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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0108624 | Yi tin to lung gei: Moh gaau gaau jue | Zhang Wuji and his parents return from an isolated island and travel to Mount Wudang to celebrate his grandteacher Zhang Sanfeng's 100th birthday. Several martial artists attempt to force Zhang Wuji's parents to reveal the whereabouts of his godfather, Xie Xun, but they refuse and commit suicide in defiance. Zhang Wuji has been seriously injured by the Xuanming Elders and almost dies, but Zhang Sanfeng shows special care towards him and attempts to preserve his life. However, that incurs the jealousy of his senior Song Qingshu, who collaborates with Zhou Zhiruo of the Emei Sect to harm him.
One day, Zhang Wuji is bullied by Song Qingshu and falls off a cliff together with Xiaozhao, a girl who helped him. They meet Huogong Toutuo by coincidence and Zhang recovers from his wounds completely and learns the powerful "Nine Yang Skill" in the process. Zhang discovers later that the Shaolin Sect is plotting with five other martial arts sects to attack Bright Peak, the headquarters of the Ming Cult, where Zhang's maternal grandfather, Yin Tianzheng, is. Zhang ventures into a forbidden place on the peak and finds the "Heaven and Earth Great Shift" manual, mastering another powerful skill, and he helps the Ming Cult defeat the six sects. The cult members are grateful to Zhang and choose him to be their leader.
Zhang Wuji discovers that the conflict between the Ming Cult and the six sects was instigated by his godfather's sworn enemy, Cheng Kun, who has been in disguise as a Shaolin monk all this while. At the same time, he encounters Zhao Min, a Mongol princess who is also an enemy of his cult. She uses a special drug to poison the cult's members. When Zhang demands that she gives him the antidote, she makes him promise to help her do three things in exchange for the antidote. At the same time, Yin Tianzheng and the cult's members, who mistakenly think that the Shaolin Sect was behind the poisoning, go to Shaolin Monastery to take revenge but, to their surprise, they see corpses everywhere.
In fact, Song Qingshu had betrayed the Wudang Sect and defected to the Mongol-led Yuan government. He is plotting with Zhao Min and her men to kill Zhang Sanfeng, but Zhang Wuji returns in time and saves his grandteacher. Zhang promises to not use his newly mastered skills and manages to defeat the Xuanming Elders using taijiquan. The film ends on a cliffhanger as Zhao Min leaves after telling Zhang Wuji to go to Dadu to find her if he wants to rescue the missing members of the six sects. | revenge, cult, psychedelic, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0339334 | The Magic Roundabout | The film begins as the wizard Zebedee, a red jack-in-the-box-like creature, is having a nightmare about being chased by a rampaging blue jack-in-the-box creature.
The film then starts with Dougal sneaking around the carousel. He goes so far as to place a tack in the road to pop a sweet cart's tyre, thinking to be rewarded for watching the cart. After convincing the driver, Mr. Grimsdale to leave, Dougal accidentally starts the cart up again and causes it to crash into the titular magic roundabout at the centre of the village. A blue jack-in-the-box creature named Zeebad (the same one from Zebedee's nightmare) emerges from the top and flies away, followed shortly after by a Foot Guard figurine that is thrown off the roundabout. The roundabout freezes over, trapping repairman Mr. Rusty, Dougal's young owner Florence, and two other children named Basil and Coral within an icy cell.
The villagers, who are all animals, are horrified by this development, and call upon Zebedee for help. He explains that the roundabout acted as a mystical prison for the evil ice wizard Zeebad. With it broken, Zeebad is free to work his magic on the world again (it is implied he started the first ice age). The only way to stop Zeebad's freedom from freezing the world again is by collecting three magic diamonds (one of which is supposed to be hidden on the roundabout, while the other two are hidden at separate locations far beyond the village); placing all three diamonds in their respective slots on the roundabout will re-imprison Zeebad and undo his magic, but if Zeebad retrieves them first then their power will allow him to freeze the Sun itself. Zebedee sends Dougal the well-meaning cheeky chappy but slacker dog, Brian the cynical snail, Ermintrude the opera-singing cow and Dylan the hippie rabbit, to accomplish this mission along with a magic train who can be summoned by a magic remote. Meanwhile, when Zeebad crash lands after escaping the roundabout, he animates the Foot Guard figurine, Sam the Soldier, to be his henchman and enlists him to find the enchanted diamonds first. Meanwhile, Zebedee's fellowship makes camp in the icy mountains near Zeebad's old lair. Dougal wanders off during the night and is captured by Zeebad. Ermintrude breaks him out of his prison; after a short chase, Zebedee shows up to battle his evil counterpart. Zeebad eventually gains the upper hand, freezing Zebedee and collapsing the cliff on which he stands, presumably killing him.
Mourning for their friend, Dougal and his friends embark to recover the diamonds. This task takes them to a lava-bordered volcano and an ancient temple filled with booby-traps and evil skeleton guards (at which point Dylan reveals an exceptional knowledge of several types of martial arts), but Zeebad captures both the diamonds from these respective locations; leaving the gang's only hope of stopping Zeebad freezing the world in ice to be getting back to the roundabout and to the final diamond before Zeebad does. The gang are forced along the way to leave Train behind when his wheel is broken, leaving them to return to the village on their own through the snowy barren wasteland the world is now freezing into. Zeebad, after having abandoned Sam the Soldier to die wounded in the snow, beats the gang to the now-frozen village, but is unable to find the third diamond anywhere. Sam then arrives on a moose, having realised he's been following the wrong commander in Zeebad and that his true duty is to protect the roundabout against Zeebad, and tries to make a stand and charge against Zeebad but is easily defeated. Having learned Sam was in fact on the roundabout, Zeebad discovers that the third diamond is and always was hidden inside Sam, and removes it from him (ending Sam's life as a result).
Just as Dougal and the gang finally make it back to the village, Zeebad, with all three diamonds now in his possession, uses the diamonds to complete his powers' freezing effect on the world by freezing the Sun. However, Ermintrude, Brian, Dylan, and finally Dougal refuse to give up, and intervene to stop Zeebad; getting past Zeebad's attacks to the diamonds, and getting each of them one-by-one into their places on the roundabout until only the third diamond is left. Though Zeebad beats the gang to the diamond and seemingly secures his victory, the timely arrival of a healed Train knocks the diamond out of Zeebad's reach and gives Dougal the chance to place it in the roundabout's final slot. With all three diamonds placed on the roundabout, Zeebad is reimprisoned, and the world is thawed and turned back to normal; restoring Zebedee to his friends, and freeing the people.
Of those trapped in the roundabout, Florence is comatose, but is revived by an anxious Dougal. The moose (whose colour had been changed from brown to blue by Zeebad and helped Dougal's friends find Dougal in the earlier scenes of the film), is restored to his true colour by Zebedee. As everyone goes for a ride on the roundabout, they discover it still doesn't work, because Sam is still lifeless. At this point, Sam is restored and then reverted to his inanimate form, and placed back on the roundabout which functions once again. Dougal, who vowed to give up sugar when it seemed all was lost, forgets his former pledge completely, but now realises the true value of his friends and the good qualities of selflessness, courage, and humility.
Two mid-credits scenes follow: one reveals Zeebad back in his prison, which, to his chagrin, is a molten lava cave. In another, Zebedee delivers his famous catchphrase to the audience, "Time for bed", before disappearing. | good versus evil, revenge | train | wikipedia | I'd watched the original Magic Roundabout from a very young age, and one false step could have ruined both versions for good.However, the filmmakers managed to make a perfect balance of "old" and "new" to bring out a whole new film, featuring characters that reminded me of the originals, but didn't try to take their places.The storyline was fun, bearing in mind that it was aimed at young children, and included the token jokes (aimed at both children and adults), teary moments and interesting yet predictable twists.
Looking around, I could tell that the young 'uns were enjoying it too, and that's what really matters in a film like this.Overall, a brilliant transition from a simple, sweet television show to an enormous, exciting movie..
All is quiet, it's teatime and before you know it Zebedee says those immortal words: "Time for bed children." But 'Boing'
Suddenly, as if by magic
Kylie Minogue is telling you that they're "coming to get ya" a talking sugar addict dog, an opera singing cow, a stoned bunny and a wacky wizard with a spring instead of legs, man I think I've been eating too much sugar myself
It's true though just when you thought it was safe to take a trip back 30 years to a place of innocence and fun here comes the super slick all singing, all dancing, all action CGI Magic Roundabout.
And who invited the lovely Kylie to not only voice Florence but also knock out a catchy Magic Roundabout single for the soundtrack?
Aided by the superb voice cast of Tom Baker (Zeebadee), Jim Broadbent (Brian the snail), Lee Evans (Train), Joanna Lumley (Ermintrude), Ian McKellen (Zebedee), Bill Nighy (Dylan) and Robbie Williams (Dougal).
And there's even a plot of sorts: the Magic Roundabout lies in ruin after an evil ice sorcerer Zebadee has escaped to freeze the world.
This leads to Dylan almost quoting Pulp Fiction with "Zeb's dead babe, Zeb's dead"; this and some of the original's trippy substance references will keep adults of a certain age smiling.
Jim Broadbent and Joanna Lumley seem to have great fun in their roles (as Brian the snail and Ermintrude the cow respectively) and Bill Nighy, well, lets just say there's no one else in the world who could've done Dylan the drug-addled bunny like he did ("no way man!
Tom Baker and Sir Ian Mackellen also seemed to enjoy giving very camp performances as the arch rival jack-in-the-boxes Zebedee and Zeebad (though Sir Ian sounded a little too much like Gandalf).
The music, which seems to include vocal performances from Kylie and Robbie, is fantastic and well above average for a kids film today.
The plot is full of gaping holes, and while it mostly works with a very young audience in mind, the jokes aimed at adults are not laugh-out-loud funny, they just raise a knowing smile.
(Watch the scene where Zebad fights Zebedee for the first time - then again maybe it was just cheesy...) I never saw enough of the original 5 minute episodes to be a fan, but really, it seems very different from the original, so old-time fans may be disappointed, or maybe they'll appreciate seeing their old favourites in some new action-packed situations.
The characters are more animated and better able to sustain your attention for the length of a feature film though I was surprised initially at the changes, not having seen any trailers beforehand.
Just keep die hards and cynics at bay!The DVD is excellent with a lot of extras and a an interactive two level quiz for youngsters when they have seen the film a few times and want a bit more involvement.
For the younger kids who will enjoy it as they would any new animation; the tweenagers who will enjoy the story and the action; and the teens & twenty somethings for all the many references to movies over the last 10 - 15 years.
Parents may not enjoy the jokes and the plot as much as the children accompanying them, but I say at least we see a movie that is not too "grown-up" for those some-year-old.
And with the lively characters they can emotionally connect to, surprisingly nice CGI graphics and enjoyable music it's sure they will not be bored for a second; rather be fully entertained by the big adventure story that playfully steals scenes from other adventure movies - but from the greatest ones, namely Indiana Jones and The Lord of the Rings (okay, and from other movies too).
What really makes it so enjoyable are the lovable characters brilliantly 'played' by the voice artists that include numerous British talents (such as Bill Nighy, Sir Ian Mckellan, Ray Winstone and Joanna Lumley) and Australian beauty Kylie Minogue (what a beautiful voice!).
The plot may not be seen as anything new and the CGI may not be of Pixar animation quality but that didn't hinder my liking for the film.
With Florence and her friends trapped in the frozen roundabout, Dougal, Brian, Ermintrude and Dylan set out to uncover the diamonds first and return things to normal.First of all let me get rid of the "what have they done to the original" argument because, in my mind, this film bares so little in common with the original 5 minute TV show that it is unfair to really make this complaint.
The characters may be the same in name and in visual presence but the film is totally different to the original series in terms of plot structure, intelligence, humour, animation and tone.
The plot is nothing more than a series of colourful adventures but they are noisy enough and funny enough to please this target audience even if it is hardly that good.Adults who do manage to get over the fact that this is trampling on their memories will find little to keep them amused.
The adult jokes are spread pretty thin and really aren't that clever drug references are lazy, poorly delivered and just smack of a script trying to push the easy buttons worse is that they are not funny.
The animation was of course going to be different from the original but I had hoped it would avoid the soulless sort of stuff that is kicked out for the Saturday morning schedules and in fairness it does look quite good but I would have preferred a bit more personality behind those computer-generated eyes than I could see.
The voice talent is mixed and is sadly better in the smaller roles than in the main ones.Robbie Williams is so different from the character of Dougal that I expected that I was sorely disappointed.
Minor roles are must better (maybe for that very reason); Ray Winstone is expressive as Sam, Baker is great fun (and has plenty of good lines) as ZeBadDee, Lee Evans is funnier than he has been for a few years and McKellen was always going to be good with his voice.Overall this is an OK film for kids under seven because it is noisy, a bit creepy, funny and colourful.
But what made the movie was the film was the voice cast, with fun supporting turns from Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy and Lee Evans(who I have found annoying in the past).
It is a shame really it was bastardised by its god awful American counterpart Doogal, which is little more than lame pop culture references and redeemed only by the quality of its animation and the in general talented voice cast(but Jon Stewart was completely wrong for ZeeBad) though they did deserve much better.
But I missed Dougal's cynical, world-weary quips from the original Magic Roundabout.
This is a family film but not for infants or very young children, like the old TV show.
The plot is really good with Tom Baker playing an evil version of the Zebadee called Zeebad who wants to take over the world.
Yes, this is indeed a far stretch from the original, but the old show had very short story lines, this required a longer plot.
There was I, a 21 year old woman, watching this movie on my own...and I loved it!
So, yeah, I enjoyed it, a nice, simple movie to look back on old times on..
but it wasn't :-( I know it's meant for kids but even so, these days you expect a good laugh don't you?
Quite a few adults went along on their own to the showing I attended, probably hoping for nostalgia - however this was in short supply, as the CGI versions of the characters look nothing like the much-loved TV show.The film also doesn't have the wit and charm of the original.
Also, with Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue among the voice cast (Dougal and Florence respectively), it's rather a shame that the only person who does much singing is Joanna Lumley, warbling horribly as Ermintrude!
Years ago there was another Magic Roundabout film, Dougal versus the Blue Cat, which, as I remember, was much funnier than this offering..
The characters have all been "re-imagined" as is the current trend, and re-voiced, as one might expect in the absence of Eric Thompson.But why does the Magic Roundabout have to change so much?
And as for the new use the Magic Roundabout is put to at the start of the movie, why oh why oh why?
This film is about a group of friends trying to stop an evil Zeebad from turning the world into ice.This film is for the very young kids to enjoy.
What we essentially have here is a CG movie that I suspect did not have great CG when it was released in 2005 and now after I have watched it in 2008 looks even worse, and to make matters worse we have a great British voice cast wasted by a mainly terrible script holding together a weak story line.The premise of the move is that new character Zeebad is accidentally released from the imprisonment that Zebedee has had him trapped in and preceded to try and take his revenge by turning the world into permanent winter (was that not done by CS Lewis), So Dougal and his pals have to try and stop him.The movie as is often the case for family orientated animated movies where essentially you have a movie containing three or four set pieces linked together by a pot and in this case a very thin one.
All bases are tried to be covered as is the way of these films by trying to throw in jokes for the adults too, unfortunately this is not done successfully and I can only remember laughing once at one of Dillon's lines.The movie will run out as you expect and if like me you will find yourself wondering why the cast and characters where wasted.
The vocal talents are good with Tom Baker excelling as ZeBadDee and Robbie Williams as Dougal has a future in this sort of thing but there wasn't enough to keep this 35 year old fixed on the screen as say Skrek could.
Kylie Minogue seemed to have a small part as Florence and was hardly noticeable, Jim Broadbent probably had the best lines as Brian and Bill Nighy as Dylan just seemed to be the same character as in Love Actually!
Joanna Lumley was good as Ermintrude, the opera singing cow.OK, so I have been kind with the vocal talents but where this magic of the original was put into 5 minute episodes this falls down with trying to stretch that 5 minutes worth of fun into 80 minutes.It is for the children and my 6 year old loved it....
I thought about giving everyone the long version but, to be frank, The Magic Roundabout is not worth it.This has a formulaic plot that involves the characters performing some very unlikely moves.Instantly forgettable.It is a sad day when one has to say that the only reason this doesn't get a '1' is that the voice ensemble is, generally, very very good.
i love animation movies for the following reasons, 1.its fun 2.the characters are memorable 3.the emotions are much more vivid than real characters 4.the plot is wonderful 5.wonderful sense of humor 6.its great to sit back and watch a wonderful story unfolding with beautiful visualizationsbut this movie has failed on all..
humor and creating wonderful characters should come naturally, but in this movie, they are trying so hard to make it funny and interesting , a absolute waste of time and really quite painful to watch , i had to push myself to survive every scene to make it to the end..., so much dumb and please for gods sake, the directors and producers should stop making animation movies like these!shrek, ice age, despicable me, megamind, etc have set the standards for the quality of animation movies.
This 2005 movie is a bombastic CGI spectacle that contains many of the same characters (sort of), a weak script, average jokes, and a plot that manages to be predictable as well as incoherent.It is a measure of how tired this is that the character of Zebedee is very much like that of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings films -- and that he's played by the selfsame Ian McKellen.
The starry cast does what it can with a weak and cliché'd script -- Joanna Lumley as posh cow Ermintrude, Jim Broadbent as the charmingly fogeyish snail, Brian, with top honors going to Bill Nighy as stoner Dylan the Rabbit (using what sounded like out-takes from his role in Love Actually.) Kylie Minogue (there as a draw for the tweenagers) is passable as Florence, and Robbie Williams (ditto) is a surprisingly good Dougal the dog.OK, it wasn't helped by the fact that the family behind us kicked our chairs and rustled their candies all the way through, but I give it 1/10.
Well, my kids (aged 6 and 4) loved it -- but they'd never seen the original.
But then times change and I think I should not have gone to see the new big screen Magic Roundabout: youngsters in the audience seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it.
(Note Dylan and Ermintrude's version of "You Really Got Me"...Class!) Okay, so maybe it's not the old stop-motion cartoon of yesteryear, and maybe the cast has had a makeover and a bunch of big names taking over their voices, but there is a lot to enjoy about this film.
I have fond memories of watching the original 1960s - 1970s stop-motion series on VHS at my grandparents' house when I was a child and I remember my nan telling me about my dad and other children trying to get home from school in time for the programme.
When I heard there was going to be a full-length CGI film based on the show with Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue (both of whom had already duetted on their 2000 single 'Kids') providing the voices of Dougal and Florence respectively, I was certainly up for seeing it because it came out before the time CGI completely ruined my childhood favourites such as 'Thomas the Tank Engine,' 'Noddy's Adventures in Toyland' and 'Bananas in Pyjamas.' I saw this film at the cinema with a family aide and we quite enjoyed it although I found some aspects a little disappointing, such as the lack of screen time for Florence due to her entrapment on the frozen roundabout.
The positives include the animation being fluid on the whole despite the jerky movements on the blue mousse towards the end; most of the characters staying true to the style of those from the original series albeit the detailed lip sync, expressions and facial features; the backgrounds having more colour and definition than those in the original series; the basic premise of Brian, Ermintrude, Dylan and Dougal going on a quest to retrieve diamonds in order to get the roundabout to work again; the dialogue having its witty moments; the voice cast and the soundtrack.
With regard to the soundtrack, the incidental music was epic and cinematic for the film's nature and I liked the songs, especially Electric Light Orchestra's 'Mr Blue Sky' and Ermintrude's hilarious operatic singing along to it.Overall, 'The Magic Roundabout' has its weaknesses but its strengths more than made up for them, it brought back significant memories of the original show and I'll definitely be steering clear of 'Doogal (what a stupid way to spell his name!)' because I despise it when British voices are dubbed with American ones and this has already happened to 'Spot the Dog' as witnessed on YouTube once.
Called 'The Magic Roundabout' this animation was a favourite of many people over the years it was shown.
Entertaining and light on plot with audiences constantly joking about characters being on drugs, it became a mainstay of British children's entertainment.
Weak and unimaginative, it contains multiple film, music and drug references without ever actually making us laugh.
All in all, 'The Magic Roundabout' is a turgid affair.Dougal the Dog (Robbie Williams) is attempting to steal candy when he accidentally releases the evil ZeeBad (Tom Baker).
Whether you choose to condemn the mediocre unimaginative vocal acting (only Bill Nighy as Dylan deserves any sort of acceptable for his role here), the terrible jokes which are hideously unfunny, or the horrendously bad soundtrack (rescued only briefly by 'Mr Blue Sky') there is enough to be able to criticise for hours.The film is just so twee too.
In the original series, the characters were not actually meant to be on drugs.
Whilst this is obviously a good thing since this is a children's film, it does serve as an interesting dilemma.
You certainly wish they'd take something to make them more entertaining.Broadcast in the 1970s, the original 'Magic Roundabout' was a cornerstone of children's entertainment.
the casting is excellent i think the voice of Dylan maybe the best in the whole film. |
tt0042418 | The Ducksters | Porky Pig is on a radio quiz show called Truth or AAAAHHH!!, a somewhat macabre parody of the popular quiz show Truth or Consequences (but with potentially fatal consequences) hosted by Daffy Duck, sponsored by "Eagle Hand Laundry" ("If your eagle's hands are dirty, we'll wash them clean!"), and broadcast by the Ajax Broadcasting Company, in which the object is to answer near-impossible or ridiculously obscure questions, such as "Who, mind you WHO, was the referee for the New Zealand heavyweight championship fight in 1726?" (here, Porky actually knew it was "Arbuckle Dreen," and even knew that Dreen's Second Grade teacher was "Abigail Twitch"). Failing to answer the other questions correctly or in time required him to "pay the penalty" (for instance, when Daffy asks who was the father of his country, Porky's stuttering prevents him from answering "George Washington" in time). These penalties include Porky being threatened by a buzz saw, pounded with a mallet, blown up with dynamite, crushed by a safe, crushed by the Rock of Gibraltar, rained upon by Niagara Falls, and other forms of abuse, to Daffy's amusement. Porky tries several times to back out, but each time Daffy manages to reel him back in, even shooting an audience member dead when he shouts "You'll be sorry!".
Eventually, after a particularly snide line from Daffy ("listen, Mac; You've got 32 teeth, would you like to try for 16?," a play on the then-popular game Take it or Leave It), Porky threatens to retaliate, forcing Daffy to offer his final challenge for a huge jackpot. Porky must guess who Miss Shush is with his only clue being a recording of her brushing her teeth on Wednesdays. Porky fails to answer correctly (obviously) and Daffy invites him into Miss Shush's dressing room to meet her, but it's revealed by Daffy to be his final torture; Miss Shush is really Mamie, a 600 pound gorilla who appears in Obnoxious Pictures' "Jungle Jitters", and who proceeds to viciously and loudly maul Porky. Porky eventually emerges and advances on Daffy menacingly, and Daffy finally gives in: awarding Porky the jackpot of 26 million dollars and three cents. Porky immediately contacts the president of the Ajax Broadcasting Company and, upon learning that they will sell for the exact amount of the jackpot, buys it out.
Now Daffy's boss, Porky takes over the quiz show and then asks a very nervous Daffy: "in what latitude and longitude did the Wreck of the Hesperus occur?" Daffy fails to answer correctly in time, and Porky turns the tables, submitting Daffy to the same "penalties and prize" that he had received earlier. The cartoon ends when Daffy is then tied to a long plank being cut by the same buzz saw Porky was on at the start of the cartoon, quickly irising out after Daffy screams at the studio audience: "Have you got a doctor in the balcony, lady?!" (this line was a takeoff of another radio quiz show, Doctor IQ, where the announcer would note "I have a lady in the balcony, doctor" to introduce a new contestant). | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | GOOD illustrated radio.
It was Chuck Jones who coined the phrase "illustrated radio" to describe the excessively talky style of limited animation introduced to television by Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera in the 1960s (ironically, the two directors responsible for the inspired Tom and Jerry cartoons of the 1940s and '50s, which were almost entirely devoid of dialogue).
With a good cartoon, Jones argued, it ought to be possible to watch it with the sound turned off and still "get" most of it.
Watch The Flintstones or Yogi Bear with the sound off, and for the most part you'll see people standing around motionless, with fixed, stock expressions on their faces, talking to one another.There's no denying that Hanna-Barbera television cartoons are bad.
But if they're "illustrated radio", is that WHY they're bad?
Certainly not in itself - because this short cartoon, directed by (who else?) Chuck Jones, is illustrated radio if anything is.
Watch it without the sound and you'll miss the jokes (even the visual ones) and have difficulty making sense of it.
Listen to it without the images and you'll follow what's going on easily - and it will still be funny.
Moreover, what we see and here is the broadcast of a radio station quiz show, with Daffy Duck asking outrageously unfair questions of Porky Pig.
If this is not "illustrated radio", what is?
And yet it's one of the best cartoons ever made.Perhaps it's misleading to point out that the cartoon makes sense without the images.
To some degree the sounds imply the images.
If you hear Daffy saying, "I'm sthorry, your ansthwer isth incorrect" followed by a heavy thud, part of the humour is visual: you SEE what happens, even if you have your eyes shut.
The animators realise what we ought to see perfectly and (of course) outdo what we would have visualised for ourselves.
The facial expressions in particular are inspired.
But the carefully chosen WORDS are as crucial to the cartoon's success as any other element.
The humour of Porky's desperate yet polite pleas to end the torture is almost entirely verbal - and nothing in the cartoon is funnier.
Jones, despite his official stance, could easily integrate ANY kind of humour into a seamless whole, because his cartoons are always rooted in a firm understanding of character and motivation.
Jones's creations NEVER step out of character.
Daffy (street-wise but world-foolish, as the saying goes) shamelessly writes the rules himself; Porky (Daffy's precise opposite) gamely abides by them.
Porky wins, but Jones doesn't cheat to bring this about..
Hilarious!.
This ranks as one of the funniest Looney Tunes cartoons ever and I'v seen just about everyone in my lifetime.
It was puzzled by the comments of one of the reviewers saying it lacked imagination.
I was quite an imaginative spoof of the old radio show and later game show (hosted by Bob Barker)known as "Truth or Consequences." The similar parallel has ridiculous questions being asked for which there can be no answer.
The difference with sadistic host Daffy is that the contestant (hapless Porky) is brutually tortured (in rather innovative ways)with everything from boulders, safes and hammers to the use of dynamite, buzzsaws and even a gorilla.
This is hilarious stuff and a must see for Looney Tunes fans..
No one leaves empty handed.
A rather different approach to a (radio) quiz show.
If you don't answer the impossible questions in a ridiculously short time you get tortured with falling boulders, cascading water, conveyor-belts with those spinning saws and whacks of a mallet to the head.Daffy Duck is wonderful as the demented host dishing out pain and humiliation to Porky Pig. But even Porky has his limits and soon turns the tables on the delightfully devilish Daffy.The entire cartoon is set in a sound studio so there's not much going on with the backgrounds.
In this respect it's kinda simplistic.
But when that small space is filled with such hyper-madness who can refuse?.
Has Some Good Dark Humor But Overall Is A Little Too Mean-Spirited.
"Listen, Mac. You've got 32 teeth.
Ya wanna try for 16?" A gangster movie?
Now, a cartoon featuring a radio game-show host and his foil.
Wow, this is one mean, sadistic Daffy Duck.
"The Duckster" asks contestant Porky Pig a number of questions, almost all of them impossible to answer.
When Porky misses, or doesn't answer in time, he is severely pounded, beaten, drench, blown up, etc.
(This cartoon is not for little kids.)Some of it is funny with excellent dark humor that made me laugh out loud.
Other things made me shake my head almost in disgust, because it is too mean-spirited in parts.
I guess you just have to take this as dark humor and nothing else, otherwise this is probably too nasty for most people.Porky does get justice in the end, however, and by then all of us are glad to see that.
That's the trouble with some of these cartoons: it brings out the worst revenge thoughts in all of us!!.
Extremely outrageous, but funny as well.
I will warn anybody who hasn't seen this, that it is one of the more violent Looney Tunes cartoons.
As a cartoon, the Ducksters is extremely outrageous, but thanks to a hilarious script, it is funny too.
The animation is not at all bad, if you forgive the fact that Porky looks a little different.
Daffy here is quite cynical and bullying, and while he is served well with the script I prefer him when he is manic.
What I did like was the theme of the quiz show, that did show flair and imagination.
The music is good, and the vocal talents of Mel Blanc are tour De force.All in all, I do recommend it.
It is not the best Daffy cartoon, but it is a good one nonetheless.
9/10 Bethany Cox.
"Aren't we gruesome?".
Fun Porky & Daffy short, directed by the great Chuck Jones.
The plot has Porky on a radio quiz show hosted by Daffy Duck.
Basically Daffy subjects Porky to torture for fun and, eventually, the roles are reversed.
So the entire short is a series of visual gags of Daffy trying to hurt Porky, with some comeuppance in the end.
I can see where this might appeal to some (in fact, many of the reviewers here call it violent and mean-spirited).
Personally, I don't think it ever crossed a line where it stopped being funny and just came across as sadistic.
Lively music from Carl Stalling.
Excellent voice work from Mel Blanc.
The animation is nice but there's something different about how the characters are drawn here.
It doesn't look quite on-model for 1950.
Still, it's solid.
I liked the short but your opinion may differ depending on how you feel about the violence.
It's worth a look.
Brought to you by the Eagle Hand Laundry..
A personal favourite.
Shockingly sadistic and hysterically funny.
Since I first saw it at a very young age, I've always found Chuck Jones's 'The Ducksters' to be one of the funniest cartoons I've ever seen.
This is largely due to Michael Maltese's hilarious script but, as always, Jones displays extraordinary timing in bringing it to the screen.
A spoof of radio quiz shows, 'The Ducksters' is a deliciously sadistic film in which Daffy Duck's host terrorizes Porky Pig's contestant with impossible questions and horrendously violent penalties.
The timing of both the verbal and physical antics is impeccable, leading up to a thoroughly satisfying finale with the iris closing on a fantastic climactic Daffy line.
Rarely discussed or praised, 'The Ducksters' is a childhood favourite of mine and a cartoon very dear to my heart.
It's both rib-ticklingly witty and delightfully violent, which just about amounts to the perfect combination for this cartoon fanatic!.
The Ducksters is probably Chuck Jones' most outrageous cartoon.
This is perhaps one of the most violent of the Warner Bros.
cartoons, certainly of Chuck Jones who initially made sweet Disney-like shorts.
Porky Pig is a contestant on a radio quiz show hosted by Daffy Duck who keeps torturing the pig with boulders, a mallet, waters from "Niagra Falls", and a circular saw whenever Porky gets an answer wrong or takes too long (like, maybe, 2 seconds) before replying.
Whenever he does get an answer right, the duck just stares into space.
After Porky does eventually get the money, the tables get turned.
The constant calamities are pretty hilarious and just as things get too much for the pig, he gets wise.
Not recommended for children especially for what threatens Daffy at the end..
Who's your sponsor?
The Marquis de Sade?.
Yes, "The Ducksters" is almost too violent to even register as a cartoon, but the twisted stuff in these cartoons is what made them so great.
It features Daffy Duck hosting a sadistic game show with Porky Pig as the contestant getting maimed in various and sundry ways for answering questions wrong (as can be expected, one of these involves dynamite).
But after a while, Porky really gets fed up...I mean REALLY fed up.So, I thought that this was a pretty funny cartoon, but I will say that it's probably not one for little children (but hey, these cartoons weren't really targeted at little children).
Worth seeing..
Daffy.
Ducksters, The (1950) *** (out of 4) Spoof of game shows has host Daffy Duck mistreating contestant Porky Pig by throwing boulders, safes and various other gadgets on him.
Even though poor Porky is answering the questions correctly, Daffy keeps doing harm to him but soon things are going to change.
There's not too much thought, screenplay wise, in this short from Merrie Melodies but it still manages to be quite charming and cute.
The one thing that held it back a little for me was Daffy who just really didn't seem like himself here.
We never really get that maniac attack nor any nice lines of dialogue.
Porky on the other hand is his great self and the two do work well together..
My least favourite Looney Tunes episode....
...But I still enjoy watching it every now and again!
The reason this is my least favourite is because Daffy Duck, who is overall my favourite Looney Tunes character, is absolutely detestable here: he is bullying, cruel and unfair.
I do not like the repetitiveness of the episode either, many of the jokes and themes are unsubtly used at least once (for example, the Niagra Falls water and the rock of Gibraltar are used more than once, although they need only be used once for humour).
I also did not like the amount of slapstick.
I like the character of Porky Pig, you feel sorry for him when he is bullied by Daffy.
Overall I also like the quiz show theme, it is different (for a Looney Tune) and it works reasonably well.In this episode, Porky is in a quiz show hosted by none other than Daffy Duck.
Every time Porky is even slightly slow on an answer, or gets it wrong (the questions are incredibly hard and funny for the audience), Porky "hasth to pay the penalty", which is a very slapsticky punishment which would crush your bones in real life.
I recommend this cartoon to anyone who loves Daffy for being greedy, cynical and mean and to anyone who enjoys high amounts of slapstick and cartoon characters being ultimately hurt.
I hope you enjoyed "The Ducksters" more than I did and if you did not, welcome to the crowd.4 and a half out of ten..
Ducktastrophy.
Porky Pig is a contestant on a sadistic game show hosted by Daffy Duck.
If you guess the questions wrong you get tortured.
if you get them right, you don't.
One of the most violent Looney Tunes shorts that I've ever seen.
The majority of it has Porky taking a horrid beating into he wises up at the end.I did find it vaquely humorous though.
Still it's not close to being one of my personal favorites if for no other reason than that I never found Porky a formidable opponent for Daffy.
But that's just my opinion.
This cartoon can be found on Disk 2 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" My Grade: C+.
Lacking in wit, imagination and spark.
Daffy Duck is the host of a rather cruel quiz show on American television.
Porky is the contestant on the show that tests general knowledge but doesn't award knowledge, it punishes ignorance.
Daffy takes great pleasure in dishing out the penalties each time Porky gets it wrong.I'm a really big fan of Daffy Duck and always feel that he is at his best when he is in his early persona of being manic and wacky.
Even when he becomes more cynical and greedy he still manages to be one of my favourite Warner Brothers characters.
I'm not sure here, what the cartoon is actually spoofing but it is obvious that the title refers some game show of the time.
The cartoon basically sees Daffy dispensing punishment to Porky in a quiz show style.
None of it is particularly imaginative or funny and it just doesn't have any spark to it.It is the lack of laughs that is the problem here as there is no real flair to the delivery.
The animation is OK in the background but neither Daffy nor Porky seem particularly well drawn either visually or as characters.
Daffy gets the better of the cartoon as he spoofs the game show host personality but Porky has little to do except be crushed, hit or drenched - only at the end does he get more than this and by then it is too late and unimaginative.Overall, I'm a Daffy fan but his later work didn't always work out.
Usually he relies on Porky Pig to help him out but neither is given much to work with here and the material is fairly unimaginative and lacking wit or flair..
"You must pay the penalty .
good, clean, wholesome fun," Daffy Duck chortles sadistically to his hapless victim\radio quiz show contestant Porky Pig during Warner Bros.' Looney Tunes animated short, THE DUCKSTERS.
The kids of the mid-1900s learned most of their American History through these cartoon shorts.
THE DUCKSTERS instructs them that George Washington was our First President, and that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.
(Since American Education has been out-sourced to the Fiends of Political Correctness, nowadays this gin's origin is credited to a random Minority-of-the-Month member--the sort of thing that leaves high school grads with minds full of much as they enter Real Life.) DUCKSTERS also reveals that Arbuckle Dreen refereed New Zealand's heavyweight championship bout in 1726, thanks to the careful tutelage of his Second Grade teacher, Ms. Abigail Twinch.
World Civilization plus U.S. History here--they call that a "Two-Fer" in my nape of the woods..
How many times can Porky pay the penalty?.
"The Ducksters" is an entertaining, yet quite violent, Daffy Duck/Porky Pig cartoon directed by Chuck Jones, and it was released at a time when radio quiz shows were widely popular around the United States.
(Don't read on if you haven't yet seen this short.) The arrogant, selfish quiz show host Daffy is the perfect foil for the hapless, innocent contestant Porky.
Throughout this short, Daffy inflicts all sorts of unrealistic physical pain on Porky for guessing either incorrectly or too slowly.
The opening and closing gag, involving Porky and Daffy tied up on a conveyor belt leading up to a circular saw, is very disturbing (the violence in this cartoon clearly makes it unsuitable for children).
On a lighter note, a classic musical gag, utilized in other Warner Bros.
cartoons, involves Daffy striking one piano key and asking Porky to name the opera.Again, "The Ducksters" contains its lion's share of bangs and bruises, mostly inflicted on Porky.
As enjoyable as this cartoon is, it is easy for me to feel sorry for the sweet, kindhearted pig.
But it is gratifying to see that Porky finally sets his limit with Daffy at the end, punishing him for his abusive nature..
How up-to-date really.
"The Ducksters" is an American 7-minute cartoon from 1950, so it is almost 70 years old now and despite this age, it is in color.
Don't be fooled by the photo here on imdb.
The names of the 3 cartoon masterminds Jones, Maltese and Blanc show of course that this is another Warner Bros cartoon and it is from the Golden Age of Animation obviously, not one of their most or least known you could say.
The title gives away that Daffy is in the center of it all and he shares the spotlight with Porky this time.
They are host and contestant of a radio show where Daffy really uses the most violent and sadistic means on the poor littly piggy.
But revenge is a dish best served cold and at the end the tables are (satisfyingly for the audience) turned eventually.
I guess Daffy is lucky that it's not Bugs who's the contestant here because then the turning would have taken place far quicker.
It is almost scary how this film fits in well with the decay of television these days 7 decades later almost.
Shocking stuff and yes it's radio here of course, but this doesn't change anything.
Other than that, you can say that it's interesting to hear "48 States" and the attention to detail is generally strong here because there are moments like the one about advertizing after the "help" scream etc.
I may not always be a big Warner Bros.
cartoons fan, at least not as often as I am for Disney, but this one here was a success for sure.
Funny, entertaining and satisfying overall, I recommend you check it out if you like these old ones as much as I do. |
tt4978274 | Priceless | Jean (Gad Elmaleh), a waiter/barman at a luxury hotel, is mistaken to be a millionaire by Irène (Audrey Tautou), a gold digger who convinces wealthy men to fund her lavish lifestyle in exchange for companionship and sex. Irène's elderly lover gets drunk and falls asleep on her birthday, so she goes to the bar in the hotel where she and Jean meet. After making her several impressive cocktails, they retire, tipsy, to the hotel's Imperial suite where they spend the night together. In the morning, Jean awakens to find Irène has gone.
A year later, Irène returns to the hotel with Jacques, who asks her to marry him. Irène is surprised to see Jean, and he manages to conceal his occupation from her again. Jean and Irène sleep together again, but Jacques sees them and breaks off the engagement. Irène goes to Jean, pretending she gave up Jacques to be with him, but as they lie in bed together, they are discovered by guests and staff in the Imperial suite. When Irène discovers who Jean really is, she walks out. However, Jean is now in love and follows her, finding her at the Côte d'Azur. Pursuing her, he spends all the money to his name to pay for her presence, including his savings and pension plan, until he uses his final euro for "10 more seconds" to look into her eyes.
Irène leaves him for another rich man, and Jean is left with a hotel bill he cannot pay. Luckily, Jean is picked up by a wealthy widow, Madeline, who pays his bills in exchange for his companionship. Irène bumps into him again with another lover, Gilles. She is a little jealous, but now that they are "equals", she teaches Jean the tricks of gold-digging. Using her advice, he soon wheedles a €30,000 watch from Madeleine, after she forced him to have plastic surgery on his ear. On a shopping spree, Irène meets up with Jean and coyly offers him the euro for "10 more seconds".
Jean continues to prove himself a skillful gold digger. He and Irène steal away from their patrons every chance they can, falling in love in the process. On the morning of Irène's departure for Venice, Giles catches Irène and Jean kissing on the hotel room balcony.
Furious, Gilles leaves Irene at the hotel with nothing but a sarong and the swimsuit she is wearing. Jean sells his watch to buy Irène a week's stay in their hotel and a gorgeous evening gown. He also gives her an invitation to a party. Madeleine is at first upset with Jean for selling his watch, but Jean calms her down by giving her a pair of earrings. He claims that he pawned the watch to buy Madeline a gift and she is pleased.
At the party that evening, Irène sees Jacques again, but with a new young girlfriend, Agnès. Whilst stealing a dance with Jean, Irène hatches a plan to win Jacques back again, with Jean's assistance. Jean agrees to play along and is dumped by Madeline in the process. However, he convinces Agnès that he is a prince and seduces her away from Jacques, giving Irène a chance to steal Jacques. However, when Irène sees Jean with Agnès on the balcony, she realizes she loves Jean. She runs away from Jacques and declares her love, abandoning her pursuit of a luxurious lifestyle. The movie ends with barefoot Irène and Jean riding off to Italy on his scooter, using the euro coin for the toll fee. | suspenseful, intrigue, christian film | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0018925 | The Gallopin' Gaucho | Mickey is introduced riding on a rhea instead of a horse as would be expected (or an ostrich as often reported). He soon reaches local bar and restaurant Cantina Argentina. He enters the establishment with the apparent intent to relax with some drinking and smoking.( On the wall a wanted sign for Mickey saying El gaucho, meaning Mickey Mouse is a bandit or a crook.)
Already present are resident barmaid and dancer Minnie Mouse and a fellow customer. The latter is Black Pete and is soon introduced as a wanted outlaw. Pete had already been established as an antagonist in both the Alice Comedies and the Oswald the Lucky Rabbit series. However this short marks his first encounter with either Mickey or Minnie. The latter pair also appear unfamiliar to each other. The short apparently depicts their initial encounter.
Minnie performs the tango and salsa and both customers start flirting with her. Pete then attempts to put an early ending to their emerging rivalry by proceeding in taking her away. He escapes on his horse while Mickey gives chase on his rhea and soon catches up to his rival. Pete and Mickey then proceed in challenging each other to a sword duel. The latter emerges the victor (by covering Pete's head with a chamber pot he pulls out from under a bed) and finally gets hold of Minnie. The finale has Mickey and Minnie riding the rhea stage left until they are obscured entirely by trees in the foreground. | action | train | wikipedia | A Girl Tries To Fit In Her Mom's Shoes.
This cartoon is one of the shorts Walt Disney produced after his contract in the Oswald business concluded.
It also among the earliest cartoons to feature Mickey Mouse.One thing that intrigues me is the girl mouse who wears pumps that are too big for her (She probably borrowed them from her mom.).
When she dances with Mickey, her heels would often slip out.
And when the villainous cat captures her, the shoes fell off.
I think it would be more interesting if we get to see the shoes actually come off (We can't see it because she was swung past the edge of the screen.).Anyway, the cartoon is quite fun to watch.
Mickey will come to the rescue..
A very catchy Mickey Mouse and a very hot Minnie Mouse.
Personally, unlike the other reviewers of this cartoon, I found "Galloppin' Gaucho" very entertaining and I personally prefer it to Mickey Mouse's first two cartoons before it, "Plane Crazy" and "Steamboat Willie", for the following reasons: 1.
In the previous episodes, Mickey Mouse was quite a horrible, prank-playing character, who could be quite mean to Minnie Mouse or innocent animals.
In this episode, he was not particularly mean to anyone (anyone innocent, anyway) and was very good to Minnie.
2. The plot in this cartoon is somewhat cliché, but I found it very entertaining all the same and is a plot change from the Looney Tunes cartoons I usually watch (where no respected girlfriend is featured).
3. As I mentioned before, Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse are very "cool" in this episode and they both dance very well (in a sort of slow-music style).In this cartoon, Mickey Mouse is travelling on an ostrich/rhea, in South America and he stops at a bar by the road.
There, he sees a very attractive female mouse, dancing to the guitar.
She too notices Mickey and also finds him very attractive and they dance together (once both have impressed each other a little more).
Suddenly, Minnie Mouse is snatched away by a huge (but normal size in real-life comparison from mice to cats) and fierce cat, who obviously plans on eating her.
He takes Minnie away to his abode and Mickey quickly decides to go on after her.
Will Mickey Mouse save his new love in time?
I recommend this cartoon to anyone who enjoys Mickey and Minnie Mouse cartoons in general and to people who like old cartoons with a clever slapstick style intertwined with the story.
Enjoy "Gallopin' Gaucho"!
:-) 8 and a half out of ten..
The Mouse Goes South Of The Border.
A Walt Disney MICKEY MOUSE Cartoon.THE GALLOPIN' GAUCHO must speed to rescue cantina dancer Minnie from the foul clutches of Pete, the outlaw cat.This ancient black & white film was only the second Mickey Mouse cartoon released with synchronized sound.
It's fun watching The Mouse doing a Douglas Fairbanks spoof - using his tail the way Doug did his bullwhip in THE GAUCHO (1927).
Is Mickey's faithful Argentinean mount an ostrich or a rhea?
The Disney animators were already making full use of underwear & posterior jokes.
Pete still has both legs in this one.Walt Disney (1901-1966) was always intrigued by drawings.
As a lad in Marceline, Missouri, he sketched farm animals on scraps of paper; later, as an ambulance driver in France during the First World War, he drew figures on the sides of his vehicle.
Back in Kansas City, along with artist Ub Iwerks, Walt developed a primitive animation studio that provided animated commercials and tiny cartoons for the local movie theaters.
Always the innovator, his ALICE IN CARTOONLAND series broke ground in placing a live figure in a cartoon universe.
Business reversals sent Disney & Iwerks to Hollywood in 1923, where Walt's older brother Roy became his lifelong business manager & counselor.
When a mildly successful series with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit was snatched away by the distributor, the character of Mickey Mouse sprung into Walt's imagination, ensuring Disney's immortality.
The happy arrival of sound technology made Mickey's screen debut, STEAMBOAT WILLIE (1928), a tremendous audience success with its use of synchronized music.
The SILLY SYMPHONIES soon appeared, and Walt's growing crew of marvelously talented animators were quickly conquering new territory with full color, illusions of depth and radical advancements in personality development, an arena in which Walt's genius was unbeatable.
Mickey's feisty, naughty behavior had captured millions of fans, but he was soon to be joined by other animated companions: temperamental Donald Duck, intellectually-challenged Goofy and energetic Pluto.
All this was in preparation for Walt's grandest dream - feature length animated films.
Against a blizzard of doomsayers, Walt persevered and over the next decades delighted children of all ages with the adventures of Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Peter Pan and Mr. Toad.
Walt never forgot that his fortunes were all started by a mouse, or that simplicity of message and lots of hard work always pay off..
Mickey Coming Into Form.
The Gallopin' Gaucho (1928) *** (out of 4)Mickey Mouse is visiting Mexico and walks into a Cantina where he sees Minnie Mouse dancing up a storm.
Naturally he jumps in and two begin to have a swell time but then a large cat jumps in and steals her.
THE GALLOPIN' GAUCHO was the second of three Mickey cartoons that were made in 1928 and there's no question that, drawing wise, Mickey went through some changes since the first one.
With that said, out of the three films this here is clearly the weakest but it's certainly still worth watching and especially if you're not too familiar with these early films.
There's certainly good animation throughout but there's really no giant laughs to be had..
Not quite as interesting as "Steamboat Willie" or "Plane Crazy" but there is a lot of fun to be had...
plus Mickey is really cool here.
Both "Steamboat Willie" and "Plane Crazy" are timeless classics.
Personally, while very entertaining, due to its somewhat minimal story, I didn't find it as much as a classic.
Still it has held up well, with some nice black and white animation, plus the music is absolutely wonderful here, particularly in the sword fight between Mickey and Pete.
Speaking of Mickey, he is so cool here, he smokes, dances the tango and challenges others to sword fights.
Minnie is also quite hot, and Pete is suitably villainous.
Walt Disney does a great job with the vocals, making the most of the little amount of dialogue he has, as a vast majority of the cartoon is driven by visuals and music.
All in all, entertaining and worth watching.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Don't Cry For Me Argentina.
Mickey is a gaucho--an Argentinian cowboy.
He rides an ostrich for some reason.
He goes to a cantina where Minnie is a dancer.
They hook up, but it isn't long before she is kidnapped by Pete, the giant cat.
There are all sorts of interesting implausibles, mostly involving mouse tails.
Anyway, it's a decent little film.
Mickey starts to gain a little personality..
The usual rescue-the-damsel-in-distress plot.
One of the earliest Mickey and Minnie cartoons, about Mickey trying to save Minnie from a mean cat who stole her after they two mice were doing the tango.
The tango was the most funniest part in the cartoon short, with their eyes furiously gazing at each other.
The rest of the story is just the usual rescue-the-damsel-in-distress plot, not much to laugh about.
Grade C.
more wacky fun from the earliest-age Mickey Mouse.
Boy finds girl, boy loses girl to big early-era Pete, boy runs after Pete who has girl on his back, boy has to fight Pete in a house using a sword and (mostly) his wits.
Here we have such an early Mickey Mouse cartoon - actually the second one, made just before Steamboat Willie (sound was added in later on, and like Plane Crazy it's hard to think how it ever worked without it, though in theory it can) - that we see Mickey smoking in his entrance to Minnie Mouse.
Smoking!
Such things probably would get censored in current-era Disney, but in 1928, it was all about getting a gag or a goof.Here we have the kind of early cartoons that have characters dancing and their necks bend together and twist around in a tango, and when a character rides an ostrich it has the bounciness and buoyancy of just...
I don't know what!
The gags here are tremendous and the pace is relentless for its 6 minutes; even when the day is saved (hey, is this a spoiler, c'mon), you don't know if something else could happen between Mickey and Minnie.
The joy in seeing these characters make their tails into coiled springs so they can reach up to one another and kiss at the end is why Disney made a name for himself.
While today the studio would be a little too wholesome, arguably, with this character, back then Mickey was a tough cookie..
No Schultz!
GAUCHO is not a MARX BROTHER!.
IT WOULS SEEM that the big items of the day were very important in formulating the themes of these variously plotted cartoons.
The current events and those who made the news were the central to the body of these cartoon shorts.
The thread bare plot lines and the gags were all modified to fit into the subject of the day.IN THE CASE of this honored review's subject matter, being THE GALLOPIN' GAUCHO, incorporates three Hollywood successes from three very different sources and on-screen personalities of Movie Stars.FIRST OF ALL, this title and character's Argentine locale seem to suggest that of Rudolph Valentino's portrayals.
Mickey even does a brief Tango when entering the Cantina.
His partner was most seductive and rodent-oriented sexy Minnie.OUR NEXT CONTRIBUTOR to this characterization and storyline is Douglas Fairbanks.
The super-athletic stunts and daring do of the hero here (Mickey, of course) are obviously inspired by Fairbanks on screen vim and heroic demeanor.
Zorro, the Black Pirate and other characters created and performed by Doug, himself.THIRDLY, AND THIS one may strike some as coming in from left field, we can see a little of Warner Baxter's Cisco Kid from IN OLD ARIZONA.
This was the only "ancestor" film to be included that was a Talkie, but it was released that year, was surely fresh in the minds of all and featured Cisco with his name and likeness plastered all around on Wanted posters.MUCH THE SAME as previous production, PLANE CRAZY, this was conceived and filmed as a silent; but later updated as a sound comedy via the process of "Post-synchronization"* NOTE * Even STEAMBOAT WILLIE was made to talk and sing in this manner, although it was planned for Mickey as a sound film from the get-go..
Probably the least of the three Mickey Mouse cartoons from 1928.
1928 was a landmark year for animation.
This is when Mickey Mouse debuted in the cartoon PLANE CRAZY and just a short time later, Mickey scored one of his biggest hits in his second film, STEAMBOAT WILLIE, as it was the first cartoon with a soundtrack (with sound effects and music).
Because GALLOPIN' GAUCHO appeared after these two other films, it is less interesting from a historical viewpoint and also, unfortunately, isn't quite as entertaining.The film begins with Mickey playing a character clearly inspired by the Valentino film, BLOOD AND SAND.
This is a super-cool Mickey who smokes, dances the Tango and romances Minnie--a big change from the previous Mickey films.
However, the evil cat comes and kidnaps Minnie and it's up to Mickey to save the day.
The usual odd Ub Iwerks style of animation is there and it's quite charming, though as I just saw it immediately after PLANE CRAZY and STEAMBOAT WILLIE, it just didn't seem as entertaining or clever.
Still, it does hold up reasonably well after 80 years..
Fascinating early Mickey Mouse short.
This is a very early Mickey Mouse short done by Disney.
There will be spoilers ahead:This is Mickey Mouse version 1.0-our hero sports a serape, has a "Wanted" poster of him on the wall of a cantina, drinks beer and rides an ostrich.
Mickey is a bit of a rogue here, not the affable "nice guy" he later became.Mickey and Minnie do a very intense dance together before an early variation on Pegleg Pete (with two legs) grabs Minnie and skedaddles on his horse.
Mickey gives chase on his now drunken ostrich.As is typical of most Ub Iwerks-helmed shorts the animation here is excellent.
This one has fairly good gags and an interesting chase sequence.After fighting Pete, Mickey emerges triumphant and they go riding off together, with the final visuals in the last gag being very nice.This short was released on the Mickey Mouse in Black and White Disney Treasures DVD set and it's well worth seeking out.
Recommended..
Mickey goes into Fairbanks mode.
The first two Mickey cartoons show us a very different mouse than the wholesome everyman we know today.
In Plane Crazy (1928) he's a rogue who's not below forcing a kiss upon an unwilling Minnie Mouse while she's trapped in the air with him.
In Gallopin' Gaucho (1928), he plays the rogue again: this time he's a wanted outlaw who smokes, drinks, and flirts with Minnie, who's a dancer in a cantina.
They share an intense tango before Pete comes in and abducts her.
What follows is a funny chase featuring a drunk rhea (or ostrich, I cannot tell) and ending in a sword fight.This is probably my favorite of the first three Mickey cartoons.
It's a delightful romp with lots of good gags, plus it's so surreal to see Mickey acting so differently.
It's fascinating to wonder what would have happened had Walt kept using this version of the character rather than his later persona.
One can only wonder..
Early Mickey still needs improvement.
"The Gallopin' Gaucho" is a black-and-white cartoon from 1928, so this one is almost 90 years old.
It runs for slightly over 6 minutes and features Mickey as the main character and his girlfriend Minnie and the big evil cat as supporting players.
Of course, it is by Disney and Ub Iwerks is the director here once more.
I must say this was not (yet) a great watch.
Mickey is still far away from his finest works.
The comedy was rarely funny and the animation and story were rather chaotic and wild than really spot-on and interesting.
But you have to start somewhere and practice in order to improve.
As such, I can tolerate this film, even if I would not recommend it.
Thumbs down..
Gaucho Galloping..
After watching Mickey Mouse make his debut,I was very pleased to stumble upon Mickey's second movie,which led to me getting ready to see the Gaucho gallop.The plot:Visiting Mexico,Mickey decides to stop for a drink at a Cantina.
Entering the Cantina,Mickey catches a glimpse of Minnie.Both being taken by the others appearance,Mickey and Minnie start to dance and party in the Cantina.Just as they start to get into the groove of things,Minnie suddenly gets kidnapped.View on the film:Cutting down on the visual comedy,director/animator Ub Iwerks focusing on the changing emotions running across the faces,which leads to a tango between Mickey & Minnie being rather stylish.Whilst he does tone down on the slap-stick,Iwerks strikes Mickey with a surprisingly tough bite,as Mickey drinks and smokes his way around the Cantina. |
tt2675978 | Dedh Ishqiya | Khaalujaan "uncle dear" (Naseeruddin Shah) and his nephew Babban (Arshad Warsi), a thief duo, pose as a Nawab and his attendant, and manage to run away with a prized necklace from a jewellery shop. During the police chase, they get separated; Babban escapes, while Khalujaan is injured. Months later, Babban traces Khalujan, again posing as a nawab, this time at a poetry contest. It is a mushaira (gathering of poets) organised by Begum Para (Madhuri Dixit), the widowed Begum of Majidabad, supposedly in compliance with the wishes of her deceased husband. The winner of the poetry contest will win the widowed Begum as his bride, and become the Nawab of Majidabad!
Babban traces Khalujaan on the opening night of the contest. There is another adventurous rascal in the fray, a local MLA-gangster named Jaan Mohammed (Vijay Raaz), who is making the poet Nawab Italwi (Manoj Pahwa) write poetry for him to recite at the contest. The contest proceeds; while Khalujaan has his heart set on Begum Para herself, Babban falls in love with her maid, Muniya (Huma Qureshi). Khalujaan tries to impress the Begum by giving her the prized necklace which he had stolen earlier, but on the final day, Begum declares Jaan Mohammed to be the victor. She declares that she will marry him and then he will become the new nawab of Majidabad.
Since the necklace has clearly failed to move the Begum, Khaalujaan decides to see if a gun will serve the purpose better. However, even as he approaches the Begum brandishing his chosen instrument of persuasion, he finds the dowager being hustled away at gunpoint by a masked man. Khalujaan chases them and blocks their way only to discover that the masked man is none other than his nephew Babban. It turns out that the Begum had plotted her own kidnapping in order to extort money from the nawab-elect (Jaan Mohammad). More twists are then revealed: the Begum was nothing but a dancing-girl (courtesan) who had seduced a middle-aged nawab and married him, only to find that the nawab was actually a pauper who supported his lavish way of life by selling his inherited properties and jewels. He also neglected his wife, who (it is very strongly suggested) developed a relationship of intimacy with a sympathetic maid-servant, Muniya. By the time the nawab died of good living, he had become completely bankrupt and even his palace had been mortgaged to the money-lenders. After his death, the penniless Begum had been helped financially and courted by Jaan Mohammad, a local rich man who was besotted with her and wanted to marry her. He also wanted the title and status of being the "Nawab of Majidabad", which according to the movie would be conferred on the man who marries the widowed Begum (this is a silly narrative device, such a thing can never happen in India).
However, Jaan Mohammad was a man of low birth and uncultured mannerisms, a former street-thug turned businessman turned politician, who even employed a bunch of beefy goons to promote his business and political interests. The idea of marrying such a man was repellent to the Begum, who was anyway in love with her maid-servant. It was also socially unacceptable, which is what the Begum tells Jaan Mohammad. It is he who comes up with the idea of holding a contest. The birth and breeding of the man who wins the contest will be irrelevent; the begum can say that she had no choice but the marry the winner. Thus, the mushiara itself is an elaborate hoax: the late nawab had never stipulated that his widow should marry someone else, much less that the winner should be recognized as "nawab of Majidabad." It was the Begum's own idea, the purpose being to snare a rich man and marry him. The Begum did not want to marry Jaan Mohammad, but she wanted his money, therefore she was staging a kidnapping in order to receive a ransom from Jaan Mohammad. She has employed Babban to act as her kidnapper and extort a hefty ransom from Jaan Mohammad, who was expected to pay up because otherwise he would never fulfill his dream of becoming a Nawab.
Babban duly phones Jaan Mohammed (who is by now aware of the Begum's cunning plan) to bring a ransom of 10 crore (100 million) rupees in cash to the railway station. All four of them (Begum, maid, and the uncle-nephew duo) reach the railway station to collect the money, but find that they are surrounded by Jaan Mohammad's goons and henchmen. To their good fortune, Nawab Italwi arrives with a police force and cross-firing starts (it turns out that Nawab Italwi also is not what he seems to be; he is a policeman in disguise). Begum and Muniya escape from the situation leaving behind Babban and Khalujaan to be arrested. Two months later, the uncle-nephew duo get bail and, as they leave the jail, they are given a letter from Begum and Muniya. It is a cheeky letter of thanks and goodbye from the women, informing the men that they have sold the priceless necklace and used the proceeds to buy a house and settle down in a faraway town whose name they withhold. Uncle and nephew are now exactly at the same situation where they were at the start of all these shenanigans -- the movie ends with the duo once again surrounded by Mushtaq (Salman Shahid) and his gang of rowdy vagrants. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0045469 | Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde | A rash of murders (by an unknown "monster") is plaguing London, and police are baffled. A newspaper reporter, Bruce Adams (Craig Stevens), finds one of the murder victims while coming home from a bar at night and calls the police. The next day, two American policemen, Slim (Bud Abbott) and Tubby (Lou Costello), who are working for the London Police Force, respond to a mob fight at a Women's Suffrage Rally in Hyde Park. Reporter Adams, young suffragette Vicky Edwards (Helen Westcott), Slim, and Tubby, all get caught up in the fray and wind up in jail. Later, Vicky's guardian, Dr. Henry Jekyll (Boris Karloff), bails Vicky and Adams out. Tubby and Slim are thereafter kicked off the police force. Unknown to anyone, however, Dr. Jekyll has developed an injectable serum which transforms him into Mr. Hyde (the "monster" responsible for the recent murders). When Jekyll notices Vicky's and Bruce's mutual attraction, he has more thoughts of murder, injects himself, and transforms once again into Hyde (with the intent of murdering Adams).
Meanwhile, Tubby and Slim decide that in order to get back on the police force they must capture this "monster" (Hyde). While walking down the street that night, Tubby spots Hyde (whom Slim at first mistakes for a burglar). They decide to follow Hyde into a music hall (where Vicky is performing and Adams is visiting her. Tubby annoys an actor in a far-eastern demon mask by mistaking him for the monster, and gets called "barmy" ). A chase ensues, and Tubby traps Hyde in a wax museum. However, by the time he brings the Inspector (Reginald Denny), Adams, and Slim to the scene, the monster has already reverted to Dr. Jekyll and Tubby is once again scolded by the Police Inspector. The "good" doctor, however, asks Slim and Tubby to escort him to his home. Once at Jekyll's home, Tubby goes off exploring and winds up drinking a potion which transforms him into a large mouse. Afterward, Slim and Tubby try to bring news of Jekyll's activities to the Inspector, but the Inspector refuses to believe them.
Later, when Vicky announces to Jekyll her intent to marry Adams, Jekyll (who is secretly in love with Vicky) does not share her enthusiasm and transforms into Hyde right in front of her. Bent, this time, on murdering Vicky, Hyde attempts to attack her. However, in the nick of time, Bruce, Slim, and Tubby save her and Hyde escapes. During the struggle, though, Jekyll's serum needle is dropped into a couch cushion, which Tubby accidentally falls onto, transforming him also into a Hyde-like monster. Another mad-cap chase ensues, this time with Bruce chasing Jekyll's monster and Slim pursuing Tubby's monster (both believing they are after Jekyll).The police are frustrated and confused by the monster's seemingly impossible running all over London.
Bruce's chase ends up back at Jekyll's home, where Hyde falls from an upstairs window to his death, revealing to everyone his true identity when he reverts to normal form. Slim then brings Tubby (still in monster form) to the Inspector. Tubby then bites the Inspector (and four officers) and reverts to himself, much to the chagrin of Slim. However, before Slim and Tubby can be once again derided by the Inspector, the Inspector and his men have each transformed into monsters themselves (probably from Tubby's bite) and chase Slim and Tubby out of the office. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2191701 | Grown Ups 2 | Three years after the events of the first film, Lenny Feder has relocated his family back to his Connecticut hometown of Stanton where he and his friends grew up.
In the film's opening in the Feder household, Lenny wakes up to find a wild deer standing next to his bed. Lenny tries to get his wife Roxanne to open the window. She wakes up in anger and startles the deer, causing it to urinate all over the bed and on Lenny. The deer runs down the hall and crashes into the bathroom where it runs into Lenny's eldest son Greg showering scaring him and making the deer urinate on him. It turns out that Lenny's younger daughter, Becky, left the door open overnight for any animals that wanted to come in. Lenny is able to get the deer out of the house by using Becky's monkey doll, which rips it apart, devastating her. Greg, Keith, and Becky then go to their last day of school. Roxanne brings up the idea of their family having another baby, but Lenny says their family is perfect as is, upsetting Roxanne.
At the Lamonsoff household, Eric Lamonsoff and his wife Sally are at odds with each other over how to raise their children- Sally believes in unwavering support while Eric prefers to be more practical with them, as proven for their son's bad math skills and daughter's rambuncious sense in fashion. At the McKenzie household, Kurt surprises his wife Deanne with a thoughtful anniversary present, only to find that she has completely forgotten. Meanwhile, Marcus Higgins is waiting at a train station after receiving a letter from an old girlfriend, who tells him that he has a seventeen-year-old son Braden. Marcus is stunned to see a tattooed, six-foot-tall boy, who turns out to be Braden. Marcus tries to be nice and takes him to school, but Braden shows an immediate dislike toward him, believing that he abandoned him and his mother.
After dropping off their kids, Lenny, Eric, Kurt, and Marcus spend the day roaming around town, reminiscing about the amazing summers they used to have when they were kids and Lenny's childhood bully, Tommy Cavanaugh. Lenny argues that he could take Tommy as a kid and he can still take him. Eventually, the friends go to see Becky's ballet recital, where Lenny runs into Tommy, whom Lenny is visibly terrified of. Tommy threatens that if Lenny ever lies again about being able to beat him up, he'll publicly beat Lenny up.
Once the kids are out of school, Lenny, Eric, Kurt, and Marcus decide to visit the old quarry, where they used to swim as kids. However, they run into a gang of partying frat boys who force them to jump into the quarry lake naked. Braden, who was partying with the frat boys, witnesses this and goes off to vandalize their frat house. When the frat boys return, they swear to take revenge.
Lenny arrives home to help Roxanne set up for a 1980s-themed party for their friends. Meanwhile, Marcus begins to bond with Braden. As all of their friends begin to arrive, Roxanne urges Lenny to consider having another baby. Lenny continues to protest the idea and is left dumbfounded when Roxanne reveals that she is pregnant. Lenny, feeling overwhelmed by this discovery, goes off to drink with his friends. The Feder's party goes well most of the night until Tommy Cavanaugh shows up and disrespects Lenny in front of everyone, so Lenny challenges Tommy to a fight. In a surprising turn, Tommy decides to take a dive so that Lenny can look tough for his own bullied son, and the two develop a mutual respect. Soon after, the angry frat boys arrive at the house looking for retribution for the damage to their frat house. When they go on to insult the local town residents, Dickie Bailey, Lenny's old nemesis, points out that Lenny accomplished more in his life than the entire frat put together, inciting a fight. The locals hold their own against the frat boys and eventually send them running away defeated.
After all the commotion dies down, the four friends, plus Bailey, have pancakes at Eric's mom's house. After sharing an embarrassing photo of him and Bailey in kindergarten (they had been childhood friends before their personal lives drove them apart), Mrs. Lamonsoff reassures Lenny that a new baby is a wonderful thing and eventually he will never be able to imagine life with just three kids (and also mentions that Eric was an accidental baby because she and her husband had sex in the bathroom at a New England Patriots game). Lenny has a change of heart and returns home, telling Roxanne he is sorry and excited about the new baby, and they reconcile. | comedy | train | wikipedia | There I sat, in stone-cold silence, not completely watching, but observing Grown Ups 2, one of the most desperate comedies of the year.
Smiling maybe twice, groaning several times, rolling my eyes several more, and eventually closing them for a few seconds trying to imagine what a movie like this could've been if the quality of the talent matched the quality of the three screenwriters behind this project.The first Grown Ups film wasn't great - or even good - by any means, but had the vibe of a cheery, stupid ABC Family movie.
Adam Sandler can be funny when he is given timing and a decent character, Kevin James can always be sweet, simple, and relatable, Chris Rock is one of the funniest comedians working today, and David Spade almost always knocks one out of the park in Rules of Engagement.
However, the first inkling that Grown Ups 2 is terrible is by the sole fact that Rob Schneider himself decided other matters were worth is time than making a film that was almost guaranteed to be a hit.The entire event is a plot less picture (not the good kind) that provides its audience with a pathetic array of scenes that seem more like throwaway skits from Saturday Night Live.
It takes place entirely on the last day of school and revolves around the gang of Lenny (Adam Sandler), Eric (Kevin James), Kurt (Chris Rock), and Marcus (David Spade) returns, this time welcoming a more quiet, suburban lifestyle contrary to that of Lenny's in Hollywood, and the ridiculous series of sitcom antics that unfold overtime.The plot stops there.
At least with various Sandler films like Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, and even the unexpectedly raunchy That's My Boy, I could sense that it was made for somebody, be it adolescents or a bit older of a crowd and stuck with that persona.
There are certain things I expect Sandler to be over now, what with approaching fifty in a few years.You have a choice as a moviegoer this weekend and the several other weekends Grown Ups 2 is going to play.
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, Salma Hayek, Maya Rudolph, Maria Bello, Nick Swardson, Shaquille O'Neal, Peter Dante, and Allen Covert.
I am one of those who actually liked the first Grown Ups. It had a plot, good characters and lots of fun.
Maybe it's time to retire Mr. Sandler.All in all, do not waste your money on this awful movie..
Half way through this movie I stopped it and watched "Sharknado"...The best actor in this movie was a giant ex-NBA player-and he was horrible...Congress should preemptively pass a law forbidding the making of 'Grown Ups 3"...This is the first non-horror film to cause me to have nightmares...After watching this, I now hate the first "Grown Ups"...Forced viewing of this movie should replace water boarding at Guantanamo Bay...All who read this, it's too late for me, but please save yourselves and don't watch this film...SERIUOSLY FOLKS: I DID NOT LAUGH AT ONE JOKE THIS ENTIRE MOVIE.
but this, this is the definition of a horrible movie, terrible acting with a stupid story and awful humor, this crap didn't even make me laugh once.
I guess its a way to make a quick buck in the industry, stick to real comedies, like This Is The End. Its a very funny movie :) Don't get me wrong, old adam sandler movies are funny, but he doesn't have the touch anymore..
Despite being universally panned by critics and movie goers, Grown-Ups managed to perform well enough at the box office to warrant a sequel.The plot follows Lenny (Adam Sandler) who has moved his family to the town he and his friends grew up in, there he meets up with his friends (Kevin James, David Spade, Chris Rock and Nick Swardson.With the exception of a few additional cast members and many failed attempts at teaching morals, this movie is essentially the first movie.
Grown-Ups 2 has some jokes that made me crack a smile, or chuckle, but has absolutely no plot, it's like watching a mash-up of jokes play out in front of you, rather then watching a movie thats funny.
Below average, but watchable.Grown Ups 2, however, is the worst film I have ever watched.
a great simple , idiotic humoured movie the way Sander did in the old days.It's cheesy, stupid and has some real funny moments for those who know what happy Madison's are about.
but what I don't understand is how they can love a film as stupid as this, and hate a movie like Gravity.
Gravity is not made using conventional or normal methods of film making, which a lot people do not like or appreciate the first time they see it.
Honestly this movie has a bunch of 30-40 year old acting like a bunch of children, the humor is just really dry and awful and quite frankly makes the actors look stupid and to top it all off...WHAT A STUPID STORY LINE!!!.
Every character in this movie was degrading and portrayed as a loser, I would not want my kids to learn their actions.Overall if you want to watch something that is mindless, stupid, and cringy then watch it, but for people who don't like fart jokes, stay away from it like fire..
For those who didn't like this after having watched the first one,don't play fools forgetting jokes and surprising funny moments are what comedies are all about.
Without a doubt, "Grown Ups 2" is the worst movie I've seen this year.It's fascinatingly bad - the film starts and...
I know that Adam Sandler regularly wins awards for his lack of performance, but this film truly is painful to watch - I would have left the cinema but for the fact my11 year old so wanted to see the film, and we were holidaying in unfamiliar territory in the USA.
how did we get to "Grown ups" becoming a franchise from classic movies like "Duck Soup" which used to make the World laugh?
I think there will be a fair few that didn't like the movie because it was stupid in parts but guess what people it is a comedy there suppose to be silly and stupid.
usually I'm a big Adam Sandler fan so i was a little disappointed with this.The main problem was the film took about half an hour before anything remotely funny was happening.I preferred the first grown ups film which at points had me in hysterics.At times it was just too noticeable that certain parts were fake and that ruined most of the attempts to be funny.With such a good group of actors i expected a lot more.All in all i would stick to earlier Adam Sandler Films.
This time we hit another comedy sequel starring one of the most famous big kids in the world (Adam Sandler) and his gang.
You've seen these roles plenty of times now to know if you want to see them again, where those who are tired or can't stand these actors wanting to avoid this movie like the plague.
Grown Ups 2 could have been just as cute and entertaining as the first movie had they not crammed so many people into such a small time frame.
I've already admitted there is some well timed moment that will have you laughing, but Grown Ups 2 felt like a mash up of too much stupidity rolled into one package.
Grown Ups 2 is a fun movie for those who just want to laugh at constant comedic jabs.
Fans of Adam Sandler or any of the Happy Madison crew will still enjoy the tried and true characters from the films, because they are the same guys we've seen for over decade.
I think the main flaw in this movie is that it tries too hard to be funny, forced fun is not funny it's like being tickled by a bully for a long time, you may laugh a bit at the time but it leaves humiliated, and that's what this film is like.
I really hope that Adam Sandler actually tries in his next film and makes one that is worth my time like Happy Gilmore.
Sadly, I expect to see more movies like Jack and Jill and Grown Ups in the upcoming future..
GROWN UPS 2 is a very bad movie that is so by-the-numbers that it's easy to see why it's making so much money at the box office.
For the most part people are getting what they pay for, which is cheap, child-like jokes that are aimed at small kids who don't know any better that they're actually watching trash.
I don't think many people liked the original Grown Ups but I genuinely thought it was quite funny.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but just to make things clear I don't hate Adam Sandler.
Not all of his movies are this horrific, but because of the crimes that this puts to film, it makes a very strong case of reasons to dislike Adam Sandler.Well, I can't say that I was surprised by how bad it was, as after watching the trailer, my expectations were pretty much rock bottom.
You know that when a movie starts with a deer peeing into multiple people's faces, it isn't going to be the comedy of the year.
There are countless gags in the movie but anyone over the age of 12 will not find them funny, this is basically a film with endless potty jokes and it really is only for the simple minded.When I was in the cinema it felt like Grown Ups 2 was playing for a year, I would check my watch every 10 minutes or so to see when this hellish film would end, but alas it continued to drone on and on and on
So if you find yourself in the cinema watching Grown Ups 2, don't say I didn't warn you.
I wouldn't be surprised if that within the next 3 years there will be a Grown Ups 3, and that movie will be even more distasteful than the last, with poop and fart jokes every 30 seconds.
By the end of it you'll realise that the only people who are laughing are Adam Sandler and his friends as they rake in the big bucks, for what is undoubtedly the worst movie of the year..
I saw this movie a few days ago and have to say OMG it was such a "B" movie, no plot, the usual humor of Adam Sandler and especially David Spade!
It was scattered all over the place the guys act pointless to the movie and the only person who I thought was alright was Kevin James but that thing with his mother was like what!
The party scene was pointless and the costumes with Nick Swardson was just funny to see him in a movie like this I thought he was better in Just Go With it.
I didn't start watching the film thinking it was gonna be the best movie ever made, but I still enjoyed it.
A Sequel to Grown Ups, 'Grown Ups 2' is a funny sequel that raises laughs, although the humor is childish & even embarrassing at times.'Grown Ups 2' Synopsis: After moving his family back to his hometown to be with his friends and their kids, Lenny finds out that between old bullies, new bullies, schizo bus drivers, drunk cops on skis, and 400 costumed party crashers sometimes crazy follows you.'Grown Ups 2' is strictly meant for those who enjoy Comedies that offer childish humor.
The good part of watching Adam Sandler's films are that they are hilarious, funny and entertaining.
Maybe afterwards they can have a group therapy session to ease the life- long guilt of spending hard earned cash to see this movie.Also on a side note about the Jewish golden boy that is Adam Sandler; You can't base an entire career on Jew jokes.
You are comedy scum.I spent more time out of my life writing this "review" than the writers did thinking of the plot of this movie.
Because I'm willing to bet that you shelled out more money from your greasy little pockets to get this plague into theaters than you actually made by people viewing it.I hope you go home every night feeling like you just witnessed the Holocaust, and I hope your wife doesn't let you touch her anymore.This movie is garbage..
I liked the first Grown Ups-movie, and had too high hopes for this sequel.
Oh and you laugh around 2-3 times the 90 min..Well this works because this is just 4 friends remembering what they did while growing up, and attempting to redo it, while trashing each other and others in harmless fun.It's a good movie and it doesn't deserve such bad reviews.Now a word to the critics: GROW UP!!
the trailer makes it look good but its a joke that got no laughs.its like a sketch show...just one cheap scene after another.
hes making some god awful movies these days, and its really disappointing!the rest of the cast don't seem to know whats going on, Kevin James has to rely on fart jokes to get threw it and twilight kid Taylor is annoying as hell!!
This movie was hilarious i don't knowwhy people are talking bout this movie so badly made me and my wife bust up laughing...stop giving Adam Sander a hard time he just like to make goofy funny movies with his Buddy's happy Gilmore is downrighthis best comedy ever though but grown ups 1-2 r up there his movies aren't made for awards get a sense of humor these days people stop trying to be hard critics thy don't know nothing bout movie only academy award moviesdrama and all that....these actors are some of the funniest people in Hollywood its too bad rob Schneider wont be in the sequels love all his movies and David spade is just funny.
Adam Sandler pretty much makes movies to have fun with his friends now, and that is perfectly OK.
I liked the first Grown Ups. It wasn't a great movie, but likable and funny.
The answer of course is no - he makes nothing better, but the fact I even entertained the thought should give a clear indication just how poor this film is.Whilst the first Grown Ups had a little heart, this was a complete waste of time and, more importantly, money - do not waste either of yours on this.
The first movie was a dumb waste of time not worth seeing but Grown Ups 2 was a total insult.
It's so dumb and completely empty of any good jokes or laughs that we were literally feeling insulted and embarrassed, like we were stupid for letting ourselves get tricked into watching it.
We will not be watching any more Adam Sandler movies every again.
While walking in to the movie theater i was hoping for a good,funny,and entertaining film.I was wrong.First of,this movie didn't have a plot or a story line what so ever.I didn't really understand what the characters were suppose to be doing half the time.Second of,the jokes were not all there.A few chuckles here and there but there were no real funny moments.Most of the film had awful humor throughout.While i was in the theater i noticed most of the people around me didn't laugh either,and i don't blame them.Third of,the acting wasn't as great either.In the end this movie was dumb,not funny,and a huge waste of time.I'm starting to think Adam Sandler is losing his edge as his movies keep getting worse..
What are you guys all expecting, it's an Adam Sandler movie, it is suppose to be immature and have humor like it did.
I honestly like those kind of movies that don't have a plot and that I can actually just watch and not have to pay attention to what the conflict is and how it is suppose to related to the ending.
If you are an Adam Sandler fan, you will like this and are as funny and underrated as his other movies.
But 'Grown Ups 2' which looks like no effort was put into it is down there with the worst sequels in existence (not as bad as 'Superbabies Baby Geniuses 2', 'Home Alone 4' and 'Neverending Story 3', but close).Credit is due, as far as Adam Sandler films go it is not as bad as 'Jack and Jill', one of those cases where almost anything is better than it.
The first question I asked myself internally was "Why am I watching Grown Ups 2?" the second question and much more harder to answer was "Why am I finding this movie funny?".
I watched the first movie and laughed quite a few times...
The story was bad written and the movie was for me a waste of time and money.
As much as I think highly of Adam Sandler and his true devotion to comedy, Grown ups 2 was a flop.
Maybe one or two (at most) jokes might make you smile however its probably more cringe worthy than funny.I am normally a fan of Adam Sandler films (e.g. 50 first dates and happy Gilmore) but i thought his acting became annoying at times with his repeated shouting and tone of voice.The only way i can describe this film is as a complete disappointment.
Ok if you want a great quality just funny movie with Adam Sandler this is the one I was laughing throughout the entire thing!!!
But if you care more about story and have no sense of humor don't watch I guess but anyway super funny movie!!!.
Every Adam Sandler Movie has almost the same Actors in it.
I also enjoy the first Grown Ups, it was one of the few PG-13 movies I could see at the time.
Grown ups 2 is....um, did this movie really have plot?
A lot of people don't like Adam Sandler movies but I don't think he's made one that I didn't like. |
tt2126362 | Stitches | Richard Grindle (Ross Noble), a clown with the stage name "Stitches", is having sex with a woman in his van. While they are having sex, she notices an egg encased in a glass tube with a face painted on it. Stitches explains that "they" made him do it when he signed up. Stitches arrives late at Tommy's (Ryan Burke) tenth birthday party. He attempts to entertain the children, but they instead ridicule him. Tommy's best friend Vinnie (Gerald Ahern) ties Stitches' shoelaces together, and Tommy throws a football on his face, causing him to trip and land on a kitchen knife on the other side of the room, unseen to the children, which penetrates his face. As the children come to find out, Stitches slowly gets up. Seeing him, all kids scream in terror and run away.However, Tommy stays transfixed, but when Stitches removes the knife, blood gushes out of the gaping wound, causing him to fall, and the knife flies above him. Stitches falls onto the floor as the knife falls onto his eye, killing him. Tommy visits Stitches' grave and finds a group of clowns performing a ritual. The group's leader, The Motley, threatens Tommy.
Six years later, Tommy (Tommy Knight) is preparing for his sixteenth birthday. He is still haunted by the memory of his past birthday, and begins to have frightening hallucinations, such as a teacher turning into a clown and ripping off Vinnie's testicles before tying them to a party balloon. Hesitating at the idea of throwing a large party, he considers instead inviting only a few friends. Ultimately, he settles on a large gathering, and Vinnie secretly distributes many more invitations over the internet. Tommy, Vinnie, Richie (Eoghan McQuinn) and Bulger (Thommas Kane Byrne), all of whom had been present when Stitches died, prepare the house. As the guests, including Tommy's childhood crush Kate (Gemma-Leah Devereux), arrive, Stitches comes back to life and leaves his grave.
