tarantino's ultimate masterpiece "Kill Bill".
Jeanne Moreau is the bride in "The Bride Wore Black," a 1968 film directed by Francois Truffaut.
This score reminds me of "Vertigo" - in fact, the film reminds me of "Vertigo" more than other Hitchcock films: the opening scene at the window is reminiscent of Stewart and his partner chasing the man in the beginning of "Vertigo"; the flashbacks as Moreau remembers what happened that fateful day, as when Kim Novak goes back to her room and writes to Stewart; the portrait that looks like Moreau in the artist's studio - shades of the Carlotta portrait.As others have pointed out, "The Bride Wore Black" asks us to make some leaps in logic, otherwise known as plot holes.
I'm not saying that "La Mariée était en Noir" ("The Bride Wore Black") isn't a good film or that it's not directed by a talented man like François Truffaut but what we see in this film is something that doesn't sound or look like none of his works and don't even get close to the thrills the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock gave us in his classics, and this is Truffaut's tribute to the man.Jeanne Moreau is Julie, the bride of the title who's on a quest for revenge against five men behind the murder of her future husband during her wedding ceremony.
There's plenty of differences in both stories, obviously, but both are very good films.As mentioned, Truffaut pays a tribute to Hitchcock, not only in this being a film of suspense but also working with composer Bernard Herrmann in the musical score, and some elements, sequences and plans created by the master.
Herrmann's music is overused and doesn't add nothing to the story; the screenplay is interesting but flawed, never explaining to us how on earth Julie managed to track down these guys, and despite some great revelations as the plot unfolds (when the woman discovers what really happened with her husband) those surprises aren't enough to make us feel intrigued by the story since the heroine is too perfect, nothing goes wrong with her, her plans always seems to work (lack of surprises on this field) and the guys she's after are too soft, there's no evil on them but the way things moves there's no way they could be evil.
The great thing about "The Bride Wore Black" is the fact of being a good film as usual in Truffaut's filmography, never disappoints (just a little).
Francois Truffaut greatly respected and admired the work of Alfred Hitchcock and "The Bride Wore Black" is his homage to the great director.
Its off-beat nature, its numerous Hitchcockian elements and the mystery surrounding the stony-faced widow who embarks on a murder spree are just some of the strong features of this tense revenge thriller which interestingly, also incorporates some of the more gentle and light qualities that are typical of Truffaut's work.Julie Kohler (Jeanne Moreau) is the mysterious woman who, after having failed in an attempt to commit suicide, sets off on a journey to kill the five men whose names she has written down on a list.
It transpires that Julie's husband had been shot dead on the church steps on the day of their wedding and she held the five men accountable because, after a night of drinking and playing cards together, one of them had fired a high-powered rifle out of a window opposite the church and this thoughtless act had robbed her of her new husband who'd been her childhood sweetheart and the love of her life.Julie's modus operandi is to lure each victim into a situation where she can kill him.
Her plan for her fourth victim is thwarted because Delvaux (Daniel Boulanger), who's a used car dealer, is arrested by the police for handling stolen property but with the aid of a bow and arrow, she successfully completes the murder of the fifth man on her list, an artist called Fergus (Charles Denner).The actions that Julie takes following the murder of Fergus initially seem to be illogical but her reasons soon become clear because the way in which she manipulates events to ensure that she's able to conclude her mission is ingenious and provides the movie with a tremendous conclusion which is also brilliant in the way that it's filmed.The presence of disguises, a poisoned drink and high-angle camera shots together with a Bernard Herrman score, the theme of obsession and a sequence that takes place in a concert hall, are just some of the many Hitchcock trademarks that feature in this story.
The film's main character, Julie Kohler, is seeking revenge on 5 men, one of whom accidentally (and ridiculously) shot and killed her husband on their wedding day.
Truffaut said The Bride Wore Black was his homage to Hitchcock.
After watching auteur film maker François Truffaut's Film Noir Shoot the Pianist I decided to take a look at his IMDb page,where I spotted a revenge psychological Film Noir Thriller which appears to have "inspired" a number of recent movies.With Truffaut being a pretty big name,I was surprised that the only DVD (with English Subtitles) out was a French import edition,which led to me getting ready to lift the veil of the bride.The plot:Attempting suicide by diving out of a window, Julie Kohler is stopped by her mum.Gathering her composure,Kohler gathers a notebook with five names and 5 piles of cash.Packing everything up,Kohler tells her mum that she is going on a long holiday.Visiting a luxury apartment block,Kohler gets the person at the front desk to reveal when and where a man called Bliss is having his stag party.Greeting all the guests at his stag party,Bliss finds his eyes being drawn to a mysterious women.Unable to take his mind off the women, (who none of the guests recognise) Bliss decides to go up and talk to her.Introduceing herself,Kohler gets Bliss to join her on the balcony,so that they can speak privately.Whilst Bliss says that he has never seen her before,Kohler puts her scarf round a tree in front of the balcony,and tells Bliss to climb over and get it.As Bliss climbs over the balcony,Kohler reveals that they actually met 5 years ago at her wedding,and pushes Bliss to his death.
Leaving Bliss's dying stag party behind,Kohler sets her sights on giving four other men a late wedding present from a dressed in black bride.View on the film:Married to a "troubled" legacy, (from Truffaut & cinematographer Raoul Coutard having vicious arguments over the style of the movie for the whole production,which led to lead Jeanne Moreau having to direct the rest of the cast,to Trauffaut to later calling the title "A disappointment"!) Truffaut is still able to serve up a smoking hot dish of revenge.Whilst not featuring as much social commentary as his "French New Wave" work, Truffaut & Jean-Louis Richard's adaptation of Cornell Woolrich's novel does slyly make each of the 5 guys on Kohler's death wish list be rooted in cosy upper/middle- class lifestyles,with the "tidy" image that they all offer allowing each of them to cover their deadly pasts.Taking an episodic approach to Kohler's revenge,the writers brilliantly take their time in allowing Kohler's attacks to become increasingly harsh,with Kohler's initial playfulness being burnt away to reveal a merciless femme fatale.Spending time with each of the 5, Truffaut and Richard give each segment its own unique Neo- Noir edge,from Delvaux's grubby car dealing,to Morane's upstanding family life bubbling away into darkness.Keeping away from unwrapping all of Kohler's mysterious past,the writers delicately open up brief glimpses into Kohler's past,which give the title a tense mood,as the flashbacks become threaded in Kohler's search for revenge.Despite his comments later about the movie,director François Truffaut and cinematographer Raoul Coutard give the title a ravishingly ultra- stylised Film Noir blushing bride.Backed by a superb score by Bernard Herrmann which transforms wedding bells into a doom-laden anthem, Truffaut nods to "The master of suspense" with charismatic enthusiasm, as Truffaut follows Kohler's revenge attacks with dazzling tracking shots which follow Kohler setting her plans,to tense,tightly held shots sinking one of the guys into the permanent darkness that he helped to push Kohler into.Giving the revenge Film Noir a touch of dour Gothic with Kohler's alluring black and white dresses, Truffaut spreads rich frosty reds across the title,which wonderfully peel open Kohler's (mostly) cold emotions for her victims.Given the challenge of directing the rest of the cast during production,the beautiful Jeanne Moreau gives an excellent performance as Kohler.Showing pure joy in the flashback,Moreau makes sure that the ghost of the joy always stays at the front of the title,as Kohler glides into Film Noir hell.Spending lots of time with each victim before they meet their end,Moreau strikes a perfect balance in pulling Kohler's tormented nerves across the screen,whist keeping a sense of mysterious,icy femme fatale deeply linked to Kohler,as the bride walks out in black..
This film is an excellent example of a revenge thriller which follows Julie Kohler, the bride of the title, as she exacts revenge on those responsible for her husband's death on their wedding day.
Being a longtime admirer of the films of Alfred Hitchcock, from the early movies of his British period, to his work for Hollywood in the 40, 50s, 60s, and early 70s, what a disappointment it was for me to finally catch up with Mr Truffaut's supposed homage to Hitch's immense talent.The Bride Wore Black honestly struck me as being seriously lacking in suspense or dramatic tension, as well as simply failing to possess any genuine credibility.As another reviewer pointed out, Ms Moreau's "Plain Jane" appearance in portraying the film's vengeful protagonist, as well as what I'd describe as being her consistently glum persona, as that character, really makes it hard for the audience to believe (at least this audience member, anyway) that men could fall under her spell in the way that the writer and director of the film, present a couple of male characters as being enticed by such an unappetizing, would be seductress.
Truffaut pays homage to Hitchcock in this suspense thriller starring the incredible Jeanne Moreau.
Truffaut's Hitchcock homage, which in turn led to Kill Bill, pays tribute more in style than in theme, as Moreau's widowed bride tracks down the five men responsible for her husband's death (I say "responsible", four of them get a pretty bum rap), amidst numerous clever directorial touches (like the camera snaking around the bushes in front a potential victim's house) and to the strains of Bernard Herrmann's superb score. |
tt0213096 | Muppet Classic Theater | It consists of six stories from the fairy tale tradition, all performed by the Muppet characters and narrated by Rizzo and Gonzo at the Muppet Theater:
=== The Three Little Pigs ===
Papa Pig tells his three children Andy, Randy, and Sandy (played by Miss Piggy) that it's time for them all to live on their own. Papa tells Andy and Randy that they are strong smart boys who can take care of themselves, but they need to look after their sister Sandy. While the two dumb brothers build flimsy homes of straw and sticks, Sandy constructs a state-of-the-art brick house. The Big Bad Wolf comes and blows down Andy and Randy's houses. The siblings turn to Sandy for shelter, and she only lets them stay if they promise to show her some respect. The Big Bad Wolf returned the next day demanding that Sandy lets him in and reminds the pigs that they are supposed to say "Not By the Hair of My Chinny Chin Chin." Sandy opens up the door and karate chops the Big Bad Wolf when she accuses him of his claim that Sandy has facial hair. The Big Bad Wolf then starts to blow Sandy's house down which has no effect. Then the Big Bad Wolf disguises himself as the pizza delivery man only for Sandy to take the pizza. The Big Bad Wolf's latest plan involves dressing up as Santa Claus and going down the chimney. Andy and Randy almost fall for this until Sandy reminds them that it's the middle of summer. When Andy and Randy think that Santa Claus came early, Sandy ends up lighting a large firecracker in the chimney which launches the Big Bad Wolf into the sky.
=== King Midas ===
King Midas (played by Kermit the Frog) spares the life of a Satyr (played by Gonzo the Great) that was sleeping in his garden after the Satyr offers to grant King Midas a wish. When King Midas wants world peace, Queen Midas (Played by Piggy) wanted money and they are granted the Golden Touch. King Midas then uses his talents to turn people's items into gold. When King Midas accidentally turns himself to gold upon reacting to his food being turned to gold, Queen Midas tries various attempts to get him back to normal. The Satyr tells Queen Midas that the effects of the Golden Touch can be undone if Queen Midas renounces her interest in gold. The Satyr then offers to give King Midas and Queen Midas another wish for free. While King Midas still wanted world peace, Queen Midas wanted a Slice-O-Matic in green. Rizzo the Rat narrated that King Midas, Queen Midas, and the Satyr used the Slice-O-Matic to throw fabulous dinner parties for everyone in the kingdom.
=== The Boy Who Cried Wolf ===
The repeated overreactions of a young shepherd (played by Gonzo) cause the villagers and their mayor (played by Kermit) to doubt his word when he has made claims of sensing earthquakes and tsunamis. When the wolf shows up and challenges the shepherd to obtain help within 24 hours before he eats his sheep, the shepherd goes through every attempts to prove that the wolf is threatening the sheep. After all attempts have failed, the sheep state that the shepherd learned his lesson and protested to end the story before the wolf arrives. Rizzo the Rat narrates that the story is not over yet despite the protests of the sheep and that the wolf would return in one hour. One of the rams mentions to the shepherd and his fellow sheep about his cousin Norman and they come up with a plan. When the wolf arrives, the shepherd stated that the wolf was right about the drop in his credibility as his final quote to him is "big sheep." The wolf ends up being surprised by the arrival of a large ram named Norman who ends up crushing the wolf. The wolf briefly gets up by quoting "That's what you mean about really big sheep" and ends up crushed again. The shepherd and the sheep then chant Norman's name. The mayor gives the shepherd a medal for "not crying wolf except when an actual wolf was present". The townspeople and the sheep rejoiced and lived happily ever after while the wolf is still trapped under Norman. When Rizzo asks the shepherd if he has learned his lesson, the shepherd states that he won't overreact again....until Rizzo states that they'll be taking an intermission with Rizzo having to explain to Gonzo what an intermission is (American Version). Gonzo and Rizzo signing off the viewers and it's time to polka (European Version).
=== Rumpelstiltskin ===
A sad and lonely King (played by Kermit) turns to his Loyal Royal Advisor to find him a fair young maiden to be his queen....someone who is special. The King also tells his Loyal Royal Advisor that he will be given his own castle if he succeeds. All the fairest maidens in the land were brought to the King's castle so that one of them can become queen. Wanting the attention of the King, a miller (played by Papa Pig) claims to the Loyal Royal Advisor that his daughter Piggy can spin straw into gold when he brings her to the King's Castle. Piggy is placed in a room full of straw where the Loyal Royal Advisor (who still wants to fulfill getting his own castle from the King) orders her to demonstrate her gift that her father claims that she has or she will be spending the rest of her life in the dungeon. She ends up receiving the assistance of Rumpelstiltskin (played by Gonzo) who spins the straw into gold upon Piggy giving him her necklace. The next morning, the Loyal Royal Advisor discovers the golden straw and states that he'll keep an eye on the gold that is present while Piggy spins the second batch of straw into gold. When Rumpelstiltskin returns that night and wants a fee to convert the straw into gold, she is forced by fate to give up her firstborn upon becoming queen in return for the desperately needed services of Rumpelstiltskin. The next morning, the King and the Loyal Royal Advisor came in and found the golden straw. The King married Piggy and the Loyal Royal Advisor got his own castle. When Queen Piggy finally had her child, Rumpelstiltskin came in and states that he will let her keep her child if he can guess his name. If she can't guess his name by tomorrow, then the child will end up in the possession of Rumpelstiltskin. Piggy called the King, the Loyal Royal Advisor, and her father where she told them the whole truth about her having help in converting straw into gold. The King mentioned that he married Piggy because he loved her which surprised the Loyal Royal Advisor and her father. The four of them get to work at guessing Rumpelstiltskin's name. When the deadline is up, Rumpelstiltskin returns to see if Piggy has guessed his name and nearly gave it away. Upon recalling that Rumpelstiltskin went to "Camp Weido," he has her father and the Loyal Royal Advisor grab him while stating to the King that "a good mother always sews their child's name in their clothes before sending them off to camp." Piggy finds the label that lists Rumpelstiltskin's name and reads it out loud. Rumpelstiltskin declares it an outrage while Piggy, the King, the Loyal Royal Advisor, and the Miller celebrate.
=== The Emperor's New Clothes ===
In the kingdom of Fozzalia, three rat tricksters (played by Rizzo the Rat, Yolanda the Rat, and Montague the Rat) are in the town square showing off their Curative Elixirs. Robin the Frog doubts Rizzo's claim while another man stated that the Curative Elixir "cured his baldness" as a rat is seen on top of his head. The young boy states that the rat is on the man's head which the man notices. The rat jumps off the man's head as the rat tells Rizzo that the jig is up. Rizzo is arrested by the Police Chief (played by Officer Fuzzy from Dog City) and is taken to Emperor Fozzie Bear. Upon being brought to Emperor Fozzie, Rizzo claims to him that the rest of his wardrobe is shabby due to it not being special enough. Rizzo states that he happens to be the finest tailor in all the land. Emperor Fozzie then asks for Rizzo to make him some new clothes as Rizzo sends the Emperor to obtain gold for payment and to meet him in the Royal Dressing Room for a fitting. Rizzo has Yolanda take measurements in preparation for his new clothes while Montague weaves the finest fabric in all the land. Rizzo claims that the special fabric can only be seen by elegant people such as the Emperor. Emperor Fozzie then "sees" the fabric in question. Members of the Emperor's Court claim to not see it until they do after the Emperor claims that they aren't "elegant enough." The rats then present Fozzie with his "new clothes" that are on the hanger that Rizzo gives him. Before Rizzo can lead Yolanda and Montague to their next business in Tarzana, Emperor Fozzie states that he will hold a celebration to show off his new clothes with the rats being his guests of honor. At the celebration, Rizzo gives the crowd a heads up stating that Emperor Fozzie's new clothes can only be seen by the elegant. When Emperor Fozzie goes out to show his new clothes, Robin notices that Emperor Fozzie is wearing nothing but his boxers. Emperor Fozzie notices this as the members of his Court end up using their bodies to cover him. The citizens of Fozzalia think that since Emperor Fozzie isn't wearing clothing and that public nudity must be the latest fad Emperor Fozzie tells his people that they should stop doing things just because he does them, and that they should start thinking for themselves. As Rizzo, Yolanda, and Montague try to take their leave, they are caught by the Police Chief. Gonzo narrates that the Emperor and his kingdom learned that it's best to think for themselves and follow their own fashion. As for Rizzo, Yolanda, and Montague, they are serving 10 years in the dungeon. When Rizzo states that they should visit a Sultan who is so gullible when they get out, Yolanda and Montague end up kicking Rizzo.
=== The Elves and the Shoemaker ===
A shoemaker (played by Kermit) and his nephew Robin the Frog are visited by the local banker (played by Officer Fuzzy from Dog City) who demands his money by tomorrow or he will toss them into the street. The shoemaker states that they haven't been having good business lately since they've been making ugly shoes and all will be lost if there is nothing else to do about it. When the shoemaker and his nephew Robin go to sleep, their house is visited by a group of philanthropic entertainer elves (played by The Elvises). Unfortunately, they can only make blue suede shoes. The next morning, the shoemaker and Robin woke up to find the blue suede shoes and a bunch of customers outside of their store. By the time night had fallen, every shoe in the shop has been sold and the banker takes the money stating that he'll be back for the other half of the "his money." When Robin hopes for another miracle that involves whoever helped them to return, the shoemaker states that they will be ready to find out who has been helping them. Once the shoemaker and his nephew have fallen asleep, they awoke in time to see the elves working on the blue suede shoes. When morning comes, the store is packed with eager customers and the banker takes the other half of the money. Upon watching the elves at work, the shoemaker tells Robin that it's time he thanked them for their kindness. Rizzo ends up coming on stage to suggest a gift to give to the elves. The shoemaker and Robin worked through the night to make a special gift to thank the elves. When the elves arrived at midnight, the shoemaker and Robin present them with white sequined jumpsuits. While the shoemaker and Robin live happily ever after, the elves relocated to Las Vegas where they perform two shows.
Note: During this story, Rizzo walks onstage to speak to Kermit and Robin about a gift to give the Elvises. As Steve Whitmire was already performing Kermit, he could not puppeteer for Rizzo at the same time and Rizzo's voice is recognizably that of Dave Goelz.
=== Finale ===
As Gonzo and Rizzo close out the show while dancing with Kermit and Robin, the Elvises sing "Blue Suede Shoes" during the credits. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | Nothing to write home about but certainly no failure.
The Muppets are still the Muppets.
I agree that since Jim Henson died, it seems to take a lot more effort to put together something worthy of their original off the wall charm, but it can and has be done in Muppet Christmas Carol and Muppets Tonight!.
Muppet Classic Theater shows us that the focus has shifted to Gonzo and Rizzo since Dave Goelz and Steve Whitmire are among the few Muppeteers still dedicated exclusively to Muppet projects.
Granted, these stories are rushed and simplistic and the songs are mediocre, but the work Goelz and Whitmire put in reminds us that these are still the characters we love.
It's much like seeing your favorite actors in a bad movie.
The story isn't so hot, but you can tell they've still got it and will go onto do better things..
A made for video Muppet treat!!!.
voices of Steve Whittemore, Frank Oz, Jerry Nelson, Bill Baretta and David Goelz.6 stories from fables made with Muppets.
It's very entertaining, not as much as Jim Henson's, but was still very fun.
It has 6 songs that are all forgettable, but fun and briefly catchy.
Story one is the Three Li'l Pigs with Miss Piggy, which was pretty good.
Story 2 is King Midas, with Kermit, Miss Piggy and Gonzo, which was the worst.
Story 3 is The Boy Who Cried Wolf with Gonzo and Kermit...which was interesting.
Story 4 has Kermit, Miss Piggy and Gonzo and is Rumplestiltskin.
Story 5, the Empererors New Clothes, stars Fozzie Bear, Rizzo the Rat and Robin the Frog is the best segment.
Story 6 is the Shoemaker and the Elves starring Kermit and Robin.
The movie is fun, if not forgettable.my rating-B.
67 minutes long.
rated G..
Classic is the key word here!
Needs to be on DVD!.
This is my favorite Muppet collection of stories.
The wolf is a riot in both the Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Three Little Pigs.
"Pigs in a blanket?
Why, yes, I believe I will!" Hilarious.
Miss Piggy is at her best especially in The Midas Touch...and the songs are right on target.
My daughter and I still sing them when the situation fits: gotta get that name!
And when I hear someone gargle, I have to say "How charming...NEXT!" You have to watch it to understand.
Ha..ha...I highly recommend this for those who need to take life a lot less seriously.
The only thing I think was a little overboard was Gonzo acting a little weird about his scenes (of course, he IS an alien, after all) but Rizzo the Rat is great and what can I say about The Shoemaker and the Elvises?
The costumes, set design, "expressions" on the muppets are all fabulous.
Now, if they would just put it on DVD!.
One of the funniest Muppet outings.
Though most people consider The Muppets for kids, when I discovered this gem at the ripe age of 21 while working at summer camp I just couldn't get enough.
Though all the stories are familiar, the usual Muppet hilarity and musicality shine through each and every segment.
All of your favorites are showcased with Kermit, Piggy, Gonzo and Fozzie carrying you through some of the best fairy tales of all time.
Considering that this great Muppet extravaganza is out of print, if you ever see it laying about, pick it up!
It will be a well used 90 minutes of time.
If anything, when the tape is over you will want to immediately rewind it and watch it all over again!.
A disappointing outing.
The concept isn't that great: a quick run-through of old stories like 3 Little Pigs, etc.
But then again, the Muppets are there and could spice things up, right?
Wrong.
This video is one of the very few Muppet projects that may entertain kids, but not adults in the least bit.Maybe their biggest mistake here was that they didn't feature many Muppets.
In fact, it's just Gonzo, Rizzo, Kermit & Piggy - with brief appearances by Fozzie and Robin.
No Animal, no Sam the Eagle, no Swedish Chef, Electric Mayhem, Rowlf, Statler & Waldorf, Scooter, Bunsen or Beaker.
I don't know why, because most of the performers of these great characters are there, and there is too much repetition with the characters they DO use.Otherwise, it's just not well-done.
These stories have been done better elsewhere, and there is none of the signature Muppet zaniness makes their TV shows and movies so great.
They're just puppets here, doing extremely rushed, 5-10 minute renditions of these classic tales with no payoff.
Maybe kids will like it, but I found it extremely dry and generally boring, as an adult and a Muppet fan.
They're recent movies have been tackling classic stories and doing it well.
This is a waste of talent..
"I Remember That.".
I remember my family and I being greatly entertained by this straight-to-video release.
The great thing about this video is that it's just as entertaining now that I'm an adult as it was when I saw it as a kid.
As a matter of fact, I love it even more now that I'm an adult because I understand why some of these jokes are funny, and I get that they changed the ending to all of the stories.Gonzo and Rizzo host a theatrical performance of the Muppets' version of classic fairy tales: The Three Little Pigs, King Midas, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Rumpelstiltkin, The Emperor's New Clothes, and The Elves and the Shoemaker.I have to say, this video feature is very, very funny!
I love it!
The spin and twist each story has is very unique and very funny!
As a kid, I only knew certain stories.
I didn't know stories like King Midas, so for a while I thought this version was accurate to the actual tale.The reason this video works is because it's entertaining for both children and adults.
It's innocent enough that children can love it, and entertaining enough that it draws in adults as well.
When I was a kid, my entire family and I watched this, and we were all laughing along with the video.
Even today when we mention a scene or a joke from this video, my Dad laughs and says, "I remember that." He'll even watch the video with us when we put it in the VCR!
The puppetry isn't too impressive; it's just your simply, basic puppet-operated Muppets.
It focuses more on bringing these stories we all know and love to life, but in a new and unique way.
On top of that, it's a good stand alone production.
Of course we're attracted to it because it's the Muppets, but even excluding that from the picture, this is still a really good, really fun, really delightful film.
Watch it, and expect a lot of laughs!
BOOYIKA! |
tt0335119 | Girl with a Pearl Earring | Griet (Scarlett Johansson) is a shy girl living in the Dutch Republic in 1665. Her father, a Delftware painter, has recently gone blind, rendering him unable to work and putting his family in a precarious financial situation. To help matters, Griet is sent to work as a maid in the household of famed painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth). Griet works hard, almost wordlessly, in the lowest position in a harsh hierarchy, doing her best despite spiteful treatment by one of Vermeer's children. While she is on a routine shopping trip outside the house, a butcher's son, Pieter (Cillian Murphy), notices Griet and falls in love with her, even though she is slow to return his affections.
As Griet cleans Vermeer's studio, which his wife Catharina (Essie Davis) never enters, the painter begins to converse with her and encourages her appreciation of painting, light and color. Vermeer gives her lessons in mixing paints and other tasks, taking care to keep this secret from his wife, who would react with anger and jealousy if she found out that her husband was spending time with Griet. In contrast, Vermeer's pragmatic mother-in-law, Maria Thins (Judy Parfitt), sees Griet as useful to Vermeer's career.
Vermeer's rich patron, Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson), notices Griet on a visit to the Vermeer household and asks the painter if he will give her up to work in his own house, a situation which ruined a previous girl. Vermeer refuses, but accepts a commission to paint a portrait of Griet for Van Ruijven.
As Vermeer secretly works on the eponymous painting, Catharina cannot help but notice something is amiss and her growing jealousy of Griet becomes apparent. As Griet deals with her growing fascination with Vermeer and his talent, she has to fend off Van Ruijven's attempt to rape her. Soon afterwards, Catharina's mother summons Griet, hands over her daughter's pearl earrings, and instructs Griet to finish the painting while Catharina is away for the day. At the final painting session Vermeer pierces Griet's earlobe so she can wear one of the pearl earrings for the portrait; she then runs to Pieter to be consoled. They caress and make love in a barn. Afterwards, Pieter proposes marriage, but unexpectedly leaves. She then returns the earrings to Catharina's mother.
Catharina discovers that Griet used her earrings, accuses her mother of complicity, and demands Vermeer show her the painting of Griet. Heartbroken that Vermeer does not consider her worthy of being painted because she "doesn't understand," Catharina tries but fails to destroy the painting, then banishes Griet from the house forever. Vermeer does not object, and Griet leaves the house in shock. Later, Griet is visited by the cook from the house, who comes bearing a gift: a sealed packet containing the blue headscarf she wore in the painting, wrapped around Catharina's pearl earrings. | dramatic, boring, historical, sentimental | train | wikipedia | The film is breathtaking alone in the fact that the production team, led by cinematographer Eduardo Serra, production designer Ben Van Os, and art director Christina Shaeffer, manages to capture Vermeer's filling, oil-based colors, and light into every scene.
And this is where the film spends most of its fictional focus: that of creating an imaginary story to help speculate on what we know as factual about Vermeer's life.
Enter a young, beautiful servant girl, Grit (Scarlett Johansson), who through no fault of her own, finds that her classic beauty attracts Vermeer's sensibilities-as a man and as an artist-to such a degree that he has no choice but to capture her on oil and canvas.Vermeer (Colin Firth) spends a lot of time in this film standing quietly in the shadows and peeking around corners.
There's great symbolism in many of these shots-his body is often half-covered, half-exposed, representing the dichotomy he must have felt in his life-that of being in perpetual conflict with his spiritual, artistic longings and the more human qualities of a man.Whereas Vermeer' silence is a result of his being reluctant to communicate with the external world, mostly due to artistic self-absorption, Griet similarly is cut off from humanity, but rather out of innocence, naivety, beauty, and the unfortunate side effect of being at the low end of a rather oppressive Delft caste system where she has little voice outside of the disturbance her beauty stimulates in others.
Indeed, one of the film's more touching moments comes when the artist reveals his portrait of her and Griet replies, 'You've seen into me.' Another memorable moment, if not altogether breathtaking, comes when Vermeer is instructing Griet in how to hold her face at the proper angle in order to catch the appropriate reflection of light on her mouth, and also when he is instructing her in how to mix his paints and their hands, for a split second, brush together.
Wide-eyed, hard-working young woman in Holland circa 1665 leaves home for a job as scullery maid to a painter and his family; quickly, she becomes the artist's secret assistant and muse, eventually posing for Vermeer's famous title-named portrait.
The time customs that were mentioned are also a great asset.Griet looked so much like Vermeer's original painting that I thought in a moment that this was real (but of course it couldn't cause back in 17th century were no cameras around :p).It was a perfect movie for someone interested in art.
Girl with a Pearl Earring is based on the novel by Tracy Chevalier, who tells the story of a forbidden love affair (pardon the cliché) between painting master, Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth), and the only woman who seemed to appreciate his work, a timid young maid named Grit (Scarlett Johansson).Grit is hired to work in the Vermeer household.
Art can be worshipped for its own sake, like some wicked effigy, and used to excuse all manner of moral turpitude in its creator; or it can be seen as the entrance by which light can enter our soul, illuminate thought and our world in a way that cold logic alone would deny us, move us beyond the bounds of our immediate impressions and let us see the world about us in a new way, inspired and informed.Griet carries this seed, to see beauty where others see only common place things, and it is a seed that the Master nourishes.
Behind every picture there lies a story, and the film `Girl With a Pearl Earring' purports to give us the inside scoop into the making of Vermeer's classic painting of the same name.
Thanks to luminous cinematography, art direction and costume design, the audience watching this film feels almost as if it has been transported into a Vermeer work.
In Delfti, Holland, 1665, the poor seventeen years old Griet (Scarlett Johansson) is hired as a maid in the household of the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth), to maintain her family.
"Girl With a Pearl Earring" is a magnificent contemplative art work and a beautiful dramatic romance based on a famous painting, which has this name.
I am a positive fan of movies, I always try to find the beautiful points or entertainment it can offer, instead of looking for destructive parts, like most of the professional critics do, but "Girl With a Pearl Earring" has superseded my uppermost expectations.
"Girl with a Pearl Earring" tells a fictional tale about how the title painting by 17th century Dutch painter Vermeer might have come to be.
She does the back breaking work for the family and deals with the many difficult children and the mistress of the house, but then eventually strikes up a friendship with and develops romantic feelings for Vermeer, culminating with her posing for the painting.While the story is obviously not true, I find the concept of theorizing about the origination of great works of art intriguing, so I really enjoyed the book.
I recently read the book Girl with a Pearl Earring and I was very impressed by the way Tracy Chevalier gave life and credibility to her portrait of Griet and the Dutch painter Vermeer.
Colin Firth and Scarlett Johanson do not strike me as credible characters they do not literally "jump from the screen" as they did indeed jump from the page.Firths body language is moody and closed and it comes across as if he is sulking all the way through the movie rather than enveloped and passionate about his work.
Every other small character in this underdeveloped film goes for the way-too-loud method of acting and just had me cracking up.I saw Girl with a Pearl Earring about a week before the Oscars, for which it had three nominations.
In Holland of 17th century, a humble girl named Griet (Scarlett Johanson) works as a maid in the house of the famous painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth) and somehow contributes into the creation of a masterpiece.The film, just like Tracy Chevalier's book on which is based, narrates an imaginary story about who and what inspired Vermeer and led him make the "Girl With A Pearl Earring" painting.
According to the cinematographer, he didn't want the film look like a collection of Vermeer's paintings because something like that could possibly distract the viewers from the story.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)One of the things that Tracy Chevalier wanted to do in the novel was to make the relationship between Griet and Johannas Vermeer nonsexual.
It is difficult for me to believe that in that admiration he did not also feel some desire for her.Be that as it may--and I certainly respect Chevalier's interpretation and in fact think it makes for a more interesting story than if there had been some sexual involvement--Vermeer's wife, Catharina, sees in the painting beauty that she herself does not possess.
I think this is consistent with Chevalier's interpretation of what the relationship between the maid and the great artist might have been.This movie surprised me in how beautiful it is and how carefully Peter Webber reconstructed 17th century Delft, Holland.
There are at least three Vermeer paintings in which we see the same light from the same window: the title painting; the painting he was working on without the chair in the foreground that Griet removed called, "Young Woman with a Water Jug"; and "The Painter's Studio." If I made a list of the most beautiful films I have ever seen, Girl with a Pearl Earring would make the list, along with, e.g., Zhang Yimou's Raise the Red Lantern (1992) and Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1975) and maybe a dozen more.As for Scarlett Johansson who had the title role I must say she won me over.
The film talks about a gorgeous maid (Scarlette Johansson) who goes to work as a servant at Vermeer's (Colin Firth) home in Delft (Holland) location.
It is easy to see why art lovers will flock to see the film adaptation of the Tracy Chevalier book, but Vermeer, the master of Delft, is not in this movie at all.
Granted, it is a pleasant time at the movies, but as far as telling us something about the genius behind a meager art production that the world has come to love and cherish, it will have to wait for another film with better material than this one..
He convinces her to pose for him to paint, although it must be done in secret due to tensions within the Vermeer household as well as gossips and slanderers on the streets.The Girl with a Pearl Earring was one of those films that I knew I should watch but that sat on my HDD for quite some time.
Support from Davis and Wilkinson is good and they do add to the passions of the story with their characters and delivery.The Girl with a Pearl Earring is a slow paced but quite rewarding film.
I love art and thought this film had some beautiful composition in the camera work.A very nice look and feel for the times too.I also thought Scarlett Johansson was quite lovely in the title role and does share a striking resemblance to the girl in the painting.One problem I had was that the movie is a big snore.
This movie takes as its inspiration what could have been the back story for Vermeer's 17th century painting 'Girl With a Pearl Earring' (which we get to see at the end of the film).
Griet (played by the rather dull Scarlett Johansson) goes to work at the house of Vermeer, his histrionic wife, overbearing mother-in-law, and horrible children.Vermeer is played with aplomb by smouldering Colin Firth (as a kind of scruffier Darcy); and Judy Parfitt is good as the matriarch of the house, as is Tom Wilkinson as an odious fellow painter and Cillian Murphy as the butcher's boy.
The true star of the film though is the beautiful mix of cinematography and music which gives the hour and a half of screen time the effect of a slow moving and rich painting..
Instead of an over-wrought, melodramatic and heavy-handed piece of drivel, we are treated to the exact opposite: a magnificently restrained, hypnotic and sublime work of near-perfect art.This is a movie about what is NOT being said - a movie about nuance, layers of nuance; the opening shot of the onion being peeled is not coincidental, nor is the way Colin Firth (extraordinary as Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer) explains to his young protege and model that the colors in his paintings are added one step at a time.
Audacious feature film directorial debut by Peter Webber adapts the Tracy Chevaier novel about the 17th century Dutch artist Vermeer whose subject matter his young chambermaid played beautifully by Johansson raises eyebrows and libidos with his exquisite paintings and hearfelt adoration for someone he cannot have.Firth is there anyone else who does heartswelling angst better??- is exceptional in his low-key yet earnestly registered performance while the aforementioned Johansson is equally impressive as the beleagured young woman attempting to rise above her financial trappings for an independent life no thanks to the slimy Wilkinson (having a ball) as the artist's chief benefactor who only wants her.
After one hour into the movie, we finally find out that a fat, rich guy has commissioned Vermeer to paint Griet (Scarlet's character), while also expecting to have sex with her.
The colors, the set design, the costumes and the entire look of the film is like a Vermeer painting come to life--especially in the set that is Vermeer's studio.
These two were wonderful films, but when it comes to Costume Design, Art/Set Decoration and Cinematography, "Girl with a Pearl Earring" is, to me, more remarkable.
So, we don't know whether or not one of Vermeer's kids was a brat or if his wife was irrational or if the subject of his painting was his maid or if Vermeer was a horn-dog who liked to sleep with the subjects in his pictures.When it comes to the acting, it might not be everyone's idea of a wonderful film.
This is simply a take on how Vermeer created a mysteriously beautiful portrait of a young girl in his studio, a painting that though small, holds all of the magic of light source, absorption, and reflection that became the hallmark of the great Dutch master painter.
The wearer of the earring is Scarlett Johansson as Griet and she brings to her role a physical beauty of face and presence that make this version of how Vermeer created his 28 masterpieces believable.
If you want to know how could a piece of painting be turned into a movie, you will certainly need to watch Girl With a Pearl Earring.
Griet quickly becomes the target of abuse from the others, most notably Van Rjuiven (Wilkinson), who becomes transfixed by her beauty, and wants to force himself on her so he can have something to remember every time he looks at the painting.The story progresses slowly, which was annoying at times, but the cinematography, the acting, and the whole style of the film helps you through it.Scarlett Johanssen gives a fantastic performance as Griet.
Besides having the feeling of the whole film is literally like a painting -- cinematically delivered in shades of subtle colors and painterly light, Alexandre Desplat's score for "The Girl With a Pearl Earring" is simply entrancing.
Girl with a Pearl Earring is an English production made in Holland of the historical novel fantasizing details of Vermeer's life when he painted one of his most vivid masterpieces.
...after which time, I simply walked out.Wooden acting, stereotypical tormented artist genius, really bad matte painting, and above all maddeningly intrusive music finally won out over some beautiful interior scenes and a really fine performance by Scarlett Johansson, who certainly deserves better roles, and will undoubtedly, if there's any justice in the world, get them.
When 17-year-old Griet (Scarlett Johansson) starts to work as a maid for Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth) she discovers the beauty of art and the passion of love.Holland in the early 17th century: Vermeer is the most popular artist in Delft and father of five, later on in the film six children.
Beyond a sexual and physical level a passionate relationship between the both of them develops.Although not showing nudity and sex the director, Peter Webber, has created an extremely sensual movie with an unbelievably erotic tension between the main characters.Moreover the images are so brilliant and beautiful that the spectator believes himself in an art gallery looking at paintings by great Flemish masters.A calm film, indeed and thus not recommended to those who like action and many words.
Although not being an admirer of Vermeer's way of painting, this film really convinced me to take a look of his work again.
Great film if you like art and Vermeer's work...
Griet (Scarlett Johansson) is a shy girl, which started to work as a maid in the house of Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth).
This film tells us a beautiful story about the history of creation of the picture "Girl with a Pearl Earring".
Scarlett Johansson really hits her stride as Griet showing vulnerability and beauty as well as a yearning to understand art.Colin Firth on the other hand seems to be saddled with a bad wig and you never get into his Vermeer because he always appears to be solemn or brooding or about to lash out as he lives a life of pecuniary and painting commissions in order to make ends meet.Little is known about the artist Vermeer other than that he had lots of children and debt.
Griet (Scarlett Johansson) is a peasant maid working in the house of painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth).
Also starring such greats actors as Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy.This movie is based on a fictional story derived from the Dutch masterpiece painting called Girl with a Pearl Earring.
Staring Scarlett Johansson as the seventeen year old Griet, the subject of the painting, the story is of lost innocence and the passion of an artist working on capture natural beauty.
Girl with a Pearl Earring shows a small, but important, part of Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer's life, which led to the creation of one of his most famous paintings.
Vermeer's life is seen through the perspective of a young maid working at his house, Griet, who becomes his inspiration for the famous painting, Girl with a Pearl Earring.The film has a slow rhythm and is marked with minimalism, both in dialogue and the show of emotions by the characters.
That's showed clearly throughout the movie.In the film you get the impression that the relationship between Griet and her master Vermeer is deeper than a model-painter relationship.
In the film the director lets us know who the Girl in the Pearl Earring is, it is established how she came about being the model for Vermeer's most famous painting.
Inspired by a book, that is itself inspired only by the painting homonym with the film, The Girl with a Pearl Earring describes the Dutch society at the time, all from the eyes of a young peasant girl, played by Scarlet Johansson.
Girl with a Pearl Earring is an imaginary story around one of the most beautiful paintings ever made.
This was only possible because of the production design, costuming, lighting and the luscious Scarlett Johansson who was brilliantly cast in this role as the nubile Dutch maid.There was one other scene in the studio when Griet silently watched Johannes painting another model for another picture.
Scarlett Johansson does a good job playing Griet, an innocent girl who begins to work at the house of 'Master Vermeer,' and it is not long before Johansson and her love of art catch Vermeer's eye. |
tt0058138 | Gertrud | Gertrud, a former opera singer in Stockholm in the early 20th century, is married to the lawyer and politician Gustav Kanning. Gertrud tells her husband that he has become more in love with his career and status than with her. She also tells him that she has met another man who loves her more than anything else, and that she therefore prefers him to her husband and wants a divorce.
Gertrud meets her lover, the promising young pianist Erland Jansson, in a park. The two go to Jansson's house. Gertrud tells him how devoted she is to him. In the evening Gustav goes to pick Gertrud up at the opera where she had said she would be, but can't find her. The next evening the Kannings attend a dinner party at the house of the poet Gabriel Lidman, with whom Gertrud has had a relationship in the past. Gertrud greets her friend Axel Nygren who attends the same party. Gustav confronts Gertrud about the opera, and demands one last night with her before the separation. Lidman tells Gertrud that he had met Jansson at a party where he had bragged about Gertrud as his latest conquest.
When Gertrud meets with Jansson the next day she tells him that she wants to go away with him and leave everything else behind. He tells her that he cannot, because he is expecting a child with another woman. Lidman makes an attempt to persuade Gertrud to leave with him instead, but without success; when Lidman and Gertrud were a couple, just like Kanning, he had valued his career above her. Kanning makes a last attempt to persuade Gertrud to stay with him, even allowing her to keep her lover at the same time. The attempt fails and Gertrud moves alone to Paris to study psychology.
Thirty years later, Gertrud, together with Nygren, looks back at her life. She says that love is the only thing that means anything in life. She is now alone because of her refusal to compromise on that position, but does not regret anything. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Now, of course, all three films are considered masterpieces but while "Vertigo" and "The Searchers" were commercial films aimed at a mass audience, "Gertrud" was strictly art-house, the kind of film critics were expected to like.
It was a time for young film-makers and Dreyer was an old man.
Of course, hindsight is a great thing and today "Gertrud" seems more 'modern' than many of the fashionable 'flash-in-the-pan' movies that hit us in the sixties and which now seem like time-capsules from a by-gone age.
"Gertrud's" almost somnambulist pace and Dreyer's insistence on long takes, keeping his actors mostly static while allowing his camera to move, however slowly and deliberately, instead now seems almost revolutionary at a time when movies were chiefly about movement and movement in a pell-mell style.
At the beginning of the film Gertrud leaves her stuffed-shirt of a husband because he's not prepared to love her unconditionally and attaches herself to a younger man who showers with romantic affection.
It is a cold movie, it moves at a snail's pace and it is a film of ideas almost devoid of emotion if not feeling, (there is so little happening on screen it often seems like it could just as easily have been done on the radio).
Whiteness has overcome her and it is as lethal as the powder in the mill of Dreyer's Vampyr.This is a film that must be watched several times in order for all its qualities to be revealed.
Most of Gertrud consists of two people at a time sitting on couches and facing opposite directions - no character in this film can bring themselves to look at someone else.
Although Gertrud is ostensibly a heroine - with the title as it is, we're almost required to believe that she is correct in her thoughts and actions and identify with her - as the film progresses it becomes more and more obvious that she is as much or more of the problem as the men whom she tends to blame.
Cinema Great Carl Dreyer's final film is said to be his masterpiece as well.
The viewer quickly learns that Gertrud is about to end what appeared to be years of boredom as the "attache" of a man who lives mainly for his secular accomplishments.
Despite his protests and assurances that he couldn't live without her, she leaves to see a lover.Drawn to men of the arts, Gertrud herself was once a celebrated opera singer.
Gertrud's extreme sense of pride, as noticed by a young musical genius who sees her as a convenient fling, leaves no wavering of the determined mind.If this film appeared to be scandalous in 1964, how would society view this kind of real activity in the early 1900s?
A critically acclaimed film, "Gertrud" nonetheless lacks entertainment value due to its fatalistic story telling.
Seeing Gertrud some fifty years after its initial release - Carl Dreyer's last film by the way, and one wonders if he knew it would be the last - I can understand why: this is very, very understated filmmaking and acting.
Dreyer is much more experimental; characters only every once in a while will even *look* at one another in a scene as they talk - and you'll find out if you watch, there is a lot of talking, it's based on a play and it feels every moment of it.
It's certainly not exactly a "fun" time at the movies, but that doesn't mean anything - so many movies out there bring with it the expectation that you'll get some kind of emotional or intellectual catharsis or consciousness-expansion out of it (Dreyer's previous Passion of Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath are hard to watch at times, but the thrill of filmmaking is there in spades).
This is, after all, the world of the upper class that we're seeing as Gertrud is in this loveless marriage, and yet even leaving is such a difficult task - women so rarely left their husbands then that's how you got plays that were so groundbreaking as A Doll;s House - so you have to look deeper to see what's there.The takes on these actors last quite a while as well; why have unnecessary cuts when a long take will do just fine?
It's easy to see people feeling antsy watching it, and it's a difficult film to defend in the sense of 'Well, the movie's really entertaining, it is!' It's not an easy sit.
It's also about how men look at a woman such as Gertrud, and as stubborn as she may be there is more complexity to her thinking and how her view of love and dependency changes.
And for as little as seems to be happening with the cuts or those precious moments where characters look at one another (or, for that matter, those gulfs of time spent looking off into nothingness, trying to find something to fill the void in themselves), everything that does happen matters.Ultimately, Dreyer made a film where we have to see these people.
The Carl Dreyer's film, Gertrud, is the last masterpiece of the great director.
A small gesture and sound effect at the very end of the coda epitomize the complexity of feeling that Dreyer creates about the worldly renunciations and imaginative substitutions in Gertrud.
Dreyer's final film views as a testament to idealism, the desire to put love above everything else in life and the cruel reality which thwarts this.
Carl Theodor Dreyer marked his place forever in the film canon for his terrific masterpiece The Passion of Joan of Arc. Back in film's most primitive stages, he managed to lift it out from its limitations and give us one of the greatest performances of all-time from Maria Falconetti.
In that limitation, Dreyer makes elegant use of camera movements with long takes that are constantly changing frame size, it's really magnificent to watch.
I was completely shocked when I first saw this masterpiece, and I still get shocked every time I see it again.Dreyer's long and austere takes will not, of course, be liked by many, easy-goers, because he achieved by them to tell the unspeakable, he reached true Art. But to appreciate this means to have previously developed and refined one's taste, a tough effort which unfortunately not everybody is willing to make.
For the chilly, statuesque wife in Carl Dreyer's last film Gertrud, love is not a living, breathing reality, but an ideal to be sought in its purest form.
With its long takes and static camera, it seems at odds with the French New Wave jump cuts and innovative techniques, yet it has much in common with those films of the 60s that depict the soulless fragmentation and alienation of modern life even though Gertrud takes place at the turn of the century.In Gertrud, love is something to strive for but is unattainable on Earth and each character (like perhaps Dreyer himself) is a figure living to one degree or another in loneliness.
Based on a 1906 play of the same name by Hjalmar Soderberg, Gertrud (Nina Pens Rode), a former professional singer, is an emotionally unfulfilled woman who finds something missing in the four primary relationships in her life.
She is married to Gustav (Bendt Rothe), an ambitious politician, but sees him as being more interested in his career than in her.She is in love with a young concert pianist, Erland Jannson (Baard Owe), but is repelled by his consorting with other women and using her name to brag to others about his conquests.
In the drive to the opera, we are privy to Gustav's thoughts, the only time during the film that we are allowed entry into the character's mind.
However, in one of the film's most telling moments, shown in flashback, she recalls finding a note on Gabriel's desk that says "A woman's love and a man's work are mortal enemies".
I was however very familiar with his other works like La passion de Jeanne d'Arc, Ordet and Vampyr which I have ranked among the best movies ever made - Jeanne d'Arc being the absolute early zenith of Dreyer's career as an incomparable artistic genius.
The emptiness of soul that follows almost every great film of this caliber and theme; catharsis if you will.Many critics have seen this film – that is by the way based on Swedish playwright's Hjalmar Söderberg's play – more like an ibsenian or strindbergian social commentary or a story about the difficulty of common understanding between the sexes.
I'm not saying this is wrong per se, but I also like to see that the film deals with subjects common to whole human condition.Amor omnia, says Gertrud near the end of the film.
That is also the lifeblood and essence of the film, even though life and love seldom seem to go the way we expect they would turn out.
It's all about the unbearable emotional distance of a married couple, distance that in life is sometimes irreconcilable – isn't the true tragedy of life becoming emotionally estranged from the ones we used to love and hold dear?In a way the character of Gertrud mirrors the whole spectrum of human condition.
Probably not, but still we all have the same qualities as Gertrud in the film – chasing her desires blindly and being constantly unhappy with our lot in life – a truly universal character I would dare to say!Cinematography is downplayed on purpose but mastered with sharp contrasts and is generally excellent.
The composition of images and scenes are like a textbook example of artistic control.There is also something little bit bergmanian in the whole story and film, which is also the reason I would like to recommend this film to people – were they young or old – who are in custom to hold on to these maybe little bit naïve (mis)conceptions of love and life.
When you first start watching it, the film feels like a bad SNL sketch where the host hasn't memorized his lines, constantly looking at cue cards.
The film is set up with long, hypnotic takes as a staged play, with the actors sometimes moving into new positions just to appear more stage-like.
It takes a few to get into the style and familiarize ourselves with the bareness; it's not so much that it's boring as that it's largely silent.The characters exist both as mouthpieces for Carl Dreyer and as people in real situations.
I actually watched the movie with the lights on, purposely, so I wouldn't get absorbed in the story, so I could always be aware of what was really going on.So it's about marriage and love and commitment on one simple level -- there's a joke about it, too: the opera Gertrud says she's going to is "Fidelio." Gertrud says she's leaving her husband; another man, Lidman, a celebrated poet, wants her; and she's having an affair with a young musician, Erland.
Sometimes you need someone like Gertrud (or Dreyer) to remind you of that simple truth.
Married woman has affair with younger man, falls in love, wants to leave husband.
Younger man doesn't love married woman, married woman decides to leave husband anyway and live the rest of her life alone.
Conversations are carried out in a detached and deadpan manner and are rife with philosophical platitudes about love and male-female misunderstandings.Watching this film feels like sitting in the theatre watching a high brow, boring and pretentious stage play.
After viewing this film, I wondered if Gertrud still had a blank expression even during love making..
Although he had a very long career, the time between films was often very long-- sometimes a decade or so as is the case with "Gertrud".
Sadly, though, the movie is just dreadful--- the sort of pretentious and boring drivel some artsy folks might like but also the sort of film that most people would truly hate.The story is very simple.
Carl Theodor Dreyer has always been seen as one of cinema's greats and his movies have been praised everywhere and are still being watched by many movie fanatics now days.
It pretty much is a psychological movie, since it gives you a look into the mind of a woman, in search of love and true happiness, without having to make any compromises for it.Also visually, Carl Theodor Dreyer's last movie, is a wonderful looking one.
In the elegant world of artists and musicians, Gertrud ends her marriage to Gustav and takes a lover, the composer Erland Jansson.What we have here is a world of light and shadows and an ever-lingering camera.
I had to watch this movie because I'm a Cinema student, and for a final exam, I had to explore Carl Dreyer's filmography.
Even I enjoyed every film he's done, Gertrud and Ordet were the ones that I liked the most.
The Latin words Gertrud says at the end, "Amor omniae est" describe in a perfect way the message (in my opinion) Carl was trying to give in this film.
Compared to Andrei Rublev this one is easy watching.And yes, the actors look like robots but that's the film's style!.
Carl Theodore Dreyer was known for his perfectionism, so it's odd that his final film contains some slips - namely: (1) the mike boom is clearly visible in the upper center left of the frame during the first scene in the Kannings' living room; (2) in the same scene the husband looks out the window and comments on how early darkness is falling at this time of year (presumably autumn) and the wife tells him she plans to go to the opera; so we assume it's an autumn evening in a Scandinavian city.
Carl Theodor Dreyer's final movie focuses on a woman who decides that she no longer wants to be with her husband.
Such is what one will find if one reads the reviews for Danish filmmaker Carl Theodor Dreyer's final film Gertrud, made in 1964.
Like Saraband, Gertrud is a bad film primarily because of its atrocious screenplay.
All the characters in this film succumb to the idiotic strictures that Gertrud imposes upon herself, strictures designed to limit any real love, and to cast herself in the role of martyr, occupied by other female characters in the Dreyer canon- Joan of Arc, Anne from Day Of Wrath, and Inger from Ordet.
This bad use of symbolism, as well the indulgence of a cliché, and Dreyer's inexplicable inability to see it as such, is what dooms Gertrud as a work of art, yet make a viewer thankful that the man lived only four more years, and never had a chance to make another film.
Gertrud is a really bad film, and I always mean every word I say..
The film is about an upper class woman named Gertrud who attempts to find satisfaction through her relationships with men.
In other words, whether the viewer sees Gertrud as a protagonist or an antagonist will affect the way the film is understood.
This was the last film from director Carl Theodor Dreyer (The Passion of Joan of Arc, Vampyr, Ordet), and this Danish film was listed as one of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die in the book, so I was very keen.
Basically, set in the early 20th Century in Stockholm, former opera singer Gertrud (Nina Pens Rode) is married to lawyer and politician Gustav Kanning (Bendt Rothe), she tells him that she has become upset that he cares more about his career and status than her, and she confesses that she has met another man who loves her and vice versa, so she wants a divorce.
Gertrud decides to give her new lover the chance to redeem himself by telling him she wants to leave everything else behind and go away with him, but he reveals he cannot do this as he is expecting another woman to give birth to his child.
Thirty years pass, and Gertrud looks back at her life and says to Nygen that the only meaningful thing in life is love, but she has not compromised her position being alone and giving into the attention of any man, she does not regret this decision or anything else.
The story of a woman having an affair out of marriage with another man who is not really in love with her is a good concept, the film is full of clever and interesting to watch scenes, especially those with long takes, including a near ten minute talk between the poet and his former love, the costumes and sets in black and white were good too, it is was a very intriguing and likable drama.
Gertrud is unlike any other film or movie that I have EVER seen.
Dreyer's characters are restrained in emotion and rarely look at each other, since they usually face the camera in very low-action dialogues with very simple set designs.
I watch this in my film class, and this is one of the times that I wanted to skip the movie.
The only character I liked, was the first and second husband (as you got the felling that they still loved her).
While I loved The Passion of Joan of Arc and enjoyed Vampyr and Day of Wrath, this film - his last - left me cold.
The whole film feels artificial and robotic which is ironic considering the main themes are how people search for their idealized notion of love.
Stolid, deadly earnest, but still enjoyable Danish film which slowly reveals middle-aged Gertrud's emotional life with dull husband (politician), new lover (composer), former lover (poet), and future loving friend (art critic/writer).
(For all we know, maybe the original stage play by Söderberg =was= more subtle and humorous than Dreyer's movie version.) In conclusion here is a little question for my fellow armchair critics: if this story was adapted and directed by Ingmar Bergman (the amusing Bergman of the 1950's), how would the film have ended? |
tt0096244 | Tequila Sunrise | Dale "Mac" McKussic (Mel Gibson) is a former drug dealer trying to go straight. His close friend Nick Frescia (Kurt Russell) is a Detective Lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who, in spite of their long-term relationship going back to high school, is duty-bound to bring Mac to justice if he is selling drugs again, as DEA Agent Hal Maguire (J. T. Walsh) believes to be the case.
Mac is attracted to stylish restaurant owner Jo Ann Vallenari (Michelle Pfeiffer). Nick becomes acquainted with Jo Ann while attempting to learn more about Mac's activities, in particular his relationship with the Mexican drug kingpin Carlos, whom the DEA agents and Mexican federal police commandante Escalante (Raul Julia) believe is coming to town. Mac has a legitimate business and is raising a son, trying to distance himself from his former drug smuggling ways. But he tries to help his lawyer (Arye Gross) sell some cocaine, and feels indebted to his old friend Carlos, who is pressuring Mac to do one last job.
Jo Ann succumbs to Nick's charms and a love affair begins. Nick genuinely cares for Jo Ann but she becomes angry when Mac accuses Jo Ann of spying on him on Nick's behalf. She accuses Nick of using her to gather information because Mac often eats at her restaurant and hires her to cater his son's birthday party. Nick admits he is investigating Mac and that he originally approached her because of that. But he truthfully admits that he really has fallen in love with her. Jo Ann ends her relationship with Nick for his initial deception. Maguire and his associates, meanwhile, set a trap for Mac and the mysterious Carlos, whose face none of them except Mac has seen.
In time, Jo Ann realizes that Mac is in love with her and that she has fallen for him. Nick figures out that Mac's cousin Gregg (Arliss Howard) is an informer for the DEA. Nick also realizes that McGuire has become dangerously obsessed with catching Mac, willing to use any means necessary. Mac and Jo Ann make love at his house. Jo Ann is called to her restaurant on business. Nick meets her there, gives her a pistol for protection, and tells her to stay away from Mac tonight because Carlos is expected there. She does not heed Nick's warning and returns to Mac's house, where she discovers that Escalante is, in fact, Carlos.
Carlos relieves her of Nick's pistol and takes her to his yacht at the marina. He knows that Gregg is the informer and has him killed, leaving his body next to a shipment of gasoline contaminated cocaine. McGuire and Nick find Gregg's body and the cocaine at the beach. Nick meets with Mac to warn him that Jo Ann is in danger. Mac pulls a gun on Nick and rushes to the marina. Carlos pressures him to kill Jo Ann because she now knows too much. Mac refuses, threatens Carlos at gunpoint and gets Jo Ann to safety on a speedboat. Mac nevertheless promises Carlos that he will be at the rendezvous site as arranged to conclude their business. Nick explains to McGuire that Escalante is actually Carlos and heads for the marina. Mac arrives first and is double-crossed by Carlos, whereupon a fight ensues between them. As they struggle over the pistol, it discharges into Carlos's abdomen, fatally.
McGuire shows up and begins shooting, first to kill Carlos with a shot to the face, and at Mac as he is raising his hands to surrender. The gunfire causes the boat's fuel tank to catch fire, just as Mac jumps in the water. Nick arrives at the marina. He hears the gunfire, draws his weapon and orders McGuire to cease fire, but McGuire continues shooting, forcing Nick to shoot him in the back, wounding him. The fire causes the boat to explode, and with it the millions of dollars of cocaine on board.
The story ends with Nick asking Jo Ann to meet him at the beach. She arrives to instead find Mac, running to embrace him in the waves. A pleased Nick watches from a distance. | romantic, neo noir | train | wikipedia | A dark brooding piece, that is as meditative and murky as it is tightly written for suspense and twists, Tequila Sunrise focuses on the expectations that conventional mores place upon our freedom to interct and even love whomever our heart bids us.Gibson plays a drug dealer with, if not a conscience, at least a code of some sort of ethics.
The chemistry is definitely there, and the cinematography is excellent (I love the scene where Mac and Nick are talking while sitting on the swings, in pure silhouette).Occasionally the dialog does seem stilted, like when Nick's character is telling Joanne how much he wants to see her that night.
And you really wonder how Nick has his job, with all of the compromises he makes for relationships (as with Mac and Joanne).But, Mel Gibson's eyes when he tells Michelle Pfeiffer about his interest in her...
Mel Gibson plays a big time Drug Dealer now trying to go straight but seemingly lined up for one final big deal, or so the Police think, and his old school friend who is now the Chief of Police in the same city, Kurt Russell.
That plot device alone makes the movie work for me and I love watching the dynamics between all three characters.Although a couple of plot turns need a little twist of the imagination, it's still very well written and carried through to the screen with these actors giving good performances to take it there.
This is a film-noir, but not in the traditional almost melodramatic sense, so if you're looking for gunshots, action and chase sequences it's better pick another movie to watch.In Robert Towne's film everyone is divided between love (on someone or something) and friendship, and things isn't always what they appear.
McKussic (Mel Gibson) and Nick Frescia (Kurt Russell) are long time pals who have opposite lines of work: Mac is a nice drug dealer who has a perfect ability of escape from problems, trying to retire himself from the "job"; while Nick is a cop investigating a huge drug shipment coming to the country and McKussic might be involved in it.
In the middle of these two there's three things: Nick's FBI partner Maguire (J.T.Walsh) coordinating McKussic's investigation; Mac's friend the drug dealer Carlos (Raul Julia) coming from Mexico for a big drug operation; and the gorgeous Jo Ann Vallenari (Michelle Pfeiffer) owner of a successful restaurant where Mac is a regular costumer and both friends are interested in this woman who is divided between the love of both men.
The audience must try to hold the pieces together and figure what happens next, who's telling the truth and who's lying in this intricate plot.If the plot itself sometimes wanders a little bit, at least the characters are so well constructed and the performances go in the right direction that the film doesn't suffer one bit, but I must say that attention is required to follow everyone and everything, otherwise you lost yourself with no chance of getting back to the story, and you'll probably hate it.
Now, this is a helluva film from the 1980's filled with elements all nostalgic fans from that decade love: Gibson in the peak of his career, Russell as well, Michelle beautiful as ever, Raul Julia stealing the show from everybody, Dave Grusin's jazzy music featuring David Sanborn sax solos with the love's theme, the spectacular cinematography from Conrad L.Hall (Oscar nominated for his work here) capturing fantastic sunny shots and the most beautiful sunsets ever captured on celluloid.
Mel Gibson is seen drinking this cocktail on a couple of occasions, but the significance of the title may be that the film explores the triangular relationship between a "cocktail" of three main characters, Dale "Mac" McKussic, Nick Frescia and Jo Ann Vallinari.
If these suspicions prove correct, Nick will be duty-bound to arrest him.Like many examples of both film noir and neo-noir, "Tequila Sunrise" has a complex plot, one where the motives of all the characters are suspect and where nobody knows whom they can trust.
"Body Heat", for example, has an atmosphere of extreme heat, of sweat, of physical lassitude, of moral decay and of sexual tension, something emphasised not only by John Barry's jazz score but also Kasdan's colour scheme dominated by blacks, reds and oranges.The film stars three of the up-and-coming stars of the eighties in Gibson, Kurt Russell and Michelle Pfeiffer.
True it all ends in true hollywierd fashion but seeing Michelle Pfeiffer looking great in some power woman suits and Kurt Russell looking like a 50's cigarette poster and trying to be slick is fun.
So they end up winging every scene.Each of the actors adopts a different strategy Raul Julia overplays, Mel Gibson charms his way, Kurt Russell out dresses everyone, while Michelle Pfeiffer just demurs.
This movie has a cast to die for; Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kurt Russell, Raul Julia, J.T. Walsh, Arliss Howard.
Although it of course is certainly true that the presence of actors such as Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kurt Russell, Raul Julia and J.T. Walsh still uplifts the movie.
And though you can not compare the two movies, in terms of quality, but if you liked watching Casablanca for the drama that is played out in a charged atmosphere , with excellent scenes of interactions between the main characters, you will love this one too..
Continuing my plan to watch every Mel Gibson movie in order, I come to Tequila SunrisePlot In A Paragraph: Mac (Gibson) is a drug dealer who wants to go straight.
His old and best friend Nick Frescia (Kurt Russell) is now a cop who is assigned to investigate him and his friendship with a Mexican dealer named Carlos, who the police believe is coming to town to meet with him.him.
But the same can be said of "The Maltese Falcon", which has a plot maybe more convoluted than this film.The overall feeling of the film is anticipation, the waiting for something to happen that clarifies the ambiguous intentions and the shady alliances of the characters, because the viewer--unlike in some other films--knows less than the characters.The acting of Mel Gibson, Raul Julia and, especially, Michelle Pfeiffer should be singled out.
Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kurt Russell, I mean, you can almost see sparks fly from just the movie poster.
It features a wonderful cast, strong performances (including two excellent smaller roles for the late Raul Julia and J.T. Walsh, both of whom died way too young) and fantastic writing.The scenery seems dated today, but the cinematography work was a masterpiece for 1988.
In essence it's an old-fashioned genre piece, with the kinds of ambiguities that characterized the best film noir of the 40's and 50's: the main characters are conceived in classically muscular thematic colours, and Towne creates a sometimes absorbing network of shifting perceptions, generally leaving it pretty open as to how we should grade the relative professional and personal failings and compromises of the protagonists.
The actors seem too superficial to do justice to the movie's thematic ambitions: Gibson and Pfeiffer are so one-dimensional as to be outacted by Russell; Julia's character goes far into overdone stereotype and seriously damages the film's later stretches.
And I am pretty sure that this wonderful tale of love and redemption, justice and loyalty has more to do with with a cigarette lighter than it has to do with tequila.It is sensitively acted by four of Hollywood's very talented actors at the top of their game at the time: Gibson, Pfeifer, Russell and Julia bring fully realized characters to the screen that play their sub-text wonderfully.
This movie, with vacuous performances by Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Raul Julia, has no nutrition at all, nothing!
The best performance of Kurt Russel ever, maybe the best of Michelle, fantastic Raul Julia and always correct J.T. Walsh.It is definetly not the best performance of Mel but alltogether under the guidance of Thom Mount and Bob Towne these people made a magical job - they made a movie where every bit, every second and every frame is a masterpiece (well - certainly there were more people involved).One need to see it several times to discard its "detective" tag - it is definetely not a detective.
Nice cinematography and great cast though, Mel Gibson and Kurt Russell bounce well off each other as two old friends on opposite sides of the law.
Michelle Pfeiffer is a perfect addition as the woman they both fall for.I remember liking this movie when I originally saw it, way back when but this time around not so much.
Hideously dated sax music throughout -as all the movies from this time 80s tended to have- was partially to blame but the whole story just felt a bit dry.On the plus side the cast is superb Raul Julia steals every scene he's in as Carlos the charismatic dealer, Kurt is sleazy with his cocky cop attitude, cigarettes and slicked back hair, determined to get the girl and bring down his old friend.
What makes it interesting are the performances of Gibson, Pfeiffer, Russell -- and their beautiful looks -- and Raul Julia and J.T. Walsh, both marvelous.Someone described this as a chick flick.
This tall tale finds Kurt Russell and Mel Gibson as a couple of long time friends who now find themselves on opposite sides of the law - Mel as a "retired" drug dealer and Kurt as the cop tasked with bringing him down.
While you might not think Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Michelle Pfeiffer and Raul Julia are the best actors of their generation, this movie is surely one of the best works in their repertoire.Compared to the average cop movie, the film is slow.
The conflict between Kurt Russel and Mel Gibson was good, and kept it interesting throughout the film.
I think Kurt Russell and Mel Gibson are top-notch Actors, and they both did a great job in showing their talent in Acting within this film.
The plot intracicies extend even further when we find out that a big figure in the drug business, Carlos (Raul Julia), is coming to town with a stash of cocaine.So in the midst of both falling desperately and hopelessly in love with the same woman, Dale and Nick must also confront each other in regards to their differences.
Sorry, Raul.Mel Gibson is one of the most likable and easy-going film stars of all time, Kurt Russell is always a good bet in any type of film, and Michelle Pfeiffer is a very beautiful and talented actress.
Even though the characters are given good introductions and stories, the movie isn't nearly as interesting as it should be.I'm not quite sure what the primary problem of "Tequila Sunrise" is, I'm not even sure I want to think about it.
Kurt Russell and Mel Gibson play really nice and vibrant characters and they are young actors in this film, which really gives it some strength.
As far as I can see, every box is ticked: best friends on different sides of the fence, Michelle in the middle, steamy sex scene, awesome script and possibly the coolest character played by possibly the coolest actor, Raul Julia.
Complicating things are his friends, a cop Nick Friescha (Kurt Russell) and the druglord Carlos (Raul Julia) and Dales' no good cousin (Arliss Howard).
On top of all that he falls in love with a beautiful restauranteur (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants nothing to do with organized crime and is involved with Friescha.Mel Gibson has never been better as the hero with a checkered past trying to rebuild his life.
It has a slapdash feel that to my mind serves as reflection of this larger dissipation of vision.(You can practically watch this disconnect take place in Lethal Weapon the previous year; a noir plot where cops come to investigate a mysterious suicide, by the end we don't get to know anything about the girl who leaped to her death, but we have all this time devoted to explaining the whole drug trafficking plan with its cartoon villains.)There's one scene that stands out; the one that begins with Pfeiffer and Gibson kissing in front of the azaleas, cuts to prowling shots outside the house, gives us their lovemaking inverse reflected on steamy waters, intercut with shots of voyeur cops "viewing" intently, and intercut again with Russell making an important discovery by looking at photos (that he magically procured from thin air to serve the story).
Robert Towne directed this steamy crime/love story that stars Mel Gibson as Mac McKussic, a "high class", reluctant drug dealer who wants to go straight.
Tequila Sunrise may lack the inventiveness, vision, and dynamism of Chinatown (Robert Towne wrote both scripts), but it should, by no means be discarded as a mediocre cop thriller.It is a very slick piece of cinema with fine acting, glamorous sets, and great dialogue.
Tequila Sunrise may lack the inventiveness, vision, and dynamism of Chinatown (Robert Towne wrote both scripts), but it should, by no means be discarded as a mediocre cop thriller.It is a very slick piece of cinema with fine acting, glamorous sets, and great dialogue.
Complicated plot isn't always the easiest to follow, and the story is rather convoluted, but Towne photographs everything in warm passionate tones, and Gibson, Russell, and Pfeiffer shine like planets, not stars.
The cast is pretty good, with Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kurt Russell, and Raul Julia.
A cop (Kurt Russell), a beautiful restaurant owner (Michelle Pfeiffer), and a drug dealer who may or may not have reformed himself (Mel Gibson) cross paths, cross swords, argue, confront, compete, and in general size up each other in this meandering melodrama set in southern California.
The Money Shot is there but Fallow.Mel Gibson comes off as Second Best, after Kurt Russell in the Character/Acting Department.
interaction between Mel Gibson and Kurt Russel and their constant arguing,, and their solid friendship worth 2 points,, and the storyline,, a drug dealer a cop,, a sexy young woman who both are in love with ,,3 points..
Mac is looking for one final score so he can retire,, but his best friend is a cop and is highly suspicious of Mac,, they are both in love with a local restaurant owner Jo Anne,, J.T. Walsh also plays a great supporting role in the movie,, but for me Raul Julia just steals the show he plays two parts,, a Mexicali federale and a drug lord..
These people are not to be taken at face value as their motivations are often complicated by internal and external conflicts that emerge because of issues concerned with their most valued personal relationships and situations that test their levels of commitment, loyalty and trust to the absolute maximum.Dale "Mac" McKussic (Mel Gibson) and Detective Lieutenant Nick Frescia (Kurt Russell) have been close friends since their high school days but pressure has been brought to bear on their friendship in recent years because they've been working on different sides of the law.
Meanwhile, a joint operation involving the D.E.A. and the Mexican police led by Commandante Xavier Escalante (Raul Julia) is under way to capture Carlos and of course, anyone doing business with him."Tequila Sunrise" is a visual treat with great camera-work, lighting and beautiful scenes such as the one in which Mac and Nick are shown in silhouette against a stunning background.
Michelle Pfeiffer displays great poise but is also convincing in showing her emotional reactions to certain situations and Raul Julia and J T Walsh are terrific in their supporting roles.Not enough attention seems to have been given to the pacing of the action in this movie but overall, it is extremely entertaining to watch and contains some witty dialogue..
All the actors are good, but Raul Julia gives the performance of a lifetime as the drug supplier for Gibson's character.
Michelle Pfeiffer, Mel Gibson, and Kurt Russell are the three corners of the love triangle that makes up a significant part of the plot in this tense thriller.
It allows a beautiful scene with figures against the sun and above all, it has an amazing quartet of cast: Mel, Michelle, Raul Julia and Russell, tangled with an interesting love triangle.However, if i don't give "7" but "4", it's because the story was a bit boring and very usual: cop vs dealer!
McKussic (Mel Gibson) is a drug smuggler who's trying his best to get out of the business; Frescia (Kurt Russell) is a fast rising narcotics detective.
One of only five films directed by reputed writer Robert Towne (Chinatown), has some handsome stars (Kurt Russell, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Mel Gibson) to photograph in the striking location of Manhattan Beach, California.
It's nice to see Kurt Russell and Mel Gibson along with Michelle Pfeiffer, but not only that, it's also got Raul Julia and JT Walsh, two late, great character actors, from way back.
Michelle spends the balance of this film going back and forth between the Gibson and Russell characters.
Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell and Michelle Pfeiffer are good, but the three way romance is a bit here and there, as is Pfeiffer's tough but morally ambiguous character.A shame about the wasted potential and Raul Julia's regrettably small role as Esperante, however, still not a bad film.Friday, February 26, 1993 - T.V..
All the characters are cool, and the finale is quite suspenseful, plus Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, and Michelle Pfeiffer are all simply amazing in this!.
Mel Gibson is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is usual charismatic self, is very likable, and you are bale to care about his character, he had good chemistry with both Pfeiffer and Russell, and was fun to watch, I loved him as always.
Michelle Pfeiffer is also amazing as always and is amazing here as the love interest, she is incredibly gorgeous, had good chemistry with both Gibson and Russell, and I also felt for her character as well, she was amazing! |
tt0100464 | Rising Storm | === Setting ===
Rising Storm takes place in a fictional forest just like the previous three books. The forest is home to four Clans of wild cats, ThunderClan, WindClan, RiverClan and ShadowClan. In the middle of the book, Fireheart and Bluestar take a visit to Moonstone, which is a stone in an abandoned mine north-west of the forest. The Clans' name for the mine is Highstones.
The forest is based on New Forest, in Southern England. In addition to the New Forest, Loch Lomond, the Scottish Highlands, and the Forest of Dean also inspired the fictional locales in the novel.
=== Plot ===
Fireheart is now ThunderClan's new deputy, but the previous deputy, Tigerclaw, still haunts Fireheart's dreams. Fireheart wonders if ThunderClan would be ready if Tigerclaw attacked, as many of the cats are still shocked about Tigerclaw's disloyalty, and many warriors are still badly injured. Bluestar also begins to become distrustful of the Clan after Tigerclaw's betrayal, trusting only her most senior warriors, and Fireheart, who she brought to the Clan.
One day, Bluestar, accompanied by Fireheart, goes to speak with StarClan at Mothermouth, a quarry mine. On the way there, a patrol of WindClan warriors, led by Mudclaw, stop them before Bluestar is able to talk with them. The ThunderClan leader later fears that StarClan sent WindClan to stop them from going to Mothermouth and speaking with StarClan, which causes her to slip into further paranoia.
In the summer months, Fireheart struggles with his disrespectful nephew and apprentice, Cloudpaw, who goes to a Twoleg (human) for food and is one day abducted by them. Fireheart and Sandstorm rescue Cloudpaw, who is found near the barn where Ravenpaw and Barley live. He is accepted back into the Clan, since Fireheart keeps it a secret that Cloudpaw went to humans for food. Fireheart must also deal with the fact that his best friend, Graystripe, is still in love with the dead RiverClan she-cat Silverstream.
Meanwhile, the forest gets hotter and hotter, and a fire sweeps through the forest, destroying ThunderClan's camp and taking the lives of two elders, Patchpelt and Halftail, as well as Yellowfang, ThunderClan's medicine cat. At the end of the book, it was revealed at a Gathering that both Nightstar and Cinderfur have died from a sickness, and that Tigerstar is the new leader of ShadowClan. | satire, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0174226 | Someday You'll Find Her, Charlie Brown | Charlie Brown is watching a football game on television when he spots a girl in the stands that just made his heart melt. He is then crushed when the game ends and he feels he may never see her again. Not determined to lose what he feels is his true love, he enlists Linus to help him find her.
First they go to the football stadium to try to locate where she was sitting. Charlie remembers she was sitting next to tunnel #13 "because that's [his] lucky number." Then he has Linus sit where he determined she was sitting to recreate the shot in his head. Charlie and Linus try asking someone in the ticket booth who she was, but they do not know, and suggest to check the season ticket records downtown, and that is where they go.
Linus is asked by an overly nervous Charlie to ask who it was. Linus is given a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of those who were sitting in that space, and they are on their way. Meanwhile, Snoopy and Woodstock are behind them, and Snoopy tries to help Woodstock get a drink of water in the drinking fountain, but ends up almost drowning him. Charlie and Linus go to the first house, where the first girl (voiced by Nicole Eggert) is as young as them but is not pretty. Linus, who is doing the talking due to Charlie's nervousness, then gets the thumbs-down from Charlie, and they move on to the next house, but not before Linus almost ditches Charlie out of annoyance.
At the next house, they meet a teenage girl who is rather stunning but has a very raspy voice. As soon as she finds out it is Charlie who likes her, she gets rather upset that it is a kid, and tells both of them to get lost.
Finally they make their way to a property called the Happy Valley Farm (after Charlie himself almost abandons the whole thing because getting there was so far out of town) where the third girl lives. Snoopy and Woodstock are already there, and after Snoopy has some major problems getting across the cattle guard at the intersection of the main driveway, he and Woodstock encounter a rather mean bobcat (Similar to the cat that was in Race For Your Life, Charlie Brown) who chases them back across those rollers (where Snoopy has problems again), where they finally meet up with Charlie and Linus. Charlie dismisses Snoopy's attempts to warn him of the bobcat, and he and Linus walk in past the cat petting him as they go...then they both learn for themselves.
Linus learns on the phone of another entrance, and is warned that the bobcat is actually very sweet but does not like strangers much. They finally get to the house, where Linus encounters the correct girl, but completely forgets about Charlie and has fallen for her when he realizes she also carries a security blanket, and realizes she feels the same for him. He goes in, leaving Charlie behind. Charlie, after being chased out of the yard by the bobcat, just decides to wait, completely clueless of the situation.
In the meantime, Snoopy and Woodstock manage to get in the house without a hitch after Snoopy scares the bobcat up a tree. Meanwhile, Charlie continues to wait. Eventually Snoopy and Woodstock leave and do not pay any attention to Charlie. Finally Linus leaves, and is so smitten by the girl (whose name is Mary Jo), he is completely oblivious of Charlie's protests. Realizing Linus had stolen her from him, he runs off screaming in disbelief.
As Charlie is walking home, he appears to be depressed, but appears to also be somewhat happy and floating, apparently hoping it was all just a dream. He gets home, sleeps for the rest of the night, until there is a knock at the door the next morning. Hoping it is Mary Jo, it turns out to be Snoopy asking to be fed, but he ignores him and walks on by depressed again.
He meets Linus at the wall, and they discuss the previous day. It eventually ends when Linus checks his watch and realizes he needs to leave, because he was invited to a barbecue at Mary Jo's farm. Charlie stays and pulls out a book, reads a couple of old sayings about love, then closes the book with a sigh, resigning to the fact that he and Mary Jo were never meant to be. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | You're a stalker, Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown enlists Linus' assistance to help him find a pretty little girl he spotted in the crowd in a televised football game. The key problem with this particular Peanuts romp is that it unfortunately lacks the sweet warmth and sharp wit of your standard Peanuts outing. Instead some of the humor comes across as rather mean-spirited (one particular gag involving a homely buck-toothed girl seems downright cruel). Moreover, Charlie's obsession and infatuation with the girl is more creepy and unnerving than funny and appealing. Linus stealing said girl away from Charlie at the end also leaves a really foul aftertaste in one's mouth. Fortunately, the always entertaining comic antics of Snoopy and Woodstock prevent this show from being a total wash-out, with Snoopy facing up to a nasty and fearsome bobcat rating as the definite gut-busting highlight. Moreover, Charlie's chronic shyness makes him fairly likable and one can certainly identify with his awkwardness when it comes to dealing with the ladies. The jaunty score by Ed Bogas and Judy Munsen keeps things bouncing along, the whole program moves at a quick pace, and the lightweight tone ensures that this TV special overall sizes up as a decent enough diversion. Okay, but could have been a lot better. |
tt0087337 | Give My Regards to Broad Street | Paul (Paul McCartney) is stuck in a traffic jam in his chauffeur-driven car on his way to an interview. He day-dreams that he is driving himself in a flashier car crammed with modern technology around the countryside when he gets a call from Steve (Bryan Brown) that Harry (Ian Hastings), a reformed criminal, is missing along with the master tapes he was supposed to give to the factory the previous day. Paul races to the studio to find that the police are already there investigating the matter, thinking that Harry is back to his old ways and plans to bootleg the tapes. The news gets worse when Mr. Rath (John Bennett), to whom the studio owes money, arrives with the news that he will take over the record company if the tapes aren't found by midnight.
Following the meeting, the film follows a day in the life of Paul and his work with wife Linda McCartney and friend Ringo Starr, which includes filming two videos, rehearsing in a loft, and recording performances for the radio. In between this, Paul wonders what Harry might have done: did he give the master tapes to be bootlegged, did he just run off, or was he murdered? During several songs, Paul has elaborate fantasies in various settings and costumes inspired by his predicament. Once the day is done, Paul goes out driving around London while his associates brace themselves for the takeover as midnight approaches. While driving towards Broad Street, Paul remembers that Harry was headed there when he last saw him and goes exploring the station. Eventually, he finds the blue case containing the tapes on a platform bench, and Harry in a small maintenance building nearby, where he had accidentally trapped himself looking for a bathroom. They both laugh, and as they drive off, Paul informs Linda, and Linda informs the studio at the last minute, that the tapes have been found and the takeover is averted. Paul's chauffeur-driven car finally arrives at its destination and he is awoken from his slumber. | autobiographical | train | wikipedia | Sure, I love the Beatles.And sure, I respect Paul McCartney--especially when he has the courage to make mistakes.
And he does admit himself that he messed this particular film up in the book "Paul McCartney: 20 Years On His Own".I expected the film to be lousy and all, and hoped for at least a few nice musical performances.
Despite the boring and goofy plot, uninteresting situations and thorough silliness, "Give My Regards To Broad Street" isn't terrible: it's just pretty bad.
There are enjoyable music selections here, and even some which are genuinely touching.The entire opening medley showing Sir Paul performing "Yesterday/Here, There and Everywhere/Wanderlust" is wonderful, as is the smoothly gliding loveliness of "So Bad".
It is during these sections when you see that Paul's film, as he had explained in the above-mentioned book, was originally intended to be simply a series of music videos shown on television.However, a terrific version of "Silly Loves Songs"--which is arguably superior to the original--is ruined by the visuals that accompany it.
Those goofy FAKE SIDEBURNS!Even sillier is the ending: it makes no sense whatsoever in a thread plot that already makes next to no sense to begin with (it makes the likes of "Purple Rain" look positively brilliant scriptwise), and features the biggest unintentional guffaw in the film: a scene in which Paul imagines himself as a street performer.Interestingly enough, though, there is one strange feeling that this film gave me, and believe me, I never thought Paul McCartney would ever give me this kind of reaction with anything: a powerful wash of 80s nostalgia!
It still entertains because it works better as a music video collection than as a movie, and you won't be as disappointed as you might be if you simply treat it as such.
Tissue paper thin story used completely as an excuse for Paul and friends to conjure up a series of music videos.
The story had Paul and cohorts searching for a set of missing tapes, leading the viewer through a series of flashbacks and dreamscapes which gave the film a magically mysterious sensation.
Not a bad film attempt for a man whose only previous movie work was hamming it up with the other Beatles.
If you love the work of Paul, you have found a great movie!
Paul it's time you recorded "McCartney III" and did another film.
Compared to Paul McCartney's last opus "Magical Mystery Tour, this movie wasn't all that bad, I thought.
It plays like an extended music video, as well as seeming like a statement on the extreme boredom of Paul McCartney.
Paul McCartney's self-indulgent exercise in tolerance isn't much better today than it was at the time of its release.
The only reason to watch is for the McCartney tunes - ranging from updated renditions of old Beatles classics ("Yesterday," "Here, There and Everywhere") to some newer songs that range from the rockin' ("Not Such a Bad Boy," "No Values") to the soft and sweet ("So Bad," "No More Lonely Nights").
Most embarrassing moment is a rendition of "Silly Love Songs" with the band in ridiculous makeup as an absurd break dancer performs in the foreground; most excruciating sequence involves a never-ending dream which concludes "Eleanor Rigby".
The script drags, the acting is sub-par, and the plot is uninteresting.The only part I liked was when Paul was buskin' it on the street with his guitar, a glimpse of how easy music comes to him.
Great music, fun movie, weak plot..
If you're a big enough fan of Paul McCartney's to get past the fact that there's not too much to the plot, I would recommend for you to see it.
The music is fantastic (he even kept the classics such as Eleanor Rigby, Here, There, And Everywhere, and The Long and Winding Road) and it's also just a fun little movie to watch if you're in a good mood.
It's certainly not the greatest thing our Paul has ever done, but it not the worst either (Yeah, remember the Magical Mystery Tour same story: good music, bad plot).
A movie for two kinds of people:(1) Avid admirers of the undeniably talented Paul McCartney who are interested in watching their hero branch out into startling new directions (acting, screenwriting), as well as to see and hear him perform one of his best songs from the 80s (the lovely "No More Lonely Nights") and offer fresh reinterpretations of his many hits (including a version of "Here, There, and Everywhere" that may be superior to the much loved rendition that appears on the Beatles' "Revolver" lp); and(2) Those who take a mean-spirited pleasure in seeing one of the high and mighty fall, quite spectacularly, on his face.
If you are looking for a picture that lets you enjoy many well timed music videos by featuring Paul and his wife and friends then this is it.
A movie to entertain you with good music and not a lot of plot, but fun.
If you're a McCartney fan, it's the equivalent of a hour and a half music video.
So if you would like to see what is essentially a McCartney / Beatles Video starring Paul and Ringo, this is right up you're alley.Some minor parts as well may have some interest to fans.Again, if you're not a McCartney fan, then you'd probably skip this one.
If you like rock music in general and aren't looking for a complicated plot, this movie is a very nice Brit production complete with pretty visuals and kooky characters; if you are a fan of Paul and/or The Beatles, then you will love this movie, plain and simple!.
How else could one explain the otherwise inexplicable '80s Eurotrash kitsch of "Silly Love Songs," or the "Eleanor Rigby" sequence?Although ostensibly directed by Peter Webb, rumor has it that Paul actually took full control of the film early on, and the lack of directorial experience shows (rather painfully).
Paul is credited with writing the script (such as it is), which seems to have been composed on a napkin or on the back of an envelope.The "plot," or rather "dramatic scenario," (if it can even be dignified as such) seems to be something of an echo from the equally flimsy premise of "A Hard Day's Night," in that the protagonist(s) (Paul or The Beatles) are shown romping around a TV or film studio of some sort, constantly passing by costumed actors and extras, the whole thing serving as merely an excuse to perform their songs.
But where "A Hard Day's Night" overcame its lack of plot and low budget with the raw enthusiasm, charm, and sly humor of the Beatles in 1964, the 1984 Paul possesses none of these qualities, instead content to waltz around gaudily decorated, overblown sets in a kind of dope-fueled haze.
Paul, and everybody else in the film, including Tracey Ullman, Ringo, Paul's wife Linda, Ringo's wife Barbara Bach, and Beatles producer George Martin seem bored silly, as if they can't wait for the shoot to be over.
and I must say this movie rocks,I love the plot of how he must find his tapes before midnight or serious consequences will happen.Ringo acts funny,and the soundtrack is really cool..
About the only thing this film has going for it is Paul McCartney singing some Beatles classics as well as some of the newer Wings titles.An attempt to capture the energy of "It's a Hard Days Night" fails dismally without John Lennon and George Harrison.Ringo's here,but barely utters a word.This is Paul's show all the way.This film desperately needed something it sorely lacks-ENERGY.What a shame..
The music in the film is the less McCartney-like ever...
All in all, a regrettable movie, full of possibilities (excellent musicians, for instance), with a horrible script (Paul will always be famous for showing off that he can do anything, even things he doesn't know how to...
I like it very much and I just hope that Sir Paul will do another movie.
History repeats itself;" give my regards to Broadstreet " was trashed ,just like "Magical mystery tour " was, in the Beatles years.Hindsight displays its charm;it is not a masterpiece of the seven art ,by a long shot,but it is an entertaining flick,for fans of the Beatles,for McCartney is present from start to finish.It's been described as giant clip,but actually it displays diversity and ,musically,it's impeccable.There are really successful sequences,particularly that of "Ballroom dancing " which blends Thé -dance chic people with hoodlums who eventually fight like cats and dogs ,like in the lyrics."Silly love songs " is the only track in the whole movie which causes my face to avert ;the sequence is rather ugly but playing it in front of a neo punk(played by Tracey Ullman) is almost defiant.THe rest is certainly enjoyable ,the Beatles "covers" are made with taste ("for no one" is enhanced by the strings) ;and the three originals are up to scratch:the two rockers make you tap your feet and the hit "no more lonely nights " benefits of David Gilmour 's fine guitar solo.MacCartney had always thought that " Eleanor Rigby " was Dickensian and the period costume part is certainly the most appealing: pastoral with Linda ,of course,as the photographer ,nightmarish wandering across a cemetery ,then through London's dark alleys where you can meet Jack the ripper ,and a brief scene with the famous Richardson ,who ,like any great man,makes himself wait (he reportedly told the singer his lines were fine with him).Paul's fancy for the nineteenth century also shows in the short scene in which Harry is pursued by the policemen ,across the moor, which will remind you of Sherlock Holmes.The story is devoid of interest ,but ,like in " Magical mystery tour" ,it's not important.Paul acts naturally ,so does Ringo,of course;there is even a hint at George in a line : "or Harry- Krishna"?.
Ringo Starr, George Martin, and several more apparitions appear by grace for your nostalgic pleasure.By this film, we're given several more songs and video scenes that are fully alive as creative avenues in the Beatles tradition.
I first watched this movie probably twenty years ago or more & have subsequently watched it all the way thru at least 25 times over the years.The movie ranks up there with some of the all time best The plot is excellent as it evolves to a dream in a dream...it flows nicely & is comedic yet dramatic at times...McCartney is truly gifted thru our Gods graces and they are displayed quite well thru out this movie...Anyone who is a Beatles/McCartney fan will not be disappointed in spending a couple hours with one of the greatest talents in the history of the world...so even though the film is dated somewhat as to when it was released.I do feel that if you watch the whole movie and not just for the music and especially upon multiple times viewing that you will acquire the same reverence and respect for this great man..
To be frank, not the master tapes of McCartney's recordings that were missing, the movie's plot was!
As most of these reviews begin, I'm going to state that I am a huge Beatles fan and a pretty big Paul McCartney fan as well.
McCartney not only produces new, bland songs that lack the usual McCartney charisma, but he goes on to ruin classics of his dating back to the Beatles.The rehearsal scenes are monotonous and bland, the Eleanor Rigby sequence is mind-numbing and lasts much, much longer than it should, and every attempt at humor fails.However, there are a few things in this film that you may get a kick out of.
That's the only thing I could come up with.Overall, I can't believe I own this film and actually took the time to write a review of it.
Interesting to note that here in this movie was the moment McCartney became the custodian of the Beatles music and at least 50% of his stage act covers Beatles songs.He's even dipping into the very early stuff like Love me do and PS I love you which he does as a medley on his sound checks.
To basically describe how pointless this movie is then any entertainment value from this movie can be replicated by playing a bunch of random Paul McCartney Beatles Songs...
The entertainment value will not differentiate (although I would prefer listening to The McCartney Beatles songs).So what exactly is the plot.
There are shots in the half-hour-long sequence set entirely in the 1800's (What does that have to do with the plot?) that are very well constructed and set up.Now I am not the biggest Beatles' fan, any respect I had for Paul McCartney is now completely and utterly and totally shattered.
Don't say I didn't warn you.Unless you want to listen to a bunch of Paul McCarntey songs in a pointless way then do not get this movie.
Some new and advanced equipment were used on this film, a steadicam was a fairly new thing, as was the luma crane, and the use of camera was not regular, more like you would expect to see in a TV studio.I remember best the ballroom dancing scene, and silly love song's with the white stage, filmed at Elstree were those bits.
In 1984, Paul McCartney made a feature-length film that was simply a gigantic music video--not a film, per se.
In most ways, it seems like twenty years after A HARD DAYS NIGHT, McCartney is trying to recapture the magic--without John and George.
Ringo and his lovely trophy wife make an appearance as do a few of McCartney's other friends, but the magic is sadly missing and it just looks like a very, very expensive home movie.To put it bluntly, I found the whole experience tedious--and I couldn't wait to leave the theater.
Macca cannot act, neither could Linda, or Ringo for that matter, and even the "established" actors sound like they're reading from their scripts for the first time.
Sir Paul McCartney is an under-appreciated musical genius.
Every scene featuring one of Paul's songs is thoroughly enjoyable and so creative, like a super-cool, high-quality music video.
McCartney's voice is on top form and he has picked and arranged a fine song-track to decorate a film which must have been scripted on the back of a plectrum.
Only Linda seems to enter into the spirit of Paul's conceit, as though the script was pillow talk.Slated at the time, the film is a must for Beatles, Wings and McCartney fans, and it's worth repeating that the man himself doesn't need to act the method, the method's in the music..
Despite one good song, "No more lonely nights", this two-hour excursion of narcissism and nonsense will bore you to tears.In retrospect I am reminded of Neil Diamond's valiant , but failed attempt at recreating The Jazz Singer, another bad film.
I too start from the position of being a Beatles and McCartney fan, one who clearly recalls when Beatlemania first took hold in the UK.I remember eagerly looking forward to Magical Mystery Tour on Boxing Day 1967, and being increasingly embarrassed as it went on.
The lesson which came across loud and clear was that, while the Beatles were undoubtedly in a class of their own as far as writing songs was concerned, they were very, very bad at writing films.
And, let's be fair, the lion's share of the responsibility for the Magical Mystery Tour travesty rested with McCartney.I guess in 17 years the memory must have faded a bit, and he forgot that lesson.Broad Street taught it to him again, though.You can't write films, Paul.
It also has much of what we movie lovers expect NOT to see in a film: Ringo Starr.
That being said This film is more of an extended music video of classic Beatles music and contemporary to the times McCartney & Wings music.
As it stands, actors like Bryan Brown, Tracey Ullman and Sir Ralph Richardson are left as very hollow characters who lend nothing to the plot.What makes this film at all enjoyable is the music.
The plots are similar (a day in the life of rock star Paul played by Rock Star Paul McCartney), and the constant musical performances make this seem almost like Another Hard Day's Night.Overall, the ending is extremely anticlimactic, the story is silly, but the musical performances are a lot of fun.
I'm a Beatles Fan. I'm also "Critical" Of McCartney.
Since Paul McCartney is a musician who can't even read music, that should give you your first clue.
I'm a big fan of Paul McCartney and The Beatles and I do have a copy of this movie on my shelf and to be honest I think it's OK.
First it's all about the tapes being 'stolen' and then next we see Paul McCartney day dreaming during 'Eleanor Rigby' with some parts of the main plot still used for a few seconds.
The settings of the film is really nice and I do like the 'Eleanor's Dream' scene that was featured.
Shame there wasn't too much time with Ringo Starr in the film but it is all about McCartney.
But still I enjoy this film and its a recommendation to Paul McCartney fans or Beatles fans..
In this odd and very bad movie, we see Paul McCartney as he goes about an average day of appointments, all the time trying to find the missing and irreplaceable master tapes for his next album.
Sir Paul McCartneys No more lonely nights song is memorable.
Sir Paul McCartney has had several musical comebacks although most people are to polite to call them comebacks.
The Video for the song No more lonely nights is okay and more enjoyable than the movie.
Paul McCartneys master tapes for his new album go pretend missing in this film.
Some of Sir Paul McCartneys other films are also worth watching. |
tt0078806 | The Attic | Emma (Moss) has a strong aversion towards her family's new house, especially the attic. After moving in, she becomes miserable and reclusive. The rest of her family also seems unhappy and unsettled. The situation escalates one day when Emma is in the attic alone. All of a sudden someone who looks exactly like Emma attacks her viciously.
Emma is convinced that someone or something is haunting her, and she refuses to leave her house until she can piece the puzzle together, with the assistance of John Trevor (Lewis), a sympathetic detective. Eventually, Emma suspects her parents of hiding skeletons in the closet from the family's past and practicing magical rituals using symbols Wicca seemingly stole from satanism. As the clues pile up, she discovers that she once had a sister named Beth, who died twelve days after Emma was born. Emma realizes that this identical apparition may actually be Beth returning to life.
Emma witnesses Beth kill her brother, and the police suspect it was really Emma. John Trevor comes to the rescue when Beth is trying to strangle Emma to death and leaves her with a gun. She suspects that her father was to blame and murders both her parents. When the police arrive, Emma threatens "John Trevor", who now claims to be a paramedic, with the gun he gave her. As she points the gun at Trevor, she is really pointing the gun at herself, and when she pulls the trigger, she kills herself.
The police later discuss the incident, and Emma's former psychologist explains that Beth and Trevor were only in her mind. Another officer mentions that the previous owner of the house mysteriously died. The psychologist says that houses do not kill people, but in this case it did. The film ends as new family looks to buy the house. As a young girl about Emma's age explores the attic, "John Trevor", now a real estate agent called Ron, appears behind her and says they will be seeing a lot of each other. | revenge | train | wikipedia | Works if you're in the right mood....
This is NOT a horror film.
Like its "prequel," "The Killing Kind," it's more a psychological study of how nasty parents can really mess up their children's lives, and how ironically nasty life can be.Louise, brilliantly played by the wonderful, under-utilized and now-departed actress Carrie Snodgrass, is a spinster librarian with a hateful, controlling, wheelchair-bound dad played with unashamed evil glee by Ray Milland.
Louise is depressed beyond belief--she's never gotten over the loss of her fiancée who disappeared 19 years ago, or an accident that led to her father being in a wheelchair.
She does anything she can to cope: attempts suicide, masturbates, has a one-night stand, plans vacations she'll never have the courage to take, retires from her job and even takes care of a chimpanzee.
But she's not a balanced person--she constantly fantasizes about rejecting her abusive and mean father and loses track of reality on occasion.
She drinks a little too.
But things seem to be going her way at last when Louise makes a friend out of a co-worker, a sincere young woman who boosts Louise's confidence, and gives her hope, sets her on the road to recovering her self-esteem and her life.But, as in "Carrie," happiness is not in the cards for Louise, and it all comes to an end in a series of ironic surprises, and a stormy conclusion in a creepy attic where unpleasant truths are finally revealed.This is not a horror movie--it's not scary or gory at all.
You have to be in the right mood to enjoy this movie.
You have to be depressed, and feeling hateful, and old, and grief over the loss of someone or something you love to really get into this movie.
You have to feel like the world is an unfair, cruel place to live, and be interested in a movie that confirms your worst fears...the world IS against you!
There are some wonderful moments of black humor--the secret Ray Milland has been hiding about his health is somehow so cruel it's almost funny, and listening to Carrie Snodgrass break out of character and scream is a wonderful experience.
Some of Louise's fantasies show her screaming or acting sly and seductive in that unusual voice of hers, giving just a hint of what Ms. Snodgrass might have delivered had more roles come her way.
Ray Milland's hatred of the "Dicky the chimp" is hilarious, even as it degrades a once great actor in his declining years to be in such a role in, basically, an exploitation film.
But I can't stop laughing when he first sees Dickey..."What in God's name is THAT!??"It's not a great film, and hard to categorize; I have no idea who would have put up money for something like this, let alone how they got the actors they did.
It's more sad than scary, and you really have to be in the right mood to watch a character who's life was pretty rotten almost get better, then fall into a bottomless pit of hopelessness.Or maybe the implication is that Louise went on after this movie, and was able to start her life over, having broken the spell of the past that kept her from moving forward.
A New Perspective.
I remember seeing The Attic on TV when I was 10, and I'll have to admit, it did give me nightmares.
Now I have a different perspective about it.I really agree with the last comment I read.
This film is hard to classify, and in my opinion, could have been so much better.
The two actors, Carrie Snodgress and Ray Milland keep it from being completely unwatchable.
Snodgress does an exceptional job portraying Louise, that she actually makes you feel bad for her.
All through the movie, you almost wish someone would throw her a bone and get her out of that dreadful house.
It isn't really a horror movie, but it does have a creepy feel to it in some places.
Ray Milland's sadistic portrayal of Louise's father,Wendell, contributes to that..
SLOW, BUT INTERESTING.
Louise is a poor lonely middle-aged librarian prone to odd behavior, outrageous daydreams and suicide attempts.
For the last 19 years she has taking care of her abusive wheelchair bound father and hopes beyond hope that her fiancée, who seemingly stood her up at the altar, returns to take her away.
I thought that the story was interesting and in many ways parallels Psycho, there's even a nod in the movie.
The acting is passable and the leads seem to mesh well.
The direction is a bit plain and simple with little or no pizzazz.
The biggest drawback is the music.
Half the time the music distracts you away from the scene and the rest of the time it lulls you to sleep.
Dig that crazy chimp music.
The editing draws many of the scenes out for far too long.
I kept thinking to myself that the story interested me but the script needed to be fleshed out some more and a bit of the fat trimmed coupled with a decent music score and a little vision, they could have pulled off something interesting.I even liked the obvious twists.
It was like a character study and engaging one too.
It was not a horror movie, this movie was more of a case study.
Snodgress's acting is brilliant and she definitely deserved an Oscar for it.
The movie is definitely creepy and depressing, probably the most depressing movie i've seen.
the best part about the movie is that it stays in your head for a long long time.
Makes you think about the other side of parenting and how cruel humans can be.
It does get boring in between, i wont lie about that.
But that can be completely ignored when you look at the movie as a whole.
It is not a Horror movie but if you watch it with concentration, you will get scared.
After the movie has ended too, just thinking about it..
Pretty good story with dull pauses could use a re-make.
Okay, the storyline here is pretty interesting.
Louise is a lonley librarian who is developing a drinking habit which is about to get her fired.
But if anyone has GOOD reason to be sneakin hooch its Louise.
19 years ago she was left at the altar by her true love who she's never heard from since (she calls Missing Persons on a regular basis and they are at a point where they dont think this man EVER existed anywhere but in Louise's mind!).
She lives with her evil nasty belittling father who is in a wheelchair due to an accident he had trying to escape a building Louise set on fire during one of her "Crazys" episodes.
Since then Louise has had to bathe him, feed him and wait on him hand and foot.As you can imagine its a real downer and Louise has even known to slit a wrist or two over it (which her father points out is just to get attention!) Louise makes freinds with a new younger girl at the library and they start a friendship that at least brings Louise a little bit of joy.
Her father cant stand it.
"Where were you?" he likes to yell when she comes home at night.
(He listens to phone calls too.) From the point were Louise is gifted a monkey....yes, a monkey!.....the twists start hitting.
No, the movie moves slowly ...which is unfortunate because all-in-all it IS an interesting story with some cool plot twists.
I really think this movie needs a re-make with quicker pacing and maybe a few more surprises thrown in.
The first time I saw this movie I was a little kid who caught the last 20 minutes on TV and thought "Wow!
What a mind-f***!".
Renting it and watching it in full I now see that most of the action takes place in those last 20 minutes..
Well-done psychological thriller is slow in going, but ultimately a rewarding and emotional character study.Lonely spinster has been living under the eye of her over-bearing father ever since her beloved fiancé disappeared years earlier.
But now that she is gathering her will power, will she be able to take control of her life and uncover the secrets from her past?While many have billed this film as a horror movie, it's really not.
The Attic is a highly tense drama that builds to some good thriller qualities, especially toward its climax.