Tommy, startled by Paul (Hugh Mulhern) dressed as a clown as a joke, injures his head. Bulger takes Tommy to find a first-aid kit, and Tommy retreats to his treehouse with Kate. There, Tommy discusses his memories of the ritual he encountered as a child. Meanwhile, Paul is attacked by Stitches, who rips off his ear and one of his arms and pulls a live rabbit out of his throat before kicking his head off. The clown then finds Bulger, opens up his skull with a can opener, and removes his brain with an ice cream scooper. After serving up three perfectly round scoops of brain in a glass bowl, Stitches adds blood as a topping to complete his grisly ice cream sundae. Sarah, (Roisin Barron) Paul's girlfriend, enters the attic to look for him. There, she is attacked by Stitches, and manages to fight back. As she escapes, Stitches drives an umbrella through her skull, killing her. Through his telescope, Tommy sees Stitches in the house, and goes to warn Vinnie of his presence, but is at first unsuccessful, due to Vinnie's desire to have sex with a formerly overweight classmate. Tom asks Kate to leave, but her boyfriend Dan (Tommy Cullen) stops her.
Outside, Stitches attacks Richie. Richie attempts to flee but trips and falls. Stitches rips out his intestines and fashions them into a balloon animal before stabbing him with a bike pump and inflating him. Stitches manages to pump enough air into Richie to cause his head to explode. Vinnie, on discovering Tommy to be telling the truth, attempts to leave, but Stitches attacks them. Tommy stabs him, Vinnie covers him with a blanket, and they escape. Tommy and Vinnie rescue Kate, but Stitches knocks her unconscious as they attempt to escape. Tom tries to resuscitate her, and Vinnie leaves them behind, and Stitches attempts to drown Tommy in a sink that Vinnie had previously vomited in. Kate awakens and throws a knife at Stitches, while Tommy deduces a manner in which to defeat the clown; to kill him, they must destroy the egg he kept in his van. Tommy and Kate, pursued by Stitches, make their way to the den in the graveyard. While hiding, Tommy begins to hiccup, and Kate kisses him in order for him to stay quiet and hidden. Tommy searches for Stitches' egg among a collection of them while Kate keeps an eye out for Stitches, but the pair are soon discovered by him. While deciding which of the two to kill, Vinnie ties Stitches' shoelaces together again. He trips, and drops his egg. Tommy forces Stitches to smash the egg, and Stitches explodes in a mixture of magic trick supplies and yolk.
Six months later, Tommy has moved to a new house and is dating Kate. While the couple are in Tommy's old treehouse, Kate gives Tommy a new telescope, and his old one is positioned so as to focus on the den in the graveyard. There, The Motley is attempting to piece Stitches' broken egg back together while receiving a blow job. The egg is now fully restored indicating that Stitches will return. After the film cuts to black, Stitches' catchphrase, "Everybody happy?", is heard. | revenge, prank | train | wikipedia | Ross does a brilliant job bringing his character to life, and the story and kids wrapped around the concept are just tacky enough to reek of stereotype, but just different enough to keep you entertained and smiling (such as Bulger doing the splits at the gym, or the 'bully' actually being the only character in a stable, functional relationship).Brilliant film, a lovely surprise to what would have otherwise been a disappointing evening!.
Stitches is a very funny take on the slasher genre, using comedy and horror combined, it reminded me of the latter Elm Street movies, where the villain has to use a comic gag to kill his victim!
I am sure die hard fans of the horror genre will balk at the effects in this little gem of a comedy but then most die hard horror fans have a pole up their backsides the size of Nelsons Column judging by some of the reviews here at IMDb of other movies...This is a delightful comedy romp that pokes fun of the horror genre much in the same vein as "Funny Man", even the effects are a parody of horror effects that underlies the difficulties in producing them...Characterisation is simplistic and yet effective for a comedy (Nobody is expecting the type of characterisation of Anna Karenina in a simple comedy)...I personally feel that Ross Noble did a good job in playing the slobby and vengeful clown and many of the gags made me laugh out loud, not least the site of him riding a kiddies tricycle...If you want deep go and watch Anna Karenina or read war and peace but for a comedy this rings all the bells.....
While the slasher/comedy/horror genre has been done to death, the Irish film 'Stitches' takes the main elements of the genre and puts a fresh twist on it.The story has a real 'Nightmare on Elm Street' vibe: Ross Noble plays Stitches, a cynical clown who is accidentally killed by some bratty kids at a birthday party.
A clown cult preserves his spirit and six years later Stitches returns to exact revenge on the same kids, now teenagers.While 'Stitches' may be a lot more low-budget than modern horror fans are used to, it works because it's funny, it has imaginative and creative death scenes (another 'Elm Street' nod) and the over-the-top gore: including intestines being turned into a balloon animal, a head being blown up with a balloon pump, an umbrella through the eye and brains being scooped out with a can opener and an ice cream scoop.
It's basically an old-school slasher film with a few updates.Noble is the only known actor in the film and he carries is: rather than lazily trade on his stand-up persona, he manages to balance the funny and creepy side of Stitches (even killing a poor, innocent cat during his rampage).
He seems to be genuinely enjoying it, delivering his kills with bad clown puns.The teenage cast does a serviceable job but play second fiddle to Stitches' killing spree.If you're a fan of old-school slashers which balance the funny and the gory, then 'Stitches' is worth a look..
I watched 'Stitches' mainly because, as well as loving horror, I'm also a big Ross Noble fan and was interested to see how his stand-up would transfer to acting.
To be fair, he doesn't have much to do in the way of acting.His 'unconventional' (sorry, Ross) looks make it easy for the make-up department to transform him into an evil, undead clown, hell-bent on seeking bloodthirsty revenge on the party of children who caused his death in the first place.In short, Ross Noble steals every scene he's in.
He doesn't really come into it (proper) until midway through and, by then, you've been forced to watch your usual 'teen drama.' As this is a British film, I was hoping for something a little more original than 'uber-geek falls in love with beautiful girl who just so happens to be going out with an arrogant jock.' Sadly, that's all we get.
Some of the death scenes are truly disgusting (and hilarious in their over-the-topness).Stitches is worth watching if you like horror and Ross Noble.
I really enjoyed Stitches I thought it was a lot of fun an awesome gory comedy and Ross Noble did a great job as the clown I never really knew who he was until I came across and watched this movie I remember seeing the trailer and thinking this might be another stupid killer clown movie but I was wrong it was hilarious to me also the kills were fun to watch.
To be honest I didn't expect much when I decided to watch this movie.A cast I hadn't heard of, an irish production and a comedy-horror story involving a killer clown, how good could it be?
Stitches has some gory killing scenes but even during those scenes you will probably find yourself laughing (It might scare you a bit if you are not used to watching horror movies but that's it).Yes, the most unique and intriguing point of this movie is its dark, weird and even at times disturbing humor.
The clumsy and unfunny clown Richard "Stitches" Grindle (Ross Noble) goes to the birthday party of little Tom (Tommy Knight) and the boy and his friends play a prank with Stitches, tying his shoelaces.
Six years later, Tom gives a birthday party for his friends at home and the clown revives to haunt the teenagers and revenge his death."Stitches" is an unfunny and gore movie with a terrible storyline.
One of the better elements in this one is the rather freaky look attributed to the main clown here, which is always important in these types of movies and manages to get some great mileage out of his look when it treats him like a threat which scores pretty well with his creepy antics.
The other really enjoyable part to this is easily the main party where everything goes down which manages to play on numerous teen comedies for numerous scenes while also doling out the bloodshed, scares and chases with great aplomb, making it something that very easily could've transcended into boredom but sticking it out for the better produces a lot to like here.
The fact that the party is played straight and tense among the attendees who are all caught up in typical teen melodramas while the slashing itself has a comical tone coming from the infusion of his supernatural powers makes for an oddly ill-fitting sequence, as rather than being repelled by the over-the-time and extreme gore found in these kills we are supposed to find it funny not only in concept but execution as well which is hardly ever the case.
Well yes it does sound rubbish and it really shouldn't work, but give this comedy/horror movie, focus on the comedy, a go and you may well be pleasantly surprised.The story, minimal as it is, focuses on Stitches', a clown who comes back from the dead to exact his revenge on a group of children after he died in a OTT party accident.
This harks back to Vincent Price's delicious revenge movies as Dr. Phibes in the early 70s, also his Theatre of Blood.It also has something in common with the Chucky movies, Bride of Chucky is a personal favorite.It switches between the suburban and the demented but because I already know that most of the suburban will be killed by the demented I'm really just waiting for the killings, and they are very funny, old school horror with very little use of CGI.It's a homage to a different time in horror, it's cheesy, you can see what's coming but you go for the ride.It's a genre movie, there's nothing else to say except that I enjoyed it..
Other users on this site seemed to enjoy STITCHES, an Irish comedy horror about a clown who comes back from the dead to seek revenge on those who had him killed, but I thought it made for a pitiful viewing experience.
As a comedy horror it's a dreadfully unfunny film, one of those low budget productions with a script that confuses crudity for wit and remains continually unfunny as a result.Even worse, STITCHES is saddled with a grating lead performance from non-actor Ross Noble, who seems to regard himself as some kind of comedian; well, not on the strength of this amateurish production.
But its strength lies in the fact it doesn't pretend to be anything different.About ninety percent of the budget is blown on the death scene effects - which are pretty standard but entertaining - so the rest of the film weighs on Ross Noble and the cast of unknown, young actors who give great performances.
I really wasn't expecting anything from "Stitches", but to my surprise, it actually turned out to be an immensely entertaining slasher joint out of Ireland.While putting on a half-assed show for a bunch of misbehaving brats at a birthday party, Stitches the Clown has an unfortunate mishap that results in his bloody accidental demise.
Cut to six years later, those same kids are in high school and the birthday boy from the ill-fated party is still haunted by the death of Stitches, especially after having stumbled across a strange clown ritual going on in the cemetery following Stitches' funeral.
At his 10th birthday party, young Tom (Ryan Burke) witnesses the accidental death of slobbish kids entertainer Stitches the clown (comedian Ross Noble), who falls face down on the business end of a large knife after several unruly brats play a silly prank on him.
Six years later, Tom (now played by Tommy Knight) reluctantly throws another party for his teenage schoolmates, but the fun is interrupted when Stitches returns from the grave to exact revenge.Low budget Irish horror/comedy Stitches really isn't all that funny—but it sure is fun: although the film rarely made me laugh, most of the crude humour falling very flat, the frivolity and sheer absurdity of the whole thing means that one cannot help but have a good time.
Writer/director Conor McMahon conducts matters with style, introduces some clever little touches (love the clown's red nose sniffing out the guilty), and commands reasonable performances from his young cast, but it is the film's outrageous splat-stick gore effects that impress the most, with Stitches getting real creative with his kills: pulling a rabbit from a bloke's throat before decapitating him with a swift clown shoe to the head; making balloon animals from one poor sap's intestines before over inflating his head with a balloon pump; opening someone's cranium with a tin-opener and scooping out their brains; impaling a girl though the head with an umbrella.
There's also a nasty emasculation dream sequence and some gratuitous cat mutilation for good measure.After much splattery excess, the film sees Tom and his love interest Kate (Gemma-Leah Devereux) being stalked through the local cemetery, which holds the key to destroying the evil clown (McMahon incorporates some interesting mythos about painted clown eggs here), and finishes by hinting at a possible follow up, which I will be all in favour of, especially if they try harder with the jokes next time around.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for not killing off Monster Munch Mary, meaning that she can return in the sequel!.
Well, having seen this movie I definitely think that people over 17 are the ones who will actually be having a hard time watching Stitches.When I looked this movie up I had in mind the clown character from Spawn.
While there are a few noticeable faces in "Stitches" -and Ross Noble is GREAT- being that it's an Irish film there are loads of non-Hollywood actors, which is part of the charm of this bloody little flick.
Nonetheless, there are 7-10 example of heavy blood and/or gore.This is definitely not a funny clown movie for the kiddos, but any horror fan will enjoy this, as well dark comedy lovers, and fans of Beatleguice..
Before i start this i got just one question to ask is "Everybody Happy?" if not you will be after watching this movie.Stitches is everything you could ask for in a Horror/Comedy It's entertaining, funny, gory and for the most just a great well made movie, it really delivers everything a Horror/Comedy stands for and is up there with the best of them if not on the top!
The acting is great I've never seen a better Clown played so perfectly by anyone, Ross Noble aka Stitches is now up there near the top of the Clown ranks, Funnier then Krusty, More Dangerous than The Joker, Pennywise, ICP, and Pogo(Gacy) combined, and with a little help from viewers he'll be more famous than the Big Clown himself Ronald McDonald in no time.I hope to see a sequel or two in the future, there's not many Teen Slasher Clown Horror Comedy's out there that are worth watching I'm glad to say I've seen this movie.http://www.plentyofhorror.com.
To summarize the movie's story in a few lines; a clown is tragically killed at a kid's birthday party, and returns from the grave several years later to seek out those who led to his demise.There, that basically wraps up the entire story.But if you enjoy campy horror movies that is dripping with stupid punchlines and jokes, then "Stitches" is well worth checking out.
This film has been getting a lot of good buzz, but can it liven up the party like only a killer clown can or will it's balloon pop way too soon?
Each and every kill is not only creative and entertaining to watch, it is well thought out to match each character's past to be the perfect revenge.As if the fun of this movie wasn't enough, each kill makes sure to deliver the buckets of blood that is sure to please all the gore hounds out there.
The horror is so over the top, think Evil Dead blood levels, but also inventive.Great script, fun performances, clever references, in fact the only bad thing was how sad I felt when it was over, slightly cheered up by the out-takes in the closing credits.If you enjoy films like The Evil Dead, the Hatchet trilogy, or off-beat UK and Irish horror, do yourself the biggest favour and catch this gem.Please do a Stitches 2: Return of the clown...
So obviously Stitches comes back from the dead to waste everyone, because, according to some sinister Clown guy at the start of the film, a clown must finish a party to find peace.Therefore, Stitches turns up again to kill all those folks from the original party, pulling their guts out, making balloon animals of their intestines, making their heads explode.While not everything works in this film, like it taking its time getting to the kills, and the dodgy one liners that Noble is forced to say, it's good enough for at least one viewing.
Tom will have find a way to survive with another friend and girl he has a crush on, and to eliminate Stitches once and for all.Clown horror movies usually don't work for me.
Even aside from the clown theme, Stitches succeeds at being a good fast-paced horror movie..
Now a creepy clown movie that play on the comedy and horror elements is actually a cool idea.
At the start, it seemed like this movie had potential to be a really good horror/comedy but it starts to go downhill after Stitches the clown goes off screen.
A clown (stand up comedian Ross Noble) comes back from the dead to haunt those who took his life during a fatal party mishap.This film is a dark comedy at times, especially in the beginning.
The death scenes are gruesome as well as funny(mostly funny) and the humor is right up my alley(as it should be for the type of movie).BUY OR AVOID: If you like horror comedies then I would suggest this.
Over The Top Fun. Killer clowns is something that we don't see that much off in the slasher genre, which is a shame as they can be quite scary or funny if handled right (It & Killer Clowns From Out Space) are the only ones that come to mind and now we have "Stitches" , a British Slasher flick mixed with comedy, which is somewhat rather tough to get right and doesn't always work, but with this movie I can gladly say that they got right.Stitches is the name of the clown himself, who starts off as a children's entertainer and is accidentally killed at 10 year old Tommy's birthday party and of course swears revenge on Tommy and his friends and then fast forward 6 years later, Tommy now an awkward teenager still haunted by the freak accident and fears that Stitches will one day come back and kill him, and in true fashion he does come back.The film moves along at a swift pace which is a good thing firstly when we are introduced to the kids now as teenagers we get the usual hijinks and some gross out humour and then the tone quickly changes and we are of course treated to a variety of creative and fun kills and the gore effects are really great, (that's where all the budget went) but it's money well spent we get exploding head, private parts ripped apart, brain's scouped out with ice cream scoop and a nasty umbrella accident.
We follow the clown Stitches who has some work to do at Tom's birthday party but things don't work out as he wants and he gets accidentally killed.
This movie is about a clown (named Stitches: SHOCKER) who dies in a freak accident while entertaining at a kid's birthday party.
Basically Richard Grindle (Ross Noble) better known as 'Stitches' the clown is a low-rate children's entertainer, he is not completely happy while performing and has a pretty grouchy bad attitude, and his latest job is to amuse children at the birthday party of Young Tom (Ryan Burke).
I agree with critics that this feels just like a classic 80's scary movie, it may remind you of Stephen King's It or one of those other ridiculous but fun films filled with cheesy blood and guts, and the evil clown plot is nothing new but you can still have fun, a good enough British horror. |
tt6359096 | Echoes | Anna (Kate French) has a burgeoning career as a writer. With her blog and screenwriting, she’s well on her way to achieving her dreams. Sadly, her sleep paralysis is so severe it’s beginning to hinder her work. She’s constantly popping pills in order to keep it at bay but nothing is really working. Her agent boyfriend Paul (Steven Brand) wants to do what he can to help her and takes her away to his secluded glass house in the desert. He returns to the city for work while Anna stays, hoping to relax and get some work done herself. Instead, the paralysis intensifies and the visions she has become terrifying. Things begin happening she can’t explain and someone or something is trying to send her a message. After viewing footage caught on the surveillance camera, she witnesses herself murdering a man and she has no recollection of it. She desperately needs to figure out what is actually happening and what horrible secret this secluded glass house actually holds. | tragedy, violence, haunting | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0048421 | New York Confidential | Charlie Lupo is a gangster who runs the New York branch of a crime syndicate. He is a widower with a grown daughter, Kathy and a new lover, Iris.
Hit man Nick Magellan of the Chicago mob impresses Lupo, who hires Magellan to be his bodyguard. They form a friendship and Kathy is attracted to Nick, but he resists her advances.
When a political lobbyist interferes with the syndicate's plans and needs to be eliminated, Lupo arranges for three men to handle it. But they leave too many clues and need to be eliminated, a task Lupo turns over to Nick.
Nick quickly dispatches two of the targets, but a third flees and rats out Lupo to the cops. While hiding out, Lupo's unhappy daughter Kathy gets drunk and is killed in a car crash.
Lupo's heart is no longer in his work and he decides to cooperate with the authorities, so the syndicate orders Nick to get rid of his friend. Nick obeys orders, killing Lupo, but then is eliminated himself. | violence, cruelty, murder | train | wikipedia | Conte takes on Crawford in mid-50s look at mobsters as organization men.
In Russell Rouse's New York Confidential, Broderick Crawford plays a darker extension of his Harry Brock character in Born Yesterday.
But five years later, in the wake of the televised Kefauver hearings which brought the scope of organized crime to a rapt public, Crawford has become a cog in a vast `syndicate' or `cartel' - an important cog in its Manhattan headquarters, yes, but only one piece of its unstoppable machinery.When one of his vassals stages an unauthorized hit, Crawford calls in some talent from Chicago (Richard Conte) to enforce discipline.
The widowed Crawford warms to Conte as the son he never had, though he does have a handful of a rebellious daughter (Ann Bancroft) as well as a high-maintenance mistress with a platinum chignon (Marilyn Maxwell).
Maxwell has eyes for Conte, but his eyes stay affixed on the unstable, hard-drinking Bancroft, who wants nothing to do with her father's business - or with any of his minions.The triangulated romance, however, takes second place to the mob's tangled business interests.
In the movie's best orchestrated sequence, torpedo Mike Mazurki accomplishes the hit but botches his escape from a hotel; wounded, he decides to flip and sing.With the big heat now on, the executive board decides Crawford must take the fall; he, however, decides to join Mazurki in singing a duet.
So the board contracts Conte to eliminate the now dangerous Crawford....The gangster movies of the early 'thirties endure as character studies of flamboyant but flawed figures played by the likes of Edward G.
From 711 Ocean Drive in 1950 to Phil Karlson's 1957 The Brothers Rico (also starring Conte), crime had become corporate, with formalized hierarchies, far-flung interests, and strict, if ruthless, rules for doing business.
That's the thread that runs through New York Confidential: that no there's no individual who's indispensable, that the survival of the organization remains paramount..
I can't understand why Turner Classic Movies hasn't shown it because it is definitely a classic film noir gem.
But it is more than film noir; it is a genuine motif of organized crime brought to the screen.
Broderick Crawford, Richard Conte, and Ann Bancroft just being in the cast should merit it being shown on TV once in awhile.
One of the central themes of achieving success and the American dream through crime and corruption is an old staple of Hollywood, but it is presented in such a way as to provide the viewer with a definite amount of empathy for the main characters in spite of the fact that they are mobsters.
Broderick Crawford borrows a great deal from his Academy Award winning Willie Stark from All The King's Men in playing underworld boss Frank Lupo in New York Confidential.
Crawford is a combination of Stark and Don Corleone and he doesn't get the best of it.Like Corleone and Stark, Lupo has trouble with his children, but unlike Stark, Lupo has a daughter played by Anne Bancroft.
Crawford though he opposes the idea gets the contract and from their the dominoes start to fall.One thing however when the fires threatens, organized crime knows how to start backfires to make sure the organization itself is not touched.
A whole lot of dead bodies start to pile up before the film ends.Also starring in the film is Richard Conte playing an out of town hit man who Crawford takes a shine to and has him stay in New York.
Conte was always great in noir films and he certainly is here.
New York Confidential touches upon a lot of the issues involving systemic corruption much the same way The Godfather films do.
Indeed with the documentary element and Crawford's wayward antics on the one side and the coolness of Richard Conte and his relations with the ladies on the other, this could be considered a bit of a mess.
That it is not is due in the main to the tremendous performances of Conte, Bancroft and to a lesser extent, Marilyn Maxwell as Iris, Crawford's mistress.
For me Crawford is over the top as the macho boss man and simply unable to deal with the more sensitive scenes, but he is overshadowed by Conte and we are soon persuaded to view the events through his steely eyes.
A few location shots that really only go to show up the shoddiness of the studio ones but there is a great ending and as I say enough along the way to make this almost unseen film well worth a watch..
a bristling Richard Conte performance, a peculiar film.
NEW YORK CONFIDENTIAL is a perplexing film noir entry.
Among its many merits is the astonishing cast: Broderick Crawford (who spits out his dialogue in Howard Hawks-rapidity as if he were on amphetamines), Anne Bancroft (astonishing) and the always reliable Richard Conte.
But it never shakes the feeling of being two films in one, sitting uneasily side by side: a stern "semi-documentary" expose of the "syndicate" on one hand, and a bleak and brutal pre-Godfather mafia family saga on the other.As such, it is wildly and tragically uneven.
Director and co-writer Russell Rouse's previous noir entry was the chancy THE THIEF, also an uneven experiment.But the film has its scenes of incredible power, usually those revolving around Conte, as a cold and calculating hit-man for hire, and Bancroft, as the put-upon mobster's daughter who can't crawl out from behind dad's shadow; Conte dispatching with "hits", his gunshots creepily muffled by a silencer; Crawford's repeated near-meltdowns; murderous planning done completely straight in a corporate boardroom, just big business as usual.A puzzler of a film, leaving the viewer to wonder what could have been, had it been shot by John Alton and penned by, say, Dalton Trumbo.
Richard Conte is superb as a polite but cold-blooded hit-man turned consigliere, and there are also memorable performances from Anne Bancroft and the reliable heavy Mike Mazurki.
Unfortunately, the film suffers from utterly bland cinematography, and we spend so much time in well-lit rooms that it often feels like a stage production.
Broderick Crawford, Richard Conte, Anne Bancroft, Onslow Stevens, Marilyn Maxwell, J.
Carroll Naish, Barry Kelley, Tom Powers, Mike Mazurki, Celia Lovsky...The film starts with location footage and the stentorian tones of a narrator so you figure you're going to get one of those De Rochemont docudramas or at least a cheapie along the lines of Conte's The Sleeping City which was shot on location here in NYC.No, soon we're on the Goldwyn lot which wouldn't be bad if there were some creative angles or lighting.
Also, there are no dissolves, all scenes end with a fade to black and you half expect to see a commercial.The story structure is no better - two major characters are just written out with no drama to punctuate the exits.
The story in itself is promising enough, with hit man Conte imported from Chicago and recruited to remain with Crawford's mob after he neatly disposes of some upstart who causes headlines which "the syndicate" would prefer to avoid.Crawford's daughter Bancroft seems to be falling for Conte, but that goes nowhere.
Crawford's girl Marilyn Maxwell is definitely falling for Conte, but that goes nowhere, but hey, at least now the subtext folks have something to read into it.
A true fierce, brutal, and so realistic tale of gangsters where the mob is presented as a big company and their members normal family men, such as Broderick - machine gun talking - Crawford, who is here at his best.
I confound this movie with Ken Hughes's JOE MACBETH, made at the same period, and starring Paul Douglas who, a long time ago, I confounded with Broderick Crawford.
This another film noir was also a gangster family tragedy.
It stars Broderick Crawford, Richard Conte, Anne Bancroft, Marilyn Maxwell, J.
From this very real moment in time came a wave of films that jumped onto the possibilities on offer for dramatic filmic purpose, New York Confidential is one such picture.In short order the plot has Crawford as New York Syndicate boss Charles Lupo, who borrows hit-man Nick Maggelan (Conte) from the Chigao branch to enact a hit.
The pair quickly strike up a terrific relationship, but as problems within the Lupo home begin to mount up - and the heat starts to close in on the organisation - cracks begin to turn into chasms.It says a lot about the efforts of the cast that this turns out to be better than it had right to be.
Add in Lupo's sultry girlfriend Iris (Maxwell), who has no loyalty and wants to bed Magellan, then emotional conflict and tests of character are boldly prominent.Beginning with shots of New York City and a narration telling us about how great and prosperous the city is, it is however the core of Syndicated Crime.
There's a disappointment that we are sadly denied effective chiaroscuro, for the story demands it, more so when things go belly up and the world closes in on Lupo and Magellan's surrogate father/son relationship.Come the last quarter the pic really hits its flm noir straps, where joyously it doesn't let us down.
Family strife and conflicted matters of the heart blend with corruption and organised crime, all crammed into an hour and half of film making.
New York Confidential – 1955Broderick Crawford, Richard Conte, Anne Bancroft, Onslow Stevens, J.Carrol Naish headline this violent film noir from 1955.Crawford is a New York mob bigwig who has moved the syndicate into being more like a business.
Crawford though, has no problem putting out contracts on people who step out of line.There has been a mob killing done without an OK from the top.
Crawford calls up his boy in charge of hits, Mike Mazurki.
Richard Conte is the up and comer brought in to take care of business.Conte does the job, neat and clean, which impresses Crawford, who takes him in to his mob.
Crawford had been a friend of Conte's father in the old days.
Conte quickly moves up the ladder and into Crawford's inner circle.Besides business, complicating Crawford's life is his daughter, Anne Bancroft.
She also hates how people treat her once they discover who her father is.Conte becomes Crawford's fixer of problems because he is so smooth and efficient at his job.
Conte is pleased with the life, flash cars, 200 dollar suits and plenty of night life.Of course things go bad when a Federal Government type on the take, William Forest, screws up a multi-million dollar deal for the mob.
Crawford sends Conte to clean up the mess by eliminating the three hitters.
The Government uses this to go after Crawford, who then goes into hiding.The Mob bosses have another vote and decide that Crawford has to go in order to take the Police pressure off.
They have sent a man to eliminate Conte after Crawford is dealt with by Conte.The first 35 minutes is real cracker-jack noir.
A shocking mid-town assassination results in two innocent bystanders being killed and what follows threatens to blow the lid off the ruthless big business of the organized crime world that reaches into the pockets of Washington D.C. politicians.
The plot surrounds the head of one of the syndicate (Broderick Crawford) and his family life which includes his trampy mistress Marilyn Maxwell, aging mother Celia Lovsky and troubled daughter Anne Bancroft.
Hit-man Richard Conte is assigned to find her, tame her and bring her home, but this likable killer, sympathetic to her plight, must betray boss Crawford in order to do it, choosing to romance her in hiding.As the violence of the underworld increases, so does the threat of the downfall to this Corleone like dynasty.
As Conte explains to Bancroft, "the waiter rips off the boss just as fast as the boss rips off the government", so the end justifies the means and all in a day's work.
(He forgets to include, "Just don't get caught.") Yet, not every killer or crook is all black or white, so the fact that these characters have two sides to them is supposed to make them o.k.It's hard to dislike a family man like Crawford (very loyal to his worried mama), but you just know that the downfall he faces will involve traitorous activity.
Detectives are nearing the hotel and the expression on the killers' faces just gets more and more nervous.Bancroft explodes in a scene with Conte after her identity has been discovered which most of her previous films lacked.
The narration by Ralph Clanton is typical of "Naked City" stories and by 1955, a film noir cliché of its own.
In the early 1950s, television coverage of the Senate Committee hearings on organised crime (chaired by Estes Kefauver) generated a huge amount of public interest and movies such as "The Enforcer" (1951) and "New York Confidential" (1955) capitalised on this brilliantly.
The latter movie is essentially a low-budget, semi-documentary expose of the culture of a nationwide organisation that makes its money from murder, vice and corruption but is also in the process of blurring the lines between itself and legitimate business.
In order to achieve an appearance of respectability, however, the organisation has to operate by strict rules and ensure that, as far as possible, it doesn't attract any adverse publicity.New York City crime boss Charlie Lupo (Broderick Crawford) has to take action when a mobster in his territory kills another hoodlum purely for personal reasons and so hit-man Nick Magellan (Richard Conte) is imported from Chicago.
So after Nick kills the rule-breaking mobster, Charlie keeps him on as his bodyguard and steadily promotes him to a top position in his organisation.
His mother, who's very demanding and warns him of trouble ahead, his spoilt daughter Kathy (Anne Bancroft) who despises his line of work because it impacts badly on her ability to move in society circles and Iris (Marilyn Maxwell) who's his mistress.
A board meeting of the crime bosses from all of the cities where the syndicate is active follows and it's unanimously decided that the lobbyist should be eliminated for his betrayal and that Charlie should take responsibility for ensuring that the hit is carried out.Charlie appoints three of his men to assassinate the lobbyist and although they achieve their goal, they also leave clues behind and kill a cop in the process.
In order to cover his tracks, Charlie assigns Nick to kill the three men.
Nick succeeds in eliminating two of them but a third eludes him long enough to turn state's evidence and in so doing, threatens to expose Charlie's involvement and by extension, that of the nationwide syndicate.
Predictably, the consequences of this are enormous.Richard Conte is astonishingly good as Nick in a performance that outshines everyone else in the movie and Anne Bancroft is extremely intense, feisty and contemptuous as she portrays her character's feelings about what her father does to make a living.
Fast-talking Broderick Crawford successfully exudes all the toughness and power that one would expect of a crime boss of Lupo's stature but also displays the vulnerability that his character feels because of his health issues and the degree to which he's hurt by his daughter's angry condemnation of him."New York Confidential" is hard-hitting, rich in realism and provides a fascinating insight into the world of organised crime at a time when its involvement in business, politics and everyday life was extensive.
In this movie, Nick's character provides the clearest illustration of someone who conforms to the rules as he's unerringly loyal to the organisation, carries out all the orders given to him (regardless of his own feelings) and resists the attentions of both Kathy and Iris because of his respect for Charlie.
Having been brought up as the son of a gangster, he knows better than anyone that the interests of the organisation always come first..
It's all about "New York" but we only see a minute or two of the city in some stock shots under the credits.
Speaking of painting, a gang of rival hoods takes a pot shot at the Syndicate Big Wig, Charlie Lupo (Crawford), and just wing him, though the bullet goes through a painting he "paid thirty grand for." I hope it was the one with the two Degas ballerinas because I've checked Degas' ballerinas up close and his pastels are far better than mine ever were, the swine.This was also the period in which J.
So there is no Mafia here, only "the organization" or "the syndicate." And, Crawford aside, nobody has an Italian name.
They have names like Nick Magellan and Johnny Achilles and Whitey.Richard Conte is Nick Magellan and with the revelation of his character the movie picks up pace.
He's brought in from Chicago, pulls off a professional hit, and soon works his way up to a position as Crawford's trusted deputy.
Crawford made up the rules and suffers for it, as does Conte.There isn't room to spell out the entirety of the plot.
It's a crime thriller that puts Crawford, Conte, and Crawford's daughter (Bancroft) through the wringer.
(He was much better elsewhere, as in "All The King's Men.") Conte's character is an honorable man and he plays it with restraint.Poor Anne Bancroft as the put-upon daughter is resentful and alcoholic and is burdened with some of the worst lines.
Man, how she would love to have Conte stay for that nightcap.
Maxwell is a hardened whore, yet when Crawford finds his daughter has been killed, she is there to comfort Crawford and share his grief.It's not a "film noir," a term that seems to have lost almost all meaning.
(The scene is lifted from 1947's "Kiss of Death".) And there's another scene in which Conte brings off a hit and we see the victim slowly twist and fall, but only his shadow.In many ways the story isn't THAT different from "The Godfather".
"New York Confidential" has the family values, the code of honor, the equivalent of the Five Families, the Italian connection, the need to kill one or two of their own, and even a consigliere. |
tt0206963 | My First Mister | In an effort to secure employment at the upscale Century City Mall in Los Angeles, Jennifer (Sobieski), an 18-year-old "goth-punk" girl who just graduated from high school, makes a nuisance of herself at a clothing store run by 49-year-old Randall Harris (Brooks), who eventually hires her on a trial basis as a stockroom clerk. Jennifer refers to herself simply as "J", and thus asks Randall if it's okay if she calls him "R", to which he accedes.
One day, as there is nothing more to be done in the stockroom, J makes her way to the front of the store and begins to interact with customers. Encouraged by her initiative but concerned that her appearance may frighten away potential customers, Randall buys her an appropriate outfit and promotes her to saleswoman.
Feeling isolated from the other people in her life, J finds she is attracted to Randall. After an incident that makes him question whether he can continue to trust her, J demonstrates her trust in him by revealing that she engages in self harm. The two thus strike up an unlikely friendship as they realize that neither has anyone close with whom they can confide. Made aware that J is unhappy living with her mother (who seems to pay more attention to her two pugs than her daughter) and stepfather, Randall offers her an advance on her salary so she can afford her own place, then helps her find an apartment.
As their friendship progresses, Randall consents to getting a (very small) tattoo at J's urging, only to realize at the last possible moment that he can't go through with it. In a fit of despair he declares that they can't continue as friends. Confronted by J at his home a short time later, Randall confides his many phobias, which endears him to J even more. Their friendship restored, Randall reluctantly accompanies J to a cemetery to lie on the graves of the deceased to feel their "energy", something she does regularly. Due to the lateness of the hour, they go back to Randall's where they bond over tea and J spends the night on the couch.
The following morning J discovers Randall collapsed in the street after having told her he was going "for a run." She learns that Randall has had leukemia for many years and doesn't have long to live, and is initially very angry that he didn't share this with her.
While collecting some of Randall's personal items from his home, J discovers the name and address of his ex-wife. Unable to contact her by phone, J drives to Albuquerque only to find her (and Randall's) son Randy, a deeply cynical young man who tells her that his mother died in a car accident six months earlier, and had told him that his father had died before he was born. Although he initially refuses to drive to L.A. to see the father he's never known before he dies, he ultimately does so. Because of J's intervention, Randall and his son have a brief time to get to know one another, for which Randall is very grateful.
J's friendship with Randall inspires her to seek a closer relationship with her family, especially her mother. In Randall's final days, Jennifer organizes a dinner at which his son and Jennifer's family come together to celebrate his life. | gothic | train | wikipedia | `American Beauty' and more recently `Ghost World' carried the usual criticism of this socially questionable alliance, from downright damage in the former to uncertainty about how it could ever work in the latter.In `My First Mister,' starring Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski, the union works so beautifully in the first half of the film I thought even I could try it.
Director Christine Lahti, who won an Oscar for best short film, "Lieberman in Love," concentrates on the flowering friendship between a Goth girl who needs a friend and a job and a 49 year-old haberdasher who has jettisoned everyone in order to live out his life painlessly for everyone.Jill Franklyn, who wrote the "Yada Yada" episode of "Seinfeld," pens perfect lines for the understated Brooks, such as when he first sees Sobieski: "Scram.
When the time comes for sex, as it always does in Hollywood, no one cares, even the audience, because the point is the friendship.In the second half of the film Lahti lets go of her originality to indulge the genre with the usual fatal twist, easy reconciliation of family, and renewal for Sobieski found in a most unbelievable coincidence.
Yes, she does look like Helen Hunt, but that is where the similarity ends.Albert Brooks has always had a manner of delivering his lines as though he is making an appeal to his listener's better sense.
Leelee Sobieski and Albert Brooks are good chemistry in "My First Mister.".
This is a story of an unlikely couple, a 49-year-old clothing store manager (Brooks) and a rebellious 17-year-old girl (Leelee) just finishing high school.
The film strongly implies that she wanted the relationship to a romantic one, but he learns to love her as a family member, perhaps the daughter he never had.Leelee was in two films released in 2001, this one and "Joy Ride." In the latter I found her acting wooden and uninspired.
Jennifer Benson (Leelee Sobieski) is a seventeen years old misfit punk teenager that uses piercing, tattoos, wears only black clothes and dyed hair, self-inflicts injures and has fixation for death.
While looking for a job, she meets the forty-nine years old Randall Harris (Albert Brooks), a lonely man who owns a shopping store, and he hires her.
They become close friends, and their interaction changes their behavior for good while secrets and feelings are disclosed.This is the second work of the excellent underrated actress Christine Lahti as director that I see (the other one is the short "Lieberman in Love"), and also a surprisingly great movie.
Leelee Sobieski has another great performance in the role of a disturbed and rebellious teenager, needy of love and care, who changes her behavior when she meets her soul-mate friend in a middle-age man.
I am not fan of Albert Brooks, but he is great performing Randall Harris, the man who touches Jennifer in the heart.
A feel good weeper comedy/light-drama, "My First Mister" tells of the coming of age of a teenaged pin cushion goth female (Sobrieski) who's into self mutilation and talking to dead people and her platonic love affair with a middle aged conservative and phobic man (Brooks).
As the film wears on it plateaus and becomes somewhat muddled by unnecessary quirky characters and an side plot about Brook's past in an apparent attempt to jerk the last tear and keep feel good moments coming.
Sobieski and Brooks make their characters real people, not stereotypes.The last 45 minutes are a little melodramatic for my tastes, but by that time I was so invested in the characters, I stuck with the film.
I expected another crappy film like Ghost World which on my scale was a -5.I was pleasantly surprised to find a really good effort and an enjoyable, meaningful movie.
Kudos to the actors and especially Christine Lahti who showed that she is just as good behind the camera as in front of it.She successfully created a cross-generational movie.
the performances are magical, "Albert Brooks" whom I had never heard of, (me being a Brit and NOT seeing much of "Saturday Night Live"), and being the same age as myself portrayed my generation of an average Joe to a T ...and "Jennifer" played by "Leelee Sobieski" made me realise that not ALL kids are the way I see them portrayed in movies and on TV, she played the part as a REAL person (not some dimwitted moron, or violent thug) ...
It was very refreshing to watch a Hollywood film in which the Characters were not simply one dimensional and where a white middle aged,middle class MAN was not portrayed as an opportunistic ,anything goes,kind of jerk that takes advantage of a young vulnerable girl.
This movie was touching in the very sense that it asks the audience to have an open mind about the films main idea but it is equally beautiful and bittersweet.
I had just assumed this would be another Hollywood schlock-fest featuring the dry humor of Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski attempting to reconnect with a teenie-bopper audience.
This was such a strong film that dedicated itself to developing strong characters, to giving us honest emotions, and providing us a story that is not unfamiliar in the "real" world that it nearly left my jaw hanging on the ground.
From the opening moments in which we are focused directly on the life of Jennifer (aka "J") to the unrecognizable change to following Randall (aka "R") My First Mister will make you laugh, make you cry, and make you realize that friendship is stronger than the clothes you wear or the amount of piercings on you face.
Through the use of Brooks' "every man" persona and Sobieski's attention to detail with her character, this film gives us a rare glimpse into Lahti's near-perfect film.What initially pulled me into this film was the untraditional Hollywood story that scribe Jill Franklyn unfolds before us.
Society would tell us that this could never happen, but the Lahti persuades us by giving us two of the strongest characters to play against each other in modern cinematic history.I realize that others would argue that there have been stronger matching in Hollywood long before Brooks and Sobieski, which I would agree of classic Hollywood, but recently (basically 80s to present) it is hard to find two actors that seem to compliment each other like a great cheese and aged red wine.
The two play so well off each other that as an audience member you have the chance to enjoy both the acting as well as a very strongly developed story about family and friendship.I have talked about the story, I have talked about the characters, but none of this would have been possible if it were not for the brilliant direction behind the camera and the talented eye of minimal director Christine Lahti.
I have to confess that I enjoy anything Albert Brooks does, whether as writer or director or actor, and this movie was no exception.
The friendship between Brooks the older man and the young woman stuck in "Goth" mode was portrayed pretty realistically, as if between real people, once you accept the premise that it could happen at all.
Need I add that the performances of LeeLee Sobieski and Albert Brooks are the frosting on this most delicious of cinematic cakes?
I watched the movie on Sundance Cable T.V. network and throughly enjoyed it.I have never been an Albert Brooks fan in the past, but every movie he has written, directed or acted in has ranked very high with the critics.
this film will end up appealing to all ages because of its universal message of love.it tackles the lives of a forlorn, goth teenager who has no friends and feels completely isolated from her 'normal' family.
she cannot relate to them, or seemingly anyone else.in the course of the movie, she meets a middle-aged man who also cannot relate well to people though he certainly fits the 'normal' definition.an unlikely pair, the two strike up a meaningful and beautiful friendship that will deeply touch and inspire you.essentially, this movie is about people, their relationships, families, friends, and everything in between.i think anyone could enjoy this movie as it is strikingly human..
The material she has chosen would make for an interesting ABC Afterschool Special movie, but the quality of the writing certainly demands less talent than Albert Brooks and LeeLee Sobieski, who strain to reduce the amount of schmaltz and syrup written for them and flesh out well-rounded characters.
I know lots of girls from high school and college who could have used a hero like Jennifer, who in the end lets go of her gothic pretensions and finds real love.
LeeLee Sobieski does better than any other actress could have with this script, and Albert Brooks is always a wizard with the spoken word.
But no man, this is so cartoon, same case with Brooks' character, I think this is one of the movies where actors and actresses really felt on the edge of stupidity and shame while performing the script..
She asks Randall Harris (Albert Brooks) for a job at his menwear store and he gives her the job as long as she gets rid of the hardware.I really like these two characters.
I don't usually like "feel-good" movies, but will recommend this one to everyone.Love evolves between these two morbid people.
I could not help but notice that the love they shared for eachother is more than a family love.They can't help but feel for eachother and at the end when he just dissapeared you could not help but cry.I think that after his wife left him he could not bear to get close to anyone.Especailly in hs condition.I grew a fond love and need for him like I did with Seymour in Ghost World.You can't help but love and need these characters..
better than many so-called love stories I've seen (and I only go to see movies rated 3 out of 4 or above ...
But it's a little bit more serious and "meaningful" than his movies, which isn't a bad thing in this case.I found it to be a true hidden gem, a great movie that no one has ever heard of, and luckily an oddball friend of mine recommended it to me.Okay, what makes it good?
But it is Leelee Sobieski, who is eerily like a young Helen Hunt, who makes the movie rise to the top.
She is fantastic as the goth chick who hates her family, who hates herself, who hates life, but begins to change her tune when she meets up with similarly disenfranchised (but from a different perspective) Albert Brooks.They are an odd couple, sort of Harold and Maude-ish, you could say, and their friendship, and the humorous and touching dialogue are excellent.True, the movie does get a little corny and unbelievable in the 3rd act, but it works.
If you like good acting, you'll love Leelee Sobieski.
Leelee Sobieski puts on the best performance of the three movies I've seen her in.
One of the best drama/comedies ever written.This movie did a great job developing what would normally be an unlikely bond between: the spunkiness of youth with the set-in-my-ways old.
I know some people feel as though drawing emotion from the viewer is somewhat cliched, (as we watched the relationship between Leelee and Albert Brooks begin to weaken), but to me that's just one of the elements that's used to make great movies.
Might I also add any deviation from drawing real-life emotion from Leelee's character, Jennifer, would have turned this movie into a farce.
I thought the movie was great, and it made me feel good to know that I was not alone in raising a teenager who liked to get pierced..
I've always been a fan of Albert Brooks ("Defending Your Life" is a must see for anyone) and so I picked up this movie.
The movie starts off pretty slowly and I had recently seen Ghost World, which was also about a young girl in search of herself and someone to love.
Carol Kane is great here, as always, and you have an amazing cast of supporting character actors surrounding our heroes, Leelee and Albert.
I expect good acting from Albert Brooks for was taken with excellent performances from the rest of the cast.
This seemed at first promising...Leelee Sobieski almost unrecognizable under tattoos and body piercings with the usually superb Albert Brooks to play off of.
Sure, it seemed like familiar territory, a Hollywoodized trip down the road covered so much better by "Ghost World" (a terrific must-see film) but then there's an illness and the plot descends horribly into sappy schmaltz.
This film, while it may have had some humor in it, was a very serious film which ended up dealing very seriously about death.This is a good movie about the power of love, and if you are looking for a drama, I can recommend this film.
The story draws you in, and before you know it you are not only watching a movie but feeling it as well.
This movie is what really good filmmaking is all about; a story about real people we care about, doing things we identify with, presented in a way that touches us.
And the one who is arguably the leader of the pack, Leelee Sobieski, takes on the starring role here, in `My First Mister,' a story of two very different people, of different generations, both of whom are alone in the world (though in different ways and for different reasons), and who ultimately find what they need in one another-- and without even consciously looking for it.
Complementing Lahti's style, and assuring the success of this film, are the wonderful performances by Sobieski and Brooks.
It's the little things that Brooks does so well, and that make all the difference; he gives the audience someone with whom they can truly empathize and identify, because he so succinctly manages to express all the affecting elements of everyday life-- the minutiae of day-to-day existence, as well as the corresponding emotions-- through his characters, and it's why you're going to remember Randall for a long, long time.
An entertaining, well crafted and delivered film that promises one thing and ends up giving much more, `My First Mister,' in the final analysis, is an engaging story that goes deep and touches the heart, and without any maudlin sentimentality attached.
Characters are as real as you can get and the acting by all is great, but Leelee is great .It is a movie I will watch again to see what I missed the first time ,and then I'll watch it again because I really enjoy this film..
Director Christine Lahti has a problem: she wants her misfit teenager (Sobieski) & her middle-aged salesman (Brooks) to have a genuinely transformative relationship, but she knows making their relationship sexual would only make it a male fantasy (for that, see GHOST WORLD).
This was an enjoyable film with some great performances.I thought that Albert Brooks really was the highlight of the movie.
If anyone else had the part played by Albert Brooks, this movie would have been horrible.
Overall, the film was very uneven...it felt like Christine Lahti didn't really know what to do with Albert Brooks for much of the film.
That said, he and Leelee Sobieski have a number of good scenes together and the film features a nice cameo from John Goodman.Very good work by the costume designer by the way...particularly for Mr. Brooks..
Leelee Sobieski is very good as displaced teenager Jennifer Benson, who is disgusted and bored with her life (like many teenagers, at some point).She is in the mall looking for a jobs while in full Goth costume.
It's an awful let down.Albert Brooks gives a fine portrayal while Leelee Sobieski starts off well, but like the movie, her performance degenerates.The major flaw of the movie is lack of concept.
I went to see this movie because I read so many good reviews and also I love Albert Brooks.
Before I get into the criticism of this movie, let me say that I like Leelee Sobieski as an actress.
I was expecting to be able to relate to Leelee Sobieski's character, and while I felt she gave a good performance, the actual writing made her too unbelievable, inconsistent, and at times just really unlikeable.
Her film would seem to share a common thread with the later "Lost in Translation", but--by focusing most of the attention on the ill-tempered, foul-mouthed teenager (Leelee Sobieski, dressed like a sewer rat)--interest in the central relationship takes an awfully long time to build.
This was a story about a rebellious teenager named Jennifer Wilson (Leelee Sobieski)who lived with a so 70s family.
My First Mister, a good and often well-written and acted film, stars Leelee Sobieski, one of the best new actresses of late, co-stars as a lonley and alienated goth type girl with a lot of personal baggage.
But at least the bulk of the film is a good show to pass the time; Brooks fans won't be dissapointed and Sobieski is also a note of big interest.
I have never cared much for Albert Brooks, but he is okay in this film.
Nevertheless, the film is worth watching because Leelee Sobieski is simply hypnotic.
I'm not sure why, but I like Albert Brooks movies.
If I wanted to see Albert Brooks die in a movie I would have watched " Defending your Life" again.
This film is exactly like "Life as a House" and just as cliche riddled but I do have to say that Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski really do have good chemistry and the scenes of them together are nicely played out.
I think this movie got the wrong title even if Leelee Sobieski's character Jennifer mentioned the word "lover" about Albert Brooks' character Randall.
"My First Mister" stars Leelee Sobieski as Jennifer, a suicidal teenager. |
tt1492723 | At Risk | Win Garano, an Apache nicknamed "Geronimo", is working for Monique "Money" Lamont in the Boston DA's department. Lamont is running for Governor of Massachusetts using the concept of "at risk" to try to gain votes, saying that everyone is at risk from crime but when she becomes governor it is the criminals who will be at risk. To promote her political campaign she re-opens and assigns Garano to a cold case concerning the murder of a 90-year-old woman 35 years previously, demonstrating to voters that she can clear up old crimes as well as new ones.
Jesus Baptista, a criminal, has recently been acquitted of drug dealing and arson. One evening he goes to Lamont's house and lies in wait for her. At the same time, Garano is visiting his grandmother "Nana", where he sees TV coverage of a press conference called by Lamont, during which she agrees in answer to an aggressive questioner that the investigator on the cold case is called "Geronimo". Upset by this he sends a text to Lamont submitting his resignation but immediately afterwards he receives a text threatening Nana's life unless he drops the case. He changes his mind and calls Lamont to tell her that he wishes to continue the investigation. At this point Baptista snatches Lamont and drags her into the house causing her to drop her mobile. Unable to contact her, Garano drives to her house where a fight ensues, resulting in Baptista being shot dead by Garano. Evidence is discovered that Baptista had apparently been paid to kill Lamont. Facts about the cold case are difficult to find and police corruption is suspected. It then emerges that there is a connection between the murder and the attack on Lamont. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Could have been, would have been, should have been - it definitely wasn't, worth watching.
This is one of two Patricia Cornwell novels to film, i.e.
"At Risk" and "The Front" that feature Andie McDowell as a Boston district attorney and are appearing on one of our lesser cable channels here in New Zealand.
I would agree 100% that this is one of the worst examples of plot, direction, acting, and last but not least the use of schmaltzy music.
It runs throughout the entire film to punctuate almost every scene as a filler or to let you know - hey this is a love scene.
No one as yet has mentioned that Cornwell has a cameo as a waitress.
That must tell you something.
She's not only in the movie business now, she's in the movie.
God forbid.
Obviously she's gathered a huge following through the years and hopes to cash in on it and I can't wait to miss the next one.(I was a great fan in her early writing days mainly because she was living in my hometown of Richmond, Va. and used locales that I knew well.
Since then I've come to prefer British authors of the genre who seem to write better and the TV series that are made from their works are first class.).
not a good career move for McDowell.
This movie seems like it'd have done better as a 1 hour TV flick.
Cut out the gratuitous bits (the hunka-hunka-burning'love footage of the male lead, and other filler stuff, and it might have had some chance of making the viewer think "gee...who dunnit" instead of "gee...is it over yet?" The storyline isn't bad - the bringing back to life a cold case with unexpected results is a decent theme.
But there's just too much stuff in between to create suspense, and none of it adds to either the story or the characters.
Sorry - I actually do like Cornwell's books.
This movie does nothing really to capture what's in them.
I'm giving it the extra star for (yes, paraphrasing joe bob briggs) the shiny pennies fu and the exploding bad rasta fu..
Hell no!.
I love Patricia Cornwell, and I'm grateful to the high heavens that this movie wasn't how I discovered her.
I didn't like this movie.
The novel which I have read for umpteenth times is way better..
awful.
This is truly awful everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
The plot is wafer thin, I've read a lot of Patricia Cornwell's stuff and its seems to have been a vanity project for her.
There is however one truly funny bit where there is a full length video within in, with just shots of Win,it brings nothing at all to the story its just thrown in.
The acting if thats what you can call it is some of the worst I have ever seen, especially where Win is trying to cry it made me giggle thats how bad he is.
I can't see anyone wanting this pile of rubbish on their CV.
Avoid at all costs its just not worth your time..
Don't Take Risks With this One-At Risk **1/2.
Andie MacDowell is running for governor of Massachusetts!
She asks a detective to revitalize a 35 year old unsolved case from Tennessee to show the latest techniques that can be used with technology to solve crimes.
Trouble is that she opens a can of worms here and the bodies and the cover-ups really do begin to pile up.Our male hero could certainly be used to star in a biography of the life of President Obama or even former Tennessee Representative Harold Ford.
He looks like a cross between the both of them.Everything fits neatly by the film's end, but it may be just too neat.Diahann Carroll appears as the grandmother to the Obama-Ford look alike.
There is one scene with a pack of dogs that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.MacDowell, as a D.A. attempting to be the governor, shows that women are at a disadvantage when they run for political office.
Perhaps, they should have called in Hillary Clinton as a technical adviser. |
tt0043013 | The Sundowners | Irish-Australian Paddy Carmody (Robert Mitchum) is a sheep drover and shearer, roving the sparsely-populated back country with his wife Ida (Deborah Kerr) and son Sean (Michael Anderson, Jr.). They are sundowners, constantly moving, pitching their tent whenever the sun goes down. Ida and Sean want to settle down, but Paddy has wanderlust and never wants to stay in one place for long. While passing through the bush the family meet refined Englishman Rupert Venneker (Peter Ustinov) and hire him to help drive a large herd of sheep to the town of Cawndilla. Along the way, they survive a dangerous brush fire.
Mrs. Firth (Glynis Johns), who runs the pub in Cawndilla, takes a liking to Rupert. He takes to spending nights with her, but, like Paddy, he has no desire to be tied down.
Ida convinces Paddy to take a job at a station shearing sheep; she serves as the cook, Rupert as a wool roller, and Sean as a tar boy. Ida enjoys the company of another woman, their employer's lonely wife, Jean Halstead (Dina Merrill). When fellow shearer Bluey Brown's (John Meillon) pregnant wife Liz (Lola Brooks) shows up unannounced, she sees the young woman through her first birth.
Ida is saving the money the family earns for a farm that they stayed at for a night on the sheep drive. Even though Paddy has agreed to participate in a shearing contest against someone from a rival group, he decides to leave six weeks into the shearing season. Ida persuades him to stay. He loses the contest to an old veteran.
Paddy wins a lot of money and a race horse playing two-up. Owning such an animal has been his longstanding dream. They name him Sundowner and enter him, with Sean as his jockey, at local races on their travels after the shearing is done. Sean and Sundowner win their first race.
Ida finally convinces a still reluctant Paddy to buy the farm she and Sean have their hearts set on. However, he loses everything Ida has saved for the down payment in a single night of playing two-up. By way of apology, he tells her that he has found a buyer for Sundowner if he wins the next race. The money would recoup their down payment. Though Sundowner does win, he is disqualified for interference and the deal falls through. Nevertheless, Paddy's deep remorse heals the breach with Ida, and they resolve to save enough money to buy a farm one day. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0095178 | Fresh Horses | Cincinnati college senior Matt Larkin (Andrew McCarthy) seems to have a picture perfect life: he is well-liked at his mid-western college, that he is soon to graduate, fiancée, friends, parties and good times. But when Matt meets Jewel (Molly Ringwald), his carefully constructed house of cards falls apart and changes him forever.
Matt’s content with his very proper fiancée and his safe life, so when his best friend Tipton (Ben Stiller) relates a story of a night spent in a rough country house filled with seedy characters, beer, music and women, Matt initially scoffs at the idea of visiting. However, as he ponders his imminent marriage, he decides to check it out - no harm done, just a little fun before life gets serious.
The two drive out to the house, in the "boonies", expecting a wild party, however, when they arrive, they find only the aftermath of a debaucherous night—cigarette butts and bottles strewn everywhere, a bluesy ZZ Top tune on the stereo, a solitary biker playing pool and a woman’s muffled giggle coming from upstairs. Disappointed, Matt goes to fetch a beer for Tipton and in doing so, in the kitchen, meets Jewel.
Jewel is all mystery and trailer park at the same time. She’s a poor Kentucky girl, obviously grown up uneducated, yet Matt is instantly drawn to her. He returns to seek her out and the attraction they share is obvious. Despite their social differences, Matt is completely infatuated.
His life soon does a 180. He breaks off his engagement, sneaks out at night and stops seeing his friends. However Matt is yet to figure out who exactly Jewel is and discover the secrets she is hiding (including an abusive husband and stepfather, the shady people that hang around the house, as well as the fact she is underage).
As a result, the two worlds collide and it seems they are doomed by circumstance. After Matt has a run in with Jewel’s spouse, the ultra-seedy Green (Viggo Mortensen), Matt and Jewel break up. Jewel separates from Green, eventually meeting someone new at college. | depressing | train | wikipedia | And why?Silly questions aside, Fresh Horses is a film with an adult story aimed at using the onscreen chemistry of Andrew McCarthy and Molly Ringwald, (who were first paired as everyone knows in the excellent Pretty In Pink) in a serious love story.
Ringwald is Jewel, a mysterious country girl, all pink lips and tousled curly hair.
She meets Matt (McCarthy) a college upper middle class guy with a pretty stable and boring life.
She has a past and a reputation, but he becomes smitten with her and attempts to change his life so they can be together.As my Video and Movie Guide said, this film is just an adult version of Pretty In Pink.
I really liked it then, and have been trying to get this on DVD for years.I was afraid that the film wouldn't be as good as I remembered, and it wasn't in the WAY that I remembered, but it was BETTER in ways that I didn't have the experience or maturity to appreciate at the time.While aspects of the film are dated, namely the syrupy, St. Elmo's Fire-ish theme song in the opening/closing credits, it held up surprisingly well.
Also, for the people who don't seem to get the "Fresh Horses" reference, my take on it is not definitive, but there is a line where Ben Stiller is talking to Matt (McCarthy) and says something to the effect of letting a tired horse go, and getting a "fresh horse" in reference to dropping Jewel.It seemed to me that the metaphor was that while the characters all cared about each other, each relationship("horse") had more selfish/cynical motivations behind them.
In effect, the relationships were being used to move themselves from one-point to another towards their goals/desires, whether or not they themselves understood or acknowledged them.Ringwald uses McCarthy to get out of her marriage, McCarthy uses Ringwald to get out of his engagement, Stiller seems to use his friendship with McCarthy to avoid growing up and getting serious, McCarthy seems to be trying to fulfill an image of himself as a white-knight, though he finds that he doesn't have the character, he also seems to need the superiority he feels over Jewel due to her lack of education and so on....Unfortunately for most(it seems!), the movie required you to do a little thinking, and probably drew the wrong crowd due to its co-stars, who were maybe expecting Pretty in Pink II, or Pretty In Pink "for adults", but I do not agree with that view of the movie.If you haven't seen it, give it a shot.
do rather well with the subject matter- albeit limited, and as a previous review mentioned, ("Pretty In Pink, Redux")...sometimes there is fault with pop culture trying to seem clever; just ask Stephen King.Ringwald is a decent actor, and was unfortunately pegged into these type roles for awhile- I will have to watch her later films to compare, as it seem she has not been given enough range.
Since this film was made in the late 80's; there needs to be a twist; Andrew McCarthy provides a sympathetic character-trying to do the right thing.
I seem to remember films like "American Psycho" reflecting , more accurately, the political and social climate of the times.What the audience does see, is interesting and expository.
For example; why do the Ben Stiller and McCarthy character have to visit their college girlfriends at their indoor/outdoor swimming pool?; this is a gross exaggeration.
I can remember films like "Soul Man" (1989) and "Who's That Girl" (Madonna- throw-away trash film) The Ringwald character could have been better developed, she is a townie; married too young; the speech when she explains her childhood could have been more nuanced, more true to life.
Andrew McCarthy is a good actor, without the luxury of a story-line.In the late 80's, there were some films with social merit.
Molly Ringwald, softer and more contemplative than in her John Hughes/high school comedies, plays a shady girl from the wrong side of the tracks who meets and has an affair with preppy Cincinnati college kid Andrew McCarthy; the fact his rich friends disapprove and she has such a questionable background may prevent things from going further.
Ringwald struggles a bit with her redneck accent, and McCarthy does nothing to elevate his pinched, emotionally-parched persona, but the look of the film is quite vivid and the atmosphere is well-captured.
Ones that stick out in my mind are the pool party and the conversation afterwards, the scene where Ben Stiller talks to McCarthy about how difficult it is to make friends at their age, and the strange scenes where McCarthy goes to the house in the woods and meets Jewel and her female friend.
The film looks visually stunning and makes you want to visit these places.
As for the title, I believe that at one point Stiller compares Molly to a worn out nag and says that McCarthy needs a "fresh horse" to ride, or something like that.
I remember renting this movie just after it came out on VHS, and I totally fell in love with it, here it is, almost 19 years later and I STILL love it!Andrew McCarthy's character is so real, you see men like him every day all across America, ready to get married for all the wrong reasons, or ones that seemed right to start with, then they wake up and see there's something more to their life around them.
You hurt for her, with her, then you're angry at her and you want to know the truth, and you feel the love.So many people hack this movie to death saying it's horrible.....but I don't think they've ever been in love so they wouldn't understand.
OK yes, it's a bit hokey in spots, and somewhat hard to believe, but it WAS 1988 when it was made, the decade when "Greed is good", so you have to look at it from that perspective.PLEASE, PLEASE watch it!
I think of all Molly's movies, "Fresh Horses" has to be the best.
I never forgot this movie or Ringwald's "Jewel", not only does she look absolutely stunning in this, but her acting is perfection.This movie is extremely underrated.
The characters simply jump out at you, the movie gets 10 of 10 for scenery and atmosphere, there's a compelling ethereal quality about this movie and Ringwald's Jewel and even though this was not her most popular movie it was her best hands down..
Near the end of the movie, I was expecting (whether I knew it or not), that Andrew McCarthy would say: "I believed in you, Jewel." And it'd end happily, in a parking lot, with some rain and bad music.But, as it was, it basically ended how any cheap movie ends, with some bad music, and the guy not getting the girl.I didn't find the performances from McCarthy and Ringwald to be particularly wonderful, or compelling.It was predictable.
I thought the landscaping, and the way Ringwald and McCarthy looked against it, was gorgeous.
This movie is really only for those who were/are serious fans of either Molly Ringwald or Andrew McCarthy.
McCarthy stars as a young man named Matt who is engaged to marry his socialite girlfriend, but scraps those plans when he meets Jewel(Ringwald).
The film follows Matt as he tries to figure out who exactly Jewel is and what secrets she might be hiding.
Overall, not a bad effort on Ringwald's part, but I would only recommend watching this movie if you happen to catch it on cable..
Andrew McCarthy plays a college student that falls in love with a less educated and less cultured young girl(Molly Ringwald).
Two immediate problems are: McCarthy needs to break off an engagement to his well to do girlfriend; only to find out that Ringwald is younger than he thinks and needs an annulment from an abusive husband.
Miss Ringwald is simply great in this role.Rounding out the cast are: Ben Stiller, Patti D'Arbanville, Viggo Mortensen and Molly Hagan.
Jeez, with friends like that, it's no wonder this lame movie got made - no one was brave enough to tell any of the cast how bad it was.
So, maybe at some point in his career Andrew managed to rustle up major chemistry, but in this movie, he manages to deliver the eternal best friend chemistry instead of the lost in lust type.
And Molly delivered some of her lines like she was reading them for the first time from the teleprompter ("I'm used" she says in the same tone she would use to announce "pink is my color") instead of part innocent/part femme fatale.
There aren't many universities that I can think of (maybe it's a Midwest thing?) that are so close to the swamps of Deliverance.When this movie came out, I really wanted to see it, because I loved St. Elmo's Fire.
This movie was filmed in Cincinnati and northern Kentucky, where I was living at the time.
I hung around some of the days of shooting, as the house where Molly Ringwald "lives" stands right outside my town.Andrew McCarthy was a darling who signed autographs, talked to whomever was around as if they were lifelong friends and even joined us for lunch.
a particularly haunting movie, especially for most of us who remember what it was like to be young, naive, and in a relationship that we wanted to work, but somehow intuitively knew wouldn't/couldn't, a relationship we knew had too little common ground.
Probably the best Molly Ringwald movie ever.
Molly Ringwald and Andrew McCarthy have since both slid off the front pages but both give great performances in this movie.
The acting is wonderful by all the principals and the story is very believable.This would be a good film for a high school discussion group as it contains many themes: marrying too young, mixing of social classes, infatuation instead of love, etc.If you like either Andrew McCarthy or Molly Ringwald then see this film as they shine.8/10.
As a student there in the late 1980s, I enjoyed watching the movie for a nostalgic look at the campus.
But the film shows the limitations of stars Andrew McCarthy and Molly Ringwald, and stands as evidence why the young stars were never able to find great success playing adult roles.
Ringwald also has a difficult time making the transition from sweet roles in films like Pretty in Pink and Sixteen Candles to the sexy temptress in Fresh Horses..
I saw this film when it was in the theatres many years ago and have not seen it since.I remember Molly Ringwald showing decent dramatic range as a very unsympathetic white trash girl.
Ben Stiller tries to warn McCarthy against Ringwald by pointing out that he needs a "fresh horse" not the true garbage of Ringwald.I remember liking the film and thinking that Molly Ringwald does an excellent job of playing such an undesirable person.
When i saw this film,i thought that it was boring and a waste of time to see.It's just one of the most dumbest love storys EVER.The only thing i liked about the Movie was the actor Doug Hutchison who plays Sproles.
I think the name of the movie has NOTHING to do with the story!.
to be brutally honest, i'm not particularly enthralled with any of the work ringwald has done, even her famous collaborations with john hughes; but i think they last because they're convincing, character-driven stories.
Maybe some says that 10 out 10 is exaggeration for this movie......but here what I think.The characters is simple......and the events runs smooth with the characters.
you can see this story in the real life, the flow of events are slow....but you can't stop watching or even go to the pathroom.I liked (Mate) very much....you can see this character all around you in the real life, so it was some thing we can touch in our lifes.
Jewel also was great.....mysterious....even didn't came out with a final judgment at the end of the moview.....some times it's the pretties and softest girl in the world....but ......some times she is pragmatic and following her benifit.The movie in general is sad.....but the nice thing its realistic.......the last scene....is very sad....a mix of deceive....unloyality......pragmatic....I was going to cry for him...the sorrow in his eyes........the stab in the back he had......and what the end of it....the life will go on.
he walks to disappear in the crowds as it saying that there is many folks have experienced this story......even you.If you haven't suffered from love you will not got the idea of this movie..
I would have to agree with some that this is not the best movie ever made, but for those of you that haven't taken the time to watch it, this film still has many very nice qualities to it.
If you can look past most reviews of this movie, and the fact that Ringwald and McCarthy were burdened by the Brat Pack title, you can still enjoy this movie.
I feel that Molly Ringwald and Andrew McCarthy might have been looked down on from the start of this movie simply because it was a departure from the type movies and characters they had played so far.
and Andrew McCarthy parked in the exact spot where my client had gotten the ticket.Anyway, the movie is OK if you want a somewhat depressing John Hughes film.
Perhaps it was the desire to recreate something via casting decisions with the Pretty in Pink duo, McCarthy and Ringwald re-teaming for similar roles, or just in the failure of this particular play to translate so neatly to film, but something was missing that makes Fresh Horses instantly forgettable.McCarthy never seems to offer much emotion, even in the roles intended to be more romantic.
Here, he plays Matt Larkin, the college preppy who breaks off his engagement when he falls for the mostly unsympathetic Jewel (Ringwald, written to be an almost complete dimwit), a girl who is essentially his opposite and fits the "broken home" stereotype that he feels obliged to rescue.
Of course, despite urgings from his best friend Tipton (Ben Stiller in a role probably better suited for Paul Rieser) to quit playing it safe all the time and live a little, his friends are suspicious of Matt's new love interest.The movie might disappoint those looking for something similar to McCarthy and Ringwald's previous romantic pairing in Pretty in Pink, since there is so little sincerity and direction.
And, neither of the leads are particularly likable - from beginning to end, Matt can't seem to decide for himself what he wants or has the guts to act on it; and Ringwald's character, too, is at times so ignorant and so shady.
It doesn't exactly make for a particularly interesting love story..
maybe this is because the two leads are cast almost against type, or rather as parodies of their type in other brat pack movies.Yes they are troubled, as in their brat pack roles, but here neither is presented entirely sympathetically and their troubles are not successfully resolved.the film is an unnerving take on the familiar themes of 'pretty in pink' etc.
It seems to me that the movie focuses upon a short time in two young peoples lives and that moment is significant to each for different reasons.
Essentially, mccarthy and ringwald throughout the movie have every reason not to be together, they differ in every respect, and eventually these reasons do separate them, but this sensation of what if?
I think the movie perfectly describes the conflict between will and desire, and leaves the characters, well at least mccarthy, unsatisfied at the end - knowing that he has failed in some way.
When I see the same movie retreading the same ground that so many have gone over in mostly unsuccessful movies, you bet.Andrew McCarthy Plays Matt, a rich kid who is about to marry a crushing bore for no other reason than to make some money for the family.
While settling into this idea he meets Jewel (Molly Ringwald), a poor-white-trash country girl with a modest southern twang and enough domestic problems to land her on a week's worth of guest shots on Jerry Springer.In the right roles, I like Molly Ringwald but here she plays a country gal so wounded that I didn't want her to get married as much I wanted to see her get some therapy.
McCarthy, who has a kind face and never seems to rush any performance runs the gamut of expressions from A to B, but that's not his fault, the movie doesn't give him much to work with.
I liked both of them in 'Pretty in Pink' because the screenplay gave three dimensional characters and a story that was worth their time (and ours).
Even Ringwald's red puffy lips look pale.Will Michael give up his shot at marrying the bore and lose his money, his friends and their respect.
The title is derived from a line in the movie relating to getting a fresh horse under you when the one you are riding is worn out.
It is a reference to getting a new girlfriend when you get tired of the one you have been with.Andrew McCarthy is 20-something Engineering student Matt Larkin in Cincinnatti.
There Matt encounters Molly Ringwald as Jewel, an intelligent but undereducated young lady who tells him she is 20, but some rumors later say she is only 16.
Matt has an instant attraction to Jewel.I believe this movie was billed as a followup to "Pretty in Pink", a 1986 movie with the two main actors here.
Both McCarthy and Ringwall impress me more than I thought they would, each created good characters in what turned out to be, for me, a rather ordinary movie.Viggo Mortensen, already about 30, has a small but important role as Green.SPOILERS.
Meeting Jewel made Matt realize that he didn't really want to marry the girl he was with, and she did not take the breakup very well. |
tt0058544 | San daikaijû: Chikyû saidai no kessen | Police Detective Shindo (Yosuke Natsuki) is assigned to guard Princess Selina Salno of Selgina (Akiko Wakabayashi) during the Princess' visit to Japan, due to a suspected assassination plot. Although Shindo is smitten with Selina's photograph, her plane never makes it to Japan, as it is destroyed by a bomb en route. At exactly the same time a meteorite shower draws the attention of Professor Murai (Hiroshi Koizumi), who along with his team of scientists strikes out into the wilderness to examine the largest of the meteors, which has magnetic properties.
To Shindo's surprise, the supposedly deceased Selina turns up in Japan, without her royal garb (including the golden bracelet that proves she is heir to the throne of Selgina), claiming to be from the planet Mars, and preaching to skeptical crowds of forthcoming disaster. To their surprise however, her prophecies begin coming true. First she predicts Rodan, thought dead in the eruption of Mt. Aso, will emerge from Aso's crater. Subsequently, none other than Godzilla will arise from the sea and destroy a ship. Both of these events transpire.
In the meantime, Selina's uncle (Shin Otomo), who was behind the assassination attempt, learns of her survival and sends his best assassin Malmess (Hisaya Ito) to Japan to dispatch the Princess and steal the golden bracelet. Malmess and his henchmen are stopped by Shindo, who was warned of their attempt by the Shobijin (Emi and Yumi Ito), who were in Japan appearing on a television show. The Shobijin had been scheduled to return to Infant Island aboard the ship sunk by Godzilla, but opted not to go after overhearing Selina's prophecy. A further attempt by the assassins is thwarted when both Godzilla and Rodan attack the city and engage in battle, forcing everyone to flee.
Convinced that Selina is insane, Shindo takes the Princess to see a renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Tsukamoto (Takashi Shimura), in the hopes of curing her. However, Tsukamoto can find nothing wrong with her, mentally or physically. He concludes she must therefore truly be possessed by a Martian as she claims. As if emboldened by the doctor's diagnosis, Selina reveals her final prophecy—that Mars' once thriving civilization was destroyed by an evil, golden three-headed dragon named King Ghidorah, and furthermore that Ghidorah itself has already arrived on Earth. No sooner has she revealed this than Professor Murai and his colleagues at the meteor crash site receive a nasty surprise—the "meteor" is actually an egg, which hatches into the fearsome King Ghidorah. Ghidorah begins razing the countryside.
To combat the combined threats of the three monsters, the Japanese government enlists the aid of the Shobijin to summon Mothra (the surviving larva from the previous film). Upon arriving on the Japanese mainland, Mothra attempts to persuade the quarreling Godzilla and Rodan to team up against the evil alien (which is translated to the humans by the Shobijin) but both refuse, with Godzilla stating they have no reason to save mankind as both it and Rodan "have always had trouble with men and men hate them", to which Rodan agrees. Despite Mothra stating that Earth belongs to them as well and that it is their duty to defend it, Godzilla and Rodan still refuse and the pair refuse to forgive each other, wanting to continue their fight. Unable to convince them and despite being vastly outmatched, Mothra calls the pair of them "bullheaded" and resolves to fight Ghidorah by herself. Mothra engages Ghidorah and is continually blasted by its gravity beams. Fortunately for Mothra, Godzilla and Rodan, impressed by her courage and selflessness, arrive to help, and a titanic battle against Ghidorah begins. Meanwhile, Shindo and Dr. Tsukamoto are forced to protect Princess Selina as Malmess and his men converge on Tsukamoto's clinic; they manage to fend off the killers and escape into the mountains as the dueling monsters draw closer.
The assassins attempt to follow, but a stray blast from Ghidorah buries their car in an avalanche. Only Malmess remains uninjured enough to continue. He attempts to snipe the Princess from an elevated position, but only injures her. In her pain, she regains her memory and is no longer possessed by the Martian. Before Malmess can take another shot, another stray blast from Ghidorah buries the assassin under a second avalanche. With the heroes thus saved from the human menace, they gather at a safe distance to watch the battle between Earth's monsters and Ghidorah. After now gaining a clear advantage over Ghidorah, the three monsters coordinate their attack; Godzilla grabs hold of Ghidorah's tails while Mothra (riding on Rodan's back) sprays the three-headed dragon with her silk. Finally, Godzilla throws the alien beast off the cliff and the battered dragon flies off, back into outer space.
As Mothra and the Shobijin return to Infant Island while Godzilla and Rodan go their separate ways, Selina, having retained the memories of her time with Shindo, bids farewell to her guardian as she meets her bodyguards at the airport to return home. | murder | train | wikipedia | Many fans of Japanese monster movies regard the late 50s/early 60s as the Golden Age,and they are generally right.There is a terrific feel to the Toho Studios films made in that period-imaginative,exciting,fun without generally descending into camp,a good stock company of actors,etc.This film,to call it by it's western name Ghidorah the 3 Headed Monster,is a direct sequel to Godzilla Vs Mothra,perhaps the apex of the Godzilla series.It is not as completely satisfying as the previous instalment but it is probably even more entertaining.The build-up is somewhat muddled and lengthy,but the plot is just about intriguing enough to keep one ticking over until,after perhaps too long a wait,the monsters appear and the film really kicks into high gear.The appearance of Godzilla,the pterosaur-like Rodan,and the three headed dragon Ghidorah {surely Godzilla's greatest foe} are all well staged and effective,while Ghidorah's attack on Tokyo remains impressive and was often 're-used' in later films.The Godzilla/Rodan battle is just funny,as is the bit where Mothra tries to communicate with Godzilla and Rodan and get them to fight Ghidorah,a really wacky scene that could only exist in a Japnese monster movie, but the climactic fight,as the three Earth monsters Godzilla,Rodan and Mothra combine their strength against the alien creature is the most rousing climax of a Godzilla film,aided by Akira Ifikube's fantastic theme music.As usual,the US version was altered and,once again,for the worst,although not as badly as King Kong Vs Godzilla.Still,scenes were cut and shifted about,tightening the pace of the first half and weakening continuity,and some of the music was replaced.Once again,to get a real appreciation of this tremendously enjoyable and exciting movie,you need to seek out the Japanese version..
Mothra is called to Japan to ask Godzilla and Rodan to fight against King Gidora, but the two monsters aren't exactly interested in helping mankind.The plot of this movie is superbly written with each element supporting the entire flow of the story.
Many die hard Godzilla fans might not like the campy flavor of this movie, but so many elements crammed into this movie that runs just over 90 minutes has intricacies and originality never seen in previous Japanese monster movies.
The monster is none other than Ghidrah(Ghidorah), perhaps the greatest enemy faced by Godzilla in any of his films.
With the help of Mothra's fairies who just happen to be visiting Japan during this "global" crisis, Mothra is sent to Godzilla and Rodan to try and convince them to help the people of the world and fight Ghidrah.
Rodan and Godzilla are wary of helping mankind, and would rather beat on each other, making one Japanese spectator remark, "These monsters are as stupid as human beings!" This is a fun film.
Mothra (larval) tries to ask Godzilla and Rodan (who are still evil) to help her fight Ghidorah.
The effects by Eiji Tsuburaya are dazzling and the Godzilla and King Ghidorah suits look the best they've ever looked while unfortunately Mothra looks like a living poop and Rodan looks like a chicken.
Ghidorah: The Three-Headed Monster was a turning point in the Godzilla series.
Godzilla, Mothra (in larvae form), and Rodan team up to battle a new monster named Ghidrah (or Ghidorah in the Japanese version).
Despite the fact that the Monsters Godzilla, Rodan and Mothra look and act a little goofy in this one, it doesn't change the fact that this film is loads of fun to watch.When a new monster named Ghidrah (who doesn't love seeing this three-headed beastie?) threatens to destroy the world, our only hope is Mothra.
However Mothra is still much too young to possibly have any chance in a battle with Ghidrah and so seeks the unlikely aid of both Godzilla and Rodan, who prove most stubborn yet in the end neither it seems can resist a good fight.The film has some great lines (here's one example: "these Monsters are as bad as human beings!") and some fun subplots (a police Inspector trying to protect a Princess who claims she's really a Martian from assassination attempts, the involvement of Mothra twin fairy protectors).
With Ghidorah threatening to destroy Earth, it requires the combined strength of Godzilla, Rodan, and Mothra to stop him.
By the way, this is the first movie that Godzilla journeys into as "the good guy." While Godzilla and Rodan weren't too happy to meet each other, it was actually Mothra who urged the two monsters to cooperate to battle Ghidorah and help mankind.
And, this movie has a whole lot- towering monsters, a Martian, a princess, detectives, doctors, reporters, and, of course, Mothra's tiny twin fairy priestesses, who once again did their little song and dance and chat in unison.
The key to a good Godzilla flick is a solid plot (even if it's just interesting in a hokey B-movie sci-fi way) and interesting human characters, because let's face it, the monster action only actually makes up less than a third of the movie itself, so if the rest is torture to sit through there's almost no point to watching it (unless you're a completist, like myself)."Ghidora, the Three Headed Monster" doesn't quite have the most interesting story of any of the Godzilla movies, but it's solid enough and we get a healthy dose of the lovable singing fairy girls.
When a world ending three headed monster by the name of Ghidorah arrives on earth chaos ensues!Godzilla, Rodan & Mothra are all on the scene but fighting one another.
And yet somehow/someway this is actually the best Toho film I've seen.It suffers with all the usual tropes and arguably the plot is even worse than usual but it works and makes for a fun monster epic.The Godzilla films are certainly niche and not for everyone but this is a fun little effort.The Good:By this point it's actually starting to feel like a franchiseBuilds up to a solid climaxThe Bad:Opening is really daftSome of the outfits are embarassingly badPlot is a tad confuddledGodzilla moves like a teletubbyFranchise is getting goofyThings I Learnt From This Movie:The mini martian ladies are growing on meMid battle giant monsters often enjoy games of catch with boulders.
They are many reasons why people rooted for Godzilla, Rodan and Mothra when they fight the three-headed golden dragon-like Goliath.
They play a big part in the film, convincing Godzilla and Rodan to join forces with Mothra and save Earth from Ghidorah.
The climactic battle has Godzilla, Rodan, and Mothra versus King Ghidorah -- what's not to love about that?.
This is probably the most purely entertaining of the Inoshiro Honda "Godzilla" films, and proves that Honda (who could get pretty heavy-handed with these puppet monster movies) was capable of real wit.
And the special fx are still credible for this series in its time.One sad note: apparently the Japanese version lacks a line that is an all-time favorite of the series, and which must have been added by the dubbing team - Shobijin: "Oh Godzilla, such terrible language!" - spoken while Godzilla and Mothra are arguing whether to save the human race.However, when this film is re-released on DVD, it really must be this DVD that gets to America.
The movie is rather good, it comes on the heels of Godzilla vs Mothra and I was happy to here about the death of the other Mothra in the Japanese version as I don't think they went over this in the American one.
At the end you have a big monster battle royal featuring Godzilla, Rodan and Mothra against the new threat who I thought should have had a few more scenes of him destroying things to establish him a bit more as a super heavy hitter.
For the first time we get to see Godzilla, Rodan and Mothra all together as they battle the infamous monster from outer space, King Ghidorah (the preferred spelling).I say the film is a little uneven only because there are a lot of different story elements going on simultaneously, and a good deal of the time is spent on the human characters.
When the woman arrives in Tokyo, she has been taken over by strange alien forces and reveals herself as a "Venusian" prophet who warns of impending Earth disaster in the form of Ghidorah, a dragon-like, three-headed monstrosity who has already wiped out all the life on another planet.In the meantime, Godzilla and Rodan have awakened from their usual slumbers, and they have a quarrel with each other while the latest version of Mothra (the younger caterpillar type) tries to intervene by urging these two to drop their personal grievances and join forces to help protect the world against the threat of Ghidorah.
The delightful twin fairies of Mothra's island always help make these films fun, and this time they're actually able to translate "monster talk" when Mothra attempts to convince Godzilla and Rodan (who are reluctant at first) to team up to fight Ghidorah.
Here you can already see how the films are beginning to get a little more juvenile at this point, as evidenced not only in the monster conversations but also in the comical encounter between Godzilla and Rodan (they play volleyball by bouncing a boulder back and forth!).
Still, these goofy exchanges are kind of charming in their own way, and this would be the start of turning Godzilla into a more heroic figure for the children (which I never thought was a completely bad idea by this time, personally).Godzilla starts to look more like Sesame Street's Cookie Monster with this chapter, but the effects are generally quite good when seen in the original Japanese widescreen edition, and the multi-monster teamup at the climax is well done.
While secret agents continue to attempt to kill the princess/Venusian (James Bond films having become very popular), the miniature twins from Infant Island appear and recruit Mothra to fight Ghidorah.
Another revision to the canon is the obvious sentiency of the monsters as Mothra (in her larval form) argues with Godzilla and Rodan (translated by the twins) about the ethical and pragmatic pros and cons of helping mankind defend the Earth.
Like many of the later entries in the "Showa" era films, "Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster" is the kind of silly fun that most "westerners' expect from Godzilla films.
Although there is a bit of blood spilled as the assassin stalks the princess and some of the language in the subtitles is more adult that the story calls for, the movie is essentially for the kids, with heroic monsters cooperating to take on a three-headed bully and a simple 'why can't we all get along' message.
Ghidorah the Three Headed MOnster is a very significant Godzilla Film.
THe aspect of a bad guy turning good has worked on other characters in movies and comics and television but I do not like how they did this with Godzilla.
But it is not the end of the world, I just like him way better as a bad guy.Rodan shows up for his first appearance in a Godzilla film.
Rodan looks better when he is flying in this film, helps tremendously against Ghidorah and also he gets in some good action with Godzilla.
That bugged me because Rodan and Godzilla never got their own film against each other and when they actually do fight Mothra comes in and stops it.
So is the sinister sub plot regarding the Princess.Brings a lot of elements & characters from other Godzilla movies together - sort of a best of.
After a meteorite unleashes a three-headed beast upon Tokyo, Mothra tries to unite with Godzilla and Rodan to battle the extraterrestrial threat.This film has pretty decent effects, particularly during the "birth" of Ghidorah.
Sequel to both "Mothra Vs. Godzilla" & "Rodan" sees the debut of Ghidorah, a three-headed monster from outer space bent on the destruction of the Earth.
This movie features Godzilla, Rodan, and Mothra teaming up for the first time against Ghidorah.
There's a subplot in this involving an attempted kidnapping of the princess.In the end it's Mothra and his two fairy companions who persuade Godzilla and Rodan to team up and the three of them face Ghidorah in a handicap match and combine their skills to defeat the really alien dude.
You have to admire the way Rodan and Mothra worked together on this with Godzilla providing a finishing move with some foreign objects.These films are so cheesy, but they're lots of fun..
This movie, featuring Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra, and King Ghidorah in his first motion picture ever, is a surprisingly good film considering it was about this time that Godzilla changed from a nuclear terror icon to a hero for children.
And this movie also gives us Godzilla (of course), Rodan and Mothra.
The monster fights are really good, I especially liked the clash between Godzilla and Rodan.
The story is very good and I really love the way Godzilla looks in this film.
Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster is one of the best of the Godzilla series.
I am a long time fan of Godzilla but this film suffers from a long, boring intro (29 minutes) before we get to the first monster, Rodan, who appears for about 30 seconds.
It's a full 51 minutes before we see action which amounts to Rodan knocking Godzilla down and flying away; 54 minutes before Ghidorah finally appears.The special effects budget must have been microscopic, it isn't the worst of the G films but it's pretty bad.
Finally it breaks down into a volleyball match at which point Mothra persuades them to combine their silly antics against the only impressive and fearsome monster in this movie: Ghidorah.Many other G films suffer from poor effects and silly fighting but I can't put this even in my top ten G films.
It may interest you to know before seeing Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (and by the way thankfully Toho didn't go with the original title of Godzilla & Rodan & Mothra Jr vs Ghidorah, though they'd later have such ungainly titles in the early 2000's), that most of the monsters don't show until the halfway point.
I don't think this is necessarily a negative for any monster movie as long as the human characters give me something to keep my attention or, if they're daring enough, do something that's really out there (i.e. satirize bureaucracy in Shin Godzilla).In Ghidorah, we get a story that could have come out of a pulp comic book or paperback (I'll get to the comic book element in a moment), where the start of the movie has a Princess on a plane getting word from, uh, somewhere, telekinetic-like, that she has to get off the plane and run.
This plot is the stuff of B-movie trash, but it's directed and written and performed so straight that it comes around to being sincere and believable and clever; this part of the movie, with maybe a scene or two exception, doesn't have to be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure thing, it works as a legit pleasure.Of course we're waiting for the monsters to come, and they do, with the Big Bad space invader Ghidorah, a three-headed winged serpent that has destroyed all of Venus except for the spirit of the being inside the Princess, and it's up to Mothra to stop him...
It's the first true monster mash in this series of Toho movies (prior to this it was one-on-one fights between Godzilla and someone else), and it's pretty spectacular as far as these movies go.I think I liked how the filmmakers were able to balance human characters we could at least partially invest in, that had the modicum of depth and personality that should be there (and there is, genuinely), so that by the time the monsters come we have people to latch on to, including the Space-being-possessed princess.
There are also moments where humor comes in with the monster fight, or what they try to do (at one point Godzilla and Rodan toss rocks at each other like it's a game of tennis), but it's the unintentionally funny moments that stick out.All this said, I'd put Ghidorah as one of the major efforts from Toho during this period, or even overall for the entire franchise, it's that good; there's hypnotic music with the twin ladies, exciting monster fights, and not half-way bad human characters.
Wow a three headed beast from outer-space, so powerful that it requires the help of Rodan, Mothra and Godzilla to take him out.
Fortunately a pair of tiny priestesses from Infant Island happen to be on the mainland for a TV show in which they telepathically let a pair of young boys get their wish of "seeing" Mothra; they are able to summon Mothra to help with the aim of convincing Godzilla and Rodan to stop their battle and team up to defeat Ghidorah.Considering this film is about several rubber monsters bashing each other around, there is a whole heck of a lot of plot and characters going on – my summary above doesn't even mention the journalist and her cop brother who are involved in proceedings or the fact that the film makes time for the Mothra priestesses to do their song not once but twice!
And this is my problem with the film because it is at is "best" whenever it is being silly rubber monster fun – for example with Mothra spraying her web to stop a fight between Godzilla and Rodan; a fight which it must be said is essentially Godzilla kicking rocks at a giant turkey while that turkey flaps its wings to keep the rocks at bay.
Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan, King Ghidorah.
Mothra gets Godzilla and Rodan to team up with him to destroy King Ghidorah.
It also features a fan's dream team as he teams up with Rodan and Mothra to combat what many would consider to be Godzilla's greatest enemy, King Ghidorah, introduced here in this movie.
In the end, all three monsters team up and send Ghidorah back to outer space.Great Godzilla movie, I'd give it a 7 out of 10. |
tt0466854 | Jayam | The story is centered in a village where the parents of first cousins Sujatha (Sadha) and Raghu (Gopichand) decide that they will be married to each other when they become adults. As a child, Sujatha's uncle gives her anklets, which she wears as she grows up. As they grow older, Raghu is caught smuggling money from his house. At school, Raghu beats up a kid for talking to Sujatha. They quarrel, and soon Raghu's family leaves for another village.
Sujatha grows to be an attractive college student while the villain Raghu becomes a good-for-nothing character. On her way to college, Sujatha meets Ravi (Jayam Ravi), a poor, handsome, charming, enthusiastic young man. He asks her to wear her anklets to college again, and soon after their quarrels they fall in love. Meanwhile, Raghu’s parents, hoping that he will become a responsible person after marriage, decide to carry out his marriage with Sujatha. The whole story takes a turn when Sujatha’s parents learn about her love affair with Ravi. On the day of her marriage, Sujatha elopes with Ravi and the action heats up as they are chased by Raghu and his thugs.
Finally, the villain Raghu is defeated in a face-to-face combat with Ravi, and Ravi marries Sujatha. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0473488 | A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints | Present Day: Dito is a successful writer in Los Angeles. One day, after being urged by his mother, Flori, and his friend, Nerf, Dito visits his childhood home, Astoria, New York, because his father has suddenly become very ill. The film switches back and forth between the present and flashbacks with Dito's memories in the summer of 1986.
Dito meets Nerf, and talks with him in a parked car, where they can talk undisturbed, which would not have been possible at Nerf's house. Dito then visits Laurie, his childhood sweetheart, who is now a mother. They only talk through the open window; she does not let him in. Dito finally visits his father, Monty. Monty used to ignore Dito's feelings, and he didn't want Dito to travel. He is angry at Dito for leaving, and for not returning sooner to visit; he then sends Dito away. Laurie urges him to be a man and come to terms with his father, who was heartbroken when he left. Dito does leave, but returns later, to insist that he take his father to the hospital.
1986: Antonio, an overconfident, volatile boy with an abusive father, eventually kills someone: the Puerto Rican gangmember Reaper, as payback for an attack on young Dito.
Viewers are then introduced to Antonio's younger brother, Giuseppe - reckless, destructive, and possibly insane. Giuseppe lay on a subway track; in spite of urgent warnings from his brother Antonio and Nerf, that a train was coming, he failed to get back on the platform and was killed
Mike O'Shea, another friend of Dito's, was a Scottish boy who dreamt of becoming a musician. Mike and Dito had planned to go to California on a bus. They worked for a gay drug addict, Frank, with a dog-walking business. They went to his house to collect the wages he was slow in paying. At first he did not listen to them, but then he gave them all the money he kept in the refrigerator, more than he owed them and told them to leave town. Shortly thereafter, Mike was murdered by a member of a Puerto Rican gang in retaliation for the murder of Reaper, after which Dito travelled alone to California.
Present Day: Dito visits the adult Antonio in prison and sees him as a changed man of wisdom. The film concludes with the two of them sitting down in conversation. | violence, murder, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0457397 | Killer7 | === Setting ===
Killer7 takes place in an alternate version of Earth in the early 21st century. After a treaty ends all international conflict, the world powers destroy all nuclear weapons by firing them into the upper atmosphere and intercepting them with other missiles. This event becomes known as "Fireworks" and symbolizes world peace to the general populace. In an effort to combat terrorism, pandemic disease, and cyberterrorism, the International Ethics Committee (IEC) shuts down all air travel and public use of the Internet. Air transportation is replaced by a system of intercontinental expressways. However, a new terrorist group called "Heaven Smile" appears, targeting the United Nations (UN) and IEC. The members of Heaven Smile are humans who have been infected with a virus that evokes a desire to kill. Factory-produced Smiles are given a "bomb-organ" that allows them to explode at will, their principal means of attack.
In this Earth, Japanese politics are dominated by two parties: the UN Party and the Liberal Party. The UN Party is more powerful and moves to end the Asian Security Treaty and sever ties with the United States (US). The UN Party seized control of the Japanese government through the wisdom of the "Yakumo Cabinet Policy", a secret document which details how to run the "ideal nation". It was written by the Union 7, young members of the Liberal Party who went on to found the UN Party. The US government is also eager to sever relations with Japan, seeing the country as a hindrance and of little economic value. The interaction between Japan and the US is a central source of conflict in Killer7.
=== Characters ===
The player controls the members of a group of assassins called the "killer7". The group is led by an elderly man in a wheelchair named Harman Smith, who exhibits "Multifoliate Personae Phenomenon". This condition allows him to physically transform into one of his seven assassin personae: African American Garcian Smith, aggressive Irish American Dan Smith, barefoot Japanese American female KAEDE Smith, albino Briton Kevin Smith, Puerto Rican Coyote Smith, young Chinese American Con Smith, and Mexican American luchador MASK de Smith. These people were gifted killers in life and Harman absorbed their souls through his condition after their deaths. The killer7 were temporarily incapacitated in an incident 50 years ago, in which the members of the group were systematically tracked and killed while performing a job at the Union Hotel in Pennsylvania. Garcian, whose power is to revive fallen personae, became the dominant personality as a result. In this capacity, he receives orders from the frail Harman when his consciousness is "awake" and accepts jobs from Christopher Mills, who hires the killer7 on behalf of the US government. Multifoliate Personae Phenomenon also causes Harman and his personae to see "remnant psyches"—ghosts of their past victims. Iwazaru, a man in a bondage suit, and Travis Bell, the killer7's first target, are the main remnant psyches who aid them throughout the game. The primary antagonist is an old friend of Harman's named Kun Lan. He has the "Hand of God", a supernatural power that produces the Heaven Smile virus.
=== Story ===
The game opens with a conversation between Garcian Smith and Christopher Mills about a new job for the killer7. The assassins battle their way to the top of a building which has become infested with Heaven Smiles. Harman confronts the source of the Smiles, an angel-like figure, but she is merely Kun Lan's puppet. Harman and Kun Lan discuss the current state of the world before the mission ends. In the subsequent missions, the killer7 target a number of individuals on behalf of the US government or for personal reasons. They kill Andrei Ulmeyda, a Texan postal worker who established a successful company based on the Yakumo, when he becomes infected with the Heaven Smile virus. Dan Smith confronts Curtis Blackburn, his former mentor and murderer, when Mills informs the group that Blackburn is running an organ trafficking business that targets young girls. Their penultimate mission pits them against the "Handsome Men", a group of sentai rangers who assassinate a US politician.
The central plot arc concerns the true nature of US–Japan relations. To distance itself from Japan, the US fires a volley of two hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles at Japan and contracts the killer7 to eliminate Toru Fukushima, the head of the UN Party. However, an assassin posing as Fukushima's secretary kills him first in an attempt to reclaim the Yakumo document for the Liberal Party, believing its wisdom would help the party to regain political power. Shortly thereafter, Kenjiro Matsuoka (nicknamed "Matsuken") kills two senior members of the UN Party to become its new leader, under the influence of Kun Lan. In the end, the killer7 defeat the two UN Party members who had been reanimated by Kun Lan as Japan is destroyed by the missiles.
In their final mission, the killer7 seek Matsuken, who leads the 10 million UN Party members who live in the US. The government fears that if they converge on a single state, they could win a seat in the United States Senate. Garcian travels to Coburn Elementary School near Seattle, Washington and discovers tapes that reveal the school as a front for the UN Party to train children as assassins. The tapes focus on Emir Parkreiner, a gifted killer trained at the school. Garcian encounters Matsuken, who claims that Japan has used Coburn to control the course of US politics since its founding in 1780. The assassins battle a group of invincible Smiles and all but Garcian are incapacitated. Garcian travels to the Union Hotel where he witnesses visions of the other members being killed in their rooms. At the top, he discovers that his true identity is Emir Parkreiner, the one who killed the killer7 at the Union Hotel over 50 years ago. Following that incident, Harman absorbed Emir as a persona and Emir's memories were lost.
Three years later, Garcian arrives at Battleship Island in Japan to destroy the last Heaven Smile. He meets with Matsuken, who presents Garcian with a choice: let him live, which allows Japan to mount an assault on the US; or kill him, which lets the US discover Japan's role in rigging American elections—US forces destroy Japan's last stronghold, Battleship Island, in retaliation and wipe Japan off the map. Regardless of the player's choice, Garcian finds that the last Heaven Smile is Iwazaru, whose real identity is Kun Lan, and kills him. However, Harman and Kun Lan are revealed to be immortal beings, representing a dialectic struggle between opposites, which persists a century in the future in Shanghai as they continue their eternal battle. | insanity, psychedelic, avant garde, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt4903242 | The Detour | Piano player Al Roberts (Tom Neal) is drinking coffee at a roadside diner in Reno, hitchhiking east from California, when a fellow patron plays a song on the jukebox that reminds him of his former life in New York City. At the time, Al was bitter about squandering his talent working in a cheap nightclub. After his girlfriend Sue Harvey (Claudia Drake), the nightclub vocalist, leaves to seek fame in Hollywood, he decides to go to California and marry her. With little money, he is forced to hitchhike his way across the country.
In Arizona, bookie Charles Haskell, Jr. (Edmund MacDonald) gives Al a ride in his convertible and tells him that he's in luck: he's driving all the way from Florida to Los Angeles to place a bet on a horse. During the drive, he has Al pass him pills several times. That night, Al is driving while Haskell sleeps. When a rainstorm forces Al to pull over to put up the top, he is unable to rouse Haskell. Al opens the passenger-side door and Haskell falls out, striking his head on a rock. Al then realizes the bookie is dead. Fearful that the police will believe he killed Haskell, Al drags the body off the road, takes the dead man's money, clothes, and identification, and drives away.
After spending the night in a California motel, Al decides to drive to an urban area and ditch the car. At a gas station, he picks up another hitchhiker, Vera (Ann Savage). After some time, she suddenly asks him what he did with the real owner of the car. It turns out she had been picked up by Haskell in Louisiana; she scratched him and got out in Arizona after he tried to become too friendly. Al claims to be Haskell, but she calls his bluff and blackmails him by threatening to turn him in. She tells him that they should sell the car rather than abandon it.
In Hollywood, they rent an apartment, posing as Mr. and Mrs. Haskell to provide an address when they sell the car. However, Vera learns from a newspaper that Haskell's wealthy father is near death and looking for his son, who ran away as a youth after accidentally injuring his friend. Vera demands that Al impersonate Haskell as soon as the father dies, but Al balks at this notion, pointing out that he knows next to nothing about either man.
Back at the apartment, Vera gets drunk and they begin arguing. She threatens to call the police, running into the bedroom with the telephone and locking the door. She falls into a stupor on the bed with the telephone cord tangled around her neck. Al pulls on the cord in an effort to break it. When he finally breaks down the door, he sees that he has accidentally strangled her. He gives up ever seeing his girlfriend Sue again and returns to hitchhiking instead, imagining his probable future arrest by the police. | satire | train | wikipedia | (I live outside the US and don't have TBS.) I reluctantly watched the pilot episode and trust me when I tell you this, if you have any sense of humor, you will love this show.
It just goes to show how some people watch TV/MOVIES and think that everything should be true to life.
It's said that this story is based on the real life couple's own experience with family vacations.
I've watched the pilot 3 times and keep laughing.
It's about a family, a couple and their 2 kids on a road trip.Many jokes are derived from the fact that the two kids (around 10-12 y.o.) are starting to have questions (and misunderstandings) about relationships and sex.The 2 parents are not model parents.
A goofy father and a progressive mother who likes to get high.It is good that the comedy is taking place on the road and not in the same living room or kitchen.
In every episode you are to meet new people and experience a different set.
I doubt this series would be boring or repetitive.So far (I watched the 2 first episodes) the comedic timing is good but keep in mind that the humor might not be for everyone.
Ken" type of family sitcom.Natalie Zea and the rest of the cast looks good, the script is OK, the pace quick without being hasty and (always a major plus) it doesn't have a fake laugh track.Overall: It's funny so far, but maybe its humor isn't for everyone.
Even the kids are well cast and have funny lines.Sure not all aspects of the plot are realistic....but what comedy ever does realistic?
the plot is there to set up the jokes, and it does that very well.Funniest show I've seen in a long time.
This show has me constantly laughing out loud, I applaud the writers, actors, and TBS for putting on such a fantastic, funny program!
Looking forward to all the new episodes!.
Couldn't wait for season two but after watching a few episodes the thrill was gone.
As much as I love the cast, regrettably I am out for future seasons.
If one has tried to watch most of the other new comedies that have come out recently like "Kevin can wait" and "Man with a Plan" and find them mostly unwatchable you may agree.
I watched the entire first season in a short period of time and I am ready for more.
I found something "laugh out loud" funny in every episode.
"The Detour" is a new half-hour comedy on TBS.
After watching the first two episodes, I am looking forward to more.This show includes adult humor, so check it out before letting kids watch.
Otherwise, enjoy its edgy humor about a family on a road trip.The parents are Jason James as the father, Nate, and Natalie Zea as the mother, Robin.
Much like "National Lampoon's Vacation", the journey is filled with errors in judgment and hilarious outcomes.Nate and Robin, like many parents, struggle with responsible parenting in the age of social media and the internet.
Laugh out loud moments abound as the well-meaning parents get in awkward situations and have to extricate themselves.All four lead actors hold up their ends, so the fun never flags.Update 2/22/17: After watching the first two episodes of season 2, I am raising my grade to "10".
OK so I usually don't go for the rude crude and dirty humor like this show is however i was pleasantly surprised here its a good comedy ABOUT FAMILY NOT FOR FAMILY its filthy to the core and if u are easily offended stay far far away from this show but I think its hilarious so far I love the kids and the parents alike none of them are really role model citizens but they all have their own special thing about them that u love the daughters hilarious better than u attitude the sons weirdness the moms hornyness the dads sweet attempts it all works together perfectly and it all fits great tbs knows a little about comedy and this proved it ps love full fruntle with Sam bee as well but I say if u are mature enough to take some sexual jokes and swearing I say give it a shot u will at least laugh once guaranteed.
One thing I'm sure of (in my opinion) the actors seemed bored with the script and plot so the producers and director threw in crazy physical antics to distract the viewer from a sinking show.In season one the family's road trip offered surreal characters and an innocents with the characters reaction.
My favorite episode being the theme restaurant --- it's the best of the lot.But season two comes across as aimless and going in too many directions.
However, as seasons progress, humor gets too exaggerated to enjoy past a hangover.
Very, very funny - but not for kids or easily-offended-adults.
There is an over-arcing plot in the police station at the beginning of each episode (which is the only part I'm not 100% happy with, I'm not sure where they're going with it or how it adds to the shows development), but each episode is really funny overall.The writing is fantastic.
I really like the way it all comes together, and can't think of a single episode I didn't like.However - I have a favorite - I suggest any newcomers start with Season 2 Episode 3 - it is the funniest, grossest episode so far.Start there, and then go to the beginning and binge!
There's no laugh track, the writing is quick and funny, the actors mesh well and even the kids have some really good lines (as opposed to just being a foil to the adults).Definitely worth the time..
Now on TBS a new series called "The Detour" has begun and I watched the first episode I can see it's gonna be one funny series with some slapstick and drama as this family gets in troubles that you wouldn't expect still you as the viewer kind of see it coming!
The plot centers around a married couple and their two little kids a boy and a girl who take their ford van along on a journey from the interstate at their home in New York with the trip destination being Florida and you guessed it along the way their journey is derailed!
And along the way the family meets some wild and crazy characters as it's a journey on the yellow brick road of hell!
The series is blended with wit and funny one liners and it even has some dirty sex appeal moments so it may not be everyone's cup of tea maybe some family members may skip it!
Overall still the series is downright fun as in life on your trips they are unexpected and often you meet people you don't expect as it can be wild and downright crazy fun!.
Hapless and well meaning stoner parents attempt a family vacation that shows absurd politically incorrect and overly correct scenarios in equal portion.The First season grows on you steadily and if by the Third episode you still give it ago, you will be glad you did.The dysfunctional parental absurdity and the switched on kids adds to some funny moments and left me in hysterical fits of laughter often.
Some very funny scenes, dialogue and delivery.Definitely now a fan and would recommend taking episodes slowly.
Binge watching does not do this justice.Update Feb 26th 2018 - After watching the second season I must say the writers and Producers are indeed brilliantly clever to weave such a story with depth and humour.
Wacky raunchy humor and a loving family.
I have to say that I am not usually amused by raunchy humor and swearing however the show is just so funny and sweet that I really can't resist it now don't get me wrong I was offended by it and even had to turn away from some jokes however it is hilarious and I have to recommend that you watch it sorry if the show offends you but I found it hilarious the whole family is great the kids are always getting into trouble in the most funniest ways and the father is screwing up the trip every time he tries to help but he is such a great little guy who is determined that he will give his family and wife a fun time on .
I have been watching this show off and on for the past three seasons and I must say while I haven't seen this as very family friendly it was sure as hell a lot of enjoyment I have sometimes laughed so hard I almost cried the kids are hilarious together and the adults are fun too as long as you can take mature sexual humor and swearing you should have a tremendous time with the parkers just remember this a show about family and its damn sure not for family just keep this in mind when watching.
Have been a fan of Jason Jones who I know has good comedy chops.
And also a fan of Natalie Zea who I had no idea she was this good at comedic acting, having seen her only in serious roles.
Sam Bee is wife to Jason Jones and we know how great she is but she's also creator and producer and along with hubby writer of this show.
Jason and Natalie have great chemistry (and I wonder how Ms Bee is dealing with that.) In any case the two kids are pretty funny and cute--not in a cutesy way.
Just start at the pilot, you won't even stop watching it, don't seek for the funny stuff, wait for it, it will come to you.
The situations are purely crazy; If no one warns you, you may laugh at unexpected moments.
Two of the most idiotic parents (but still among the smartest characters in the show) take their far smarter progeny on a road trip where all the lies of there marriage come to light and where the trust the most important things to the absolutely least trust-able characters the mind of scriptwriter can conceive and what happens is the most predictable slapstick you could ever imagine.
OK let me start by saying that I am not usually a fan of raw comedy and this caught me totally off guard OK now I love the show its hilarious most of the time the kids are charming the adults are funny and everyone is likable but despite all of that please PARENTS KEEP KIDS AWAY FROM THIS SHOW ITS A SHOW ABOUT FAMILY BUT IN NO WAY FOR FAMILY VIEWING there are loads of sex jokes and a lot of swearing but if you can handle it I highly recommend you give it a chance if you have teens this should be a good time with family just no young kids trust me you will thank me later for the warning the parkers do have the family spirit for sure cant wait for more to come.
This is the most culturally inappropriate show in the 21st century by far, but thats exactly why I love it, especially when everything is so politically correct these days, people get easily offended over every little detail, in a sense this kind of sensitive culture ruined comedy, comedy is satirical and cynical in nature, its a magnifying glass of truth and reality, the more restrictions you put on it, the less intelligent and creative it gets.
This show approaches the most sensitive topics of our society with surgical precision, the music is always spot on, the "We Won" conquer song and the Russia annex song make me laugh every time, the "Going Postal" song in season 2 perfectly mocked Hannibal in a respectable way, I know, it sounds contradicted, in fact this entire show is basically a walking contradiction, it deals with borderline depressing adult issues with the most immature humor, the scenarios are ridiculous yet oddly relatable, and it works, the characters are not artificial at all (Most characters on TV are predictable clichés), they act like people you would meet in real life without the typical TV filter.
This is one of the very few comedy shows that would make you genuinely laugh out loud hysterically, especially the first season, just keep an open mind and don't get offended, go watch this, you will not be disappointed..
I was looking for a new show to watch and stumbled upon this show and I found it hilarious and I will say that I love the characters however I don't think that it is a very good family choice due to constant swearing and sexual content from the kids learning about sex to all out sexual content but it is a very good time and hilarious for the right audience I recommend it just not for families but I say give it a chance and you might love it.
I absolutely love this show, I just wish Jason Jones and Samantha Bee had visited Syracuse before setting part of the show in Syracuse.
I won't be watching the second episode and here's why.
The idea of a politically incorrect family was good (remember "Stll Standing"?) and a couple of twists in this first episode were promising but the result simply doesn't work.
writers, director perhaps, certainly not the actors who do their job, I see Natalie Zea always with pleasure, still...Sexually charged dialogues involving children can be hilarious ("Two and a Half Men"), it's just not the case here..
I watched the premier of the new season of the show last night and I am kind of on the fence about how this season is going to go it had its moments don't get me wrong but it seemed like something is missing from the show I will continue to watch it cause it was a good time and it felt great to have the family back again bigger and better than before I still love the kids and the mother the dads still a goof which is refreshing to see however the constant joke about cheating spouses in the second episode kinda bugged me it was like there were no consequences for either the mother or father who clearly went out on each other.though they did both bump into each other in the process of cheating which was kinda funny but it kinda made light of a serious problem with relationships now days and I didn't like that but aside from that it was a good time and super fun just please KEEP THE KIDS AWAY FROM THE SHOW it's just that simple not for kids but fun and enjoyable and hilarious for adults.
The sweet children write that they are kidnapped with a sharpie marker on a large notebook and show it to some truckers as their parents are driving down the highway, this oh so funny joke then almost has the father beaten with a very large pipe and then covered in an old ladies urine, but the daughter gets away with it because she just got her period, yep she is not punished in any way at all.
I watch a lot of sci-fi/fantasy so I have a pretty high standard when it comes to realistic character dialogue, thought processes, choices, and personality types.
It may seem like it should be the opposite, but I have a very hard time suspending my disbelief ONLY when it comes to a show's character development and how a real person might behave in the given situations.
So, if it is not difficult for you suspend your disbelief in that way, you may not want to continue reading and just give The Detour a watch.--SPOILER BELOW--In the very opening scene, the youngest child (boy, maybe 10 yrs old) is in the driver's seat while dad stands outside the vehicle and explains how to work the clutch (for the first time) to start the car and then stop it so everyone can get in.
The writers have decided it's OK to have the characters do ANYTHING to set up a joke, even if it means treating the audience like idiots who only laugh at genitalia jokes (most of the jokes were based on genitalia) so they don't need to make the characters realistic.
The first season was grate and had lots of energy and know where it was going.
Why did they make the husband randomly go's from smart,funny and likable to a stupid joke and unknowing person and why douse the daughter go from clever in the first season to being weird and stupid in the second season.
I like Zea and her ability to play hysterical characters and I think Jason Jones is genuinely funny.
It seems as though the characters are never finding peace, because the family (with 2 strangely crazy parents with crazy pasts and experiences) is doomed to fail.
There are no "jokes" in this series, it's the situations they find themselves in and how they react that is funny.
Every episode is a different setting, but fits together to make a complete story.
(e.g The Middle, being a direct rip off of Malcolm in the Middle, Arrested Development, etc, etc.)Cons: (Spoiler) The humor is raunchy and a few of the conversations the family have aren't child friendly, but it's only a few throughout the whole season.
Conclusion: Bored or kind of down and have some time to kill, throw an episode or two on.
Hilarious, laugh out loud funny sitcom.
The bizarre TBS comedy from Samantha Bee and Jason Jones returns for a second season of wild family antics.
The Parker family moves to New York City after Nate (Jason Jones) gets a job.
Life in the city doesn't get off to a great start as they offend the neighbors and struggle to adjust to road signs.The story flashes forward to Nate being interrogated by a Federal Agent (Mary Grill) of the Postal Service. |
tt0096061 | Scrooged | Frank Cross is an inconsiderate and arrogant executive in the IBC television network headquarters. He is preparing an extravagant live production of A Christmas Carol on Christmas Eve, forcing the network's staff, including his assistant Grace Cooley, to work on the holiday. He also fires the meek Eliot Loudermilk for disagreeing with him, denies his employees their Christmas bonus, and gives everyone on his Christmas list, including Grace and his brother James, a monogrammed towel. Meanwhile, Frank's boss Preston Rhinelander has hired Brice Cummings, who is transparently after Frank's job.
Hours before the show starts, Frank is visited by the ghost of his mentor Lew Hayward, who announces that three ghosts will appear over the course of the night. Lew also causes Frank's phone to call Claire Phillips, Frank's true love from years ago. Claire comes to visit Frank, but he is too busy to talk to her. She leaves him the address of the homeless shelter where she works.
The Ghost of Christmas Past appears as a taxi driver who takes Frank back to his childhood, beginning in 1955. His father Earl is an unloving meatpacking foreman who gives him veal for Christmas and yells at him when he objects. Frank's only solace is in the world of television, foreshadowing his eventual career path. The Ghost then takes Frank forward to 1968-71 to see himself as a young man meeting Claire, and showing how Frank's rise to power changed his emotional life, and that Frank is to blame for the loss of Claire. Returned to the present, Frank goes to the homeless shelter to apologize to Claire and invites her to lunch to mend fences. However, when shelter workers pester Claire, Frank reverts to his old self, and bluntly tells Claire she is letting life pass her by, and to only care about herself.
Back at IBC, Frank watches final preparations before the live show. The Ghost of Christmas Present appears as a cute, yet volatile pixie who goes by the motto, "Sometimes you have to slap people in the face to get their attention". She shows Frank how Grace struggles with the long hours he puts her through, without being able to care for her family. Her son Calvin has been mute since the death of his father five years prior. The Ghost also shows him how James is enjoying Christmas with his wife and friends; James still invites Frank every year, although he never attends. Frank begins to show empathy. The Ghost leaves Frank in a utility space under a sidewalk, where he finds the frozen body of Herman, a homeless man he had met earlier at Claire's shelter; Frank had refused to buy him a cup of coffee. Frank struggles to escape through a boarded-up door, but when he forces the door he crashes through the IBC set during the final rehearsal.
Preston has put Brice in charge, fearing that Frank is having a mental breakdown. Frank returns to his office where he is repeatedly shot at by a furious Eliot, whose life he has ruined. Frank dives into an elevator, and finds the Ghost of Christmas Future, appearing as a towering cloaked skeleton with tortured souls trapped inside his ribcage and a TV for a head, waiting for him. This Ghost shows him that if Frank continues on this path, Claire will become cold-hearted and Calvin will be committed to a mental institution. Frank then sees himself in a casket at a funeral only attended by James and his wife, Wendie. However, just as the casket is cremated, Frank is returned to reality.
Horrified and humbled by what he's been shown, Frank returns a changed man. He rehires Eliot on the spot, and they take over the live show by holding Brice and the control box at gunpoint. Frank goes on-camera, improvising a speech that denounces his own decision to run a live show on Christmas Eve instead of taping it, and explains what he has learned over the last few hours. He apologizes on-air to James and to Claire. Claire rushes to IBC, given a lift by the Past Ghost.
As Frank encourages the cast and crew to sing, Calvin speaks for the first time in five years, reminding Frank of the final lines of the show "God bless us, everyone." As Claire and Grace join him, Frank tells everyone to join him in singing "Put a Little Love in Your Heart", while Lew and the other Ghosts, including Herman, look on, happy and impressed. | cult, comedy, satire, entertaining, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0036172 | The More the Merrier | Retired millionaire Benjamin Dingle (Charles Coburn) arrives in Washington, D.C. as an adviser on the housing shortage and finds that his hotel suite will not be available for two days. He sees an ad for a roommate and talks the reluctant young woman, Connie Milligan (Jean Arthur), into letting him sublet half of her apartment. Then Dingle runs into Sergeant Joe Carter (Joel McCrea), who has no place to stay while he waits to be shipped overseas. Dingle generously rents him half of his half.
When Connie finds out about the new arrangement, she orders them both to leave, but she is forced to relent because she has already spent the men's rent. Joe and Connie are attracted to each other, though she is engaged to bureaucrat Charles J. Pendergast (Richard Gaines). Connie's mother married for love, not security, and Connie is determined not to repeat her mistake. Dingle happens to meet Pendergast at a business luncheon and does not like what he sees. He decides that Joe would be a better match for his landlady.
One day, Dingle goes too far, reading aloud to Joe from Connie's private diary, including her thoughts about Joe. When she finds out, she demands they both leave the next day. Dingle takes full blame for the incident. Connie allows Joe to remain in the apartment as he has only a few days before being shipped out to Africa. Joe asks Connie to go out with him. She is reluctant to do so, but decides to go if Pendergast does not call for her by 8. At 8, she and Joe are ready to leave, but her noisy teenage neighbor seeks her advice and delays her until Pendergast arrives. Joe spies on the two of them from the window. When the neighbor asks what he is doing, Joe flippantly tells him he is a Japanese spy.
Dingle calls Joe to meet him for dinner. Dingle bumps into the couple and pretends he is meeting Connie for the first time, forcing Joe to do the same. Dingle engages Pendergast in talk about his work, eventually maneuvering him up to his room so that Connie and Joe can be alone together.
Joe takes Connie home. The two talk about their romantic pasts and even kiss. From their separate rooms, Joe confesses that he loves her. She tells him she feels the same way, but refuses to marry him, as they will soon be forced apart. Their talk is interrupted by the arrival of the FBI, who have been called to investigate Joe for spying, thanks to the neighbor. Joe and Connie are taken to headquarters. They identify Dingle as a fellow occupant who can testify that they are only roommates. Dingle arrives, bringing Pendergast as a character witness. It comes out during questioning that Joe and Connie live at the same address. When they ask Mr. Dingle to tell Pendergast that their living arrangement is purely innocent, he denies knowing them.
Outside the station, Dingle admits he lied to protect his reputation. Taking a taxi home, they discuss what to do to avoid a scandal. Connie grows angry when Pendergast thinks only of himself. When another passenger in the shared cab turns out to be a reporter, Pendergast runs after him to try to stop him from writing about their situation. Dingle assures Connie that if she marries Joe, the crisis will be averted, and they can get a quick annulment afterwards. The couple follow his advice and wed. Returning home, Connie allows Joe to spend his final night in her apartment. As Dingle had foreseen, Connie's attraction to Joe overcomes her prudence. Outside, Dingle puts up a card, showing that the apartment belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Sgt. Carter. | comedy | train | wikipedia | And it remains a mystery how a sexy, sassy, down-to-earth and abundantly funny film such as this could ever be forgotten.In the Washington of 1943, with the housing crisis brought on by the war, single working girl Jean Arthur feels compelled to do her bit and let out half of her apartment.
Well-to do businessman Charles Coburn, who has arrived in town too early for a conference and cannot find a vacant hotel room, moves in with her, and, wanting to play Cupid, he sublets, unbeknownst to her, his half of half her apartment to a young soldier, Joel McCrea, on town on a mysterious purpose.Rumour has it that Garson Kanin, of later 'Adam's Rib' fame, wrote the script for 'The More the Merrier', but never took credit.
It is obvious that Stevens got a kick out of directing his actors in this movie, creating a many-colored carpet with all this apparently improvised dialogue, so magnificently stylish and at the same time with a looseness, a naturalness in structure that makes the movie feel like a slice of real life.But of course real life was never as wonderful as this!
Just imagine having known characters like the ones played by Miss Arthur and Mr McCrea, in one respect they are so typical and easily recognizable, and in another they are so immensely attractive, and not just in a physical sense, that you would want them for your best friends.
This movie, set in Washington, DC during the early years of the US' involvement in WWII, when DC was still a relatively small city, is sociologically fascinating: the back story is the housing shortage that occurred when everyone descended on the nation's capital in order to organize the country in preparation for war.
But the real story is the incredible script, directing (George Stevens) and, most of all comedic acting by Joel McCrea (always the tall, handsome, slightly cynical straight man (whose straightness itself can be hilarious)), Jean Arthur (whose voice I could listen to forever), and, WOW, Charles Coburn as a flustered wealthy tycoon who plays cupid while trying to help solve the country's pressing problems.
Charles Coburn justifiedly won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his scene-stealing panache as the elderly Cupid who helps steer Jean Arthur and Joel McCrea towards love.
Jean Arthur stars as a woman renting out half of her apartment because of a housing shortage in Washington D.C. Charles Coburn, who is in Washington to help solve the crisis, weasles his way into the apartment even though Arthur didn't want a male roommate.
The scene on the porch between Jean Arthur and Joel McCrea is very romantic and funny at the same time.
This is where this film gets the idea for this confusing, frustrating and romantic tale.Picture pretty little Connie(Jean Arthur) living in the fair city of Washington DC.
The main characters are funny and likable (Joel McCrea is one of the forgotten great romantic comedy leading men of the '30's and '40's), the dialogue is wonderful, and the sense of the period is exact.
Two great scenes: 1) McCrea and Arthur on the steps of her apt., he groping her, she fending him off without turning him off--hilarious and sexy; 2) At a factory, a long, long line of women workers is clocking out of work, a male worker (apparently there weren't many) walks toward them, becoming more apprehensive and walking faster as he runs the gauntlet of the women's hoots and hollers (talk about turning the tables)--no revisionism needed here, a primary source for the depiction of the burgeoning of feminism during WWII..
It was the first of a series of victories that helped change President Abraham Lincoln's certain defeat to reelection victory in November of that year.I know that it is odd to begin a discussion of a World War II comedy with a brief explanation of a Civil War battle some eighty years earlier, but Farragut's quote is frequently mentioned in the course of THE MORE THE MERRIER - indeed it is sung at one point in an old song by the real star of the picture, Charles Coburn.
He'd been in Hollywood five years by then, but his real beginning in film was here - and it was a fine beginning.It was Coburn's second movie comedy with Jean Arthur (the first was THE DEVIL AND MISS JONES), and they certainly play well against each other.
Charles Coburn is irresistible, and Jean Arthur gives one of her best performances; the chemistry between Joel McCrea and Arthur is athing of beauty..
The scene with Jean Arthur and Joel McCrea on the steps of the apartment is more erotic than anything you will see in an "R" rated film today, or probably even an NC-17 film.
In her one and only recognition of sorts from the Motion Picture Academy, Jean Arthur got a nomination for Best Actress for The More the Merrier, a screwball comedy based on the housing shortage in Washington, DC.
There are all kinds of Jean Arthur stories about her running and hiding from fans, her getting physically sick before shooting a scene and then giving a great performance, her total non-cooperation with the press that covers the film industry.
This one however was a winner in every way for him.Best scene in the film is after Coburn as sublets half of his half of Arthur's apartment to McCrea and they haven't broken the news to Arthur yet.
Charles Coburn, too, after the comic-strip cackhandedness of the first scenes, grows into an enjoyably human old rascal and Joel McCrea, blasé and hardbitten to begin with, develops into a fine romantic hero.
What he witnessed there kicked the humour clear out of the man.Jean Arthur and Joel Mccrae are amazing in this, ably abetted by Charles Coburn who got an Oscar for best supporting actor.The premise is the very real housing shortage in Washington during the Second World War and how Jean Arthur sublets a portion of her apartment to Charles who in turn secretly sublets his sublet to Joel, almost on a whim.Jean is a very organized person and one of the many jokes in the film centres around her schedules, bathroom, showering, coffee making, etc.
This is a wonderful comedy that uses the housing shortage in war-time Washington, D.C. to comic advantage.Jean Arthur won her sole Academy Award nomination for this performance, and my only quibble with that is that she was only recognized by the Academy once.
She runs her apartment with military precision, and the movie's highlight is the scene in which Coburn tries earnestly to stick to the morning schedule given him by Arthur the night before and ends with his pants getting stuck in a tree (you have to see it).
Of course there's more to Coburn than meets the eye, and the plot thickens when he rents half of HIS half to a good-looking single man (Joel McCrea) and begins to play matchmaker.This is a delightful movie directed with a sure hand by George Stevens.
The movie (TMtM) doesn't explain this, but I assume WWII-era Washington, D.C., had a housing shortage (exaggerated here for comedy?) because the capital required more people working in the government on war matters.
Thus we have the amusing premise of elderly Benjamin Dingle, a public housing expert of some sort who's arrived in DC too early for his reserved hotel room to free up, wheedling his way into renting half an apartment owned by young Constance Milligan, who patriotically wants to reduce the housing shortage but didn't expect a man to be her roommate.Besides Milligan's act of patriotism, there are other interesting traits of wartime DC/America.
Dingle, and the actor Charles Coburn who plays him, are lower-key than I was led to expect, but the film provides great humor for most of its running time.
Arthur, McCrea and Coburn are all in top form and have a lot of meat to chew in this zany comedy-romance.The country is at war, and the nation's capitol is short on living space and long on eligible young ladies.
Jean Arthur plays one such girl who wants to do her patriotic duty and lease half of her spacious apartment to some other young lady in need of a place to stay.That's great in theory, but when a jolly, resourceful, don't-blink-twice retired millionaire (played by Coburn) finds himself unable to secure a hotel room a couple days in advance of his reservation, Miss Milligan (Arthur) finds that he is a tough customer to dissuade.
And when Dingle (Coburn) runs into a patriotic young man (McCrea) working on a secret wartime assignment and in need of a room...What follows is great comedy and an engaging romance.
McCrea fills in any remaining gap with another solid performance and good material to work with.Aside from the story and the actors, the cinematography, direction and a carefully planned set combines to form a couple unforgettable scenes between Arthur and McCrea.
Through a series of comic misadventures brought on by a very humorously devious Charles Coburn, Jean Arthur ends up sharing her apartment with Coburn & Joel McCrae in Washington D.C. during a WW2 housing shortage.
One of a suite of major movie hits (along with "Woman of the Year" & my all-time favorite starring Cary Grant & Jean Arthur, "Talk of the Town") directed by George Stevens before he joined the U.S. Army and headed a combat motion picture unit during WW2.
The film was nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Actress for Jean Arthur (although she didn't end up winning that year) and Best Supporting Actor for Charles Coburn, who very much deserved the statue he received for this picture.
Great acting my Ms. Arthur and her supporting actors Joel McCrea and Charles Coburn.
The combination of complete wackiness (Charles Coburn) and pratfalls (watch for people on wet surfaces!) and the sexy interchange between Joel McRae and Jean Arthur is terrific.
Jean Arthur, Charles Coburn, and Joel Macrea display an on-screen chemistry that keeps me watching the movie--and I have seen it repeatedly.
It may have been good for the men overseas at the time , to see that the civilians were having problems with the war too.The film has a great Director, George Stevens, and a great cast, including Charles Coburn, an elderly "newcomer" to cinema who won the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award.
Personally, I thought it worked best until the point where CHARLES COBURN (in his Oscar-winning supporting role) was booted from JEAN ARTHUR's apartment over reading her diary.From that point on, the screwball situations became less amusing and the film stretches credibility a bit too far when the comic situations include McCrea suspected of spying on government buildings with his binoculars.The best moments come early in the film, when Arthur insists on clockwork timing to make getting up in the morning (with a roommate) workable.
The frenzied rush to keep to her schedule makes for the most amusing moments in the story, thanks to the artful playing of CHARLES COBURN who is delightful as Mr. Dingle, the man who thinks that she deserves a nice, clean-cut young man rather than the stuffy fiancé she's engaged to.
Along comes McCrea, and the rest of the plot has Coburn managing to bring the two lovebirds together.Amusing spoof of manners and morals of the period, with JEAN ARTHUR and JOEL McCREA shining in the leads and Coburn doing a nimble job of the cupid-playing Dingle with tricks up his sleeve.The last twenty minutes get a little tiresome, but overall it's a cheerful comedy well worth viewing..
After seeing this film for the first time, I'm amazed that after being a classic movie buff for more than twenty years I have never seen it -- I have really missed a treat.First and foremost is that I have an entirely new admiration for Jean Arthur.
I had never seen him pull off such zany comedy before and he's hilarious.The only movies that I had seen Jean Arthur in prior to this one was "Shane" and of course "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" but after seeing this gem, I have made more attempts to watch out for her other movies when they come on TV.
I think some of the reason I like this film so much is that it re-pairs Charles Coburn and Jean Arthur--who starred in the magnificent little comedy, THE DEVIL AND MISS JONES.
Joining them is the ever-capable Joel McCrea and together they make a terrific cast in this little comedy about the war-time housing shortage in Washington, DC.
I've seen this film perhaps 20 times in the past 25 years, and it is the best romantic comedy out of Hollywood in the 1940s..
While Coburn is a cute old guy, i guess, & Joel McRae is fine, it's Jean Arthur who makes the movie come alive.
Benjamin Dingle (Charles Coburn) moves in and he, in turn, invites hunky Joe Carter (Joel McCrea) to move in.
It does have lots of things going for it: Arthur is just wonderful--and beautiful; Coburn is a delight (he won an Oscar for this); it's well-directed and some of the romance works.But I never believed the story for one second and I didn't find this that funny at all--I thought most of the jokes fell flat.
Arthur and Coburn tried but McCrea (never a good actor) just could not do comedy.
During World War II there was a housing shortage in many big cities, particularly Washington D.C. This is the backdrop for the film's zany plot that has retired businessman Charles Coburn renting half of Jean Arthur's apartment, then turning around and renting half of his half to soldier Joel McCrea, and trying to play matchmaker for McCrea and Arthur.Jean Arthur has rarely been more cute and more likable than she is here.
The quintessential acting trio - Jean Arthur, Joel McCrea and Charles Coburn, in director-producer George Stevens' gem of a romantic comedy to delightful perfection.
Jean Arthur is Connie Milligan, the centrifuge of attention; Joel McCrea is Joe Carter the unexpected distraction; and Charles Coburn is Benjamin Dingle, the ultimate Mr. Cupid connection.
What a threesome to watch.The comedic tempo is at its prime impeccable timing as the circumstance on how Arthur's Connie discovers a third party when she came home unaware of McCrea's Joe being in the apartment, as he was simultaneously unaware that the place belongs to a woman landlord, as Coburn's Mr. Dingle did not mention such 'inconsequential' detail when he sublet his rented room to Joe. Adding to the amusing situation is the rhythmic music that anyone (yes, viewers included) would want to swing to anywhere: in the room waiting to use the bathroom, in the hallway just coming out of the bathroom, in the doorway 'hair-raisingly' watching the consequential moment to occur.
The leads (Jean Arthur as Connie, Joel McCrae as Joe, and Charles Coburn as Mr. Dingle) all give good performances.
While the film drags in places, it's worth seeing for the delightful performances of Charles Coburn and Jean Arthur.
I feel it's important to mention some caveats before I start gushing about this movie: I don't enjoy every single scene of The More the Merrier, the last comedy George Stevens ever directed.
"The More The Merrier" (1943) starring Jean Arthur and Joel McCrae Is A Wonderful Stage Play Comedy Made Into A Stagey Movie.
DC war industries worker during "Rosie The Riveter" times.Arthur was in her 40's when she made this movie, and passes easily as a lovely 22 year old girl prettier than most other 22 year old girls.Her acting is flawless.She gets great help from Joel McCrae and Charles Coburn.This movie is like hearing great opera singers perform the best arias from the most famous operas (Largo Al Factotum, Celeste Aida, Un Bel Dei, etc.) It's all about performer talent, and the great George Stevens direction allows this to be an actor movie with plain Jane set decoration....the dumb small apartments working people always lived in...no frills.Great little movie....all Jean Arthur movies are great, and so are all Joel McCraie movies.See it!___________________ Written by Tex Allen, SAG Actor.
Joel McCrea is sullen, Jean Arthur snobbish, and Charles Coburn does a great many devious acts, albeit in a good cause.
I've been watching a lot of Golden Age romantic comedies of late (think "The Palm Beach Story", "Bachelor Mother" etc) and McCrea and Arthur have as good a chemistry in this film as any other pairing.
Arthur is especially wonderful as the lovely, super-organised yet rather lonely schoolteacher who decides to lend out one half of her flat in the midst of a WW2 housing crisis in Washington D.C. But she gets more than she bargained for when both Charles Coburn (delightful) and Joel McCrea (sexy as hell) move in.We know were this one is headed from the outset, but the fun is in getting there.
While Connie's off to work the next day, Dingle rents half of his half of the apartment to a young man, Joe Carter, played by Joel McCrea.
This superior romantic comedy features Charles Coburn and Joel McCrea as short-stay transients in wartime Washington, D.C., looking for a place to bed down for about a week.
The World War 11 housing shortage in Washington, D.C. served as the basis for this rousing 1943 comedy.Both Charles Coburn and another guy soon share an apartment with the perky Jean Arthur, who is engaged to a diplomat.Arthur, a perfectionist, has a working schedule that just doesn't work out and Coburn was so hilarious in those scenes that he was rewarded with a best supporting actor Oscar for the year.
Amazing to me that he was able to win in a year with Akim Tamiroff in "For Whom the Bell Tolls," and Claude Rains for "Casablanca," were both in the running.As the other guy, who Coburn rents out his apartment to, Joel McCrea gives a restrained, quiet performance as the guy who quickly falls for the Arthur character.The ending might be somewhat inane, but the fine direction by George Stevens, and the characters themselves, blend for a memorable film.. |
tt0322622 | The Hound of the Baskervilles | Dr James Mortimer asks Sherlock Holmes to investigate the death of his friend, Sir Charles Baskerville. Sir Charles was found dead on the grounds of his Devonshire estate, Baskerville Hall, and Mortimer now fears for Sir Charles's nephew and sole heir, Sir Henry Baskerville, who is the new master of Baskerville Hall. The death was attributed to a heart attack, but Mortimer is suspicious, because Sir Charles died with an expression of horror on his face, and Mortimer noticed "the footprints of a gigantic hound" nearby. The Baskerville family has supposedly been under a curse since the era of the English Civil War when ancestor Hugo Baskerville allegedly offered his soul to the devil for help in abducting a woman and was reportedly killed by a giant spectral hound. Sir Charles believed in the curse and was apparently fleeing from something in fright when he died.
Intrigued, Holmes meets with Sir Henry, newly arrived from Canada. Sir Henry has received an anonymous note, cut and pasted from newsprint, warning him away from the Baskerville moors, and one of his new boots is inexplicably missing from his London hotel room. The Baskerville family is discussed: Sir Charles was the eldest of three brothers; the youngest, black sheep Rodger, is believed to have died childless in South America, while Sir Henry is the only child of the middle brother. Sir Henry plans to move into Baskerville Hall, despite the ominous warning message. Holmes and Dr Watson follow him from Holmes's Baker Street apartment back to his hotel and notice a bearded man following him in a cab; they pursue the man, but he escapes. Mortimer tells them that Mr Barrymore, the butler at Baskerville Hall, has a beard like the one on the stranger. Sir Henry's boot reappears, but an older one vanishes.
Holmes sends for the cab driver who shuttled the bearded man after Sir Henry and is both astounded and amused to learn that the stranger had made a point of giving his name as 'Sherlock Holmes' to the cabbie. Holmes, now even more interested in the Baskerville affair but held up with other cases, dispatches Watson to accompany Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall with instructions to send him frequent reports about the house, grounds, and neighbours. Upon arrival at the grand but austere Baskerville estate, Watson and Sir Henry learn that an escaped murderer named Selden is believed to be in the area.
Barrymore and his wife, who also works at Baskerville Hall, wish to leave the estate soon. Watson hears a woman crying in the night; it is obvious to him that it was Mrs Barrymore, but her husband denies it. Watson has no proof that Barrymore was in Devon on the day of the chase in London. He meets a brother and sister who live nearby: Mr Stapleton, a naturalist, and the beautiful Miss Stapleton. When an animalistic sound is heard, Stapleton is quick to dismiss it as unrelated to the legendary hound. When her brother is out of earshot, Mrs Stapleton mistakes Watson for Sir Henry and warns him to leave. She and Sir Henry later meet and quickly fall in love, arousing Stapleton's anger; he later apologises and invites Sir Henry to dine with him a few days later.
Barrymore arouses further suspicion when Watson and Sir Henry catch him at night with a candle in an empty room. Barrymore refuses to answer their questions, but Mrs. Barrymore confesses that Selden is her brother, and her husband is signalling that they have left supplies for him. Watson and Sir Henry pursue Selden on the moor, but he eludes them, while Watson notices another man on a nearby tor. After an agreement is reached to allow Selden to flee the country, Barrymore reveals the contents of an incompletely burnt letter asking Sir Charles to be at the gate at the time of his death. It was signed with the initials L.L.; on Mortimer's advice, Watson questions a Laura Lyons, who admits to writing the letter in hopes that Sir Charles would help finance her divorce, but says she did not keep the appointment. Watson tracks the second man he saw in the area and discovers it to be Holmes, investigating independently in hopes of a faster resolution. Holmes reveals further information: Stapleton is actually married to the supposed Miss Stapleton, and he promised marriage to Laura Lyons to get her cooperation.
They hear a scream and discover the body of Selden, dead from a fall. They initially mistake him for Sir Henry, whose old clothes he was wearing.
At Baskerville Hall, Holmes notices a resemblance between Stapleton and a portrait of Hugo Baskerville. He realises that Stapleton could be an unknown Baskerville family member, seeking to claim the Baskerville wealth by eliminating his relatives. Accompanied by Inspector Lestrade, whom Holmes has summoned, Holmes and Watson travel to the Stapleton home, where Sir Henry is dining. They rescue him from a hound that Stapleton releases while Sir Henry is walking home across the moor. Shooting the animal dead in the struggle, Sherlock reveals that it was a perfectly mortal dog - a mix of bloodhound and mastiff, painted with phosphorus to give it a hellish appearance. They find Miss Stapleton bound and gagged inside the house, while Stapleton apparently dies in an attempt to reach his hideout in a nearby mine. They also find Sir Henry's boot, which was used to give the hound Sir Henry's scent.
Weeks later, Holmes provides Watson with additional details about the case. Stapleton was, in fact, Rodger Baskerville's son, also named Rodger. His now-widow is a South American woman, the former Beryl Garcia. He supported himself through crime for many years, before learning that he could inherit a fortune by murdering his uncle and cousin. Stapleton had taken Sir Henry's old boot because the new, unworn boot lacked his scent. The hound had pursued Selden to his death because of the scent on Sir Henry's old clothes. Mrs Stapleton had disavowed her husband's plot, so he had imprisoned her to prevent her from interfering.
The story ends with Holmes and Watson leaving to see the opera Les Huguenots starring Jean de Reszke. | gothic, murder | train | wikipedia | While Richard Roxburgh is a really good Holmes, Ian Hart is outstanding as Dr. Watson.
Ian Hart brought a fuller dimension to the Dr. Watson character to this Hound of the Baskervilles that many other version have not.
The BBC, here in England, have just broadcast the latest version of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes story "The Hound of the Baskervilles".
Later we see him flicking the ash from his cigar into a champagne glass, these and many other habits are shown which indicate how untidy Holmes is in his private life but when it comes to solving crimes he is like a committed bloodhound.Dr Watson, played by Ian Hart, is another fabulous performer.
Once again, Television leads the way forward in great quality drama.I sincerely hope that the sparkling chemistry displayed between Roxburgh and Hart will bring future installments in the adventures of Holmes and Watson on TV.
The hound itself is best seen in shadows and quick edits as it isn't that scary but the film still manages to have a sense of urgency to it.Roxburgh's Holmes is suitably cheerful and feels outside of the murders, like he is enjoying the mystery of the whole thing.
All present themselves well and people like Grant, Tarbuck (!), Nettles and Cook are interesting additions.Overall this is a fast paced and enjoyable version of the classic tale and is easy to enjoy.
Not being familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle's books (or any other adaptations of them), I was expecting 'Hound of the Baskervilles' to be a typical Agatha Christie-style mystery.
Regardless of whether this is true to the book, it sounds like the basis for an interesting period police procedural.Unfortunately the whole thing falls a bit flat: although it may be filmed as a thriller, there's a curious lack of tension throughout: no-one acts as if they are really scared or shocked at any point.
I am not aware that Sherlock Holmes had a convoluted mixture of Southern Hemisphere accents and Watson reminds me of an East London spiv.The plot does not stay true to the book and the drug taking scenes are not in context and appear merely as gratuitous.
There is no need for the makers to have "improved" the original story by adding scenes of their own e.g Watson being shot,Holmes falling into the mire etc.
Readers may be interested to note that some of the scenes appear to have been filmed around the locations in which Conan Doyle is thought to have set the original story (Buckfastleigh, Devon)..
In brief: the wrong person ends up in quicksand, no one should be hanged, only one person should be gnawed by any kind of animal, there's no seance or pantomime, and the Hound effects are embarrassing.This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles also has a Holmes who drugs himself during his cases, when, presumably, he would need to concentrate.
Need I point out that Holmes used drugs between cases, when he was bored, not while he was working?On the bright side, Richard Grant was excellent as Jack Stapleton.
Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, are my favorite movies, books, old radio programs and TV shows.Basil Rathbone, (1892- 1967), made a film version of The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1939.
Jeremy Brett,(1933-1995), played the title charter on TV for 10 years, and now Richard Roxburgh,(1962), from Australia, are the best and most believable Sherlock Holmes.This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002) is my most favorite.
I long for Richard Roxburgh as Holmes and Ian Hart as Watson to make another Sherlock Holmes film together.The production values were excellent.
Not G-rated.If you like mysteries, detectives, period films, and horror than this film is for you.Richard Roxburgh plays Holmes as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote him..
It's hard not to comment when a great book is adapted so poorly.I must admit, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is not my favorite of the Conan Doyle canon, but it is quite a moody, remarkable tale.
The seance scene and the appearance of the hound- didn't like it.Let me say, Ian Hart as Watson was a very nice choice.
He's an actor I've admired since I saw Backbeat, and I enjoyed him in the role of Watson.I've long thought the time was right for another HOUND adaptation.
Richard Roxborough will rank in my estimate as the second worst Sherlock Holmes I've seen, the cake being taken by whoever played him in the B & W SHERLOCK HOLMES where the master sleuth duly falls in love and gets his girl in the end.I am told that the rationalization of the hound as belonging to the wronged woman actually has 'Conanical' sanction.
Thanks to his planning, Sir Henry is almost mauled to death by the hound, and Holmes himself nearly drowns in the quicksand (Alas, Watson saves him!) The only redeeming feature was the hound, which was at least slightly scary, which is more than I can say of the creatures in the 1939 and 1959 films, and in the two TV versions I've seen, including the Jeremy Brett one.The script writer belongs down there in his 'cleverness' with Michael Dibdin, author of THE LAST SHERLOCK HOLMES STORY which argues that Holmes's cocaine addiction turned him into Jack the Ripper..
I fondly remember this adaptation, and haven't seen it for years, so I wondered how it would hold up since it was made back in 2002.I hate to say it, but I feel like I'm still waiting for the defining version of this great story, I can't say I'm blown away by any version, this is another good interpretation, and ranks just behind the somewhat disappointing version featuring the legendary Jeremy Brett, and further behind Rathbone's, arguably the best telling of this story to this date.I love the way the story is told, it's a gothic, almost hammer production, full of shocks and scares, it had a very chilling, sinister feel, which is very much like the book.
A strong supporting cast, with fine performances from Liza Tarbuck and Ian Hart, plus a standout performance from Richard E Grant.Unfortunately I really didn't care for Roxburgh in the role, he's a very good actor, but was just totally wrong for the role, lacking the charisma that the likes of Richard E Grant has by the bucket load.
The Hound of the Baskervilles is no doubt among the Sherlock Holmes mysteries to be adapted most frequently, this time the BBC gives it a go.
However, I am sad to say that it does not live up to the standard the BBC has set when it comes to adaptations of classic novels.One might forgive director David Atwood and his crew for making some rather radical changes to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle original, but the film has too many other flaws too.
While Ian Hart performs rather well as Doctor Watson, if not as good as Edward Hardwicke, the casting of Richard Roxburgh as the great Sherlock Holmes is a total disaster.
Compared to the 1988 adaptation of the same story, Roxburgh lacks all the qualities that made Jeremy Brett such a great Holmes.
OK, so it isn't the most original adaptation of Conan Doyle's masterpiece, but truth be told, this version of "The Hound" is pretty good.
While the great debate among Holmesians rages over the more definitive actor to play Holmes (Rathbone or Brett?), Roxburgh has deftly slipped into the role and made it his own, and Hart has managed to produce a fairly good Dr. Watson (not the bungling, Nigel Bruce type).The story need not be retold here, because most people who see this film will have either read the book or seen one of the other versions.
While certainly not sticking close to the original story (for a more complete adaptation, see the Granada television version with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke), this film does manage to introduce some new concepts into the Holmes film genre that make it interesting.
Roxburgh and Brett are the two best-looking men to play Holmes, and the result is that the caricature with deer-stalker and pipe has gradually dissipated and become that of a tall, elegant gentleman.Essentially, what we have with this film is not a perfect film in any sense, but a very interesting interpretation of a story that has been done many, many time by many different people.
I am so glad that the makers of this adaptation did not go for the obvious option of Richard E Grant as Sherlock Holmes, instead he plays Stapleton.Australian actor Richard Roxburgh wisely eschews the theatrics of Jeremy Brett.
He gives a somewhat gritty, physical performance in this gothic induced version of Hound of the Baskervilles which is rather fast paced.Ian Hart plays a rather waspish Dr Watson who feels used by Holmes.
Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories.
'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is one of the, perhaps even THE, most famous Sherlock Holmes stories and is the most adapted.
For good reason, it is such a thrilling and scary story and contains a tantalising mystery.This 2002 adaptation could have been better and is not in the same league as those of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing, all wonderful and with vastly superior interpretations of Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxborough) and his aide Watson (Ian Hart) are engaged to investigate the bizarre death of Sir Charles Baskerville, the latest victim of his family's horrible 'curse'.
Watching over the last in the family's line, Sir Henry (Matt Day), Holmes ventures onto the forbidding Dartmoor moors to investigate the demon hound.Before Cumberbatch and Moffat, the BBC tried to reinvigorate Holmes with this 2002 TV film, amping up the action, atmosphere and body horror of Conan Doyle's most famous novel, and with mixed results.
He doesn't exude intelligence, mania, authority or a sense of control like many other interpretations have, and as a result does deflate the proceedings, never fully commanding the scenes the way a Holmes actor ought to.The second issue is a confused mission statement: the screenplay mostly condenses Doyle's story well, and straddles the line of the supernatural very well, if not enhances the whole contrast further with a well handled a séance sequence, but adds a few things.
Turning more low key elements like an interrogation of a cabbie into little action scenes, as well as changing bits of structure and characterization from the various cast, would likely annoy purists, but then throwing things in like Holmes' drug addiction (which honestly is never properly explained in the context of this film) really only makes sense to those already familiar with the books, so just who is the film made for?
As Ian Mckellen once said "It's in the book"Iand Hart's Watson was different, though I thoroughly loved his performance, dragged a little at times but the pace is well kept throughout most of the time.It's definitely worth viewing if you want to see a good Holmes adaptation..
Roxburgh's Holmes will not be to everyone's taste, but he captures the edgy, egotistical Holmes of the stories, while Ian Hart's Watson is a long way from the idiot friend familiar from so many screen versions.
The supporting cast is uniformly strong, and while purists may howl at some of the omissions (most notably Frankland and Laura Lyons) and additions (most notably the seance scene, imported from the 1939 Rathbone version), this is one of the most thoughtful adaptations of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES ever filmed..
Seeing several of the versions of Hound of the Baskervilles I was quite impressed with this latest version.Playing the lead role of Sherlock Holmes is Australian actor Richard Roxburgh who portrays the role of the arrogant detective very well.
As much as I am a fan of the earlier versions of Sherlock Holmes, I am thrilled to see it done with modern actors and with modern sets.Richard Roxburgh (Moulin Rouge!, Mission: Impossible II, Van Helsing) makes for a great Holmes, and Ian Hart (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) a great Dr. Watson.
Despite a rather remote performance from Richard Roxburgh (in comparison to say Jeremy Brett, or Basil Rathbone), I enjoyed this slightly amended/updated version of the story.I have read the book several times, but am not a purist.
The very nature of film-making means that you must change things sometimes, especially when adapting material originally written over a century ago.And if someone has paid for the rights to a story, then they are entitled to change it as much as they like if they think it will sell better that way.
So ignore the original material and enjoy or not enjoy the film just for itself.Having said that, I think that Ian Hart is one of the best Dr Watson's we've seen, certainly far better than the unfortunate bumbling of Nigel Bruce for instance.
In many Sherlock Holmes stories on the screen you can't help but say: "What would Holmes be doing with an idiot for a friend?" I think Ian Hart has played Watson on at least one other occasion, and he was also good playing Conan Doyle in "Finding Neverland", which was a nice touch.Just watch this version of the story and enjoy it for itself..
What I do care about is that never before have a watched any version of The Hound of the Baskervilles and wanted to go to bed with Holmes.
To protect the new squire (Matt Day) and eliminate all possible threats to his life.As the clues begin to unfurl and the meeting of an eccentric neighbour Stapleton (Richard E Grant) and his stunning sister Beryl (Neve Macintosh) and a further evidence of a disinherited Baskerville who died in poverty, Holmes and Watson face their biggest and most evil opponent.Richard Roxburgh takes the stage as the enigmatic Sherlock Holmes while Ian Harte plays the thoughtful and reserved Dr Watson in this readapted tale of murder, terror, and suspense..
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson are called in to solve the case.Richard Roxbourgh isn't the best Holmes actor ever, but with his constant over-acting he makes a good portrait.
I cannot believe it was filmed on Dartmoor, as I know the moors well.The cast was good, but I would have preferred Richard E Grant to have played Holmes, surely a role he is long overdue to play?
Set the hound on him!Casting isn't great, either, as Australian Richard Roxburgh makes the second worst Holmes in recent memory - the top "honours" there go to Matt Frewer for his snide, spastic sleuth in those awful Hallmark TV films.
Let's just say that Stevie Wonder could see the difference between Sir Henry and Selden in this production, which makes Holmes look like a total idiot at a crucial plot point...And the hound itself?
The bad news is that the last ten minutes ruin everything that's gone before; the WORSE news is that what goes before wasn't that hot to begin with.It has been rightly said that "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is the only Sherlock Holmes story where the atmosphere overwhelms the character of Holmes himself.
Watson (played by Ian Hart) is at last an intelligent doctor rather than the bumbling idiot he's usually portrayed as, and Richard E.Grant makes for a sly, scheming Stapleton.
In this new adaptation of Conan Doyle classic book, Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh, "Moulin Rouge") and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart, "Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone") investigate the mysterious death of sir Charles Baskerville, whose body was found in the moor surrounding his antique manor."The hound of Baskerville" is probably the most well-known Sherlock Holmes adventure and as such as been adapted many times (IMDB references no less then 19 versions).
This would have been a major flaw in any other Sherlock Holmes movie but not in this one, given its peculiar approach of the character.Portrayals of Watson have come a long way since Nigel Bruce depicted him as an idiot in the Basil Rathbone movie.
Watson is now portrayed like he actually is in the Conan Doyle story, as a warmth and kind man, having many of the human qualities that Holmes lacks.
But in this version, Watson, superbly played by Ian Hart and who, given his screen exposure, is actually the real main protagonist of the story, is even more competent then usual, proving himself a very efficient detective in his own right and a man of action.
Had Holmes existed, rumors of his cocaine addiction would have spread that Watson would have tried to brush away by inventing the myth the Holmes was not using the drug in a recreational way but only when a case could not provide the amount of intellectual stimulation he needed).Hence, all in all, because of his engaging plot, atmospheric settings, superb production value and of its original take on two characters of whom everything seemed to have been said (notably after their definitive interpretation given in the Jeremy Brett series), the latest version of "the hound of the Baskerville" is a must-see for any Sherlock Holmes aficionados..
Closed that is except for Sir Charles best friend Dr. James Mortimer (John Nettles) who visits London to try & enlist the help of Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh) & his assistant Dr. Watson (Ian Hart).
Because this was made as a one off Christmas special someone obviously thought it would be a good idea to set it during the festive period & on Christmas Day which seems like an afterthought & totally unnecessary.Director Attwood has made one of the finest looking Hound of the Baskervilles adaptations, shot in England by the BBC who know how to make great period drama (I should know I've sat through enough of 'em!), trust me this looks marvellous throughout & the CGI hound looks fabulous & very ferocious, the best one I've seen.
But why, why does the Holmes story always have to be THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES? |
tt0270980 | My Boss's Daughter | Tom Stansfield (Ashton Kutcher) is a researcher at a publishing company who works under the tyrannical Jack Taylor (Terence Stamp). Tom has a crush on his boss' daughter, Lisa Taylor (Tara Reid), who is completely controlled by her overprotective father. She reveals to Tom that her father is making her house-sit on the same night as a party she wants to attend, but Tom convinces her to stand up to her father and attend the party anyway. Lisa asks him to come to their house that night, leading Tom to think that she has invited him to the party; in reality, she just wants him to fill in for her - he reluctantly agrees. A comedy of errors ensues, including the return of Lisa's older brother, Red, on the run from drug dealers. Red dumps drugs into the toilet, and instead returns a bag of flour to the drug dealer. One of Tom's tasks is to guard their owl, O-J, which lives in an open cage (it has not been able to fly due to a deep depression, from the loss of a prior mate). When the bird drinks from the toilet polluted with drugs, it flies away. Jack Taylor's ex-secretary Audrey goes to the house to try to earn her job back. After fighting with her boyfriend, she stays over at the house. Lisa returns home after finding out that her boyfriend Hans is cheating on her. Tom hides from her everything that happened and she spends some time with him thinking he is homosexual. He clarifies to her that he's actually straight and she starts to like him. Audrey's friend thinks she has breast cancer and asks Tom to feel her breasts. Lisa walks in on them and is disgusted by the situation.
T.J., the drug dealer, finds out about the fake drugs and threatens to kill Tom if he doesn't return him his money. T.J. tries to open a safe and steal the money. However, Tom gives him sleeping pills mixed with alcohol which sends him into a coma. Because they think T.J. is dead, Audrey and her friends bury him. Later, T.J. escapes from the grave and threatens to kill Lisa. With Red's help, Tom rescues Lisa and she falls in love with him. He then goes to get her father, but on the way back the owl gets into the car making Tom lose control of the car and crash into the house. They find police officers in the house looking for T.J., who ends up getting arrested. Jack Taylor is enraged by the damages done to the house and throws Tom out. The next day, Jack Taylor hears his son explaining to Lisa how she should stand up to their father and goes back to Tom. Jack realizes his mistakes and gives Tom a promotion. | comedy, entertaining | train | wikipedia | The entire (from my point of view) film was based around Tom house-sitting due to a misunderstanding whereby he thought he would actually have been dating Lisa Taylor, the character who is the title's daughter of the title's boss.
If you have not seen the film you may be shocked to learn that this house-sitting period is not event free, in fact it is pretty much a case of one thing going wrong after another, whether it is a drug deal, a cheating boyfriend, a sexy girl with a great body, a missing owl or some mice getting loose.
Seems to me that the actors had no idea what they were filming and where it would end up in the movie, halve of the time.
You're better off watching "The Party", starring Peter Sellers, which has a sort of similar concept as this movie.Terence Stamp was really great in the movie and he is the reason that still most of the comedy works out.
Other are actors such as Jeffrey Tambor and Carmen Electra.The movie love story between the Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid characters, which forms the central core of the movie doesn't ever become realistic in the movie.
Tom Stansfield (Ashton Kutcher) works in a publisher and has a very tough boss, Jack Taylor (Terence Stamp).
Not in comedy films, featuring Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid.The plot is about Tom Stansfield, that is working for some big publishing company.
It's somewhat similar to Home Alone, in the way that Tom gets unexpected visits from a dozen uninvited guests that stir up some "fun" situations.I found myself extremely annoyed at Ashton Kutchers character.
In the end scene he just "pops" up and suddenly he has developed and is brave enough to stand up for himself (how this happens, we never know).The jokes are old, the movie is short, the plot is weak, the actors are crap, everything about this film is below par.
Ashton's horrifying "talking", Tara's face being ten shades darker than her neck, a drugged up owl, a script that seemed like the work of a three-year-old...Seriously, in my whole life there has been no movie that i have watched that i did not in someway enjoy no matter how bad it was.
Today i was trying to re-watch it but i had to turn it off like ten minutes in because i was about to cry from the overwhelming amount of clichés.Don't even bother to rent this at your blockbuster, it's not worth a cent, as a matter of fact i am willing to pay anyone out there considering to watch this movie so they can go do something decent with their lives..
Lisa's boyfriend Hans cheated on her and she comes home early.Everybody is annoying in this movie and Ashton Kutcher is the welcome mat for them to walk all over on.
This is a David Zucker film but it needs to get the characters right before the slapstick comedy could actually work..
It really hurt the film.At no point did I care for Ashton Kutcher & Tara Reid's relationship, nor was their interactions funny or engaging.
However, the film did feature an owl jacked-up on coke which was fairly funny.This movie is the definition of the word "passable." Worth a laugh or two, but that's about it.
It was just last week when I watched "Just Married", which I didn't think was very funny, and now I've also seen "My Boss's Daughter", another romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher, which was released later the same year as the other one.
I've seen a bunch of comedies which he was heavily involved in the making of, and have found several of them funny, unsurprisingly including "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!" However, this 2003 comedy, directed by Zucker and written by David Dorfman, certainly misses the mark, and as a romantic comedy starring Kutcher, it's even weaker than the overall mediocre "Just Married"!
The humour is basically mediocre at the beginning, showing the protagonist on the subway trying to talk to Lisa, with nothing too funny, and that's unfortunately the way it is for most of the film, only it gets worse as it goes along.
Now, I'll admit, I couldn't help but smile several times, even laugh a little a couple times, during early scenes with the Jack Taylor character, played by Terence Stamp, including the first conversation we see between him and Tom, though I didn't find the "retard" part very amusing.
Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend.
4. Don't touch the furniture.Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next.
Movies like "Duplex" and scenes like the toilet scene in "Along came Polly", that's really not my cup tea.Tara Reid and Terence Stamp is the only thing pulling this movie up, she does a good job playing the daughter, while he is the father and the boss of Kutcher.Ashton Kutcher is playing Tom Stansfield a employee of the creative department in Jack Taylor (Terence Stamps) company.
This is where everything really starts falling apart for Tom.The only part of this movie that I found funny, involved Jack Taylor, being the really mean boss.
Only watch this movie if you are a die hard fan of Ashton Kutcher, 'cause he is the main character, and none of the other actors is really involved in this movie, or if you love movies like Duplex, and other similar movies, which are even more embarrassing to watch.2/10 and never to be seen again..
I saw the last bits of this movie a long time ago, and that's all I will ever need to see.My Bosses Daughter stars Ashton Kutcher, who makes a bad name for himself in this film.
Luckily I was only watching it on TV so it didn't cost anything, but I seriously recommend you do not waste you time or your money.Nothing in the movie was new.
I actually think it would have been better as a little kids movie in that it was full of stupid unrealistic "funny" events occurring ...
"My Boss's Daughter" is very typical comedy, that tries its best to make fun out of everyone, including ethnic groups and disabled people.At such, it gives out couple of laughs, but most of the jokes you can see coming from far and it really isn't anything very original.
It does however have couple of scenes that did got me by surprise, so I'd guess it's not so predictable as the most of the movies of this genre.Ashton Kutcher is Tom, who by mistakes is baby sitting his obnoxious boss's (Terence Stamp)owl and house.
Tom of course is in panic, because he's in love with Lisa (unbelievebly bad actor Tara Reid), the boss's daughter.Watch it and forget about it and don't get angry even thought you would be in the groups insulted by this flicks: there are so much better insulting comedies to get mad to..
Yet somehow, I watched this film in its entirety, and found it to be surprisingly entertaining.It is certainly not an especially sophisticated movie - from the plot description, you gather that Ashton's character has to housesit for his sadistic boss, and basically the entire movie is a ridiculous romp through every possible thing that could go wrong with such a simple task.
The characters are composed with blatant flaws that keep the movie going, but do so in a fairly entertaining fashion, and there's enough plot to keep you interested enough that you actually kind of want to know what happens.This movie isn't as bad as the voting seems to suggest, and if you're looking for a brainless comedy, this is a good choice.
Tara Reid is not funny, Ashton Kucher needs to stick to a role he is good at (which I don't know if he has found his niche yet, but I think there is a place for him somewhere), and whoever wrote this movie needs to put away the word processor and go back to writing 1-800-Collect commercials.Bad..
The only things in the "movie" that made me laugh were Dave Foley's scenes, he's the only actor they didn't make look like Geraldo Rivera.
This is bad because, a) Tom wants to move up the occupational ladder into the creative department of the company, and b) he's got the hots for Lisa, a company employee who also happens to be (say it with me) his boss's daughter.
He's overjoyed when Lisa asks him to come to her house one night because she `wants to go to a party', but whereas Tom thinks he's going to be escorting fair Lisa to the said party, he quickly realizes that he's actually there to house-sit for his boss while Lisa attends the party with her boyfriend.
In response to that, I'll say that even the lowliest of teen-movies (Drive Me Crazy comes to mind) were vastly more entertaining and better executed than this one.This is the kind of film that can give a person nightmares about the future of comedies.
But, this film was SO bad I left after 40 minutes and got my money back.Horrible cast, stupid plot, stupid dialog, stupid everything.
The plot could not be more ridiculous; the acting is pretty bad, and the story has this surreal but stupid feel about it.Avoid like the plague!!Rating: 1 out of 10.
Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie.
My Boss's Daughter (2003) Ashton Kutcher, Tara Reid, Andy Richter, Michael Madsen, Terence Stamp, Molly Shannon, Carmen Electra, D: David Zucker.
Thinking it will be a good opportunity to land a date with the boss's daughter (Reid), moments of bad timing ruin his chances with her.
this is possibly the worst movie of the year,and thats hard to do with all the competition.overacted,overcast,overly terrible.this movie tries to get humor out of racial slurs and jokes,which in todays pc world is a very touchy subject.references to jews,african americans,and other cultures.Aston is terrible and it shows,Andy looks like he just came from the bar and needs another drink.Tera doesnt do a stellar job either.not even the talent of Terrance Stamp could save this stink bomb.save your money and go camping..
The characters, and pretty much all of them, are bland and clichéd(not a bad thing but it is when the character and such is badly written which is the case here), while the cast excepting Stamp are poor with Ashton Kutcher faring worse, he looks bored and shows no charisma.
All the actors were so meddlers that Kutcher's desperate face was really priceless.Summing it up, "My Boss's Daughter" is an hilarious movie that despite not being Zucker's best job, is worth spending time at and I am looking forward to watching with my friends.
A regrettable decision which was based on other Ashton Kutcher comedies that were (semi-) enjoyable such as A Lot Like Love and Guess Who.Where those two movies had their charms and laughs, this had none (and I mean none!!).
My vote is 1- awful(read terrible), because except the idea, and the project itself, My Boss's Daughter is kind of a waste of dough, cast and play, but surely not a waste of time to watch it..
we think had we seen it at the movies you would not have been able to hear it for laughter there's only two things wrong with this film and they are that when the boss's house is being wrecked Tara Reid the daughter seems to be completely oblivious to this and the other thing is that you don't get a chance to stop laughing before the next thing happens.
I'm sure you have read the other comments and if your a fan of light hearted no brainer comedies then I'm sure like me you will see that the other reviewers or looking to far into this movie it isn't meant to be a long time love affair buy on DVD and keep it forever its simply wham bam thank you mam this was fun see you around sometime.well worth £3.75 at blockbuster go on have a giggle..