Director George Edwards creates a feeling of intrigue and mystery with this film, while adding some occasional Gothic touches.
The musical score and theme song also add to the film's over all shut-in mood.The true highlight of this movie though is its great cast.
Veteran actor Ray Milland is appropriate and menacing as the heroine's invalid old father.
His performance is quite good and this stands out as one of his better B film roles.
However the true star of this film is the late Carrie Snodgrass.
Snodgrass gives a stirring, heart-felt performance that makes her character truly sympathetic.
In fact, she is so good in her role that she gives the entire film a bit of a solemn, moving note.
This is perhaps one of Snodgrass's best roles ever.The Attic has became a some what lost film over the years and it shouldn't be.
It's a rare thriller that actually reaches an emotional level with its audience.*** out of ****.
Was sad to hear that Carrie Snodgress passed away.
Wonder if she had a drinking problem like Louise.
I loved her in "The Attic." I was kinda hoping for a remake of The Attic.
Alot of people did not like this movie, but I thought it was great.
Ray Milland and Carrie were great.
Gotta love Dickey!
But it is what it is...rest in peace Carrie!.
Great movie!!.
I enjoyed this drama.
It is a little slow moving but is intriguing nonetheless.
The music is a little awkward, but the acting is very good and the movie kept my interest throughout.
The settings and background were also interesting.
It's not the best movie I have ever seen but it is better than most..
Blame the chimp!.
THE ATTIC starts off well.
The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey.
Not one of those cute little monkeys.
She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!This sudden plot device basically kills the movie.
It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee.
I mean, come on!
Slow plot, but overall not a bad movie...
Plot is a little slow Storyline varies too much, too many scenes that have nothing to do with the actual story.
Some of the acting is not that great, but this is a 70's movie so it's about par for the course.
Not too bad of a movie overall....
The Attic.
This was an okay movie.
It was boring in instances that I had to watch this movie for a third time because I had fell asleep on it for the first two times.
It is not that really scary at all, but it is an average film that is watchable..
i gotta agree with gridoon....
i was bored off my a**!!!now i'm a MAJOR "b" horror fan and i love thrillers and 60s phycho-thrillers (and this tripe tries to do all three genres) but this was truly awful.
you KNOW it's gotta be bad.
i even gave it three (yes three) tries and i still have not finished all the way through - i keep dozing off!i got this on a double dvd with crawlspace (1986 w/ that wonderful madman klaus kinski!!) and THAT was worth the 7 bucks i paid.
sad to say that although ray miland was wonderfully disturbing as the nasty, selfish father, the attic will probably never get played again....
The monkey had better acting range....
A lonely librarian (Snodgress) spends her life attending to her crippled, and slightly insane father (Milland) who keeps her subservient to his will.
A couple of fantasy scenes where she imagines murdering him in a variety of ways are the only break in the dullness that is this film.
A hammy performance from Milland and an over the top performance from Snodress lead to a slightly shocking climax that is too little too late to save this stinker..
A bore..
Slow, odd film that drags and plods (I mean really PLODS) along to its disappointing climax.
You may expect some sort of punchline at the end, but there is none.
Both Milland and Snodgress give awkward performances; in fact, the film's weirdness may actually be the only thing it has going for it.
The generally atmospheric score has some absurd parts (like the music that plays during the first appearance of a monkey), and there is a truly awful fantasy scene involving....a gorilla.
poor dickey!!.
This movie is amazingly boring if you aren't in the mood to watch it.
the build up to the climax takes up almost the entire movie and when it does, slightly disturbing, yes, but completly predictable.
all in all an average fair movie for the late 70's.
Am I the only one that got the message in this movie?.
In my opinion, this movie was to show how destructive a manipulator aka.
Louise's father can be.
All of louise's problems, drinking, fantasizing, etc.
was brought on by her father's vicious criticisms, lies and control!It has been a while since I have seen the movie, but if you all remember, Louise's father was not actually paralyzed.
Also, as you find out at the end of the movie, the fiancé and the chimp were both killed BY HER FATHER!
Louise is the victim in this movie.
Everything she loved and loved her was viciously ripped away from her by her sick-minded lying,controlling father.
When she found out her father was not paralyzed and the past 19 years of her life was under his complete control, she lost it and pushed him down a hill......wouldn't you??
I really feel like this movie was trying to show society that mental abuse is REAL and should be taken SERIOUSLY!.
An ugly and disturbing film.
This film I found to be very dark and disturbing and yes at times, rather nasty, although the nastiness is implied, not really on screen (no gore but the thought of a middle aged woman masturbating really plays with you).
This movie was dark for all the right reasons and really is a good story if you don't mind being left chilled.
This movie really isn't a horror film but it really shouldn't be watched right before going to sleep or if YOU yourself is rather depressed.
It will play with you.
But, it was a good thought provoking and disturbing movie.
I am wondering if this film was a made for television film or perhaps just made to look dark and grainy for the right reasons.
Excellent film making..
An interesting character study.
I found this movie interesting.
Cheap thrillers or horror movies are not for me, and this movie is neither.
It is a very realistic character study and therefore rather depressing, as reality unfortunately often is.
It also shows how luck can play an important role in how happy or unhappy we can become.
Louise was a normal, happy girl that bad luck transformed into a miserable woman, unable to control her life.
She lost the man she loved at their wedding day and then was obliged to serve her crippled father, out of remorse, because she was made to believe that she was responsible.
She can only imagine ways of escape or revenge, but never takes any real action to free herself, remorse is there to prevent her.
But her father, Wendell?
He is healthy and has money, so he could live an easy and happy life.
He kills his daughter's husband to be, and spends most of his hours in a wheelchair, spying on her, abusing her verbally, forbidding her any joy, and is tied with her in a life of misery and contempt.
He is crazy alright, an extreme case of control freak who should be straight jacketed long ago.
His punishment comes too late and when Louise discovers the hidden truth in the attic, it is also too late for her to make a new start, she practically cannot move from this terrible environment, to which her bad luck has condemned her to live all her life.
It is very sad, but cases such as this, in various percentages of intensity, happen quite often around us.
So this movie, in its extremity, is a reminder not to allow anyone to control us and always fight for or individual rights.
So I call it a "constructionally" depressing movie.
Both Carrie Snodgress and Ray Milland are superb in their respective roles.
I wish that we could see Carrie in happier roles, because she was really something.
As for Ray Milland, he had so much vitality that even from his wheelchair he could liven up every scene he was in.
Although his role is hateful, he manages to provide a much needed comic relief at times, through the absurdity of his behavior to his victim.
And I do not agree that he is degrading himself by playing such roles.
From the beginning of his long career, and unlike many other "stars", he was never afraid to play villains, not giving any consideration to the possible damage to his "image".
He was always a true professional and a fine actor, who chose to share with his public all the phases of his life, daring to reveal the changes that time has brought to him. |
tt1010048 | Slumdog Millionaire | 18-year-old Jamal Malik, an Indian Muslim from the Juhu slum, is a contestant on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, and is one question away from the grand prize. However, before the ₹20 million (US$310,000) question, he is detained and tortured by the police, who suspect him of cheating because of the impossibility of a simple "slumdog" with very little education knowing all the answers. Jamal recounts, through flashbacks, the incidents in his life which provided him with each answer.
Jamal's flashbacks begin with his managing, at age five, to obtain the autograph of Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan, which his brother Salim then sells, followed immediately by the death of his mother during the Bombay riots. As they flee the riot, the brothers meet Latika, a girl from their slum. Salim is reluctant to take her in, but Jamal suggests that she could be the "third musketeer", a character from the Alexandre Dumas novel The Three Musketeers (which they had been studying—albeit not very diligently—in school), whose name they do not know.
The three are found by Maman—a gangster who tricks and then trains street children into becoming beggars. When Salim discovers Maman is blinding the children in order to make them more effective beggars, he flees with Jamal and Latika to a departing train. Latika fails to board the train as Salim purposefully lets go of her hand, in revenge for an extremely embarrassing prank that Latika had played on Salim. This resulted in her being recaptured by Maman. Over the next few years, Salim and Jamal make a living travelling on top of trains, selling goods, picking pockets, working as dish washers, and pretending to be tour guides at the Taj Mahal, where they also steal people's shoes. At Jamal's insistence, they return to Mumbai to find Latika, discovering that she is being raised by Maman to be a prostitute, to fetch him soon a high price and as a virgin. The brothers rescue her, and while escaping Maman they shoot him to death. Salim then manages to get a job with Javed—Maman's rival crime lord. Back at their room, Salim orders Jamal to leave him and Latika alone. When Jamal refuses, Salim draws a gun on him, whereas Latika persuades Jamal to obey his brother and go away.
Years later, Jamal, now a Chaiwala in an Indian call centre, searches the centre's database for Salim and Latika. He fails in finding Latika, while succeeding in finding Salim, now a high-ranking lieutenant in Javed's crime organisation. Jamal reproaches Salim, who then pleads for forgiveness, and offers him to stay in his luxurious apartment. Jamal later bluffs his way into Javed's residence to reunite with Latika but as he professes his love for her, Latika asks him to forget about her. Jamal nevertheless promises to wait for her every day at five o'clock at the VT station. Latika attempts to meet him there, but is recaptured by Javed's men, led by Salim, and once Javed moves to another house, outside Mumbai, the two again lose contact. Jamal becomes a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, knowing that she watches the show regularly. Much to the consternation of Prem Kumar, the show's host, Jamal becomes a wonder across India. He uses the 50/50 lifeline on the penultimate question and during the following break, whilst in the men's room, Kumar tries to fail Jamal, feeding him with a wrong answer, yet Jamal chooses the other one, which turns out to be the correct answer.
Assuming Jamal is cheating, the police are involved. After an initial beating up, the police inspector listens to Jamal's explanation of how he reached each answer. Finding all of them "bizarrely plausible", he allows him back to the show. At Javed's safehouse, Latika sees Jamal on the news and Salim, in an effort to make amends for his past behaviour, gives Latika his mobile phone and car keys, and asks her to forgive him and to go to Jamal. Latika is reluctant out of fear of Javed, but agrees and escapes. Salim fills a bathtub with money and sits in it, awaiting for Javed and his men as they realize that he let Latika free. Jamal's final question is the name of the third musketeer in The Three Musketeers, which he never learned. Jamal uses his "Phone-A-Friend" lifeline to call Salim's cell, as it is the only phone number he knows. Latika answers the phone, and, while she does not know the answer, tells Jamal that she is safe. Relieved, Jamal arbitrarily picks Aramis, the right answer, and wins the grand prize. Javed hears Latika on the show and realises that Salim has betrayed him. He and his men break down the bathroom door but Salim kills Javed before he is shot, gasping, "God is great". Jamal and Latika meet on the platform at the railway station and they kiss. | fantasy, murder, realism, dramatic, cult, cute, violence, flashback, feel-good, psychedelic, melodrama, romantic, sentimental | train | wikipedia | There has already been some talk coming from Telluride that this film is set to be this year's 'Juno.' It does have the same distributor and it is set for the same release period, and for anyone who hears this buzz, they will definitely not be disappointed.During the premiere of the final cut (in the words of director Danny Boyle) at the Toronto International Film Festival, the audience gave the film an incredibly enthusiastic response, and it went on to win the People's Choice Award.
The acting is roundly impressive, especially coming from the younger cast, almost all of which has never acted before.The film begins as Jamal (Skins' Dev Patel) is under interrogation by Mumbai police for cheating on India's version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, being only one question away from winning it all.
I won't see a better, more exhilarating movie this year than Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire." If Academy voters have any sense, they will nominate this for Best Picture and Best Director and then vote overwhelmingly for it for both awards.Boyle has taken what is essentially a story about a young man on India's version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" and transformed it into a gritty, realistic, powerful and, at times, gut-wrenching fairy tale.
First with "Millions" (2004), which also, coincidentally, was about a young boy and money; and now with "Slumdog Millionaire." This is Boyle's masterpiece - a stunningly original piece of film-making.Every once in a while there is a sleeper film, usually an independent movie, that comes along, takes everyone by surprise, then gets terrific word of mouth and becomes a huge success.
(This film should be mandatory viewing for young people, especially those in industrialized nations.) Simon Beaufoy's script was originally entirely in English, but Boyle's decision to have the Indian kids speak in Hindi, instead, is the right call.
Boyle also stated that a portion of the Slumdog Millionaire was shot with a Canon EOS still camera, especially around the Taj Mahal, rather than a proper movie camera which creates unwanted attention while filming at popular tourist locations in India.8.2.
While "Slumdog Millionaire" is far from a Bollywood tragic love story filled with singing and dancing, the way director Danny Boyle will rivet audiences with his film that is authentic to Indian culture while using a distinctly Western style of film-making might be enough proof that there is a profit to be made here."Slumdog Millionaire" is a drama exposing the tragic effects of poverty in gigantic Indian cities like Mumbai that is also fused with a modern day Indian fairytale.
Despite being separated, Jamal and Latika are reunited several times and in fact Jamal's only motivation in life is his love for her.While the young, unknown, Indian actors are absolutely amazing in this film, the biggest kudos go to director Boyle, who creates an astonishing film.
"Slumdog" is just the beginning for Boyle who might be one of the most progressive and talented directors working today.It's hard to be completely blown away by a film whose core message is about destiny and leans on the fact that Jamal is simply fated to do this well in explaining what has unfolded, but like any good film ought to, Boyle makes you a fan of the characters and not care as much about the logistics as you might normally do.
On one hand it seems to be set in the gritty poverty of India, with descriptions of some very unpleasant scenes but then, on the other hand it was described as being uplifting and the feel-good movie of the year.
Speaking of delivery and style, the film is understandably an Oscar contender generally thanks to its upbeat nature (after darker material last year and the current downturn in the world, Oscar probably will look for some feel-good stuff) but the areas I think it stands a great chance are those of cinematography, editing and direction.
It does feel like we have the grit and style of City of God but yet also the warm uplifting story of the very best the "underdog" genre can provide.That it achieves this is a testament to how well the film is delivered because it does have to overcome the fact that the majority of the film presents us with a terrible world of poverty and suffering and then gradually pulls the main characters out of it.
You see, it is gritty and it is unpleasant and, although not based on a true story, this is a reality in our world and to see so much of it in a film that ultimately leaves you feeling good about life and happy that everything worked out alright is not a mix that sat particularly well with me.
I didn't like this part of the credits for this reason and also it would have been nice to see a film based in India that didn't feel it had to "do" Bollywood.The cast mostly play to the "fairytale" side of the film more than the grit, although the young children are very impressive in the first sections of the story.
The vision of Danny Boyle is so conceited that he feels that "Slumdog Millionaire" is his prerogative to suggest that India is nothing but a land of poor people where snake charmers merely rub shoulders with hungry elephants and crime is the only thing which pays.
Indian people are very tolerant and they are known for their artistic tastes.No one in India protested when Sir Richard Attenborough made a classic film called "Gandhi" in 1982.That was a film made by a British film.Many people in the world still admire that film for the vivid and honest description of India.Danny Boyle is also an Englishman and even this film's writer Simon Beaufoy is an English but it is a shame they way they have twisted facts to show India in a very bad light.They have completely mutilated the original material which is present in Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup's book Q and A.Since a score of zero is not available,I am giving it a one our of ten as it is a really awful movie.Let me also state why this film is being liked by people in US,UK and elsewhere.Slumdog has come out at a time when Hollywood has almost run out of ideas and India is a big market for American and British products.So this movie is just a tool for Americans and Britishers to put India in a bad light to impose their ideas on Indian audience..
If the lowest vote were 0 then I would have given it to this stupid flick which has been giving innocent viewers strange ideas about poor people and India.I am really wondering why this stupid movie is compared to a classic of Brazilian cinema "City of God".To my mind it is a very false and incorrect notion.City of God was an absolute Brazilian production with Brazilian setting,Brazilian cast,Brazilian crew.Everything about it was Brazilian in nature.This film is an UK/US co production.It is made by an English man.Its producer Christian Colson is a Briton.The only thing that is Indian is its cast of poor children who must have given a couple of chocolates and a glass of cola to act.Danny Boyle has made a film which does no justice neither to Hollywood nor to Indian cinema.This is the reason why a lot of Indian people are finding his film to be an insult to their country.
But they didn't.Hence: six out of ten.P.S.: To be completely honest, I would probably rate this a seven, seven and a half tops if it weren't for the suffocating hype surrounding the film, but I feel like bringing the overall score down a notch in my own humble way, because 'Slumdog' simply doesn't deserve such a high rating.
The reasons are very simple.If you're an international audience, i.e anyone not Indian, you would love this movie for it has so much of India in it , the poverty part of Mumbai/India especially and a novel way of explaining a related story of a TV show (Millionaire) so widely popular in the world.
I wanted to see this movie for ages seeing the hype it received in many international film festivals.And I must say, while not being exactly a letdown, it did not seem to quite justify the hype.The film is modern taken on the rags-to-riches story set in Bombay,India.The bad things about the story first: The film is very predictable,you can tell the whole story of the film in approximately 10 mins.All the characters are either black or white,excepting the hero's brother.The climax was a let down,typical of bollywood films(a frantic climax where somehow everything becomes right!).And as an Indian, yes,i did find the part about "real America" offensive.Inspite of these faults,the film does strike a chord in one's heart.The cinematography is brilliant,the city of Bombay is presented in a whole new light,one can see beauty amidst squalor.A.R Rahman's music adds to the mood of the film.And finally,the movie is a triumph of human spirit,of fighting against the odds and yet surviving,and for projecting this superbly,this movie is worth a watch.No marks for plausibility though,but as the movie says " Some things are written,are meant to be".Go watch it,but put your cynical self to rest.All in all , i felt the movie was good but not worth all the Oscar hype it is getting.There are better movies coming out of bollywood then this movie.
My vote for this piece of junk is 0 out of 10.It is a politically incorrect film as its title is an insult to poor people who live in slums.Simon Beaufoy has done a bad job by mocking poor people.It is my guess that he did all this to influence audiences as the title of the original book written by Vikas Swarup is Q & A There is nothing worth seeing as Danny Boyle has copied Bollywood style of making films.His film is also a stupid flick as he has put famous Indian monument to win praises from White people who go to India only to see that monument.The entire flick is fit only to be a television soap opera.This film will not benefit Hindi cinema of India as Hollywood will always typecast Indian actors as they have been doing with actors from Hong Kong.This is a film whose success in the west will surely assure that not many tourists go to India as no one would want to go there to see poverty,crime and discrimination.This film is a kind of artistic terrorism.Stay away from it as you have been warned about its dangers..
Actually so called "Bollywood" is making these kind of films for last 60 years but very few movies are good and rational, the reason ?
Amidst of all the award hypes it managed to create in the first of half this year,i wanted to see this movie..and boy,i just started to wonder,even such a trash like this could manage to get this kind of attention from all over the world...first of all the story premise was weak and impossible...besides most of Indian characters portrayed in this film are cruel and rude..either they blind slum children and make them beggars or beat the contestant of their own show..and given a white man's picture of India, Indians either live in slums or decently dressed and work in call centres for American companies..This film has portrayed India as a corrupt,wicked country with cruelty running deep in the society...You know why, even Indian's are celebrating this movie's victory?..because they've shown their country and men with their skin color all through,in some white man's movie..they're least bothered about how he has portrayed their country..and at last,thanks to Danny Boyle for taking some Indian technicians like ARR and Resul pookutty with his WHITE MAN'S permit to the academy awards....
But I do have a problem with a story that pretends to be real when in reality it is just a masala film -- the kind we churn out by the dozens in Bollywood.Yes, Slumdog Millionaire is just superficial fluff, mainly because of its gaping plot holes.
Then it stretches reason and believability and just looks like you are packing in every negative thing that Westerners perceive about India for the sake of crowd pleasing." He goes on to propose a film about an outlandish string of events happening to an African-American boy in the US, and says, "Even though each of these incidents have actually happened in the United States of America, I would be accused of spinning a fantastic yarn that has no grounding in reality, that has no connection to the 'American experience' and my motivations would be questioned, no matter how cinematically spectacular I made my movie.
Say an Indian director traveled to New Orleans for a few months to film a movie about Jamal Martin, an impoverished African American who lost his home in Hurricane Katrina, who once had a promising basketball career, but who -- following a drive-by shooting -- now walks with a permanent limp, whose father is in jail for selling drugs, whose mother is addicted to crack cocaine, whose younger sister was killed by gang-violence, whose brother was arrested by corrupt cops, whose first born child has sickle cell anemia, and so on.
(These days, that alone is worth the price of a rental.) All in all, on an absolute scale of one to ten - with 10 being the greatest piece of cinematic art ever put to film in the history of all humankind, and a one being a piece of mindless garbage like Death Race or something similar - this movie probably rates a solid six.It's good, sure.
An audience that would like to see differences of a third world so they can ignore the shortcomings in their own backyard which is why this film was well received, lets not deny it.This movie showed waste in India but the real waste is the film itself.
He's been beaten,kidnapped,robbed and humiliated in various ways and has had to scrape and scratch for every rupee,pound and rupee as he's made his way to a safe,if perhaps lowly and disrespected ,job at a call center not far from his hometown province in Mumbai.So when he's able to somehow correctly "guess" his way through the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" on his way to a fortune(20 million rupees,which I'm guessing would equal about $5 Million American),there is more than a little suspicion and skepticism as to this "Slumdog"'s conquest of the show.Firstly,I have to say I'm probably far more aligned with those who've reviewed this that were NOT in love with this film,and I'll dispense with my reasons first and thusly: this film's central struggle--the boy Jamir's calm,almost mystic and improbably march toward the grad prize on the game show--taxes my own personal suspension of disbelief to the point of snapping.
Also,the pacing of this movie moves in such herky-jerky,stop-and-start patterns that unless a viewer is fully invested in it(which I gather many people have been),then one is either going to be agitated,distracted or even drowsy(as I was,I must confess,at one point)trying to keep up with the weaved or blended story lines.It's most principally in those reasons(plus the decidedly cultural disconnect of the sort of larger-then-life Bollywood style film-making,particularly toward the end,which may be more of a problem of my just not being greatly familiar with rather than any real quality inferiority of the show)that I cannot give better than a decent rating of this film.NOw,that having been said,why I cannot give this movie terrible reviews lie mostly in the fact(hinted in the summary line)that the movie,for all its quirks,inconsistencies and challenges to one's suspension of disbelief,STILL manages to possess human stories and conflicts that really are interesting and compelling.
I credit the actors,most notably PAtel,Freida Pinto(as the girl of his dreams,a one-time friend),Saurabh Shukla(As the highly skeptical police Sargent,charged with trying to shake down Jamir when the show gets suspicious and calls the authorities in the middle of taping),Ayush Mohammed Ismail(As young Salim,JAmal's friend),Ayush Mahesh Khedekar(As young Jamir),Rubiana Ali(As a younger LAtika)and Anil Kapoor(as the host of the "Millionaire"show,a both charismatic and yet potentially shady character)as being the ones who give this show the kind of sympathetic qualities that both salvage it for me and has made it such an emotional fan favorite elsewhere.Director DAnny Boyle,one NOT shy about incorporating dense,jarring,gross and all-around-disturbing images to his movies,does the same here,but is able to temper it with more tender,intimate and humane moments to give it the kind of fanciful,romantic spirit that it so desperately needs to make this film have any chance of walking and talking.
Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe aptly put it "I feel like I'm escaping into something that many people can't escape out of." The most telling scene of the movie in which Jamal cons a tourist reinforces British Danny Boyle's sense of superiority to American tourists and Indian slum dwellers.
It's one of those stories where all the little pieces fit together in the end to explain why things happened in the start of the film.I wouldn't have voted for this as the Best Picture Of The Year but it is entertaining and a feast for the eyes..
Danny Boyle, the director of the movie, said in an interview on Oscar night, that while he is enjoying the the popularity in India, in reality, Slumdog is a completely British film, with all the basic crewmen, concept and funding being British.Hell, right...but probably he also forgot another important thing...Dev Patel, the lead actor and hero of the movie, is a British-born Indian citizen of Britain and in all practical purposes cannot speak his mother tongue properly, let alone Hindi.
It's about the girl."Slumdog Millionaire" is a timeless love story, and the best movie of the year.
Anyone who is interested in seeing one of the best films in American history, they should view "Slumdog Millionaire" See this movie!! |
tt1124377 | John Rabe | The film begins in Nanking during late 1937, where German businessman John Rabe, director of the local Siemens subsidiary, and his wife Dora have resided for almost thirty years. The thought of transferring management to his successor Fliess and returning to Berlin is a substantial professional setback for him. During the farewell ball in his honor, Nanking is bombarded by planes of the Japanese airforces. Rabe opens the company gate and saves the panicked civilians.
While the fires are being put out the next morning and the damages are inspected, the remaining foreigners in the city discuss what they can do in the face of the threat. Dr. Rosen, a German Embassy Attache of partly Jewish descent, reports about Shanghai where a safety zone was established for civilians. His suggestion of a similar zone is warmly supported by his superior, Ambassador Trautmann, and Valérie Dupres, director of the International Girls College. John Rabe is nominated as the chairman of the international committee, since he is a German "ally" of the Japanese. The committee meets, though with the initial reluctance of Dr. Robert O. Wilson, the U.S. head doctor of a local hospital, who harbors ideological antipathy towards the German "Nazi" Rabe. The next day, Rabe sends his wife back to his own country. Tragically, the ship is bombed, and the passengers on board are killed, presumably including his wife.
Meanwhile, Japanese forces have captured many National Revolutionary Army soldiers during a battle outside of Nanking. Nanking is then brutally overrun. John Rabe and the international committee however manage to have the Nanking Safety Zone recognized by the Japanese authorities. Hundreds of thousands seek refuge; more than anticipated and overstretching the committee's resources. Further atrocities follow, and every member of the committee tries their best to keep these innocent people safe. Mme. Dupres stoutly refuses to give up the Chinese soldiers hidden in the attic of the Girls College.
Under all the stress, Dr. Wilson and Rabe become friends, drinking, singing, and playing the piano together. The committee celebrates Christmas. Some packages have made it to them from the outside world. Rabe even gets an unmarked one. It is a Gugelhupf cake. Rabe faints as he realizes that his wife must have sent him this, his favorite cake, as a secret message that she is safe and well. His friends rush to his aid. Dr. Wilson discovers that Rabe is diabetic and has run out of insulin. The doctor manages then to procure some vital insulin from the Japanese authorities.
Life, and survival, become more desperate in the new year. Rabe offers his last savings to buy supplies. As Japanese troops march up to the gates of the zone, Chinese civilians form human shields together with the international committee. Japanese tanks are brought into position as well, but before a shot can be fired, the horn of a steamboat signals the return of Western diplomats and journalists.
The film ends with Rabe making his farewells. Carrying a small suitcase, he is escorted by a troupe of Japanese through the ruins of Nanking to the harbor. There he is recognized and cheered by the Chinese. Finally, he is reunited with his wife on the pier. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0094955 | The Dawning | The film opens with Angus Barrie (Anthony Hopkins), an Irish Republican Army member, walking through hills, and coming to rest on a beach, where there is a little hut. Meanwhile, Nancy Gulliver (Rebecca Pidgeon) having just left school, burns all her books in happiness. It is her birthday, and her aunt (Jean Simmons) has invited over Harry (Hugh Grant), with whom she’s desperately in love, to tea. However, during the course of the film, as a result of Harry’s behaviour with another girl and the way he treats Nancy, she realises that her love for Harry was nothing more than childish infatuation.
One day, Nancy goes down to the beach, and notices that her hut has been slept in. She leaves a note requesting that it be left alone. Soon after, she is on the beach reading, when Barrie comes up to her. Over the course of the film, the two develop a relationship, despite her not really knowing and understanding his job: he is one of the first people that became part of a group named the IRA, and is on the run from the government. Nevertheless, she grows fond of Barrie, and dubs him "Cassius" ("because you have a mean and hungry look!")
After Cassius asks her to pass on a message to a colleague, several Officers of the British Army are gunned down at a horse race show. Later that day, Captain Rankin (played by Adrian Dunbar) of the Black and Tans comes to see the Family, and asks if anyone knows where Cassius is. The officers' suspicion is aroused when Nancy's grandfather (played by Trevor Howard) says he saw her talking to a man on the beach. She denies any knowledge. When they leave, she runs to the hut on the beach where Cassius was staying to tell him to flee, only to find that he has already packed. As they walk out, a light shines on them: the Black and Tans has found him. He is gunned down, much to Nancy's distress. The film ends with Nancy back at home, considerably older and wiser than when the film started. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | Lovely little movie.... No big drama. No overblown action. Just a beautifully-filmed little movie that tells a simple story against a background of Irish political upheaval. Rebecca Pidgeon plays a sheltered, shabby-genteel girl just turning eighteen, who still has a bit of the outward appearance and behavior of a child. Orphaned young but raised by a loving aunt, grandfather, and housekeeper, she knows her mother is well and truly dead but has doubts about her father and tries to place him among the men she casually observes around town. When a man of suitable age appears on the beach near her rural home, she takes great interest--especially as his secretive nature offers few clues to his identity. Anthony Hopkins, eternally superb, plays the multi-layered character of the "tramp," and the relationship that develops between the two is the heart of the film. Look also for fine performances by Jean Simmons and Hugh Grant, as well as a host of familiar faces in small roles, and take the time to appreciate the lovely wind-whipped seaside locale and green inland vistas. A movie like this relies on character and scenery--The Dawning is a treasury of both.. For Anthony Hopkins Fans Only. In the minor genre of films about the Irish Revolution, there is a very small sub-genre of romances projected on to the backdrop of the Troubles. The best of these is of course "Ryan's Daughter", the average is "Cal" and the absolute worst is this turkey, "The Dawning." TD treats the huge turmoil of Ireland during the War of Independence as fodder for the self-absorption of a ditsy eighteen-yr-old. The script makes a big point early in the film about how much the heroine resents being considered immature, and then spends the rest of the movie showing that's exactly what she is. Frankly, she comes off as being more like a high school girl than a young woman about to leave for college. I got tired of this character very quickly, and soon found myself getting bored every time Hopkins wasn't on the screen. It did occur to me to wonder if the writer had written the character this way deliberately but if so, it was a very odd dramatic strategy; there was no real growth in the girl over the course of the movie.The one bright spot in TD is Anthony Hopkin's performance which is pretty good (especially considering how little he had to work with). If you're a big fan of AH, this flick might be worth your time; otherwise, give it a miss. |
tt0374102 | Open Water | Daniel Kintner (Daniel Travis) and Susan Watkins (Blanchard Ryan) are a couple frustrated that their hard-working lives do not allow them to spend much time together. They decide to head out on a scuba-diving vacation to help improve their relationship. On their second day, they join a group scuba dive. A head count is taken, and the passenger total is recorded as 20. Daniel and Susan decide to separate briefly from the group while underwater. Half an hour later, the group returns to the boat. Two members of the group are inadvertently counted twice, so the dive master thinks everyone is back on board, and the boat leaves the site. However, Daniel and Susan are still underwater, unaware that the others have returned. When they resurface, the boat has gone. They believe the group will soon return to recover them.
Stranded at sea, it slowly dawns on Daniel and Susan that their boat is not coming back for them. They bicker, battle bouts of hunger and mental exhaustion, and realize that they have probably drifted far from the dive site. They also realize that sharks have been circling them below the surface. Soon, jellyfish appear, stinging them both, while sharks come in close. Susan receives a small shark bite on the leg, but does not immediately realize it. Daniel goes under and discovers a small fish feeding on the exposed flesh of her bite wound. He does not tell Susan. Later, a shark bites Daniel and the wound begins to bleed profusely. Susan removes her weight belt and uses it to apply pressure to Daniel's wound. He appears to go into shock. The tight-fitting neoprene wet suits are apparently keeping them from fully realizing they have been sustaining small bites. After night falls, sharks return and attack Daniel during a storm, killing him. The next morning, Daniel and Susan's belongings are finally noticed on the boat by a crew member. He remembers the couple and realizes they must have been left at the dive site. A search for the couple begins.
Susan realizes Daniel is dead and releases him into the water, where sharks attack and pull him down in a feeding frenzy. After putting on her mask, she looks beneath the surface and sees several large sharks now circling her. Susan looks around one last time for any sign of coming rescue. Seeing none, she removes her scuba gear and goes underwater to drown before the sharks can attack. Elsewhere, a fishing crew cut open a newly-caught shark's stomach, finding a diving camera, apparently that of Daniel and Susan. One of the fishermen asks offhandedly to another, "Wonder if it works?" | boring | train | wikipedia | A short and sweet gimmick movie about two people who are stranded in the middle of the ocean when their scuba diving boat leaves without them and then face the ordeal of slowly dying (of dehydration and/or exposure) or quickly dying (gobbled up by sharks).The obvious question of course is: can a director pull off a visually interesting film when the bulk of it consists of two people sitting immobile in the water?
The film does a good job of creating a dreadful feeling in the pit of your stomach, not because we care all that much about these particular people (the characters aren't developed enough or likable enough for that) but because the situation they find themselves in taps into any number of visceral fears that just about anyone could relate to.And kudos to the writer and director for having the guts to go for the grim, nihilistic ending.Grade: B.
Open Water is a film that asks its viewers to place themselves at the heart of the movie; to feel the desperation, the hopelessness and the absolute terrifying ordeal.
There are plenty of super low budget films made with passion that ended up being terrible, and others, such as The Blair Witch Project (1999), which made an exorbitant return, but which, for me at least, didn't work very well.The triumph of Open Water is that writer/director Chris Kentis constructed a disarmingly simple film that ends up being incredibly effective in its goals--to present an intense, thrilling, suspenseful life or death scenario with horrific implications and subtextual commentary on appreciating and living life to its fullest, even when faced with the power and non-judgmental potential brutality of nature.You can tell that Open Water is unusual from the first frames.
For example, while heading out on the boat, he has the cast engaging in small talk, none of which the viewer can quite make out--just as if you were a passenger watching these events unfold.Once our protagonists are left behind to fend for themselves in the open water, the thoroughgoing realism doesn't stop.
In fact, Kentis actually filmed his in the ocean, occasionally surrounded by real, wild sharks, which were only controlled by a shark wrangler (or "shark choreographer" as he calls himself) strategically tossing food into the water to hopefully direct their attention.
While trying to survive, mired in their realistic but horrific situation, Susan and Daniel run through a plethora of emotions and conversations, all completely believable.Kentis occasionally relieves the tension by presenting more abstract images--various shots of water at one point, clouds at another.
Their emotions are very real which really adds to the tension.I'm pretty sure the director (Chris Kentis) will go on to make some good bigger budget movies.
something we like to call hope.You may have entered Open Water willing to eat all your popcornand coming out of the theater telling jokes and feeling life is hereforever.
Open Water is a film aimed at a realistic account of a couple left out in the ocean and the emotions, struggles, and challenges brought about by that situation.
I was amazed at how unique this film was.It is Movies like these that keep you wanting more and more of suspense..
I just finished reading a book about the USS Indianapolis and believe me there are terrifying stories for you to imagine about survivor's experiences with the sharks, but for the very first time someone made me feel like I was really among them myself and also someone made me feel very scared of them.
Open Water has gotten a bum-rep with horror fans because either they were expecting a Jaws-esque type film or they wanted it to be something it never set itself out to be.
This has all the key ingredients for a film like this, but still, some inevitable problems come into play.The story is loosely based off of a true story that happened in 1998 where an American couple named Tom and Eileen Lonergan went out on a scuba-diving trip and were accidentally abandoned at sea.
To this day we don't know what happened, but we can assume they drowned or something of that nature.The characters are Susan and Daniel (Ryan and Travis), an couple who is frustrated with their hectic lives that makes it so they can not spend quality time together.
The film manages to capture the fear and helplessness in Susan and Daniel's eyes without having them utter any obscenities in a redundant and uncontrollable manner.Even with its low budget, Open Water manages to pull through effectively proving that independent films are like the quiet kid in school who never fights.
Just by watching the first few minutes of Open Water, you can tell immediately that the film isn't of a Hollywood breed and simply works off of what it has.Inevitably, some problems come into play, like I mentioned before.
That is one of the greatest challenges in claustrophobic films; making due with what you have.In Adam Green's Frozen, about three teenagers trapped on top of a ski-lift in the dead of winter, what kept the movie going was its setting, its characters, and the dialog they recited.
A very good movie in real time that demonstrates how the basic instincts come out after being left in the ocean.
And they can go wrong in a sense that the smallest little thing goes wrong and you think it's no big deal, you'll be out of that situation soon, and then it's like a domino effect, it goes more wrong and more wrong, and then you think to yourself, 'I can't believe this is happening, I might die in this situation, this can't be happening, this was just a simple little mistake, how did it go this far?' That's kind of what Open Water is in a nutshell, a simple mistake that seems like it will be fixed soon, but in the end, that's not the case.
Based on the actual disappearance of an American couple in the Pacific who were scuba diving and were left by their guide boat (a story that has some crime/conspiracy addicts claiming the couple is either still alive somewhere or there was a murder/suicide: take your pick), Kentis and Lau created a similar tale.Newcomers to the movie screen, very pretty Blanchard Ryan plays Susan and Daniel Travis, Daniel.
Actually it's at the point where some motion sickness-sensitive moviegoers might well need the little pill themselves as the digital cameras rise and fall, rise and fall, rise and fall.Perhaps because Ryan and Travis are so inexperienced as actors there's a certain innocent believability in their behavior and conversation.Blanchard Ryan said in an interview that she didn't mind doing a nude scene early in the movie because she thought no one would see it.
This movie proves you can make anything look good with a decent trailer.I feel like not only asking for my money back but also putting in an invoice for the hour and a half i wasted on this tosh.
I think they are only sour because they were tricked into paying good money to get bored out of their wits, and want other people to share the misery.I watched this movie with my then girlfriend, actually I dragged her to see it as I was reluctant to go home although it was late in the night.
If you can't relate to this, then don't write a review telling how awful the movie is, because Open Water is exactly the opposite.Based on a true story, Open Water is a terrifying (once again, for those of us who can actually relate) experience, with the emotional horrors of loneliness.
People say that the movie is boring because there is no other setting other than the ocean for an hour and a half, but you have to truly love the ocean and it's beauty in order to find where the heart of the film lies.
This is most likely not true, but I'm just giving you some harmless knowledge.Overall, Open Water is a completely realistic (they used real Bull Sharks) insight to loneliness, fear, and coming face to face with the ocean itself.
I have an abundance of experience, and take it from a dive bum himself: no other movie tells the truth of fear like Open Water..
While vacationing in Barbados, a married couple (Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis) are left out at sea by their scuba diving boat, leaving them at the mercy of the elements including a few hundred very hungry sharks.Open Water is a love it or hate it type of movie.
However, it worked for Open Water and the movie was a little more believable.
There were times when nothing was happening and the film was kind of dull.This shouldn't really be surprisingly considering the movie is really just about people floating.
That's the only way I can explain the preponderance of comments like "this movie was disgusting" and "worst kind of boring" and "the sharks didn't do anything." To the latter: they behaved the way real wild animals would, nipping Daniel's leg so he would bleed out, die, and provide an inert feast for whoever's hungry.So the acting and dialogue were a bit on the amateurish side, and the plot buildup to the couple being stranded gets a tad boring.
That way you've got a real story to tell.Next time guys, use a real camera (like film!) with a real sound recorder.
The movie could have been improved if the sharks ate:the directorthe actorsThe advertisers for spending movie to advertise that p.o.c (piece of crap)the boat and the home video camera that was used to make the movie.A better title for this movie would have been, "please, open crap" or "please open the theater's cash register, so that I can get my money back."Please save your time, eyes, ears...and most importantly your Mind..
Independent thriller is a great spine-tingling treat for those who can appreciate its terrific style, apparently many reviewers were expecting Jaws (1975)!Young couple is left behind while scuba driving, and the waters around them are filled with killer sharks.Based upon an actual tragedy, Open Water isn't a feel-good film by any means, but it is a very well-made and effective thriller.
He makes Open Water a very believable film and it's realistic in a way that few films (even those based upon true stories) ever are!
The film builds to a nicely operatic finale and a haunting conclusion.Stars Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis are great in their believably played roles.Open Water is a film that won't be for all tastes, in fact those seeking an action-filled Hollywood thriller shouldn't bother.
"Open Water" is all about a DINK couple who goes on a SCUBA diving trip only to find themselves stranded in the ocean swimming with the sharks.
The rest of the movie consists of about 8 minutes of half-baked suspense separated by over an hour of pointless boring filler where the actors are floating in the water, talking about nothing of consequence.By far the worst part of the movie is the ending.
We aren't given enough time at the beginning of the film to get to know these two people; so consequently, who cares what happens to them?
The only good thing about this movie is the sound; the music ratchets up the tension without being overbearing, and the lapping ocean water really gives you the feeling of "being there".
Despite some weak scenes towards the beginning of the film, Open Water proves to be a rather tense, involving experience.The film's plot is rather unsophisticated: Susan (Blanchard Ryan) and Daniel (Daniel Travis) are going on a vacation together on a warm Caribbean island.
The digital video photography is also a double edged sword: at times it gives the film a sense of verisimilitude, at others it makes it feel like we are watching something filmed by your buddy who is an aspiring filmmaker with his camcorder on a five dollar budget.Most of these gripes disappear once the divers are stranded alone in the ocean.
There was a bit of media hoopla when Open Water was released concerning the fact that the actors were filmed in waters with real live sharks, but the material works wonderfully.
We really believe these two are in danger and the imagery of sharks in the water hasn't contained this kind of power since Jaws.Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis both had very limited acting resumes before this film, and their early scenes reveal a somewhat amateurish feel to their performances, but the two acquit themselves fairly well in the latter scenes in the water.
The sense of dread is palpable in this scene, and director Chris Kentis should be given credit for assembling a very tense piece of work.Open Water is by no means a masterpiece, it's a little rough around the edges at times, but overall it is a involving piece of cinema that is worth a rent..
I mean, how do you make a movie about a couple floating around in shark infested water for 2 hours?
I've seen bad movies, but none that leave me squirming praying to a God I don't believe in for it to end.This is all not to mention how stupid it is to make a film that is "based on a true story" that no one can prove.
They only call it a true story to reel in the people with true story fetishes (such as I) to the theaters.How they made a sequel I do not know, and I'm sure as hell not making the mistake of renting it just for s's and g's this time around.Terrible God-Awful Movie.
A movie filmed with (or like) a personal camera!!
The rest is a C-movie!!I think good for US young people (that, in fact, love movies like "Fatal Destination") but not for European: this is not a FILM in the real and complete sense of the word.
This movie entertains you more than any other Friday night crap including spidey 2 and the like.Open water is just based on a simple adaptation .
Its remarkable how such a simple low budget film can have so much force and effect and can give the viewer so much to think about .Roger Ebert might have goofed up "Gladiator" worse than my board exams , but with "Open Water" he is definitely right ."Rarely but sometimes , a movie can have an actual physical effect on you .
The fact that it was shot without a real film crew on a really low budget is the only good thing about it.
all it seemed to be was a total waste of the actors and film crews time, not to mention the people that actually paid hard earned money to go and see it.
but in a "holy crap i could have made a better film." sort of way.Two of the worst actors i've ever seen get left in the middle of the ocean...
And importantly, it's a realistic interpretation of what really happened (wikipedia the movie after watching the film, it links to the real deal).Also not gonna tell you anything about the story, as I feel going into it without knowing the premise amplifies the effect.
The more sharks that show up, the more claustrophobic the film feels, a real testament to the filmmaker's ability in setting up atmosphere since the story takes place in the most open space imaginable!
What film were they watching- not this one- this is a great, stand alone movie which shows exactly what you can do with a good script, good actors and tight direction.
In fact, if we believe the hype that came with the film, it does - all the time.Young couple on holiday go scuba diving in the middle of the ocean and get abandoned and left behind in shark-infested waters due to a confusion on their tour boat.I'm really quite surprised by some of the negative comments on the IMDb so far.
With all their hopes set on the boat coming back to rescue them, they try to keep themselves safe, especially when sharks start to appear.Made for half a million, starring mainly two people in the ocean from the entire movie, "Open Water" is great for what it has.
It's a slow paced movie and it's like that for the entire film.
I also liked the performances by the two main leads, Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis.Overall, if you think you would be bored seeing two people stuck in the ocean for the most part of the movie, you probably shouldn't watch it.
See this if you like a real "horror film," I guess people would call it..
It will make you grateful for each other and the life you have together.The movie, based on a true story, tells of the absolutely harrowing ordeal of a young couple left behind after a scuba dive.
I watched "Open Water" in the cinema back in 2003 when it was released, as the trailer made the movie look rather interesting, and my wife wanted to go to watch it.
I do like shark movies, so of course "Open Water" was given a chance.When I came out of the cinema I felt so depraved of money and time.
I can't believe that so many people didn't like this film, with the key word being film, not movie.
The end of this movie was possibly one of the most saddest things i have seen in a film.
Roger Ebert said that after watching this movie he had to sit for about a half hour and just think...i didn't understand that at the time but now i know exactly how he felt.
Also several times in the movie they see a boat, but they never swim to it!The only good thing in the film is the completely unnecessary nude scene.
I admire that the actors got into the water with their "co-stars" but I didn't like the film.
OPEN WATER is not a movie I will even attempt to watch again. |
tt0089826 | Porky's Revenge | During the semi-final basketball game, the cheerleaders promise them an orgy if they win. The boys do so. After the game, they are led to one of the girls' homes, and everyone strips down to their underwear and jumps in a swimming pool. In the pool, the girls throw their underwear out. The boys do likewise, and swim toward the girls. Soon, but too late, they realize the girls are clothed after all and wind up parading nude before the clothed girls and a home movie camera.
Porky now owns a riverboat with a casino and strip club. According to Brian, Porky is extorting money from Coach Goodenough because he owes money to him. The gang decide to go to the boat to take pictures of the illegal casino to give to the D.A. During this time, Meat runs into Porky's sex-crazed daughter, Blossom, who forces herself on him. The boys' plan fails because Porky catches them in the act and is about to kill them. But when they mention the State Championship game, he realizes that they could help him out by throwing the game so he can bet against them.
Meanwhile, Meat has a problem with cutting up dead animals. The gang goes to Miss Webster's apartment to get a copy of the final exam. They discover her and Mr. Dobish, the School Guidance Counselor, having rather kinky extramarital relations.
A letter is written to Ms. Balbricker arranging a rendezvous at a motel with an old boyfriend of hers, while Pee Wee is enticed to the same motel room by the promise of a night of passion with a beautiful Swedish exchange student. Tommy tricks Pee Wee into going to another location while he heads to the motel room. Ms. Balbricker arrives first followed by Tommy, and they are horrified to find themselves unclothed and in bed with each other. To make up for their prank on Ms. Balbricker, the gang contacts her old boyfriend and actually gets them together.
During the final game, Meat is benched because Miss Webster intentionally failed him. She discovers the blackmail photos and a note, causing her to change her mind. The second half resulted in a victory for Angel Beach while Porky is outraged. Blossom tells him that Meat is her boyfriend and they "went all the way", infuriating him even more. He then suggests to his two subordinates that Meat and Blossom be married.
During the senior prom, Meat is abducted by Porky and his men. The gang decide that this is the last straw and go after them. Just as the wedding is about to start, the power goes out and Meat is liberated by Billy and Brian. Meanwhile, Porky's boat is chasing the guys in their rowboat and they are headed for the drawbridge. After the rowboat gets through, Pee Wee lowers the bridge, resulting in the destruction of Porky's boat.
At graduation, the guys trick Pee Wee into taking off all his clothes, except the graduation gown. As he's about to get his diploma, Principal Carter steps on the gown, causing it to come off and reveal Pee Wee in his nudity, just as he dreamed at the beginning of the film. | cult, humor | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0068732 | Images | Wealthy housewife and children's author Cathryn (Susannah York) receives a series of disturbing and eerie phone calls in her home in London one dreary night. The female voice on the other end, sometimes cutting in on other phone conversations, suggests mockingly to her that her husband Hugh (René Auberjonois) is having an affair. Cathryn's husband comes home, finding her in complete disarray. Hugh attempts to comfort her, but then he is gone, and she sees a different man who is behaving as if he were her husband. She screams in horror and backs away, only to see her vision of the figure revert to her husband.
Hugh attributes her outburst to stress and her budding pregnancy. He decides to take a vacation to the countryside at an isolated cottage in Ireland, where Cathryn can work on her book and take photographs for its illustrations. Immediately upon her arrival, however, Cathryn begins to hear voices invoking her name, and witnessing strange apparitions: While preparing lunch in the kitchen one day, she witness her husband Hugh pass through the room, his body shifting into that of her dead lover, Rene. Rene continues to appear to her around the house, even having conversations with her.
Cathryn's paranoia and visions become increasingly pervasive, and are exacerbated when a local neighbor and ex-lover, Marcel, brings his adolescent daughter, Susannah, to visit. Cathryn becomes unable to distinguish Hugh from Rene or Marcel, as the men shift before her eyes. One day, Rene taunts Cathryn, asking her to kill him if she wants rid of him, and hands her a shotgun. She shoots him through the abdomen; Susannah, startled by the gunshot, runs into the house, and finds Cathryn standing in the den, having shot Hugh's camera to pieces. Cathryn claims the gun accidentally unloaded when she was moving it.
Seeking solace, Cathryn goes to a nearby waterfall, where on several occasions she sees a doppelgänger of herself staring back at her. After one of these occurrences, she returns to the house, where Hugh tells her he has to leave for business. She drives him to the train station and returns to the house, where she finds Marcel waiting inside. He begins to undress to have sex with her, but she stabs him through the chest with a kitchen knife. The next morning, she encounters a local elderly man walking his dog, and offers him to come inside for coffee, in spite of the fact that Marcel's corpse lay in the living room; he however, declines the invitation. Later in the evening, Susannah stops by the house, and remarks that her father came home drunk the night before; Cathryn is confused by this, believing she had murdered him the night before, but finds his body has disappeared from the living room. Susannah comes inside to have tea, and asks Cathryn if she looked like her when she was young before ominously saying, "I'm going to be exactly like you."
After having tea, Cathryn drives Susannah back home. Marcel comes out of the house and attempts to talk to Cathryn, but she drives away. While on a stretch of road through a desolate field, Cathryn witnesses her doppelgänger again, attempting to wave her down. Back at the house, she finds both Rene and Marcel's corpses have reappeared in the living room. Cathryn leaves again, and encounters her doppelgänger at a bend in the road; this time she stops. The doppelgänger begs Cathryn to let her in the car, and the two begin to speak in unison. She then hits the doppelgänger with the car, throwing her off a cliff and into a waterfall below. Cathryn then drives back to her home in London. At her home, she goes to take a shower. While in the bathroom, the door opens, and the doppelgänger walks inside. Cathryn screams in terror, "I killed you," to which the doppelgänger responds, "Not me." The final shot shows Hugh's corpse lying at the bottom of the falls. | bleak, psychedelic, suspenseful, atmospheric, claustrophobic | train | wikipedia | (Were the movie not lost in obscurity, you might think her an antecedent for Jack Torrance and Barton Fink.) As she copes with the would-be-regular-guy puttering of her schmucky husband (Rene Auberjonois, in a role rightly intended for Michael Murphy), two other loathsome men flit into her life--the husband's buddy, an Irish lecher played by Hugh Millais, and a seemingly dead ex-lover, played by Marcel Bozzufi.
As these men appear to bleed into one another in York's mind, so do they soon start bleeding into the cottage's Persian rugs.IMAGES defines Altman as the freest and most fearless of all American moviemakers.
An arty horror movie is the last thing one expects from Robert Altman - although, apparently, he had already tried it out with his earlier, little-seen THAT COLD DAY IN THE PARK (1969).
The writer/director (itself an unusual combination for Altman, but it shows how strongly he felt about the project) himself does not think of it as such and, in any case, reviews at the time were decidedly mixed.Even if he was "inspired" by Ingmar Bergman's PERSONA (1966), the film actually feels closer plot-wise to Roman Polanski's REPULSION (1965).
Originally intended to be shot in Milan with Sophia Loren, the film definitely benefits from its picturesque Irish locations and Susannah York's fragile performance (which eventually earned her the Best Actress Award at Cannes) as a schizophrenic; she, too, was unusually committed and actually allowed a story for kids she had written - called "In Search Of Unicorns" - to be incorporated into the narrative!The film features only five major characters and, interestingly, these are named after each of the actors themselves: so Susannah York plays Cathryn just as Cathryn Harrison (Rex's daughter, a very natural performer who later featured in another strange film - Louis Malle's BLACK MOON [1975]) plays Susannah; Marcel Bozzuffi's character is named Rene', Rene' Auberjonois is Hugh and Hugh Millais is Marcel!
Of course, all this fits perfectly well with the film's theme and the characters' penchant to exchange 'faces' with each other in the mind of the disturbed protagonist; actually, this concept is pretty frightening because the lead character at one point decides to get rid of her 'ghosts' - but, not having a complete grasp on reality, one is never sure whether the victims are mere figments of her imagination or else real people!
Also essential to establishing the film's unique mood is Vilmos Zsigmond's stylish cinematography and John Williams' stark yet evocative score (interspersed with eerie sounds provided by Stomu Yamash'ta, a Japanese sound designer); even though his work here is galaxies away from Williams' renowned anthemic scores for the likes of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, he still managed to earn an Oscar nomination for it!.
Although Susannah York deservedly earned best actress at Cannes for her performance, and it was sandwiched between "The Long Goodbye" and "Mccabe and Mrs. Miller" this film, like "3 women" and "California Split", remain mysteries.
I can say more, but I will leave it at this: IMAGES is Robert Altman's neglected masterwork, a film that will scar your mind, if you have the strong countenance to endure it..
No. This is straight up cinematic insanity, something even the noblest of mind-bending flicks fail to achieve (with the exception of LOST HIGHWAY).In the end, the audience is invited, by means of provocative images, to make sense of the film themselves.
John Williams' (!) score is a major asset, with sound effects of all types punctuating the mood like an impressionist painting.Depsite being clunky in parts, IMAGES is must-see film to appreciate the depth of Robert Altman, or complete your knowledge of mind-blowers..
I'm a big fan of 70's films and movies like Robert Altman's "Images" are a good reason why.
Discovering what the images that assault her (and us) actually signify make for one of the best psychological thrillers since Polanski's "Repulsion." Unlike the films of today, "Images" forces you to watch, listen and seek the answers for yourself.
Susannah York as Cathryn, a young, beautiful writer who tries to finish a children's book in a remote country home is simply breathtaking.
There is some dry humor in the movie - all five characters have the first names of the actors who played them: Susannah played Cathryn and young Cathryn Harrison plays a girl named Susannah, Rene Auberjonois, Marcel Bozzuffi, and Hugh Millais played three men in Cathryn's life - Hugh, the husband, Rene - the neighbor, and Marcel, her dead lover (who was quite alive for a dead man, at least in her memory).
Images was beautifully filmed in Ireland by master cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, and veteran composer John Williams provided the score.
Susannah York, an interesting actress (though not so interesting as to make this artistic jumble take hold), plays the future author of a children's book about unicorns who is upset one night by repeat calls informing her that her husband is having an affair; she begins imaging other lovers in her husband's place, splintering herself off from reality.
Robert Altman applies the same widescreen canvas he had previously used to capture the chaotic communities of a Korean War MASH unit and a primitive Pacific Northwest mining town to the quieter but no less chaotic internal workings of a troubled woman's psyche in this unsettling and uneven psychological thriller.Susannah York plays Cathryn, wife of a distracted husband (Rene Auberjonois), whose affairs with two men (one a family friend) and her inability to have children become obsessive memories that haunt her and drive her over the brink of insanity during a stay at a quiet country home (the country is never identified, though the movie was filmed in Ireland).
Cathryn realizes that she can take control and kill off her unpleasant memories -- but at the same time she loses the ability to distinguish between reality and her own feverish imaginings.On a first viewing, "Images" is absorbing and oddly fascinating, but it doesn't hold up well.
"Images" came on the heels of a marvelous trio of films ("MASH," "Brewster McCloud" and "McCabe & Mrs. Miller") with which Altman announced his arrival as an important figure in American cinema, and he would follow it with four more ("The Long Goodbye," "Thieves Like Us," "California Split" and "Nashville") that would reinforce that claim, but "Images" itself is a weak link in the chain.The stars of "Images" are the mesmerizing production design and the sterling cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond.Grade: B.
Altman's little-seen psychological thriller, "Images," takes on the plot of a woman working on a children's book.
After the probability of this is dismissed, she retreats to a country farmhouse with her husband to work, where she is visited by a series of people from her past, as the line between reality and fantasy is continually blurred.Perhaps less thick with dream fog than "3 Women" but ten times more unnerving, "Images" is a film that truly hasn't gotten the audience it deserves.
Slick cinematography amplifies the reality (or unreality) of the film, with characters changing bodies between shots, and Cathryn's husband walking through a swinging door only to return as her dead ex-lover.
I would like to add that the eerie, bizarre atmosphere of this movie reminded me of David Lynch.We see the movie through the eyes of a schizophrenic woman, and just thinking that someone in real life can go through this gives me shivers.
It's also what I like to call a "hallucinogenic" movie, in which the dreamy scenery, the incredible camera work and the twisted dialogue play as if you were on a psychedelic substance.Susannah York gives a strong performance, and the beautiful Cathryn Harrison also make this movie worth viewing.If you like surreal movies, with a haunting atmosphere or psychological subjects, do yourself a favor and dig this good arty flick up.
In fact, the fragmented style of the film is quite appropriate to portrait the shuttered mind of heroine.The use of sound and the twin image of the character somewhat reminded me of "Meshes of the Afternoon (1943)" by Maya Deren.
Images is another striking, important, neglected film, although about as different as you could imagine from my other recent Altman rediscovery, A Perfect Couple.
Its closest filmic relations, and they are not even that close, are with other Altman films; but essentially, it is out there on its own, a glorious oddity, of uncertain parentage and with no progeny.Images, despite its obscurity and persistent non-availability, is situated quite differently: it is connected in a dozen ways to other films and film-makers; it has obvious parents and children; it is deeply embedded in both film history and its particular cinematic moment.Images focuses intensely on the mental breakdown of an upper middle class woman played by Susannah York, and takes place largely at a remote country house in a magnificent landscape (it was shot in Ireland).
It also has a good deal of Polanski in it (Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby; there are also strong affinities with The Tenant, which postdates Images).A line can be drawn from Images, backward or forward, to almost any film that depicts mental instability largely from a mentally unstable protagonist's point of view (Barton Fink and A Beautiful Mind, to cite two wildly different examples).McGilligan also positions the film in a quartet of Altman projects having to do with unstable women: That Cold Day in the Park; Images; Three Women; Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean.Another affinity is with other highly polished, stylized, sharply and precisely visualized and auralized films: Losey fits there, so does Nicolas Roeg, and I was strongly reminded of Fassbinder's Chinese Roulette.
The cinematography of the justly celebrated Vilmos Zsigmond is eye-popping, both in the tricky-to-film interiors and the hypnotic landscape exteriors.Images also shares its DNA (love that phrase of Altman's!) with, and perhaps even exerted a direct influence upon, Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock, made just a few years later.
That's a signature card for his entire work.In an interview on the Images DVD, Altman reiterates his frequently-made point that all his films are installments in an ongoing vision and that assessments of the installments as being higher or lower in quality don't matter much to him: if you're interested in the vision, you're interested in the vision, right?
Pauline Kael set the tone for discussion of Altman in her early reviews, which went up and down like a ping-pong ball; loved MASH, hated Brewster McCloud, loved McCabe and Mrs. Miller, hated Images (and at that point she said that since she had discerned a definite alternating hit/miss pattern, she couldn't wait for his next film).
Perhaps inferior to 'Persona' in most aspects, Altman's 'Images' is still hauntingly interesting film with amazingly dedicated performance from lead actress Susannah York who is nearly in every scene of the movie.
The haunting and eerie score by John Williams complimented with percussion sounds by Stomu Yamashta over magnificent cinematography by visionary Vilmos Zsigmond alone is the reason to watch the film because it is fantastic visual treat.The film follows children's author Cathryn who receives disturbing phone call that suggests that her husband is having an affair.
Although the film feels like some twisted meditation, the story line is actually coherent and seemingly out of place details fall into right place by the end.Visually magnificent film with powerful and layered performance by Susannah York.
"Images" is a thoughtful evocation of psychosis, and cleverly includes the leading woman character's (Cathryn's) confusion about what is reality into the plot of the film.I saw "Images" in the mid-1970's in Montreal and haven't seen it since.
I have become a psychiatrist in the meantime and remember especially vividly the way the screenplay and direction take us into Cathryn's mind as it succumbs to mental illness.See this film, one of Altman's best, if you have the chance..
Of all Altman film's, Images has had the most influence on my life.
Susannah York and her husband moves back to their holiday home in Ireland where she has hallucinations of characters from her past - her reality and imaginary world then become increasingly blurred with horrific consequences.This is all a bit weird and if you chose to read a great deal into this, fine, but as a straight forward thriller where a woman, very well played by Susannah York, goes quietly nuts it's just as good.This is very atypical fare from Altman and it is hard to give 2 hoots about the characters, but it's worth catching for York's performance and the fun of seeing which way it'll go.
Robert Altman doing a psychological horror film.
Susannah York plays Cathyrn, a children's book author in need of peace and quiet to finish her latest work, and those solitude moments will be find at a country home along with her husband (Rene Auberjonois).
The problem with "Images" is that, after years of watching horror films or even psychological thrillers one gets easily fed up in seeing clichés after clichés.
Some parts brought me minor memories from Louis Malle's surrealistic tale "Black Moon" - it gets even more coincidental that Cathryn Harrison (she plays Millais' daughter and Catheryn's only ally) stars on both Malle and Altman films.
The film too was something of a surprise but I remember wallowing in the experience and being stunned both by the wonderful Irish landscape scenes and the vigorous and varied performance from Susannah York.
But for the most part Altman films this character piece as fluidly and with a level of concentration not any much more or less than his classics like Long Goodbye or Nashville or the Player.
At the same time he uses such spot-on timing with the camera movements and zooms and pans and seamless edits in service of Susannah York's inner being, as opposed to just taking down a kaleidescope-vision or ensemble.Indeed that's one of the more interesting things about Images, is its lack of an ensemble; there's only about four or five actors in the whole movie, mostly with York and her husband out in a secluded house in the countryside visited only by a friend (who's also her lover) and his daughter...
This includes a series of murders which sometimes aren't real (i.e. gunshot, camera), and sometimes possibly are.And yet I don't want to make it too easy to give Altman all the credit; on the contrary without York and composer John Williams (as well as the sound-man on the film, I forget his name) it wouldn't be nearly as successful an experiment.
I finally got to see this very,very rare 1972 Robert Altman.I was not let down ,I love it!One of the best depictions of the workings of the inner mind that I think anybody has ever done.Altman Really went deep into surrealistic imagery,A really weird movie.Altman can make both straight forward films and films like 'Images'.The visual feel of the movie is Similar to Peter Jackson's 'Heavenly Creatures'.I wish Altman still made movie's that were as thoughtful, complex and sublime as this.Check it out!!.
And even if it were, there has always been another side to Altman; films like "3 Women" and "Images" single him out as a strong surrealist, adept and spooky imagery and menacing atmosphere.
Cathryn faces a deadly "image" of herself; she is the monster, her delusions fragments of her own warped persona.Altman hints at this by naming his 5 characters after the actors who play them.
It's more of a cross between Ingmar Bergman (Persona) and Roman Polanski (Repulsion), and shows that Altman could have been a completely different filmmaker if he had wanted.Susannah York plays Cathryn, an author of children's books who starts having hallucinations and erotic fantasies involving past lovers, including a dead one.
For all its simplicity, it's quite complex and unsettling in a mature way.Marcel Bozzuffi, Hugh Millais and the young Cathryn Harrison (who'd be in an even stranger movie three years later: Black Moon) give very good supporting performances.Complementing the movie is also John William's creepy, eerie, slightly dissonant score, the unsettling sounds created by Stomu Yamashta, and the cinematography of Vilmos Zsigmond.
Story is about a woman named Cathryn (Susannah York) who is having a difficult time establishing what is reality and what isn't.
Finally Cathryn decides to rid herself of these images by killing them but she isn't sure which of these people are real or not.Altman fans frequently point to this film as his most polished piece of work and they may be right as not only is this technically superior but the actors are restricted to a very challenging script.
I definitely think that the young girl Susannah is a piece of the puzzle and it can't be just a coincidence that she looks exactly like Cathryn.
Also, the story that Cathryn narrates during certain parts of the film is a real children's story that was written by York herself.
The film stars Susannah York as Cathryn, a wealthy housewife and children's author waiting for her husband to get home one night.
Dear Robert Altman, Images was a relentlessly eerie and occasionally scary film about the mental disintegration of a woman.
Like so often with Robert Altman's movies, his films are either quite bad or terrific (not counting the mid-90s onwards, when everything he touched was crap).
"Images" seems like an experiment in opaque "art" cinema that Robert Altman just wanted to get out of his system relatively early in his career; so he throws in just about every bizarre shot and incident he can think of, without much regard for internal coherency or logic.
It is understandable that Images will be seen as a horror film about a woman who is not fully in touch with reality.
Robert Altman, who wrote and directed Images, shows what can happen when someone betrays another person sexually but cannot face that reality.Cathryn (Susannah York) is married to Hugh (Rene Auberjonois), a man very interested in hunting quail but not at all interested in making love with his wife. |
tt0173932 | It Was My Best Birthday Ever, Charlie Brown! | The special begins with Linus roller-skating all over town. On his way back from a birthday party, he passes by a garden where he hears someone singing ("O Mio Babbino Caro") As he enters the garden, he learns that a little girl named Mimi is the person that was singing. After Linus and Mimi spend time gardening together, Linus invites her to his birthday party which she accepts.
Linus keeps hearing Mimi's singing voice everywhere he goes and can't seem to stop thinking about her. As Linus is writing his guest list for his birthday party, Lucy asks who Mimi is. After Linus tells her, Lucy thinks that it's ridiculous that Linus is inviting a girl that he just met and thinks Mimi will not show up, but Linus is positive that she will.
On the day of Linus' birthday party, Linus wonders where Mimi could be. When Lucy and Sally bring out Linus' birthday cake lights the candles & everybody starts singing "Happy Birthday" to him, Linus tries to get them to stop, but to no avail. As soon as everybody finishes singing, Linus hears Mimi singing "Happy Birthday" from outside. After Mimi finishes singing to Linus, she gives him a flower and a kiss. At first, Linus is sad when Mimi has to leave, but he later starts dancing along with everyone else.
The end of the special shows Linus talking to Charlie Brown about if he'll ever see Mimi again and Woodstock shows up, whistling the song that Mimi sang. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Certainly not up to the standard of earlier specials.
I really did not like this video.
The music was corny and the characters did not act like themselves.
The sole redeeming feature was that they got a child who could actually sing, to do the bit with the singing.
By the way, in case you're wondering (I was), I went and looked it up and the name of that song is "O Mio Babbino Caro" -- it's by Puccini..
Sigh..
As a lifelong "Peanuts" fan, I'd like to honestly say every "Peanuts" special is an animated classic.
Unfortunately, "It Was My Best Birthday Ever, Charlie Brown!" proves I can't.
Without being too repetitive of the other reviews, the production quality is poor, the plot is extremely thin, and the music pales in comparison to most other "Peanuts" specials.
That it was a straight-to-video release is no surprise.
The first third of the program is probably the weakest part, as it does essentially nothing to advance the plot and is actually rather difficult to follow.
On a positive note, the voice work is solid, especially the singing, and the gags with Snoopy and Woodstock are amusing.
If you're a "Peanuts" completist like me you'll still want to watch it, and fortunately as of this writing you can find "It Was My Best Birthday Ever, Charlie Brown!" on YouTube..
Bad. I agree with the other reviewers.
This was an extremely bad Peanuts special.The first seven minutes was taken up entirely with an entirely wordless montage of Linus roller blading, and then Linus at a party.
We then see Sally and Charlie Brown have a brief discussion and then another few wordless minutes of Linus skating and exploring a garden.
By now about half the special is over.It is very boring, there are almost no jokes, and the characterization is not well done.Stick with the specials done up until the early 80s..
This was not the best special ever, Charlie Brown.
"It Was My Best Birthday Ever, Charlie Brown" is a shallow attempt to restore the fading art of the Peanuts TV specials.
Although it hit the mark in cuteness and charm, it failed to present any of the deeper meanings and characterization present in Schulz' comic strip or the other specials.
In fact, it doesn't present much of anything at all.
Half of the 25-minute cartoon is taken up by an uncharacteristically bold and independent Linus skating through town with hip inline skates.
This scene was animated rather well, with nice 3D moving backgrounds and a fairly realistic-moving Linus, who looks rotoscoped.
How do you rotoscope the actions of a huge-headed cartoon kid with a real person?
You can't, not very well anyway, as the discerning eye will notice Linus' limbs stretching and bending in odd locations.
Yet this is the best animation in the special, and the filmmakers know this well as they opt to play the entire sequence twice, with the same music and even the same scenes.
The rest of the animation is not even on a par with the substandard low-budget cartooning present in the 60's and 70's Peanuts films.
The entire production looks like it was done in Shockwave Flash.
Many characters have an anti-aliasing problem which makes them look like they are sticking out of the scenery instead of blending with it.
Characters will move towards and away the camera through a simple sprite enlargement technique, which looked pretty high-tech on the Super Nintendo but sticks out like a sore thumb in feature animation.
When they want to zoom in the camera, they just crop and enlarge the image, which makes the film very blurry.
They might as well have just cut to a close-up shot.
The kids at the party run on a loop of about three frames each, as they flap their mouths and clap their hands in unison.
Where did Linus get all these many friends anyway?
And why are there *gasp* adults in the picture?All complaints about the animation aside, the story is pretty cute, but not up to par with other Peanuts specials.
Linus stumbles into a garden while riding his rollerblades and meets Mimi, an operatic child diva that can actually sing (anyone who heard the kids sing in "Race For Your Life, Charlie Brown" will thank the movie at least for this).
Mimi is a gardening prodigy as well, and spends several minutes dispensing encyclopedic botanical wisdom to Linus, such as the fact that digitalis, the heart medicine, is extracted from the foxglove plant.
Linus is instantly smitten with the girl, as she is the first girl he's ever met who tolerates him without being abusive or overly clingy.
Linus then invites her to his upcoming birthday party, and she tentatively agrees.
He then spends the next half of the program agonizing about whether or not Mimi will show up to his party, even though any reason why she can't or wont come is never quit e explained.
Nevertheless, the question here is not whether or not she will come, and *** SPOILER SPOILER *** she does (big surprise), but how she will break his heart in the end.
Needless to say it was all very anti-climactic, not even reaching the amount of pathos invoked by the Little Red-Haired Girl in "A Charlie Brown Valentine" (2002) and Melody-Melody in "You're In the Super Bowl, Charlie Brown" (1993), or for that matter Linus' own unrequited "love"--the Great Pumpkin, who never fails to disappoint Linus every Halloween.
There isn't even any requisite cruelty from Lucy or Peppermint Patty to liven things up.
There wasn't even any cool Vince Guaraldi jazz music, having been replaced by some guy on a synthesizer busting out crappy hip-hop beats that should have been buried with Vanilla Ice.
I almost expected the Peanuts cast to bust out into a "cool" kiddie rap like those clean-cut child stars in "Camp Cucamonga" (1990)--"Yo, I'm Linus, and I'm here to say/I'm passive-aggressive in a major way..."
In the end, I think I have said more about this half-hour made-for-video cartoon than most people write about Oscar winning movies.
Nevertheless, it is worth a rental for kids and for the devoted Peanuts fan.
It's not all that bad..
Pretty bad.
My little girl (aged 2) is mildly obsessed with Peanuts and this is one of her favourites...because Linus skates in it.
That's the good news.For anyone who enjoys Peanuts for story and characterisation, well, this special is a real low point.I've watched it about 10 times now.
IMO this special was not completed as intended.
Maybe they ran out of money?
They take shortcuts everywhere to pad out the running time: There is the skating scene which is repeated twice, this takes up nearly 6 minutes of running time.
So desperate where they to pad out time that they repeat scenes within the repeated scenes...or they must have a lot of banks in that area for Linus to skate past.
A party Linus attends, without bringing a present for the host, looks like scenes cobbled together from Linus's birthday party later in the episode.
This leads to a glaring continuity error, Charlie Brown is at the early party and dressed like he was at the latter party, but then he asks his sister what the party was like.
I didn't realise he was that forgetful!
A kitchen in the house Linus has his party keeps from one side of the house to another.
Linus is missing his blanket when skating, then has it back again...You get the idea.
Animations in the dancing scenes are directly lifted from 'It's Spring training Charlie Brown', but done about half as well.The plot is wafer thin.
Linus falls in love with a girl who's house he breaks into.
In another padded out sequence Linus creeps through the gardens of the girls home like a stalker.
She welcomes Linus warmly despite his trespassing and then she starts talking, a lot.
In a short time frame we find out she has he voice of an angel, likes to espouse Chinese proverbs and has an encyclopedic understanding of horticulture and it uses in modern medicine.
Yes, she's a know it all.Despite this, Linus then invites her to his birthday.
She makes him wait for her arrival, then when she does arrive she doesn't come inside, she drives past and gives him a flower.
Yeah, she's definitely a keeper...Children may love it, but adults will not.
There are many far superior Peanuts specials and movies, try those instead. |
tt0112642 | Casper | Following the death of her father, neurotic and spoiled heiress Carrigan Crittenden discovers he has only left her Whipstaff Manor in Friendship, Maine. Carrigan and her attorney Dibs discover a vast treasure allegedly is in the manor, but they find it is haunted by a friendly ghost named Casper and his obnoxious prankster uncles, the Ghostly Trio, who scare the two off the property, causing them to try several attempts to get the ghost out of the house, but with no success. A lonely Casper watches a news report of paranormal therapist James Harvey, and is instantly smitten with his teenage daughter Kat, which led him to inspire Carrigan, so she can summon Dr. Harvey to Whipstaff. Harvey and Kat have an estranged relationship due to the former’s reputation, and searching for the ghost of his late wife Amelia. Moving into Whipstaff, Kat and her father quickly encounter Casper, who tries to befriend them, while his uncles try to scare them out of the house.
After befriending Casper over breakfast, Kat goes to school with Casper following her. She becomes popular when her class agree to host their Halloween party at Whipstaff upon learning she lives there. Amber, Kat’s classmate who immediately dislikes her, becomes envious of Kat stealing her spotlight since originally the party was going to be at her place and plots with her boyfriend Vic to humiliate Kat during the party. Harvey attempts to have therapy sessions with the Ghostly Trio, who reveal to know Amelia; in exchange for getting Carrigan to leave them alone, they promise to go through the "red tape" involved to get Harvey a meeting with his wife.
Meanwhile, Kat learns Casper has no memory of his life, and unlocks his old bedroom to remind him. Casper comes across an old wooden sled, recalling that when he was a young boy, his father bought it for him. Casper was so happy that he played outside on a very cold day until he caught a severe cold and died of pneumonia. After his death, he became a ghost to keep his father company. A newspaper article reveals that Casper’s father was declared legally insane after he built a machine named the Lazarus, which he claimed could bring the dead back to life. Casper and Kat venture down into the manor’s basement, discovering the Lazarus. Carrigan and Dibs sneak in, stealing the formula that powers the Lazarus and plot to use the machine to their advantage, believing it could grant them immortality. However, the two attempt to kill each other as an experiment; as a result, Carrigan falls off a cliff to her death and rises as a ghost.
Meanwhile, Dr. Harvey becomes dispassionate, encouraging the trio to take him out for a night on the town. But unknown to him, they plan on killing him to make themselves a quartet, but ended up having a change of heart after a drunk Harvey states that he is going to tell Carrigan off so they can stay in their home. However, Harvey accidentally falls to his death down in a manhole.
Back in the secret laboratory, Carrigan confronts Casper and Kat and launches Dibs out of a window when he tries to double-cross her. Casper and Kat trick her into stating that she has no unfinished business on Earth, causing Carrigan to be involuntarily ejected into the afterlife. The alleged treasure is revealed to be Casper’s prized baseball signed by Duke Snider. After Dr. Harvey has returned with Casper's uncles now as a ghost, which causes Kat to be in despair, Casper sacrifices his last chance to be alive once more to restore her father.
The Halloween party kicks off upstairs, and Amber and Vic’s prank is thwarted by the Ghostly Trio. Casper is visited by Amelia who became an angel in heaven instead of a ghost. She temporarily transforms him into a human boy as a reward for his sacrifice until ten o’clock. Casper dances with Kat, while Amelia speaks with Harvey, revealing that she was so content alive that she had no unfinished business, encouraging him to move on. Amelia departs as the clock chimes ten, and after kissing Kat, Casper transforms back into a ghost, which scares off the party guests, leaving him and the Harveys to dance to the ghostly trio's music. | paranormal, haunting, absurd, psychedelic, entertaining, sentimental | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2339505 | Kochadaiiyaan | A young boy named Rana, who hails from the kingdom of Kottaipattinam, leaves his family, despite his twin brother Sena pleading him not to do so. The boy soon meets with an accident while rowing in the river and is eventually discovered by some fishermen from the neighbouring kingdom of Kalingapuri, a rival of Kottaipattinam. Rana (Rajinikanth) grows up there and trains in weaponry, and grows up to be a fearless warrior. Due to his fighting skills and bravery, he soon wins the confidence of the king of Kalingapuri, Raja Mahendran (Jackie Shroff), who promotes him as Commander-in-Chief of the Kalingapuri army. Rana's first job as Commander-in-Chief is to free the soldiers of his hometown Kottaipattinam, who are being treated as slaves, enlist them in the army and train them. He then seeks the permission of Raja Mahendran to attack Kottaipattinam, to which the latter agrees. However, during the war, Rana encounters his childhood friend, crown prince Sengodagan (R. Sarathkumar), the son of Rishikodagan (Nassar), king of Kottaipattinam. Immediately signalling an end to the war, he, along with the soldiers disown Kalingapuri and return to Kottaipattinam, much to the disgust of Raja Mahendran and his son, crown prince Veera Mahendran (Aadhi), who swear revenge on Rana for tricking them and betraying Kalingapuri.
At Kottaipattinam, Rana and Sengodagan renew their friendship. Sengodagan introduces Rana to Rishikodagan, who is alarmed on seeing him. Rana also reunites with his younger sister Yamuna Devi (Rukmini Vijayakumar) whom he last saw as a baby and their uncle, who raised her, but soon learns that his mother Yaaghavi (Shobana) is dead and Sena is missing. He soon learns that Yamuna and Sengodagan are in love with each other. He accepts their relationship and decides to get them married, even cleverly convincing Rishikodagan, who was unwilling to get his son married to a girl of a non-royal family. Meanwhile, Rana also falls in love with his childhood sweetheart, princess Vadhana Devi (Deepika Padukone), the daughter of Rishikodagan.
Soon, Sengodagan and Yamuna get married. But following the wedding, Rishikodagan disowns his son for marrying Yamuna despite knowing that the latter does not belong to a royal family. An unfazed Sengodagan immediately leaves the palace with Yamuna. Later that night, a masked man barges into the palace and attempts to kill Rishikodagan. Vadhana immediately goes after him, fights him and gets him captured. Rishikodagan unmasks the assassin who is revealed to be Rana, and immediately throws him into prison, sentencing him to death. An upset Vadhana rushes to the cell where Rana is imprisoned, where Rana tells her why he attempted to kill Rishikodagan.
Years ago, Rana is the younger son of Kochadaiiyaan, the former Commander-in-Chief of Kottaipattinam's army. Kochadaiiyaan is extremely respected in Kottaipattinam for his bravery and exploits and is more popular than Rishikodagan himself. This made Rishikodagan jealous of Kochadaiiyaan. One night, when Kochadaiiyaan is returning by ship to Kottaipatinam with his army after buying horses and ammunition, they are attacked by the army of Kalingapuri. Kochadaiiyaan defeats them but allows them to return to their kingdom as an act of chivalry. However, the Kalingapuri army, before leaving, poison the food on the ship. The Kottaipattinam army men consume this food, and fall ill.
Despite knowing that he had been tricked by the Kalingapuri army, Kochadaiiyaan immediately rushes to Kalingapuri itself, because it is the only land body close enough to provide medicines to the sick and dying soldiers. He orders Raja Mahendran to provide medical assistance to his soldiers. Raja Mahendran, in turn, cunningly proposes a deal that, if he wants his men to be saved, he has to leave all the horses, ammunition and the sick army men in Kalingapuri as Raja Mahendran's slaves. Only if Kochadaiiyan agrees to this, his soldiers will be nursed back to health. Kochadaiiyan thinks that his men rather be alive as slaves than die from poisoning, and also thinks that when they officially wage a war in the near future, all of them could be easily rescued. So he accepts Raja Mahendran's offer and leaves Kalingapuri all alone. When he returns to Kottaipattinam, the jealous Rishikodagan seizes this opportunity to strip Kochadaiiyan off all respect and dignity and sentences him to death for becoming a traitor to Kottaipattinam by surrendering his army men, horses and ammunition to Kalingapuri. Though all his subjects are dismayed at Kochadaiiyaan being sentenced to death, and Yaaghavi even goes to the extent of publicly rebuking Rishikodagan for his injustice, Rishikodagam stands firm in his decision. Kochadaiiyaan is executed the following morning before Rana's eyes.
The story comes back to the present, with Rana telling Vadhana that he ran away to Kalingapuri, with the intention of freeing the soldiers of Kottaipattinam and to take revenge on Rishikodagan for unjustly killing his father. Vadhana is shocked on hearing about her father's actions and reconciles with Rana. She then pleads with her father to release Rana, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Rana escapes from prison. When Rishikodagan learns of Rana's escape, he immediately arranges for Vadhana's marriage with prince Veera Mahendran after consulting with an astrologer and learning that his life is at Rana's mercy. Despite the enmity between Kottaipattinam and Kalingapuri, he arranges this marriage with the hope that their united armies and their mutual hatred for Rana can subdue him.
On the day of the marriage, Rana arrives just when the marriage is about to take place. He and the people of Kottapattinam berate Rishikodagan for becoming traitor and surrendering the whole Kottaipattinam to Raja Mahendran for his own personal interests and commitments (this was the same charge which Rishikodagan had placed on Kochadaiiyaan years ago). Following this, a war starts between Rana and the united armies of Kottaipattinam and Kalingapuri. Rana successfully manages to subdue the armies of both kingdoms, he kills Raja Mahendran and allows Veera Mahendran to return as he was defeated, reminding him of their friendship. He then fights Rishikodagan and decapitates him.
Finally, as Rana and Vadhana reunite, a young soldier comes towards them riding a horse. This soldier is revealed to be Sena, and a anger appear in Sena as their father asked him to protect the king and Rana killed him so fight awaits. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Yes, this movie really deserves a great applause, ignore about how or what the story is but the attempt and hard work that went into the making of this film deserves an applause.
Kochadaiiyaan may boast of all that motion capture technology, but put side by side Hollywood exploits such as Tin Tin, it comes off as an amateurish, cartoonish effort.The story is a standard revenge drama- in the vein of Dharam Veer, and a million Chinese martial art epics.
There is a double love story lined up post this featuring an "enhanced" Deepika, while Rishikogadan and Mahendra Raj must meet their bloody end.Rajnikanth is virtually in every frame of the film, and as usual he oozes style and confidence.
Even Pogo features better animation!This expensive experiment to immortalize Rajnikanth might be good enough for die hard fans, but still cannot make up for its complete lack of connect, and its technical shortcomings.
After four years of gap, Rajini sir fans and people in India An opportunity to see this fantastic movie that made in Tamil, Hindi and many more languages.
All the film actors,producers and technicians must watch this movie and it attracts children and young and all the people I pray for Rajini sir be in good health and continue to do good for people of India Thank you.
This has been in the reckoning for quite a long time and this happens to be the first ingenuously made graphic movie using motion capture technology in India.
A.R.Rahman is also not up to the expectation.It looks like cartoon film more than the motion capture.Though they have worked hard for so many years it doesn't satisfies the audience.Also it don't have much shots in 3D which seems to be is waste of money to watch it in 3D technology.Movie don't have the commercial elements which the family audience or youths needed.
It is not an easy thing to create a mega budget animated movie with a good marketing status in India.
-Hope in future we can reach the Hollywood movies with a reasonable budget.Cast also includes Bollywood beauty Deepika Padukone which will be a big box office factor in North India.
Remember Kochadaiiyaan is not a Hollywood movie like 'The Adventures of Tintin' or 'Avatar' but it is the best Indian animated movie.Verdict: If you watch the 'Kochadaiiyaan' in big screen defiantly it would be a great experience..
But "Kochadaiiyaan" as an animated feature, which is made using motion capture technology, fails to live up to the expectations of all those who watch a Rajinikanth film just for the sake of entertainment.We have a tried-and-tested revenge story.
Such moments were missing or were limited in "Kochadaiiyaan", which heavily suffered from creating an emotional connect with the characters.Every time Rajinikanth and Deepika hugged, you couldn't feel the passion in their romance.
Come to think of it, "Kochadaiiyaan" would've definitely looked magnificent in live action form than in the half baked animated format that only looks colorful but not legendary.In layman's terminology, motion capture technology is supposed to recreate real characters as realistic as possible in reel.
Actors such as Aadi and Sarath Kumar were the terribly looking animated characters on screen, while the rest such as Nasser, Deepika and Jackie at least had some major references to be related with their real self.
But when I watched the movie there was not place for me to think about the visual effects, Because the story and screenplay was awful.
The CGI is easily 5-7 years behind the tech of the most advanced animated movies - I'm not talking "How to Train Your Dragon" or "Toy Story", but rather the more human-involved/realistic 3D animated movies - the easiest example would be Robert Zemeckis' motion-captured films ("A Christmas Carol", "The Polar Express", etc.).
Coming back to film -- its been ~4 years to see my thalaivar on screen and I want this movie to be all-thalaivar stunts, dialogues, and dance moves.
As its shown in the end credits he has taken a great challenge on understanding the technology and shown a great difference for both the characters on dialog delivery as well as facial reactions.Rest go get hypnotized in theater's A.R.Rahman: Superstar of Music.,The songs as known is so impressive,but the BGM is splendid and very very grand.
Watch out for the title card graphics for the superstar and the war sequences with terrific dialogs towards the end which caters to the masses.On the whole, this movie is a nice experience if you go with the expectation that you are going to watch a film with motion capture technology and not a live Rajinikanth Movie.
i Think Review From My Overseas Friends 3d Format Is Very Impressive First Half Is Good and the Second Half Is Very Good Back ground Music AR Rahman At His Best Over All Rajini Back With Bang Many People Saying Negative Talk Without Watching a film Go and Watch the Film Without Any Expectation Don't Compare All Movies With Hollywood Children Will love the film i Know Thalaivar Film Won't Disappoint audience There are Lot Of Rumors and Pre Negative Before the film got released The Story line is very simple and clear Director Made it Simple To Reach Audience I Hope Indian First Motion Sensor Film Kochadaiiyaan Will Win Audience Heart.
Surely, rajini deserves better.We come to know now that the rudrathaandavam & even some scenes were done by other artists since rajini's health did not permit him to strain himself.The animation in "Chota Bheem" is much better that kochadaiyaan.Music by ARR is OK.KSR tries to salvage the film with his screenplay but he is let down by poor direction by Soundarya rajini.A huge disappointment for everyone.
When I tell you,that,a great warriors' son avenges his father's death,you might not be able to sympathise with the story,but when I visually show it to you with Thalaivar's(another name for Rajinikanth)terrific acting performance,breaking through the poor animation of the movie.Mix,the story with some twists and turns,add a pinch of mind-blowing BGM of ARR,and finally garnish it with some stunt sequences and some poor 1960's video game-like animation and present it you,it is nothing but the entire movie Kochadaiiyan..
Nevermind those people will regret for not watching it in theater.Movie - ***** Music and BG score- ***** Animation Quality-*** Screen play - ***** There was a great effort taken by PentaMedia about 12 years Back...He burnt his fingers first and Thanks to that team of guys who actually helped to grow this Amazing Animation Industry.
Having Super Star Rajnikanth was enough to make the movie a blockbuster but taking a path which was not explored in Bollywood and more so animation movies are not taken seriously in India, for Soundarya to try something out of the box is commendable.But it is not only the technology but the story and screenplay by K.
It could have been a mundane revenge drama but K.S. Ravikumar keeps it interesting with a lot of twists and turns.Rajni as usual is the highlight of the movie with a double role of father Kochadaiyaan and son Rana and Rajni as usual does not disappoint, he is bang on with his histrionics and charisma.
As usual Rajini rocking in the Kochadaiiyan the character.The film has few drawbacks in the technical point of view but Still the best in Indian movies..
His magnetic voice gives life to all those powerful dialogs penned by Ravikumar and the veteran star infests marvelous screen presence even to animated characters.All of us realize that it is a path breaking attempt from a technological perspective but at the end of the day, Kochadaiiyaan has been intended as a quintessential Rajini film, and any such Superstar starrer is invariably expected to entertain with elements such as memorable punch lines, larger-than-life stunts, a racy screenplay, a simple but gripping story, beautiful songs and breathtaking visuals.
We saw it in 3D in Hindi which was not our preference, but it was all that was available in our area.This is a good story, it's well told and yes, the animation is a bit stilted, which is odd considering it's motion capture.However, the highly stylized look of the film works because it is a myth/fantasy/saga.It was also really wonderful to see Rajnikanth in this sort of role again, which he can't play anymore in live action due to his age.
Kochadaiiyaan is the first Indian motion capture film and therefore I was not able to resist myself from watching this superb movie and I found that it was not just a superb animation film,but also a paisa vasool entertainer!Seeing Rajinikanth in three roles for the very first time for me is very amazing experience.
I had never seen him in such a superb movie.The performances, action sequences,animations,music were all the elements that it has utilized very well.I was awestruck how such an animation is possible.On the whole,Kochadaiiyaan is a solid film that will appeal not only to Rajini fans,but to audiences of all ages.Solid entertainer!.
Acting in motion capture technology is big risk especially for person like Rajini as average fans all they wanted is to see his face in the big screen.
Postives: Rajnikanth big asset for the film.K.S Ravikumar's Screenplay and story .Soundharya Rajnikanth Ashwin's direction doesn't looks like debut she done a great job .A.R Rehman Music AND awesome BGM .Films duration 118 Min's where not trying to keep unnecessary scenes like other movies .Late Nagesh sir .Second Half is very good.
Rana (Rajni) the head of the army for Kalingapuri headed by the king (Jackie Shroff)makes a grand entry into the movie with a title song animated in typical Rajni style.
Kochadaiiyaan (Tamil and dubbed): Finally it's here, the first Indian film having the motion capture technology having the best of the grandeur and colours (and definitely Rajini Sir), which actually is worth experiencing for a family or children outing in either of the formats (3D or 2D).
story is fantastic not only a revenge saga its much more than that direction is one of the best in the whole of world watch ditz movie not only for Rajni sir but Also as India first motion capture experiment which I think is successful....Eagerly waiting for next installment.....
Love this movie I want to see this move again and again and I don't think that I will get bore of this movie watching again and again ..this movie really deserve applause .the best thing is that it is not copied for any Hollywood movie .Motion capture technology is not up to the mark but I still give it 10 for the hard work that is behind this movie .
It will definitely made the audience for an immediate next show.But if you watch the movie for story, you need not to worry about how motion capture has worked in the film.
Kochadaiiyaan, movie based on performance capture technology is definitely one of its kind and opens new door for movies which are expensive for real time making.The Strength of the movie is its magnificent plot and witty dialogues written by K.S.Ravikumar.
This movie revolves around the plot that everyone one of us has enjoyed listening or reading to.Having a strong story in hand, Director Soundarya has conveyed it appropriately to audience using best of the techniques, with the help of A.R.Rahman's lively music.Above all, it was SUPERSTAR Rajinikanth's charisma that has helped a lot for portrayal of lead characters in the movie.
All movies that rely on technologies will need improvement.Except for some songs and dragging battle scenes in second half, this movie will keep you engaged and entertained thoroughly.Having watched it thrice already, Kochadaiiyaan will be labelled as HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.!.
I had three reasons for watching this movie the first being Iam an ardent lover of animation and special effects; the second being iam a great fan of Rajini sir and the third being this is one of the first Indian movie to be made using the motion capture technology; these three reasons dragged me to watch this movie with huge expectations and I wasn't disappointed either.Great efforts have been taken to make this movie, but very few efforts have been taken to make the story more interesting and gripping; there are moments where in you would feel like walking out of the cinema hall but at the same time you would like to hold on to your seats just because there are few action sequences which are breathtaking and for a moment you again lose yourself in the movie and this is one of the prime reason you may continue watching the movie expecting more of such scenes and you may not be disappointed either as the movie has some very great action and the scenes have been shot in a very sophisticated way and you may actually forget that you are watching an Indian animated movie.The story lacks the ability to keep the viewers entertained all throughout.
There are few songs which has been unnecessarily injected into the script and is unnecessary; this does more harm than good to the senses of the audience.The motion capture technology and the real life animation is not in par with the International standards but the efforts taken are just worth it, and if one ends up comparing this movie with The Tin Tin and The polar express which were shot using the same technology you may find this shoddy and inferior.The reason you may watch this movie is the great effort which has been put to make this movie to look realistic and some great action sequences which is extremely magnificent and not to forget the dialogues which garners the attention of the public and drives them crazy.
The reason you may dislike the movie is the slow pace by which the story unfolds and the story is far from Impressive and the number of songs which may actually make you fall asleep a number of times.The detailing of the characters is not realistic and there are some minor flaws in the animation as well.The effort with which the movie is made is something to look upon..
I am giving the movie 2 stars because I love animation and I would like to encourage someone taking some initiative to show something new.
I feel unbiased people will feel cheated after watching this movie.Good effort to try something different but DISAPPOINTING..
Kochadaiiyaan is the first Indian Movie, which had been done on Performance Capture Technology.
Kochadaiiyaan teaser didn't create much expectation for the movie as people felt that the animation was not up to the Hollywood standards.
But, the engaging screenplay & awesome dialogues by K.S. Ravikumar makes sure that audiences are engaged throughout the movie.Rajinikanth – No other person can even dream of acting in an Indian Animation Movie with this huge budget.
Only Superstar can do it, as he has dedicated fans following, who will watch movies multiple times for his style and voice alone.
Superstar's introduction scene, his voice & style will definitely give goose bumps for his fans.Animation- The animations in the movie were pretty good for an Indian movie.
Superstar looks stylish with different costumes and the credits should go to Lulla.A.R. Rahman's wonderful music + K.S. Ravikumar's excellent dialogues + Rajinikanth's Magical Voice are much more than sufficient to satisfy Superstar Fan's and makes them watch the movie multiple times.First half has more songs than the scenes.
Movie runs for lesser than 2 hours (118 minutes) with 6 songs.Soundarya Rajinikanth was recently honored with the NDTV Indian of the Year – Technical Innovation in a Film award.
She has made sure that the movie has scenes, which will definitely satisfy his dad's dedicated fans.Though 125 Crores looks like huge budget for Tamil Cinema, actually it is very lesser budget to take a movie with performance capture technology.
Soundarya Rajinikanth Ashwin has pulled two impossible feats, making India's first motion capture animation movie successfully and also achieving a disaster with Rajinikanth-an impossible feat.Kochadaiiyaan, has everything going good for it from the time Rajinikanth gave his nod.
After you finish marveling at the technical brilliance, you start looking for the story, which clearly disappoints and for the first time ever, you have people yawning and stretching in a Rajinikanth Movie.
Kochadaiiyaan - King of Kings The day Rajinikanth's millions of fans have been waiting for is finally here.The Tamil superstar's graphical wonder Kochadaiiyaan has arrived near your theatres in multiple languages.This time, Rajini will be seen in never-before avatars as the film is a historical fiction directed by his daughter.Congrats to#SoundaryaRajnikanth for the Brave Attempt, superb Direction.
typical south Indian action which is way too much over the top and we have seen a lot better than this, being a Rajnikant movie you expect something better.There are too many songs which was a very boring part because its not any good to hear but alright to see because of the visual effects.
There enters the second son of Kochadaiiyaan i.e., Sena with a fusion look of his father and his brother making us go awestruck and puzzled.But they freeze with a title revealing Rana vs Sena and a tag stating...to be continued...Goosebumps\m/ Thalaivar | ARR | KSR | Soundaraya __/\__After many years...we fans got a movie that is going to remain so close to our heart].
Kochadaiiyaan, meant exclusively for Rajini fans, fails to impress as an animated movie..
Does the missing brother of Rana ever come into the picture?Although predictable, the movie has a story line, but the much-awaited animation affects fails to create much impact.
* Motion capture Technology : was good ..in a few minutes you will forget that you are watching an Animated movie....WEAKNESSES :- * Deepika padukone graphic work was waste in few scenes....
The others didn't get much scope.This has been in the reckoning for quite a long time and this happens to be the first indigenously made graphic movie using motion capture technology in India. |
tt0029606 | A Star Is Born | Esther Hoffman, an aspiring singer-songwriter, meets John Norman Howard, a famous, successful and self-destructive singer/songwriter rock star, whom, after a series of coincidental meetings, she finally starts dating. Believing in her talent, John gives her a helping hand and her career begins to eclipse his.
Writer and director Frank Pierson, in his New West magazine article "My Battles With Barbra and Jon" summarized it thusly:
"An actress is a little more than a woman, an actor a little less than a man (Oscar Wilde) ... The woman in our story is ambitious to become a star, but it is not necessary: it can make her happier and richer, but she could give it all away and not be a better or worse person. With stardom she is only a little more than a woman. For the man, his career is his defense against a self-destructive part of himself that has led him into outrageous bursts of drunkenness, drugs, love affairs, fights and adventures that have made him a legend. His career is also what gives him his sense of who he is. Without it, he is lost and confused; his demons eat him alive. That's why he is a little less than a man. And it is not that her success galls him, or that she wins over him; the tragedy is that all her love is not enough to keep alive a man who has lost what he measures his manhood with; his career."
And so the conclusion is measured by the theme. He takes his life in the mistaken belief that he will then not drag her down with him. | tragedy, satire, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Fredric March brings all of it on the screen, providing one of his best performances here.If you would like to become an actor, I believe you should watch this movie and Mr. March's way of acting.
I had not watched this movie until today, passing up each opportunity over the years to view it, as I feared it would not live up to the 1954 blockbuster starring Judy Garland and James Mason.I was right, it does not; it far surpasses the 1954 remake.
Janet Gaynor is perfect as the home-grown farm girl seeking to make her mark in Hollywood, and Fredric March is very convincing as the has-been who cannot cope with his declining value in Hollywood, especially since he caused much of it himself.I had thought that I might miss the music in this earlier version, but I found after having watched it that I didn't miss it at all.
Janet Gaynor plays Esther Blodgett beautifully, a girl who leaves for Hollywood with dreams of film magazines and the blessing of her granny.
March is excellent in this, and the look of the film is surprisingly modern with its lovely technicolor and gadgets (I particularly like the shower in the motor home Esther and Norman take on honeymoon).
Fredric March gave a magnificent performance, probably the best of his career, as Norman Maine, the actor whose career is in the descendant as that of his wife, Vikki Lester, is in the ascendant in this, the first 'official' version of "A Star is Born", (the 1932 film "What Price Hollywood" roughly told the same story).
If Lester is a star and possibly a great actress Gaynor keeps the secret to herself.The script for this version was partly written by Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell and it shows.
Beware, however: a 2012 version is now in pre-production; although, as we all know, it may never be completed – Hollywood being what it is.Of course, this story – rags to riches in the acting business - was done first by others – principally Katherine Hepburn in Morning Glory (1933) and, oddly enough, again in Stage Door (1937), and again with Katherine Hepburn ably assisted by a host of well-known Hollywood actors, including the tireless Adolphe Menjou who never seemed to mind playing a Hollywood boss, in this and many other similar movies.
And, failure was not an option.Today's mainstream audience, on the other hand, would probably laugh at the perceived and implied naivety of the 1930s crowd.The acting – from Frederic March as Norman Maine (the main actor in the story – such an appropriate name!) who is already on the slippery slopes to alcoholic and acting oblivion just as he meets and falls in love with Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett as the aspiring Hollywood wannabee; and both ably assisted by Adolphe Menjou as Hollywood producer, Oliver Niles – raises it to the level of simplistic melodrama and without descending into bathos, fortunately.
But fate is on her side in the person of leading man Norman Maine, played by Fredric March in one of his best screen performances.Though Gaynor and March were both nominated for Gaynor the part of Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester was no stretch for her.
March and Gaynor get good support from Adolphe Menjou as an understanding producer, Andy Devine as Gaynor's fellow boarder at her place of residence and most of all from Lionel Stander as the cynical press agent who inadvertently puts the finish to March's career.Gaynor's final moment on the screen is one of the great classic events as she proclaims to the world she's Mrs. Norman Maine.
The basic idea is fairly simple, but filled with potential, and it is done skillfully.Janet Gaynor and Frederic March work very well as a Hollywood couple whose careers are headed in different directions, with March's performance being especially good.
Hollywood of those years was a factory of dreams where many went to be part of it, but for one Esther Blodgett, there were thousands who were rejected.We watch as Esther is transformed into Vicki Lester, a star larger than life, who captures the public's imagination and goes to eclipse bigger stars such as Norman Maine, her discoverer, and the man she falls in love with.
this is the first version of this movie made,and the only version i have seen so far.i liked it.i thought it was touching and ironic,and also tragic.it basically tells what the movie business can do to you,and the sacrifices that are made.it also shows how disposable the industry and the people in it are.as long as you are the flavour of the week,everything seems fine.but when you're no longer useful,reality hits and things can come crashing down.that's what basically happens in this story.it's an indictment(ironically)of the movie industry,however subtle.regardless,i thought it was well done.the acting by the tow leads,Janet Gaynor,and Frederic March,as well as the supporting performances,are terrific.i also thought the writing was very good,and the movie flows very well.for me,A Star is Born gets an 8/10.
Sorry, but I can't get on the bandwagon here of glowing adjectives to describe A STAR IS BORN with mousy Janet Gaynor in the Esther Blodgett role--a girl swept into big time stardom by a man whose own career is on the descent.FREDRIC MARCH plays the alcoholic Norman Maine (modeled after someone like John Barrymore) who meets Gaynor at a party, is presumably dazzled by her enough to get her a screen test, and that's how the career of Esther Blodgett starts.
The interior scenes in the first half are darkly lit and look like primitive use of color.The touching ending is well handled, but I can't believe Janet Gaynor in the role of a girl whose talent is so arresting that she immediately is scooped up into the frenzy of film-making.
The role should have been played by a girl in her early twenties who looks the part and has the out-sized talent needed to convince us she could be molded into a star of Vicki Lester proportions.Summing up: Disappointing, especially when compared to the Garland/Mason version, but worthwhile for Fredric March's performance as Norman Maine..
However, she gets nowhere until she's noticed by famous movie star Norman Maine (Fredric March), a performer on his way down in terms of popular appeal.
The two fall in love but just as Ester's star, under the stage name Vicki Lester begins to rise, Maine's begins to fade.The best thing about this film is the performance given by Fredric March as actor Norman Maine.
It's Maine's character that proves most interesting to the viewer here as March completely steals the film away from star Janet Gaynor.Gaynor doesn't prove quite as appealing or convincing in her lead role as Ester Blodgett/Vicki Lester and honestly it's hard to see why the public should favor her so.
Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor) wants to be a star.She goes to Hollywood to find her way into the pictures.There she meets the big star Norman Maine (Fredric March) and soon the big Hollywood romance is blooming.Esther finds herself in the same movie with her sweetheart and soon there will be more.Her Hollywood name is Vicki Lester.Norman Maine is a troubled star.He drinks too much but she makes him stop.But fighting against alcohol is much harder when he finds his wife a bigger star than he is.William A.
Wellman's A Star Is Born (1937) is perfect drama.It touches you the way it should.You really feel for Norman Maine when he loses what he once had.Fredric March does a brilliant job portraying him.The true star Janet Gaynor is wonderful in the role of Mrs.Norman Maine.Adolphe Menjou gives a great performance as Oliver Niles.Andy Devine is in a really sympathetic role as Danny McGuire.May Robson is fantastic as Grandmother Lettie.This movie from 70 years back does very good job showing the downside of fame.A Star Is Born is ageless..
Gaynor certainly keeps them under wraps, and one has to stretch the imagination to imagine that Gaynor, as capable an actress as she was, could possibly out act the great March.Nice supporting work from Adolphe Menjou as a Hollywood producer, and Lionel Stander is just poisonous as the vile Libby, who, while justifiably fed up with March and his chronic drinking and star tantrums, has not a sympathetic bone in his body.
Janet Gaynor, though a very big star in the 1930s, hasn't attained a large latter-day following for (most likely) the very reason she became an attraction initially: her giving, unselfish nature makes her a prime victim for love's heartaches, and one longs for her Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester to mature on-screen.
March (whose looks and voice is startlingly reminiscent of Gene Kelly here) comes off much better as the dipsomaniac star who has seen better days, although James Mason gave a far more trenchant and terrifying portrait of self-destruction in the Garland remake.Adolphe Menjou who created the Charles Bickford studio executive part and, especially, Lionel Stander as the publicity agent later played by Jack Carson, shine in their subordinate but finely tuned roles, helping to counter-balance the banal tendencies of the script, while May Robson's spiky but wise, benevolent granny, Clara (Auntie Em) Blandick's acidulous aunt, Elizabeth Jenns' actress paramour, Andy Devine's true-blue friend, and Edgar Kennedy's pop get caught up soundly in the film's cliches.Hollywood 'realism' has never been more obvious or watered down than here, yet the film still manages to give off a quaint charm and appeal that makes it bearable today.
A country girl (Janet Gaynor) goes to Hollywood to become a star but hits hard times until she meets the famous Norman Maine (Fredric March).
A rising young Hollywood actress marries a washed-up alcoholic star in the original version of the story that was remade twice.
Janet Gaynor, a star who was born a decade ago during the silent film era, and being the first actress to win an Academy Award (1928-29), is appropriately cast in her best screen role in a sound film in what might have been Gaynor, "a star reborn," this time in glorious Technicolor.Opening with the final shooting script with description of Scene One, fade-in to farmhouse in Fillmore, South Dakota, the plot gets immediately underway with Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor), an avid movie fan, returning home from the theater with her little brother Alex (A.W. Sweatt).
After an introduction with co-director Danny McGuire (Andy Devine), who lands her a job as a waitress at a Hollywood party, Esther meets Norman Maine (Fredric March), her favorite movie idol who becomes attracted to her, so much by her beauty that whenever she exits, he asks, "Do you mind if I have just ...
one more look?" Norman talks producer Oliver Niles (Adolphe Menjou) into giving Esther a screen test, followed by a motion picture debut under a new professional name of Vicki Lester, cast opposite Norman in "The Enchanted Hour." After Vicki and Norman marry, Vicki's career reaches great heights, to a point of being voted best actress at the eighth annual Academy Awards, while Norman's popularity declines to the point of being terminated from his studio and turning to alcoholism that puts a tremendous strain on their marriage.With Janet Gaynor in a well deserved Academy Award nominated performance that might have paved the way for stronger performances, she's retired from the screen by 1938.
Other performers worth noting include Lionel Stander as Matt Libby, the gravel voice press agent; Elizabeth Jeans as Norman Maine's domineering escort; Jed Prouty as columnist for "Cinema Sidelights," Franklin Pangborn and Guinn Williams in smaller roles.Aside from the fact that things happen so fast in A STAR IS BORN, the story gives the impression as being set solely in 1937 rather than a five or ten year span considering that much of the sets, womens fashions and hair styles appear to be the same throughout.
The only notable change is Gaynor, whose character changes from young hopeful to a maturing movie star.The popularity of A STAR IS BORN did lead to musical remakes from Warner Brothers: 1954, with Judy Garland and James Mason; and in 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson.
Where it all began - the 1937, original, A STAR IS BORN, starring Janet Gaynor and Fredric March (Asolphe Menjou, May Robson, Andy Devine, Lionel Sander - all familiar faces on celluloid in that era of film).
I really liked it and was struck by how much the Judy Garland and James Mason film copied the storyline of its predecessor.Filmed in low-key but still warm technicolour, it moves quickly from Gaynor's lowly farmhouse background as a rather mousy-looking country girl, obsessed with movies and matinee idol Norman Maine in particular but with a dream of her own to make it to Hollywood as an actress.
Just occasionally perhaps March is allowed too much solo screen-time and I also didn't think his offensive, self-destructive streak was put over forcefully enough, certainly insufficiently to justify Lionel Stander's long-suffering P.R. man laying him out just when he's recuperating after a spell in a sanatorium, but there are several classic scenes, like when Maine drunkenly arrives at Vicki's Oscar ceremony presentation, Maine's sacrificial walk into the sea and of course one of the great finishing lines to any movie ever.Caustically written, one suspects by an insider, stylishly directed by William Wellman and with fine support playing by Stander and Adolph Menjou in particular, this is Golden Age Hollywood story-telling at its best..
The colors are muddy and murky, and the lighting choices are odd -- some scenes are so darkly lit it's literally difficult to see the actors, like a film noir in color."A Star Is Born" won the Academy Award for Best Original Story, which was written by Wellman and Robert Carson.
This is the first version of the memorable Hollywood tale of young hopeful (Gaynor) trying to make it big as an actress, marries the fading actor (March) that helped her, and eventually encounters the dark side of stardom.
In essence, a washed up star falls in love with his protégé, and her career skyrockets.Fredric March played the original Norman Maine, and while he did give a very good performance, it's a character he frequently played in the 1930s, so if you don't feel like renting this one, you can check out Merrily We Go To Hell or My Sin instead.
It seems you can't help making comparisons...well, I must admit that before seeing "A star is born"1937 version I was sure nothing could surpass the intensity that Judy Garland brought to the role of Vicky Lester in the fine Cukor version; I was wrong ,I was moved beyond words by this picture which is at the same time one of the most cruel and adult movie ever made on Hollywood and a poignant, heartbreaking love story.
I admired so much the superior dialogue and, most of all,the brilliance of the whole cast-.Janet Gaynor, though maybe not the ideal choice for the role of Vicky Lester, gives a sincere, sensitive performance but what really makes this picture outstanding is Fredric March's superb portrayal of Norman Maine.He really makes Norman came alive as a real human being, weak, charming, self disruptive but generous and capable of love.
While serving at a party, drunken acting star Norman Maine (Fredric March) helps her get a screen test.
Dorothy Parker had a major hand in the screenplay, and in this movie about Hollywood artifice and the illusion of cinema, intelligent use is made of an actual script at the beginning and end, showing dialogue and screen directions.Janet Gaynor is very appealing as Esther Blodgett, the naive North Dakota country girl who makes it as Vicki Lester, megastar.
One of the all-time greats, A Star Is Born (1937) is a classic Hollywood story of power and love and the fickleness of fame.
Janet Gaynor has her great talkie role and Fredric March has one of his best as the star-cross lovers, Esther Blodgett and Norman Maine.
In this version, Fredric March's Maine makes Janet Gaynor's Blodgett a star because he wants to get her into the sack.
Subsequently, he dates her and then gets her a screen test and a co-starring role in his next movie although he's never seen her perform.This narrative is depressing because she became a star as a result of Maine objectifying her, and a plain-looking woman with talent would have failed.In a good story, the writers would have shown us that Blodgett was a great actress.
What superb acting by Frederic March as Norman Maine, Janet Gaynor as Vicki Lester/Esther Blodgett, and all of the rest of this excellent cast.
But, in this original, we see first, a story of a young small-town girl, Esther/Vicki, who dreams of becoming a movie star.
Norman gets his long-time producer and good friend, Oliver Niles (Adolphe Menjou), to give Esther a screen test, Oliver is impressed, gives her a new movie star name, "Vicki Lester", and gives her a contract.
While Janet Gaynor and Frederick March are good in the leads, the ensemble is weak in its old-style, ham acting.The film attempts to chronicle the rise of a young actress in opposition to the decline of the actor who has assisted her on her ascent to becoming a Hollywood star.
But in the Gaynor-March version, once the young actress Vicki Lester has become a star, the momentum of the film is lost.
Hollywood can present much beauty, but for those inside the business, it is a living hell.Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor) is a young hopeful from hundreds of miles from Hollywood who longs to come to "Tinseltown" and work with the legends like the fictional Norman Maine (Fredric March), an Oscar Winner slowly falling down the ranks thanks to bad publicity, bad films, and especially, way too much booze.
Perhaps, it's because of the crackling of the film, but the 1937 version of "A Star is Born," doesn't hold a candle to the musical version of 17 years later.Janet Gaynor, as Esther/Vickie, doesn't hold a candle to Judy Garland's interpretation of the same role. |
tt0067303 | ¡Viva la muerte... tua! | In priestly disguise, the con artist Orlowsky learns from a last confession about a village where a treasure is hidden. He seeks out the Mexican bandit Max Lozoya, who knows more about its precise location – (part of) the instructions is tattooed on his ass.
At the same time, the Irish journalist Mary O'Donnell wants to fire up the revolutionary cause and bribes sheriff Randall to have the Mexican revolutionary El Salvador escape prison. Even though El Salvador is dead, the sheriff accepts, haggling up the price). It turns out that he has a scam going, where he takes money to let prisoners escape and then kills them to get a reward – and the prison warden gets half of the taking. They choose Lozoya for the escaping hero (as he is to be executed anyway). Randall is further elated when he finds the ”priest” with Lozoya, because Orlowsky is his cousin, which he blames for his handicap, some affliction of the back so he must wear an iron support under the clothes to be able to walk upright. So Orlowsky is locked up for later torture to death.
As it turns out the plans of the sheriff fail. The warden goes in to release Lozoya, and once they are in the corridor, the bandit knocks the warden out and helps Orlowsky to escape. It's no easy feat; Lozoya is out of shape and when he's being given a boost up by the rear over a wall, he doesn't like it. When they run into Mary, Orlowsky presents Lozoya as El Salvador and himself as his military advisor, and a confused Lozoya just goes along with it. Later it turns out that she recognised Lozoya from the beginning, but went along with it, something that gives further credit to Orlowsky’s accusation that she is a journalist – "someone that creates an idol and then destroys him" – out to start an uprising just to get a story.
Initially, Lozoya takes advantage of his ”El Salvador” identity solely to mobilise assistance in his play against Orlowsky. In a tavern, he frames Orlowsky for a watch theft so he can escape and talk to Mendoza alone and find the other half of the treasure map so he can have the cash for himself, but a fight breaks out, leaving Lozoya cornered in a well. Orlowsky arrives to save him, but not before punishing him by leaving him to struggle to stay on the surface first. Soon, Lozoya is forced to give the information to the treasure by dropping his pants, displaying the instructions to Orlowsky. But when Randall and the soldiers kill his sister Lupita and her boy he gets a genuine revolutionary motive. Heaving a trembling breath, he vows "to kill as many regulares as there are hairs on my sister's head.” This trail of vengeance leads to general Huerta and the two partners organise an uprising against his garrison, while Mary is obliged to put her virginity on the line in order to distract the commander (she tells him, ”There is more than one way to kill a woman”). However, the attack sends him running away in his underwear before she has had to go all the way.
As Huerta also had taken control of the aforementioned treasure, but Lozoya's gives away the money to medicine, schools and hospitals, because he ”can’t betray these people.” Orlowsky grumbles, ”I never leave empty-handed” and proceeds to betray ”El Salvador” to Huerta for $30.000. The hero is executed after an exhorting speech – ”For those who love freedom no idol is necessary, for those who do not, no idol is sufficient.” However this is all a ruse. Lozoya is executed with blank bullets, and Orlowsky sets off explosives that kill the soldiers and Huerta (who was just preparing to execute Orlowsky). Randall and his men ambush Orlowsky but they are killed, with the assistance of the ”resurrected” Lozoya. The two scoundrels then share the reward money, and Lozoya expresses relief to be ”an honest bandit” again.
When Mary appears to suggest that they carry their revolutionary activities to Guatemala, the two quickly ride off. | western, cult | train | wikipedia | Entertaining Spaghetti/Paella/Schnitzel Western co-produced by Italy/Spain/Germany.
Tua!" - Italy (original title) or "Don't Turn the Other Cheek" - USA title or ¨Viva La Muerte Tuya¨- Spanish title , is an amusing Western plenty of action , shoot'em up , humor and fun .
A radical journalist , A Russian prince , A Mexican bandit team up seeking a cache of gold .
A spaghetti/Paella/Schnitzel western in which three adventurers join forces during the Mexican Revolution .
It deals with a man calling himself Prince Dimitri Vassilovich Orlowsky (Franco Nero) who claims to be a Russian prince as he is aware a treasure has been hidden in Mexico territory , and along with a redheaded Irish girl named Mary O'Donnell (Lynn Redgrave) who wants to foment a peasant revolt in Mexico enlist other rogue character , a selfish bandit locked in Utah .
Both of them , reunite the help of a humorous Mexican outlaw named Lozoya (Elli Wallach) , by saving him from a death sentence in Fort Yuma .
Lozoya has the key to the treasure , but Nero knows where the other half of the map is , both of whom seeking a lost gold located in Piedras Negras and confronting a cruel Mexican general (Eduardo Fajardo) .This Zapata Western displays noisy action , thrills , stirring adventures, shoot'em up , riding pursuits and is pretty amusing .
Funny and thrilling screenplay by Massimo De Rita and Juan De Orduña , also producer , and based on the novel titled "The killer from Yuma" by Lewis B.
This is an acceptable S.W. full of action , shootouts , fist-play and some touches of humor in charge of Elli Wallach character .
Wallach portrays similarly to his popular "Tuco" character from ¨The good, the ugly and the bad¨ .
Elli Wallach is very fine, he ravages the screen as a seedy bandit , he hits , shots and runs ; plus jokes , laughs , he's a complete show .
Eduardo Fajardo as a cruelly baddie role as Mexican general is terrific , subsequently the would play similar role in other Spaghetti , mainly directed by Sergio Corbucci .
In the movie appears usual support actors as Spanish : Victor Israel , Lorenzo Robledo , Jose Jaspe , Jose Moreno , Tito Garcia , Rafael Albacin , as Italian players : Mirko Ellis , Marilu Tolo , Gisela Hahn and German : Horst Janson and Dan Van Husen who acted as secondary in many Spaghetti .
As always , the musician Ennio Morricone, composes a nice Spaghetti soundtrack and well conducted and splendid leitmotif ; it's full of enjoyable sounds and lively score .This Italian writer / filmmaker Duccio Tessari so consistently mixed the good with the mediocre that it became quite impossible to know what to expect from him next .
Rating : 6 , acceptable and passable movie that will appeal to Spaghetti Western buffs ..
Long Live Your Death is a western comedy.
This film tries to pin down the staples of the genre while being funny, and it has to be said that in doing so it pretty much misses both targets; but thankfully, Duccio Tessari's film is entertaining in it's own right and the central cast is just about talented enough to pull it through.
The film takes obvious influence from the greatest of all Spaghetti Westerns; The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and it could be said in fact that the film is basically a complete rip of the earlier film.
The film takes place during the Mexican revolution.
Mary O'Donnell, an Irish journalist, wants to inspire a revolt in Mexico and pays for a revolutionary to be released from prison; but unfortunately the man in question is already dead, so another Mexican is freed in his place.
He escapes along with a Prince Dmitri Vassilovich Orlowsky, who has designs on finding some buried treasure.
He teams up with the bandit and the two pursue the treasure; one knows the town where the gold is buried, the other knows the location.It's the central pairing of Franco Nero and Eli Wallach that ensure the film works; neither one delivers their best performance, but the pair is constantly entertaining on screen together.
They are joined by Lynn Redgrave (apparently Franco Nero's sister is law) and she dons an annoying Irish accent.
The film does have a sense of humour, and at times it is rather funny (the location of the treasure maps, for example) but it's never overly funny, and I'd still call it more of a western than a comedy.
Duccio Tessari (who also directed Giallo classic The Bloodstained Butterfly) packs his film with plenty of action and this does ensure that the film is entertaining.
To my knowledge it's only available on an old VHS tape called DON'T TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, with animated asses (donkeys) wiggling their behinds, totally out of character with the film, which is an action filled Eurowestern by the director of the popular Ringo films, Duccio Tessari.
Franco Nero plays another of his European adventurers, this time a Russian, who is seeking a lost treasure.
Eli Wallach portrays another version of his popular "Tuco" character, this time once more a Mexican after playing the Greek version in ACE HIGH.
Throw in Lynn Redgrave (slightly out of place in a spaghetti) as an Irish revolutionary and you have a film that is reminiscent of Sergio Corbucci's two popular political westerns THE MERCENARY (1968) and COMPANEROS (1970), both of which are superior to this.
However there's a lot to be said for LONG LIVE YOUR DEATH, especially since it's so hard to find; you'll find the search worthwhile, and in the meantime let's hope Anchor Bay, Wild East, or Blue Underground release a definitive DVD version..
light-hearted and violent fun for spaghetti western fans.
This movie shares a lot of elements with other Euro-westerns.
Those who are very familiar with the genre will recognize similarities to films such as The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The Mercenary, Fistful of Dynamite, The Stranger and the Gunfighter, and other spaghetti westerns.
Recognizing these common themes is part of the fun of watching this movie.The story is full of spaghetti western clichés presented in a fun, tongue-in-cheek manner, yet it still delivers in the violence and action departments as well.
It matches the tone of the film, seems right for a slightly off-beat Euro-western, and definitely works in this movie.The movie boasts a phenomenal cast with Franco Nero, Eli Wallach, Lynn Redgrave, and Eduardo Fajardo.
It would be hard to make a bad spaghetti western with those four playing the main characters, but I do have to say that although this movie was good, I think it could have been better.
My guess is that the movie is much better in its complete form.At any rate, I highly recommend this movie to those like me who have seen and liked lots of spaghetti westerns.
Bandit Eli Wallach and European con-man Franco Nero are in turn, set up, mistaken for, and masquerade as a flamboyant Mexican revolutionary and his military adviser, a Russian prince!
The two know the partial whereabouts of a stashed fortune, but find it hard to get away from radical Irish journalist Lynn Redgrave long enough to go look for it.A typical, quirky Italian political western, Don't Turn The Other Cheek isn't as good as Sergio Corbucci's Companeros (also with Nero) or the fantastic (and non-comedic) A Bullet For The General starring A Fistful Of Dollars Gian Maria Volante.It's still a lot of fun though, with loads of action.
On the other hand, with the exception of a few key scenes, Redgrave doesn't really have much to do.One other familiar face is Nero's Django nemesis Eduardo Fajardo playing the film's number one heavy..
This film begins in the early 20th century on the American side of the Rio Grande with a Mexican bandit named "Max Lozoya" (Eli Wallach) having been captured, tried and subsequently sentenced to hang the next morning.
As it so happens, however, an Irish journalist named "Mary O'Donnell" (Lynn Redgrave) wants to start an uprising in Mexico so that she can get an exclusive story and bribes the local constable "Sheriff Randall" (Horst Jansen) to free a popular Mexican revolutionary named "El Salvador".
What she doesn't know is that El Salvador has already been executed and since she doesn't know what he looks like the sheriff convinces "the Warden" (played by Jose Moreno) to allow Max Lozoya to escape in El Salvador's place.
In the meantime, a Russian con artist named "Prince Dmitri Vassilovich Orlowsky" (Franco Nero) has learned that Max Lozoya has knowledge of some stolen treasure and masquerading as a priest is allowed entry to the prison to attend to Lozoya's final confession.
It's during this time that Lozoya is allowed to escape and Dmitri, quite naturally, goes with him.
Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that, even though it was supposed to be a parody of a number of other famous "Spaghetti Westerns", this was still a difficult film to watch due in large part to the meandering plot.
Likewise, I didn't particularly like the rather preposterous action scenes which only served to lower my regard for the overall film as well.
In any case, those who enjoy Spaghetti Westerns might like this film but having said that I didn't especially care for it that much and for that reason I have rated it accordingly.
Gonzo Euro Comedy Spaghetti Western Mishmash That Tries Too Hard.
So the Spaghetti Western as a comedy.
You know whatever, there are some great examples of the approach; the TRINITY films, the priceless TOO MUCH GOLD FOR ONE GRINGO, Giulio Petroni's under-appreciated TEPAPA, various parts of DUCK YOU SUCKER ...
The formula works best when the filmmakers don't try too hard, simply allowing the conventions of the genre to be as absurd as they are naturally.
LONG LIVE YOUR DEATH tries to announce itself as a "funny" movie from the first frame with an oddball musical score and still images of Franco Nero yukkin' it up as a Russian Prince pretending to be a minister and holding up the congregation at a wedding ceremony for what turns out to be proceeds to help fund the Mexican Revolution.
He drives a car instead of riding a horse, packs an automatic pistol instead of a six-shooter, and after his automobile is wounded during a shootout he puts it out of it's misery with another bullet to the engine block.Eli Wallach was of course hilarious as THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY'S "Tuco", the poster child misfit Spaghetti Western serio-comic leading man, and is probably the film's greatest asset.
Here he plays a two bit Mexican chicken thief who may or may not know the location of a fortune in gold, but finds himself sprung from jail by a pretty, perky Lynne Redgrave, who wants to find the revolutionaries a hero to lead their struggle & write a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper story about it.
Nero and Wallach are good, but Redgrave is excellent and took her only Spaghetti Western performance to heart, trying a bit too hard, but we appreciate the effort.So already we have several "fish out of water" plot threads, a couple of "mistaken identity" skeins, and ample opportunities for Wallach to mug for the camera while he eats food, tries to proposition Redgrave, and form an uneasy buddy alliance with Mr. Nero to find the gold.
Just for added effect, Horst Jansen apes his rather wooden cinematic persona as a corrupt sheriff with back problems, Victor Isreal pops up as a mining executive with some rather eye opening thoughts about the Mexican workforce, and Eduardo Fajardo wanders in from some other film as an unscrupulous cavalry officer bent on capturing the mischievous trio & keeping the gold for himself.
As usual.A musical stopwatch gives composers Gianni Ferrio & Ennio Morricone an excuse to work yet another glockenspiel theme into their somewhat rushed sounding musical score, a sexy mute Spanish supporting actress gives Franco Nero someone to make googlie-eyes at, and director Duccio Tessari had a stable filled with scriptwriters to come up with all sorts of double-entrade laden dialog for Eli Wallach to belt out as quickly as possible when not running around jabbering excitedly and waving his arms in the air trying to be funny instead of just standing there being himself, which is hilarious all on it's own.
What is amazing is that he manages to be constantly upstaged by Lynn Redgrave even though she never displays her breasts.I am fairly certain the filmmakers had good intentions and talent to spare when cobbling this movie together and if it seems like I am just not getting into the spirit of things you are correct.
I have nothing but respect for everyone involved in the production, which is a nearly tactless, transparent attempt to cash-in on the notoriety of DUCK YOU SUCKER, TEPAPA, ARRIVA SABATA!, HEADS YOU DIE TALES I KILL YOU: THEY CALL HIM HALLELUJA and every other would-be gonzo Mexican Revolutionary Spaghetti Western made between 1968 and 1974 or so.The problem is that the number of jokes to be had about that conflict and it's ramifications was pretty much tapped out before DUCK YOU SUCKER entered it's fifteenth reel (I personally prefer TEPAPA with it's outrageous Thomas Millian performance as a prime example of the comic possibilities of the genre).
And come to think of it, why do these Mexican Revolution Spaghettis all turn out to be social satires with gonzo comedy broken up by spats of war atrocity scenes?
Don't get me wrong, LONG LIVE YOUR DEATH is a fine movie with some entertaining parts, including another great Eli Wallach meal as he scarfs down some form of stew while describing his childhood kills to Nero in his cell.
The problem is that this exchange -- the funniest in the movie -- happens in the first twelve minutes, and ninety minutes of additional "repeat and rinse" developments becomes nothing more than a bunch of Euro genre actors running around waving their arms & jabbering excitedly after a while.
It gets old quickly, and as such this rather tired example of the later period of the Spaghetti boom is perhaps as obscure & hard to find as it deserves to be.
They shouldn't care.4/10; You know your Spaghetti Western is in trouble when your best asset is upstaged by Lynn Redgrave with her shirt on..
Long Live Your Death AKA Don't Turn the Other Cheek!
Patten, and screenplay written by Massimo De Rita and Juan De Orduña, the movie tells the story of a Russian con artist, Dmitri Vassilovich Orlowsky (Franco Nero) whom dress up as a priest, hears from a last confession about a village where a treasure is hidden.
He seeks out a Mexican Bandit and mistaken war hero, Max Lozoya (Eli Wallach) who knows more about its precise location.
The movie isn't anything new, as there has been a lot of treasure hunting Spaghetti Westerns over the years like 1966's Sergio Leone's masterpiece film, 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'.
If you replace the American Civil War with the Mexican Revolution, replace the great actor, Clint Eastwood with mediocre, Franco Nero who sounds like he imitates Peter Lorne throughout the film, replace Angel Eyes with pretty, but annoying young red head angel eyes, Lynn Redgrave, replace the amazing music from Ennio Morricone with lousy Elevator music from Gianni Ferrio, then you got this movie.
Eli Wallach's Max Lozoya is just a mirror image of plain old, Tuco Ramirez.
The movie does have some interesting things that were later use or help influence other works such as the priest disguise that came to be used in films like 1974's The Gun and the Pulpit, and 1975's God Guns.
The movie is mostly a comedy, as most of its jokes were misses than hit.
Too bad, the movie took its concept way too serious at times, and the film got really dark.
The movie also has a lot of sub-plots that really goes nowhere.
I don't even know, why the writers made Dmitri Vassilovich Orlowsky into a prince.
It doesn't help that the movie go under many titles.
Star Eli Wallach came up with the title "Don't Turn the Other Cheek!" for the U.S. release as he did not like the Italian title.
Overall: I can't recommend this movie, unless you liked lots of stupid spaghetti westerns.
Taking part in the ICM Italian Challenge,I decided to check for films that I hope to watch, then sell.
Nearing the end of a pile, I found a Spaghetti Western Video that I had picked up ages ago,which led to me turning the other cheek.View on the film:Bringing the influence of director Duccio Tessari's work with Sergio Leone in their adaptation of Lewis B.
Patten's novel, the writers lean on Leone's landmark Spaghetti Westerns in the miss-matched friends relationship between Lozoya and Prince Dmitri,and a search for gold taking place against a Mexican Revolution backdrop.
Whilst not shying away from their inspirations, the writers give the title its own refreshingly quirky edge, via farcical comedy of the map being on Lozoya's bottom, and Mary O'Donnell standing out from the usual ladies of the genre,by diving into the fighting.Backed by a Morricone-sounding score from Gianni Ferrio, director Duccio Tessari & cinematographer José F.
Aguayo make the Spaghetti Western shoot-outs crackle with excitement,as the whip-pans rush to follow Dmitri and Lozoya's quest for gold.
Performing the theme song, Lynn Redgrave gives an energetic performance as O'Donnell,with Redgrave hitting the action scenes with a real relish.
Appearing in only his second Spaghetti Western, Franco Nero gives a terrific performance as Prince Dmitri,whose swift exchanges with Eli Wallach's very good performance as Lozoya balances slippery comedy and crunchy shoot-outs,where both of them turn the other cheek. |
tt0033874 | The Man Who Came to Dinner | The play is set in the small town of Mesalia, Ohio in the weeks leading to Christmas in the late 1930s. The exposition reveals that the famously outlandish New York City radio wit Sheridan Whiteside ('Sherry' to his friends) is invited to dine at the house of the well-to-do factory owner Ernest W. Stanley and his family. But before Whiteside can enter the house, he slips on a patch of ice outside the Stanleys' front door and injures his hip. Confined to the Stanleys' home, Whiteside is looked after by several professionals: Dr. Bradley, the absent-minded town physician, Miss Preen, his frantic nurse, and Maggie Cutler, his faithful secretary.
Confined to the house for a month, Sherry drives his hosts mad by viciously insulting them, monopolizing their house and staff, running up large phone bills, and receiving many bizarre guests, including paroled convicts. However, Sherry manages to befriend the Stanleys' children, June and Richard, as well as Mr. Stanley's eccentric older sister Harriet.
He also befriends local newspaper man and aspiring playwright Bert Jefferson, but soon learns that Maggie is in love with Bert, and plans to leave her job to marry him. Unable to bear losing his secretary, Sherry invites his friend, the glamorous and loose-living actress Lorraine Sheldon, to Mesalia to look at Bert's new play, hoping she can break up the marriage plans. Dr. Bradley tells Sherry he was mistaken in his diagnosis, and Sherry is actually well enough to leave. Sherry buys the doctor's silence by pretending to want to work on a book with him, and for the rest of the play keeps brushing him off.
As Christmas Day nears, Sherry encourages June Stanley to elope with a young union organizer whom her father disapproves of, and Richard to run away and pursue his dream of becoming a photographer. Lorraine arrives, and Maggie instantly suspects Sherry's involvement. They receive a visit from their friend, noted British actor and playwright Beverly Carlton. Maggie learns Beverly can do a great impression of Lord Bottomley, an English lord whom Lorraine is hoping to marry. She gets Beverly to call Lorraine and pretend to be Lord Bottomley proposing, to get Lorraine to leave. However, Sherry soon sees through the ruse. When Lorraine realizes Maggie's involvement she starts to seduce Bert as revenge.
The next day, Christmas, Bert is enthralled with Lorraine, and Maggie, hurt by Sherry's betrayal, tells him she is quitting. Feeling guilty, Sherry tries to think of a way to get Lorraine out of Mesalia. He gets help from an unexpected visit by his friend, movie comedian Banjo. Mr. Stanley, however, furious at Sherry's interference with his family, has now ordered Sherry's eviction from the house and gives him fifteen minutes to leave. All looks hopeless until an Egyptian mummy case is delivered to Sherry (a Christmas gift from the Khedive of Egypt). Sherry and Banjo manage to trick Lorraine into the mummy case and shut her inside. Sherry then sees a photo of Harriet Stanley when she was younger, and recognizes her as a famous murderer. Using this information, he blackmails Mr. Stanley into helping them get the case onto Banjo's plane.
Sherry now stands, telling Maggie she is free to marry Bert, and prepares to return to New York by train. Unfortunately, as he is leaving the house, he slips on another patch of ice, injuring himself again. He is carried back inside the house screaming as the curtain falls. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0244000 | American Outlaws | A group of Confederate guerillas are trying to raid the Union Army, very late in the American Civil War. The southerners are ambushed, but thanks to the sharp-shooting of Frank James (Gabriel Macht) and the distracting and at the same time clever antics of Jesse James (Collin Farrell), the guerillas manages to survive and pull through. The James brothers, along with their war buddies, the Younger brothers, congratulate themselves, but (during the ride to reconnect with their unit) are surprised to learn that their army has pulled out, General Robert E. Lee had surrendered the previous day at Appomattox, and the war is over. The group decides to return home to their families and farms.
Things have changed when they get back to Missouri. The town is occupied by the Union Army, Jesse's childhood friend, Zee (Ali Larter), has grown up into a very attractive young woman, and there is a man hanging in the town square, ostensibly for treason against the North.
In actuality, those farmers with large amounts of land are being pressured to sell their farms to the railroad company, who are pushing across North America. If they don't sell their land to the well-groomed, suit-wearing Thaddeus Rains, (Harris Yulin) and his secret-service organizer, Allan Pinkerton (Timothy Dalton) the farmers are burned out of their homes, or killed outright.
Frank James finds that the railroad doesn't even need their land—they're just buying it as cheap as they can get, to push the railroad through. The James and Younger brothers don't want to sell, and Cole Younger (Scott Caan) loses his temper when several 'railroad men' approach him about selling, and kills two of them. The army decides to hang him (since they were working for the government, he faces charges of treason), but his brothers Bob (Will McCormack) and Jim Younger (Gregory Smith), along with Jesse James and Frank James, decide to rescue him, with some help from Zee. During the rescue, Jesse is shot in the shoulder, and has to hide out at Zee's farm.
A few weeks later, when Jesse has recovered, the railroad sets fire to the James' home, killing Jesse and Frank's mother (Kathy Bates). The James and Younger brothers ride out for revenge against the railroad men—but instead focus on the bank's payroll, reasoning that 'you could kill a hundred railroad men and they won't care', but if they steal the payroll and attack supply trains, the army will sit up and take notice.
Dubbing themselves the 'James-Younger' gang, they set out robbing banks, with Pinkerton and Rains struggling to stop them. The impact of the James gang is only increased when they commit the first daylight bank-robbery in history, turning themselves into folk heroes in the process.
Eventually, the gang comes to blows over leadership, with Cole Younger feeling that Jesse is getting an overblown ego from the publicity of 'his' gang's activities. Jesse backs down, after a bitter argument, and lets Cole plan and execute a robbery; Cole's chosen target proves to be a trap set by Pinkerton and Rains. Jim Younger is shot and killed, and Jesse and his brother (who are tired of the killing and fighting) leave the gang, with Jesse later marrying Zee.
The gang does not do as well without the James brothers. People don't respect the Younger brothers as much as they did the James-Younger Gang, preferring Jesse's easy-going 'nice guy' personality and his warm, friendly and accommodating manner, which had won the affection of the townsfolk in previous robberies.
When Jesse and Zee attempt to start a new life, Pinkerton finds and arrests Jesse. During the train ride to the jail, Jesse is chained in a rear car, but manages to trick one of the deputies into showing his gun, which he uses to escape to the top of the train car.
Meanwhile, Zee and the remainder of the Gang shoot a cannon at the locomotive, stopping the train and rescuing Jesse. Confronted in the final moments by the two men he's come to hate, Jesse shoots neither Rains nor Pinkerton, but rather Rains' prized watch, a treasured gift from his father.
Pinkerton tells Jesse, through gritted teeth, that he should go to Tennessee, as 'the railroad has no interest in Tennessee', and therefore, neither does Pinkerton (since Pinkerton's being paid by the railroad). | violence, historical, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0089504 | Lost in America | David and Linda Howard are typical 1980s yuppies in Los Angeles who are fed up with their lifestyle. He works in an advertising agency and she for a department store. But after he fails to receive a promotion he was counting on and is instead asked to transfer to the firm's New York office, David angrily insults his boss and is fired. He coaxes his wife to quit her job as well and seek a new adventure.
The Howards decide to sell their house, liquidate their assets, drop out of society, "like in Easy Rider", and travel the country in a Winnebago recreational vehicle. They leave L.A. with a "nest egg" of a hundred thousand dollars but do not get very far. The plan goes awry when Linda loses all their savings playing roulette at the Desert Inn Casino in Las Vegas, where a desperate David tries in vain to persuade a casino manager to give the money back.
With nowhere to go, the couple quarrels at Hoover Dam, then ends up in Safford, Arizona. David unsuccessfully applies for a delivery job at a local pharmacy and resorts to an employment agency. After a counselor obnoxiously reminds him that he was fired from his high-paying job in advertising, David accepts the best position available — as a crossing guard, taunted by local school kids.
Linda, meanwhile, finds employment as the assistant manager at the local Der Wienerschnitzel, working under a kid half her age.
Only a few days after beginning their pursuit of the dream of dropping out of society, David and Linda are living in a trailer park, almost broke, working dead end jobs and accountable to brats. They decide that it is better to get back to their old lifestyle as soon as possible. They point the Winnebago toward New York, where David begs for his old job back. | cult, satire | train | wikipedia | Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty are perfect as the classic yuppie couple that decide to set out on the open road after a series of strange circumstances.
"I'll just check my $100,000 a year job file." Brooks is also great when he tries to reason with the casino owner, and arguing with Hagerty over her inability to use the words "nest" and "egg".
"From now on, birds live in ROUND STICKS!!!, for breakfast, you will have THINGS over easy!!!!"Most of the best dialogue and scenes are delivered from Brooks, but Hagerty is quite good as well, as the timid wife whos honest, yet HUGE blunder sets the tone for the rest of the film.
Most fans of this film -- and it certainly has a cult following -- will gleefully cite scenes ranging from the legendary "nest egg" speech to the job service interview as examples of terrific comedy, and I wholeheartedly agree: Lost in America is very funny.
Brooks, who not only co-wrote the film but also stars and directs, only falters a bit when it comes to the overall pacing (I thought the section that opens the film spends too much time in Los Angeles before the couple decides to head out for the open road), but this is a minor complaint.
hard to pick, but probably when Albert Brooks comes down to the casino in his bathrobe looking for Julie Haggerty and finds her chanting..."22,22,22,22." When asked how down she is she says "Down." When asking the casino operator how down she is he says "Down."Another player says "She really likes 22"I have seen this movie over and over again and it just keeps getting funnier each time I see it.
I am a big Albert Brooks fan, Defending your life is very good and Real Life is also a favorite.If you like dry humor and great dialog see this one for sure!.
The story takes a giant turn for the funnier as Brooks and Hagerty enjoy a 80's version of Easy Rider as they discover themselves on the open road of their lives.
Brooks' phone conversation with Hans, the Mercedes salesman (voiced by Brooks himself), the firing scene with "Brad" and his ad jingle for Ford, the check-in at the Las Vegas hotel, and, of course, Brooks' sales pitch to the casino manager (Gary Marshall), are just a few of the gems, which, when added up result in one of the funniest films ever made..
Hysterically funny film by Brooks about his character, David Howard, a yuppie who loses his job after his dream of a promotion falls through as an ad exec and decides to take his scatter-brained wife (Hagerty) cross country a la "Easy Rider" but in a Winnebago but gets seriously side-tracked in Las Vegas.
Most of the scenes are nothing more than confrontations between him and another character, but they are nicely varied and impeccably played: Brooks's manic unraveling in front of his boss as he quits his advertising job; Brooks trying to convince Gary Marshall (as a Vegas casino executive) to give him his lost money back; Brooks explaining the "nest egg principle" to Julie Hagerty (as his wife) after she has blown their life savings at roulette; Brooks's interview with a cynical small town job counselor; Brooks as a crossing guard taunted by obnoxious pre-teens on bicycles (the funniest such scene since W.C. Fields); Brooks's telephone conversation with a supercilious Mercedes salesman; Brooks applying for a job as a drug store delivery boy (he plans to use his Winebago); Brooks's incredulous meeting with Skippy, his wife's 19-year-old new boss at a fast food joint.
Papa Villone asserts that "If you can manage to find more than four memorable quotes in a film, it's a classic of some sort." Well, Albert Brooks' 1985 film Lost In America is so stocked with great quotes that it's off Papa's meter: "MERCEDES leather?
In probably the finest job- quitting scene in the history of film, Brooks explodes in the most acerbic, articulate way everybody has always dreamed of when realizing all their years of hard work mean nothing.He leaves his job, talks his wife (Julie Haggerty) into quitting hers, and they decide to "find themselves" on the open road "just like Easy Rider." They sell EVERYTHING, buy a Winnebago and STILL have about 150,000 dollars to their name and head to Vegas.
These are professional opinions you're getting.") There are other great scenes, as the desperate couple tries to find work to support themselves: An interview with an unemployment counselor, who listens, baffled, to Brooks explaining why he left a $100,000-a-year job because he couldn't "find himself." And Brooks' wife introducing her new boss, a teenage boy.The funniest aspect of the film, though, is the element of materialistic panic Brooks is able to squeeze out of his character.
Albert Brooks is a wonderful talent, somewhat of a Woody Allen offshoot, and his script writing is witty and has just the right amount of offbeat humour to it.The film has a great premise, and the characters are realistic and sympathetic enough to retain attention, but it moves too fast and feels underdeveloped.
A Yuppie couple leaves its jobs, liquidates its assets, and buys an RV, intent on living on the road like their idols in "Easy Rider." Things don't go as planned because of a single event.
He tells his wife Linda (Julie Hagerty, whom I recall as the flight attendant in the very funny Airplane!(1980)) that this is all for the best because, like his hero from the movie Easy Rider (1969), he wants to quit the rat race, drop out of society and just get on the road and see America.She too quits her job.
I'll leave the details for you to observe while noting that this is a funny and ultimately charming movie, a romantic comedy for the already married done in a low-key manner ending in yuppie irony.See this for Albert Brooks whose modest career includes roles in some fine flicks most notably, Broadcast News (1987), and Taxi Driver (1976).(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!).
I was underwhelmed but not really disappointed.David Howard (Brooks) is an advertising guy who is expecting a promotion, but when he doesn't get it, he decided to take his wife Linda (Julie Hagerty) to start a new life, Easy Rider style.
However, when they get to Vegas, David finds out something about Linda that will change their entire journey.Put simply, Lost in America is not a funny movie.
I think Brooks was having trouble keeping a lot of funny things for reality; much of what was somewhat funny was whatever was improvised and started to grow a little over-the-top.On the other hand, where at one point Lost in America failed with it having be in a basis of reality, it was good that it seemed real, that it could happen to anyone.
Released in 1985 and directed by Albert Brooks from a script by Brooks & Monica Johnson, "Lost in America" is a satirical road dramedy about a yuppie couple in their 30s (Brooks and Julie Hagerty) who forsake their good jobs in Los Angeles, liquidate their assets, and endeavor to roam America in a Winnebago, like in "Easy Rider" (well, sort of; those dudes had motorcycles and little cash).
Brooks' character has marathon-length dialogues with several people through the course of the film – his wife, his boss, a casino owner, a job counselor, a hot dog joint manager, etc.
this is often seen and reviewed as a mid-80a update to the culture shock and general societal alienation manifested in the early 60s; nope; it's mainly one of the first post women's lib male emasculation movies; short take- a couple of airhead CA types decide to sort of bail on the big bucks and the system; crossing the country in vegas the simpering, cutey-pie wife morphs into a hysteric who loses all their money at the tables; then she berates him for being mad about it, for even mentioning it; she becomes so peeved she also gets into a car and goes off with another guy; nice; but the almost eunuch pursues, is beat up by the new guy, and simmers as she laughs at her husband for his general ineptness and cowardliness with her boyfriend of the minute; now a full eunuch brooks finally gets them to nyc where he takes the same old job with a 31% salary cut, and still with the simpering wife who lost all their money; it's all brooks, which is sometimes brilliant, sometimes needing an editor; but no way it's a lighthearted long, long trailer type trials and tribulations as lucy and desi find out what's most important.
We have all wanted to do it.At one time or another we have all wanted to flee our drab,bottomless pit lives to see and discover the world.It's a very tempting idea.Fortunately,what we learn from films like Lost in America is that Winnebagos don't run on faith.Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty teach us this lesson well,making us laugh at them,as well as ourselves when we picture ourselves in their position.When it comes to comedies,I tend to lean more toward the slapstick side of things.It's the way I have always been,but Lost in America gives us laughs and teaches us a lesson at the same time,making it worth seeing again..
Along with Defending Your Life, and of course, Real Life, Brooks is an absolute master at dry, subtle humor.When this movie came out, I was about ten years away from being the "right" age to blow up at my boss, drop out and live free like in Easy Rider.
Once they hit their financial nadir, they look for jobs, work them for one day, and the film ends with a cop-out minutes later.Sorry to forward-project, but I was a GREAT admirer of Brooks' "Defending Your Life".
It ranks among the works of Preston Sturges in terms of sheer comic invention.Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty are a Los Angeles yuppie couple who are happily married but feel stuck in the go-go 1980s decade of shallow materialism.
they liquidate their assets, buy a mobile home and ride off "just like Easy Rider" into America, to find themselves and "touch Indians".One thing about Brooks' comedy style: it is brutally, brutally cynical.
Brooks is in a class by himself.I happen to relish his droll wit, and there are many scenes in this movie that I look forward to watching every time I rerun it, which is about twice a year.
One of the best comedies ever...I crack up every time I see the part where he's working as the crossing guard and sniffs the leather inside the luxury car which stops & asks for directions...It's a cruel reversal from Lester Burnham in "American Beauty"...as Kevin Spacey's character really wants to experience minimum wage employment again (to spite his wife), but Albert Brooks' David Howard has hit the skids because of his dim-witted spouse.
And yet, he sucks it up and makes it work in the end because he still loves her...Ain't love grand!The fact that America never embraced Albert Brooks' films is a crying shame....
This film is like a joke that doesn't make you laugh when you hear it but that gets funnier and funnier as time goes on and you find yourself in situations that remind you of this movie.
He takes his suppressed wife along with him, and just like that, without anyone really noticing, "Lost In America" is off to the races.Since every one of Albert Brooks' films are damn near perfect(with the exception of his 1999 clunker, "The Muse"), it is silly to call this his best film.
The subplots are a little more than quick, sketch-like detours, leaving the central story of what actually happens when responsible people drop out to fill the screen for all ninety-one minutes of neurotic bliss.The smartest thing Brooks could have done was to make it appear as if this was a movie about two people with a lot of money and a Winnebago travelling across country, encountering hijinks along the way.
David Howard (played by Albert Brooks) and his wife, Linda Howard (played by Julie Hagerty) have the good life and everything that goes with it and are just about to move into their California dream house.
"Lost in America" is a very funny comedy about a married couple that decide to quit their jobs by a motorhome and hit the open road.
Every couple of three years, I have to rent this movie simply to live vicariously through an on-the-job twist that Brooks' character encounters and his hilarious and wonderful reaction to it.
A friend turned me on to LOST IN AMERICA a few years ago and nothing I've seen since has compared - in any way, shape or form.Basic outline: A successful, middle-aged couple from New York gather up their nest egg and decide to drop out of society.
The lead actor also directs and most of the scenes in the film go on too long and are far too self-indulgent and are not very funny.The story is: A company executive thinks he will get promoted but does not and in a huff decides to leave his well paid job and take his wife and to do an "Easy Rider" across America in a trailer.Our executive is not the type to do that kind of thing being basically a greedy self centred person, and he soon discovers the errors of his ways, but the film ending is vague and unsatisfactory.
I do like Albert Brooks, and there were moments of genuine hilarity in "Lost in America"...
There's a great deal of potential for humor in Brooks and Hagerty's situation, but a lot of it gets lost in its underlying bleakness.Worse, structurally this film is a MESS (and to explain this involves revealing the ending, so be warned).
A husband (the obnoxious Albert Brooks) and wife (the charming Julie Hagerty) in their 30s decide to quit their jobs, live as free spirits and cruise America in a Winnebago.Although this film is praised by critics and the AFI, I found it to just be so-so.
Brooks, for whatever reason, just does not appeal to me as a lead.Some scenes are amusing, and I like the recurring references to "Easy Rider", but this is not the sort of movie I could see myself watching a second or third time..
This movie focuses on two yuppies (Brooks, Julie Hagerty) who have tired of their lifestyle and decide to take to the road in a Winnebago a la "Easy Rider." First Hagerty loses all their money at blackjack, which precipitates Brooks' hilarious "nest egg" speech.
If you've never seen an Albert Brooks movie--and if you're like much of America, you've never had this treat--this is a great primer.
When David Howard (Brooks), the creative director for one of the largest advertising agencies in the world, fails to get the promotion he's `waited his whole life for,' he quits his job (`Well, I got fired, but it's the same thing'), then convinces his wife, Linda (Julie Hagerty), to do the same.
Among the most memorable are the ones with Michael Greene (As David's boss), when he informs David that instead of a promotion he's being transferred to New York to work on their latest acquisition, Ford (`We got trucks, too.'); one with Garry Marshall (As a casino manager in Las Vegas); and finally, the scene in which David explains the concept of the `nest egg' to Linda, which has to be, historically, one of the classic comedy scenes of all time.
Lost in America shows that Albert Brooks is a unique individual, who can tell a realistic story with dialogue and structure that are just as quirky as his character, David Howard.
While most of the film force feeds the importance of living life by your own terms (especially with too many references to Easy Rider) David getting his "executive" job back at the end shows that, as I have read somewhere before, financial stability can equal emotional stability at times..
After Julie Hagerty's character loses the entire nest egg in their first stop in Vegas, I couldn't watch the movie anymore and I walked out by the time they got to the Grand Canyon.I don't know if it was just my disappointment at Albert Brooks' use of such an obvious situational device as the loss of all the money to set up the rest of the film, or my own sense of unquenchable murderous rage at the wife for having been so weak and stupid to lose every dime and completely undermine the rest of their lives, but I could not watch another frame of this movie, and have not gone back to it to this day.
'Lost in America' is a largely overlooked comedic gem of a movie, directed by and starring the intermittently brilliant comedian Albert Brooks.
'Lost in America' finds David Howard (Brooks) expecting a big promotion at the ad agency where he works.
Son of a bitch, that was some ending.Albert Brooks' "Lost in America" takes two middle-class yuppies (Brooks and Julie Hagerty) and sends them out on the open road to "find themselves".
It's what julie hagerty says to her husband albert brooks after she, in one evening, gambles away their life's savings right after they quit their jobs to retire in their RV!!This is a very funny show about how everything goes wrong in the world.
Yuppies Albert Brooks & Julie Hagerty decide to drop out of society, buy a Winnebago and hit the road.
As Albert Brooks's character, David Howard, consistenly asks, "Have you ever seen Easy Rider?" Basically, he and his wife just pick up and head off to get away from it all and they think they've got their "roughing" it epiphany all planned out. |
tt1440266 | Pina | The film presents extracts from some of the most noted dance pieces by Pina Bausch in the Tanztheater ("dance theater") style of which Bausch was a leading exponent. The extracts are from four pieces: Le sacre du printemps (The Rite of Spring), Café Müller, Kontakthof, and Vollmond. These are complemented with interviews and further dance choreographies, which were shot in and around Wuppertal, Germany; the film includes scenes showing the Wuppertal Schwebebahn, an elevated railway, and some dance sequences take place inside its carriages.
In the first piece, Le sacre du printemps (Frühlingsopfer, The Rite of Spring) (1975), the dancers of the Tanztheater Wuppertal, separated into male and female groups, move about a stage covered by a thick layer of peat.
The following section, Café Müller (1978), portrays a café Pina often visited when she was a child. In a simple setting consisting of some tables and chairs and doors, a small woman dressed in white is entering the café. Two more women, one of whom is obviously blind, appear. They hesitate to step further, as the tables and chairs are obstructing their way. Two men come around and try to remove these barriers. Eventually the blind woman and one of the men stand face to face. The second woman wraps her arms around the other men, but she slips. This part repeats and seems to remain in a loop.
The next piece, Kontakthof, (Kontakt "contact" + Hof "court, courtyard", hence "contact court, courtyard of contact") was performed multiple times for Wenders' cameras, with groups of different generations: teenagers, middle-aged dancers, and dancers over 65. Bausch had choreographed these three variants as Kontakthof – Mit Teenagern ab 14 (2008), Kontakthof (1978), and Kontakthof – Mit Damen und Herren ab 65 (2000). The film edits these performances into one, cutting between different performers to highlight their different abilities.
In the final piece, Vollmond (2006) (Vollmond, "full moon"), the stage is flooded. The scenery consists of one large rock and some chairs. At the end of the film, the actors face the audience on a small path with a brown coal mining region in the background to an open end. | boring | train | wikipedia | At moments I was moved nearly to tears, I wanted to answer the question Pina reportedly put often to her dancers, "what do you long for," with the answer "beauty—and this could serve for now." I saw this tonight at Vancouver International Film Festival in 3D on the strength of its description and Wenders being the director and I'm very glad I did.
Though normally I don't care for cars or driving, in the wake of the dance spirit invoked in this film, I revelled in freedom of movement—in movement itself—at first hand in my own body and at a remove, in the things around me.
So my thoughts on this film probably won't have any interest to you if you are already a dance fan or a dancer or a fan of Pina Bausch in particular.
But if, like me, you have heard that this is a visual feast of a film, or just that it is a Wim Wenders documentary, and are wondering whether to go see it for those reasons, this might help you decide.I was a reluctant viewer because it was clear from the beginning that I still didn't 'get' it - what did it all mean?
In this rather commercial context, Wim Wenders seems to be first « classical filmmaker » to use it for artistic purposes, that is as an adequate medium to render the complexity of Pina Bausch's choreography.
Preceding Wender's documentaries really showed the in and out of things : Tokyo-Ga revealed the paradoxical legacy of Ozu, and the Buena Vista Social Club the spontaneous life of the homonymous music band.
Strangely enough a 3-D film only reveals a one-dimensional image of Pina Bausch : an unaccessible goddess, far away from the livings, and far away from the living person she was.My final statement : an overlong documentary, but, probably, the cinematic experiment of the year.
Beautifully composed piece of art to remember Pina Bausch and contemporary dance with..
Whether Wender's work is considered a film, eulogy or a documentary, I can say that I have never felt so much for a production of moving pictures before that I would feel the necessity to express my thoughts through written words.I have a great passion for dance and used to practice it a lot more a few years ago.
Not very much of replicas either to explain in clear words why or if the different pieces are linked together, and definitely nothing to tell about Pina Bausch's private life.
Pina's art is shown piece by piece in the film featuring choreographies and performing arts carried out by her closest dancers in different milieux.
It expresses diversity and unity at the same time, gives life to poetry and most remarkably, making music visible in a way that I have not seen in a film before.
It describes relationships between men and women, young and old, human and nature, along with senses of loneliness, yearning, passion, pain and joy mixed with a dose of subtle humour.And they are all performed by a group of highly skillful professionals of different ages, nationalities and languages, whom sometimes, through open monologues, give us an insight on Pina's character.
Not only do they reach out to touch by movements, but also through empathy and facial expressions of compassion, making them very credible actors/actresses.To sum up: If you can deal with lack of dialogues without getting bored, make sure then to have some understanding about dance, or a general interest in art and scenography to truly appreciate this film.
Watching the film, this is what I get the sense Pina accomplished: she allowed empty space around these people, not over-directing, not explaining every gesture, perhaps not even communicating a whole point or story, reflecting this in the actually sparse surroundings she prepared around them, so at her smallest hint they poured into that space their own spontaneous being.
It is a tribute to the late German choreographer, Pina Bausch, as her dancers perform her most famous creations.I am not familiar with modern dance, so why not watch one of the best at work.
I probably didn't miss anything, but who knows.The film has very little in the way of dialog; an occasional reflection by her dancers, and focuses on performances of her most famous pieces.
But I swear the effects seem remarkably natural.I was agape throughout the scene where one dancer in a serene industrial site shows a couple of cuts of meat to us and shouts 'veal!' before dancing on her tiptoes for what seemed like forever.
This film isn't exclusively for dance lovers; it's for admirers of culture.Although I would find a second viewing of Pina to be quite taxing, I have no trouble in recommending it to anyone.
For the critics, that say that 3d made the some characters seem too clean, almost virtual, and the background sometimes blurry, this is a movie (not a documentary in fact), a Wenders movie, not a live Bausch dance performance.
For those of you not immersed in the dance world, Pina is a movie about German choreographer Pina Bausch, who recently died at the age of 68.
I feel so inspired and so thankful to have a person like Pina Bausch pave the way in the art I'm so passionate about..
I have been to many dance performances from classical to modern, and this is great.The documentary/eulogy starts of with music by Stravinsky, Rights of Spring to build a spring board to extraordinary film making.Dance excerpts are interspersed with silent head shot interviews with v.o. of the dancers.
I went to see this last night, and though I barely retained my sanity to the end, there were many times I wanted to go screaming from the movie theater.Most of the film is filled with weirdly interpretive dance sequences that were crazy enough to make you want to bang your head against a wall (some of the dancers actually did that during dances), but maybe it wouldn't have been so horrible if we were told what they were supposed to be interpreting.
I discussed it with one other person (there were only four of us in the entire theater) and I said to her that "Okay, she wasn't crazy because these people swore loyalty to her for so many years, but from these dances...no, she was crazy." Let me give you a few examples...A dancer comes out with two pieces of meat, and yells, "This is veal!" And then she dances for several minutes with the veal in her ballet slippers.One male dancer is walking along and another places a branch on his right shoulder, then another on a left shoulder, crux of the elbow, and so on, until he has several balanced on different parts of his body.A female carries a pillow on a real subway, making monstrous noises with every step, while a make dancer sits at the back of the subway car wearing some kind of weird animal-type ears.One female dancer carries a potted tree on her back around a lake.
If you like modern dance you'll see this film and enjoy it.
I didn't know much about her going into the film and unfortunately I knew just as little leaving the theatre."Pina" is less a documentary than a montage of tributes to her memory, performed affectionately by members of her academy past and present.
The sense of depth is powerful and involving for the audience, making them feel like they are in the midst of the dancers as they twirl, sweat, leap and thrash about the stage.The imagery is stark, painterly and epic at times, most notably in extracts from the dark, primal piece "The Rite Of Spring" in which the dancers' anguished, fearful expressions tell a hundred stories.
By the time the scene of the woman getting soil shovelled on her back arrived, I felt sufficiently numb enough to walk out, which I would've done had my dancer friends not been sitting bug eyed with rapt attention either side of me.I think had Wenders given a more honest investigation into Pina's life and perhaps left the more bizarre and uninspiring tribute clips as DVD extras, it might've been a better film.
Apparently German filmmaker Wenders had for decades planned such an exposure of Pina Bausch.She surely is a banquet of a soul, and any film that captures morsels would be worth it.
Wim Wenders was planning a film about Pina Bausch before her sudden death from cancer in 2010, so the film that he has made has become a loving tribute to one of the most innovative choreographers of the 20th century.
Wenders offers the dancers their chance to say how Pina got them to perform -some say nothing but express their thoughts in dance, often in the streets or on the overhead train in Wuppertal where Pina's theatre was based.
I haven't seen the 3D version but I have to say the dancing is superb, and while the primary focus is on the works rather than the person, Pina emerges as an intense, difficult, but loving person who generated equally intense loyalty among the members of her company.
Wenders own impeccable artistic integrity has produced one of the best films about dance, and one of the best documentaries ever made..
They laughed all the way home at how horridly bad the movie was and were shocked at what some call art.We knew little about Pina going in, but when we left we were convinced of one thing, anyone who considers the person who created those dances as anything other than a goofball is an idiot.Do yourself a favor, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!.
My good friend Riet was the course leader and I remember (this is about 35 years ago) her talking about this German choreographer woman Pina Bausch.
Ms Bausch sadly passed away two years ago just before a film about her work and life was about to start shooting by Wim Wenders.
Though I am a bit of a fan of Wim Wenders, which is why I watched this film when it came on Sky Arts, I was rather more sceptical amount watching a documentary about modern dance and its creator.What did surprise and quietly amaze me, was, how different the pieces of dance were; all short and diverse and superbly filmed.
I'm not familiar with Pina Bausch, nor in fact could I name any choreographers associated with modern dance, in fact.
He also has made quite a reputation for himself in the documentary sphere, which adds respect to all he does now - you know that a project chosen by him will be treated with passion, enthusiasm and proficiency.To me, learning about Pina Bausch was very much secondary and the film catered for this, which I, personally thought best.
But, for lovers of modern dance and Pina Bausch, then I'm sure it must be..
The interviews with the dancers themselves showed a love and respect for the subject of the movie, Pina Bausch, but we found out precious little about her which was disappointing.
I was thinking about these dreams while watching the dancers whirling and spinning with abandonment in Pina, Wim Wenders' 3-D extraordinary documentary tribute to the late dance choreographer Pina Bausch.
In a humorous piece that takes place on a monorail, one dancer has a confrontation with a pillow while another sits in the back seat with two large rabbit ears on his head.While we learn little about Pina's personal life or her interpretation of the dances she has created, the dances speak for themselves and do so in a way that is both aesthetically appealing and spiritually resonant.
A beautiful tribute to Pina Bausch, a German dancer choreographer who pioneered the modern dance genre.
The film consists of Pina's troupe of dancers performing several of her dances on stage and in real world settings.
The Works of Pina Bausch as Seen by Wim Wenders.
When Pina Bausch died unexpectedly, without the dancer and choreographer by his side (as he projected the film since the 1980s), the end result is only fair.
Yet I would not tell anyone not to see Wender's film: more for dance reasons than for cinematic value, «Pina» is a registry of the work of a great artist, of a daughter of two centuries.
this only thing that this film gave me is the dancers, male or female, did a very forceful dancing, so powerful yet so manipulatively untrue to the stage by the stravinsky animal-like cursing tune and tempo.
This movie is supposed to be a tribute to dead choreographer Pina Bausch by her dancers.
Reading some the interviews that Wim Wenders gave about Pina I learned that this film ended to be something quite different from what the director originally intended.
While fascinated a long time by Pina Bausch's creation and especially Cafe Muller, Wenders could not find for a long time the appropriate means of expression to make a film about it.
The result is a film which is unique in its way, hard to enter in any category, a good example actually of how relative and futile categories are.What we get on screen is a portrait and a homage to Pina Bausch.
While Wim Wenders authored many documentaries about music or history of cinema, this film is not the usual documentary, neither is it a biography (no chronology, no theoretical analysis of her work), but a portrait of an artist who was among the few who revolutionized her discipline, a portrait assembled from testimonies from the dancers who worked with her (although some say no words) and most of all by her art as it was filmed and brought to screen.
Maybe the best description I found is the one in the German sub-title of the movie - a Tanzfilm, a Dance Movie.There are indeed a great deal of beautifully filmed ballet scenes, in different environments, and here we see the hand of a master director, as almost all required innovation in building the sets and making them look like belonging to a cinema event, not to a filmed performance.
Wenders succeeds here to work the synthesis, and Pina is both a ballet performance of first class and a cinema event combining the best of the two arts and amplifying it by the power of 3D.
In several scenes in the film we see Pina Bausch during repetitions mixing with the dancers, watching and talking with them, working together as a team.
Fascinating Work of Art. Wim Wenders fantastic documentary tributed to world-renowned choreographer Pina Bausch has a wild kinetic energy to it, and through it's brilliance, it's irresistible.
More performance art than dance, the genius of Pina is matched perfectly by Wenders' crafty filmmaking.
One can't help but wonder how differently this documentary would have turned out had its subject, Pina Bausch, not passed away from cancer just days before filming commenced.
dancing from those who brought her work to life.Director Wim Wenders had planned for years to document Ms. Bausch and her fascinating interpretative dance company.
The dances are brought to life for the first time without Pina's direction.
Along with these pieces, are short snippets of interviews with her dancers and further dance routines shot around Wuppertal, Germany.Wenders was originally set to make a documentary on the German choreographer.
Even more that it is filmed in 3D which allows us to communicate to Pina Bausch' Art in the most direct and satisfactory way.
Wenders understands that completely, paying respect to her unexpected death, as well as the fact that if Pina had been alive, by the time of the filming, he could have made a completely different documentary than the one he delivered to us.
It was nominated at the BAFTAs (Foreign Language Film) and Oscars (Documentary) and was famous filmmaker Wim Wenders' tribute to the late dancer and dance choreographer Pina Bausch.
The film basically consists of interviews with Bausch, her dancers and also many dance scenes.
I've seen some plays of Pina's work and also heard about her in my drama classes, thus I decided to watch this movie to better understand her life, her achievements, in short, to know her better.
I'm kidding, but this dance choreographer takes her art above and beyond the avant- garde, maybe.I especially like the one dancer with the leaf blower.
No matter how bad what these two friends say is, it is astonishing how much of what Kael mentions, stand for this film; so when in the end Bausch urges for more and more dance, "otherwise we will perish," this, in Wenders' hands, sounds like amateurish self-righteousness and unwilling parody.
Beyond this Wenders makes no attempt to contextualise Bausch's work, his choice of filming the dances adds little to Pina's choreography (it often detracts!), and often the objects, sets and "metaphors" he adds to her routines are clunky and simplistic, like his use of industrial girders, rolling vehicles and big window panes.
Voice over adulations directed at Pina from her dancers lend the film an overly referential tone, the choreographer sanctified to such an extent that her dances almost cease to speak for themselves.
The film was shot in 3D, a technology most typically find annoying, but like fellow German Werner Herzog ("Cave of Forgotten Dreams"), Wenders makes the technology work, his camera weightlessly skirting above and around the dance troupe.
But of course Pina is a contemporary, Modern dancer (her work wasn't even primarily about dance).
I never saw her live again after that and though I love contemporary dance I never found any modern dance ensemble as moving as what I had seen from Pina Bausch.
And Wenders succeeded in even making Wuppertal look beautiful (Quite an achievement!).Many of the dance scenes are filmed in the middle of Wuppertal or inside their famous Schwebebahn (sort of a monorail).
Imagine one moment one of Pina's dancer would have danced that role. |
tt0048773 | The Vanishing American | The film opens long ago in Monument Valley, after tribes of Native Americans have defeated other ancient cliff dwellers; afterwards, Europeans arrived to conquer the Native Americans. Later, in the early 20th Century, a tribe of Navajo are living on a reservation overseen by an individual who hates Native Americans, named Booker. He and his men steal the best Native American's horses for their own profit. Nophaie, a tribal leader, complains to Booker's superiors, but he is unable to gain fair treatment from the whites. When World War I breaks out, Army Captain Earl Ramsdale comes west in search of the horses that Booker was supposed to have bought from the Natives for a fair price. Marian Warner, the teacher at the Native American School, befriended Nophaie, teaching him to read; she convinces him that the Great War is a fight for a more just world, and that, when that world comes, the Native Americans will be treated better. Nophaie, not only brings horses for the Army, he and many others enlist, and distinguish themselves in battle. But when they come back after the war is over, they find life for the Native Americans even worse than when had they left. When they go on the warpath, Nophaie rides to warn the Whites. Nophaie and Booker die in the fighting, and Nophaie's sole comfort is dying in the arms of Marion, whom he loved. The film is a mixture of contradictory stereotypes that aims to show its viewers the subjugation of the Native American people during the time of World War I. Nophaie and his people ultimately come to realize that their traditional ways of life may be coming to an end. They also note that there is an equal place for them within White America. | murder | train | wikipedia | A spirited woman comes to the defense of exploited native -americans. Marion Warner (Audrey Totter) inherits property in Navaho country controlled by ruthless Indian agent Morgan (Forrest Tucker) and his henchman Glendon (Jim Davis). Because the property is a source of water in this arid country, Morgan covets it. He also covets a young Indian girl whom he has imprisoned at the agency. When Marion uses her skill with a six-shooter to help the girl escape, Morgan plots to kill her as well as swindle her out of her property. Meeting up with the rebellious Navaho Blandy (Scott Brady). Marion is drawn to him both as an ally and as a man. Together they attempt to save the Navauo, Zane Gray's Vanishing Americans. Along with her role as Adrienne Fromett in the film adaptation of Raymond Chandler's "The Lady in the Lake", this is one of Miss Totter:s best performances and gives this offbeat western it's zest.. Interesting Zane Grey adaptation ....... Zane Grey was a prolific & beloved author of many of the finest western novels ever. Screen adaptations of his works have had a spotty history, but this film is worth a closer look.Scott Brady, Forrest Tucker and Lee Van Cleef stand out in this interesting western saga. Tucker in particular was under-appreciated during his career. This film helps remind the viewer how good he really could be, when given a classic story and a plumb role.Along with Riders Of The Purple Sage, this was my favorite Zane Grey story. While a bigger budget would have helped, this film still captures some of the charm of the famed novel. Slightly above-average.. Budget seems too low for the story, by Zane Grey. The title might make you think of a Flaherty classic but this is a remake of a 1925 film based on a Zane Grey story. The 1925 film had a Darwinian message about survival of the fittest, but this 1955 version is intent on showing the misery, hardship and bravery of the Navajos. Unfortunately the budget seems too low for the story and even having Alan Le May (The Searchers, The Unforgiven, among others) writing the screenplay cannot save the film. The probable use of stock footage makes it confusing. It is interesting to see Navajos instead of the usual (but still present here) Apaches, and Sioux. Good performance of Audrey Totter and one can notice a young Lee Van Cleef. Unusual for the time it was released, was showing Forrest Tucker (Morgan) trying to rape Marion (Audrey Totter) also Morgan's relationship with Yashi (Gloria Castillo).. Enjoyable Zane Grey Adaptation. "The Vanishing American" is a Zane Grey story about the plight of the Navajo Indians in the early 20th century.Tough as nails Marion Warner (Audrey Totter) inherits a piece of land in an unnamed part of the south west. The land includes a strategic water hole that is vital to all of the surrounding area. At first she plans to run the Indians off the land and directs unscrupulous Indian Agent Blucher (Gene Lockhart) to see to it. Blucher is merely a puppet for local town boss Morgan (Forrest Tucker) who has plans of his own.Marion meets Blandy (Scott Brady) an educated Navajo who soon shows her the plight that faces his people. Marion meanwhile befriends the Navajo girl Yashi (Gloria Castillo) whom Morgan has "taken unto himself" and plans to help her escape. Blandy meanwhile has a run in with Morgan and his henchmen Glendon (Jim Davis) and Jay Lord (Lee Van Cleef) and winds up burning Morgan's store to the ground. (The scene of the burning store is lifted directly from "Johnny Guitar" (1954)). This all leads to the inevitable confrontation between the bad guys and the Indians."The Vanishing American" was directed by Republic's workaholic director Joe Kane. As was the norm in his pictures there's plenty of action and a fast moving story line. The aforementioned fire sequence with its fight scene and the battle sequences are well staged. I did feel however, that there were far too many night scenes.Scott Brady surprised me with his controlled performance as Blandy. Gunslinging Audrey Totter was excellent in the female lead showing both toughness and vulnerability. Tucker as always, makes a formidable villain. Unfortunately Davis and Van Cleef are given little to do other than obey Tucker's orders.In addition to those previously mentioned, the cast included Charlie Stevens as a renegade Apache, James Millican as a U.S. Marshal, Glenn Strange (sans mustache) as the Navajo chief and Hank Worden and Francis J. McDonald in other minor roles.Previously filmed as a silent in 1925 with Richard Dix and Lois Wilson in the leads. |
tt3136146 | Midnight Delight | Midnight Delight is an American anthology film set in a smoking lounge. It features nine vignettes of comedy, wit and reality that follows strangers in high spirits, crossing paths during nights of exploration. These curious visitors reflect on daily existence, societal curiosities, and along the way demystify the status quo conversing about various topics. Discussion includes topics varying from “why do we talk” to “what do models eat”, “if water makes us fat”, to “if dolphins could be the reason for the inception of the entire universe or its destruction” moving to even hats, moisturizer, maths, infinity, working out at the gym, dating games and health supplements.
Vignettes composition as follows:
=== High how are you ===
Features Michael Laguerre, John Crann (topics include hats, moisturizer).
=== Awakening ===
Features Dipti Mehta, Rachel Myers (topics include maths, infinity).
=== Epiphanation ===
Features Shaheed Woods, Michele Ann Suttile (topics include Why do we talk, What do models eat, If water makes us fat, dolphins).
=== Alone Together ===
Features Adit Dileep, Sofia Siva (topics include courting insights)
=== Still here? ===
Features Michael Laguerre, John Crann.
=== Hi...? ===
Features Bill McCrea, Maggie Alexander (as personal trainers.)
=== How high are you ===
Features Michael Laguerre, John Crann.
=== Introspecting ===
Features Joshua E.
=== illusion or Reality ===
Features Michael Laguerre, Alexandra Hellquist as an aspiring actress. | cult, comedy, satire, philosophical, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0095556 | Lucky Stiff | Prologue
Ten characters in a quasi-Greek Chorus inform the audience of the zany plot's twists to come. One of them, a man wearing dark glasses and silk pyjamas, is murdered (Something Funny's Going On).
Act I
English shoe salesman Harry Witherspoon spends his Friday night taking inventory in a shoe shop, dreaming of a better life. Arriving at his shabby apartment, run by a mean-spirited landlady, he receives a telegram summoning him to a solicitor's office (Mr. Witherspoon's Friday Night). There, Harry learns that Anthony Hendon, an American uncle that he never met, has left him six million dollars. However, to receive the estate, Harry must take the corpse of his Uncle Anthony on an all-expenses paid "vacation" to Monte Carlo. Uncle Anthony's embalmed body is in a wheelchair and has been dressed to appear alive. Harry must fulfill the tasks specified by his uncle's will, or the money will go to his uncle's favorite charity, the Universal Dog Home of Brooklyn. Harry reluctantly accepts the terms of the will. He travels to Monte Carlo with the cassette tape that contains his instructions, a mysterious heart-shaped box, and his uncle's corpse in the wheelchair.
Meanwhile, in Atlantic City, optometrist Vinnie DiRuzzio is suddenly visited by his distressed, legally blind sister Rita LaPorta. She shows him a news article: "English shoe salesman has inherited six million dollars from his casino manager uncle." Rita tells Vinnie that due to her poor eyesight she accidentally shot her lover Tony. Tony was the manager of her husband Nicky's casino, and she had suspected that Tony was cheating on her. Rita explains that, with the help of Tony, she embezzled six million dollars worth of diamonds from her husband. The heart-shaped box that contained the diamonds has disappeared. She also confesses that she has blamed this embezzlement on Vinnie, and so her husband Nicky has placed a contract on Vinnie's life. They fly to France to find Harry and retrieve the diamonds before Rita's husband kills Vinnie (Rita's Confession).
On the train to Monte Carlo, Harry meets Luigi Gaudi, a flashy Italian, who offers to be his tour guide. Harry notices that a mysterious young woman is glaring at him and diligently taking notes (Good to Be Alive). He arrives in Monte Carlo with his uncle. Although frustrated that he must fulfill many painstakingly specific tasks to gain his inheritance, he ultimately reasons that he is "lucky" to be there (Lucky). When he sees the young woman from the train following him, he confronts her. Her name is Annabel Glick, a representative of the Universal Dog Home of Brooklyn, and she earnestly attempts to convince Harry to donate his uncle's money to the Dog Home. Harry hates dogs, due to his scarring experiences with his landlady's vicious dogs, and flatly refuses. Annabel notes that Harry must finish every task required by the will and that she is recording his every move to make sure that he executes flawlessly all of the conditions. Harry knows that if he makes one mistake, she will take charge of his uncle, finish the trip, and claim the estate. Harry vows to persevere (Dogs vs. You).
Vinnie and Rita arrive in Nice, France. While Rita telephones hotels in Monte Carlo to find where Harry is staying, Vinnie telephones his wife. Vinnie informs her that he will not be home for dinner because he has been forced to travel to Monte Carlo to save his life; she angrily hangs up (The Phone Call). Rita finds Harry's hotel and books two rooms down the hall from his. Meanwhile, Harry and his uncle, doggedly pursued by Annabel, spend the day traveling around Monte Carlo doing what is required in the will, buying new clothes, gambling, visiting museums, skydiving, fishing and scuba diving (A Day Around Town (Dance)).
That night Harry, Annabel and Luigi go to a glamorous nightclub where the glitzy Emcee declares Monte Carlo a place for "lovers in love". He mistakes Harry and Annabel for a couple on their honeymoon (Monte Carlo!). The Emcee then introduces the voluptuous singer and dancer Dominique du Monaco to the crowd. She sings a flamboyant cabaret number and has everybody in the nightclub bumping (Speaking French). After her performance Dominique speaks to Harry and tells him that his uncle has arranged for the two them to spend many hours together that night. Dominique sits next to Harry and teaches him a continental toast. Annabel, thoroughly out of her element in the nightclub, recalls the comfort that only a dog can bring (Times Like This). Dominique exits the nightclub with Harry; Annabel follows. The Emcee lauds the romantic merits of Monte Carlo (Monte Carlo! (reprise)).
While Harry is having fun in the casino, Rita, now disguised as a maid, searches Harry's hotel room for the diamonds. Vinnie is nervous and soon leaves. Harry returns to the hotel room with Uncle Anthony; Rita hides in the closet. Harry leaves the corpse in the room and returns to the casino to continue gambling, closely followed by Annabel. Rita, squinting from the closet, can barely make out the shape of the man in the wheelchair. She steps out to face who she believes to be her still-living lover, Tony. After begging his forgiveness and declaring her continued love for him, she kisses his cold hand and discovers that he is dead (Fancy Meeting You Here). Harry is on a winning streak at the casino due to Tony's friend's infallible system for winning at roulette. Rita, now livid, arrives at the casino armed with a gun and Tony's corpse. She threatens to kill Harry unless he hands over the diamonds (Act I Finale: Good to Be Alive).
Interlude
The cast as a Greek Chorus briefly reminds the audience of where they left off (Something Funny's Going On (reprise))
Act II
Annabel and Harry, with Uncle Anthony in tow, escape from Rita. In the ensuing fracas, Rita's gun accidentally goes off as her brother tries to restrain her. Rita turns the crowd on Vinnie and pursues Harry. Chaos ensues as Harry and Annabel try to hide from Rita and protect Uncle Anthony. A drunken maid mistakes Uncle Anthony for a pile of laundry and wheels him away. Annabel, Harry, Rita and Vinnie then frantically attempt to locate one another, the heart-shaped box, and the missing corpse. During Vinnie's search, he encounters the shapely Dominique du Monaco. She is most interested in his search for the diamonds (Him, Them, It, Her).
Unable to locate Uncle Anthony, Annabel and Harry return to Harry's room. Several people attempt to earn a cash reward by bringing people in wheelchairs into the room. None is Uncle Anthony. Giving up the search, Harry and Annabel open a bottle of Anthony's Dom Perignon and let down their guard. Annabel makes a toast to Harry and herself, saying that it was "nice" suffering through the week with him. Their relationship mellows as they finish the bottle (Nice).
That night in bed, Harry has a terrible nightmare. Everyone is half dog and half human ... his landlady maliciously welcomes him back to his depressing life as a shoe salesman ... Rita threatens him with a machine gun ... Luigi and Annabel taunt him for his failure to fulfill the terms of the will. Harry's dead uncle gets out of his wheelchair and tap dances while everyone else forms a ghastly kickline (Welcome Back, Mr. Witherspoon). Harry wakes up horrified to find Annabel in bed next to him. They are both shocked to find themselves together in a state of undress. Miraculously, the drunken maid enters the bedroom with Uncle Anthony. Harry and Annabel exchange a quick moment of joy before becoming embarrassed again. Annabel, now antagonistic towards Harry, goes to the bathroom to get dressed, and Harry mulls over the situation (A Woman in My Bathroom).
As Annabel is about to leave, Rita bursts into the room, gun in hand. She is now wearing her glasses and realizes that the corpse is not her lover Tony, but a dead stranger; she then demands the heart-shaped box from Harry and Annabel. They refuse to give in to her demands. With nowhere to hide, Harry and Annabel huddle together in fear, expecting to be shot dead (Nice (reprise)). Luigi Gaudi enters the room and proclaims that he is the real Uncle Anthony. He explains that his best friend (the dead man in the chair and the real Luigi Gaudi) was murdered by Rita and that he sent Harry to Monte Carlo in order to give his dead friend one last chance to experience Monte Carlo, in accordance with Luigi's dying wishes (Confession #2 (reprise)). Anthony reveals that the six million dollars in diamonds is actually sewn inside the corpse. The heart-shaped box contains only the heart of the dead Luigi.
Vinnie and Dominique du Monaco burst into the room dressed as maids. Brandishing a gun at everyone, Vinnie tells the group that he plans to start a new life in Europe with Dominique. He demands the diamonds. Rita gladly hands him the heart-shaped box; Vinnie and Dominique exit. Tony gives Annabel Luigi's life savings in the form of a $10,000 cheque made out to the Universal Dog Home of Brooklyn. Tony gives Harry $500 and reminds him that he still has the rest of the week in Monte Carlo; he says the week is prepaid and that Harry has Luigi's infallible roulette system at his disposal. Rita points the gun at Harry and Annabel and backs them into a closet. Rita apologizes to Tony for everything, and Tony forgives her (at gunpoint). Rita and Anthony take the diamond-laden corpse and depart (Fancy Meeting You Here (reprise)).
Harry and Annabel are left alone with each other. Harry locks the door of the hotel room to protect them from any more unwelcome intruders and persuades her to stay with him in Monte Carlo. Harry and Annabel kiss (Act II Finale: Good to Be Alive). | comedy | train | wikipedia | I loved it.
Mind you I seem to be in the minority but the reason i loved this movie is because it is fun and silly.
Whether it was intended to be or not i am not sure.
I guess it depends what you are looking for.
The first time i saw this movie, i was home on the couch late night looking for something to give me a brain break.
This movie fit the bill perfectly.
It is the perfect mindless fluff to watch when you are not wanting to think, giggle a little and not have to follow a story line.
I actually found this site because i have not been able to find a copy of this movie anywhere and only one other person that i know has even ever heard of it.
So if you are looking for brainless fun with a little bit of a twist, sit back and enjoy!.
Cannibalism and incest - in a light tone!.
A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, "every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one" farce and sickie black comedy.
Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless.
There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
Well acted, funny little flick.
Donna Dixon as always looks sexy, Joe Alaskey is funny, Morgan Shepard and Fran Ryan look tough as the parents of Donna, Jeff Kober looks creepy and menacing and Barbara Howard looks scared, but at the same time she is as lovely as Ms Dixon.
The story is about sexy Donna inviting Joe to her hometown where her parents and the rest of her family are craqzy and eat human flesh, there Joe meets Barbara who married one of Donna's many brothers and together they must fight and run for their lives if they don't want to be the main course.
Rent it, you'll laugh a lot..
Tasty treat for fans of Pat Proft (Police Acadamy, Hot Shots, Naked Gun).
As mentioned in the title, this is another story by Pat Proft who has written for all a few serial comedies, including the last two Scary Movie films.
Stop here if you don't like these types of films as you most certainly won't like this movie either!
To be honest, I own both Hot Shot films.
This is not because I love them, it is more that I know that if I need some head cleaner these can do the trick.
Comedies that have crazy plots and over the top characters which won't win Oscars, but should be entertaining enough when the mood is right.Over the years, a few other programs have made direct references to this film.
One was a kids program that re-enacted the 'scary ghost' scenes almost verbatim.
As I was channel surfing, I had no idea what the program was, but needless to say, this film inspires.I first saw Lucky Stiff in parts while on tour in Delaware.
This night had a lot of partying involved, and having this film on was perfect.
For years, me and one of my band mates sought this film.
I finally nailed it down and bought it as a birthday gift.
That copy was lost on a subsequent birthday house fire.Now, with the DVD available, we have it once again and can rejoice in splendor of the quips, gags, and creepiness of this film.
I suggest to those of you who can enjoy the Naked Gun or Hot Shot series to give this one a try.
The DVD is cheap to buy online, so get it before it goes out of print!
I give this a high rating for what it is against those who pan it for not being 'Gone with the Wind' or something of that caliber.
I would truly offer a 6 star rating otherwise..
Directed by...Anthony Perkins?.
Portly nice guy falls for a luscious blonde; she likes him too, but not for the reasons you might think.
Little-seen black comedy from writer Pat Proft features very good performances by Joe Alaskey and Donna Dixon, yet it makes no lasting impact.
It's just a quickie throwaway effort, helmed by Norman Bates himself, Anthony Perkins.
Even on the level of B-comedies, the somewhat-similar "Eating Raoul" is a better bet.
There's definitely an amusing set-up here; unfortunately, the picture has nowhere to go in its second act.
An interesting try, but it misfires.** from ****.
Cannibalism and humour just don't mix in this pitiful comedy.
LUCKY STIFF is probably one of the most unworkable comedies I can remember watching.
The story is about an all-American nuclear family who just so happen to be cannibals.
Hungry for their next feast, they send out their attractive daughter to hunt for suitable villains, and she soon discovers one in the form of the obese and loathsome Ron Douglas.For most of the running time, LUCKY STIFF plays out as a ridiculous romantic comedy with all manner of lame situations and bizarre interludes.
The aim is to deliver something quirky and humorous, but the effect is excruciating; I can't imagine anyone would have found this funny at the time, let alone now.
Joe Alaskey's hammy turn as the lead is embarrassing and at no point do any of the cast members try any form of restraint.Yes, there's a little macabre humour here and there, and some action at the climax, but for the most part LUCKY STIFF is as dull as it is unfunny.
Believe it or not, PSYCHO star Anthony Perkins directed this, which was my main reason for watching; sadly he has about as much interest in the material as the viewer does.
Watch out for THE WALKING DEAD actor Jeff Kober (he played the lead Claimer in the hit zombie show) in an early role..
Worst movie I have ever seen.
When many people say it's the "worst movie I've ever seen", they tend to say that about virtually any movie they didn't like.
However, of the nearly 700 movies I can remember ever seeing this one is one of two that I walked away from feeling personally insulted and angry.
This is my first movie review, by the way, and I registered with IMDb just to rave at this movie's badness.
I went to see it when it was in the theaters (myself and my two buddies were 3 of 5 people there), and after 15 years I can't remember very many specifics, but my attitude upon leaving the theater is still crystal clear.---Spoiler alert---Oh my, where to begin.
Fat loser left at altar, goes on ski weekend, meets blonde bombshell who takes an interest in him, takes him home to meet the family, they're all cannibals and he's the main course, pathetic attempt at a dramatic escape, kicks all their butts and runs off with the brother's girlfriend, they live happily ever after.
Puke.
Firstly, the gags are so bad that it took me a while to understand that they were trying to be FUNNY, and that this was a COMEDY.
The special effects, what few there are, look like they were done 15 years earlier.
The big dramatic ending was so hokey and poorly acted that it was nearly unbearable to watch (he knocks out the entire cannibal family with rakes laying in the lawn, that stand up Tom and Jerry style when they step on them).
I'm sure that there's much, much more, but I have no intention on seeing it again for a refresher..
Horrendous.
So let me start off by saying that I saw this movie as part of a bargain.
I was really bored one fine 1997 day and so I biked over to the movie rental store.
I asked the clerk what the worst movie he had in stock was.
Without hesitation he walked me over to "Lucky Stiff." He told me that he'd waive the $1 rental fee (he said it would be wrong to charge more) if I promised to watch the whole movie.
So watch it I did, for free...This movie is terrible.
God-Awful even.
I don't need to go into plot details, read the other reviews.
The jokes make no sense.
The acting was terrible.
I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but the stupidity of the main character was exhausting.
You might try to watch it as something to laugh at, but it's so bad that it isn't even funny in that way.
Avoid!.
Enjoyable offbeat comedy.
Pudy Ron Douglas (a solid and likable performance by Joe Alaskey) can't believe his luck when he wins over the stunning Cynthia Mitchell (radiantly played with sultry aplomb by ravishing blonde knockout Donna Dixon).
However, Ron doesn't know that Cynthia's kooky backwoods family are really a bunch of cannibals who want to have him for Christmas dinner -- as the main course!
Director Anthony Perkins, working from a witty and quirky script by Pat Proft, nicely milks an amusing line in off-center black humor, relates the loopy story at a zippy pace, and maintains an engaging lightweight tone throughout.
Perkins warrants extra praise for handling the dark and potentially off-putting themes of incest and cannibalism in a pleasant and charming manner.
The wacky members of the Mitchell clan are drawn in colorfully broad strokes.
Moreover, it's acted with zest by an enthusiastic cast, with especially stand-out work from Jeff Kober as the creepy Ike, William Morgan Sheppard as the gruff Pa, Barbara Howard as the sweet Frances, and Leigh McCloskey as shallow arrogant jerk Eric West.
Jacques Haitkin's sharp cinematography gives the picture an attractive bright look.
The spirited score by Tom Jenkins and Mike Tavera keeps things bouncing along.
A real hoot. |
tt0093088 | Ghost Fever | Buford (Sherman Hemsley) and Benny (Luis Ávalos) are two Greendale County, Georgia police officers sent to serve an eviction notice for an historic plantation. Two ghosts named Andrew Lee (Myron Healey), a former owner of the plantation, and Jethro (also played by Hemsley), a former slave, decide to prevent their old home from being foreclosed upon.
While the two officers explore the mansion, Buford discovers a hidden laboratory that was formerly used to experiment upon and torture the plantation slaves. Aggressive supernatural events begin occurring, but Lee and Jethro are confused because they are not responsible for these dangerous acts.
Buford and Benny then find the home's residents: two pretty sisters named Linda (Deborah Benson) and Lisa (Diana Brookes). The ladies explain that they believe their racist dead grandfather is the aggressive ghost. They introduce the men to Madame St. Esprit (Jennifer Rhodes), a spiritual medium who has been called upon to hold a séance. This leads to a supernatural attack involving lightning-like spirit energy.
During the evening and into the night, more ghostly mischief occurs. Jethro comes to realize that the slaves placed a voodoo curse upon their master and turned him into an immortal vampire. The vampire appears and the officers begin encountering zombies on the plantation grounds. Benny manages to kill the vampire by staking him through the heart.
Linda and Lisa reveal that they have been dead for many years and are tied to their house. To save the old plantation, Benny wins a boxing match (with a little help from Lee and Jethro) and uses the prize money to keep the home from going into foreclosure.
As Buford and Benny drive on a rural road at the night, Lee and Jethro kill the officers in a car crash. The ghosts of Buford and Benny happily return to the plantation to spend the after life with Linda and Lisa. | paranormal, plot twist, haunting, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097257 | Earth Girls Are Easy | Three furry aliens—the blue Mac, the yellow Zeebo, and the red Wiploc–are traveling in a space ship. It's been a long time since they've had female companionship, and they receive a broadcast showing human females. They are titillated by these "hairless", shapely creatures, and when they discover that the broadcast came from Earth, they set off and land in Southern California.
Valley Girl Valerie Gail is a manicurist at the "Curl Up & Dye" hair salon. When she feels her cold fiancé Dr. Ted Gallagher is slipping away, she decides to seduce him by dressing up in a white corset, suspenders, underwear, stockings and pink high heels. Instead, she catches him cheating on her with his nurse. She kicks him out and refuses to see him again. The next day, she is sunbathing when the aliens' spaceship crash lands in her pool. She befriends them and calls her friend Woody to come and drain the pool so the aliens can work on their ship and get it flying again. Meanwhile, she brings them into her home; and, though there is a language barrier at first, the aliens prove to be quick learners and absorb American pop culture and language by watching television.
Wanting them to blend into their surroundings, Valerie takes them to her friend Candy Pink at the salon. After shaving off the aliens' fur, they turn out to be human looking and attractive. They all go out; and party at Los Angeles nightclubs where their looks, athleticism, and incredibly long tongues soon make them the envy of every female in the place. Valerie and Mac begin to fall for each other and go back to Valerie's place. There, they find out that they are anatomically compatible and make love.
The next day the pool is drained, and Zeebo and Wiploc are working on their ship when Woody stops by and offers to take them to the beach. They agree; and, after accidentally holding up a convenience store, Zeebo and Wiploc are soon driving down the L.A. Freeway the wrong way, in reverse, with the police in pursuit. Mac finds out his crew mates are in trouble and goes to help and gets arrested along with Woody in a case of mistaken identity. Valerie smashes the police vehicle to get arrested, too, so she can go with Mac.
The police pursuit ends in a crash, and Zeebo and Wiploc are taken to the emergency room. There, they are examined by Ted, who discovers they have two hearts. While he is envisioning achieving fame and fortune from his discovery, Valerie and Mac elude the police and enter the E.R. disguised as a doctor and a nurse; they manage to convince Ted he is delusional. They then escape back to Valerie's place where work continues on the space ship. Meanwhile, Valerie and Ted reconcile and plan to go to Las Vegas to get married right away.
Mac is heartbroken and prepares the ship for take-off. Valerie comes out to say good-bye, followed by Ted, who discovers the ship. While she is struggling to keep him from calling the authorities, Valerie comes to the realization that it's really Mac she loves. She gets in the ship, and they take off. | cult, romantic | train | wikipedia | Former real life Hollywood couple Jeff Goldblum & Geena Davis made 3 films together, two of them comedies, one of them serious.
Then after boldly going where no Hollywood couple had ever gone before in said remake of "The Fly", they returned to light hearted comedy with our film here "Earth Girls Are Easy".I've often theorized that the reason celebrity couples do films together is because it gives them a chance to spend time together and work together (seeing as how the hectic Hollywood schedule tends to keep people apart for long periods of time) and because studios can cash in on the respective fan bases of both stars.
Well, for what it's worth this is a hell of a lot more fun to watch than most celebrity couple films.Anyway, in this their third and final film together, Geena plays a beautiful but romantically unhappy manicurist Valley Girl who's doctor boyfriend Ted is cheating on her and Jeff plays the blue furred ringleader of three furry aliens, the other two being yellow furred Damon Wayans and pre-movie stardom red furred Jim Carrey (with his hair dyed blond!).
Furry aliens Jeff, Jim and Damon crash land in Geena's pool the day after Geena discovers how unfaithful Ted's been and the sight of them understandably throws her for a loop.
With their ship down for repairs the boys will have to stay with Geena and, doing her part for interplanetary relations, takes them to her ditzy manicurist cohort Candy (Julie Brown, who also helped write the film) to give the guys make overs so they can pass for Earthlings.
Geena eventually falls in love with Captain Jeff.In an unrelated subplot that never quite went anywhere, Julie Brown's character fell for Jim Carrey's alien.
Watching this back when it was made, who would have guessed that Jim Carrey would eventually go on to become one of Hollywood's biggest comedic stars and possess a career that would overshadow stars Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis?May not be brilliant comedy but like so many other comedies of the 80s this is still a reasonably funny, good natured romp with the cast making the most of it.
Geena's easy to like and Jeff's a good straight man to the wild antics of Jim and Damon, who both appear to be having a good time as the nuttier aliens.
I don't know why people keep saying bad things about Jeff's performance here, as his quirky style makes him an ideal alien stranger in a strange land and manages some of the film's best bits, like when he uses his "love touch" to get two cops stuck on each other.
There's also a funny scene where Jeff offers to make love to Geena to make her feel better about herself and get her mind off her cheating boyfriend and she tries to explain that them making love might not work on account of the fact that he's not of the Earth so not everything may work the same way and the whole time he's undressing off camera and then she gets a look at him and his "equipment" and just sort of trails off.
Of course, she has to make sure he doesn't get the impression that "Earth Girls Are Easy".Bit of a shame that Jeff & Geena's marriage didn't work out.There are also some funny musical bits."Mac is Mr. Right?" - Jeff Goldblum as Mac. Aliens Crash Land In Woman's Swimming Pool, Help Her With Failing Relationship.
Clueless Valerie (Geena Davis) of the Valley discovers that her idiot fiancee, Ted (Charles Rocket), is cheating on her about the same time that some aliens crash land in her swimming pool.
It is an amusing little romantic comedy that seems to have taken some cues from Susan Sneideman's 'Making Mr. Right' which you might also enjoy if you like this movie, although that is not quite as funky in the B-52s sense of the word.
Everyone loves a good (or bad) alien movie, and "Earth Girls Are Easy" doesn't disappoint.
Valerie (Geena Davis) is an every-woman in southern California whose life is turned upside down when three aliens, Mac (Jeff Goldblum), Wiploc (Jim Carrey) and Zeebo (Damon Wayans), land in her swimming pool.
With talents like Gina Davis, Geoff Goldblum, the young Jim Carrey and the multi-talented Julie Brown amongst others how could it fail?
Memorable moments include the aliens' learning isolated English phrases from commercials and old movies - "limp and hard to manage" has become a family in-joke; the like,-totally-cool-to-whatever-outrageous-happens surfer Woody (Michael McKean); the makeover; and Julie Brown's song, now a classic on Dr Demento, "Because I'm Blonde".For anyone who complains the special effects are cheesy - they're _meant_ to be!
This is in part a spoof of the 1950's aliens-come-to-earth B movies, so watch closely when the space ship arrives, hovers over the trees, and does its forced landing in Davis' pool: it is a triumph of reproducing the authentic 1950's effect, not a poor attempt at 80's FX tech!
It's light hearted, funny, has some interesting musical interludes and outrageous costumes and is one of Jim carrey's earlier films.
Before three aliens accidentally land into Valerie (Geena Davis)'s pool, she is a manicurist in The Valley, California, and is about to marry a doctor, Ted (Charles Rocket), who has always been unfaithful to her.
Now the arrival of the three extra-terrestrials will change Valerie's life forever.As a sci-fi comedy, some occasional singing scenes make this film also fit the category of musical.
Although this is not exactly a profound story, it is light-hearted, colorful, energetic and successfully made for the purpose of entertainment.The whole film is a hilarious party, if you're in the mood to relax, to lay back and to kick off your shoes without wanting to explore some serious issue, then you'll have a grand time watching this.
The scene Valerie "destroys" about everything in her house after she sees her fiance with another woman was skillfully filmed and acted in a very funny and original way, while Valerie sings "I've lost my faith in you".As Valerie, Geena Davis beautifully portrayed this cheerful, optimistic, lively and strong woman.
Jeff Goldblum played Mac, a charming, maturer, steadier alien while his fellow travelers Wiploc and Zeebo (played by Jim Carrey and Damon Wayens respectively) are wackier and more fun-loving.
Three fuzzy, colorful aliens crash their little yellow ship into the pool of a young, somewhat vapid Geena Davis, who has recently discovered that her MD.
Their efforts to get laid are punctuated by the humorous pop songs of Julie Brown (of "I Like Them Big and Stupid" fame).One look at the cast, and you know this is going to be good comedy.
Jeff Goldblum was a big star when this film was made, but Jim Carey and Damon Wayans steal the show as hormone-stoked space guidos (they were both unknowns at the time).
One of the films that fits into the category of Just Fun.While you could never call this a musical there are definitely lots of great musical numbers in it.Geena Davis has a star turn as the vapid Valley Girl Valerie.
Just compare him in this movie to his role in "Airheads" and you will see just how wildly divergent he can be.Frankly, I didn't recognize him.This film is high camp and pulls it off well because it never takes itself seriously.Not being a big Jim Carrey fan when Valerie tells Wiploc that she will miss him least of all I always want to cheer.See this and have a good time..
Three furry multicolored aliens (Jeff Goldblum, Jim Carrey, Damon Wayans) land their spaceship in Geena Davis' pool.
It had the stars: Jeff Goldblum, a young Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans and the super hot Geena Davis!!!
This is a fun and kooky movie with a glimpse into the early days of some big names such as Jim Carey and Jeff Goldblum and to lesser extent Damon Waynes.
Geena is fresh and very likeable in the roll of Valerie, the earth girl that falls for the sometimes hairy alien Mac (Jeff) who has crash landed his ship into Valerie's swimming pool with his two alien crew (Carey and Waynes).
(Yet men like myself won't be offended by this fact; there are, of course, jerks of both sexes and they DESERVE to get theirs!)I have to wonder whether those who gave this movie anything less than a very good review actually saw the film or just hated the title.
These are comic performances that are among the very best on film and there are a wealth of vignettes you'll be referring to in conversations for years to come - so many I couldn't list them all here (the doughnut scene, for instance - the mention of which won't give anything away for those who haven't seen this - and the disco scene, which lampoons discos more than any other movie scene ever).Plus, this is heavyweight actor Geena Davis' best comic performance ever - and she's so endearing in this role.
Diving in to investigate, she encounters the ship's inhabitants: Blue-furred Jeff Goldblum (as Mac), Red-furred Jim Carrey (as Wiploc) and Yellow-furred Damon Wayans (as Zeebo).
Davis is attracted to Mr. Goldblum, but doesn't want aliens to think "Earth Girls Are Easy." Ms. Brown thinks Mr. Carrey's long tongue looks fun and Mr. Wayans' dancing stunt double gets a work-out.
The sound, cinematography (by Oliver Stapleton) and sets are totally awesome.********* Earth Girls Are Easy (9/9/88) Julien Temple ~ Geena Davis, Jeff Goldblum, Julie Brown, Jim Carrey.
There's already tons of comments here, so I 'll keep it short: If you 've had a long day at work, if you have many things on your mind, etc., this is the perfect movie to clear your head, while having some mindless, silly yet pure and great fun !
a hilarious movie about three aliens(Jeff Goldblum,Damon Wayons,Jim Carrey)crash land their spaceship in the pool of sexy valley girl(Geena Davis)well valley woman would be more accurate.and get makeovers from geena's boss and friend(Julie Brown)however geena's fiancé(Charles Rocket)complicates matters.the three zany aliens are made up to look like humans.its pure 80's comedy high jinks.Jim carrey made this early in his career while he was on in living colour with Damon wayons.look for a cameo by Robby the robot during a dream sequence.also starring; Micheal mckean,and rick Hurst,Larry linville is in the end credits but i believe his scenes were cut out for some reason.
Julie brown sings a few funny songs.i recommend earth girls are easy to anyone who likes zany 80's comedies.8 out of 10..
I have watched this movie repeatedly and all I can say is "Far out man!" While I have never been a fan of Wayan or Carey I am a big fan of Davis, Brown, Goldblum and McKean.
This movie makes women seem like adult little girls who don't know what they want and allow people to use them.
I'm able to suspend the disbelief of the aliens having their hairy bodies shaved and appearing human--it's a quite creative idea--but I wasn't able to forgive other goofy plot holes, like the aliens landing on earth with no knowledge of the English vocabulary and imitating the lines they hear from movies and TV shows, and in no time they speak the language fluently.
Maybe he just wanted to re-team with Davis, after having worked together in "The Fly." "Earth Girls Are Easy" definitely has its fun moments, but after a while that fun dissolves into sheer stupidity.
Zany comedy/musical about three aliens visiting Geena Davis in Los Angeles.
RELEASED IN 1988 and directed by Julien Temple, "Earth Girls are Easy" chronicles events when three aliens (Jeff Goldblum, Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans) befriend a woman in Los Angeles (Geena Davis) and go out on the town.
This here is a fairly original concept for a comedy, a film that featured some who would become comedic stars in the later years such as Wayans or Jim Carrey.
Mac (Jeff Goldblum), Wiploc (Jim Carrey) and Zeebo (Damon Wayans) are brightly-colored furry aliens desperate for female companionship.
A spaceship with three furry aliens lands in the swimming pool of a California girl (Geena Davis), so she makes friends with them.This is a pretty great 1980s film, with all the fun and cheese you could ever possibly want.
After the success of the 1986 hit "The Fly", Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis score another round in "Earth Girls Are Easy".
This time he plays an alien along with future "In Living Color" stars Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans(Keenan Ivory's brother).
I watched this film because the early Jim Carrey is silly and sweet to watch and you can't beat Geena Davis for outlandish costumes and situations she can slide into without self-consciousness.
Sure, it's about 3 aliens that are covered in fur and land in Gena Davis' pool, but the storyline is so corny it's funny.It's a typical '80s movie and Earth Girls Are Easy has the who shebang: typical clothing, music, and hot guys.
If anyone likes Jim Carrey I think you'll be enjoying this movie..
Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis make/made a really cute couple, and Julie Brown needs more small-but-important-best-friend parts.
OK, while "Earth Girls Are Easy" is a little fun and up lifting comedy, things just didn't work for me.
I can't stand movies like this!A valley girl in California is sunbathing in her yard when a spaceship crash-lands in her swimming pool.
It's funny, well-made, VERY colorful, has some great songs (especially "Cause I'm a Blond") and Genna Davis is a real good sport, considering she spends 90% of the movie wearing next to nothing.
However, Julie Brown is uproarious, Damon Wayans is cute (and really HOT!) and Jeff Goldblum actually makes his character believable and dignified.
The hot Julie Brown plays her valley girl friend and soon they shave the aliens to find out that they look like Wayans, Goldblum and Carrey.