Let's just say a lot of crazy people come, lot's of really weird (but hilarious) things happen, EVERYTHING goes wrong for poor Tom who is trying his best but can't stop it, and worst of all--this all happens when the boss is away and putting trust in poor Tom. While all this is happening, Tom is trying SO hard to make a good impression for Lisa, but she always catches him at the worst possible place/time!
Can Tom do anything to get out of the mess he's in, keep his job, and most important--get Lisa to like him?If you love good comedies like I do, this movie is perfect for you!
I didn't think it was a Zucker movie till I found out in the end why it was dumb and funny, but it was worth watching.
The plot was great, and for Ashton Kutchers character, it was half-ass; he thought of going to the party with Lisa but ends up house sitting for his boss and Lisa's at the party with her "Boyfriend" Jon Abraham, "House Sitting?
"There are some things you just don't do" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it.
To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself – if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg/Seltzer mob.My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled "My Boss' Daugther", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp).
A Baltimore Bob Top Ten Conversation of all Movies:When Tom (Ashton Kutcher) is being told by Jack (Terence Stamp) what he has to do to house sit he introduces him to his bird.
Dreamy young Ashton Kutcher (as Tom Stansfield) wants a date with sexy blonde Tara Reid (as Lisa Taylor).
Remember, people get paid to act like this.** My Boss's Daughter (2003) David Zucker ~ Ashton Kutcher, Tara Reid, Terence Stamp.
Despite the fact that he ensued mishaps while watching the house, if you ask me, Tom (Ashton Kutcher) and Lisa (Tara Reid) made the perfect couple.
Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good comedy that will make you laugh and feel good in spite of its crude moments to any Ashton Kutcher or Tara Reid fan who hasn't seen it.
Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, "If I Had a Million Dollars" by BNL, in the opening credits.Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss.
Kutcher was good in this movie too but the plot just was...bad.
The basic plot involves your average guy Tom who likes his co-worker Lisa who happens to be his boss's daughter.
The only good thing you can say about this movie is that somehow escaped making it to the list worst 10 films of all time.
MY BOSS'S DAUGHTER may be David Zucker's worst movie to date, though it is still a very funny one.
Terence Stamp gets a couple of laughs as Tom's boss, but the rest of the movie cries turkey.
It's depressing to walk into a packed theatre for this movie, while a good film like "Dirty Pretty Things" plays nearly empty..
The only other times I laughed in the movie was because of the horrendous acting of Kutcher, and even worse, Tara Reid.
Bad. I thought this movie would be about a guy wanting to date a woman but he struggles to get her because she is his bosses daughter.
Funny in it's own Way. Tom(Ashton Kutcher) has always had a thing for his Boss's beautiful daughter Lisa(Tara Reid).
Ashton Kutcher is not really funny and Tara Reid can't act but she is beautiful and nice to look at.
Tom (Ashton Kutcher, who is about as good of an actor as my left toenail), who is a little shy/passive, has a crush on his boss's daughter (hence the stupid title) Lisa (Tara Reid, see my comment about Kutcher).
Reid does what she needs to do with her one-dimensional character of the boss's daughter (which the movie isn't really about).
These days, outlandish humor seems to be reserved for teenybopper flicks that play off of Marijuana and sex jokes, like `Scary Movie.' However, the new film, `My Boss's Daughter,' which stars Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid, revives the slapstick comedy with a hilarious joke in just about every shot. |
tt0399877 | What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? | Filmed in Portland, Oregon, What the Bleep Do We Know!? presents a viewpoint of the physical universe and human life within it, with connections to neuroscience and quantum physics. Some ideas discussed in the film are:
That the universe is best seen as constructed from thoughts and ideas rather than from matter.
That "empty space" is not empty.
That matter is not solid, and electrons are able to pop in and out of existence without it being known where they disappear to.
That beliefs about who one is and what is real are a direct cause of oneself and of one's own realities.
That peptides produced by the brain can cause a bodily reaction to emotion.
In the narrative segments of the movie, Marlee Matlin portrays Amanda, a photographer who plays the role of everywoman as she experiences her life from startlingly new and different perspectives.
In the documentary segments of the film, interviewees discuss the roots and meaning of Amanda's experiences. The comments focus primarily on a single theme: "We create our own reality." The director, William Arntz, has described What the Bleep as a movie for the "metaphysical left". | pornographic, psychological, murder, violence, flashback, psychedelic, philosophical, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0071292 | Open Season | In the peaceful town of Timberline, 900-pound (408 kg) grizzly bear Boog enjoys a captive, but pampered existence and spends his day as the star attraction of the town's nature show while at night living in the garage of park ranger Beth, who raised him since he was a cub. One day, the sadistic hunting fanatic Shaw drives into town with the one-antlered deer Elliot strapped to the hood of his truck. Boog frees Elliot, at the last minute, against his better judgment, before Shaw catches him. Boog never expects to see his "buddy" again, but Elliot follows Boog home to find him sleeping in the garage. To wake Boog up, Elliot throws rabbits at the window. He tells him to be "free" from his garage captivity and introduces Boog to a world of sweet temptations he has never known.
When Boog becomes sick from eating too many candy bars, events quickly spiral out of control as the two raid the town's grocery store. Elliot escapes before Boog is caught by a friend of Beth, police officer Gordy. At the nature show, Elliot being chased by Shaw, sees Boog, who "attacks" him. This causes the whole audience to panic. Shaw attempts to shoot Boog, but Beth sedates them both with a tranquilizer gun just before Shaw fires his gun. Shaw flees before Gordy can arrest him for shooting a gun in the town. The two trouble makers are released into the Timberline National Forest, only three days before open season starts, but they are relocated above the waterfalls, where they will be safe from the hunters.
Since he lacks any outdoor survival skills, Boog reluctantly takes Elliot as his accident-prone guide to get him back home to Timberline to reunite with Beth. But in the woods, they quickly learn that it is every animal for itself. The two run into their share of the forest animals including skunks, Maria and Rosie, ducks, Serge and Deni, various unnamed panic-stricken rabbits, the Scottish-accented squirrel, McSquizzy, along with his roguish gang, Reilly, a beaver and his construction worker team, a porcupine named Buddy who is in search of a friend and the herd of deer led by Ian and Giselle (who Elliot is in love with).
With each adverse encounter, Boog learns a little about self-reliance and Elliot gains self-respect and they start to become friends. Day by day, Elliot attempts to lead Boog out of the forest, but it becomes evident that he has no clue where they are going. After winding up at Reilly's dam, Boog and Elliot are confronted by Shaw, Boog then loses his toy bear, Dinkleman, as the current makes the doll float out of Boog's paw. They end up in a waterfall, which floods and sends the forest animals falling down it.
At first everyone blames Boog who accuses Elliot of lying to him about leading him home. Elliot admits he thought that if Boog spent time with him, he would befriend him. Boog leaves to unwittingly find Shaw's log cabin. Shaw returns and talks to his gun "Loraine" and says he would take back what is his, discovers him (like Goldilocks and the Three Bears), and pursues him to the city road where Boog happens upon the glowing lights of Timberline. Instead of deserting his companions, Boog helps the other animals defend themselves using supplies taken from an RV owned by two people looking for Bigfoot named Bob and Bobbie's RV while their pet dachshund Mr. Weenie joins "the wilds".
The next day, Boog leads a revolution against the hunters, sending them running after McSquizzy blows up their trucks with a propane tank named "Mr. Happy" ignited by using an emergency flare. Shaw returns for a final confrontation and shoots Elliot in the process, which enrages Boog and leads him to tie up Shaw with his own gun. Boog rushes over to Elliot's body but soon finds that Elliot survived the shot, only losing his second antler in the fracas. Beth returns to take Boog back home where he will be safe, but he decides to stay with his friends, all of the animals in the forest.
During the credits, Shaw is seen tarred, feathered and tied on the top of Bobbie and Bob's RV, mistaken for Bigfoot. | murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0298590 | Valkyrie Profile | === Characters ===
There are 24 playable characters in the game. However, some of them can only be obtained in hard mode.
Lenneth is the primary protagonist of Valkyrie Profile, a recently awakened warrior-maiden and servant of Odin, who has been tasked with recruiting the einherjar to fight with the Æsir in their war against the Vanir and prevent the destruction of Asgard in Ragnarok. Lenneth is one of the three goddesses of fate (the other two being her sisters, Hrist and Silmeria) the three apparently share the same body, though only one is awake at any given time and can be distinguished by their hair color and armor.
Loki is revealed to be the final antagonist of Valkyrie Profile. He is half-Æsir and half-Vanir by blood. Although he has been accepted by the Æsir, he is not completely trusted by either side. Odin and Freya sealed his power so that he remains a young version of himself. He seeks the power of the Four Treasures, which will give him the power to challenge Odin.
=== Story ===
In the village of Coriander, a 14-year-old girl named Platina lives with her cruel parents. The village falls upon hard times and her friend Lucian finds out that her parents are going to sell her into slavery. The two run away, but Platina inhales the toxic pollen of poisonous flowers in a nearby field and dies in Lucian's arms.
Lenneth Valkyrie awakens in Asgard and is tasked by the god Odin and goddess Freya with recruiting the einherjar for their war with the Vanir and the coming of Ragnarok. Her first recruits are the princess Jelanda and mercenary Arngrim. After the arrogant Arngrim inadvertently embarrasses her father, Jelanda plots revenge but is kidnapped by a traitorous court minister and transformed into a monster. Lenneth helps Arngrim kill the monster and claims Jelanda as an einherjar. Arngrim, having unknowingly aided Jelanda's captors, kills the man responsible but commits suicide rather than be arrested. At Jelanda's request, Lenneth makes Arngrim an einherjar but Odin and Freya find him lacking the qualities of an einherjar and refuse to accept him into Valhalla so Arngrim remains at Lenneth's side.
During Lenneth's travels, she meets Brahms, lord of the undead and enemy of Odin, who possesses her sister Silmeria (due to circumstances explained in Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria); and the necromancer Lezard Valeth, who lures her to his tower. Lenneth learns that Lezard has been experimenting with half-elven homunculi to use as vessels to attain godhood. Lezard wants Lenneth for himself, but she refuses to cooperate and destroys his experiments. The sorceress Mystina, one of Lezard's rivals, discovers what he has been doing and takes his last remaining homunculus. When he discovers her theft, Lezard freezes her body while she is spirit walking, effectively killing her. Lenneth recruits her, though Odin and Freya refuse to accept Mystina into Valhalla and, like Arngrim, she remains with Lenneth.
=== B Ending ===
Playing through the game normally means that Ragnarok is fought at the Jotunheim Ice Fields, where the Æsir army under Thor's leadership charges the Vanir to open a path for Lenneth to storm the Jotunheim Palace and defeat Surt. At the start of the final stage, all surviving einherjar that she has sent to Valhalla rejoin the party.
Lenneth and company fight their way past Bloodbane, which awards her the sword Levantine (Levatienn), and on to the throne room, where Surt awaits and draws his flaming sword. When he is struck down, the Æsir prevail and the eternal reign of Odin and the Asgardians is assured as Freya puts Lenneth to sleep until she is needed again. However, some questions remain.
=== A Ending ===
Considered the true ending of the game, it fully explores the story and Lenneth's origins.
Lenneth eventually meets Lucian, who grew up to become a poor thief in Gerabellum. He notices that Lenneth resembles the silver-haired Platina, though Lenneth does not know who Platina is. Lucian later becomes an einherjar when he is killed by soldiers cleaning up the slums. Before he is sent to Valhalla, Lucian tells Lenneth he still loves Platina. Lenneth tells him to forget about her and kisses him before she sends him to Valhalla, but Lucian continues to brood upon Lenneth and Platina. Although Lenneth laments that love between mortals and gods is not possible after his departure, she states that she hopes he lives so they may meet again.
Meanwhile, in Valhalla, Lucian learns that valkyries "sleep" in Midgard, reincarnating in Asgard upon their human deaths. However, Odin and Freya seal their memories, as they might interfere with their valkyrie duties. Loki tells Lucian that the Water Mirror can be used to contact the valkyrie, though it is forbidden for anyone besides Odin to use. Lucian does so anyway and gives Lenneth an earring, telling her she will know where to find its match, but Lenneth is angry at him for his disobedience. Loki uses the distraction to steal the Dragon Orb and kills Lucian, using him as a scapegoat to cover his theft. When Lenneth returns to Asgard, Freya tells her of the Dragon Orb's theft and Lucian's death.
Lenneth finds the other earring at Platina's grave and her memories as Platina return. Sensing that the seal is broken, Odin performs the Sovereign's Rite, transmigrating Lenneth's soul and summoning Hrist. Hrist takes control of the valkyrie's body and tries to destroy her companions Arngrim and Mystina, who refuse to serve her, but Lenneth intervenes. The blast shatters Lenneth's soul and Mystina crystallizes the fragments to prevent them from dissipating. With the help of another collected companion, her soul is fused with the valkyrie's body and Lenneth is reborn. Her memories of Lucian and Platina intact, Lenneth is disgusted with how the gods manipulate humans and the suffering they cause.
Ragnarok occurs and Loki, with the power of the Dragon Orb, takes his adult form. He turns his attention to the Æsir, engaging Odin in battle. As one never truly accepted by the Æsir or the Vanir, Loki seeks to destroy everything. Though Odin is armed with Odin's spear Gungnir, one of the Four Treasures, he is forced to divide its power to protect Freya. With the power divided between two, Loki overpowers and kills him.
Returning to Asgard, Lenneth slays Fenrir and the dragon Bloodbane before confronting Loki. Lenneth obtains the demon sword Levantine, another one of the Four Treasures, from Bloodbane and uses it in her battle with Loki. However, Loki reveals that she cannot utilize all the power of a Divine Treasure unless she is willing to sacrifice her friends (as dividing a Treasure's power is exactly what Odin did to save Freya, and died because of it). Loki unleashes the full power of the Dragon Orb, killing all of Lenneth's companions and destroying both Asgard and Midgard. However, the process of fusing her soul back together allows Lenneth's divine powers to grow. Her compassion for mankind and love for Lucian allows her to acquire the power of creation. Lenneth undoes Loki's destruction and kills him, becoming the new Lord of Creation. She then turns to see Lucian, who has been reborn, and the two are reunited. Having recreated both Asgard and Midgard, and revived Midgard's humans who were killed, all of humanity has become Lenneth's einherjar. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | Best RPG game on the Playstation.. Ah, finally, I get to see "valkyrie profile" on the movie site, so I just can't refuse!I think Lenneth Valkyrie, the main heroine of this game, is a very good, empowering role model for girl gamers, much better than Lara Croft or Tifa Lockhart. Lenneth is smart, takes crap from no one and stands up for what she believes is right. Yes, she does sort of wear a dress outfit, but hey, at least her bust is not the center of attention (unlike most video game heroines, who are just there for looks). I wish more RPG heroines would be like her.And for once, the plot is (loosely) based on Norse/Teutonic mythology and Japanese history. Sort of how Akira Kurosawa would write Norse myths.It's also rather amusing when you send your dead-souls to Asgard and see his/her reaction to different events that are happening there.But the part that really shines is the extremely fun gameplay, which is a hybrid of RPG and Platformer games. The exploration of towns and dungeons are in the style of platform games, but the fighting style is RPG styled. You pick magic, combo up and better yet, fight together and do your special moves called "Purify Weird Soul" that will send your enemies off to Nifelheim.Oh, did I forget to mention that there are three different endings and different change styles?Overall, Valkyrie Profile is a fun-addicting RPG with a powerful plot and a dominating no-nonsense female lead character. Enix, Tri-Ace, I salut you.. Excellent game, but NOT without its faults!. "Valkyrie Profile" is quite a well-writen and addictive game that is excellent relief from the plague of the repetitive "Final Fantasy" series or the akward "Megami Tensei" games (though Persona subseries was great).It follows the tail of a Valkyrie on a quest to retrive souls of the recently departed and help them live in the afterlife of Valhallah. As she does this at commands of Frey, Freya and Odin, she suddenly meets a familiar faces of the past and must learn more about it.The gameplay is quite fun too. Kinda like a combination of the "Rockman" series meets "Super Mario RPG", plus, really vivid graphics and character designs.But the flaw of the game lies within the voice acting (of both English and Japanese version). The Japanese version, almost everyone sounds really too squeaky or high pitched. Though they use a few TV, as well as seiyuu voice actors and actresses, some stood out more than others, but TURN DOWN THE VOICE VOLUME! Unless you want to hear people talking in pseudo-baratone or pseudo-helium pitched voices. Though the English version is a little bit of an approvement, I feel that the English voice acting is better done in scenarios than it is in the battle fields, when things get quite grating and repetitive!But other than so-so voice acting, Valkyrie Profile is a classic that stands the test of time.. Excellent game, horrid conclusion! *SPOILERS*. "Valkyrie Profile" had to be one of the best RPGs out there. From fun gameplay to wonderful character designs, VP has it. The plot follows a Valkyrie named Lenneth that serves Odin, Frey and Freya. To prove her worthiness, the Valkyrie must collect souls of the dying and purge the world of the undead.The only disappointment I find is Ending A, the "best" ending. I mean are you so suppose to feel happy that she shuns all the ones that helped her and fall for a man (Lucio) that simply thinks of the past life and does nothing for her at all in the previous life? Lord how I hated Lucio. Sure, he maybe a strong fighter in your party, but he was such a useless whiner of a character that always lived in the past and sits on his hands throughout the whole game. Heck, Ending B and C made a lot more sense, even though they were simplistic endings, but far more tolerable.Oh well, she did it anyway and it made for a terrible ending. Lenneth should have just thanked the people that helped her (yes, even the mad scientist Lezard, whom sacrificed elves just to make a body for her), and just moved on with saving Midgard and Asgard. Instead she decided not to only just ignore the people whom saved her from nearly dying at the hands of her evil sister Arlie, but to avenge the death of Lucio and bring him, out of all things back to life. And comparing most humanity to Lucio was just blowing it out of proportion even more."Yay! Not only do I save the worlds of the mortals and gods, I save the worthless loser that never lets his past go. HOORAY!" (If you can't tell, I was being sarcastic) |
tt0063611 | Skammen | A husband and wife, Jan and Eva, are former violinists who are living on a farm on a rural island during a civil war. Their radio and telephone do not work, and Eva expresses frustration at Jan's apparent preference of escapism from the conflict, while they debate whether they can have children and if Jan is selfish. The couple visit the town, and hear a rumor that troops will soon come, and meet with an older man who has been called to duty.
When they return, their farmhouse becomes the site of a bloody siege. Jan and Eva are captured by the invading force and interviewed by a military journalist on camera, for a segment on the viewpoints of the "liberated" population. Eva initially seems indifferent to the conflict, but denies neutrality, and Jan declines to speak, and they are released. They are later captured again, and as soldiers interrogate them, the troops play the interview video which dubs over Eva's words with enemy language. This is primarily a scare tactic.
Eventually, they are released by Col. Jacobi, who had formerly been serving as the mayor. After the couple returns home, their relationship is strained. Jacobi becomes a regular, if not uncomfortably constant, visitor who treats them with gifts but also has the power to send the couple to a work camp. This relationship is manipulative. Jacobi convinces Eva to provide him with sexual favors in exchange for his bank account savings. They go into the green house to have sex while Jan is resting. He wakes, calling Eva's name. Eventually, he goes upstairs and finds Jacobi's savings on the bed and begins to cry. Eva enters, Jacobi stays outside and turns to leave. She harshly comments to a weeping Jan that he can continue sobbing if he feels it will help. Soldiers arrive, and Jacobi explains his freedom can be bought, as the side of the war who is here is in desperate need of money. Jacobi, the soldiers, and Eva ask Jan for the money. Jan states he does not know what money they are talking about. The soldiers raid the house to look for it, in vain. They hand Jan a gun to execute Jacobi, and he does. After the soldiers leave, Jan reveals he had the money in his pocket, to Eva's disgust. This has split their relationship irreparably and causes repeated break downs. The relationship grows silent and cold. When Jan and Eva meet a young soldier, Eva wants to feed him and allow him to sleep. Jan violently takes him away to shoot and rob him.
Eva follows Jan towards the sea, and he uses the money from Jacobi in order to buy them seats on a fishing boat. While at sea, the boats motor fails. The man steering the boat kills himself by lowering himself overboard. The boat later finds itself stuck in the middle of floating dead bodies, unable to move forward and continue. As the boat takes away the refugees, Eva tells Jan of her dream: she walks down a beautiful city street with a shaded park, until planes come and set fire to the city and its rose vines. She and Jan have had a daughter, who she is holding in her arms. They watch the roses burn, which she states "wasn't awful because it was so beautiful". She feels she had to remember something, but couldn't. | bleak, allegory | train | wikipedia | "Shame" is less symbolic than some of Bergman's works, and, an intense, psychological study of a married couple, Jan and Eva, (Max von Sydow & Liv Ullmann) who have their personal problems like anyone else, but suddenly find their otherwise quiet Swedish island life completely upset by a civil war.
When Liv Ullman's character says, "I feel like I'm in someone else's dream and they're going to be ashamed when they wake up," she is referring not only to being an unwilling player in society's war games, she is referring to being an ignorant participant in life itself.
At the film's end, when she says that she had a dream that she had a child and she was trying to take care of it, but she forgot something else, the implication is that she has forgotten what she has learned in the war she's just survived, that like her own mother before her, she will be unable to pass on any vital lessons to her own child.
Bergman's Skammen is one of the most realistic depictions of war ever set to film.
And this film is not so much about specific historical events, with specific names and dates, but about universal human reactions to adversity and chaos.The acting in Skammen, though typically impressive from Ullman and Sydow, is not of primary importance in this film, unlike most other Bergman movies.
Shameful is of course war and life during it.Bergman makes a flawless movie, he studies people as they are.
Shame is rather unique as a war film (or rather quite the anti-war film) in that it not only doesn't focus on the soldiers or politics involved (there is politics but not how you'd think it'd be shown), it deals with its two main subjects as the only two beings that can possibly be cared about at all in this brutal, decaying society they inhabit.
Ingmar Bergman, in the midst of his prime, and following two other heavily psychological films, Persona and Hour of the Wolf, is far more interested in seeing what the effect of war has on usually civilized beings, that it brings out the worst in them, and also in a cathartic way is a reminder of what is truly crucial in living.
His two key actors are frequent collaborators and friends Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman (as the Rosenbergs oddly enough), who are musicians living on a farm on an island (not too dissimilar from 'Wolf' when one thinks about it).They see the tanks roll by, and a couple of old friends already getting worn down, but they try not to put it too much to heart; there's a sweet scene where the couple just talk, rather frankly but with heart (all one shot, as is repeated through the film is to perhaps create a sense of being provoked)...Then comes the trouble, including a fake film of propaganda made at gunpoint with the Rosenbergs, the psychological turmoil in being prisoners of war, and the terror involved with a 'friend' in the military (one of Gunnar Bjornstrand's most subtle works with Bergman).
When there is war action it's shot in unconventional, quick ways (via great amigo Sven Nykvist).And the deconstruction of the relationship between Jan and Eva is corresponded successfully with the backdrop of a chaotic kind of war-ground where the lines are never too surely drawn.
In a way this film, shot right at the height of the worst times in Vietnam, is even more relevant for today; I couldn't help but see chilling, uncompromising coincidences between Iraq and elsewhere with some of Jan and Eva's scenes with the fighters, or those 'in charge'.
Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow are brilliant as the politically uninvolved couple who suffer the terrifying consequences of being caught up in the midst of a civil war.
The Process of Brutalization of a War. The apolitical musicians Eva (Liv Ullmann) and Jan Rosenberg (Max von Sydow) have been married for seven years and live in a small farm in a remote island to escape from a civil war in the continent.
When Colonel Jacobi (Gunnar Björnstrand) stalks Eva, Jan changes his behavior and becomes a brutal man, and the love and affection they feel for each other change to hatred and indifference."Shame" is an antiwar movie by the master Ingmar Bergman focused by the eyes of a couple of artists that are apolitical and does not listen to the news, but when the war arrives to their lands, they have their love, friendship and affection destroyed by the senseless soldiers.
The film contained few characters which made the viewer focus and become only involved in the couple struggling through a time of war and devastation.
Ingmar Bergman's moderate attempts of displaying the psychological effects of war are depicted in Shame.
Although he presents emotional and deep characters, Bergman's unique film is a bit hard to follow at times.
I also think this is one of the most powerful films about the ugliness of war and what it does to the human souls.The couple of musicians, who left a big city for a remote island and make a living as farmers, find themselves capable of unspeakable and shameful acts that would have ordinarily been impossible for them even imagine, as they struggle to survive horrible reality of war.
Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow are brilliant as usual as lost, confused, and terrified couple that got caught in the midst of a civil war.9.5/10.
Ingmar Bergman penetrating, existential study of a couple on the island of Gotland dealing with surviving a long war.
The films intensity rests in Bergman's keeping our focus on the minute, intimate relations of his two characters - both accomplished musicians - trapped in a landscape they have ceased to understand.
In one of the most powerful episodes Bergman forces us to reflect on the manipulative power of the cinematic medium by showing us a filmed interview with Ullman's character that has been re-edited and distorted for political effect by one side of the conflict and is used by the other side as evidence of war crimes in a brutal interrogation scene..
Who knows, maybe that is the point: that it is this alpha mindset that sets the stage for war to begin with.I understand that I "missed the point." But everyone that speaks about this film speaks about the human race, when instead we watch a terrible wife character drive her poor husband insane: that's the thing that actually is on the screen throughout the film..
What Bergman has got here is "What if all that bad stuff happened here in Sweden, to nice people like us?" And what he gives us, in the Swedish language, with Swedish actors, on Swedish locations (and using what appear to be genuine Swedish military vehicles) is what was familiar from war films set in almost every other country in Europe-- all the confusing invasions and counter-invasions, political lies, internment camps, faked confessions, summary executions, torture, turncoats, "collaborators", and so on.
But when war finally breaks into their bucolic idyll, the man's timidity, an irritation in good times, turns into a liability, one he ends up overcompensating for-- as is often the case-- as Bergman demonstrates subtly and beautifully.
And the film is too great for such unnoticed film.Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow star as wife and husband getting caught in the horrors of war.
Jan becomes cruel and violent, while Eva becomes not exactly submissive, but rather distant.Bergman has stated his dissatisfaction with the film in several occasions, and never considered it his best work, but 'Shame' is must see film..
The film gives very little background information about the setting, time period or characters, and this ambiguity is like what it is like to live in the middle of a war.
Shame was a very practical and well depicted film of the effects of war on the general public.
A very credible and unsettling movie portraying the effects of war on the general public, Shame gives us a chilling understanding oh Ingmar Bergman's beliefs.
Feeling ashamed?"This is said by Eva, one of the protagonists of Ingmar Bergman's The Shame (Skammen, 1968).
It's disheartening to realize that, half a century later, Skammen works exactly the same way (the same boat who sails from a Swedish island in a fictitious war, sails today from the coasts of Africa for the same reasons, with the same broken dreams and the same, horrifying, results.At the end, one remains with a bitter feeling.
Ingmar Bergman is really a great director,however wasn't the best one for me, there's fine movies in his career as Jungfrukallan just to quote my favorit a near masterpiece,Skammen has something weird to start,all is based on a fictional civil war which was set place in somewhere at Scandinavia,whereupon there's no civil war at this place in that time which the picture may implied,forgetting all this the picture make sense,a overlooked at point of view over such damages for those people whose most of them don't have no idea why it should be happen,such atrocities,such pain and worst how the persons changes over for instance two leading roles,a anti-war picture but sounds a unreal for to be raised under a virtual war....therefore and just for that 7 out 10!!!Resume:
As a civil war has engulfed the area in which they live, Jan Rosenberg (Max von Sydow) and Eva Rosenberg (Liv Ullmann) an apolitical couple who used to earn their living as musicians, grasp at the remnants of what used to be their lives.
No matter how far they run, there is no escaping the conflict that has taken over their lives.Shame shows two people who purposefully don't take either side in a war, yet that very silence and unwillingness to take sides results in their being assumed collaborators.
The film takes place on Gotland, where invasion forces arrive.Pauline Kael reviewed the film in December 1968, writing, "Shame is a masterpiece, – a vision of the effect of war on two people, – but – it has many characters and incidents – in many ways, (it is) Bergman's equivalent of Godard's Week End – also an account of what people do to survive – Liv Ullmann is superb in the demanding central role, – Gunnar Björnstrand is beautifully restrained as an aging man clinging to the wreckage of his life.
Ingmar Bergman's "Shame" is a simple yet effective tale of the devastation war has on people, both physically and emotionally.
The couple whose life changes forever, Jan and Eva, are both likable characters, and Bergman does a good job keeping the film focused on them instead of getting into too many complicated stories with minor characters.
That being said, Shame's lack of depth does hurt it a bit, as it is possible audiences will not express any concern for Jan and Eva without more scenes to grow attached to them..
That's because initially, the main characters (Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow) try to overcome adversity and are basically decent (though a bit stupid) people.
There are no sides to the two main characters in this impacting drama, which doesn't intimate a point in any ceremonial symbolism as per Bergman's usual, but plainly showcases people and their lives and exercises what Bergman has already proved he understands about a person's reaction to a movie.His top-drawer regulars Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow play an internalizing but bickering married couple who were once orchestra musicians.
The basically clearcut personalities of Ullmann and Von Sydow's characters are hurled into the degenerate world of war because they are accused of being "sympathizers," but the film, shot on Bergman's small home island of Faro, doesn't give any information about where or when it's set, who the two sides are, and for what they're fighting.
It shows the things people will do to survive during a war and the shame that comes out of these actions; however I feel that it was not complete or attention holding.
I think that Ingmar Bergman could have filmed this movie in a more riveting way..
Shame was a movie with a very interesting premise, of trying to convey the effect of war on the common people, it however fell short of accomplishing this for me.
The basic premise of Bergmans films are the relationships between the characters and how they deal with trying situations.
I tried to enjoy the critically acclaimed Ingmar Bergman film "Skammen" (Shame).
If Bergman had used more sound and created understandable characters, my experience with Shame would have been more positive..
The surreal insanity of the behavior of the soldiers and officials around our normal working-class couple seemed so exaggerated, almost Keystone Cops with guns, that it DID seem effectively anti-war, but not in the way seen by those who write of unrelieved depression and misery being where the film got its power.
Certainly, if we're supposed to take the early to middle completely seriously and literally the film works much less well for me than it did, since the horrors these people are exposed to on a literal level seem like nothing compared to the victims of 'real world' wars, where they probably would have been dead very quickly.
Bergman's regular Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann starred as a village couple, Jan and Eva Rosenberg.
Shame (1968) *** 1/2 (out of 4) A husband (Max von Sydow) and wife (Liv Ullmann) live in a peaceful, if lonely, life in the country but all of this takes a turn for the worse when war hits their town.
The opening sequences are beautifully directed as Bergman sets up the peace that these two people share and then he hits us with the scenes of war when all of the peace gets thrown out the window.
The film is about a husband and wife named Jan, and Eva. They live on an island working as farmers.
Shame, has good direction, a good script, good performances by both Max Von Sydow (who plays Jan) and Liv Ullman (who plays Eva), good cinematography and good production design.
While nowhere close to being one of his best films there is still a lot to like about Shame, and it is a good movie.
Well, as a Bergman movie, "Shame" is still a powerful character study, focusing on the evolution of a man and a woman.Jan, the husband, is detached, he doesn't care about shaving or repairing the telephone since there's not much news to hear, which explain how clueless they are about the war.
In peace, the couple didn't live happily and despite the genuine love, something in the way Eva addressed Jan showed a bit of contempt, after Jan's 180 degree turn, they fight, they admit their hatred but they stick together as if love became a negligible entity.The film offers a fascinating character study on the devastating effects war have on civilians' minds, a mix of maturity and degeneration, something that was echoed in the famous shot from "Persona" where Alma, Liv Ullman, an actress who resigned to silence, kept staring to the famous image of the burning monk, how could she live in a world that allowed such barbarity to happen.
Still, Shame, for me, was a powerful experience, with lots of perfections on many levels.Released in the same year as Hour of the Wolf, along with the same leads, Shame is a character study of people caught in a raging civil war.
Despite the epic scale of the film, it is very, very bleak; so far the most bleakest Bergman movie I've seen.
In fact, this can be seen in the first scene alone that shows the two main characters, Eva (Ullman) and Jan (Sydow), simply waking up to a loud alarm clock to start the day.
Her sadness and Jan's lack of compassion over its death show the difference in their nature, and how those traits influence the way they change later in the film.The political backdrop of the film is questionable, as Shame is more a study on the characters than being a story about surviving a war.
Even if you're not too much a fan of Bergman, this overlooked piece of work can be enjoyed as a superb war film that can leave you thinking hours, maybe days, after watching..
As with that particular film, Shame offers a story about characters in retreat; in retreat from themselves and from the world around them.
In Shame, the idea is given further dramatic weight by an approaching civil war set to eventually destroy the walls of cowardice and self-preservation that these particular characters have put up to protect themselves from the harsh realities of life.
In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse.
Basically a civil war is occurring, and musicians and married couple Jan Rosenberg (Max Von Sydow) and wife Eva (Liv Ullmann) escape the devastation in society to a rural island and farm, there they remain indifferent to politics, they will communicate with only a few people, and the only luxury they have is wine.
However, the film focuses on a modest married couple, Eva and Jan, played brilliantly by Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman, and the shame shared by the two over Jan's shortcomings and cowardice, and, ultimately, his ruthlessness."Shame" has moments teetering on greatness, but never quite achieves that caliber.
Its ideas and bravery are commendable, and I understand what Bergman was trying to convey, but the story itself is a bit disjointed and the film feels too short for such a mammoth concept as the psychological effects of war on civilians.
Ingmar Bergman's meditation on war concerns a couple living an idyllic existence on a small island off the coast (of what country isn't specified). |
tt0275947 | Avenging Angelo | Years ago, a mob boss named Lucio Malatesta (George Touliatos) pinned the murder of rival Sammy Carboni (Gino Marrocco) on another rival named Angelo Allieghieri (Anthony Quinn), which led to Sammy's son Gianni vowing revenge.
Frankie Delano (Sylvester Stallone) has spent his life safeguarding Angelo as well as Angelo's daughter, Jennifer Barrett (Madeleine Stowe), whose unsavory husband Kip Barrett (Harry Van Gorkum) has had their young son Rawley (Ezra Perlman) placed in a boarding school against Jennifer's wishes.
Jennifer was raised by her adoptive parents Whitney Towers (John Gilbert) and Peggy Towers (Dawn Greenhalgh) and is not aware that Angelo is her father.
After Angelo is killed in a restaurant by a hit man named Bruno (Billy Gardell), Frankie introduces himself, tells Jennifer who he is and what he has been doing.
A neurotic mess, Jennifer can barely handle the news that Kip is a philanderer, let alone the revelation that she is a gangster's daughter. But a DVD prepared by Angelo in the case of just such an event convinces Jennifer that it's the truth.
Jennifer certainly doesn't want a full-time bodyguard, even Frankie. She ditches Kip and then falls for Italian romance novelist Marcello (Raoul Bova), who lectures at her book club. Frankie has suspicions about Marcello, but his job is to stay on the sidelines.
Frankie rescues Jennifer from a string of attacks. With many of Angelo's enemies, including Lucio Malatesta, terminated, Frankie allows her to visit Italy with Marcello. But it turns out that Marcello is actually Gianni Carboni, who had Angelo killed. And now Gianni plans to kill Jennifer.
It's up to Frankie to protect her one more time. | violence, comedy, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0806147 | Extreme Movie | The film is a series of vignettes with Matthew Lillard's sex advice is intercut within every couple segments. Mike (Ryan Pinkston) tries to impress his crush, Stacy (Cherilyn Wilson). Fred (Michael Cera) meets a girl (Joanna Garcia) online and they arrange for "menacing action", only for Fred to break into the wrong apartment. The promiscuous Betty (Ashley Schneider) going to the "next level" (kinkier and more outrageous sexual adventures) with Chuck (Frankie Muniz), and later Fred. Justin (Andy Milonakis) buys a vibrating vagina and falls in love with it, all the time while crushing on another girl; the vibrating vagina has a personality of its own and commits "suicide" when Justin rejects it.
A Real Sex-esque skit where a girl admits to having sex with two black men on camera. Two guys, Barry and Leon (Kevin Hart and Jermaine Williams), create a woman on their computer, only for her to run wild.
Jessica (Rheagan Wallace), in an attempt to become horny, puts her vibrating cell phone in her vagina, only for it to fall in. Len (Ben Feldman) wakes up to find a girl and another guy (Jamie Kennedy) in his bed, and his parents home as well; the whole thing turns out to be a hidden camera show.
Sex education teacher Mr. Matthews (John P. Farley) teaches his class with no rules and a lot of embarrassment, usually centering on Mike. Ronny (Hank Harris), obsessed with Abraham Lincoln, creates a time machine and travels back in time to have sex with Lincoln (Ed Trotta). | romantic | train | wikipedia | One of the better "Movie" films - if that sounds like faint praise, it's because it is!.
The people behind "Extreme Movie" are the same people who brought you "Not Another Teen Movie" which is one of the better spoof movies of recent years.This is not the kind of movie you'd let grandma watch.
A film about teenagers and sex is by its very definition going to be a bit raunchy.
At the grand old age of 35, maybe I'm getting a bit long in the tooth for these kind of teen 'High School' movies, but I do like comedy and spoof films so am always prepared to give stuff like this a chance, and I did find a couple of parts of this film quite funny and I did laugh.
Also for once, I was disappointed that the film came to an end after just over seventy minutes - unlike with the 'Epic' and 'Disaster' movies, my brain cells weren't starting to fry and I could easily have sat through more of the same.This is not a movie in the normal sense of the word but a series of skits with the common theme of teenage sex.
Personally, I liked the guy who went to the wrong apartment by mistake dressed in a mask to act out a kidnap fantasy with a girl he met online - "Did anyone order a rape?" - it just cracked me up for some reason - not sophisticated by any means, but funny.
This "movie" is really just a series of moving pictures from the backlot of a fourth-tier porn studio that decided to have its actors get together between takes and try to put something "funny" together.
Matthew Lillard some unknown reason inter cuts the sketches with unoriginal jokes that your father probably knows.The only tolerable bit was Cera, and it's only because he sells it, not the writing.For the love of god and all that is good, never watch this trash..
Also the talented cast was wasted (Frankie Muniz, Michael Cera, Jamie Kennedy), they're only in about one scene which is pretty deceiving considering they get top billings and are on the cover of the poster.
The movie is just one incoherent skit to another - all involving different characters, with flashes to an awful 'Street confessions' mock TV show and film editing transitions of white noise, how windows 95.
Big name Michael Cera looks embarrassed through trying to bounce off other wooden 'actors' (I doubt they were even that) involved a small role in an equally unfunny scenario.
The writers also embarrassed themselves implementing poor, poor imitation scenes from Weird Science, Girl Next Door and Not Another Teen Movie, so much it ruins the original.Overall I felt hurt I had wasted my time watching this film, the very least they could have done was edit it so it all stories were linked and thus gave somewhat correlated chronology of events, instead of mind wobbling mess of themes.
This film is about a bunch of teenagers' encounter with sex in their school and outside school."Extreme Movie" is delivered in several segments, each unrelated to another.
It is quite a disappointment considering the number of big name actors in this film.Putting things into perspective, "Extreme Movie" is way better than the recent spoofs such as "Disaster Movie".
Frankie Muniz is bland, Ashley Schneider is all looks no acting talent, Jamie Kennedy is uncharismatic, Michael Cera tries hard- in all honesty he is the only actor seemingly who tries- but struggles with bad material while Matthew Lillard is pointless.
The biggest failings of Extreme Movie are in its humour and storytelling, the jokes are unfunny and the script is really lame on the whole, while the story is predictable and almost a non-event.
I watched this movie because I'm pretty big Michael Cera fan and really nothing he's been in so far has been terrible...
however, this movie looks like it was begging not to be watched.
With a title like Extreme Movie, an embarrassing cover, and the fact that it's a Blockbuster Exclusive, honestly doesn't give it very much appeal.
However, the cast seemed pretty good, the directors made a hilarious spoof movie (I loved Not Another Teen Movie), and the writers were impressive, many big name Saturday Night Live writers.
The movie for some reason plays like a typical American Pie storyline with sketches randomly thrown in.
Michael Cera's sketch though actually had me laughing for a few hours after I had already watched the movie.
It might seemed a little biased because he was the reason I watching the movie, but really his sketch was the only one that was casted perfectly.
The best part about this movie was the credits....Why is Matt Lillard a star guest playing himself in this movie...u did Scream and Scooby-Doo.I have never done a review for a movie on IMDb but this movie was so horrible I had to come onto the site and register in order to help save others from wasting an hour and 10 minutes of their life.This movie doesn't even deserve 4 stars...it doesn't even deserve to be on this website or considered a movie.I've lost respect for all of the actors that took part in this movie, except for Kyle Gass and Michael Cera but what the hell were they thinking.
Not once did Extreme Movie refer to a successful box office movie I have seen before, and I have seen a fair few 'teenage sex comedies'.I wish I could say one good thing about this film but I'm struggling to do so.
Not once did it make me laugh, and not once did I think the film would get any better.The only reason I have given it a 2 is because of the one or two nudity scenes.
Its been a long and painful viewing experience for audiences and fans of the scary movie series as the recent bunch of spoof-movies (date,epic,disaster movie and meet the spartans) have been quite horrible.
But alas, what starts out as a hilarious opening scene quickly gives way to an utterly disappointing movie with some really awkward scenes.The movie itself is about teens going through the usual issues with sex and maturity (well just sex actually) and plays in the form of small episodes.The only probable reason to even watch this movie would be for its few good funny scenes,namely - the opening scene with Frankie Munitz,the misplaced cell phone,the mistaken room,the scene with the prostitute and the intermittent commentary scenes with Matthew Lillard.In fact,the most hilarious scenes are those with Matthew Lillard and are worth watching (but only these scenes).All in all this movie which starts out promising is just another sad excuse for an attempt at comedy,which contains mostly awkward but un-funny scenes and pretty women (surprisingly enough), with the only good part being Matthew Lillard's jokes.
I was VERY mistaken.Now where do I start, well I know comedy movies can be disgusting and gross like in Scary Movie and it can still be funny, but not with this movie.
Extreme Movie could be funny but it just ended up taking the sick jokes way too far and actually started to really annoy me.I mean, comedies can be as disgusting as they want as long as they have a story behind it and at least one normal character that can lead us through it.
Extreme Movie had neither, it was just a bundle of jokes that started to get annoying quickly, 12 year old kids playing with sex toys, just about every character was some sex addict, and it was just horrible.
It was a waste of money and time and the character you think may be the normal character I was talking about hardly ever comes up or does anything the rest of the movie is just about stupid people doing stupid stuff that gets on your nerves after a while.I could probably best describe this as a deranged orgasm in the form of a movie, if that makes sense, because I'm telling you now this movie doesn't.
First of all, I love the simple 'you-don't-think-just-watch-and-laugh'-movies.
Now let's see what this movie brings; one or two good actors (can some1 explain to me why Michael Cera wanted to be in this movie; same for the guy from malcolm in the middle) and a few good looking girls!
Together with some lame fart and sex jokes, these parts bring in the three stars I gave them.Now lets have a look at the 7 stars I didn't reward this movie with.
Than we have the jokes; these are probably not as bad as I think right now, but that's due to the acting.
The only time I was really laughing was during Michael Cera's sketch.So we have no storyline, bad actors and bad jokes.
The fact this film made the list is no surprise, as in recent years they've made a lot of similar pictures...and many have made the list, such as "Disaster Movie", "Epic Movie", "Date Movie", and "Scary Movie 5".
And, like these other films, there really isn't much plot, so I cannot really describe what you'll be seeing if you see the movie.So did I like "Extreme Movie"?
No...but it was less because it was so unfunny but because I felt uncomfortable because these films are all marketed towards teens...and "Extreme Movie" is about sex...pretty much each and every joke.
In many ways, it felt like a movie that was made by 13 year-olds....and I am sure many of them would laugh themselves silly with this film, though any sane parent would be horrified if they watched this thing.
You know this scene form "American Pie" which gave the movie its title - this movie is all about that topic an EVERYTHING else you can imagine about teenage sexual fantasies or fears.There are worse "-insert topic- Movie"s, I actually laughed a lot, although it is a very rude humor.
If you liked "Not Another Teen Movie" then this one might be suitable for you, although the level of the humor is mostly lower.Definitely not a movie for the really young or the elderly or Cannes-lovers, but enjoyable for a comedy fan who already took a shot at other "...
I am not a fan of American pie movies and things that fall in that genre, which this kind of does, what separates it from that style is that it's a few separate skits, no one falls in love, or learns a valuable life lesson to take it from crude entertainment into corniness.
They just put random scenes together, its like watching 2 minutes long sitcoms Yes, its funny, and probably you wont stop it halfway, but not worth to watch this.
If you wanted to watch disaster movie but instead of the entire thing being overloaded with cheap joke references from other movies its full of sex jokes and references from other movies..
Going into this I expected something "Disaster movie" bad , but was kinda surprised when most of the segments had some actual humor in it good enough for few cheap laughs.
The title is kinda misleading, from the "extreme" movie I didn't expect all jokes to be about sex, but oh well, could be worse, I guess.
Anyways it's still a pretty bad picture with no plot at all and some parts doesn't make any kind of sense, I though that Matthew Lillard segments were completely pointless and did they really need to have that musical number at the end?
And it most certainly was MUCH BETTER than Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, and I thought it was going to be worse since it was a Direct-to-DVD.
It had its moments, some funny bits, many Stupid scenes, and it kind of gave me a Kentucky Fried Movie or Robot Chicken feel, but definitely not as good as either.Remember to think negatively and the movie isn't as bad as you think..
So bad it's worse than Disaster Movie.
I've watched both titles and I'll admit, I laughed once during Disaster Movie (also viewing it on Cable) during the break dancing scene and the bad stunt double bit.
When I watched this movie I didn't really expect much from it to be honest, so I wasn't shocked that it was just an average American teen comedy with plenty of dirty humor.
There were some laugh out loud moments (such as the next level scenes, the Michael Cera rape scene, the portable vagina scene and most of the scenes with Ryan Pinkston in, mainly because he really plays the average teenager trying to get with the hot girl really well) and unfortunately there were some really not so funny scenes (mainly the Matthew Lillard scenes).Anyways to sum this film up, it's a middle of the road comedy with a few good laughs so if you're expecting to see a great comedy film with funny moments throughout I strongly advise you go and watch The Hangover films or The Inbetweeners movie instead.5/10.
If you want a skit-based comedy like this..I would recommend the original flick that started this genre instead, that would be "The Kentucky Fried Movie".
This is one of those films that wants desperately to be funny but ends up being pathetic, boring and in many cases, disgusting.At some points the sketches have potential, but they all end up being silly and with poor taste, some others are formulaic and lack of any fun.
The result is a lose and poorly written series of shorts about silly and uninteresting characters, some of them connected through one story (just like the fore-mentioned film), but that is not enough to keep the audience's attention through its painful 86 minutes run.Absolutely not recommended..
No, this ain't no top comedy, typical teen movie, porn movie or really extreme movie, but it also isn't as bad as most IMDb'ers say.
There was one consistent story line that it would keep coming back to, but in between there were fake commercials, skits, and even a tip to HBO's "Real Sex" where they would do the supposedly random interviews on the street....Which usually turned out with more info than one of the interviewed knew or basically wanted to know about the other (or others).I too was going to drop the movie early on, but I decided to hang in there a bit and was able to get a few more laughs...I mean a movie with fart jokes involving pretty girls can't be all bad right???
First of, the movie is meant for teenagers (or people who feel like one).
It is also true that it isn't a proper movie, but more like a collage of different sketches - that tend to be quite ridiculous - loosely connected with a teenage love story.
Some sketches don't even fit in the main story, which is also by itself very loose.But, the movie isn't meant to be serious and the viewer should keep that in mind, because only that way one can enjoy the movie.So it wouldn't make much sense talking about the acting and the scenery and all that - it's there and it's OK.
When I first saw the cover of this movie I thought "-oh my god here is another Random comedy movie" Yes this one was one of those movies that cut away from the story lines, but this was different in this it was a lot of funny jokes and surprising jokes.
All these movies have a few things common, they have the worst story lines, all those cheesy jokes, all those jokes that are supposed to be funny but there not because the joke is sooo badly done.
extreme(ly bad) movie: thoughts from an international viewer.
it was crapi loved (most of) the cast and thought they would make it, not even funny per se but entertaining.the only good bits were with Matthew Lillardi would not recommend this film to anyone with as brain or pulse and it was a waist of 75 minutes and 29 seconds of mi life1*/10*: unbelievably poor.
This is a sketch movie, and a very bad one at that.
Michael Cera is top bill, he's in 1 scene, he really regrets being involved now.this is an awful movie, and not just bad in the sense of it's ironically funny, it's just EXTREMEly bad, avoid like the plague.Mathew Lillard was this movies only saving grace.
His attempts at sexual health tapes were pretty funny.the musical scene at the end was also a bit humorous, but again severely lacking..
The film is kind of funny and similar to "Amazon Women on the Moon" and "Not Another Teen Movie."
To be honest only watched this movie, because all the reviews were really bad on this one, wanted to see if it is gonna be that bad, and yes it is, it is even worse than i thought.
Possibly one of the worst movies i have ever seen in my life.I have no idea, why would actors like Frankie Muniz and Michael Cera agree to be in this piece of garbage.
That wasn't even a movie, just a bunch of clips thrown together, every second of the movie displaying only unfunny sex jokes.Seriously, if someone finds funny a scene were a rubber vagina calls a girl and then commits suicide, they are dumb as hell.
Probably only people who are bellow the age of 10 or people who were incredibly high at the time of watching this liked it, since it has a rating of 3,8 at least.
I can guarantee you, that any person over the age of 18, who is not somehow mentally challenged will think this movie is absolutely stupid and not funny in any matter.Save your time and don't even start watching it, i wasted my time for you..
it looks like a bad school play, that the poor parents would be forced to see, if they didn't want to upset their kid. |
tt0433744 | What It's Like Being Alone | === Pilot ===
The pilot of the series aired with some anticipation. Beforehand, columnist Randall Denley had written that "I suspect [it] will be the highlight of the evening," noting the series had been described as "wondrous and fiendishly humorous." The first episode, titled "The Gurney Orphanage For Beginners," features Princess Lucy and her suitcase falling from the sky in front of the orphanage and killing three rabbits. Upon getting up and seeing the orphanage, Princess Lucy believes she has found her castle and royal family. Instead, she is surprised to find the building is full of mutant orphans, and devastated to learn she is an orphan herself. She tries to escape, but finds any way out blocked by a lake monster and a dangerous forest, among other things.
Eventually, a woman agrees to adopt Lucy. However, the other orphans see that the woman will probably not provide the best home for her, and intervene. Lucy ultimately decides that she belongs in the orphanage more so than her ideal castle.
=== Series ===
The series was continued with twelve more episodes: Themes explored include "social issues, pop culture references and humour." Due to the show having the visual appearance of a children's television series, each episode was preceded by a content warning, stating that the show was intended for an adult audience and that "parental discretion" was advised.
"Do Orphans Dream of Electric Parents?" is the second episode. It is about Brian Brain inventing robots and making them his parents, only to find that the robots want to divorce each other. In the next episode, "An Orphans Life Indeed", Princess Lucy seeks a best friend, but her vanity causes her to decide that only she can be her own best friend. Lucy then clones herself, but the clones prove troublesome. Seymore, who is in love with Lucy, ultimately solves the problem by slaughtering the clones with a chainsaw. One critic remarked that this was a particularly "disturbing" scene for the series.
The fourth episode, called "The Perfect Lesson", sees the orphans trying to perform a play to impress visiting prospective parents. It is from this episode that the show's title is derived, as the play repeatedly refers to "what it's like being alone". This was followed by the episode aired on 24 July, "The Poster Child" which is about a corporation that attempts to adopt Aldous to use her in advertisements. Aldous, under a witch's curse, must accept this shallow adoption or die.
In the episode "Fire the Reverend", a religious speaker visits the orphanage and confuses Charlie with Satan; the real Satan and his son later emerge, and Charlie finds out that while he is mistaken for being evil, Satan's son is trying to shed the perception that he is good. Eventually Charlie saves the day by persuading Satan and his son to leave the orphanage. The seventh episode is entitled "Red, White and Orphanage". It is about another orphanage abducting Brian Brain in order to exploit him in their plans for world domination. This was followed by "Sammy's Episode", which is about Sammy taking various medications, as well as shock therapy. The ninth episode is "A Tale of Almost Unbearable Sadness," which is focussed on declining morale in the orphanage and exploration of the dangerous forest.
Alternate names for the tenth episode are "Lucky Lucy" and "You Gotta Know When to Hold 'em". In it, Princess Lucy bets that Byron and Beasly cannot be cleaned and wins. She afterwards gambles more but nearly loses the orphanage in the process. The episode "Armie Loves Cigarettes" sees Armie taking up smoking. According to the Internet Movie Database, the second last episode and season finale aired on the same day, 18 September. The twelfth and second last episode is called "A Frightful Flu," and in it Aldous entrusts care for the ailing orphans to a witch. The final episode, "Silver Screen Lucy" or "The Sweet Stink of Success," is about the orphans making short films to impress a prospective parent, but he ends up adopting Nanny Goodapple and Beasly and Byron, leaving the orphanage to Aldous. | comedy | train | wikipedia | The Truth About Being Alone....
From the comment titled "What It's Like Being Amazed"***A wondrous and fiendishly humorous stop-motion animation series about freak orphans who are desperately trying to get adopted.
(yadda yadda yadda...)***Clearly, this post was written by Peyton himself - no other human being would display such bravado as to write such complete drivel about a poorly constructed show that has nowhere to go and no way to get there.
While I have to admit that the animation and set design is top-notch, the actual story lines are weak and the characters direct rip-offs of other artist's creations: a cuter version of Princess Lucy can be seen on "The Oblongs" and the dead bunny is practically a direct steal from Vasquez's "Johnny the Homicidal Maniac" - not to mention the Tim Burton-esquire "influence" that other posts have mentioned.
This can come as no surprise to anyone who has ever had the pleasure of reading Dirge's "Lenore" comic book only to later be exposed to Peyton's "Evelyn" - the plagiarism is tangible enough to choke even the most stalwart goth-wannabe.It is a shame that this show was made on the backs of the Canadian tax-payers while the art and animation department struggled to make the show funny and brilliant under the weight of poor scripts and even poorer management.Do yourself a favour and watch the show with the sound turned off - at least that way you may enjoy the beauty of the animation and art direction unencumbered by the lousy writing..
Burton Lite.
At first I was intrigued when I saw the posters advertising the show.
Stop-motion animation on TV?
what's not to like?
But when I looked up the creators I found that one of the guys was responsible for Evelyn: the Cutest Evil Dead Girl, a short film whose style was obviously taken from Tim Burton, and concept was lifted wholesale from Roman Dirge's comic Lenore: the Adventures of a Cute Little Dead Girl.
He couldn't even be bothered to change the title.
So when I finally saw the show, I was watching with lowered expectations.
I've only seen the third episode, but for the most part it's about as unfunny and derivative as his previous effort.
The style still looks like it was fished out of Burton's recycling bin, the main character is more grating than necessary and there are the usual comedy ensemble stereotypes.
Only Aldous had a few funny lines and I liked the Seymour character mainly because he was mute.
I might watch a couple more episodes to give the show a chance, but unless the writing improves I'll hold out for the next Aardman film, thanks..
One of my favorites!.
I 100% adored this.
Sammy is cute and I loved how he kept trying to catch that witch.
Aldous is so gloomy and has some nice one liners.
I hate how they keep saying Charlie is a flaming homosexual.
Has it ever been said on the show that he is?
I loved when Lucy tried to be perfect and sent away for implants and then stapled them over top.
It's kinda depressing how delusional she is (check it out on the official site).
Armie is adorable but I wish Seymour could talk!!
Brian is way to conceited for my liking but it works.
This is a great mixture of characters and I'm looking forward to new episodes and have recruited a group of friends too :).
Originality and why they hate it.
I found what it's like being alone to be a creepily hilarious and hilariously creepy.
Claymation as used in the show is beautiful and visually stimulating.Every aspect of the show was well thought of and the characters are clever and poignantly funny from the literally 'flaming' homosexual(yes it's a stereotype but that's the joke) to Army the one armed boy and even Seymour the no mouthed one eyed violinist.most people with a developed sense of humour should be able to enjoy this show though the potty humour goes a little overboard sometimes.
the show should even hook horror fans with it's bleakness or the wonderful gore-fest towards the end of the third episode.
Adittionally Peyton fans who are looking for more of his "The Cutest Evil Dead Girl" (His award winning short) won't be disappointed.
What It's Like Being Amazed.
A wondrous and fiendishly humorous stop-motion animation series about freak orphans who are desperately trying to get adopted.
They must have had a crack writing team.
They must have had a crack writing team.
Incredible animation and each touching story is as pithy as it is erudite.
Incredible animation and each touching story is as pithy as it is erudite.
Though it is appealing to a younger audience the plot lines aren't facile.
For example I especially enjoy the brilliant autopsy of the idiosyncrasies of racial stereotypes.
Dwayne Hill is a maestro of voice.
If only there were more shows like this on television.
Finally we have proof that a fantastic series with great production values can come from Canada.
I just wish there was more marketing behind it..
what a disappointment.
I was looking forward to this, being a big fan of stop motion animation.
Man, what were they thinking?
Wasting all that gorgeous animation on such awful writing?!
That was the lamest attempt at comedy I've seen in a long time.
The character with the most lines had the most irritating voice imaginable, and blathered on in a near scream throughout the entire episode.
It was like fingernails across a blackboard, it was so difficult not to get up and change the channel (okay I admit, I didn't make it through the whole episode.
After 20 minutes I just couldn't take it any longer!) And the gay character, who is constantly on fire (get it?
'flaming'?
don't feel bad, i didn't laugh either.) is such a homophobic stereotype, I'm surprised the CBC let it slide.
It feels like they just thought, 'hey let's throw some kooky characters together and that will be enough: this one will be the smart one, this one will be the nihilist, this one's gay, etc.....' The end effect was soulless and irritating.The show looks gorgeous, the animators are talented and must have worked their butts off, so I hope they get some better scripts.
They deserve it..
Incredibly Bad, Unoriginal, and Uninspired.
Those poor, poor animators and production designers on this show.
They knocked themselves out on this really terrible effort from third-rate Tim Burton rip-off Brad Peyton.Lucy the irritating monster in the toilet paper roll with the annoying voice -- completely unlikeable and enough to turn the channel before one episode is finished (never to return).
Really lame sight-joke characters.
Adult humour in an infantile format which misses the mark completely as to how South Park and the rest pull these things off so well.
Insults to gay people, racism, insults to thinking people everywhere.
How in the world did the CBC let this one slide on by?
Read on.Those poor animators...Poorer still are the Canadian Tax-payers who flipped the bill for this one.
Not unlike the endless disasters from the English Canadian film Illuminati (Egoyan and those other failures Canadians hate so much), the Canadian public who is paying for this garbage is avoiding it with a passion.
I read today that the ratings are down to 118k average for the season so far.
Which means, at some point, the ratings dropped to about 90 thousand people, across the whole of Canada, who paid for this.
It doesn't get much worse than that.
An astonishing .25% of Canadians are watching this show (ONE QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT).
It cost us HOW MUCH?
As a point of fact, the ratings have been dropping through the floor since the premier episode, falling off an incredible 40%!
Some people gave it a chance, then fled after seeing how worthless it was.
If this were in the US, it would be yanked immediately and never heard from again.
Brad Peyton's career would be thankfully over and he'd be sent packing to flip burgers back in Gander, Newfoundland -- his natural calling.
But this is Canada.Terrible writing, irritating characters, bad jokes, no actual audience that can be identified, and the whole rip-off fake pseudo-Burton/Suess/Sesame Street thing is infuriatingly bad.
So how did it happen?
It all got a blind-eye instant greenlight because Fred Fuchs signed up his name knowing he'd make a quick buck because Peyton had a deal with Tom Hank's PLAYTONE and the big name recognition that brings (Hanks needed a Tim Burton rip-off for some project).
Now the mythic Hanks project has fallen off the map, not listed on the website even, and we Canadians are left holding the bag on this..
What was CBC thinking?
This is bad beyond words!.
I'm astounded that a show this bad could have made it on a major network.
It would have been rejected as a cable access program.
The only reason I gave it 2 stars, and not 1, is because the animation is beautiful.
The writing, however, is about as amateurish as can be.
I'm sure a 6 year old who speaks ONLY Bulgarian could have done better.
It is insulting, unfunny and STUPID.
The voices are so grating that it actually caused me physical pain to listen to the show.Don't get me wrong, weird can be good and sometimes great, but this show is neither, and weird for weird's sake is just BORING.The person at the CBC who green-lit this junk should really be out on their ear.
What on earth were they thinking!
This really has to be the lowest that Canadian TV can sink..
i thought it was cute..
I first saw this show when a friend sent me a text message saying turn to channel 3 (the CBC).
Now, i normally don't watch this channel, it is usually quite boring (except for the Simpson's's at supper-time!), but i tuned in anyway.
It was a really cute stop motion animation show that was playing.
I liked it quite a bit, and i put a reminder on my television to watch it again next week.
I really liked the one character (my friend has watched this a few times and believes she is the main character) she appears to be goth, tall, skinny and depressing.
I didn't catch her name, but i really liked her.
She reminds me of a few other characters that have been in other shows.
For some reason, i am usually drawn towards the goth characters.
(my mother thinks i am morbid) But anyway, i thought this was a cute show, and you should check it out if you have a chance..
Funny writing and great animation...
what were the naysayers watching?.
I stumbled on this show much later...
I wasn't sure what it was about but thought I'd give it a try.
I was surprised that this funny, well animated show did not get the love it deserved!
The characters are well thought out and have good chemistry.
I can't believe the people that gave it a one-star on this site...
Sure, it's not for everyone and those who can't understand dark comedy will never like it but come on, even if you are not a big fan, you have to admit it is well done and should at least be given a five-star.
Not sure why people are also comparing it with Tim Burton's work.
So are they saying that every clay/stop-motion show that has a dark theme should be compared to those?
It's like having every space-themed, science fiction movie be compared to Star Wars.
It's just too bad there are only 13 episodes...
as with most CBC shows (some deserving and some not), it gets little to no promotion and just fades away.
I'm positive if the show's creator had pitch this to Cartoon Network's Adult Swim lineup, there would have a good cult following in the US..
I really wanted to like this show.
When the ads first started running on CBC las year (?) I thought the show looked great.
A creepy, silly fun stop-motion animation show for adults!
Can it get any better than this?
Well, yes it can, because after viewing a number of episodes, the beauty of the animation can only carry weak writing so far.
Each episode had a few laughs (few being the main word) but overall, this is an unfunny comedy and that's the worst thing a comedy can be.Yes, I get that the humour is supposed to be ironic and that the tragic lives of the characters are supposed to be sickly darkly funny.
Sometimes they are indeed, but most of the time their just kind of bland, or boring or tedious.I really wanted to support this show, to see it succeed as a cool new thing, and Canadian to boot, but sadly, what it's like is, well, dull..
Unique, Dark, and at times Disgusting.
Though there's not much in the way of a plot, this show does have a certain goth charm to it as well as a few funny moments.
The main characters are hapless children at an orphanage that would be considered freaks by society- a drunken fish-boy, a young man with one huge eye and no mouth, a goth, you name it.
At times they struggle amongst their friends and their own strange selves, but ultimately learn to be comfortable with who they are.
The show is also beautifully animated in stop-motion, but because it contains things such as bodily functions, foul language, and chainsaw butchery, it is not advisable for children.Somemay find this show pointless and irritating, others may enjoy the plight of the wacky characters, but most will agree that this series brings something quirky and completely original to the home viewer..
I love it!!.
I love it!!.
I first heard about this show from two of my friends and I thought "sounds incredibly morbid and gory.
Not my type of show" But really, when you think about it , it isn't that morbid at all.
At times it can be quite happy.
I love the animation style.
Stop motion takes a lot of time and patience, and to make a whole TV series out of it is just amazing.
And now, I berate all you critics out there.ahem: how can anybody say this show is unoriginal???How many other shows have there been about a bunch of freak orphans who live in the middle of nowhere with a dysfunctional nanny who does nothing but glide around giggling?
Name me a single one and I'll drop it.
Okay enough of that.
Personally, I would recommend this show to just about anybody-as long as they have a slightly sick sense of humor.
If you have no sense of humor don't watch it, it's that simple.
I love all the characters, especially Seymore talkless(the mute with one giant eye who plays the violin:get it everybody?), Charlie(the flaming kid everybody says is gay:stereotypes!), and Aldous (the goth girl:and much to her displeasure, babysitter).
I especially love how Aldous is forced to take care of them all, particularly after episode 13, where Nanny Goodapple leaves them and leaves her in charge of the gurney.The only problem with this show is that it's only on once a week and so far has only 13 episodes, when it deserves so much more... |
tt0945586 | Repo! The Genetic Opera | By the year 2056, an epidemic of organ failures has devastated the planet. The megacorporation GeneCo provides organ transplants on a payment plan. Clients who default on payments are hunted down by Repo Men: skilled assassins contracted by GeneCo to repossess organs, usually killing the clients in the process. The CEO of GeneCo, Rottissimo "Rotti" Largo (as listed in a newspaper article about his kids), discovers he is terminally ill. Rotti's three children, Luigi Largo, Pavi Largo, and Amber Sweet (Carmela Largo), who changed her name to help her become a popular singer, bicker over who will inherit GeneCo. Rotti believes none of his children are worthy heirs, as they consistently embarrass him with their robust attitudes, and instead plans to pass on his fortune to Shilo, the daughter of his ex-fiance Marni.
Meanwhile, 17-year-old Shilo Wallace longs to explore the outside world. She is constantly reminded by her overprotective father Nathan that she has inherited a rare blood disease from her deceased mother Marni which requires her to stay indoors. She secretly visits her mother's tomb and runs into GraveRobber, who is digging up bodies to drain Zydrate, a euphoric and extremely addictive pain-killer made by GeneCo that is secreted from dead bodies. He sells it on the street to keep up with his GeneCo payments. After losing consciousness, Shilo wakes up to find herself at home with Nathan. Nathan prepares for work, not as the doctor he has led Shilo to believe he is, but as the head Repo Man for GeneCo. Nathan believes he killed Marni with a treatment he created for her illness. In truth, Rotti poisoned Marni's medicine behind Nathan's back as revenge for Marni leaving him. Rotti blackmails Nathan, agreeing to keep him out of jail and with his then-newborn daughter Shilo if he performs surgical repossessions for the company.
Rotti lures Shilo to the GeneCo 1st Annual post-plague Italian Renaissance Fair with the promise of a cure for her blood disease. There she finds the Largo brothers arguing about their father's will, while their sister harasses Blind Mag, GeneCo's opera singer and celebrity spokesperson. Mag uses surgically enhanced eyes but works for Rotti indefinitely as a result, having been tricked into signing her contract in blood pre-surgery. After introducing her to Mag, Rotti stations his Genterns to guard Shilo. He then announces that Mag will soon give the last GeneCo-sponsored performance of her career. GraveRobber helps Shilo escape the fairgrounds. As they hurry through the city, GraveRobber encounters several of his customers including the surgery addict Amber, who has skipped the fair she was supposed to speak at, once again publicly embarrassing her father. Under the stupor of the drug, she explains that she will be replacing Blind Mag after her eyes are repossessed following the opera. After GeneCops arrive, GraveRobber and Shilo part ways and she quickly returns to her room before Nathan notices she was gone.
Rotti hires Nathan to repossess Mag's eyes but Nathan refuses, citing Mag's close relationship to Marni. He quits his repo job mid-surgery, telling Rotti, "I cannot do this job. Find someone else." This angers Rotti and he vows to have Nathan taken out. Mag arrives at Shilo's house and reveals she is Shilo's godmother. Mag states she was unaware Shilo was even alive, Nathan having told her she died with her mother. She cautions Shilo to not make the same mistakes she did. Nathan arrives home and forces Mag out after she scolds him for lying to her about Shilo's death. Meanwhile, back at GeneCo, Rotti writes down his will, ready to make Shilo his sole beneficiary with his signature.
Rotti phones Shilo and invites her to the Opera, delivering her mother's burial dress for her to wear. Nathan finds the GeneCops searching his basement. They try to arrest Nathan, but he quickly dispatches them and heads to the opera looking for Shilo. At the opera, Amber takes the stage for her premiere, but her performance is ruined when her transplanted face falls off. Mag takes to the stage and sings her final song. She deviates from the song's grand finale, denouncing the Largo family and gouging out her eyes in a final act of defiance. Rotti cuts the cords suspending Mag, dropping and impaling her on a fence. Rotti assures everyone that Mag's death is part of the performance and convinces the audience to stay seated.
Shilo sees a Repo Man arrive and attacks him with a shovel before realizing the Repo Man is her father. Onstage, Rotti reveals that Shilo does not have a blood disease but that Nathan has been making her ill with the "medicine" he insists that she take. Unable to deal with the loss of Marni, Nathan explains he was trying to keep Shilo safe from the world. Approaching death's door, Rotti tells Shilo that she will inherit GeneCo if she kills her father. When she refuses, Rotti uses the last of his strength to shoot Nathan. Rotti then dies from his terminal illness and Nathan dies with one last farewell to Shilo. Shilo then leaves, deciding that her father's murderous tendencies do not dictate her future and that she is "free at last" to live her own life. Since she didn't kill her father, though, Rotti has not signed his will and GeneCo does not belong to her.
In the epilogue, GraveRobber claims that Shilo fled, leaving GeneCo with no legal heir. A mid-credits scene reveals that Amber became GeneCo's new CEO and promised to change the repossession policy. | sci-fi | train | wikipedia | The Best Movie EVER!. A lot of people don't like this movie, and I think I know why. Many do not understand what is going on, due to the high vocabulary and constant musical numbers. This movie should at least be given a chance to all. I have always been a fan of musicals, and this movie has everything. Incredible music and lyrics, plus a goth/demented side that I feel will lure horror movie fans and musical fans alike. My personal favorite, is when Repoman laments while confiscating a piece of "GeneCo" property. I do not wish to spoil anything for anyone about this movie, but it must be said that this is easily the biggest cult classic since The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and is definitely a must-see.. Better in idea than execution. Strange musical film about the future where a huge corporation provides organ transplants on credit and then takes them back when you can't pay.More a clever idea then an actual working film. The music is okay. the cast is good (if uneven) and it has a visual style to burn and then some, but at the same time it doesn't amount to much. Part of the problem is the songs which don't really build characters while at the same time too much of the film is revealed via comic book style titles which move the plot along but don't allow for characters to really grow. Its something that you'll watch once out of curiosity but I doubt it'll get a second look.5 out of 10. Only for the curious and adventurous |
tt0091541 | The Money Pit | Attorney Walter Fielding and his classical musician girlfriend, Anna Crowley, learn of Walter Sr.'s wedding to a woman named Florinda shortly after fleeing the country for embezzling millions of dollars from their musician clients. The next morning, they are told they need to vacate the apartment they are subletting from Anna's ex-husband, Max Beissart, a self-absorbed conductor who has returned early from Europe.
Through an unscrupulous realtor friend, Walter learns about a million dollar distress sale mansion on the market for a mere $200,000. He and Anna meet the owner, Estelle, who claims she must sell it quickly because her husband, Carlos, has been arrested. Her sob story and insistence at keeping the place in candlelight in order to save money "for the goddamn, bloodsucking lawyers", distracts Walter and enchants Anna, who finds it romantic. They decide to buy it, but Anna insists on putting up half of the money needed for the repairs. She turns to Max for her half by selling him back what she got in their divorce. Walter gets his half from his wealthiest client.
From the moment Walter and Anna take possession of the house, it quickly begins to fall apart. Amongst other problems, the entire front door frame rips out of the wall, the main staircase collapses, the plumbing is full of gunk, the electrical system catches fire, the bathtub crashes through the floor, the chimney collapses, and a raccoon is living in the dumbwaiter.
Contractors Art and Brad Shirk are called in (the only construction company who is willing to take on the work), who summarily tear the house to pieces using Walter's $5,000 down payment, leaving him and Anna embroiled in bureaucracy to secure the necessary building permits to complete the work. His continuing frustration at the escalating costs of restoring the house leads him to brand it a "money pit", whilst the Shirks continue to assure him that the work will take "two weeks".
The repair work continues for a grueling four months and Walter and Anna realize they need more money to complete the renovations. She attempts to secure additional funds from Max by selling him some artwork she received in their divorce. Although he does not care for it, he agrees to its purchase. He wines and dines her, and the next morning, when she wakes up in his bed, he allows her to believe that she has cheated on Walter; in reality, Max slept on the couch. Walter later asks her point-blank if she slept with Max, but she hastily denies it. His suspicions push her to admit that she did so, but the damage is done.
Due to Walter and Anna's stubbornness, their relationship becomes more and more hostile and in a rare moment of agreement, they vow to sell the house once it is restored and split the proceeds. This nearly happens, but he misses her and says he loves her even if she did sleep with Max. She happily tells him that she didn't and they reconcile. In the end, they are married in front of the newly repaired house. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0009620 | The Sinking of the Lusitania | The film opens with a live-action prologue in which McCay busies himself studying a picture of the Lusitania as a model for his film-in-progress. Intertitles boast of McCay as "the originator and inventor of Animated Cartoons", and of the 25,000 drawings needed to complete the film. McCay is shown working with a group of anonymous assistants on "the first record of the sinking of the Lusitania".
The liner passes the Statue of Liberty and leaves New York Harbor. After some time, a German submarine cuts through the waters and fires a torpedo at the Lusitania, which billows smoke that builds until it envelops the screen. Passengers scramble to lower lifeboats, some of which capsize in the confusion. The liner tilts from one side to the other and passengers are tossed into the ocean.
A second blast rocks the Lusitania, which sinks slowly into the deep as more passengers fall off its edges, and the ship submerges amid scenes of drowning bodies. The liner vanishes from sight, and the film closes with a mother struggling to keep her baby above the waves. An intertitle declares: "The man who fired the shot was decorated for it by the Kaiser! And yet they tell us not to hate the Hun." | tragedy | train | wikipedia | The Sinking of the Lusitania (1918) *** (out of 4) This WWI propaganda piece is from Winsor McCay, the famed animator who decided to use his skills and so something quite different.
This film documents the German attack on the Lusitania ship, which was carrying 2000 people when it was hit by a couple torpedoes and sank fifteen-minutes later.
The film clocks in at twelve-minutes and the animation is used to show what happened and then we're given actual footage talking about how evil Germany is and we also have a brief tribute to some of the men who were lost.
This is a fairly interesting film on many levels but the biggest is because of all the fire and passion that McCay brings to the material.
There's no doubt that this was a very personal film to him and he clearly makes his feelings known by attacking Germany on pretty much every level.
The animation of the boat sinking is quite simple on one hand but I'd argue there are still some very striking moments here.
I think the greatest are the shots of the ship and the smoke coming from it.
The long, complete shots of the ship are quite striking in their animated form and just watch the way that the smoke comes off of it.
The previously mentioned tribute shows some of the famous people that died on the ship, which was somewhat questionable and especially since none of the other victims are even mentioned and no tribute is given to them.
America had entered the war by the time Winsor McCay released this film.
The sinking of the Lusitania, which carried munitions as well, swayed American sentiment, but not until Germany retracted its guarantee of not repeating the tragedy, among other issues of course, did the US ally.
McCay's masterpiece was surely as worthy propaganda as posters, as there was still fight to last a few more months.By 1918, the celluloid animation process had been invented.
John Fitzsimmons and Apthorp Adams providing such as the waves with less monotony to the task, and McCay is supposed still to have created some 25,000 drawings for the production.
As he had done with previous shorts, McCay produced a live-action introduction promoting his dedication and hard work.
His last film, "Gertie the Dinosaur", drawn on rice paper before the advent of cel animation, was the most accomplished work of animation to date.
Yet, with a cliché not to be used lightly, "The Sinking of the Lusitania" was ahead of its time--years before the assembly lines of animation studios would attain such splendor.
Where Gertie was a likable, coy cartoon--one of the first personated characters in animation, this short is a moving tragedy transcending to likeness re live-action.It likens a subjective docudrama styled as a propaganda newsreel.
It contains shots impossible to have covered, impossible to have recreated in a live-action film as of then, although probably thought impossible to create in animation until McCay did it.
There was little need for me to screen this film again before writing this comment; images of the ocean liner steaming past the Statue of Liberty, floral smoke arising from the torpedo hits, rhapsodic falling bodies, bobbing heads and the isolated sinking in the final shot to punctuate the event, I'll always remember..
Harrowing, realistic documentary cartoon by animation pioneer Winsor McCay. Although Winsor McCay is primarily known for such whimsical flights of fantasy as "Gertie the Dinosaur" and the comic strip "Little Nemo in Slumberland", this recreation of the great ocean-liner tragedy is just as remarkable.
Painstakingly realistic, the graphic detail and fluidity of motion in this cartoon are far ahead of their time.
This was actually the first film to use cel animation, as the amount of detail McCay envisioned would have made drawing each picture individually near impossible.
In fact, you really have to look closely at the human figures to tell that it isn't actual live footage.
The torpedoes striking the hull, the subsequent explosions, the lifeboats and ropes flying over the sides, the passengers jumping overboard, the attempts at rescue, and the tragic fates of those unfortunates adrift in the ocean are all wonderfully and harrowingly realised.
That the quality of this film isn't in the greatest condition anymore (at least the print of it I saw wasn't) somehow only makes it feel even more authentic.
I first became aware of Windsor McCay when years ago I read those surreal dream comics he did in the first decade of the 20th Century "Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend" and "The Adventures of Little Nemo in Slumberland".
I never saw anything quite like his art work (for that time - it was the age of "Mutt and Jeff" and "The Katzenjammer Kids".
Then I learned that he was the first major American cartoonist who tried his hand at motion picture cartoons.
I saw part of his "prehistoric" joke, GERTIE THE DINOSAUR, in some television shows - but only part.
I had heard of his twelve minute long cartoon of the sinking of the R.M.S. Lusitania, but had no real knowledge of it.
As a meticulously drawn cartoon of that sad, sea atrocity of May 7, 1915 it is remarkable.
As has been said on this thread before by others, when the ship is sinking we see little figures jumping off the ship and drowning in the ocean.
Hideous in reality, that McCay did it shows great care in trying to seem accurate.
Today it is believed a second explosion occurred from either a boiler being hit, or coal dust exploding, or (this has been somewhat discredited) hidden explosives being taken to Europe for the war effort being blown up.
Whatever it was, it probably blew out the side of the boat and caused the ship to sink in 18 minutes (not quite the 15 minutes McCay mentions in the cartoon).It was meant for war propaganda - part of President Wilson's propaganda campaign under newspaperman George Creel, which made all Germans look anti-human.
Today there would be a more balanced approach to the story - a tragedy of three governments (Britain, Germany, and the United States) who managed to bungle matters so that 1,198 people (124 of them Americans) died by drowning or freezing or injuries from the explosions.
So is Charles Frohman, the theatrical producer of plays by men like Clyde Fitch and James Barrie (including PETER PAN - in the recent film about Barrie Frohman was played by Dustin Hoffman).
It is an interesting aspect that these real photos are used, but drawing the figures might have seen somewhat sacrilegious towards these famous dead people.Unless a film about the sinking is done by James Cameron as a follow-up to TITANIC, this is the closest we will ever get to a film on the loss of the "Lucy".
If you read A.A. Hoehling and Mary Hoehling's book, THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE LUSITANIA, they mention that a newspaper cameraman was on the ship who actually took motion pictures of the panic and the destruction as it went under.
Movies of the sinking of the "Andrea Doria" are still shown and one photo of it going under won a Pulitzer Prize for the photographer (who shot from a plane).
Apparently it didn't, but we do have McCay's excellent, fairly realistic cartoon to look at instead..
Animation historians must view this film immediately, but I suppose if you can find one McCay cartoon you can find them all - they're compiled on the 'Animation Legend' video and DVD.
'Lusitania' is the film where McCay tries to escape the caricatural confines of the animated picture to produce a serious and moving film, and damn, he succeeds.
The meticulous care which he put into the thousands of drawings necessary for this short cartoon meant that by the time it was finished, it was barely topical and WWI was over, leaving its calls for vengeance somewhat stranded.
McCay's animation has a dimensionality which is worlds apart from the character animation of Koko the Klown or Felix the Cat, perhaps a deliberate differentiation from such gentle entertainments.
The grim monochrome images of the Lusitania's stern raised in the air while hundreds of people leap to their deaths while remind most audiences of shots from James Cameron's 'Titanic'.
While the barely-concealed rage and maudlin tributes to the famous noblemen who died in the sinking (as opposed the penniless plebs who we can afford to forget) now appear unpalatably heavy-handed, the elegant curls of smoke from the stricken vessel are simply powerful cinematic touches which seal McCay's reputation as one of the great film artists of the silent era.
If only he, and not Disney, had become the template for the future of American animation....
From Winsor McCay, the revolutionary animation pioneer and director of the charming classic "Gertie the Dinosaur" comes a much darker animated tale.
This film recounts the tragic striking and sinking of the Lusitania which took away over 1000 lives.
This film is highly respectful in execution, and it certainly isn't what you would expect from McCay, who normally crafted extremely funny and enjoyable animations rather than heartbreaking dramas.
But, although its execution is much different than any other silent drama on the subject could be, it is highly effective and powerful, not to mention well made!
The animation is wonderfully done, and doesn't look too "cartoony" for the depressing subject matter.
McCay creates haunting and slightly propagandic images with this invention, images that wouldn't have been successfully captured on a 1918 movie set..
McCay's animation is hypnotic and the realism is shocking.
It's all on the same horizontal plane of action, but that makes it so strong and potent to look at, since the point of view doesn't change too much, except to show people falling off the boat.
The intertitles don't help so much; they break up the flow of the images and even down to seeing the names and faces and bios on certain 'famous' people of the period (major figures I'm sure but still a distraction), and I wanted to get more Windsor McKay drawings.