The Fly is a movie with very dark themes, but Earth Girls are Easy is a very light-hearted comedy with a few songs in it.The ridiculous plot centers around three furry aliens who land in Davis's swimming pool, and subsequently get a makeover so that they look just like humans.
Literally colorful movie about funky aliens landing in an LA swimming pool, Geena Davis fans should take notice, she is running around in a very skimpy 2 piece bading suit, this is bubbly party movie to watch Friday night with a few friends and a lot of drinks with umbrellas.
"Earth Girls Are Easy" is a musical sci-fi comedy about valley-girl Valerie (played by Geena Davis) living in 1980's Los Angeles, and who is engaged to a cheating, boyfriend doctor named Ted (played by Charles Rocket).
The spaceship's crew (played by Jeff Goldblum, Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans), haven't had any "shore leave" in a long time.
EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY may be a strange title, but it is a great movie.
The WEST SIDE STORY of Sci-Fi. Now I think Ted was a jerk and a tad annoying, but other then that I think EARTH GIRLS make a fun movie worth watching over and over again.
Geena Davis is totally believeable, as sweet but semi-airhead manicurist Valerie - and yes, that is her singing in 'The Ground You Walk On' -, whilst Julie Brown is great as Candy, a girl who knows exactly what she wants and how to get it!
Having spent some time in 'the Valley' some parts of this film were strangely accurate!The chemistry between Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum was impressive, although - *SPOILER WARNING* - the final moment when Valerie suddenly realises that Mac is the one for her could have been done better in my opinion.
Gena Davis (Valerie) shines in this film, revealing I think her true bubbly,Innocent and fun personality, I found Jeff(Mac0 a little dry, and not much else, Jim Carrey and Damon Waynes, steal the show, Julie Brown, really shines, very hilarious and just plain fun!
Due to the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group going out of business, the film went unscreened for over a year.Three aliens - Mac (Jeff Goldblum, Jurassic Park), Zeebo (Damon Wayans, The Last Boy Scout) and Wiploc (Jim Carrey, Man in the Moon) notice a broadcast from Earth filled with aerobics and half-naked women.
Geena Davis, Jeff Goldblum, Jim Carrey, Damon Wayans, Charles Rocket, Michael McKean and Julie Brown star in this 1989 sci-fi comedy.
It also provides some cheesy, yet amusing musical sequences provided by Miss Brown, Davis & Goldblum have good chemistry and had previously worked together in "The Fly" & "Transylvania 6-5000." Carrey and Wayans also worked together on TV's "In Living Color." I'd give this a view at least once..
Three great actors: Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis, Jim Carey.
but I think that Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblume make an eerie couple.
I think the best part is the song " I like them big and.....stupid" any, check it out to see jim carey, keenan ivory wayens, jeff goldblume and geena davis's humble beginings.
Instead they are sex craved aliens cruising the galaxy and happened to crash on earth after seeing on Geena Davis.I personally thought that there could be a little more to this movie than there was.
Geena Davis' character really didn't seem to know what she wanted, but then that was the whole purpose of the movie.
This eighties comedy might not be a classic but it is still a lot of fun; Geena Davis plays Valerie, a valley girl whose doctor fiancé Ted is carrying on with one of his nurses.
Her life is changed when the day after she throws him out of the house a trio of hirsute aliens crash their spaceship into her pool named Wiploc, Weebo and Mac. Luckily for them she works at a hairdressing salon so with a little help from her friend Candy they go from looking like a three colourful wookies to being Jim Carey, Damon Wayans and Jeff Goldblum respectively. |
tt0099733 | Happily Ever After | The film starts as the Looking Glass recaps the story of "Snow White." The wicked Queen has been vanquished and the kingdom is at peace as Snow White and the Prince prepare to marry. Meanwhile, back at the castle, the Queen's animal like minions are celebrating their freedom by throwing a party for themselves. Then, the Queen's equally evil wizard brother, Lord Maliss, arrives at the castle, wondering where his sister is. After learning about his sister's demise, he vows to avenge her death. In the process, he transforms into a wyvern and decides to take control of the palace, while Scowl, (a red colored owl) starts training his companion, a purple bat named Batso, on how to be evil.
The next day, Snow White and the Prince are in the meadow picking flowers for their wedding, when suddenly Lord Maliss, in his dragon form, begins attacking Snow White and the Prince as they are traveling to the cottage of the Seven Dwarfs. He targets the Prince, but Snow White manages to flee.
Snow White reaches the cottage and meets the Dwarves' female cousins, the Seven "Dwarfelles": Muddy, Sunburn, Blossom, Marina, Critterina, Moonbeam, and Thunderella. The Dwarves have left the cottage after they bought another mine in a different kingdom, but the Dwarfelles gladly assist Snow White, taking her to visit Mother Nature at Rainbow Falls. Mother Nature has given the Dwarfelles individual powers to assist her; she holds Thunderella accountable for not being able to master her powers correctly, and accuses the other Dwarfelles of improperly using their powers, and threatens to take them away as punishment. Lord Maliss attacks them, but Mother Nature shoots him with lightning, causing him to crash and return to his human form. Before leaving, Lord Maliss informs Snow White that the Prince is held captive in his castle.
Snow White and the Dwarfelles travel to Lord Maliss' castle in the Realm of Doom, along the way encountering a strange cloaked humanoid known as the "Shadow Man." Lord Maliss sends his one-horned wolves after the group, and they manage to escape with the help of the "Shadow Man." Lord Maliss is furious at this failure and transforms into his dragon form, finally capturing Snow White successfully himself and taking her to the castle. The Dwarfelles follow them and sneak into the castle as well.
In the castle, Snow White is reunited with her Prince, who begins exhibiting strange behaviors, and takes her through a secret passage to supposedly escape. When Snow White realizes that he's not the real Prince but is actually Lord Maliss in disguise, he attempts to throw a magical red cloak on Snow White to petrify her into stone. He almost succeeds, but is attacked by the "Shadow Man." The Dwarfelles arrive and attack Lord Maliss as well, but fail and become petrified themselves. The only one unharmed is Thunderella, who finally regains control of her powers and assists Snow White to subdue Lord Maliss. The cloak is thrown on him and Lord Maliss is petrified in mid-transition between his human and dragon form.
As the sun shines onto the castle, the Dwarfelles are restored back to their normal selves. Snow White tearfully mourns the "Shadow Man", believing that she lost both him and her Prince, until Mother Nature arrives at the scene. Suddenly, the "Shadow Man" wakes up and he turns out to be the Prince; as he is waking up he begins comforting Snow White, telling her not to cry, and she notices that he is back to his normal self. The Prince reveals that Lord Maliss had cast a spell on him and he has been watching over Snow White during her journey, guarding her with his life.
Mother Nature decides to let the Dwarfelles keep their powers because they have finally proven themselves by working together as one, and she allows them to attend Snow White's wedding. In the end, Mother Nature takes in Batso and Scowl to be trained as her new apprentices. Sunburn steals Scowl's cigar from him and this allows him to stop smoking. Scowl realizes that he is able to breathe again; he then comments to Batso that working for Mother Nature might not be so bad, even realizing that he can smell again as he wasn't able to before. Batso replies by saying "But with your cigar, you always smell" and the Dwarfelles begin laughing. Snow White and the Prince are reunited, as the two of them share a kiss, and begin to live happily ever after. | revenge | train | wikipedia | I caught all Lord Malice's gay innuendos, and laughed my butt off, because I never saw it that way before.Unlike what some people may say, I think this is a fun movie, and the music isn't really that bad considering the expenses that went into the feature.
The strange part is that the lady who played snow white actually has singing talent, but she didn't get a big song like most main characters do in animated films.
I remembered that it was indeed frightening, but in an exciting, mysterious way that I don't think most children would be bothered with (if a six year old didn't find it scary, please, I doubt anyone else really will.) I've read some comments on here with people complaining about how scary it was, and all I can conclude is that you need to get out a whole lot more.
This film is like Barney compared to some of the things I've seen kids these days watch.
I also thought this Snow White was a lot prettier, excusing her unexplained hairstyle change every few minutes (I found it strange that sometimes her hair would be seen up in a ponytail, hanging down loosely or just wearing this strange, gravity-defying headband.) Scowl the owl had me laughing a couple of times, too.
I found this especially true with Thunderella, such a cute little girl and I thought she had the most catchy tuned song as well.Which now brings me to the music.
Even Scowl's song is fun, but I can only wish that Irene Cara was given a chance to sing.I really don't know why this film flopped, to this day it's one of my favorite films of my childhood and will always have a special place in my heart.8 stars outta 10.
this movie is classic...my grandmother got this for me at wal-mart when i was little.me and sister use to watch this movie.i still remember every little thing about this movie and i still think that it is great even so many years later.even at the age of eighteen i still enjoy this movie.
this movie is a breath of fresh air from the original classic snow white by Disney..
I remember watching this movie back when it first came out when i was a little kid (7ish) and i found it to be a pretty good movie.
anyway, Songs like, "Mother Nature" "He's Bad" and "I can get it right" are very cute and make you hum them while you're at work.
i pretty much watch the movie DESPITE snow white.
They should have slowed it down a bit more, and let them USE their powers so it actually made sense when mother nature says "you proved yourselves" I expected when it got dark and the wolves came around for Moonbeam to pull out the Neo and start whoopin some wolves or something, but no, she's as useless at night, as she is during the day.
The movie varies too much from Disney to be considered a sequel, and most people forget that, and reject this film for that reason.
Although it was a little disturbing to see Snow White back in action, I thought the movie was cute and the music somewhat enjoyable.
The dwarfettes are cute and are funny little characters, and Snow White is just as pure as ever..
I had love both Snow White films : Disney's version and this one, and now, I have the film on DVD.Like I said (a million times), I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I would see on the web, I thought it's a great sequel to the Snow White story by The Brothers Grimm, only instead of Seven Dwarfs there are Seven Dwarfelles in the film.
I love the ending theme performed by Irene Cara, who also played the voice of Snow White in the film..
Based on the classic fairytale of snow white, Happily Ever After teaches morals to help you look inside yourself and find the truly beautiful and thundering person you are!
From handsome princes, to stone cold Great Animals, this movie's got it all!
Overview: Plot: Great Characters: Great Music: Good Animation: Fair Overview: The Film "Happily Ever After," to me, is, indeed, cheaply animated with some annoying voices, but I think the plot is enticing and the characters are very interesting, especially the Seven "Dwarfelles," the Cousins to the Seven Dwarfs.
The song she sings is a the most enjoyable song in the movie, same with the catchy, poppy tune"Thunderella's Song," sung by Thunderella, the youngest dwarfelle, voiced by Tracey Ullman.Basic Plot: In this Sequel to the original film "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," Snow White (Voiced by Irene Cara of "Fame") is to be married to the Prince, but Lord Mallis (Voiced by Malcom McDowell of "Caligula"), the Evil Queen's brother, in revenge of his beloved sister's death, kidnaps the prince, but Snow White flees to the Dwarfs' Cottage only to find that the Seven Dwarfelles, their cousins, live there.
It's not a very long film, but it's very engaging.Benifits: Irene Cara sings the end theme, "Love is the Reason." It's a great song.Flaws: A bit on the annoying side.I give it an 8/10.
Happily Ever After was a very good sequel and conclusion to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
What's the point of having Irene Cara perform the voice of Snow White if she never gets the chance for the character to sing????I know...Disney did it better.
But, what people forget, is that Disney didn't CREATE the story of Snow White, nor were they the first to transfer the story to film.
In fact, toys of the main characters were already hitting the store shelves in 1989, with the film's original title "Snow White and the Realm of Doom".I agree, this movie stinks.
watching "Happily Ever After" is a far more pleasant experience than you'd think.Of course, the animation can't hope to match the theatrical wonder of the 1937 classic, but it's actually pretty solid.
I'm thinking especially of Lord Maliss, Mother Nature and Snow White.
It's direct-to-video, but it's *good* direct-to-video; I daresay it's better than *some* of what Disney themselves have put out over the years.Naturally, Filmation could only skirt towards Disney's iconic designs, and perhaps the different appearance of Snow White and co.
The Dwarfelles may have the tackiest name in the history of animation, but they are actually engaging in their own way, and far from being just genderbent versions of the original Dwarfs; tying them to different elements and making them the apprentices of a personified Mother Nature is an...
Some of the acting is fine or even great (Irene Cara is a surprisingly great Snow White, and I've already mentioned McDowdell as Lord Maliss), but some of it on incidental characters is weaker; and most glaringly...
If you like the original "Snow White", or fairy-tale-type animation in general, I'd recommend you give it a watch...
If you know about the company Filmation, they did make some iconic television cartoons like Fat Albert and He Man, but a majority of their content was generic Saturday morning trite that gave animation a bad name in the 1970s due to their cheap animation and lackluster stories that only kids would find amusing.
However, Disney found out about this and sued the studio, but because they had started production on an unofficial sequel to Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, they reworked and redesigned that movie to be nothing like the Disney film.
The general story line is that Snow White must save the prince who was kidnapped by the wicked queen's brother Lord Maliss (don't ask), and along with the Seven Dwarfs' cousins the Dwarfelles (I think you can guess why there are no dwarfs), she sets off on a quest to save him from certain doom.
Sounds exciting enough, yet the movie fails to give a reason as to why the audience should even care about these characters, let alone Snow White, leaving the story bland and straight forward.
Snow White is even blander than she was in the original Disney film, the only noteworthy thing about the prince is that he looks like a copy of He Man, and the Dwarfelles....well thanks to Mother Nature, they do possess magical powers such as control of the weather, control of the earth, control of fire, etc, but they have no personality outside of their powers and they contribute nothing to the plot aside from Sunburst and the whiny Thunderella.
All I'm gonna say is that they only appear in the first half and that's it, so I don't know why they even bothered putting songs in the film to begin with.Now you're probably wondering, is there anything I like about this movie?
That, and the general voice acting is decent enough, as the voice actors do well enough jobs by giving their characters distinct voices.Otherwise, despite some decent animated tricks and a fun villain, I was rather unimpressed with Happily Ever After due to its boring story, bland characters, plot holes, unresolved and furthermore unnecessary fantasy elements and soulless feel.
Even though Disney's Snow White ain't perfect, it certainly had a lot of heart put into it, thus elevating its upbeat characters and emotional appeal that made it timeless.
I also did like how this Snow White, in terms of appearance and character.
The songs are still inspirational as an adult, and it definitely has adult humor that I actually understand now and I enjoy the characters.I think for young kids it's really not suitable as Lord malice is scary (more so than a lot of other bad guys) and an owl that smokes.Overall I still watch this movie twice a year at most I never enjoyed the original snow white So I do generate towards this version a lot more I really like thunderella and the character mother nature.The comedy of a door mouse is so funny.
It isn't absolute perfection, and it certainly isn't as good as Disney's 1937 classic "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"(one of my all time favourite movies).
"Happily Ever After" mayn't be everyone's cup of tea, but I personally do not think it deserves the low rating on IMDb. It certainly isn't the best animated movie ever, but it's not the worst either.
But there are some nice colourful backgrounds especially in Mother Nature's song, and I liked the character animation of Lord Maliss.
I have seen worse animation in films like "Secret of NIMH 2:Timmy To The Rescue" and "Titanic:The Animated Movie" where the colours are garish and the editing all over the place, but for me that wasn't the case here.There have also been complaints of bad songs.
But the other songs are lovely, especially "Thunderella", sung by the youngest dwarfelle, who is so adorable, and I liked "Mother Nature".
Also the part when Scowl tries to distract the Prince from rescuing Snow White and crashes into a tree was a great moment.
Also I cried when Snow White is crying over the Shadow Man's body, and when she touched him as that was ever so touching; I do like protagonists who don't judge others by their looks.I also liked the characters.
Snow White isn't the most engaging protagonist ever in an animated movie, but I like her beauty, pureness and innocence.
Also he does have a good motive, he wants revenge on Snow White who he holds responsible for his beloved sister's death, I know that has been used many times before but oh well.
What I liked most were the unique personalities of the dwarfelles, they were fun and interesting.The voice acting; by far the best asset of the movie.
Irene Cara is quite emotive as Snow White, and Michael Horton in the little amount of time he has is appealing as the Prince.
The best vocal performance comes from Malcolm MacDowell as Lord Maliss, sinister yet manic, it was either way a truly phenomenal performance.In conclusion, I liked this movie very much.
I admit, I watched it way more that the original Snow White.
I still remember the lyrics to the song that plays as the credits start: ""You can do magic with your own two hands You can touch the clouds right where you stand You can see a rainbow every place you turn Deep in the night a flame still burns Total original You're one of a kind You got the heart and you got the mind No, it wont be easy But u give it a try Reach for the power way deep inside Love is the reason and love is the light So keep on believing all through the night The suns always shining bright just above the rain Your dreams will have wings and they'll fly And love is the reason Love is the reason Love is the reason why"Most movies of fairy tales show you the struggles to reach the happy ending, but always leave you wondering about what happens during the happily ever after.
Even though this movie does not have the original Snow White's (Disney's) spirit and atmosphere ( I guess that's because of decade difference) but it still manages to interest young viewers by it's magical world and funny characters.
I recommend to watch it for everyone who likes Snow White, a nice evening with family and pleasant memories.
A second look however, and I found that this is actually a reasonably decent sequel.First off, if you watch this expecting Disney, don't.
The animation is consistent, and at times, quite good.If you are looking for GREAT animation from Filmation, you are better off seeking out the likes of Flash Gordon: The Greatest Adventure of All, Bravestarr: The Legend, and Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night.The voice cast for the most part are superb, although I agree with some of the others here that Irene Cara seems a bit flat as Snow White.
(Not Disney, thankfully.) Snow White is now on an completely forgettable adventure with the seven "dwarfelles", all of whom are annoying.
Good voice talent and script are hopelessly buried in bad animation and songs..
The basic plot: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfelles combat the evil lord Maliss who stole her prince.The praise:Good voice talents ( Irene Cara , Dom Deluise, Phyllis Diller, Edward Asner, Carol Channing, Malcolm McDowell)and an efficient and occasionally funny script are the main points.The flaws: Bad songs, animation and a feeling of graceless bizarre shlock.Actually, this was one of my favorite movies when I was 4 or 5 and I used to like Critterina and the dwarfelles .
Even when I was a kid, I didn't like the various animated programs coming from the Filmation company - I thought that their cartoons were extremely crude.
The only reason why I decided to see their production of "Happily Ever After" was that it was a feature length movie aimed at theaters, and I was curious to see if the animation would be any better.
Well, (really) young kids may be entertained, but if they have seen Disney's SNOW WHITE before seeing this sequel, I think even they would admit that this sequel is really lacking in comparison..
When I first saw this movie in theaters I really loved it, but when I rented it years later for old times' sake I found it to be too silly for me, but after seeing it again recently I found out I actually like it a lot more than Disney's Snow White.
But the songs are enjoyable, the storyline is great, the romance isn't over the top or too sappy, and Snow White here is, in my opinion, not only prettier than the Disney version but also shows some spunk.
As bad as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was good.
The story is just too out there, and the animation is way too loose to make a good animated feature.We start this story after the end of the first Snow White.
Snow White and the Prince are happily married and Queen free.
Snow White and the Dwarf Elves must venture into evil, dark places to find the Prince.
Meanwhile, Scowl the Owl (Ed Asner) and his bat buddy, Batso (Frank Welker) try to stop Snow White with silly, unfunny results.Everything about this film is just bad.
This isn't Alice in Wonderland, it's Snow White.In the trailer for this movie, the announcer claims this is the biggest, most famous vocal ensemble ever in an animated picture.
First thing I must state is that this is a sequel to the classic tale of Snow White that has no relation to the Disney movie.
Snow White has a sweet voice and design and the dwarfelles are very funny, as are Scowl and Batso.
Someone commented that Snow White looked too pale but I don't think she's was that bad, at least no more so than in the Disney film.
This movie was incredibly dark from the very beginning, you think the prince could be dead or at the very least injured, there's dragons, capes that turn people into stone, a villain more evil, and terrifying than that old hag in the original Disney movie.
I remember the first time watching it being pretty scared as a young one specifically when the cape is used, and lord maliss' red eyes.TL;Dr: This is a 90's VHS children's classic.
If you are a miserable adult please don't watch this movie if you never saw it when you were a kid..
That's not like in the original Snow White where the viewer is acquainted to all of the Dwarfs, who actually have personalities beyond a few "snappy" lines.After watching this wretched thing, I would fully recommend avoiding this at all costs, if you want to get a nice video for the kids, get Disney instead.
Every time you think there's going to be a moment of happiness, someone gets turned into stone, or a dragon picks Snow White up and carries her away. |
tt0075409 | W.C. Fields and Me | The story begins in 1924 in New York City, where W. C. Fields is a Ziegfeld Follies headliner, and ends with his 1946 death in California at age 66. In between, it dramatizes his life and career with emphasis on the latter part of both, when the "Me" of the title, Carlotta Monti, played a prominent role, with a number of fictionalized events added for dramatic impact.
Having lost his girlfriend Melody to another man and most of his life savings due to careless investments by his broker, Fields heads west to Santa Monica, where he operates a wax museum until he's offered a film role. He quickly becomes a major screen presence and a notorious drinker.
While at a party with his friends John Barrymore, Gene Fowler and restaurant owner Dave Chasen, Fields is introduced to starlet Carlotta Monti, whom he hires as a live-in secretary. In order to stifle her theatrical aspirations, he arranges a screen test. The studio boss Harry Bannerman decides she has some talent, but Fields threatens to quit Paramount Pictures unless she is discouraged from pursuing a career in films. When she learns the truth, Carlotta leaves him and goes to New York.
When Barrymore passes away, she returns to Hollywood to comfort Fields. On the set of My Little Chickadee, she learns why her efforts to get him to marry her have routinely been rebuffed: his first marriage has never been dissolved legally. Although hurt by the revelation, Carlotta resigns herself to a life of unwedded bliss that often crumbles into sorrow and frustration as the relentlessly mean-spirited Fields continues to drink heavily and his health steadily declines. The comic is hospitalized and, after enduring great physical pain, dies on Christmas Day, a holiday he had despised with a passion. | depressing | train | wikipedia | One of the two panned-and-banished 1976 Universal star bios..worth another look..
In 1976, Universal spent significant money to bring two golden-age Hollywood biopics to the screen: Gable and Lombard and W.C. Fields and Me.
Both were panned, gave little return on the money spent, and have been relegated to rarely seen, not-on-video status.
I haven't seen Gable since the year of its release, but caught up with W.C. on cable awhile back.
It's imperfect, but certainly interesting, well-acted and worth another look.
(I'd like to see Gable again, too, to see if it's worse or better than I remember.)Steiger gives a good interpretation of Fields, though unable to channel the unique comic gifts that he possessed.
It was always good to see Perrine onscreen in her too-few roles, and Jack Cassidy was effective in one of his last roles prior to his untimely death.
The design and technical work result in a great look, unfortunately panned and scanned in the TV version that is seen today (when it's seen at all.)Interestingly, the Fields portrayal can be traced back to the memorable serial killer Steiger portrayed in 1968's No Way To Treat A Lady, adapting several disguises and voices, one of which evoked Fields.
Universal has been pretty good about releasing older films of theirs to DVD at a good price; how about a couple of widescreen editions of these flawed but interesting biopics?.
Steiger and Hiller give W.C. an even break....
Carlotta Monti, a would-be Hollywood hopeful in the 1930s, met rascally, alcoholic, volatile comedy actor W.C. Fields at a movie wrap-party and was later invited out to his spread, supposedly to talk about a part in his next picture; there wasn't one, but she spent the next fourteen years with him anyway, playing his loving--though seemingly platonic--mistress who also acted as Fields' personal stenographer, script girl, cook, maid, and mother-figure-cum-warden.
Based on Monti's memoir, and with her advisory assistance, this biography of Fields seems pretty truthful and not a white-washed kiss-up job.
Director Arthur Hiller and star Rod Steiger do not shy away from showing W.C. as an occasional heel, a heartless, self-confessed son-of-a-bitch.
Yet, the movie's best moments are the quieter ones (Fields' brotherly relationship with a little person, his reunion with the son he hadn't seen in twenty years, his reaction after Carlotta discovers how lonely he is).
Steiger, whose make-up job causes him to resemble a portly Van Johnson rather than Fields, is a bit shrill in places, and he gets off to a bad start; however, Steiger eases into the role with obvious relish, and his eagerness to showcase this incredible personality definitely comes through (his final scene in bed is a heartbreaker).
Valerie Perrine as Carlotta is also too shrill (which can be blamed on Hiller's handling), but she matches up well with Steiger and doesn't take too much guff off him.
The sequences set in and around the movie studio never quite achieve the magic we hope they'll reach (they're squashy and limp, due--partially at least--to David M.
Walsh's terrible cinematography).
However, the central relationship is nicely carried off, aided by a lovely Henry Mancini score and good character actors in support.
A forgotten film--yet another sitting on the shelf down at Universal--but worth seeking out, especially to see Steiger's work.
Ex-Cinema Projectionist = Loved Screening this Movie in Season.
I was at a favorite Second-Hand goods store last week, and upon finding a copy of the book "W.C. Fields & Me" By Carlotta Monti with Cy Rice, I snapped up the hard-cover copy, there and then.
When this film was in it's Original release in Melbourne, Australia at the cinema I worked at as Projectionist, I had the pleasure to screen this Movie Two Sessions a Day - for it's Original run - and Loved Screening each and every session including it's accompanying suitable Musical score that plays in the background as the film UN-spools.
I have been hoping against hope, that One day I can get my own Blu-Ray or DVD Copy of "W.C. Fields & Me", as I believe Rod Steiger did an excellent recreation of the character of Fields.
Dear reader, to get a better knowledge of the Life that W.C.Fields had led up to the point where the Film begins from, I would recommend Movie Fans get their hands on some of the Biographical Books detailing the earlier life of Fields, from say his earliest Teenage years through to where the film takes up from, I assure you will get far-more from this Movie, if you make that effort.
The stunning Valerie Perrine who features in the film as Carlotta Monti, tends to bring balance to the film as it rolls along to a memorable ending, at least it is memorable for me, in more ways than one, I cannot tell you more, as that would spoil the film for you, and I love this film too much to do that.
Here is hoping Universal will release this "soon" with the Best Quality available, to all fans of this forgotten Gem of a Movie.
There is only one more Movie Starring W.C. Fields I need to complete my W.C. Fields Movie Collection, and that is the Film with W.C. Fields and Zasu Pitts of "Mrs Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch" 1934,( but not the 1940s Faye Bainter Version ) Both movies = Comedy and Tear-Jerker all in one movie, Highly recommended to all W.C. Fields aficionados...If any fans can help me with this I could love you forever....
Rod Steiger is good.
This adaptation of W.C. Fields' life is a pretty good one which shows the great comic, warts and all.
This is based on the book published by Field's mistress of many years, and she is played by Valerie Perrine, who does a splendid job.
Steiger is very good, but I have to agree with a previous poster that he sort-of resembles a blown-up Van Johnson rather than Fields.
The only technical flaw I could see in an otherwise splendid recreation of 30's Hollywood is one street scene where the street is dressed with the proper 1930s autos, but then a late 1960s Lincoln Continental Mark III passes by, followed by a 1973 Pontiac LeMans and a Volkswagen Beetle!
After this gaffe, the parade of passing cars returns to the classic 1930s cars.
The late Jack Cassidy does a pretty good job playing John Barrymore, and the Mancini score is, as always, an asset.
This is streaming on Netflix in a gorgeous wide-screen copy..
I hope this film is released to DVD.
I had the unique perspective of living at the set in La Canada, California at the time this movie was being filmed.(I was working at nearby JPL in Pasadena) I appreciated the director's attention to detail and was able to meet Rod Steiger and Valerie Perrine between "takes." The sets were fantastic, as were the performances.
The crew spent about three weeks preparing the house and bringing in the properties that were used to re-create W.C. Fields's home.
The crew painstakingly stenciled 1930s designs near the ceiling of the room.
Since that would make the living room stand out, they carried the design into several other rooms that were not used during the production!
There is a scene of the outside of the house that shows the room that I was living in.One of the rules on the set was that no one could imitate W.C. Fields while Rod Steiger was on the set.
I believe that Rod worked very hard to portray W.C. Fields in a realistic way.
(He was one nasty character!) Please bring this movie out on DVD!.
One of my all time favorite movies, unfortunately never made into a DVD.
When I first went to see this movie in a theater I went to watch Steiger, who never, to my knowledge, did a lick of comedy previously, fall flat on his face.
However, about five minutes into the movie I could no longer see Steiger.
He had so well portrayed the great comic that you would think he invoked the very spirit of Fields and allowed Fields to tell his own story.
The research behind the acting must have been quite thorough, as I never once saw anything I could fault.
His mastery of Fields speech patterns was impeccable and not overdone like so many who attempt to sound like Fields.
The story line never took liberties for dramatic effect, and as far as I can tell, remained true to the real life and events of W.C.Fields.
I can only hope that, some day the studio will relent and put this great movie out on DVD or Blu-Ray; despite the poor box office returns.
I really would like to see this movie again; and consider it one of the all time great biographical works..
W C Fields and Me. Glad to see like minded people reviewing this movie.
Although it has been years and years since I first saw it, it left a lasting impression.
I can't really say why, other than I am a Steiger fan, but I do believe he brought something new to what I know of the character W C Fields.I too would, like my fellow fans, like to see this distributed on DVD.
The film has been a topic of discussion with work colleagues, and even though I have said that it wasn't the 'greatest' of productions, it was definitely worth seeing.If the big wigs are reading, please, give me back a bit of my youth, lets have this on DVD!.
America's Curmudgeon.
I'm not figuring out why W.C. Fields And Me was panned the way it was by some critics.
Although it's hardly a linear biography, Rod Steiger gave a good interpretation of the character.
The parts I liked best was when he was away from performing and we got to see some of what may be the inner workings of that very uniquely funny man.We've never had a comedian like W.C. Fields and I doubt we'll see his like again.
The mold was shattered in a million pieces when the comedy gods made him.
His comedy style wasn't with one liners or fancy dialog.
He created a character of an everyman with a big dose of curmudgeon, his body language during a scene was as important, even more than the words of a script.The film is based on the memoirs of Carlotta Monti who was Fields's live-in mistress.
Quite a bit more was added to it.
The famous story of Lee Tracy urinating off a hotel balcony in Mexico is attributed to Fields.
Now the story of Fields spiking Baby LeRoy's formula with some of his best gin, that's a tale told and retold and seems to be the real deal.For those who want to see W.C. Fields at his very best I cannot too highly recommend The Bank Dick.
In a way I'm glad Steiger did not use it because no one, absolutely no one could do justice to what W.C. Fields did in that film.Valerie Perrine complements Steiger very well as Carlotta Monti and Jack Cassidy makes his scenes count playing John Barrymore who was Bill Fields drinking companion and America's greatest actor in his generation.
Both lost their lives and health eventually to booze.But both left us a lot of great performances.
s. Joyless....
Based on the memoir of Carlotta Monti, who had a very long affair with WC Fields, this film is surprisingly, unrelentingly joyless.
Fields comes across as a self-serving nitwit who drank his talents away while the studios tried mightily to keep him in check.
His relationship with Monti is seen as a series of shrieking fights with no winners.
Rod Steiger mimics Fields well enough, but the script by Bob Merrill offers very little insight into what made the comedy legend tick.
Valerie Perrine is stunning as Monti, but she's a bit too close to saintliness for any of this to be truly believable.
On the plus side, the art direction is terrific and director Arthur Hiller manages to create a sense of early '30s Hollywood when Los Angeles was still a one horse town.
The colorful supporting cast includes Billy Barty, Bernadette Peters, John Marley and Jack Cassidy (who appears to be having a lot of fun as John Barrymore). |
tt0071691 | Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle | The film follows Kaspar Hauser, who lived the first seventeen years of his life chained in a tiny cellar with only a toy horse to occupy his time, devoid of all human contact except for a man, wearing a black overcoat and top hat, who feeds him.
One day, in 1828, the same man takes Hauser out of his cell, teaches him a few phrases, and how to walk, before leaving him in the town of Nuremberg. Hauser becomes the subject of much curiosity, and is exhibited in a circus before being rescued by Professor Georg Friedrich Daumer, who patiently attempts to transform him.
Hauser soon learns to read and write, and develops unorthodox approaches to logic and religion; but music is what pleases him most. He attracts the attention of academics, clergy and nobility. He is then physically attacked by the same unknown man who brought him to Nuremberg. The attack leaves him unconscious with a bleeding head. He recovers, but is again mysteriously attacked; this time, stabbed in the chest.
Hauser rests in bed describing visions he has had of nomadic Berbers in the Sahara Desert, and then dies. An autopsy reveals an enlarged liver and cerebellum. | mystery, atmospheric | train | wikipedia | EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF AND GOD AGAINST ALL (Werner Herzog - West Germany 1974).Lacking a traditional narrative or dramatic structure and full of obscure images, this film feels more like a hypnotic dreamlike experience.
It also features one the more enduring trends in Herzog's work: the featuring of individuals with exceptional physical or psychological conditions.The film is based on the true story of Kaspar Hauser, a young man who suddenly appears on the market square in the German town of Nuremberg in 1828.
After living in a cellar for years with only a pet rocking horse, he is abandoned by his protector and provider, the mysterious "Man in Black." Having been isolated from all humans except his mysterious protector, Kaspar is suddenly thrust into civilization, and is expected to adapt himself to 19th-century society.
When Hauser comes under the tutelage of a sympathetic professor (Walter Ladengast), he gradually acquires an impressive degree of socialization and learns to express himself with a reasonable degree of clarity, but most of society's conventions, manners and thoughts is more the young man is able to adjust to.Herzog adopted a technique of incorporating film material shot by others filmmakers into the film.
Not only is THE ENIGMA OF KASPAR HAUSER Werner Herzog's best film but I also believe it to be the greatest film ever made along with Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
KASPAR HAUSER has some of the most incredible and powerful images ever filmed.The opening shot is that of a rye field blowing in the wind; we hear Pachelbel's 'Cannon' and the following words appear on the screen; "Don't you hear that horrible screaming all around you?
Herzog's characters tend to have an uneasy relation to language, whether they are Kaspar, who lives years in his life without language at all,Bruno(Stroszek,1976)who, rather than explaining his emotions,builds a "schematic model" of his feelings, or Fini Straubinger(Land of Silence and Darkness 1970),who cannot explain in words how it feels to be blind and deaf.Indeed, virtually all of Herzog's films are populated by marginal beings who resist language or who affirm its insufficiency to produce "true" meaning.For Herzog, their resistance to language is clearly a sign of their purity.More importantly, this resistance has the effect of rendering such figures opaque and image-like.An image that is visually striking but not wholly susceptible to verbal explanation.Their opacity gives them the quality of an unformulated image, an image that to some extent retards or actually interrupts the narrative flow with its non narrative effect.Kaspar is "outside of language and outside of difference," and later resists the patriarchal narrative with which he is equipped.Despite the pronounced literary subtext in these films, the dismissal of writing as a secondary mediation in contrast with the immediacy of the image occurs persistently in Herzog.The words of Kaspar's name spring up as the watercress he has planted, becoming living things in a triumphant romantic gesture that recalls Holderlin's longing, in BREAD AND WINE, for "words which spring up like flowers."By gestures such as these, Herzog has, in his view, redeemed language by transforming it first into a thing and then into an image.The lack of erotic impulse in Herzog's narratives is pronounced: the sexualized body is not of interest to Herzog and in his characters libidinal impulses tend to be sublimated into an all-consuming vision or to disappear into introit by some other means.Kaspar's enthusiasm for knitting that so shocks Lord Stanhope and in his general refusal to distinguish between male and female tasks.The black caped man who initiates Kaspar's entry into narrative, a symbolic father whose identity nevertheless remains enshrouded in mystery, resembles on one so much as Dr. Caligari in his black cape.As in some measure the "founding text" of German cinema and as an allegory per SE, THE CABINET OF DR.
CALIGARI would naturally speak to a filmmaker anxious to create a bridge between German films of the Weimar period and those of his own time.So the black caped father functions here as the symbolic father of German cinema as well.Within the overall narrative of the film, it is the Caligari figure who intervenes with violence at various junctures in order,it would appear, to be able to direct its course.This violence, in turn, generates in the imagination of Kaspar a succession of visionary images that, like Herzog's films, begin with landscapes.When, in one dream sequence, Kaspar creates a mythical landscape of the Caucasus, a landscape with golden temples for which there has been no equivalent in his experience, Kaspar is creating with natural signs, like Herzog in hoping to bring "the real" into his film-making..
Werner Herzog's film deals with the true story of Kasper Hauser (Bruno S.), a young man who appears, supposedly out of nowhere in a small German town of Nuremberg in 1828.
Kasper Hauser is a beautiful, if at times painfully slow film, that gives us yet another interpretation of the outsider in society, definitely worth the watch..
Kasper Hauser is one of the great masterpieces of the New German Cinema and stands as one Werner Herzog greatest achievements.
A truely visionary work!!I have always been fascinated with the story that this film tells.Herzog seems to be an expert at showing the way that an outsider relates to the world.Bruno S.
Werner Herzog's strange and enticing film divulges only what is known of the account of Kaspar Hauser, played by Bruno S., who dwelled for the first 17 years of his life shackled in a small basement room with nothing more than a toy horse to occupy him, without all contact with humans or other living things save for a stranger who gives food to him.
The people surrounding Kaspar in Herzog's film are perfectly subjugated, as in the scene where a little girl tries to teach Kaspar a nursery rhyme, and while it's clear that he doesn't know the meaning at all of the rhyme like she does and that he hasn't even developed as far as a small child, it's also clear that the small child has not developed far enough to know how to educate someone with less common knowledge than her.Herzog chronicles the real-life mystery of Kaspar Hauser not so much as a creepy mystery but as a character study that demonstrates that society's traditional manner of perceiving the world may not essentially be the most well-founded or defensible, hence the film's brilliant original title, Every Man For Himself and God Against All, as all but laid bare when Kaspar's assertion that apples are tired is apparently substantiated by the incapability of his aristocratic savior to show support of the argument that they are lifeless objects subject to human control.Bruno S.
This film blends somewhat disjointed artistic imagery with the true story of Kaspar Hauser, a man apart from society who has been kept in a cellar all of his life, and is suddenly expelled into the light in Nuremburg.
One of the most evocative and quietly moving films ever produced on the subjects of cultural displacement, exploitation and personal despair, with director Werner Herzog producing a pure work of cinema as sensitive as the character that he depicts.
Like many of Herzog's films from this era, such as Even Dwarfs Started Small (1970) and Stroszek (1977) in particular, The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1975) is essentially about looking at the world from the outside in; with all of the separate elements distorted in order to convey the world-view of this perennial outsider seeing himself for the very first time.
In a manner similar to that of David Lynch's subsequent film, The Elephant Man (1980), Herzog uses elements of the real-life story behind the character simply as an excuse to ruminate on the notions of alienation, the nature of conspiracy, personal exploitation and degradation, as well as the often underhanded mechanisms of a seemingly enlightened society, in a way that goes beyond the mere superficial levels of the narrative.The point of the film is expressed by the original German title, "Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle", or "every man for himself and God against all".
However - again looking back to the subject matter of Even Dwarfs Started Small - Herzog instead gives us a representation of the sane man in the insane world; showing us how the corruption and inherent evil of self-preservation can take a gentle and contemplative spirit and crush it completely; a notion that is beautifully illustrated in a cinematic sense by the scene in which Kaspar sows his name with seeds into the flower bed, only to return one day from an outing to find that it has been trampled by an intruder.Moments like these are characteristic of Herzog's continually fascinating style of direction from this particular period, as he approached cinema from a perspective similar to that of filmmakers like Peter Watkins, Ken Russell or Pier Paolo Pasolini by investigating the workings of a period setting from a more contemporary perspective.
As a result of this, there is a heightened quality to the portrayal of Kaspar, as well as a genuine sense of dependence on the two characters that come to care for him, as the more experienced cast members take Bruno under their wing and coach him along in a manner reminiscent of the actual characters themselves.The juxtaposition between the two styles of documentary realism and purposeful cinematic expression can be seen in the visualisation of the film; from the naturalistic cinematography of Jörg Schmidt-Reitwein - with its emphasis on light and shadow and expressive use of landscapes - to the use of classical music (which here gives the film a yearning, almost romantic sense of melodrama to contrast against the more downbeat elements of the film).
In Herzog's film, it is the world that is wrong and confused, with Kaspar becoming a sort of representation for the very greatest qualities of humanity in the face of this vile corruption.
Dealing with material that inevitably draws the viewer into central questions about culture, identity, and the place and importance of the individual, Herzog excels, and the final result in this case is a quite splendid film, which gives pause for thought while providing engaging entertainment.By way of warning however, I should say that the notable downside of the video version that I saw was that the English subtitles were horrendously done on a number of occasions simply unreadable.
Beautifully scripted and shot, with a superb first performance by Bruno S., "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser" is not only one of Herzog's best films, it is one of the best films of the 70s.
"Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Shakespeare vividly helps in making sense, at times, of life, but it certainly does not apply to "Kaspar Hauser." Predating Hollywood's recent love affair with the mentally retarded ("Forrest Gump" and "I Am Sam" come to mind), the main character here is handicapped cognitively before they became fashionable.
It's beautiful and has something great to show us: the deepest secrets of human being.Kasper Hauser (Bruno S.) is a man who was found living away from other people.
Who else other than Werner Herzog should make the film about the incredible story of Kaspar Hauser?
Bruno S., also having rather a special background and a somewhat odd appearance, works perfectly in the role, and director Herzog delivers an interesting, and strange, film..
Of course, Herzog has always been a relentless film-maker, whether exploring the mind of Kaspar Hauser or having Fitzcarraldo drag a ship over a hill.
'The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser' is a critically acclaimed film directed by Werner Herzog.
One fine day in the city of Nuremberg in 1828, a random, strange looking individual(he was 16 years old in the true story, but the film depicts him as a man in his late twenties) appeared standing in the city square motionless holding a prayer book and a letter in his hands.
The character is peculiar and absurd, but Bruno manages to maintain a sense of realism in spite of the absurdities to make the character fully realised on screen and believable.In 'The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser', Werner Herzog through the use of an outsider, makes a subtle commentary about 'civilised' society.
It's based on the true story of Kaspar Hauser, a real-life enigma of the 19th century.
It is based on the true story of Kaspar Hauser, a young man who suddenly appears after spending almost two decades of his life in captivity without any human contact.
Herzog's film is based upon the true and mysterious story of Kaspar Hauser (Bruno S.), a young man who suddenly appeared in Nuremberg in 1828, barely able to speak or walk, and bearing a strange note; he later explained that he had been held captive in a dungeon of some sort for his entire life that he could remember, and only recently was he released, for reasons unknown.Plenty of oddness and humor here, especially when it comes to the segment with the miniature king.
Much like that film, Kaspar Hauser has a certain quality that is mysterious, yet beautiful.
This is perfectly suitable in this case, because the main character, Kaspar Hauser, really is seeing the world for the first time.The opening of the film sets the mood perfectly, showing foggy shots of 19th century landscapes and people that seem almost like a symbol of Kaspar's own hazy mind.
did a fantastic job as the lead character, and it is moving to watch as Kaspar puts so much effort into attempting to comply with the society he suddenly seems to be a part of.Herzog's use of music in his films has always been profound, and Kaspar Hauser is no exception.
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is another of Werner Herzog's explorations of human extremity.
The film embraces the myth of Kaspar Hauser and ignores findings suggesting that much of his story was impossible, or that he was regarded as a pathological liar and that several of the people who cared for him came to detest him, later testifying that they thought he was a con-man.
Unlike many films dealing with such enigmatic mysteries, it does not even attempt to explain the central mystery, but rather to see the world through the point of view of its protagonist and we come to know what a cruel but beautiful world it is.Its revealing thing to know that the actor playing Kaspar Hauser, by almost a non professional actor named as Bruno S.
What I mean by that first statement may not completely apply, due to Werner Herzog's standards for his character in his film Every Man For Himself and God Against All (a much stronger and telling title than the regular Enigma of Kaspar Hauser), but I thought of Kaspar Hauser a few times in relation to movie characters like Forrest Gump, Rain Man, the Elephant Man among others.
This goes for dreams, and apples, too.Questions like these, as well as what it means to be always an outcast even when given the opportunity to 'join' society, are at the heart of Every Man For Himself, a film that ranks with the better Herzog films (if not the best), and provides the great non-actor Bruno S.
What would end up having me recommend the film the most to fans of Herzog not yet acquainted with it, or even people just not familiar with Herzog at all yet love foreign films and experimental takes on human nature, I'd say it has two major things going for it: the depths of the soul a mind and what makes up the essentials in society are put on display in ways almost all filmmakers wouldn't even consider much less film as a docu-drama; and the cinematography and visual strengths, where aside from the exceptions (I didn't care for the 8mm shots of the village, and the Sahara bits are only slightly better), are absolutely top-notch.I'll definitely want to visit the world of Kaspar Hauser again sometime, as it's a character given a 'study' of the purest kind (and a simple-yet-complex performance), where one sees what an outsider really is, and more than anything an outsider from everything the civilized world has to offer.
The film follows Kaspar Hauser (Bruno Schleinstein), who lived the first seventeen years of his life chained in a tiny cellar with only a toy horse to occupy his time, devoid of all human contact except for a man who wears a black overcoat and top hat who feeds him.This film may have actually been decent if the pace was brought up a little.
In casting the role of Kaspar Hauser, Herzog made the inspired choice of the man known only as Bruno S., who had in real life been savagely mistreated when young and who shared certain characteristics with the character in the film.
Herzog clearly isn't interested in solving the riddle of the historic Kaspar Hauser; the film takes Kaspar's unlikely story at face value and uses it as a showcase for the amazing if limited talents of his main man, Bruno S., a schizophrenic street performer who'd spent most of his life in institutions.
There is a definite feel about The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, a strange and hypnotic feel as we witness the later-on-in-years life of a strange individual thrust in amongst people and a society, after previously having had barely any contact at all with someone from the human race.
The film is about a man named Kaspar Hauser who was kept locked up in a cellar for many years and was finally released upon society.
I thought Bruno S did a very good job at playing Kaspar Hauser who we the audience eventually learn to like, feel and care for.
In this film, Herzog made an awesome discovery of a real life outsider named Bruno S., and in here he played Kaspar Hauser. |
tt0044609 | Feed the Kitty | This cartoon is the first of a short series directed by Jones and using the characters of Marc Anthony and Pussyfoot (Marc Anthony's barks and grunts courtesy of an uncredited Mel Blanc).
Marc Anthony, a massive-chested bulldog, tries to intimidate a cute little stray kitten with his ferocious barking and grimacing. Not only is the kitten not frightened, it climbs right up on the dog's back and prepares to nestle itself in his fur. Despite wincing at its kneading, Marc instantly falls for the sleeping kitten and decides to adopt it, bringing it home with him.
Upon his arrival, his human owner (voiced by Bea Benaderet), tired of picking up his things, orders him not to bring one more thing inside the house. Much of the cartoon centers on the kitten continually getting into things around the house and coming very close to alerting Marc Anthony's owner of its presence, with the bulldog employing numerous tactics to hide or disguise it as common household items. As the woman becomes increasingly confused by her dog's suddenly odd behavior, the kitten continues to play.
After a while, Marc Anthony takes the kitten into the kitchen and attempts to scold it, but when he hears his owner walking toward the kitchen, he hastily hides the kitten in a flour canister and tries to look innocent. Growing tired of his antics, his owner evicts him from the kitchen and tells him to stay out while she bakes cookies. Marc Anthony watches as his owner scoops out a cup of flour, and is horrified to see that the kitten is in the measuring cup. The lady pours the flour, along with the kitten, into a mixing bowl and prepares to use an electric mixer. The bulldog tries several times to thwart her, finally spraying his face with whipped cream to make himself appear rabid, resulting in his disbelieving and exasperated owner throwing him out of the house. Meanwhile, the kitten climbs out of the bowl and hides behind a box of soap flakes to clean itself up.
Marc Anthony, unaware that the kitten has escaped, can only watch as his owner mixes the cookie batter, rolls out the dough, cuts it into shapes and places the cookies in the oven. At each phase of the process, the poor bulldog becomes increasingly distressed until he finally collapses in tears, literally crying a puddle in the back yard. His mistress comes out a short time later and, thinking he is crying over being disciplined, lets him back inside and tells him he has been punished enough. She attempts to console him by giving him a cookie in the shape of a cat. Stunned, Marc Anthony takes the cookie and places it on his back where the kitten had slept earlier, eventually breaking down in tears once again.
The kitten then walks up and meows at him. Marc Anthony is immediately overjoyed to see his friend safe and sound, picks the kitten up and kisses it, then suddenly realizes that his owner is watching. He vainly tries to disguise the kitten like he did earlier, but she simply stands in front of him tapping her foot, with her hands on her hips. He finally begs at his mistress's feet, and to his surprise, she allows him to keep the kitten, sternly telling him that the kitten is completely his responsibility. The dog, in turn, glares sternly at the kitten in the manner of a disciplinarian, but it simply purrs at him and climbs onto his back once again. As it kneads his fur and curls up to sleep, he smiles contentedly and tucks it in. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1617145 | Mørke sjeler | Dark Souls has a minimalistic plot. Historical events in this world and their significance are often implicit and left to player interpretation rather than fully shown or explained. Most of the story is given to the player through dialogue from characters within the game, flavor text from items, and world design.
The opening cutscene establishes the premise of the game. The world was once shrouded by grey fog and ruled by dragons. In this time period, Gwyn happens upon the First Flame and finds a Lord Soul. He and his allies use their power to defeat the dragons, beginning the Age of Fire. Over time, the flames begin to fade and Gwyn sacrifices himself and his soul to prolong the Age of Fire. With the flame dwindling, the undead curse arises, causing certain humans to continually resurrect upon death.
The player character is a cursed undead, locked away in an undead asylum. After escaping the asylum, the player travels to Lordran to ring the Bells of Awakening. The bells awaken Kingseeker Frampt, who tells the player to ascend to Anor Londo. In Anor Londo, Gwynevere instructs the player to succeed Lord Gwyn and fulfill the prophecy. To accomplish this, the Lord Souls must be acquired from Gwyn's primordial allies and returned to the flame.
The player may encounter Darkstalker Kaathe, who encourages the player not to link the fire, but to let it die out and usher in the Age of Dark. Once the player acquires the Lord Souls, they travel to the Kiln of the First Flame to succeed Lord Gwyn. Once Gwyn has been defeated, the player is given the choice of linking the flame to preserve the Age of Fire, or letting it die out to instigate the Age of Dark.
=== Artorias of the Abyss ===
At some point in the past, a being known as Manus awakened and began to spread the Abyss—an expanse of darkness—over the land of Oolacile. Knight Artorias was sent to Oolacile to stop the spread of the Abyss, but he failed and became corrupted. Meanwhile, Manus searches desperately for his long-lost pendant across space and time. Once the player obtains the pendant, Manus pulls them into the past. There, the player defeats the corrupted Artorias, and destroys Manus, halting the spread of the Abyss. | violence, revenge, satire, dark, murder | train | wikipedia | "Dark Souls".
If Abel Ferrara's DRILLER KILLER and Larry Cohen's THE STUFF were dropped inside a Magimix and the resulting concoction seasoned with a dusting of tongue-in-cheek humour it'd likely end up looking something like Mathieu Peteul and Cesar Ducasse's DARK SOULS.The film opens with a teenage girl named Johanna (Johanna Gustavsson) jogging alone through the woods.
She barely has time to build up a sweat before a sinister figure dressed in orange overalls wrestles her to the ground and bores a hole into the side of her head with an electric drill.
Later, moments after she returns home, her father Morten (Morten Ruda) receives a phone call from the police pronouncing her dead.
His joking and laughing is soon turned to shock when she starts vomiting up thick black bile.It turns out she is the first victim of a bizarre wave of attacks involving a mysterious black liquid which transforms otherwise healthy individuals into mindless, rotting zombies.
As his daughter slowly loses control of her bodily functions and her skin begins to blacken and decay, a distraught Morten takes it upon himself to go track down those responsible.Fans of Chris Morris' JAM will no doubt find plenty of laughs in the ludicrousness of Morten's situation as Johanna slowly becomes his pet zombie but the film is also at times a sensitive portrait of fatherly devotion.
And when Morten is shown watching old Super 8 family films with his daughter's limp, rotten body propped beside him it's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.Lazy clichés such as the slasher movie's 'last woman standing' rule are subverted: our hero is not a nubile teenager but a bewildered, overweight father looking for the man who drilled his daughter, leaving her zombified.
References to horror classics are skillful and witty, for example the homeless oil diver's expositional monologue which mirrors Quint's famous speech in JAWS.
Winner of Best Horror at the Manhattan and Swansea film festivals, DARK SOULS brings slick thrills and oil spills without resorting to easy scares.
5 out of 5Cambridge Film Festival Daily.
a compilation of the classics.
Dark Souls, a strange movie to review because it looks like a compilation of the best of horror so far.
We have a killer, we have in fact a driller killer.
That did ring a bell, The Driller Killer (1979).
There are so many references towards the classics that you forget to watch the flick itself.The whole story itself is strange.
There's not that much explained and towards the end it changes into something like, here we go again, The Crazies (1973).
In between we see what happens with the people being attacked by the driller killer.
The father tries to take care of his daughter who's being attacked.
There's a lot of stuff (no pun intended) coming out of the mouth of the victims being transformed.
And there's even an ode to the Italian classics by showing how a drill can enter a face or a body.It never bored me although the acting wasn't always convincing but it's really the story that sucks you into Dark Souls.
It will not be for everybody but if you are willing to see a strange story then this is for you.Gore 2/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Coemdy 0/5.
Review: Dark Souls (Mørke Sjeler).
The Pitch: Oily Vomit Of The Living Dead.The Review: I will be honest, this, in nearly 100 reviews I've written, has been one of if not the most difficult one line pitches to write.
Part of that is down to how much is going on in this quiet little Norwegian chiller, which while running to only just over an hour and a half covers an awful lot of territory in that time.
The one substance in abundance in this movie is oil, but it's not the only black entity around, as much of the humour is of the dark variety.
Dark Souls attempts to put a smile on your face as it drills into your brain, and it succeeds to a large extent in that endeavour.We start with a young girl, Johanna (Johanna Gustavson), who is attacked by a man in an orange boiler suit with an electric drill and left for dead, found face down in the mud by the police who pronounce her dead and have her taken to the mortuary.
This comes as a surprise to her loving father, Morten (Morten Ruda), who's seen her walk in the door not moments earlier.
But there's something not quite right about Johanna any more, and she's not alone.
While detective Askestad (Kyrre H.
Sydness) attempts to uncover the truth behind these mystery murders, and the local doctor (Jan Harstad) attempts to uncover the truth behind these rather lively corpses and their strange symptoms, Morten attempts to re-establish family life with Johanna as best as possible, but is slowly but surely drawn into the secret world behind it all.Directors and writers Mathieu Petuel and César Ducasse obviously know their horror.
There's a deliberate, unhurried pace from start to end and, as with so many other effective horror movies over the years, the pacing is used to build tension and to unsettle the viewer.
This isn't your average American slasher, filled with jump cuts and loud bursts on the soundtrack in a vain attempt to summon up scares, everything here is designed more to pick at your nerves and unsettle, apart from the occasional head drilling, of course.
The acting is generally fit for purpose, so while it won't win any awards, it does engage your sympathy in all the right ways, and Morten Ruda is the stand out, carrying more of the narrative as the movie progresses and allowing the mix of off-kilter laughs to blend perfectly with the feeling and the pain.The use of oil is also an interesting motif, but its allegorical use pales in comparison to the body horror of watching it exude from every pore of its victims, and it gives them a distinctive and effective look.
There are also a lot of references to other horror movies thrown into the mix (more than this casual horror fan could ever detect), but the overall narrative, while taking occasional tangents, hangs together very effectively, and the abiding impression is of a deliciously dark movie that will creep under your skin like the oil in its victims.Why see it at the cinema: There's plenty of effective imagery, both subtle and in-your-face, and of course this is at its core a horror movie, so why not guarantee yourself a dark room with a large screen to make the most of the chills?The Score: 8/10.
A man tracks his daughter's attacker, an enigmatic killer who injects a bizarre pathogen into his victims' brains..
A toolbox killer is running loose in Oslo with a nasty drilling habit.
After screwing a hole in his victims' skulls, he injects something strange into their brains which kills them.
But not for long.
They come back to life, their gradually rotting bodies producing a mysterious new hydrocarbon, like crude oil, a foul, caustic, bilious substance which they vomit up in great abundance.When his daughter (Broch) is found dead with a drill hole in her cranium, Morten (Ravn) receives a call from the police requesting him to identify her body.
But he can't, he answers, there must be some mistake.
She's perfectly alright, right here at home, just came in the door.But Morten's daughter Maria is anything but alright.
Her face is rotting and she's barfing oil.
When perplexed doctors ask to experiment on her, Morten decides to take Maria back home, covering all his furnishings with protective plastic to guard against her, um, frequent spills.
Brain damaged, deranged, Maria stumbles about the apartment and stares blankly at the dinner table, repeatedly banging her spoonful of mashed potatoes into her cheek and forehead instead of into her mouth.Meanwhile, the victim count rises as the mad driller strikes again and again throughout Oslo.
Following a chance encounter in which the culprit attacks Morten, Morten, with Maria in tow, begins tracking the maniac.
Morten discovers a ghastly connection to a sinister North Sea, deep drilling oil disaster, as he unearths a bizarre, nightmarish, dark plot.Dark Souls is a Norwegian effort, and North Seas oil production is a major nationalized industry in Norway.
Eighty percent of Norwegian petroleum production is owned by the government, which retains 85% of net petroleum revenues.
The Norwegian government effectively distributes the benefits of its oil wealth, regionally and throughout its population.
Due also in part to a generous social welfare system, an equitable labor relations system and a progressive tax system, Norway can boast one of the lowest levels of income inequality in the world.The benefit comes at a cost; Like any country, Norway has had its share of shameful petroleum mishaps, from the June 2000 Project Deep Spill, the first ever international deep sea oil spill, to the more recent 2007 Statfjord oil spill, and the 2009 Full City oil spill.
Norway has strong government oversight of oil exploration and extraction.
Citizens expect accountability from their governing bodies.
Controversial courses of action by Norway's Ministries of Industry and Petroleum and Energy have been the subject of major environmental protests and lawsuits.
An example stems from the Norwegian government's go-ahead for continued Arctic drilling despite appalling, hazardous 2007 and 2008 StatoilHydro leaks in the Barents Sea.It's little wonder then that Norway's Dark Souls' finds its inspiration in the viscous black well of its own petroleum industry.
The film's prominent themes are familiar ones.
The concept of environmental bad karma and mysterious substances which once ingested, wreak recombinant DNA havoc strongly smack of movies we've seen before.
To wit: H.G. Wells' The Food of the Gods (1976), The Children (1980 and 2008 -previously reviewed here), and The Stuff (1985).
In each of these films, malignant industries go too far in the name of greed.
Fallout ensues in the form of a grotesque backlash where monsters dole out horrid retribution upon the society which passively stood by while corporate outrages were committed against nature.Some subtle tongue-in-cheek posturing lets us know that Dark Souls doesn't take itself too seriously, yet it is never campy or silly.
The film manages to combine some chills with delightfully disgusting revulsion.
Featuring an abundance of Steadicam shots, Dark Souls imposes a close-in, almost documentary-style, gritty feeling, without straying into the realm of cheap "found footage" style movies.
While more mysterious and eerie than horrifying and scary, Dark Souls is a first rate production with a few memorable scenes, and a refreshing lack of a Hollywood-requisite "happy ending.".
Drill and kill, sure...
Hardly so!.
When I bought this movie from Amazon, it was because of the title "Zombie Driller Killer".
And to make things even more interesting it also said "invasion of the flesh eating living dead" underneath the "Zombie Driller Killer" title.
But the movie is Norwegian and it is titled "Mørke Sjeler", which means "Dark Souls".Anyway, I sat down to watch the movie, and was frankly speaking more than a little disappointed.
The "Zombie Driller Killer - Invasion of the Flesh Eating Living Dead" is nothing more than a cheap trick to lure in people looking for a zombie movie.
This is nothing at all like a traditional zombie movie in any way possible.
This movie is about some man in an orange jumpsuit that drills into women's brains and injects some liquid that initially kills the victim, but makes them come back from the dead.
As zombies?
As zombies?
Well, perhaps, but there is no flesh eating participating anywhere in the movie at all.
False advertising on the cover in the worst degree.Story-wise, then this Norwegian horror/thriller movie is fairly weak, especially compared to "Død Snø" ("Dead Snow").
The movie trots ahead t a fairly monotone pace, as we follow Johanna's father in his search for the one who turned his daughter into a brain-dead 'vegetable'.
The story doesn't really offer any scares or surprises.The movie is not all bad though, there are aspects of it that are great.
There is a good continuous flow to the movie, as it trots on.
And the dialogue is alright as well - just know that it is in Norwegian (if you don't enjoy foreign movies).The acting in the movie was good as well, of course not really award-winning material, but people did good jobs with their given roles.
And not having seen that many Norwegian movies or television, then it was good to have a whole bunch of fresh faces that weren't associated with previous roles and characters.A warning to gore-hounds and zombie aficionados out there, this movie is by definition NOT a zombie movie, and you might up just as disappointed with this movie as I was..
A awkward entry in the horror genre.
SPOILER: Mørke sjeler AKA Dark Souls is bit different compared to most horror films, which is a good thing in my book.
It's always good to see people trying something new with the genre, the whole movie's about the struggle of a father who tries to take care of his daughter who became sick after she got attacked for unknown reasons.
Her appearance slowly disintegrates as the film continues including heavy vomiting of a black liquid, and what's with these men in orange jumpsuits attacking women with a drill.
It's all part of the mystery hahaha, it's a interesting film but there were some moments that i was thinking that i was watching a made for TV crime film (Which it isn't).
I don't want to spoil too much but there were a few scenes (especialy the scene near the end in the hospital) which slightly reminded me of Fulci, which is always a good thing.
If anyone would ask me how to describe the film i have to say, a horror/thriller with a bit of drama.
Go have a look for it yourself if you're interested, anyway you won't get bored..
Low budget Norwegian horror.
DARK SOULS is a dark and dingy slice of Norwegian horror, made on a tiny budget.
The story is about characters who go missing only to reappear somehow different.
It's a story that flirts with tropes from the zombie genre but which plays out as a slow-moving police procedural for the most part.
There's a lot of low key investigation, a lot of wandering around in poorly-lit locations, and more plot than expected for such a low budget feature.
I found the horror content too self-limiting and the film to be lacking the requisite power needed to make it work..
Spoilers follow ....
I was first alerted to this film by spotting it on the CV of musician, Wojciech Golczewski, whose incidentals had added so much to the evocative atmosphere of 'We Are Still Here (2015)'.
Here, his menacing strings accompany casually stunning jogger Johanna (Johanna Gustavsson), alerting us to the fact that, as she runs through sunny glades, she's in imminent danger.
As the film's title suggests, it's only brief moments before a masked man in industrial overalls holds her down and forces a drill into her head.Despite dying, she is soon back at her father's home.
Breathing, but with no pulse, she is somnambulistic, only rousing to vomit black putridity over her father.
Meanwhile, the driller killers (for there are several) claim more victims – discarding any males and concentrating on females.This story concentrates on Johanna's father Morten's (Morten Rudå) attempts to look after his deteriorating daughter.
Watching as he tries to persuade others that the blackened, vomiting creature will 'soon be better' is deeply harrowing.
The bemused apathy of the police is similarly distressing.Shot like a documentary in grainy images, the effects are probably the weakest link here.
Whilst an abundance of black tar-like substances oozing from hair and bodies is pretty revolting, the execution of the illness belies this Norwegian film's lack of budget.
The tone is refreshing, however, and doesn't always take itself too seriously, while certain moments recall the work of David Cronenberg and the rotting, limping, back-haired ghosts of 'Ju-on: The Grudge (2002)' and similar Asian films.It is unconventional also that a middle aged man should emerge as the hero of the piece, his vigilante actions uncovering a dark governmental secret, and distinctively so.
As a whole, though, 'Dark Souls/Zombie Driller Killer' doesn't really live up to either its title, or the promise shown in early scenes..
It's not a tumor.
Norwegian film with subtitles.
A town is under attack by men in Hydro orange jumpsuits with battery powered drills.
They get drilled in the head and have an undersea black hydrocarbon placed in their head.
They become zombie-like.The film is different.
Reminded me a little of "The Stuff" and 80's film of a higher caliber.
The picture centers on a father and his daughter, as he plays private detective. |
tt0420835 | Opal Dream | The film begins by introducing Kellyanne Williamson, playing with imaginary friends Pobby and Dingan. The family of Rex Williamson—his wife, Anne, daughter Kellyanne and son Ashmol—have moved to Coober Pedy, known as the "opal capital of Australia", because Rex believed he could make a fortune in mining opal. So far he's had little success. Ashmol, while he loves his sister, is frequently annoyed when she talks to her imaginary friends, and some of the kids at school tease the siblings because of them.
Rex and Anne decide it is time to separate Kellyanne from her invisible companions. Annie takes Kellyanne to a Christmas party at Annie's friend's house, Rex telling her that he will let Pobby and Dingan come with him to go opal mining. Upon Rex's return, Kellyanne says she can no longer see them and that they have disappeared. She insists on going to the opal mining area to look for them, accompanied by Rex and Ashmol. The family accidentally strays on to a neighbouring miner's claim. The miner, Sid, pulls a shotgun on Rex and calls the police, thinking that Rex was "ratting" on his territory - that is, looking for opals on his turf.
Kellyanne is grief-stricken at the loss of her imaginary friends and takes ill, although doctors can find nothing physically wrong with her. Rex has to leave his opal claim. Annie loses her job at the local supermarket, thanks to the circulating rumours around Rex's arrest. Convinced that Kellyanne is faking her illness, Ashmol nonetheless goes along with her wish that he try to find Pobby and Dingan. He even comes up with the idea of putting posters around town. Ultimately, returning to his father's mine area, Ashmol finds two lollipop wrappers. Deeper in the tunnel, he finds a large opal which he takes back to Kellyanne. He tells her he has found Pobby and Dingan, and that they are dead.
Kellyanne, whose sickness has been worsening, has to go to hospital. Ashmol sells his opal and pays for a funeral for Pobby and Dingan. He has made friends with a lawyer, who takes Rex's case. Rex wins the trial.
Many people in town begin to feel that their attitude toward Kellyanne and her family may have contributed to her sickness. These people show up at Pobby and Dingan's funeral. Kellyanne, though still sick, is there, and throws lollipops into her imaginary friends' graves. A short time later, Kellyanne herself dies, and is buried between her imaginary friends. Ashmol visits her grave. Rex gets his claim back, and Ashmol is allowed to accompany him on mining trips.
=== Ending ===
In the original release of the film, the death of Kellyanne was not shown; after Pobby and Dingan's funeral, the screen fades to white, and the film ends. This cut was made against the wishes of the director and crew but did air uncut and as originally intended when shown on BBC Two in 2008. | storytelling | train | wikipedia | Heartwarming family movie about imaginary friends.
I saw this movie at the 2006 International Film Festival of Rotterdam.Heartwarming family movie about imaginary friends.The 9 year old daughter of a family in an opal mining town enjoys company of two imaginary friends.
She becomes ill after something happens to them.
The father is suspected of theft, making his household outcasts in the rough Australian mining community.
The older brother has always felt embarrassed of his sister's behavior, but decides to help her anyway.Movie manages to make the audience both laugh and care about its subject "imaginary friends".
Very entertaining, Excellent performances from the child actors.
Recommended.9/10Credits Trivia: The story is based on the book "Pobby and Dingan" (2000) by UK-based author Ben Rice.
Pobby and Dingan are the names of the imaginary friends.
I just happened to run into this little 100 page book a week after seeing the movie..
a quieter and deeper Full Monty.
This is quite a good film about a sun-scorched prospector town and family members whose dreams and imaginary worlds drive each other nuts.
It's deeper than the director's best-known film, The Full Monty, though the topic is similar: the struggles of working-class folks to stay closer to their dreams than they are to their failures.
The depiction of the town dynamics seemed to me as flawless as the individual performances, and as someone who comes from a family with shall we say a non-standard member, I was impressed with the film's ability to produce a familiar emotional mix of exasperation, devotion, and desire for a truly imaginative cure for the main problem.
The movie delivers on this last point.
It would be wrong to see this as a chick flick, because as in The Full Monty the cast and crew are interested in men who try to figure out how to resolve conflicts and fix disasters without using anger and force, and who pretty much succeed.
British and Commonwealth film is generally better than American at avoiding stereotypes of blue-collar masculinity and this is a particularly good and heart- warming example.
The boy in the picture, who has to figure out what to do about his dad and his sister, is one of the great kids of recent film history..
Story of reconciliation.
Screened on DVD June 8, 2008It's a warm holiday season in the South Australia mining town of Coober Pedy, and for the Williamson family, festivities are juggled around nine-year-old Kellyanne's devotion to her invisible playmates, Pobby and Dingan, and her dad, Rex's, single-minded pursuit of the perfect opal.The hypnotic gems possess a dangerous allure, as the girl's brother, Ashmol, says in his framing narration to "Opal Dream." Everybody comes to the place to dream -- presumably about a better life somewhere -- as they dig for opals.
The more you dream, the deeper you want to dig, but if you dig too deep, you might never get out -- never wake up, he says.For the Williamsons, the town offers dreams and not much else.
Rex hopes to strike it rich for his wife, Annie, and their kids.
But after a year in town, they don't have much.
Rex needs a bit of luck at the races to afford the kids' Christmas presents.Moving to Coober Pedy has taken the hardest toll on Kellyanne, for whom Pobby and Dingan are two very real people, and she shares with everyone her enthusiasm for her friends' artistic, gentle, natures.
"They're pacifists," she explains.Her teacher says Kellyanne has a vivid imagination but she's a dreamer who doesn't have many friends -- "she doesn't find people very easy." When Rex complains about Pobby and Dingan, Annie points out that they're as real as opals are to him.Rex has his share of more tangible problems.
He has relocated after an apparently minor brush with the law, and he finds himself in a community of narrow-minded ruffians who don't coddle to "ratters" -- blokes that come around at night and noodle around your claim for highly prized colored opals.Adapted from a Ben Rice novel, "Pobby and Dingan," the movie "Opal Dream" is the story of Rex's reconciliation with his new town and his growing family as two crises unfold.It all starts off innocently.
In a clumsy but well-meaning attempt to wean his daughter off Pobby and Dingan, Rex offers to take the amorphous pair along to the mines with him and Ashmol while she and Mom go to a holiday party.
Kellyanne agrees, but when he comes home without her unseen sidekicks, Kellyanne talks him into going back to look for them.
When he does, the bloke at a nearby mine discovers Rex on his claim and calls the cops.Rex is soon headed to a hearing to face mining violation charges.
Worse, the whole town turns on the family: Annie loses her job at a grocery store and, when Ashmol goes for a bike ride, he finds a rat swinging from the handlebars left by a gang of jeering kids.
Again, Kellyanne gets the worst of it -- without Pobby and Dingan around, she falls ill and, to the bafflement of her doctors, steadily deteriorates.The way the reconciliation is achieved carries the story satisfactorily through Act III.
But the climax and resolution are squeezed together so tightly that the outcome for all the characters can only be described as ambiguous, especially for poor Kellyanne, whose actions were only the metaphor for her family's isolation.Director Peter Cattaneo's production has an outstanding cast throughout, particularly the Williamson clan.
Production values are excellent.
Newcomer Sapphire Boyce is a strikingly beautiful child..
The Land of Make-Believe.
The Australian film industry has over the last few decades produced a number of haunting, poetic films, quite different from the standard Hollywood output.
Examples include "Walkabout", "Picnic at Hanging Rock", the lesser-known but excellent "Celia" and the more recent "Ten Canoes".
"Opal Dream" is another in this tradition; as in "Celia" the main character is a nine-year-old girl.The film is set in the opal mining town of Coober Pedy, here disguised under the fictitious name of Lightning Ridge, and centres on the family of opal miner Rex Williamson.
Some on this board have labelled the family "dysfunctional", but this does not seem an accurate description.
Rex and his wife Annie are loving and affectionate parents to their children Ashmol and Kellyanne, and Ashmol seems a normal, likable eleven-year-old lad.
The problem lies with his younger sister Kellyanne, a shy, withdrawn child who finds it difficult to make friends.
To compensate for her lack of playmates she has invented two imaginary friends, Pobby (male) and Dingan (female).Many children go through a phase of having an imaginary friend- I remember my younger sister inventing a boy called John Ted- but Kellyanne's case is rather different.
Even at the age of five or six my sister was well aware in her heart of hearts that John Ted was a fantasy rather than a real person, and by the time she was nine he had long been forgotten.
Kellyanne, however, has quite convinced herself that Pobby and Dingan are real, and has retained her belief in the reality of their existence long after most children have waved their imaginary friends goodbye.Rex and Annie are concerned about their daughter's fantasies, but pretend to believe in the existence of Pobby and Dingan to humour her, and one day Rex pretends to take them to his opal diggings.
When he returns, however, Kellyanne becomes convinced that he has left them behind and insists that he take her back to look for them.
Rex does so, but while looking for the imaginary pair he inadvertently strays onto another miner's claim, which leads to him being arrested by the police and charged with "ratting" (illegal mining).
As ratting is regarded as the most heinous sin an opal miner can commit, this leads to Rex and his family being ostracised by their neighbours.
Kellyanne falls ill, partly because of stress caused by the family's situation and partly because of grief over the loss of her friends.There are parallels between Kellyanne's situation and that of her parents and the wider community of Lightning Ridge.
She is living in a world of make-believe and so, in a sense, are they.
The opal miners are not employed by a big mining corporation, but are self-employed prospectors.
Each miner has his own jealously guarded individual claim, which explains why "ratters" are regarded with such contempt.
They have been lured to the town by dreams of wealth, but in most cases these prove to be as illusory as Pobby and Dingan.
(Hence the title "Opal Dream").
Until about a year previously, Rex and Annie ran a pub in Melbourne, but abandoned that life to try their luck in the opal fields.
The fact that the Williamsons are outsiders makes many of their neighbours ill-disposed to them even before the "ratting" allegations, and there is a suggestion that Kellyanne's emotional problems may be connected to her sudden uprooting from one environment to another.I did not like the ending, which I felt amounted to a retreat into tear-jerking sentimentality and avoided, rather than resolving, the tensions and conflicts inherent in the plot.
That, however, would be my only complaint.
The adults all play their parts well, and the two child actors, Christian Byers and Sapphire Boyce, were excellent.
Sapphire (interesting that the leading actress in a film about jewel mining should herself be named after a jewel) deserves a special mention.
Most excellent performances from child actors come in films where they are required to play lively, outgoing youngsters- a good recent example is Anna Sophia Robb's performance in "Bridge to Terabithia", a film I did not otherwise much care for.
To have played an introverted, withdrawn child like Kellyanne must have been more difficult.
The film's haunting atmosphere is also heightened by the photography of the South Australian desert landscapes, made to seem even more barren and otherworldly by the slagheaps from the mineral workings.
"Opal Dream" is very enjoyable as a sensitive and poetic exploration of a difficult childhood.
This fantastic movie deserves a bigger audience!.
Most of the people I know here in Canada have never even heard of Opal Dream, A.K.A. Pobby and Dingan.
One night while they were out watching another pathetic rerun of that disgusting Family Guy show, I went on eBay and bought a DVD of Opal Dream.
When it arrived in the mail two weeks later it seemed to be a movie for little children, but as innocent as it seems, it's still got a quality to it that can be just as powerful for adults as for kids.Set in the great outback of Australia, Opal Dream is the story of the love between a little girl and her two best friends...
Pobby and Dingan are imaginary friends, and very friendly and caring creatures.
Her parents, teacher and brother try to understand Kellyanne's friendship by telling themselves that it's just a phase, that she'll grow out of it, that they're just emotional support for her since the family moved out to Coober Pedy for her dad's mining job, but one day they get fed up with her imaginary friends and force Kellyanne to lose them.
In turn, they all learn just how powerful imagination can be, and the only one who seems to be able to finally try to set things right for Kellyanne is her brother Ashmol, and by the time the adults in town finally wake up and start seeing things from Kellyanne's point of view, it may already be too late.I'm not really sure of the theme of Opal Dream, or even if it has one.
My best guess would be that it is trying to show how when a child, or anyone for that matter, loses something important to them, it can have irreversible effects.
When it comes to imaginary friends, modern media has made them out to be monsters and signs of mental illness, from the 1978 horror movie Magic to the recent 2012 movie Imaginary friend.
It's rather unfortunate that today anyone who has an imaginary friend is viewed as having some sort of trouble, because for some people an imaginary friend is their support, their coping mechanism and the only one they can trust.
Believe it or not many adults have them, and these people are still normal, happy members of society.
Kellyanne's parents were worried that their daughter was getting to old for her unseen companions.
They got their peace of mind, but Kellyanne got cheated out of her childhood.This movie is surprisingly sad for a children's movie, I won't ruin what happens at the ending but it's incredibly depressing and will leave a lasting memory, that's for sure.
The Australian scenery is very beautiful and the acting was excellent.
I liked the soundtrack and the whole movie had vague elements of Paperhouse (1988) and Don't Look Under the Bed (1999).
Sadly most kids today only want to watch cr*p like The Hunger Games and Disney's Frozen, so it's nice to see that there are still good movies out there for kids if you know where to look.
My little brother loved this one too, but because of the ending of the film, you may want to watch t yourself before showing it to your kids.
I think it deserves a 10/10 stars, even more than that, it's a beautiful movie with a timeless message and will definitely be one of my favorites for a long time to come..
haunting.
A hauntingly beautiful Australian film about the power of belief, and of the love between siblings.
Rex Williamson (Vince Colosimo) is an opal miner prospecting in the outback town of Cooper Pedy.
When his daughter Kellyanne's (Sapphire Boyce) imaginary friends go missing after a visit to the family's mine claim, he searches for them, and gets accused of attempted theft from a neighbouring claim in the process.
Faced with his father being charged with attempting to steal from someone else's claim, and the family being shunned by the community as a result, as well as his young sister becoming ill through grief for her imaginary friends, Rex's son Ashmol (Christian Byers) sets out to put things right.
This review really doesn't do justice to this heart warming and unusual tale.
This is an Australian co-production with the BBC, so watch out for some familiar faces in atypical roles. |
tt0027139 | Tumbling Tumbleweeds | Gene Autry (Gene Autry) returns to his home after a five-year absence as a singing cowboy with a group of strolling players that includes Smiley (Smiley Burnette) and Eightball (Eugene Jackson), who sell Dr. Parker's Painless Panacea. Gene's father, a cattle barron and one of the original "nesters" in the West, was recently murdered during a conflict with his landlord.
While at an abandoned nester's cabin, the group is held up by Harry Brooks (Cornelius Keefe), whom Gene recognizes as his old friend. Wounded and semi-delirious, Harry induces Gene to hide him from the posse headed by Sheriff Manley (George Burton). The deputy later returns and tries to shoot Harry, but Gene chases him away.
In town, the deputy reports to Barney Craven (Edward Hearn), leader of a gang which is trying to silence Harry. Meanwhile, Gene and his friends set up a performance in town, but it is interrupted by Craven's men, who report that Harry is wanted for the murder of Gene's father. Hastening to Harry's home, Gene confronts his former sweetheart Janet, now Harry's wife, and meets Janet's younger sister Jerry (Lucile Browne), whom he had only known as a girl. They assure Gene of Harry's innocence and reveal that Harry and Gene's father were about to sign a settlement over disputed water rights.
Now suspicious of Craven, Gene captures Craven, the deputy, and their cohorts by a series of clever ruses that land them in jail, and thereby vindicates Harry. Gene and Jerry marry and join Smiley and Eightball on the departing Parker wagon. | murder | train | wikipedia | Anyone can dance if they are properly persuaded.
Surprisingly enjoyable Western where Gene solves the murder of his father, rights the wrongs attributed to his old friend, and gets both the horse and the girl all in just over one hour!
The writing is clever and Gene's acting is both more fluid and his lines more subtle than in many follow-on films.
The substance of the dispute water rights: a very real part of the history of the American West.George "Gabby" Hayes (it appears with all his teeth) does yeoman service as Doctor Parker.
Smiley Burnette is good as the sidekick that cannot quite find the mate to a missing spur.Good songs and the use of a modern record player allow Gene to trap three of the bad guys.
Good chase scene.
Best line in move is when the good guys line up the three bad men and Smiley (angry that they just shot a hole in his guitar) tells them to dance.
The bad guys say that they can't dance and the response is "anyone can dance if they are properly persuaded." Sure this is a low budget Saturday matinée special, but it appears that someone was trying very hard to show that this team of actors and director Joseph Kane would be able to produce a winner that could be replicated.
Highly recommended..
Gene Autry's First Starring Feature.
Gene Autry, an early country and western singer, appeared as a guest in two Ken Maynard western movies.
Then he starred in the surreal serial, "The Phantom Empire." His fourth movie and first starring role in a feature was "Tumbling Tumbleweeds," obviously with Republic Pictures (which had just begun operations as a merger of six smaller studios).After the credits the opening crawl reads, "In the Old West there was no law." Those among the newcomers who became the strong divided their empires.
Later arrivals, who wanted just a small piece of land and water, were the Nesters.
Before long, bitter warfare ensued between the landlords and the Nesters.
Thus we have the movie's setting.
There are good actions scenes early on (possibly stock footage?).
Gene's dad – a landlord but handicapped – incorrectly assuming that his son did not contribute to his cause, banishes him from his homestead.
Five years later, as part of Dr. Parker's Medicine Show, Gene returns to the town of Gunstock.
Dr. Parker is Gabby Hayes, toothed and beardless, but mustachioed.
In Gene's absence, his unrelenting father was murdered and his friend, Harry Brooks, charged with the crime.
Gene recognizes Harry to be innocent, so he and his sidekick, Smiley Burnette, set out to solve the crime.
They soon discover that Barney Craven and his gang are also after Brooks.
It seems that there is a conflict over water rights, even though the main problem with the landlords and the Nesters has ended.
If Smiley can only find the mate to the spur that he found at a crime scene!
And who smokes Red Top cigarettes?
Gene will surely get to the truth.Sometimes it is difficult to place the time-frame for Gene Autry westerns, which, as his movie aficionados know, range from 1829 to about 1950.
Gene's movie settings of the late 19th and early 20th century are not his "mythical" westerns of the 1930s and 1940s, when the old West was long gone.
These mythical westerns showed modern cars, radios, and even early televisions!
And yet there were "sections" of towns that catered to men who still rode horses and carried six guns."Tumbling Tumbleweeds" shows a "modern-looking" portable phonograph (circa 1930, without the cylinder) and disc record, and women are seen in 1920s or 1930s hairstyles and clothing.
The Indian tribes have been subdued; there are telephones, but still no automobiles.
Despite the anachronisms of the hairstyles, clothing, and phonograph, we may surmise that we are in the historic West of the nineteenth century, but very late (1890s).
The movie has nice action and some good close-up shots.
See the fist-fight scene about 39 minutes into the film, which runs slightly under an hour in time.
The western town of Gunstock obviously has black residents, a nice touch for the time.
Eightball (Eugene Jackson), part of Dr. Parker's show, dances some cool moves with a split that obviously wowed 1935 audiences.
The title tune is a treat.
And the ending
not only does Gene get the girl, but also he gets hitched!.
'8' on the Matinée Scale.
Autry's first movie under the banner of Republic is a good one.
Catch those great panoramic shots of gangs hard-riding across the flats, taking aim at each other courtesy director Kane.
They're real eye-grabbers, unusual for a matinée western.
In fact, the 60-minutes is full of imaginative touches like the brawl inside the traveling show wagon, with the losers getting dumped unceremoniously onto the rocky roadway.
And I kept wondering where grizzled old Gabby from the credit crawl was.
But there he was, hiding behind a brown mustache, a nice suit, and even a set of false teeth.
Yes sir, it's Gabby like I'd never seen before.
Plus, Gene's all duded out in cowboy finery of his own, trying to get a bead on whoever murdered his dad, and you just know he will.
Even at this early stage he's got an easy way with a song, including the great title tune.
And who is that black kid with feet faster than the proverbial flying bullet.
Yes indeed, that's quite a medicine show old Gabby puts on.
And I love the way he fills his bottles of elixir with muddy water, just the thing to cure everything from a nosebleed to gout.Anyhow, I think there's a flaw in IMDb's rating system.
I'd hate to put this programmer-- good as it is-- up against quality A-pictures.
So instead, I give it an '8' on a scale strictly for those great old matinees that are still a lot of harmless fun..
"You see anything of a fella with a couple of bullet holes in him?".
Depending on how you count them, Gene Autry made about ninety plus films; this is my eightieth review of an Autry flick, all courtesy of Encore Westerns and their faithful screening of his movies on Sundays at noon (although I caught this one early on a Saturday morning).
As it turns out, this was Gene's very first picture for Republic, cobbled together from a handful of Poverty Row Western film productions.
Interesting that it took seventy nine other pictures for me before getting around to Number One.For his first starring role, Gene is put in the precarious position of opposing his father's (Joseph W.
Girard) stance as a leader of the ranching landowners in fierce opposition to nesters making their way into the valley.
Saving his unconscious father from going over a cliff in a runaway wagon, Dad repays Gene by banishing him from home for his siding with the opposition.
Granted, no one ever told Autry Sr. what happened, so you have to give him a pass on that one.Fast forward five years and Gene finds himself tagging along with Dr. Parker's Phamous Purveyors of Phun Phrolic and Painless Panacea.
To the uninitiated, that would be George 'Gabby' Hayes, looking almost youthful at fifty years old, what without a graying beard and only a dark mustache in the way of facial hair.
I was caught off guard when Doc Parker referred to his magic elixir as a 'batch of dope', but it didn't seem unusual to him that any old stagnant water laying around would do to make up the next concoction.Not only do you have Gabby on board, but future Autry regular Smiley Burnette also finds himself in the mix here, joining in on a couple of songs and interrupting his regular patter with the trademark frog voice.
Rounding out the entertainment group, young black actor Eugene Jackson has a tap dance routine all worked out for the locals, revved into high gear with a gulp of Parker's magic tonic.Long story short, Gene learns that his father was murdered and enlists help from the locals to find out who pulled the trigger.
Even though good friend Harvey Brooks (Cornelius Keefe) was implicated, Gene smells a rat and takes steps to lay out the cheese.
I was somewhat amused when Gene used the old dummy in a rocking chair trick to smoke out the bad guys.
That ruse was used again some dozen years later by Autry in 1949's "Riders of the Whistling Pines".Overall the film utilizes some good action sequences like the brawl in the runaway wagon, sandwiched around a fair passel of tunes by Gene and his pals.
One of the cool sit up and take notice scenes for fans of these old B Westerns is catching three of the era's most prolific character actors - Charles King, Tom London and George Chesebro - dance a jig under Gabby's watchful eye and handy six shot persuader..
The template for a first-rate B-Western.
This was the one, folks: Gene Autry's first starring, feature-length movie, and it is a very fine one.
In fact, if you were going to write down the directions for making the perfect B-Western, they might produce "Tumbling Tumbleweeds."The movie starts with stock footage of hard-charging, deadly shooting cowboys, battling each other, ranchers on one side, nesters on the other.
Excellent choice of action scenes.
Why do some reviewers always mention "stock footage" disdainfully as if somehow the studio "cheated" by not shooting all of the footage for the movie from scratch?Then we move to the present day.
Gene Autry is the son of a wealthy cattle baron whose ranch is being attacked by a mob of the nesters, determined to bring the ranchers down.
Autry Sr., who is confined to a wheelchair, sends one of the hands to round up all the ranchers in the area to defend their way of life.
Gene, who is dressed slick as a whistle and is shown seated in his dad's office, playing his guitar and singing, doesn't agree with all the feudin' and fightin' between the two groups, but he follows his father and the other ranchers to the point where the fighting begins -- and manages to save his wounded father from likely death by lifting him off the wagon he is riding in and carrying him to safety.Apparently no one tells the old man that Junior was the one who saved him, because he orders Gene to pack his things and "git." Gene does so.
The implication of his father's words to him is (and I've never heard anyone else take note of this) that he is something less than a real man because he didn't charge head-long at the nesters, gun blazing.Five years later, Gene returns as part of a medicine show,headed by George "Gabby" Hayes, cleverly disguised as Dr. Parker, sans any whiskers (except a mustache), and with a full set of teeth.
Smiley Burnette is also on board, although he and Gene aren't bonafide "partners" yet.The group encounters Gene's best friend Harry Brooks on their way into the town of Gunstock.
He is badly wounded, armed and belligerent, and fleeing from a murder charge which he insists is false.
The medicine show bunch patches him up as well as they can, and hides him in the wagon.Later, after the troupe has done several musical numbers for a good crowd of the town's citizens, Gene learns from one of the locals that the man Brooks is accused of killing was Gene's own father.
Gene, visibly stunned, goes up on the stage, gives a brief but moving speech about his father, and begins singing "That Silver-Haired Daddy of Mine," which was a big hit for him and Jimmy Long, who wrote it, in real life.Barney Craven, the head baddie who wants to gain control of the elder Autry's ranch, sends Tom London and George Chesebro, two of his henchmen who were popular "bad guys" in B-Westerns, into the crowd to disrupt the medicine show.
At one point Chesebro yells an insulting, "We don't need no lavender cowboys in this town!", another implication that Gene may be a little sissified.But Autry quickly shows that he can deal with troublemakers quite well, as the concert ends in a fist fight in which Gene whips Chesebro and London is laid out by the local who gave Gene the bad news a few moments before.From that point on the movie turns into a twists and turns detective story, Western style, with Gene and Smiley trying to figure out who really killed Autry Sr., and bring that man (or men, as it turns out) to justice.
The climactic scene features a wild dash of the medicine show wagon back to town with a full-fledged fight among the Craven bad guys and Gene's men going on all the way in the back of the wagon.In the end, Craven and all his men are marched into jail, where Harry Brooks and his wife, who had been Gene's girlfriend five years before, have been hidden for days to keep the crooks from trying to bump him off.Gene and the former girlfriend's younger sister have meanwhile fallen in love with each other, and in the final scene they are riding off in the medicine show wagon, Gene holding the reins and singing the title song, apparently just married.
Riding off into the sunset; what better ending for a sterling B-Western?Gene Autry shows surprisingly good acting talent in this, his first starring role, especially considering the claims of some reviewers that he "couldn't act at all." Smiley comes up with some funny lines, without descending into the silliness that sometimes marred some of Gene's later pre-World War II movies.
Hayes shows off his versatility as "Dr. Parker," whose personality is completely different from the one that "Gabby" always displayed when playing Second Banana, usually to Roy Rogers.If you've never seen this movie, then you should.
It's well paced and directed, with a good plot, plenty of action, and good characterizations.
It could be the "template" for the B-Westerns of yore. |
tt0374474 | 13 Seconds | Seconds is a mystery dealing with the obsession with eternal youth and a mysterious organization which gives people a second chance in life.
Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph) is a middle-aged man whose life has lost purpose. He's achieved success, but finds it unfulfilling. His love for his wife has dwindled and he seldom sees his only child. Through a friend, a man he thought was dead, Hamilton is approached by a secret organization, known simply as the "Company" which offers him a new life.
Upon arriving for a meeting, Hamilton arrives at a meat packing plant. He is given workman overalls and hat, then exits the facility out a different door where he is next seated inside the back of a truck which proceeds to another building. He disappears into a large complex filled with dark, empty hallways where he awaits his transformation. The Company gives Hamilton the body of a young man (Rock Hudson) through plastic surgery and a new identity, namely 'Antiochus "Tony" Wilson'. He later discovers this identity has been taken from someone who recently passed on.
He is resettled into a community filled with people like him who are "reborns". Eventually, Hamilton decides the new life isn't what he wants. He contacts the Company, letting them know he wants a different identity and they seem to agree. It turns out to be a lie and Hamilton learns as he is wheeled to the operating room, before being sedated, that he is to be killed. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0036748 | Days of Glory | The film begins in North Africa where large numbers of indigènes (French Algerian Tirailleurs as well as Tunisian or Moroccan Goumiers) have been recruited into the French First Army of the Free French Forces, that has been formed to liberate France of the Nazi occupation in World War II.
Saïd, an impoverished goat herder, joins the 7th Algerian Tirailleur Regiment. With him are several other Berber men, including Yassir, who is seeking booty so that he can return home and his brother can marry; Messaoud, who wants to marry and settle in France; and literate Corporal Abdelkader, who is fighting for the equality and rights of the colonized Algerians.
Soon the men, dressed in lend-lease American uniforms meet Sergeant Martinez, a battle-hardened pied noir, who trains them before leading them on their first mission in the Italian Campaign. Their mission is to capture a heavily-defended mountain from the Germans. It soon becomes clear that their white commanding officer is using the colonial troops as cannon fodder to identify artillery targets. The African troops eventually succeed, but the tactics result in high casualties among the colonial troops. When asked by a French war correspondent about his thoughts on the losses, the white colonel replies, "today was a great victory for the Free French Forces".
The troops of the 7th ATR are transported to France to participate in Operation Dragoon to liberate the south of France. While aboard ship, a white cook refuses to give tomatoes to black soldiers. Abdelkader calls for equality but the mutiny is averted when Martinez and the company Captain assures everyone will be treated the same.
On arrival at Marseille, the colonial troops are greeted as heroes. Messaoud, meets and courts Irène, a French woman; When his regiment leaves, he promises to write and to return. She says she'll wait for him and they will marry. However, due to French censorship of mail between Arab men and white French women, Irène never learns Messaoud's fate.
Saïd becomes Martinez's orderly, for which the other soldiers call him "wench". Eventually, he snaps and holds a knife to Messaoud's throat. Abdelkader calms the situation, but Saïd makes it clear that in this segregated world the French authorities will not give their African soldiers anything. While drinking with the sergeant, Saïd mentions they are similar, as he had seen the picture of Martinez with his Arab mother; the NCO—a self-hating Arab—attacks him, and threatens to kill Saïd if he reveals this secret.
The colonial troops discover that while they are not allowed breaks, the white Free French Forces are given leave to return home in France. Eventually, the troops are told they are going home, but it's a ruse; instead, they are billeted behind the lines and given a ballet performance. Bored and disillusioned, most leave the tent and hold a meeting outside decrying the injustice. Martinez challenges the group, led by Abdelkader, and a fight starts.
Early the next morning, French MPs bring Messaoud to a temporary stockade where Abdelkader is also being held. Messaoud says he was arrested for trying to go back to Marseille and find Irène. Abdelkader is brought before the white Colonel who tells him that he needs him to go on a special mission: to take ammunition to American troops fighting in the Lorraine Campaign and also be the first French troops to liberate Alsace. The white officer promises that Abdelkader and the other African soldiers will get the rewards and recognition that success in this operation demands. Later, the white company captain tells the corporal that the colonel will keep his word.
Most of the men are killed by a booby trap, including Yassir's brother, as they cross the German lines. Martinez has been severely injured. Most of the troops want to return to their side, but Abdelkader rallies them to push on. Eventually, the corporal, Saïd, Messaoud, Yassir and Martinez reach an Alsatian village. Over the next few days the soldiers ingratiate themselves into the area, and Saïd befriends a milkmaid. A battle begins when a company of Germans arrive, and everyone except Abdelkader is killed. Messaoud is badly hurt by a Panzerschreck and then shot by a German rifleman. Saïd attempts to evacuate Martinez, but they are both shot by the Panzerschreck, killing Saïd and further wounding Martinez, who is quickly finished off. Abdelkader and Yassir attempt to flee, but Yassir is shot in the back by a German. However just as the corporal is cornered, more colonial troops arrive and drive the Germans out of the village.
As columns of Free French forces begin to move through the area, Abdelkader sees the colonel passing in his jeep, but the white commanding officer ignores him and he is pulled away by a staff officer who asks him where his unit is. When Abdelkader says they are all dead, he is simply assigned to another white NCO. As he walks out of the village, he passes a film cameraman filming only white troops standing by the liberated villagers.
The movie then moves to the present day. An elderly Abdelkader visits a war cemetery in Alsace to visit the graves of his comrades: Martinez, Saïd, Yassir and Messaoud. He then returns to his small rundown flat in modern-day France. The film then concludes with the caption to say that the servicemen from France's former colonies living in France had their pensions frozen in 1959 shortly before their various countries of origin's independence. | revenge, violence | train | wikipedia | Days of Glory was the first relatively big budget film Jacques Tourneur was given opportunity to direct after success of his horror trilogy (Cat People, I walked with the Zombie and Leopard Man).The particularity of this picture is that it was a debut film for all of it's cast of actors including Gregory Peck who later became one of Hollywood's major stars.
Days of Glory is also one of those few openly pro-soviet films that were made in Hollywood during WW-2 when United States and Soviet Union were allies in fighting against Nazi Germany.
But this fact doesn't diminish the quality of the film, though some propaganda elements are present in the story, which is about a group of Russian partisans fighting guerilla war against German Nazi troops in occupied Russia.Overall, Days of Glory is an interesting WW-2 drama with a good story and a cast of interesting characters brought to life by a group of wonderful actors in their first starring role in a film.
This tribute to Russian resistance in World War II gave Gregory Peck his opportunity for a starring film screen debut.
Still Peck as the stoic and brooding Russian peasant resistance leader certainly had star quality written all over him.Now that the Cold War is over we can appreciate the Russian contribution to defeating Nazism without getting hung up over Communism.
Where you see the German Army in the Ukraine in Days of Glory is roughly how far they advanced into the Soviet Union.
The Russian people took a tremendous toll and it was the great worry of both Roosevelt and Churchill up to the Allied invasion of Normandy that Stalin might just make a separate peace.
If he had the world would be very different.Peck's love interest was dancer Tamara Toumanova who plays a dancer caught up in the partisan movement.
As an actress she's a great dancer, she's seen to better advantage in Alfred Hitchcock's Torn Curtain where she concentrates on dancing.Days of Glory did get an Oscar nomination for Special Effects, but despite that it's essentially an A picture from a B picture studio, RKO.
Still it's not a bad last stand story and a decent enough debut for Gregory Peck..
Depects the sacrafice the russian peoples army made fighting the Nazis.
(Some Spoilers) Despite the high hopes and bombastic claims by Adolf Hitler and the German High Command about achieving a swift and total victory in the invasion of the Soviet Union by Hitler's Wehrmacht which racked up spectacular results in the summer and fall of 1941.
As cold and freezing weather set in the invading Axis forces started to bog down due to the severe Russian winter and stubborn and fanatical Soviet resistance.
The Russian partisans were groups of lightly armed but highly motivated and disciplined men and women who ambushed German, and their allies, troops and disrupted the German supply and lines of communications.
From the start of the war with the USSR on June 21, 1941 to when the German Army was finally driven out of Russia in the early spring of 1944 Russian partisans inflected over 500,000 casualties on the German army and it's allies.
The film "Days of Glory" is about one of these Russian partisan bands, operating out of the swamps marshes and forests around the town of Yasnaya Polyana in Central Russia, led by Soviet Red Army officer Vladimir (Gregory Peck).
Far better then most movies made by Hollywood during WWII "Days of Glory" didn't overdo the Russian heroics as well as the evil and viciousness of the invading Germans.
The bravest thing that happened in the movie, in regard to the Russian partisans, was when young Mitya, Glen Veron, was captured by the German Army.
Non the less the Germans weren't as bad as in movies like "The North Star".
Or even like in the film "Till We Meet Again" where they, the Germans, raped and inducted Catholic Nuns into brothels to serve and entertain the German Army.The movie has a very sad and touching love story with Vladimir and the two women who were in love with him Yelena & Nina, Maria Palmer & Tamara Toumanova, and resulted in one of them getting killed by the Germans.
Yelena was a hardened guerrilla fighter who killed over 60 German soldiers during the war.
Nina was a sweet sensitive and no-violent young women who was a star dancer in the Russian Bellet before the war began and a Russian guerrilla fighter after it started.
Even though the war action in "Days of Glory" was very sparse when it did come on the screen it was awesome.
With a spectacular German ammunition train explosion and a tremendous shoot-out with the attacking German Army, at the very end of the movie.
With the Russian Partisans, led by Vladimir and Nina, fighting for their lives with mostly home-made guns and grenades against German tanks planes and artillery pieces.
"Days of Glory" did in no way celebrate the brutal Joeseph Stalin regime that ran Russia during WWII as well as before and after the war.
The film "Days of Glory" was about a people, the Russian people, raising up against an invader and fighting him with everything that they had at their disposal, as meager as it was; in order to drive him, the Germans, out of their homes and land for good and forever..
Vladimir (Gregory Peck) leads a group of guerrillas against the Nazi invaders in the forests of Russia.
It finally comes with the message "The snow will fall".The film is well acted with tense moments, eg, when the German soldier makes his escape with only Nina (Tamara Toumanova) in the hideout to defend herself alone against him.
There are poignant scenes including Nina's silence when Mitya (Glenn Vernon) is taken by the Germans and the film has a memorable ending.
When I viewed this film I was quite surprised to see a very young Gregory Peck,"Spellbound",'45, give an outstanding performance in a black and white film about a few Russian citizens defending their country against the Nazi take over of their town.
The Nazi Army utilized many tanks in order to take over this town and out numbered the Russian's by a very large percentage.
Tamara Toumanova and Gregory Peck were a great couple in this film and it is too bad she decided to marry the director of this film right after production.
The Russian German war was the greatest battle ever fought and strangely has been ignored by Hollywood.
This film, made when the Russians had yet to reach Berlin, was probably a propaganda piece of its time and suffers from some sugary Hollywood treatment.
Whilst we can respect this well-directed movie we can also ask why Hollywood has yet to record its tribute to the amazing determination of the Russian people who were not particularly well led yet overcame such enormous odds.
Gregory Peck is the leader of a group of Russian Guerillas who are fighting the invading Nazis.
(I suppose the last copy fell to pieces in the projection room of Channel 62 to Sioux Falls or some such place.) Being Peck's first film and also his first as a leading man, you'll just have to take my word that it was worth watching!
In an attempt to rehabilitate our former enemies, the Russians, into our allies (WWII did create some strange bedfellows), Hollywood produced several horrid films that portrayed the Russians as "just like us", while in fact, their leader was one of the greatest mass murderers in human history.
The movie is shameless in how positively it portrays the Russian people--as 100% wonderful and noble.
While I do applaud the bravery of those Russians who fought the Germans, it was NOT generally due to love of Stalinism that motivated them, but survival.So is there anything that makes watching this film worth while?
That's because you'll see a very young Gregory Peck BEFORE he was a star.
During the 1941 invasion of Russia by the Nazi's the odds are overwhelming as the German army marches across the land.
However resistance among the brave Russians makes up with heart what it lacks in sophistication and size.One such outfit is a small group of guerrilla soldiers lead by Vladimir.
The new arrival of an 'outsider' creates tensions within the group but the capture of a German soldier offers the possibility of information and the potential for a demoralising strike at the invading army as well as his attempted escape helping the group trust one another again.Perhaps understandably the Russian/German front has been largely ignored by Hollywood in the past few decades and even now it is possible that Days Of Glory is only increasing in circulation because the embarrassment factor has faded.
During the cold war, nobody really wanted a WWII propaganda piece that shows the Russians (our enemy) as upright, heroic and American (!).
However now we are all in the War on Terror together, I notice this film has started being seen more than it was ten years ago.
Essentially this is a big 'thank you' to the Russian soldiers by putting them in a story where they talk endlessly about why they are fighting while falling in love, looking heroic and sacrificing their lives.
It is as basic and uninspiring as all that sounds and it smacks of a film that puts propaganda first and entertainment second.This is not to say that it doesn't try because it does, with some action, some human drama and the standard wartime romance.
Peck shows the sort of furrowed brow and screen presence that made him a famous leading man while the rest of the cast do OK in average characters who are either jovial, heroic or brave depending on what point the film is trying to get across.Overall this is an interesting film because it is unusual to see an American propaganda film bigging up the Russians.
Pray silence, workers and peasants, for a "cast of new personalities" headed by the debut of "Mr Gregory Peck, distinguished actor on the New York stage".A suitably solemn intro for the late Mr P, who supplies a characteristically cigar-store-Indianesque turn as the darkly handsome Russian dam-builder turned train-buster, heading a WW2 band of partisans (i.e., terrorists).
(By the same logic Hollywood should now be shooting films justifying Iraqi guerilla resistance to the Americo-British occupation, but don't hold your breath.) The unpalatable truth that many in the western Soviet Union welcomed and collaborated with the Germans has to be evaded.
Vladimir (Gregory Peck) is the heroic commander.
The Russians are still allies and there is a fair amount of propaganda work involved in this.
Yes. Was Russia our ally in World War II?
Without Russia we could not have won World War II.The Soviet regime was evil but Russia is one of America's oldest and most effective allies in good times.
This is not necessarily about the movie "Days of Glory" but it should remind people that we need to know more about our history.
Curiously late film for Russian propaganda.
"Days of Glory" is a story about a Russian resistance group on the Eastern Front in World War II.
This was one of a few pro-Soviet films Hollywood made during the war.
All were propaganda films to reassure Americans of the role Russia was playing in helping defeat Nazi Germany.
It seems that most Hollywood studios made a film to show and build support for the Soviet Union as an ally in the war.
The Hollywood nod to the Russians began in May 1943, with a Warner Brothers' film, "Mission to Moscow." Others that followed were "The North Star" in 1943 by RKO, "Three Russian Girls" in 1943 by United Artists, "The Boy from Stalingrad" in 1943 by Columbia, "The Song of Russia" in 1944 by MGM, and "Counter-Attack" in 1945 by Columbia.
None of these films stand out or show much of the reality of the Russian efforts in WWII.
Not until 2001 in "Enemy at the Gates," do we have an American film that shows some of the horror of the war in Russia, and the sacrifices of the Russian people.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union other very good Russian and eastern European films have been made about the war on the Eastern Front.What I find curious about "Days of Glory," is its June 16, 1944 release date.
The movie covers a time of the resistance forces up until the major Soviet counter-attack.
Indeed, was it wise to do any more trumpeting of the Russians with what we already knew then about the Soviet Union – unless there were some other reasons?It's true that the American intelligence effort was relatively new and not yet very well-grounded at the time.
So, here we have the U.S. government and Hollywood interested in building up the image of the Soviet Union as our ally in fighting the Germans – not before the war, but well into it when the Allies in the West were attacking on all fronts.
All of these things had been reported, and yet the U.S. and Hollywood were still putting out propaganda films in support of Russia late in the war..
This movie has much to commend it: a slice of history that Americans often don't encounter; tense wartime drama and excitement; Gregory Peck's heroic strength; Tamara Toumanova's sensitive beauty; a slice-of-life mix of supporting characters.
A standard I apply to movies is that they should show me things I have never seen before, and "Days of Glory" fully satisfies that requirement.However, this should not make the viewer forget what the movie was intended to be -- World War II pro-Soviet propaganda.
Much Hollywood output in the early '40s was aimed at supporting the war effort (consider all the combat and home-front movies from that time), and for a nation at war this is totally understandable.But this film, like some others of that era (e.g., "Mission to Moscow", "The North Star", "Song of Russia") was explicitly intended to generate sympathy for and solidarity with our then Soviet allies.
This too would be understandable if it did not also attempt to obliterate the historical fact that these "allies" were no less evil and murderous than the Nazis.This does not mean a modern viewer should not watch this film (just as the propaganda should not keep the movie fan away from "Alexander Nevsky" or "Potemkin"), but when watching this otherwise entertaining film the viewer should keep in mind its role in supporting the system that would become an even greater threat to life and freedom in the 20th Century than the enemy we were fighting..
Perhaps one of the reasons the world isn't( And may it never happen) a nuked out wasteland is the fact that the Soviets had fought a savage four year war on its own home soil and spent the better part of twenty years hiding the damage done to it.
A scarred but comparatively healthy Soviet Union might have went to war during the Cuban Missle Crisis with catastrophic results for the world( Paris Hilton the glow in the dark two headed freak come to mind) Back on subject this film along with "Song Of Russia" was an ode to the Russians for now being on the "right" side.
I'm surprised everyone involved in this pro-Soviet propaganda didn't end up getting blacklisted.
It's nothing less than a miracle that a ''star of the NY stage" as Peck is billed here in his debut went on to have an actual film career.
But 15 minutes after the war ended this film should have been incinerated for heating fuel.
Although obviously intended to be a wartime morale booster, the story didn't pull punches - good ol' Gregory Peck as the partisan leader, for instance, deciding to save ammunition by bludgeoning a German prisoner to death with a rifle butt.
The story and the realism goes a bit haywire in the last few minutes of the film, but it's forgivable given the fact that the war was still going on.
Russian soldiers captured by the Germans who were fortunate enough to survive the war were sent to gulags because they surrendered or were captured.
After the "Great Patriotic War," not during.The film is pure propaganda despite the fact that Hollywood, and any American who cared to do the research, knew what the Soviets were doing to their own people.Ignore the political context (or lack thereof in the film) and it's an acceptable yarn, typical of its genre..
Although it's remembered as Gregory Peck's debut,his character is not really very interesting.Nina's and Mitya's love affair (without a single kiss or a word of love) is very touching: the girl giving an impromptu performance before the young boy who don't know what a theater is ,and this wonderful moment when Nina tells the little sister about the death of her brother/hero ("he was smiling,he was happy,his name will live in the history books").All was probably filmed in studios and the low budget gives the movie an eerie atmosphere ,which is not surprising from a director such as Jacques Tourneur ("cat people" " curse of the demon").The David vs Goliath ending is rather impressive ,considering the limitations the director was working under.A propaganda movie,but an endearing one..
Gregory Peck began his illustrious film career with this 1944 film depicting the Soviet Union defending their land from Nazi invaders.
Peck leads a group of partisans who work to do damage to the Germans.This is a story of self-sacrifice on the part of partisans and there is basically no time for tears with destruction reigning in on all of them at every turn.There is time for brief romance between Peck and ballerina Tamara Toumanova, who joins the group and soon shows her mettle in shooting a German soldier.Love for their freedom has the town people sacrifice the life of a 15 year old when they refuse to tell the invading Germans what is about to occur.. |
tt0016288 | Riders of the Purple Sage | The events depicted in Riders of the Purple Sage occur in mid-spring and late summer 1871. Early in Riders of the Purple Sage, Jane Withersteen's main conflict is her right to befriend a Gentile. (The word Gentile means "non-Mormon" and is used a lot in the book). Jane Withersteen’s father wished Jane to marry Elder Tull, but Jane refused saying she did not love him, causing controversy and leading to persecution by the local Mormons.
Jane’s friend, (cowboy) Bern Venters is "arrested" by Tull and his men, but is not clear under what authority. Jane defends Venters, declaring him her best rider. Her churchmen refuse to value the opinion of a woman:
"Tull lifted a shaking finger toward her. 'That'll do from you. Understand, you'll not be allowed to hold this boy [Venters] to a friendship that's offensive to your bishop. Jane Withersteen, your father left you wealth and power. It has turned your head. You haven't yet come to see the place of Mormon women ...'"
It is here we first hear of Lassiter. Ironically, at the moment when Venters mentions Lassiter’s name, the actual Lassiter is seen approaching in the distance by Tull’s men.
Upon his arrival, Lassiter expresses his trust in the word of women, at which Tull rebukes him, telling him not to meddle in Mormon affairs. Tull’s men begin to take Venters away, and Venters realizes who he is and screams "Lassiter!" Tull understands that this is the infamous Lassiter and flees.
Lassiter inquires as to the location of Millie Erne's grave, to which a transfixed Jane agrees to take him. Venters later tells Jane he must leave her. When she protests, Venters delivers this statement: " ... Tull is implacable. You ought to see from his intention today that ... but you can't see. Your blindness ... your damned religion! Jane, forgive me ... I'm sore within and something rankles. Well, I fear that invisible hand [of Mormon power in the region] will turn its hidden work to your ruin.", showing that Venters could see far into the future, and although Jane rebukes his statement, he is indeed correct.
Jane’s red herd is rustled shortly afterward and Venters tracks it and returns it to Jane. Bern finds the herd, but, in his travels, wages a gun battle with two of Oldring’s rustlers, killing one and managing to wound Oldring’s notorious Masked Rider. Upon further examination, he removes the mask and shirt of the wounded rider and learns that the Masked Rider is a young woman named Bess whom he believes had been abused by Oldring. Venters experiences a large amount of guilt about shooting a girl and decides that it is his duty to save her.
Venters discovers Surprise Valley and Balancing Rock, where he takes Bess, the girl he has found. Bess gradually gains health and begins to fall in love with Venters who begins to fall in love with Bess. Each explain their individual stories ambiguously, but through Venters' dedicated care for Bess, the pair forms a mutual love that leads to their resolve to marry. Bess also discovered the truth concerning Oldring’s rustlers, who rustled cattle only to disguise their true lifestyle of surviving off gold in the streams and business deals with the Mormons.
Venters then determines that there is a need for supplies warranting a trip back to Cottonwoods. On his way, Venters sees Jane Withersteen’s prize horses being stolen. He kills the thieves and retrieves the horses for Jane, but unfortunately loses his horse, Wrangle.
Jane’s horses are returned to her, and are locked in the entry hall to Withersteen's house. Venters officially breaks his friendship with Jane at this time. He goes into the village and proclaimed that he was breaking his friendship and leaving. After he leaves, Jane’s other herd gets stolen.
Jane at first pretends to love Lassiter — knowing he came to Utah to avenge his sister Milly Erne — to prevent him from murdering Mormon elders she knew were guilty. The two characters grow to love each other. Then Jane's adopted daughter Fay is kidnapped and Lassiter kills Bishop Dyer while risking his own life.
The four main characters — Venters, Bess, Lassiter, and Jane — realize that they can no longer safely stay in Utah. Lassiter convinces Jane to prepare to leave with him, Lassiter determines the name of a Mormon who contributed to the ruin of Milly and Jane implicates her father in the proselytizing of Milly. In a state of shock, Jane packs.
Meanwhile, in Surprise Valley, Venters and Bess are preparing to leave as Jane and Lassiter departing, except on burros. Lassiter sets fire to Withersteen House and flees on horseback with Jane. They encounter Venters and Bess in travel. Before they part, Lassiter explains that Bess is not really Bess Oldring, but actually Elizabeth Erne, the lost daughter of Milly Erne.
Jane gives Venters her horses, Venters and Bess gallop for Venters' Illinois home, and Lassiter and Jane find refuge in Venters' valley paradise. On the way, Lassiter rescues Fay, but they are pursued to Surprise Valley. As Tull and his men begin to climb up the cliffside, Jane shouts to Lassiter to "roll the stone," which he does. The ensuing avalanche closes the outlet to Deception Pass "forever." (This is, of course, not true, as Jane, Lassiter, and Fay return in Grey's sequel, The Rainbow Trail/The Desert Crucible.)
=== Reflections ===
Unlike many Western novels, which are often straightforward and stylized morality tales, Riders of the Purple Sage is a long novel with a complex plot that develops in many threads. The story is set in the cañon country of southern Utah in 1871. Jane Withersteen, a Mormon-born spinster of 28, has inherited a valuable ranch and spring from her father, which is coveted by other Mormons in the community. When Jane refuses to marry one of the (polygamous) Mormon elders and instead befriends Venters, a young Gentile rider, the Mormons begin to persecute her openly. Meanwhile, Lassiter, a notorious gunman, arrives at the Withersteen ranch in search of the grave of his long-lost sister, and stays on as Jane's defender while Venters is on the trail of a gang of rustlers that includes a mysterious Masked Rider. Jane is intent on preventing Lassiter from doing further violence to Mormons and is eventually driven off her ranch as the persecution escalates, but she and Lassiter fall in love, Lassiter solves the mystery of his sister's death and the fate of her child, the Masked Rider is unmasked, and Venters finds his own romance. Along the way, Jane also finds time to adopt Fay Larkin, a young Gentile orphan who accompanies her and Lassiter at the end of the story
Riders of the Purple Sage was written in 1912 and is set in a remote part of Utah after the influx of Mormon settlers (1847-1857) as a backdrop for the plot (1871). The Mormons had been centered in Kirtland, Ohio in the 1830s and Zane Grey would have been aware of the Mormon sect given that he grew up in Zanesville, Ohio.
Plural marriage was only officially prohibited by the Mormons with the issuing of the First and Second Manifesto in 1890 and 1904 respectively, enacted primarily to allow the territory to attain statehood. In 1871, mainstream American society found plural marriage offensive. Even after the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed in 1862, the practice continued. Therefore, Zane Grey described the distaste of the institution through Lassiter in 1912, some 22 years after the practice had officially ended. | revenge | train | wikipedia | The Beauties of Nature.
This is the old story, familiar to everyone who has seen more than three westerns.
What is remarkable about this movie is the contrasts in beauty: superb scenes of nature fill the screen: towering mountains, cattle moving slowly over the sprawling prairies, high waterfalls filling the vistas shot outdoors.
In contrast, the shots of 'civilization' are full of ugliness: broken palings of forts, ramshackle sheds that should fall down and disappear and cluttered interior shots.
Even the heroine's home is made only half-decent by the plants that she has growing everywhere.This contrast, between the beauty of nature and the ugliness of the works of man appears throughout the movie and makes the ending -- where Tom Mix pushes over a boulder that will simultaneously make it impossible for the bad men who are pursuing him, his heroine and Anne Shirley -- a child actor at this stage, appearing under the name of "Dawn O'Day" -- and seals them forever in a valley far from the works of man -- not only understandable, but inevitable.
It's a silent movie and it works as a silent movie, where all you have are the images.
Highly recommended, both as an introduction to Tom Mix and on its own merits..
Search of a Lifetime.
THE RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE (Fox, 1925), directed by Lynn Reynolds, stars Tom Mix, popular cowboy hero of the silent screen, in the second of four filmed adaptations based on Zane Grey's classic western novel, and the best known of them all, mainly due to its interesting story, good scenery, a touch of comedy, plenty of action and fine performances provided by its leading actors, especially Tom Mix as a fearful cowboy who is quick on the trigger.Opening with the inter-titles reading: "On the far reaches of the great southwest in the late eighties, Frank Erne and his wife are making a brave fight to establish their little homestead," the story gets underway with Millye Erne (Beatrice Burnham) mother to her infant daughter, Bessie (Sissyl Johnson) and husband, Frank (Arthur Morrison) who is heavily in debt, tired of her struggling existence.
She is loved by Lew Walters (Warner Oland), a local attorney, who, after being forced to leave town, decides to take Millye with him.
When she refuses, he takes her by force, having his men (Fred Kohler, Jim Ritzson and Charles Newton) abducting her child and shooting Frank.
Before he dies, Frank tells the situation to Jim Carson (Tom Mix), a Texas Ranger and Millye's brother, leading him to carry on a new mission, dedicating his life in locating his sister and niece as well as tracking down Walters.
Walters marries Millye after learning of Frank's death.
Feeling the child to be a nuisance and wanting Millye all to herself, although she really doesn't love him, Walters, now under the assumed surname of Pyer, hires Oldring (Wilfred Lucas), leader of the Riders of the Purple Sage, to take the child away.
At a loss for her Bessie, Millye searches aimlessly in the wilderness for her, and dies in the process.
During his years of searching, Carson, now going under the name of Jim Lassiter, learns of his sister's fate through Jane Witherstein (Mabel Ballin), who had found and befriended her prior to her death.
Because Jane knows the whole story but at present refuses to tell how much she knows, Carson, accepts the job as foreman on her ranch, and bonds with Fay Larkin (Dawn O'Day, later to become teen actress Anne Shirley in the 1930s), an orphaned child Jane has adopted.
As Jim saves Jane from the clutches of Richard Tull (Charles Lamorne), a ruthless cattleman, Bern Venters (Harold Goodwin), a young cowboy, encounters a masked member of the Riders of the Purple Sage, a young girl (Marian Nixon) who might possibly be Jim's missing niece.A simple story and an above average western motion picture, RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE which runs under an hour, moves swiftly across the screen.
Aside from an earlier 1918 version with William Farnum, and its 1931 and 1941 remakes, starring George O'Brien and later George Montgomery, a sequel, THE RAINBOW TRAIL (Fox, 1925) also featuring Tom Mix, immediately followed.Fans of the "Charlie Chan" movie series from the 1930s will take pleasure in watching Warner Oland some years before playing the Oriental sleuth taking part as a nasty villain here.
Aside from assuming two identities to his sole character in RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE, take notice that Oland's appearance changes three times during the coarse of the story.
He is introduced sporting dark hair and mustache.
In the middle portion of the story, he appears a trifle older minus the mustache, and for the near conclusion, which is set some 15 years or so later, now acting as judge in a town of Cottonwood, his hair has changed to white sporting once again a mustache.
Regardless of how he appears, this is the man the Texas Ranger, as played by Mix, wants to get.Of the handful of Tom Mix westerns released during the silent era, many have survived but few have been revived.
THE RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE did become one of the few to be presented on television, notably on public television 13-week series of THE SILENT YEARS (1975), as hosted by Lillian Gish, accompanied by an excellent piano score by William Perry from the Paul Killiam Collection.
In later years, it was distributed on video cassette in 1996 by Critic's Choice video and sometime later on DVD.
Rarely shown on television these days, it can be found on one of the numerous cable stations, The Westerns Channel, showing the movie with the Perry piano score.
Fine viewing for silent western fans and a fine introduction to movie cowboy Tom Mix.
Earliest filmed version of this story that still exists.
Based on the novel by Zane Grey, the film stars Tom Mix as the gunslinger Lassiter who hunts down the men responsible for kidnapping his sister and niece years ago.
His trek takes him to a ranch owned by Jane Withersteen (Mabel Ballin) who is having her own problems with cattle rustlers.
The two plots eventually meet up, and the movie features a haunting finale, remaining true to the novel.Mix is somewhat bland as the hero, and his outfit is a bit too "ornate." However, he does have a cute, playful scene with an orphan girl played by Dawn O'Day (who later changed her name to Anne Shirley).
Warner Oland, as the main villain, is suitably hiss-worthy.
IMDb lists Gary Cooper in a bit, but I couldn't find him.
Possibly the real star of the film is the beautiful scenery.During the climax, Mix, with O'Day hanging onto him, and Ballin had to climb up a granite wall.
Although wires held them in place, Mix admitted he was not comfortable.
"I felt ill at ease because of that little shaver on my back.
I kept talking all the time we were climbing to divert attention but let me tell you I watched my step."In the novel, the kidnappers and some of the other "bad guys" are Mormons.
However, there is no mention of any religious organization in this film.
The 1918 version, with William Farnum, is presumed lost, although some stills exist, so this is the earliest surviving filmed version.
The 1931 version, with George O'Brien, is available on youtube.
There is also a 1940s version with George Montgomery..
Excellent directing, good acting spark this adaptation of the Zane Grey story.
Contrary to the general rule, The Book Is Always Better Than The Film, most of Zane Grey's stories adapted well to the screen and often much better.Gray was rather a Writer of the Purple Prose and too often his great stories were therefore hard to read.But, boy, as action-packed movies?
They moved!Director Lynn Reynolds used his camera for some beautifully framed shots, and even moved his camera to add drama to, for example, the hero's entering a scene.And hero?
Tom Mix was unquestionably one in this, with his own ability and his reputation and with the aid of Reynolds and the camera.One cutaway of Mix's character almost caressing his pistol, in the holster, subtly made a very unsubtle point.Leading lady Mabel Ballin has only 28 credits here at IMDb but she showed a real talent in expressing herself.The rest of the cast, from villain Warner Oland to the as-usual-uncredited Hank Bell, shine and make this story -- made and re-made many times -- the classic that it is.For some strange reason, VerdeValleyTV, who uploaded this at YouTube, continued the upload instead of stopping it at the end so the run time shows double the fact.
WHY this kind of nonsense is so common at YouTube is a mystery to me.
Maybe there is a better version.
But "Riders of the Purple Sage" starring Tom Mix is a definite good watch, and I highly recommend it..
Tom Mix at the Peak of His Career!.
This version of Zane Grey's "Riders of the Purple Sage" is arguably the best of several filmed versions.
It stars the legendary Tom Mix in a tale of tragedy and revenge.Frank Erne (Arthur Morrison), his wife Milly (Beatrice Burnham and their young daughter Bess are trying to carve out a life for themselves on a seedy ranch in the middle of nowhere.
Oily lawyer Lew Walters (a slim and trim Warner Oland) has designs on Millie and tries to get her to run off with him.
She refuses.
Walters and three cohorts kidnap Millie and her young daughter and mortally wound Frank.
Before he dies, Frank sends for Millie's brother Jim Carson (Mix).
Carson vows revenge on the kidnappers even if it takes a lifetime.Believing her husband dead, she is forced to marry Walters.
But Walters has little patience with young Bess.
He forces Oldring (Wilfred Lucas), the leader of a gang of rustlers known as (wait for it), The Riders of the Purple Sage, to abduct Bess.
Milly exhausts herself trying to find her daughter and dies.Fast forward twenty years and Carson has (for some unknown reason) changed his name to Lassiter and become a notorious gunfighter.
Walters meanwhile has moved to the town of Cottonwood and has been "appointed" as Judge Dyer under town boss Tull (Charles Lemoyne).
Lassiter catches up to Walters three henchmen and guns them down in a saloon fight.Still searching for Walters, Lassiter comes upon a ranch owned by Jane Withersteen (Mabel Balin) where one of her ranch hands, Venters (Harold Goodwin) is about to be bull whipped by Tull and his men.
Lassister intervenes and the two become friends.
Lassiter hires on as June's foreman.Venters comes across Oldring and his riders that include a mystery masked rider whom he shoots when the gang attacks.
The masked rider turns out to be Lassiter's long lost niece Bess (Marion Nixon) whom Venters nurses back to health on an isolated mountain top hideaway.
Lassiter learns of Judge Dyer's true identity and guns him down in a court room shoot out.Tull forms a posse and hunts Lassiter.
Lassiter, Jane and her adopted daughter Fay (Anne Shirley) decide to flee from the gang.
They meet up with Venters and Bess and Lassiter learns of her true identity.
Then as Tull and his posse close in......................................This film crams a lot of plot and action into its scant 56 minute running time.
It has beautiful scenery, plenty of action and a top notch performance by Tom Mix who at this time was at the top of his game.
Warner Oland would achieve lasting fame as Charlie Chan in the 1930s.One can see why Tom Mix was as popular as he was.
He was a great performer.
A highlight in this film, was Tom hiding from the bad guys and riding upon a piece of brush tied to his horse Tony to escape.
There was always a spectacular stunt or two in most Mix pictures. |
tt0157583 | Enigma | Alex Holbeck (Martin Sheen) is recruited as a CIA agent. He is sent to East Berlin on a mission to steal an Enigma code scrambler. This is part of an attempt to stop the Russian assassination of five Soviet dissidents which is planned for Christmas Day. What Alex doesn't know is that the CIA already has a code scrambler. By stealing the scrambler in Berlin, they are trying to convince the Russians that they don't have it.
On arrival in Berlin, Alex finds that the KGB knows he is there. Alex must use numerous disguises and escape from a number of capture attempts. He seeks shelter with his former lover, Karen (Brigitte Fossey) before moving on as this is too dangerous for her. Karen and a number of Alex's other old friends are arrested and tortured by the police in an attempt to gain information about Alex's whereabouts. As he gets more desperate, Alex enlists Karen's help again: she seduces Dimitri Vasilikov (Sam Neill), the KGB man in charge of the hunt for Alex, in order to obtain information. In the end Dimitri catches Alex and Karen and finds the scrambler hidden in an exhibition artifact. As he is in love with Karen, he lets them go, however, keeping the scrambler which was in fact not needed. On Christmas Day the assassination attempt is successfully thwarted. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | While 'Enigma' looks good and plays fairly well as a decent espionage film, the viewer who knows the factual background of this piece of fiction will probably be disappointed.
The best part for me was the recreation of the physical setting at wartime Bletchley Park, especially the Enigma machines themselves and the famous Bombes, which were invented by Turing (Jericho in the film).
But people like me, who are deeply interested in every aspect of the Second World War and who can appreciate a good story, certainly will love it.It's March 1943 and the crypto-analysts at Britain's code-breaking center have discovered that the German U-boats have changed their Enigma Code.
"Enigma" blends fact with fiction as it tells a carefully crafted story about the unseen and unsung heros of British WWII code-cracking who decrypted the infamous "Enigma" code which Germany used to command it's U-boat armada in the North Atlantic putting allied convoys in peril.
This is a rare pleasure of a film - one that is prepared to treat its viewers intelligently and tell a war-time story without explosives and histrionics and without falsifying history to glorify the Americans.
Here he has a decent screenplay from Tom Stoppard, assured direction from Michael Apsted, and three fine performances by British actors.Dougray Scott, in a very different role from his `Mission Impossible 2' outing, has lost weight to portray brilliant, but tortured, code-breaker Tom Jericho at Britain's war-time Bletchley Park; Kate Winslet put on weight (she was pregnant at the time) for a performance far removed from `Titantic' as the frumpy, but clever, Hester; and Jeremy Northam is excellent as the sardonic secret service agent Wigram who knows far more than he is prepared to reveal..
I was interested in (a) how the war effort was going, (b) whether Bletchley Park would come up with solutions in time, (c) HOW the process of breaking codes was actually carried out, and (d) when Tom would get over his idiotic infatuation with that annoying blonde chick and fall, as any sensible person would, for the dynamic and twenty-times-more-attractive Hester (Kate Winslet).
A pity he couldn't have found some other means - or moved Northam's character to a different movie altogether, where he wouldn't take time away from Enigma, Winslet's character, etc.The film - and the script, too, all things considered - is well put together (intelligent writing, excellent acting and photography), so the Claire subplot makes it a real missed opportunity..
The movie concerns upon an investigation team in the Bletchley Park mansion with the aim to decipher communication keys of German submarines during second world war.In the squad there are a wise nut-head (Dougray Scott) , an ugly and outcast girl (Kate Winslet) and another rush and beautiful (Saffron Burrows), and yet a clever investigator (Jeremy Norton).The movie mingles mystery , action , a love story , thriller and it's quite amusing.The flick is paced to nick of time , as they ought to figure out the clues by means of the Enigma , a mechanical device before that an Allied fleet was found by German subs .One of the motivations behind shooting this picture was the indignation of many British World War 2 veterans over the movie U-571 , in which the capture of the Enigma was shown to be done by American navy soldiers .
Michael Apted direction is nice , he creates enough suspense , we're very interested in the events , besides being based on real deeds.Final feature film with a full music score composed by John Barry , his music is fascinating likeness to "Dancing with wolves" and a lot of hits during his long career thirty years ago .It was such a thrilling movie that had a great success in box office.The film will appeal to emotions enthusiasts and suspense fans.Rating: 7/10 above average ..
Although the historical setting at the headquarters for code breaking during world war 2 is solid enough the characters we meet are fictional.The main character Thomas Jericho clearly has some connections to Alan Turing, but the differences are equally apparent to those who know the historical accounts, so anyone searching for a story about Turing should look elsewhere.If you can let go of this there is a good spy story to be had.
This is a movie worthy of Soviet, or worse, German propaganda, showing heroes as villains.Good plot and movie material: I am sending everyone interested to Wikipedia information about professors Rejewski, Zygalski, and Rozycki, men who broke Enigma and created first computing bombs.
This weakened their counter intelligence operations which, coupled with the extreme secrecy surrounding Ultra, meant that our success against Enigma went undetected.The film is well worth seeing for its entertainment value and just a wee peek at the work of Bletchley Park but for anyone interested in learning the truth about this fascinating story I suggest that they read the official history entitled "British Intelligence in WWII" by Professor Sir F.
Enigma is based on the fictional Robert Harris novel which is a part wartime thriller and part love story based on code breakers in Bletchley Park.
He returns to Bletchley to find out his ex lover, Claire has gone missing and there is pressure to crack the Enigma code and with intelligence officers crawling about, there might also be a mole in his team.Scott (with a variable accent) teams up with a dowdy Kate Winslet to investigate what happened to Claire and discover something more sinister.The film was adapted by Oscar winner Tom Stoppard.
Despite a few extravagant scenes it does look like a glorified television film.Scott and Winslet work well together but the film is too uneven, there are some good shots of the code breaking machines whirring around and some humorous scenes of the women working in Bletchley with the lecherous supervisor.
The thriller element despite a good start fails to work and in this adaptation seems flawed.Jeremy Northam's acting is provided by his hat and his supercilious character has a habit of speaking lines that sound out of period.A disappointment especially as I enjoyed reading the novel..
Rather here it's the opposite, with a twisty spy suspense story (Tom Stoppard's screenplay from a novel) about a broken-hearted, broken-down straight mathematician trying to break code while breaking secrets about the woman he's obsessed with (and either I missed something or I didn't quite get his moral outrage against secret agent Jeremy Northram or he was representing a less cynical age with less exposure to agents being out in the cold).Dougray Scott is haggardly good, looking so much like Tom Courtenay (while playing a character named Tom) that it helped me place him in the period; he should have played Tom's son in "Last Orders") and Kate Winslet makes good use of her then pregnancy towards being almost dumpy looking.
The few action set-pieces on board seem too detached from their surroundings to really engage and often seem like drop-ins, while the Scott/Winslet relationship seems to blossom unconvincingly from nowhere at all.However, it's fair to say, in conclusion, that this period thriller, while successfully recalling the depth and feel of British war-movies of the 50's, doesn't quite transcend that achievement and seems to lack fulfilment as a cinematic entertainment.
Michael Apted's `Enigma' is the first real attempt to tell the story of the Bletchley Park code breakers within the framework of both a thriller and a heterosexual romance.
The story of the Enigma machine and the people of Bletchley Park who worked to crack the German codes is one full of suspense and interesting, eccentric characters drawn from a wide spectrum of society to work on the riddle.
Sadly, it also has to share screen-time with a second, less satisfactory film: Namely a lame spy-thriller trying to be a 39 Steps (without investing either the necessary story time, character development or taut, intelligent dialogue) in which Jeremy Northam (surely the real successor to Donat and Moore) slides his way through each scene as the bad guy confusing underplaying for doing bugger all!!Still.
And after these revelations the last 15 minutes feels a little superfluous, even though it should be leading to a point of high drama.Script wise Tom Stoppard does a good job of condensing the book into a movie and manages to avoid the common problem of movies requiring detailed knowledge that needs to be explained to the audience.
Here most of the knowledge is imparted in the dialogue, with one exception - unless you know how codes were broken, the cracking of Shark is going to make no sense whatsoever.The dialogue feels right for the period and Stoppard has great fun with the reptilian Wigram (played with oily menace by Jeremy Northam), giving him most of the choice dialogue.Acting, its a mixed bunch.
The Harris Enigma book was a fascinating novel as well as a historical document.The true story had The real Tom Jericho ,Alan Turing (A Genius) who was persecuted by the British Authorities after the war because he was homosexual, and eventually killed himself.
While it's true that there was considerable artistic license and those with an interest in the Bletchley endevor can pick it apart to no end, I think the film does an excellent job of telling a good story and making it palatable to the non-crypto afficionado (yes, federal law mandates that 99.99% of all films produced must contain some measure of romance in order to adhere to the Title IX standards of cinematography).If you're looking for a history lesson...read a book.
However, there is neither too much or too little sappiness to take away from the rest of the film because, make no mistake about it, this is a very good movie.A combination of a choice selection of suspense filmmaking techniques by Michael Apted and 3 very good performances from Dougray Scott (who is superb as the moody yet complex Thomas Jericho), Jeremy Northam and Kate Winslet all blend together to form a fine finished product.
Suffice to say that the whole damn thing is idiotic.Perhaps the worst thing of all is how anybody who calls themselves a filmmaker could lose the one genuinely interesting part of this movie - the whole Bletchley Park code-breaking operation - amidst what is basically a 3rd-rate Harlequin romance novel.To take one of humanity's greatest thinkers, Alan Turing, and give us Dougray Scott's Tom Jericho character goes far beyond a mere insult - both to Turing and the viewer.Kate Winslett does a cheap Rachel Weisz impression (a la "The Mummy"), while everybody else appears to believe they're standing upon a stage in the West End. When I want to see this much ham, I'll visit a pig farm, thanks.The ludicrous action sequences were about as thrilling and suspenseful as a school play.
Enigma is a thriller in the tradition of films like The 39 Steps, The Third Man, and The Secret Agent - movies that do not assume those in the theatre will have their hands full ordering from the candy bar let alone deciphering a straight forward plot structure.
What a ridiculous movie.Enigma is the story of one man trying to break a German code during WW2.
after watching this movie,i was a bit disappointed.i mean,the movie was OK,but it doesn't compare to the book,which i found riveting.the movie is set During WWII,and is basically about the British code breakers who were continually trying to break the code of the Enigma machine,which is how the Germans communicated with each other.there is some fine acting here,by Dougray Scott,Kate Winslet,Saffron Burrows and Jeremy Northam,and many others.there a few moments of tension and suspense,but mostly the movie is all about the drama.there is also a love story angle here.this is not some big Hollywood blockbuster version of events.this is a small,independent film.it is based on true events,and i believe it is probably fairly accurate.it's taken from the book by Robert Harris.i highly recommend the book,but if you read it first you,will likely be disappointed in the movie.my vote for Enigma:5/10.
Jeremy Northam was simply incredible, very sly and very sexy and making even his most "oh boy, this is the part where the sly and sexy detective does/says this" moments so much fun I just couldn't help thinking "Hey, despite that huge nasty war and all the genocide, I wish I lived in the 40's so I could be a sly and sexy detective with good hats." All in all a good film, worth seeing if you like your movies heavy on the thinking side, though maybe a little deficient in the heart & soul..
In our time of CGI etc, this just shouldn't be allowed (at least not in a big budget mainstream film like this one).Enigma could have been so much more, either as a better love story, or more interesting war-thriller.
This film is good, but not very, as it tries to both be historically correct about the Enigma machine and how the Brits broke the German codes, and to be a thriller, and a love story at the same time.Acting by all is just perfect, as Kate Winslet is as good as ever and Dougray Scott is a very impressive new actor for me, plus an excellent supporting staff, as almost always when it comes to British films.So the film wants to be too much, and the images of ships being sunk by U-boats are simply dreadful - reminds me of similar films I've seen made in the 40's!
Add the roommate as a new love for the troubled `Beautiful-Mind' like hero, and the `enigma' becomes possible betrayal of love and country rather than the fascinating process of breaking the code by using the Germans' captured enigma machine.The film, however, has some delights: Jeremy Northam as British intelligence operative Wigram is superb, reminding us that the current craze for Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, and Hugh Grant is misdirected-Northam is a superior cad.The wit of a Carol Reed's thriller like `Night Train to Munich' or any Graham Greene spy story is my taste in intrigue, but super-star writer Tom Stoppard does have a moment or two here, as when the hero's previous breakdown is described: "Went off his trolley, didn't he -- about some girl?" I just wish there were more of that and less madness over the girl.
At last a British movie with a complex plot and complex characters scripted superbly by Tom Stoppard, a marvellous score by the God-like John Barry and damn fine direction by Michael Apted.I remember reading Robert Harris's FATHERLAND way back when and being stunned by it.
Script by Tom Stoppard, direction by Michael Apted, a great cast - what more do you want?This is a gripping and intelligent film which tells a complex and potentially very dull story with economy, subtlety and style.
This,in my humble,non-movie making opinion is a credit to the UK film industry.I have never and probably never ever will make a film in my entire life,but if I was to,I would be as proud as parent of the smartest kid in school,if this were the only film I ever made.Of course,some of our cousins across the pond may not understand exactly whats going on,as they would have probably seen that foul mess of lies,U-571 first,but any fan of technology will love this,it balances the right amount of information,with the lives of the characters just right.Well done all of those who were involved in this captivating film,lets hope this film is as much of a turning point for the UK film industry,as the code breakers of the Enigma were for intelligence during World War 2..
The actors set the scene perfectly for what Bletchley Park must have been like back in wartime.I was also fascinated by the love story, especially the myriad of emotions displayed by Tom as he battled a heavy heart.Definitely one to watch when you're in the mood for watching a movie that makes you think..
Despite the assembled talents (Kate Winslet, Michael Apted as director, and Tom Stoppard as the scriptwriter), Enigma is far less interesting than "Breaking the Code," which featured Derek Jacobi as the real Alan Turing, and told the extraordinary story of how the British broke the German code in World War II with much closer adherence to the facts There's really no need for fictional romances to enhance this amazing tale, and Turing is a far more interesting character than his fictional counterpart.If you're looking for Stoppard's humorous touch, there's absolutely none of it here.
If the movie had concentrated on only one of the two subplots (the code-breaking), it probably would have been much better, it would have had the necessary screen time to tackle all the details of this enormously complex and important WWII operation.On the other hand, I have to say that some of the acting in this film was very good, especially Dougray Scott as Thomas Jericho, the genius mathematician and Kate Winslet was also quite good as Hester Wallace.
I can't say how accurate this film is, after all its based on a novel and not history, but this tale of undoing the German Enigma code during the Second World War is a good way to spend a couple of hours.I had read mixed reviews of this film, but its recently showed up on cable and having run across it a couple of times I've found that I'm stopping to watch it each time I do so.
It would have been a great addition to spend a few minutes reviewing some of the actual history of the German enigma machines and the allied success in breaking codes, along with some entertaining "making of" material.
Enjoyable, smart WWII thriller about code breaking, based on a true story, and notable for being a war film more about human intelligence then daring action.
The lead couple played by Kate Winslet and Dougray Scott provide excellent acting in a well written movie honoring the code breakers of Enigma. |
tt0311110 | It Runs in the Family | The story involves a highly successful New York City family, each with its set of problems, and highlights the difficulties of the father-son relationship. Mitchell Gromberg is dealing with health problems resulting from a stroke. (Kirk Douglas himself suffered a stroke in 1996.) His son Alex works as a lawyer in the firm that his father founded, but is questioning the usefulness of his work and his place in the family. Alex's son, Asher, does not take college seriously and seems lost. The youngest son is 11 year old Eli, who is extremely intelligent, while being socially awkward and is entering a difficult pre-adolescent time.
Alex indulges in a thoughtless and careless brief romantic fling with Suzie at the soup kitchen they volunteer at, and his psychologist wife Rebecca discovers it, threatening their marriage. When Evelyn Gromberg, Mitchell's wife and Alex's mother dies, the family comes together to heal. At Evelyn's funeral in suburban New York, Rebecca tells Alex that she knows about his romantic fling. Alex and Mitchell talk about past hurts.
Back at their home in New York City, Asher is discovered with illegal drugs. Although devastated, Rebecca and Mitchell are supportive and vow to get help for Asher. Mitchell's older brother Stephen dies and he, Alex and Asher give him a farewell send-off. Although he is forced to sleep on the living room couch, Mitchell tells Rebecca that he wants to make peace; she agrees. | prank | train | wikipedia | I think the only person who's not a member of the Douglas clan in 'It Runs In The Family' is director Fred Schepisi.
This is the first time that Kirk & Michael have worked together since the son's bit part in dad's '66 war drama 'Cast A Giant Shadow'.
Bernadette Peters and Rory Culkin round out the headlining cast as the mother and youngest son of the Gromberg family.This picture received plenty of publicity in spring '03 because it was a rare on-screen appearance by movie god Kirk Douglas.
Michael isn't stretching himself (although you can read the reverence for his dad in his eyes) and while Bernadette Peters & Rory Culkin do a nice job, they're merely providing low-key support to the Douglas gang.
But the acting ability, the skill in projecting emotion, the cunning character who draws the viewer into a picture - Kirk Douglas is STILL Kirk Douglas.The story is pedestrian, soap operish, New York, Jewish culture-inflected (Kirk Douglas rediscovered his Jewish roots not that long ago, celebrated an aged man's well-publicized Bar Mitzvah and wrote a book about his renewed commitment to Judaism).
His son, Michael, not exactly unknown to the screen, is his son in "It Runs in the Family" and no amount of acting need substitute for the palpably real love between the characters.
But the ending...well, see it.Some folks seem to have a real problem viewing Kirk Douglas act WITH and THROUGH his controlled but ineradicable disability.
I wonder.See the film not because it's a great story - we've seen these melodramatic episodes many times over - but for the pleasure of watching people connected in real life explore myriad challenges with passion, humor, empathy and caring.7/10..
I seriously enjoyed watching Michael and Kirk Douglas working together, found the material touching and poignant, and found myself caring deeply about the characters.
The Douglas family really pulled it off without making it a vanity.Although I agree with other ratings on IMDB, I feel that this movie is underrated here.(6.5/10).
My interest to watch this movie,was primarily due to seeing three generations from the Douglas-clan acting together.It is definitely not a movie you watch twice,the plot is predictable,one might even say that a plot does not exist.But the whole atmosphere of this big family,with their happy moments,sorrows,quarrels is well pictured.I was impressed by old Kirk,who at his age acts quite well.Watching him behaving like an old man who still wants to play a role and be a decision maker in his family,made me think of the sometimes sad aspects of getting older.The scene when he danced with his wife,before her upcoming death ,is moving.Also himself jogging and being thrown down to earth by youngsters passing by, who are neglecting his fall.He is hurt,but he does not cry,he takes it with dignity.The uneasy life of an old man ,who has his difficulties but refuses to be a looser.And he certainly gets the sympathy of the audience through this.We cannot neglect the old people around us,trying to live further in this speedy and sometimes selfish world ,which gets less sensible towards them and finds less time to comfort them.But this movie could make us more indulgent with old people.This could be the message of this movie,besides being an occasion to watch acting three generations of the Douglas family..
It's a bit interesting to see virtually the entire Douglas family involved in this movie, which makes watching the interaction between the characters feel rather eerie.
However, it was good to see Kirk Douglas in a movie again, and it only seemed fitting he do it with much of his extended family.
I was not particularly anxious to see this film but it was a rainy Saturday (the day after it opened in my area) so I dragged my movie-hating husband to see It Runs In The Family not really knowing what to expect.
I had seen Michael Douglas on several tv talk shows and each time he mentioned his nervousness over his son's acting--well he didn't need to worry - Cameron carried the movie!!!
The first Mrs, Kirk Douglas (Michael's real-life mother Diana) was a delight.
A year after his stroke, grandfatherly Kirk Douglas (as Mitchell "Pappy" Gromberg) is in remarkable shape, and is seeing a speech therapist.
Happily married son Michael Douglas (as Alex) is nonetheless having a hard time fighting off the urge to merge with a hot co-volunteer.
The greater Douglas/Douglas pairing fizzles like a senile uncle's gas at the supper table.**** It Runs in the Family (4/25/03) Fred Schepisi ~ Michael Douglas, Kirk Douglas, Cameron Douglas, Bernadette Peters.
There might have been a good film project in pairing Kirk Douglas and his son Michael.
Oddly, the storyline was that of a dysfunctional family with many embarrassing scenes, including one jaw-dropper with Kirk and Michael setting a boat ablaze as a funeral pyre with Kirk's dead brother aboard.
In their film careers, both Kirk and Michael Douglas consistently showed good taste in their film projects.
There is some element of a tribute to the great acting career of Kirk Douglas, who plays an elderly father of Michael Douglas.
Yes, it happens in the best of families.Kirk and Michael Douglas are the Brombergs-father and son, who are constantly bickering.As in real life, Kirk is the stroke victim and his wife is on dialysis.
I want to remember Kirk Douglas for "Champion," "Lust for Life," "The Bad and the Beautiful." I don't want to remember a poor script and a story that goes awry.
I think there are sincere moments between the real life father and son that help the movie.
Unfortunately, Cameron Douglas, Michael's son, is wasted in a wildly underwritten part and his character comes across as unsympathetic.
It isn't the least bit fair to call "It Runs in the Family" a "vanity project."With three generations, Kirk and Michael and Cameron Douglas, and Douglas by marriage Diana all in it, the movie is certainly a FAMILY project, and despite the direction of the great Fred Schepisi, whose "Six Degrees of Separation" was a miracle of acting and editing, it somehow doesn't ever really soar.
But dad (Mitchell) has had a stroke, and his son (Alex), who has refused to become a partner, is torn between profit and pro bono cases, loyalty and infidelity, and has none of the brass or verve of the high powered Michael Douglas of "Wall Street." (Michael's performance isn't particularly strong here either, but the other Douglases' all are.) He and his therapist wife Rebecca (Bernadette Peters) have two kids nine years apart.
Mitchell's wife is played by Michael's actual mother, the regal Diana Douglas, whom Kirk divorced in 1951 but has remained good friends with.The kids in the family are not showing great promise.
As Eli, the very forthright and self-possessed Rory Culkin, from another famous acting family, seems too self-contained and sure of himself to be seen as truly having problems.
His main problem seems to be that he's 12.Cameron Douglas, Michael's real life son, whose acting experience is chiefly from a TV series, is Asher, the 21-year-old "laid back" son, a loveable loser who deals some pot and misses a lot of his classes but knows how to party and is a good deejay.
The story never works out any of the problems it creates for its characters or fully develops them, but it does succeed in its purpose of being a story about family and about honest acceptance of human frailty.Kirk as the aging patriarch, who loses his wife and then his demented brother, brings us in for some embarrassment (his scenes are the most cornball sentimental), but you can't help admiring the 86-year-old actor's enormous pluck.
Whether his blustery authority mixed with emotional distance is true to the man himself, it's believable in his scenes with his wife and son.One aspect -- also arguably anti-vanity, yet both proud and truthful, is that the Douglases are playing what they really are, a successful Jewish family, and not the sanitized non-ethnic Americans that Hollywood required when Kirk was in his prime.
And because the movie shows a seder and funeral and identifies the family with Jewish ritual, we do get a sense of family life as a part of cultural tradition.Mitchell's wife Rebecca gets upset when she discovers women's undies in his pocket that came from a scene at a free food project where a fellow volunteer (Sarita Chudoury) has the hots for him (nothing subtle about this encounter).
She can engender little sympathy nor convey much sense of an active intelligence.There are way more crises than any family could handle in this short span of time: marital problems, two deaths of elders, a child who runs off during a school function, the older boy flunking out of school and arrested for drugs, his first serious love affair ruined, the patriarch facing "a few good years left" alone.
Maybe in the end all that really mattered was for Kirk and Michael finally to make a movie together after all these years, and the process created too many good vibes to allow for edginess or wit.
And it's creepy to watch Kirk Douglas's ex-wife play his loving wife in the movie.
Though It Runs In the Family could have been Kirk Douglas's swan song, his signature on his career as The Shootist was for John Wayne, the man went out and did another after this.
Kirk is the patriarch of the Gromberg family and son Michael and grandson Cameron play the same roles in the film.
Even former wife Diana Douglas, Michael's real life mom, plays grandma.
In the end the family is all brought closer together.Kirk did his own homage to one of his former starring roles, The Vikings, when he and Michael take his brother's body and give him a viking funeral on a lake.
The only one I did like was Kirk Douglas' wife.
It is sad to watch this movie with Michael Douglas's son Cameron, who is in jail for drugs until 2018, and then to know his stepbrother died in 2004 from a drug overdose.
You might think Kirk Douglas incapable of appearing in really bad movies but he's done a stinker or two and this one definitely qualifies.
It borrows liberally from another movie where Dan Akroyd played Kirk's troubled adult son and Kirk, having suffered a recent stroke, had to make him believe before the credits rolled that he always loved him and did the best he could for him.
In short, this movie is phony, false, forced, and exploitive of Kirk Douglas's various handicaps following his stroke.
"The Long Riders", "The Fabulous Baker Boys" and "On Golden Pond" are three very good films that come to mind.While watching "It Runs In The Family", I felt I was seeing the Douglas family (with "guest stars" Bernadette Peters and Rory Culkin) going through the motions.
She gave the best performance in this very disappointing movie."It Runs In The Family" wants to be another "On Golden Pond".
(I guess Rory Culkin was made an honorary Douglas for the occasion -- but then again his own family history more than qualifies him.) If we can leave that peculiarity out for a moment, however, I think we have here a reasonably veridical, if painful, portrayal of a very assimilated New York Jewish family that has lost its way.
Trans-generational difficulties may be common to all classes of people, but that doesn't mean that the problems of the rich are therefore equivalent to the problems of those just barely getting by.For example, what about the life of the poor gal working at the soup kitchen with the successful lawyer father of the story, who volunteers his time there for ideological reasons, but nevertheless finds justification for having sex with her on the side?
Films like Rushmore, The Royal Tannenbaums and now Keep it in the Family all seem to set out to do little more than wallow in dysfunctionality and appear created with the only objective of wasting two hours of their audience's lives.
Kirk Douglas stars as Mitchell Gromberg, the head patriarch of the family and Evelyn Gromberg plays his wife which is the real life ex-wife of Kirk's, Diana Douglas.
Their lawyer son is Alex played by Kirk's real-life son Michael Douglas who also served the movie's producer.
While the film is running, one has to wonder how the relationship between Mitchell and Alex close reflect to the rel-life bonding of Kirk and Michael.
In addition to this family casting is Cameron Douglas in his debut as the elder grandson Asher.
The movie reflects upon the interactions of the the characters, which is apropos to the personal experiences that the Douglas family has encountered over the years.
The remaining cast includes Rory Culkin's role as Asher's younger brother Eli and Bernadette Peters as Alex's psychiatrist wife, Rebecca.
Sure there's tragedy in the movie that has two members die, but their deaths symbolize the distance the family has upon each other and it was never padded on for good measure.The complexity of the story wheels upon the various family issues as they try to thrive upon the need to succeed, the values of love and dominance, while facing the tribulations of grief, and moving on in a new chapter of life regardless of age.
The acting was brilliant and it is a great slice of life, so if you like emotional tearjerkers, then this movie's for you.
The Gromberg family is a family with some problems.The patriarch of the family, Mitchell Cromberg is an old man just waiting for his death after a stroke he has suffered.But according to doctor he still has a few good years left.His wife Evelyn isn't young, either.His lawyer son Alex has some issues with his father.There are also some problems with his wife Rebecca.His son Asher is in college and does drugs.The younger son Eli is socially awkward.It Runs in the Family (2003 is directed by Fred Schepisi.It puts some members of the family Douglas together in this movie.Kirk Douglas,a true legend, plays Mitchell.His son Michael Douglas is Alex.It was a real pleasure watching those father-son moments.It His son I really enjoyed watching all those Douglases together..
Good Family Movie.
It Runs in the family is a great movie to watch with family.
If you want a great family movie to watch, this one is the one or if you want a comedy, this movie has some scenes that has some funny moments.
The Douglas Family - they're all here, Michael, his son Cameron, and his mom and dad, both Kirk and Diana.
The movie makes an excuse for Kirk's ANNOYING speech impediment, by giving his character the same problem he has in real life.
Did not particularly like the performance of Cameron Douglas who is Michaels son.
Michael and Kirk Douglas play off each other well, which one either might expect from an actor son and father, or might not, given their lengthy careers and egos.But the bad news is that the movie is mundane.
The combo of players in that movie is sure interesting, with Kirk and Michael Douglas playing together.
As far as acting goes, he needs a few more classes by step-mom Catherine and assorted Douglases if Cameron Douglas wants to make it in films.
As far as the rest of the family, Diana Douglas, as Evelyn, has such a dignified aura about herself that one wonders why did she ever stop appearing in films when she had so much to give.
Kirk Douglas, as Mitchell, is to be commended by his courage in appearing in this film.The other problem is Michael's Alex Gromberg.
Six out of five stars, it will likely get excellent reviews (then do lousy in the box office)Not being particularly a fan of the Douglas clan, I was not expecting to enjoy this movie.
I watched it 2 times, very endearing, each plot if carefully paid attention to can make you either sympathize or laugh or even cry, it's sweet, the father/son/grandson is adorable, funny, witty, and I think it touched my heart during the deaths of Pappys wife and brother..
It's hard to imagine your life partner gone after so long...and then to lose your brother within the same time, I think Michael and Kirk did a wonderful job, and "Asher" was an eye opener to anyone trying to stay as a teenager even when they should have priorities.
I admire Kirk Douglas for making this movie, still recovering from his stroke.
Certain people were no doubt disappointed, I feel, because they might have sat down expecting a more purposeful plot - whereas what is delivered instead is really more of an episodic musing on familial bonds.For all those old-school Kirk Douglas fans who moan that here he's nothing like he was in his 'glory days' - they're right, he isn't; but the scene where his character finds his wife dead was still without doubt the most affecting in the movie.
I hope the Douglas family (Kirk, Michael, Diana, and Cameron) had a good time making this film, because I didn't enjoy watching it.
It Runs in the Douglas Family..
It Runs in the Family (2003): Dir: Fred Schepisi / Cast: Michael Douglas, Kirk Douglas, Rory Culkin, Bernadette Peters, Cameron Douglas: Wonderful and thought provoking comedy about traits passed down.
It stars real life father and son duo Kirk and Michael Douglas.
Kirk Douglas is dealing with the passing of his wife and the negativity he passed down to his son.
It is interesting to see three generations of the Douglas family on screen together.
I'm a Michael Douglas fan, but this film has made me a Kirk Douglas fan too, I was so impressed by the courage of this 88+ actor - OK his stroke has left him with a speech defect but wow, he can still act!
Diana Douglas was wonderful - made me wonder why she and Kirk ever divorced as the love between them was so apparent (or was it just good acting??). |
tt4513736 | Stick It | Haley Graham (Missy Peregrym) is a rebellious 17-year-old who has a run-in with the law when she and two friends go biking through a residential construction site. Haley is arrested and forced by a judge to return to the regimented world of competitive gymnastics. Haley was once considered one of the most talented gymnasts in the US. One year earlier, she made it to the World Championships, but she walked out of competition in the middle of the finals, costing the American team the gold medal and leaving many people hurt and crushed, making her one of the most hated people in gymnastics.
Haley goes to the elite Vickerman Gymnastics Academy (VGA), her ultimate nightmare, run by legendary coach Burt Vickerman (Jeff Bridges). Haley has a talk with Coach Vickerman, who convinces her to take up the sport once again – at least until she can enter an upcoming invitational competition. Vickerman convinces her that she can use the prize money from the competition to repay some property damage debts she still owes and leave gymnastics once and for all. Disliking the sport's rigid rules and intense training schedule, Haley is reluctant to come out of retirement. Her attitude toward her fellow gymnasts – as well as her past – causes conflicts. After getting the cold shoulder the first day at the gym, Haley realizes what she is up against.
At the invitational, Haley's talent shines and her return from gymnastics retirement seems for the better. But all is not what it seems in the scoring system. She starts to remember one of the many reasons she retired – the flaws in judging. The panels do not look at the difficulty of the move nor do they look at the technique; they merely take deductions for unimportant minor errors. As Haley Graham says, "It doesn't matter how well you do. It's how well you follow their rules."
In addition, Haley is severely stressed by her dominating mother, who has arrived to watch the meet. Her conduct at the World Championship ("Worlds") has not been forgotten by the other athletes, and they treat her with open hostility. Haley finally breaks down in the middle of her balance beam routine and, in a repeat of the World Championships, leaves the arena before completing the competition. Before she leaves, she reveals to Vickerman the reason she walked out of Worlds: she had just discovered that her mother was having an affair with her then-coach, and her parents got divorced as a result.
Haley then goes back to the judge who sentenced her to the gymnastics academy to inform him that she has dropped out and wants to be sent to either a juvenile hall or military academy. But the judge tells Haley that Vickerman had just paid off all of her debt for the property damages in her incident with the law, and she is no longer under any legal issues. Haley then approaches Vickerman who confirms it by claiming that he used the money that her father had paid him for her gymnastics training. Vickerman persuades Haley to remain with the academy a while longer so she can continue with her training to reach Nationals.
Although she did not complete the invitational, Haley continues to train and, with three of her teammates Mina (Maddy Curley), Wei Wei (Nikki SooHoo) and Joanne (Vanessa Lengies), qualifies for the National Championships. The biased judging leaves her far back in the all-around standings, but this does not keep her out of the event finals. In the first event final, vault, Mina executes an extremely difficult maneuver perfectly but receives a low score (9.500 out of 10). When Vickerman questions the judges, he learns that Mina was penalized on the technicality of showing a bra strap. Haley is next up. However, instead of vaulting, she shows her bra strap to the judges and forfeits her turn in disgust (otherwise known as a "scratch"). One by one, the other gymnasts follow suit, earning a string of zeroes and forcing the judges to award Mina the vault gold medal anyway.
Haley's bold action sparks a movement. The gymnasts talk among themselves and realize that if they could choose the winner, the judging would be fair. They convince all the others in the competition to do the same, choosing one person from each event who they deem the best to be the "winner". The winner completes her routine; the others jump on and off the apparatus and scratch. It seems the movement will be ruined when Tricia Skilken, a long-time judges' favorite, arrives and threatens the choice of winners by competing herself. Trisha finally comes to her senses, though, and realizes that scratching is for the good of the competition to make a point.
What started out as a gymnastics competition turns into a small revolution for the rules and Haley. Her talents are recognized once more and her future seems to be set with numerous colleges offering her athletic scholarships to compete in NCAA gymnastics. | sadist, revenge, flashback, tragedy, romantic, storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0012532 | Orphans of the Storm | Just before the French Revolution, Henriette takes her close adopted sister Louise to Paris in the hope of finding a cure for her blindness. She promises Louise that she will not marry until Louise can look upon her husband to approve him. Lustful aristocrat de Praille (whose carriage kills a child, enraging peasant father, Forget-not) meets the two outside Paris. Taken by the virginal Henriette's beauty, he has her abducted and brought to his estate where a lavish party is being held, leaving Louise helpless in the big city. An honorable aristocrat, the Chevalier de Vaudrey helps Henriette to escape de Praille and his guests by successfully fighting a duel with him. The scoundrel Mother Frochard, seeing an opportunity to make money, tricks Louise into her underground house to be kept prisoner. Unable to find Louise with the help of the Chevalier, Henriette rents a room, but before leaving her de Vaudrey comforts and kisses the distressed woman. Later, Henriette gives shelter to admirable politician Danton, who after an attack by Royalist spies following a public speech falls for her. As a result, she runs foul of the radical revolutionary Robespierre, a friend of Danton.
Mother Frochard forces Louise into begging. Meanwhile, de Vaudrey proposes to Henriette and she refuses. After expressing love for each other, he promises Henriette that Louise will be found. King Louis XVI orders Henriette to be arrested, due to his disapproval of de Vaudrey's choice of wife, and the Chevalier is also sent away while his aunt visits Henriette. During the meeting, Louise is heard singing outside, where Frochard has told her to walk blindly and sing. Henriette calls out from her upstairs balcony, but the panicked Louise is dragged off by Frochard and Henriette is arrested and sent to a women's prison.
Louise and Frochard's begging continues with the other two Frochards, and before long the Revolution begins. A battle between the Royalist soldiers and the people allied with the police, who are successful, results in aristocrats being killed and the prisoners of the "Tyrants" (including Henriette) being freed. A people's 'rag-tag' government is formed, and Forget-not takes his revenge against de Praille.
Robespierre and Forget-not send Henriette and her lover, the Chevalier de Vaudrey, to the guillotine, for hiding de Vaudrey, an aristocrat, who returned to Paris to find her. However, Danton manages to obtain a pardon for them. After a race through the streets of Paris he just manages to save Henriette and offers her to the Chevalier, when the two orphans unite. A doctor restores Louise's sight, she approves marriage between Henriette and the Chevalier, and a better-organized Republic forms in France. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0170896 | Cold War | One midnight, a Hong Kong Police Force Emergency Unit (EU) van carrying advanced equipment and five police officers goes missing. As the police investigate the case, they became aware that the terrorists possess detailed knowledge of the police's procedures and have planned several steps ahead, even possibly breaching the secured police network. As the Commissioner is away, Deputy Commissioner M.B. Lee (Tony Leung Ka-fai), plans and leads a rescue operation code-named "Cold War," and declares Hong Kong to go under a state of emergency.
After being repeatedly misled by the terrorists and failing to track them down, fellow Deputy Commissioner Sean Lau (Aaron Kwok) believes Lee is acting too rashly, due to one of the five abducted policemen being his own son, Joe Lee (Eddie Peng). After consulting with superintendent Vincent Tsui (Chin Kar-lok) and Albert Kwang (Gordon Lam), who both believe Lee is taking measures too extreme, Lau relieves Lee of his command and assumes command of Operation Cold War.
Lau plans to negotiate with the terrorists while secretly tracking them to their hide-out. The terrorists asks Lau to prepare a ransom equal to the calculated value of the policemen and the EU van. As the police force prepare the cash, the terrorists call again and say they only want roughly half of it, and for Lau to personally deliver the money. At the request of the bank manager, Lau takes only enough for the ransom and have the rest delivered back to the bank. When Lau eventually arrives at the meeting location, he is ordered to stop the car immediately and throw the cash down a bridge, causing a traffic blockage. In the confusion, Lau is attacked by the terrorists, and superintendent Tsui was killed in action in the crossfire. The terrorists escape, while superintendent Kwang notifies Lau that the terrorists simultaneously intercepted the other half of the money that was supposed to be returned to the bank. However, the police force did successfully rescue the missing policemen at a different location.
Lau attempts to question the bank manager, but the manager was then killed by a car bomb. Superintendent Kwang investigates the bombing to track the bombers, but is instead led into a trap and killed with his team. Lau suspects that the terrorists were aided by insiders in the force, but before he can investigate any further, he is arrested by ICAC Officer Billy Cheung (Aarif Rahman), who received leaked information from an anonymous source about Operation Cold War. Lau is interrogated by Cheung, who accuses him of poorly handling the rescue operation, leading to the loss of the ransom money which he secretly took for himself. Lau denies this, and the ICAC fail to find evidence against him. Cheung makes some further investigations and discovers that the police Commissioner will be stepping down in two years, and thus either Lee or Lau will receive a promotion. Lau has the support of the Security Secretary because of his skillful management of the police's finances. On the other hand, Lee rose through the ranks from Constable and has the support of the front-line officers including the CID. Cheung now suspects that Lee is trying to use the failure of Operation Cold War to ruin Lau's chance for promotion.
The ICAC eventually discover, based on forensic evidence, that Joe Lee was the mastermind behind the abduction of the EU van. Lau presents this information to Lee, and reveals that it was Lau himself that leaked information to the ICAC (who has the power to act independent to the police force), in order to borrow their resources to investigate the case, thus not alerting the insider. Lee confronts his son, who reveals that he planned this with other associates from the police force who wanted to see Lee rise to the position of Commissioner. Seeing that Joe is unrepentant and unwilling to reveal anymore, Lee reluctantly shoots and arrest him. The following day, Lee and the current Commissioner announce their plans to retire, nominates Lau as the next Commissioner, and congratulate Lau on his resourcefulness on solving the case.
The film ends with Lau receiving a mysterious phone call from the terrorists, who announces that they have kidnapped his wife, and wants Joe Lee released in return. | cruelty | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0481797 | Youth Without Youth | In 1938, Dominic Matei (Tim Roth), a 70-year-old professor of linguistics, pining after the love of his youth, Laura (Alexandra Maria Lara), travels to Bucharest, the city where he and she met at university. Feeling that his fruitless search for the origin of human language has condemned him to a solitary, wasted life, Dominic is intent on committing suicide after this one last journey. However, while crossing the street, he is abruptly yet non-lethally struck by lightning. In hospital, Professor Stanciulescu (Bruno Ganz) informs Dominic that, much to both their surprises, the lighting appears to have regenerated him into a much younger man. Soon after, while residing at the Professor's home, Dominic also discovers that he possesses strange, psychic capacities.
As Romania is invaded by Nazi Germany, Doktor Josef Rudolf (André Hennicke) begins to show an interest in Stanciulescu's miracle patient. Since Dominic's budding powers have blurred his perception of reality, he is bamboozled into mistaking a Nazi spy known only as the Woman in Room Six for an erotic fantasy, who discovers during their nights together that he has developed a talent for speaking in tongues. Meanwhile, an alternate persona, invisible to human eyes, presents itself to Dominic as his “Other” from outside space and time. When Dominic asks for proof, the “Other” obliges by bringing him two roses out of nowhere. Unbeknownst to Dominic, Stanciulescu has witnessed the event and overhears his friend ask himself, “Where do you want me to put the third rose?” Understanding the Nazis' designs, Stanciulescu persuades Dominic to escape from Romania.
Living like a spy, Dominic eventually winds up in Switzerland towards the end of the war, where he is confronted by Doktor Rudolf at gunpoint in an alleyway. Rudolf argues that Dominic’s existence supports the Nazis' ideal of the superman, and that the coming nuclear conflicts can only be survived by a superior species of man. In the background, the “Other” confirms this to be the case. However, in refusing to cooperate, Dominic manifests telekinetic powers which manipulate Rudolf into shooting himself. Subsequently, Dominic returns to a normal existence and resumes his linguistic research. Having realised that the lightning strike has partially lent him the capacities and knowledge of future humanity, he develops a secret language for his audio diary, to be deciphered long after the nuclear apocalypse.
Many years later, Dominic encounters a woman named Veronica (Alexandra Maria Lara) while hiking in the Alps. The “Other” reveals her to be the reincarnation of Laura. When the mountains are hit by a violent thunderstorm, Dominic rushes to her rescue and finds her chanting in Sanskrit, which he greets her with to gain her trust. During her stay in hospital, Veronica now identifies herself as “Rupini”, one of the first disciples of the Buddha. Suspecting she may now be afflicted with a condition similar to his own, Dominic calls the Roman College of Oriental Studies for aid, who inform him that Rupini's last act in life was to retire into a cave for meditation on Enlightenment. Since the cave’s location is unknown, the scholars, led by Professor Giuseppe Tucci (Marcel Iures), agree to fund an expedition to find it in India, hoping Veronica’s past self will guide them. The venture proves a success when a local Boddhisatva recognises “Rupini” and directs her to the place of meditation. Following this discovery, Veronica becomes herself again and falls for Dominic.
The couple elope to Malta, where for a time, they live happily together, until Dominic tells Veronica in her sleep that he has always loved her. This causes Veronica to writhe in bed as if possessed and begin chanting a language even he does not understand. The “Other” explains that she is speaking in ancient Egyptian, having travelled further back along the path of her past selves. For the next two weeks, Dominic learns how to control this state in Veronica, leading her to regress ever further in time and speak previously unknown tongues. However, Veronica's health begins to decline from exhaustion, and Dominic declares that he cannot continue these sessions, or even being close to Veronica, since his proximity to her is accelerating her age. Over the objections of both Veronica and the “Other”, he leaves.
Despairing, Dominic returns to the town where he taught as a professor. His alter ego appears to him in a miror and reveals the future of mankind; nuclear warfare will unleash an electromagnetic pulse, giving birth to a new, powerful human species, of which Dominic is but the first member. Veronica symbolised the dawn of man, and he stood for the dusk. Outraged at the idea of sacrificing millions of lives in the name of evolution, Dominic shatters the mirror, causing the “Other” to vanish, yelling incoherently in an unfamiliar language. In the morning, townsfolk find Dominic's body, lying dead at the bottom of a staircase. As Veronica’s voice is heard echoing “Where do you want me to put the third rose?”, the rose appears in Dominic’s lifeless grasp. | philosophical, psychedelic, avant garde, suicidal, flashback | train | wikipedia | I felt really good watching a legendary filmmaker like Coppola before the special screening (in Bucharest), walking on the stage and thanking sincerely to the Romanian cast and crew, and in the end, thanking all of us "for Mircea Eliade".
It will change the way you feel about time and life, the way Eliade changed Coppola from an old mainstream Hollywood director into an arty European film experimenter..
As the film is impossible to summarize here, I will get to a quick conclusion.Bottom line: a heavy feeling film, with a complex script and a lot of philosophical ideas of Eliade's scattered through the story; also some of his personal obsessions: orientalism and the loss of the love of his life.
A linguistics professor, Dominic (Tim Roth) is an old man when he gets struck by lightning in 1938, then proceeds to age back to 40 in recovery, only to then find that he's being watched- and planned for abduction- by Nazi scientists who want to use his newfound super-powers (mostly that he can, at times, harness powerful energy, as Dominic describes as "out of a science fiction novel").
The comparisons are endless.But what remains, at the end of trying to figure out what the hell Youth Without Youth will say as its ultimate message, is an original work, sincerely with the verve of a filmmaker who just says 'f*** it' and makes the movie he wants to make on his own terms (with, subsequently, his own money).
If there is any risk to the project it's that Coppola gambles on narrative cohesion with elements like two Dominics following the lightning strike (one of which, of course, prods the other to complete his life's work as a "failure"), or the power of emotion with two people in love vs.
It is a deeply philosophical movie that appeals to the reality matrix of people, trying to immerse you into some kind of a trance, where you begin to think like the author of the book, and the main character.
A complex and challenging film, from one of the great American directors, and part of the continuing magical adventures of Tim Roth(The Legend Of 1900), this time around Roth is a linguistics professor trying to develop a theory of the origins of hum...(read more)an language and consciousness at his 70th birthday when he is struck by lightening that reverts him to his youth.
Naturally the two fall in love, and the odd couple are happy enough until her ancient language fits, get more frequent, and dive further and further into primitive languages, much to Roth's joy, though his love ages more and more with each regression.Like I said Youth Without Youth is an ambitious mix of science fiction, world war 2 spy espionage, romance, meditation on death, aging, linguistics, the origins of consciousness, time, philosophy, the atomic bomb, multiple personalities, and reincarnation.Watching Youth Without Youth is a bit like reading an overwrought but well written novel, where you can appreciate the skill of the speaker's use of language more than any profound statement being made.
This movie doesn't reveal truths of that sort but nonetheless shows the mindset and tribulations of people who (at least claim to) know great things.There are HINTS of paranoia, loves lost, sacrifices made; strange paradoxes (body doubles, visual incongruities, time warps); and great "evils" (Hitler, mad scientists, Nuclear bombs).
She keeps going back further in time speaking in ancient languages enabling Dominic to get very near to the first spoken text but at the risk of losing Veronica for good.The film is a mixture of vision and story.
Many years later (20 years to be exact) and 10 years absent from his latest directorial effort (1997's "The Rain Maker"), Coppola tried to do exact same thing like he did in the past."Youth Without Youth" is interesting, yet undeniably confusing tale of Dominic Matei (Tim Roth) who is a professor of language and philosophy in early 19th century.
The film is about a once brilliantly gifted scholar, Dominik Mattei (played by Tim Roth), who appears to have wasted his life, and is now an old man, when suddenly he gets a second chance and returns to youth.
Is it because he didn't complete his life's work, a great book which was to contain a grand unifying theory on consciousness and the origins of language, or because he didn't pay enough attention to his beloved Laura?There are two main points of interest in the film for me, one relates to the allure of the situation Mattei is in and the dilemma it presents, and the other to the structure.
If you liked Tim Roth in this film I suggest you watch another movie in which he stars, The Legend of 1900 directed by Giuseppe Tornatore, which is also wonderful in a similar enigmatic way.And this review is dedicated to Claire, who is the first rose..
Thank you, Mr. Tim Roth for another great performance.The screenplay is poetic not less than any other quality in the film.This movie needs a deep viewer with some patience and a love for art, philosophy, spirituality, and science.Honestly, the film should get a higher rating, but it's not the kind that would be accessible to all kinds of audiences.
Soon, the Nazis have made him an object of "study," determined to use him as a guinea pig in their efforts to create a "master race." But that's only half the story, which extends well into the late 1960s, with Dominic holding onto his eternal youth at virtually every step of the drama.Impeccably produced, written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, "Youth Without Youth" is a fascinating mixture of war time drama, unrequited love story, psychological study, ancient and primordial mysticism and sci-fi fantasy.
And those places are fascinating.Tim Roth carries the film with his beautifully understated embodiment of a man trying desperately to understand his place in the world, and Alexandra Maria Lara is heartbreaking as the loving, troubled young woman with similar issues who briefly joins him on his journey.With its enigmatic storytelling and its refusal to spell everything out in simplistic terms for a spoon-fed audience, "Youth Without Youth" risks alienating a large segment of the ticket-buying public.
"Youth Without Youth" takes a new approach to Romania, even though it stars in a supporting role Bruno Ganz (who played Jonathan Harker in Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu") and is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (who directed "Bram Stoker's Dracula").At the beginning, we meet Dominic Matei (Tim Roth), a septuagenarian Romanian polyglot in 1938.
Apparently, "YWY" author Mircea Eliade as a young man went to Calcutta to study Sanskrit and and Eastern philosophy, so it wouldn't surprise me if the events in the story mirror his own experiences.From what I read about this film, it sounds as though this was an ambitious project in the vein of some of Coppola's more famous work.
The rest is Coppola trying really hard to make some point (WWII happened sometime ago, Love or work?, languages: yes or no?), whichever it may have been it's certainly not worth watching this movie.
So much so in fact that the attempt at including World history seems forced - almost an afterthought from Coppola.As many may have read already, the saving grace of the film comes in the hunched form of a maturing Tim Roth - who wades his way though pretentious dialogue to hold 'Youth Without Youth' together.
If I were cruel, I could've interpreted this as one huge dream sequence from start to end, and you know just how cheap a narrative that would be.Youth Without Youth, based on the novel by Mircea Eliade, tells of a story of an aged linguist Dominic (Tim Roth), who is on a suicidal mission, only to have it thwarted, sort of, in advance by higher powers.
I'm not even talking about having a cohesive plot, just a clarity of narrative that informs the viewer that the director actually knows what he's dealing with.What Youth Without Youth simply tells us is that Coppola does not understand the subject he's dealing with (esoteric meanings of time and reality) nor is he capable of representing it in film.
The second half of the film takes place after the war years when the man finds a woman who looks like a young version of his deceased love (Alexandra Maria Lara).
Incredibly, she too is struck by lightning with differing results and it aids in his research on the origins of languages.The plot brings to mind two films from the mid-90s that also address people with fascinating powers: "Powder" and "Phenomenon." The latter was decent whereas the former shot for greatness and in some ways attained it.
when was the last time YOU stood on your head and looked at things upside-down?Tim Roth is truly great in this and that's a shame because the film could have been greater.It's still better than 90% of the movies I research and then watch though and none of my time was wasted.I'm hoping at some point someone will re-cut the soundtrack to the "Brief Encounter" moments (I know they are not all Rachmaninov but you see the style getting repeated later with different music).
Here, the background novella with the same name is dreamy enough, and the signature of Francis Ford Coppola has brought the scenes' progression to a hectic and often difficult-to-follow level, where even the good performance of Tim Roth (definitely in my Top10 list of distinctive actors) could not make all the events and motives understandable to me, I had to delve into the plot as a whole later on.As for other performances, there were no up to the task of Roth's, Bruno Ganz spend too little time on screen, but female characters remained incomplete to me.
It wants too hard to be heavy, and it is.Real depth in movies can be seen in the highly personal (and affected) Ingmar Bergman films, or in more peculiar attempts like "2001." Even Coppola's own "Apocalypse Now" finds a way to explore meaning, indirectly and amazingly.
The film’s running-time is divided between two interlocking stories: the first involving an old professor’s rejuvenation after being hit by a bolt of lightning (the condition also unleashes a couple of doppelgangers which, having little real point, only confounds the issue all the more!) and the second the reincarnation of an Indian mystic into a girl who also happens to be the double of the learned man’s long-lost love (the glitch is that, with each lapse into the former personality – regressing into ever more ancient forms of communication – the body of her current vessel ages!).Casting – Tim Roth, Alexandra Maria Lara and Bruno Ganz (the latter two both from DOWNFALL [2006]) – is generally effective; also making a good impression is Alexandra Pirici appearing as a German seductress/Nazi agent (it appears that Hitler is interested in exploiting Roth’s predicament towards the proverbial creation of a new master race!), while Matt Damon (star of the director’s preceding effort, THE RAINMAKER [1997]) turns up in a rather trivial cameo.
I was not very interested in watching Youth Without Youth, despite being director Francis Ford Coppola's first film in 10 years (if we do not consider his anonymous "contribution" to the atrocious Supernova).I liked various movies from this legendary filmmaker very much...not the ones he made as a mercenary director (like Jack or Peggy Sue Got Married), but the most personal ones (like Rumble Fish or Tucker: The Man and His Dream), where he was obviously interested in the material.But the negative commentaries Youth Without Youth received made me not to be very interested in watching it, because I did not want to find another great director reduced to a mere shadow of his previous energy (like it happened to me with Oliver Stone and Alexander, Steven Spielberg and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, John Carpenter and Ghosts of Mars, and a very long etcetera).However, Youth Without Youth was released in my country, and since I had some free time and due to a schedule coincidence, I decided to watch it.Unfortunately, all the negative commentaries were right: Youth Without Youth is a confusing, hollow and terribly boring mess, and I think this is the lowest point in Coppola's career so far.The story of this movie is complicated, but not on the interesting way which challenges us to unravel the mysteries of the narrative (like it would may happen on a film directed by Jim Jarmusch), or complicated in the sense of director David Lynch's delicious style, which invites us to draw conclusions and enjoy a dream-like experience.Youth Without Youth is complicated on a horribly tedious way.Besides, this film is full of forced and arbitrary philosophical, linguistic and literary discussions.In summary, Youth Without Youth is an unbearable experience, and my recommendation is for you to stay away from it.I still cannot believe Coppola was the responsible of this mess..
I blame Coppola for all the inconsistencies that really ruined this film, right there next to the bad acting from so many I'm not even gonna bother to name, suffice to say this movie had a good idea behind it, good not brilliant, if you think this is in any way a hard to digest philosophical film then you haven't seen too many, watch any Bergman film and see if you feel the same.Good bits: A fairly interesting script, with decent directing and Tim Roth in the lead.Bad bits : Incoherence in the continuity of the story with no emphasis on some of the more important parts,seems Coppola can't decide between a cheesy love story and the pursuit of ultimate knowledge(big choice there)so he thinks he can do both at the same time, big parts in the script seem just thrown in without any reason, some really bad acting, i don't get why people in Romania speak English but write in Romanian.I suggest you watch this if you're a Tim Roth fan and want to see him in a different kind of role, otherwise no..
Tim Roth gives a solid performance (the way he takes time to regain the carriage of and begin walking like a younger man again is one of the film's highlights).
Matt Damon appears briefly as a Life reporter, and Anamaria Marinca ( 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days) as a receptionist.The film takes place against the backdrop of WWII, and the Nazis are very interested in Dominic (Tim Roth), who was regressed back to half his age after being hit by lightning.
I don't know what happened to the talented director of movies like "The Godfather" trilogy and "The Conversation" but I know this: he tried hard, made a few good things but in the end the result was overshadowed by a messy and confusing plot where the dramatic suspense was more interesting than the romance told in the second half of it.The amazing Tim Roth plays an 70 year-old linguistic that after being struck by a lightning starts all of sudden to get younger and he has the chance to do all the things he wanted to do as younger including finishing a book (we never know what is the so-called work of his life).
Under his power, Veronica regresses back through the ages, each time speaking an older language, until, as she nears the origin, and his work nears completion, he realises that he can have his life's desire, but first there is a test, and a choice to be made.This fascinating film which Coppola wrote, directed and produced is well constructed and satisfying.
Beats me - and Roth too, I guess.Luminous Alexandra Maria Lara is remarkable in a challenging and thankless role (after a brief appearance at the beginning she disappears from the movie for a long time).Although I am not familiar with the novel by Mircea Eliade adapted here, I suspect two things: first, it could be interesting and make more sense than the movie; second, the adaptation suffers from what is called "the slideshow effect": all the best bits from the book glued together with little regard for pacing (which here is totally off) and clarity.
Another reason, less superficial, is that I simply like linguistics, a topic which is very much at the centre of this movie, as the main character, Dominic Matei (in a delightful performance by Tim Roth), struggles to find the origins of language and human consciousness.
He also had a troubling sympathy for extreme right wing politics.Youth Without Youth is a story about a seventy-year-old man, Professor Dominic Matei (Tim Roth), a brilliant but funbling professor in Romania in 1938 who's still grieving over a broken engagement with his lost love Laura (the protean Romanian actress Alexandra Maria Lara) forty years before and despairs of ever completing his lifelong project, a book (rather like Mr. Casaubon's "Key to All Mythologies" in George Eliot's 'Middlemarch') that traces the ultimate origin of the world's languages.
Francis Ford Coppola adapted a novella by Romanian theologian and writer Mircea Eliade: "Tânereţe fără bătreneţe şi viaţa fără de moarte" which I would translate as "Youth without ageing and life without death" but has been published under the name the film has now.The film's plot in short: A romanian Orientalism-professor has lost the love of his life when he was still young and lives as an old man now in fear that he wouldn't be able to finish his one great book about the origins of language and the birth of consciousness (a feeling we all know oh too well, don't we?
Suddenly the movie had a plot.So far so good.It was obvious that this was a fiction about paranormal stuff, so I could even live with the "superpowers" of the main character Dominic(Roth).Then he meets that girl Veronika, who looks like his old flame Laura, and it gets even more interesting.You start asking yourself where is this gonna lead us?
After ten years, acclaimed director Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather") returns with "Youth Without Youth," a story set in the 1930s in Romania.Professor Dominic (Tim Roth) is in his seventies and realizes that he has no one in his life, so he decides to end it. |
tt0021156 | Morocco | The film is set in the late 1920s. It opens in Morocco, with the French Foreign Legion returning from a campaign. Among them is Légionnaire Private Tom Brown (Gary Cooper). Meanwhile, on a ship bound for Morocco is the disillusioned nightclub singer Amy Jolly (Marlene Dietrich). Wealthy La Bessière (Adolphe Menjou) attempts to make her acquaintance, offering to assist her on her first trip to Morocco. When she politely refuses any help, he gives her his calling card, which she later tears up and tosses away.
They meet again at the nightclub where she is a new headliner. Also in the audience is Private Tom Brown (Gary Cooper). Amy, who comes out in a tophat and tails, is first greeted by boos, which she coolly ignores. Tom begins to clap, interrupting their jeers, and others follow suit. After the noise subsides she sings her number ("Quand l'amour Meurt" or "When Love Dies") and is met with ecstatic applause. Seeing a woman in the audience with a flower in her hair, she asks if she may keep it, to which the woman responds "of course". She playfully kisses the woman on the mouth, and throws the flower to Private Tom Brown. Her second performance ("What am I bid for my Apple?"), this time in feminine dress, is also a hit. After the number she sells apples to the audience, including La Bessière and Tom Brown. When Amy gives the latter his "change", she slips him her key.
That night, Tom sets out to take Amy up on her offer. On the street he encounters Adjudant Caesar's wife (Eve Southern). It is clear that she has a past clandestine relationship with him, which she desires intensely to maintain, but Toms rejects her. Entering Amy's house, they become acquainted. Her house is plastered with photos from her past, which she, like a Foreign Legion soldier, reveals nothing of. He asks Amy if the man in the photographs is her husband, and she answers that she has never found someone good enough, a sentiment shared by Tom. She has become embittered with life and men after repeated betrayals, and asks if he can restore her faith in men. He answers that he is the wrong man for that, and that no one should have faith in him. As they talk, she finds herself coming to like him. Unwilling to risk heartbreak once again, she asks him to leave before anything serious happens. As he leaves, he encounters Caesar's wife again. Her husband, Tom's commanding officer, watches undetected from the shadows. Meanwhile, Amy changes her mind and seeks Tom out. With Amy in arm, Tom leaves Madame Caesar, who then hires two street ruffians to attack the couple. Tom manages to seriously wound both, while he and Amy escape unscathed.
The next day, Tom is brought before Adjutant Caesar (who had been watching them clandestinely) on the charge of injuring two allegedly harmless natives. Amy clears him, but Caesar makes him aware that he knows about Tom's involvement with his wife. La Bessière, whose affections for Amy continue unabated, knows her concern for Tom and offers to use his weight with Caesar to lighten his punishment. Instead of a court martial, Tom is released from detention and ordered to leave for Amalfi Pass with a detachment commanded by Caesar. He suspects that Caesar intends to rid himself of his romantic rival, and fears for his life were he to go. Amy is saddened by the news that he is leaving. Meanwhile, Tom, war-weary and enamored with Amy, plans to desert to be with her.
That night at the nightclub, La Bessière enters Amy's dressing room. He gifts her with a lavish bracelet, which she attempts to refuse, before setting it on her table. At the same time Tom, intending to tell her of his plans, arrives at the door of her dressing room. Tom overhears La Bessière offer to marry Amy, an offer she politely turns down. La Bessière asks her if it is because she is in love, to which she responds that she doesn't think she is. Asking her if she would make the same choice if not for "a certain private in the Foreign Legion", she answers that she does not know. After hearing this Tom knocks on the door, and La Bessière kindly lets them alone so Tom can say goodbye to her. As they embrace, Amy tells him not to go, and he responds that that's what he intended to do. He will desert and board a train to Europe, but if she would join him. She agrees to this. A buzzer signals it is time for her to perform, and she asks him to wait for her to return. After she departs, he notices the lavish bracelet on her dressing room table. Though he has fallen in love with her himself, Tom decides that she would be better off with a rich man than with a poor Legionnaire. He writes on her mirror, "I changed my mind. Good luck!".
The next day Amy arrives with La Bessière to see the company's departure, so that she can bid Tom farewell. Adding further injury, he hides the depth of his feelings for her by having several women in his company, who cling to him so doggedly that Amy must maneuver herself between them to shake his hand. She asks La Bessière about the women trailing after the company, who explains that they follow the men. She wonders how they keep pace with them, and he answers "Sometimes they catch up with them, and sometimes they don't. And very often when they do, they find their men dead." Amy remarks that the women must be mad to do such a thing, to which La Bessière responds "I don't know. You see, they love their men."
On the march to Amalfi Pass, Tom's company detachment runs into a machine gun nest. Caesar orders Tom to deal with it, and Tom suspects it is a suicide mission. To his surprise, Caesar decides to accompany him. Caesar is killed by the enemy.
Though in a relationship with La Bessière, Amy pines for Tom. She is devastated by his treatment of her, and begins drinking heavily and acting erratically at work. La Bessière enters her dressing room to find her singing gayly. He asks if she is in high spirits because she has heard news of Tom. She leads him to the mirror to show him the note Tom left, which she had hidden behind a flower pot. Still concealing her grief, she asks him to pour her a drink, before throwing its contents on the mirror and breaking the glass. La Bessière consoles her, and Amy eventually accepts his proposal.
Later, at their engagement party, La Bessière and Amy learn that what's left of Tom's detachment has returned. Frantic, Amy rushes outside, but learns that Tom was wounded and left behind to recuperate in a hospital. She informs La Bessière that she must go to Tom that very night; and wanting only her happiness, he drives her there.
She finds that Tom has not been injured at all, but has instead been faking an injury to avoid combat. Instead of the hospital ward, he has been residing in a canteen. Accompanying him is a native woman, who attempts to console him, knowing he is brokenhearted over leaving his love. He has carved "AMY JOLLY" inside a heart, covered by a heap of cigarette butts from his chain smoking. When Amy arrives, Tom asks her if she is married, to which she answers in the negative. He then asks if she plans to marry La Bessière, to which she replies with a yes. He encourages her to marry him, not revealing his feelings for her. As he prepares to join his new unit, she finds his knife on the table, which he has forgotten. When he returns to collect it, she remarks that he has also forgotten to say goodbye. He asks her to see the unit off as they leave at dawn. Alone and distraught, Amy sifts through the pile of playing cards and cigarettes, and finds the heart with her name in it. The next morning she attends as his unit disembarks. Amy is torn in leaving him with the knowledge of his love for her, but when she sees a handful of native women stubbornly following the Legionnaires they love, she joins them. | revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0367027 | Shortbus | Set in contemporary New York City, Shortbus revolves around Sofia Lin (Sook-Yin Lee), who is married to the handsome but unambitious and slightly dim-witted Rob (Raphael Barker). She works as a couples counselor/sex therapist. She comes into contact with a couple: A slightly egotistical former child star Jamie (PJ DeBoy) and former prostitute James (Paul Dawson), the film's other lead character. At the outset, James suggests to his boyfriend that they open up their relationship to sex with others. During their first consultation, Sofia snaps, slaps Jamie, and then apologetically reveals her "pre-orgasmic" status. The couple suggests she attend a weekly social/artistic/sexual salon in Brooklyn called "Shortbus," which is hosted by drag artist Justin Bond (playing himself). Sofia slowly opens up to new experiences; this includes a friendship with a dominatrix who goes by the name Severin (Lindsay Beamish). Sofia's inability to achieve orgasm begins to cause conflict with Rob, who in turn begins attending Shortbus with Sofia.
James and Jamie meet a young ex-model and aspiring singer named Ceth (pronounced seth) and portrayed by Jay Brannan) and the three begin a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, James and Jamie's life is being closely watched by their across-the-street stalker neighbor, Caleb (Peter Stickles). Caleb fears the inclusion of Ceth in James and Jamie's relationship might break them up and thus destroy his ability to live vicariously through them, so he attends Shortbus, where he confronts Ceth. Sofia begins to go daily to a spa with a sensory deprivation tank to meet with Severin, and the two begin to have intense conversations. Severin begins to help Sofia loosen up sexually; Sofia helps Severin achieve a deeper human connection than she had experienced before. One evening at Shortbus, Severin discusses with Sofia the idea of giving up sex work to pursue her dream of being an artist. The two then have an unplanned sexual experience, and once again Sofia is left unsatisfied. Throughout the film, James is seen making a film about himself and his relationship. It turns out to be a suicide note. He attempts to take his own life and is rescued by Caleb, who calls for help, but is too embarrassed to wait with James for the help to arrive. He writes his phone number and email address on James' face while he is unconscious. When James wakes in the hospital, he calls Caleb. James goes to Caleb's home to be consoled, but does not contact Jamie or Ceth, neither of whom can understand why he wouldn't call them or come home.
There follows an interlocking trio of scenes showing connections between the characters' emotional problems and their sexual lives.
At Caleb's house, he and James have sex, and James allows Caleb to penetrate him, something he has never allowed anyone to do before. Afterward, in a dramatic revelation, James is seen in the window of Caleb's apartment by Jamie, who realizes in that moment that James is alive and okay.
Rob and Severin have a paid encounter where Rob asks to be flogged, something he couldn't ask Sofia to do. As this progresses, Severin loses control and Rob tries to comfort her.
Sofia seems to have a dream of struggling through an overgrown, wild forested area to a gentle seashore where she tries to achieve orgasm again. On failing, she screams, and in the real world the lights go off across the city, seemingly caused by the simultaneous and collective frustration of the characters.
The film ends with a song by Justin Bond at Shortbus during the blackout. Sofia arrives and finds Rob with Severin and after acknowledging him sits down by herself. James and Jamie also arrive followed by Ceth and Caleb. Justin's song starts on a wistful note, but as it progresses it becomes more energetic and positive thanks to the arrival of the Hungry March Band. This is mirrored in the actions and emotions of the actors. Jamie and James make out on the floor, and Ceth and Caleb start to hit it off. Rob seems to find a friend, and Severin progresses from nervous anxiety to happy elation upon the arrival of the band. Sofia engages in a threesome with a couple she has seen several times before and who appear to meet her prerequisite of "just beginning to experiment sexually" (Nick and Leah, played by Jan Hilmer and Shanti Carson), and finally achieves an orgasm, and the blackout affecting New York ends, as does the film. | cute, humor, queer | train | wikipedia | Set in modern-day New York City, a heterogeneous group of straights, gays and transgenders find common ground at Shortbus, an underground salon where people are free to explore their most carnal sexual desires with random hookups and nightlong orgies sometimes even finding bits of wisdom along the way.The superb cast of characters of John Cameron Mitchell's "Shortbus" powerfully draws the viewer in to each of the characters' lives and problems.
Because one's comfort level with their sexuality mirrors how one relates in all other relationships, showing the raw and carnal aspect of each character so explicitly works beautifully to accurately convey their motivations and struggles.In a touching conversation, an old man identifying himself as the former mayor of New York says to the young and naive Ceth (Jay Brannan), "People come to New York to get laid ...
Like Michael Winterbottom, who made the explicit "9 Songs," writer/director John Cameron Mitchell says he wants to show true human sexuality as part of his story.
Meanwhile, all of these characters meet regularly at Shortbus, a sex club where everyone is free to be whatever they want to be, where no one's a freak because everyone's a freak, and where, most importantly, everyone feels a sense of community in a scary post-9/11 world.Such is "Shortbus," John Cameron Mitchell's emotionally affecting follow up film to his dazzling debut, "Hedwig and the Angry Inch." By now, everyone knows that "Shortbus" contains many scenes of quite explicit sex.
However, it is to Mitchell's great credit that I left the film not remembering the sex as much as I remembered some of the beautiful emotional moments, of which "Shortbus" is chock full.I saw a screening of this at the Chicago International Film Festival, and two of the actors, Sook-Yin Lee and Lindsay Beamish, were on hand to answer questions.
It's all ultimately wondrous, and one of the great revelations of the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, where the audiences tend to be snotty and conspicuously unimpressed--but the screening of this movie was followed by parades and parties in the streets, with people carrying the stars on their shoulders, like they used to do with Verdi on opening nights in Milan.
Oh, and when the young dominatrix is on screen you can hear members of the audience murmuring "It's the Jennifer Jason Leigh" part.As for the hardcore scenes, "Shortbus" fails in the same way other legit movies have failed when they tried to incorporate real sex into plot.
This film is an unabashedly sexually charged and frank look at people, their relationships and how sex is intertwined into it.The treatment is both naïve yet incredibly sophisticatedeven while showing very intense sexual scenes, it doesn't sugarcoat or judge them, but merely explores them in a way that most American cinema is afraid to do.It is as one of the actors says "Voyeurism is Participation" (or somewhat close to that).
Director John Cameron Mitchell dares to take a retro-clinging America into the twenty-first century with this brave, humanistic art-house film wherein an ensemble cast of little known actors and numerous non-actors portray characters exploring emotions and relationships in a New York City underground club called the Shortbus.As a gay couple with relationship problems, James (Paul Dawson) and Jamie (P.J. DeBoy), consult a young sex therapist named Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee) who, as it turns out, is in need of some therapy herself.
And the film's music captures a progressive feel, and varies from nouveau jazz to the stirring humanistic anthem "In The End", performed by the entire cast, and led with flair by Justin Bond.Unorthodox both in substance and style, in a society that too often demands traditional correctness, "Shortbus" is Mitchell's cinematic plea for cultural compassion and mercy, tolerance and acceptance.
Of course, just as was the case in the early days of explicit sex on screen, the "redeeming social value" on display here is nothing more than a way for the intellectual watching this film to explain the wet spot in their crotch as being sweat expelled from a gland which occurred in the process of their deep analysis of the complex meaning of deep anal thrusts and auto-fellatio.To say that Shortbus is a bad film technically would be a lie for I must admit that despite my not finding any memorable images throughout my viewing of the film, I felt that the cinematography was acceptable and the acting, although certainly not award worthy, was fine.
However today, the climate has changed in such a way that although explicit sex in films is not deemed universally acceptable, censors and prudes have become comfortable enough with the idea that a film can still play general theatres despite its explicit content that many visionary filmmakers have taken bold steps to include hardcore sex in some of their more recent pictures.I think that taking any more time explaining the ridiculousness of heaping praise on a cinematic item which, in all honesty, has nothing more going for it than a near constant stream of boring sex acts, I shall instead make a suggestion to every person (critics and audience members alike) who took this film as a revolutionary piece of cinema to be encouraged to watch at least a few of the following sexually explicit titles (listed in no real order):Bacchanale (John & Lem Amero, 1970) Ken Park (Larry Clark, 2002) Through The Looking Glass (Jonas Middleton, 1975) Cruising (William Friedkin, 1980) The Image (Radley Metzger, 1975) Do Me Evil (Toby Ross, 1975) Both Ways (Jerry Douglas, 1975) Sometimes Sweet Susan (Fred Donaldson, 1974) Skin Flicks (Gerard Damiano, 1978) The Opening Of Misty Beethoven (Radley Metzger, 1975) Cafe Flesh (Stephen Sayadian, 1982) Defiance Of Good (Armand Weston, 1974) Midnight Desires (Shaun Costello, 1975) (Anna) Obsessed (1977) Score (Radley Metzger, 1972) Roommates (Chuck Vincent, 1981) Corruption (Roger Watkins, 1983) Thundercrack!
First of all I am a "straight" man so I wont let this cloud my review of this film...I found this movie hard to watch at times but the fact that this was toted as "real" sexuality peaked my interest in the first place.
But its not all about just throwing people out there to have sex and film it.There are deeper subjects that John Cameron Mitchell tackles, such as fears of not being loved as you once were by your partner, trying to achieve orgasm that a lot of women might have a problem and just finding true love....As I said about the car wreck, even though the film made me incredibly uncomfortable I found myself trying to open my mind to other things so I kept looking back at the film, to see what the message thats trying to be portrayed to those with a closed mind....
This film tries hard to make art out of what is essentially a seemingly random collection of sex scenes, emotional half-truths and lots and lots and LOTS of navel-gazing, by a bunch of pretty people whose lives seem as boring, tedious and uninteresting as the nameless "characters" we see in porn.Well, this is porn basically.
For heterosexuals, we have Michael Winterbotton's 9 Songs; for those who like 'em a little younger, Ken Park should do the trick; and for anyone who can't make up their mind quite what they're into, there's this.Director John Cameron Mitchell's film revolves around a group of New Yorkers who visit Shortbus, a club where the sexually adventurous converge to indulge in all manner of carnal acts with other open-minded (and open-orificed) individuals.
Sook-Yin Lee plays Sofia, a sex therapist unable to achieve an orgasm; Paul Dawson and PJ DeBoy play a gay couple, James and Jamie, who have relationship issues; and Lindsay Beamish is Severin, a dominatrix who just wants to be loved: with the help of several other club regulars, these emotionally challenged individuals learn to change their lives for the better.As an avant-garde, art-house comedy/drama, Shortbus ain't much cop—a series of rather dull scenes full of pretentious introspective musing, tedious chit chat and laugh-free comedy.
While graphic, it is hard for me to think that someone would not be able to deal with seeing the sex in this movie, especially since we are exposed to so much violence in other movies that has little redemptive value, but somehow seems to not trouble as many people.The only flaw that i saw in the film was that it was somewhat too self conscious.
Instead the film simply plods along, trying to shock you or wow you with more explicit sex (which by the way, aren't simply scenes of doing the act, but rather of the more bizarre types you'd seen in porn.
Among the main characters are Sofia, a sex therapist who has never achieved orgasm, a gay couple both named Jamie, and a dominatrix who goes by the name Severin (the revelation of her real name is one of the film's funniest moments).
"Shortbus" is an interesting perspective on the loose sexual morals of the hip New York underground scene and shows us how these people apparently soothe their insecurities with lots of promiscuous sex, but I found it too distant from my own way of life, too shallow and too one-sided to really appeal to me.
This made it come off as a bit pretentious.If you're a homosexual male in conflict with your emotions, you may really like this film and consider it a very heartwarming experience, but for anyone else I'd recommend you go watch and of the other films I mentioned if you want to see an art house film about sex and relationships that's refreshing and different from anything you've seen before..
There is joy, frustration, depression, and hope all mixed together to create one of the best movies of the year.The story is centered around a woman couples counselor's journey to experience an orgasm and a gay couple's, both named Jamie, need to open up in order to find the true love they share.
Paul Dawson, as one of the Jamies, is engaging in autofellacio while filming his video project, Sook-Yin Lee, the sex therapist, is making love in all sorts of ways with her husband, and Lindsay Beamish is dominating a John in a hotel room.
Shortbus is a place for misfits to come together for art, music, film, and sex, to be with equals, never being questioned for what their motives are, but instead accepted for just being human.
For me personally, it felt like my search was finally over for this is the way I had always hoped that sex could and would be shown on screen : as an integral and important part of people's lives, full of joy as well as anxiety.
All these characters regularly congregate at the Shortbus club, run by real life underground cult figure Justin Bond, a place where people of various sexual tastes and inclinations can get to know each other very intimately, the only boundaries being those that they impose upon themselves.Well aware that his movie was going to acquire a notorious reputation for its non-simulated sexual content before most people would have had a chance to see for themselves, Mitchell immediately follows the opening credits with three cross-cut explicit encounters ending in three back to back pop shots.
In the opening scene of John Cameron Mitchell's provocative new film, SHORTBUS, James (Paul Dawson) sits immersed in his bathtub.
Broken up by sweeping spurts of an animated New York City (strikingly animated by John Bair), James bends over backwards for some good old fashioned auto-fellatio until his boyfriend, Jamie (PJ DeBoy), comes home; sex therapist, Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee) gets busy with her husband (Raphael Barker) all over their apartment before she fakes an orgasm rather convincingly; and dominatrix/prostitute, Severin (Lindsay Beamish), whips her latest John while he asks her views on world events and adds his own, uh, personal squiggles to the Jackson Pollock above his bed.
I know that SHORTBUS is John Cameron Mitchell's second film but that's not the kind of "sophomore" I refer to when I call this film "sophomoric." An ensemble piece about love and sex in New York City, SHORTBUS has a good deal of laughs and poignant observations but it's nearly usurped by its "film school senior project" aesthetic.Reminiscent of countless films I've endured at various "underground" film festivals; SHORTBUS sports uneven acting and relies to heavily on its "frank treatment of human sexuality." That is to say, there are a lot of boobs, butts, and penises on screen in various states of arousal.
A disappointing and sometimes very boring movie, which tries to highlight particular New York sexual neuroses (done already ad nauseam in stuff like Sex & The City) in a particularly graphic way: erections, cum shots, group sex, deviant sex positions, the lot.
At first glance this sexually explicit comedy drama might seem like a porn movie, but delve deeper and you discover a truly moving and emotional film with exceptional acting.
I do not want to believe that this proof will be the only one in decades.We need at least a couple more movies like this, since we are all existing through sex and emotions, and we should enjoy the short time we have.
Sure there's REAL LIVE SEX, but it's definite not used gratuitously without purpose, as should be obvious given the themes of the movie.Shortbus does not reinforce any stereotypes about gay men much in the same way that is does not claim that all Chinese-Canadian women have never had an orgasm.
When New York creates a worthwhile film that can't be shown there, by default it becomes like a gift to the rest of the world.Sexually explicit mainstream American movies are about as rare as human rights features surfacing from China.
Shortbus, a salon for the gifted and challenged....The story is based around Brooklyn's D.U.M.B.O. club (called ShortBus in this film a reference to the shorter yellow buses that are provided for less-able kids in NY) and follows the crossing of paths of the main protagonists therein: Sofia - a sex therapist ("I prefer 'couples councillor') who is "pre-orgasmic" and her partner Rob, a gay couple - Jamie and James, one of whom is manic depressive, and looking to open up the relationship, and a dominatrix by the alias of Severin (who is just looking for a "real human interaction"), all stage managed by Justin Bond the mistress of Shortbus.Set against the electrical brown and black-outs that afflicted Manhattan shortly after 9/11, this film sets out to contrast the intensity of their sexual energy and the frequent absence of emotional depth ("I can see the love, but it stops at my skin") successfully using the parallel of how day to day the energy of the city (the sex) keeps it ticking over, but you need to feel the intimacy of love (the black outs that didn't lead to the widespread looting the NYPD predicted but instead acted as a cohesive moment for the NYC communities).The film is extremely sexual graphic in places far more so than Winterbottom's Nine Songs was and the uncensored nature of these scenes is a tool that John Cameron Mitchell uses to demonstrate the intensity of the sexual relationships.