The most shocking part comes with those little figures falling off the ship in droves, but each one has enough detail that they can be distinguished as human beings..
Incredibly Powerful Piece of Work & World War I Propohganda Piece..
AN OFTEN HELD and widely spread attitude concerning animation is that it is kids' stuff and not proper fare for we 'sophisticated' adults.
All work in this film discipline are somehow lumped into the not so flatteringly used term of "Cartoons." Just check how they are invariably classified as being 'Children's'.WE MUST CONFESS that we succumbed to some of this propaganda; which would appear to be very difficult to resist.
When we add to that the widely held notion that all of today's pictures are superior to any from "the old days." These are falsehoods that would be easily put to rest if only one would view some of the early animation work of pioneers in the genre; whose names are unknown to most.GOING STRAIGHT TO the top of the list and the head of the class is one Winsor McCay. Mr.
McCay was already an outstanding draftsman and true artist; who had already been well known for his comic strip, LITTLE NEMO IN SLUMBERLAND, which had run for years; being syndicated to many newspapers in both the United States and throughout the world.THE METHOD USED by McCay made use of many thousands more drawings than would have been required only a few years later.
The painting of characters, vehicles, animals, etc.
on the cell and then photographed over the background eliminated possibly as much as 60% of the drawing required.BUT IT IS this quality of rendering the scenes that are so lifelike that gives such a dramatic and moving feel to this short.
There needn't have been more length to the story telling, when the actual sinking of the Lusitania was completed in about 15 minutes!
In particular, we are referring to the depiction of the great ship sinking, one end going down with the other high in the air.
All during this time, McCay has given us the sight of many people (in long shot); who are helplessly and desperately jumping many feet off of the ship to an equally unsure fate in the North Atlantic.WHEN WE SCREENED this short, we were instantly put in the same mental state we all had when viewing those poor, helpless murdered individuals who jumped from the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.NOW YOU SEE what we mean about seeing this being a highly dramatic experience!
As history, the film deserves a 2; as its power as a propaganda tool, a 10!.
This is a tough animated film to rate, as in some ways this is a wonderful film and in others it's lousy.
When it comes to mobilizing the American public to demand war and volunteer to fight abroad, it was top-notch propaganda.
But, history has shown us a lot that was not discussed in the film.
First, the Lusitania was not an innocent passenger liner.
And third, although widely circulated during the war as a deliberate hoax, the Kaiser did NOT decorate the captain of the sub for sinking the Lusitania!!
If you ignore all the controversy above and just focus on the quality of the animation, for 1918, this is an amazing film.
Well animated with excellent backgrounds and a jerking and super-effective finale featuring a drowning mother and her child--this is an amazing film.
While most today would probably find the animation primitive and dull, for its time it was terrific.
Remarkable and memorable film.
One of the best, if not the very best, animated film I have ever seen.
It is not a typical animated film.
It is a very impressive film on a very tragic event.
I recommend this film for anyone interested in history or animation.
Winsor McCay best effort.
You must see this film..
Animation pioneer Winsor McCay applies all his considerable skills in this feature, creating a detailed and memorable account of the sinking of the Lusitania.
The technique still looks quite good, and it really brings the events to life.
The events seem to be depicted with great care and accuracy, and only the strongly-worded commentary on a few of title cards reveals the creator's viewpoint.
(It doesn't detract from the fine quality of this movie, but it's always unfortunate when entire nations of people are condemned for the barbarous or irresponsible actions of some of their leaders.
It's understandable, of course, but unfortunate.)The Lusitania sinking was one of the most notorious events in a century that saw more than enough of them.
The Sinking of the Lusitania is great history lesson as animated by Winsor McCay. I saw two versions of this Winsor McCay animation of this historic incident of the early 20th century: one on YouTube (which linked from tvdays.com) and one on Google (which now also links YouTube).
Also, the picture filled the whole screen which made some things on screen impossible to see like some of the wording of photos of famous dead people from the sinking (also obscured by "tvdays.com" on screen at all times).
On Google, however, the picture was framed enough to view all the way to the last margin on screen and had a suitably somber piano accompaniment throughout.
Anyway, what great detail McCay gave to the sinking, the lowering of the lifeboats, the moving ocean, and the two explosions along with the final shot of the water spewing for the last time after the ship goes down for good.
Since there seems to be no photographic evidence of this historical event elsewhere, this should be enough visual recording of the disaster for anyone interested in early 20th century history.
Highly recommended also for serious animation buffs..
But watching it with eyes having seen Cameron's Titanic, i found the cartoon really poor: the ship is a chinese shadow.
The attack looks like a firework.
The sinking is the best part but it's deadly slow and not at all impressive as Lusitania didn't break.
The story is as empty: Germans is accused of all vices like all usual enemy and the victims are just Who's who Big Names...
Winsor McCay's 1918 cartoon "The Sinking of the Lusitania" was designed to make the US population enter World War I.
The world has spent the past year remembering the global conflict, and the Lusitania got sunk 100 years ago this month.
Most important is that World War I set the stage for much of what happened during the 20th century.
In addition to the millions of people lost to the war, the Turkish army massacred almost half of Armenia's population.
It's always neat to see the relics of early cinema, and especially the animation.
Worth seeing, understanding that it's propaganda cartoon..
"The Sinking of the Lusitania" is a black-and-white silent film from 1918, so it will have its 100th anniversary in two years from now.
The writer and director is Winsor McCay and if you know a bit about film history, then you will know that he one of the pioneers when it comes to animation.
As groundbreaking as some of his early works may have been, this one here is where he really shines because it is about a very important event that happened during World War I, namely the sinking of the majestic ship Lusitania by the German forces.
This film does not only use animation to bring across his message, it is also very informative including intertitles that describe what happened or also lists some famous names that drowned because of the sinking.
Of course, there is certainly some fiction in this film as well, but I still believe it is very much worth watching and for me it is a contender for McCay's best work. |
tt1885336 | Perversion | Vitório Palestrina is a playboy millionaire who passes his days sleeping with, abusing, and discarding women in a small village. After seducing a young woman named Silvia, he brutally rapes her, biting off one of her nipples in the process. He keeps the nipple in a glass case as a trophy. When his actions become public knowledge, he is actually admired for what he has done, while his victim is ostracized and tormented by the townspeople.
Palestrina is acquitted of rape on the grounds of insufficient evidence and laughs at the victim when the judge gives the verdict. He commemorates his triumph with a party at which he proudly displays the severed nipple to his guests. Palestrina continues to seduce other young women until he develops a passion for Veronica, a beautiful young medical student who is not as susceptible to his charm.
To obtain Veronica's love and loyalty, Palestrina must endure a more traditional courtship: Veronica requires him to proclaim love and propose marriage before she relents. When he finally does, Veronica allows Palestrina to consummate their affair with a long, passionate episode of lovemaking. As he settles into a peaceful post coital state, Veronica calmly reaches into her purse and removes a surgical knife with which she castrates him. She then has flashbacks which reveal that Veronica is Silvia's sister.
Naked and covered in blood, Veronica slowly bandages Palestrina's wounds and says, "You promised me everything. I accepted." All the while, she envisions future times of bliss with her beloved sister. | suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | A very neat no-budget homage to Grindhouse-style exploitation horror cinema. Well, well, well......We have quite the curiosity here ladies & gents! A fairly ambitious & ballsy no-budget Grindhouse-style exploitation horror film under the title of Perversion. How well does it live up to this title?Well, if you find yourself, such as I did, making faces of absolute disbelief, disgust & and nervous amusement, then I say it did its' job sufficiently.Now, what makes this film work? Well, it is first and foremost a character study told through an exploitive manner. It starts off with a fairly modern feel but as the film continues forward, the more it devolves into its inspired roots. You get sucked into Ryan's world & plight the further the runtime sinks in, which in turn is credited to writer/director/actor Chris Moore. Despite a couple over-the-top moments on his part, he gives a very endearing performance and without him acting as the intregal glue then the film would have fallen apart.The film is further aided by the fact it generally hints around the violent/perverse moments (with the occasionally well-place graphic moment) and concentrates on the emotional/mental ringer into hell such a situation would inflict upon the character.Complimented by an old-school experimental horror movie music score (complete with synthesizer & tradition instrumentals), the film reaches the destination it wishes to travel unscathed for the most part.But you might ask what caused the scratches & dents in the paint job? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp......While due to no-budget limitations, the film was shot with a low-grade digital camcorder that appears to have a horrible interlacing built into it. This sometimes obscures the picture so bad that it is hard to make anything out and is generally distracting. The picture is also a bit too dark at certain moments. So dark in fact that it makes sure you are straining your eyes to the breaking point. The interlacing really cannot be fixed but I feel the film could have used some brightness/contrast touch-ups during the editing process. Also, the sound mix is very poor due to most of it having been recorded with the camcorder's built-in microphone which means it picks up the camcorder's motor as well as the camcorder being moved/gripped drastically. Sometimes the music/dialogue shifts into a major drop in quality too. Now, nothing can be done about the camcorder's audible motor but I would still have liked to seen a more competent sound mix that removed other distracting noises and fixed the audio levels.The film also suffers from a storyline/pacing viewpoint in the "Day 2" segment of the story. Most of what happens in this "day" does not match or blend with the other "days" very well. It feels as if most of it should have been turned into flashback footage to help further aid explanation in the story's setup. There are even a couple scenes in which their placement in the story is rather questionable. With some more creative/tighter editing, this problem could have been fixed before hitting a mass viewing market. As it stands, this is what we were given and unfortunately taints what is overall a solid effort.Despite these flaws though, this is a film I highly recommend to the following:*Those looking for a grindhouse-style exploitation horror fix *The budding amateur horror filmmaker *Supporters of no-budget independent cinema *Underground enthusiastsIf you're of this breed, you will find something to walk away from Perversion and be glad you watched it. Recommended. |
tt0038866 | Racketeer Rabbit | Bugs Bunny, looking for a place to pass the night, happens on an abandoned farm house, which, unbeknownst to Bugs, is the hideout of two gangsters, Rocky and Hugo. After claiming "Huh! Sounds like Inner Sanctum" while opening the squeaky front door, he drills a hole in the ground, dons a nightcap, descends in a manner as if walking down spiral stairs and goes to sleep. Shortly thereafter, Rocky and Hugo return pursued by rival gangsters (turning a corner where a billboard advertises Hotel Friz, an in-joke referring to director Friz Freleng). The running gunfight continues as they take cover inside the farmhouse; Bugs comically gets up in the middle of the gunfight (now also wearing a nightshirt) to use the bathroom and get a glass of water before returning to bed just as the shooting ends.
Later while Rocky is doling out his and Hugo's shares of the money from the heist they just pulled, Bugs slyly cuts in after noticing Rocky isn't paying attention. He poses as several gang members until he gets all of the money. Rocky then wises up, and demands the money back. Bugs refuses, even suntanning under the light Hugo uses in an attempt via the third degree to find out where the money is hidden. When Rocky points a gun at Bugs to extract information from him, Bugs spouts out something incomprehensible at top speed. Rocky then has Hugo take Bugs for a ride, which he gladly accepts, claiming "I could use a breath of fresh air!" Bugs returns to the house without Hugo (who is absent from the rest of the cartoon, his fate unrevealed), and Rocky at first doesn't notice. When he does, he threatens Bugs continuously (all the while demanding that he helps him get dressed). He demands to know where the "dough" is, and after promising not to look (since Bugs doesn't want him to know where he hid it) gets a bowl of pie-dough in the face.
Bugs then poses as Mugsy, another gangster (flipping a coin like George Raft), who threatens that "It's curtains for you, Rocky" as if he is going to execute Rocky, and then pulls an actual set of curtains from inside his jacket and hangs them over Rocky's head (to which Rocky admits "Aw, they're adorable."). Bugs then pretends to be the police, and has Rocky hide inside a chest while he "deals with" the police. In faux pas, Bugs acts out the police breaking in, demanding to know Rocky's whereabouts, a fight ensuing over the chest which he is in (Bugs sticks two swords in the chest, plus drags the chest up and down stairs afterwards), and Bugs play-acting a fight in which he eventually throws the cop out the window. During the phony fight Bugs opens the chest and hands Rocky a time bomb (asking "hold me watch"), and after Bugs declares he has taken care of the cops the bomb promptly detonates, leaving Rocky's clothes tattered and in shreds.
Rocky asks which direction the cops went, and after Bugs points the way, Rocky flees the house by jumping through the window while desirably screaming to be arrested and not wanting to be left "with that crazy rabbit". Bugs sighs, "Some guys just can't take it, see? Nah, nah, nah, nah!" (impersonating Rocky). | psychedelic, comic | train | wikipedia | "Its curtains for ya Rocky...
curtains, see!".
Bugs stars with Robinson and Lorre in one of the finest gangster cartoons ever!As our story begins we find Bugs making himself at home in a large, deserted house.
No sooner does he get to sleep than he is awaken by two mobsters returning from robbing the bank, Rocky and Hugo, who have claimed the old house as their hideout.After they ward off the police through the use of a revolver and machine gun (Hugo appears to be having a little trouble), they count out the money.
When Bugs seems to get the biggest cut of the doe, Rocky gets mad and grills him to make sure he hasn't witnessed anything that may get them into hot water.
He soon decides that Bugs knows too much and asks Hugo to "take him for a ride", in other words, to do away with him.
But surprise, surprise- Bugs returns from the outing instead of Hugo!After some hilarious antics between the two (including an amusing scene where tough-guy "Bugsy" threatens to give an intimidated Rocky "the curtains") Bugs fools the mug into thinking that the cops have tracked him down and are coming to take him away.
But after begging Bugs to hide him and going through several painful trips up and down the stairs while locked in an old trunk, Rocky realizes that he's better off with the coppers and runs into town, yelling for them to take him away from "that crazy rabbit!"
One of my all-time Bugs Bunny favorites and highly-recommended viewing for all!.
Bugs and Rocky make a great duo!.
Utterly hilarious and absorbing from start to finish, Racketeer Rabbit is a must see for any Looney Tunes fan.
Bugs is on top form, as is Rocky, and the two make an unmistakeably great duo, making the most of some truly juicy dialogue, hilarious sight gags and an interesting story.
Also superb is the animation, the backgrounds are very nice and both Bugs and Rocky are drawn really well.
The music is also great, rousing, jaunty, tongue-in-cheek yet beautiful as well.
The pacing is just right, and Mel Blanc's vocal characterisations are nigh-on perfect, is there anything this immortal voice actor cannot do, he never fails to impress me.
Overall, hilarious and a must-see!
10/10 Bethany Cox. Eh, ya wacky loony cahtoon.
I'll put one in ya for every second I ain't laughin', see?.
One of the things that I like most about the Looney Tunes cartoons - aside from their full-scale irreverence - is how they play off of the popular culture of their eras.
"Racketeer Rabbit" features gangsters Rocky and Hugo (resembling Edward G.
Robinson and Peter Lorre, respectively) hiding out in a house where Bugs Bunny is staying.
As soon as the rascally rabbit meets the thugs, he makes their lives a living hell.
I think that my favorite scene is when they make Bugs talk; if only we all had the courage to do that!
And then of course, there's the handing over of the dough.Anyway, it's totally hilarious.
You just might laugh yourself sick.
A veritable classic.
Of course, I didn't get the cultural references when I was really young.And don't worry about not laughing: you'll probably spend the whole time in laughter..
I watched the remake of this first....
My favourite Bugs Bunny episode ever is "Bugs and Thugs" and having watched this before this, some of the jokes in "Racketeer Rabbit" were not too much of a surprise for me, so it was not as humorous as it could have been.
I did like this episode quite a deal because of the animation, some of the jokes (which I was not expecting) and the character of Bugs Bunny in this episode.
The reasons this was not quite up to my standards is because some of the jokes are quite "scary" (like the one where one of the robbers is constantly shooting a gun) and that I was expecting quite a few of the jokes (as I have said before as I am very boring and repetitive).Anyhow, in this Bugs Bunny cartoon, it starts with the famous grey rabbit spending the night inside a big house.
He is disturbed by robbers coming into the house, which is their home and he decides to make sure that they do him no harm...I recommend this episode to people who like Bugs Bunny, to people who have not yet watched "Bugs and Thugs" and to people who like WB in general.
Enjoy "Racketeer Rabbit"!
Where's Your Messiah Now??.
Of course, I'm referring to Billy Crystal's Edward G.
Robinson routine which refers to "10 Commandments".
Yep, you get to see "Little Ceasar" here with Peter Lorre as a sidekick.
And bugs outsmarts 'em, of course.
Look for a "Bugsy" cameo.
Pure fun, ya see!.
"Rocky's Mad Now!","Take This Guy for a Ride" "He's Funny, He Makes Me Laugh, Ah-hah!" "Open Up Rocky, It's The Cops!",".....and Me, Boss!" &#.
Busby Berkely Musicals, Big Screen Biographies, Gangster Movies and Cartoons from 'Termite Terrace' all get together and spell out WARNER BROTHERS!
If you combine the last 2 you've got our next victim, RACKETEER RABBIT(1946).The Story: Starts out with 2 rival gangsters' cars driving a slick, wet highway with one being in obvious pursuit of the other, with the guns afirin' anda shootin' at each other.The guys in the first car ( an Edward G.
Robinson and a Peter Lorre caricature) pull in to what looks like an abandoned farm house, and their enemy pursuers leave.The abandoned house is being occupied by Bugs, who sort of accidentally bumps into the lawless pair.
After a Magical Bugs Bunny moment, The Edward G.
type, 'Rocky'and 'Hugo'(the Peter Lorre type)decide to "take him for a ride!" Upon hearing that, a jubilant Bugs leaves frame, only to return immediately saying,"Oh good, I just love going for a Ride!", only now he's wearing an "Old Fashioned"driving gear, Hat and Coverall.
This all being accompanied with a brief musical quotation of "IN YOUR ROCKET OLDSMOBILE" playing in the score.This is Warner Brothers Cartoon Unit at its very best!
The Colors, the backgrounds, the music, the non-sequitor situations all add up to a Cartoon that everyone should have in their own collections.And speaking of Music, Warners/LOONEY TUNES/MERRIE MELODIES cartoons benefited from having Carl Stalling as Musical Director.
Every one of his soundtracks are a mini work of Art in themselves.
Warner's Animation Department also made use of the Music Publishing Company that Warner Brothers owned.
Hence, a short 'quotation' of "LOOK OUT FOR JIMMY VALENTINE" in the score, at the opening credits.
(An Old Song about an Old Time Bad Dude!) Please, let us not forget Director I."Fritz" Freleng, Writer Michael Maltese and the whole darn great Animation Crew from "Termite Terrace" for turning in yet another Great, Classic Cartoon.And just one more name to Credit, and it's Mel Blanc.
'Nuff said!
It is an additional treat in using the caricatures of Mr. Peter Lorre and Edward G.
Robinson, both of whom did a lot of their best work at Warner Brothers.For a "Symulated Motion, Illustrative Representational Surrealistic Mood Conveyance and Emotion Propagator",* this one is really Tops!!!
NOTE: * It's a 6 Bit Name for a Cartoon!
C'mon, Schultz, get with it!.
Bugs Bunny channels Scarface, Peter Lorre, Tom Powers, George Raft, and all the rest of the miscreants .
. from America's sordid, crime-infested past to flesh out Warner Bros.
urgent Extreme Early Warning to We Americans of (The Then) Far Future about the threat posed to us by the Rump\Kushner Crime Cartel.
In one sequence early on, Bugs dons a plethora of disguises to collect multiple unearned shares of "Rocky's" ill-gotten loot, by which device Warner's Animated Shorts Seers division (aka, The Looney Tuners) aptly demonstrate how the many "shell corporations" of the Rump\Kushner Money-Laundering Vice Syndicate skimmed billions of dollars from the Russian Oligarchs, led of course by Crime Lord Red Commie KGB Chief Vlad "Mad Dog" Putin.
This, of course, helped Mad Dog turn the screws on Rump, famously recruited as a Future Fifth Columnist Quisling Mole-to-be as a Reform School Malcontent by Putin's KGB predecessors, in terms of eliminating Puerto Rican Disaster Relief, Planned Parenthood, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, ObamaCare, America's National Parks and Monuments, and the Veterans' Administration all the better to loot the U.S. Treasury and send shiploads of Gold Bullion from Fort Knox directly to the Kremlin in clear violation of the Jones Act. Don't complain that Warner Bros.
did not try to warn you of all this through RACKETEER RABBIT!.
Now on DVD!.
The bad news?
This classic send-up of gangster movies and long-time Warner Brothers stars Edward G.
Robinson (who the Motion Picture Academy never saw fit to award an Oscar)and Peter Lorre is NOT available among the SIX volumes of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection".How "Racketeer Rabbit" missed that cut is mind-boggling, especially after viewing some of the very late 1950s "declining years" cartoons that WERE deemed worthy of inclusion on volume 6.
Even worse, it's been announced that Volume 6 is the last of the Golden Collection Series.
What's up with that, Doc?
The GOOD news is that RACKETEER RABBIT IS available on DVD as a bonus feature with the documentary PUBLIC ENEMIES: THE GOLDEN AGE OF GANGSTER FILMS which also includes the 1953 reworking of the Bugs/Gangsters subject, BUGS AND THUGS.PUBLIC ENEMIES...
is included as part of the boxed set WARNERS GANGSTER COLLECTION, VOLUME 4 but I picked it by itself on eBay. The DVD is worth the 9.95 I paid for just to have the 2 cartoons discussed.Rocky: "What a minute, coppers, come back!
Don't leave me here with that crazy rabbit!" |
tt0065327 | Night Gallery | Rod Serling appeared in a dark art gallery setting and introduced a trilogy of supernatural tales by unveiling paintings that depicted each segment. The three canvases produced for the pilot were painted by Jaroslav "Jerry" Gebr (who was head of the Scenic Arts Department at Universal Studios). The original pilot theme was composed by William Goldenberg (who also did the pilot's background music).
=== "The Cemetery" ===
The first segment was directed by Boris Sagal and the following is the introduction by Serling:
Good evening, and welcome to a private showing of three paintings, displayed here for the first time. Each is a collector’s item in its own way—not because of any special artistic quality, but because each captures on a canvas, suspends in time and space, a frozen moment of a nightmare. Our initial offering: a small gothic item in blacks and grays, a piece of the past known as the family crypt. This one we call, simply, “The Cemetery.” Offered to you now, six feet of earth and all that it contains. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Night Gallery...
Jeremy Evans is a despicable selfish young man who murders his rich uncle to inherit his estate, both much to the detriment of his uncle's butler, Osmond Portifoy. Later, Evans notices that a painting of the family graveyard has changed – a fresh, empty grave appears in it and soon after a coffin standing upright appears in the grave. Little by little, the painting depicts the return of his uncle from his burial site, moving closer and closer, or so it seems, to Evans.
Cast
Roddy McDowall as Jeremy Evans
Ossie Davis as Osmond Portifoy
George Macready as William Hendricks
Barry Atwater as Mr. Carson
Richard Hale as the Doctor
=== "Eyes" ===
The second segment was directed by Steven Spielberg and the following is the introduction by Serling:
Objet d'art number two: a portrait. Its subject, Miss Claudia Menlo, a blind queen who reigns in a carpeted penthouse on Fifth Avenue—an imperious, predatory dowager who will soon find a darkness blacker than blindness. This is her story...
Claudia Menlo is a heartless, wealthy blind woman who desperately wants to be able to see. Sidney Resnick, a hapless gambler who owes money to loan sharks, agrees to donate his eyes to her for the grand sum of $9,000. Her doctor, whom she blackmails into performing the illegal surgery, warns her that her vision will only last for about eleven hours. After the surgery, she removes the bandages from her eyes, and by a quirk of fate, there is a blackout seconds later. She awakens the next day to see the sunrise, but she panics when her sight quickly begins to fade.
Cast
Joan Crawford as Claudia Menlo
Barry Sullivan as Dr. Frank Heatherton
Tom Bosley as Sidney Resnick
Byron Morrow as George Packer
Garry Goodrow as Lou
Bruce Kirby as the Portrait Artist
=== "The Escape Route" ===
The third and final segment was directed by Barry Shear and the following is the introduction by Serling:
And now, the final painting. The last of our exhibit has to do with one Joseph Strobe, a Nazi war criminal hiding in South America—a monster who wanted to be a fisherman. This is his story...
A Nazi fugitive named Joseph Strobe is constantly on the run from the authorities and his nightmares about the past. One day, while fleeing from imaginary pursuers, he finds himself in a museum where he meets Bleum, a survivor of the same concentration camp where Strobe made the decisions about who would live or die. Bleum does not initially recognize him, but points out a painting that depicts a man being crucified in a concentration camp. Strobe turns away; he is drawn to a painting of a fisherman, and imagines himself in the painting.
When Strobe returns to the art gallery the next day, Bleum recognizes him as a Nazi, and later, outside a bar, Strobe kills him to ensure his own anonymity. Once again, Strobe must hide from authorities. In a state of desperation he returns to the museum and prays to become the fisherman in the painting, but dire consequences loom.
Cast
Richard Kiley as Joseph Strobe
Sam Jaffe as Bleum
Norma Crane as Gretchen
George Murdock as the first Israeli agent | paranormal, comedy | train | wikipedia | In spite of the fact that it was mostly reviled by critics and not a few viewers, when it originally ran on NBC back in the early '70's, it now has garnered a cult following and I can definitely see why.GALLERY in its own way, did for horror anthologies what TWILIGHT ZONE did for science fiction and fantasy.
One story could take up an entire hour, while a half-hour tale could be accompanied by much shorter vignettes, some of them no more than LOVE, AMERICAN STYLE-quality blackouts, albeit it with endings that feature mayhem rather than marriage, though just as hokey.A lot of the clothes, the special effects, the skewed photographic angles and lighting are positively outdated by today's standards, but that is a big part of the charm of revisiting a lot of the episodes, many which are all too familiar to the generation that grew up with GALLERY and its peer programs from this particular era.
For example, one episode I viewed featured Kim Hunter, Harry Morgan and a very young Randy Quaid; another starred an up-and-coming actor named Bill Bixby, with Carol Lynley, Ned Glass and Donna Douglas (yes, as in "Ellie Mae Clampett," but without most of her corn-pone accent.) Based on classic short stories by everyone from August Derleth and H.P. Lovecraft ("Pickman's Model"), to Charles Beaumont and Ray Bradbury, the adaptations varied in quality, but usually never suffered as much as the original stories.
Even so, there were scripts, directing and acting that are still every bit as good as anything produced today, better even, since anthology shows such as this are in woefully short supply (though the revamped THE OUTER LIMITS is in reruns, and I've heard a new version of THE TWILIGHT ZONE is in the works.)Case in point, is one of the episodes I saw in the marathon, called THE WAITING ROOM.
From an original Rod Serling story, directed by one of the resident GALLERY helmers, Jeannot Szwarc, this was a masterfully dark Old West tale with a twist, and a Who's-Who of a cast that would put any character actor buff or fan of Western potboilers into High Noon Heaven: Steve Forrest, Buddy Ebsen, Lex Barker, Albert Salmi, Jim Davis and Gilbert Roland.
This tale brought to mind a movie TNT did not so long ago called PURGATORY, but where that film needed ninety minutes, this episode delivered a similar punch in thirty.Of course, there is the now-legendary work done in both the pilot movie and the series by some young, green, but talented kid with the unlikely last name of Spielberg, but if you should happen to catch this while channel-surfing, look beyond those prejudicial impressions, stop and give it a chance, especially if you haven't seen it in quite a while.
One of the most underrated TV series of the 1970s, and of all time, is this terrific collection of sci-fi and horror stories, hosted by Rod Serling.
Though the decision to have multiple stories within each episode, did result in some mediocre results sometimes (especially with the campy vignettes), the quality of the better segments is what most remember best.Among some of the better segments: "They're Tearing Down Tim Riley's Bar", with William Windom (in an awesome performance) as a has-been salesman who's beckoned by the ghosts of his past."The Doll", about a gruesome doll, sent to a British officer as revenge."The Tune in Dan's Cafe", about a haunted jukebox that plays the same song always."Green Fingers", with Elsa Lanchester as an elderly woman, harassed by a tycoon who wants her land, where she has an unusual knack for gardening.So many more great ones.
Narrated by Rod Serling, Night Gallery explores the supernatural from the context of an abstract painting--a different painting each episode.
When narrating his previous series, The Twilight Zone, Serling generally manifested an air of superiority to the plot--like he had it in the palm of his hand and could control it.
Night Gallery episodes are NOT concluded with a Serling anecdotal summary; instead, a shocking punch is usually delivered that the viewer is left to unravel without assistance.The directing and editing are top notch.
Simple story lines are translated into convoluted journeys of intrigue with music and sound effects akin only to The Exorcist.Some memorable episodes include Sally Field playing a woman with multiple personalities (this was before she played Cybil, mind you); an ostracized young girl who befriends a seaweed monster; a diner jukebox that hauntingly plays only one song; a man who has an earwig planted in his ear that creeps through his brain (and lays eggs!); and a young Clint Howard (Ron's kid brother) playing a child prodigy who foresees mankind's treacherous fate.Of course, there are those little, campy vignettes thrown in for fun, most of which are mildly amusing.
Often lost in the shadow of Rod Serling's first series, "The Twilight Zone," "Night Gallery" was a fascinating experiment in the anthology format.
Classic episodes included "They're Tearing Down Tim Riley's Bar," "Pickman's Model" (both nominated for Emmys), "The Caterpillar," "Class of '99," "Green Fingers," "The Messiah on Mott Street," "The Sins of the Fathers," "The Doll," "Cool Air," "Silent Snow, Secret Snow," "A Question of Fear," "The Little Black Bag," and "The Dead Man." Because one of these classics could often be followed or preceded by a story of lesser quality, the series got a reputation for being wildly uneven.
Gary Collins was Night Gallery's most frequent guest star, he played a parapsychologist named Doctor Rhode's who investigated all kinds of odd cases and his character was so popular that he even got his own series.
People don't realize this, but the original Night Gallery movie in 1969, the series pilot was one of the first television movies ever made!
His wife said in an interview that he never stopped having nightmares about the war and many of the stories he wrote for the Twilight Zone and Night Gallery deal with the horrors of war.
Rod Serling was a true genius who wrote stories that entertained us and made us think at the same time..
The Night Gallery was Rod Serling introducing tales of terror and irony much like he did for the Twilight Zone.
To me this is one of the best anthology shows ever, ranking up there with the Outer Limits(the original) Tales From the Darkside, One Step Beyond, and the great Twilight Zone.
Later episodes were added from another series entitled The Sixth Sense and they were not nearly as good as the Serling ones..
Rod Serling made a name for himself with his stunning series the Twilight Zone, after it ended, he came up with this follow up series.
The Night Gallery was a great series.
If you like classic shows like The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, The Nightstalker, and others, and classic Horror, Crime, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to go over to Amazon.com and buy the complete first season on DVD that is also includes the pilot as well today!.
Often overlooked by the phenomenal success and pop culture landmark that Twilight Zone was and is, "Rod Serling's Night Gallery" was a much different show that never really lived up to it's potential.
In 1969, Serling presented "Night Gallery", a made for TV movie that included three stories, each introduced by a different painting.
The first season of "Rod Serling's Night Gallery", as it was now known, featured paintings revealed for each story, which now included several stories within the hour.
As an anthology series, quality varied as different directors, and different script writers worked on different stories.
Along with adaptations of great short fiction stories, such as "Cool Air", "Camera Obscura", "The Caterpillar", "Silent Snow Secret Snow", "A Death in the Family", "Pickman's Model", and many others, were excellent Serling originals, such as "Lindemann's Catch", "Deliveries in the Rear", and "Class of '99".
Despite several fine episodes, including the chilling "The Other Way Out", Rod Serling's Night Gallery was cancelled.
To add insult to injury, another series "The Sixth Sense", an ESP themed bomb, was grafted on to Night Gallery in the syndication package further destroying NG's reputation.
Serling, contractually bound, introduced the Sixth Sense episodes, as if they were Night Gallery.
Years later, after viewing Night Gallery in it's original format, we can see that there were, for all of it's warts, flashes of brilliance from this series.
I loved Night Gallery,it was a wonderful show.I saw it before I saw Twilight Zone and I loved them both.My favorite episodes were the ones about the Shadows on the wall after the people in the house died and the clock stopped,The Lone Survivor about the man who goes from shipwreck to shipwreck,the one about the doll with the teeth and the one about the man who "Collected" famous people who had disappeared.The show was definitely underrated and even though they only used his name not his talent was a tribute to Rod Serling.I did recognize the comment about "Them" laying eggs and it was a chilling episode and still makes my head itch thinking about it..
My favorite episodes were "There Aren't Any More McBains," "The Sin Eater," "The Little Black Bag," "Green Fingers" and "Camera Obscura." Why isn't someone moving to put the original stories on DVD?!.
It made me angry at the time because the pilot appeared good but the other episodes that followed were so boring that the pilot is all I remember of the series..
When I ordered the series from Columbia House, they didn't have the pilot where a very young Spielberg directed Joan Crawford in the story of a rich, cruel woman who wanted to see again at any cost.
I have looked in the NIGHT GALLERY Book, but it doesn't seem to be there.Does anybody else remember this, and if so, from where?Thanks for any help..
There is no doubt that Rod Serling was a genius and this anthology series shows why.
One of the great aspects of Night Gallery , is the chance to see not only veteran stars, but up and coming ones as well.
Legendary director Steven Spielberg cut his teeth with the original T.V. pilot as well as a few episodes of the series.
After the Twilight Zone went off the air, Rod Serling hosted an even more unique psychological thriller series, called The Night Gallery.
One of the most intriguing things about this series, was that each hour-long show was broken up into several vignette-like episodes.
Though The Night Gallery focused primarily on the psycho/emotional distress of the characters in each episode, there are also elements of horror thrown-in.
I view "Night Gallery" as a television series of two halves.
However, the first half of this show - up until the end of the second season - contains some of Rod Serling's greatest work as a writer of television drama.
At its worst, "Night Gallery" makes for rather cringeworthy viewing but this is definitely not the fault of Rod Serling.
Usually with this kind of series, the viewers would see one story per episode.
The other two stories from the pilot episode are also very good.
I watched some of the third season episodes but they aren't half as good as the previous ones.
This show I also feel has became a bit of a forgotten gem, yeah I know there have been a lot of other anthologies out there some like "The Twilight Zone", "The Outer Limits" (no surprises there), but this I just really love the best and I feel doesn't get the credit it deserves.
It was done on a modest budget but I thought they used it really well and I thought the effects were solid because they were all practical, though there really aren't many which is fine by me, effects aren't what power this show.Rod Stirling is a great host, director, and writer as usual, his presence is almost easy to mistake this show for being a sequel to "The Twilight Zone" but it's not there is a difference; "The Twilight Zone" was more sci-fi and fantasy morality tales, this show is more horror, fantasy, and suspense stories.
It may have been as successful as Rod Serling's Twilight Zone have not the execs at Universal not order the time and format changed, and if Jack Laird not put in all those ridiculous short stories which didn't belong on the show!
Anyway, this was a great series, much like the Zone and my other favorite show The Outer Limits 1963!
Terror and the supernatural were the prime factors of this suspenseful horror anthology series hosted by Rod serling, which ran on NBC from 1970-73..
Though it has virtually never received as much hype as his previous series, NIGHT GALLERY is in many ways superior to Rod Serling's THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
Just because the creator of the Twilight Zone (TZ), Rod Serling, was "involved" in this mess doesn't make it better than it was.
Not every episode of Rod Sterling's Night Gallery is great, but a lot of them produce surprises.
Sterling's catch phrase "Picture if you will..." fits this format but I believe he first uttered that phrase on Twilight Zone.Though Rod is the host here, a lot of the work on this series is from others.
Some of these were mixed into NBC's Mystery Movie format, and the lengths vary from the 90 minutes of those, to one hour shows to even some 30 minute galleries in the final season.NBC had a habit in this era of attracting top talent to these types of series and getting them to show off that talent.
While there are a few episodes I would not recommend, most of this series presents good viewing.
I was feeling nostalgic recently and began re-watching episodes of "The Night Gallery".
While I ADORE the idea of a horror anthology series, this one was undone by bad writing and too much re-tooling of a basically good idea.The series is alternately called "Rod Serling's Night Gallery"--and this leads to the biggest problem with the show.
In effect, the series jumped the shark in season two.The final big problem is that even if you ignore the comedy infused into "Night Gallery", you can't deny that the quality of the serious scripts dropped considerably.
This has often been considered a poor cousin to Rod Serling's other series "The Twilight Zone", and while it isn't in that league, it did present a number of standout segments like 'The Caterpillar', 'A Question Of Fear', 'The Devil Is Not Mocked', and my favorite 'Silent Snow, Secret Snow'.Rod would present each segment/episode by introducing a painting representing the basic story to be shown, and these paintings were usually quite chilling(like 'Pickman's Model').
I am a fan of Rod Sterling's Twilight Zone, and i thought this show also would be great.
I liked The Cemetery best, because i think it had: Creepy atmosphere, good acting, suspenseful and great story.I liked the twist ending.
I think the rest of the episodes lacked the, Creepy atmosphere, good acting, suspenseful and great story.
Night Gallery was a decent follow up to Serling's vastly superior Twilight Zone series of a decade earlier.
Leaning more toward the macabre, Night Gallery's adaptation of short stories produced some memorable episodes during its short run, including "The Caterpillar", "Green Fingers" and "The Doll".
Nonetheless, Serling was contractually bound to host "NG" until its cancellation.Night Gallery fell victim to those who compared it (both unfavorably and unfairly) to episodes of "The Twilight Zone".
Also hurting the series were episodes that were not of uniform length and the horrific "comedic" vignettes that producer Jack Laird found fit to round out each segment, many times ruining what was an otherwise effective, dramatic (half)hour of television.The show boasted some fine performances and some Emmy nominated segments, yet strangely, the show was neither embraced nor promoted by studio execs who clashed with Serling's concept of what the show should be.
Listening to Wings with the Beatles in mind is the same feeling you get when watching Night Gallery with The Twilight Zone in mind.
But there are a few pretty good (above average) episodes of Night Gallery, especially in the first season.
After The Twilight Zone: The Night Gallery.
Abroms, Allen Baron, Jeannot Szwarc, Boris Sagal, Barry Shear, Screenplay/Writing Credits Rod Sterling and Jack Laird."A nightmare frozen in time"............TV writer Rod Serling was the creative force behind the popular supernatural/horror series "The Twilight Zone" in the 1960's, a series of half hour episodes in which the bizarre, frightening and unnatural filled TV screens across America to critical acclaim.
After "Twilight Zone" was canceled, Rod Serling's "The Night Gallery" came to television from 1970 to 1973.
It was hosted by Rod Serling himself, a bit older than he looked when he hosted "Twilight Zone" as he walked us through an art gallery replete with strange, demonic often very intimidating artwork.
It took years to get over the apprehension I had about "The Twilight Zone." "Night Gallery" didn't help.But watching the show, it's clear the series is uneven.
When there is a good episode, though, I have to say it hits a home run.While I don't care for the horror, it's still fun to watch so many of the actors involved.
While a few classic episodes do pop up, "Night Gallery" is a major misfire from the first season.Ridiculous "twist" endings, with no logical basis, are mistaken as being "scary." Some episodes don't even make sense, even after repeated viewings.The hour-long show should have been reduced to thirty minutes, as it was in syndication.
I've recently purchased the first and second seasons of Night Gallery on DVD and viewed them, and I have to admit that even after almost 40 years since the 3-segment pilot film, and the series itself, aired, it's still able to not only fill one's imagination with visions of all sorts of horrors, but also deals in sci-fi, fantasy, and nostalgia. |
tt0059083 | Dark Intruder | The film opens, after the murder of a woman in dark alley by a mysterious caped figure, on a scene between Kingsford and his fiance Eveleyn Lang (Meredith). Kingsford is an expert on the supernatural and along with his dwarf assistant Nikola (Charles Boldender) he is called in by police to uncover the scheme of a Sumerian demon to return to earth and take over a human body. A series of murders of women (similar to those committed in 1888 London by Jack the Ripper has taken place in San Francisco; in the San Francisco killings, however, a series of statuettes carved of ivory and depicting a repulsive reptilian head is left beside each body. In each statue found at a victim’s feet, the demon in the little figurines emerges from the back of a man, budding out farther with each crime. It as though with each killing, the demon is freeing itself from its host a little bit more. There also seem to be connections between the various four victims.
Kingsford initially consults an old Chinese curio dealer, Chi Zang (Peter Brocco) for advice. The dealer, (whose shop has a statue of a multi-armed Chinese god who may be Yu Lueh) shows Kingsford a mummified creature with a hideous fanged mouth which the priest claims is a Sumerian demon. The mummified demon is accompanied by a seven-spoked wheel. The priest says that the demon will commit seven killings, one for each spoke, until it accomplishes its purposes, according to mystic periods of time known only to itself. Kingsford picks up the small mummy but drops it when it becomes hot and leaves him with a scratched hand.
Kinsford then goes to the import shop of his friend Robert Vandenburg where they earlier arranged to meet. A shadow trails him, and in the shop, Kingsford is attacked by the hump-backed, long-finger-nailed, black hat-wearing, caped and demonically-growling figure who murdered the woman at the start of the film. Kingsford fends off the attack and the figure disappears. The police arrive, as does Vandenburg. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0084287 | Made in Britain | The play begins with Trevor being tried in court charged with throwing a brick through the window of a Pakistani man, Mr. Shahnawaz. He has also been charged with shoplifting from Harrods. Trevor is defiant when questioned by the judge. Trevor's social worker, Harry Parker (Eric Richard) takes him to Hooper Street Residential Assessment Centre, where his punishment will be determined. The centre's deputy superintendent, Peter Clive (Bill Stewart), admits Trevor, and he's allocated a room with Errol (Terry Richards).
The next day, Trevor leaves the assessment centre, to job-hunt. Trevor, accompanied by Errol, breaks into a car and drives to the job centre. Near the job centre, he buys Evo-Stik for huffing, and immediately enters the job centre. Trevor breaks the queue, demanding a job from the job centre attendant. When asked to wait, he storms out, and hurls a brick through the window. He makes his escape, and walks with Errol to an abandoned swimming pool where he has hidden some tools. Trevor pockets the tools, and hands Errol a bunch of keys, instructing him to get it into the centre, and hide it. He then breaks into another car, and takes it and drives away. He orders Errol to get out, saying he is visiting some mates.
Later Trevor is eating a sandwich in the car. Peter Clive arrives and notices Trevor in the car. Trevor discards the sandwich and walks into the assessment centre. Peter Clive tells him to get rid of the car. Trevor agrees.
Inside the assessment centre, Trevor refuses to co-operate. He demands lunch, only to be informed that he is too late. In a rage he tries kicking down the cafeteria door. The chef (Jim Dunk) rushes out, only to be kicked in the groin by Trevor, who unleashes a vicious attack on him, before being stopped by care worker Barry Giller (Sean Chapman). Trevor is then held down by the chef and Barry, and locked up in a room.
The superintendent (Geoffrey Hutchings) arrives, proceeding to show Trevor an overview of what he has been through and where he is heading - prison. He explains that the assessment centre is Trevor's last chance to change the cycle of poverty, crime and prison. Uncharacteristically, Trevor is not aggressive and is lost for words. The superintendent is extremely articulate and faces little resistance from Trevor. As soon as the superintendent leaves, Trevor is back to his usual self. Trevor refuses to keep the peace, and eventually Barry and Peter decide to send him to a secure unit. However, while Barry is out making arrangements to send Trevor away, Peter offers to take Trevor banger racing if he promises to behave. Trevor accepts the offer, on condition that he be allowed to drive. Peter informs Barry about the change of plans, and warns Trevor that he is doing him a favour by giving him another chance, and that if Trevor lets him down, he'll team up with the chef and some of the biggest lads in the centre to kill Trevor.
They go to the races as planned and Trevor is given a chance to drive, as promised. Trevor seems to enjoy the experience, but gets into an accident, after which his car will not restart. Trevor is unable to complete the race. On the drive back to the assessment centre, Peter informs Trevor that he was up against professional racers, did well. He also tells him that he could join a racing team if he wished, and need not go around stealing cars any longer. Trevor makes no reply, and blankly stares out the window.
They reach the assessment centre late and have to be let in by the janitor, since Peter cannot find his keys. After everybody has retired to bed, Trevor wakes up Errol and shows him Peter Clive's keys, which Trevor claims to have picked up after Peter dropped them. Trevor and Errol make their way into the office, where Trevor rummages through the documents until he finds their respective files. Trevor reads through Errol's reports and contract, and finds a report titled 'The Future', which reads:
"It seems unlikely for this child to return home, his mother having rejected him for her own lifestyle. Bearing this in mind, future care seems to be the alternative. We would recommend a care order be made, in order to be able to continue our assessment of his needs".
He then proclaims to Errol "You're in here for life, mate!" Errol looks confused and dejected and asks "What'll I do?" Trevor is enraged. He drops the files on the floor and tells Errol to urinate and defecate on it. Errol defecates on his files, and Trevor urinates on his.
Trevor and Errol get out of the assessment centre, and drive away in the centre's Ford Transit van. They reach Mr. Shahnawaz's neighbourhood and hurl stones through the windows, and scream racial slurs. They get into the van and drive away. Trevor drives to a police station, and smashes the van into a car. Errol is rendered unconscious by the impact. Trevor exits the van and runs away, leaving Errol to be apprehended by the police.
Trevor begins walking to Harry Parker's apartment. On his way, Trevor looks into a shop window displaying a television, clothes, mannequins, and other items. He stares at them and their accompanying price tags, intently. He begins running into a tunnel, and screams "Bollocks!" Inside the tunnel, he discards his T-shirt, and screams at a passing vehicle after trying to kick it. Trevor walks past a school, presumably his, pausing to gaze through the iron gates before continuing on his way.
It is early morning by the time Trevor reaches Harry Parker's home. Harry is busy packing, and is preparing to leave on a holiday with his family. He is displeased to see Trevor in this state. He tells him to go back to the assessment centre before it is too late. Trevor informs Harry of his misadventures, and tells him that he is turning himself in. Harry, although reluctant at first, makes the necessary calls to the police.
Trevor is seen in a prison cell, pressing the buzzer in the room. The police officer orders him to keep his hands off the buzzer. Trevor walks away, but returns and proceeds to press the buzzer with his head. This time, another officer, P.C. Anson (Christopher Fulford) enters, with a truncheon. He orders Trevor to stay quiet, but Trevor continues to provoke him, saying that he is a juvenile offender, and that he must be taken care of and sent back to the assessment centre. Anson orders him to shut up and sit down. He tells Trevor that he would be taken to court in a few days, and this time he will end up in a detention centre or a borstal, not an assessment centre. He threatens to have his fingerprints taken as soon as he leaves the borstal, and use them to convict him of every unsolved taking and driving away in the district, dating back months. Trevor is still unfazed and sarcastically sneers "Sounds great!" Anson is livid, and brings the truncheon down, hitting Trevor on the kneecap. P.C. Anson smiles and says, 'You think you're hard, don't you?' Trevor, for the first time, looks defeated. He slumps in agony and shock, his face reddening. The warder tells Trevor that he is all talk, and decries his protests, saying that he has no choice but to respect authority and obey the rules, like everybody else.
The play ends with Trevor recovering from the pain and grinning, as the warders shut the door of his cell. | comedy | train | wikipedia | Tim Roth blasted to the forefront of edgy screen actors with this bravura tour-de-force performance for British TV in 1982.
Seeing Tim Roth for the first time in this film, you wouldn't initially be sure you were watching an actor play a part.
Only through the dramatic pace and development of the film and the inclusion of other, mere mortal, actors might you let the magic slip momentarily and suspect you were watching a fictional movie, but the intensity ratchets up again, and before you know it you're looking at the end-credits and wondering why it's over and wanting more, more!Trevor on the surface is a deplorable human being: hateful, racist, selfish and violent.
In short, he is fascinating and you spend the whole short 73-minute film alternately shocked, transfixed, amused, bewildered and yet, pulling for him.If you've seen Tim Roth's other work, and you respect his abilities, you owe it to yourself to do whatever you have to do to see this film.
Set in the London I know I could relate to Trevor (Roth) as I was experiencing a similar thing at the time.
Upon first viewing I was amazed at the performance of Tim Roth playing Trevor because he was believable and he brought realism to the character.
Needless to say, I spent the entire film hoping that this desperately intelligent character would pull out of the spiral he'd got himself into.A bit of personal history, which I don't normally supply, but in this case I believe it's pertinent.
However, on repeated viewings I have consistently found this to be one of the best films ever made.Roth plays a disaffected, supremely intelligent young man called Trevor who knows far more about the world than his "betters" would wish him to.
Like him or hate him, you will respect the fact that he stands for his beliefs.Made In Britain is a film about standing up for what you believe in, no matter how extreme those beliefs are.
Following recent racial tension in Oldham and other towns in the North of England, the film's message seems particularly poignant now.There are very few bad performances in this movie, the notable exception being the female teenagers in the JobCentre.
The late great Alan Clarke (Scum) brings us Made in Britain, a tough and uncompromising (though not actually physically violent) character study of a bored and angry teenager, played by Tim Roth, one of 'Fatcher's' children.
Rather than an anti-hero, Tim Roth's character seems to be more of a anarchist anti-authoritarian (rather like Alan Clarke himself) who is locked away for admitting to what he believes in.So if you're in the mood, settle back and watch a film that packs a powerful punch.
Alan Clarke's unflinching realism might be too much for some viewers.However ,'Made in Britain' is a definitive study of the criminal mind.Roth is right on the money(as always).The movie is so simplistic ,but that's why it works so well.The movie has a great feel ,it was constructed with a series of steadicam set ups.Clarke's camera follows Roth's character in a series of long takes.The movie doesn't really have a traditional structure,it just happens.A good introduction to Alan Clarke..
Made in britain is a gritty play/movie that shows the mentality of some of the youth during Thatcherite Britain when the Tory Government were about greed and cared nothing for the high unenmployment rate and crime rate.Tim Roth plays a youth who feels that the system has let him down and rebels against all authority and anybody who wants to help him.
The language is very hard which only adds to the quality of the film and the acting from Tim Roth is of the highest standard especially considering this was his first big project.
From the minute Made in Britain kicks off, with a 17-year-old Tim Roth with skinhead and a swastika tattoo between his eyebrows, slouching into the juvenile court to the strains of The Exploited, the energy never flags.
I'm in exactly the right place at the right time."Trevor is hateful - he's racist, bullying, utterly selfish and dangerous, but he's also so bright and eloquent that the main feeling on watching the film is wonder at a society that could possible have produced people like this.
Good film, especially for Tim Roth fans.
This is a TV film by Alan Clarke but is just as good, if not better, than for example "The Firm" or "Scum" (I know many people might not agree on that) You can sense from the start that it's a film by Alan Clarke and like Mike Leigh, the actors always seems to be at their best when working with Alan Clarke.
This is true especially for Tim Roth in this film (his first role by the way) who has never been better.
In fact I don't think I have seen a better performance by any other actor in any other film than Tim Roth´s acting here.
After first seeing the film I thought that Tim Roth really was like this and that was the reason for his amazing performance.
And for the film´s sake it's lucky that Tim Roth did as well as he did because this film had never worked without a good actor to portray Trevor.
The film is about the angry Skinhead teenager Trevor who seems to be in war with the world and hates everything - authorities, school, Pakis...
A part of me wants to give it 10/10 because I have seen it ten times and are still fascinated by it, but when I think and compare it to other good films I notice its lack of story and feel it might only deserve 5-6/10.I can also feel like it romanticizes racists and racism but I guess that is only in the eye of the beholder...
) I had a small recollection of certain scenes from the movie ( mainly the pissing and shitting on the files ) I have to say, that now at the age of 35 and watching this movie for the second time I was totally blown away by Tim Roth's performance!!
I will definitely seek out all his roles on IMDb, and follow his career, I was blown away by his acting skills in Made in Britain, and will now recognise him as a stand alone actor rather than just another face amongst many talented actors ( which is what I thought during pulp fiction ) Thank you ENGLAND, British, U.K , for the most talented actors and the best of British films :o) This one is timeless to all of us who lived the 80's and more!a must see film, no matter you religion, faith or background, the acting alone is worth a view.
We got a young and promising Tim Roth here playing Trevor the juvenile delinquent skin head.
I've always admired and liked Tim Roth, believing him to be one of the U.K's finest acting exports.
I found this DVD at a local CashConverters for 99p and it sat on my shelf for a year.Finally seeing it, it did not surprise me that within ten minutes, not only had skinhead Trevor (Roth) stolen a car but was also sniffing glue, with his room-mate from the open assessment detention centre that the Court had only just sent him to.I so wanted not for this to be a catalogue of 'let's be as nasty racist criminals as we possibly can' but couldn't see how it would not be.
As a pertinent statement on Thatcher's Capitalist Britain it certainly hits hard, with Roth being very believable and natural, his facial configurations often being a whole act in themselves.The film does try and breakdown how the bright Trevor got to this stage in life, which to do in a credible way, is commendable.
What makes this film work for me is that it presents Trevor's side of the argument without much editorial comment from the "authorities" who believe that they always know what's best for the rest of us.
Best of all, he doesn't change, or break down and cry, like Edward Norton's character in "American History X." After all, if you really believe in something, speeches won't make a bloody bit of difference.When watching this film, if you're not of the same mind as the main character, try to understand and identify with him.
Tim Roth's preformance as the social degenerated, rebel without a clue skinhead, Trevor, is unflinching and enigmatic.
The story follows a young skinhead, who's thrown away every chance he's had at going straight;now 16, he has a criminal record, and offends every one from his probation officer to the secretaries at the Job Centre, upto the point where he's dug his hole too deep.The film was origionally written for TV, not for theatre, but has been regarded as a cinematic success since it's time.
Tim Roth is wonderful in this early film in his career.
I was certain that I'd see much more of Tim Roth in the years to come--absolutely a shattering, must-see performance.
His compulsive need to defy authority overrides everything, and he simply refuses to stay out of trouble.Directed by Alan Clarke ("Scum"), and scored by anarchist musicians The Exploited, this gets a lot of juice from the magnetic performance by Roth.
He gave breakthrough roles to Ray Winstone in SCUM and Gary Oldman in THE FIRM and in 1982 gave an unknown actor called Tim Roth the lead in this television drama from David Leland .
Remembering my own teenage years wanting to strike back at the oppressive and hypocritical and frankly BS nature of society there is an aspect of recognition that means I could empathise with Trevor and like SCUM this television play was a very memorable for any teenager who saw it .
The movie doesn't emphasize to the reasons that led anti-hero Trevor to this situation but shows the uncontrollable anger of a young man who's dealing with everything that surrounds him (historically that time was very tough for the English people due to Thatcherism).
Roth's incredible performance as a rebellious and difficult skinhead embodied the alienation and rage felt by many young, white males, myself included.Like Clarke's other brutal masterpiece, 'Scum', 'Made In Britain' is an important antidote to the slick 'brat pack' flicks that came out of Hollywood during the 80s and an important social document of how Thatcherism (and its New Labour descendants) dealt with its discontents.As a teenager, Trevor was my hero.
"Made in Britain", a made-for-TV movie directed by the master director of British juvenile delinquent films, Alan Clarke ("Scum", "The Firm") introduces Tim Roth, in his outstanding screen debut role, as the neo-nazi skinhead Trevor, a nihilistic and ravenous 16 years old lad that roams the streets looking for trouble supporting a tattooed swastika on his forehead and a heart full of hate.
"Made in Britain" it's a gritty & obscure piece of work somewhat depressing, but with a poignant feel to it, shot almost like a documentary allowing the viewer to follow a couple days in the life of a degenerated skinhead until he disgraces his life forever.
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Trevor (Tim Roth) is a skinhead with a Nazi symbol tattooed on his forehead roaming the streets of London with no respect and no regard for authority.
Alan Clarke died in 1990, so his work was just about before my time, but it seems the bloke sure knew how to make a shocking film, with his most well known feature Scum and a few years down the line this very short but undeniably hard-hitting piece (which copies the aforementioned film's effective strategy of not having a soundtrack.) In his debut role, Tim Roth takes the lead and, despite his more calm, composed presence off screen, here he somehow manages to convincingly portray a dangerous and violent rebel completely off the rails and with little hope of redemption.
You obviously don't understand that this is a benchmark film in the career of Tim Roth.
Not to say that the lead character Trevor wasn't entirley correct on his views but there are still people in society who have come from broken homes and this film is still relative.
This was the first movie I saw Tim Roth in and it made him one of my favorite actors.
This film is one of, if not the, earliest appearance of Tim Roth on screen.
Most commonly reviewed on the basis that it represents '80's Britain' and is 'Britain how I remembered it' this is a story of Trevor the 16 year old skinhead who has no respect for authority, anarchistic tendencies as a result of a misspent youth with no father figure, and a mean racist streak.
In this sense the film isn't stuck in the 80's and that's why I feel it is still relevant today.Tim Roth was excellent and you can see why such a performance got him noticed.It's not a long film, but doesn't need to be.
They could've quite easily added an extra 20 minutes onto the end of the film to make it feature length, but the way it ended was a great example of letting the viewers make up their own mind about what was eventually going to happen to Trevor.As much of a despicable character Trevor is you do feel sorry for him.
While listing to Skinnyman's album: Council Estate Of Mind, I was curious of a angry young man swearing at cursing at everything.I bought the film since I'm also a fan of Tim Roth, and i'm very happy with my choice.
Kick-a$$ film.Skinhead Trevor wonders around London, nicking cars, attacking Pakis and being a bit of a *ucker really.
Having been a fan of both Tim Roth and Gary Oldman for quite some time, I made it my mission to see the films that started their careers, and this was the film for Roth.Roth plays a out-of-control teenager, whos one step away from jail, and one step away from losing everything.The story centers on Roth's actions and behaviour, most of which will make you laugh by todays standards, nevertheless, this is a perfect example of young british talent at its best, forget all the pretty boy actors nowadays, this is what makes an actor.Despite what I thought it would be like, this film flew by, and enjoyed every second of it, I recommend it to those that enjoy seeing where actors came from, rather than where the pretty boys came from.7/10.
The films, all written by Leland, were a reaction to Margaret Thatchers political regime, and Made in Britain depicts the sort of character that was emerging from the increasingly violent and racist youth culture of the time.When we first meet Trevor (Tim Roth in his debut), he is being tried in court for throwing a brick through a Pakistani family's window and shoplifting.
Normally, someone like Trevor would be an unbearable character to spend 70 minutes with, but Roth, Leland and Clarke make him into a fascinating embodiment of nihilism.
now take your pretentious, self absorbed vapid remarks about a great film, and stick them up your arse (to quote Trevor) ;-) oops the Nazis at IMDb wont post this unless i get 10 lines, so i'll carry on with my tirade with 'play333r' (oh the irony) This film, (if you grew up in the 80's) has resounding effects on people just like me (i.e i'm NOT middle class) Luke i wish you all the luck in the world (i'm sure you'll inherit a good amount) but to dismiss a great bit of British/social filmaking is just ignorant...
His facial expressions were also a treat at times, especially at the end when you realise there is just no hope for him.Obviously this film is not for everyone, as it deals with the kind of issues you would expect from the director of the firm and scum.
I first seen Made in Britain as a thirteen year old skinhead living in Belfast, and needless to say in 1983 Britain was as grim as it was portrayed in the play it brought sharply home to me the realisation that i was personified as a mindless racist thug of which i am none, it was more the hard nut image i wanted and my mates and me all saw Trevor in each and every 1 of us.
It was the must see film of the moment and i personally feel it has stood the test of time, along with Ray Winstone, I feel that Tim Roth is vastly underrated and as this performance at such a young age shows, how adaptable he is this is a British classic and 1 not to miss..
Anyway, Tim Roth is great as the uncontrollable Trevor and as you know, thisrole gave him such acclaim.
I don't think I am alone when I say these things; however, I hesitate to talk about how this movie stacks up to other films about skinheads, particularly American HISTORY X.
The fact that both movies include the nationality of the main characters says it all--as much as we might like to think that all skinheads are alike, insomuch as they are all equally stupid, Trevor wouldn't make sense in America and Derek Vinyard (Ed Norton's Chararter in AHX) wouldn't make sense in Britain.
"Made In Britain" follows Trevor, a 16 year old thug, thief, vandal, sociopath, over a three day period - but in this very short time frame his young life moves out of one phase and into another.
To those of you who gave this movie a good rating, you can go on all you want about how the characters shocked and captivated you all you like.
With a few recognisable characters from ITV's Crossroads and The Bill, and an excellent role played by Tim Roth, who most people seem to think started acting a week before Reservoir Dogs was cast. |
tt0042825 | The Outriders | With the Civil War nearing an end, rebel soldiers Will Owen, Jess Wallace and Clint Priest are released in Missouri from a Union stockade. A bandit leader and Confederate sympathizer, Keeley, recruits them to join a wagon train run by Don Chaves that is carrying a million dollars' worth of gold bullion.
The men see it as a chance to help the South and also profit. Don Chaves is suspicious of them, but permits them to be outriders, accompanying the wagon train but staying 200 yards from the others. Apaches attack and the three men help fend them off, gaining the Don's trust.
The beautiful widow Jen Gort attracts the interest of Will and Jess, who have a falling out. She is escorting teenaged Roy, her young brother-in-law, who is eager to prove his courage to the older men by fighting Indians by their side. The boy ends up inadvertently causing a stampede, however, then drowns while attempting to cross a raging river.
News comes that the war is over. Because of that, plus his love for Jen and admiration for the Don, the robbery no longer interests Will, but Jess is determined to go through with it so that he and Keeley can split the money. A gunfight ends in Jess's death, so that Will and Jen can go on with their lives. | violence | train | wikipedia | Decent Western with spectacular outdoors , colorful photography , nice direction and great cast.
MGM Western movie with glimmer Technicolor cinematography , impressive landscapes and including romance of the daring pioneers of the West .
Late in the American Civil War, from an Union prison called Camp Benton, our handsome hero, a Confederate Sergeant called Will Owen (Joel McCrea) is imprisoned at a hard Northern jail , he is a highly respected Southern official .
But he escapes along with Jesse Wallace (Barry Sullivan) and Clint Priest (James Withmore) .
Soon fall into the hands of pro-Confederate raiders, followers to leaders Bushwhackers as Quantrell and Anderson , such as as Keeley (Jeff Corey) and Bye (Ted De Corsia) , two roguish confederate rebels , both of whom have a war task for them who force them to act as "outriders" or escorts for a civilian wagon train that will be secretly transporting Union gold among the personal possessions in the caravan of Don Antonio Chaves (Ramon Novarro) from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to St. Louis, Missouri .
Meantime , Will Owen falls in love a beautiful woman named Jen Gort (Arlene Dahl) , a recent war widow, who is accompanied by her teenaged brother-in-law Roy Gort (Claude Jarman Jr.) .
Here filmmaker Roy Rowland delivers a nice film , however he could be counted on to deliver solid "B" pictures which, at MGM, were often better than most other studios' "A" pictures .
Brief character studio about three escorts or outriders , Joel McCrea/Barry Sullivan/James Withmore they became friends despite their differing personalities , until the inevitable final conflict .
The highlights of the movie are the spectacular as well as violent getaway from Benton Missouri Camp and the sensitive dance between Arlene Dahl and the sex-hungry soldiers .
Very good support cast such as James Whitmore , Ramon Novarro , Jeff Corey , Alex Montoya , Ted De Corsia and a young Claude Jarman Jr of Rio Grande and The yearling .
Rousing and breathtaking musical score by Andre Previn who married Mia Farrow The motion picture lavishly produced by Richard Goldstone and MGM studios was well directed by Roy Rowland .
Roy spent quite a bit of time at the studio, from 1943-51 and again from 1954-58 ; he had the good fortune to marry the niece of Louis B.
His final film as director was a somewhat cheesy pirate movie (he was uncredited ; his Italian co-director Sergio Bergonzelli got sole credit) called El Tigre De Los 7 Mares and its sequel : Tormenta Sobre el Pacífico (1966).
Just look at the supporting actors: James Whitmore, Barry Sullivan, Ramon Novarro and, of course, Jeff Corey as the very reasonable, psychopathic Southern raider Keeley.
In 1950, MGM still had the production staff and budgets to make its movies look great.
"The Outriders" is an example of what the old Hollywood studios did best: turning out technically well made, interesting movies by the dozens each year.
It has a great typical western story about three Confederate prisoners who escape (McCrea, Barry Sullivan and James Whitmore) and end up with some Quantrill's followers commanded by Jeff Corey.
Corey sends them on a mission to join a caravan which is leaving Santa Fe, which is carrying gold, and whose leader is the notorious silent movie actor Ramon Novarro.
2) there is a dance with the men drunk, and Arlene as the only woman tries to dance with them all and ends up dancing with McCrea, very sensual scenes.
The budget and production values are always restrained, but the strength of the studio system shows in excellent lighting and color plus a number of realistic outdoor scenes blending finely with studio effects.
Other reviewers noted the convincing mattes of Santa Fe, but I felt almost intoxicated by the deep blue sky-backdrop to the camping scene that turns from a comic riot to a dance of love.The other virtue of the studio system is the stable of professional actors who perform their roles not to steal scenes but in service of the plot.
Joel McCrea may excel even Randolph Scott in saying the most with the least words while never ever lying--the Western-hero actors of their generation internalized completely the cowboy as a latter-day knight, and the alchemy of script and star is fascinating.
The scene is all about sex, but the actors, the script, the direction, and the genre completely control the sexuality's expression.In the supporting ranks James Whitmore, not yet 30, is convincing as an old-coot warrior-sidekick with kidney trouble, while Ramon Navarro--a former sex symbol entering his 50s--plays a Mexican padrone who's still got chops.
But those same qualities make its most beautiful moments somewhat understated, like something even better might once have been imagined but for now they need to finish a movie..
Joel McCrea did another western with a similar premise to The Outriders for Warner Brothers in South of St. Louis.
Joel McCrea, Barry Sullivan, and James Whitmore are Confederate prisoners who escape in early 1865.
The trio either goes west to Santa Fe to act as Judas goats and lead a gold train into ambush or die right there.
Even the always honorable Joel McCrea sees he has no options here.The rest of the story is how the conflicts internal and external are resolved and how the three escaped prisoners decide what course they have to take.
Oh, and Joel McCrea meets up with Arlene Dahl and she kind of helps him along in the decision process.The movies never had a more honorable or stalwart hero than Joel McCrea.
It's a tribute to McCrea that if he insisted on always being the stalwart hero, he had the talent and personality to carry it off.It's familiar ground for Joel McCrea, but western fans will like the story and the gorgeous technicolor photography that captures it..
So I suppose this film would have just been another oater for me but for that one small detail.The Outriders was a typical late '40s western movie, so the only reason I decided to watch it was that I like Joel McRea. Otherwise I might have passed on this 55 year old sage brush saga.
But once it started, the female lead, Arlene Dahl, caught my eye.Ms. Dahl could have been just another late 1940s blonde, blue eyed movie star in another late 1940s oater except for two things.
Head honcho Will Owens (McRea) tells Jen Gort (Ms. Dahl) to stay in the wagon to avoid getting the trail hands stirred up, but when the men break out fiddles and guitars and start singing around the camp fire, she comes out, dressed to the nines with her dancing shoes.
THE OUTRIDERS is a good workmanlike Western.
Joel McCrea gives his usual conviction to the hero role, with Barry Sullivan nicely devious as his comrade/rival.
Arlene Dahl looks great, but tends to pout a bit much, James Whitmore lends sturdy support in the type of role normally played by Walter Brennan, Claude Jarman Jr. plays another of his doomed youths, and Jeff Corey is quite extraordinary as the villain (with almost expressionist make-up, and did he intend to imitate Kirk Douglas?).But the movie is stolen by silent screen legend Ramon Novarro in one of his more substantial later roles.
This film has an excellent premise, a solid cast, beautiful scenery, and a fine (if brief) score.
I put the blame on directing and writing that isn't very compelling or incisive.The same can be said of other MGM films from the late 1940's and early 1950's that I've seen.
For some reason, MGM films from around this time tended to pull their punches..
Joel McCrea was no more the romantic lead of "Colorado's territory" which was made the year before.At the beginning of the movie he is a bearded man and seems much older than the year before ."The outriders" is a routine western,but an entertaining one,with at least two very good scenes:Arlene Dahl's young brother-in-law ,on guard,afraid of everything,and seeing Indians everywhere ,this very short sequence packs a real wallop; and the scene of the river which almost compares favorably with that of Vidor's "northwest passage".Although the plot is much predictable -with gorgeous Dahl,it could not be any other way-,the plot retains suspense and the colors are fine..
Joel McCrea in an atypically wooden performance as a Confederate soldier who, along with two friends, escapes from a Union prison camp in the last year of the Civil War, wrangled by a Rebel troop into taking bushwhacking job robbing a Yankee wagon train of its gold bullion.
There's a neat scene midway through where the men attempt to have a square dance without any women; and when lone female Arlene Dahl finally joins in, McCrea has a wonderful moment where he changes her shoes.
Otherwise, Barry Sullivan is about the sorriest cowboy in '50s westerns, and a nearly-unrecognizable James Whitmore is wasted as a grizzled soldier.
McCrea and Sullivan fight over Dahl, predictably, without ever asking her whom she prefers, while the other relationships in this caravan are practically non-existent.
Good supporting cast, including an almost-grown up Claude Jarman, Jr., and nice Technicolor photography, but alas, this yarn is strictly rote.
The Outriders is directed by Roy Rowland and written by Irving Ravetch.
It stars Joel McCrea, Arlene Dahl, Barry Sullivan, James Whitmore, Ramon Novarro, Jeff Corey and Claude Jarman.
Music is by Andre Previn and cinematography by Charles Schoenbaum.Plot sees McCrea as Will Owen, the alpha male of three Confederate prisoners who escape from Camp Benton Stockade and promptly get recruited by one of William Quantrill's Bushwhacker units.
Assigned to infiltrate a Don Chaves (Novarro) run wagon train that's carrying a fortune in gold, the men must deal with Indians, each other, and the hazards that the journey throws up.
Be it his views on the unsavoury tactics employed by Keeley's (Corey) Bushwhackers, and his place as the undercover leader leading the wagon train to doom, or the positioning of his feelings - and others around him - towards the female of the group (Dahl) and that of her teenage brother-in-law.
Owen is definitely in emotional turmoil.From an action stand point the pic doesn't short change, with Indian attacks, internal fisticuffs and a rousing chase followed by the big siege finale, all of which are delivered admirably and scored robustly by Previn.
The aforementioned square dance sequences showcase her sexual beauty, with flaming red hair and glorious emerald green shoes acting as glorious crowns to a most appetising filling.Yes the story is soft, and anyone jaded by the formula of many 1950s Westerns should probably avoid this one - with most almost certainly knowing how it's going to pan out anyway.
Joel McCrea and two colleagues (James Whitmore, Barry Sullivan) are Confederate prisoners who escape from a Union POW camp and hook up with a faction of the notorious Quantrill's Raiders in Missouri and join a plot to ambush a Union wagon train hauling gold from New Mexico to St. Louis.This is one of McCrea's lesser efforts, although MGM put a lot of money and glitz into it.
Barry Sullivan is wildly miscast as a roguish New Orleans playboy, Arlene Dahl has nothing to do but stand around, look gorgeous--which she does extremely well--and let Sullivan and McCrea fight over her.
Ted DeCorsia, one of the great movie heavies, was occasionally cast in westerns, but never really fit in--he was the personification of a bad-ass New York tough guy and he just couldn't escape that--and here he plays one of Quantrill's gang who accompanies the trio to New Mexico to keep an eye on them while they worm their way into the wagon train.
For some unfathomable reason, he simply vanishes about halfway through the picture--he's sent back to notify the raiders that the wagon train is on the way and he's never seen again.
These holes in the script aren't really major flaws, but indicative of how sloppy this picture can get.The direction by MGM vet Roy Rowland is sluggish--westerns weren't really his specialty--and the script is pretty predictable.
Whitmore gives it his best, as he always does, but McCrea doesn't seem to have his heart in it and pretty much sleepwalks through the picture, though he does come alive in a few scenes.
It's a fair-to-almost-middling western, and if you're a McCrea fan I guess you'll like it a lot more than I did, but it's really nothing to write home about..
Confederate prison escapees plan to hi-jack a Union gold shipment and divert it to the South.
For once, MGM's tendency to over-produce its horse operas gives way to a wise use of money for a western.
Instead, the production makes excellent use of its scenic Kanab, Utah, locations, along with a fine A-list cast and enough extras to make the battle scenes interesting.
Sure, a hi-jacked gold shipment and a rivalry between sometime buddies (McCrea & Sullivan) are familiar plot devices.
Nonetheless, it's a better-than-average script, with several good touches (e.g. Sullivan's loaded gun at the end).That river-crossing scene is clearly the movie's centerpiece and is impressively done.
I'm guessing those were not easy scenes to film.Anyway, it's a fine McCrea western even though he gets less focal time than usual..
During the last year of the US Civil War, confederate prisoners Joel McCrea (as Will Owen), Barry Sullivan (as Jesse Wallace), and James Whitmore (as Clint Priest) escape from a Union prison camp.
They hook up with a band of cutthroats led by Jeff Corey (as Keeley) and join a plot to steal gold from wagon master Ramon Novarro (as Antonio Chaves), which would help the Confederacy.
Among those on Mr. Novarro's wagon train are an arousing blonde widow Arlene Dahl (as Jen Gort) and her young brother-in-law Claude Jarman Jr.
Still slumbering along without ever catching fire, "The Outriders" is a colorful, well-cast but routine western.
Former "silent" star Novarro gives an note-worthy supporting performance.****** The Outriders (3/1/50) Roy Rowland ~ Joel McCrea, Arlene Dahl, Ramon Novarro, Barry Sullivan.
"Gun Glory" director Roy Rowland's "The Outriders" is an American Civil War western set during the twilight days of the conflict with actors Joel McCrea, James Whitmore, and Barry Sullivan cast as three Confederates who escape from a Union prison camp and make their way west.
Anyway, the three escape after Sullivan kills a Union guard and they find themselves eventually to the camp of Confederate renegade terrorist Keeley (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") and his minion Bye (Ted de Corsia of "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral").
Everything appears to be going according to plan, except that Will Owen (Joel McCrea) is losing his allegiance to the cause.
He meets and falls in love with Jen Gort (Arlene Dahl of "Land Raiders") and he changes his mind.
Rowland stages several good genre scenes, but the one that stands out prominently is the scene when our heroes must cut wood to get the wagon trail across a rapidly flowing river that has risen far above its normal level.
Although not as good as "South of St. Louis," "The Outsiders" is nevertheless a solid western well worth watching..
This film begins in a Union prison camp filled with Confederate prisoners.
Three of them (Joel McCrea, Barry Sullivan and James Whitmore) escape and eventually meet up with Confederate raiders.
During the war, raiders were Southern soldiers who are a bit more like bandits and specialized in making fast strikes on mostly civilian targets in the North.
However, there are a few complications, Will Owen (McCrea) is a decent guy and his conscience bothers him about leading the folks into an ambush.
Second, Jesse Wallace (Sullivan) is a bit of a scum-bag and Will needs to keep an eye out for him as well...especially since Jesse is much more concerned about making himself rich instead of helping his cause.
Finally, Will likes these folks and has fallen for one of the women (Arlene Dahl).
Still, despite this, McCrea was such a wonderful actor in westerns that I was able to cut the film some slack.
My only gripe is late in the film when Will tells everyone he HAD intended to lead them into an ambush...and never really explains why he was planning on doing this.
His doing it for his Confederacy is far different than his possibly being a bandit since he'd just learned that the war was over!!!By the way, one of the interesting bits of casting here is Ramon Novarro as Don Antonio.
But with time and changing tastes, in the 1940s, Novarro made very, very few films and this is one of your rare opportunities to see the middle-aged actor..
McCrea, Sullivan, and Whitmore escape from a Yankee prison camp during the Civil War. In the process, Sullivan manages to stab the young guard multiple times with what seems like a bit too much relish.
James Whitmore is an elderly soldier with kidney stones.The three men are swept up in a gang run by one of Quantrill's lieutenants.
After the war, some of Quantrill's raiders continued their criminal activities for their own benefit, including Jesse James.This particular band of raiders is led by Jeff Corey who coerces the escaped prisoners into guiding a wagon train full of Mexicans, refugees, and gold from Santa Fe into an ambush.
Among the travelers is Arlene Dahl, looking splendid in her echt-Hollywood fashion, and her nephew, Claud Jarmon, Jr., who wants to prove his manhood -- always a bad sign.The Civil War ends before the train reaches the ambush site but it's revealed that Sullivan knows that the gold would never have reached Richmond anyway.
Sullivan leaves the train and joins the gang.The film would be utterly routine and without interest if it weren't for a couple of elements.
McCrea by this time is perfectly willing to miss the ambush date and suggests camping until the current subsides -- if it ever does.
The climax is more or less predictable.This was released in 1950 and Joel McCrea had already decided to work on nothing but Westerns. |
tt1924394 | The Angels' Share | In the opening scenes, the protagonists are sentenced to hours of community payback. During his first community payback session, Robbie (Paul Brannigan), under the guidance of Harry (John Henshaw), is interrupted and taken to the hospital by Harry as his girlfriend, Leonie (Siobhan Reilly), has gone into labour. At the hospital, Robbie is assaulted by two of his girlfriend's uncles and her dad (Gilbert Martin) before he can see her. Harry takes Robbie back to his house to clean him up, at which point Leonie calls to announce Robbie's son, Luke, has been born. Harry insists that he and Robbie celebrate, and brings out a vintage whisky. With Leonie's encouragement, Robbie agrees to meet with a victim of his former violent crimes, Anthony (Roderick Cowie), who recollects the attack in front of both his family and Leonie. Afterwards, Leonie makes clear that she does not want her son to grow up around violence and long-term feuds.
Harry takes the group to a distillery as a reward for their good behaviour, where they learn what "the angels' share" is. Afterwards, the tour guide gives them each a dram of whisky and asks them to smell it, and Robbie is complimented on his ability to identify flavours.
However, Robbie is still being pursued by his old enemy, Clancy (Scott Kyle). He is about to undergo a beating by Clancy and his followers when he is unexpectedly rescued by Leonie's father. Robbie pleads to be given one last chance but the older man tells him that it's too late, and even if he wanted to change, he cannot escape the feuds and violence of the world he grew up in. Leonie's father tells him that the only way for him to escape the cycle is to leave Glasgow altogether and go to London, but without Leonie. He offers Robbie £5,000 to sweeten the deal and leaves Robbie to think it over.
At the next community service session, Harry approaches Robbie and asks if he'd like to come to a whisky tasting session in Edinburgh. Robbie, in turn, invites the other members of the group, where they learn about a cask of priceless whisky, the Malt Mill, set to go on auction soon, and Robbie is passed a card by a whisky collector, Thaddeus (Roger Allam). After they leave, Mo (Jasmin Riggins) reveals she spotted and stole documents detailing the warehouse in which the "Malt Mill" is kept but Robbie tells her that he is not interested in crime and is determined to stay straight for the sake of Leonie and Luke.
Robbie and Leonie view a flat which they could rent for six months while the owner is away. Robbie seems touched but it is then revealed they have been followed by one of Clancy's men and Clancy will know where they are going to live. Robbie, realising that he can't continue living under threat of assault on himself and his family, begins planning to steal the Malt Mill with his community service partners. They secure an invitation to the tasting and auction, during which Robbie hides in the warehouse overnight and siphons some whisky into empty Irn Bru bottles, before he is interrupted by Thaddeus and Angus Dobie (David Goodall). Robbie covertly witnesses Thaddeus attempting to bribe Dobie into selling him some of the whisky before the cask goes on auction but he refuses and the two leave, after which Robbie then tops up the cask with cheaper whisky from an adjacent cask. At the auction, the group see Thaddeus outbid by an American, who tastes the cask, and is apparently happy with the slightly diluted blend.
Afterwards, Robbie approaches Thaddeus and negotiates a sale of three bottles for £200,000, and "a real job". They plan to make the exchange in Glasgow, and so begin the trek home, but inadvertently break two of their four bottles during an encounter with the police. Robbie is furious, but goes ahead with meeting Thaddeus, and negotiates a sale for £100,000 and a permanent job far away from Glasgow. Afterwards, Robbie reveals to his friends that he didn't sell two bottles, but one. The scene cuts to show Harry coming home to find a bottle of Irn Bru sitting on his kitchen table next to an open window, with a note thanking him and presenting his "angels' share", next to a newspaper piece showing a photo of the community payback group next to the cask. He smells the bottle and rejoices at the Malt Mill inside.
In the final scene, we see Robbie and Leonie leave for Stirling in an immaculate old Volkswagen Type 2, having made temporary goodbyes to the rest of the group. After they leave, the rest of the group resolve to go get wasted. The film ends with The Proclaimers' "500 Miles" playing. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0104525 | Invader | In the opening sequence, four airmen from Clark Air Base in Washington D.C. frantically attempt to escape the base. A contingent of soldiers soon blocks their path. Most of the escapees are shot, but one sees a flying saucer which burns him to a crisp with its energy weapon.
Frank Mccall (Hans Bachmann) is an overqualified photojournalist writing about two-headed dogs and alien abductions for the sleazy National Scandal tabloid. When the airman's charred corpse is found, he is assigned to the story. When government agents try to keep him out, he resolves to sneak into the airbase, where a top-secret fighter plane is to be demoed that night. The plane is equipped with an experimental software system called A.S.M.O.D.S, which suddenly malfunctions mid-demo, crashing the plane. As the disappointed top brass go home, Mccall is intercepted by Captain Anders (A. Thomas Smith), who orders him taken into custody and his camera seized.
Sinister men in black wrench Mccall away, taking him to a storage compartment to be injected with a glowing green substance and brainwashed with an electronic apparatus. Anders and Colonel Faraday (Rick Foucheux) arrive in time to stop them, and the men shoot themselves. Anders takes Mccall into custody himself, while Faraday returns to the base. Suddenly, the flying saucer from the opening appears. Anders shoots it, to no effect, while Mccall photographs it with his backup disc camera. Powerless against the invader, they drive away, dodging more men in black on the way, and lock themselves in the base.
Mccall's camera is again confiscated, its photos to be developed as evidence. Mccall manages to secure the prints, and also spies on Anders conversing with the General. He thus finds out that the A.S.M.O.D.S. system uses alien technology recovered from a crashed spaceship in the New Mexico desert, and this technology seems to have a mind of its own. The men in black break their way in, so Mccall escapes with Anders in the F-117 stealth fighter. They have a brief dogfight with some F-16s out of Clark, which ends when they manage to secure air support from the Pentagon.
Mccall and Anders are questioned, and eventually manage to convince General Anheiser (John Cook) that A.S.M.O.D.S. has taken over the base computers using the intranet, and brainwashed all of the soldiers into its control. They agree to go investigate the next day. In between time, Mccall quits his job at the Scandal, realizing he is onto the story of the century.
At the airbase, the trio is greeted by a now-brainwashed Faraday. His troops destroy their helicopter escort, and he takes them down to the subbasement, which has been excavated into a gaping cavern. There Faraday reveals the alien's plan: it cannibalized the base hardware to build a giant robot, HARV, with which to conquer the world after nuking China and Russia. Mccall realizes that just as the alien programming seeped into A.S.M.O.D.S., so A.S.M.O.D.S. has seeped into the alien, arming it with a nationalistic impulse to destroy America's enemies.
The protagonists manage to shoot Faraday's guards. HARV tries to stop them, but only succeeds in killing Faraday. They search the basement for weapons with which to destroy HARV and avert World War III. They find a rocket launcher and two rockets; their first attempt misses, but the second is a direct hit, with one second to spare before HARV would launch the missiles. The ending sequence shows several newspapers honoring Mccall for his heroics, while the National Scandal claims the alien invasion was a hoax. | brainwashing | train | wikipedia | Alien technology out for world domination!.
Entering untrodden B-movie territory when in 1992 independent filmmaker Philip J.
Cook got legendary Israeli producer Menahem Golan to executive produce his sophomore outing Invader.
With a screenplay far too ambitious for its budgetary means, the result became an undefinable genre mixture.
An alien electronic intelligence is transforming the folks from a military airbase into mindless slaves.
Enter Frank McCall (Hans Bachmann), a tabloid reporter who gets entangled in the story of a lifetime.
Invader is one of the strangest alien conspiracy films ever concocted, as the ridiculous plot doesn't even try to take itself seriously.
Six words for the movie's finale: Giant philosophizing megalomaniac stop motion robot.
Dare we say this is a misunderstood masterpiece?.
The only thing impressive about this movie was the poster....
Having been impressed by the movie poster and the implied theme when I saw it in 1992, I rented the movie...
and it was the pits.
Ignore everything "sketchy" has said about the movie; it has no redeeming qualities.
Even by the standards of 1992, the graphics are horrible, the plot is predictable and plodding, the acting is one dimensional, and the miniature animatronics look like miniature animatronics.The movie's current score of 3.6 out of 10 is accurate.
However, as I said, the poster is very nice, and I recommend it to anyone.Movie: 3 out of 10Poster: 7 out of 10.
Cartoon-like and not a very good one either........
With a make up as you go plot, "Invader" loses all credibility, and believability by the ten minute mark, after which you will be wondering what is going on, or better yet, you won't care what is going on.
There is nothing endearing about a non-script micro budget film that tests your patience.
It is not strange, it is not a cult film candidate, what it is, is a mess of a movie.
The acting, effects, and everything else, reeks of "let's finish this thing", no matter if it makes any sense, let's just get it finished.
Beware, "Invader" will not meet your expectations for a low budget sci-fi, because there is really no story being told.
It is simply a mish-mash of bad acting, bad script, and marginal special effects.
- MERK.
No redeeming value.
This deserves at least Honorable Mention in the "Sylvester" awards for Worst Movie Ever Made.
The plot is so hackneyed and cornball it's hard to believe anyone would fork over good money to make the flick.
The acting is abominable with semi-profane wisecracks standing in for realistic dialog.
The production values and special effects are horrendous even by 1992 (the year "Invader" escaped...
ah, was released) standards.
At one point, a character hops into what is supposed to be a top-line aircraft cockpit and nearly displaces pieces of foam rubber that serve as head- and backrest.
At another point, two characters, one a reporter for a national scandal sheet, join uninvited and unannounced, a meeting on interference with a top-secret government weapons test and no one even questions it!
If those aren't bad enough, apparently, nobody bothered to do even cursory research into questions like, "What color are official U.S. Air Force vehicles?" If tempted at all to view this mess, do so in the spirit of laughing at how bad movie making can get, and how low the tastes of audiences (yourself excluded of course) can sink..
A small movie with big ambition.
this movie was made on a shoestring budget, at one point they had to stop filming because they ran out of money (and the leading man changed his entire hairstyle, leading to all sorts of Continuity Fun).I think it was trying to be a Science-Fiction conspiracy masterwork with a subtle play on politics of the day.
"New World Order" and so on.
What we got was a movie with very low quality acting, military guys who didn't really act like military guys, and some very cheezy special effects even for 1992.But still, it has some fun moments in it, in a MST3K kind of way.
Too many low-rent filmmakers are just happy to do Zombie Movie #345, these guys were willing to try to do something kind of interesting..
"Some kind of a subtext.
Like a computer virus.".
The plot of the film is....well I'm not sure of the plot.
It involves an air base, a stealth plane, a reporter from a scandal sheet, a captain from the Department Of Defence, a rogue computer programme, aliens, something called Asmodeus and several sinister soldiers in sunglasses.
These elements are combined to make a mainly dull film.
It goes from one silly situation to another until it climaxes with a stop motion robot hilariously quoting lines from the song 'As Time Goes By.' The acting is adequate.
Our putative hero is the reporter Frank McCall played by Hans Bachmann and he is very whiny and annoying.
One of the characters keeps telling him to shut up to which one agrees with hugely.
But unfortunately he doesn't.
The best character is Capt.
Harry Anders played by A.
Thomas Smith who gives the most entertaining performance and lifts the movie when he is on screen.
John Lamb plays 'Brain Dead Soldier' and Jack Weedon plays 'Wide Eyed Soldier' but I'm sorry to say I didn't notice their particular performances as there were a lot of soldiers.Asmodeus is described confusingly in one sentence by a character as "Some kind of a subtext.
An entity.
An entity.
An intelligence.
An intelligence.
Like a computer virus" which only reflects the film itself.
It doesn't make much sense. |
tt0094799 | Bright Lights, Big City | The film follows one week in the life of 24-year-old Jamie Conway (Michael J. Fox). Originally from Pennsylvania, Jamie works as a fact-checker for a major New York magazine, but because he spends his nights partying with his glib best friend Tad (Kiefer Sutherland) and his frequent cocaine abuse, he's on the verge of getting fired by his boss, Clara Tillinghast (Frances Sternhagen). His wife Amanda, a fast-rising model (Phoebe Cates), just left him; he is still reeling from the death of his mother (Dianne Wiest) from cancer a year earlier; and he follows a tabloid story about a pregnant woman in a coma. The movie captures some of the glossy chaos and decadence of the New York nightlife during the 1980s, and also looks at a man desperately trying to escape the pain in his life.
After Jamie gets fired from his job, he goes on a further downward spiral with more cocaine and alcohol abuse. He attempts to go on a date with Tad's cousin Vicky (Tracy Pollan) as a favor. Jamie also avoids phone calls from his younger brother Michael (Charlie Schlatter) who has come to New York to look for him. Megan (Swoosie Kurtz) attempts to help him out with finding a new job as well as try to open up about his troubled life and the reason why Amanda left him. After a confrontation with Michael, and attending a party where Amanda is in attendance, Jamie finally decides to open up and come clean with himself before he ends up either dead or in jail. He phones Vicky and tells her that he and his brother Michael helped their dying mother commit suicide to end her suffering. Jamie refuses Tad's offer of more drugs and women to spend time with and leaves the party. Jamie wanders the streets until dawn when he decides that today will be a better day to get his life back on track. | flashback | train | wikipedia | There is a surprising appearance from the wonderful Jason Robards which, shamefully, is uncredited according to IMDb. Considering the size of his role this is kind of odd.Negatives: Phoebe Cates seemed completely unconvincing as a model and Michael J.
And that last point sums up the problems with this film: it eventually becomes apparent that the movie is trying to be taken seriously.
Fox does an admirable job in the lead role of this movie adaptation of Jay McInerey's book.
I must say this is not a bad film by any means, and has quite a bit to say about the struggles of young adults trying to "find their place" in the world.
The subject matter is not something that one would think people would flock to see, but maybe the producers thought it might be a new kind of "Breakfast Club" type film.
Who knows, but it was an interesting risk that didn't pan out, as I do not recall this being a very successful film at the box office, but I admire the attempt at bringing it to a wide audience.Some of the scenes seem a bit awkward, like the opening of the film at the former, great, NYC club, The Paladium, and the ferrit scene towards the end, and the confrontations with Pheobe Kates.
I think Michael J Fox also deserves a lot of credit for doing "Bright Lights, Bit City" because this was the height of his career and to take on such a risk and a challenging as an actor should be commended.
Willis, known for his fabulous work with dark, muted colors and characters in shadows or silhouettes, seems absolutely lost within this night-life milieu, which isn't bright and hardly seems big.
Jay McInerney adapted his own 1984 novel about a would-be writer in New York City whose job in the research department of a prominent magazine (Gotham!) is constantly threatened by his drug use, which may stem from a broken marriage and memories of his deceased mother.
Fox (whose plastic voice-over narration was probably supposed to sound hard-boiled) is too well-scrubbed and corn-fed to be convincing as a party maniac; acting disoriented by blinking his eyes heavily and tightening his thin mouth, Fox is strictly a morose good-time guy, mourning the separation from fashion model spouse Phoebe Cates.
When Fox goes out on a blind date with Tracy Pollan, we know instantly these two clean-cut kids will click on their appearance alone: they look like an upscale young couple coming home from a Republican fundraiser.
He makes Jamie the handsome, vulnerable guy who really "wouldn't be at a place like this at this time of the morning." I can't say someone else couldn't have done it better but Fox pulls it off without trying to sneek around any drama with jokes like a lot of comedy-gone-drama actors try to do.
This is one of my favourite Michael J Fox movies.
We really get to see him in a dramatic role, though I hadn't bothered with that turkey, Light Of Day. This refreshingly original film was something totally different totally for me, a hard hitting drama that plays well on screen, though it might of not had the impact, the novel intended.
An R rating slapped on, as a few were back in the day, supposedly for drug use, like Fox's bleeding nostril when he does too much coke, didn't make much sense.
We see two hot women kissing in a cubicle, when Jamie (Fox) walks in then quickly retreats, spouting a funny response of dialogue, in that great comic timing of his.
Robards was fun to watch too, and Wiest was great as always, as Fox's mother, seen in flashbacks, that we're a bit heavily laid on.
There's a major plot point toward the end of the book (which I won't mention here, not so I won't spoil the movie, but the book), that puts all that you read into perspective and makes it all worthwhile.
Instead of reading and wondering "Why is he like this?," which was one of the main reasons the book was such a page-turner, the movie tells you why he does it, and you just sit there and watch him do it, knowing why.
Me Me Me. You guys have got to be kidding---this is one of the worst movies ever made, for one simple reason: not only does Michael J.
Fox did an excellent job with tihs role and it's a movie that anybody who appreciates movies about the pitfalls of addictions and the destruction that living on the darkside can wreak would enjoy.
The movie definitely has the essential qualities for a good film with it's intelligent script, compelling drama, sober realism and superb acting.This is Michael J Fox's best role and he does a great job.
I think he's such an underrated actor, he made Family Ties what it was and will never be forgotten as Marty Mc Fly in Back to the Future, but this is his peak film.I could very much symphatise and identify with the main character that slowly loses grip on reality, eventually spending most of his time in a drugged state of mind.
My favorite scenes are the ones at work, where his incompetence becomes painfully evident.Having recently watched Requiem for a Dream (also about drug addiction), I realize this movie's even better.
BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY (1988) is one of my favorite movies of all time and no doubt the best Michael J Fox film ever.
The story is follows a young kid (Michael J Fox) who lives in Kansas who goes off to New York City and gets slowly into more and more trouble with Drugs.
Fox, Kiefer Sutherland, Phoebe Cates, Swoosie Kurtz, Frances Sternhagen, Dianne Wiest, Jason Robards, John Houseman, Tracey Pollan , Charlie Schlatter, Kelly Lynch, Jessica Lundy, William Hickey, Sam Robards.
Excellent adaptation by Jay McInerney of his widely popular novel of decadence with Fox making the most of his troubled character on a bender of booze and drugs in NYC while trying to keep his personal life under wraps unsuccessfully.
Sutherland would have been a better choice for that role and Fox the party guy..
But far away from all of this, 'BLBC' is an unique, strange opus, faithfully based in a simple but wonderful book and magistrally composed by a lot of little strange details that make it unrepeatable: from the eclectical soundtrack to the atypical actors, performances, situations and almost everything involved in this great movie, a totally underrated, underestimated and mostly misunderstood masterpiece, with no place for square heads or conventional people ready to see only what they expected.
in an all-in-one-movie but in an sophisticated, elegant way, placed in the New York of the 80's, shining like never before, but here on its decadent side, where the bad has always something beautiful, and the good something ugly, where sadness leads to laughter, and laughter is always bittersweet.
M. Fox Best movie performance..
Bright Lights, Big City is by all means not an awful film and in fact, it's actually quite interesting.
But it was interesting to watch a Kansas guy barely holding his own in a big city while struggling mightily with his inner demons.James Bridges film is about a guy named Jamie Conway who is a fact-checker for a huge New York magazine, but at nights he is a convulsive partier with a bad cocaine addiction.
He is also struggling with his past as he moved to New York to get away from anything and he is also having problems with his estranged wife who left him as her career exploded.The acting is actually pretty good.
There are some good supporting turns by Kiefer Sutherland and Jason Robards here.Overall, I dearly wanted to love this film, but I wasn't able to.
It was still interesting and a rather good watch and so I rate this film 7/10..
This movie was made along the same lines as Less than Zero which is about what I would rate this movie.Lets just say when I left the theater my thought was "There is 2 hours of my life I will never get back".Don't waste your time rent Back to the Future and enjoy a movie where Fox is entertaining not a depressed coke head..
Bright Lights, Big City is a 1988 film starring Michael J Fox as a cocaine addicted newspaper editor.The movie shows him and his friend played by Keifer Sutherland, the partying & the coke that they do together, plus some parts of the past.Apparently he does cocaine to forget about how his wife left him and how his mother died.It has been a year since this has happened.There is also some messed up part with a coma baby, which he has a dream sequence about.The acting is fairly good from Fox and Sutherland.There are some fairly powerful dramatic scenes, also one funny scene involving a ferret, also the 1980's soundtrack was fairly good as well, especially "Century's End" by Donald Fagen.But other than that, the film was fairly boring.It was realistic as a lot of business-types were doing cocaine.Movies/Video Games such as "Carlito's Way", "Grand Theft Auto Vice City" & "American Psycho" will show this.I have never read the book and only heard of the author when he was mentioned in Ellis's semi-autobiographical novel "Lunar Park".I personally thought "American Psycho"(another movie which is partly about business types in the 1980's) to be a better movie.This is a decent film, it was just sort of boring..
Bright Lights Big City A truly Amazing Movie it's now one of my favourite Movies.Bright Lights Big City is about a Jamie Conway (Michael J Fox) a writer who moves to Manhattan and gets caught in the New York scene partly because of his friend Tad (Kieer Sutherland).
But mainly because of a reason I can't say as it will spoil the Movie.The best thing about a Michael J Fox Movie is when Michael acts the character perfectly.
This movie shows the consequences of leading a self serving, indulgent lifestyle where being seen at the right place and moving on in the pursuit of glamor and 'good times' becomes life's aim, but sadly no one ever really "arrives".
Keifer Sutherland nails the character - Tad Allagash, the protagonist's rich cousin - a coke snorting hedonist who's game is to party hard and then party harder, with the constant fear of missing a good time snapping at his heels.
Fox is sympathetic as Jaime, floundering at his NY job, partying, losing his fashion model wife.Kiefer Sutherland is also appropriately narcissistic, onto the next party, next girl, next high.
Fox does not want to turn out like him, and anyone who is interested in his character may want to read the book.
If I recall correctly, the book is less than 200 pages.The theme is more realistic in the book; for example Jaime finds himself reading the New York Post; retracted to absurd sensationalism, the meaninglessness of current events, the random anonymity of his life.While some of the scenes now seem contrived, at least the disco scenes are kept to a minimum, and the story is an interesting character study of a young graduate floundering in NY.
Jamie Conway, by Michael J Fox...graduated from University and work in a magazine (50-yr history) as a french writer there.
I made the mistake to read the book Bright Lights, Big City before I saw the movie, so I was quite irritated by the fact that the screenplay was almost exactly the same as the lines from the book itself.
Kiefer Sutherland on the other hand is almost perfect as coke-addict and womanizer Tad Alligash (you could have strange thoughts of that, but I just mean Kiefer's a great actor and he plays his part very, very well.and he looks hot in a suit).
Here he's teamed up with Kiefer Sutherland, the second best-looking guy in a ruffled suit, and all seems to be set for a zany, New-York-in-the-Eighties comedy along the lines of Fox's previous The Secret Of My Succe$s.
Only that they decided to make a dire "serious" movie instead, probably to allow Fox to work beyond the comedy genre for a change.So Fox plays the young would-be writer of the Great American Novel who struggles with:*the death of his mother a year ago*being left by his model wife (meaning they're married and she works as a model -- everyone did in the Eighties) for a swanky French fashion photographer*having to work as a fact checker for a The New Yorker-type magazine instead of being recognised as a literary maven*New York City*partying too hard, taking too much coke and hanging around models with earrings the size of dinner plates too muchHere's how the story went down with me: the main character and his entourage live the affluent life of New Yorker young urban professionals that everybody dreamed about in the Eighties.
Fox just looks so damn perky and apple-cheeked all the time.Finally the ending: Jamie meets his estranged wife at a party, starts laughing hysterically, then his nose starts to bleed from doing all those lines.
So I guess its not particularly a happy-shinny outing and it isn't suppose to be, despite some periods played for laughs (namely the scenes with David Warrilow and a payback prank that gets out of hand involving a ferret), it remains powerfully confronting in its depiction.Jamie Conway finds himself wasting his days in a banally demanding job, because as an aspiring fiction writer he's completely stuck with writer's block and to make matters worse his model wife (Phoebe Cates) left him to advance her career.
This symbolic insert (where it does have one oddly surreal dream sequence) perceives the manner of how Fox's character lives in a bubble (or coma), not wanting to face or hear about reality at first despite his troubled and bitter mindset and best efforts from those who "really" care for him (especially his scenes involving his brother --- admirably performed by Charlie Schlatter).
A fitting Phoebe Cates in what small scenes she does have looks great and creates an interestingly vain character that has you totally hook to why she left Jamie.
Throughout the story Michael J Fox (Jamie) reads about a "Coma Baby" who does not want to leave the womb.
Fox's better dramatic films, in my opinion.
Fox in a serious movie, watch this..
He was real good in his poignant, compelling and touching role as a talented, successful, but troubled and misguided young man dealing with two recent major blows in his life: The death of his beloved mother (A situation I can personally relate to), and his break-up with his beautiful, talented, aspiring model wife.
OH, MAJOR SPOILER ALERT HERE, READ OVER TO END: One main point of this film that deserves true credit is that it didn't go with a truly depressing and downbeat ending; Fox's character really faced reality and decided to go on the right, better-guided path for a change.
"Bright Lights, Big City," in my humble opinion, is NO "Back to the Future," by any means, but it did it's job well with story-telling and acting.
Jason Robards in an uncredited stint as the drunken editor from down the hall did his usual excellent job.Some of the other reviewers seem to have missed the point - this is a story about a man hitting the bottom and beginning his bounce back.One of the best movies I've seen that portrays the reality facing young adults in the 80's in the USA.
Watching the movie without having read the book, I catch many of the nuances, and get at least the gist of the story being told.
Jay McInerney's story of a young man's broken life, and his struggle to become somebody, would probably have made better reading than viewing.
Fox does well with the character of Jamie Conway, making him quite believable and easy to identify with.
Support comes from Kiefer Sutherland, Phoebe Cates and Swoosie Kurtz.Ending without really resolving itself, this is no must see film, but it's worth a look.
"Bright Lights, Big City" is an unsatisfying movie about drug abuse and pain and loss that never really goes anywhere bold with its ideas and leaves you wondering, "is that all?"I was intrigued at the casting of Michael J.
Fox in the lead role, finding it hard to imagine him as a drug addict.
Sure, he uses drugs and gets fired from his job, but he never really hits "rock bottom", as anyone who has seen an addict in a movie knows he must.
I fully expected the old cliché, you know the one: an old friend of the protagonist grabs them by the ears and thrusts their face at the mirror: "Look at yourself!" We don't get there, because Fox's addict never sinks that though.For anyone who knows anything about addiction, it's hard to believe what the movie wants you to think at the end: that he really is going to clean up.
Movie characters often get hooked because they are careless and go with the flow, but does it work that way in real life?
But just as Fox never descends to the real depths of addiction, we never see enough of the pain he's trying to run from, save for one scene with the great actress Diane Wiest.In short, "Bright Lights, Big City" just isn't willing to go to the places where it could have distinguished itself.
But the worst is Fox's real-life wife Tracy Pollan.
This movie is made even richer if you've seen Fox in "The Secret Of My Success" as "Bright Lights" plays like the flip-side version in the bizarro world.In "Success" Fox can do no wrong...
in "Bright Lights" his character Jamie can do no right.
Ouch...But this is precisely what makes "Bright Lights" a good movie...
This was probably the most mature performance Fox ever gave, and the supporting cast- Sternhagen, Sutherland, John Houseman, Dianne Wiest- are superb."Bright Lights, Big City" is a brilliant snapshot of a lost soul in a lost world... |
tt0294968 | The Time Machine | The book's protagonist is an English scientist and gentleman inventor living in Richmond, Surrey, in Victorian England, and identified by a narrator simply as the Time Traveller. The narrator recounts the Traveller's lecture to his weekly dinner guests that time is simply a fourth dimension and his demonstration of a tabletop model machine for travelling through it. He reveals that he has built a machine capable of carrying a person through time, and returns at dinner the following week to recount a remarkable tale, becoming the new narrator.
In the new narrative, the Time Traveller tests his device with a journey that takes him to A.D. 802,701, where he meets the Eloi, a society of small, elegant, childlike adults. They live in small communities within large and futuristic yet slowly deteriorating buildings, doing no work and having a frugivorous diet. His efforts to communicate with them are hampered by their lack of curiosity or discipline, and he speculates that they are a peaceful, communist society, the result of humanity conquering nature with technology, and subsequently evolving to adapt to an environment in which strength and intellect are no longer advantageous to survival.
Returning to the site where he arrived, the Time Traveller is shocked to find his time machine missing and eventually concludes that it has been dragged by some unknown party into a nearby structure with heavy doors, locked from the inside, which resembles a Sphinx. Luckily, he had removed the machine's levers before leaving it (the time machine being unable to travel through time without them). Later in the dark, he is approached menacingly by the Morlocks, ape-like troglodytes who live in darkness underground and surface only at night. Within their dwellings, he discovers the machinery and industry that makes the above-ground paradise possible. He alters his theory, speculating that the human race has evolved into two species: the leisured classes have become the ineffectual Eloi, and the downtrodden working classes have become the brutal light-fearing Morlocks. Deducing that the Morlocks have taken his time machine, he explores the Morlock tunnels, learning that due to a lack of any other means of sustenance, they feed on the Eloi. His revised analysis is that their relationship is not one of lords and servants but of livestock and ranchers. The Time Traveller theorizes that intelligence is the result of and response to danger; with no real challenges facing the Eloi, they have lost the spirit, intelligence, and physical fitness of humanity at its peak.
Meanwhile, he saves an Eloi named Weena from drowning as none of the other Eloi take any notice of her plight, and they develop an innocently affectionate relationship over the course of several days. He takes Weena with him on an expedition to a distant structure that turns out to be the remains of a museum, where he finds a fresh supply of matches and fashions a crude weapon against Morlocks, whom he must fight to get back his machine. He plans to take Weena back to his own time. Because the long and tiring journey back to Weena's home is too much for them, they stop in the forest, and they are then overcome by Morlocks in the night, and Weena faints. The Traveller escapes when a small fire he had left behind them to distract the Morlocks catches up to them as a forest fire; Weena and the pursuing Morlocks are lost in the fire, and the Time Traveler is devastated over his loss.
The Morlocks open the Sphinx and use the time machine as bait to capture the Traveller, not understanding that he will use it to escape. He reattaches the levers before he travels further ahead to roughly 30 million years from his own time. There he sees some of the last living things on a dying Earth: menacing reddish crab-like creatures slowly wandering the blood-red beaches chasing enormous butterflies in a world covered in simple lichenous vegetation. He continues to make short jumps through time, seeing Earth's rotation gradually cease and the sun grow larger, redder, and dimmer, and the world falling silent and freezing as the last degenerate living things die out.
Overwhelmed, he goes back to the machine and returns to Victorian time, arriving at his laboratory just three hours after he originally left. Interrupting dinner, he relates his adventures to his disbelieving visitors, producing as evidence two strange white flowers Weena had put in his pocket. The original narrator then takes over and relates that he returned to the Time Traveller's house the next day, finding him preparing for another journey. After promising to return in a short period of time, the narrator reveals that after 3 years of waiting, the Time Traveller has never returned. | sci-fi | train | wikipedia | I Have A Confession To Make .... ...... And that is I'm " reviewing " something I have never seen . If the IMDb don't accept this review I perfectly understand because we don't want to open the floodgates where people submit things they haven't seen , though I have seen many reviews ( Before the ten lines minimum rule was introduced ) we're about three lines long stating " I'd rather get my legs chopped that have to watch this again . 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back " which led me to the conclusion that these comments were written by someone who had never seen the movie they were ranting about . Hopefully what I'm about to write is far more informative and literary respectable than that I've seen transcripts and still photos from this live teleplay and if you haven't seen it on its original broadcast from 1949 trust me you'll never see it now because in those days film recording for television wasn't done , in those days things were broadcast live and that was it , nothing was kept for posterity , and it wasn't until 1953 that the BBC put forward the idea of recording their dramas , something that was resisted by the unions which meant the final four episodes of THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT were the victim of an industrial dispute at the BBC hence they weren't recorded for the archives This teleplay is faithful to the book for the most part . You know these memorable scenes from the two movies where the traveler stops and has a walk around ? These don't actually appear in Wells novel which starts with a long talky sequence of the time traveler ( he's not named on screen ) inviting a few of his friends along to his house to discuss this brilliant invention - A time machine . Obviously his associates think he's mad and leave the house so the traveler decides to try out his invention and finds himself in the year 802,701 AD where he becomes embroiled amongst the politics of the Eloi and Morlocks . After trying in vain to save an Eloi girl called Weena from the Morlocks he then travels forwards through time where the sun turns supernova and destroys the planet . After witnessing this he goes back through time to the date where he last spoke to his friends who are now convinced he is mad until he pulls out a strange flower he was given by Weena . This last sequence is the only major deviation from the source novel It might seem like a seriously daft idea to produce an effects driven live TV drama in 1949 but from what I've seen in photos the director Robert Barr seems to have done his best to make it work . I know something like QUATERMASS 2 is laughably bad when viewed today but much of that's down to over ambition . This version of THE TIME MACHINE required only a couple of sets and all of the effects were achieved through back projection which when you've got 405 line monochrome television with a weak broadcast signal probably would have appeared very acceptable to viewers at the time and much of the set design in not unimpressive though the time machine itself looks like a cross between a cammode and a hairdryer !. The Time Machine - broadcasted on BBC on Tuesday 25th January 1949. It is doubtful whether anyone who was born after 1949 could lay claim to having watched this version of the H.G. Wells thought provoking novel, "The Time Machine".However, it would be nice to see how this much appraised production was made, especially when it is believed to have been made so close to the original novel.As well as having read the original novel twice, I have only seen two versions of this, none which are anything like the book, so a remake of this television play, using the only available techniques that were about in 1949, would be interesting to watch.. response to Theo (mrs.) Robinson's comment on 1949 time machine. Theo writes: "This version of THE TIME MACHINE required only a couple of sets and all of the effects were achieved through back projection which when you've got 405 line monochrome television with a weak broadcast signal probably would have appeared very acceptable to viewers at the time and much of the set design in not unimpressive though the time machine itself looks like a cross between a commode and a hairdryer !".....Huh?Well teddy boy, the movie is a thinker, which you, my friend, are not! You are a Disneyite, and see things only on the surface. If what the time machine looks like, is all that matters to you, I suggest sitting down and actually look at this film, or, maybe pick up the book,(that has no photos), and pay attention to the message/statement H.G.Wells is making.regards, ghart56@cox.net |
tt0045274 | Umberto D. | Police disperse an organized street demonstration of elderly men demanding a raise in their meager pensions. One of the marchers is Umberto D. Ferrari, a retired government worker.
He returns to his room, and finds that his landlady has rented it out for an hour to an amorous couple. She threatens to evict Ferrari at the end of the month if he cannot pay the overdue rent: fifteen thousand lire. He sells a watch and some books, but only raises a third of the amount. The landlady refuses to accept partial payment.
Meanwhile, the sympathetic maid confides in Umberto that she has her own problems. She is three months pregnant, but is unsure which of two soldiers is the father, the tall one from Naples or the short one from Florence.
Feeling ill, Umberto gets himself admitted to a hospital; it turns out to be tonsillitis, and he is discharged after a few days. When he returns to the apartment, he finds workmen renovating the entire place. The landlady is getting married. Umberto's room has a gaping hole in the wall; the maid tells him it is to become part of an enlarged living room. The maid was taking care of his dog, Flike, but a door was left open and Flike ran away.
Umberto rushes to the city pound, and is relieved to find his dog. However, when he makes a veiled plea for a loan to one of his friends who has a job, the friend refuses to listen. Unable to bring himself to beg from strangers on the street, Umberto contemplates suicide, but knows he must first see that Flike is taken care of. He packs his belongings, and leaves the apartment. His parting advice to the maid is to get rid of the boyfriend from Florence.
Umberto attempts to find a place for Flike, first with a couple who board dogs, then a little girl he knows, but the latter's nanny makes her give the dog back. Flike goes to play with some children, and Umberto slips away, gambling that one of them will adopt him. Despite Umberto's attempt to abandon Flike, the dog finds him hiding under a footbridge. Finally in desperation, Umberto takes the dog in his arms and walks on to a railway track as a speeding train approaches. Flike becomes frightened, wriggles free and flees. Umberto runs after him. At first Flike warily hides, but eventually Umberto coaxes Flike out to play with a pine cone. Still homeless and nearly penniless, Umberto scampers down the park lane with his dog. | bleak, violence | train | wikipedia | Throughout the movie, we see Umberto struggle to find money to pay rent to his horrible landlady, love his dog Flike, and deal with the loneliness and disillusionment of the postwar era."Umberto D" is a character-driven film.
As I watched Umberto D., by Oscar nominated actor and legendary Oscar winning director Vittorio De Sica, I knew clearly one thing for certain- Carlo Battisti, playing the role of retired civil servant Umberto Domenico Ferrari, is the most convincing non-professional actor in any given decade of European movie-making.
Therefore, one can see him, in a sense, for what he is- he's us, merely you and I at the end of our lines of life with one wrong step sent to us after another.Battisti's Umberto is retired, known fairly among his past employees, and living in a dank, infested one room who seems to be on the standard downward spiral for such a neo-realist effort (indeed, like The Bicycle Thief, many of the elements against him are from society's natural pitfalls).
This leads him out into the streets outside of Rome, where the film plays out like a Chaplin movie, without the humor and female companion- only with his best friend in the world, a little dog named Flag.By the 3rd act of this epitome of heartbreaker movie-making, a quote passed through my head that Michelangelo Antonionni once stated: The actor is a moving object.
An old man - his sole companion, a dog - tries to survive on a fixed, tight income while being mistreated by his landlady.DeSica brilliantly captures the despair of his protagonist and makes this film unforgettably powerful.
Umberto D directed by the master Italian filmmaker Vittorio De Sica is a sad albeit ordinary tale of the loss of human values in Italian society after the end of second world war.Everything about the leading character Umberto D is told in an ordinary indeed prosaic manner.It is rather bizarre but mention must also be made of the poor light in which women characters have been shown.This is due to the fact that in Umberto D,both the grumpy landlady and unmarried pregnant girl representing loss of moral values are women characters directly associated with the old man.The great thing about Umberto D is its canine protagonist named Flike who serves his master so well that he even prepares to die for his master's sake.In Umberto D, by showing a faithful dog who remains loyal to his old master,Vittorio De Sica has rightly depicted that animals are more truthful than some human beings..
So why do I love this film so much when it causes me so much personal trepidation about my own future--and that of my dog's?Aside from a very talented Napoleone, who plays the dog Flike for all but two dog scenes and manages to steal the show in the process, the two main human actors, Carlo Battisti and Maria Pia Casilio, both remarkably appearing as amateurs, are excellent, which is a triumph in itself for the film's accomplished director, Vittorio de Sica.
This film is not only about the relationship of a man and his faithful little dog but about the love between Maria and Umberto in a world that seems to be void of compassion.There are too many memorable scenes in this film to describe in one review, but the one segment that leaves an indelible mark on me is the instance when little Flike, for good reason, momentarily loses faith in his human companion, but I won't reveal any other information about the scene.
This movie from director Vittoria de Sica is a heartbreaking story of a destitute pensioner named Umberto Ferrari and his pet dog.
A Man and His Dog. Called by some the best Italian neo-realist film of all time, "Umberto D." is a scathing critique of post-WWII Italy and its treatment of the elderly.
I'm not sure I personally think it's the best of its genre -- it's not better than, say, "The Bicycle Thief." But it's an affecting drama about one old man's struggle with being disposed of by his society as so much rubbish, his only companion a faithful dog, which is used to tug shamelessly at the audience's heartstrings in a recurring device that totally works even though we're aware of how manipulative it is.
Indeed, one of director Vittoria De Sica's best choices in the making of this movie is the parallel he draws between Umberto and his dog, and how he conveys that in many ways the dog has it better off -- it at least has someone who looks out for it and will come and rescue it from the pound when it gets lost.That scene at the pound, by the way, is in some ways the most arresting of the whole film.
He contemplates suicide but cannot summon up the courage to do so.The film brilliantly encapsulates the central character's plight through small details: the bed in his boarding-house infested with ants; the suitcase with one neatly folded suit and a pair of shoes, Umberto's sole worldly possessions; the way he tries to hold a hand out while begging and then clasps it to his chest, as if aware of the potential shame involved; and the medium shot of his boarding- house room, now with a large hole in the wall as the landlady wants to convert it into a reception-room.No one in postwar Rome wants to know about his suffering.
On the heels of all the neo-realism coming from Roberto Rossellinni and others during the mid-'40s to '50s, Vittorio DeSica gives us UMBERTO D, a film that tells the story of an aged man's devotion to his pet dog but no means of providing food and shelter for himself during hard times due to a small pension.
Their relationship is at the core of the sub-plot that runs through the simple story and is nicely handled.The scenes with the dog are poignant and tender moments that give the story some sense of depth, but DeSica ends his film on an ambiguous note after a heart-wrenching moment when the man tries to give the dog away to a happy child--and then almost takes his own life before an oncoming train when the dog manages to escape his clutches--and in doing, saves his life.However, the final scene of reunion between dog and master doesn't really resolve the situation and it's here that the film is a letdown for this viewer.
I'm bemused by several previous reviewers here who variously give the name of Umberto's beloved terrier as "flaic" or "flick." My copy, taped from TCM's Italian film festival introduced by Scorsese's VIAGGIO, clearly identifies the pup as "Flag."That said, "Umberto D" is one of the greatest masterpieces by any Italian filmmaker and, with each viewing, comes ever closer to being my favorite European movie.The film is everything other posters have claimed: terribly sad, deeply moving, and yet with a gentle wisdom behind the tears which enables us to endure our human tragedy just another day.Umberto himself is a wonderfully realized character.
Embittered by his fall from the respectability of civil servant to the poverty, desperation and irrelevance of a needy old man in an uncaring world, he still has pride, and pride, along with his deep attachment to his nice little pooch Flag and his own real humanity, keeps him alive.Umberto is not always pleasant to be around: sometimes he is querulous and curmudgeonly, and you want to scream at the unbending pride which prevents him from directly asking for help from old friends, but who can blame him for being human?
It's like the dust of Italy's destroyed cities planted the seeds of a new universal faith in human spirit
as if there was no creation without destruction, and no redemption without an action.My expectations were already high when the 'Scorsesian' journey halted in "Umberto D." and I knew the movie's reputation enough to figure that I wouldn't be disappointed by an Italian neo-realist film, probably in the same vein than the glorious predecessor from the same director, "Bicycle Thief".
And Umberto carries the tragedy of this fight for dignity in his tired eyes, avoiding by any means the dishonor or becoming homeless or a beggar, although what he does in the beginning looks like begging, there's a thin line between selling a watch and explicitly begging.1952 was a great year for foreign films, "Forbidden Games" was the classic French masterpiece about two kids playing with death during the War, and "Ikiru" a more similarly themed film than "Umberto D." featured a man in quest for dignity, eager to provide a meaning to a rather insignificant life.
The Italian linguist Professor Carlo Battisti (1882-1977) plays the main role, Umberto Domenico Ferrari, in this movie by Vittorio De Sica (1952).The film opens with a confluence of people who demonstrate against the low pensions that the state of Italy pays to its former long-standing employees.
Some people who had inherited such huge apartments with 10 or more bedrooms could make a fortune by renting them to ludicrous prices to the poor old people who fell victim to state's bankruptcy.The movie shows that poor old Umberto D., who has nobody but his dog left, cannot even afford to bring up his monthly rent, starts to sell his most private belongings, spends even one week in a hospital, because there he is nourished in food and spirituality (by a bigot but warm-hearted nun if you know the trick to ask her for a rosary), but in the end, everything goes down the creek.
While I am echoing the comments of many others here, I must add my voice to those in awe at the strength of the performance delivered by a man who was not a professional actor an accomplishment made all the more remarkable as he was not 'playing himself'.With a little regret, I will arrest my review here, not because I do not wish to say more, but rather because in the particular case of this film I feel it is probably best for people to see it knowing less rather than more about the story.
According to various different DVD/video sleeve notes I have seen over the years, Umberto's dog is called Flaik or Flike (both pronounced to rhyme with the English word "like" - as in "I like that").This appears to be borne out by the pronunciation heard in the original dialogue.Great film, bordering on the sentimental at times, hence only 8, but still extremely powerful, and at times simply beautiful.The theme of alienation so crucial to this film would have felt achingly immediate for film-goers in 1950's Italy.
The landlady (whose greatest crime is that she wants her tenants to pay their rent) might as well have a top hat and a waxed mustache to twirl.This manipulation makes the old man's plight seem much less real than the poster-hanger's from TBT.Not that it's a bad film, except by comparison; it does have its moments, the best by far being the shot toward the end with the rushing train..
We watch Umberto struggle as he seeks to maintain some semblance of dignity and humanity, primarily through his relationship with the landlady's dark-eyed, disingenuous maid, and his one true companion and love, his pet dog, Flike.
As the movie progresses, we watch as Umberto becomes more miserable, desperate, and dejected, as society no longer has need of an irritable old man, and Umberto increasingly contemplates drastic solutions to end his suffering.Carlo Battisti, the eponymous character, emotes with a fussiness, irritability, and resignation that I know all too well in the faces of elderly people in my own family and community.
La Padrona has delusions of turning her tenement house into a place of class and high culture, plans that are frustrated by the presence of a dejected old man and his mutt.Maria Pia Casillo, discovered as a high-school student by De Sica, plays the landlady's maid, and is the closest thing to a human friend Umberto has.
These little, mundane human actions are what make the film for me, whether it is Maria dropping everything she's doing to watch the soldiers outside her window, or as an elderly man contemplates taking his dog from the pound or having him put down, and you can see the thousand different painful emotions playing in his hard, worn eyes.
An elderly man (Carlo Battisti) and his dog struggle to survive on his government pension in Rome.Ingmar Bergman cited "Umberto D." as his favorite film, which seems appropriate considering it stands with Bergman's "Wild Strawberries" as one of the great portraits of old age and loneliness ever brought to the screen.
The sad tale of an old man evicted from his home hardly sounds like a fun night at the movies and wouldn't set the box office on fire, but what we have here is arguably the greatest Italian neo-realist film ever.
The ending is ambiguous and while not hopeful for Umberto is somewhat inspiring in the youthfulness of his dog and in the sweet humanity of the maid Maria who shoulders her situation with alacrity while showing affection and kindness toward a bitter old man.I was not moved to tears as some have been in watching this.
All dog lovers will appreciate the love that Umberto feels for his dog and the love that is returned AND the gutty realism that the dog displays.The DVD includes a documentary about De Sica that I didn't have a chance to view, excellent subtitles, and a video interview with Maria Pia Casilio.I would almost say, see this for the dog, but do see this for Vittorio De Sica, one of cinema's greats, here at his best, and for Cesare Zavattini who wrote the compelling script.(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!).
Stunning, understated camera work, beautiful, subtle lighting, photographic crispness, a complete lack of Hollywood moralizing (except, maybe, the character of the landlady), an equal attention to what's NOT said or done, as opposed to making everything so bloody obvious, and, of course, the story.The ending seems to have been subsequently used after for other films like "Nights of Cabiria" (and the subsequent "Sweet Charity") in its ambiguity and lack of closure.The scenes at the dog kennel are so incredibly moving without trying to "tug at your heartstrings." and the scene with the train and the dog's immediate unforgiving nature really strike a chord.
The story is simple - one might even say sentimental - yet poignant; it tells the tale of a crumpled old man struggling to retain what he has left in the world, which consists of little more than an apartment run by a spiteful landlady and an affectionate young dog.
A viewer might point out that many find their inner selves 'plucked' and twanged by the movie, but this is because De Sica knows how to use those few moments of sentimentality a movie need, and thus the glorious moments when the old man leaves his sole friend the young maid or when he decides on life again and dances with the dog are all the more powerful.
***SPOILERS*** Touching and simple film about a 70 year old retiree from government service who's life falls apart when his greedy landlady decides to throw him an his pet dog out on the streets for non-payment of rent.Unberto Ferrari's, Carlo Battisti, pension can't keep up with the rising cost of the post-war Italian economy and for the first time in some 20 years has fallen back on paying his rent.
By the time the film ended it was Umberto who turned out to be by far the luckiest person in town by having a friend like Flike who was there for him when he needed a friend most.
See the way the woman dressed in furs looks at Umberto as she comes down the stairs after the party.See how even his former friends run away when he asks them for some money.But he will not beg.He tries but he cannot resolve.These scenes are sheer genius ,Italian neorealism at its absolute peak.The old man's friends are the humblest of the creatures:the young maid who plays around with soldiers and gets pregnant and mainly his dog.They are his brothers in misfortune :the young girl is an exploited person whom the landlady treats like a slave.Umberto's dog plays a prominent part in the tragedy:the dog pound where the hero finds back his faithful pet becomes a metaphor for his position itself.Later,when he wants to leave the animal to a couple's care,there's more to the picture of the tied up dog desperately barking than meets the eye .The shadow of death hangs over the entire movie.Suicide seems to be the only way out.Twice ,Umberto tries.As the "ladri di biciclette" finds solace in his child's smile,the old man can lean on his dog.The very last picture of the movie : children playing.De Sica's strength is extraordinary:being able to show some optimism after such depressing scenes is proof positive of his absolute command of the seventh art..
And watching this magnificent film, we can only hope that we are never pushed into a corner like Umberto, but if we were, that we too would possess that little bit of humanity left in us to coax that dog back to our side..
Towards the very end of the film, a man stops when he sees Flike begging for money, and it turns out to be an old acquaintance of Umberto's (although one we haven't met).
That the man has nowhere to go but the poorhouse, and that in going there he would have to give up his dog Flike, troubles no-one else except his landlady's sympathetic young pregnant and unmarried maid (played wonderfully by Maria Pia Casilio in her first screen role).That, essentially, is the plot of the film. |
tt0119872 | The Peacekeeper | United States Air Force Major Frank Cross is in trouble with the "brass" again. This time he's made an unauthorized humanitarian relief flight and dropped sacks of rice to starving Kurds. To the press, he's a hero, but the Pentagon would like to court martial him. It can't because the President wants the highly photogenic media hero by his side to promote his election campaign, at least until after the next election.
So Cross has a new assignment. His job is now to carry the "black bag", the President's high-tech briefcase containing the "go codes" and communications computer for launching America's nuclear ICBM arsenal in case of a national emergency. It should be an easy job, but on his first day on the job in Chicago a team of mercenaries manages to steal the black bag. Cross, however, manages to barely survive it fake his death and infiltrate the mercenaries. Thinking they have seen the last of him they fly with a helicopter from the rooftops of Chicago into the night sky and onwards to their final target... United States Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Facility K-7. Disguised Cross slips into the missile silo as the crack team murders the silo personnel and takes over the launch control using the secret codes contained in the black bag.
They are led by ex-Marine Colonel Douglas Murphy, whose unit was sent to kill Saddam Hussein during an undercover operation in Iraq before Operation Desert Storm and was then exterminated by the then Army Chief turned President because of political reasons. Driven by revenge he then launches a terrifying warning shot and sends a Peacekeeper nuclear missile that destroys Mount Rushmore and kills thousands of people. Only then does Murphy make his chilling demand. The President is to kill himself in front of a live television audience or Washington D.C. will be wiped out.
All attempts to stop one of the missiles from leaving the silo fail. In a desperate attempt to prevent the destruction of Washington D.C. from happening, the President gives in to Murphy's demand only to realise, that he lied to utterly humiliate him, so that he then should helplessly watch Washington be destroyed as Murphy helplessly had to watch his unit be destroyed against his will by the President.
At the first opportunity, however, Frank acts against the terrorists and, with the help of the last surviving member of the silo, Lt. Colonel Northrop, he is able to kill the mercenaries and prevent the destruction of Washington in the nick of time. | revenge, suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0432402 | Factory Girl | Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller) is a young heiress studying art in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She moves to New York City, where she is introduced to pop art painter and film-maker Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce). Intrigued by the beautiful socialite, he asks her to perform in one of his underground movies. Soon she is spending time with him at the Factory, his studio and also the hangout of a group of eccentrics, some of them drug addicts. Her status as Warhol superstar and success as a fashion model earn her popularity and international attention.
Her Cambridge friend Syd introduces her to poet and singer Billy Quinn (Hayden Christensen), a character based on Bob Dylan. Andy becomes jealous, so Edie tries but fails to keep her love affair with Billy a secret. To reconcile them, she arranges a meeting. Although he agrees to be filmed by Andy, when Billy visits the studio he shows his contempt. As he is leaving, she tries once more to make peace, but Billy calls Andy a "bloodsucker" who will "kill" her. Seeing that she will stay, he kisses her forehead.
As addiction takes its toll, Edie's relationship with Andy deteriorates. One night while in a drug-induced stupor, she falls asleep while smoking a cigarette and nearly dies in the ensuing fire. Vogue refuses to hire her; editor Diana Vreeland (Ileana Douglas) explaining that Edie is considered "vulgar". Interrupting a luncheon of Andy and his friends, she demands to be paid and accuses him of ruining her.
When Syd sees her again, she has become a prostitute. In a taxi, he shows Edie, who is very depressed, a photo of herself when they were art students. He says that he fell in love with her then, and tells her that she can still be an artist. She says that she cannot bear her loneliness but interrupts him, asking the driver, "Can we go?" When the driver says that they are stuck in a traffic jam, she leaves the cab and runs frantically down the street. The scene changes to a hospital, years in the future. She tells an interviewer that she is overcoming her addiction and is glad to be home in Santa Barbara. The closing caption explain the last few years, her struggle to control drug abuse and her marriage to another patient, which ended in less than four months when she died of an overdose. | romantic, storytelling, flashback | train | wikipedia | In reality, she was rejected by the factory friends and many others for the drugs she brought with her everywhere, she was not introduced to them at the factory as the movie shows.Hickenlooper seems to me to be trying to say that Edie Sedgwick, that fresh faced wasp in knee socks and pearls who left Cambridge with sketches tucked under her arms could have potentially had a wonderful and peaceful life, even a stable marriage with Bob Dylan had she only not met Andy Warhol and been subject of those movies.I have a problem with this film because I am so interested, most people are, in the real Edie Sedgwick and I agree with another poster who suggested you see Ciao!Manhattan to get a better sense of who she was.
If you want a tragic love-story about a good girl who chose the wrong guy, watch Factory Girl.The real Edie Sedgwick was a person whose hystrionics and drugs were symptoms of a soul that was always trying to fly away, for her the world was always too small and her pain was always too big, and she lived her life as though she dreamed of having her wings singed flying too close to the sun..
Had Factory Girl functioned as a GOOD FILM Guy Pearce would have received much more acclaim.As for Hayden Christensen, I like him alright as an actor but his role as the Bob Dylan-esquire Musician just wasn't allowed much room.
(Possible spoilers, though unlikely)Okay, let me say that I enjoyed Factory Girl for what it is and think it is worth renting.The story stars Sienna Miller as the fated Edie Sedgwick and Guy Pearace as vapid pop culture icon, Andy Warhol.The movie isn't nearly as close to as bad as critics claim it is.
The result feels energetic but ultimately rather cursory in the way he depicts the Manhattan party scene in the mid-1960's, in particular, the Factory, where Warhol let his coterie of drug-addicted fame-seekers gather to make virtually unwatchable films that reflect their constant state of ennui.With her big raccoon eyes, pre-punk hairdo and flashing smile, Miller bears such a striking resemblance to the real-life Sedgwick that she carries much of the film by the sheer will of her character's Holly Golightly-like sense of exalted self-worth.
I myself have been on Adderall (for ADHD) for a very brief period in the 90s, and it was really horrible...I can't possibly imagine anyone wanting to be on that thing.In the 90s I knew a guy who had been Warhol's room mate in the 1950s and a very, very minor character in Andy's later life, I asked him once if he ever knew Edie, and he just groaned and said, "she was the MOST BORING girl I ever met in my life." End of discussion..
It's also where Edie Sedgwick spent most of her time as Warhol turned her into a starlet on his silver screen and as the original Paris Hilton she became famous for being famous, complete with trust fund and a nasty drug habit courtesy of Andy and his "Warhol Superstars".Andy Warhol dove into most things artistic; shaping Pop Art, producing The Velvet Underground, and making his own films.
Denying a relationship with Sedgwick, Bob Dylan's lawyers refused his inclusion in the film but he represents the possible redemption for the spiraling "Poor Little Rich Girl".Overall, Factory Girl has trouble navigating it's plot shifting to and from Edie as the art that Andy creates, her personal journey, and the people around them both, all topped by a future Miss Sedgwick revealing the story to a psychiatrist in rehab.There's a great movie in here somewhere but Factory Girl is not it.C Matt Watterworth http://www.theweal.com.
"Factory Girl" probably has little hope of attracting much attention from movie-goers as well.While we do spend a good portion of the film in The Factory, this is more the tragic story of Edie, rather than an insightful look at Warhol's art.
Hayden Christensen as Bob Dylan, sorry, "Billy Quinn," comes off as an opinionated (though incredibly fit and Gentile) jerk with a guitar, Guy Pearce is too attractive for Andy, while Sienna Miller doesn't have Edie's soft beauty.The greatest crime is that this will be many people's first introduction to Edie Sedgwick, and they will go away with an impression of a simple, disposable girl - with none of her glamour, whose problems can be neatly wrapped up in a few lines about her father.
it is a beautiful, artful depiction of three people: andy warhol, edie, and bob Dylan (billy quinn).many will say that it is not the accurate, hard fact bio pic that many people rely on such to be; but like the doors, it paints artful depictions of such iconic legends.all performances are done well.
It's entertaining and worth watching for two very good performances by Guy Pearce and Sienna Miller.It's not art, it's just a movie, albeit a superficial one..
The filmmakers have done the impossible: taken the story of Edie Sedgwick, Andy Warhol's muse and the object of underground fascination for Forty YEARS and produced a movie so banal, predictable, and downright boring that the they must be applauded for even releasing it.
Guy Pierce was okay, and Hayden Christensen was not as terrible as one might think - they problem with both performances was that the script is terrible - it is hard to know if either of them could embody their roles when both men are only asked to portray very shallow caricatures of warhol and Dylan - forced to utter ridiculous dialogue that neither man would have ever said in 100 lifetimes - and stuck in a by the numbers lifetime movie about addiction - with all the insight that a television movie could muster (maybe even less insight, actually) i think Dylan does have a reason to sue - although i'm not sure it is the wisest approach - i think we just have to hope there is a special place in hades for people who make slanderous films about famous people because it is so hard to sue - and i think his suit will probably sell tickets - especially from what i could see at the screening i went to today - there were quite a few people for a late afternoon screening (1/2 to 2/3's full) - compare that to diane arbus's family which ignored fur and watched it disappear from theaters almost immediately after its release - as for sienna, she's in all of her acting class glory, looking cute in the first half of the movie and bedraggled in the second - i'm sure she and harvey were fishing for an award - but if you watch angelina jolie in gia and then watch miller in this you will see what a lightweight performance it truly is -.
The rich, young and pretty Edie Sedgwick, whose family life hides secrets that could be made into a Todd Solondz flick, goes to NYC in the 1960's and meets pop artist Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce, the only good thing about the movie).
Guy Pearce gives an excellent performance, and Sienna Miller is charming in a moronically written role, but this film, which should at the very least have been stylish and interesting, is shallow and sentimental in an offensive way.
We have to realize the exceptional talent at work here and awesome creativity on how the cast brings the hurt and pain to life; perhaps even hitting close to home to some.Accept the movie for what it is and not for what you think it should be, and you will find an amazing story, perhaps with some flaws (show me one without) and maybe at times even zooming by so fast your left trying to catch up, but it's clear that Sienna and Guy have simply made a tragic story come to life in a way that i believe only they could have; Hayden as well.
The panda-eyed, drug-abusing wash-out that is the Sedgwick nearer the end of the movie does, but the audience can hardly say anything except she brought about her own downfall: she ingratiated herself to Warhol and his world when she was a nobody without even a job, then moaned that she couldn't work when he dumped her, when in fact she was obviously unemployable because of her drug habit.The film's only real crime is perhaps that it celebrates the life of Edie rather than Andy, and that not particularly well.
Factory Girl capitalises on the name, but is mainstream through and through.If the producers had worked with people of real vision; if they had secured song rights for music by Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan (which would have helped establish historical and cultural context); if they had portrayed the beauty and sparkle of Edie Sedgwick through the eyes and genius of Warhol or someone like him; if they had made insightful recognition of her weakness and her greatness, then this could have been a work of art.
and yet they are great movies telling good stories.I didn't know anything about Edie before watching this, and didn't know a lot about Andy Warhol either.
After seeing this movie, I think I have a good feel for the sorts of things that went on back then, and the kind of people they were.This is a tale of the person Edie was, and her going to New York and getting exposed to Andy, The Factory, movies, fame, and drugs.
Miller bears an uncanny resemblance to Sedgwick and gives a striking, emotionally raw performance that deserves a much more richly imagined and vividly rendered narrative backdrop than the superficial one provided by Factory Girl.Sienna Miller captures much of Edie's physical manner and some of her voice (though she's nowhere near deep enough), but there's nothing she can do with material that requires her to mope and pout for the bulk of her screen time.A spectacle of bad accidents, VH1 aesthetics, sketchy (almost nonexistent) period detail, and armchair psychology.
Coming from a family with a history of physical abuse, mental illness and suicide and given her own fragile countenance, it ought not to surprise anybody to learn of her gradual descent into drug dependency and prostitution, stretches in sanatoriums, various drug busts and ODs – culminating in her “accidental” death from an acute overdose of prescription medicine in late 1971 at the tender age of 28… It was inevitable that a film would eventually be made about Edie Sedgwick and the end result is worth watching if hardly exhaustive of its fascinating subject and milieu: upfront are the remarkable performances of Sienna Miller (as Edie) and Guy Pearce (as Warhol) who truly inhabit their complex personalities on camera; less successful are Hayden Christensen’s stint as an angry Bob Dylan and the film’s apparent fictionalization of their consummated relationship.
Ironically enough, the film’s theatrical trailer did feature David Bowie’s “Life On Mars?” and the significance of that, in hindsight, is three-fold: that song is included in Bowie’s “Hunky Dory” album which was released in 1971 (the year of Sedgwick’s death); the same album also includes consecutively three songs which were Bowie’s musical tributes to Andy Warhol, Bob Dylan and The Velvet Underground; and Bowie himself would later portray Warhol on screen in Julian Schnabel’s BASQUIAT (1996)!!Incidentally, I currently have in my unwatched VHS pile the D.A. Pennebaker film of Dylan’s U.K. tour of 1965, DON’T LOOK BACK (1967) – at which Edie Sedgwick was present but (perhaps unsurprisingly given that Dylan was married to somebody else by the time of its release) does not appear in the finished film – and THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO (1966), Andy Warhol’s own experimental film of a performance by the iconic band given at the Factory itself.
Sienna Miller gives a surprisingly strong performance as Edie Sedgwick in 'Factory Girl' - she and Guy Pearce as (a rather sinister) Andy Warhol, are the main reasons to see the movie.
There are no surprises, except the nasty portrayal of the deceased rich and famous.This is a bio pic about Edie Sedgwick, (played magnificently by Sienna Miller) a waif-like rich girl who found favor with the celebrity media (hmmm, who does that sound like in today's culture?) in the 1960s through her association with pop artist, Andy Warhol (another great performance, this time by Guy Pearce).
The almost ridiculously heterosexual Spaniard Picasso was the last European example for American art, and it is truly apt and amusing that in the post-Eisenhower American art world Edie would be the muse/invention of an avowedly asexual homosexual - and yes, that doesn't make sense ON PURPOSE.We make our monsters and our heroes, and we hate it when they go beyond our purview and control.This movie was a mess - if it had been filmed LIKE a Warhol film I (perhaps) could have stood the ridiculousness of it all.Andy, to my mind, was the most perfect bag of dirt that the world he grew up in helped fill; and now, kids, you have Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton - need I continue??The patina of time will do nothing for them - because NOW 15 minutes is 15 seconds, and don't you have better things to do as time increasingly makes everything moot?.
then go F**k yourselves .1964 and young 21 years old Edie Sedgwick(Sienna Miller) is about to go to art,but her famous and rich far more about thoughts family never let her to do it.she goes party to party with her youth energy to find the gate.finally she finds Andy Warhol(Guy Pearce) who is a little bit bisexual(Jeez what a shame) and works in his independent studio named Factory.she woks in the art work(F**k if i know)a while and making underground movies with him until he meets Bob Dylan(Hayden Christensen) and they start to have relationship.after she screws up with Dylan and Andy,she starts to ruin herself with Drug Addiction and drinking problems.her family force her to rehab in a hospital in 1970.she dies in 1971 of a drug overdose.so many 28 or 27 years old people died during the start of 70 decade.Jim Morrison,Jimi Hendrix,Janis Joplin and ...
While the focus is supposed to be on Edie Sedgwick given the title, in reality, Andy Warhol as a character gets to share just about as much spotlight, probably because he's the more famous of the two, and Guy Pearce looks like a carbon copy of the real deal, taking a leaf out of Philip Seymour Hoffman's playing of Truman Capote, only with an increased amount of meanness.When the end credits rolled, interviews with real friends and relatives tell us a little bit more on Edie, but I felt it was too little too late, that the movie itself squandered this opportunity to tell a more compelling narration of her life.
Edie, played by Sienna Miller, also did a pretty good job.Other reviews of this movie, on this very message board, have Heyden's "Billy Quinn" being depicted as Bob Dylan.Not true."Billy Quinn" is Lou Reed of The Velvet Underground.Of all the actors I've seen portray Warhol...
She appeared at some of Warhol's happenings and in some of his movies That is about all of knew about Edie Sedgwick.I saw a trailer for "Factory Girl".
A common fail of biopic films is that they focus so much on the facts that they forget to portray the psychology and motivations of the person.Examples of that are Johnny and June,Ray or Nixon.But,when the biopics do not fall on that easy trap,the result is much more satisfactory and interesting,like in Kinsey,Veronica Guerin or,now,Factory Girl,which,by my point of view,is an excellent movie.This movie makes a very detailed description of the psychology of Edie Sedgwick,so we can know her very well and perfectly know her motivations.A great work from screenwriter Captain Mauzner.Another strong point on this movie are the performances from Sienna Miller and Guy Pearce.These two actors made extraordinary works on their roles because they totally became into their characters.Another case in which excellent performances are ignored by all the pathetic awards.Director George Hickenlooper made a very dynamic work which makes this film never boring and very entertaining.The only fail I found on this movie is Hayden Christensen's performance,which is pretty bad.But that fail is not too important.Factory Girl is a brilliant biopic I liked very much.I recommend it with a lot of enthusiasm..
The film never becomes too arty, while at the same time is far from being pure mainstream.It is serious entertainment with a magnificent and awe-inspiring Sienna Miller as Edie, a very versatile Guy Pearce as Andy Warhol and a surprisingly good Hayden Christenson as Billy Quinn (alias Bob. D.)..
Sienna Miller is believable and vulnerable as Edie Sedgwick, Guy Pearce as Andy Warhol is probably the core, but not the sole, reason to see the movie , Illeana Douglas and Mena Souvari are unrecognizable and Hayden Christensen, who plays the celebrity rock star whose name I don't think for a second is mentioned in the movie but goes to show how perfectly they got the look, the voice and the style of a young Bob Dylan, is fun to watch.
I don't think they could've picked a better actress to play Edie Sedgwick, Sienna Miller looked exactly like her in the film and also did a wonderful job portraying Sedgwick.
The problem might be that the movie tries to make a short summary from Edies adolescence till death - we don't have time to actually see what's happening.The actor Sienna Miller playing Edie i think does a good job - she is the Moviestar and the Ex-Moviestar/drug-addict when she's supposed to.Guy Pierce plays the role as Andy Warhol.
The film tells the story of Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller) who rose to fame with Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce) and, in this film at least, had a passionate affair with Bob Dylan (Hayden Christensen).
Oh, wow...Factory Girl centers on East Coast socialite Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller), who in the '60s was considered Andy Warhol's muse, was linked romantically to Bob Dylan, and eventually died of a drug overdose at 28. |
tt0470765 | For Your Consideration | Character actress Marilyn Hack (O'Hara), despite having been in the entertainment industry for 30 years, is best known for playing a blind prostitute in a film from the late 1980s. Victor Allen Miller (Shearer) is also an acting veteran who is known to the public as the hot-dog wearing mascot for a kosher line of frankfurters. Together they are cast in a new low-budget film called Home for Purim as the patriarch and dying matriarch of a Southern U.S. Jewish family in the 1940s.
A newcomer ingenue, Callie Webb (Posey), plays their lesbian daughter, who has come home along with her girlfriend (Rachael Harris). Rounding out the cast is Brian Chubb (Christopher Moynihan), playing Webb's brother who has returned home from the Navy. The family reunites in time to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim.
Home for Purim's cast and crew are in the process of making what appears to be a cheap melodrama. The director (Guest) is constantly adding bizarre camera shots and acting notes. The producer (Coolidge), heiress to a diaper service, dresses flamboyantly but doesn't seem to know much about managing a film beyond paying for expenses. The two writers (Balaban and McKean) are at odds with the director, seeing their script mash together Southern genteel with out-of-place Jewish references and words.
The film-within-a-film's plot centers around the daughter's confession of her lesbianism as her mother gets nearer to death and the family celebrates an awkward Purim.
Because of an off-hand remark that turns into a full-blown rumor, Oscar buzz begins around all of the cast (with the exception of Chubb). Each begins obsessing about the award potential in his or her own way.
Hack pretends not to care while secretly pining for the award. Miller begins to demand a higher salary and push his agent (Levy) for more dignified work. Webb breaks up with Chubb (her boyfriend), claiming he is not being supportive. He is virtually left in the dark. The obnoxious entertainment news program Hollywood Now and its hosts (Willard and Lynch) fuel the awards-season buzz, even coming to the set to interview the cast.
At this point, studio executives butt in and force the writers to make script changes, feeling the film is "too Jewish." It is retitled Home for Thanksgiving. Despite the changes, the Oscar buzz intensifies to the point where Hack, Miller, and Webb are convinced they will be nominated for Academy Awards. An inept publicist, Corey Taft (Higgins), becomes very excited about the film's word of mouth, even though he only has a vague idea of what the Internet is.
They all begin to do major press appearances for the film. These are often embarrassing, both for the actors and the movie audience. Miller appears on a hip-hop teen show called Chillaxin' in youthful attire with capped teeth, a tan, and dyed blonde hair. Hack gets breast implants and extensive plastic surgery to the point where her face is comically ecstatic. Callie goes on an L.A. shock-jock radio show, only to field questions about topless scenes rather than her performance. All rise early in the morning for the televised announcement of the Oscar nominees, although Miller doesn't even own a TV.
Ultimately the only person nominated for an award is Chubb, the one person for whom there was no buzz at all. (He sleeps in on the morning of the announcement of the nominations.) Miller goes back to auditioning for food commercials and other infomercials for useless products. Webb revives her failed one-woman show, No Penis Intended. Hack (after a drunken, explosive rant on Hollywood Now) becomes an acting teacher and seems uncomfortably at peace with her mediocre career. | satire | train | wikipedia | It is a brave, and ultimately, a rewarding choice for a director who has built his impeccable reputation on the strength of his mockumentaries.Like its predecessors Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and A Mighty Wind, For Your Consideration is largely improvised, and reunites the same winning cast.
Furthermore, having such recognizable actors as Claire Forlani and particularly Sandra Oh show up for bit parts in For Your Consideration is more distracting than anything, and breaks the illusion of the self-contained world that worked so nicely in Guest's previous efforts.Despite all of the comedic talent on display however, this is Catherine O'Hara's show, and she more than delivers in her role as fading screen star Marilyn Hack.
If, as Guest insists, this film is not intended as a satire of Hollywood but is rather the tragicomic tale of what happens to someone when they are told that they deserve an award, we should be spending less time on all the Hollywood in-jokes and parodies, and more time with the characters themselves.We don't learn quite enough about our main characters those portrayed by Catherine O'Hara, Harry Shearer, and Parker Posey to really understand how monumental it is for them to be caught up in the Oscar hype.
Granted, you either like his movies or not, but as someone who loved Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show and Mighty Wind equally, I was in no way disappointed by For Your Consideration.Maybe some of the humor here is easier to appreciate if you're Jewish, but that can't account for more than 5% of the jokes, and all of the actors were great.
The ending of the movie was truer than that of his previous films, and the ever expanding cast of Guest players made the viewing experience more fun than in the past (Sandra Oh, Ricky Gervais etc.).My theory is that it's hard to approach a new Christopher Guest movie without justifiably expecting a lot, and great expectations often lead to disappointment.
The satire seemed to me to be to be quite precise - particularly in its analysis of the average actor's life - which is a lot more like "For Your Consideration" or Ricky Gervais's brilliant "The Extras" than anything you're likely to see on Entertainment Tonight that is for sure.Having studied method acting over several years (a long time ago), and having worked as an extra at different low points in my life (never ever again), I have to say that I laughed till I cried.
I have to admit I miss some of this dynamic because the on-camera realism resulted in some of the funniest moments in the previous films.Gratefully, what has been kept from his other films is Guest's stellar ensemble company of comic actors, and this time an even larger cast has been gathered, none of whom disappoint in this outing.
As Callie, Parker Posey is more in reactive mode here, though she has a funny Sandra Bernhard-like bit with her character's one-woman show, "No Penis Intended".Everyone else gets less screen time, but they all provide memorably riotous contributions Guest as Berman, Levy as Morley, Jennifer Coolidge as clueless producer Whitney Taylor Brown, John Michael Higgins as bromide-spouting publicist Corey Taft, Don Lake and Michael Hitchcock as the Love It/Hate It movie critics, Michael McKean and Bob Balaban as the academic screenwriters, Ed Begley Jr. as Marilyn's fey hairdresser (and biggest fan), Ricky Gervais as the oily studio honcho, and best of all, as the entertainment TV co-hosts, Fred Willard as mohawk-moussed Chuck Porter and Jane Lynch as gam-showcasing Mary Hart-knockoff Cindy Martin.
More like "A Mighty Wind" with its dramatic undercurrents, this one is not as laugh-out-loud as "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show", but it shows a continuing maturation in Guest's film-making technique that is most welcome..
This is not meant to be a Great panoramic epic, this is good clean hilarity from some of our favorite actors.If you are a fan of "Best in Show", Waiting for Guffman etc, or you just want to get to know these gifted actors, DO go see this film, nap before you go so you can be happy and rested and hear the inside jokes that spark the guffaws heard throughout the theater.
In an impressive string of wonderful mockumentary farces over the past few years, guiding lights Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy, and their brilliant comedic acting ensemble, have joyfully savaged the self-important cultural "worlds" of small town amateur theater ("Waiting for Guffman"), dog shows ("Best in Show") and folk music ("A Mighty Wind").But a winning formula can't go on forever unchanged, nor should we expect it to.
I never thought the day would come when I would regard a comedy written by David Mamet as superior to work by Guest & Levy, but here's a tip: if you want to see a good send-up of movie making, try Mamet's 2000 film, "State and Main." My grades: 6.5/10 (low B) (Seen on 11/15/06).
While the film pokes fun at these people, it also pokes fun at their aspirations, as if it is laughing down at them and wants us to join in which leaves a bitter aftertaste that isn't particularly pleasant.Guest's big stumbling block is that, for his Oscar buzz strand to work, the actors in the film within a film have to be reasonably good so, in order to provide himself with a comedy backdrop, he has no choice but to make the film itself a joke that would never get green-lighted in the real world.
Christopher Guest has quite the resume and reputation for his quirky, awkward satirical mockumentaries, but "For Your Consideration" simply doesn't measure up with the rest.It's hard not to judge "Consideration" by its predecessors such as "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind." With the same cast, the same satirical (though not full out mockumentary) style, it simply asks for that and it doesn't succeed the way those movies do.
This seemed like Guest made a film to spoof the industry, but instead created a dismal look at how comedy can self destruct, even with your regulars trying to make us laugh.Guest announced in 2005 that he would stop making the "mockumentary" because he thought they were not funny any longer.
Comedy was horrible, the story was non-existent, and the actors just seemed used and tired of the time, place, and story.One other aspect that bewildered me, is anyone else tired of the sad, unsung heroes of Christopher Guest's films seeming like they are being stepped on each minute of the feature.
It's not as laugh-out-loud funny as "Best in Show" (few movies are) but I liked it better than "Mighty Wind," which I also liked.Christopher Guest's usual crew is in its usual fine form.
His partner in this movie, Jane Lynch, is all but wasted (so too are Michael McKean and Bob Balaban, who really have nothing to do).Harry Shearer and Catherine O'Hara are sad-sack Z-list actors who transform themselves (hideously) when they find out they might be considered for Oscars for 'Home for Purim'.
Christopher Guest is a creative spirit who has been able to make some very funny films like 'Best In Show' where his technique of avoiding a script by giving his cast of actors an outline as matrix for a scene, letting them ad lib the idea a couple of times, then accepting the second or third take as the final product - pasting all the bits together in the edit.
Or to quote a famous advertisement 'Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't'.For this viewer this mocumentary about a very bad film company churning out a very bad film with a rather pitiful cast of actors falling victim to Internet rumors that an Oscar is in the air works as a funny idea and social comment for about the first half four and then sadly falls apart painfully as it proceeds to its wholly predictable end.
Yes, there are funny moments, but the further the movie plods the less funny the moments become and ultimately the result of the 'rumor of greatness' shows us the shallow lives of the sad sack troupe of actors and producers and writers that started out with a pretty awful idea.Guest usually pulls these capers off nicely, but perhaps with such films as 'The Producers' musical on the screens simultaneously the joke is stale.
I'm one of Christopher Guest's biggest fans, having LOVED Spinal Tap, A Mighty Wind, Best in Show, Waiting for Guffman...but the things that made each of those movies so wonderful -- quirky characters sharing their lives with the camera -- seem to be absent here.
The story told is also possibly a story worth telling, but it has too much of the "Oh." panache from the British version of The Office and not enough of the laugh-out-loud moments.I can't wait to see Mr. Guest's future films (not to mention look up some of his back catalog!), as well as each of the great cast: Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, Eugene Levy, Harry Shearer, and everyone else.
For Your Consideration is from director and co-writer Christopher Guest who has given us such great films as Waiting For Guffman, Best In Show, A Mighty Wind and he also co-wrote the cult classic This Is Spinal Tap. After being a fan of his works and all the films I just mentioned, I must admit that I was very disappointed with this movie.
All of this also means huge potential for laughs and jabs should the entire process of an actor's performance on it's way to an Oscar nomination be parodied, especially if it is to be parodied by writers, Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy, of BEST IN SHOW and WAITING FOR GUFFMAN fame.
Guest himself plays Jay Berman, the director of the small Hollywood production, "Home for Purim." The film stars veteran film actress, Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara), as a mother nearing her death whose family has come home for the Jewish holiday.
"Home for Purim" has some delicious moments, but for the most part, this is one of the weaker efforts by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy.The best part of the movie for me is the farcical parody of "Entertainment Tonight", played by Willard and Jane Lynch.
What also gets ground up and spit out in the process is any hope one might have that For Your Consideration will bring about the same laughs of Christopher Guest and Company's previous efforts like WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, MIGHTY WIND, and BEST IN SHOW.For Your Consideration is a stockpile of stock jokes and characters who wrestle with dilemma's that anyone outside the 310 or 818 area codes might be hard pressed to give a s**t about.
Among the people involved are the director, played by Guest himself, who sometimes directs a scene with a pastrami sandwich in hand; O'Hara, a self-conscious professional who becomes much more the former when she finds out a rumor of Oscar buzz; Shearer as Victor Allan Miller, a stage pro who is possibly going to have to turn to commercials via his insistent agent (Levy) if this doesn't go too big; Calie Webb (Parker Posey), a young professional comedienne-turned-serious actress is also set afire by the 'buzz'; and Corey Taft (John Michael Higgins), an agent or other sort like that who has to always bring up his Native American background.There's laughs that come and go with the characters, some more than others (Ed Begley Jr, who was uproarious as the Swedish Jewish guy in Mighty Wind, is still great here as a make-up artist), but probably none more consistently and hilariously from Fred Willard.
Or for the last chunk of the film, where through the awards buzz the sensitive Marilyn Hack (O'Hara) gets a botox injection and boob-job, which incites so much great comedic moments.Though what's interesting is how at times some of the comedy works best because its more natural, and other times more based on the performers.
It was all that I had thought but in parts the movie was enjoyable because it was trying to make fun of the Oscars and the run of a movie to awards.The story is about a production crew who is making a film "Home for Purim" and all the actors and actresses in the cast are typically weird characters whom we would see and laugh.
If you enjoy Christopher Guest's style of having simple set-ups and putting wacky characters in a bound-to-go-wrong situation, you are definitely going to enjoy this film.This is not quite at the level of humor that Guest's masterpiece 2001's "Best in Show" reached, but I can firmly state that it is funnier than his two other works , 2003's "Waiting for Guffman" and 1996's "A Mighty Wind".
Two faded show business veterans are cast in a low-budget film called "Home For Purim", later retitled "Home For Thanksgiving"; once awards season rolls around, an online comment praising character actress Marilyn Hack's performance as Oscar-worthy starts a buzz in Hollywood that several actors in the cast might also be nominated.
Co-written by Eugene Levy, FYC is supposed to be a film that skewers Hollywood's award-ceremony-industrial complex, and it does, but it is also Guest's most character-focused film.O'Hara and Shearer portray veteran actors of less than distinguished service who find 'one last great chance' to earn the admiration of their peers once they are cast as leads in an ill-starred, oft- rewritten 'small' film directed by the estimable Jay Berman (Guest), "Home for Purim."The rest of the ever-expanding players in Guest's company of parodic itinerants, from Ed Begley, Jr. to Bob Balaban, to Jane Lynch and Michael McKean, surround and fill in the rest of "Purim's" cast, crew, publicists, grips, accountants, celebrity interviewers, security guards, and gawkers.
And just about every Christopher Guest fan has to associate him with "This Is Spinal Tap." How could anyone possibly leave this one out when speaking of cult classic films?Anyway, I was also disappointed with "For Your Consideration." I hope that he does redeem himself with a new film that's at the level of some of his great ones: "Spinal Tap," "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind.".
as well as what actually happens.If you are familiar with other Christopher Guest movies, this is probably his best effort since Spinal Tap. For everyone else, if you think you might enjoy hearing embarrassingly honest dialog coupled with a decent story, you'll probably like this..
From the people who brought us BEST IN SHOW, WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, and A MIGHTY WIND, comes FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, an extremely smart and deliciously funny satire that skewers Hollywood and more specifically, "the business of show business." The razor-sharp screenplay by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy centers on the production of a movie called "Home for Purim", the story of a family gathering for this Jewish Holiday during WWII who are rocked by the arrival of the daughter with her lesbian lover.
Fans of Christopher Guest's last three movies (Waiting for Guffman, Best In Show, and A Mighty Wind) will get caught off guard by this one, which is not a mockumentary.
Christoper Guest and his regular gang have made some hugely funny movies, beginning with "This is Spinal Tap" continuing through "Waiting for Guffman," "Best in Show," "A Mighty Wind" (ratting off the ones I remember at the moment) and now "For Your Consideration." Guest is known for his off-beat, lop-sided, Saturday-Night-Live sense of humor and the dialog often improvised by the actors with whom he regularly works.
This isn't his best work, but the premise is wonderful: A movie to be called "Home for Purim" (which becomes "Home for Thanksgiving" to appeal to a wider, non-Jewish audience)and cast members led to believe that they might win an Oscar for their roles in the film.
These actors SING.Parker Posey has simply grown-exponentially-as a great and fine actress.John Michael Higgins is a true and fine improvisational actor.Jane Lynch is absolutely beautiful and beautifully sarcastic.Fred Willard is a complete-and accomplished- clown.This is a complex movie-an actor's movie-which-ultimately-pays off.Ed Begley is wonderful.The whole cast is fine.The melodrama-Home For Purim-is so annoying I wanted to just chuck the whole movie-and regret the waste of all these fine actors.You have to give this movie a chance.The British lady-Nina Conti- with the monkey-puppet is both annoying and ultimately riveting-especially on the DVD outtake.Carrie Aizley and Ricky Gervais share a true acting moment -on the DVD-that is special.In baseball terms-you put a bunch of home run hitters into the line-up, and great things happen.This is ultimately Christopher Guest's most complex exploration of improv,and Chris hits a home-run.The experiment is a success.God bless you Chris!.
Basically, if you enjoy Christopher Guest's style of having simple set-ups and putting wacky characters in a bound-to-go-wrong situation, you are definitely going to enjoy this film.This is not quite at the level of humor that his masterpiece "Best in Show" reached, but I can firmly state that it is funnier than his other two works, which are "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind." It is not aimed to be grand comedy with hilarious slapstick humor (for it has none of that), but for a great bit of irony and a mockery of a form of American culture, "For Your Consideration" is all that you could ask for.
(This characterization is also the subject of the best line in the film, as Catherine O'Hara tells Shearer, "You play the actor very well.") Overall, it's tough to read Christopher Guest's "For Your Consideration" as anything other than a satire-by-numbers by a director still trying to find his way and possibly fearing that his past success has come only because of his much-liked troupe of improv actors.
It was much better than we expected.This film is way more sophisticated than the other comedies done by this group (movies like Spinal Tap, Best in Show, Waiting for Guffman, and A Mighty Wind). |
tt0411951 | Tekken | Mere moments after Jin Kazama's departure from the Hon-Maru dojo, G Corporation helicopters approach and begin deploying Jack-4s pods into the building. Heihachi Mishima and his son, Kazuya, are awoken to a squadron bursting through the walls. At first, the two battle the Jacks together until Kazuya leaves Heihachi for dead while escaping. The Jacks hold down Heihachi while one activates its detonator, creating a huge explosion that seemingly kills Heihachi. The only witness to the event is Raven, a mysterious ninja clad in black, who relays Heihachi's death to his superiors.
Heihachi's death is declared all over the world with everyone foreseeing the end of the Mishima Zaibatsu. However, somebody else takes over the company from the shadows and business continues as usual. Two months later, the King of Iron Fist Tournament 5 is announced. Meanwhile, Jin is plagued by nightmares triggered by his Devil Gene and tries to end it by entering the tournament. His father, Kazuya deduces that the Jack-4s were sent by G Corporation to assassinate him and decides to enter the tournament to take revenge against whoever had sent them.
The secret sponsor of the tournament and owner of the Mishima Zaibatsu is finally revealed to be Jinpachi Mishima, the father of Heihachi who was confined below Hon-Maru by Heihachi after a coup forty years ago. However, he was possessed by the Devil entity who granted him insurmountable power, after which he broke out of Hon-Maru during the Jacks' attacks. Jinpachi, in his last act of morality, had announced the tournament in the hope that someone would be able to kill him before his potential reign of terror could start. Jin makes it to the final round and faces his great-grandfather in a ferocious duel. Ultimately, Jin manages to defeat Jinpachi, who dissolves into dust and disappears shortly after, with his wish being fulfilled. Jin, after defeating him, becomes the new head of Mishima Zaibatsu, unaware that Heihachi survived the explosion and is working to retake the Zaibatsu. | revenge, sci-fi, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2552498 | Jack the Giant Killer | This plot summary is based on a text published ca. 1760 by John Cotton and Joshua Eddowes, which in its turn was based on a chapbook ca. 1711, and reprinted in 'The Classic Fairy Tales' by Iona and Peter Opie in 1974.