Wherever those boundaries are, "Shortbus" attempts to move them with its highly open displays of sexuality some might consider deviant or perverse, to say little of its equally graphic presentations of a variety of sex acts.This is a film completely for adults; mature adults at that.
They all end up meeting at a place called "Shortbus" which seems to be a sex club for any sexual orientation.The movie starts right off with hardcore explicit sex scenes with all the main characters.
The thing is, that "Shortbus" is suggesting that modern, open-minded people deal with sex the way these wacky characters from this Factory-like club deal with it, but there's nothing real in there.
This will only encourage people who are against explicit sex scenes in movies, when really that's not the reason why "Shortbus" is a failure..
I haven't been inspired to write comments about a film in a long time, but Shortbus had me literally reeling in my seat from the first ten minutes.We are so screwed up today as a society of people and we don't know why we cannot connect with each other and form meaningful relationships both sexually and emotionally or find that special partner who we're supposed to love that's supposed to make us complete.
What he has created in this important experimental film SHORTBUS is not only a fascinating probe into the complexities of contemporary sexuality but also a group of relationship stories that stand on terra firma and are not merely a matrix for the frank sexuality from which they are derived.John Cameron Mitchell visits the relationships of several couples: a Canadian Chinese couples therapist/sex therapist (Sook-Yin Lee) who describes herself as "pre-orgasmic - she has never had an orgasm - married to a stay at home man (Raphael Barker): a young gay couple Jamie (PJ DeBoy) and James (Paul Dawson) who are considering opening up their monogamous relationship; a Dominatrix (Lindsay Beamish) and her long time male client among others.
The film is not uncritical of this illusion - one that affects an awful lot of people - but on the whole the movie sympathises with its dramatis personae, and is forgiving of their, and by extension our own, follies.The acting is variable, the gentle pace slackens woefully towards the end as Things Get Serious, but it's all smiles again for the finale, in a Fellini-like way.It's the first fifteen minutes that will earn Shortbus its place in cinema history: it manages to show very explicit sex without being remotely titillating, let alone pornographic.
Shortbus uses sexuality as a story telling device in which characters of the film introspectively explore both themselves and the meaning of humanistic relationships.
Sex scenes are part of the movie, because sex is part of the life of the characters.Yet, beyond this the film tries to say more about relationships and also to provide a political message.
Shortbus feels like a movie whose only purpose is to show raw and graphic sexuality. |
tt0282687 | Life or Something Like It | Lanie Kerrigan (Angelina Jolie), a successful reporter for a Seattle television station, interviews a self-proclaimed prophet, Jack (Tony Shalhoub), to find out if he really can predict football scores. Instead, Prophet Jack not only predicts the football score, and that it would hail the next day, but also that she would die in seven days, meaning the following Thursday. When his first two prophecies turn out to be correct, Kerrigan panics and again meets with Jack, asking him for another prophecy so that she can prove it wrong, which would imply uncertainty of her death. Jack tells her that there will be a relatively significant earthquake in San Francisco at 9:06 am; she hopes that it will be wrong but again it also becomes reality. Now Lanie becomes sure of her upcoming death and is forced to reevaluate her life.
The remainder of the storyline - which runs for the week of the prophecy - revolves around her attempts at introspection. She seeks consolation in her famous baseball player boyfriend Cal Cooper (Christian Kane), and in her family, but finds little there. Her lifelong ambition, that of appearing on network television, begins to look like a distant dream. In her desperation, she commits professional blunders, but ends up finding support in an unlikely source: her archenemy, the cameraman Pete Scanlon (Edward Burns), with whom she once had casual sex. He introduces her to a new approach to life; to live every moment of her life and to do whatever she always wanted to do.
Lanie implements Pete's advice; she moves in with Pete for a day, and he introduces her to his son Tommy (Jesse James Rutherford), who lives with his mother, and they spend a whole day together with Tommy. That night they sleep together for the second time. The next day Lanie receives an opportunity for a job she always dreamed of in New York. She asks Pete to come with her, but he declines and tells her that her appetite for success and fame will never end. Lanie sadly leaves for New York.
Pete meets Jack and tells him how wrong he is, as Lanie got the job which Jack foretold she would not get. But Jack explains that he was right as Lanie will never be able to get the job as she'll die before it begins. He again gives a prophecy of the death of a famous former baseball player in a plane crash. Pete receives the news of the death of the baseball player as foretold by Jack, and tries to call Lanie to warn her. When he cannot reach her, he flies to New York.
Lanie - unconcerned with Jack's prophecy - interviews her idol, famous media personality Deborah Connors (Stockard Channing). Lanie realizes how petty the opening questions are and shares a heartfelt moment with Deborah live on air. The interview receives huge ratings. The network immediately offers her a position, but Lanie declines, realizing that she wants a life with Pete in Seattle.
As she leaves the studio, a police officer gets into a conflict with a man, who shoots a bullet into the air. Pete tries to warn Lanie across the street, but she is shot in the crossfire. Luckily, Lanie survives, and Pete tells her in the hospital that he has loved her since the first time he saw her, and Lanie says she loves him, too. Later, Pete, Lanie and Tommy watch Cal's baseball game, while Lanie (in a voiceover) says that one part of her has died — the part which didn't know how to live a life. | paranormal, romantic, boring, prank | train | wikipedia | It attempts to address the question `if you suddenly discovered that you might only have a week more to live, how would you spend that remaining time and what changes would you make to your life?' Perhaps because this IS a romantic comedy, the best the film can manage to do within the tight strictures of the format is to raise a few of the more provocative issues surrounding the theme those dealing with the meaning of life and the vagaries of fate, for example then drop them so it can address itself to the customary clichés one would expect to find in a film of this genre.
One only wonders how a more serious-minded European filmmaker, for instance, might have tackled the same subject matter.Angelina Jolie plays a beautiful, but thoroughly superficial and self-absorbed TV news reporter living a near-perfect life in Seattle.
(The film, incidentally, endorses a rather reactionary view of women in the workplace, arguing that a woman needs to consider whether achieving success in the corporate world is worth sacrificing a chance at achieving marital and familial happiness a quandary that never seems to be posed to male characters in movies).Despite the fact that it has moments of quality and charm, the film, ultimately, feels like a case of lost opportunity.
I found this movie very predictable for the most part but the characters are so engaging (especially Jolie's) that you find yourself getting wrapped up in them and the story that surrounds them.
I enjoyed this movie, thanks in large part to the fact that I saw it on FX channel, on their "DVD on TV" movie night, where those two hosts (can't remember their names...) give you supplementary facts and other commentary about the movie during the commercial breaks.The story was actually fairly engrossing: Angelina Jolie's character (Lanie Kerrigan), who is a news reporter, is told by some strange street prophet, Jack (played by Tony Shaloub), that she will die in a week.
The story unfolds as she proceeds to live her rather hectic, self-absorbed life interspersed with romance, a somewhat strained relationship with her father and sister, and the ever-present wonderment as to whether Jack the Prophet will be correct in his prophecy that Lanie will in fact die in a week.
(The ending was a bit lame, but still had a good message if you care to adjust yourself to it.)Jolie's character, Lanie, is interesting, because if you watch the movie more than once, you will most likely start to be intrigued by her appearance: the platinum blonde hair, the puffy lips, the expressive eyes, the makeup....
I like the Ed Burns character, Pete, because he reflects reality, whereas Jolie's character is kind of too unreal, but still fun to watch.I liked the setting of the movie, Seattle, since I live in Seattle.
They changed their real names, though, which was kind of weird.There were a few things I didn't like about the movie, the main one being that Lanie, who works as a modern-day TV reporter, comes across to me as just way too much of a sex-pot, I mean just way outside the realm of reality.
as Conan O'Brien would say.) But mainly I liked the movie, and it was actually worth a repeat viewing, as it kind of grows on you, and ultimately makes you THINK about your own life, your own values, your personal destiny, etc.
BTW, there's a pretty good batch of songs that accompanied the movie too, though I don't believe there is an actual soundtrack available, so you will probably have to hunt down each song individually.All in all an interesting movie, with a message worth pondering - if you can get past the steady distraction of the appearance of Angelina Jolie, of course.Well, that's my review.
The director is Stephen Herek, who also directed the dull, forgettable Eddie Murphy vehicle "Holy Man." Like that movie, "Life..." is horribly uneven, taking a serious turn way too early in the film and never recovering.
Instead, the movie gets preachy and sentimental about the subject of carpe diem and developing the all-too-predictable love affair between Jolie and Edward Burns.
I'm not surprised to see him in a corny flick, but he is an underrated comic actor and I loved him on "Wings." Jolie decided she would take a break from movies after done with "Tomb Raider." Why, oh why, did she change her mind and star in this ultimately forgettable pseduo romantic comedy?
Life Or Something Like It fails to do both.Lanie Kerrigan (Angelina Jolie) is a local Seattle news reporter who is being considered for posh job in New York, for "AM USA." She must first prove herself in the field by working with Pete, an experienced cameraman (Edward Burns) whom she supposedly hates.
LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT has a premise of reporter Lanie Kerrigan being told by a homeless man that she's going to die in a few days from now and right away I was expecting some bitter-sweet angst , a sort of present day morality tale inspired by Frank Capra and I guess very early in production this was the idea but I was left confused .
Angelina Jolie is breath takingly beautiful and in many ways she's like a female Leonardo Dicaprio in that her good looks disguise she's a much better actress than critics give her credit for and imagine how worse the movie would be if her role was taken by say Sandra Bulloch while Dave Newman's haunting score also helps the movie greatly.
I wouldn't watch this movie.I gotta start off by saying that I'm still not sure if Jolie's character was a brunette or a blonde naturally.
Honestly, when I leave a movie that's supposed to make me re-evaluate my life and what it means to live (like American Beauty did) and the only thing I can think about is the hair color of the star I think the movie failed.
Sure, it wasn't too hard to watch and it worked out well as a Saturday afternoon hang-out w/ the lady-friend flick, but w/ Jolie I was really hoping this movie would fulfill its promise and be the engaging, interesting, thought-provoking film that it could be.
They were so believable (well, except for Jolie's hair, which really is a character in its own right) and their performances were so strong that as I look back on the film I really don't understand where it went wrong...maybe it tried to hard at the end, maybe all the logic fell apart just to bring about the thrilling climax, maybe it felt too much like a parody of tv news to also be the love story/life lesson that it also sought to be.
Fancy directorial touches--and Angelina Jolie looking sexy in a Marilyn Monroe platinum 'do--cannot save innocuous, superficial film about a TV news-anchor being told she will die in a week by a street psychic with an impeccable record.
Still, it was a pretty good film if you like moral movies.
It was a movie with a lot of very good actors in it, particularly Angelina Jolie, Ed Burns, and Tony Shaloub.
For those reasons, the movie was really just okay to me; not great.Angelina Jolie stars as Lanie Kerrigan, a young ambitious TV reporter who is already well-recognized and credible in her local Seattle network affiliate.
Burns is still likable in his role, but this romantic subplot is so cliché that it really ruins the film.The plot involving Jolie trying to deny or avoid death was also completely unbelievable, particularly towards the end.
I think the critics of this movie have been watching too much "reality TV", suspend your disbelief a little (ok maybe a lot) and this film and it's not so bad.This is a good film to recommend to your parents who live in Florida..
Clichés and unreal situations spoil what would have otherwise been an easy going "what if I changed my life" movie.Angelina Jolie is a news reporter that wants to hit it in life.
She then is put in a situation where she realizes that her perfectly built life is meaningless and that she need a good man and happiness instead of good money and unhappiness (suposedly).What made the difference between boringly average and this slightly better average rating is Tony Shaloub.Conclusion: if you are watching the movie to see if she dies, yes, she does.
Any intelligent viewer should know that she is not actually going to be killed off.Angelina Jolie ("Tomb Raider") is charming in this film, but cannot hold it up completely.
Edward Burns ("Sidewalks of New York") and Tony Shalhoub ("13 Ghosts") give solid performances, although Burns is beginning to look a little one-sided.Director Stephen Herek ("Rock Star") keeps the film at a fairly brisk hour and forty minutes, but somehow it seems that there were plenty of scenes that could've been taken out and replaced with ones that would fill the plot holes.
Angelina Jolie,(Lanie Kerrigan) was a news reporter and gets involved with a homeless man that she interviews and this man predicts without any hesitation on his part, that Lanie is going to die on a Thursday, a week away.
LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE ITSTARRING: ANGELINA JOLIE, EDWARD BURNS, STOCKARD CHANNING, AND CHRISTIAN KANE"Life or Something Like it," is a comedy-romance movie.
This time of film is not the kind a lot of people would see Actress Angelina Jolie be in.
Angelina plays Lanie Kerigan, a local Seattle news-reporter, who meets a lonely profit in the streets, and he tells her she is going to die in one week.
Hello Ed. I initially rented the movie Life or Something Like it because of Angelina Jolie who has been my favorite actress for years due to her talent and ability.
So it is not a must-see romantic comedy but I could at least sit through this one and understand it, unlike something acclaimed such as English Patient.A self absorbed, egocentric, perfectionist journalist interviewed a homeless man claiming to be a prophet, learned her fate is sealed 1 week from the date of interview.As he predicts the local baseball team win, a weather forecast & natural disaster...she starts to become aware that her fate may yet be fulfilled come Thursday.She is conflicted and emotionally upset during the first few days then learns to live life as it should be while desperately trying to prove the prophet wrong.The time winds down and the suspense of whether she will live or dies keeps you guessing.
Evidently, she decides to live life to the fullest during this time, although I don't feel as though she really changes her daily routine or her mores, other than acting "wacky" during a news broadcast and asking a fellow reporter a "tough" question.Edward Burns has a mullet, but is still the aloof and cool dude.
Angelina Joile was ok, supporting cast: eh.If you're a real romantic and don't pay much attention to filmmaking, watch this movie b/c you'll probably like it.
As my unfortunate friend watching the film with me said "maybe all the cheese has clogged up the works." This movie was clearly written by a committe, perhaps the board of directors of the Altoids company (shameful product placement), or more likely, an undergraduate scriptwriting class.
Jolie's character, Lanie Karragin, is a successful TV news-reporter in Seattle engaged to a sports star, Kal, offered a great job in New York, and struggling with her father and sister.Disaster strikes when a homeless man on the street predicts her death for next Thursday.
i like the "strike" scenes the most, with everyone singing to 'cant get no satisfaction' , i wouldnt say its funny, but it do gives the feel good feeling watching it , and also the scene where jolie was in AMUSA interviewing, and this movie has quite good soundtrack as well.overall..
i'd say its an average shot by everyone , i wouldnt classify it as comedy, maybe a lil romance , angelina jolie can do better than this in her attempt to make comedy, she have what it takes to do good comedy, but maybe not sloppy "romantic comedy" like this , lets just hope she gets better comedic role in future.movie rating : 5/10.
Stephen Herek's new film, LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT, starring Angelina Jolie and Edward Burns is the story of a career gal on the wrong path.
.. Before I start my actual review, I just want to say that Angelina Jolie with white-blonde hair in an homage-to-Marilyn style is just so, so wrong.Jolie plays Lanie Kerrigan, an ambitious Seattle television reporter.
Lanie Kerrigan is a successful TV reporter who leads a life she defines as perfect: good job, famous baseball player as a fiancé, great body...
Even though the movie features a respectable cast with Angelina Jolie in the lead, the characters are somewhat dull.
'Life or something like it' is about Lanie Kerrigan (played by Angelina Jolie), a news reporter who only cares about her career, her hair and fame.
First she doesn't pay much attention on what he said but when she sees that his other predictions has come true, she realises that the guy could be right about her too.This is the moment in the movie that Lanie starts to ask herself some real big 'life-questions'.
She realises that he's happy, no matter what other people think; and that's what she is jealous about.Great movie with excellent performances by Jolie and Burns.
This movie has got very interesting plots but somehow the movie didn't came out as I thought it would be, especially with Angelina Jolie with blond hair.The story of the news reporter interviewing the psychic homeless man who said she going to died in a week time.
(Like The Ring, I know) Within the next day his other saying became true which scared the hell out of her, while she realize she haven't done anything much in her life.If the movie is base on pure solid drama, I think the movie would turn out much better than romantic/ comedy.
Which make this type just one movie that been make and nothing else at all.Recommendation: Try Other Romantic/Comedy Film, as least you will avoid her singing, which was a very irritating scene.Rating: 5/10 (Grade: C-).
Edward Burns seems to like lightweight relationship movies so that's probably why he went with this one, only that the ones he does himself are far better.A thing with romantic comedies is that you should preferrably like the characters in order to get involved, however Jolie's character comes off as quite obnoxious and self-involved.
A Love Story or Something Like It. Angelina Jolie and Edward Burns try their respective bests in this misguided mess of a movie, they really do.
Maybe they were going for a surrealistic look?Jolie just doesn't give her all and her character in the movie is very changeable so you never know what to expect from her.
Despite the fact that it's supposed to be somekind of comedy.The script needed much reworking and tightening up before being comitted to film stock, because as it is now the movie meanders almost aimlessly as Jolie's character goes from one odd (and I'll add very unfunny and non-humorous) moment to the next.
An interesting concept, though more conducive to late night coffee house musings and discussions than a feature length film treatment, provides a pleasant, if less than insightful vehicle for it's star, in `Life or Something Like It,' directed by Stephen Herek, wherein the oft reflected upon question, `What would you do if you found out you had only a week to live?' becomes a showcase for the beautiful and talented Angelina Jolie, albeit a rather vapid and shallow one.
Burns is a good actor, and he gives a solid performance here, but his character, Pete, even after his `personal' story comes to light, just isn't that interesting.The saving grace of the entire film is Tony Shalhoub's portrayal of Jack, a character that will capture your imagination.
Angelina Jolie and Edward Burns starred in Life or Something Like It. Jolie plays a news reporter who found out she got a week to live, and Burns plays a cameraman who used to be in love with Jolie.
If you are looking for a brilliant piece of film, you probably will be disappointed here, but you will be entertained and will walk out the theater with a smile on your face and a new outlook on life.Jolie's acting is marvelous and she really looks like she enjoyed playing this character.
If you are looking for a good movie, Life or Something Like It is a must!
Angelina Jolie plays Lanie Kerigan, a self-absorbed TV personality, in Life or Something Like It. Her life is perfect.
He needs to get his career pumped up soon or else people will be asking, `Edward who?'Angelina Jolie tries her hardest to save Life or Something Like It, but in the end her efforts are futile.
not a bad movie...I enjoy looking at Angelina Jolie.
LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT(2002)****(out of 5) Anjelina Jolie and Edward Burns.In this dramedy romance, Jolie plays Lanie, a stuck up news reporter.
This movie just proved what kind of range she can do: from a ditzy blonde to a deep, insightful person in one film!Lanie (Jolie) is a beat reporter for one of the local stations in Seattle, WA, where she finds she's up for a big move to the network station in New York.
It's so sad that Angelina Jolie would pick a movie like this--I know she wanted to do a comedy, but this really wasn't the one.
I'm not a huge fan of Angelina Jolie, but i do think she did a good job with her character.
I did not think that Angelina Jolie was a good actress until I saw this movie.
Angelina Jolie plays a news reporter who is told by a street prophet (among other predictions) that she is going to die in a week. |
tt0424600 | The Andromeda Strain | After a U.S. government satellite crashes near the town of Piedmont, New Mexico, almost all of the town's inhabitants die instantly. Suspecting that the satellite brought back an alien germ, the military activates an elite scientific team it had previously assembled for just this type of emergency.
Dr. Jeremy Stone, the team leader, and Dr. Mark Hall, the team surgeon, are dropped in Piedmont by helicopter, where they search the town for the project "Scoop" satellite in space-suit-type protective uniforms. In a primitive medical office, they find the town's doctor had opened the satellite out of curiosity. Stone and Hall retrieve the Scoop and find two survivors in the town — a sixty-two-year-old town drunk and a six-month-old infant.
The entire team of four core research scientists, including Dr. Charles Dutton and Dr. Ruth Leavitt, are summoned from their academic and research appointments to arrive at a massive, secret, high-tech underground laboratory in Nevada, named Wildfire, where they undergo a full day of decontamination procedures, descending through several disinfection levels of the lab.
After searching with a powerful electron microscope, the team discovers the microscopic life form responsible for the deaths. The greenish, throbbing, new life form is assigned the code name Andromeda. Andromeda kills organisms almost instantly and appears to be highly virulent. While most of the team studies the organism in an attempt to figure out how it works, the team's doctor, Dr. Mark Hall, tries to find a cure by figuring out why the old man and the baby survived.
Meanwhile Dr. Stone, the creator of the Wildfire Lab, is accused by Dutton and Leavitt of designing Wildfire for purposes of biowarfare research. In another development, unknown to other members of the team, Ruth Leavitt's research on the germ is impaired by her epilepsy, which is set off by flashing, red computer lights in the facility.
Just as Hall comes up with the answer (Andromeda can survive only within a narrow PH Blood range), Andromeda mutates into a form that degrades synthetic rubber and plastics and thus escapes the containment room adjacent to where Dr. Dutton is doing his research work. Once all the lab's seals start decaying from the Andromeda germ's escape, this triggers an automatic self-destruct mechanism designed to set off a nuclear explosion beneath the Wildfire complex, intended to incinerate all infectious agents before they can reach the open environment above.
Hall rescues Leavitt from an epilepsy attack set off by Wildfire's alarm system. Meanwhile, the team members studying Andromeda have learned that the alien microbes, having evolved in the harsh environment of outer space, would thrive on the energy of a nuclear explosion and would consequently be able to mutate into a supercolony of the germ, an action which could wipe out all life on Earth.
Having been entrusted with the only key that can shut down the self-destruct sequence before the five-minute countdown is up, Dr. Hall races against the clock and the lab's automated defenses to reach a substation before it is too late. Hall endures an attack by automated lasers as he crawls through the lab's central core, until at last he finds a working substation and disables the nuclear bomb with his key.
Eventually, the scientists realize that the latest mutation of Andromeda that is now being carried by weather in the Earth's atmosphere, will be destroyed by alkalinity when rain carries it into the Pacific Ocean. | good versus evil, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | (And even so, A&E managed to stuff in almost 80 minutes of commercials in the two night run.) Ridiculous plot lines that go nowhere (the Geraldo-style reporter, "vent-mining"), unnecessary time-waster shots of animals eating each other (all just to establish the infection vector of a rat dropped onto a group of National Guardsmen) family squabbles that go nowhere...
did we forget to explain what that had to do with the story?)"Pass the thumb"Andromeda racing across the countryside turning everything yellow.Dime-store CGI (we're talking "Sci-Fi Channel Original" quality) used even in scenes where the real thing would have been easier and more effective: flame throwers, dried blood sifting from a cut, the inexplicable falling debris in the core.Is the action dragging?
Michael Crichton wrote the original novel of "The Andromeda Strain", and the 1971 movie remembered so fondly by many was a quite faithful adaptation.
You've heard of Michael Crichton because he has written lots of exciting and interesting science fiction, much of which has been turned into movies (of varying quality.) This adaptation was written by Robert Schenkkan.
At the very least they should produce original stories, instead of mucking up remakes of perfectly good predecessors.I'll never get those four hours back, but you still have a chance to miss this movie.
bad special effects (the wave of virus washing across the land) and worse plot.Its rubbish compared to the original, which gave you a little tingle down your spine as you watched it...
This Sci-Fi yarn hits hard in the creepy beginning when an U.S. Army satellite , Scoop , falls to earth near Piedmont and population being destroyed , and in the hair-raising climax , as an extremely exciting ending , in fact , it is worthy of a typical action/thriller movie .
While basically a good idea since the story has needed updated treatment for twenty-five years, the end result of this production is a confusing, chaos laden hodge podge of interpersonal relationships that are not germane to the storyline as envisioned by Michael Chrichton, the original writer of the novel.
Fully two thirds of this production are unrelated to the original story line, being filler to occupy a four hour time slot.Characters have been dropped, added and modified.
Of particular note is a short flight scene with an F-16 that actually looked like an F-16 in flight.If viewers have not read the book or seen the 1972 film, they will probably find this enjoyable..
Fighting against time, they try to understand the reason why the old man and the baby survived and research an antidote to Andromeda, the ultimate biological weapon.I wrote the above summary with the exceptions of the names of Dr. Stone's scientist's team in my review of the original sci-fi classic of 1971.
I want movies to have good acting, plots filled with suspense instead of piles of bloody body parts, avoid bad PC-based government political commentary, and other technology eye candy "grab" devices.
Junk like this remake reminds us of how bad Hollywood and the entire TV and movie industry has gotten in recent days.
I wish an Andromeda Strain for bad movie remakes existed....
As a science-fiction thriller, Andromeda Strain could have benefited from the advances in our knowledge over the last 37 years since the original movie.
If only they had paid more attention to the spirit of Crichton's work, instead of cheap stylizing that buries the story.This junk resembles a 90-minute infomercial more than a sci-fi movie.
I can only imagine people who rated it higher have a) only seen 2 movies or b) are associated in some way with the production company or A&E and were appalled by the nearly uniform negative reaction of the earliest posts.All of its faults could have been forgiven had if been titled "Mutant Killer Virus Conspiracy Attack" rather than "The Andromeda Strain".
After he pees in it, he likes the flavor better, so he buys it." After almost forty years, you'd expect a remake of a movie to differ significantly from the original; the 2009 version of an Andromeda Strain screenplay would have been a great opportunity to update the plot with all that we now know about biology and how microbes adapt to the harsh environment of space.But there's also such a thing as editorial coffee, as Jubal Harshaw noted.
Ridley Scott, Tony Scott and screenwriter Robert Schenkkan should hang their heads in shame for this disgraceful series of mistakes masquerading as a remake.Any updates in a new Andromeda Strain screenplay should have been in the spirit of the original; more typical of Michael Crichton's solid grounding in the sciences and clear, critical reasoning.
Instead, the changes included a lot of additional material which doesn't help the story and certainly doesn't fit in the story.Writer Robert Schenkkan seems to have been working from the "Cliff's Notes" version of "Andromeda Strain," if there is such a thing, because he bobbles several technical points which Robert Wise had no problem at all "getting" in the film adaptation.
The left-wing political overlay adds nothing to the story, and the space this change takes up could better have been used to support other, more promising changes to bring the plot up to date - such as a more coherent and consistent portrayal of the effects of the Andromeda organism.
You could make a decision tree - "How should I change this story from the Wise adaptation and the Crichton novel?", pick the wrong choice on purpose every time, and come very close to what actually happens in this miniseries.
The rest of the cast doesn't really do much worth writing home about (not that they had a lot to work with in the script, I realize).If you missed the original showing and are thinking about buying the DVD version of this miniseries, do yourself a favor and either wait until A&E replays it or see it on Netflix before you buy.
Nothing like trying to break down barriers between different groups of people there.This movie was so god-awful bad that I'm thinking of suing Tivo for allowing my machine to actually record this.
(I am not a huge fan of the government, big business, and military, but this show propagandized them to the point that I was hoping I could become infected with Andromeda just to get away from the terrible writing).0 stars would be too nice for this movie..
I elected to devote three hours to watching this remake because I am a big fan of the original movie.
The writers left no stone unturned in thinking up new ways to show people dying in brutally vicious ways.The original movie did not have this same level of violence and insanity.
I wanted to give an overall view of the low quality of this movie, because I just don't understand why do they spend time and money on such bad remakes.
I was reluctant to watch this because I liked the original and I usually hate remakes, but at 2:00am on a Saturday night it seemed like a good idea.
The only thing that needs updating from the original movie is the technology, and the scientific analysis that could be performed because of it.
For anyone who never saw the original movie or read the book, please do so and you will find the real story very interesting and captivating.
Andromeda Strain 2008 is watchable, but the original is a far better interpretation of the novel and a much more entertaining movie.
It's usually a made-for-TV movie, and it's usually an "updated" remake of an older movie.The cast and story elements are painfully politically correct.The writers appear to labor under the mistaken assumption that the viewer really doesn't need to be told a coherent story as long as there are a few visual elements from the original and some handsome-looking people emoting at each other.
When the time comes for the big reveal (which I won't reveal here), instead of the insightful political message of the original, we get a sophomoric, pasted-on ending that doesn't relate to what's gone before and basically contains no message whatsoever, but does allow one last digital effect.It's not even bad enough to be good in a campy way.
This version is OK, but it took them four hours to laboriously tell a story that the original told better in half the time!
Put it this way, I wanted to watch it until the end but there just wasn't the sense of suspense that the original film delivered...yes I know that you shouldn't compare the two directly but it's difficult not too as it is a remake of the same story, times have changed and there were 3 hours to tell this version but it was still lacking, maybe it was too long?
The performances are OK, not that the acting was bad as the cast were just trying to do the best what they were working with which wasn't strong enough; the characters had plenty of time to try and establish themselves but the script just didn't seem allow for that whereas in the original film (the book is always a separate issue) though there was less time you feel as though you understand who the characters are even without verbose explanations?
Remakes are rarely even close to the originals in quality but this is so far at the opposite range quality it falls off the scale.As much as I was looking forward to a modernization to the book and the original film, I could not have been more disappointed.I am a huge fan of Chriton but the screen writing of this movie misses not only the atmosphere of the book but is detached entirely from the "Technology vs.
Come on, if it was good the first time why not honor that and just update the Tech not Rewrite most of the story.I know people are mad cause of the comments on the Political Correctness.
I agree, I'M SOOOO TIRED of Political Correctness where it has no place.In the end my brain hurts, a wonderful Sci-Fi story is reduced to a "lets leave out the science or thought" remake..
When I heard a remake of the Andromeda Strain was coming, I decided to relive some nostalgy and watched the original version.
The movie takes on the story of the original Andromeda Strain and takes it a notch farther.
We get to see a lot more action and damage this time.To mention some of the bad things in the movie are the horrible CGI effects (birds made with cgi, fire made with cgi, blood and gunshot wounds made in cgi).
I could imagine myself enjoying this a bit if I had never seen the original movie.All and all, the story is still there.
Nothing good from the novel was translated to this movie, just some parts of story, but not the "feeling".
I can understand making a four hour movie because there's a lot in the book you don't want to leave out, but why pad a straightforward story out with hackneyed drama?
In the 37 years that has elapsed since the 1971 screen adaptation of Michael Chrichton's novel The Andromeda Strain, movie technology has evolved to the point where the depiction of a grand scale biological plague is considered insignificant on the special effects scale, particularly so when juxtaposed alongside Chrichton's other cinematic constructs such as dinosaurs (Jurassic Park) and homicidal robots (Westworld remake scheduled for release in 2009).
Unfortunately, after viewing Ridley and Tony Scott's updating, one could easily conclude that screen writing hasn't kept pace with that of 30 years ago.Created as a two-part miniseries for the American A&E network and directed by cinematographer-turned-director Mikael Salomon, The Andromeda Strain seeks to expand on 1971's two hour theatrical version directed by Robert Wise, however in doing so writer Robert Schenkkan reaches out to political intrigue for filler material with disastrous results.Telling the story of a mysterious all-killing biological agent that hitches a ride to Earth on a moribund orbiting satellite, Chrichton's story was a masterwork of nascent bio-terror along the lines of 1965's The Satan Bug. However whereas the 1971 original smartly confined its focus on the detective work undertaken by the scientists in an advanced underground lab, Schenkkan and Salomon seem to feel that the story couldn't be told without calling upon the superfluous padding of bogus, poorly realized political intrigue, with the end result being akin to someone deciding that a perfectly cut steak just wouldn't be complete without first being dunked in a bucket of manure.If you've seen any of the countless episodes of Stargate, or the various Star Treks, with their incessant lazy reliance on time travel as a cheap plot device, then you'll have an idea of the sort of "updating" that's gone on here.
It's too bad, because while their intentions of reintroducing a new generation to a classic story are noble, the real message that comes through from watching this update is that some things were done right the first time, and are best left alone..
I haven't seen the original Andromeda strain so I wouldn't know the similarities, but this series ends with a lot unanswered, some characters are just forgotten throughout the movie rendering the little characterization that was built useless...Personally, I enjoyed the series overall, it was easy to follow and the cliff hanger from episode 1 was brutal...I had to see the rest!
In 2008, The Scott brothers, along with the master of the mini-series, Mikael Salomon, decided to remake the 1969 debut novel and 1971 film, The Andromeda Strain, written by famed Jurassic Park author, Michael Crichton.
The original novel and movie were 4 stars, and so is the remake.
if you think you're getting an updated version of the original you will be wasting your time..
When I started watching this mini-series, I was expecting a cheesy looking, TV movie.
This movie may not have the huge explosions (there are minor explosions), the exceptional computer generated graphics (a little bit dodgy) and the first-rate acting (not bad - and you can play "which Sitcom is the actor from?"), but it has a interesting story that will keep you entertained.
If you like made-for-TV movies, and are not put off by a lower budget film and less than perfect acting, then this is a highly entertaining mini-series adaptation that is worth your time..
Still, for people who aren't familiar with the original movie or story as I was not then you will especially enjoy this as a new experience.
Combine political thriller with science fiction disease and it makes for a very entertaining film that isn't perfect but certainly counts as one of the better more entertaining TV Movies I have seen in quite some time.
The writers considered updating the story to appeal seriously dumbed down TV audience (through technical jargon and dialogue is much closer to novel than 1971 movie) Ridley/Tony Scott production shows itself here and there and Mikhael Solomon is not a bad director.
I think they were just added to extend the story) -Updating other WILDFIRE team members (an Asian , a black and another character as gay ) is interesting -As story progresses other elements from OTHER Michael Chricton novels emerge (objects passed wormholes and went back through time , spread of Andromeda looked like a nanobot outbreak ) -Unnecessary romance subplot should have been dropped -Unlike the novel a solution and cure was found too easily...So there are hits and misses in this new adaptation.
Although the science involved in the plot isn't anything too esoteric--any decent high school student should be able to grasp the way the Wild Fire team deals with the virus--and some cinematic liberties were taken for dramatic effect, the show maintains some level of realism and plausibility.I haven't read the book, nor seen the first movie, but after watching this adaptation, I certainly plan to do both.
While there were certain things that bugged me about the series, like the unnecessary religious undertones and sparse character development, the plot was fully engaging and the storyline was quite original, at least in my opinion.The Andromeda Strain is far from perfect; it's not a cinematic masterpiece by any means.
Like most mini series adaptations, Andromeda Strain lacks the artistry of the earlier film version.
And after watching the 2x2 hour miniseries I must say I thought it was a great movie.It has (several) good actors who do their parts right although the CGI "actor" could have been better.
You writers who thought the original was so good...need to rent it or break it out of your "top 50" cabinet and watch it.It was good but with todays advances it was boring from fx to story to acting.Hokey is the word that comes to mind.I liked this version, granted it there were holes (worm holes?).....but better than most TV movies in the FX genre..
but they would still need to get new actors to make some the characters more interesting (a good start would be to replace all the scientists).I'd say it's a respectable effort gone bad.
i was hoping this remake of the 1971 movie was more interesting.and it was,to a point.it's wasn't quite as slow.the general storyline id the same,but some of the particulars have changed a bit.the have expended some scenes and there's a whole new subplot that ties in nicely before the movie wraps up.it is long though,at just under three hours.it is a made for TV mini series and it definitely has that made for TV feel to it.the acting is actually pretty good,though.there are some pretty dodgy CG effects,though thankfully those are few and far between.the best thing about the movie is,it's split into two parts,part one on the first disc and part two on the second disc.for me,"The Andromeda Strain" is a 6/10.
And it's done to death in this remake, even though, in the original Andromeda Strain, it was done just right. |
tt0080979 | Kagemusha | In Japan's Sengoku period, Takeda Shingen, daimyō of the Takeda clan, meets with his brother Nobukado, and an unnamed thief whom the latter met by chance and spared from crucifixion due to the thief's uncanny resemblance to Shingen. The brothers then agree that he would prove useful as a double, and they decide to use the thief as a kagemusha.
Later, Shingen's army has besieged a castle of Tokugawa Ieyasu. When Shingen visits the battlefield to hear a mysterious nightly flute player, he is shot by a sniper. Mortally wounded, he orders his generals to keep his death a secret for three years. Shingen later dies while being carried over a mountain pass, with only a small group of witnesses. Meanwhile, Shingen's rivals Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and Uesugi Kenshin are each shown contemplating about Shingen's supposed passing.
Nobukado presents the thief to Shingen's generals (many of the renowned Twenty-Four Generals of Takeda Shingen), proposing to have this kagemusha impersonate Shingen full-time. At first, even the thief is unaware of Shingen's death, until he tries to break into a huge jar, believing it to contain treasure, and instead finds Shingen's preserved corpse. After this act, the generals decide they cannot trust the thief and set him free.
The Takeda leaders secretly dump the jar with Shingen's corpse into Lake Suwa. Spies working for Tokugawa and his ally Nobunaga Oda witness the disposal of the jar and, suspecting that Shingen has died, go to report the death. The thief, however, overhearing the spies, goes to offer his services, hoping to be of some use to Shingen in death. The Takeda clan preserves the deception by saying they were making an offering of sake to the god of the lake.
The spies follow the Takeda army as they march home from the siege. Although they suspect that Shingen has died, they are later convinced by the kagemusha's performance.
Returning home, the kagemusha successfully fools Shingen's concubines and grandson. By imitating Shingen's gestures and learning more about him, the kagemusha begins to take on the persona of Shingen, and is able to impress bodyguards and fool Takemaru, Takeda Katsuyori's son and Shingen's grandson, who was very close with Shingen. When the kagemusha must preside over a clan council to plan how to respond to provocative attacks made by Tokugawa against Takeda border castles, he is instructed by Nobukado to not speak until Nobukado brings the generals to a consensus, whereupon the kagemusha will simply agree with the generals' plan and dismiss the council. However, Katsuyori is incensed by the general's decision to have an impostor play the role of his late father, instead of allowing him to inherit the leadership of the clan. Katsuyori thus decides to deliberately infuriate the generals by testing the kagemusha in front of the council, as the majority of the attendants are not aware that Shingen is dead. Katsuyori directly asks the kagemusha what course of action the "lord thinks" should be taken. After a long moment of tense silence, the kagemusha replies, "Do not move. A mountain does not move." before concluding the meeting, a reference to the motto on the fūrinkazan standard which identifies Shingen with an immovable mountain. The kagemusha's convincing improvisation further impresses the generals and secures their confidence in the kagemusha as well as further reinforcing the hostility between Katsuyori and the rest of the clan leadership.
In 1573, Oda Nobunaga is mobilizing his forces to attack Azai Nagamasa, continuing his campaign in central Honshu to maintain his control of Kyoto against the growing opposition of a coalition of rival clans, which it is feared the Takeda will align themselves with. When the Tokugawa and Oda clans launch an attack on Takeda territory, Katsuyori begins a counter-offensive against the advice of other generals. The kagemusha is forced to lead reinforcements to the 1574 Battle of Takatenjin, and helps inspire the troops to victory.
In a fit of overconfidence, the kagemusha attempts to ride Shingen's spirited horse. When he falls off, those who rush to help him see that he does not have their lord's battle scars, and he is revealed as an impostor. The thief is driven out of the palace in disgrace, and Katsuyori takes over the clan. Oda and Tokugawa, sensing weakness in the Takeda clan leadership, are emboldened to begin a full-scale offensive into the Takeda homeland to permanently remove the clan as an obstacle to their further expansion.
Now in full control of the Takeda army, Katsuyori leads the counter-offensive against Nobunaga, resulting in the Battle of Nagashino. Wave after wave of attacking Takeda cavalry and infantry are cut down by volleys of arquebus fire from Oda troops deployed behind wooden stockades, effectively eliminating the Takeda army. The exiled kagemusha, who has followed the Takeda army, witnesses the slaughter. In a final show of loyalty, he takes up a spear and makes a futile charge against the Oda lines. Mortally wounded, the kagemusha attempts to retrieve the fūrinkazan which had fallen into a river, but succumbs to his wounds as he wades into the water, grasping for the standard. His body floats past it as the film concludes with a long shot of the sunken fūrinkazan as the credits roll. | bleak | train | wikipedia | Kagemusha (shadow warrior in Japanese) is the story of a thief who is to be hanged, but is saved by a warlord's brother, Katsuyori Takeda, because of a peculiar resemblance to the king Shingen Takeda.
Neither he, nor any modern man trying to live an identity larger than himself--including the artist who, like the kagemusha, is creating a shadow of the ideal--can replace this feudal ideal which was superseded (literally, massacred at the end) starting over 400 years ago by Christianized and technologized decadence, represented by Nobunaga and Ieyasu.
I really think the problem with these two movies, and the reason I like them less than the average Kurosawa film, was that the big budget in these later films actually HURT them, as too much emphasis was placed on effects and dialog was purely secondary.So, in summary, I am the odd-ball that didn't love this film.
After spending a decade (or so) in solitary confinement from the Japanese Film Industry Akira Kurosawa returns to make his semi-masterpiece "Kagemusha", which he called a dress-rehearsal for "Ran", made in 1985.Kagemusha is, probably, the best example of cinematic overkill where nobody actually cares.
However, when the real Shingen is shot and killed by a sharpshooter, the Kagemusha is forced to take all responsibilities of the lifestyle of the lord such as commanding his armies, outwitting his enemies, and serving as a father-figure to his grandson.The Kagemusha is played by veteran actor Tatsuya Nakadai, whom fought against Toshiro Mifune in both "Yojimbo" and "Sanjuro" and would later work on Akira Kurosawa's highly acclaimed 1985 film "Ran." He also plays the real Takeda Shinge in the opening portion of the film and Nakadai is utterly brilliant in the way he switches between both roles even though these two men are, in a way, identical.
The most brilliant element of the film's human level is the way Nakadai bonds with the grandson of the man whom he is impersonating and the way he discovers that he is not only a better father figure, but a better person, than the actual ruler.Regardless of your opinion on the movie, there is one thing everybody agrees on: there is beauty painted all over the screen.
Well, he hardly got support and in this case he needed financial assistance from Western admirers George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola, but when he did have the money and the control, Kurosawa was relentlessly brilliant.The running time of "Kagemusha" will question the full extent of its audience as will the scenes where very little happens for a while, but for those who appreciate a good movie and have three hours to spare, this is a tremendously enthralling experience.
"Kagemusha" boasts a lot of exterior display, but unlike a great many other movies that have the same accolade of looking good, Kurosawa's movie shows beauty beneath as well, on the human level, encompassing the audience with a heck of a story.
But when watching this earlier picture's awesome pageantry and historical re-enactment, one's likely response is "some rehearsal!" Kagemusha takes Kurosawa back to his biggest hits of the 1950s, being set in war-torn feudal Japan.
Kagemusha contains very few close-ups, with even key dialogue scenes filmed with vast gaps between camera and actors, and objective god-shots for the busier scenes.And yet there are similarities here with Kurosawa's much earlier pictures, especially in the director's aesthetic use of movement and stillness within the frame.
The opening scene, filmed all in one shot, shows Lord Shingen, the impersonator (both played by Tatsuya Nakadai) and Nobukado (Tsotomu Yamazaki) all sat in the throne room.
This long unbroken take means the room, with its great floral crest, is imposed into our minds, and resonates later on when we see Nakadai in the same room, now instated as the lord.And despite the distances between camera and cast, the colourful costumes against plain backdrops really puts an emphasis on the people in Kagemusha, allowing them to express themselves through body language more than facial expression.
After six years of break -his last great film, "Dersu Uzala" had made in the Soviet Union in 1974 - Akira Kurosawa had the support of influential Americans Francis Coppola and George Lucas, who interceded with the Fox to that funded his project "Kagemusha" in exchange for worldwide distribution rights of the film.Everything that came after the film had the technical aspect of a great production: Hundreds of extras, a carefully staged appropriate to the sixteenth century, apparel obtained from museum collections true, picture of high relief, a majestic soundtrack performed by a full symphony, and a protagonist of many carats and was Tatsuya Nakadai.
A perfect picture of a happy society disappeared, which, Kurosawa is able to look with loving eyes as critics.The humble thief character, able to supplant the warlord Shingen Takeda, is charming and full history a warmth and human depth, as expected, the feudal lords never understand, and only Takemaru, the little heir to the throne, discovers the emotional force within him and get to share with him a sense emerged from the heart.
I empathize deeply with this thief who assumes the position of double for a very important warlord - a role that reaches epic dimensions as this `shadow warrior' eventually loses his own identity, becoming a sacrificial figure in the demise of one of Japan's great sixteenth century clans.Kurosawa's `Rashomon' (1950) explored the nature of perspective, truth, and reality, and may have resonated with the Japanese people of the decade in which it had been made - a time of recovery from the devastating defeat in World War II, and the wrenching pain associated with the failure of traditional Japanese moral, ethical and social values.
There followed another long period of inactivity before American directors, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola, long time admirers, helped secure funding for `Kagemusha' as a joint project of Toho Films and 20th Century Fox which was released in Kurosawa's 70th year.
But the Nobunaga-Ieyasu forces used muskets on a large scale, and the result was a catastrophic loss for the Takeda clan.`Kagemusha' opens with a long shot of Shingen flanked to his right by his brother, Nobukado Takeda, with the thief to his left in the foreground.
The culmination of which we will eventually see in the film he shot afterwards; "RAN"."Kagemusha" is also a bit of a departure for Kurosawa in that it deals with real historical events and characters.
The script is almost Shakespearean in quality, the characters are multidimensional with the relationship between the Lord's men and the thief Kagemusha's most fascinating assets and the lead performance of Tatsuya Nakadai is outstanding, as far as I'm concerned one of the finest lead performances of any Kurasawa film that isn't Toshio Mifune.
The cinematography and epic scope are at times simply stunning but something still haunts this motion picture, the "what could have been?" In Kagemusha, the lead roles of Lord Shingen Takeda and the thief, were written for the actor Shintarô Katsu but due to an on-set falling out with Akira Kurosawa, Katsu was promptly fired and Tatsuya Nakadai was quickly re-cast.
He may have been remembered as one of Japan's great leading men rather than the popular yet domestic star in a series of Zatoichi movies.What would have Shintarô Katsu brought to the roles of Lord Shingen Takeda and the thief, Kagemusha?
Visually mesmerizing, acting is powerful, story editing is exceptional, but Kagemusha bugged me because of its unsatisfying battle scenes owing to weird editing and vision which contradicts the big master Kurosawa.
He's the Kagemusha, the Shadow Warrior, the pawn who impersonated the mountain.And only Akira Kurosawa, the director who can literally move mountains could make such a magnificent-looking and once again thought-provoking film, his only Golden Palm winner; the story of a thief impersonating a lord, a lord so cautious about the eventual demise of the Takeda clan that he demanded his death to be hidden for three years, it is more dangerous to waste a death than a life precisely because life is valuable, his is too valuable to be exposed."Kagemusha" is Kurosawa back to his Samurai roots, that forged his international legacy.
But while a lesser director would have turned this into a gimmick, Kurosawa makes it a source of questioning for the enemy and a burden on the shoulders of every protagonist, including the Kagemusha himself played by Tatsuya Nakadai, the handsome gun-owner from "Yojimbo".The actor plays both the double and the original and in both cases, he finds the perfect note.
What an irony that a pawn is impersonating a mountain, and the ending shows that nothing is immovable, no one can stay static forever but it's precisely for his desire to get off his father's shadow and move that the Takeda heir will accelerate the downfall.Not to spoil the ending, I would say that it does close the arc of the Kagemusha in the most powerful way, one that makes the war and the character study converge into a point of existential meaningfulness only to be swept off by the march of history and that even mountains can move, they move slowly yet they move.
Film Review: "Kagemusha" (1980)Winning the "Palme d'Or" shared with Bob Fosse's "All That Jazz" (1979) on May 23rd 1980 at Cannes Film Festival in its 33rd edition, director Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998) accumulates all his directorial signatures since "Rashomon" (1950) to adapt an originally screen-written masterpiece on thief impersonating a dying king-like figure alongside Japanese moviestars Tsutomu Yamazaki and Tatsuya Nakadai in a legendary double role as medieval warlord Shingen Takeda as the title-given imposter to take his place in a troublesome kingdom to tragic as high-suspense drama indulging ends, when well-researched art directions by ingenious Kurosawa-collaborator production designer Yoshiro Muraki (1924-2009) delivers with visual splendors to be hypnotized from that even international distribution-securing producers George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola must have admit that "Kagemusha" remains world cinema at its best to be discovered again in an all-too-fast moving environment of speeding visuals from any digital device coming our way these days.Copyright 2018 Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC.
Will Shingen be able to convince the people that he is Kagemusha and hold up the kingdom in a time of war?The acting is wonderful and will make you fall in love with the lead actor and want to look up the rest of his work.
Tatsuya gives memorable performances as both the real Shingen and the Kagemusha also the actors who play the Takeda generals performances are also nothing to be sneezed at.This is as we can expect from not just a great director like Akira Kurosawa but also him as a descendant of samurai.Definitely recommended for those interested in the Sengoku Jidai (Age of the Country at War) or for fans of samurai films in general..
As others have commented, the director's use of colour and light is simply stunning.Watching the film again also helped crystallize in my mind another pacing element director Kurosawa seems to have completely made his own: the balance between dialogue heavy scenes that drive the characters and offer exposition for the story, and those scenes that are visually driven.
The artificial environment of it makes the film look sketchy, as it was in fact, for it is known that Kurosawa was preparing the big project (Ran)-The editing was great; The framing he gives is mostly still, his eye works like that of a painter, but the editing sequences all shots perfectly and it makes us believe that after one certain shot, the only possible shot that makes the thing work is the next one.
A Shadow Cannot Exist Without the Man. Kurosawa's beautiful film Kagemusha is a meditation on subjects that have haunted the director throughout his career in cinema: the doppelganger or double, (which brings to question identity and how identity is formed, and where identity is located; is it in appearance, world views, actions, attitudes or loves?
What if one's choices were different?) transformation (all Kurosawa heroes go through a transformation) the tragedy of war (note the elegiac images of horses struggling in death throes in the aftermath of the massacre at the film's conclusion) and despair (Kuroswa has investigated despair as few other filmmakers have...from The Lower Depths and Stray Dog to Ran, many of his films meditate deeply on human hearts without hope).I cannot help but think that Kagemusha's deep feeling comes from the autobiographical: a man (the thief, played by Tatsuya Nakadai) must assume the role of the Lord (or, why not...they say it in the film..."Tenno"...or Emperor...used to describe Kurosaw himself).Kuroaswa must have wondered, in his time of financial difficulty, after the dismissal of "Dodes-Kaden", after his suicide attempt, after losing his status, during his struggles to find financing for Kagemusha...he must have thought about what it is to assume a role of great authority, and to be dismissed from the role that gave his life meaning.Tatsuya Nakadai being ejected forcibly from the castle...retainers throwing clods of mud and stones after him, like a stray dog being pelted and driven from the gates of a house...maybe Kurosawa felt that this is how his life had been.
While watching Kagemusha your subconscious receives more information through photography, actor expressions and simple situations than from story-line.Nakadai's acting is spell-bounding, the scene where he portrays the 'sad look' of the impersonated one is, to me, one of cinema's most fascinating character shots.
The dusty soldiers in the foreground, with the army marching from right to left in the middle of the shot against the low sun and blood red sky...the 'offering of sake to the lake god' and the layers of observers...the decimation of Wind, Fire and Forest...visual feasts, all, with the elements stacked a good three layers deep (and sometimes more).The 'story' is really about the triumph of Western storytelling over traditional forms - Shakespeare over Noh theater, Catholic benediction over indigenous faith, even red wine over sake...but especially Western muskets over cavalry, lances and Sun Tzu's war philosophies.The viewer detects strong self-reference in the craft: Kurosawa as a 'thief' of ideas hired to play another character, within an sustained illusion, then cast out by the elites when his usefulness expires..
"Kagemusha" is Akira Kurosawa's late color masterpiece about a Japanese Emperor (Tatsuya Nakadai) who employs a thief to be his double (sort of like one of Saddam Hussein's!).
Kurosawa chooses the back-end of the 16th century as his setting, using realistic historical events as a backdrop to the action.I was unfamiliar with the work of Akira Kurosawa but am now quite interested in seeing more of his films (I confess to having never watched "Seven Samurai," "Ran," "Yojimbo," "Rashomon," etc.)."Kagemusha" did not disappoint me.
I love the epic nature of the film and in particular its stunning contrast of color - Kurosawa was still experimenting with the possibilities of color in this film and the opening sequence - a messenger zooming past hordes of painted Samurai - is a good example of the starkness he brings to the project.The acting is all very good, I couldn't understand the Japanese, but you know a performance is excellent when the actor manages to evoke feelings from the viewer even when he or she cannot understand the dialect.The direction is solid with the action sequences well staged, the battles convincing and extravagant.
Stunning in its visual beauty, there are moments in this film so perfectly realized that when I FIRST saw it, I had to stop my machine, back up the tape and watch them again!The story itself is superb, a common thief is a perfect double for a warrior king, saved from the gallows to act as a stand in to confuse enemy troops.
It's time to rectify the situation.Kagemusha - "The Shadow Warrior" - is the story of a lowly thief enlisted to serve as warlord Shingen Takeda's double.
Although Kurosawa himself thought of this film as a mere dress rehearsal,a preparation for "Ran", "Kagemusha" carries its own distinctive essence which makes it a work in the same category as its successor.The story deals around one of the greatest feudal lords and generals in Japan's history, Takeda Shingen, showing his unexpected and untimely demise.
Another samurai epic by the master of the genre Akira Kurosawa; which, I find to be a mostly fulfilling attempt.The film follows the life of a peasant thief named Kagemusha who happens to look like the warlord of the Takeda clan Shingen.
Having watched his later "Ran" (1985) yesterday and then having watched this movie today, "Kagemusha" is very much a "dress rehearsal" for "Ran" since it can be seen that many ideas/themes from this film were later used on "Ran." (Having watched both movies, however, I can conclude that "Ran" is the better movie.) "Kagemusha" (which means "shadow warrior") and is set over the course of a two-year period between 1573 and 1575 in Japan, concerns a petty, unkempt thief (Tatsuya Nakadai) who is plucked from imminent execution to be the double for the 16th-century warlord Shingen Takeda (also played by Nakadai), due to his striking resemblance to him.
Kagemusha is not as well know as some of Kurosawa's other films, but it is still excellent viewing and shows that he was Japan's best film director.
It is a strong story with American financial backing, yet still a very Japanese film.Kagemusha is a Japanese word meaning both Shadow Warrior or the Double: this tell you a lot about the plot before you start.
During KAGEMUSHA's "Development Hell" period, Kurosawa made over 200 color drawings of key scenes in the film.
Watching Akira Kurosawa's three hour long epic color film (his third) from 1980, Kagumusha (The Shadow Warrior) reminded me of the historical plays of William Shakespeare.
Usually, such dual roles are phoned in, but one can sense the difference in the two characters, even long after Shingen is dead
.All in all, Kagemusha is a very good film, with some great scenes and moments.
Nobukado desires to make the thief into a kagemusha, 影武者, shadow warrior, like himself so he can act as a double for Shingen. |
tt1850397 | The Loft | Five married men share ownership of an upmarket loft, which they use to discreetly meet their respective mistresses. When the body of a murdered woman is found in that loft, the men begin to suspect each other of having committed the gruesome crime, as they are the only ones with keys to the premises. Through flashbacks, which are intertwined with scenes from the present, the story is unraveled.
The five men are:
Vincent Stevens (Karl Urban): architect and designer of the building where the loft is situated; married to Barbara (Valerie Cruz) and has children; the one who initially suggests the five use the loft as a private oasis, he is set up by the other men to be accused of the murder.
Luke Seacord (Wentworth Miller): married to Ellie (Elaine Cassidy), who is an insulin-dependent diabetic; the one who discovered the body and initially calls Vincent and the others over to the loft. The police later insinuate that he is attracted to Vincent. He also recorded the men's activities in the loft without them knowing.
Dr. Chris Vanowen (James Marsden): a psychiatrist married to Allison (Rhona Mitra), half-brother to Philip. Chris and Philip have a half-sister, Zoe (Madison Burge). The most reluctant of the men to the idea and the last to accept a key to the loft, Chris eventually does so because he is attracted to Ann (Rachael Taylor), who eventually becomes his mistress. She tells Chris not to fall in love with her because she is a prostitute. He gives her his key as proof he does not use the loft with other women.
Marty Landry (Eric Stonestreet): married to Mimi (Kali Rocha); a heavy drinker and an obvious lech. He and Mimi become separated when a woman he fooled around with shows up at his home.
Philip Williams (Matthias Schoenaerts): half-brother to Chris as they have the same mother; recently married to Vicky (Margarita Levieva), who is the only daughter of a wealthy property developer, who is also his boss. He is a drug user who grew up in a dysfunctional household with his abusive father; very protective of his younger sister Zoe, and warns the other men off having sex with her.
The murder victim is Sarah Deakins (Isabel Lucas): Vincent, Luke, and Marty met her at a bar; both Vincent and Luke are attracted to her, but she hooks up with Vincent and becomes attached to him. At a party they are both attending, Sarah threatened to tell Vincent's wife about the affair as a way to have them break up, but she is dissuaded from this by Luke. She seemingly tries to commit suicide at the loft, by taking pills with champagne. She is discovered by Luke, who calls Chris, Marty and Philip, showing them a note to Vincent. The note read "See you in the next life"; this note is taken from the loft by Chris.
The men were motivated to set Vincent up by Luke, who showed them DVDs of Vincent having sex with Marty's wife, Mimi; Chris's prostitute, Ann (who Vincent had paid to allow Chris to seduce her, so that he would take a key to and use the loft), and Zoe, Philip and Chris's younger sister. Three of the men leave to set up their alibis, with Philip remaining at the loft to stage the scene. He takes some cocaine and cuts Sarah's wrists, using her bloodied finger to write a Latin phrase similar to that in her suicide note. He then handcuffs Sarah's right hand to the bed.
Over the course of the movie, as the five men discuss what to do with the body, Luke, Chris, Marty, and Philip drug Vincent, strip and handcuff him to the body on the bed. Before Vincent passes out completely, Chris tells him about Sarah's suicide and the contents of her note. While being questioned by the police, Vincent tells them of the set-up, but they do not believe him as the only prints found were Vincent's and Sarah's. They also have the DVDs of his sexual exploits, except the ones with Mimi, Ann, and Zoe; they won't believe him that Luke made the videos and the DVDs of the other men were not found. The police also mention that all four men have alibis for that morning — Chris and Luke were seen together having breakfast, Marty was at his office, Philip was alibied by his father-in-law (who was blackmailed with information about his own cheating, information Philip had because he knew Vincent used that same information to blackmail his father-in-law to give him a contract on a project).
Releasing Chris from interrogation, Detective Huggins (Kristin Lehman) tells him that Vincent has been arrested for murder; he is surprised as he thought Vincent would only be implicated in Sarah's suicide. The detective further states that the pills did not kill Sarah, that her wrist cuts were not self-inflicted, the prints on the knife were Vincent's and they didn't find a suicide note. The surprised Chris thanks Huggins and leaves. Outside of the police station, he reaches into his jacket pocket, only to find that the suicide note Luke gave to him is gone. He then walks to the loft and confronts Luke about the missing note. After initially denying that he had it, Luke leads Chris to the note, which was in the garbage. Chris looks at the note and wonders why Luke would get rid of the only evidence of the attempted suicide, speculating that Luke, not Sarah, was the author of the note. Luke then tells Chris everything; he framed Vincent, because he was attracted to Sarah himself, and felt that Vincent stood between him and Sarah.
We see that Luke had gone after Sarah the night she almost told Vincent's wife about the affair. He told her that Vincent was using her and not worth it, and that he could treat her better. She rebuffs him, saying she felt nothing for Luke. Hurt, Luke turns around to find that his wife saw him talking to Sarah. When Sarah returned to visit Vincent at the loft, Luke showed up and drugged Sarah, trying to kill her — out of "love" — with an insulin overdose. He then staged the suicide with the pills, champagne bottle, and suicide note. Chris then tells him that Vincent is being charged with murder as Sarah hadn't been dead when they left her with Philip. Luke then states that technically it was Philip who killed Sarah and that he will clean the situation up. When Chris says no more cleaning up, Luke pulls out a kitchen knife and threatens him. Sirens can be heard and Chris says he called the police, told them everything and that it is over. He and Luke struggle, and he gets the knife from Luke. Luke tells Chris to tell Ellie and their kids that he's sorry; he then jumps from the loft's balcony, killing himself.
Six months later, Mimi and Marty are reconciled, Philip is facing trial for manslaughter, and Chris is divorced, sharing custody of his kids. He runs into Ann after leaving a bar, and she asks if he needs the loft key, that he had given her for them to meet up. Chris mentions the key would not work as Vincent now lives at the loft, since it was the only thing his wife left him with from their divorce. Ann asks if Chris would like to join her for a drink sometime. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | The premise of the movie is the best part about it: Five guys have the keys to a secret loft where they can freely cheat on their wives, but one day they find a dead girl on the bed and have to figure out who did it.
I really tried to like it, it's just hard to care about a movie when you're just watching a bunch of stupid people do stupid things.
If you don't care about plot and just want to see a bunch of good looking people act like complete jerks for an hour and a half, you can get a kick out of The Loft.
When a girl winds up dead in a pool of blood in the loft, the five men panic as they attempt to unravel who she is and where she came from.Taking some cues from Hitchcock (and not exactly with a fraction of Hitch's poise), "The Loft" is an overall entertaining film, but the script at times is the equivalent of a cheap Rubik's cube— it looks fine, it's a fun puzzle, I guess, but it's really just not that impressive overall.The film shifts between past and present, unraveling the narrative through flashbacks which are sandwiched between the current dilemma of the four men arguing in the loft over the corpse of the dead blonde.
James Marsden and Wentworth Miller are among the film's greatest star power here, but the cast overall is really underwhelming, and the performances are at times borderline campy as the men play up their roles as buffoonish plutocratic mattress hounds.The finale cements my feelings of the film as an underwhelming thriller that seems more suited for television than the silver screen, but I still can't say it was totally not worth the time.
with just a couple of unexpected surprise in the end ;)With the same director as the Belgian version of the movie Erik Van Looy and pretty much the same writers i'v heard they kept it just as it went in the original.
:PAs for the cast, the Leads whom i only know from TV they were all engaging and well invested in their roles, Karl Urban, James Marsden, Wentworth Miller and Eric Stonestreet and even the short appearances of Matthias Schoenaerts who was actually in the original Belgian movie "Loft (2008)".Overall it went fine,, well at least let's say better than what i'v read in some reviews ..
It's arguably suiting his character, but it's still distracting.The concept of this story lends itself to a much darker movie, and this just feels like a missed opportunity.
.. a movie that's far more entertaining than most of the crap produced these days.Really nice acting, cringe-worthy characters (in a good way) played by talented & believable actors with a nice suspenseful/thrilling plot.
The loft has simply out smarted itself, a simple, yet at times intriguing plot desperately seeks for every twist and turn it can find and uses them, I don't even think M.
In a little more detail, the plot of the movie is based around 5 guys sharing a loft where they can bring their mistresses (which is refreshingly original, even though it's a remake of a remake) and eventually end up involved in an investigation that could land them all in jail.
This film was a complete and utter disappointment in terms of the plot and performances, now i have to check out the original 2008 version and see if this movie converted crap into more crap or ruined a good original idea.
Maybe that is why it couldn't attract good actors and actresses.There are no shortage of successes of remaking foreign movies into Oscar winning masterpieces like "The girl with the dragon tattoo", "The Departed" just named of few.
Pacin of this movie is good, at running time 1 h 45 min this movie barely drags and is entertaining from start till finish.Overall, "The Loft" is a satisfying mystery thriller - "who dunnit".
The trailer looked intriguing to me, but the film is filled with repulsive characters (one is a coked-out rapist, another is a slimeball who makes it public that he wants to bang his "friend"'s kid sister, another is a closet homosexual who secretly films his "friend" banging random girls in the loft - why would any of these people associate with each other in the first place?) and a screenplay with a new twist in nearly every scene, which merely becomes over complicated and far too confusing after the second twist.
The Loft is nothing different, it sucks like the month of January and February dose.Now let's talk about the good things in this movie: If you and your friends where drunk one night and you all want a good time destroying and movie this is the one.Now for the bad and these a lot of bad: Every character in this movie is A: Unlikable.
I bet right now they regret being in this movie, because this film makes them look bad has actors and character's.The writing has well is probably the worst I've seen so far this year.
But on a positive side this movie can be best use when your friends around your house and there's nothing to watch, put this in and you can talk through out the film, it's okay I'm not going to tell you to be quiet, I will be talking too..
Directed by Eric Von Looy, The Loft is a sleazy and, at times, incoherent mystery thriller that is paced very well and stands out as one of the first possible guilty pleasures of 2015.
Starring Karl Urban, James Marsden, Wentworth Miller, Mathias Schoenaerts, and Eric Stonestreet, the cast has very little to work with here in regards of a script but manage to pull off some decent performances considering the circumstances.
Overall, The Loft isn't a bad way to spend a rainy day but for those looking for something more than your average thriller will walk away disappointed..
A film you just wish someone like David Fincher tackled, The Loft is a B grade movie through and through and a movie that makes no illusions to what it is and Erik Van Looy's English language remake of his original foreign thriller of the same name is a movie that despite its quite obvious flaws and sometimes downright weird acting turns is an enjoyable guilty pleasure that for all sakes and purposes shouldn't be as watchable as it is.This above statement is by no means a glowing recommendation however, as The Loft is quite frequently a terrible movie that is saved by a plot line so unbelievable yet bewilderingly intriguing that you can't help but watch and try figure out who's done what, who's betrayed who and who can be a bigger bigot than the next guy.
It's clear that this material was enough for Van Looy's original film to be well regarded and without having seen it, it was likely less sowed into B grade fodder than this long shelved Hollywood remake that was filmed in 2011 yet only released this year and perhaps the companies behind this redoing clued onto the films biggest flaw, the un-likability of EVERY single character in the film.This above statement is supposed to be taken literally as all jokes aside, The Loft just might well be the most terrible ensemble committed to screen in many moons.
When reading through the name cast of Karl Urban, James Marsden and yes Modern Family's lovable blob Eric Stonestreet you may think this is a strange statement to make and the actors aren't movie ruining horrible (even though Prison Break's Wentworth Miller try's his hardest to be) but there characters sure are.How much can we really relate to a bunch of guys that get together to co-own a seedy city loft apartment where they're free to do anything to anyone at any time and when this crew of calculating derelicts share screen time the cringe factor goes up to almost unbearable levels and by the film's final act you'll soon come to realise that the films reveal isn't all it was cracked up to be from such a loaded plot driver.For all intents and purposes The Loft is a lot more entertaining than it has any right to be but that is almost entirely due to its mysterious lifeless body that puts our creepy bunch of males into a sticky predicament and take away that and concentration towards the films "twist", script and characters unearths a film that should be a whole new league of worse than it actually is.
thing...The story is beyond uninteresting, the multiple explanations are boring and the ending is ultimately laughable.Plus, acting is so bad, especially from Wentworth Miller and Matthias Schoenaerts, but it's not really a surprise, is it ?
If you like who dun it movies, this is for you.This is a great thriller, with lots of twists.
It starts out alright, albeit pretty slow; the decent acting and nice visuals at least delivers a bit of entertainment enough to sustain your (or at least my) interest.A big problem is the fact that there isn't really any likable people in the movie and they seemingly become less and less likable as the movie progresses, half of the main cast are genuinely awful people and that makes it a little hard in the end to care what's potentially going to happen to them.And it doesn't help that they throw in a tons of random twists that doesn't make any sense with what we've just witnessed prior, some will surely argue differently because they feel that a flashback of selected clips warrants any twist but I don't really buy cheap tricks of the mind twists like that.
You have to look at the big picture, and if you do you'll see that the actions that led them to where they ended up doesn't make sense.Like I said it has some qualities to it but really in the end not a very good movie and I won't watch this again cause I know it still won't make any sense the second time..
They are Vince (Karl Urban), a married architect, Luke (Wentworth Miller), a married diabetic who finds himself going along with his friends more often than not, Chris (James Marsden), a married psychiatrist, Marty (Eric Stonestreet), a married, loudmouth alcoholic, and Phillip (Matthias Schoenaerts), Chris's married half-brother.
With this, the men begin to reveal to each other, and their spouses, their intentions and their ugly path of adultery.I'm always up for a good erotic thriller and Erik Van Looy's The Loft is serviceable genre-fare, by that standard.
When we are lead down a path of twists and turns, most of which clearly written by the writing team of Bart De Pauw and Wesley Strick, it's clear we cannot trust any of these characters and that makes the experience that much more intriguing.The Loft, however, has its own share of shortcomings, most of which come in the acting department.
The efforts to get this film a release in America likely wasn't worth the laborious process and the agonizing wait for a release.Starring: James Marsden, Karl Urban, Wentworth Miller, Eric Stonestreet, Matthias Schoenaerts, Isabel Lucas, Rhona Mitra, and Rachael Taylor..
The Loft is a remake of the 2008 Dutch Belgian-language thriller Loft, starring James Marsden, Karl Urban, Wentworth Miller, Eric Stonestreet, and Matthias Schoenaerts as five married friends who rent out a high quality penthouse where they each secretly meet their lover and engage in their most desired sexual fantasies.
If there is anyone I could possibly recommend this film to, it would the least demanding suspense- thriller that do not care about dull characters and a plot that makes very little sense..
Five friends: Vincent (Karl Urban), Chris (James Marsden), Luke (Wentworth Miller), Marty ( Eric Stonestreet), and Phillip (Matthias Schoenaerts) are all married, but share a Hi-Scale Loft to accommodate their sexual dalliances and each has his own key that cannot be duplicated.
I was genuinely shocked by who killed the woman.I gave an 8 just purely, because I would have liked to have seen where a few of the characters ended up etc however this does not take anything away from the movie.
I'm not going to give an suppliers away but I'm going to say the acting is good with a great cast involved, the script and story line are well wrote and no real plot holes in the film.
While writing a thriller or a suspense drama one not only needs to know what to hold back and what not to, but also if that would make sense or not to the story.It's definitely worth a watch but doesn't live up to good writing.
The cast is excellent, the plot keeps you guessing and there are several twists in the film that neither the characters nor the audience see coming.Five lifelong friends, Vincent (Karl Urban), Chris (James Marsden), Luke (Wentworth MIller),Marty (Eric Stonestreet) and Phillip (Matthias Schoenarrts) share a secret loft for cheating on their wives.
I have to say that most of this 1.5 h or so film felt intriguing - the benchmark of events was thrilling, the leading performances were at least good (I found James Marsden and Wentworth Miller more versatile than others), but then a kind of over- sophistication started to prevail and their solutions did not seem realistic any more - in view of modern applications the police have today, or the doubtfulness of motives behind.
It's hard to find anyone to like when all the men are lusty louts, all their wives are killjoys and all the single women in the movie are whores – but the combination makes for a pretty nifty thriller.
The result is a film that functions like a breath of fresh air, even while we feel somewhat claustrophobic as the walls close in on the main characters.At the opening of a new building designed by up-and-coming architect Vincent Stevens (Karl Urban), we learn that Vince has reserved a prime loft apartment as a safe zone for the extramarital activities of himself and his other four married friends.
As the story unfolds, as we would want in any good thriller, the red herrings emerge, the surprise reveals shock and the twists, well
thrill."The Loft" meets every expectation and even exceeds them.
My god this movie's baaadddd...-the actors are not good for their particular roles, -the action is no action at all, - the subject is as someone else said about "sleezy" guys, - the outcome borrrrring(like the actual ending is that the "very talented psychiatrist" goes into the sunset with the girl???whatttt???), -after a bad fight scene the bad guy just jumps???
Five friends share the use of a loft, where they entertain girlfriends and mistresses out of the prying eyes of their wives.The movie starts with the finding of a woman's body cuffed to the bed.
How can they sort out the mess without their wives hearing about their loft?Some of the characters do not seem very 'real' and I found the end rather disappointing but it's an average watch and a few twists kept me guessing until near the end..
It is a movie about a group of men who rent a loft to carry out activities without their wives knowing but a woman ends up dead and they have to figure out who did it.
Trouble starts when, one fine morning, a beautiful young woman is found murdered there, killed possibly by an intruder but more likely by one of the five.Though the movie becomes a bit undisciplined and even overwrought over the course of its running time (and that includes some of the performances), "The Loft" scores as a fairly engaging and effective whodunit, one that manages to incorporate some relevant and timely reflections on how the over-privileged 1% spend their time and money.
He had Good comedic timing and his character was believable.In that since the movie makes a great attempt to find a well rounded room of cheating husbands.
James Marsden is a good actor and does is role with felling, what happened to Wentworth Miller???man i liked him in prison break but here i understand why he doesn't have job and is not in more TV shows or movies.
When the music helps to ruin a movie isn't a good sign, in the end the soundtrack begins to make sense for the first time, but ...a little to late.
It tells the story of five married guys who share a loft together, to use for secret affairs, and then find the body of a dead woman in it.
The film stars Karl Urban, James Marsden, Wentworth Miller, Eric Stonestreet, Matthias Schoenaerts (who also costarred in the original movie, playing the same part), Isabel Lucas, Rachel Taylor and Rhona Mitra.
Still it's a pretty poorly made, and trashy, erotic thriller.Five good friends, who are all married, agree to share a penthouse loft together; where they can take their mistresses to have affairs.
Boasting good cast and decent drama thriller, the film has pretty interesting twists and turns.
-The Loft (2015) movie review: -The Loft is a mystery suspense film about a group of guys who have this loft where they can pretty much keep things from their wives.
I liked the various twists they had in the movie, and it was nice to see Wentworth Miller acting again.
The cast were good the story was OK nothing great but it is worth the watch even if it is only for the one time.
As for the characters they all play, well, apart from one or two, none are really all that likable, including the female roles, so you kind of end up not caring what happens to any of them.Anyway, The Loft does have it's moments, and overall it is a watchable thriller, but it's really nothing to get too excited about.. |
tt0103395 | Dangerous Curves | Pat Delaney is working in a circus as one of the female bareback riders. She is in love with Larry Lee, an arrogant trapeze artist and the circus' biggest act. He does not seem to notice her, though, as he is used to being adored by tons of women. He is in a relationship with Zara, a manipulative vamp.
Larry's boss warns him about Zara, explaining that he has been incurring a lot of debts since he began dating her and that his act is no longer as powerful as in the past. One day, Pat and Larry get acquainted and she intimates that she has feelings about him and that they should do an act together. Although he makes clear that his heart belongs to someone else, he convinces the circus manager to give Pat a try on the wire.
Later that day, Pat catches Zara having a date with another man, Tony. When she tells Larry about the affair, he madly confronts Zara and threatens to beat up Tony. He is interrupted by the notion that he has to perform, but he is unable to concentrate and falls off the tight-rope. He is taken to the hospital and soon recovers, but then goes missing from the circus. He refuses to come back and spends his time getting drunk instead. When he finds out that Zara and Tony have left the circus and are now struggling to get work, he sympathizes with them. Upon finding out that he is not planning on returning to the circus, Pat is determined to convince him to do otherwise. Together they form an act, but it soon becomes clear that Larry has lost his talent.
Pat has trouble breaking through his distant behavior, but she convinces him to teach her how to walk a tight-rope. During this progress, he finds his talent again and urges Zara to come back to work on the greatest tight-rope act in history. When Pat finds out, she feels used and confronts Larry with an outburst before leaving in tears. The circus manager tries to comfort her and offers her her own wire act. Meanwhile, Larry is left behind by Zara, who turns out to have married Tony. On the night of her premiere, a drunken Larry tells Pat about his failure. As she tries to comfort him, she misses her premiere and is fired. Larry has collapsed in the meanwhile and Pat decides to pose as him on stage. When Larry awakens, he shows his gratitude and kisses her. | intrigue | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0098014 | Offerings | John Radley's childhood was not a particularly nice one; his father's abandonment, an abusive mother, bullied by neighborhood kids and his pets had a tendency to die on him. Only his first crush Gretchen ever treated him with kindness.
But this all ended when he was goaded into performing a balancing act, whereupon a malicious prank backfired and Johnny ended up plunging down a dried up well to greet a rock floor. Since then he has been in Oakhurst State mental hospital for over a decade. Left semi-comatose, he has only his now-distorted memories and nightmarish flashbacks for comfort.
One night the continual flood of harsh images is too much for his psyche, and he comes to find himself badly disfigured and severely brain damaged, so much so that he can no longer feel any pain. Who will care for, let alone love, Johnny now? No one, he knows (in what's left of his damaged mind). He suffers a complete psychotic break, and after venting his fury on a nurse, turns his rage towards those responsible for his condition.
Bursting out of his temporary accommodation, he storms off into the night, dead set on disposing of his old childhood tormentors, whose body parts he intends to offer up to the only person in his life who ever gave a damn about him--a certain girl by the name of Gretchen. | cult, revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | It is dialogue like this which make "Offerings," an otherwise blatant "Halloween" rip-off, a worthy entry into the slasher genre.
The film is such a blatant "Halloween" rip-off, from everything to the music, to the plot elements, and even some scenes, it is surprising it ever got green-lighted in the first place.
And then how the fat, dumpy sheriff shows up with lines like "What's all this I hear about an ear?" and "So now you found a nose?" or even "Let's take this pizza in and have the meat evaluated!" We even have the dedicated doctor who tries to put a stop to his patients murder spree, but unfortunately fails.
Offerings is of course a very blatant ripoff of the core idea of John Carpenter's classic Halloween, almost scene by scene at times.
The guy who played the Sheriff also deserves an honorable mention.Offerings is a pretty fun slasher movie to watch just for a good laugh.
When you first watch Offerings, you notice that it relates to the Halloween film...right down to the story line and even the music.
Even though this film practically ripped off the formula from Halloween (metal case escapes, goes to his hometown, seeks revenge), all-in-all, Offerings is a fun, yet cheesy film filled with cheesy killings.--If you have friends over while watching this film, make sure your not eating pizza or at least give a quick glance at the toppings.--Like many slasher films, this one has only one cop dedicated to the case, and he is so nerdy and dumbfounded, it makes it all the more hilarious.
Lines like "What's all this I hear about an ear?" adds to his gumpy character.--Only thing that was annoying about the film was that the two lead girls always stayed in the house even though body parts were showing up around the house for a few days.
After spending years in a coma, he awakens, escapes and heads home for revenge, leaving body part "offerings" from his victims to the one girl who was his childhood friend (Loretta Leigh Bowman).Entertainment value is not hard to find in a cheap, stupid regional concoction like this.
Or laugh at the brain dead cops on the case, who might remind you of Barney Fife on an especially bad day and seem to have nothing better to do than chew out little boys for hanging out in condemned buildings looking at spank magazines.
Personally I don't care that it rips off Halloween, if anything I see it more as a tribute.The concept is good - a mute young boy is pushed into a well by local bullies, kills his abusive mom when he gets out, and ends up in mental hospital (he must have put a lot of weight on while in hospital, I might add).
Ever get the feeling that winning his friendship wasn't worth the effort??This is a standard slasher flick with the usual assortment of dumb teenagers who just wanna make out, an overweight sheriff who becomes slowly more exasperated about what is happening in his formerly peaceful town and the remorseless killer who has just one line of dialogue at the end.
When I first saw OFFERINGS three years ago I absolutely despised it for being a complete rip-off of one of my favorite horror movies Halloween.
The basic story of a little boy returning home after a stay in a mental hospital and terrorizing young women is Halloween to a T.
The music is so similar to John Carpenter's seminal classic that one wonders how the filmmakers of Offerings weren't sued.There isn't really a scary or suspenseful bone in Offerings' body, but there's tons of downhome charm, quirky performances, and entertaining set pieces to keep it from being an unwatchable rip off.
All the girls seem to have some dazed expression on their face for most of the film and a few of them speak in a strange southern meets valley girl accent that's a real hoot.A few of the murder scenes are fairly well staged and done with a bit of panache as well.This one won't reinvent the wheel, but it's a fun time killer..
"Offerings" by Christopher Reynolds tells the story of mute serial killer John Radley who after killing nurse and escaping from mental asylum stalk and kill all those that tormented him when he was a kid.His bloody rampage is obviously Michael Myers influenced.John is no ordinary killer for example he killed and ate his own sadistic mother.He has only one friend from childhood:blonde girl named Gretchen."Offerings" is a blatant and unapologetic "Halloween" rip-off.Even its musical score clearly reminds John Carpenter's famous music.Black humor sprinkled death scenes are quite inventive but mostly goreless.Still fans of cheesy slasher movies will enjoy this low-budget horror.6 body parts out of 10..
There was also a few predictable scenes of when someone was going to die.I won't be in denial, but I admit I liked this movie a little bit.
(*1/2 out of *****) The general plot, the piano music score, and some of the scenes from this movie copy the original `Halloween' so closely that John Carpenter could probably sue (not that it would be worth his time or money -- this movie looks like it was probably made for the price of a push lawn mower.) Filmed in Oklahoma (and most of the actors have the accents to prove it), this concerns a young mute boy named Johnny who is accidentally pushed down a well by some kids, and, after spending ten years vegetating in a mental institution, he suddenly decides it's time to bust out and come home for (yawn) bloody revenge.
Some mildly violent scenes involve a syringe stuck in a forehead, another head crushed in a vice until it pops, and the unintentional group cannibalism of a pizza delivery man (even after the two female leads find out that the strange-tasting `sausage' they were eating was actually human flesh, they don't seem to react too strongly over it and, in fact, even make jokes about it the next morning!) The disfigured killer leaves body parts of his victims (a finger, an ear, a nose) for the girl (Loretta Leigh Bowman) who was his only friend as a child.
Even after finding the bloody ear on the front porch and then the bloody nose folded up in the morning newspaper, the girls don't consider leaving the house (ironically, after they watch a generic slasher movie on television, one of them comments, `The people in these horror movies always act so stupidly!') And, rather than suggesting they stay somewhere else, the dimwit local sheriff (G.
Michael Smith) places an even dimmer-witted deputy outside of the house to watch them (anyone who watches these kinds of movies knows that that's like painting a bright, red target on the guy's chest.) My favorite part was in the beginning, when one of the doctors who comes in to check on Johnny (who's still a comatose vegetable) sticks his gum on Johnny's nose until he's done and then nonchalantly puts it back in his mouth when he leaves.Lowlight: I mentioned the pizza man, right?.
Boring, slow paced, ineptly acted teen driven slasher film rips off every movie in sight, especially Halloween, Friday the 13th.
What little story there is, is about a young man escaping from an asylum to seek revenge on a group of kids who caused him to be disfigured and then offers the spare body parts to an old friend.
As a youngster, mute animal-torturing weirdo John Radley (Josh Coffman) is bullied by most of the other neighbourhood children, his only friend being pretty blonde girl Gretchen (Kerri Bechthold).
After the local bullies cause him to fall down a well, disfiguring his face and damaging his brain in the process, John kills and eats his mother, resulting in his incarceration in a high security hospital, where he is heavily sedated.
Buswell) escapes, intent on wreaking revenge on those responsible for his accident, making grisly offerings to the girl who was once his friend.Over a decade after the success of seminal slasher Halloween, most aspiring horror film-makers had stopped looking to the seasonal classic for inspiration.
Not so with director Christopher Reynolds: for Offerings (1989), his first movie, Reynolds does very little to disguise the fact that he is blatantly ripping off John Carpenter's '78 box office smash, the story, the characters, the events, and the music closely mimicking Halloween.
The only (big) difference is that, where Carpenter's film is a flawless exercise in nerve-jangling terror, Offerings is a total mess, with uninspired direction, lousy performances and terrible dialogue.Reynold's doesn't even do the decent thing and try to compensate for the lack of originality with an excess of gore or gratuitous nudity, his kill scenes being frustratingly free of splatter, and the actresses remaining full clothed throughout (a shame, because Loretta Leigh Bowman as the grown up Gretchen is a hottie, and her friend Kacy, played by Elizabeth Greene, ain't too bad either!).
Michael Smith), who struggles to squeeze behind the wheel of his police car, and the fact that the girls and their boyfriends unwittingly eat a pizza topped with human flesh instead of sausage (although quite how the killer managed to prepare such a dish is never adequately explained)..
Even though it came out over a decade later, "Offerings" is a generic, but decent little low-rent, shot-on-video slasher offering which resembles the influential John Carpenter slasher "Halloween".
I expected much worse and came away rather enjoying (even if it was for a good laugh), but nonetheless it was efficiently executed for such a trim, low-scale production.A young, slightly disturb boy John Radley accidentally falls down a well, which was caused by some bullying.
Offerings (1989)* 1/2 (out of 4) Ten years after being pushed down a well and cracking his skull open, a psychopath escapes from a mental asylum and returns home where he plans on killing those who pushed him.
There's simply no way around that but at the same time it's a must-see simply because of how much of a rip-off of John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN it is.
You might be saying to yourself what's the big deal because countless movies ripped HALLOWEEN.
Another highlight is a scene where the killer (off screen) kills the pizza guy and later delivers the pizzas to the house where our lead and her friends are.
No one is going to find it to be a "good" movie but the thing is so incredibly weird that you can't help but be entertained by it..
The grown Johnny escapes from a mental institution (he was there for killing and eating his mother, apparently a result of the brain damage he suffered from the fall) and heads back to his hometown to get revenge on the kids who tormented him.
Seriously, this rips off so much of John Carpenter's classic that I was surprised it didn't say "a Rob Zombie film" in the opening credits.
Everything from Carpenter's film is in here from the heavy breathing guy standing behind trees to the boarded up killer's house (where someone apparently still does the lawn).
Offerings is your basic slasher horror film.
To make a long story short, John ends up murdering his mother, being placed under sedatives in a pysch hospital for 10 years, and breaks out after impaling a few people with needles.
He severs off their body parts and leaves them on the now teenage Gretchen's doorstep as his 'offerings'.
One thing you're bound to notice in the first 20 minutes is that this is almost a scene-by-scene rip-off of John Carpenters 'Halloween' (Scott, I'm looking your way).
We have a few Carpenter-isms to point out: An almost EXACT copy of his synthesized music, a pudgy cop who would rather bust a kid for porn then find out why body parts keep showing up randomly, horny teenage girls who would rather wear belly tops then watch the news, a psychology professor who thinks he can catch the killer and of course several ominous camera angles that either show us whatever the killer sees or shows us his eyes.
Movie viewers who like to watch low-budget horrors with a talentless unknown cast, this is right up your alley.The only thing I liked about this film, was that redheaded kid the fat sheriff caught looking at girly-mags, who teased the obese officer saying his name was Ben Dover, which the sheriff never got.The plot centers around a shy child, with a terrible home life(his mother happily incorporates cigarette ashes in his breakfast) who is tormented and later pushed down a well by kids his age.
Years pass and our shy kid is now a disfigured freakshow determined to get revenge.The title Offerings was used because of the killer leaving body parts on his only friends doorstep, much in the way a cat does when devouring a mouse..
A boy gets pushed down a well at the start by his friends then returns about 10 years later to kill them.
It has some quite funny death scenes and a fat redneck sheriff as the hero who provides comic relief but don't watch it unless you like the Halloween films.
Okay, what movie's plot goes like this:A young man, after killing his mother, breaks out of an insane asylum ten years later, and starts killing teenagers as a three noted theme song is played on a piano?If you guessed any of the Halloween movies, I'm sorry, you're wrong.NO, this is Offerings.
Horrendous acting, heavy on the cheese, and weak story.Some guy is pushed down a well as a kid while playing with this group of bad kids and his friend Gretchen.
Ten years later, he decides to escape the mental hospital (the fall gave him brain damage [!]) and kill those who did this to him.
Her friends are all so typical, and soon move to a night of pizza and horror movies, with Gretchen, her boyfriend, and Casy and her boyfriend.
As I said in the summary, the film is an obvious rip-off of John Carpenter's classic slasher movie, Halloween (1978).
It's not good at all as a horror, but if you watch it for the bad acting and (original) plot-twists (for example, the killer takes the time to lace the unknowing teenagers' pizza with human flesh.) I laughed all the way through this movie.
I had a hard time watching it and i saw to much of other horror movies in this, like some of the killing and other small things, The acting was not so great and plot grew very poor as the movie went on.
In all i would say 2 stars out of 10 because of bad acting and a weak ending to the movie..
Although it does have one really great scene I liked:Dumb Sheriff goes into the killers old home thinking he might be there.
Emerging with a head that looks like a canned ham, an odd immunity to electrified fences, and a vengeance for those who bullied him it's not long before John Radley is eating duck guts, putting heads in vices, and delivering pizza with mystery sausage on it to his old friend from the neighborhood.
Sample: "This is Gretchen Peters and I called like a looong time ago for some pizza." Oh my goodness.
There's also a great sheriff who looks more than a little like Tool Times Al Borland.
Sheriff Borland (I forget his name) likes busting little kids reading porn in abandoned houses and asking for leftovers at crime scenes.
Picture Halloween and The Slumber Party Massacre put together with glue on a low-budget and you have Offerings.
This movie is the ultimate Halloween rip-off.
He goes crazy and escapes from an asylum 10 years later to kill them and leave their body parts on the doorstep of the girl who was nice to him as a kid.
The movie is basic slasher stuff and is kinda fun to watch if you're in a good mood and you like slasher films.
It's fun to see how far this movie will go to be like the original Halloween because it's constantly obvious.
I doubt that someone becomes a serial killer just because he fell on his head as a child as well as it is pretty cheesy how the movie ends.
Sure, you could have made it a better movie by providing a more emotional or detailed background story, you could have depicted the character in a more realistic and less plump way.But if you are just looking for an entertaining one-time watch this will serve you well.
OFFERINGS is a cheap and low budget rip-off of HALLOWEEN, featuring a tinkly score that openly rips off John Carpenter's music throughout and a plot which is very similar.
The acting is as typically poor as you'd expect from a B-movie, with lots of stilted dialogue from the guys and endless screaming from the girls.
Although released more than a full decade and approximately five hundred other low-keyed slashers later, "Offerings" is a blatant and shameless rip-off of the 1978 genre classic "Halloween".
The bullies from ten years ago are getting slaughtered one by one, and Johnny leaves their amputated body parts as romantic little gifts on Gretchen's doorstep.
Yet, you wonder if the killer gets they already have revenge knowing they have more brain cells than anyone else in town.The acting is bad and the storyline seemed to have been invented by someone sort of watching a slasher film one night before a deadline of some sort.AVOID-I can't say this enough.That said-it does have material to make fun of for about 15 minutes.(it just gets to pathetic to continue).
(Includes spoilers) OFFERINGS is the biggest and best HALLOWEEN rip-off to date.
All in all, this is one pretty good movie that is enjoyable and fun!
**1/2out of****Watch this one after HALLOWEEN and you can tell Reynolds even ripped-off Carpenter's music score. |
tt0041328 | Easy Living | Star professional quarterback Pete Wilson (Victor Mature) thinks nothing of his future after football, not even after longtime teammate Bill "Holly" Holloran (Gordon Jones) is released by the team. Pete gets advance after advance on his salary from Anne (Lucille Ball), the secretary of team owner and coach Lenahan (Lloyd Nolan).
One day, however, he goes secretly to see a doctor (Jim Backus) about various symptoms he has been experiencing and learns that he has a heart condition due to a childhood bout of rheumatic fever, one that could kill him if he continues playing football. He starts to tell his wife Liza (Lizabeth Scott), but changes his mind when she is cool to Holly, whom she describes as a has-been after he is gone.
Liza is struggling to make her own interior design business a success, and drags Pete to a fancy party to try to land Gilbert Vollmer as a client. Gilbert knows she has no talent, but is interested in her for other reasons. So is his father, Howard (Art Baker). The older man is looking to replace his young girlfriend, Billy Duane, and dangles before Liza the prospect of redecorating his apartment. Knowing what he is after, Liza is willing to do whatever it takes to further her ambitions.
Meanwhile, Pete is bitterly disappointed when his friend, retiring college head coach Virgil Ryan (Everett Glass), informs him that he cannot recommend him as his replacement because Liza is unsuitable for the duties of a coach's wife. Instead, the job is given to Pete's teammate and friend, Tim "Pappy" McCarr (Sonny Tufts). Tim offers Pete the position of his assistant, but Pete turns it down.
Afraid of physical contact, Pete turns in a very poor performance and loses the next game. Lenahan cannot afford another loss if he wants to make the playoffs (and earn $100,000), so he benches Pete in favor of Tim. Tim plays well, and they win their next game.
When Pete proposes taking the assistant coaching position, Liza breaks up with him. However, when she gets dumped by Howard, she tries unsuccessfully to get Pete back. Pete is given another chance at glory when Tim is injured, but ultimately tells his teammates about his condition and walks away from the game. Though Anne has made it clear that she loves him, Pete decides to take Liza back, making it clear, however, that it will be on his terms. | romantic | train | wikipedia | (But this was in an era of nickel pay-phone calls, when college football coaches made $3200 a year.) The other story centers on the quarterback's troubled relationship with his ambitious, social-climbing wife who's not above using her seductive charm to make a success of her interior decorating business.
(This may have been due to the Production Code's dim view of divorce.) However, the cast still makes the movie worth a look, with solid work from Lucille Ball, Lloyd Nolan, Jim Backus, Art Baker, Jack Paar, etc.
Lizabeth Scott -- she of the spectacular eyebrows -- seems a tad "overheated" as the self-centered wife but the script probably forced this kind of performance.
Wilson also must break the news to his star-struck wife, who enjoys the spotlight even more than he does."Easy Living" is of course an ironic title.
Victor Mature, who played gladiators both ancient and modern, does his best but he isn't quite up to the emotional demands of the role.
The supporting cast, featuring Lloyd Nolan as the head coach and Lucille Ball as his son's widow, is generally stronger.
Jack Paar, in one of his rare film roles, pops up as the team's PR man.The film's climax, in which Wilson slaps his wife in desperation, could never be made today but still was acceptable in 1949.
Easy Living is not a light comedy, despite the presence of Lucille Ball, Jim Backus and Jack Paar.
Irwin Shaw wrote the novel on which it's based the story of a man who's approaching midlife knowing nothing but how to play ball.
The movie version proves surprisingly textured and involving, which ought not to be surprising, as the director is the ever resourceful Jacques Tourneur.Victor Mature is a New York gridiron hero whose game is starting to slow down; in fact, he finds out he has a heart ailment which spells early death if he keeps on playing.
So in addition to his health and career crises, Mature faces a marital one as well.The large cast includes Lloyd Nolan as the club's owner and Lucille Ball as his widowed daughter-in-law, who works for the team and nurtures a crush on Mature.
Tourneur shows his craft in coaxing a subdued and touching performance from her; he surpasses that by drawing from Scott, especially in a self-pitying drunk scene, the only piece of real acting she ever committed to film.
Made near the peak of the noir cycle, which accounts for its minor-key tonality (the score, by the way, is by Roy Webb), it springs yet another surprise in being one of the first films to find a dark side in that American institution, professional football..
Sixty years later, however, the Charles Schnee script and Jaques Tourneur direction stand as a perceptive glimpse into pro-sports at the high end, as valid now as then and definitely ahead of its time.Star quarterback Victor Mature is a regular guy, but is drawn into the fast lane by ambitious wife Liz Scott.
On the other hand, good guy Sonny Tufts (in a tailor made part) and salt-of-the-earth wife Jeff Donnell represent the other side of Mature-- his down-to-earth side.
It's a whole little morality play summed up in a few seconds.Unfortunately the film shows its period with an unsatisfactory Hollywood ending consistent with the conventions of the day, and enough to make modern-day feminists apoplectic.
Unfortunately, these plans are put on hold when he tries to tell his selfish shrew of a wife (Lizabeth Scott) about this.
Lucille Ball plays a supporting role as a nice lady who deeply cares for Vic and is just waiting in case the marriage fizzles.
However, how all this marital discord is finally solved is amazing and could NEVER be done in films today, as Vic finally gets sick of Lizabeth's petulant ways and slaps her silly--saying to either shut up and stay or walk!!!
Part of it is because there are few films about pro football (especially when this one was made) and because as I watch the big climax scene between Victor Mature and Lizabeth Scott, I love to imagine the horror on many viewers faces as they see Vic slap his awful wife right in the face!
An interesting story and one of Mature's better films..
EASY LIVING takes you back to major league football circa 1949 and focuses on a star performer just before and after his career tops out.
The direction is first rate and all the actors deliver top performances --- particularly Victor Mature, Lizabeth Scott, Lloyd Nolan and Lucille Ball.
This Irwin Shaw drama doesn't have much football in it, but instead focuses on the lives of the people involved in sports.First seen in 1949 at age 11, I looked for it again at Video Vault.
Savvy sellers in eBay include RKO in their headline.Final comment: Unlike 2007's major hits like Pirates #3 and Potter #5, this film has an actual story, beginning, middle, end ---not relying on an overpowering musical score to sugarcoat junk.
Unfortunately, Easy Living runs like a stage play that is missing too many essential scenes, not just the beginning!.
Victor Mature, dour as always, is a pro football player.
That's an aside, having little to do with whether or not the movie works -- and I do think it does.Lloyd Nolan is excellent as the coach.
Easy Living is based on a story Education of the Heart by Irving Shaw, who was previously in 1942 nominated for the Academy Awards for co-writing the screen play of George Stevens' The Talk of the Town, and directed by Jacques Tourneur best remembered for his Horror and Film-Noir classics such as Cat People and Out of the Past.
Easy Living is basically a story of a struggle in life of Pete Wilson (played by Victor Mature).
His life is apparently settled, he is married to a beautiful woman Liza (Lizabeth Scott), owns a nice home etc., his future looks bright till the day when a serious heart ailment is discovered after a medical test which may result in fatal consequences in case Pete continues to play football.
All his world falls apart beginning with his marriage to Liza who now shows her real interests in marriage to Pete being the easy living provided with the money he earns as a football player, an occupation he is unable to continue anymore by obvious reasons.
Overall it's a weak drama in all of its aspects: the story, the acting and even directing from otherwise brilliant Jacques Tourneur.A very boring, though not very long (the duration of film being 77 minutes) viewing experience.
Everyone should note the circumstances under which Victor's character slapped his wife, and that he did it because he loved her and wanted to save their marriage..
Victor Mature and Lizabeth Scott are not two of my favorites, anyway, but I do think they were well-cast as the aging football player, Pete Wilson, and his selfish, social-climbing wife, Liza.
I also thought the Lucille Ball character was corny and clichéd: the "nice girl", albeit cynical and disillusioned, who loves Pete from afar -- sort of a poor man's Eve Arden.There was one scene that was a little gem, though, in my book.
Then she tells Pete that the guy "isn't a real man" because he can't play ball anymore.
It's a nice snapshot of Liza's character.All in all, watching Easy Living is like being served vanilla sherbet for dessert when what you really wanted was Rocky Road ice cream..
This is a short story about a football quarterback who finds he has heart trouble and will not be able to play again without great risk.
To be honest, it's a very forgettable movie despite the decent cast of Victor Mature, Lucille Ball, Lizabeth Scott, Lloyd Nolan and Paul Stewart.
The film was just kind of blah: it was watchable but not interesting enough for me to see it again, although maybe I would enjoy this more today knowing the actors better.
Then again, the throaty Scott playing a social-climbing wife is not worth seeing again.
When Sonny Tufts is the standout in a film, you know there's a problem.A caveat - I've never been crazy about Victor Mature.
Here at the age of 36 he plays Pete Wilson, a football player at the top of his game - MVP the previous year, the highest paid professional, and his future (at age 36, mind you) is unlimited.His wife Liza is portrayed by Lizabeth Scott.
She seems to be in it for the success, and she doesn't care for the guys on their way out.Pete's good friend Tim is retiring and going to be coaching at State.
A pro football player (Victor Mature) discovers his days as a pro athlete are numbered when he learns that he has a heart condition.
His wife (Lizabeth Scott) has ridden his fame as the face of the franchise up into the upper echelons of society and is unprepared to take on the role of a wife of an assistant coach for a college team since this is the best option left open to her husband given his condition.
Lizabeth Scott is perhaps the best reason for watching, as she's in one or two excellent scenes of parties put on and attended by the crowd she would like to join, though there are some telling moments on the field and in the locker room, especially when a veteran lineman gets cut from the team and has limited future prospects.
The film does well in portraying the lives and limited careers of pro football players, maybe better than later films have done.
King Football's Game Goes Bad. I'm sure someone can research and find earlier films on the subject, but Easy Living is the one that is the earliest I've come across having professional football as a background.
Victor Mature plays a football player whose game has gone bad because he's developed a heart murmur, but like a dope he doesn't tell anyone.Not that he couldn't live a nice normal life, but rough contact sports are definitely out.
Professional football was starting to come into its own post World War II and Mature has been given the nickname of 'King Football' by the press stimulated by his team's publicity agent, Jack Paar.Lizabeth Scott is one evil vixen and Mature has the widowed daughter-in- law of his coach Lloyd Nolan, Lucille Ball who would be a more suitable mate.
And today it would never be put in any film lest the National Organization for Women picket it.To its credit Easy Living has some good performances from Gordon Jones as another washed up teammate of Mature, Sonny Tufts as Mature's best friend, and Richard Erdman as the clubhouse man for the team.
He and teammate Woody Strode were the first to integrate pro football and both of course had successful acting careers, Strode a bit more so.Best performance to watch is that of Art Baker as the rich old goat who likes to collect beautiful women as trophies whether they have a ring or not.
***SPOILERS*** 1940's and 50's Hollywood hunk Victor Mature plays star football quarterback Peter Wilson of the New York Cheifs, who are actually played by the Los Anegles Rams, who at the height of his professional football career finds out from cardiologist Dr.Franklin, Jim Backes,that his ticker or heart is in danger of conking out at any given moment!
Keeping all this secret Pete continues to play football but his performance is anything then what it used to be with him avoiding physical contact at all costs.It's the Chief's coach Lenahan,Llyod Noland, who finally benches Pete due to his poor performance but it's his daughter and personal secretary Anne Lehahan Lucille Ball, who finds out what Pete's real problem is and tries to get him to quit football.
Pete's social climbing wife the sexy husky voiced Liza, Lizabeth Scott, who's self absorbed in her career as a interior designer.
It's looking for action Baker who's just stinging Liza along in helping her career in interior design until he uses her up and finds someone younger & better to replace Liza with!Victor Mature who's not really known for his acting, he once told a reporter that he can't act and stared in over 60 films to prove it, is really good as the fatalistic Pete Wilson who's literally playing his heart out on the football field knowing that any moment it would give out on him.
Pete also has to deal with his wife Liza whom he knows would drop him as soon as she finds out that his heart condition would end up making him a has been and put him as well as her out of the spotlight that she craves so much!***SPOILERS**** Very unconventional ending for a Hollywood movie with Pete finally letting the truth out about his serious heart condition to his both shocked coach and teammates and skipping the big championship game as well as ending his career as a professional football player.
We never get know how the game ended but we do know how Pete & his estranged wife Liza got back together again.
With Pete or Victor Mature in reviving his "Cave Man" role in "One Million B.C" knocking or slapping some sense into Liza's pretty head in having her drop her big ideas of becoming rich & famous by using him to get her there and just being his wife instead.