The tale is set during the reign of King Arthur and tells of a young Cornish farmer's son named Jack who is not only strong but so clever he easily confounds the learned with his penetrating wit. Jack encounters a cattle-eating giant called Cormoran (Cornish: 'The Giant of the Sea' SWF:Kowr-Mor-An) and lures him to his death in a pit trap. Jack is dubbed 'Jack the Giant-Killer' for this feat and receives not only the giant's wealth, but a sword and belt to commemorate the event. A man-eating giant named Blunderbore vows vengeance for Cormoran's death and carries Jack off to an enchanted castle. Jack manages to slay Blunderbore and his brother Rebecks by hanging and stabbing them. He frees three ladies held captive in the giant's castle.
On a trip into Wales, Jack tricks a two-headed Welsh giant into slashing his own belly open. King Arthur's son now enters the story and Jack becomes his servant.
They spend the night with a three-headed giant and rob him in the morning. In gratitude for having spared his castle, the three-headed giant gives Jack a magic sword, a cap of knowledge, a cloak of invisibility, and shoes of swiftness. On the road, Jack and the Prince meet an enchanted Lady serving Lucifer. Jack breaks the spell with his magic accessories, beheads Lucifer, and the Lady marries the Prince. Jack is rewarded with membership in the Round Table.
Jack ventures forth alone with his magic shoes, sword, cloak, and cap to rid the realm of troublesome giants. He encounters a giant terrorizing a knight and his lady. He cuts off the giant's legs, then puts him to death. He discovers the giant's companion in a cave. Invisible in his cloak, Jack cuts off the giant's nose then slays him by plunging his sword into the monster's back. He frees the giant's captives and returns to the house of the knight and lady he earlier had rescued. A banquet is prepared, but it is interrupted by the two-headed giant Thunderdel chanting "Fee, fau, fum". Jack defeats and beheads the giant with a trick involving the house's moat and drawbridge.
Growing weary of the festivities, Jack sallies forth for more adventures and meets an elderly man who directs him to an enchanted castle belonging to the giant Galigantus (Galligantua, in the Joseph Jacobs version). The giant holds captive many knights and ladies and a Duke's daughter who has been transformed into a white doe through the power of a sorcerer. Jack beheads the giant, the sorcerer flees, the Duke's daughter is restored to her true shape, and the captives are freed.
At the court of King Arthur, Jack marries the Duke's daughter and the two are given an estate where they live happily ever after. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2082415 | Saints and Soldiers: Airborne Creed | In August 1944, the Allies have invaded German-occupied France. Nazi Captain Erich Neumann (Lincoln Hoppe) speaks over the phone, comforting his family as he is concerned for their safety. Afterwards, he executes two French men. On the early morning of August 15, paratroopers from the 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team land in Provence, France under heavy fire from the Germans. Two soldiers, Corporals Harland 'Bud' Curtis (Jasen Wade) and James Rossi (Corbin Allred) land separately and alone. Curtis is pursued by Germans after a flare exposes his location, but he manages to escape.
Hours later, Curtis tries to hide from a passing German patrol, but is spotted. Seeing himself outnumbered, he quickly surrenders. As he is restrained and searched, however, a grenade is thrown into the patrol, distracting the Germans. Rossi, who had snuck up on them, kills the entire patrol and rescues Curtis. Rossi determines using a map and a compass that the two are still miles away from their intended landing zone in Les Arcs, a French village. The two set off before finding an abandoned shelter where they are followed by Curtis's commander Sergeant Caleb Jones (David Nibley).
Jones explains that the trio must head for Les Arcs as soon as they can as the Germans may send patrols after them. The three travel through the French country, eventually stopping at a road. They encounter Neumann, who is meeting with fellow officers and troops. The three try to hide in the grass but Rossi inadvertently alerts them to his position, and is forced to open fire and kill a German. The two groups engage in a brief firefight, which ends in all of Neumann's troops being killed. Seeing this, he tries to flee and is pursued by Jones. Neumann trips and Jones catches up to him, but is reluctant to shoot him, being religious. He apparently kills Neumann anyway.
The three soldiers continue making their way to Les Arcs when they find a woman named Emilie, who is a member of the French Resistance. She explains that her fellow Resistance members are being held prisoner by Germans not too far away, and she needs help rescuing them. Rossi is against this, suspicious of her motives, but Jones agrees to help. The group is briefly attacked by a German plane after it shot down an Allied plane. They find a dead American paratrooper and bury him. The soldiers find where the French are being held, so Jones and Rossi separate to clear the building while Curtis and Emilie cover for them. Jones is attacked by Germans, but they are soon shot by Curtis and Emilie, while Rossi kills guards on the other side. They find three prisoners; Philippe, Gustave and Jacques, but they learn one other was apparently tortured. Rossi goes to rescue the other, but discovers he is dead. He is then attacked by two Germans. Rossi shoots and kills one and engages in hand-to-hand combat with the other. Before Jones and Curtis can intervene, Rossi overcomes an intense fight and brutally beats the German to death. Jones is shocked by Rossi's brutality.
Jones, who speaks French, plans with Philippe to travel to Les Arcs, where Germans have overtaken the town. Along the way, they encounter two American troops; Lieutenant Woodard (Curt Doussett) and Private Stewart. Their vehicle has broken down, and Curtis begins to fix it. Rossi and Emilie have a shooting contest, where Rossi bets a kiss and Emilie bets a whistle. Emilie surprisingly wins but kisses Rossi anyway, bewildering him. After Curtis fixes the vehicle, Jones notices Woodard has German binoculars and wears brass on his uniform, something U.S. troops don't do in combat. He realizes the two are Germans posing as Americans and captures them. Jones tries to get info from them, and Woodard admits they were assigned to kill a high-up German officer to prevent his capture after Gustave kills Stewart. Jacques takes Woodard away and returns with two more French soldiers.
The group arrives at Les Arcs and Jones spots a Panzer division where a tank and a vehicle full of German troops are about to leave, intending to attack the rest of the paratroopers. Jones decides to ambush the Germans, and the group splits up into two. Curtis fires a missile at the tank, briefly stopping it, but the German troops disembark the truck and start firing. The Allied group starts firing back at them, resulting in high German casualties. Jones and Curtis both start pursuing the tank, which apparently fled earlier but now is firing at the group. All French troops except for Emilie are killed. Rossi covers for Jones and Curtis while they go after the tank. More German soldiers are killed as the skirmish ends with Jones disabling the tank. However, he is seriously wounded when a German shoots him in the chest. Curtis tries to flee but is shot in the back. Rossi is also seriously wounded after being shot. As all three lay dying, they have recollections of their previous lives.
Curtis tries to recite the Airborne Creed, something that had been said multiple times throughout the film. Before he can finish, he has a hallucination of his girlfriend, but in reality is Emilie trying to tend to his wounds, but he ends up dying in her arms. Rossi regains consciousness and is approached by Neumann, who Jones spared earlier. Rossi gets up to fight but collapses due to his wounds. Neumann does not kill him, honoring Jones' example. He takes Rossi to an abandoned farm, where he bandages his wounds and makes him a meal. Neumann tries to befriend Rossi, but Rossi cannot understand why a German is treating him well | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2852406 | Omar | Omar (Adam Bakri) is a Palestinian baker who frequently climbs the West Bank barrier to visit his lover Nadia (Leem Lubany), a high-school girl whom he intends to marry. After being beaten and humiliated by a group of Israeli soldiers, Omar and his childhood friends Tarek (Eyad Hourani) and Amjad (Samer Bisharat) stage an attack on an Israeli checkpoint. During the attack, Amjad shoots and kills an Israeli soldier. Later, Omar and his friends are subsequently pursued by the Israeli authorities. During the pursuit, Omar is captured and imprisoned by the Israeli authorities. Facing a lengthy prison term, Omar is forcibly coerced by an Israeli agent named Rami (Waleed Zuaiter) into working as a double agent for the Israeli authorities. Agent Rami secures Omar's release in exchange for the latter bringing Tarek to the authorities.
Due to his early release, Omar is stigmatized by many in his community as a suspected collaborator. Omar's predicament is further complicated by the fact that his lover Nadia is Tarek's sister. Due to Omar's delays in keeping his side of the bargain, he is arrested again by the Israeli authorities. During his imprisonment, he makes a second deal with Agent Rami in order to find out who is betraying the Palestinian militants. Omar later learns that his friend Amjad is the mole. When confronted, Amjad confesses that Nadia is pregnant with his child and that the Israelis had used that to blackmail him into working for them. Omar forces Amjad to confess to Tarek. During an ensuing struggle between the three men, Tarek is killed when his gun accidentally goes off. With the help of Agent Rami, Omar and Amjad managed to hide their involvement in Tarek's death.
Two years later, Omar visits Nadia and finds he was totally betrayed by Amjad who was not having an affair with Nadia and is now married to her with two children. She still loves him and finds Amjad did not deliver letters she wrote to him before marriage.Then he is revisited by Agent Rami who attempts to coerce him into killing another ringleader. By this stage, Nadia has abandoned her studies and become a homestay mother to two young children. During a meeting with Agent Rami, Omar tricks the former into giving him a gun under the pretext of killing Amjad. Omar instead uses the gun to kill Agent Rami as an easy way out, but the outcome of Amjad is left unclear. | revenge, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | The 3 friends (Omar, Tarek & Amjad) plus the sister Nadia are constantly kept off balance by the political tensions that come from living in Palestine.
This Oscar-nominated Palestinian film may not be as "fair and balanced" in its depiction of the seemingly endless and intractable Mid East conflict as some might wish it to be, but, like all good social dramas, the movie is far more concerned with exploring the human condition than with scoring political points.
Omar (Adam Bakri) is a young Palestinian baker who, at great risk to himself, regularly scales the massive wall that runs through occupied Palestine to hang out with his friends, Tarek (Iyad Hoorani) and Amjad (Samer Bisharat), and to carry on a secret romance with his girlfriend, Nadia (Leem Lubany), who also happens to be Tarek's sister.
Against this backdrop of simmering social and ethnic unrest, the bonds of friendship are tested in ways that will surprise and move you.Though the geographic, sectarian and boundary issues could be a bit more clearly defined for audiences less familiar with the area, the screenplay by Hany Abu-Assad finds its truth in its portrayal of what day-to-day life is like for the ordinary people who call that part of the world home.
For underneath all the outward bravado and righteous bluster, they are still just "boys" after all, with all the interests and concerns that all young men have who are embarking on this journey we call life - a journey made all the more arduous and challenging by the world in which they live.Assad's direction is taut when it needs to be (particularly in the striking foot chases through the narrow streets and alleyways of the prison-like city) and observant and patient when that is what is called for.All the actors are excellent, but special mention must be made of young Bakri, who, as the title character, runs the emotional gamut from explosive to sheepish without missing a beat, his sly, toothy grin standing in direct counterpoint to his steely gaze and serious mien.
If the saga of Omar were a wine, it would have to be described as "Shakespearian, with notes of Dante, Orwell, Golding, and Sartre." Omar is a basically decent, seemingly uncomplicated young bakery worker who is inexorably drawn into the violent political warfare of the West Bank through his love for a girl, his increasingly radicalized circle of friends from childhood, and Israeli injustice.
Right up to its unexpected, yet expectable, ending Omar is more victim than protagonist.Clearly anti-Israeli in tone, the film explores the many reasons why Palestinians maintain an abiding antagonism toward Israel and Israelis.
As the movie opens, we see Omar climbing over the separation wall (diving Israel from the West bank) to see the girl of his dreams, Nadja.
I watched Omar (2013, directed by Hany Abu-Assad) last night and thought how well Abu-Assad translated a twisting, conniving, chaotic, and disruptive sociopolitical situation to the mis-en-scene and plot points of his film.
Omar is the name of the film and is also the name of our main protagonist (Adam Bakri) one of the three friends whose sensitivity, loyalty, passion for life, and love of the cause are unflinching.
Omar tells a story of one man's life in the grande scheme of things and in the on-going battle between Jews and Arabs for a Holy Land; a land who's soil is drenched with the bloody memories of the lives once lived.Part high-tension chase film, part intricate prison/interrogation drama, Omar could easily be confused with a political-thriller that would and could be directed by Paul Greengrass (Captain Phillips); thanks to the film's effortless ability to share many of the same idealistic political views of its people, its military, its innocent and its guilty.
After facing countless attacks within the prison, being accused of treason and as collaborating with Jews, Omar's greatest challenge is to convince his peers, fellow patriots, the love of his life Nadia (Leem Lubany), as well as himself of the choices and actions he must make to clear his name and garner the trust that seems far from reach.As the plot of the film progresses, Omar, a once simple baker working outside the West Bank, daydreaming of a Honeymoon with his girlfriend and hopeful wife Nadia, becomes a conspirator of each person around him and their elaborate plans against the opposition.
The film quickly progresses to a spellbinding and exhausting flee of terror from authorities and so many questionable ideals which each side exhibits.Filmmaker Abu-Assad, who was born in Nazareth, and is no stranger to the dangers of life in the West Bank, uses Omar and his fine skills as a director to catch up and keep pace with the athletic, constantly in-pursuit protagonist.
Thankfully, Abu-Assad handles the film gracefully and unbiased, presenting the very real terrors endured by either side.Omar then becomes a film that allows anyone, including audiences, to "believe the unbelievable", even if the final ending feels forced, and completely unexpected.
Courageous director Hany Abu-Assad amazes us with yet another intriguing story set against the backdrop of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (previous ones: 'Rana's Wedding', 'Paradise Now').
With the impressive claustrophobic compositions and sets, outside and inside, the director has even more skillfully shown through his star-crossed lovers that this war in not over for soldiers or lovers anytime soon:"I believe that in the long run, separation between Israel and the Palestinians is the best solution for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Yitzhak Rabin.
This movie is filled with drama and action , and tragic romantic storyit also exposes the reality of situation in Palestine under Israeli Apartheid and Occupation it also shows the daily life pf Palestinians under occupation farther more , the director Hani Abu Assad ,who made "Paradise Now" movie , which nominated Academy Award in 2006 , but failed to win due to Israeli pressure on Academyin "Omar" we can see love beyond the Apartheid WALL , we can see sacrifices for love , facing shooting by Israeli Snipers from the watching towers , while Omar passing above the Wall, and then arresting and abused by Israeli occupation forces to be a collaborator (traitor to Palestine ) , using his love as a pressure.
OMAR is a complex film balancing a love-story involving the eponymous central character (Adam Bakri), his girlfriend Nadia (Leem Lubany), and his close friends Tarek (Ilyad Hoorani) and Amjad (Samer Basharat).
However director Hany Abu-Assad overlays this story with another plot, in which Omar is tricked by Israeli agent Rami (Maleed Zuaiter) into informing on his Palestianian cohorts.
The film's love-story elements have a distinct ROMEO AND JULIET feel about them, especially when Omar has to keep crossing into forbidden territory to see Nadia, running the perpetual risk of capture by Israeli soldiers.
The movie tells a story about four young Palestinians, three guys who are friends and involved in the line of resistance, and a girl who is a sister of one of them and the other two love her....
its normal that many reviews are simply biased regarding the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, but we are not in the 1960's anymore, the whole world know what is it like in Palestine, its not that easy to manipulate the Israeli secret service, but there are many cases of Palestinian spies who work with the Israelis after being blackmailed and the movie's main message is those people, who get involved in working with the Israelis for many reasons such as threatening their families lives or filming them having sex with Israeli females and using that in order to get them work with them....
so I'd say that giving the fact we are in 2014 I believe everyone in the world should know what is happening in reality.talking about the movie, it is not a 5 star quality, but it is worth watching specially for those who have no idea what is going on in Palestine..
in the Israeli-occupied West Bank as backdrop.American film enthusiasts may remember Abu-Assad's 2006 Golden Globe-winning Paradise Now about two Palestinians preparing a suicide attack in Israel.Less well, perhaps, anchored in our memory is 2002 Rana's Wedding, a tale of the onerous burdens of living under Israeli occupation, which sours the joy even of a marriage.Born in Nazareth, Abu-Assad is an Israeli Palestinian.
From the opening credits, Omar, powerfully, yet with restrained emotions, played by Adam Bakri, reveals the virginal intimacy between him and his love interest Nadja (Leem Lubany), that the everyday brutality of Israeli occupation distorts and corrupts, for the plain and simple reason that for the occupiers the West Bank and the aspiration of Palestinians for dignity and a homeland of their own, is nothing more than a battlefield cleared for war.There is no feeling of compromise in Abu-Assad's montage in showing the way the Israeli secret services entrap, torture and turn Palestinians informers who, to all purposes, is their "whore," or "less than humans" captives, expected to turn tricks until their last breath—a ghastly fate, only obviated by condemnation, in Omar's case to 90 years in prison for simply saying on tape, "I will not confess," four simple words that Israeli law allows to him up for life.
So, Omar makes a Faustian bargain with the Israeli agent Rami, played with blood- chilling delight by the Palestinian-American actor Waleed Zuaiter, who also produced the film.Bakri is a fly caught in Zuaiter's web.
This is caught by an almost clinical analytic camera —close ups, long views and a rhythms of editing that, at times, are hallucinatory and disorienting.Abu-Assad's Omar is the bloody wreckage of 46 years of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank.
He manages to capture the villainy of Israel's intransigence in putting off a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question until the Greek Kalends.Omar injects into the American consciousness a badly needed emotional explosiveness that is sorely missing on the effects of seemingly endless occupation of a captured people.
Abu-Assad brings to the screen destructive forces that warp both Israeli and Palestinian, as it destroys the humanity of one and the other.Abu-Assad doesn't allow compromises in the script in the way Lebanon's director Zaid Doueiri did in adapting Yamina Khadra's Attack, turning the narrative on its head.On the contrary, Omar is as much soul-searching as it is soul withering.
The Palestinian Movie, who took the Jury Prize " Certain Regard " at Cannes last year and is among the five finalists for the Oscar for best foreign film , is quite impressive thriller , but also one- sided in a manner that creating alienation from the characters leading it."Omar" is the fifth full-length film of the Palestinian director Hany Abu - Assad and the first film entirely funded by Palestinian Authority .Abu - Assad won acclaim for his film " Paradise Now ," which was nominated for an Oscar foreign film in 2005.
As "Paradise Now ," which use generic conventions of suspense and crime to describe a plot about two young Palestinians who plan to carry out a suicide bombing in Israel, " Omar " uses the same conventions and creates an exciting and accessible film, which holds a clear political message .The film tells the story of Omar (an impressive debut of Adam Bakri, the son of actor and director Mohammad Bakri), a young Palestinian, who with his two friends , Amjad and Tariq , performs an assassination of an Israeli soldier .
Omar is arrested by the Shin Bet and asked to cooperate in order to incriminate his friends and thus save himself from prison and reunite with his beloved Nadia, sister of Tariq, which may be involved in a romantic triangle with his friend Amjad .If the plot sounds similar to the Israeli film " Bethlehem " , it is indeed because it's similar in many forms .
The problem in "Omar" is that unlike " Bethlehem " it presents an unilateral presentation of the conflict , which makes the Israeli side look like a demonic monster that abuse Palestinians for pleasure (two key scenes in the movie showing casual abuse of soldiers in Omar and atrocious abuse of the GSS agent at Omar during interrogation) and the separation barrier as an obstacle placed randomly for no reason in the middle of the village and designed solely to disrupt the lives of the Palestinians.Although the film have some harsh internal criticism over the violence and conservatism in Palestinian society , this party presented both over his advantages and disadvantages ,unlike the one-sided presentation of the Israeli occupier which makes it somewhat of a propaganda film .To his credit, the film is expertly directed and despite a certain tendency to melodramatic moments and repetition of key scenes , it is interesting viewing experience contains a small number of surprising narrative twists , suspenseful chase scenes and a high production level .
Omar is an Oscar-nominated film that was made in Israel and Palestinian territory by a filmmaker (Hany Abu-Assad) and actors who are apparently Israeli citizens but are ethnic Palestinians.
I hope there were no standing ovations at the end.The film is about a Palestinian guy (Omar, played by Adam Bakri) who, along with a couple friends, shoot an Israeli soldier.
I love these film, it's a thriller and love story, critical to Palestinian customs and Israeli occupation and politic.
Omar is a Palestinian who climbs the horrible concrete walls that separate his land from Israel to see his friend Tarek and his sister - Nadia - whom he is head over heels in love with, They have a third friend who also has the hots for the school girl Nadia.
Thia movie is not exactly about the fight for freedom and the end of the occupation of Palestine by Israel although the plot takes place on that frame and the three main protagonists are freedom fighters.
Omar the main character in the film is a Palestinian who lives in the Palestinian Territories, while his girlfriend Nadia an Arab Israeli lives in Israel.
He does this successfully, but throughout his relationship with Nadia, conflicts start to occur when Omar is sent to the police for being convicted of a crime he did not commit, which was killing one of the Israeli military soldiers.
Knowing that this is a film made by Palestinians, i thought in would be another tearful story beautifying and whitewashing the life in the Palestinian territories, and would just present a melodramatic aspect of the drama these people are going through.
There would be one more story about the "bad Jews" and "those poor people" (the Palestinians)who,"living under inhuman oppression just try to survive fighting courageously the Israeli occupation and its consequences on their everyday life".
A compelling drama of love, loyalty & betrayal, Omar offers an insight into the existing political & religious tension between Israelis & Palestinians that is captured from the latter's perspective and with the help of its composed direction, honest performances, raw photography & an unexpectedly shocking finale, it manages to make itself heard in a quite brutal manner.Omar tells the story of its titular character; a young Palestinian working as a baker who joins the freedom fight against Israel with two of his best friends but is apprehended after the killing of an Israeli soldier at a military base.
Tricked into confessing his association in the act & facing a lifetime sentence, his only way out is to work as an informant for the Israeli police, to which he agrees.Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, there is a tension looming over its premise from start to finish even though it's mostly a tragic love story than a political thriller.
The writing uses the difficult choices one ends up making under difficult circumstances to great effect, the characters are believable, performances are authentic, camera-work is excellent & although there are pacing issues, the drama remains absorbing for the most part.On an overall scale, Omar is an elegantly crafted drama that isn't about the ideology separating these two groups but is an exploration of the human condition & tries to capture what it's like to live in constant fear & oppression.
I think "Omar" would make (with the appropriate music) a fine opera, with the Israeli intelligence operative a character similar to Scarpia in "Tosca." Second, I hope the film will soon be available as a DVD.
Hany Abu-Assad's Omar is the Palestinian take on the Intelligence game that Bethlehem presented from the Israeli side.
The plot:Returning from the West Bank barrier after secretly meeting his girlfriend Nadia,Omar gets beaten up by Israeli soldiers.
In the end of the of the movie, he keeps his loyalty to Amjad by not telling the police office who actually killed the soldier.
The film's political bias begins with the harsh wall Omar has to scale to get to Nadia and back home.
The film's political bias begins with the harsh wall Omar has to scale to get to Nadia and back home.
I feel like Paradise Now was more about bringing light to the conflict and and real world situation, whereas Omar was more of a film with a far more structured story and scenes, that simply used the same setting as Paradise Now. I also thought the ending to Omar was very good.
Originally I thought Omar was going to use the gun to kill Amjad for many reasons, but it didn't end up that way..
Omar and his friends were involved in an Israeli soldier's death, and as a result he is forced to work as an informant for the Israelis, and betray not only his friends, but the love of his life, Nadia.
Throughout the film, Omar and Nadia were inseparable, and so in love.
For some reason, I wasn't really sad when he did this, because the Israeli had been pressuring and torturing Omar throughout the entire film as his informant.
Omar must climb the wall that separates the Palestinian territories from Israel.
Omar needed to capture his friend, Tarek, because he lead the mission to kill an Israeli soldier. |
tt0159142 | You're in the Super Bowl, Charlie Brown! | The special begins with Snoopy, as the world-famous Coach, getting his football team, The Birds, ready. It consists entirely of Woodstock and his tiny friends. The announcer says, this game will decide the Eastern Champ for the "AFL" (Animal Football League). They are playing the team "The Cats" a ferocious group of cats. The Birds crush The Cats, 38–0, making them the Eastern champs. The team celebrates by pouring "Chirpade" on the coach (Chirpade is a parody of Gatorade).
Then, Lucy asks Charlie Brown to kick a football. Charlie Brown refuses to do it. Lucy then asks him "Are you gonna go through life not trusting anyone? That's no way to live." Charlie Brown decides, she's right, and tries to kick the ball, until Peppermint Patty comes, with Marcie, Franklin, and Linus, and tells Charlie Brown and Lucy, there will be a punt pass and kick contest, and first prize wins a new bicycle, and a trip to the Super Bowl, and they should all enter. While Lucy is looking at the poster for it, Charlie Brown realizes now is his chance to kick the football, and runs up to kick it, but Lucy (as usual) pulls it away, and the round-headed boy lands on his back as a result.
While Charlie Brown and Linus are practicing for the contest, they notice a very pretty girl, who catches Linus's attention. They both walk over to her, and introduce themselves to her. The girl says her name is Melody-Melody, and has been watching them. They flirt with her, and take her out for hot fudge sundaes. They then try to impress her, and try to tell her how they'll be entering the punt-and-pass contest. Melody says she will be rooting for them at the contest.
Then, The Birds play a football game against The Dogs to figure out which team will be going to the Super Bowl. The Birds crush The Dogs, 58–0, and another drink of Chirpade is poured onto the coach.
Then at the punt-and-pass contest, Charlie Brown and Linus see Melody watching them, and they argue who Melody came to watch. The announcer announces every player, and every player gets a better score than the next one, except for Marcie who doesn't want to kick the football (because the football didn't do anything to deserve being kicked).
On Charlie Brown's turn, he scores more points than anyone so far, and Peppermint Patty, says, "Hey I think that wins it for Chuck." But then, Linus beats Charlie Brown's score. Linus gets so excited because he thinks he won. But the announcer announces the last contestant, Miss Melody Melody! Charlie Brown and Linus are confused, since they thought Melody came to watch them play, not enter the contest herself.
Melody beats Linus's score. Linus gets upset. He admits to Charlie Brown that he was in love with her. Melody wins the new bicycle and the tickets to the Super Bowl, leaving Charlie Brown and Linus in shock.
Then in the AFL World Championship, The Birds take on The Bison. The announcer admits he doubts The Birds have a chance against The Bison, a team from Buffalo, New York (and thus a parody of the Buffalo Bills). As the game begins, Lucy comes onto the field, and tells Snoopy he is a horrible coach, and his team will get crushed. But once again, The Birds crush the other team, 62–0 (again parodying Bills assistant coach Chuck Dickerson's disparaging the Washington Redskins prior to Super Bowl XXVI). The Birds are the World Champions! The Birds celebrate this time by pouring Chirpade on Lucy.
Charlie Brown and Linus are at the wall. Linus says that he is so upset that the girl of his dreams beat him in the contest. He says he will not trust anyone ever again. Charlie Brown tells him - "Your sister says we can't go through life doubting everyone. We have to learn to trust each other". Lucy then comes to them holding a football, to which Charlie Brown says - "I can't stand it". | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Super Bowl. I gave You're in the Super Bowl, Charlie Brown a seven. This movie was a pretty good movie because it was an escape from cliché Charlie Brown movies, I personally thought that it was not a classic but at least original. The plot gave what it promised, and didn't exactly draw things out very long as other movies did. It's a normal family movie and you cant complain about that. Not an excellent classic but you should at least give it a look. This wasn't the best Charlie Brown movie of course but you can enjoy it without having to analyze it or describe it, you just pop it in and watch. It's good for a rainy dark day when you have nothing to do. So overall this movie would be about a seven.. Superbowl Charlie Brown. I remember watching this Charlie Brown special on VHS. Now it's pretty cool for a Charlie Brown special as it a Football theme story line.Also it features the logo and teams of the NFL National Football League which looking back is not something you see all the time in any other form of media let alone with Charlie Brown, Snoopy and the other Peanut Gang. You have to be a fan of both football and the Peanut Gang to enjoy this special which I am a fan of both since I love the Peanut gang since I was a kid and I grew up around Football that it's impossible not to find good entertainment out of this film.It has a good mix of humor plus seeing Snoopy as a football coach is really cool While it does have a lack of a lot it factor to the film it's still fun and that's what the Peanut films are suppose to be. Good animation as well that's a plus as well as funny voice work as you would get any from The Peanut special It does feature an original plot for a Charlie Brown special so do yourself a favor and check it out.I give You're In The Super Bowl Charlie Brown an 7 out of 10. Pitiful. This is an embarrassing low for Peanuts - an NFL advertisement disguised as a children's TV special. I don't know if it's more embarrassing than Flashbeagle or not. That special was contrived purely by a marketing department while this one actively tries to shove NFL trademarks, logos and events down children's throats.If you ever get the chance to purchase this at a Shell station after filling up with a minimum of 8 gallons (that was the chief method of distribution of this gem), save your money and just wait for the Snoopy/Met Life blimp to pass overhead. It's far more interesting and it affords the opportunity to tell your kids about helium. Or better yet, watch the Christmas or Thanksgiving special again.. One of the weakest Peanuts shorts.. I'm not quite sure what to make of You're in the Super Bowl, Charlie Brown. Unlike the other ones which have an idea of plot, in this one things kind of happen and then they kind of stop. The story is of some kind of football contest, basically to see who can throw a football the farthest, and kick it the farthest. Charlie Brown (Jimmy Guardino) and Linus Van Pelt (John Christian Graas) decide to enter, along with the rest of the Peanuts gang. Linus meets a girl named Melody-Melody (yes that is her real name) (Crystal Kuns) whom he falls for and tells her that he is entering in the contest. Melody wishes him luck. At the contest Linus kicks the ball the furthest but then Melody unexpectedly appears and blows his score away. Then the film pretty much ends. Yeah this was pretty insignificant. It doesn't really seem big enough to deserve it's own film. At the end I was just looking at my screen thinking "What's next? Is this really where it ends." It felt as though there should have been more. Honestly I think they were just going for broke when they wrote this. I love the Peanuts but this was just kind of weak. |
tt1640459 | Hobo with a Shotgun | A hobo arrives by boxcar in Hope Town, its welcome sign repainted to read "Scum Town". The town is ruled by "The Drake" and his sadistic sons Ivan and Slick. The Hobo sees an amateur film maker shooting a "Bumfight" movie. As he pushes his shopping cart through the streets, a bloodied man screams for assistance. Two cars approach the man, revealing The Drake and his sons. The man is revealed to be Logan, The Drake's younger brother. The Drake explains to the townspeople that his brother is a traitor and will be made example of. He proceeds to publicly decapitate Logan with a barbed-wire noose.
The Hobo sees a lawnmower in a pawn shop. Wishing to buy it, he starts begging for change on a sidewalk. He sees a group of punks drag a homeless man into The Drake's night club. Ivan and Slick enter the building and he follows them in. Inside, the brothers, along with their henchmen, torture and kill homeless people in demented arcade style games. Slick begins harassing a boy named Otis, who owes him money. A prostitute named Abby attempts to intervene, angering Slick. Ivan snaps Otis' arm. Slick then propositions the hooker, gets her outside, then prepares to kill her. The Hobo intervenes, knocks Slick unconscious and carries him to the police station.
At the station, he learns of the police chief's corruption and complicity with criminal activities and he hate hobos and the others cops hate hobos also. Ivan enters the station and, along with the chief, restrains The Hobo. Slick then joins the two, roughs up The Hobo and carves the word "scum" onto his chest. The Hobo is then thrown into a garbage bin by the chief and the another cop. He stumbles across Abby, who takes him to her apartment and tends to his wounds. The next day, The Hobo goes to the amateur filmmaker seen earlier to make money. Upon completing a series of degrading acts, including chewing glass, he earns enough money to purchase the lawnmower. At the pawnshop, a trio of robbers enter and take a woman and her baby hostage. The Hobo grabs a shotgun from the shelf and kills the robbers. Realizing that Hope Town needs justice, he chooses the shotgun, which costs the same as the lawnmower. He buys the gun and kills dozens of criminals, including the filmmaker, a pimp, a coke lord and a pedophile dressed as Santa Claus.
The Drake, infuriated, sets loose Ivan and Slick. The two burn a school bus filled with children to terrorize people because the kids like hobos. Afterwards, they bursts into a television studio during a live news broadcast, kill the anchorman who like the hobo and demand that all homeless people be killed. The Drake then joins them and requests The Hobo be brought to him. The town is plunged into anarchy as a mass genocide of the towns vagrants begins.
As Abby is walking home, a corrupt cop attempts to rape her, but The Hobo kills him. The gunshots alert a nearby group, who rush to investigate. Abby smuggles The Hobo past them in a shopping cart covered with the dead cop's remains. The pair are spotted by Otis, who informs Slick and Ivan. Back at her apartment, The Hobo tells Abby of his plan to start a lawnmowing business, which she enthusiastically supports. Ivan and Slick enter the apartment and attack the two, wounding Abby. The Hobo overpowers Slick and holds him at gunpoint, then forces Ivan to leave. The Hobo then shoots Slick in the groin, and takes Abby to the hospital. Slick gets to a payphone and calls The Drake. He is then dragged down to hell in a demonic, perpetually burning schoolbus. The Drake, mourning the death of his favorite son, resolves to take The Hobo down. He summons "The Plague", a duo of armor-clad demons: Rip and Grinder. While Abby is recovering, The Hobo visits the maternity ward and monologues to the babies. When he returns to Abby's room, The Plague capture and deliver him to The Drake, who plans to publicly execute him.
Abby, having recovered, returns to the pawn shop for weapons. She attaches an axe to The Hobo's shotgun and turns the lawnmower into a shield. She then rallies a crowd to free The Hobo and bring down The Drake. Abby holds Ivan hostage and confronts The Drake. However, he shoots his son and denounces him as a disappointment. In the ensuing fight, she manages to kill Grinder. The Drake then severs her hand with the lawnmower shield, but she stabs him repeatedly with her exposed arm bone, incapacitating him. Rip tries to persuade Abby to replace Grinder as his partner, but The Hobo drives him off.
The Hobo spots The Drake crawling away to safety and prepares to execute him, but is interrupted by the corrupt police. The townspeople, motivated by Abby, stand up against the police. Not wishing to let innocent people die for him, The Hobo ends the stalemate by killing The Drake, and is gunned down by the police as Abby screams. The townspeople respond by shooting and killing all the corrupt police.
In an extended ending that was cut from the final film, Abby's hand is replaced by several shotguns as she becomes part of The Plague. | comedy, murder, cult, violence, absurd, satire, revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | The chunks of the movie that involve crazy old Rutger Hauer blasting through waves of baddies in brutal fashion and the bizarre acts of violence perpetrated by the films antagonists are easily the highlights, and they never fail to delight with their brilliant, twisted gore effects.
This is a great example of a movie that is made to be corny, cheesy and fun to watch!It was like watching a B movie 80's horror BUT it is meant to be that way instead of the usual happening where the movie was seriously made and you can't help but cringe at how bad it is!Rutger Hauer is great as the hobo, funny as hell!
I remember 'ol Rutger from wedlock and other decades old films of his so to see him in this is hilarious and couldn't help think what a great actor for agreeing to make this film (ok the real life truth is something different, money and fame, but i like my version of reality!)...quality!I don't want to give away any spoilers and would just recommend that you watch it and remember it is meant to be a horror spoof kind of thing, so leave your serious head at the door...this film genre is a bit like machete i guess except machete sucks and this one doesn't....
Hobo With a Shotgun (2011), gore/retro/post/apocalyptic fantasy film, is another of those endearing films in which after generous doses of violence of the most extreme nature, we learn in the most didactic and realistic way possible, the importance of values indispensable to coexist in society, such as justice, sacrifice, friendship, and perhaps love; without which the social pyramid would become a desolate desert of ignorance, depravity and abuses of the strong over the weak.The story itself, unfolds in the manner of a Nordic saga, set no longer in the woods and the sea, but in the dirty and miserable streets inhabited by homeless people without dignity, drug addicts armed with knives, and girls and hungry children without dreams nor hopes, who sell their body or their pain for a coin, where the only thing that seems abundant is gushing blood for pure pleasure and drugs.
Was he always a hobo or fell under these conditions due to some unforeseen misfortune, the fall of Wall Street, the Second American Civil War, bad friends, drink, gambling, stealing, betrayal, deception, or even a personal rebellion against the consumer society?), decides to take it in their hands and clean it, entering into action as a Patriarch of the early times, whose only law is the rumble of his shotgun, thus giving up his own absurd hopes (to end his days as a gentle gardener in the suburbs).
Although you will have to wait a little bit before hobo and shotgun are united in a cacophony of blood and guts.This movie is about a nameless hobo (Rutger Hauer) who rides the rail and arrives in a new town where the movies intentions are immediately made obvious.
After observing more obscenities Rutger comes to the aid of a prostitute in trouble, Abby (Molly Dunsworth) and they strike up an unlikely friendship as the movie progresses.Now our hobo's dream is but a simple one, he is intent on starting a honest gardening business and gathers his pennies to buy an old lawnmower.
However fate conspires against him and he ends up with a pump action shotgun instead and sets about ridding the streets of crime (definitely makes for a better story!) With one liners as classic as: Abby: "You can't solve all the world's problems with a shotgun!" Hobo: "It's all I know." it's not hard to see the standard that this movie has set for itself!
At times the gore looks quite convincing and at others less so but it comes so thick and fast that you won't have time to worry yourself with small matters such as that.If you don't have a strong stomach them I definitely recommend that you give this one a miss and that also goes for people who think that this movie won't involve children in the mayhem, because it does and on several occasions as well.
Just by the title, I could always tell that Hobo with a Shotgun was going to be a fun bloody action movie, and I was completely right.
I can't see this film getting anything but NC-17 if it does get submitted for a rating.The movie begins with a happy, overly bright view of the hobo getting off of a train and entering an unnamed city, looking for a new life.
Several attempts over the past few years have tried to re-create the whole look and feel of the grind house films such as the two films in the Grindhouse feature from 2007 as well as Robert Rodriguez's Machete and now comes Hobo with a Shotgun.
Much like Machete, Hobo with a Shotgun was one of the fake trailers in the Grindhouse theatre experience and later was turned into a feature film.
A hobo comes to a town where it is controlled by a ruthless crime lord and his sons and everywhere you go people are being murdered and the town looks like something out of a post apocalyptic film and the police are not doing anything because they are just as corrupt as the crime lords themselves.
Right off I am going to say that if you are at all turned off by brutal and sadistic violence, or if you are easily offended, or grossed out by such things then do not even try watching Hobo with a Shotgun, because you will be leaving the theatre and demanding for a refund.
The story is simple, but that is not a problem as most of the grind house and cult films from back in the day were and this one captures the visual style, the dialogue and the over the top violence in a way that makes you feel as if you have time travelled back to the 70's and are watching a brand new film released from that era about a hobo and his shotgun.
HOBO is one of those gems.Hollywood as watered us down year after year with sequels, remakes, and just plain garbage, and the true visceral hardcore cinema us Generations X-er's grew up on has been long gone, unless you're a gen x-er who dabbles in independent filmmaking.HOBO, the new feature film based upon the Canadian Faux Grindhouse trailer attached to the Canadian prints of Grindhouse is now making waves left and right around the world.Rutger Hauer, in top form, is a homeless man who strolls on into to Hope Town, a crime ridden haven that would most likely be compared to Hell on Earth.HOBO, goes completely over the top, and I mean completely over.
It's not the hobo who's bad, it's the world ;) It's nice to see a completely over the top, crazy insane, violent and often ridiculous blood bath film manage to have a character that you can love, one that you will cheer for.
I really enjoyed listening to the soundtrack to this movie, it fit the time of emotion, from feeling sad, crazy action, lots of gore or even watching the hobo on a train in the opening credits.
Watch it, if you can get by the excessive violence, like having a good time or like action, go to the movies, or you can even wait for it's release on DVD, it will be a great movie either way..
Rutger Hauer is great as the Hobo with a shotgun, but there are two movies at battle here.
One is a gritty exploitation film about a man pushed beyond his limit and a Troma movie complete with horribly over the top performances, topless girls engaged in tired acts of ultra-violence, and many freezer size bags of fake cocaine.
Hobo With A Shotgun is just too Troma, which is not a great surprise given that just like Troma movies it is a copy of the real thing.
buckets and buckets of blood and poorly made over the top violence where you can apparently break and arm in two with one hand etc.weird effects like red light and smoke inside a hospital is just one of the weird stuff that don't make any sense.i think it actually dragged some pretty good actors below their own level.brian downey did really good in lexx but here its just kinda painful to watch him act.rutger and molly really struggels to keep the movie floating despite what it is but they are overpowered by how bad the entire production is.basically you can tell the actors cant themselves really take it serious or believe in the mess of story it is.I've seen a lot of b movies and ultragore but this is probably the worst one so far.save your money rent something else.this is just junk..
It was funny, the music was good, the acting fit the movie perfectly (meaning that no Oscars will be awarded, but the actors knew what they were doing), and it had a bunch of memorable scenes.The guy who plays the hobo did a great job, IMO.
They were also very creative when they made this movie, especially in coming up with creative and disgusting ways of killing people, and it is a very eerie film to watch which definitely has plenty of thriller moments.I also liked the story of this movie overall, and it seems to say something about where our world maybe could end up heading, as corruption takes over their city.
It could be that we aren't giving the earnest efforts of gore hounds and their ilk a fair shake for more fun renditions for the taboo.Critical analysis can ride shotgun to the sheer awesomeness of the practical special effects and cheesy one liners.You would think a film of it's genre, the retro throwback gore fest would fall flat because the budget just isn't there or the script just isn't fresh enough but the efforts of the tightly knit crew and the joy of super star Rutger Hauer having as much fun they can on the brightest sets of blood splattered drywall and practical special effects that are just fun to look at.Do not overlook the efforts of the humble yet busy background cast, basking in the blood soaked glory of the titular Hobo with a Shotgun and the villains.
Rutger Hauer is a very well liked actor to me, and his acting was still good but the story was set be be totally unbelievable, and I think that was intensionally done that way.
"Hobo with a Shotgun" is a fairly impressive debut film considering it sprang from a two-minute "fake trailer," but there are a number of issues which may keep it from reaching true "cult" status (for which it was clearly intended)...and a number of notes it hits perfectly.Rutger Hauer is a perfect fit for his role and as charismatic as always; anyone into schlocky cult films will feel right at home seeing him play the title character.
The homeless man decides to take a stand and takes to wiping all the filth off the streets with a shotgun, while trying to help a sympathetic hooker named Abby (Molly Dunsworth) get off the game.Always such pleasant affairs these Grindhouse entries, Jason Eisener's film revels in trash, exploitation and blood splattered violence like no other.
Although it does seem as if the role's been catered to him a bit, as it feels, especially towards the end, to be in the style of an 80s film, which were his forte, but it's no less of an unrewarding experience.It will probably get an appreciation among the hardcore of those who love this sort of thing, but I found this hobo with a shotgun to misfire quite badly.
I came into this movie hoping for a slew of cheap effects, bad acting, and even worse script-writing...well, i got all of that, unfortunately, the gore level was so high and so explicit i didn't laugh too much.Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a gory flick, but there are lines that should never be crossed.
from there, the hobo with a shotgun is born.If you haven't guessed, this film is Canadian, and it's opening and closing credits feel like they belong to a early to mid 80's movie.
Hobo with a Shotgun started its life as one of the fake trailers between the grindhouse Tarantino/Rodriguez double bill Death Proof and Planet Terror and just like Machete should probably have stayed there.
I'm sure a lot of people will want to watch it seeing only its title, thinking it's a movie like Zombieland where a ridiculous plot is executed as a funny comedy..
how is this enjoyable??..); and then for the movie what you get is:gore terribly executed, cries of victims (it gets annoying after the first minute), awful image quality (as if watching an 1990 movie), amateur camera movement, absolutely no plot but a lot of meaningless blabla, 100% stupidity, poor acting and the worst of all is that it's filled only with sick, distorted & psycho fetish ideas of how to kill or humiliate or beat up another being & in my opinion anyone who enjoys it has got some serious mental issues to resolve.In conclusion, it saddens me to see that today's mentality likes the concepts that this movie is made of.
The acting is horrifying (even Hauer looks like he's only ever acted in the Westborough rendition of 'Our Town', and he's the best thing about this movie!), the script is appalling (characters disappearing, really cheesy but unfunny one-liners, metaphors thought up by two-year-olds), the music (just bad), the lighting, the set-design, everything is awful.
I deeply LOVE Rutger Hauer, and I understand the motivation for the movie, he's drawn to it, the story is good, great gore and trash, the meaning was there but needed more, more truth and exposure of actual facts and injustices, but the execution is in fact dreadful !
Rutger Hauer – looking pretty grizzled and weather-beaten these days – is pretty good in the title role; the use of saturated colour gives the film a fresh, original look that's deliberately at odds with the subject matter; and a few key scenes shine like diamonds in a pile of manure, but the filmmakers have no idea about when the time is right to take a step back so that we can lift our heads and take a breath for a moment before being submerged once more in their foul world of violence and gore.
Like "Machete" 2010 this movie has the "Grindhouse" feel to it with tons of blood and gore, while looking really cheap.
his weather-beaten features tells a story of a life lived hard and ruined by a series of unfortunate events that led him to becoming a hobo.the film is loaded with gory death scenes which includes but not limited to a decapitation, a foot being smashed with a sledgehammer and of all things someone getting their penis blown off with a shotgun.
The film fully delivers what it wants and brings back great memories from the past when we loved reading tales of sanely crusaders.A Hobo (Rutger Hauer) comes to a city called 'Hope Town' that has been reduced to a 'Scum Town' by the ruling mafia family of The Drake (Brian Downey).
Been awhile since last I saw a good Rutger Hauer movie, so "Hobo With a Shotgun" wasn't one that was ranking high on my 'to-watch-list', though that turned out to be a mistake.Don't let the cheesy title scare you off, because this movie is extreme and ultra violent in ways I hadn't even begun to imagine.
Rutger Hauer was quite good in the role of the shotgun-wielding hobo, and it was nice to see him back in a movie like this, a movie that actually will be remembered.Something that made the work for me, aside from all the blood, gore and mayhem, was the way that the movie was shot.
And also that whole vigilante-justice aspect to the movie worked out so well, it was like a Charles Bronson movie gone bad - but in a good way!It should be said that there is a lot of graphic violence in the movie, so "Hobo With a Shotgun" is not suitable for all viewers.
I mean read the title back to yourself, look at the extreme artwork on the DVD cover and tell me you thought it would be anything other than a low-budget action film with lots of gore, a ridiculous plot and plenty of over-acting (save for Hauer, who was excellent).
Don't get me wrong, I love a good horror flick and I don't mind the occasional violent action film but, a movie needs to have more to it than just violence.The plot, what there is of it, revolves around Hobo (Rutger Hauer) who rides the rails into an unnamed city that is a modern day Sodom.
its not the worst thing i seen, yet, this movie looks like it was filmed in Canada and has a lot of senseless violence from start to finish, so after i saw the video i looked it up and found it was made with a budget of 3 million bucks, i thought its budget was a lot less, if your into old school 80s blood and gore this might be what your looking for.
However i seen many people get up and leave during the film, and all I'm thinking in my head was that these people paid to go see a movie called " HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN" what exactly did they expect to see?.
How Did They Ever Make a Movie Like Hobo with a Shotgun?.
I should probably start off by pointing out that if you're one of those who considers a movie like Taxi Driver to be "violent", "gruesome", or "out of hand" in any way, you may want to skip Hobo With A Shotgun.
Hobo with a Shotgun is a great piece of neo-exploitation, drawn from a fake trailer in the film Grindhouse. |
tt0221735 | Kadokyaputa Sakura | Cardcaptor Sakura takes place in the fictional Japanese city of Tomoeda which is somewhere near Tokyo. Ten-year-old Sakura Kinomoto accidentally releases a set of magical cards known as Clow Cards from a book in her basement created and named after the sorcerer Clow Reed. Each card has its own unique ability and can assume an alternate form when activated. The guardian of the cards, Cerberus, emerges from the book and chooses Sakura to retrieve the missing cards. As she finds each card, she battles its magical personification and defeats it by sealing it away. Cerberus acts as her guide, while her best friend and second cousin, Tomoyo Daidouji films her exploits and provides her with battle costumes. Sakura's older brother Toya Kinomoto watches over her, while pretending that he is unaware of what is going on.
Syaoran Li, a boy Sakura's age and descendant of Clow Reed, arrives from Hong Kong to recapture the cards himself. While initially antagonistic, he comes to respect Sakura and begins aiding her to capture the cards. Once Sakura captures all of the cards, she is tested by Yue the judge, the cards' second guardian, to determine if she is worthy of becoming the cards' true master; Yue is also the true form of Yukito Tsukishiro, Toya's best friend. Aided by her teacher Kaho Mizuki, Sakura passes the test and becomes the new master of the Clow Cards.
Afterwards, Eriol Hiiragizawa, a transfer student from England, arrives in Tomoeda and begins causing disturbances with two guardian-like creatures, Spinel Sun and Ruby Moon. Sakura is suddenly unable to use the Clow Cards and transforms her wand, beginning the process of evolving the cards into Sakura Cards as Eriol causes strange occurrences that forces her to use and thus transform certain cards. Once all the cards have been transformed, Eriol tells Sakura that he aided her in converting the cards so they would not lose their magic powers. Syaoran later confesses his love to Sakura, who comes to realize she also loves him. Cardcaptor Sakura concludes with Syaoran returning to Hong Kong with a promise to return. Two years later, Syaoran moves back to Tomoeda permanently.
The plot of the anime series is extended, featuring 52 Clow Cards from the manga's original 19, and certain scenes are stretched and delayed, such as Cerberus' true form not being revealed until just before Yue's appearance. Sakura creates a 53rd card, Hope, a talent she is not shown to have in the manga. Some of the circumstances around the capturing of the cards is changed, such as Syaoran capturing several cards himself and being tested by Yue in the Final Judgment. Syaoran's cousin and fiancée Meiling Li is introduced in the anime, who positions herself as a romantic rival for Sakura later in the series and also a friend until she returns to Hong Kong. The TV series leaves the relationship between Sakura and Syaoran unresolved, but Sakura confesses her love to Syaoran at the end of the second anime film.
Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card Edition starts at the point where the first series ends, when Sakura starts junior high school along her friends, including Syaoran, who had just returned to Tomoeda. After having a dream with a mysterious cloaked figure, all of Sakura's cards turn blank and are rendered powerless, thus she starts her quest to find out what is wrong. In doing so, Sakura and her allies discover and capture new transparent cards using a new key. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | I am also a 17 year old male, and I love CCS -both the Manga and the Anime- it's so imaginative and well thought through, each character has his/her own personality and the're own hobbies and love interests.
It is aimed more towards girl readers/watchers, but this is probably due to the team of writers (CLAMP) are all female, guys can still enjoy it though - as long as they have an open mind and aren't too "macho" to watch Anime/read Manga.
I haven't actually seen the first movie (only the second one) but I still believe that it is worth watching, and as soon as I track down a copy, I guarantee that I will love every second of it ^^ Go Sakura!
Sakura is your average Japanese fourth-grader, until she unwittingly releases some troublesome demon-posessed cards from an old book, along with its familiar protector, Kero-chan (a smart-mouthed and decidedly cuter sidekick than "Sailor Moon"s cat).
She gains allies along the way with her friend Tomoyo ("Madison", in the US dub) and Li Shaorun (although sometimes Sakura's not sure whether or not he's a real ally; the kid, who's been raised a cardcaptor by his family, has a real ego).The series boasts top-notch animation for a TV-series, even by Japanese standards (and I've watched a lot of anime), and the dialogue is neither stale nor repetitive.
I admit, "Sailor Moon" is cute and I watched it when I was little, but it doesn't contain the depth of character, plot, and animation as "Cardcaptor Sakura".
One of the most annoying habits of "Sailor Moon" is how the lead character is saved or at least aided practically every time by the dashing male lead, Tuxedo Kamen ("Tuxedo Mask", in the US dub).
Li Shaorun can be a brat (and eventually evolves to crushing on Sakura as the series progresses), but he's that way because of his background.
He's been ingrained by his family to capture cards, and at first he sees Sakura as an amateur rival who he doesn't need (he actually feels threatened by her presence in the beginning).
Even Kero, with his sharp mouth and love of video games, and Sakura's older brother, a true pain in the butt (in an endearing and entirely lifelife way), makes the series all the more realistic and worthwhile.
Unfortunately, the American dub doesn't even include the first eight episodes, so you don't even see Sakura accidently freeing the cards!!
I'm a 17 year old male and I openly admit to my friends that I loved Card Captor Sakura.
And while guys my age may not enjoy this, it's perfect for those new to anime, especially girls.
great anime series, enjoyed it all the way through.
well, i haven't watched all of this series(up to episode 43) but from what i have watched I've loved it, although i am severely looking forward to seeing what kero looks like when he changes.
when i was first told to see this, i came onto here to read the plot summary and thought "oh, another girlie magical anime again" but i was wrong, this anime has such emotion in it you just cannot not enjoy it, i recommend it to all ages.
when she opens the book cards fly out all over the place and scatter around the world, and it is sakuras job to secure all the clow cards with her companion kero, and her costume designer/Filmer tomoyo.i think anyone will enjoy this anime as all the characters have such emotion and are definitely cute, and so are sakuras costumes..
Card Captor Sakura got the way to my heart immediately, it was exciting, funny and beautiful.
I caught a few of the American versions on TV before watching the original series.
I think everyone who has seen the original series that its superior to the US version.
I was another CCS fan who was horribly irritated when the WB chopped and hacked the series into bits, but it's good to see it back in its original form.
The dub destroyed the relationship between Sakura's older brother and his "friend", and this uncut version of Card Captor Sakura finally gives their relationship the respect it deserves.If you've only seen the dub, prepared to see some HUGE differences in dialogue and scenes.
Card Captor Sakura is a great series...
I have watched all 70 episodes and both of the Card Captor Sakura Movies.
Kids, which has been edited to make Sakura just another character because they wanted to target young boys and girls.
In my opinion if you want chopped up anime watch the dubbed episodes which are not only cut up, but out of order, and most episodes have been skipped.
There are 70 episodes, Tomoyo's special episodes and a few mini movies, one of which was shown with the CCS Movie 2: The Sealed Card called Kero Chan's Big Adventure, which is also included on the DVD.CCS in japan is a mahou shoujo anime by CLAMP(a well respected manga group), japanese for Magical Girl type anime, example...sailor moon.
CCS has better animation and a better plot so watch out for it..
I think Tomoyo Daidouji is the cutest, smartest, most wonderful character in the history of fictional stories!
Cardcaptor Sakura is the greatest anime series in the world because of Tomoyo!
CLAMP has captured the hearts of fans worldwide with this movie.I will say this: As the first of two Card Captor Sakura movies, this film is, of course, much more enjoyable to one who is familiar with the television series.
And since most fans of the series will have seen this (and loved it), I guess the only people who will take the time to read this comment are casual anime fans who are curious about the show.There is a lot of entertainment to be found even for those who aren't acquainted with the show.
While this film probably isn't the best way to become acquainted with the wonderful characters of CLAMP's Card Captor Sakura, it does exemplify everything that makes CCS one of the most beloved manga/anime series around.
Also, and to a lesser extent (as this movie is often more serious than the anime), it gives you a bit of a window into the themes and nature of the television show.The story is simple enough: the magical girl Sakura wins, not by chance, tickets to go to Hong Kong.
Her "rival" Syaoran and his cousin Meiling join Sakura as she faces mysterious forces.What makes it worth watching is its execution.
True, it does follow the happenings of a girl who is gifted with magical powers, but as is evident from the heartfelt screen-writing, beautiful art, above-average use of transitions (for an anime film, anyway) and intelligent way it builds up scenes, this movie is truly labor of love..
I'm so happy that more and more people are beginning to realise that anime, while looking like "children's cartoons," are not necessarily just for children, and even without some of the more age-inappropriate animes, some still deliver a message home beyond that of English or American productions because Japanese animes are unafraid to include themes which these countries might not, and usually in an unexpected way.CCS does just this.
I, like many others, saw it in English as a ten-year old and the beautiful, pastel art, chibi style characters and plot concerning magic and powerful cards had me captivated.
In fact, I love it more.Know this - if you're going to get the DVDs and can stand subtitles, it's worth going for the original Japanese with English subs as so much gets edited out in the English or American dubs (there are good complete box sets on Ebay) and some episodes didn't seem to get included at all.
So, storywise: 10 year old Kinomoto Sakura finds a magical sealed book in her basement one day after school.
On opening it, and accidentally unleashing all 52 Clow Cards from inside, she awakes Keroberos, the magical (and cute!) Guardian Beast of the Seal.
CCS is brilliantly animated, the characters are well-developed (unlike some other animes, each character has blaring character faults but is still lovable in their way), and the sets are breathtakingly done, with sweet pastel foliage, bright buildings and colourful interiors - the entire feel is very "happy." People might argue this is one-sided but the anime does delve into themes of rejection and unrequition at times, with the "Meilin meeting Tomoyo" scene ringing clear (if you have seen the anime, you will know what I mean).
Sakura is also herself a very lovable, sweet and watchable character, and the anime is never annoying.
The best word to describe it is "innocent." There is absolutely nothing to offend or harm, except perhaps one episode involving a "Sword" card, in which one person becomes "possessed" and starts trying to hit her friend with a sword - this is not violent or bloody at all but may scare very young children.
This mixes perfectly with domestic themes (yes, Cardcaptor Sakura also has to wash laundry, have baths and cook dinner!) Lots of funny (but maybe childish) scenes, most involving embarrassment because of romantic feelings, although there's a little slapstick for Kero too.
Cardcaptor Sakura is A romance/Magical Girl series originally created by Clamp(Chobits,Tsubasa:Reservoir Chronicle).
I like the mild affection it shows to us such as Sakura and Tomoyo's friendship and Sakura's sweet relationship with her brother and Yukito.
Sakura is soft-hearted and brave; Tomoyo is an ideal girl; Touya is smart and sometimes shy to express affection especially to his cute sister......
Clamp is apt at creating mysterious world, in which goodness of human being become more palpable, maybe that's the reason why so many fans get fascinated and keep thinking of it all life long..
For me i really like this show from the first time i watched it especially the blossoming love of Skura & her ex-arch enemy, Shaoran.
Li Shaoran is so cute especially when he tries to first fight Sakura & ending up being her partner & good friend.the only bad thing is that the show is about 10-year old girl.
I don't think it's right to compare two outstanding mahou shoujo titles like CardCaptor Sakura and Bishoujo Senshi Sailormoon.
Like CardCaptor Sakura, it's a very good and in-depth series.
My favorite CCS series is the Sakura Card series.
At first somewhat awkward about her "job" as the chosen cardcaptor, she arises from it a stronger and more responsible girl.If possible, check out the real manga versions (not the English edited ones) of both anime as the manga delves into the characters even more than the anime version..
As I was watching this series, I was struck by how similar it was to "Sailor Moon" -- they're both targeted towards the same pre-teen girl audience, they're both heavy on the magic and romance, and they have very similar character designs.
That's why it's so hard to believe how much better than "Sailor Moon" "Card Captor Sakura" is!
Though sometimes the story seems repetitive, the animation is just incredible, especially for a tv series.
Whereas in "Sailor Moon", you can tell that they're trying to get away with as little animation as possible, "Sakura" is almost lush enough to be put on the big screen.
Plus it has better character development, Sakura gets to wear a different battle costume each episode, and there could not possibly be any anime character cuter than Kero-chan.
Cardcaptor Sakura is one of those magical girl anime's which i think are really interesting, I prefer the Japanese version, then English is alright but they have changed the names of all the people except Sakura's.
On the other hand i really enjoyed the Japanese version with English subtitles, it grabbed my attention and would recommend it to a lot of people.
I really like the relationship going on between Li and Sakura and Tomoya's voice is really cute.
I began watching Sakura Card Captors (as it's called here in Brazil) on Cartoon Network thinking it would be as repetitive as Sailor Moon, but I was dead wrong!
The series starts slowly, but captivates you with the fluid and detailed animation, good characters and a very nice storyline.Yes, it does have a (pretty good IMHO) storyline.
A rare thing in animation today (not just anime): a good story with beginning and end (it wraps up in the second season) instead of repetitive formulas and neverending repetitive episodes.I saw an online poll somewhere it's being rated as one of the top animes in the last 10 years.I recommend this to anyone wishing to know anime.A curiosity for non-Brazilian viewers: here in Brazil all Japanese animation retains the original titles and character names..
Well I used to grew up with Cardcaptor Sakura and I absolutely love this show, the stories throughout the series are cute but very interesting.
I have many favorite episodes on this show, but my most favorite episode is "Sakura in the Wonderland." I also think that Sakura's relationship with the other characters on the show are quite interesting, especially about her relationship with Syaoran.
I just simply love to see how the way Sakura and Syaoran developed their relationship throughout the series, from rivals to lovers finally, so sweet yet subtle and quite natural.
I also like Tomoyo, I think that she is the nicest friend that Sakura ever had.
Sakura must so amused to have a sweet yet antic friend like her.
Card Captor Sakura is not only a top notch production with great music, amazing animation and cool characters, it has an overly interesting plot that kept me expecting the next episode on the TV, fortunately it was broadcast in Latin America and Brazil in its full version by Cartoon Network.
For three seasons (and season reruns) it kept me glued to the TV, I'm a fan of Anime and have watched a lot of it and I have to say that this one is one of my all time favorites.
The series have everything I would expect from a good title, a very good plot, everyday life situations, very human characters with different personalities, mysticism and finally an amazing love history that grows throughout the series..
Cardcaptor Sakura is a excellent anime made by Clamp.
It has everyones favorite characters like Sakura Kinomoto, Kero, Tomoyo Daidojui and such others.
If you seen the dub verison of it you should see Cardcaptor Sakura before it's too late to handle.
It's the best Magical Girl anime we ever seen.
Cardcaptor Sakura is one the best shows I have seen.
Cardcaptor Sakura is the one of the anime the I liked most, even I more likes the manga than the anime.
I like the story and like the characters in this anime.BUT WHY CLAMP ALWAYS MADE CHILD BECAME ADULT BEFORE THE TIME AND LOVE SOMEONE WHO IS VERY OLDER THAN THEM?
DON'T THEY REALIZED THE RISK MADE UNUSUAL LOVE STORY SEEING BY CHILDREN?The ending is better in the comics than in the anime..
However, I am thankful for the dub in a way, because it introduced me to the original, "Cardcaptor Sakura".
I think Sakura and Syaoran make a wonderful couple, even though it was strange when I first found out they ended up together, considering how much he seemingly hates her at the start.
Overall, the storyline is wonderful, the characters are adorable (Kero-chan and his food obsession make me laugh, as do Tomoyo's observations to Syaoran when Eriol first comes), and the animation is great.
I believe this is a must-see for everyone who likes magical girl anime..
''Cardcaptor Sakura" is one of the cutest anime series I watched and I liked, and it is not a surprise that it was made by the talented artists from the group CLAMP, that are always doing or imagining something new with their great minds.
Well, this anime series show us the story of the cute Sakura Kinomoto, a ten-year-old little girl who lives a nice life with her father and her brother.
She will have the friendship and help from Cerberus, a magical animal that is also a guardian, and her friend Tomoe from school, that is always making new clothes to Sakura wear in all the battles against Sakura's will.
Great Anime (watch uncut).
I thought the show was still good; however, I was even more impressed when I finally saw the uncut version.The animation is great, and I enjoy the storyline, especially where Li thinks he's in love with Yukito in the beginning.
Do *not* watch the second movie until you've seen the series, or you won't get the full emotional effect.) The series also, in my opinion, gave me a great view of how children grow up in Japan and what school over there is like.
My second favorite is the piano song in the first season "yoru no uta" (Song of Night).I would recommend avoiding the dub and to watch this series uncut..
This is the one of the best series I watched after being obsessed with Sailor Moon.
When Cardcaptor Sakura came to Kids'WB, I was actually excited as I have read the manga before hand.
Sakura is a young girl who accidentally frees the clow cards from it's resting place.
Sakura is a young girl who accidentally frees the clow cards from it's resting place.
Over the progress of this series, she eventually transferred all clow cards into the sakura cards.
Thanks to Anime America on Youtube, I may have cheated a bit by going onto YouTube and watching only the scenes with Yuki & Toya because they were just darn cute together for God sake!
LolAnyways as well as watching the Yuki x Toya scenes, I thought the anime was pretty neat in trying it's best not to copy too much of Sailormoon.
Sakura looked absolutely pretty in her super form like girl, she definately should've been on vogue as the most magical little princess in the world haha!Really enjoyed watching a bit of the series and seeing its magical adventures, I give it 8/10! |
tt1693039 | Pinocchio | The story begins with an inventor named Geppetto making a robot, Pinocchio, as his son. Meanwhile, an evil mayor named Scamboli is building a technological city called "Scamboville" to get rid of nature. He also hates all children, except for his beloved daughter, Marlene. When Marlene expresses concerns to Scamboli about there being no space for children to have fun, he sets out to make a kids-only theme park called "Scamboland".
That night, Geppetto and Spencer the Penguin are preparing to make Pinocchio come to life. But Scamboli has seized control of the city mains to light up his theme park for the Grand Opening, so, Geppetto has no choice but to steal his electricity. Suddenly, Scamboland has a power outage and the children leave. After Pinocchio comes to life, much to his family's delight, Cyberina the fairy appears. She decides to grant Geppetto's wish to turn Pinocchio into a real boy if he learns about right and wrong.
The next morning, Pinocchio is walking his way to school with Spencer when he meets up with Zach, Cynthia and Marlene. Marlene challenges Pinocchio to an Imagination game, hosted by Cyberina. Marlene wins the game, but Pinocchio snatches the medal from her. As he runs away, he comes across Scamboli's robotic henchmen, Cabby and Rodo, who take Pinocchio to see Scamboli. While they talk to each other, Pinocchio says, "Life would be great if kids were more like us", sparking an idea in Scamboli's diabolical brain.
With the true opening of Scamboland, he makes Pinocchio into an attraction, but when Geppetto gets word of this, he tries to convince him to come home. While Pinocchio performs at a concert, Scamboli kidnaps Geppetto. Afterward, all the children board a roller coaster ride called "A Whale of a Change", which transforms all of them into "Scambobots". Meanwhile, Pinocchio gives Marlene her medal back and befriends her, and they spend the night together at Marlene's private garden.
As they awaken the next morning, Marlene is crestfallen to find that Scambobots have destroyed her garden. Hearing Pinocchio laughing at her dismay, she gives the medal to him and revokes her vow of friendship. But Pinocchio, realizing that he had accidentally helped Scamboli, leaves to find his Dad. He returns home, but finds that his father isn't there, but Spencer is. He tells Pinocchio that he went off to get him, so they head off to find him, only to find Scamboli turned Geppetto into a robot to kill Pinocchio. After Spencer blinds Scamboli with his camera and steals the remote that controls Geppetto and the other Scanbobots, Pinocchio and Spencer hide out in the "Tunnel of Danger" ride, where Scamboli manages to trap them. Marlene arrives and helps Pinocchio to avoid the tunnel's many dangers. However, Scamboli incapacitates Marlene, so he can kill Pinocchio with a laser gun. Pinocchio uses the medal to shield himself from the laser, causing the beam to reflect back at Scamboli and destroy his weapon. Meanwhile, Cabby accidentally gave Geppetto the remote that controls all Scambobots, getting them fired. Geppetto then commands the robots to get Scamboli.
Scamboli attempts to escape in Cabby's shuttle, but is caught by a Scambocop. It tosses Scamboli inside a shuttle and flies down to the Whale ride. Pinocchio, Geppetto, Marlene and Spencer go to turn the robots back into children. Soon it's Geppetto's turn, but Scamboli presses a button to stop the machines. Pinocchio goes inside the whale and tries to fix it. Pinocchio finds the out-of-reach button, so he begins to tell a lie about his personality . Once he reached it, Scamboli was caught on the cart. Pinocchio then realizes that everything was his fault. Cyberina appears, Pinocchio tells her that he has learned about Right and Wrong and turns Pinocchio into a real boy and Geppetto back into a human. Suddenly, Scamboli, turned into a robot, appears and Marlene was shocked. Cyberina borrows Cynthia's "Funbrella" to make sunshine and bring all the plants Scamboli has destroyed. It ends with Spencer taking a picture of Pinocchio, Geppetto and Marlene. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0060440 | Furankenshutain no kaijû: Sanda tai Gaira | As the film opens, a small boat is seen chugging through stormy seas. A giant octopus appears from the ocean and seems bent on killing the sole crew member on deck. Suddenly, the octopus releases the man and retracts its tentacles from the boat. Relieved, the sailor peers out the porthole to see Gaira, a large green man-like creature, fighting the octopus. After easily defeating it, Gaira turns his attention to the boat and sinks it.
When the sailor is recovered from the ocean, he tells his tale of the large gargantua (Frankenstein in the Japanese version) to his doctors, who believe he is in shock and spouting nonsense. The press picks up on the story and interviews Dr. Paul Stewart (Russ Tamblyn) and his female assistant, Akemi Togawa (Kumi Mizuno), who once had a baby gargantua in their possession for study five years prior. Dr. Stewart and Akemi try to dispel the idea that the attack on the boat was caused by the gargantua they knew and studied because it was very gentle while in their care. Stewart postulates that the gargantua he studied wouldn't live in the ocean as it was found in the mountains and probably returned there when it escaped from his laboratory five years ago.
Another boat is attacked and the people of a fishing village see the gargantua off the coast at the same time that a mountain guide reports seeing the gargantua in the Japanese Alps. So, Dr. Stewart and Akemi go to visit the mountains and send their assistant, Dr. Majida (Kenji Sahara), to look at the evidence in the fishing village. Dr. Majida finds tissue stuck to the side of the fishing boat while Dr. Stewart and Akemi find giant footprints in the snow.
In the meantime, Gaira comes ashore and attacks an airport. As he munches on a woman he's pulled from inside a building, the sun appears from behind the clouds. Apparently, the gargantua doesn't like bright light and runs back to the sea. After Gaira attacks Tokyo at night, the residents are urged to turn on all of their lights and open their shades to drive him out of the city. He begins to retreat to the mountains and is met by the Japanese Self Defense Force, who use giant spotlights and bonfires to corral Gaira into a valley. Although conventional tanks, artillery, and machine guns have little effect on him, a newly constructed weapon — Maser Cannons — badly injures Gaira. Bloodied and bruised, Gaira falls into the river and appears defeated. Suddenly, a larger, brown gargantua comes to his aid. Sanda, as he is known, pulls Gaira from the river and away from the military.
It turns out that Sanda is the gentle gargantua that Dr. Stewart and Akemi have studied years ago. This is confirmed when the scientists encounter Sanda in the mountains and he rescues Akemi from falling to her death, risking his own life and breaking his leg in the process. However, he has become leery of humans after seeing Gaira's horrific injuries and quickly vanishes once again. Later, he catches Gaira feasting on some boaters and attempts to kill him to stop the carnage. Unfortunately, he is hesitant about harming his brother and this, along with his broken leg, allows Gaira to overpower him before escaping to the sea. Dr. Stewart attempts to convince the military of Sanda's innocence and that blowing them up would simply scatter their cells all over the place, leading to the possibility of thousands of gargantuas, as the monsters can regenerate from even a tiny piece of tissue. The press and military remain skeptical.
Gaira reappears in Tokyo, no longer afraid of the city lights, and corners Dr. Stewart and Akemi. Sanda arrives to save them once again and attempts to placate his brother, but Gaira is beyond reason and the confrontation escalates to a violent brawl, causing great destruction in the process. The battle eventually leads out to sea, where the military begins an aerial bombardment. Unfortunately, the bombs disturb a giant underwater volcano, and the two monsters are engulfed in smoke and fire. By the time the volcanic cloud dissipates, both monsters have disappeared without a trace. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | The classic seen in this movie is when the Green Gargantua comes ashore near a hotel/apartment complex and tears the walls off exposing people inside.
If you love Godzilla, Gamera, and other giant monster film I strongly recommend that you do what I did and buy War of the Gargantuas today!.
"War Of The Gargantuas" comes from my favorite era of Toho's kaiju flicks, the 1960s, when the emphasis was relatively straightforward action and fun, and thankfully no annoying little kids making friends with the monsters.
And this time, we have a monster in the Green Gargantua (Gaira) who is really frightening and who eats people to boot (not even Godzilla ever went that far).
Like most kaiju films, the original Japanese version is much better than the later dubbed American version.
Russ Tamblyn (generally okay but clearly bored and resentful of his sudden fall from the heights of "West Side Story" and "The Haunting") might have gotten his own voice back in the U.S version (the Japanese actor who dubs him in the original doesn't sound anything like him at all and in Toho's European market English dub they used another actor), but everything else about it is decidedly inferior.
The original Japanese version in widescreen format, has beautiful color and sound that immediately conjure the image of a stylish late 60s action flick with reasonably good FX for the time, and the results far more entertaining in the end.
Also in the Japanese version, we learn that this movie is actually a sequel to "Frankenstein Conquers The World" since the monsters are referred to as "Frankensteins" rather than "Gargantuas" as they are in the dubbed version.As for the infamous nightclub scene featuring ex-Fox starlet Kipp Hamilton's infamously bad song before she gets attacked (but contrary to what others say here, not eaten), even that somehow comes off better in the Japanese version.
However, it's hard for me to decide which of the two versions I prefer; the Japanese original (which calls our creatures "Frankenstein's" and is a direct sequel to Toho's own FRANKENSTEIN VS BARUGON, aka FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD) or the U.S. edition (which christens the beasts "Garganutas" and works better as a separate stand alone story).
This may be a rare occasion where the American rendition proves to be more entertaining, for a few reasons...One grisly sequence shows the evil monster chewing a woman victim up like a piece of meat and spitting something out; in the Japanese version it's a bouquet of flowers, while in America it works more effectively as the girl's clothes.Another quality I prefer in the U.S. edition is some of the music.
Just works better for me during the action sequences of the monsters being fought off by the army as well as when they're beating each other up.In the American film, Russ Tamblyn is especially funny to hear while looping his own embarrassed voice into English.
War of the Gargantuas was definitely the better of the two flicks and every time I went to the beach after that kept hearing that eerie music and waited for the green gargantuan to rear his big ugly head out of the ocean.
The ultimate battle between good (brown gargantuan) and evil (green gargantuan) as can best be done in Japanese monster fashion.
A fond and nostalgic personal memory, "War of the Gargantuas" was a welcome treat in my family's living room (they had more console television sets back then; am I getting old or what?), and is one of my favorite Japanese monster movies.
When they aired it, which was often, I'd get a chance to watch it five times during that week, at 8:00pm on a KTLA (Los Angeles area Channel 5) Movie of the (whole) Week (I was just a kid then, and before anybody was able to rent videos at Blockbuster).Barebones Summary (without spoiling it for the inexperienced viewer):A beautiful young female scientist, Akemi (pronounced uh-kay-mee '), does research on a docile, missing-link-like monster child -eventually called `The Brown One.' (There is a cute scene in which Akemi feeds it a chocolate bar, soon after it has played with children's toys).
Some years later Akemi meets an American scientist, Paul Stewart, and you just know these two lovebirds are going to fall in love.Meanwhile at Tokyo International, a huge green monster pops out of the ocean and proves everybody wrong when they say Airport food is lousy.
Elsewhere that evening, aboard a luxury yacht, an American singer belts out a corny love ballad to her formal audience-`The words get stuck in my throat
' (And you just know someone--or something--will soon put a stop to her awful singing).Before you know it, the behemoth brothers meet several times to resume their sibling rivalries by knocking the wind out of each other, smashing military vehicles of all shapes and sizes, and knocking over downtown buildings.
I believe WOTG offers considerably more than your usual Toho Studios/Japanese Monster Movie, and could do with a modern spin (provided the original plot is not much altered as to seem another film entirely).
Just then, a larger gargantua comes in, tears the place apart, and rescues it's monster brother.A visiting American scientist (Russ Tamblyn, who is likable here) deals with the conflict of keeping the military from making hash of the monsters.
The creatures have a fondness for each other, basically being brothers of a sort, but the evil one eventually disappoints the good one, and then hell breaks loose with one of the best giant monster battles ever from Toho, second only to Kong and Godzilla.
However, having recently saw various reviews as well as learning that celebrities like Tim Burton grew up loving this flick, I decided to give this Japanese classic another try and boy was my mind changed for the better.
However, it becomes apparent that while Sanda is kind and gentle, Gaira is savage and violent and so their opposing personalities clash as the two behemoth brothers have a vicious fight to the death for the fate of the world.On the surface, "War of the Gargantuas" may seem like a typical monster movie, but that description would not do this film justice.
Throw in some military in between and it becomes more than just fight, it's an all-out war.With good kaiju, lots of impressive action scenes, interesting social commentary, nice acting, great special effects, and fitting music by Akira Ifukube, it's easy why "War of the Gargantuas" has had quite the impact on pop culture.
In U.S. a.k.a. War Of The Gargantuas MUST SEE Japanese Monster Movie.
This is truly one of the GREATEST Japanese Monster Movies from Ishiro Honda.Once you have seen this film,you will never forget it.There is a definate message as well,the classic twin brothers,one brown (GOOD) and one green(EVIL).In the end,regardless of how evil his twin brother is,he shows compassion toward his kin.
This may not be as good as some of the other Japanese monster movies to some;but in the end, which one will stick in your mind the most.
The scene early in the film where a fisherman's boat is stopped dead in the water when he hooks something, and we see this ugly creature gazing up from under the ocean, remains one of the creepiest and most effective images from a movie I've seen.The movie becomes a bit cheesy towards the end when the heroic brown Gargantua shows up to battle the green one, but all in all I recommend it to anyone who's a fan of Toho's Godzilla series, or anyone with slightly unusual tastes in movies.
It's quite hard to say anything serious about them because they are all looking very outdated, features some bad acting and of course also don't have the most clever or original scripts.What makes this movie very fun and watchable is the fact that it's almost non-stop movie monster action.
At the same time the two Gargantuas 'brothers' are also battling each other, so we have some action coming from basically every angle here.It means that the 'human' story of the movie gets sort of pushed to the background but this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Put another way: I canNOT imagine ANYone who would even conSIDer placing this flick in his DVD tray being reMOTEly disappointed, any more than I can imagine anyone whose idea of two hours well-spent at the cinema is something directed by Bob Redford getting past the opening sequence of the Green Gargantua wrassling a giant rubbery octopus, assuming such an individual had somehow been deceived by the packaging into thinking this was a prequel to "The Horse Whisperer." To sum up, then: too much talk, as usual, consisting of the usual observation, speculation, and needless EXplanation, regarding the whences and wherefores of the two title beasts, before the monster action heats up, but along the way there's some nice destruction of model tanks and such, an attack on a lady lounge singer aboard a cruise ship swallowed in the midst of crooning a swinging tune about how "the words get stuck in her throat", not to mention a blossoming love between the Brown (or benevolent) Gargie and the lady scientist who showed him kindness growing up.
And when the title war, eye-filling and brain cell-killing, kicks off in earnest, you'll feel (I did) it's been worth the wait.So if you've ever enjoyed another Japanese giant monster flick, THIS one's not about to let you down.
That footage reappears in later years in a couple of Godzilla movies.Also of note is that the human beings in this film actually are able to hurt the monsters.
Best fight scene ever in a Japanese Monster movie.
A truly wonderful monster movie.When I was a kid in Los Angeles in the early to mid 70's, they would show "War of the Gargantuas" EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, for an entire week!
Ostensibly a sequel to 1965's "Frankenstein Conquers the World", the connection between "War of the Gargantuas" and that film is pretty tenuous (especially if watching an English-dubbed version* in which the name 'Frankenstein' is never used).
Apparently, despite Frankenstein's supposed demise at the end of FCtW, some of his tissue developed into a savage green clone named 'Gaira' AND either the original Frankenstein survived to become the mellow brown giant 'Sanda' OR both 'Gargantuas/Frankensteins' are clones grown from the discarded tissue (this is far from clear).
Two giant Godzilla sized Kaiju go toe-to-toe in this entertaining Japanese monster movie.
The two fight a slow motion battle in a miniature Tokyo, which is a whole lot of fun for Japanese monster movie fans.
But when the gargantua from the lab appears at the same time as the evil gargantua, the two begin to battle across Japan.I love seeing Russ Tamblyn in any movie, and here he is so young (and yet somehow a respected doctor...
This is one of those few monster movies I saw that genuinely scared me as a kid -- something very, very weird about the faces on the things, and it used to send my Dad into hysterics.I haven't seen the movie in many years (Blockbuster doesn't carry this or the classic FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD anymore!), but I remember one bad and one good Gargantua...
Beware, you will never forget "The Words Get Stuck in my Throat!" Beyond that, the fights between the brown and green Gargantua are entertaining (how could two guys bouncing around a miniature Tokyo set not be entertaining?)If you love "so bad, it's good" film making, you can't miss this one!.
Supposedly a sequel to Frankenstein Conquers the World (1965) make no mistake that the two movies have zero connection and you won't be seeing Frankenstein joining the fray here.Another Toho monster film it see's two giant monsters appear and the threat they may pose to mankind.The monsters are dudes in monster suits and to the films credit actually don't look all too bad.
I like Toho but generally their serious work is considerably better than the likes of this, especially when the monster movie isn't part of the Godzilla universe.I want to say nice try, but it wasn't.The Good:Looks the partNot the worst of conceptsThe Bad:Manages to be oddly boring.
War of the Gargantuas is probably the best of the Japanese giant monster flicks.
Like King Kong, their is a lovely woman involved, but much more rationally, the big beasty isn't really interested in her so much as he is just trying to protect her and everyone else from his evil brother.This movie also has one more advantage which most other giant monster movies don't; the brown Gargantua is more identifiable with the audience because he is humanoid, and the green Gargantua is more repulsive because when he eats humans.
Needless sequel to "Frankenstein Conquers The World/Vs. Baragon" sees the emergence of a giant and evil Gargantua that has been attacking the Japanese countryside and waters, murdering people and worse, before it sets its sights on the city.
Usually when a Japanese monster movie does not feature my favorite monster (Godzilla) I end up not liking it all that much.
I also see here this was supposed to be a sequel to another Japanese monster movie called "Frankenstein Conquers the World", however this is the superior film by far as the monster there looked like a messed up boy or something and not much of a creature..