The wife of a washed up football player and now assistance coach for a non ivy league collage team and for better or for worse genuinely loving him!.
Jacques Tourneur directed this surprisingly effective tale of Victor Mature, a major league football player who is King of the Gridiron, until he finds he has a heart murmur that requires his retirement from active playing.
It would turn team owner Lloyd Nolan into a figure of frustration and disappointment because he's out to win the championship for the team this year.Mature is desperately in love with his wife, the ambitious Lizabeth Scott, whose boutique is supported by Mature's salary but who, herself, has little talent.
He seduces Scott and is brutally honest with her from beginning to end of the affair.There's another figure, and a woman too, who is in love with Mature.
Lucille Ball is the wisecracking secretary whom Mature dislike but who takes care of him when he needs caring for.With that kind of set up -- a man of moral principle, a wife who is a paragon of terpitude, and another upright woman who loves him from afar, the expectable outcome is expectable.
Mature does decide to not play the last vital game and perhaps die, but he slaps Scott in the face twice and their affection is strong enough that she is now willing to accompany him to that lowly position in the lowly university at the lowly salary.
Summing it up, one of the better movies about aging or otherwise-failing football players.
What's worse is that I'm certain the majority of viewers are not actually rooting for Victor Mature and Liz Scott to stick together in their marriage.
Football fans might enjoy this minor drama about a troubled professional player (Victor Mature) facing performance issues and a health crisis as he deals with new wife Lizabeth Scott's rise in the world of fashion.
Scott is glamorous and gets to wear some beautiful outfits, and along with Mature does her best to add some interesting dimensions to her character.
However, fans of Lucille Ball will be disappointed to see her wasted in a rather pathetically small role as the secretary to coach Lloyd Nolan, obviously in love with Mature but other than a few vivacious moments really has nothing substantial to do.
The film starts oddly with a scene between fellow player Sonny Tufts and his wife (Jeff Donnell) that does absolutely nothing to develop the plot or get it off the ground.
Australian release title: INTERFERENCE.SYNOPSIS: The domestic and career problems of a star football player.COMMENT: It's not hard to see parallels between this screenplay and Charles Schnee's later script for "The Bad and the Beautiful".
Professional football is the anything but easy living of the title.
When I saw Lucille Ball's name in the cast, I thought I would be in for a bit of comedy but how wrong I was!It's a basic story of a guy, a football player, on top along with his aggressive and ambitious wife.
Victor Mature and Lizabeth Scott appear as the perfect couple.
However, when Mature is diagnosed with a heart problem that would end his career, he cannot bring himself to tell his wife since she is now used to high living and not going to some college town as the wife of a football coach.As owner of the team, Lloyd Nolan is great here.
He wants victory and only at the end of the film does Mature let him know the story.
As his daughter-in-law, Lucille Ball comes across as the business-like secretary and is widowed and she has romantic designs on Mature.To me, a flaw in the film was the rapid southward movement of the Mature-Scott marriage.
I like a lot of things about this movie beginning with Irwin Shaw who wrote the short story (not novel as someone here said mistakenly) on which the screenplay was based, that screenplay itself, the work of Charles Schnee, the direction by Jacques Tourneur, and some, if not all, of the performances.
There was no more self-denigrating actor than Victor Mature but occasionally (Kiss of Death and here) he turned out a half-decent performance and here the delight is the people surrounding him, Lloyd Nolan, Paul (yeah, yeah) Stewart, Jim Backus, Art Baker, Jack Paar, it's a feast for minor-player buffs.
Lucille Balle pulls off a rare sympathetic role well enough and Lizbeth Scott who is easy to detest is suitably detestable as the ambitious wife of mature. |
tt0040946 | Wake of the Red Witch | The film is about an ongoing rivalry between two men of the sea: Mayrant Sidneye (Luther Adler) owner of the shipping company Batjak Limited, and Captain Ralls (John Wayne).
The first part of the film depicts Captain Ralls as the ruthless master (captain) of the Red Witch, Batjak's flagship. For reasons not entirely clear, Ralls deliberately wrecks and sinks the Red Witch and its cargo of gold bullion worth five million dollars. He escapes a charge of barratry when Batjak unexpectedly withdraws its complaint.
Ralls and his first mate Sam Rosen (Gig Young) spend some time as fishermen on a schooner. They eventually follow a treasure map to an uncharted island. They are greeted on the island by Sidneye, the map turning out to be a ploy to lure Ralls to the island so Sidneye can deal with Ralls in his own way.
The film then uses a series of flashbacks to describe how Ralls and Sidneye first met and how Ralls became captain of the Red Witch. Specifically, it is revealed that both Ralls and Sidneye fell in love with the same beautiful woman, Angelique (Gail Russell). When Ralls accidentally killed Angelique's uncle, Angelique married Sidneye even though Ralls is the man she really loved. However, when Angelique became ill and was dying, she somehow got word to Ralls and he returned to the island. Angelique dies in his arms soon after he arrives. It is strongly hinted that Ralls's deliberate sinking of the Red Witch was an act of revenge against Sidneye for depriving him of the woman he loved.
After the flashbacks the film returns to the present. Ralls and Sidneye strike a deal in which Ralls will reveal the exact location of the wreck of the Red Witch in exchange for a portion of the gold recovered from it. But when the salvage operation is to begin, it is discovered that the wreck is resting precariously on an underwater ledge, half on the ledge and half hanging over deeper water, making salvage extremely dangerous. Ralls is the only one willing to take the risk. He dives down to the wreck and manages to get a portion of the gold back up to the surface. But then the wreck begins to slide off the ledge. Falling debris traps Ralls inside the wreck, and he dies after the descending wreckage severs the hose supplying him with air. | violence, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | DeMille's answer to "Gone With the Wind," an epic called "Reap the Wild Wind," the Duke wanted to make a similar themed film but with more complex characters.
John Wayne made "Wake of the Red Witch," a terrific follow-up that remakes elements of the original film but creates completely new situations and characters, and explores the dark side of people.
Both films open with John Wayne as a 19th Century sea captain who's ship is scuttled for the rich cargo.
In both films John Wayne fights a big octopus and is involved in a love triangle with a beautiful woman and his boss.
The characters were somewhat one-dimensional (John Wayne the unquestionable good guy, Ray Milland the unquestionable rich playboy, Paulette Goddard the unquestionable flirt).
As the story unfolds we see a much more complex mystery involving the captain's rich nemesis who respects the captain as a hero and worthy opponent and has driven John Wayne to madness.
I would suggest you see Cecil B' DeMille's "Reap the Wild Wind" first as it is much less satisfying and might be disappointing compared to the complexity of "Wake of the Red Witch," though both films are terrific entertainment and showcase John Wayne at his non-western best.
Note: In the film, The Red Witch (a sailing ship) is owned by a company called Batjac, a name the Duke would use as the name of his own film company..
I'd never really thought of it that way, but it is definitely true.The Duke is hardly the classically trained actor that Laurence Olivier is, but as I've remarked in other reviews his was one of the great faces for movie closeups.
And he is probably in his most romantic role as Captain Ralls of the Red Witch.Of course this film is most compared to Reap the Wild Wind where also for romantic reasons, John Wayne piled a ship on the reefs and later went after the salvage.
But though the other film is a big budget product from one of the premier studios, Wake of the Red Witch is a much better story.The story is seen through the eyes of Gig Young as Wayne's first mate.
Wayne sinks the Red Witch because his employer, the malevolent Luther Adler has taken the lovely Gail Russell from him, through the connivance of her father Henry Daniell.
He rescues young Fernando Alvarado from a giant claim, kills a giant octopus for native pearls and searches for gold bullion on the sunken Red Witch.
I did look him up and found that he wrote a number of seafaring adventures as well as Westerns.So, I thought the plot developed very nicely with the right amount of intrigue mixed in with some action, sea scenes, and romance.
We gradually discover the background of the animosity between John Wayne and his nemesis, played quite ably by Luther Adler.
I enjoyed John Wayne in most of the films he did outside his usual genres of Westerns and War flicks.
Besides the good acting and plot, "Wake of the Red Witch" had some good cinematography with sea and sailing shots, and very good underwater action.
Mythical uneven story with great acting of Wayne and Russell.
It is basically a Wuthering Heights of the Southern Seas, with a very young and slim Wayne being pulled into a story of intrigue and lost love by the most beautiful Gail Russell.
John Wayne plays a sea captain set adrift on the waters after a falling out with natives on an island in the East Indies; he's soon picked up by another ship but butts heads (in a gentlemanly fashion) with that captain, a well-respected shipping magnate, especially after they return to the native island and both men fall in love with a beautiful white girl.
Mostly told (rather unnecessarily) in flashback, there are two treasure dives--the first for pearls and then for gold--yet by the time we get around to the second pillage, all the wind has gone out of this movie's sails.
Gail Russell is indeed lovely as the woman who comes between the two ego-fed men, but her role turns the film from a sea-faring adventure story into a star-crossed, doomed-lovers romance, and the results are all wet.
The Duke is fun wrestling with an octopus, saving a native boy from the piercing clamp of a giant clam, or mouthing off to whomever is in charge; he's at his most robust and handsome here, but his performance doesn't bolster the wayward plotting and his final scene is a real let-down.
From one of the many novels written by Garland Roark comes this dramatic story which the Legendary John Wayne enhanced with his mere presence.
Directed by Edward Ludwig the story is masterfully written and tells the naval tale of an adventurous sea Captain named Ralls (John Wayne) who's a courageous soldier of fortune.
They include Gail Russell, Gig Young, Luther Adler, Henry Daniell, Paul Fix and Jeff Corey.
I enjoy most John Wayne films, notably his Westerns, and a long time ago read several books about him, but Wake of the Red Watch was all but unknown to me.
(British TV frequently screens his better-known films butI can't recall "Wake" being shown before.)It wasn't at all bad, if one overlooks some of the clichés and limited production values, and Wayne portrays a character more complex and less sympathetic than in any other of his films, even Red River and The Searchers.Some of the plot twists were a bit hard to follow, and I'm still not sure about the relationship between Ralls and Sidneye - it seemed to mellow towards the end.Before watching the film I hadn't bothered to note its date and, going on Wayne's youthful appearance and the unsophisticated aspects of filming and plotting, I guessed it was early 1940s.
Wake of The Red Witch is really one of the secrets of John Wayne's career.
The first thirty minutes or so of Wake Of The Red Witch has so many characters, and it's so hard to figure out what's happening, it may remind you of The Big Sleep.
Nevertheless, this is a very exotic (as in strangely but appealingly different) and entertaining movie and a different direction for John Wayne, who plays one of the most sinister and cruelest characters of his career.Republic Pictures was a studio with a reputation for making movies on the cheap without the final product looking cheap.
It has a terrific cast, headed by Wayne and Gail Russell, excellently supported by Gig Young, Adelle Mara, Luther Adler, Henry Daniel, Eduard Franz, Paul Fix, and Grant Withers.
This may point to some radical re-editing between the premiere and the general release three months later.Set in the 1860's Dutch East Indies and surrounding area, the story revolves around a bitter but respectful rivalry between sea captain Wayne and ship owner Adler.
Their rivalry eventually becomes the sole reason each has for living.Wayne was coming off the release of the highly successful Red River, which had actually been filmed two years earlier, when Wake Of The Red Witch was made.
There was a little of Tom Dunson, the cruel, tyrannical rancher he played in Red River in practically every movie John Wayne subsequently made.
There is a lot of Dunson in his Captain Ralls in Wake Of The Red Witch.
Wayne and Adler's intense character studies are what makes this movie really worth watching.
And Gig Young should have kept the mustache.Wake Of The Red Witch is one of John Wayne's best performances, an entertaining, action-packed, and mysterious picture..
One of John Wayne's more divisive and different films from the 1940s.
Speaking of which, this bears a few similarities to another Wayne film about love triangles and men at sea - Reap the Wild Wind..
Hired "Red Witch" skipper John Wayne (as Captain Ralls) vies with financier boss Luther Adler (as Mayrant Ruysdaal Sidneye) for not only the love of beautiful Gail Russell (as Angelique), but also five million dollars in gold bullion.
Their tale is told in "flashback" style, by fellow traveler Gig Young (as Sam Rosen).The story might be described as a "Heart of Darkness" attempt to adapt Wayne's "Reap the Wild Wind" into Laurence Olivier's "Wuthering Heights".
There is some ambitious underwater camera-work, which fails, due to, for example, an unremarkable editing in of Wayne close-ups.Everyone tries awfully hard to make "Wake of the Red Witch" hunt, but it doesn't.
**** Wake of the Red Witch (12/30/48) Edward Ludwig ~ John Wayne, Gail Russell, Luther Adler, Gig Young.
My all time favorite of all the John Wayne movies.
Apart from being one of John Wayne's more enigmatic roles 'The Red Witch' is treated to an insipid screenplay, direction, music, and effects.
An interesting cast is the best thing about it -with the always convincing Luther Adler taking the honours, Gig Young follows a close second, while Gail Russell looks pretty, she has a waterlogged character that hardly rises to the surface.
Some nice shots of ships at sea along with a couple of reasonable underwater set-ups help it through a generally silly plot that takes the wind out if its sails, leaving it sadly floundering.
DeMille actioner, "Reap the Wild Wind." Scenes from both of these films have been lifted whole from the originals and welded into the flimsy supporting latticework of its plot.
What weaknesses the film has, however, are more than made up by the vividness of the characterizations, a powerful romance, and one of the best portrayals of a grudging symbiotic relationship in cinema.The plot revolves around three characters, Ralls (John Wayne), ship's captain with a dark and dangerous side, Mayrant Sidneye (Luther Adler), an ubber-wealthy shipping magnate, and the beautiful Angelique (Gail Russell)--focal point for the romance.
(There is a fourth "main" character, Sam, played by Gig Young, but he serves only as observer and narrator.) Ralls and Sidneye have a curious, bitter rivalry.
So tied up in each other's fate are they that they would do just as well to kill themselves.**SPOILERS** The doomed romance plays out between the three principles much as it does in the aforementioned '39 film "Wuthering Heights," complete with a virtual duplication of the dying scene--in this case with Angelique in Ralls' arms, looking out to the sea (instead of the heather), with Sidneye, the husband, looking helplessly on.
That this is a virtual copy of the love story from the earlier film does not detract much from its power, as these three actors are at their riveting best, almost making us forget the Olivier/Oberon/Niven flimization.
Here she gives us one of her two best performances, the other being in "Angel and the Badman" from the year before which also starred John Wayne.
Though the main focus is on the two male characters, her luminous, fragile Angelique gives the viewer a sympathetic refuge from the often ruthless machinations of Ralls and Sidneye.Undeniably, John Wayne gives one of his best--and most complex-- performances here.
Wake of the Red Witch may be John Wayne in his most demanding role.
He plays Captain Rawles who skuttles the Red Witch to later go back and rescue it's treasure in gold bullion.
Wayne has never has so many colorful character elements in any film.
The main advantage here is that Gail Russell is more vulnerable and beautiful than Merle Oberon was in "Heights" And the last scene with John and Gail at the wheel of the ghost ship, Red Witch is a never to be forgotten Hollywood film moment.Haunting!.
If ever a movie deserved the expression, "they don't make 'em like this anymore", it is "Wake of the Red Witch".
Set in the South Seas during the mid-Nineteenth Century it stars John Wayne as Captain Ralls, a tough ship's master, and a man embittered by unhappy memories.
Ralls has fallen in love with the same woman as Mayrant Sydneye, a powerful trader played by Luther Adler, setting in motion a rivalry that is mutually destructive.
The special effects crew must have buckled at the knees when informed that the script called for a battle with a giant octopus over a chest full of pearls, a native diver trapped by a giant clam, a couple of shipwrecks and finally, a sunken ship sliding off a rock shelf into the depths below.When John Wayne wrestles the octopus, he doesn't actually wrap the tentacles around himself like Bela Lugosi did in Ed Wood's "Bride of the Monster", but it's close.
From the driven and ruthless Ralls in the earlier scenes, he becomes the tough, but warm-hearted character familiar to anyone who has seen films such as Rio Bravo or Sons Of Katie Elder – all that was needed to completely dispel the mood would have been for him to don a cowboy hat.That "Wake Of The Red Witch" works at all is due to its outlandish, larger-than-life story, Wayne's personal magnetism, and to very good work by the supporting cast.
She provides the perfect foil to Wayne's testosterone charged Ralls, making believable his transformation into the gentle, sensitive lover he becomes in her company."Wake Of The Red Witch" is so over-the-top it almost defies criticism.
Later in his career, John Wayne would bring a certain amount of self-parody to his roles but in "Wake of the Red Witch" he plays it straight.
John Wayne is Master of the Red Witch in 1860 and, with the complicity of his first mate, Gig Young, runs her aground and sinks her along with her cargo of millions of dollars in gold.
And millions of dollars of gold that belong to Adler sit in the belly of the sunken Red Witch, whose location is known only to Wayne.Wayne's performance is about at par.
(He was hesitant about admitting that he had lung cancer because the public Duke should not be laid low by a disease.) He seemed not to recognize it when he showed his considerable talent in character roles in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," for instance, or "True Grit." After "The Wake of the Red Witch," I don't think he ever allowed his screen character to approach villainy so closely.In any case, this may be Luther Adler's film.
"The Wake of the Red Witch" is a curious film in that it stars John Wayne as a villain, or at least as something closer to a villain than to the sort of clean-cut characters Wayne usually played, or even to his flawed heroes in films like "The Searchers" and "The Shootist".
Wayne's character Captain Ralls is a ship's captain in the Dutch East Indies during the 1860s.
It is already clear that the two men are enemies of long standing, and the two flashbacks, taken together, explain the reason for their enmity, why Ralls sank the Red Witch and why Sidneye dropped the proceedings against him.
The full story is too complicated to set out here, but it revolves around their rivalry for the love of the same woman, Angelique.The highly melodramatic plot, in fact, gets a bit too convoluted at times and can be difficult to follow.
Gail Russell, who had also starred with Wayne the previous year in "Angel and the Badman", is a bit insipid as the lovely Angelique.
(This scene may have inspired a similar scene in another seafaring yarn from a few years later, "Pearl of the South Seas", which features an even more ludicrously unconvincing giant octopus).On the other hand, Luther Adler is good as the greedy and obsessive shipping magnate Sidneye, and Ludwig's unusual narrative style does enough to hold our interest.
In 1949 our family saw it twice, two nights in a row, at our neighborhood theater; the only such movie.A mean and brooding John Wayne sails the South Seas in search of riches and power, and will find Gail Russell in the process.
The big problem is the ship has landed precariously on an underwater ledge, not on a flat sea-bottom.Three years later, Republic starred John Wayne in "The Quiet Man." No doubt their all time best movie.
But for 3 years, Red Witch was their very best.
The plot is more or less Wuthering Heights with seaweed and in the Heathcliff role Duke Wayne acquits himself reasonably well whilst Gail Russell trades heavily on her fragile beauty and lacks the spine of a Cathy Earnshaw.
Unfortunately, my long wait was not rewarded and instead I saw one of John Wayne's worst films of the 1940s.
Second, Wayne's part was also terribly uneven and his character seemed, at times, like a jerk--and once again, a lot like the guy he played in REAP THE WILD WIND.
Wake of the Red Witch (1948) is a pretty poor romantic drama and its plot is virtually the same as the Gothic novel, "Wuthering Heights" or at least the famous 1939 adaptation of it.
John Wayne is looking for riches surrounded by natives, Gail Russell, Luther Adler and a very young Gig Young.The picture should have been in color for starters.
Wouldn't you really like to see The "Red" Witch of a boat?The story is one of revenge between Luther Adler, a vicious, cunning individual who stole Gale Russell from the clutches of Wayne.To get revenge, Wayne sunk Adler's Red Witch boat and Adler shall reciprocate as the film goes on.Miss Russell must have thought that she was Merle Oberon in the way that she attempted to play her death scene similar to Oberon's "Wuthering Heights." The uneven writing doesn't help one bit.Wayne joining Miss Russell in death at the end while searching for gold at the bottom of the sea is Hollywood mush.This film needs to be waked..
. of its 2001 Artisan "John Wayne Collection" DVD release could not even keep the main facts straight themselves on their WAKE OF THE RED WITCH jewel case.
John Wayne fans may wish to skip this picture, as the Duke's character "Capt.
WAKE OF THE RED WITCH is an unusual outing for John Wayne and a far cry from the typical western pictures that he's best known for. |
tt1535970 | The Ledge | Detective Hollis Lucetti (Terrence Howard) receives news from a doctor that he has been sterile his entire life. Upon reaching home, he questions his wife about who their children's father is.
The story switches to Gavin Nichols (Charlie Hunnam), an atheist, standing on a ledge as if to jump to his death. A small crowd forms below Gavin, and Hollis responds to the emergency. At first it looks like a regular suicide attempt. It is quickly revealed to be more complex than that, as Gavin explains to Hollis that he has no other choice than to jump, or somebody else will die.
The story flashes back and describes the story of the love triangle between Gavin, Shana (Liv Tyler) and Joe (Patrick Wilson). Shana is the new girl at the hotel where Gavin works. She lives with her husband Joe in an apartment just down the hall from Gavin's. Joe is a fundamentalist Christian who infantilizes Shana. During a visit one night, Gavin and Joe discuss religion. Gavin is an atheist, and he neatly picks apart Joe's born again belief system, pointing out that most of the people on Earth would go to Hell, even Catholics, if Joe's faith were correct. Gavin points out that a Chinese child who dies in a traffic accident might never even know about Jesus, and therefore have no chance to be born again. Joe's response is that such an example is not proof of God's unfairness, but merely the reason why Christians are called to proselytize. Their discussion heats up into a full blown argument that ends when Shana asks Gavin to leave.
At work, Shana notices Gavin consoling one of his grief-stricken employees with talk about God. He puts on a genuine act as a believer which helps calm the employee down. On a walk with Gavin one day, she confides in him that she used to be a drug addict and a prostitute. She ended up with a john one night who liked to have sex in empty churches. He beat her badly afterward, and Joe discovered her in the sanctuary. Joe helped her turn her life around, and she feels an immense debt of gratitude to him. She tells Gavin that Joe wants them to move to Uganda to spread God's word.
Gavin and Shana spend more time with each other, and they eventually begin an affair. Joe quickly deduces what is going on and witnesses their assignations. He confronts Gavin as he is leaving for work and insists that he join him for a talk. In his apartment, Joe tells Gavin that he previously had a wife and two kids, but he would leave them at night to score drugs and hookers and do all kinds of depraved things. He lost his family and was drunk in a gutter when he was born again. He believes that, after God had already given him so much, God gave him Shana to take care of. He quotes Psalm 23 to Gavin and forces him at gunpoint to read Leviticus 20:10, "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
Gavin counters with the story of the adulteress from John 8, whom Jesus saves by ordering only those without sin to cast a stone at her. Joe agrees that Gavin has a point, but he questions whether Gavin has the conviction to die for his beliefs. The next day, when Shana is supposed to leave Joe, Gavin is waiting for her to call. Joe calls Gavin instead and orders him to the top of a building. Joe has decided that, "I'm more of an Old Testament kind of guy", but instead of killing both Gavin and Shana, only one of them has to die. Joe has Shana at gunpoint and will kill her at noon if Gavin does not jump off the building.
Lucetti grows increasingly desperate to save Gavin. He tells him more about his story, explaining that his wife committed adultery out of love and fear that she would lose her husband. She wanted their children to look as much like Lucetti as possible. So, she slept with his younger brother. Gavin scolds Lucetti for focusing too much on the pain of his wife's betrayal instead of the love that motivated her. He asks Lucetti to tell Shana he loves her before jumping off the building. The police find Joe and Shana in a hotel room with a direct view of Gavin's suicide. Joe is arrested. Lucetti goes home to his wife and kids, seemingly determined to reconcile. | boring, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0054001 | Komisario Palmun erehdys | The film opens with a scene of guests arriving at the crime-themed dinner party of Bruno Rygseck, the rich and decadent heir of the Rykämö concern. The guests are his cousins Airi and Aimo Rykämö, Airi's fiancé Erik Vaara, who works for the concern and strongly dislikes Bruno, and Irma Vanne, the daughter of vuorineuvos Vanne. In order to scare them as they arrive, Bruno has dressed up as the Grim Reaper.
The next morning, inspector Palmu and detectives Virta and Kokki are informed that Bruno has drowned in his indoor swimming pool after slipping on a bar of soap. They head to the Rygseck house to conduct a routine investigation. The party guests (with the exception of Vanne), as well as Bruno's aunt Amalia Rygseck and his estranged wife Alli Rygseck, are present at the house, as all of them had had something to discuss with Bruno that morning. As Palmu inspects the bathroom, he begins to suspect that Bruno was in fact murdered. When the policemen are shown around the house by Bruno's manservant, Veijonen, they find Vanne and famous author K.V. Laihonen engrossed in lively conversation in the basement. They are oblivious to the morning's events, as they had entered the house through the back door when coke was delivered in the early morning and have since been in the basement. Although Laihonen does not know Bruno or Vanne from before, he had been invited to the house by her to get back the stolen manuscript of his unpublished novel.
The atmosphere in the house becomes increasingly hostile towards the investigation as Palmu asks more detailed questions about the morning's events. He learns that the previous night, Aimo had stolen Amalia's cat and brought it with him to the dinner party, where Bruno had poisoned it and invited her to view the cadaver for his amusement. Despite Palmu's suspicions, the investigation is closed due to pressure from the powerful Rygsecks and because there is no evidence to prove that the death was not accidental. Laihonen asks the policemen and Vanne to join him at the luxurious Hotel Kämp for a late lunch.
At Kämp, Vanne tells the policemen more about the previous night. They had been playing a game in which each contestant has to commit a crime that the victim cannot report to the police. The winner was to be chosen by Vaara at the party. Her crime had been to steal the manuscript; Aimo's to steal the cat; and Airi's to have ten of Aimo's promissory notes signed by Bruno. She had refused to reveal how she had gotten them, other than that it was blackmail. Bruno had then asked Vaara to come to his bedroom in order to show him his crime in private. Afterwards, Vaara had stormed out of the house in fury, after stating that Bruno had won the contest.
When Palmu and the detectives arrive back at the police station late in the afternoon, they are told that Alli Rygseck has been poisoned with prussic acid mixed in her absinthe. She had been back at the Rygseck house to discuss with the family members who was to inherit from Bruno: she had insisted that she should get the house. Bruno's case is now also re-opened, and the policemen head back to the house. Palmu interrogates Airi about the promissory notes, and she reveals that Aimo had been forging Bruno's signature to pay off his gambling debts. Bruno had told her that he would contact the police about it unless she were to agree to do something, although she refuses to specify exactly what. In Bruno's bedroom, Palmu finds an album of nude photographs he had taken of his female friends, with one page torn off.
That evening, the policemen meet Bruno's uncle Gunnar Rygseck, the head of the Rykämö concern, at his office. He tries to bribe Palmu and claims that Bruno was suicidal and had intended the poisoned absinthe for himself before dying accidentally. Next, Palmu confronts Vaara, whose office is in the same building, about what Bruno showed him. It is revealed to have been a nude photograph of Airi, which Palmu notices is a forgery. He tells Vaara that Aimo killed Bruno and that Airi will be imprisoned as an accomplice as she has tried to protect her brother: this leads Vaara to confess to Bruno's murder. Palmu asks for Airi, who also works for the concern, to come to Vaara's office. She confirms that the photograph is forged, and finds the idea that her brother killed Bruno laughable. Vaara takes back his confession, and Palmu admits that he never truly believed either him or Aimo to be the murderer.
Palmu calls the Rygseck house, where Amalia is moving in, and is told by her that Veijonen has disappeared. Palmu goes to interrogate Vanne again, and she confesses to have in fact secretly stayed in Alli Rygseck's old bedroom on the night of the party. When she walked through the corridor leading to the bathroom the next morning in order to get to the back door, she thought that a stair creaked behind her, as if someone else was there as well. Palmu places her on house arrest at Laihonen's apartment.
In order to get the murderer to act, Palmu sends detective Virta to tell all the suspects that Vanne knows something about the murders. He is also to get Bruno's photo album from the Rygseck house and to go show it to Vanne. At the house, Amalia convinces Virta to give her his gun for protection as she is scared of Veijonen. When Virta returns to the station, he learns that Veijonen has been caught and is cleared of the murders. Soon after, Palmu calls Laihonen and asks to speak to Vanne. He admits that she has gone to help Amalia search the house – he had lied to the gullible Virta earlier that she was asleep. The police rush back to the Rygseck house, and stop Amalia from shooting Vanne. In the struggle, Virta is shot in the shoulder.
In the final scene, it is revealed that Amalia has been mentally ill for some time and that she murdered Bruno as revenge for killing her cat. The murder weapon was her umbrella with a sturdy wooden handle that she always carried with her. As she is elderly and not of sound mind, she is not prosecuted but is left to the care of her brother. | insanity, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0071941 | Once | A thirty-something busker performs with his guitar on Grafton Street, a Dublin shopping district and chases a man who steals his money. Lured by his music, a young Czech flower seller talks to him about his songs. Delighted to learn that he repairs hoovers, she insists that he fix her broken hoover. The next day she returns with her broken hoover and tells him that she is also a musician.
At a music store where the Czech woman regularly plays piano, the man teaches her one of his songs ("Falling Slowly"); they sing and play together. He invites her to his father's shop, and on the bus home musically answers her question about what his songs are about: a long-time girlfriend who cheated on him, then left ("Broken Hearted Hoover Fixer Sucker Guy").
At the shop, the man introduces the woman to his father and takes her to his room, but when he asks her to stay the night, she feels insulted and leaves. The next day, they reconcile and spend the week writing, rehearsing and recording songs. The woman rehearses lyrics for one of his songs ("If You Want Me"), singing to herself while walking down the street; at a party, people perform impromptu (including "Gold").
The man works on "Lies", a song about his ex-girlfriend, who moved to London. The woman encourages him to win her back. Invited to the woman's home, the man discovers that she has a toddler and lives with her mother. He decides to move to London, but he wants to record a demo of his songs to take with him and asks the woman to record it with him. They secure a bank loan and reserve time at a recording studio.
The man learns the woman has a husband in the Czech Republic. When he asks if she still loves her husband, she answers in Czech, "Miluju tebe", but coyly declines to translate. After recruiting a band from other buskers, they go into the studio to record. They impress Eamon, the jaded studio engineer, with their first song ("When Your Mind's Made Up"). On a break in the early morning, the woman finds a piano in an empty studio and plays the man one of her own compositions ("The Hill").
After the all-night session wraps up, they walk home. Before they part ways, the woman reveals that she spoke to her husband and he is coming to live with her in Dublin. The man persuades her to spend his last night in Dublin with him, but she stands him up and he cannot find her to say goodbye before his flight. He plays the demo for his father, who gives him money to help him get settled in London. Before leaving for the airport, the man buys the woman a piano and makes arrangements for its delivery, then calls his ex-girlfriend, who is happy about his imminent arrival. The woman reunites with her husband in Dublin and plays the piano in their home. | good versus evil, allegory | train | wikipedia | Good and Evil clash and, naturally, the innocent suffer..
Filmed on a beach, with only three actors, and with absolutely no talking, this story centers on the conflict between the Creator, who has the power to create plants and animals, and the Destroyer, who tries but can not create life.
At first the Destroyer tries to emulate the Creator, but becomes frustrated because he can't create life as the Creator does.
The Destroyer vents his frustration by damaging and even killing the living things around him.
Eventually, the Creator creates a woman and she becomes a pawn in the struggle with the Destroyer.I really loved this film.
The pictures were beautiful and acting convincing and understated.
The metaphorical elements of the story made me ponder the depths of my personal philosophy and had me talking about the film for days.
I always wondered why it didn't become a famous cult movie.
I wish more people had seen it, but it didn't get any PR at all.
Almost everybody will recognize the three actors.
This movie is a memorable experience and I would recommend it to everybody..
A beautiful lost post-apocalypse film.
I saw this film just "once," at the World Science Fiction Convention in Kansas City in 1977.
Marta Kristen was radiantly beautiful in it.
I have not seen it since and consider it my "Holy Grail" of lost films.
I am unaware of any video or DVD releases.
It's a near-classic and deserves availability!.
I was impressed with the raw energy of the film and have remembered it all these years..
"Once" tells a fascinating story of temptation and seduction of innocence told in a most basic style but with a deeper meaning and an original point of view.
Even with the narrow stage of one location (an island), three actors, and no dialogue, Once manages to create an alluring background for the exceptional pantomime and expression of the cast.
Jim Malinda in the role of temptation projects his part with full energy and clarity.
The chemistry of the small cast gets a grip on the emotions then takes a roller-coaster ride as the age-old story of good and evil unfolds.
Once would play well in Art theatres and with cult film fans, It's the kind of movie I remember in my gut as well as my mind..
A mythological allegory on the fundamental dichotomy.
Few filmmakers attempt, much less succeed, at producing a quintessentially cinematic work of art.
"Once" manages to reveal the seminal forces underlying all drama by fully utilizing the powerful medium of moving pictures.
There are better movies but none that I've seen that could tell so much without uttering a word of dialogue.
Deep in all of us are the archetypes we can recognize in the 3 characters.
If we absorb the truth that this movie attempts to reveal we would understand that what appears to be multiplicity becomes singular from a broader more enlightened perspective..
Unique.
A picture that will be unique for all time.
As timely as when it was made in 1974 and will still be timely a hundred years from now.
As in the beginning of time where it starts and ends.
Unique, in that cinema has not gone here before.
A film of such great beauty and yet not a word of dialog with only three characters. |
tt0050758 | Naya Daur | The film is set in post-independence India, where industrialization is slowly creeping in. The focus is on tongawallahs who earn their living transporting people on tongas (horse carts). Their livelihood is threatened when the son of a rich landlord (Jeevan) begins operating a bus service in the town, which he subsidizes heavily with the sole intention of first driving the tongawallahs out of the town and then making profits.
Dilip Kumar plays one of the tongawallahs, who petitions the landlord over this injustice. Jeevan's character proposes a competition to decide which service is the best: The bus or the Tonga? It is decided that there will be a race between the vehicles. If the bus wins, the tongawallahs will not complain further. If the Tonga wins, the bus service will stop. This competition was a farce from the start since nobody could dream that a horse cart could beat a machine. Kumar, however, accepts the challenge to everybody's surprise. His logic is that they would be driven to starvation if the bus service continues. This race at least gives them an opportunity to try to do something.
The rest of the tongawallahs do not share his hope. They blame him for his foolishness. In the end, he is left alone with nobody's support except his sweetheart, played by Vyjayanthimala. As the movie unfolds, a hopeless situation begins to turn around because of the way the people come together. Mishap after mishap occurs, but nothing can deter the determined. The highlight of the film is definitely the heart-stopping final race where the underdog wins. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0096378 | Vibes | Lauper plays Sylvia Pickel (pronounced with an emphasis on the "kel", as she points out), a trance-medium who has contact with a wisecracking spirit guide named Louise. She first began communicating with Louise after falling from a ladder at the age of twelve and remaining comatose for two weeks. Subsequently, Louise taught her astral projection while Sylvia was placed in special homes for being "different." At a study of physics, she meets fellow psychic Nick Deezy (Goldblum), a psychometrist who can determine the history of events surrounding an object by touching it. Sylvia has a history of bad luck with men, and her overly flirtatious behavior turns off Nick right away.
Sylvia comes home to her apartment one night to find Harry Buscafusco (Falk) lounging in her kitchen. He claims to want to hire her for $50,000 if she'll accompany him to Ecuador where his son has allegedly gone missing. Sylvia recruits Nick who is reluctant but also eager to leave his job as a museum curator where his special talents are abused like a circus act.
Once the two get there, they initially set out to where Harry's son was last seen, only to have Nick's powers tell them that Harry is up to something. Harry confesses that what he is actually looking for is a lost city of gold up in the mountains and that his last partner, who discovered it, went insane. Nick angrily retreats back to the hotel followed by Sylvia who feels embarrassed over being fooled by yet another man.
At the hotel Nick is attacked by a woman who tries to drug and then stab him, saying "You think you can just come here and take it away from us?" Convinced that there is something important, if dangerous, at work he agrees to trek back into the mountains to search for this lost city. The group makes a detour to visit Harry's former partner, who is in a vegetative state in the hospital. When Nick lays hands on him he receives a jolt of tremendous psychic energy; the former partner immediately dies.
Unexpectedly, the three are set upon by Ingo Swedlin (Googy Gress), another psychic from their test group. He holds them at gunpoint and threatens to kill them, but Sylvia uses Louise to get in touch with his long lost mother and the group escapes. They begin their journey anew only to once again be confronted by Ingo and by Doctor Harrison Steele (Sands). Ingo throws a knife into Harry's back and kills him, and the other two are taken hostage. They are forced to lead the way to this alleged city of gold.
Upon arriving, the group discovers an ancient pyramid shaped structure with mystical carvings. Sylvia translates them and they appear to reveal that the location was built by an ancient alien race who has embedded all of the psychic energy of the world into this pyramid. Using the translation Sylvia provided, Ingo attempts to decipher the secret to harnessing the energy, but before he can, Sylvia lays hands on the pyramid and allows the dangerous forces to flow through her. She kills their captors and is nearly killed herself, but survives. However, she permanently loses contact with her spirit guide Louise, who sacrifices her connection to Sylvia in order to save her and Nick, in the process.
The two return to their hotel, battered and bruised but thankful that they played a part in releasing a dangerous force. Later that night they reconvene in Sylvia's room and bring to fruition a romantic flirtation that has permeated the film. Before they can make love, however, Sylvia hits her head on the headboard and reveals that a spirit guide has re-entered her life. It is not Louise, however, but the ghost of Harry. | paranormal, cult, murder | train | wikipedia | I like Jeff Goldblum in just about every movie he does, including this one, though here as Nick he seems a bit more distracted than usual.
If I always wanted an intricate intellectual acting masterpiece with minimal music and scenery, I'd watch 12 Angry Men (1957) another dozen times, but Vibes is just the thing for light, fun fare..
I've seen this movie about 30 times and it always makes me feel good..
Theres something in the atmosphere in the film that makes me feel good and the environment where the movie is made is just beautiful.
the 'real' film critics are saying that you can't rate a movie just on behalf of the spectacular scenery but FU, I say).
Rent this movie and let your brain rest for awhile, just enjoy the the scenery, the acting, the story and the eighties !!
This is a lovely story of two psychics (Cyndi Lauper and Jeff Goldblum) being hired by Harry (Peter Falk) to look for his missing son, but later realize that he actually wants them to help him find a rumored "room of gold" in the deep mountains.
Lauper's performance is surprisingly stunning and funny, the scenery and the soundtrack are both beautiful, the movie is wonderfully shot in Ecuador and full of witty remarks.
This is one of my favorite movies from the 80's, I know it's cheesy but thats what I loved about it and Peter Falk is hilarious.
The way the three main characters play off each other is brilliant and who knew Cindi Lauper could act???This movie was never going to win any awards and they all knew that before they started filming, Jeff Goldblum has always shown up in oddball movies ranging from Comedy to Drama To Sci-fi to Horror showing his range in acting.OK, no matter your opinion on this film the big Question is....
Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper are a quirky romantic match.
Cheerful, underrated comedy about psychics served as a showcase for pop singer Cyndi Lauper (in her acting debut).
She's a comic natural playing Sylvia Pickel, an unlucky-in-love single gal whose "psychic guide" leads her into the arms of fellow clairvoyant Jeff Goldblum (in possibly his smoothest comic performance to date).
Both have been duped by con-man Peter Falk into finding a lost city of gold in Ecuador, and for the most part "Vibes" is a funny, knockabout journey with witty vignettes scattered about.
My nephew was particularly amused by Cyndi Lauper's acting - he thought she was great.
Sylvia (Cyndi Lauper) and Nick (Jeff Goldblum) meet at an institute studying those individuals who have psychic abilities.
Can Sylvia and Nick begin to like each other among the Inca ruins?This is, truly, a funny movie.
This is a light hearted film featuring a knock out comedy performance by Cindi Lauper.
Jeff Goldblum is charming, bemused and droll and Peter Falk is so funny.
They all wind up in South America seeking "a room of gold", and dancing a lovely tango.The scenery is beautiful, the music lush.I consider this movie a friend..
If one simply ignores the naughty entendre of some her songs like Girls Wanna Have Fun, you can feel that she exudes the aura and exuberance of the teenybop, bubblegum crowd which formed the base of her fans at the zenith of her popularity in the '80s despite the fact that she belongs to another age group altogether.Cyndi is funny and can definitely act.
However, we can look to the past and take solace in the fact that actresses like Fanny Brice, Myrna Loy, Barbra Streisand and Goldie Hawn all enjoy sizeable cult followers.Full of witty and hilarious repartees, Vibes is worth viewing over and over.
I have seen this film at least five times and each time I find it hilarious.Not only are the jokes funny, the performers superb, but unlike many comedies the jokes fit tightly with the action and the plot line is solid and engaging.
The best mother-in-law joke is not as funny to someone who has never had a mother-in-law, and not funny at all to someone who doesn't even know what one is.The cast, as you can see, includes Falk and Goldblum, two extremely funny guys who give superb performances.
But Lauper also gives, in her first screen appearance, an extremely funny performance; she is a gifted comedienne, and it is a shame her film career never took off.
Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper were very cute together and Peter Falk was very delightful to watch.
The special effects were very good and you couldn't help but like the characters (mostly Cyndi Lauper).
Good Clean Fun. Whatever the quality of the acting, the scenery, the locations etc., this movie is just good clean fun - so much so that you can see the actors themselves grinning during certain scenes.There are some great one-liners, some unique actions - find the "handshake" at the racetrack for a good example.The opening music is dramatic (low end's are cool) and Cyndi's closing number is a classic.Yes, this film is not as sophisticated as many others but who want's sophistication all the time?
"Vibes" is a totally fun, light, cotton-candy puff of a movie and a bit more.
The plot is stupid but still hilarious, and Cyndi Lauper turns in a surprisingly (or not surprisingly) wonderful debut performance as an ultra-quirky psychic.
Of course, watching 'Vibes' does not make you a better or more intellectual person, but it has absolutely brilliant one-lines throughout the conversations between Cyndi Lauper and Jeff Goldblum, which are hard to beat, such as 'I like breathing
I'm good at it' or 'do you number everything?'.
And if you are looking for two people, who do not take themselves seriously at all, Lauper and Goldblum are the perfect couple.As long as you like 'weird' movies, 'Vibes' will not disappoint you.
Vibes was Cyndi Laupers' first movie project and I can't for the life of me understand why most reviews I've read are poor.The film is beautifully shot on location in Equador and has an enjoyable and atmospheric soundtrack.
It co-stars three very successful actors and manages well to mix comedy with drama.I can only imagine that reviewers have not given the film enough credit because they might expect it to be bad.This is one of my most favorite films and although, yes, I am a fan of Cyndis' I admit her other films are not as good.Watch it and enjoy ********.
Glad to read it is supposed to come out on DVD early in '09.Jeff Goldblum is always interesting, Peter Faulk is always likable and hilarious.The biggest surprise is Cyndi Lauper.
A must watch movie filmed in Cojitambo (Cañar, Ecuador)!!!.
I know its a cheesy movie, but overall it was entertaining and fun.
This movie brings good memories for me, since I can see some known people from my village and my elementary school.daria84 says "they showed an awesome footage of Ambato (a City located in the highlands) in the end of the movie when Sylvia is out in the balcony", let me tell you that's not Ambato, but that's Cojitambo's Hill shot from Azogues.
The cast includes comic masters Falk and Goldblum, and Lauper does a great job in one of her first roles; these are little gems of comic performances.
Sands and Gress are great as well.The plot moves along briskly and the action/adventure/travel side of the film works on its own as well as framing the humor.
It has the same uplifting effect as another under-rated comedy masterpiece, _Into The Night_, also featuring Jeff Goldblum.Films like _The Matrix_ and _Star Wars_ are sometimes praised for communicating a philosophical and spiritual message.
On the other hand, _Vibes_ and _Into the Night_ are both low-key, pessimistic, even cynical films that paradoxically seem to be driven by an inner engine of warmth and insight that can give viewers a real lift instead of hollow thrills.If you like _Vibes_ try another way-out-there under-rated comedy, _Simon_ (1980) with Alan Arkin..
I thought both Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper were good in their roles, though I do believe Cyndi's character was not to much of a stretch.
I also enjoyed Peter Falk who played the man who wanted their assistance.
a fun filled adventure with Cyndi Lauper, Jeff Goldblum and Peter Falk ,.
We have seen this movie quite a few times and would love to do so again.
Cyndi Lauper does a fantastic job of acting the part of Sylvia who is psychic and Jeff Goldblum has a ball in his part as another psychic , both of whom are conned into traveling to South America to help Harry(Peter Falk) find his "son".
The comedy is really good and it is such a fun movie that our kids love it too.
I would recommend this movie, especially for Cyndi Lauper fans.
Geeez, you're only from the country, it's not like you helped finance the damn thing!Anyway, I found Lauper and Goldblum to be extremely charming and so on time with their witty banter.
Cyndi Lauper is almost as talented an actress as she is a musician, and this movie reveals that fact again and again.
I would recommend seeing this movie to anyone, it will make you run to the video store to search for more titles starring Cyndi Lauper..
I found the combination of Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper on screen to be captivating.
In this comedy, the underhanded Harry Buscafusco (Peter Falk) tricks two naive psychics, Sylvia Pickel (Cyndi Lauper) and Nick Deezy (Jeff Goldblum), into helping him locate a hidden treasure in Ecuador.This film is terrible.
Vibes is one of my favorite movies of all time and I watch it at least 5 times (sometimes more) a year.
It raises my mood and just generally makes my day so much better after watching it...I can't really explain it there, but others say the same thing that love this underrated movie.
An endearingly quirky late 80s adventure comedy with a bit of romance on the side, sees Jeff Goldblum and Cindy Lauper as psychics hired on to head to Ecuador to find a treasure of a lost Aztec civilisation.
The support cast is remotely good with the likes of Julian Sands, Peter Falk, Michael Lerner and a very minor part for a pre-stardom Steve Buscemi.
The indistinct plot is quite slow going, often silly and never does it feel all that complete with little going on, but it's the snappy script with its one-liners and performances (especially Falk's comical turn) that makes it quite agreeable along with the exotic South American locations.
It's faults (weak special effects, and underdeveloped script) are swamped by the enthusiastic performances of Cyndi Lauper and Jeff Goldblum.
Although VIBES is by no means a great film, I found it quite entertaining.
Cyndi Lauper plays her role adequately, and somehow the not-quite-serious tone of it all makes it a fun movie.
I suppose it's the quirky interplay of Lauper and Goldblum that I find enjoyable, along with the overtones of mysticism, and the South American locations are lovely to look at.It's what I would call a "bubble-gum" movie - - not a lot of substance, but not a bad way to while away a couple of hours.Your taste may vary.
When it was released in 1988, most reviews were poor and the film was entirely dismissed as a credible notation on Cyndi Lauper's career.
Beautifully filmed on location in Ecuador, "Vibes" is the story of two psychics (Lauper and Jeff Goldblum) who are hired by a man (Peter Falk) who is looking for his missing son.
What they do not know is that he just hired them to help him find a mythical "Room of Gold." The chemistry between Lauper and Goldblum is there.
This is a relatively predicable, light-weight adventure thriller that has its moments and humor as post-Big Chill (1983), post-The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984), post-The Fly (1986) and pre-Jurassic Park (1993) Jeff Goldblum character goes about his quirky self and known more for her singing than acting Cyndi Lauper.
Jeff Goldblum does his usual excellent job as a comic performer, but a real surprise is his costar Cyndi Lauper of pop music fame.
I wonder why she didn't sky rocket with a comic film career as well as her already excellent music career.Peter Falk plays the swindler in search of riches, who then manipulates those around him to get what he wants.
And it was released in the '80s when there were a lot of movies about psychics making their run through the circuits...but this one was combined it with classic adventure.Movies like this were awesome...huge from the Golden Age of the Silver Screen into the '90s when they started to peter out until, well, until they vanished leaving us with nothing but Super Hero films to fill the void......I have nothing against Super Hero films, but I love adventure films too.I can see where folks would not like it, especially the people that take themselves too seriously.
Throw in a semi-bumbling sidekick and you have what I like to call "High Adventure." "Vibes" follows that outline and if you are the kind of individual that is still young enough at heart to love adventure films...you will inevitably like this movie.If you are the kind of man or woman that takes everything extremely seriously and refuses to play at all, not matter what it is.
Vibes is a film that, like Dark Star, should really be appreciated by anyone who loves film and appreciates smart-but-silly humor.
It has higher quality production values and much better acting than Dark Star, but is lighter and less dark.Others have talked about the great comedic timing and lots else to enjoy in this film, so I'll skip all that, and just give a word of advice....
Jeff Goldblum, Cindy Lauper, and Peter Falk star in "Vibes," a 1988 comedy.Goldblum and Lauper play psychics Nicky Deezy and Sylvia Pickel (pronounced pick-EL) who are at an institute where their abilities are being tested.
What makes it a cut above a fluffy comedy is the casting of Cindy Lauper, a unique personality, the talented, quirky Jeff Goldblum, and the always wonderful Peter Falk.
I think my favorite scene is the one where Goldblum confronts him, and Falk quickly makes up another story to support his lies.Fun movie..
It's very silly, but it's reasonably funny and the Indiana-Jones-style adventure aspects are pretty well done.The big surprise of the movie when it came out was Cyndi Lauper as a wacky psychic who dresses like a very colorful hooker.
This is one of my trashy loves.A very unique story line about psychics looking for the lost city of gold.
Let go of your brain and enjoy the quirkiness of it all.I loved Cyndi Lauper in this flick.
I agree with Rick (I'm glad someone else feels the same way), I really loved this film, and I've watched it more than once.
So, if you just want a funny movie, maybe you can find better.
But if you want to see one of Cyndi Lauper's few movies, one of Goldblum's most-likely-not-to-be-listed-among-movie-credits (except for possibly Earth Girls are Easy) movies, then sit back and enjoy.
"Vibes" is another loser from the 1980s as Peter Falk hires psychics Cyndi Lauper and Jeff Goldblum to find his lost son.
Ever wanted to be in an exotic jungle hotel with Cyndi Lauper or Jeff Goldblum?
Nice portrayals by Julian Sands and Peter Falk are also featured here.Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper portray psychics hired by a man of questionable motivations to find his son who disappeared while looking for an ancient Incan city.
This is one of those movies.Lauper is Sylvia and Goldblum is Nick, they are both psychics.
I don't give away the ending, but some of the funny scenes.Psychics Cyndi Lauper and Jeff Goldblum are hilarious.
Jeff Goldblum as a psychometrist and Cyndi Lauper as a (sort of) trance medium are good; Peter Falk as a conniver is nearly perfect.
So when the Goldblum character discovers his girlfriend's infidelities, it's especially, and amusingly, believable.To his last line in the film, Peter Falk plays somebody who's always trying to find an edge that will bring him some extra benefit.
His character was a good addition, to leaven some of the more serious stuff.This is not a film everybody will enjoy, but I found it very entertaining..
Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper are a comedic smash together.
Peter Faulk plays a con man who entices Goldblum and Lauper to travel with him to Equador and use their psychic gifts to find his missing son.
Cyndi Lauper, Jeff Goldblum, Peter Falk and Julian Sands star in this 1988 comedy.
I grew up watching this film and always liked it.
If it focused more on the characters psychic powers, rather than turning into a pseudo Indiana Jones wannabe halfway through the film, it could have been something.The actors are not to blame, the writing is terrible, and Goldblum does his best bumbling fool act he mastered in the eighties before he became Mister Frost.Lauper has screen presence, but my gosh, her voice is so grating, I was desperately seeking Susan toward the end.It's a real shame, because the first twenty minutes is really entertaining and quite funny when we meet the psychics and their own brand of kooky powers.But then the film tries too hard to be clever, and it loses any momentum that it had to begin with.If your an eighties aficionado, it's firmly stuck in the eighties, with the music and clothing, but that's all there is to recommend..
Good God that was the longest and most boring hour and a half of my life!Ok, so I have always been a big fan of Cindy Lauper as a singer, and Jeff Goldblum, but gosh they are so awful in this movie that it's not even funny! |
tt0059319 | The Ipcress File | The novel is framed as the unnamed protagonist delivering his personal report on "the IPCRESS affair" directly to the Minister of Defence, thus making the novel itself the 'IPCRESS File' of the title. The events begin soon after his transfer from military intelligence to WOOC(P), a small civilian intelligence agency reporting directly to the British Cabinet, where he works under the command of a man named Dalby. An intelligence broker code-named "Jay" is suspected to be behind a series of kidnappings of highly placed and influential British VIPs with the intention of selling them to the Soviets, and the protagonist is assigned to meet with Jay in order to secure the release of "Raven", a high-ranking scientist and his latest target. After meeting Jay at a sleazy Soho strip club to negotiate Raven's release, the protagonist is abandoned; investigating his surroundings, he discovers Raven's unconscious body in a back room and attempts to rescue him, but is unsuccessful.
WOOC(P) receives intelligence that Raven is to be transferred to the Soviets in Beirut, and a rescue mission is organised with Dalby and the protagonist participating. The protagonist is assigned as a lookout while Dalby kills Raven's captors and rescues him. The protagonist is forced to kill the occupants of a car which suddenly arrives on the scene in order to maintain the cover of the operation, believing them to be operatives working for Jay; they instead turn out to be members of ONI. The operation is otherwise a success and Raven is recovered, but the investigation into Jay continues. Dalby disappears, apparently going undercover, leaving the protagonist temporarily in charge of WOOC(P). At this point the protagonist's former superior from military intelligence, Colonel Ross, approaches the protagonist offering to sell him confidential information related to the affair. The protagonist rejects the offer in disgust, but begins to second-guess himself.
Carswell, a statistician from another department assigned to the matter, begins noting a range of bizarre and seemingly irrelevant links between many of the kidnap victims. A break suddenly appears when Housemartin, one of Jay's high-ranking operatives, is arrested in Shoreditch for impersonating a police officer, but by the time the protagonist and Murray, another operative assigned to the case, arrive at the police station only to discover he has been murdered in his cell. Information from the arrest enables WOOC(P) and the police to storm one of Jay's safe-houses, but it has been abandoned. In order to help with the administration of the department, the protagonist is assigned an assistant, Jean, a beautiful young woman towards whom he begins to develop romantic feelings. Dalby re-emerges, and reveals intelligence suggesting that Jay's operations will interfere with an American neutron bomb test in the Pacific.
Dalby, Jean and the protagonist are sent to the test site as British observers, and while there the protagonist learns from an old friend, Barney, that the Americans suspect him of being a double-agent due to the deaths of the CIA operatives in Beirut. Jean reveals to the protagonist that Dalby has left been visiting an abandoned Japanese bunker on the island. Soon after, Barney is killed in apparently suspicious circumstances, and while following Dalby to the scene the protagonist is present when the bomb test site is sabotaged, setting back the bomb test and killing a military police officer. The protagonist is arrested by the Americans and interrogated, before apparently being transferred to Hungary on suspicion of being a Soviet agent. There, he is drugged and subject to days of psychological and physical torture, and nearly cracks before eventually managing to escape—only to discover that he is in fact in London. The protagonist takes refuge with Charlie Cavendish, the father of a friend killed towards the end of the Second World War, and attempts to reestablish contact with WOOC(P) without being arrested for treason. Charlie is killed by Jay's operatives, forcing the protagonist on the run; he approaches Dalby at his home, but discovers Dalby meeting with Murray, Jay and another of Jay's operatives—confirming the protagonist's suspicions that Dalby is in fact the traitor.
The protagonist is discovered by Murray, who reveals himself to be an undercover operative from military intelligence also investigating Dalby. The protagonist escapes, but is soon captured by Jay's operatives and taken to meet Jay—he has, however, allowed military intelligence to follow them, and Jay and Dalby are arrested by Colonel Ross. The protagonist reveals to Jean that Jay and Dalby were using a process called "Induction of Psycho-neuroses by Conditioned REflex with Stress" (IPCRESS) to brainwash the VIPs into loyalty to the Soviet Union, which they had also unsuccessfully attempted to subject the protagonist to. The seemingly irrelevant links that Carswell had discovered were in fact indicators of the personality traits that Jay had used to determine which VIPs would easily succumb to the process. Dalby was the one who had sabotaged the American bomb test, as part of Jay and Dalby's efforts to frame the protagonist. Colonel Ross reveals that his attempt to sell information to the protagonist had been a test of his loyalty, which the protagonist had passed by rejecting it. The novel ends with the protagonist concluding his report to the Minister, revealing that Jay has turned and began working for the British, while Dalby has been executed and his death covered up as a car accident. | comedy, neo noir, murder, realism, cult, intrigue, brainwashing, suspenseful | train | wikipedia | This London is still coming to terms with the end of World War II and the advent of a modern world.Working Class Palmer is an unwilling Home Office agent with criminal tendencies who is more interested in a pay rise so that he can indulge his true passion, gourmet cooking, than serving his country.
This perspective is aided by the stunning photography that uses every conceivable camera angle (even views from a light bulb!) to see the world from the characters perspective.Look out for the supermarket scene between Ross and Palmer, my vote for the most violent use of a supermarket Trolley in a movie.As Palmer slowly unravels the mysterious disappearance of top government scientists it becomes clear that there is someone close to the top of the British Secret service acting as a double agent.
Although conceived and produced by Harry Salzman and scored by John Barry, this is a film which deliberately positions itself miles away from the up until this time familiar James Bond espionage ethos.
Palmer is the better man - and not just morally either: his appreciation of Mozart ('proper' Mozart, too, not the appalling bandstand variety pushed on him by Daulby) and fine cooking, marks him out as a man of taste, in contrast to the surrounding snobbery and elitism.This theme of class, as well as the locations chosen for 'The Ipcress File' mark it out as a very British spy film - possibly the best one ever in contrast to the Bond cycle, which represented an attempt to create a deliberate trans-Atlantic product.
This is an interesting slant on the usual cold war thriller plots and is much more believable than James Bond films, although it lacks the latter's explosive action.
The musical score by John Barry is another element that works well with one is witnessing.Harry Palmer came alive the way Michael Caine played him.
This was the first of three films to depicted the normal activities and dangerous and extreme situations of British intelligence agent Harry Palmer(played by Michael Caine who became an international star with his portrayal of the working stiff/British spy).
A working class Joe. Caine goes on to make two more Palmer films that were not as successful as the first one;"Funeral in Berlin"(1966),and the last one " The Billion Dollar Brain"(1969),but in all this one was a gem of a good spy flick..
However soon he makes progress and finds himself drawn into a deadly web involving treachery, American agents and a plan to 'brain drain' the UK and weaken its powers.Although it has dated in some regards, The Ipcress File stands up well as a sort of answer to the Bond ideal of the British Secret Service.
Although there are elements most of viewers know from James Bond movies, it is not a clone of them; it was just a mode or manner how spy films in Europe were directed and produced in the 1960ies and later on as well.
This is a well-made gritty spy film set during the cold war years of the 60's.Michael Caine is Harry Palmer, an undercover British agent who we see initially to perform routine surveillance on suspected enemy agents from an apartment in London.
The case is more difficult than usual since the British agents have reasons to believe that one of their own works for the enemy.What makes this film different from the films of the Jame-Bond 007 series is that it portrays a different and more realistic life of intelligence agents that is not glamorized or romanticized.
Instead their lives can be more boring but also more deadly at the same time whereby little details can make the difference between life or death especially if the enemy may anticipate your moves.Eventually Palmer manages to resolve the case he works on (and also stay alive) not because he has the best weaponry or the best information but simply because he follows his instincts.I recommend this film if you are looking for a good mystery and intense thriller.
Books like Len Deighton's "The Impcress File" are designed to be 'the thinking man's secret agent.' Once in, you will follow the exploits of Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) who's background reveals is an ex-burglar and jewel thief who has been recruited from prison by M.I.6 for espionage work.
Michael Caine is Harry Palmer, the spy who came in to get out of the cold, in "The Ipcress File," a non-Bond type spy film set in London.
Neither Ross nor Daulby have a sense of humour neither to they even smile, he and all the cast are perfect, this is what the British Civil Service is really like (I know I worked in it.) The Ipcress file is the first of three superb films in which Palmer is presented as the British version of James Bond.
I think it`s both which is a strength and weakness for THE IPCRESS FILE , a strength because we`re shown that intelligence work is composed of nothing more dynamic than sitting in an office all day looking through files and checking out leads ( Factually correct I imagine ) and a weakness because not many film goers will be interested in watching a spy movie involving an agent who spends much of his time behind a desk and there are maybe a bit too many scenes set in an office .
There`s another problem with THE IPCRESS FILE and that`s once you know who the traitor is the surprise only works once , likewise once Harry escapes from his prison cell we`re treated to a shock revelation and I remember thinking this was a very clever plot twist first time I saw it but seeing it again tonight it doesn`t carry much of an impact .
It has a straightforward plot that you can actually follow (that rarely happens in spy thrillers), dry humor from Caine ("You've got some wiping to do!") and a genuine feel for this genre: it looks just like a spy film is supposed to look..
Michael Caine became an international star with his portrayal of working stiff/Brit spy Harry Palmer in this grabbing 1966 espionage thriller.
However, while also a British secret agent, The Ipcress File's Harry Palmer is entirely different sort of character altogether.
On the other hand, Harry Palmer is a wise-guy who is smart enough to carry out his assigned tasks efficiently but who also doesn't quite fit in.The Ipcress File is a rare type of film, a smart thriller.
It has a very particular style of its own all the way, evident in the environment, the fascinating camera angles, the very laconic dialogue, the austere almost militarily disciplined stringency and the total lack of any make up lustre to the characters - as far from Hollywood as possible, especially Michael Caine as Harry Palmer himself, the very opposite of any James Bond or hero agent with his stolid glasses.The stylishness also dominates the composition of the film, which is almost architectural: no action at all to begin with, very careful hints at what is going on, large desolate offices with stiff strictness, and only gradually the intrigue is introduced with the visit to the abandoned factory and Gordon Jackson's first discovery of the secret - and then the shocks start building up, to culminate in the great brainwash scene as an awesome finale.But that on the other hand is the weakness of the film.
***SPOILERS*** Known as the thinking man's "James Bond" movie has the just released from the brig for stealing booze out of the local army PX former UK Army Sgt. Harry Palmer, Michael Caine, who's recruited by his boss Colonel Ross, Guy Doleman,to find out what's been happening to a number of NATO scientists.
It shows just how dangerous the spy game really is unlike the many "James Bond" real or imitated movies where in it our hero Harry Plamer is just a regular guy or just plain Joe not a superman without all kinds of gadgets to get him out of danger as well as beautiful women in every scene that he's in.
The plot is pretty standard, but it is in its execution, by director Sidney Furie and his cinematographer Otto Heller (I had to look it up) is good to very good and, in my view at least, it has helped The Ipcress File stand the test of time.There is none of that utterly spurious spy glamour in Furie's (and writer Len Deighton's) spy world – the security services are just another department of the Civil Service for those it employs – and the whole film, when it counts, exudes menace, the lack of focus which is necessarily at the heart of spying – after all no on really knows what's going on.Forty years on it is salutary to reflect on what can be done with imaginative lighting and camera-work.
Palmer himself retains his integrity throughout, even if he perceives himself as something of a rebel within the Secret Service.THE IPCRESS FILE is a direct antithesis of the Bond canon of films, also popular at the time of release.
Made by Bond-producer Harry Saltzman as the antithesis to the Bond franchise,this clever little spy yarn gives Michael Caine one of his iconic roles as "Harry Palmer".He would do the part in two subsequent films in the sixties which helped him cement his fame.This movie is not for those who want action packed spy-adventures because it's pace is rather slow,focusing more on character than action.
In the role that turned him into a star, Michael Caine plays cockney agent Harry Palmer, hired to investigate the brainwashing of some scientists.
Specifically, Palmer lives in a dreary flat but is called to investigate things involving geopolitics.Some people note that this was around the same time as the James Bond movies but "The Ipcress File" was more intellectual.
(The "Ipcress File" is on my very short bookshelf of favorite books of all time.)However, I recently caught the film on American Movie Classics and was struck with its overall excellence, start to finish.
Plus these are some great sarcastic touches like Colonel Ross suggesting that Major Daulby doesn't have his sense of humour in fact Ross is as humourless as a top civil servant gets.There are also some fairly accurate digs at stupid policemen see the "Arrested in possession of a suitcase" scene.Sadly, Cain didn't want to do any more Harry Palmers and so the series never got past three there were a couple of other later efforts but they are not worth the time watching.
The Ipcress file and Funeral in Berlin are two great espionage films.If only Cain hadn't been so short sighted the series would have rivalled Bond..
I suspect that Ian Fleming would have preferred the James Bond films to have been closer to the Harry Palmer movies than the over the top series that relied on special effects and huge budgets but were so short on substance.
Unlike his contemporary, James Bond, Harry Palmer is a working class, realistic spy.
A True 60's cult, a story of betrayal, gentleman and the secret service.Set all around London, this 60's classic follows Harry palmer (Michael Caine) as he uncovers the plot behind the kidnapping and brainwashing of British Scientists.
In other scenes we have the remarkable work of John Barry's (known for composing the music for the earlier James Bond films) orchestra giving the scenes that real cult feeling.Caine pulls of the role of Harry Palmer, a rather cocky and witty character who seriously knows how to cook
and kill people.
This being one of Cain's first films, it was indeed a map of things to come.The I.P.C.R.E.S.S. File is truly a spy film that could quite easily stand next to the James bond movies.
Michael made three Harry Palmer films in the 1960s, starting with "The Ipcress File".
Now I cannot comment about how closely this character and these plots were to the original Len Deighton novels (where Harry was NOT blackmailed into working for the service), as I've never read them, but the films are wonderfully entertaining.In "The Ipcress File", Harry has apparently made a mess of his military career and instead of sending him to prison, the government has decided to make him a spy--as he IS resourceful...though also a bit disdainful of authority.
The protagonist barely even qualifies as a spy, or a secret agent: he's a working stiff.The plot is typically pretty complicated and hard to follow, but it does culminate in some really powerful scenes, and Caine's performance is fantastic.
Just had myself a little Harry Palmer weekend, watching all three films in this classic trilogy starring Michael Caine as the Cockney thief turned secret agent.
First up was 1965's "The Ipcress File," costarring Nigel Green and Guy Doleman as Harry's two superiors (both of them far more disagreeable than James Bond's M), as well as Sue Lloyd as the agent who Harry gets involved with.
Like the Bond films, this Palmer outing was produced by Harry Saltzman (as were the following two); other elements that connect to the 007 franchise are Peter Hunt as editor, a wonderful score by John Barry, and set design by the great Ken Adam.
The ipcress file is the first of a trilogy of films made about the spy harry palmer.
The Ipcress File is like no other spy film, and quite the opposite of the glamorous James Bond genre.
Furie, gripping cinematography by Otto Heller (all inventive angles with a gritty, photo-realistic aesthetic) and a killer score by the maestro, John Barry; everything just about hits all the right notes.Saltzman produced and it gave him another big hit outside of the Bond franchise.For anyone interested in 60s British espionage cinema, I would highly recommend it, along with the two sequels - FUNERAL IN BERLIN and BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN.The original Len Deighton novels are also a must for those who might like to get an inkling of what Raymond Chandler might have produced if he had been a cockney military historian and cookery writer penning spy books in Britain in the swinging 60s.
The pace is a bit slow, the plot is unclear, but the denouement is perfectly fluid and exciting.Characterization is very good and fully corresponds to a tense atmosphere.Michael Caine as Harry Palmer is an insubordinate agent, who loves to cook, read and love a nice widow, while, through his glasses, exhibits a strange magnetism.
It chooses a more realistic approach, which seems all the more silly when considering that the story is far from a likely one.Seemed that producer Harry Saltzman, who also produced multiple James Bond movies, until the mid-'70's, wanted to completely dominate the spy-genre in every form.
Sue Llyod,(Agent, Jean Courtney)," Eat the Rich",'87 was very sexy and had her eyes on Sergeant Harry Palmer,(Michael Caine),"Bewitched",'05, who worked with Jean and at times you just found her to be a rather dark and mysterious person.
This is probably the best film of the 60's in the Spy Genre, at the height of the cold war era, these sinister good guy/ bad guy films were all the rage, James Bond was having massive rating in the Cinema and then along comes Caine, the rest they say, is history.
Caine's appeal in IF (Ipcress File) is probably due to the stubborn anti-hero qualities he exudes, a ladies man with a a roving eye that would put a radar array to shame, suave, sophisticated, yet very much man about the house, given his self-supporting stance in the film.An ex-army sergeant ' bought ' from a military prison into active service in a different guise, the trade off being the job he's doing has the potential to kill him, so stark choice, spend time in prison or do this job and get 'pardoned' effectively, if you live to tell the tale.He exhibits in the film the ' I'm doing this my way ' attitude in several scenes, notably when he throws policy, procedure and protocol out of the window and asks for a high security clearance operation and gets it.The film is peppered with these events through to the end, had he been a matter of fact, by the book, typical spy, I doubt that the film would have worked so well, at the time, no other actor I feel would have filled the role of Harry Palmer so good as Caine.
Michael Caine's character Harry Palmer is a short-sighted cynical spy who lives in a modest flat; he does his own shopping at his local super-market and doesn't bag-off with a succession of gorgeous women, he even has to do his own paper-work.
Then comes the agent himself, our protagonist for the film: Harry Palmer, as an early Michael Caine role.
The Ipcress File is perhaps one of Michael Caine's best films.
"The Ipcress File" follows British agent Harry Palmer, who is sent to contact a man suspected to be involved in the kidnapping of a prominent scientist.
"The Ipcress File" entertains primarily as an intriguing Cold War spy thriller but also through its characters and their interactions, cleverly reflects on a number of the significant societal changes that the country was going through at that time.The spy thriller, in its various forms, was an extremely popular genre in the Sixties and "The Ipcress File" which was based on Len Deighton's novel of the same name, provided a far grittier and more realistic representation of how counter-espionage work was carried out than had previously been seen, particularly in the James Bond movies.
Then we meet a young Michael Caine, this time playing an agent called Harry Palmer, who is taken from his job on a stakeout, to investigating the murder and disappearance.
Michael Caine plays the role of the British intelligence agent Harry Palmer and brilliantly delivers a reality to this film in ways that most other movies of similar nature fail.
This movie is about Michael Caine as Harry Palmer, a Brit working for one of those intelligence or counterespionage agencies that the Brits have so many of. |
tt0200800 | Leptirica | An old miller hears strange sounds coming from the woods. While he sleeps, a millstone suddenly stops working and a strange human-like creature with black hands and long teeth and nails bites his neck.
After the opening scene, the film turns to a romance between a poor young man Strahinja (Petar Božović) and a beautiful girl Radojka (Mirjana Nikolić). Radojka is the daughter of landowner Živan (Slobodan Perović), who refuses to allow her to marry Strahinja. Disappointed, Strahinja leaves his village and goes to Zarožje. He meets peasants discussing the cursed mill and accepts their offer to become the new miller. He spends the night in the mill and survives the attack of the creature, finding out its name - Sava Savanović. The villagers visit the oldest woman in a neighboring village and ask her if there is a grave of somemone called Sava Savanović somewhere nearby. After finding the place where his body is buried, they nail a stake through the coffin and a butterfly flies out.
The peasants help Strahinja take Radojka from her home and bring her to Zarožje. During the night, while the villagers are preparing the wedding, Strahinja sneaks into his future wife's room while she is asleep. As he undresses her, he discovers a bloody hole under her breasts and realize it is from the stake they used to impale Sava's coffin. Radojka opens her eyes and transforms into a disgusting hairy creature which climbs onto Strahinja's neck while he is trying to run away. She leads him to Sava's grave where he manages to take the stake out of the coffin and impale her.
The film ends with Strahinja lying motionlessly on the ground and a butterfly in his hair moving its wings. | cult | train | wikipedia | Unfortunetally its TV movie made with TV camera so you never have impression of a real movie...But that kind of work has many achievements because you simply don't expect that kind of HORROR in that form of film-making!Makeup is brilliant!!!
Acting is beutyfull - all professional, academic actors - which is not the case with 99.99% of horror movies!
Story it pretty simple but it all revolves in 19th century Serbia so it has sweetest plot I'we ever seen in a Horror!I recommend it with greatest pleasure!.
Remember it still in the mist and it is one of the few horror movies that spooked the hell out of me.
Highly recommended vintage treasure, straight 10/10, one of the TOP5 horror movies of all times.
Brilliant camera, weird rural atmosphere, a true representative of Balkans' scary legends on the big screen..
Wonderful, I've seen this movie ONCE when I was a kid and since then it's burned in my mind as of the most scary films I've ever seen.
Hm, I think I will try to find this film again, I'm pretty curious about how I would feel now while watching it.
It certainly did contribute to my love for the horror-genre, and vampire figures in films, in general.
This particular vampire , leptirica, is very old in Slavic folklore.
Eerie Yugoslavian vampire film..
"Leptirica" is a Yugoslavian female vampire horror film from the early 70s shot in the Serbian countryside and based on a novel.The incredibly eerie beginning takes place in a mill.The old miller listens strange bird voices and while he's sleeping the millstone suddenly stops working and a strange creature with black hands,long nails,angry eyes and long teeth bites his neck and drinks his blood.Soon the area of a small Yugoslavian village and the dark woods are plagued with the attacks of a truly hideous vampire creature...This is my first Yugoslavian horror film and I'm highly impressed.It features some of the creepiest vampire attack scenes ever captured on screen.It's also based on Serbian folklore,unfortunately my DVD-R don't have English subtitles,so 90% of the plot went beyond me.Still if you want to see truly scary horror film try to find "Leptirica".9 out of 10..
You feel like 5 years old child after that film.
Spooky vampire story from the Balkans - a short description of the movie.
I guess that that kind of feeling (one that this movie produces), can maybe be found, and only sometimes in some places...
Like when you're alone in a creepy and dark place, with a long way to home, that you know you have to cross- where staying or turning back is even greater fear...
So, like twenty years later, here I am, watching it for the second time.
The feeling, of course is not the same, ´cause through the years I became very big fan and some kind of an expert for horror cinema.
When I think of the comparison, the only movie that comes to my mind is BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (same atmosphere, dark woods, witches, etc.) and trust me when I say that Myrick & Sanchez flick is not at all superior.
Project intended to introduce fantasy and horror to Yugoslavian film production.
Movie have lack of thrilling atmosphere, but all scary scenes are even scarier.
Yugoslav movie makers didn't have experience in horrors, but Leptirica is rare gem within yu movies.
All later horror movies fixed mistakes of Leptirica.Beside that, it takes me twenty years to get courage to watch it again!
I didn't expect to watch overwhelming special effects or perfect film making.
To make things worse, the recording I watched wasn't of extremely high quality (maybe a rip from a very old home recorded VHS).The movie is seriously scary, but with some comedic relief which might be considered annoying if you don't expect to see them.
There is no attempt to "explain" the plot to the audience , as commonly happens with more modern western movies.
Beautiful and convincing, hard to believe she did not appear in famous movies.
This Serbian, made for TV movie, tells the folkloric tale of a 19th century rural village, seeped in superstitious paranoia.
through a montage of close-ups we see staring eyes, surrounded by dirty skin; an ash- blackened hand, adorned with long, sharp finger nails, dip in the flour; sharp teeth are exposed, not in the traditional fang image of western vampire lore, but a full front row of stalactite-like gnasher's.
With the discovery of the body, we are informed that this is the fourth miller to die within a year, and the speculation of a vampire murderer is brought forward.Strahinja (Petar Bozovic) is a very poor local, who is in love with the very beautiful Radojka (Mirjana Nikolic), daughter of the ill-tempered farmer, Zivan (Slobodan Perovic).
The villagers gather to try to hunt down the monster.Vampire films are so incredibly prevalent at this moment in time, but most do not hold any form of atmosphere.
The sense of isolation in the remote village is palpable also, lending the film an aura of horror.
The films title translates into English as Butterfly, which has its meaning exposed in the last moments.
Whilst it is clear who the vampire is early on in the film, it does not diminish the climax, which is gaudy, but strangely haunting.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com.
Acting is OK for (black) comedy, but if you see this TV-film (in former Yugoslavia term was "tv-drama") as horror, it's pretty bad acting, despite of presence of such distinguished actors as Slobodan Perovich and (very young) Petar Bozhovich.
I see that most of IMDb users were thrilled with this film in childhood,they have strong emotional bond with it, but actually, when you see it as grown man, quality level of Leptirica is not very high.
Djordje Kadijevich has one really very very good movie, but it's Praznik, not Leptirica..
Something for obscure horror film fans.
It amplifies the general atmosphere and gives the whole film a haunting and eerie feel.
One of the things I regret the most in my life is the fact that I didn't see this TV-drama film when everybody else in my generation saw it.
In the event, Leptirica proved to be a very fascinating watch indeed and one which suggests that the Serbs are missing a trick in not having made more horror films steeped in their folklore.
Like most vampire films from other parts of Europe, the events in this one take place in the 19th century.
More specifically, the action occurs in a rural village which relies on a cursed mill in which a succession of millers have been murdered in the night by a vampire, a being who once was called Sava Savanovic, a man who died one hundred years ago.
This seems to tie in more accurately with the traditional Serbian model which is like a cross-over between a vampire and a werewolf.
The vampire itself emerges suddenly and aggressively, it performs strange rituals such as covering its hands in flour, while it appears to mysteriously exist partially as a butterfly.
I don't know for sure if that is true but whatever the case, the result is to the overall benefit of the film as far as I am concerned as unexplained mysteries often work best when it comes to strange supernatural stories.
When the horror moments occur in this movie, they are often very effective and chilling, with the vampire itself a memorably scary creature, who indulges in witchy behaviour such as riding its victim.
It's nice to see that this old television movie from the former Yugoslavia has been developing an appreciative audience over the years.
I saw this movie when i was around 6 or 7 years old back home in former Yugoslavia and i remember being scared as hell watching this imo masterpiece.
Its very eerie movie.perfect setting and its based on serbian vampire legend so it makes it even more interesting..yes acting couldve been a little better but scenery makes up for it..i saw this movie again recently after a long time and i can say its still scary and eerie after all these years..i would deff recommend this movie to people who love vampire movies and also to lovers of horror genre but make sure you find english subs or whatever subtitles you need..i am not sure if there are any so good luck and a i would also recommend another fine Yugoslavian horror movie its called Sveto Mesto ( The Holy Place) its also on the level with Leptirica ( She- Butterfly).
For a while now, I've been hearing how this movie is supposedly a hidden gem of vampire horror and Yugoslavia's best horror film(whatever that's worth.) I absolutely LOVE low-budget/high-concept horror films since many of the classics were made on the cheap and are better for it.
Aside from that, after seeing this movie, all of the praise I've heard for it now sounds like the jokey sarcasm of someone who wants to trick you into wasting your time and effort tracking down this crap!.
"The She-Butterfly" is a genuinely frightening Serbian fairy tale revolving around a cursed mill and the young man willing to spend a night there to win the hand of a village maiden.The IMDb reviews are pretty funny -it seems this Yugoslavian TV movie was inadvertently screened in a time slot reserved for kids and it scared the bejezus out of a whole generation of impressionable Slavs.
You have to know Serbian folklore, it seems, but it really doesn't matter since the film's got the look of a Grimm fairy tale and the toothsome demon doesn't disappoint.
Leptirica aka She Butterfly is an interesting little made for TV folk horror film, from the former Yugoslavia (now Serbia), based on the story After Ninety Years (1880) written by Milovan Glisic (who was konwn as the "Serbian Gogol", for it's six degrees of seperation to Mad Love).The Balkans are home to polymath Johann Weikhard von Valvasor, who documented the world's first written account on vampires- about the legend of Jure Grando from Istria (now Slovenia)- in his encyclopedia: The Glory Of The Duchy Of Carniola.His book was published 17 years before Stoker wrote Dracula; basing the story on folk tales he heard from the mountain dwelling villagers living along the Drina River Valley.And so we have the tale of the Leptirica...the She-Butterly...a vampiric apparition of a beautiful young maiden, who shapeshifts into a werewolf, whenever she needs to feed.She's already gone through 4 millers in the past year...and the villagers are starting to get suspicious.The elders hold a town hall meeting and decide that they must take action.Meanwhile, a poor, jobless young man has been wooing her in her maiden form.
But her dad keeps intervening to stifle their love.So he joins the older men, who suggest he take up the job of the miller, considering the position has recently been vacated by the death of the previous miller.He agrees, hoping it will win things over with her dad, but it doesn't take long before he, himself, is attacked.Luckily he survives...but it's the last straw.The villagers fear a vampire is at work here.
So the men set off to dig it up, so that they can stake the corpse and (hopefully) end the curse.But they must use Parzivalian tactics find it.However, when they do...a small butterfly is released...and they are unable to catch it.It escapes.But, now endowed with a newfound confidence (after having survived the attack)- alongside a little encouragement from his friends- the young man sets off to elope with his beloved (regardless of her father's wishes).Everything seems to be going fine until he goes to consummate the marriage; at which point he discovers a gaping hole in her stomach...right about where they had staked that unburied coffin they were directed to uncover.He tries to remove the stake, in hope it might save her soul, and return her to her former self.But it's too late...she has now taken on her monstrous form permanently...ultimately leading to the film's conclusion.I really liked pretty much everything about this film...but there is one thing I just didn't get.What did her father do with the Butterfly when he caught it?
(I guess I'll have to read the story...)Otherwise it's a really enjoyable film.I particularly enjoyed how they messed with the mad drunken priest.If you are into folk horror, this will definitely be up your alley.7 out of 10..
Leptirica is set in a small rural village in Serbia, in which the people rely on an old fashioned mill to grind flour for bread.
Thankfully, a new miller is found when a young bachelor with nothing to lose agrees to do the job.The monster in this story is a werewolf/vampire creature who attacks the mill at night.
Taking a look at reviews by a fellow IMDber,I spotted a review for the first ever Horror film from Serbia.With the October Horror Challenge taking place on IMDb's Horror board,I decided that it was the perfect time to catch the She-Butterfly.The plot:Spending his life in a village terrorised by a creature called who kills anyone who works at the towns lone mill, ivan keeps a close eye on his daughter Radojka.Falling for Radojka, Strahinja asks for her hand in marriage.With Strahinja not even having a roof over his head, ivan dismisses the offer.Hurt by the dismissal, Strahinja gets a job at the cursed mill,and soon finds himself milling with the mythical creature.View on the film:Made for TV, (where it was first shown at dinner time,as a treat for the whole family!)writer/director Djordje Kadijevic & cinematographer Branko Ivatovic give the film a gritty folk horror atmosphere,by filling the town with rotting buildings and thick slabs of stone.Threading the whispered tales around the viewer, Kadijevic gets the audience to join the very close-knitted community,by keeping things down to earth with tightly held shots which reveal the myths that bind the villagers together.Adapting Milovan Glisic story Posle devedeset godina,the screenplay by Kadijevic gives the She-Butterfly creature a sharp Gothic bite,by slowly releasing vague details on the creatures appearance,which allows the viewer to create their own "full" image of the beast,before Kadijevic delivers a wonderfully grisly twist ending.Building a firm rural backdrop, Kadijevic keeps the drama between ivan & Strahinja off-centre,thanks to ivan's sly looks over Strahinja surviving deadly obstacles in order to get Radojka's hand in marriage, gradually revealing that ivan knows the truth behind the butterfly effect..
The worst horror movie I have ever seen.
Leptirica (also known under the correct but an ugly English translation The She-Butterfly) is a 1973 TV film which is famous for being one of the first Yugoslavian horror films.
Nearly every review of it seen here on IMDb is from someone who remembers being terrified by Leptirica as a child but hasn't re-watched it.
Those who do re-watch it (un)fortunately find their childhood experiences shattered as this movie isn't scary at all.Leptirica is based on Milovan Gliić's story After Ninety Years and takes most of its inspiration from traditional Serbian folklore (Sava Savanović, one of the most well-known folklore vampires, is mentioned several times).
Considering that the vampire myths originated from the Balkans, it's unusual that this is probably the only Slavic vampire movie, and as such it had great potential and could've been a masterpiece if it were done right.
Most of the 60-minute running time is filled with scenes of little to no importance, or with failed attempts at humor in a movie where such things shouldn't really belong.
And it's never really explained how come the vampire can only attack people in the haunted mill and not elsewhere, aside from this being a convenient plot device.The movie is often praised for its atmosphere, but sadly the only scene that was truly atmospheric is the one where the girl lies around in the field covered in sunlight, accompanied by natural sounds.
That was the best scene in the movie and the effect it achieves isn't even creepy or something.
It's just a nice scene, with the rest of the film taking a very unimaginative approach at storytelling and horror atmosphere.
The first scene is just cheesy, the second one is the exact same thing as the first one, except with the amazing flour escape which I mentioned above, so I guess the third horror scene, that famous climactic moment, has to be at least a little bit scary to justify the movie's cult status, right?
I mean, it's the most famous scene in the film.Unfortunately, the final vampire scene is even more ridiculous than the two scenes that preceded it.
The image quality is in bad need of restoration, and the audio is so bad that I had to watch the film with subtitles even though I know the language.
Yes, it's true that the film is horrible by today's standards, but this is absolutely atrocious even in the 1970s TV movie standards.
And it's a shame too, Leptirica could've been a fantastic movie..
Wow, so all the reviews say this is the scariest vampire movie ever!
Odd that the title Leptirica means The She Butterfly.Anyway, IMDb says this was a TV movie, but it's hard to believe.
It's not filmed like a TV movie.
Rather tiny in fact.In the end I have to say that it's an interesting film because it's a different take on the vampire theme.
Really dumb.And despite the hype, the vampire is barely in the movie and the ending is sort of laughable.
Inspired by the Serbian version of the vampire, who is not a white luxurious aristocrat, but a hairy monster, an animal that has lost all trace of humanity, Kadijevic made a film in which the meaning of a butterfly or the mill may be disturbingly unclear.
The culmination of the film is very improvised, and made without using special effects, scene in which the girl is painfully turning into a vampire.
The following is a long scene in which the vampire insanely rides its victim. |
tt0053629 | Bombai Ka Babu | Babu and Malik are two inseparable friends who live in a small town in India. One day they decide to play a prank and steal something but get caught. While Malik's dad came to bail out and stand as surety for him, Babu has no one to do so and ends up in the juvenile centre. When the two grow up, Malik becomes a Police Inspector, while Babu takes to crime and ends up in jail. When he is released from the jail, he goes to meet his partner-in-crime, Bali, and together they start planning the next heist. Malik meets Babu and tells him to straighten his ways. But Babu had already tried that and ended up being falsely accused of stealing a necklace belonging to his employer's wife. Nevertheless, Babu does inform Bali that he will not be taking part in any crime. Thereafter, Bali and his men are arrested and they blame Babu for ratting on them. Bali is released on bail. When Babu meets him, an argument ensues leading to a fight and Bali is killed. A fearful Babu flees Bombay and lands up in Jogendra Nagar in Northern India, where he meets a man named Bhagat who asks him to masquerade as Kundan, the sole heir of a wealthy man named Shahji. When Babu refuses, Bhagat threatens to notify the Police. Babu becomes Kundan and makes his way into the hearts of Shahji, his wife Rukmani and daughter Maya. Babu gets enough cash to pay off Bhagat in small installments but Bhagat becomes greedy and wants Babu to steal all the cash and jewellery and abscond. Babu is reluctant to steal from the kind people. To make matters worse, he has fallen in love with Maya - apparently his 'sister'. Caught between a rock and a hard place - no matter what move Babu makes - he will surely end up trapping himself - not only with Bhagat, but with his new found family as well as the police - who are now hot on his trail. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3131456 | A Very Merry Mix-Up | A beautiful antique store owner, Alice Chapman (Alicia Witt), travels to her fiancé's home town alone to meet her future in-laws for the first time at their Christmas gathering. Her fiancé, successful realtor Will Mitchum (Scott Gibson), tells her he will join them after closing an important business deal. Upon her arrival at the airport, she discovers that her luggage is lost. While completing the necessary paperwork, she meets Matt Mitchum (Mark Wiebe), who is also filling out a missing luggage report. She is surprised to learn that Matt is the brother of her fiancé "Billy". On their way to the family house, they get into a car accident and both end up in the hospital, where Alice learns that Matt broke off his engagement to a woman who refused to "walk through the rain" for him.
Will's mother and father arrive at the hospital and are surprised to learn that their son "Billy" is engaged, yet they quickly make Alice feel like a loved new member of the family. Meanwhile, Will is told that Alice's store needs to be sold to his wealthy client in order to close an important deal. Will assures the client that he can get her to sell. Back at the house, Alice and Matt share their Christmas memories with each other and bake Christmas cookies. She learns that Matt shares her romantic interest in antiques, old family photos, and Charlie Brown Christmas trees, and soon they become attracted to each other. As Alice talks about Will, the family seems surprised at some of the details she shares about their "Billy".
When "Billy" Mitchum finally arrives, Alice is shocked to see that "Billy" is not her fiancé Will, and realizes that she's been sharing Christmas with the wrong Mitchum family. Alice calls Will and soon Will shows up to pick her up to take her back to his family's Christmas gathering. Matt's family is saddened to see her go. Before leaving, Alice gives Matt, the man who "makes her laugh", a kiss goodbye. When she meets Will's family, she is left disillusioned by the air kisses of her future mother-in-law and Will's all-business father—a world away from Matt's family. That night, Matt comes to Will's family house and takes Alice to a nearby park where he shows her the benches he built bearing quotes from Shakespeare.
On Christmas Eve, Alice calls Matt's family to wish them a Merry Christmas, but Matt feels he is unable to talk with her. With the "new Mitchums", Alice tries to play the game taught to her by the "other Mitchums"—where everyone writes something nice about someone else and each tries to guess who said what—but Will's family is not nearly as interesting or loving as Matt's family. During the game, Will announces that he has "closed" the huge deal involving the sale of Alice's store for $3.5 million. Alice is revolted by Will's insensitivity, and tells him that she cannot marry him. Will realizes that something has changed in their relationship and accepts her decision.
Alice rushes to the park where she sees and embraces Matt, confessing that she is the "girl who loves family and romance" and that she is the girl who loves him. They kiss and walk off into the snowy Christmas night together. | storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0124879 | Simon Birch | Simon Birch believes that God made him for a special, heroic purpose. Simon and his best friend Joe Wenteworth are both outcasts in their tiny New England town: Joe is the illegitimate son of the town beauty, and Simon, at age 12, is so small that he still plays the infant Jesus in the church Christmas pageant. In the summer of 1964, friendship is put to the test when Little League Simon hits a foul ball that strikes and kills Joe's mother. Together, they try to find out who Joe's father is. Just as they succeed, the time comes for Simon to fulfill the destiny he believes in. A situation arises that demands a hero - a very small hero.
When Joe and Simon were riding a bus, the bus crashed into a lake. Joe got everybody out but Simon drowned with the bus. When Simon is in the hospital, he gets a visit from Joe who also is in the hospital. Simon dies, but Joe will remember that he will always be his best friend in his heart. | dramatic, philosophical, sentimental | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0056368 | Premature Burial | In "The Premature Burial", the first-person unnamed narrator describes his struggle with things such as "attacks of the singular disorder which physicians have agreed to term catalepsy", a condition where he randomly falls into a death-like trance. This leads to his fear of being buried alive ("The true wretchedness", he says, is "to be buried while alive".). He emphasizes his fear by mentioning several people who have been buried alive. In the first case, the tragic accident was only discovered much later, when the victim's crypt was reopened. In others, victims revived and were able to draw attention to themselves in time to be freed from their ghastly prisons.
The narrator reviews these examples in order to provide context for his nearly crippling phobia of being buried alive. As he explains, his condition made him prone to slipping into a trance state of unconsciousness, a disease that grew progressively worse over time. He became obsessed with the idea that he would fall into such a state while away from home, and that his state would be mistaken for death. He extracts promises from his friends that they will not bury him prematurely, refuses to leave his home, and builds an elaborate tomb with equipment allowing him to signal for help in case he should awaken after "death".
The story culminates when the narrator awakens in pitch darkness in a confined area. He presumes he has been buried alive, and all his precautions were to no avail. He cries out and is immediately hushed; he quickly realizes that he is in the berth of a small boat, not a grave. The event shocks him out of his obsession with death. | revenge, gothic, murder | train | wikipedia | This stems, perhaps, from the fact that Ray Milland steps in for Vincent Price here, making it the odd one out among the series of Corman's Poe adaptations.Ray Milland must have seemed a rather offbeat choice at the time given his reputation of being one of Hollywood's most charming and debonair leading man.
I sure would like to get a chance to see Ray Milland in his three other notable 'horror' films: THE UNINVITED (1944), ALIAS NICK BEAL (1949) and (directing himself) PANIC IN YEAR ZERO (1962).As for the film itself, I admit that having just watched PIT AND THE PENDULUM, PREMATURE BURIAL and (fairly recently) HOUSE OF USHER (1960) in quick succession, the repetition in the story-lines (catalepsy and premature entombment), not to mention in the art direction (recycled sets), does tend to get rather tiresome.
In fact I think it is as good or better than many of the other Roger Corman produced/directed Edgar Allan Poe adaptations.
Ray Milland was chosen to play the lead because Roger Corman was in a dispute with American International Pictures (AIP) at the time and decided to make the movie with another studio.
Vincent Price who starred in most of Corman's Poe adaptations was under contract to AIP and therefore, could not play the lead.
This was the third of director Roger Corman's AIP chillers based on Poe stories, and the only one not to star Vincent Price.
Here, Ray Milland is the protagonist whose family history of catalepsy makes him fear burial alive.Entirely shot on the sound stage, Corman and his regular art director Danial Haller have created a wonderfully expressionist garden of gnarled trees and shrubs wreathed with dry ice.
Even the interior of Milland's mansion seems like a grave, notably in the scene where Hazel Court and Richard Bull take tea in a drawing room with wood-panelled walls, dark green wallpaper, with the dead tree pressing oppressively against the windows.A number of other directorial touches make even this relatively minor Corman effort a winner.
With Vincent Price busy elsewhere, Roger Corman shoveled the dirt on Ray Milland for this adaptation of Poe's "The Premature Burial." A bit too mature for the role, Milland nonetheless gives a good account of himself as an artist convinced that he'll meet the same fate as many of his ancestors by being buried alive.
The wealthy cataleptic painter Guy Carrell (Ray Milland) believes that he overheard his father, who also had catalepsy, crying in the crypt of his family when he was a kid and is obsessed by the fear of being buried alive.
Ray Milland is a great actor but does seem to be miscast for the role of Guy Carrell that should be of an insane man instead of so dramatic.
Solid, well crafted entry in producer / director Roger Corman's cycle of Edgar Allan Poe adaptations that's an effective exercise in psychological horror as well as more traditional kinds of horror (such as we see in the nightmare sequence, for example).
It shows just how badly one's life can be affected by an unhealthy obsession.Corman initially tried to get Vincent Price for the lead, needing to switch to Ray Milland instead.
Meanwhile, good friend Miles (Richard Ney), new wife Emily (beautiful genre vixen Hazel Court), and sister Kate (Heather Angel) grow increasingly concerned over his behaviour.Working with his consistently reliable production design / cinematography team of Daniel Haller and Floyd Crosby, Corman is able to create very effective atmosphere for the production, and the 2.35:1 aspect ratio allows him to pack the frame with detail, and he also continues the practise of creating depth to the images.
The music by the great Ronald Stein would be enjoyable enough on its own, but it's supplemented by the repeated refrain of the "Molly Malone" melody, whether it's whistled or played on the piano.Milland does some delicious work here, particularly in the sequence where Guy is showing Emily and Miles all the safeguards he's put in place in case of his being "buried alive".
The excellent cast also includes Alan Napier as Emily's doctor father (who utters one of the best lines, "I never enjoy myself, I merely experience greater and lesser amounts of tedium."), and John Dierkes & Corman regular Dick Miller as the unsavoury grave diggers.The script by Charles Beaumont and Ray Russell has a very literate quality, and Milland gives his dialogue all of the gravitas that he can muster.While this wouldn't rank among the best of Corman's Poe series (that honour would have to go to "House of Usher" and "The Masque of the Red Death"), it's still very respectable and fun viewing for classic horror fans.Seven out of 10..
Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe cycle ranges among the most essential moments ever in Horror cinema, some of the adaptations such as "Pit And The Pendulum" (1961), "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964) or (the actually Lovecraft-inspired) "The Haunted Palace" (1963) being among the greatest Gothic Horror films ever brought to screen.
The brilliance of these films lies in the creepy Poe-themed stories, Corman's outstanding talent for eerie Gothic atmosphere, and, not least, the leading performances by Horror-deity Vincent Price."Premature Burial" of 1962 treats an eponymous subject that is as essentially 'Poe' as it gets - being buried alive, or more precisely, the terror of being buried alive.While I did have high expectations for this film, it had been lying on my DVD shelf for a long while before I finally saw it, the only reason for delaying the viewing being the lack of Vincent Price in this film.
Ray Milland, who plays the lead here, was a fantastic actor, but simply not quite as fantastic as Vincent Price (who happens to be my all-time favorite actor).
The only flaw of this film, is therefore not really a flaw, but the greatness of Corman's other Poe-adaptations: The fact that the other films had Vincent Price, and this one doesn't.
Actually, his character here is not villainous, and yet he is somewhat unlikable.This being said, "Premature Burial" is still and wonderful Gothic Horror experience, which once again proves that Corman is a true master of creepy greatness and beautifully eerie atmosphere.
Ray Milland plays Guy Carrell, a man living in paralyzing fear of being interred alive.
The setting in an eerie mansion near a foggy cemetery is perfect for a Gothic Horror film like this one, and, apart from the usual atmosphere donors such as foggy grounds, Corman includes many morbid set-pieces, such as a demented live-in mausoleum.
The stunning Hazel Court is, as always, absolutely wonderful in the female lead.Overall, "Premature Burial" isn't quite as essential as films like "House of Usher" (1960), "Pit and the Pendulum" (1961), "The Haunted Palace" (1963) or "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964), but it is still a fantastic Gothic Horror that no genre-lover can afford to miss.
This is an excellent horror movie.To be buried alive is a fear we all share ,and although it's not really new (outside Poe's obsession there's a sequence in Dreyer's "Vampyr") ,it's terribly effective.Ray Milland portrays a man whose obsession knows no bound.His mausoleum which he shows to a distraught wife and to his good sensible friend and the nightmare are worth the price of admission.The foggy ghastly atmosphere -pure English sixties studios - adds to the almost unbearable suspense.The screenplay,which,like all the other Corman's adaptations ,is rather far from Poe's short novel,is full of good ideas (the undertakers whistling a gentle tune when they open a grave,the cat,the unexpected final twist which is quite successful)."Premature Burial" is to be recommended to horror movies buffs.The fear of being buried alive never came to an end ;two examples "Oxygen" featuring Adrian Brody and "Spoorlos" (aka "L'Homme Qui Voulait Savoir").
Of all the great Roger Corman's movies based on Edgar Allan Poe's stories this one has maybe left in the shadow of those starring Vincent Price.
It is unfortunate, however, that the winning team of Roger Corman, Edgar Allen Poe and Vincent Price had to be split up, with the great actor sitting this one out.
While the film lacks the great Vincent Price, his replacement, Ray Milland, doesn't do a bad job at all in the lead.
Ray Milland stars in this Roger Corman directed version of the Edgar Allan Poe story as a wealthy man with a morbid and all-consuming fear of death and being buried alive welcomes his beautiful fiancée(Hazel Court) to his castle.
Happy at first, his fears soon return, and after falling into a cataleptic state, learns that being buried alive wasn't the only thing he should have been watching out for...Oddly dull and slow film has some atmosphere but feels flat, and doesn't make an effective use of its source material.
Premature Burial is not Roger Corman's best filmed Poe adaptation, Masque of the Red Death is my favourite, but I did prefer it over the interesting but uneven Tales of Terror.
The script is very literate and maintains interest, with Alan Napier getting the best lines, Milland showing his wife and friend around his tomb and the story has some fine moments especially with the dream sequence, Court's shadow and with the grave-diggers helped by a genuinely creepy atmosphere that Corman evokes wonderfully.
Ray Milland is going to have inevitable comparisons to Vincent Price, who for me gave pitch-perfect performances in the rest of Corman's Poe adaptations(all but this one), but he deserves to be judged on his own merits, and I think he does give an understated and vulnerable performance that proved most effective.
"The Premature Burial", the third film in Roger Corman's wildly successful Poe series, is disappointing in comparison with the excellent previous entries, "House of Usher" and "Pit and the Pendulum".
Ray Milland plays Guy Farrell, a medical student (that's a laugh)who has the fear of being buried alive, like his father was.
Might he have also said "no more mediocre movies?" Ray Milland made his great contribution to shlock movie culture with this hilariously grouchy performance in "Frogs," he does what he can here but it does tend to underline how important the presence of Vincent Price was to these Poe films.
Based on the story by Edgar Allan Poe, PREMATURE BURIAL tells of a medical student(Ray Milland) whose worst nightmare, being buried alive, eventually comes true.
PREMATURE BURIAL stars Ray Milland (X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES) as Guy Carrell, who suffers from an inordinate fear of being buried alive.
Another great Poe adaptation from director, Roger Corman, Milland fills in nicely in a role that would typically be played by Vincent Price.
Premature Burial features Ray Milland doing his utmost to convey paranoia, and it's great to see Hazel Court working with Milland; since she also appears in The Raven (1963) and The Masque of the Red Death (1964) with Price.
'The Premature Burial' was the third film in Roger Corman's series of eight Edgar Allan Poe themed movies.
Unlike 'House of Usher' and 'The Pit and the Pendulum' this one stars Ray Milland instead of Vincent Price because Corman went to produce that film without AIP who had exclusive contract with Price.
Nonetheless, 'The Premature Burial' is nicely creepy tale about paranoid obsession and living on the verge of madness.Recommended for Gothic horror/mystery fans..
Obsessed with the unlikely possibility of being buried alive just like his cataleptic father was, a celebrated artist dedicates all his spare time to building a tomb that he can escape from should such an event ever occur in this Edgar Allan Poe adaptation from Roger Corman.
With Poe and Corman's name on the project, it seems easy to label 'Premature Burial' as a horror film, but it is much more a psychological thriller and character study of a paranoid individual.
Ray Milland stands in for Corman's usual suffering protagonist, Vincent Price.
A good film adaption of Edgar Allan Poe's story "Premature Burial".A quote from Guy Carrell (Milland) "A recent invention by a man named Nobel...
SO with all that said, if in fact this movie is set 1867 or '68 OR as late as 1880's or 90's then embalming was NOT overly common/wide spread -- this means there is a good chance of a premature burial to occur and Guy Carrell's fears are well founded.Now outside of my minor nick-picking (trying to find the date this film is actually set in) this is a decent film....
Guy Carrell's fear is much worse than my own.Worth watching if you like Poe, Milland, or horror movie classics.7.5/10.
One of Roger Corman's lesser-known Poe features, The Premature Burial is a fine film with an excellent cast that is handicapped by an unfortunate lack of thrills and a slow pace.
Hazel Court, who also stars in Corman's most renowned Poe film, The Masque of the Red Death, is ravishing as Milland's dreamy wife, while Richard Ney is solid in the role of a doctor who struggles to comprehend the nature of Milland's morbid delusions, which become increasingly disturbing as the narrative progresses.
An artist (Ray Milland) grows distant from his new wife (Hazel Court) as an irrational horror of premature burial consumes him.The story of this film's creation is almost as interesting as the film itself.
Charles Beaumont took the basics from that story and scripted this Roger Corman AIP film about an English aristocrat who believes his father died while buried alive due to catalepsy, a disorder where a person seems dead but is in fact alive.
What this one gets right is the exact same elements that have always worked so well before in the other Corman/Poe films in the striking atmosphere present here that effectively takes the Gothic setting to it's fullest.
Sir Guy Carrell (Ray Milland) is paranoid to be buried alive.
Finally, it´s his beautiful but scheming wife Emily (Hazel Court) who wants to scare him to death..."The Premature Burial" is a nice little horror classic, produced and directed by the king of the B-movies Roger Corman.
Although actor Ray Milland is no second Vincent Price he is doing a solid job with playing the main character.
Surprise ending is a plus.I thought Milland made a good choice given the unavailability of Price (his contract with AIP was binding only to the extent that he not make any Edgar Allen Poe movies with anyone except AIP, from what I've heard).
Generally considered one of the least successful of Corman's Edgar Allan Poe adaptations; which has a lot to do with the absence of star Vincent Price (this is the only film of the eight he didn't star in).
Price's inimitable presence would have indeed turned this into an entirely different film (and probably would have effectively diffused some of the more horrific elements of the story), but I have no problem watching Ray Milland in the lead role, either.
An aristocratic painter, Guy Carrell(Ray Milland), has this obsessive fear of being buried alive(particularly, his seeing a victim of such a case, at the opening of the film, not helping matters), and those around his inner circle try to assist him in penetrating that which mentally weakens him.
Will Guy be buried alive as he so feared?I think PREMATURE BURIAL is an exercise in Gothic style, expertly executed by a master horror director.
Like all of Roger Corman's movies based on the stories of Edgar Allen Poe, this one only has a superficial similarity to the Poe tale.
It has the usual excellent Corman direction and Milland is very good taking on a role that usually would have gone to Vincent Price.
the scene where Emily is being buried alive is frightening and an unusual twist that i didn't see coming it is well made with gorgeous et pieces and some striking moments now there is not much gore or that many deaths but the suspenseful mood and creepy atmosphere makes up for it also Roger Corman's stylish direction helps overall a wonderful horror flick that deserves more credit an absolute must see!!!!!!
The third in Roger Corman's cycle of Edgar Allan Poe adaptations sees Charles Beaumont & Ray Russell on script duties and Ray Milland star.
The story follows Milland's cataleptic Guy Carrell, whose fear of being buried alive like his father drives him to build a tomb that should ensure against such a disaster occurring...Pulpy, Gothic and at times silly, The Premature Burial is still very much a nice slice of Corman pie.
It's got a very sumptuous look, good performances from Ray Milland and Hazel Court, solid cinematography by Floyd Crosby, and strong, atmospheric direction by Roger Corman.
Written by Charles Beaumont and Ray Russell from a Poe story, this movie plays on one thing: fear, more specifically the fear of being buried alive.
Premature Burial is not the best of the Corman/Poe flicks, but is worth looking at..
Since AIP owned the rights to Corman's muse, Vincent Price, he went with Ray Milland in the main role.
Milland is best known to horror fans for THE UNINVITED and another Corman classic, X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES, though his most famous role may be in Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER.As with most of the movies in this cycle, the Poe short story is not enough material to fill out a 90 minute movie, so Corman has to pad the proceedings with other material.
His fear of repeating his father's fate is propelled by an incident at the beginning of the movie, where Milland's doctor robs a grave, only to witness a clear example of another man buried alive.
The most feels far more "epic" than the limited scenery would warrant.It's not the best of the Corman/ Poe Cycle, for that check out MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH or PIT AND THE PENDULUM, but it is certainly a great example of Gothic 60s horror and well worth a watch..
I am not a big fan of horror movies, but watched this one because of the great Ray Milland. |
tt0414853 | Barnyard | Otis is a carefree cow who prefers playing with his friends rather than accept responsibility. His adoptive father Ben is the leader of the barnyard. After Otis interrupts a barnyard meeting with his wild antics, Ben has a talk with his son, warning him that he will never be happy if he spends his life partying without acting more maturely. Otis ignores his advice and leaves to have fun with his friends Pip the Mouse, Pig the pig, Freddy the Ferret, and Peck the Rooster. That same day, Otis meets a pregnant cow named Daisy, who is accompanied by another cow, Bessy.
That night, the animals throw a party in the barn. All the animals including the world famous artist, Biggie Cheese, are there except Ben, who guards the fence line. Otis is assigned a shift along with Ben, but Otis talks himself out of working. Before Otis leaves, Ben tells him that the night he found him as a baby calf stumbling alone in the meadow, he swore he saw the stars dance, thus giving him reason to know his place was at the farm. Later, Ben takes on a pack of coyotes led by Dag, who is a serial killer turned coyote plundering the chicken coop. He manages to fight off the pack until he is bitten on the leg by the red coyote, making him fall. The coyotes pile on Ben, but he manages to grab Dag and escapes the pile. He threatens to punch Dag, but lets him go, scaring away him and the coyotes. Ben falls on the ground, exhausted. A hen named Etta runs into the barn and tells Otis and he runs outside to his father. Ben dies and is buried on his favorite hill by the farmer, and the other animals mourn Ben after the farmer leaves.
After Ben's death, all the animals elect Otis as the new leader of the barnyard. Otis shirks his duties by leaving Freddy and Peck in charge of the coop, then helps the trouble-making Jersey Cows Eddy, Igg, and Bud teach a lesson to a mean fat youngster called Snotty Boy, eluding the police along the way. Later that night, when Otis is holding Daisy's hoof under the starlight, he overhears the coyotes chasing a rabbit and leaves Daisy to pursue the coyotes and avenge his father. Otis tries to attack Dag and his pack, but he is outsmarted by them. Since Otis is weaker, Dag orders a deal that he and his pack will take various barnyard animals at random times and that, if Otis tries to stand up for all of them, they will slaughter everyone at the barnyard. Otis decides to leave the barnyard, realizing that his chances of victory are small.
The next morning, before leaving, Otis is informed that the coyotes took some hens and Maddy, a little chick who is one of Otis' best friends and looks up to him. Otis realizes that he has been fooled by Dag, as he was not expecting him and the coyotes until tonight, and sets off to rescue the chickens. Otis confronts the pack but is easily defeated after Dag bites him in the leg; however, Pip, Pig, Freddy, Peck, and Miles arrive to help Otis, along with the Jersey Cows, Wild Mike, and even some gophers. Dag tries to attack Otis from behind, but Otis is alerted when Peck successfully manages to crow a warning. Otis catches Dag and threatens to punch him the same way his father did, but he cannot bring himself to do it. Instead, he warns Dag to never return to the barnyard. Otis then swings Dag out of the junkyard with a golf club, finally rescuing the chickens and avenging his father's death.
That night, the animals hijack some motorcycles and return to the barnyard, where the others reveal to Otis that Daisy went into labor after he left to face the coyotes. She gives birth to a calf, whom he names Ben after Otis's father. Duke, the farmer's sheepdog, asks Otis if he wants to stay and be their leader. Otis agrees, and everyone cheers as he walks outside to find the stars dancing, forever grateful for what his father taught him. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | This type of story didn't start in 1994 - the plot is ancient, with even Disney admitting that it was based on some of their earlier films, Hamlet and - get this - Exodus from the Bible (not including the fact that it was alleged that the whole movie was stolen from "Kimba the White Lion, but that's another matter).
It may not be as good as many other animations but overall I think that this movie was not a great disappointment.
I agree that it should not be ranked along side Finding Nemo or The Incredibles however it does have some hilariously funny moments.This movie stars Kevin James (King of Queens) and Courtney Cox (the woman we all know from "Friends").
There's no getting around it: "Barnyard" is the worst animated feature I've seen in years, and one of the worst movies I've endured during summer '06.
There was more comedy, better artwork (the design and poses of the dog alone drew laughs) and more emotional honesty in this six or seven minute cartoon than in all of "Barnyard." My 6-year old niece and her 4-year old brother kept recounting the best moments of this "ancient" short all the way home.
When I interrupted to ask my niece what she thought of "Barnyard," she paused a moment and said, "Well...I'm sorry, but...I didn't think it was really too good" - then proceeded to chatter on about the Avery cartoon.When children find that a nearly 60-year old cartoon short (in a faded, deteriorating print to boot) is more entertaining and memorable than the 2-hour animated feature it precedes, it can only mean one thing: Time for the suits at Nickelodeon to call more meetings, do more "market research," and tell the "creatives" to come up with storyboards for "Barnyard II: The Original Party Animals Meet The Fairly Odd Parents!" (No doubt followed by another "brand-extension" classic-in-progress: "Barnyard III: The Original Party Animals Moo-ve into Outer Space With Jimmy Neutron!").
Have the drawers ever seen a cow and a bull?This movie is not safe for children.The story is dumb.
A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention.
It was not funny at all.The funniest part of the movie was the transsexual "male cows." Most of the jokes were geared toward adults not children.
I think I could have enjoyed the movie otherwise, there were some funny bits, the animation itself wasn't bad.
The animation is flat and extremely poor, story line is a poorly executed ripoff of the "Lion King" with lame "comedy" bits, and the voice talent has to be one of the worst in the memory with Kevin James in the leading (?) role (and I thought Keifer Sutherland was awful in "The Wild").
Not only are main plots stolen from THE LION KING, but the villains are painfully reminiscent of the Hyenas in that better film.Nonetheless, BARNYARD has some genuinely funny moments.
In particular, there is a scene in which the farmer witnesses the other life his animals lead and they hilariously try to convince him it was all a hallucination.While this works well for kids, I couldn't help but want a more engrossing plot.
This film at sometimes feels like as if it were made by the Farrelly Brothers.It's slapstick humor and it's wildly nutty behaviour that makes it look like a R-rated comedy,makes it all the while more funny The story is sort of like a parody of Lion King.Farmers on a farm are keeping animals under their eye and well protected.And animals pretty much behave like,well,animals.But what happens when the farmers out.Well,the party begins,as these animals somehow behave more like humans,crazily partying around with the rest of the animals.And a carefree cow is held responsible for whatever goes on.He's in charge.And he needs to protect the farm from their enemies,the Coyotes.Otis the carefree cow,pretty much don't take it seriously.Ben ,a cow who takes it very seriously is giving advice to Otis to grow up and all that.When Ben is no longer able to lead, Otis tries to keep order but the role of leader does not come as naturally for him.
Without Ben to keep everyone in line, absolute mayhem breaks loose and it isn't long before the farmer begins to get to the bottom of the animals' secret--and the scheming coyotes begin to think that the farm could be theirs for the taking.Just don't take this film seriously,especially not the story.The problem with the film is that ,we've seen it all before.Especially the recent animated films that are flooding cinema's.They are either about animals,or insects,or well CARS.And this film has similarities with many animated films.The story is nothing new at all.And that is its drawback.And it's approach is rather conventional with dumb looking characters that are half baked.But there are sweet moments that don't get too sentimental.Another weakness is its weaker than expected animation.It's not fair to have such an average animation to a funny movie.If the film's animation was heighten to a better quality,it would've been better than it already was.However,I really liked the jokes,which seem to have been aimed at adults.But the animation was passable.The film has some really outrageously hilarious moments,giving you snort out loud laughs.The animals are more human-like than actual animals,and they love partying around,all night.They behave like those characters from Ace Ventura films or other Oedekerk films.In short,it's simply a mindless comedy with a lot of great laughs.I would take this any time over the disappointing Talladega nights.You gotta moo at least once!What happens in the Barnyard,stays in the Barnyard..
Had I done so, I would have missed out on what has probably been my favorite kids movie of the summer.This movie was sweet and funny, (I actually laughed OUT LOUD a couple of times!), and dare I say I even got a little 'choked up' in a couple parts - Yes...over a bunch of silly animated farm animals.
I've seen a lot better, but because the plot was decent, I really didn't mind.Yes, I thought it was goofy that the boy cows had udders, but I didn't think it was offensive ...(and I am a fundamentalist Christian!) I DID think it had a lot of unnecessary references (for a kids movie, anyways) to alcohol/drunkenness.
Bulls, boy cows for you idiots who did the animation, do not have udders.So, being distracted by the failure to understand bovine anatomy by all associated with this movie, I had to just turn it off.
My 2 year old was asking me if all cows have udders and trying to explain to her that this is simply not true and seeing the movie only confused her more!
The whole cinema was roaring with laughter.I must admit that it is maybe more of an adult movie than a kids film though because some of the jokes were actually quite dirty.
Most likely you wouldn't even understand and enjoy them if you were younger than 12.The Barnyard probably isn't the right choice if you want your little ones to watch something educational and deep although there are some lessons for life included.
I loved this movie and thought it was clever and the writing exceptionally funny.I usually don't love animation, but Barnyard was poignant and entertaining.
Let's do it!"The movie has no essential plot, but rather relies on the hope that people will find a talking cow funny.
It is an awful movie and my 10 year old son even said a few times, "this is dumb, bulls do not look like this".
The mind truly boggles.Set on a farm where the animals walk and talk like humans as soon as the farmer is not looking, this is a tale which completely rips off "The Lion King" except for the following few details: (1) The lions are now replaced by cattle (2) The hyenas are now coyotes (3) "The Lion King" was a triumph of a movie in both visual and aural flair and it told a story well, while Barnyward is stinker of a movie with no innovations an tells and old story badly.I basically ended up seeing this because it fitted into my timetable for that day rather than out of any great need/want to see it.
A good time was had by all in the auditorium today (we were the only adults at the movie without children).Only two negative criticisms, both specific to the drawing of animals: 1) Most of the cows are male, but they all had udders.
Out of all the crap I've had to endure being a parent, by far the worst is the low-brow junk that's passed off as "children's entertainment." There are the movies that come into this house that are so bad and dreadful that I can't help but feel as if those who made the crap personally insulted my family.I only have 24 hours to my day, and my kids aren't going to be little forever, so what time I do have with them is precious.
In the letters page, one reader asked about the anatomically-incorrect cows(bovine) and whether or not it was intentional or not, and the magazine explained that the movie's director "thought it would be funny for the male cows(bulls) to have udders".Know what?
hmmm.once again i'm amazed.i can't understand the low rating(just over 5/10)this movie has.i thought there were a few very funny moments in the movie,much more than "Over the Hedge" which has a rating of over 7/10.this movie is also touching in parts and i thought they achieved a good balance of humour and drama.while i wouldn't say it is hysterically funny,there are,like i said,some very funny moments.this movie is also a fun movie to watch.it is exciting,with plenty of action.this to me is a much better family movie than its rating reflects.id have to say it tries very hard to achieve its goal of being an animated comedy(and succeeds often enough)rather than just an animated film."Barnyard" gets a 6/10..
There is absolutely NO reason why the males could not have been bulls, and it disturbs me to think that out of the hundreds of people who worked on this film, not one of them spoke up to say that there was something wrong.
Miles the violent donkey (not a horse!) was an absolute visual rip-off of Shrek's wonderful "Donkey", and it horrified me when he kept on kicking in the farmer's head just because the animals were stupid enough to let him stumble in on them while they were out of character....One or two scenes made us laugh, especially our six-year-old son.....the surfing, the motorcycles, the chase in the car.
It lacks a good story to tell, seemingly borrowing familiar elements from The Lion King, and even the weak idea from Chicken Little about the relationship between father and son - here between the Cows son Otis (Kevin James from Hitch) and Ben (Sam Elliot), who heads the farm.Writer-Director Steve Oedekerk, who wrote the screenplay for comedies like Bruce Almighty and The Nutty Professor, seem to fall short of providing the laughs for the animals.
It is one thing to have excellent art, but it seemed more of a cover for the lack of a sustainable engaging story.Watch it only if your kids bug you to bring them to the movie, especially since cutesy chick characters are used as bait.
Fun movie with a good lesson about accepting responsibilities, however confusing on certain animal gender..
If movie makers are making movies for children, who by the way are little sponges and learn (whether right or wrong) from everything they come across, then these writers and producers need to be accurate, Yes I do understand that this is an animated movie and the story is fiction, however, gender is gender and therein should lie the accuracy.
It's one of few animated movies I actually enjoyed watching with my kids.
Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing.
I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have.
The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows..
How can an entire film be written,cast,animated,edited,and released without one person mentioning something like: hey, aren't all cows girls,and bulls are male?
I was so creeped out by the male cows with udders that I had a very hard time watching this animated trans-gender/transsexual animal movie.
The leader, Otis, have to lead the group to party and to fight the evil coyotes that threaten to kill all the kens on the farm.Let me start off by pointing out the only single good thing about this film.
I think the animation was great, the characters were super, and although yes, ill agree that the sappy scenes were a little much, it was overall a super movie.
I think it's the fact that one has to adjust to Steve's meaning of funny.By the way, if your kids are looking for a laugh, I wouldn't bring them.
It even bored the kid I took with me to see this film.All in all, decent animation, thin, but OK, story, too little events to keep it rolling.
Aside the story copied from Lion King ,bad lines and attempts at jokes there something that perplexes me about this movie.You see: in this movie all the cows both males and females even newborn have udders and I feel that if they've done that they should have went all the way and also give udders to the dogs ,cats, chicken and pigs, it certainly wouldn't have made the movie any worst.Also some lines like the animals describing the farmer as a "good man, because he's vegan", chickens throwing darts at KFC poster give it away as a pro-vegan advertising material targeted at children: this would also explain why they didn't bother with making the actual movie good.
and for a kid's movie, it very inadvisable to watch this with children because, only girl cows have udders???
So after finally checking it out, I have to say that I was a bit more surprised with the film than I thought I would be.Basically, Otis the Cow (Kevin James) is a free-spirited party animal.
It actually looked pretty good for what it is.Obviously the biggest question to come out of the design of some of these characters is the udders on the male cows.
Barnyard feels a lot like some familiar Disney movies- most recognizingly The Lion King.
But honestly, I was waiting for the female roosters and male hens and adult calves to have their say in this movie!Making cows male in voice only and retaining mammary glands (they actually looked like bears with several genitalia sticking out of their stomach; it took me a minute or two to figure out what kind of animal it was) is like saying Abraham Lincoln signed the Declaration of Independence and thinking it's funny.
If the producers actually thought making male cows would be funny, like they apparently say, then they should have made a point of it instead of ignoring it.
Actually, for a movie about barnyard animals, the humans had the best lines!
Males do not have udders!No one would have thought anything if it'd just been left with nothing there.I loved the movie and so did my kids.
The whole family went to see this movie (including 2 kids 5YO and almost 2YO) this afternoon and we all really enjoyed it.To me it came across as an original plot line and I found it highly amusing and entertaining, although at one point I thought "Oh no, not the Lion King again".
One thing that really make me hate this movie was the fact that the cattle, bulls and cows, all had udders.
I'm still not sure why there were male cows with udders and then bulls too, but I don't care, because as selfish as we've become as a nation and world, it's great to see a movie that flat out says that while it's good to take care of yourself, the better man helps those around him.Thumbs up!.
It's funny how people get all worked up about a cartoon movie that contains male cows.
On the other hand if you are looking for a good movie for entertainment for children, than this is it.p.s. I must still have some kid in me since I also enjoyed watching with my kids..
the movie has a good plot going for it, there are a couple of things wrong with the film, like the ending is sort of rushed and there is a ton of product placements.
There is still a bunch of thing that are good, like the jokes in the movie and the characters, there are just too many to count.
Like I said before, don't judge if you don't have the facts, and this is a very highly recommend movie while also being a very funny flick, original, and slightly cliché but good!.
So many people bash this movie for everything from the "male cows with utters" to the fighting scene with Ben and the Coyotes.
Most of your children probably didn't notice unless you pointed it out.And the violence in the movie is just as violent -if not less- then the video games kids play today.If you want some good laughs, then check this film out.
The animation isn't spectacular either.But it still is a fun movie to watch.
"Male" cows with udders isn't really a reason to hate a film. |
tt0056436 | Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam | The film opens at the ruins of an old haveli in Calcutta, where a group of labourers are busy pulling down what remains. When the workers break off for lunch, the overseer (Guru Dutt) wanders through the haveli. As he sits at a place there begins a flashback to the end of the 19th century.
The lower-class and educated Bhoothnath arrives in colonial Calcutta looking for work. He lives in the grand haveli of the Choudhurys, a family of zamindars with his Brother-in-Law. He works at the Mohini Sindoor factory run by Subinay Babu, a dedicated member of the Brahmo Samaj. Subinay Babu's daughter Jaba (Waheeda Rehman) is amused by Bhoothnath whom she considers an unsophisticated rustic. Bhoothnath becomes fascinated with the goings-on in the haveli and every night observes the decadent lifestyle of the Choudhury brothers.
One night the servant, Bansi (Dhumal), takes Bhoothnath to meet the younger zamindar's (Rehman) wife Chhoti Bahu (Meena Kumari) who implores him to bring her Mohini Sindoor believing it will keep her unfaithful husband home. Bhoothnath is struck by her beauty and sadness and inadvertently becomes Chhoti Bahu's secret confidante. A bomb explodes in the marketplace and Bhoothnath is injured in the ensuing crossfire between freedom fighters and British soldiers. Jaba looks after him.
Chhoti Bahu's repeated attempts to appease her husband fail until she becomes his drinking companion to keep him by her side. Jaba's marriage is finalised with Supavitra (a member of Bramho Samaj) but after her father's death she declined the marriage. Bhoothnath becomes a trainee architect and goes away to work on a training project. After his return he find the haveli in partial ruins. Chhoti Bahu is now a desperate alcoholic and her husband, paralysed. Meanwhile, he learns that he and Jaba were betrothed as children. One night Chhoti Bahu asks Bhoothnath to accompany her to a nearby shrine to pray for her ailing husband. Their conversation is heard by the elder zamindar, Majhle Babu (Sapru), who suspects that Chhoti Bahu is having an affair with Bhootnath (though really it was not). He orders his henchmen to chase them. As Bhoothnath and Chhoti Bahu travel in the carriage, it is stopped by the henchmen. Bhoothnath is knocked unconscious and Chhoti Bahu is abducted. When he wakes up in hospital, Bhoothnath is told Chhoti Bahu has disappeared and the younger zamindar is dead. The flashback ends.
Bhoothnath's workers inform him a skeleton is found buried in the ruins of the haveli. From the jewellery on the corpse, Bhoothnath realises it is the remains of Chhoti Bahu.
The last scene shows a nostalgic Bhoothnath riding away on a carriage with Jaba, who is now his wife. In this, the filmed version departs significantly from the novel, where Jaba and Bhoothnath do not get a happy ending.
The film also depicts the decline of the old landed zamindari families of Bengal during the 19th century. | tragedy, satire, murder | train | wikipedia | This is not only one of the best Hindi films that I have ever seen, it is also one of the greatest movies I have seen.But first things first, MEENA KUMARI, a queen among beautiful women, looks so breath-taking, sometimes you really have to catch your breath and stop staring at her face in wonder.
The movie with lush black and white cinematography showcases her spell binding beauty flawlessly.
My oh my, the scene where she first appears on the screen, some half an hour into the film, we see her from the feet upwards and hear her beautiful voice that could have anything from any man in the world.
From the first instant, she wins your heart and your heart goes out to her as the inevitable tragedy unfolds.Set in the affluent house of high society Bengal Family, the story tells the tale of ruin of a household when all the people in the house are blinded by their many conflicting ambitions.
Of particular interest to us is the story of the servant Bhoothnath(Guru Dutt) who falls in love with his mistress, the enigmatic Choti Bahu(Meena Kumari), wife of the youngest wayward son (Rehman)in the house who spends most of his time drinking at whore-houses.
All the men in the house blinded by joys of money ignore the family business completely which ultimately brings about the the ruin of the house.The movie also has the wonderful subplot of Bhoothnath and Jaba(Waheeda Rehman), another beautiful and gifted actress.
Their little tale also unfolds with the tragedy occurring in the big house.All in all, an outstanding movies comparable to Citizen Kane, Casblanca, Sunset Boulevard and All Aboue Eve for the style, narration, and of course superb acting all around.
Particularly by the amazing Meena Kumari, who excels in her drunken outbursts towards the end of the movie.
For years, Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam has been known as an inalienable asset in the history of the Hindi film industry, and not without a reason.
The movie fully deserves to be called a timeless classic and its story is relevant and fascinating even today, almost half a century after its release.
Guru Dutt was a master of his craft.
Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam is excellent in story, writing, execution and acting.
The music is sublime, the sets are fantastic, and the movie exemplifies what true cinematographic excellence of those times was.
The film is quiet, focused and balanced, and has a very subtle feel to it thanks to all these aspects.
Abrar Alvi's direction is superb - he captures the atmosphere of those times with great skill, his script is marvelous, and many of his rich dialogues remain memorable even today and are often cited by lovers of Hindi cinema.
All said and done, Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam wouldn't have been what it is if not for the transcendent performance of the divine Meena Kumari.
Chhoti Bahu's desire to get her estranged husband's affection and become a mother and her attempts to please him by taking to alcohol only to become a fervent alcoholic herself and remain the same neglected wife, are all aptly displayed.
Kumari plays the role with great mastery; her appearances in songs, like "Piya Aiso Jiya Mein" in which she dresses for her husband and particularly the seductive "Na Jao Saiyan..." are astonishing; her big, expressive and often tearful eyes, her brilliant dialogue delivery, her emotional outbursts, her breaks into anguished and sarcasm laden laughs, and ultimately her nostalgic monologue towards the end, are unforgettable.While Kumari dominates the show utterly, one must not forget the great job done by the rest of the cast members.
Guru Dutt, playing the role of the innocent Bhootnath, who later becomes Chooti Bahu's confidant and close friend, acted like only an actor acting in his own film could.
This rumour was disproved by people associated with the film, but Guru Dutt, the actor, still played his role exceedingly well probably due to his involvement with the film as its producer.
Waheeda Rehman played Jaba wonderfully and her character's transformation from an arrogant and careless young lady into a suffering and loving woman was natural and convincing.
Rehman, as Chhote Sarkar was restrained and effective.As mentioned, Hemant Kumar's music for the film is great.
Geeta Dutt and Asha Bhosle were the voices of the ladies, and did a great job.
Among my favourite scenes in the movie is the one right after the "Na Jao Saiyan..." number in which Chhoti Bahu bursts out at her husband after he criticises her of becoming mad as a result of her heavy drinking, while she turns on him to reproach him for being the only reason because of which she sacrificed her basic values and all just to please him.
A frequent quote in the film, that of Chhoti Bahu asserting that she is not like other landowners' wives, being much more devoted and caring, is very memorable, particularly because it's well delivered by the lady.
All in all, Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam is a gem of Hindi films.
It is an all-time great movie, and much of it because it has an all-time great performance by Meena Kumari..
I couldnt agree more with those who describe SB&G as the greatest classic in Indian cinema, followed by "Sholay".
Its also a film WAY ahead of its time (was a `flop' at the box-office!) and caused much controversy when it was premiered.
The film ran into terrible problems with our puritanical censors, because of its sometimes unabashed references to alcoholism and sex.
Nominally directed by Abrar Alvi (they say Guru Dutt shadow-directed it....and it shows!) and luminously photographed in B/W, the film has immaculate attention to detail in EVERY respect, starting from the trenchant plot-line and script.
Meena Kumari's performance is the finest given by an actress in Indian cinema....and I will go on to say that its the finest performance given by an actress that I have EVER seen (a close second is Meryl Streep in "Sophie's Choice").
Meena Kumari acts with her FEET --- thats the first we see of her, with her dialogue spoken as a voice-over; then a cut to her incredible face, the eyes betraying a glitter of obsessive-compulsion that is the character's core.
Another great Indian film that is not available on DVD, at least not in our own country.
The Greatest classic in Indian film history.
Surely a Masterpiece and the Greatest classic in Indian film history with 'Sholay' taking the next rung in this list.
Great story, absolutely no holes in the story(very hard to find in the current genre) and perhaps the greatest female acting ever portrayed on the Indian screen, and I am talking about Meena kumari.
The scene that really takes off is the part where she charges back at her husband when he calls her 'mad' and scoffs her desire to have children.
That scene , every time I see just leaves me shaken and I wonder how can someone put up such an intense performance like that in front of spotboys, cameramen, assistants and other such 20 people, staring at you,huddled in one room, mind blowing stuff..!!
Should have been the Oscar nominee for the best foreign film of that year...if the system still existed in India at that time.
No other movie, except 'Sholay' comes close to this ever green untouchable..
A beautifully made movie with excellent period atmosphere.
A beautifully made movie of the travails of an aristocratic woman in late 19th century Calcutta neglected by her husband as seen by a sympathetic lower-class acquaintance.
The woman is ever the faithful wife, always trying to win the attention of her drunkard & womaniser husband and failing.Excellent period atmosphere, and superb acting by Meena Kumari.
Abrar Alvi is credited with the direction, but grapevine has it that it was the great Guru Dutt himself who directed the movie.
It certainly has the Guru Dutt stamp.Satyajit Ray's Charulata has a similar theme & is set in the same period, but unfortunately I haven't seen it so can't compare both..
Meena Kumari and Guru Dutt at their best..
One of the Greatest films ever made, a Classic in every sense.
Meena Kumari did a great job in this Guru Dutt directed social Drama.
The storyline itself is very compelling, the story as rightly told a servant falls in love with his master's wife.
Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam is truly a movie for future generations of India.Even after forty eight years this movie truly lives in the heart of everybody.Frequently everybody sees during Sundays this movie.
Even the future generations will be astonished when they see this one due to its great Screenplay,Realistic plot and Legend Performances.Nobody can avoid this one by saying this as a Black&White old film.Persons aspiring to become great artists must first definitely see this movie.The hearts will really feel joyful after seeing this wonderful meaningful film.I would say as a must for every Indian irrespective of language etc.Really I believe this movie well be remembered even after 100 years.Salute for the souls who had made this movie..
Guru Dutt's 'Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam' remains one of the most accomplished pieces of art in Indian cinema.
No wonder why it is referred to as Indian cinema at its best.
The way the camera focuses on Choti Bahu's sad eyes or the way it zooms towards Jabba's face while she cheerfully sings, demonstrates the importance of characters' non-verbal language.
Everything in the movie seem to fit like a jigsaw puzzle, whether it's the songs, the haunting background score, the sets, the emotions portrayed by the actors, the performances etc.Performances are first class.
We see Guru Dutt as the young (and middle-aged) and naive Bhootnath.
He beautifully brings both comedy and intensity to his character communicating mostly with his expressive eyes.
His relationship with the tragic Choti Bahu and the simple but headstrong Jabba is superbly portrayed through a wonderful chemistry between the actors.
Meena Kumari gives one of her finest performances as the doomed Choti Bahu.
Her scenes with Bhootnath and one particular scene with Rehman (just before she drinks alcohol for the first time) is mind blowing.
Waheeda Rehman, being one of the finest actresses, brings grace and equally makes her presence felt in a comparably smaller but noteworthy role.
Rehman as Chote Babu is brilliant.'Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam is about love, fear, jealousy, anger, greed, addiction, lust, ignorance, despair, sadness and redemption.
Many of the movie is set during the British Raj. We see most of the events through Bhootnath's eyes.
However, when he meets Choti Bahu, he's amazed by her beauty and they too develop a loving relationship.
All she craved for her husband's love but even when he requests her to leave alcohol, she can't.
Did she feel in some way grateful to alcohol that she had her husband back?
Whatever it was, it destroyed her.However, she the one person she always relied on was Bhootnath and whenever he'd appear, she had a smile on her face except that one time when she's about to make that request that would change her life.
After all, who is this Choti Bahu that seems to intrigue him so much?
She hopes that Bhootnath might express his love but fears that the love is for a mysterious Choti Bahu.In a sentence, I'd say go watch this movie otherwise you would never know what you've missed..
Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam and Bimal Roy's Devdas.
when asked i always reply "there are only two Indian films that i adore and first one is Bimal Roy's Devdas and second guru Dutt's sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam.
generally speaking Indian films are pretty bad.
but these two gems are absolute beauties.
but that was the golden age of Hindi films.
current Indian films are absolutely pathetic at best.
Devdas: why was it great - brilliant direction of Bimal Roy. he actually was the cinematographer for the earlier version by Pc Barua.
sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam: guru Dutt's direction, brilliant performances by Meena Kumari, Rehman and guru Dutt..
Not very often do we see films which leave a great impact on the mind after wards and leave you craving for more.
Meena Kumari's very appearance on the screen leaves you in shock, it has to be one the most beautiful screen presence on Indian screen ever.
Waheeda is charming, Guru is absolutely adorable and the story is very intriguing.
An absolute gem of Hindi cinema.
I always wondered why Meena Kumari is given so much love and respect by old audience of Hindi films.
After watching this film, I can safely say, that no one comes close to her if we talk about the combination of beauty and talent.One film, which no cinema lover should ever miss.RIP Guru Dutt, Meena Kumari, Rehman and Abrar Alvi.
One Of The Best Of Guru Dutt Team.
Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam Directed By Abrar Alvi Is Based On Bengali Novel "Shaheb Bibi Golam" By Bimal Mitra...Screenplay Is Fine As Per The Script..The Story Is Set In The Last Years Of The 19th Century, It About The Sumptuous Lifestyle & Decay Of A Feudal Family...Chhoti Bahu, A Woman Who Wants To Experience Romance, To Be A Real Wife...
Bhootnath A Lowly Servant Is Struck By Her Beauty, Sadness & Inadvertently Becomes Chhoti Bahu's Secret Confidante...
The Story Is About Their Relationship ...Guru Dutt As Bhootnath Gives A Different Kind Of Performance Than His Earlier Movies ....Acting More With Eyes & Facial Expressions ...He Was A Great Talent Altogether...Rehman As Chhote Sarkar Who Is Unfaithful To His Wife Is Alcoholic & Hardly Comes Home.....He Does Well...Waheeda Rehman Is As Usual....Meena Kumari As Chhoti Bahu ...One Of Her Best Performance...
Her Few Scenes With Rehman Are Mind Blowing...She is Brilliant....Music Of The Movie Is Composed By Hemant Kumar....All The Songs Keep The Story Moving ...The Number's Like "Piya Aiso Jiya Mein Samaaye Gayo Re" By Geeta Dutt, "Na Jao Saiyan Chhudaake Baiyan" By Geeta Dutt, "Koi Door Se Aawaaz De Chale Aao" By Geeta Dutt & "Bhanwara Bada Naadaan" By Asha Bhosle ....Are Well Written & Composed.Overall A Great Attempt By The Director..Many Feel That It Was Directed By Guru Dutt ....Since The Film Is Characteristic Of Guru Dutt's Feel & Style, It Is Difficult To Think That He Did Not Direct The Film.
However, Dutt Never Denied Abrar Alvi's Role In The Film As A Director..Anyways Amazing Movie...Great Acting ...Good Songs ...Amazing Story ...A Must Watch :).
Sahib Bibhi aur Ghulam is a heart-rending, releasing and refreshing film.
Relationship of Bhoothnath and Jaba as well as with Chhoti Bahu so subtly built up and musical flirting with Jaba(Bhavara bada nadaan) releases the gloomy heart within the same story, seeing Chhoti Bahu's bangle and Jaba's appearance at the end makes your heart fresh when going out of the theater.
Use of dialogue (Salaam, Alvi saab), underplaying the hero's role (hats off, Guru Dutt, the producer), keeping equal space to all the four main characters - Chhoti Bahu, Chhote Sarkar, Bhootnath, Jaba - Bhootnath, first entry, Jaba second, Chhoti Bahu third and last to Chhote Sarkar.
Chhote Sarkar the most important person around whom the story has written, appears the last.
Use of light as a mode of expression-Jaba always white except when Bhootnath leaves Kolkata.
The last scene between Chhoti Bahu and Bhootnath in the horse cart has waves of light and dark from the window contextualizing the situation.
A haunting movie gem.
A great movie.
Haunting b&w photography which captures the era very well, superb performances, of course Meenakumari and the rest, who can forget Sapru as the zamindar with that look, Rehman, and the sets themselves.
And the beautiful music especially Geeta Dutt's singing.
Just one correction- Gurudutt's character's name is Bhognath (not Bhootnath as stated elsewhere on this site)..
The use of lighting when Bhootnath explores the hums coming across in the Palace.
It was typical Guru Dutt style the narrative being told from the perspective of a servant (ghulam) and it is conveyed as if only what he sees and not what happens when he is not there.
Even the typical item song of the dancer (if I may call so) is showed as an observation of Bhootnath.Acting is so superb and so into the character.
Bhootnath is the innocent bihari villager who does not have a great deal of worldly knowledge.
The enticing and naughty girl Jaba played by Waheeda Rehman is so endearing and charming.
The conversations of Waheeda and Gurus Dutt and very lively and enthusiastic.
The chemistry for sure is so great and in subtle nuances there is a huge lot of meaning.Music is actually not up to the standard if I can say, expect for very two special and exceptional songs Bhawara Bada Nadaan and Na Jaao Saiyyan.All the performances are apt but one that stands out and is so very awesome that I like to watch it again for it, that was Meena Kumari's Choti Bahu portrayal.
So royal, that it hid the pain so gracefully but she wants to give her wish, a chance and since she could not, she resorts to a much terrifying habit that later ruins not just her but the whole family and the palace.Meena Kumari had the royal grace and presence and Guru Dutt had that innocence charm.
This acting was extracted mostly by Guru Ditt as he could only derive such expressions.
Another notable thing is Make Up. The first scene and the immediate next scene are so much contrast that it took a while to realize what make up can do if used properly.The art direction is superb as the movie transcends from the once royal to the now bereaved family, the soul of palace also diminishes.
The climax scene in which Bhootnath finds truth speaks a great deal of what happened to place and also the first scene where construction is happening.Watch it for the dialogues, the expressions and yes for Meena Kumari.
My rating is 5/5 for one of the best films ever made. |
tt0061458 | Per il gusto di uccidere | At the start of the story the band of Sanchez ambushes a military transport escorting $100,000 to Omaha. He leaves together with two men to take the money to Mexico, while the other gang members dress in the uniforms of the dead soldiers and continue the transport, to use this as a cover to enter and rob the bank of Omaha. This nifty plan is undone by the bounty hunter Hank Fellow, who has been watching the attack in the telescopic sight of his rifle – without firing or otherwise interfering. He then takes his time following Sanchez’ group, unnerving the men with some long range pot shots, before confronting and killing them in a stand up gunfight at close range. Then he hurries back to warn the town, and the ”soldiers” are ambushed at the bank and killed, most of them by Fellows himself.
The mine owner Collins, who urgently needs to ship a load of gold past the dangerous gang of Gus Kennebeck, suggests a deal – Fellows cuts up his 10% reward as an insurance, and gets the double amount back if he manages to get the gold to Omaha and keep it there until a military escort picks it up. Fellows accepts, and when Kennebeck’s gang waits in ambush, the bounty killer picks off a few of them, which makes Kennebeck hold off the attack. At night Fellows has the gold taken away from the bank, and refuses to tell Collins where it is. The same night he has observed Kennebeck visiting a woman in town, Isabelle, and the next day he captures Kennebeck’s captain Machete after a visit there. The sheriff and his men beat up Machete until he confesses to them that Isabelle is Kennebeck’s woman, and when the gang will attack.
When the bandits attack, Fellows blows up a bridge on their way to town. They attack from other directions against the citizens waiting in prepared positions. After a lot of casualties on both sides the bandits reach the bank and make their way into the vault, where Fellows has prepared a barrel of explosives connected to the telegraph line. When a signal is given that they are inside, Fellows orders the telegraph operator to start sending, and the remaining bandits are killed in an explosion.
Kennebeck did not take part in the attack, but when he learns about the outcome he arrives to fight Fellows. He challenges him to drop the rifle with the telescopic sight. When his two remaining men appear, and are killed before they can shoot, Kennebeck goes for that rifle but is shot by Fellows through the sight.
When the military troop arrives the banker discloses that the gold has been disguised as the new stairs of the bank. Fellows is paid and leaves. On the road he observes the military transport being ambushed by another gang of bandits, and grins. | western | train | wikipedia | Spaghetti/Chorizo Western starred by an American actor , Craig Hill , and a Spanish , Jorge Martin ..
Spaghetti with Gazpacho Western full of noisy action , thrills , plot twists and shootouts .
The movie contains typical particularities Spaghetti, as is full of fury, sadism , bloodbaths , and portentous close-ups of encrusted faces .
The film blends violence , blood , tension , high body-count along with plots twists and it's fast moving and quite entertaining .
This Spanish/Italian co-production results to be a very amusing Western about some roguish outlaws and a bounty hunter named Hank Fellows who attempt to rob a fortune from a safe .
This fun film deals with a group of bandits (led by Fernando Sancho and Jose Canalejas) who are chasing a gold load , they then attack a military convoy and take 100.000 dollars .
This Spaghetti Western concerns about robbing a valuable fortune contained into a bank stage coach and crossing from a desert to Omaha City Bank .
But a dubious bounty hunter (Craig Hill) with a telescopic rifle reckoning the bandits .
This is a surprisingly low-key Spaghetti Western in which diverse characters joining forces to protect the safe and others trying to rob a lot of money .
The ambitious bounty hunter deals with bankers (Franco Ressell , Piero Lulli) who persuade him to accept double the reward money on his last job if he gets to insure the safe .
Meanwhile , a gang led by Gus Kennebeck (Jorge Martin) who holds posters captioning ¨ Reward : Dead or alive¨ attempts to rob the Bank .
Hank will prevent the threatened robbery taking place at the Omaha City Bank .
Fellows seeks vengeance against Gus who long time ago killed his brother , being helped by a likable old man .
Italian-Spanish co-production full of action , exaggerated characters, crossfire and lots of shots .
The film packs violence , shootouts , high body-count and it's fast moving and quite entertaining .
There is plenty of action in the movie , guaranteeing some shoot'em up or stunts every few minutes .
It's an exciting western with breathtaking showdown between the starring Craig Hill and his enemies , Jorge Martin and Fernando Sancho , among others .
Furthermore , appears ordinary secondary of Spaghetti/Paella Western as Spanish players : Jose Luis Martin , Jose Canalejas , Frank Braña , Jose Marco , Lorenzo Robledo, as Italian actors : Piero Lulli , Franco Ressel , Rada Rassimov , George Wang playing a tough character as Machete and many others .
Special appearance by Spaghetti idol , Fernando Sancho and Sancho Gracia film debut , who many years after would play another famous Spag :¨800 Bullets¨.
Good production design creating an excellent scenario with luminous outdoors , dirty and rocky landscapes under a glimmer sun and a fine set on the Omaha town , including the Bank that is the same to ¨For a fistful of dollars more¨.
Fine cinematography by Stelvio Massi , he subsequently turned filmmaker ; being filmed on location in Tabernas, Almería, Andalucía, Spain and Titanus Appia Studios, Rome, Lazio, Italy (studio).
Wonderful initial and ending song by Nino Fidenco who composes a marvelous and unforgettable musical score .This motion picture also titled ¨Taste of killing¨ ot ¨Per Il gusto di Uccidere¨ (original title) is well directed by Tonino Valeri who was Sergio Leone's assistant .
Tonino Valeri's so-so direction is well crafted, here he's less cynical and humorous and more inclined toward violence , lots of killings and too much action especially on its ending part .
Valeri is an expert on Western as proved in ¨The hired gun ¨ , ¨A reason to live , a reason to die¨ with James Coburn and Telly Savalas , ¨The price of power ¨ with Giuliano Gemma and Van Heflin , ¨The day of anger ¨ with Lee van Cleef , Giuliano Gemma and his greatest success results to be ¨My name is nobody¨ , a classic Spaghetti produced by Sergio Leone with Henry Fonda and Terence Hill ..
Good Minor Spaghetti Western.
Bounty Killer Craig Hill follows monetary shipments and rescues the money after they're robbed.
After a typical job, he gambles his ten-thousand dollar reward on a double-or-nothing proposition involving himself protecting a gold cache.
Trying to take the gold is George Martin, the bandit that killed Hill's brother some time before.A good enough Italian western, this has some decent action and suspense scenes, with Hill's character pulling off some excellent rifle work.
The climax is well handled too.Director Tonino Valerii went on to make My Name Is Nobody, one of the best spaghetti westerns ever.Here, villainous Martin looks a bit like William Shatner, if he were cast as a Klingon!.
This was SW notable Tonino Valerii's first directorial effort in the genre.
The year before he had served as 2nd Unit Director on Sergio Leone's For A Few Dollars More, and the influence of that experience are obvious on this film.
Much of the film was shot on sets from FAFDM and there are number of scenes - Lanky's shoot out with Sanchez is a perfect example - that match similar scenes in the second Dollars film almost shot for shot.
As in that film, we spend a lot of time watching action from a distance through the (anti)hero's telescope.
This is interesting because most of Valerii's western follow the model of his 2nd SW, Day of Anger, and are firmly in the Duccio Tessari/Ernersto Gastaldi 'school', which was very different from the Leone westerns.
The characters in these films tend to a little less cynical, more immediately sympathetic, though the films tend to be a bit hokier.
A perfect example would be Arizona Colt (1966).The film is uneven, though it would be largely enjoyable for genre fans.
The story involves the usual SW elements - wolves in sheep's clothing, ambushes, bank raids, ritualized gunfights, taciturn gunmen, and loud Mexican bandits.
Craig Hill does a credible turn as a Clint Eastwood stand-in, though it is his characterization of Hank 'Lanky' Fellows that is one the most confused elements in the film.
He actually ends up being more cynical than the Man With No Name, while the villain, Gus Kennebeck, is by turns more vile than Indio from FAFDM (as he tortures his brother with boiling coffee), then alternately sympathetic (through his relationship with his son and the son's mother).
His motivations are more immediate than Fellows's, who repeats several times throughout the film that 'You can never have too much money'.There was a very good film in here somewhere in the Gothic family western manner that was flourishing in 1966-1968 (Return of Ringo, Texas, Adios, The Forgotten Pistolero) with it nasty infighting and violence between the two Kennebeck brothers - the one who as gone straight and dresses like a gringo, the other has become a brutal bandit leader.
The bandit tortures the brother, then kidnaps his daughter as a hostage.
Afterwards the gringo brother retaliates by abducting his young nephew.
This baroque, dark story is roughly grafted onto a typical bounty hunter plot, which is grafted onto a double cross/fight for gold plot, which is grafted onto a revenge plot.
All in all, there is really too much thrown in thus interesting ideas are not followed through while others are muted.The difference between the brothers, one a mine employee and the other a bandit, is an interesting feature of the film.
Both are, if their last names are any indications, Anglo-American, the differences are not ethnic (given the limited amount of information in the film) but behavioral, contrasting mannerisms and dress.
The divide between bandit (usually played by Fernando Sancho or Tomas Milian) and gringo (Eastwood or Van Cleef) is usually indicative of a Northern Italy/Southern Italy opposition (think of Tuco and Blondy in The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly) or of a First World/Third World divide.
In this film, the differences appear to have been largely superficial one - essentially through costume - that indicates inner conditions, in a quasi-White Hat v.
Or perhaps it is the familiar trope of the one brother who has "made good" and the conflict between him and those he had "left behind" and, in essence, repudiated.
The gringo brother had changed his name, which may indicate this sort of story line.
In some films the Mexicans are the heavies, in others (The Big Gundown or Vengeance Trail for example) the Anglos are.
The use of this opposition in the different films is always interesting, varied, and rarely constant.It is interesting to note that Craig Hill's vengeance seeking bounty hunter seems to foreshadow Bronson as Harmonica in Once Upon A Time In The West.The score by Nico Fidenco is fairly good.
One of the best moments in the film, as is often the case in the SW, is the long credits sequence.
The rider slowly comes closer, passes in front of the sun, creating a nice "flash effect".
As he rides up to camera a goofy theme song accompanies about the dangerous powers of one 'Lanky Fellers'.
Good stuff.
Then the animated credits start, accompanied by the instrumental version of the theme song.Another great moment is the final gunfight, which is handled well.In Bury Them Deep (All'ultimo sangue, 1968 ), another Craig Hill vehicle (and also scored by Fidenco), the footage of the bank raids was reused, though the context was completely changed which, with some minor editing, completely reversed the situation portrayed.
The robbers in the one film become the robbed in the next!Though Valerii would develop his own personal approach to the genre, his last western was made again in connection with Leone who served this time as producer - My Name Is Nobody.
This film matches Leone's style so much that there is constant speculation as to how much of the film Valerii is responsible for and how much was the result of the producer's involvement.Top spaghetti western list http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849907Average SWs http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849889For fanatics only (bottom of the barrel) http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849890.
Pretty well done spaghetti western.
I'm glad that there is a DVD company (Wild East) in North America that is releasing a number of spaghetti westerns that never before got the attention in North America, probably due to the fact that they generally don't have the star power as other spaghetti westerns.
I just watched one of their releases -"Taste Of Killing", and as a spaghetti western fan I was satisfied by the end for several reasons.One reason is that the hero of this spaghetti western is not a superhero.
Yes, he's smart and quick with a gun, but he doesn't seem to have mystical powers like other spaghetti western heroes.
Craig Hill does well playing this hero.The script has a few other surprises as well.
It's a more leisurely-paced movie, with not as much action as some other spaghetti westerns.
(Though the action scenes are pretty good, especially the final shootout with the evil gang on the city streets.) But the script keeps up plenty of plot turns so viewers won't get bored.
There's also plenty of focus on some of the supporting characters.And as a bonus, there's a tuneful and lively score by Nico Fidenco.
Maybe this isn't a spaghetti western to start with if you are unfamiliar with the genre, but for fans of the genre it will satisfy..
Uneven spaghetti western.
A TASTE OF KILLING is a low budget and generic spaghetti western made in the wake of the success of Sergio Leone's A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS.
It stars the square-jawed Craig Hill as a supremely confident bounty hunter who makes a living from bumping off bank robbers until some money-men come up with a new mission for him: to stop a planned heist BEFORE it takes place.This movie is undistinguished by genre standards although there isn't really anything to dislike about it.
Director Tonino Valerii would later go on to helm stylish efforts like MY NAME IS NOBODY and A REASON TO LIVE, A REASON TO DIE and it's clear he was finding his feet with this, his first movie.
The familiar faces of Spanish star Fernando Sancho and George Martin (as the baddie) appear, and watch out for Chinese actor George Wang cast as a Mexican.The plot and characters are rather typical for this genre and there are few twists to keep you occupied.
However, the cinematography at least makes it look good, and the various action scenes are well handled.
What I particularly liked was the lead's proficiency with his sniper rifle, which leads him to take down various enemies at various points throughout the movie.
It's a nice little addition to an otherwise uneven outing that's only suitable for die-hard genre fans..
Better than average spaghetti western with a good central character.
This above average spaghetti western focuses on a bounty hunter who is hired by bankers in a small town to protect their cachet of gold against a predicted heist by Mexican bandits.The director here was Tonino Valerii who was assistant director to Sergio Leone in his first two classic westerns, A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and For A Few Dollars More (1965).
He then went it alone himself as a director making very good efforts such as Day of Anger (1967), A Taste of Killing was his debut as director and while it isn't quite as good, it is still definitely an impressive effort and better than most in its sub-genre.
It benefits from a good turn from Craig Hill in the central role as the bounty hunter.
He has unusual vulnerabilities such as the fact he can't read but he also has the more typical spaghetti western trait in that he is in possession of an unusual weapon, in this case a sniper rifle with telescopic sight.
He is a nicely amoral central character who waits for robberies to happen and then proceeds to rob the robbers and return the money to the authorities and so bagging 10% in the process!
The movie ends with a wry scene where our hero observes a gang of new bandits through his telescopic lens as they prepare to ambush the gold shipment he protected earlier on.
Tonino Valerii's TASTE OF THE KILLING really is about as fine of a non-Leone spaghetti western as one can hope for.
Craig Hill is very well suited for the role of a laconic, cynical and somewhat snarky bounty killer working one hell of a racket shadowing gold and currency shipments to and from various banks.
Presuming holdups, he simply waits until one gang or another decides to make a grab for the loot, eliminates them, returns the shipment and collects a 10% commission on the return & cleans up on the inevitable bounty payments on the heads of the gang members.
Beats working a day job.Things get interesting when his latest bounty gambit leads him into the town where the murderer of his brother (George Martin, unrecognizable in his makeup job) is leading the local pistolero gang who are waiting out a gold shipment they plan to hijack.
Working with both the bank manager (Franco Ressel) and the owner of the local gold mine (Piero Lulli in a rare non-villain role), Craig Hill sets up a brilliant scam to insure his own protection of the shipment, wipe out the gang, clean up on the bounties, and follow the gold to it's next inevitable brush with another band of thieves who will inevitably have bounties on their heads, and start the whole thing all over again.The first hour or so is almost hypnotic in it's syncopation of dialog, action, cinema kinetics courtesy of genre regular Stelvio Massi, and a peppy, imaginative musical score by Nico Fidenco.
If the surroundings look familiar to spaghetti western fans they should be, as the bulk of the film is set in & around Carlo Simi's leftover sets from FISTFUL OF DOLLARS and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, which were literally good enough for a whole bunch of movies.
The screen is also populated by a familiar cast of spaghetti and genre film regulars too: Fernando Sancho, George Wang, José Canalejas, Frank Braña, José Manuel Martín.The film had also found a chance to see both of Leone's movies too, serving as a distillation of certain themes which the brilliant Valerii found useful.
Hill's use of a rifle with a telescopic sight combines the finesse of Eastwood with the technically adept Van Cleef as the camera literally repeats certain shots made famous to young filmmakers the world over after Leone's first two movies had become a sensation.
But this film adds some interesting twists, such as the local lawmen inflicting the standard spaghetti western sadistic torture interlude onto one of the bad guys for a change in a scene that only works to underscore the film's ambiguous morality.
The only honest people in the film are the ones with something to lose, who depend upon Craig Hill's talents even though he's a cold blooded killer.To his credit Valerii tries to inject a bit of humanity into the play by having a subplot about George Martin's villain with a heart of gold who wants to start a family with his girlfriend and young son.
And it's here that the script takes a bit of a misstep by muddying up the proceedings with plot, though it does make Martin's villain into a sympathetic character -- perhaps even more sympathetic than the hero, which was probably the point.
Then there's the big action climax with dozens of extras riding around raising dust and shouting while people get picked off from all angles.
It all gets to be a bit too much for a stretch, the film's tightly woven ball threatening to unravel.
Valerii picks up the pieces nicely in time for a taut, ingeniously photographed showdown scene, the film amusingly ending where it began with Hill watching another gang set up another robbery and you can just see the dollar signs in his eyes. |
tt0219822 | Human Nature | Most of the film is told as flashback: Puff (Rhys Ifans) testifies to Congress, Lila Jute (Patricia Arquette) tells her story to the police, while a dead Nathan Bronfman (Tim Robbins) addresses an unseen audience in the netherworld.
Lila is a woman with a rare hormonal imbalance which causes thick hair to grow all over her body. During her 20s, Lila decides to leave society and live within nature where she feels free to exist comfortably in her natural state. She writes a successful book about her naked, savage, happy, and free life in the woods embracing nature. Then, at age 30, strong sexual desire causes her to return to civilization and have her hair removed in order to find a partner.
The partner she finds is Dr. Nathan Bronfman, a psychologist researching the possibility of teaching table manners to mice. Lila and Nathan go hiking in the woods one day. Lila sights a naked man in the woods who has believed himself to be an ape his entire life. Lila discards her clothes and chases him until he's cornered on a tree branch. The man falls off the branch and fall unconscious as Nathan comes along. Nathan brings this man to his lab where the man is named Puff. This name is after his French research assistant, Gabrielle's (Miranda Otto) childhood dog. We discover later from her phone call to an unknown person that she is actually an American with a fake French accent. First with the help of Gabrielle and later with Lila’s help, Nathan performs extensive manner training on Puff, so that he can speak and go through the motions of appreciating high culture, though he still has difficulty controlling sexual urges.
To demonstrate his success, Nathan takes Puff on tour. Puff secretly drinks heavily and patronizes prostitutes. Meanwhile, Nathan and Lila's relationship deteriorates and Nathan has an affair with Gabrielle. Eventually Lila decides to take Puff back into the forest to undo his manner training and return him to his natural state.
Lila and Puff live naked in the woods together until Nathan finds them one day and Puff kills Nathan. Lila turns herself in as the murderer and asks Puff to testify on the waywardness of humanity before he returns to his home in the forest.
After the reporters and spectators leave, Puff comes back out of the forest and gets into a car with Gabrielle. They both drive off to get food (she still speaks with a French accent).
At the end of the film, there is a philosophical passage read while the credits appear. It is an excerpt of William of Ockham from Opera Theologica in which Ockham explains his theory of intuitive cognition. "Intuitive cognition is such that when some things are cognized, of which one inheres in the other, or one is spatially distant from the other, or exists in some relation to the other, immediately in virtue of that non-propositional cognition of those things, it is known if the thing inheres or does not inhere, if it is spatially distant or not, and the same for other true contingent propositions, unless that cognition is flawed or there is some impediment." | comedy, psychological, murder, flashback, psychedelic, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0070654 | Scream Bloody Murder | As his father works on a tractor, young Matthew turns it on and kills him with it, damaging his own left hand in the process. Matthew is subsequently placed in a psychiatric hospital, and his mangled limb is replaced with a hook. At the age of eighteen, Matthew is released from the asylum, and returns home, discovering that in his absence his mother has married a neighbor named Mack Parsons. Matthew, who harbors incestous feelings for his mother despite his aversion to sex, dislikes Parsons, and one night he murders him with an axe. Matthew's mother discovers what her son has done, and when an argument breaks out between them, Matthew knocks her to the ground, and she dies due to hitting her head on a rock.
In the morning, a distraught Matthew hitches a ride with a young couple, whom he also kills, beating in the man's head with a rock and drowning the woman in a roadside stream. Matthew eventually reaches a town, where he makes the acquaintance of a painter and prostitute named Vera, who reminds Matthew of his mother. Matthew becomes obsessed with Vera, to the point of slitting the throat of one of her clients, a drunken sailor, in a jealous rage. Wanting to impress Vera and give her a better life, Matthew bluffs his way into a mansion, where he smothers the owner with a pillow, hacks the maid to death with a cleaver, and beheads the pet dog.
Matthew brings Vera to the mansion, but when she continually refuses his offers to live with him, he grows enraged, and takes her prisoner. Matthew tries to make Vera accept her new life, but she defies him at every turn, even after he bludgeons a doctor (who dropped by to see the house's owner) in front of her. One day, while trying to convince Matthew that she needs a bath, Vera realizes that he is disgusted and disturbed by sexuality, and she uses this to her advantage. Vera intimidates Matthew into trying to have sex with her, and while he is distracted, she stabs him with a loose door hook and tries to escape, but Matthew catches her and rips her throat out with his hook.
With Vera dead, Matthew becomes completely unhinged and runs through town, chased by hallucinations of his victims. Matthew breaks into a church, and as the phantoms surround him, he uses his hook to kill himself. | grindhouse film, murder, cult, horror, violence, insanity | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0082210 | El crack | The whole story takes place in Madrid, Spain and New York in December 1980. Germán Areta is a 43-year-old private detective in Madrid. He previously spent 12 years as a Police Detective and now has his own Private Eye agency solving mostly "routine" cases like marital infidelities, working absences, minor celebrity-related information and other matters. Along with him works his employee and "jack-of-all-trades" Cárdenas, (nicknamed El Moro), a chatty and funny man and former car thief, once arrested and after that freed by Germán while he was in the Police. Moro is German's main connection with the underworld and night life.
One day, Francisco Medina, a widower and mysterious man, comes to German's office and asks him to find his daughter, Isabel, who was 17 years old when she ran away two years ago. The only reference he can provide is a former boyfriend she had, Nico, who now works as a radio DJ. Germán comes in contact with him and learns that she became pregnant of him; Nico says he told her that it was fine for him and they could have the baby, but her father opposed and forced her to have an abortion in a London clinic. Just after she recovered from the abortion she run away from home and Nico lost her trail, until half a year later he got word she was in Madrid working in Las Gatitas, a high-end nightclub, as an escort (a barely-legal cover for prostitution).
Indirectly it is shown that, in the best cinema-noir line, Germán is a cold-blooded, hard-boiled man, disenchanted of a lonely life and tired of his dirty work and the violent underworld surrounding it, but nevertheless in his spare time, Germán has a blossoming relationship with Carmen, a nurse he met when he was in hospital some time ago. Carmen has a four-year-old daughter, Maite, born from a former relation with a married doctor. Carmen has not overcome completely the end of that relation, but reveals to Germán she likes being with him, but she still needs some time and patience from him. The detective is so fond of the little girl Maite, he often takes her to or from school and plays with her, and evidently his only moments of real happiness are while being with Carmen and Maite.
El Moro confirms the nightclub lead was correct, but Isabel Medina is not there anymore. He learns that she left and enrolled in a private VIP escort pool which head is Mimí de Torres, the "Madame" of a luxury brothel in the dark but a lady with an impeccable social face up front, and wealthy and powerful customers who have become friends. Germán proceeds to visit Mimí de Torres, but After Germán explains to her the story of Isabel's disappearance and his knowledge of her working for Mimí for some time, Mimí denies everything and dismisses Germán from her house after a brief argument. Not long after, Germán starts receiving pressure from various channels to stop investigating the case of Isabel Medina's disappearance. His former police superior, with whom he still deals now and then as part of his detective job, informally meets him and tells him that "someone from a high spot" is taking an interest in his investigation, and suggests him to stop it at once since Mimí de Torres has powerful friends in politics, financial areas, etc.
Then his former police colleague Alberto "El Guapo", an impeccably-dressed young man now also working free-lance in the Security private sector for some wealthy clients, meets him and after discussing German's confrontation with Mimí de Torres, offers him to join his security group with an excellent wage, with the unspoken condition that he stops the Medina investigation immediately. Germán refuses his offer at once, but wonders what will come next, now that he has turned down the "carrot" offered to him.
When Germán contacts Francisco Medina to speak with him again, he founds out that he is in an hospital ICU, with a terminal illness he had not revealed to Germán. He is aware he has a short time to live and what he wanted is to see his daughter before dying. Nevertheless, Germán speaks hardly to him for not telling him the whole truth about Isabel.
The day after, Cárdenas tells Germán that he has found a good lead from a friend working in bank computer databases. His friend found that Isabel Medina withdraws money from a certain bank office exactly the 17th of each month, which happens to be the next day. Germán and Cárdenas wait the next day in the bank until Isabel shows up; Germán talks to her and says her father is willing to see her and he might not have much time left due to his illness. She says that for her her father died time ago and is not interested in seeing him anymore. Germán now has the sad duty to inform Isabel's father (who is in an almost terminal state by now) that she does not want to see him anyway; after Germán leaves the room he commits suicide by disconnecting his vital support machines.
Although badly, the case seems over for Germán, until while going to the movies with Carmen the next evening he stops looking at a film publicity still in the hall of the Cine Capitol cinema, one of Madrid's most famous. It is a reversed copy of the film's main poster, left being right. Suddenly, he realizes the photo from Isabel Madina he had from her father is mirrored too, and that she is left-handed. Consequently, he realizes the woman he met in the bank was not Isabel since she was clearly right-handed, and it was a set-up.
Someone of high finance areas are involved in the girl's missing case, and as a warning to the detective, a bomb in a car kills Maite. This leaves Areta heartbroken, but more determine than ever to find the truth of what ever happened to Isabel. Germán speaks to one of the men paid by the financier, about Medina's case. The girl died at the hands of financial sadist.
Areta moves to New York in pursue of the responsible for the deaths of Maite and Isabel. At his return to Madrid, Germán rekindles his relationship with Carmen. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | notable Spanish noir film. I don't know why this film is called "El Crack" ("the Crack"). i searched in my English dictionary, and i found that "to crack" is to solve a mystery. probably it refers to that.the film is dedicated to north-American crime-novel writer Dashiell Hammet. i haven't read any novel of Sam Spade... but i have watched The Maltese Falcon, and i found a subtle wink to Bogart character in Garci's movie. i remember that Bogart-Spade had a particular gesture when he was thinking: he scratched his ear. Landa-Areta scratches his mustache.But don't think that El Crack is a film where you cant follow the plot, as in the old Bogart detectives movies... (is a famous anecdote that even Howard Hawks and Raymond Chandler -director and writer respectively- had serious doubts during the filming of THE BIG SLEEP to explain themselves some scenes of the complicated puzzle of its plot). No, the plot is easy to follow in El Crack.José Luis Garci is one of the best directors of the Spanish film industry with no doubt. his films can be easily identified: they are perfectly written (this one was co-written by one of his collaborators, Horacio Varcárcel), with a lot of winks to Hollywood classics and to literature; the rhythm of his films use to be slow (that doesn't mean boring, cause his stories has so much substance that the slow rhythm is necessary to assimilate it); each secondary character of a Garci's film is very detailed and defined.Garci makes in this film a great thing: he saves Landa from the bad movies and bad critics. Alfredo Landa was then, in 1981, a veteran actor that made a lot of stupid comedies during 60's and 70's. apart dubbing some American films and little interventions in some classics as Forqué's ATRACO A LAS TRES, the rest were that stupid comedies... then Garci appears to give him the best part of his career till then. Garci trusted in Landa... and Landa didn't disappointed him. Since then Landa is considered in Spain a great actor (LOS SANTOS INOCENTES, CANCIÓN DE CUNA, LA VAQUILLA...). was definitely forgotten to Spanish film-lovers that epoch of stupid comedy films that one critic called "Landism" El Crack is an notable movie. is entertaining and haven't got old. i think that Garci proposed himself with his movies of then to describe an epoch, the Spanish Transition to democracy. In this particular case he captures Madrid 1981. and he achieved his purpose.Besides he shoots some minutes in New York too. The city of his dreams; he do that with real passion to that city, indeed; but perhaps too with a little message to American Academy members...: "eh, look, here is a young Spanish director, talented, that loves cinema and Hollywood movies as just a few persons in the world". He did the same next year (shoot a part of his film BEGUIN THE BEGUINE in USA; winks to the old Hollywood flavour) and then he got the Oscar.This film is important not only as cinematographic. It has an important sociological and historical...: it captures the Spain of early 80's: costumes, fashions, dresses, cars, radio and TV programs, streets of Madrid...Haven't seen the movie? watch it! :). Well done. I saw this one back in 1981 and it's commercial title was "Diente por Diente" which means a teeth for a teeth. I remember I was quite impressed for the suspenseful quality of his flick. Years later, by the turn of the century, I made a list of several films I had seen in the past and that where in some way outstanding, and of course, "El Crack" was one of them... but it wasn't available anywhere (I was near at one place who had had it but the tape had gone into pieces). Again, many years later, -26 exactly since its original release- I finally find it, and start watching it with very different eyes: those that 26 years add to your life experience. At first, the first 1/2 hour, the film looks somewhat vulgar and filled with apparently unnecessary details of the main character, but then it starts to raise and raise (which is a unique quality of good films), with very good and unexpected twists. All in all, this is a very good movie and in case you have it at hand, don't miss it. I also found "El Crack 2", a kind of sequel made 2 years later, which I had never seen before. It's not so good as the first part, but it's good and worth watching also. I gave the first part an 8 and the sequel a 7.. Flawed..... I know very little about Spanish cinema and even less so about Spanish thrillers, action films etc. So I was very curious about this film, that according to some sources on the internet would something extraordinary.However, I was very disappointed, this film tries very hard to be a film noir/neo noir from Spain but offers very little to the viewer. There are lot of clichés in this film that makes other, more recent Spanish productions in the same genre more appealing.The story about a private detective looking for a missing girl is standard within this genre, or the sleuth genre but would have hoped that screenwriter or the director would have tried to create at least some tension or plotwist that would surprise the viewer.But not so here, here we get same story/clichés stuffed down our throats again. Areta is former police officer, a bit of loner, he is a good man surrounded by bad people in a corrupt world.This and the fact that the script is flawed, contains loopholes, makes me wonder if I have seen a very heavily edited film and that an uncut version is out there somewhere? One positive thing about this film is Alfredo Landas powerful performance in the main lead. I only wish he had a better script to work with.Technically the film is lacking, almost bland in it's cinematography, looking like a cheaply made TV production from the 80's.Future viewers should watch this film because of its position as an obscure film that has gained very little attention here on IMDb. Just don't expect too much.Viewers should rather watch La caja 507 (2002), El Lobo (2004) if they want to see better crime thrillers from Spain.. El crack dos. A sequel based on the success of the first film in Spain, done by the same set of actors and Garci directing it was released years later. It did not had the same public success, but the Madrid atmosphere, exteriors, locations and music are another of Mr.Garci's masterpieces. German Areta, private eye, is in charge of another crime, at the request of his former director, that looks a very simple crime. But the investigation gets important sideline consequences involving complications to the crime. The "colateral" damages might prove...too much... For the private eye to continue his work but Garci as the old boxer story recalled by Areta in a moment of the film, lead us into the Madrid's Christmas nigth. Christma's eve drive to a mysterious Madrid mansion....luxury home of a very wealthy man... |
tt0035017 | La main du diable | The guests at an isolated hotel cut off by an avalanche are surprised when Roland Brissot, a man missing his left hand, shows up, carrying only a small casket. He asks the innkeeper if there is a cemetery adjoining the ruins of a nearby abbey and is disappointed when the answer is no. Then two shots ring out. The police arrive, looking for a little man carrying a coffin. The news frightens Brissot. While he is called to the telephone, his casket is stolen during a temporary blackout. Disconsolate, he gives in to the curiosity of the other guests and tells his story. A flashback ensues.
Brissot is a struggling, untalented painter in Paris. He persuades Irène, an attractive glove shop saleswoman, to pose for him. One night, frustrated with his lack of drive, she breaks up with him at a cafe. Mélisse, the chef, comes over and offers him a solution for all his woes: a talisman that will give him everything he wants, for the price of one sou (penny). Ange (Angel) warns him not to buy it, and the chef reveals that he must sell it at a loss before he dies or he will be condemned to Hell forever. The talisman turns out to be a severed left hand, which amazingly obeys the chef's commands. Despite all this, Brissot does not believe the supernatural aspects and buys it. As soon as the bargain is concluded, the chef loses his left hand.
The talisman works. Exactly one year later, Brissot has a wildly successful exhibition at Galerie Gabelin and is married to Irène. For some reason he himself does not understand, he paints with his left hand only and signs his works "Maximum Leo". At the exhibition, he spots a little man he has seen before. He chases after him, but then notices in a florist shop window a wreath with the sash that says "In Memoriam Maximum Leo". Inside, he learns that a little man ordered it. Later the little man comes to his office and admits Brissot has "the Devil to pay". Even though Brissot cannot sell the hand at a loss, the little man offers to buy it back for a sou. Brissot accepts, but then takes it back after Irène is cold to him. The little man tells him that his offer still holds, but the price doubles every day. Brissot dithers until the 23rd day, but when he tries to pay the current price, he does not have quite enough money. Later, Irène telephones, telling him she has the money he needs, but is murdered before he can get to her. Ange tells him to try a roulette system at the casino in Monte Carlo, but the little man shows up, and his lucky streak ends just before he can win the sum he needs.
When he returns to his hotel, he is met by all the previous owners of the hand: a royal musketeer, a cutpurse, a juggler, an illusionist, a surgeon, his assistant (who became a boxer), and finally the chef. They tell him their tales. The little man appears, followed by the man to whom the hand belongs. Maximus Leo was born in 1422. His hand was supremely gifted, but he chose to become a monk. The little man was only able to obtain the hand by stealing it from the monk's tomb. Therefore, as Maximus Leo states, all the bargains are invalid, since the little man cannot sell what does not rightfully belong to him. After the defeated little man leaves, Maximus Leo asks Brissot to return the hand to his tomb.
Returning to the present, Brissot spots the little man outside and gives chase. They fight atop the ruins of the abbey, and Brissot is sent tumbling to his death. He lands on top of a tomb. The casket is found empty nearby, and the tomb's inscription reads "Maximum Leo". | paranormal | train | wikipedia | Excellent Horror Film Needs More Attention.
Carnival of Sinners (1943) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Excellent French horror film from director Maurice Tourneur about a talentless painter (Pierre Fresnay) who is given the opportunity to buy a mysterious chest and with it a certain power that will bring greatness and fame.
It doesn't take long for the painter to realize that he's actually sold his soul to the Devil and he must try and find a way to get it back.
I had never heard of this film until it recently was shown on Turner Classic Movies and afterwards I really couldn't wait to tell others about it.
It's really hard to believe that this movie isn't better known because it's certainly one of the best horror films from this period that manages to hold up extremely well and it remains quite creepy.
The story of one's soul being sold isn't exactly original but director Tourneur does a masterful job at showing how one could go crazy trying to figure out a way to gain his soul back.
I really loved the way the film drew you into the greatness that would come with fame and riches and it also did a great job at showing how difficult it would be to give this stuff up.
The film is quite thoughtful in the way it shows the highs and lows of this mysterious box and the finale is just downright chilling to watch.
Fresnay is terrific in his role, which requires him to act out various emotions throughout the picture.
I thought the actor did a fantastic job and especially during the scenes where he begins to realize the mistake he's made.
The film has some wonderful cinematography and the use of shadows is quite impressive.
CARNIVAL OF SINNERS shows what a talented director can do to a familiar story and in the end this here is certainly one of the better films of the genre and deserves much more attention..
A Date with the Devil.
A few years ago I was attracted to the work of French filmmaker Maurice Tourneur, after reading his IMDb profile.
I already knew that his film «La main du diable» had a cult following, and that he was the father of Jacques Tourneur, the famous director of «Cat People», «I Walked with a Zombie» and «Out of the Past»; but I had no idea of his own prestige and importance in the history of cinema.
During the silent film period, Maurice Tourneur was as popular as David W.
Griffith and Thomas Harper Ince in Hollywood, and his movies had a strong influence due to their visual design refinement.
I am yet to see his version of James Fenimore Cooper's «Last of the Mohicans» (1920), selected to the National Film Registry by the US Congress, but I have already seen his adaptations of Maurice Maeterlinck's «The Blue Bird» (also selected to the National Film Registry), and Joseph Conrad's «Victory» (1919).
I have just finished watching «La main du diable», a French production made during the last stage of his career, when Tourneur returned to France, tired of the commercialism of the Hollywood films.
Connections are often made between Nazi occupation in France and certain films that are or seem to be allegories of this state, as Carné's «Les visiteurs du soir» (1942), or Clouzot's «Le corbeau» (1943), so I would not be surprised if there is an essay linking «La main du diable» to Nazi presence in French territory.
If it's true that this reading is possible, the film is fascinating if one takes it as it is, a moral tale with elements of fantasy and subtle horror: in an Alpine hotel, the dull confinement of a group of travelers that are trapped by an avalanche, brightens up with the sudden arrival of a nervous man, with a stump and a small box under his arm.
After the box is stolen during a blackout, the travelers become a captive audience (as we, the spectators), listening to the man as he tell his story, from being a luckless painter, to buying a sinister talisman that brings him fame, love and fortune, and being cheated by the devil.
The story of course is similar to other cinematic pacts with the devil, as those made by Faust, the Prague student, Jabez Stone in «The Devil and Daniel Webster», the phantom of the Paradise, the investigator in «Angel Heart» or the young lawyer in «The Devil's Advocate», among others.
But Tourneur, as Murnau in his «Faust», fascinates us with his visual reading of Gérard Nerval's novel, and creates a glowing monochromatic world of oblique lines, shadows, masks, and an affable little devil, played by a smiling old man who, behind the appearance of a helpless civil servant, hides his treacherous essence.
The film is a well-mounted clockwork that reaches its expected conclusion with the same punctuality the devil demands of his creditors.
If by chance it crosses your path, don't miss «La main du diable», a work that only asks for 78 minutes of your time..
One more soul for the devil..
How many movies feature a character who sells his soul to the devil?Since "Faust",a lot!From "la beauté du diable" (René Clair,1949) to "Rosemary's baby"(Polanski,1968),from "Angel Heart" (Alan Parker,1987)to "the devil's advocate"(1997) and "the seventh gate" (Polanski again,1999).And it's far from being over.."La main du diable " is one of the best.Maurice Tourneur constantly creates strange atmospheres:first,in an isolated inn,where,during the dinner,the lights go out.Then the hero ,Roland (Pierre Fresnay) begins to tell his tale during a very long flashback:he was a poor artist whose paintings did not sell,and one day he bought a mysterious hand ,a talisman:it's an overnight triumph.But who is this little man,always harassing him?Did Roland gain the world and lose his soul?To reveal more would be a spoiler:I want to point out a marvelous scene,one of the strongest of the fantastic cinema:he invokes all the former owners of the hand.They all appear together,masked,in front of a long table.They are a very long chain in space and in time:this innovative sequence might have influenced Mickael Powell and Eric Pressburger for "a matter of life and death"(stairway to heaven)(1946)Like father,like son:Maurice's son Jacques (Jack) will be also a master of fear,as "cat people" (1942,avoid the remake!)testifies..
A well done, very imaginative story, variations of which have been done many times, but not with the style and touch of a Tourneur.
Both father and son had made quality pictures enriching the lives of moviegoers for decades, and here is another.
Jumping ahead a few years for a comparison, "Carnival Of Sinners" is like a feature-length 'Twilight Zone' TV show, but you would have to see this picture to appreciate how far superior it is.Brissot(Pierre Fresnay) is a painter unsuccessful in most everything he attempts - until he buys a 'talisman', a hand in a box from someone glad to get rid of it.
Of course, the hand is cursed.
The film starts at the end as he is relating his tale to a group at a mountain resort, and from thereon the story is as gripping as it is bizarre, and there is no letup.
I don't summarize movie plots in reviews (I leave that to all other contributors), but this picture is an edge-of-your-seat story throughout its 78 minutes, which fly by.Very surprising to think that there are only 5 other reviews and only 394 ratings for such a terrific picture.
I am always delighted when I can see a great movie I hadn't seen before - and done with such style and competence.
But with the Tourneur name on it I should have expected same..
a real classic.
A desperate man escapes into a crowded inn in the French Alps and tells the hungry guests his story which the movie reveals as an extended flashback to his days in Paris as a failing artist who seemingly sells his soul to the devil to gain a mysterious left hand (a talisman) from a chef who was only too eager to get rid of it.
Once in possession of the hand, the woman he has courted, who had (appropriately) worked in a shop selling gloves, accepts his marriage proposal after previously cruelly rejecting him as a talentless loser.
Told in a film full of expressionistic sets, the story captures so many significant and fascinating details in the settings and the various characters, everyone of whom plays parts that interweave remarkably well to make up what must be considered a real classic..
Endless agreements with Devil!!!.
A near masterpiece almost forgotten for the past, this french movie made by still obscure to me Jacques Tourner's father, an astonishing dark tale about devil's endless agreements with some people end up with a untalented painter who try everything to pay the Devil without success, told by flashback with utmost wealth of details since the beginning, when you realize this sorrowful Devil's prey there is no future come out an unexpected final, striing example how make a great movie on a tight budge,supported by a perceptive screemplay this gem should be object of study for news filmakers such innovating and stylized story!!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 9.5.
Painter Pierre Fresnay (Brissot) arrives at a secluded mountainside hotel that has been cut off by an avalanche.
He carries a box with him and has a rather unpleasant attitude which alienates him from the other guests there.
The police may or may not be on his tail as they arrive to ask about a man they have been chasing.
When his box is stolen by supernatural forces, he decides it is best to come clean and tell his tale.
We are then thrown into a flashback story that explains his life and how he came to have this box, and what its significance is as well as what is inside.
It's a story of selling your soul to the devil and things come to an end at this mountainside hotel.It's a good film that keeps you gripped.
Fresnay is thoroughly dislikable at the beginning of the film but due to his predicament he wins you over and you understand why he is this way.
A small man in a bowler hat, Palau, seems to follow him around.
His appearances keep the tension going as he can change fortune but not necessarily in a good way.
Fresnay has this box that gives him instant success, wealth, love, etc but it comes at a cost.
His love interest is Josseline Gael (Irene) who is pretty straight-talking and whose behaviour also seems influenced by whether or not Fresnay has the box.
Her real life story is interesting as she was married to a member of the French Gestapo and was jailed the following year to this film being made.
She was subsequently stripped of her French citizenship whilst her husband was executed by a firing squad in 1946.An annoyance at the beginning of the film is that everyone speaks too quickly so that you just about have time to read the subtitles let alone look at the picture of the actor's faces speaking the lines at the same time.
You need to accustom yourself to this and then things get OK.
The plot's theme is interesting and there are good sequences including a line-up of masked men, all previous owners of the box, who have a brief tale to tell.
Fresnay's ability comes from painting with his left hand and he signs his name as Maximus Leo. Is this name significant?
Not sure why Fresnay didn't do that.
But, then again, the devil doesn't play fair, so would probably conjure up a bank shortfall on that day.
Maybe the best thing is to just enjoy the success you've got while it lasts.
Fresnay fights back..
Down on his luck and trying to change it, a man acquires a cursed hand said to accomplish that and finds it to come true, only for the devilish owner of the hand to appear to him looking to collect on the final aspect of the deal.Overall, this was a very puzzling effort as there's some great stuff here and some really troubling stuff.
The troubling stuff is off to a start right away, as the main gimmick of this is that it's supposed to be the lead recounting his story to the group in a remote mountain lodge, yet it takes a good while to start off the story-telling which really throws the pacing to this one all over the place.
Rather than be introduced to everything quite quickly, the dragged-out pace early on makes the first half seem quite overlong as it sets up his new lifestyle change and the resulting situations that spring from that.
After that, it gets a lot better when the Satanic angle finally gets played and that sets off a lot of good stuff, from being tormented by the ever-increasing amount needed to end it all to the string of luck that comes to an end through his meddling is all in good fun, and when that gets to the finale with the assembled owners in masks recounting their fates, it's when this one really gets going and delivers some fun.
All in all, it's problematic but not too bad.Today's Rating/PG-13: Violence..
made this made mostly silent films.
Undoubtedly an interesting film from Maurice Tourneur and made the same year his son was in the US making Cat People.
The father about 70 when he made this made mostly silent films, the sound ones coming in his later years and to make things more difficult this would have been in occupied France.
For me it seems too arch, his style clearly rooted in the silent era there is a tendency for slow methodical explanation and a certain amount of repetition.
In an otherwise amazing scene towards the end, we see the chain of people that have been involved in the deals with the devil and it seems incredible today that we would have to go through every single one's story.
All the subtlety of his son's film making is missing here and whilst as I say it is interesting to see it can seem like a long 80 minutes..
Devil's Claw.
Trivia buffs may like to note that even as Maurice Tourneur was shooting this Gothic tale for Continental in Paris his son Jacques was shooting Cat People in Hollywood.
This is a very superior piece of Gothic if anybody asks you; it bows to convention insofar as in a lonely inn subject to power failure a stranger narrates the story of how he, as a struggling artist was persuaded to 'buy' for peanuts a 'talisman' in the shape of a severed human left hand from a restauranteur.
Of course his fortunes did improve dramatically and equally inevitably the piper came round one day to collect the payment for calling the tune.
In a masterstroke the 'devil' takes the shape of a Caspar Milquetoast, a bowler-hatted bailiff who informs our hero that the 'price' doubles every day he keeps the hand.
Naturally his mistress chooses that moment to take it on the Jesse Owens with his savings leaving him to face a mounting bill.
In a second masterstroke the artist (Pierre Fresnay) comes face to face with previous 'owners' of the hand, beginning with a monk who declined to use his artistic talent for the good of God. Our artist finds that he must stump up - if you'll forgive the expression - the collective tab for all of these previous owners.
Made under German occupation it would not have been hard in 1943 to locate a hidden 'message' here but sixty years on it still works as a psychological horror story.
Since having enjoyed seeing his splendid Valley of Hell which I watched with 5 other films that were affected by the Occupation of France,I decided that when watching 100 French films over 100 days that one of them would be from auteur film maker Maurice Tourneur.Talking to a fellow IMDber about Valley,I was caught by surprise,when this very kind IMDber gave me a chance to view another Tourneur title,which led to me getting ready to shake the devils hand.The plot:Hit by an avalanche,the guests find themselves stuck in the hotel.Walking out of the snow, Roland Brissot enters the hotel and asks for a room.
Spotting Brissot go to the room,his fellow guests notice that he's lost his left hand,and is also carrying a small coffin.Suddenly,the police run in saying that they are after a little man carrying a coffin.Whilst Brissot takes a call,the lights go out,and Brissot's coffin is stolen.Desperate for help to find the stolen coffin,Brissot decides to reveal to the guests the devilish deal he made with the strange little man.View on the film:Cracking a chopped off left hand over the opening credits (!) director Maurice Tourneur and cinematographer Armand Thirard steam a chilling Gothic Horror atmosphere.
Land locking the hotel, Tourneur explores every corner with refined whip-pans that sink into the darkness.
Offering a quick shock in the opening credits, Tourneur spends the rest of the film brilliantly handling a foreboding mood,where a dazzling use of silhouettes,huge lingering shadows and a gathering which sends Brissot's (played by a superb,worn-down Pierre Fresnay) deal into the fantastically creepy.Made by the Nazi-run Continental Studio,the screenplay by Jean- Paul Le Chanois gets a grip on Gérard de Nerval's novel to deliver strikingly sharp allegorical shots, via making Brissot'a attempts to get out of the deal lead to hyper- inflation which Brissot cannot escape.
Foreshadowing the Gothic final notes with Brissot's artistic hand,Chanois makes Brissot's downfall a devilish delight,with Chanois drowning Brissot with a little devil,a curse hanging over his head,and the most terrifying thing of them all,a pampered diva (played by an icy Josseline Gaël-who got banned from working in movies after joining the French Gestapo) ,as Brissot tries to break the grip of the devils hands. |
tt0444182 | Indigènes | The film begins in North Africa where large numbers of indigènes (French Algerian Tirailleurs as well as Tunisian or Moroccan Goumiers) have been recruited into the French First Army of the Free French Forces, that has been formed to liberate France of the Nazi occupation in World War II.
Saïd, an impoverished goat herder, joins the 7th Algerian Tirailleur Regiment. With him are several other Berber men, including Yassir, who is seeking booty so that he can return home and his brother can marry; Messaoud, who wants to marry and settle in France; and literate Corporal Abdelkader, who is fighting for the equality and rights of the colonized Algerians.
Soon the men, dressed in lend-lease American uniforms meet Sergeant Martinez, a battle-hardened pied noir, who trains them before leading them on their first mission in the Italian Campaign. Their mission is to capture a heavily-defended mountain from the Germans. It soon becomes clear that their white commanding officer is using the colonial troops as cannon fodder to identify artillery targets. The African troops eventually succeed, but the tactics result in high casualties among the colonial troops. When asked by a French war correspondent about his thoughts on the losses, the white colonel replies, "today was a great victory for the Free French Forces".
The troops of the 7th ATR are transported to France to participate in Operation Dragoon to liberate the south of France. While aboard ship, a white cook refuses to give tomatoes to black soldiers. Abdelkader calls for equality but the mutiny is averted when Martinez and the company Captain assures everyone will be treated the same.
On arrival at Marseille, the colonial troops are greeted as heroes. Messaoud, meets and courts Irène, a French woman; When his regiment leaves, he promises to write and to return. She says she'll wait for him and they will marry. However, due to French censorship of mail between Arab men and white French women, Irène never learns Messaoud's fate.
Saïd becomes Martinez's orderly, for which the other soldiers call him "wench". Eventually, he snaps and holds a knife to Messaoud's throat. Abdelkader calms the situation, but Saïd makes it clear that in this segregated world the French authorities will not give their African soldiers anything. While drinking with the sergeant, Saïd mentions they are similar, as he had seen the picture of Martinez with his Arab mother; the NCO—a self-hating Arab—attacks him, and threatens to kill Saïd if he reveals this secret.
The colonial troops discover that while they are not allowed breaks, the white Free French Forces are given leave to return home in France. Eventually, the troops are told they are going home, but it's a ruse; instead, they are billeted behind the lines and given a ballet performance. Bored and disillusioned, most leave the tent and hold a meeting outside decrying the injustice. Martinez challenges the group, led by Abdelkader, and a fight starts.
Early the next morning, French MPs bring Messaoud to a temporary stockade where Abdelkader is also being held. Messaoud says he was arrested for trying to go back to Marseille and find Irène. Abdelkader is brought before the white Colonel who tells him that he needs him to go on a special mission: to take ammunition to American troops fighting in the Lorraine Campaign and also be the first French troops to liberate Alsace. The white officer promises that Abdelkader and the other African soldiers will get the rewards and recognition that success in this operation demands. Later, the white company captain tells the corporal that the colonel will keep his word.
Most of the men are killed by a booby trap, including Yassir's brother, as they cross the German lines. Martinez has been severely injured. Most of the troops want to return to their side, but Abdelkader rallies them to push on. Eventually, the corporal, Saïd, Messaoud, Yassir and Martinez reach an Alsatian village. Over the next few days the soldiers ingratiate themselves into the area, and Saïd befriends a milkmaid. A battle begins when a company of Germans arrive, and everyone except Abdelkader is killed. Messaoud is badly hurt by a Panzerschreck and then shot by a German rifleman. Saïd attempts to evacuate Martinez, but they are both shot by the Panzerschreck, killing Saïd and further wounding Martinez, who is quickly finished off. Abdelkader and Yassir attempt to flee, but Yassir is shot in the back by a German. However just as the corporal is cornered, more colonial troops arrive and drive the Germans out of the village.
As columns of Free French forces begin to move through the area, Abdelkader sees the colonel passing in his jeep, but the white commanding officer ignores him and he is pulled away by a staff officer who asks him where his unit is. When Abdelkader says they are all dead, he is simply assigned to another white NCO. As he walks out of the village, he passes a film cameraman filming only white troops standing by the liberated villagers.
The movie then moves to the present day. An elderly Abdelkader visits a war cemetery in Alsace to visit the graves of his comrades: Martinez, Saïd, Yassir and Messaoud. He then returns to his small rundown flat in modern-day France. The film then concludes with the caption to say that the servicemen from France's former colonies living in France had their pensions frozen in 1959 shortly before their various countries of origin's independence. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Their goodness and patriotism are unmistakable and Saïd (Jamel Debbouze) remarks how "If I liberate a country, it's my country, even if I've never even been there." Here is a good-hearted contingent of North African soldiers who hope to catch some of the victory's glory, but whom are repeatedly shifted to the backseat because of their name, skin and accent.There was no way I would miss a film that French president Chirac cites as the sole reason he immediately rectified the pension plan for indigenous veterans, offering them the promise of equality for the law for the first time.
Why this is I do not know, but it ought to be attributed to the film and not the superb performances.When the squad of wet puppies make their way across the motherland, they are faced with two disturbances: the internal conflicts that arise in the army when it becomes apparent that North African soldiers are not given the same treatment as native French (no tomatoes, no weekend leaves, no promotions and no glory) and the gruesome reality on the battlefield.
If I hear an "epic, ethnic" score in a movie like this again, I will probably go out and kill someone either the Arab who is singing, or the stupid Westerner who thinks mainstream audiences need everything spelled-out for them with this mandatory music inclusion.Aside from this minor misstep, Indigènes is a worthy merit to France's resumé of films, one that will surely be a frontrunner for the Best Foreign Language Film Award at the Oscars next year.
You feel frustrated, but you think of your rice bowl, and decide to grit your teeth and bear it, calling it just another day, secretly longing for a time where you are empowered to do something about it.In the liberation of France during WWII, North African men were recruited and enlisted in the French army in the fight against the Nazis.
However, the final battle would please action fans, as it is well choreographed and executed, and you feel both the pain and victory from a bunch of tightly knit soldiers trying their very best to defend a small town, in a samurai- seven-ish sort of way, also reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan's somehow.If you've missed this during the French Film Festival, don't fret.
The movie takes the viewer on a trip back to the second world war, showing how parts of the Arabic population fought with the French colonists for their freedom, against Nazi Germany trying to occupy Africa.
In the 7th battalion commanded by the tough Sergeant Roger Martinez (Bernard Blancan), the soldier Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila) has leadership with the troop and seeks promotion and recognition from the command; Said Otmari (Jamel Debbouze) is a servile and illiterate private, happy in serving his sergeant; Messaoud Souni (Roschdy Zem) is the sniper of the group and has fallen in a corresponded love with the French Irène (Aurélie Eltvedt); and Yassir (Samy Naceri) is fighting together with his brother to raise some money.
Along the campaign in Italy, France and Alsace, they realize that French soldiers are promoted, have better food and have leaves to visit their families, while the Arab soldiers are shamefully discriminated and treated like 2nd ranking soldiers."Indigènes" is an excellent movie of war, disclosing an unusual theme: the discrimination of the soldiers from the French colonies in World War II.
The anti-Semitism is presented in most of the films about WWII; racism and segregation with the American soldiers has been explored in a couple of movies; but the treatment spent to the Arab soldiers in World War II by France command is the first time that I see in a movie.
After French Premier Jacques Chirac saw the film, he agreed to compensate all North Africans who fought in World War II by unfreezing their pensions, a result the director Rachid Bouchareb worked hard to achieve.
Though conventional in its technique and lacking in any real character development, Days of Glory, a French Moroccan Algerian co-production, is an involving and heartfelt film whose outstanding ensemble cast won the award for Best Actor at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival.The film depicts a group of North African volunteers who enlist in the French army to support the French resistance against the Nazis during World War II.
Unlike the French, the North African recruits are not granted leave to visit their families, are not promoted, and are not even allowed tomatoes with their dinner.The film opens in 1943 as the enlisted men say goodbye to their families in Algeria, Morocco, and Senegal to join the fight against the Germans.
Bouchareb follows four men: Said (James Debbouze), a young Algerian is moved to enlist by a recruiter's sloganeering and his own desire to escape his economic hardship; Yassir (Samy Naceri) who joins in Morocco even though he cannot help being bitter toward the French government that killed his family in the name of pacification.We later meet Messaoud (Roschdy Zem), a solid marksman who falls for a young French woman but their correspondence is intercepted and censored by the French and his "no luck" tattoo on his neck turns out to be prophetic.
This group jointly received the Best Actor award at Cannes last May. I think that "Glory" ranks with the very best war movies made in the modern era, right up there with films like Oliver Stone's "Platoon," Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line," and Clint Eastwood's recent "Letters from Iwo Jima." I wouldn't argue with anyone who claims that "Glory" is the best of the lot.
'Indigènes' (DAYS OF GLORY) as written by Olivier Lorelle and Rachid Bouchareb (who also directed) is a film of visceral power, another aspect of World War II that has not been addressed and that points to problems of inequality among fighting troops that still exists.
It is a grisly film (how can a film about war not be?) but shares a viewpoint that is as shocking as it is important.During WWII the French military incorporated African men including a large number of Algerian soldiers to fight the Nazis and protect France (and, yes, its protectorates) from oppression.
The men vary from idealist to illiterate but their sense of camaraderie is rock solid: Saïd Otmari (Jamel Debbouze) is unable to read or write and has only one arm, yet he is devoted to his mission of saving France and hence his family in Algeria; Yassir (Samy Naceri) proves to be a marksman and is the one selected to be front man during the most dangerous encounters; Messaoud Souni (Roschdy Zem) finds solace in the love of a French girl Irène (Aurélie Eltvedt) but his communications with her are censured by the military; Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila) is the natural leader among the four yet is not advanced in rank when the Frenchmen are.
French president Jacques Chirac announced last September after seeing the film that he would reverse a 47-year-old policy of freezing war pensions for the widows of expatriate African Army soldiers that fought for France.
Their story is unglamorous and shocking, and that's probably the reason the movie was made.Based on true events, Indigènes reveals that during WWII the French army exploited men born in the former colonies (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco) and had them do the most degrading jobs.
During their voyage to Europe, these soldiers have nothing to rely on but themselves and the hope that one day they will be reunited with their families, even though they know it's likely they'll never set foot in Africa again.Bouchareb's point is pretty clear: what the French did to all those foreigners was wrong, as was the fact that this situation remained unknown to the public for years (apparently, the film's cast had no idea such things had happened before filming started).
Indigenes (Days of Glory), as a movie about the huge contribution made by soldiers from the Empire in the renaissance of the French army in WW2, succeeds on several levels - it holds the interest, it twiddles with your emotions, and it gets a strong message across.As has been mentioned elsewhere in these reviews, the Free French army would have continued as a single brigade of men, had it not been for the Armee d'Afrique's large resources of Spahis, Tirailleurs and Goums - native troops from all over French Africa, but particularly Morrocco and Algeria.
In Indigenes, Jamel Debbouze (from Angel-A), Samy Naceri (from Taxi and Nid de Guepes) and Sami Bouajila (Nid de Guepes) amongst others are North African soldiers from the French colonies fighting the Germans in hope of getting recognition and equal rights with the French.Of course, somewhere along the way that doesn't really happen.
In World War II 130,000 young Algerian men enlisted in the French army to help liberate France from the Nazi enemy, despite having never set foot on French soil they fought side by side.
Describing the film the creators said 'Days of Glory' gives back Arab Muslims their rightful place as heroes of world war II, half a million Muslim men fought for the universal ides of freedom, honour and equality and to bring an end to Hitler's regime.' The films events begin with the 'green' recruits, leaving their homes and joining the armies of France, at first they are being treated as nothing more than cannon fodder in a race to push back the Nazi's but as the film progresses so do they.
For Algeria and much of Africa, it was France.Rachid Bouchareb's Oscar-nominated film draws us in as we meet young men in the North of Africa, circa 1943, ready to fight a war.
Days of Glory is set during the second half of World War 2 and the slow but steady liberation of France, Alsace was essential to the victory of the allies.The film surrounds the First French Army, recruited in Africa in order to avoid German eyes and the Vichy authorities: over 200,000 men, including 130,000 "indigenes" (natives) including 110,000 North Africans, and 20,000 "pieds- noirs" (French colonials) and one third young Frenchmen who fled the occupation.The story is a sad and forgotten story of the soldiers known as "Indigènes" and follows the story of four of them: Abdelkader, Saïd, Messaoud and Yassir, a mobile corps, reputed for their endurance, ground sense , and courage in close combat, each one in pursuit of a different objective throughout the passage across France which they are in part responsible for her liberation.The first half of the film relates to how the four men end up in the same corps and the racism they encounter along the way from the French despite them doing the same job and for a mother country they have never seen.
It also allows for substantial character development and the audience can closely identify with each characters positive and negative personality traits.The battle scenes are well crafted and carried out and you get a real sense of the horror of warfare both on and off the field as the Indigenes are sent in as fodder before the First French Army.The second half of the film deals with the four men as they hold and defend a small town in Alsace against the German army.
In 2001, the Council of State ruled in his favour posthumously but in 2003 the French government put a new freeze on the pensions.French president Jacques Chirac announced last September after seeing the film that he would reverse a 47-year-old policy of freezing war pensions for the widows of expatriate African Army soldiers that fought for France.
This is a masterpiece, an epic tragedy that resembles a critical and uncovered chapter of human's struggle against discrimination, poverty, tyranny and inequality, this movie explains a lot about the diversity of the modern days French society and the historical right of Arabs in France through the sacrifices of their ancestors to liberate France when it was in its weakest state, defeated, occupied and humiliated.The original title in French is "indigènes" (indigenous) which refers to the native North Africans in French culture, I find this title more relevant than the English more commercial one "Days of Glory".For the first half of the movie I wasn't getting the "glory" in nomad soldiers from the remote villages or Algerian mountains recruited in the French army to liberate France from German invasion!
that was absolute dishonor according to my principles, it was obvious that French commanders don't give a damn to the number of casualties between Arab and African soldiers as long as they achieve a symbolic victory over their oppressive opponent, discrimination was institutionalized, even "returning home" meant to French commanders returning to the French mainland, not returning every soldier to his own village in Africa.Soldiers mingle into the French territories with people cheering and praising their courage in the battlefield, Arab soldiers feel they belong to France, Saiid says to a French young lady that was listening to his courage stories: "je libère une pays, c'est mon pays" (I liberate a country, it's my country).Soldiers are now fighting for glory, for the principles of the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité) and under the slogans of Charles de Gaulle, they fight against Nazism and tyranny, they reject the German temptations to dilute their loyalty to the French army, they still see clear discrimination but still aspire for equality and fair compensation when they complete their mission and liberate what's now their own land, France.Music plays a great part in this movie, soundtrack and songs by Cheb Khalid are a solid part of the tragedy with its Arabic lyrics about alienation and leaving motherland in search for glory, homesickness and yearning to homeland's characteristics..
The French even intercepted the mail between foreign soldiers and the women of France, which is part of the love story as a backdrop which is heart breaking.Days of Glory is one of the better entries in the field of war dramas, with a message of humanity portrayed with great style..
I found Days of Glory a huge disappointment, a pity as I was looking forward to it with anticipation.The picture deals with a hugely interesting political topic from WW2; the recruitment from the French colonies of African soldiers to the Free French Army, and their subsequent marginalisation after the war.
French entry for best Foreign Language Oscar this year is the story of men from the French North African colonies who sign up to fight for France against the Germans and have to face discrimination as well as bullets.Good, but not particularly great look at an untold chapter of the French history of World War 2.
There is no glory - just heartbreak - in this story of natives of North Africa who were recruited by the French army to help liberate France during the Second World War. It is a grim tale of men who sacrificed their all in support of a nation that had colonized their homeland.
Throughout history, nations have used slavery, colonialism, twisted forms of recruitment, lies and various ways to get "battle fodder", or "B-Grade combatants" that wouldn't require too much compensation for their dirty work.This movie shows one such story: The story of North African men enrolling in the French forces to fight against the Nazis in WWII.
This is the story of a "band of brothers," Algerian Arabs fighting in the French army under French or pieds noirs (North African born French) cadres in World War II, a steadily dwindling unit fighting across the theaters of the war like the one in Fuller's 1980 The Big Red One, the film ending with a lone survivor as an old man, the actor, heavily made up, revisiting the battlefield cemetery à la Saving Private Ryan.
As it proves itself the company is moved from North Africa to Italy and then France, fighting its climactic battle, isolated into the platoon with the lead actors, even their pied noir sergeant disabled and near death, in a remote Alsatian village where all are wiped out but one in a dramatic battle against a much larger unit of Germans.Adopting Days of Glory as the English title loses half the point of the film.
This film is an excellent war movie that quietly asserts its outrage over the injustices committed to the North African soldiers which were recruited to fight in the name of Vive la France.
The days of glory illustrate a part of the history during the World War 2, when the French resistance commanded by general De Gaulle gathered a new army to fight with the allies, this new army was called 'les indigènes', they were men recruited from the countries occupied by the French empire.The movie shows how they participate in the liberation of the French Republic from the Nazis, and how during the war they suffered from injustice inside the army, they were "under feeded, not well dressed and not well trained" comparing to the French soldiers, in spite of they struggled believing the day of liberty is close.The idea to tell the story of those called 'les indigènes' was great, but not well exposed, the scenario and the emotions were poor, the whole movie was about the North African soldiers (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), especially the Algerian ones, certainly because of the background of the director who is originally from Algeria.The good thing about the movie was the music which was very interesting and very expressive, and the performance of the actors, great combination between the French language and the Arabic language.It is a nice movie after all, because it shows a historical reality unknown by many persons.--http://theearthdiary.blogspot.com/.
The story of a handful of Berber tribesmen from Algeria who enlist in the French Army during World War II and slog their way through North Africa, Italy, France, and Alsace in order to rid the world of Nazi occupiers.
The Germans march into town, taking no cover, and are picked off too easily by the North Africans.'Days of Glory' is a worthy addition to the pantheon of World War II films.
Saving Private Ryan was more about fighting during the Second World War, Days of Glory is more about the politics and society aspects of the Army. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.