War of the Gargantuas (the U.S. version I saw) is a standard Toho monster flick.
We see Brown Gargantua once earlier in the film as a baby when we discover that Russ Tamblyn's character (along with his assistant, the beautiful Akemi) used to be kind of like his Au Pair when the little bugger was just a Springer Spaniel-sized, milkshake-drinking squirrel monkey.
(and comparatively more handsome by Gargantua standards) and is able to talk the Japanese army into stopping their assault on G.G. by waving his hand and yelling (B.G. is much more of a diplomat than his green flesh-eating brother).The last act of the movie has B.G. breaking his leg while saving Akemi from a fall, then giving G.G. his walking papers (a tree to the face) after discovering all his new room-mate does is lay around the forest apartment all day eating up everything in the frig (aka, hikers and boaters).
This is one of those dark, near-horror style films that Toho produced in the 50s and 60s, such as 1954's Godzilla or 1958's H-Man. The more human like nature of the gargantuas draws the viewer in and draws out more emotions.It's worth mentioning that although the film is a direct sequel to Frankenstein vs Baragon, almost all of the relationship between the two films is edited out of the American version, leaving a lone comment on the main protagonist discussing a 'hand' he's been studying.
You get that kind of vibe even in the edited region one release of the movie nonetheless.If a lot of the campy 1960s or 1970s Godzilla films don't do it for you and you want something darker, more serious, near-horror, War of the Gargantuas is for you.
Silly,Creepy Fun. Having first seen this movie as a young fan of all Japanese monster flicks,I was profoundly affected by the absolute ugliness of the green Gargantua,and his hideous practice of chewing people up and spitting out there well-gnawed clothing.Where I usually kind of rooted for the Tokyo-stomping monstrosities of the genre,I found myself really wanting the green beast dead.Even the atmosphere and shocking trumpet score that played when he showed up was creepy,and you kind of hoped that something really nasty was going to happen to him by movies end.Who can forget the scene at the airport when the green's eating habits are first shown in grim detail?Even though the creatures brown,mountain-dwelling cousin is no better,he still doesn't approach the absolute hideousness of the water-dwelling green.All-in-all,this is definitely one of the more obscure and ugly pictures of the Japanese giant-monster genre,and should give fans a bit of a thrill,and a profound happiness that 300 ft tall abominations aren't stalking the seas devouring hapless victims on boats and at airports.I highly recommend it to the true fan..
A good, entertaining film, but only if you like Japanese giant monster movies.
Perhaps he didn't want to be typecast as a Japanese giant monster movie actor, so he turned down this part!
If you care for them and nurture them, then chances are they'll turn out to be like the brown Gargantua, a nice monster.
Up until last week, I was probably the only baby-boomer fan of Japanese monster movies ("kaiju-eiga," I believe they're called) who had never seen the 1966 Ishiro Honda cult favorite "The War of the Gargantuas." Though the film had been lauded by numerous friends and coworkers, and though I have read many good things about it over the years, it has taken me all these many decades to catch up with it.
(There is also a straight English dub of the 1966 version, too, it seems.) Unlike 1965's "Frankenstein Conquers the World," whose international cut is virtually identical to the Japanese version, with the exception of an additional five-minute battle tacked on at the tail end, the two versions of "Gargantuas" feel very different indeed, and any fan of the one would be very surprised, I feel, to take a look at the other.In the film, as most folks already seem to know, an enormous, green, hairy giant arises from the sea and proceeds to cause all kinds of mayhem.
The English version that I just watched, on the Classic Media DVD, is a lot brighter looking than the Japanese, a big help in the film's many nighttime scenes.
Too, it is nice that the Japanese version gives actual names to Green Gargantua and Brown Gargantua (Gaira and Sanda, respectively), and also nice that it makes a definitive link with the earlier film. |
tt2015304 | Baaz | The 16th century, the Malabar Coast. General Barbosa (KN Singh) signs a treaty with the queen (Sulochana) of a small state giving the Portuguese right to trade in exchange for military protection. With the help of the queen's nephew Jaswant (Ramsingh), he begins to meddle in the administration as well. He arrests merchant Ramzan Ali and his friend Narayan Das. Das' daughter Nisha (Geeta Bali) tries to save her father but is caught by Barbosa and both are sold to a cruel Portuguese pirate Cabral. Cabral kills Narayan Das. Nisha rouses her fellow slaves to revolt against Cabral and once Cabral is killed Nisha becomes a pirate queen pillaging all Portuguese ships in sight. One such ship includes heir to the throne Prince Ravi (Guru Dutt), a Portuguese woman Rosita (Kuldip Kaur) and a court astrologer (Johnny Walker). Nisha spares their lives as Ravi had saved her life earlier. They inevitably fall in love. Ravi joins the mutineers without revealing his identity. Back on shore, Ravi learns Jaswant is to be crowned king. Ravi is arrested and sentenced to death. Nisha saves him and they join forces with other local chiefs to defeat Barbosa. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2387559 | Delivery Man | David Wozniak (Vince Vaughn) is a hapless deliveryman for his family's butcher shop, pursued by thugs to whom he owes $80,000. His girlfriend Emma, an NYPD officer (Cobie Smulders) is pregnant with his child. One day, David returns from work to find a lawyer representing a sperm bank (where he gave 693 donations and earned a sum of $24,255 during his student years) who tells him that the clinic gave his samples to women in the clinic and that he has fathered 533 children. Of those, 142 have joined a class action lawsuit to force the fertility clinic to reveal the identity of "Starbuck", the alias he had used.
David's friend and lawyer Brett (Chris Pratt) represents him as he tries to keep the records sealed. He provides David with profiles of each party to the lawsuit: David searches for them, finding moments for random acts of kindness. David considers identifying himself; but, after the thugs assault his father, he agrees with his lawyer to counter-sue the sperm bank for punitive damages. He wins the lawsuit, receives $200,000, and keeps his identity a secret.
David has regrets and thinks about revealing his identity. However, if he chooses to do so, he would lose the $200,000 that he won in the countersuit. He reveals to his father that he is Starbuck. His father decides to pay off David's debt. David finally reveals his identity on Facebook. He goes to Emma's house and finds that she is going into premature labor. At the hospital, his baby is born, he proposes to Emma, and many of the children show up to see him. | dramatic, cute | train | wikipedia | When David (Vince Vaughn) finds out he's the father to 533 children through donations he made to a fertility clinic 20 years ago, he learns that a fraction of them want to meet him.
I have seen a lot of Vince Vaughn films and have to say I am not a big fan of his, he sometimes shines like in the Internship, but mainly is a stiff, one dimensional actor who delivers wooden performances.His last film as I said was totally enjoyable, so I was open to seeing this as I thought maybe he has turned a corner and hell was I right!.
He is an endearing character chasing his 500 odd children and most bring flashes of hilarity whilst the rest bring a nice emotional warmth.You will definitely enjoy this film, after poor comedy outings such as this is the end, bad grandpa and the diabolical grown ups 2 this will restore faith that there will be some genuinely funny films that don't rely to much on swearing, sex and unnecessary shock humour such as casual racism and sexism.Enjoy and prepare to laugh and say awwww until the film leaves you feeling like you've finally after a few months seen a truly great comedy film again.If this is the standard Vaughn is now setting then I cant wait for the next one!!!!!.
Coming into this movie I expected a hard core comedy full of Chris Pratt puns and Vince Vaughn One liners, but after watching this movie I saw it as something else.
Vince Vaughn just blows it out the waters with an actually heart felt performance, This isn't just a sly comedy but a heart felt family drama where one ordinary man has to come to terms with an unordinary situation and Vaughn does it well and with great help from his co-stars.
Definitely worth at least one watch, if not for Vince Vaughn then definitely watch it for Chris Pratt because even if this movie isn't just a straight odd ball comedy it's definitely got it's funny moments and all mostly revolving around Chris Pratt and his Attorney at Law bit..
Watching Vince Vaughn fumble around in his role as a meat delivery man can seem kinda humorous but its almost annoying.When David (Vince Vaughn) finds out he's the father to 533 children through donations he made to a fertility clinic 20 years ago, he learns that a fraction of them want to meet him.
Against the advice of her lawyer best friend Brett (Chris Pratt), and while trying to mend the relationship he has with his girlfriend Emma (Cobie Smulders), David decides to set out and see how his children turned out.
Against the advice of her lawyer best friend Brett (Chris Pratt), and while trying to mend the relationship he has with his girlfriend Emma (Cobie Smulders), David decides to set out and see how his children turned out.
I still ended up enjoying this a lot more than I expected to so I was pleasantly surprised with Delivery Man.This is, I think, a fairly original concept, which could be pursued as a drama just as easily as a comedy, as is the case here.
'DELIVERY MAN': Three Stars (Out of Five) Vince Vaughn stars in this remake of a 2011 French-Canadian comedy-drama film about a man who discovers he fathered 533 kids through sperm donations several years earlier.
I haven't seen the original movie but I heard this update isn't as good, as far as Vince Vaughn films go it's a little disappointing but it still has a lot of heart.Vaughn plays David Wozniak, a delivery driver for his family's butcher shop who's recently came into some serious debt problems and owes some criminal thugs a lot of money.
He asks his lawyer/father friend, Brett (Pratt), to help him with the case as he starts to get to know some of his kids (for the first time) and help them out with different issues.The movie is a good Christmas film and has a great positive message about parenting and the love between fathers and their kids.
It's not nearly as funny as most Vince Vaughn films used to be though and he seems content to play the role mostly for it's sentimentality rather than trying for big laughs.
Like I said it has a lot of heart and the drama, for the most part, works but it is just a little too sappy at times (especially for a Vince Vaughn movie).
It's not a bad film but it's definitely not nearly as good as what most have come to expect from a Vince Vaughn laugh fest.Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSU_hwOQSWQ.
It's actually a shame that the film stumbles as determinedly as it does into its uncomfortably cheerful ending.Chronic underachiever David (Vaughn) can barely keep his life together: he's hugely in debt, he constantly disappoints his family, and his on-off girlfriend Emma (Cobie Smulders) has decided that he's not fit to be the father of their unborn child.
Life only gets more complicated when he discovers that - thanks to his earlier incarnation as prolific sperm donor Starbuck - he's the biological father of 533 children, 142 of whom are trying to find out who he is by contesting the confidential agreements he signed with the fertility clinic many years ago.Writer-director Ken Scott's film - a remake of his own Canadian film-festival hit Starbuck - has a lot going for it: David is written and played as an appealingly hopeless, oddly sweet failure of a man, one who tries so hard, with such good intentions, that you want to forgive him the worst of his many transgressions.
David's tentative attempts to find out more about his offspring yield moments both funny and emotional, whether he's trying to help out one son by taking a disastrous shift as a barista, or struggling to find the right things to say to a bedridden young man (Sébastien René, who's so heartbreakingly good that he's the only actor to be in both versions of Scott's film).But the film stutters and suffers as it goes on.
By the time it's picked up again at the end, they deal with David's extreme fatherhood in only the most perfunctory and unsatisfying of ways.For all its second-act troubles, Delivery Man is at least memorable for giving Vaughn a little more to do than he usually does in his paint-by-numbers comedies.
A remake of the 2011 French-Canadian film Starbuck, 'Delivery Man' is A Sweet Film, that has a charm working for it & also features a winning performance by Vince Vaughn.
The guy who is famously unable to be accountable on any front, has to confront with a reality that he has fathered over 500 children.Well, overall, this is just another Vince Vaughn movie largely amusing and light hearted but with some good moments.
The movie follows the story of David Wozniak (Vince Vaughn) as he realizes that all the sperm he donated when he was 20 had fathered 533 children.
Delivery Man is an American remake of the 2011 film Starbuck by Ken Scott, a story about a man who donated his sperms countless times in the past under the name 'Starbuck' and found out years later that his sperms fathered 533 children and 142 of them is looking for him.
Furthermore, Vince managed to provide enough charisma for the audience to accept his eventual personal growth near the end of the film.His eventual decision to interact with some of his 142 revealed children: a troubled female teen with drug issues, a struggling street musician, a existentialism-driven geek, a swimming trainer, a disabled, wheelchair-bound son, an aspiring young actor-to-be, etc...searching some moments for random acts of kindness to help them is heartwarming, funny and entertaining at times as the story is told with good-natured sweetness in it.
Although the film offers nothing more than its premise, the film is not as bad as many would have expected it to be and has certainly delivered what it has promised.Rating: 7/10 http://yjcool.blogspot.com/2014/01/movie-review-delivery-man.html.
Starbuck's relationship that he develops with the few children that it shows with him come across as semi-genuine and smile-worthy.I will say that one thing that I found slightly annoying is that every single one of his children that he finds, they make it seem like his intervening is super-beneficial (with a select few).I also can acknowledge that the plot of the movie is absurd, I can't let that affect me, because I also love a movie about Michael Jordan playing aliens in a game of basketball.The movie has a few heartfelt moments where Vaughn could have maybe added a little more to his performance, he tears up only once (I think) in the entirety of the film, but there were plenty of emotional moments where he could have really shown his acting chops.
Chris Pratt is absolutely brilliant in this film, I don't know if it was superb writing or his comedic timing, but I love him in this role.All-in-all this is a feel-good comedy that is definitely worth watching..
It's set up is certainly humorous and there is plenty of hilarious moments, but it is actually a meaningful comedy drama as we follow Vaughn discovering he has fathered 533 children through sperm donation.
Funny and well acted, Delivery Man is worth the watch for anyone looking for a good comedy or drama.
Nothing to brag about to the choir but Vince Vaughn's performance as an estranged and enthusiastic man (David Wozniak) in the American remake of the film, Starbuck or Delivery Man, is what keeps the film going.Some of the things that made a draw for me over the over-hyped, overrated, and annoying Hunger Games: Catching Fire was Delivery Man's closeness (as rumored by Ken Scott, the director behind the original and this remake) to the original, Vaughn being a funny stand-alone comedian even without a posse or Owen Wilson, and the idea that I would get some of the American jokes better than the exclusively French- Canadian/Quebecois ones.Nevertheless, it is the story of practically a schmuck and loner who wants to lend a helping hand and his persona captures it well and good performances all round from the encounters Wozniak meets.
It felt encouraging to know the similarity paved for its remake (which are forms of filmmaking I have hang-ups about) and how the sperm donor concept would work out for comedy without it being a raunchfest (a la Hangover).I wish there would be more of Vince Vaughn's crazy antics and humour present here but this film is commendable and believable enough in a way like he was in The Internship, a pretty good high-concept comedy that was lambasted and mocked by antics unfortunately.
While the film is fine and watchable from the start, it does suffer from things that are personal and possibly the whole idealism element and happy ending did not give it the edge it needed given Vaughn's persona.Still, considering how much Catching Fire will fill up the auditoriums, why not pay $10.50 to go see Delivery Man (or see the original on Netflix) or even Philomena, another comedy-drama of epic proportions, instead.".
"You're never quite ready for what life delivers."I was somewhat surprised with Delivery Man considering I went into it expecting it to be yet another typical comedy, and in a way it starts out being one, but as the story progressed it turned out to be a heartfelt drama.
Vince, Colby Smulders, and Chris Pratt are wonderful in it.In short, Delivery Man is a really touching "feel good" movie about fatherhood and being a screwup and trying to make good.
A comedy where a man who is all ready down on his luck and then finds out that he is the biological father of 533 children sounds like a good comedy that Vince Vaughn could pull off.
Delivery Man is the remake of Canadian film Starbuck(which I haven't seen), and it's a movie that surprised me how heart-warming the film is and how feel-good the story is.
It has some funny parts, but it relies on a dramatic story with themes of father bonding with his kids....even if there are 533 of them.Ken Scott, who also directed Starbuck, directs a film about an irresponsible and lazy man known as David Wozniak.
A waste of a good premise, Ken Scott's "Delivery Man" stars Vince Vaughn as David Wozniak, an irresponsible truck driver who learns that he has artificially inseminated hundreds of women.
Enjoyable!Round-Up: Vince Vaughn surprised me in this movie because he usually plays characters that get on my nerves after a while like in The Internship and The Watch.
That's not what happens in Delivery Man. Here we're met with surprising love, heart-felt warmth and good fuzzy-feelings, with a dash of comedy.Vince Vaughan is David Wozniak, a first class screw up whose life takes a turn for the outrageous when he finds out, due to some frequent visits to the fertility clinic, he is the father of 533 children and now 124 are filing a lawsuit to find out who he is.Director Ken Scott gives his movie Starbuck (2011) another spin with an English speaking cast but this time around a little bit funnier.
There are some great supporting actors including Bobby Moynihan as Vaughan's irate brother, Cobie Smulders as the love interest but man of the hour Chris Pratt steals the show as his best friend lawyer who has some great one liners and a hilarious relationship with his on screen kids.Being a Dad myself I can certainly relate to this movie.
Despite of many critical comments Delivery Man shines as Vince Vaughn shines in this movie.When David (Vaughn) found out about kids from his sperm donation he sets out to find out how they live their life.
Delivery ManIf sperm banks want to compete in this market, they'll need to open up late-night ATMs for deposits.Fortunately, this dramedy isn't about public jerk-off booths.Years after donating to a sperm bank, David (Vince Vaughn), a seriously indebted meat truck driver, discovers his donations have sired 533 children.Now, some of those kids are petitioning the courts, and the clinic, to learn the real name of the donor.Meanwhile, David visits his children as a helpful stranger, assisting them when he can.But needing funds for an unpaid debt, and for his pregnant girlfriend (Cobie Smulders), David sues the clinic.Hollywood's remake of the French-Canadian film Starbuck, Delivery Man is helmed by the writer/director of the francophone version.However, that familiarity with the source material doesn't save this sappy update from the annoyance of Vaughn's incessant nattering.Furthermore, when they are 533 of you, incest laws shouldn't be applicable.
Delivery Man TRAILERAbsolutely wonderful movie, I watched this gem on the plane ride to Dominican Republic and was very pleased to say Vince Vaughn did an excellent job and Cobie Smulders was fantastic, plus adorable.
David Wozniak, Vince Vaughn, donated to a fertility clinic 20 years ago to make money as a young man and now when he is older finds out he is the father of 533 children.
The story is pretty basic, a guy (Vince Vaughan) who has donated his, sperm some 690 times discovers that he is now the biological father of, 593 kids who are suing in order to obtain the identify of the man who, goes by the pseudonym "Starbucks".
The story is pretty basic, a guy (Vince Vaughan) who has donated his, sperm some 690 times discovers that he is now the biological father of, 593 kids who are suing in order to obtain the identify of the man who, goes by the pseudonym "Starbucks".
we don't know too much about Vaughn's troubled David Wozniak except he's a really nice guy who loves his family, extended or otherwise
Working for his father delivering meat, he's as inept a driver as he is a boyfriend to a patient woman, pregnant with a child
one child
but he has many other problems...For the first half, David keeps a guardian angel eye on a handful of twenty-somethings trying to make a living in New York City: including a junky, a struggling actor, a street musician and a professional basketball player
But once one particular kid latches on, in the form of an annoying young man named Viggo, the movie goes to pot
Or perhaps it was there already
Chris Pratt plays Brett, a child-consumed single dad who's not only David's best friend but also his lawyer
And while Pratt tries way too hard to provide dry humor throughout, his performance is as lethargic as the second half of DELIVERY MAN, an uneven comedy immersed in hipster schlock rock and, once David faces his ultimate (predictable) dilemma, balancing a financial payoff and the love of his new family, the movie not only tugs at the heartstrings but yanks them out entirely..
Anyways, the premise of the two films directed by Ken Scott is the same, it tells the story of an affable underachiever named David Wozniak, this time played by Vince Vaughn, who finds out he's fathered over 500 children through anonymous donations to a fertility clinic 20 years ago.
End-product: a movie that is neither new or funny, and mind-numbingAlso, as soon as they're introduced, you will feel like Vince Vaughn and Chris Pratt should have played each other's roles instead of their own.Everything that occurs is predictable, and awful.
Delivery Man (2013): Dir: Ken Scott / Cast: Vince Vaughn, Chris Pratt, Cobie Smulders, Andzej Blumenfeld, Simon Delaney: The title is about the most creative element of this film, and that is usually a bad sign.
His girlfriend comes around and it ends on a good note of a large and involved family and his debt to the mob payed off.This movie is a remake of a French Canadian film named "Starbuck" and Vaughn's character was originally played by the actor who gave a flawless silent version of his disabled son in this remake. |
tt0030382 | The Lone Ranger | In 1933, a boy, Will, who idolizes the legendary Lone Ranger, encounters the elderly Comanche Native American Tonto at a sideshow in a San Francisco fair. Tonto proceeds to recount his experiences with that Old West adventurer.
In 1869, lawyer John Reid returns home to Colby, Texas via the uncompleted Transcontinental Railroad, managed by railroad tycoon Latham Cole. Unknown to Reid, the train is also carrying Tonto and outlaw Butch Cavendish, who is being transported for his hanging after being captured by Dan Reid, John's Texas Ranger brother. Cavendish's gang rescues Butch and derails the train. Tonto is subsequently jailed. Dan deputizes John as a Texas Ranger, and with six others they go after the Cavendish gang.
Cavendish's men ambush and kill their pursuers in a canyon and Cavendish cuts out and eats Dan's heart. Tonto, who has escaped from jail, comes across the dead men and buries them. However, a white spirit horse awakens John as a "spirit walker", and Tonto explains John cannot be killed in battle. Tonto also tells him Collins, one of the Rangers, betrayed Dan and is working with Cavendish, whom Tonto believes is a "wendigo". As John is thought to be dead, he wears a mask to protect his identity from enemies. Tonto gives John a silver bullet made from the fallen Rangers' badges and tells him to use it on Cavendish.
At a brothel Collins recently visited, Red Harrington informs them about Dan and Collins' fight over a cursed silver rock. Meanwhile, Cavendish's men, disguised as Comanches, raid frontier settlements. John and Tonto arrive after raiders abduct Dan's widow and son, Rebecca and Danny. Regretting his earlier actions, Collins attempts to help Rebecca and Danny escape, but is shot dead by Cole, who rescues them. Claiming the raiders are hostile Comanches, Cole announces the continued construction of the railroad and dispatches United States Cavalry Captain Jay Fuller to exterminate the Native Americans.
A Comanche tribe captures John and Tonto soon after the pair finds railroad tracks in Native territory. The tribe leader tells John of Tonto's past: As a boy, Tonto had rescued Cavendish and another man from near-death and later showed them a mountain full of silver ore in exchange for a pocket watch. The men murdered the tribe to keep the location a secret, leaving Tonto with great guilt.
Tonto and John escape as the cavalry attack the Comanche. At the silver mine, they capture Cavendish. Tonto demands that John use the silver bullet to kill Cavendish, but John refuses. Tonto attempts to kill Cavendish, but John knocks him unconscious and brings in Cavendish alive. Upon returning Cavendish to Cole and Fuller's custody, Cole is revealed to be Cavendish's partner and brother. Fearing that if his actions are publicly revealed he'll be charged as a war criminal, Fuller sides with Cole. Rebecca is held hostage, and John is taken back to the silver mine to be executed. However, Tonto rescues him and the two flee as the Comanche attack and are massacred by the cavalry. Realizing that Cole is too powerful to be taken down lawfully, John dons the mask again.
At Promontory Summit, during the union ceremony of the railroad, Cole reveals his true plan: to take complete control of the railroad company and use the mined silver to gain more power. John and Tonto steal nitroglycerin and use it to destroy a railroad bridge. With Red's help, Tonto steals the train with the silver, and Cole, Cavendish and Fuller pursue him in a second train on which Rebecca and Dan Jr. are being held captive. Riding his horse, John pursues both trains. After a furious chase and fights on both trains, both Cavendish and Fuller are killed, Rebecca and Dan Jr. are rescued and Cole drowns buried beneath the silver ore after the train plunges off the severed bridge and into the river below.
The town and railroad enterprise recognize John (whose identity is still unknown to them) as a hero and offer him a law-enforcement position. John declines, and he and Tonto ride off. Back in 1933, Will questions the truth of the story. Tonto gives him a silver bullet and tells him to decide for himself, and then vanishes, with a crow flying away into the night. | insanity, violence, cruelty | train | wikipedia | My favorite serial..
This is simply the best serial ever made and it's a crying shame that the original print has been lost (or destroyed as some claim).
It was filmed at Lone Pine, Ca., the perfect location for the perfect serial.
The 1940 condensation "Hi Yo Silver" is too short, leaving out many key elements, but for dyed in the wool fans of the original its better than nothing.My copy of the serial is pretty ragged, with Spanish subtitles, but I understand is the only copy available.
Too bad.
This serial is what all serials should be and seldom are..
A Film That Cries Out for Restoration.
"The Lone Ranger" is yet another classic from the Republic thrill factory, one of the best serials ever.
It has fine acting (for a serial, anyway), exciting action, thrilling music, and a clever and intelligent plot.
Part of the fun is that, unlike most films of this genre, the villain is well-known; the characters (and audience) have to figure out which of the five male leads is the masked Lone Ranger.I wish I could say "The Lone Ranger" was as exciting to watch as other classic serials as "Spy Smasher" or "Adventures of Captain Marvel," but...
unfortunately, due to the serial's divergence from the official Lone Ranger image, most copies were apparently destroyed.
My public-domain copy is pieced together from Mexican and French copies, and rendered almost unwatchable by poor picture quality, Spanish subtitles from the Mexican prints, and horrible dubbing in the French prints.
The overall effect of the film's state makes it almost unwatchable, but the sheer quality of the movie itself somehow manages to shine through.If ever there were a film that richly deserves all the benefits of a full restoration, this is it: digital remastering, a new audio track, this serial needs it all!Somebody needs to come to the Lone Ranger's rescue!.
One of the Best Serials made....
."The Lone Ranger"....with Lee Powell starring along with other "Rangers"& ,you do not know who really is the masked man, until the final chapter...!
But there are great production sequences of action and suspense...throughout each episode.
Republic Pictures Studio knew how to make the Serials that moved fast and offered realistic action.
This 15-minute super-serial has been "lost" until now, and hard-core fan-collectors could only hope that a good original print could be found and offered to the public on Video..
now if only it could be colorized...and done correctly!
It's a winner the way it still is today!.
The Lone Ranger Shell Game.
It never ceases to amaze me the historical variations that our movies, but especially those old time serials would have us believe.
This one has Texas out of the Civil War when in fact General Richard Taylor's army there was the last to surrender.
In any event Reconstruction has come to Texas and Abraham Lincoln has started it.Frank McGlyn is once again Abraham Lincoln has appointed a tax collector for the reconquered Texas.
But bandit Stanley Andrews has hit upon a real moneymaker of a scheme.
He captures and kills the real tax collector and assumes his identity.
Then the bandits start collecting in earnest.When Andrews massacres a group of reconstituted Texas Rangers the story of how Tonto played by Chief Thundercloud rescues the lone survivor comes into play.
The gimmick here though is that there are five guys any one of them could be the real Lone Ranger.In the television series the Ranger often dropped the white outfit and the mask and used disguises as an undercover method of law enforcement.
He was primarily masked though.
Here he walks around like Don Diego de la Vega, but when trouble comes he dons the mask more like in the Zorro tradition.
And we never see Tonto in the serial except when he's riding with the Ranger.Not till the last chapter do we learn who the Lone Ranger is.
The others keep getting themselves killed and they are eliminated one by one.
Like overturning the shells at a carnival sideshow to find the elusive pea.The assassination of Lincoln is worked in as George Cleveland is sent to investigate the Texas situation as to why there still is so much unrest in Texas.
His mission gets good and compromised by John Wilkes Booth.I saw an abbreviated version of the serial and it's as silly as most of those serials back in the day were.
I'll take my Lone Ranger straightforward thank you..
Hi-Yo Silver...awayyyy!.
"The Lone Ranger" is one of Republic Pictures most famous serials partly due to the fact that it has largely been unavailable for many years.
A more or less complete copy (at approximately 240 minutes) has surfaced recently complete with new title cards (for the chapter intros).
The picture quality is not the best but it is nonetheless watchable, does not have any subtitles and includes the unmasking scene in Chapter 15.
The story starts out with Captain Smith (Stanley Andrews), the leader of a Quantrill's Raiders type of gang following the Civil War, assuming the identity of the murdered Colonel Jeffries (Forbes Murray), who has been sent by Washington as a financial administrator to collect taxes.
Shortly thereafter "Jeffries" men ambush and wipe out a company of Texas Rangers (led by Edmund Cobb) who are returning from the war to restore order to Texas.
All but one that is and you know who that is.
An indian named Tonto (Chief Thundercloud) finds the wounded ranger and nurses him back to health.
The ranger vows to avenge his comrades and names himself The Lone Ranger.
The Lone Ranger is joined by four other patriots and they form an alliance of five rangers (Hal Taliaferro, Herman Brix, Lee Powell, Lane Chandler, George Letz) against Jeffries and his gang which include among others, veteran bad guys John Merton, Tom London, Charles King and Bud Osborne.
Blanchard (George Cleveland) along with his daughter Joan (Lynn Roberts) arrives from Washington to take over as governor but is imprisoned by Jeffries.
Father McKim (William Farnum) works closely with The Lone Ranger and Blanchard.
Over the course of the 15 chapters the rangers die heroically one by one until only one remains.
His identity is kept secret until the final chapter.
This serial benefited from having been directed by Republic's crack action team of William Witney and John English and the expert stunt work of Yakima Canutt (with his famous "falling off the team of horses under the wagon" stunt) and Bill and Joe Yrigoren among others.
The action is non-stop and the stunts are breath taking.
In the 30s, most action pictures had the luxury of large casts and this shows in the large number of bad guys and ranchers that appear.
The Lone Ranger spends much of his time galloping back and forth across the same valley yelling Hi-Yo Silver!
Some trivia: Stanley Andrews would go on to play ironically enough, "The Old Ranger" on the long running TV series "Death Valley Days".
Lynn Roberts also acted under the name of Mary Hart (no not THAT Mary Hart).
William Farnum's career dated back to the early days of silents.
He starred in "The Spoilers" (1914) and was a major star in the 20s.
George Cleveland is probably best remembered for playing "Gramps" on the original "Lassie" TV series starring Tommy Rettig.
Hal Taliaferro had been a series western star under the name of Wally Wales.
Herman Brix became Bruce Bennett and enjoyed a lengthy career as a character actor (eg "The Treasure of Sierra Madre").
Lee Powell's career fizzled out after this film and he was killed in action in WWII in 1944.
George Letz changed his name to George Montgomery and starred in westerns and action films for many years.
He was also an excellent craftsman and made furniture for the rich and famous after his career in movies ended.
Chief Thundercloud, whose real name was Victor Daniels was the only member of the cast to reprise his role in the sequel,"The Lone Ranger Rides Again" (1939).
John Merton, Republic's stock villain of the 30's and early 40s was the father of Lane Bradford who also had a career as a villain for many years. |
tt0082406 | The Fox and the Hound | After a young red fox is orphaned, Big Mama the owl, Boomer the woodpecker, and Dinky the finch arrange for him to be adopted by a kindly farmer named Widow Tweed. Tweed names him Tod, since he reminds her of a toddler. Meanwhile, her neighbor, a hunter named Amos Slade, brings home a young hound puppy named Copper and introduces him to his hunting dog Chief. Tod and Copper become playmates and vow to remain "friends forever". Slade becomes frustrated with Copper for frequently wandering off to play and puts him on a leash. While playing with Copper at his home, Tod awakens Chief. Slade and Chief chase him until they are confronted by Tweed. After a violent argument, Slade threatens to kill Tod if he trespasses on his farm again. Hunting season comes and Slade takes his dogs into the wilderness for the interim. Meanwhile, Big Mama, Dinky and Boomer attempt to explain to Tod that his friendship with Copper can no longer continue, as they are natural enemies, but Tod naively refuses to believe them, hoping that he and Copper will remain friends forever.
As months pass, Tod and Copper both reach adulthood. Copper has become an experienced hunting dog, while Tod has grown up into a strong handsome fox. On the night of Copper's return, Tod sneaks over to visit him. Copper explains that while he still values Tod as a friend, he is now a hunting dog and things are different. Their conversation awakens Chief, who alerts Slade. In the ensuing chase Copper catches Tod. Copper lets the fox go and diverts Chief and Slade. Tod tries escaping on a railroad track, but is caught and pursued by Chief as a train suddenly passes by them. Tod ducks under the train, but Chief is struck by the train and falls into a river below, breaking his leg. Angered by this, Copper and Slade blame Tod for the accident and vow vengeance. Tweed, realizing that Tod is no longer safe with her, takes him on a drive and leaves him at a game preserve.
Tod's first night alone in the woods proves disastrous, inadvertently entering an irritable badger's den. Thankfully, a friendly porcupine offers Tod shelter. That same night, Slade and Copper plan revenge on Tod. The next morning, Big Mama finds Tod and introduces him to a female fox named Vixey. Wanting to impress her, Tod tries to catch a fish, but fails due to not having survival skills. Vixey and the other animals laugh at him, but Big Mama directs Tod to be himself. The two foxes reconcile and Vixey helps Tod adapt to life in the forest.
Meanwhile, Slade and Copper trespass into the preserve to hunt Tod. As Tod manages to escape Slade's leghold traps, Copper and Slade pursue both foxes. They hide in their burrow while Slade tries trapping them by setting fire to the other end of the burrow. The foxes narrowly escape without getting burned as Slade and Copper chase them up the top of a hill until they reach a waterfall. There, Slade and Copper close in for the kill, but a large bear suddenly emerges and attacks Slade, who then falls and steps into one of his own traps, dropping his gun slightly out of reach. Copper tries fighting the bear but is no match for it. Not willing to let his old friend die, Tod intervenes and fights off the bear until they both fall down the waterfall.
With the bear gone, a bewildered Copper approaches Tod as he lies exhausted near the bank of a waterfall-created lake. When Slade appears, Copper positions himself in front of Tod to prevent Slade from shooting him, refusing to move away. Slade lowers his gun and leaves with Copper. The former friends share one last smile before parting. At home, Tweed nurses Slade back to health while the dogs rest. Copper, before resting, smiles as he remembers the day when he first met Tod. On a hill, Vixey joins Tod as they look down on the homes of Slade and Tweed. | tragedy, revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | This is one of my favorite animated movies of all time, it's innocent, it's simple, it's lovely, and just a wonderful tale about the most unlikely pair becoming the best of friends.
The Fox and the Hound, yeah, it does go a little overboard on the cuteness factor with baby Tod and baby Copper, but this is when Disney really did mean well and came up with such a sweet and wonderful story that is classic.After a young red fox is orphaned, he is adopted the Widow Tweed, she names him Tod. Meanwhile, Tweed's neighbor, a hunter named Amos Slade, brings home a young hound puppy named Copper and introduces him to his hunting dog Chief.
Copper explains that he is a hunting dog now and things are now going to be different between them.The Fox and the Hound is such a great movie, honestly if you don't like this film, I don't know what's wrong with you, but you need to get something checked because everything about this film is just wonderful.
I feel that this lack of a "everything's okie-dokie again" finish like you see in traditional animated movies gave this story a powerful element.If you're looking for songs your children can sing over and over again, you've come to the wrong movie.
And, well, he is adopted by an elderly widow named Tweed, he develops a friendship with a hunting dog owned by Widow Tweed's crochety neighbor, and he starts to grow up, and life suddenly becomes very difficult, dangerous, and emotionally complicated.I won't give it away, in case you haven't seen it, but for my money this movie has close to the saddest, most desolate, tear-jerking scene in any Disney film I can think of.
My only minor complaint is that there are a couple of comic sidekicks in this movie that are pretty annoying and contribute just about nothing to the story.Coming after 'The Rescuers', 'The Fox and the Hound' might have been the start of a Disney resurrection, but perhaps Bluth's departure really was a body blow.
As it is, 'Fox and the Hound' is a moment of beauty and brilliance in the otherwise pretty murky first 20 or so years after Walt's death.Although it didn't cause much of a stir at the time, it has developed a deserved base of loyal fans in the twenty-three years since it was made.The film tackles themes of conflicting loyalties, friendship, love, identity, and somehow does it with a minimum of schmaltz and a maximum of heart.
According to Rooney's 1991 autobiography, when he was 5 years old he wandered into an office at Warner during breaks between shooting in one of his child-star films, and introduced himself to a bloke who turned out to be Walt Disney, and who was in the process of drawing a new mouse character, who he decided on the spot to name after Mickey.
Several Disney films that are rated above this movie come nowhere near close to it in quality (i.e. Snow White, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, etc...).
Mannix novel of the same name.The film is about the friendship that develops between an orphan fox cub called Tod and a puppy hound named Copper.
Okay, so placing The Fox and the Hound into the same category as The Bicycle Thief may be a stretch, but there is something about this movie that sets it apart from all other Disney animated films.
The Fox and the Hound will go down in history - if it hasn't already-as one of the best movies ever.While their both young, Tod and Copper are friends.
One of my favorite Disney movies of all time.My favorite characters are the adult Tod and Chief.
I watched it with my six year old cousin and she loved it.My favorite part of this movie is the end where the camera zooms out from Copper and Chief.
The simple story about a fox and a dog has many things to teach us about compassion, friendship, and acceptance.It's tough to try to find something bad about this film, maybe one could argue that the animation isn't as good as in later Disney films but I think many would agree that it is much more charming.
THE FOX AND THE HOUND is without a doubt a very charming little film even though the story itself isn't all that original and I think there are a few too many clichéd characters and jokes throughout.
This gorgeous Disney animation is a nice little tale of relationship, but it isn't one of the all time classic films.
THE FOX AND THE HOUND, in my opinion, is a very touching Disney classic about a special friendship for all ages that will warm your heart.
The Fox and the Hound features moments that try to attain the kind of drama of Disney's very earliest work, but by the end comes off as little more than a retread of past Disney films with much weaker animation and less compelling characters, despite some psychological content that might have held potential for more mature storytelling.Structurally, this thing is a straight lift of Bambi.
One day, the next door farmer buys a basset hound puppy, about the same age as Tod. When the two meet, they become the best of friends...I recommend this to all dog lovers, fox lovers, people who like Disneys but also like non- Disney cartoons, children who like a good adventure story and adults who would like to try out a heartwarming Disney classic.
This is one of my all-time favorite cartoons ever since my childhood.It shows us unlikely but really beautiful friendship between little Fox and Puppy who is being trained to become Hunting Hound...Several events take place and they are forced to become enemies and their lives change from its core...They soon have to adjust to extreme changes but eventually learn what is the most important thing...This story is so wonderful, heartwarming and beautifully made that it can't leave anyone indifferent.
The friendship between Todd (a fox) and Copper (a hound).This movie has quite a bit of comedy in it although the movie is a drama with some of the saddest moments in a Disney animation.
It is a fabulous story.This movie is definitely underrated and deserves to be in the top 20 list of Disney's finest animated films - just my opinion.If you enjoyed other Disney animations like "Lady and the Tramp", "The AristoCats", "Dumbo", or "101 Dalmatians" then you might enjoy The Fox and the Hound.10/10.
The story revolves around an orphaned baby fox named Tod and his friendship that he forms with a hound dog named Copper who is owned by a hunter who lives nearby.
The Fox And The Hound sure is the most underrated Disney movie ever.A little fox orphan is found by Widow Tweed, a nice old lady.
They become friends and play together, but Copper's owner, Amos Slade, wants him to become a hunting dog and he hates Tod. Their friendship just isn't meant to be.
The dramatic parts are really dark and sometimes the film is a little bit bittersweet, but it doesn't disturb the movie.While the songs are anonymous comparing to other Disney songs (exept the "Best of Friend" song), is the score quite good; a little bit quirky, bittersweet and country-like.HERE COMES SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS A SPOILER: This movie it's similar to "Bambi"; nature settings, animal protagonists who grows up and being hunted of humans, etc (and this film has some scenes who is actually borrowed from "Bambi" if you watch closely enough).This film is at times funny, but I didn't like the constant distractions of the two birds chasing the caterpillar.
Best friends as infants, a hound dog and fox inevitably grow up to be mortal enemies in this popular animated film from Walt Disney Studios.
Sandy Duncan's vocal performance is decent enough, but her vixen character adds nothing to the film and the scenes of the two foxes romancing once another are so far removed from the fox/hound central story that the movie comes to a near stand-still.
Tod and Copper are supposed to hate each other, not as much as I hated suffering through this.There are some lovely forest backdrops and occasional atmosphere in its favor, though this ranks close to the very bottom of Disney's animated movies.
This movie is not characteristically optimistic or positive, and I would warn parents and adults interested in viewing a Disney film to be lifted in spirits that THE FOX AND THE HOUND may not be the best choice.While watching I felt it heavy emotionally and overly sad, without much relief.
Seeing that he needs a motherly figure to take care of him, Tweed adopts this baby fox and names him Tod. Next door, a hunter named Amos Slade (Jack Albertson, aka Grandpa Joe from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (1971)) has just bought a new hound puppy named Copper for his hunting dog Chief to train.
Will Tod and Copper's relationship stay the same, even when they'll become the biggest enemies when they're all grown up?"The Fox and the Hound" is another one of those films where the filmmakers are mostly efficient in terms of telling the story, and yet one can't shake off a feeling of emptiness after watching it.
Indeed, it proved that the art of animation was still alive and in the hands of new artists who knew exactly how to deliver the goods.The voices are especially well done, as they are in most Disney films, particularly MICKEY ROONEY as Tod, KURT RUSSELL as Copper, PEARL BAILEY as Big Mama and JEANETTE NOLAN as Widow Tweed.The songs are nothing special and that's one area where the film fails to maintain a high level--but the animation is excellent, the color is fine, and the story--while a bit slow paced after a promising start--winds up in a brisk 83 minutes.Summing up: Good but not great..
I would've liked to see them focus more on building the main characters.But despite its flaws, the Fox and the Hound is truly one of the more powerful Disney films.
All in all, the Fox and the Hound may not be one of the best Disney films, but it is certainly not the worse.
Fox and The Hound is a story between a fox and a dog who befriended each other, only to be separated by time and reunited by revenge.This movie is a family-friendly one and it teaches the value of friendship in a way that adults and little children (no not the Kate Winslet movie) alike will appreciate.The movie is an outstanding animated feature that will leave viewers with teary eyes, especially the scene where Todd the Fox and Widow are separated.
The younger Tod and Copper are adorable to watch and are brilliantly animated and voiced, but the film is at a more oppressive side later on as they get older, and to good effect as well when they have to confront a large bear.
Movie Review: "The Fox And The Hound" (1981)In a time when Disney Animated Studio domination on the U.S. domestic market started to fade by restreating, initiative feature director Wolfgang Reitherman (1909-1985) known for animating "Cinederalla" (1950) and then directing the popular animated movie classics "The Jungle Book" (1967) and "Robin Hood" (1973) comes this highly-unlikely story of the title-given two speaking-out animals in an Arkansas-forest-region in a united state of nowhere, when the spectactor must indulge into the struggle of life for finding balance by meeting unlikely friends, battling them, forgive them, learning further lessons to grow-up and then keeping out of trouble before a show-stopping, over-the-edge, grizzly-bear-hunted showdown destructs any hope of former Disney pleasures.Even though this evening-filling, fairly-paced animated feature by an directing trio, including writer Ted Berman (1919-2001), externalized producer Richard Rich and Art Stevens (1915-2007), a former animator for "Peter Pan" (1953) among others in favor of Disney Animation Studios as being lucklily a protegé of at that time still-dominating as co-producing Wolfgang Reitherman, who together could deliver in "Star Wars" -owned summer season of 1977 with entertaining "The Rescuers", but here break off the magic bow from a sacred tree for Walt Disney Pictures in giving-in to melodrama without one song sung by any character, especially due to the unless professional-synchronising actors Kurt Russell and Mickey Rooney (1920-2014), who share a portrayal of a hound, getting drilled to hunt for trails in the woods for food-purposes in order to feat shot-gun swinging not-in-the-slightest sympathical character of Amos Slade, given voice by look-a-like Academy-Award-winning actor Jack Albertson (1907-1981), who eventually dealing with trash-white designed, but decency-spreading neighbor of high-talking too-old single character of Big Mama, cowardly engaged by talented voice-gifted Afro-American entertainer Pearl Bailey (1918-1990).Additional trademarking feature, concerning this controversial animated feature by Walt Disney Animation get neglected as an unspectacular, almost in-audible soundtrack composed by Buddy Baker (1918-2002), who cannot save the major league animations as high-peak effort of the entire animation department with analyzing human as animal behaviour, mimics and gestures in dedicated detail to fulfill a simple-enough story of rivals by nature, when in today'sworld a blue police bunny & red crime-embracing fox is needed - totally recalling "Zootopia" (2016) - to blast international box offices.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend
The Fox and the Hound is an animated Disney movie made in 1981.
I give the move, The Fox and the Hound, this rating because it was personally one of my favorite movies of all time when I was a kid.
The Fox and the Hound is nothing more than another Disney film about animals gallivanting around, having merry old time.
This is just a classic Disney film and I would have to say one of my all time favourite movies.
I suppose I liked it in a different way this time around as it filled me with nostalgia but it still really made me laugh too.Its the usual Disney fare endearing and delightful, but the message here is fantastic, the dog and fox antics hilarious along with the voices of Mickey Rooney and Kurt Russell.The story follows the lifelong friendship between a fox cub and a bloodhound puppy who grow up together and then realize their friendship is doomed because Copper is a hunting dog, and Tod is his prey.Hopefully my 3 year old nephew will visit again soon and I can rediscover another childhood classic movie.
This is a wonderful film that is a true classic and a must own for anyone who loves dramas.This movie like the title implies is about two young friends(fox and hound) that when they meet are too young to realize they're supposed to be mortal enemies.the film follows they're story over the course of a year in which the two grow up and realize the friendship that was once so strong between them is forbidden, one is a fox, and the other a bloodhound that hunts foxes.so the dilemma is inherent from the get-go, and at one point the hunter who owns the hound says to the widow who owns the fox that her fox has attacked his chickens and he implies that he'll kill the fox if he ever sees it again.this leaves the widow with only one heartbreaking choice, to let the fox go in an animal preserve(a real tear jerker folks).the hunter hot with rage decides he is not satisfied and intends to find Todd(the fox), and kill him.copper(the hound) and the hunter chase Todd until suddenly a vicious bear appears out of nowhere and attacks the hunter.copper attacks the bear trying to protect his master when the bear turns on him.then its Todd to the rescue as he lures the bear over a cliff to it's death, only Todd falls too.at this point copper having been saved by Todd sees how foolish it was to end they're friendship and rushes to Todd's aid at the bottom of the cliff, the hunter close behind.copper stands over Todd and when the hunter points his gun at Todd he exclaims "get out of the way boy(copper)" ...
I love the way at the end of the movie how Copper thinks back on those good ol' memories that he and Todd had.
This film is not sugarcoated, as many claim Disney movies to be, but an enjoyable examination at the friendship of two unlikely characters.I recently reviewed the Fox and the Hound after a few years, to refresh my memory of the storyline.
"The Fox and the Hound" possesses all the characteristics of what could have been a great Disney film: the realistic animation, a clear and positive message about tolerance through the heartbreaking story of an endearing friendship between a young fox named Todd and a pup named Copper, yet the film didn't garner the same recognition that other Disney classics.
Rarely mentioned among Disney's best films, "The Fox and the Hound" is still the ultimate Disney friendship story, and also, an endearing classic..
The Fox and the Hound is one of my favorite Disney movies, and watching it as a child, I found a lot to love about it.
The movie comes after the truly sad period at Disney during the 1970s--recycled characters AND animation from past films.
The lush backgrounds are reminiscent of BAMBI (and hard-core fans will see two tips of the hat to BAMBI --NOT recycled animation) and I think the characters of Copper, Tod, and Widow Tweed are beautifully animated.The story involves the friendship between a fox cub and a puppy destined to be a hunting dog, and of course, things go to hell, and partially resolve at the end.Some people have commented the level of violence may be too much when these two grow up and face off, but frankly, unless you have a VERY impressionable young kid you really don't have to worry.
Coming from a girl who was your typical Disney-Princess-Wannabe around the time she first watched "The Fox and the Hound", this movie probably won't mean as much to younger kids as it will to those revisiting old classics from their childhood.
Fox and the hound is a beautiful animated film. |
tt0105001 | Night and the City | Harry Fabian (Widmark) is an ambitious American hustler and con man operating in London, always looking for a better deal. He maintains a fractured relationship with the honest Mary Bristol (Tierney), nightclub owner and businessman Phil Nosseross (Sullivan), and Helen (Withers), who is Phil's estranged wife. While attempting a con at a wrestling match, Fabian witnesses Gregorius (Zbyszko), a veteran Greek wrestler, arguing with his son Kristo (Lom), who has organised the fight, and who effectively controls all wrestling in London. After denouncing Kristo's event as tasteless exhibitionism that shames the sport's Greco-Roman traditions, Gregorius leaves with Nikolas (Richmond), a fellow wrestler. Fabian catches up with the two and befriends them, having realised that he can host wrestling in London without interference from Kristo if he can persuade his father to support the enterprise.
Fabian approaches Phil and Helen with his proposal, then asks for an investment. Incredulous, Phil offers to provide half of the required £400, if Fabian can equal it. Desperate, Fabian asks Figler, a panhandler and unofficial head of an informal society of street criminals, Googin, a forger, and Anna, a Thameside smuggler, but none can offer any help. Fabian is eventually approached by Helen, who offers the £200 in exchange for a licence to continue running her own nightclub, having obtained the money by selling an expensive fur Phil recently bought for her. Fabian agrees, but tricks Helen by having Googin forge the licence. Meanwhile, Phil is visited by associates of Kristo, who warn him to keep Fabian away from London's wrestling scene. Already suspecting Helen of duplicity, Phil neglects to warn Fabian, who proceeds to open his own gym with Gregorius and Nikolas as the stars, and Phil as a silent partner.
A furious Kristo visits the gym, only to discover that his father is supporting Fabian's endeavour. Meeting with Phil, the two plot to kill Fabian, but realise that they can only do so if Gregorius leaves Fabian. Phil meets with Fabian and removes his backing, suggesting that Fabian get Nikolas and The Strangler (Mazurki), a showy wrestler favoured by Kristo, into the ring together to keep the business going, knowing that Gregorius would never allow it. Finding The Strangler's manager, Mickey Beer (Farrell), Fabian convinces him to support the fight, and taunts The Strangler into confronting Gregorius and Nikolas. Gregorius agrees to the fight, convinced by Fabian that it will prove that his style of wrestling is superior. Beer asks Fabian for £200 to cover his fee, so Fabian asks Phil for the money. Instead, Phil calls Kristo, informing him that The Strangler is in Fabian's gym.
Betrayed, Fabian steals the money from Mary, and returns to the gym. However, The Strangler goads Gregorius into a prolonged and brutal fight, during which Nikolas' wrist is broken. Gregorius eventually defeats The Strangler in the ring as Kristo arrives, but dies minutes later in his son's arms from exhaustion. Seeing that both his business and protection are lost, Fabian flees.
In revenge of his father's death, Kristo puts a £1,000 bounty on Fabian's head, sending word to all of London's underworld. Fabian is hunted through the night, first by Kristo's men, then by Figler, who attempts to trap Fabian for the reward. Convinced that her licence is authentic, Helen leaves Phil, only to discover that the work is a worthless forgery. She returns to Phil in desperation, only to discover that he has committed suicide, leaving everything to Molly (Reeve), the club's elderly cleaner and flower stand operator.
Fabian eventually finds shelter at Anna's, but has already been tracked down by Kristo. Mary arrives, and Fabian attempts to redeem himself by shouting to Kristo that Mary betrayed him, so that she will get the reward. As he runs towards where Kristo is standing on Hammersmith Bridge, he is caught and killed by The Strangler, who throws his body into the Thames. The Strangler is arrested moments later, and Kristo walks away from the scene. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | This has a depressing feel of inevitability about it - you can see the problems in Fabian's plans long before they happen, giving the film a feel of small time from the very start.
The story is therefore quite compelling, despite it being very low key, the only weakness being the romance subplot and the fact that it is quite depressing.De Niro is good as Fabian, his best scenes are when he's talking, trying to create something that isn't.
Jessica Lange is good but doesn't have that much to do and again her character isn't convincing when the bad times come.
Support is good from the likes of Eli Wallach, Jack Warner, Alan King and others.Overall this is a good film with an overall air of realism.
The picture deals an ambitious, fast-talking lawyer named Harry Fabian(Robert De Niro, Richard Widmark role) in N.Y.C., he's a hustler with several money-making schemes .
The story terminates with a persecution excellently filmed with all its rawness .This noir urban/drama packs good performances though Robert De Niro is overacting.
Nice interpretation by Jessica Lange , the only character who shows a bit of kindness on Harry.
Supporting casting is frankly well, as Cliff Gorman, Eli Wallach, Jack Warden, Barry Primus, Michael Badalucco, among others , furthermore cameo role by Richard Price, screenplay's author.
This version about Harry downfall lacks punch and dramatic weight, it results to be much better the classic adaptation (1955), a real masterpiece, set in London with Richard Widmark, Gene Tierney and Herbert Lom. This inferior new version is dedicated to Jules Dassin, the magnificent director of the original picture and adapted from the novel by Gerard Kersh.
The motion picture is regularly directed by Irwin Winkler, usual producer of Robert De Niro films and occasionally filmmaker..
He is outstanding as Harry Fabian, flimflam low life lawyer and cheap BS artist who tries desperately to make a big splash as a fight promoter.
At any rate, those who didn't like the movie almost certainly didn't care for De Niro's performance since his character dominates the action.(2) The ending, which some might see as unfinished and others as disagreeable since, regardless of what transpires, Fabian is still a loser, perhaps bigger than ever.(3) Some rather cheesy plot play.
That could happen.What cannot be faulted is the authentic New York atmosphere created by director Irvin Winkler, who is better know as a producer, most notably of the Sylvester Stallone "Rocky" films, and the fine work by the rest of the cast, especially Alan King (Ira "Boom Boom" Grossman), Eli Wallach (Peck), Cliff Gorman (Phil Nasseros), and Jack Warden (Al Grossman).
The story itself, from a novel by Gerald Kersh (script by Richard Price), is a variation on the "lovable, colorful loser makes good" theme, only in this case, like an inept noir anti-hero, he falls on his face--more than once, by the way.No real De Niro fan should miss this.
NIGHT AND THE CITY (1992) *** Robert De Niro, Jessica Lange, Alan King, Cliff Gorman, Jack Warden, Barry Primus.
Slice-of-low-life portrait remake of 1940 Richard Widmark flick casts De Niro as ambulance chasing attorney Harry Fabian trying to score big-time as a boxing promoter with the help of his lady love (Lange in an uncharacteristically unglamourous role) and the ex-fighter brother (Warden) of his chief nemesis (King in a humdinger of chilly malevolence as the corrupt boxing mogul).
How did Robert De Niro go from a performance like Max Cady in "Cape Fear" to Harry Fabian in "Night And The City"??
All the while the mobster is still making trouble.Jessica Lange and Jack Warden are the best actors on display here, even if you never understand Lange's characters loyalty to Fabian even after he ruined her dream.
The only reason I'm glad I watched this to the end was the fact that I got to hear Freddie Mercury sing 'The Great Pretender' over the closing credits which was a nice surprise..
Night and the City is directed by Irwin Winkler and adapted to screenplay by Richard Price from the novel written by Gerald Kersh.
It stars Robert De Niro, Jessica Lange, Cliff Gorman, Jack Warden, Alan King, Eli Wallach and Barry Primus.
Ambulance chasing lawyer Harry Fabian (De Niro) has grand designs to be a boxing promoter.
It's not down to performances of the cast or the tech production in general, in fact De Niro, Warden and the under written Lange are watchable, while Fujimoto's photography around the New York locations is superlative.
Harry trudges from one slice of idiocy to another, with a big plot development making no sense, and all the time there's ill placed humour hanging over the plot to further compound the feeling we are watching a disjointed attempt at neo-noir nirvana.
The makers dedicated the film to Dassin, that's a nice sentiment, but really they should have honoured him by making a far better movie in the spirit of the great director himself.
In his career Robert DeNiro has done four remakes of classic films of which Night And The City is one of them.
In redoing parts made immortal by Humphrey Bogart, Robert Mitchum, Boris Karloff, and in this case Richard Widmark, DeNiro has wisely chosen not to imitate any of these people, instead whatever you think of the final product, he's certainly put out his own interpretation on these roles.From the shadow world of the London underworld scene where American expatriate Richard Widmark operated to the streets of New York in the Nineties, the plot of Night And The City has essentially remained the same except, and this is critical for the ending.
DeNiro must have loved the fact that his Tribeca Productions got to film in and around New York, especially in Tribeca.
If you remember what happens in the original Night And The City, you pretty much know what is going to happen here and for the most part it does.The legal profession doesn't necessarily attract guys like DeNiro, he's no Louis Brandeis, he's not about to publish articles in Harvard Law Review.
Even Jessica Lange who is Gorman's wife and who DeNiro is carrying on with, he lies to her and worse because he needs money.
He'd do all this if he wasn't a lawyer.The cast is an incredibly select and good one of New Yorkers themselves who can play these parts like second nature.
She throws him and his put up accident case out of court in a really terrific way.The film would rate a lot higher with me had the original ending from Jules Dassin's classic version been kept.
Other than that this version of Night And The City is a good film with a great cast of players to perform it..
There is some good acting in Night and the City, but the movie overall is unremarkable.
I found this movie pretty hard to watch, mainly because De Niro's character Harry Fabian is not very likeable and I tried very hard to like or respect this character, but I only felt sorry for the guy and I found this depressing.
However, De Niro and some of the supporting actors are quite good from an acting perspective in some scenes.I gave this movie a 6 out of 10.
I actually liked this movie quite a bit but if you're not a De Niro fan, this movie would be completely lost on you.
If you're not a De Niro fan but you still find that interesting than you probably have time to catch this movie while you're still deciding on your method of suicide.On the other hand, if you ARE a De Niro fan, the idea of ol' Bobby playing a bullpoop-slinging, sheisty lawyer and ticking everyone off pretty much speaks for itself.
The casting people loaded this film with a lot of good, solid character actors, but apparently forgot a cohesive plot and a story to go with all these screen gems.This movie goes to further serve that De Niro can make a vehicle, not matter how rusted and barely running, watchable.
This film "feels" like a good old movie from days past when screenplays, characterization and dialog where important, that's why I liked it, and I suppose that may not be "modern" enough for some...I found this to be a good film, with excellent characterizations that work (finally a movie that has 'real' characters we can understand, believe in, sympathize with), a realistic plot and some very good acting (especially De Niro whom I found to be excellent once again).
Robert 'stars' as a not too respectable character trying to get a grip on his life and to make some money.The story, if their is one, did not grab my attention for a second.
The only reason I saw this movie was its filming locale, Boxers on West 4th Street in NYC.
Night and the City (1992) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Remake of the 1950 Richard Widmark noir has Robert DeNiro playing Harry Fabian, a real loser who works as an attorney chasing ambulances and various other lowlifes.
If you're looking for a direct remake then you can pretty much forget about it as this Richard Price scripted film is more comedy than anything else.
Apparently Martin Scorsese was going to direct this but ended up backing out only six years later the picture got started up again by Winkler, who by this time decided to direct the thing himself.
Jessica Lange plays his love interest and manages to turn in a fine performance even though the screenplay doesn't offer her too much.
We do get a nice supporting cast including Jack Warden as a former boxer with a bad heart who is constantly cussing or wanting to fight.
Needless to say, it's the performances that make this film worth viewing and we also get a pretty good music score as well as some nice covers of some classic tunes.
This isn't a classic like the original film but there are enough interesting things to make it worth viewing but I'm sure most will agree when it's over that the thing should have been much, much better..
Night and the City has it's other star in the name of Jessica Lange.
Both Lange and de Niro make "Night and the City" a joy to watch.
He is truly the great pretender, but feelin' good at it!If you like de Niro's work you should definitely see this lighter drama, because he dances a tightrope between a comedy and a drama and does so very convincing.
Here the movie is totally absurd: I didn't catch why Bob as a disastrous lawyer wants suddenly to become a disastrous promoter of boxing games!
If you are not De Niro fans, you are no reason to watch this movie.
The only good thing hit my head was Robert de niro acted well :-).
I'm the kind of guy that sometimes watches a movie based on its cast or its director, and that was the case with 'Night and The City' with Robert de Niro.
Unhappily this movie is not as good as the best ones from de Niro ( Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, Once Upon a Time in America or The Godfather 2, Jackie Brown ).
In this movie, de Niro looks like Jim Carrey with his electric style, but this is not the de Niro we're used to see.The movie is about Harry Fabian ( a second-class lawyer from N.Y.
Phil's wife, Helen, is in love with Fabian and plans to leave Phil and open her own pub.Night and the City is a remake of the homonym filmed in 1950, that I haven't seen but is much better rated than the 1992's version.It seems that Irwin Winkler works better as a movie producer than as director.
One of the movies he promoted are Ranging Bull, New York New York and The Goodfellas, all them starring Robert de Niro..
Based on Gerald Kersh's novel and the 1950 movie-version directed by Jules Dassin (to whom this remake is dedicated), "Night and the City" gives us yet another colorful character portrait from actor Robert De Niro.
His semi-reluctant partner, a faded boxing legend (Jack Warden, in a smashing performance) happens to be "Boom Boom"'s brother, while Jessica Lange is the abused wife of Harry's main financier.
OK, so we all agree that Robert DeNiro and Jessica Lange are among the greatest stars of their generations.
I actually thought that the movie's most interesting aspect was the contrast between Jessica Lange and Jack Warden, and maybe I'm the only one who even saw that.
I just finished watching Robert DeNiro in "Night in the City." DeNiro's classic role as "loser" wannabe "winner" Harry Fabien is perfect especially when teamed up with the beautiful and talented Jessica Lange.
I am so very happy to see that Robert DeNiro has "six" movies coming out in the year 2004..
Surprisingly, there are several good points to recommend the second version: De Niro's acting, the supporting cast, and the New York ambiance principally.Some of the reviewers on here argue that De Niro's unlikeable character diminishes the film, but they are missing the point -- the story is famous in part precisely because none of the characters is likable.
The film goes wrong when it attempts to update the story and change things like the ending, which tries to redeem Harry and adds a sentimental touch totally out of keeping with the noir impetus of the film.
A remake of the 1950 film noir of the same name, 'Night and the City' is an interesting story, which begins well, but, has a lackluster culmination.'Night and the City' is about a cheating and incompetent lawyer played by De Niro, who suddenly gets obsessed on becoming a boxing promoter.
Great acting, great character development, a sense of impending doom, and then the movie inexplicably ends on what is supposed to be a lighthearted moment.
Robert De Niro proved once again what a good actor he is, even given the poor writing in this 1992 film.
As Harry Fabian, an adventurous lawyer on the make for a quick buck, De Niro showed a dimension of a fast talking, aggressive lawyer, who is looking to make a big score as he focuses his attention to the crooked world of boxing.De Niro had a really excellent supporting cast to work with, Jessica Lange and the late Cliff Gorman, as a couple, looking to make it big as well, with Lange romancing DeNiro on the side.
I like Jessica Lange and Robert DeNiro and consider them both to be good actors.
I especially liked the main character, Harry Fabian.
I loved King of Comedy, and i found certain similarities between the main character Rupert Pupkin, and Harry Fabian.
This movie does suffer from many flaws like tepid characterisations, silly plot and mediocre direction, but the main character saves the film from being total trash..
A fast talking Lawyer Harry Fabian (Robert De Niro) with a failed plan.
As your viewing you say to yourself, "Why did I wait so long for the inevitable?" I was generous in giving this movie a grade of three stars for Jessica Lange and Robert DeNiro under the tutelage of acting school coach the renown Stella Adler.
Irwin Winkler's "Night And The City" is a light-hearted story about a shyster lawyer who gets into trouble when he decides to become a boxing promoter.
The plot is based on the Jules Dassin 1950 classic of the same name and features plenty of humour, sharp dialogue and interesting characters.Harry Fabian (Robert DeNiro) is an unscrupulous and fast-talking scam artist.
His main problems, however, are that he doesn't have sufficient funds of his own and also that established boxing promoter and gangster Ira "Boom Boom" Grossman (Alan King) doesn't appreciate someone else competing against him and threatening his profits.Harry regularly frequents a bar run by Phil Nasseros (Cliff Gorman) and is having an affair with Phil's wife Helen (Jessica Lange).
His recklessness, appalling lack of good judgement and capacity for betrayal make him a self-destructive character whose actions inevitably get him into hot water.Cliff Gorman, Eli Wallach, Alan King and Jack Warden are excellent in their supporting roles as they're all convincing and add considerable substance and colour to the whole movie.
It took a while to sort out what was going on with his character, a shyster lawyer by the name of Harry Fabian.
However if you can appreciate some clever acting, you won't be disappointed by DeNiro's turn as Harry Fabian here.
I also liked Alan King's out of character turn as hood Boom Boom Grossman, and Jack Warden as his retired boxing brother Al. Warden reminded me here of Burgess Meredith in the Rocky films, and I tried picturing him in the role of Mickey Goldman.
Night and the City is a 1992 remake of the 1950 film noir of the same name.It is an adaptation of Gerald Kersh's novel of the same name.
It features Robert De Niro and Jessica Lange.
It tells the story of a one Harry Fabian,a two-bit lawyer in New York.He easily becomes fascinated in the world of championship prizefights in the sport of boxing and needs the help of a hardnosed promoter,Alan King.Disaster plagues Fabian as his boxers fail to pass their physicals, and Warden dies while setting up the big event.
But he decides to face up the challenges for the first time in his life and stand his ground up to the final event of the situation.Overall,the movie does not hold up to the original film as it is far from being a classic.In fact,it was borderline average despite the presence of wonderful cast particularly De Niro and Lange.
De Niro's role is contradictory; on the one hand Harry Fabian lies and cheats, but the more you get to know him, the bigger his heart turns out to be.
I díd enjoy most of the acting though, beside De Niro I find Lange, Warden and Gorman especially worth mentioning.It's about time I tried the original, I suppose. |
tt1821478 | Kaavalan | Bhoominathan (Vijay) idolises Muthuramalingam (Rajkiran), a rich powerful landlord, and at the request of his parents, he accepts to work for Muthuramaingam as his bodyguard. There enters Muthuramalingam's rival, who has lost his daughter since she committed suicide, the reason being rejection by Muthuramalingam's son. While Bhoomi protects Muthuramalingam, his rival threatens the life of his daughter Meera (Asin).
Bhoomi is sent to college along with Meera and her friend Madhu (Mithra Kurian) to protect them from the threat. Bhoomi joins the same class where Meera studies, as Bhoomi has previously discontinued his education. Meera does not like Bhoomi following her as a bodyguard, and therefore plans to divert him. Meera calls Bhoomi over his mobile phone from a private number and introduces herself as "Ammukutty". Initially Bhoomi hates the mobile call as it will disturb him but later on develops a liking towards Ammukutty and slowly love blossoms for Bhoomi without knowing that it is Meera herself.
At one point, Meera too feels herself becoming attracted to Bhoomi and expresses her desire to meet him in person without revealing her identity. However, due to circumstances they are not able to accomplish this, and she decides to elope with Bhoomi for which he agrees, unaware it is Meera. However through certain means, Muthuramalingam gets to know that Bhoomi and Meera are going to run away and sends his men to stop Bhoomi. Meera overhears her father's plans and decides to save Bhoomi by lying that Bhoomi is in love with some other girl and has planned to elope with her. Muthuramalingam spares Bhoomi, believing that Meera is not his lover, but sends his men to the railway station to find out Bhoomi's lover. He also instructs that Bhoomi to be killed if there is no-one in the railway station.
Meera, in a desperate attempt to save Bhoomi, comes up with a plan. She requests Madhu to go to the railway station and pretend to be Ammukutty, so that Muthuramalingam's men will spare Bhoomi believing Madhu to be his lover. Meera also gives a mobile phone to Madhu and informs to give it to Bhoomi when she meets him (as Bhoomi's phone is broken) so that she can reveal the truth to Bhoomi. Madhu agrees and leaves to the station. Over there, Bhoomi gets surprised seeing Madhu in the station and believes that it is Madhu who was pretending as Ammukutty so far and hugs her. Muthuramalingam's men see this and leave the place, believing that Meera is not Bhoomi's lover.
Suddenly, Madhu gets a call in the mobile given by Meera. Madhu understands that the call is from Meera and she wants to speak to Bhoomi. To everyone's surprise, Madhu throws away the phone from train, following which it is revealed that Madhu also likes Bhoomi, and she decides to marry him by betraying Meera. Meera understands that Madhu has played a trick.
Several years later, Bhoomi, now a top-ranking government official, now returns to Muthuramalingam's village to visit him along with his son Sidharth. Muthuramalingam's condition is ill. It is revealed that Madhu has died a few years back due to some medical ailments, but she has written all the truth in a diary and gives it to Sidharth to read it after her death. Sidharth has learnt all the truth. Madhu has also mentioned in the diary that this truth should never be disclosed to Bhoomi.
Meera stays with her father, and Bhoomi gets shocked to know that Meera still remains unmarried. When Bhoomi and Sidharth are about to return home, Sidharth asks Meera to come with them and expresses his wish to call her as mother. Bhoomi berates Sidharth for his suggestion and apologises to Meera and Muthuramalingam, but Muthuramalingam also insists Meera to go with Bhoomi.
Now Bhoomi, Meera and Sidharth leave together from the village. Just the before the train starts, Sidharth runs out to throw the diary containing the truth in a dust bin and comes back, but Bhoomi takes back the diary from the dust bin without Sidharth's knowledge and reads it. Upon reading the diary, Bhoomi is shocked knowing that it was Meera who loved him in the name of Ammukutty. In the end, Bhoomi also whole heartedly accepts Meera. | revenge, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | A Heart touching love story after a long time in Tamil cinema.
Then the movie becomes a bit slow (in a good way).
He should work with vijay in another movie with a meatier role.Roja did her part well.
Yaradhu was the best (of all the movies released in the recent time.
All the Songs were well placed in a Tamil movie.
Overall, A very good movie after a long time..
A Different Movie and Vijay's ComeBack Movie!.
The movie title itself says that it involves both Kaval(Guard) and Kadhal(Love)...tats y it is named Kaaval(Kadhal)an.
The movie starts with Bhoominaathan(Vijay)'s respect for RajKiran and his ambition to become a bodyguard.
But he finally turns out to be bodyguard of RajKiran's daughter Meera(Asin).
Finally whether he accepts her or not, when he comes to know its Meera, watch it on screen.
Plot: Bhoominathan (Vijay) is assigned to be the body guard of Meera (Asin) and Madhu (Mithra Kurian) by the person who he respects most, the person who has given his name - Muthuramalingam (Raj Kiran).
But few aspects of the movie just helps the movie to score well - Vijay + comedy + a soft love story.
Yes, film starts a twenty five year back just when Vijay's character is born.
Then a comedy scene with a dog and Vadivelu (Directly ripped from Priyadarshan's Malayalam movie - Minnaram).
Vijay and Vadivelu hits bulls eye with their combo comedy scenes.
Vijay's performance is highly impressive and you will watch a Vijay who was missing from theater for many years.
First half is filled with comic sequences and second half with dramatic love story and few twists.
Movie works well - its a different Vijay movie, his charisma is back.
Siddhiq stick to every Vijay formula but included many scenes which other directors of Vijay movies missed.Vijay - one man holds the movie in his shoulder all the way.
Vijay in a soft romantic role after many years and that works well and will easily reach his most dependable fans - Family and kids.
Mithra Kurian - she looks very homely and does a good job.
Rajkiran and Roja - good in their very limited roles..
A good love story with an touching climax that is what an film need.
Kavalan movie starring Vijay and Asin is getting positive reviews from the critics.
Kavalan finally got released on 15th January and is getting decent feedback.Remake of a Malyalam hit, Kavalan has everything in to woo Vijay fans.
Siddique, who directed Malayalam original Bodyguard, is the director of this film too.
Vidyasagar's music is passable and is in tune with the story.Vijay is seen in a completely new avatar in Kavalan unlike his previous masala films.
Feel good family entertainer.
Kaavalan is feel good entertainer....Truly speaking Vijay's performance was good in this movie especially in romance and Asin could have projected well(Like Nayan in Malayalam).Even though there are few changes made in Tamil to suit Vijay's image director did manage to maintains the hero's characterization consistently till the end.There are also some flaws in the story but can be forgiven since no movie is 100% perfect in Tamil cinema....
Even though comedy is not like friends Vadivelu brings smiles whenever he comes in screen(Vijay and Vadivelu combo hits back after Sura).
Vijay should have did this movie before Vettaikaran and Sura which was an ideal time but its not too late as it is evident that this movie proved in BO.Screenplay is quite slow and dragging in some places and Asin could have performed better.
All the songs are perfectly placed except "Vinnai kappan oruvan" and the songs perfectly fit to the story.At last all the credits move to one man who made a tremendous comeback with this film and he is no other than "ILAYATHALAPATHY VIJAY", he carries the film on his shoulders from the start to the climax with his fantastic performance which is quite hard for anti Vijay fans to digest but we have to accept the truth that Vijay lived this role..
especially actor-comedian combination gave great response in theater as well as vijay-asin pair made as ha-trick hit movies especially climax is amazing.unexpected twist is there in last 30 min.
after watching this movie everyone should feel something different.
it was a big treat for all fans not only for vijay fans also the people who like story and entertainment.
vijay played innocent character in this movie and he carried the movie in his shoulder till climax.
when seeing this movie we felt like watching old vijay movies.
this one will be the best movie in 2011 according to my opinion.finally it was family entertainment watch it and feel it..
Excellent Blockbuster Movie, Ilayathalapathy Rocks!!.
Real great comeback for Vijay after 5 in row dull movies..
Vijay(Boominathan) and Asin(Meera)Hattrick victory, Asin done her character very well, even Vadivel(Ammavasai), Mithu(Maathu)..
First half looks little slow and second half and shocking climax is the great backbone to the Movie..
Siddqe done good job to vi jay after Friends movie..
This will be a good comeback for vi jay to done well next movies better...
Hope Vijay will give again Mega hit movie...
good movie must watch.
Kavalan , remake of the Malayalam film Bodyguard, brings together the successful duo of Vijay and Siddique once again, not to mention the hit Vijay-Asin combination.
Coming from Siddique, the man who gave us Friends, the expectations is of a Vijay starrer that would be rather different from the ones we have been offered lately.
Kavalan is an emotionally narrated love story about a righteous and innocent man who is assigned the task of being a young woman's bodyguard.
The movie also subtly tells us that it is never good to leave things untold for too long in love.Overall, Kavalan is a movie that defies all the preset notions of a Vijay starrer that have been built over the last couple of years.
A relatable love story shot in a cute and simple manner, rich with emotions..
When mindless commercial pot-boilers rule the roost in TN and it seemed a decent actor like Vijay, who was acting only in these kind of run-of-the-mill movies, might go nowhere in his career with his last few movies not doing that great.
A out and out cute and a little different attempt from Siddique, Asin and Vijay makes Kavalan an enjoyable experience.
The climax is a stunner and an unexpected twist makes Kaavalan tick and climbs up several notches above other recent soft movies.
If you believe in the pain of love, then kaavalan movie is for u.
. Easily, its vijay's best performance over a period of time.
.Pokkiri and other Asin movies.
. .Asin's screen presence and her cute expressions in all the songs were rocking.
. Song picturisation is perfect with Vijay and Asin.
. .When it comes to d pain of love, romance with vijay and of course her feelings will surely cannot be matched with anyone.
Its a come back of sorts for vijay who will be focusing on rebuilding his carrier with kaavalan.
.He made full justice to the role and of course not to forget Siddique to have given us a wonderful love story.
When i saw vijay's previous movies i can surely say that they were not the best of his movies in fact worse even for a die hard fan like me,but even then i can say that vijay's induvidual performance were good even in those films ,Kavalan comes with usual electric performance by vijay but what makes this film special is the performance of the director,story and the support cast whick makes everyone sure that ther was never a doubt on vijay's ability but its an issue of directors and script he chose before this film.
it would be very difficult for any one who is 36 year old ,making only action oriented stories till now to come out of it and do a sensible romance but vijay has done that with absolute ease that many others could not have done.
vijay's kavalan a good film.
Vijay, the one man entertainment troupe has bounced back with Kaavalan.
What makes the film tick is that Vijay with the help of director Siddique has done something different within the constraints of the formula.
The Tom & Jerry comic escapades of Vijay and Vadivel is a scream, song placements are perfect, romance is subtle but touching and the emotional climax twist is hard hitting.
No Villain, no skin, no crass comedy, yet never a dull moment in the 2 hour 25 minutes movie.Bhoominathan (Vijay) has been given that name by Semanoor Muthuramalingam (Raj Kiran), a wealthy and powerful feudal landlord.
Bhoomi takes up an assignment to be the bodyguard of Muthuramalingam and saves him and his family consisting of his wife (Roja), daughter Meera (Asin), son Karthi (KK).
To poke fun at him, Meera starts making prank calls to him pretending to be a girl who is in love with him.
After a while, things get serious, which leads to twist in the story.One of the drawbacks of the film is the famous Asin-Vijay chemistry that has failed to work on screen.
The film lacks a creditable storyline, but has been packaged keeping humour as its base, which makes it an engaging watch.Vadivel who comes as Vijay's side-kick and his comic antics with the hero are genuine gut busters.
Vidyasagar- Vijay combo works with some great melodies and fast beats like Pattamboochi and Step Step...At the centre of all the mirth is the magical Vijay.
He carries the film on his shoulders and is one good reason to watch the film.Verdict: Family Entertainer,,vijay rocked all over the movieRated : 10/10.
After some average and below average movies from Ilaiya thalapathi Vijay gave good and cute love story.
Director Siddque's effect is reflecting on screen in Vijay's performance.
The story about Kavalan, Bodyguard becomes a lover of Meera(Asin).
Bhoominathan(Vijay)has been appointed as a bodyguard for RajKiran and his daughter Asin.
For some reasons Asin called Vijay's mobile as a lover.
After Sachin Vijay gave cute love story.
Rajkiran and Roja(Asin's Mother) have done a good job.
five melody songs, all are good not like previous movies.
Finally Vijay is Back with "Kavalan"..
I wanna say this is not a regular Vijay movie.
Vijay Asin combo rocks.
Movie starts with a "not so usual" type of Vijay introduction and it gave an first impression that this might be a different movie.
With Vadivelu and few fights and sentiment, Vijay is assigned to look after Asin and her friend Mithra Kurian in their coll.
After being frustrated by all these, Asin, on the advice of her friend, calls up Vijay from an blocked number ad flirts with him on the phone.
As the film progresses the love between Vijay and Asin progresses but vijay has no idea that the girl is Asin.
As the movie goes on, Asin completely falls in love with Vijay.
Basically the movie is good.
Best positives from this movie is Vijay's awakening to the fact that people hate his stereotype movies.
And Asin's return to Tamil movies.
In short the movie is good and can be watched..
It's especially not needed in a film like this where the screenplay is so full of ridiculous characters and occurrences that it's impossible to keep a straight face anyway :D Once the love story begins, the film improves and the last half an hour does manage to make an emotional impact, even if only on a superficial level.
Its treatment is like a Karan Johar film and is even largey lifted from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. Vijay sobers up and underplays his character, which made me think that he really has the potential to become a fine actor, but always chooses wrong scripts and bad directors like Dharani, Perarasu etc.
Starring Vijay and Asin Thottumkal in lead roles, the film is the remake of the director's own previous Malayalam film Bodyguard.
The film features Rajkiran, Roja, Mithra Kurian and Vadivelu in supporting roles with a musical score composed by Vidyasagar.
Following several hurdles, Kaavalan released on 15 January 2011 with relatively positive reviews.Vijay had back with his entertaining sense.This film was ended with unexpected twist.Kaavalan was released during Pongal on 15 January 2011, a day after the release of Siruthai and Aadukalam, but it went on to rank first in online bookings in Chennai for the Pongal weekend.Kaavalan also received a good response from Kerala.This movie will be a Great blockbuster and give a Grand name to Our Vijay.
All are saying vijay comeback hit from past 5 film.
So, it is comeback vijay from 1 movie.He gave good and clean family entertainer of d year (no double meaning dialogue, no sexy songs etc.).
Vijay + Vadivelu comedy is very much appreciable.
Asin and Mithra Kurian done good job.
It is a relatable love story shot in a cute and simple manner, rich with emotions.Siddique's Screenplay was excellent.
Last 20 minutes is heart touchable.On whole, the Kaavalan is good family entertainer.
A must watch movie.....
Vijay is back to his vintage best in his latest flick "Kavalan" which has finally hit theaters after many hurdles.
Movie is faithful to its original "The Bodyguard" which was a hit last year in Kerala directed by the same director , Siddique.
Though they were not able to recreate the magic of the former , "Kavalan" is better than most recent few movies of Vijay.
"Kavalan " is a reminiscence of those golden days of Vijay in the mid & late 90's with many such romantic movies of his which made him the most popular up & coming hero of those days.
Seeing Vijay trying to change his track of sorts is in itself quite refreshing for Tamil Cinema needs heroes of his stature & charisma to be around to bring in the variety .
Yet it is a refreshing simple romantic tale with the last 30 minutes of the movie having one of the best twists we have seen in the last few years.
First half has a meandering screenplay which is very wobbly & patchy with the comical duo of Vijay-Vadivelu providing the succor to the viewers in the otherwise below average half.
The second half is where the movie's screenplay picks up steam & tightens leading onto a good finale.
Its been a long time since the days of "Kadhalukku Mariyadhai" or "Thullatha Manamum Thullum" that a Vijay movie has such a poetic ending.
Vijay is good as ever showcasing his all-round talents be it in emotional sequences or comedy .
His combination with Vadivelu is rip-roaring & they bring the roof down with their comedy.Asin looks jaded & disinterested in the movie though she is as chirpy & ravishing as ever in the song sequences.
Roja , M.S.Baskar , Lingstone , Neepa , Bakru in the supporting cast don't have much to do.Vadivelu is good once again with his combination with Vijay after their immensely successful "Friends" , "Vaseegara" & "Sachein".
Movie is technically not that great in fact very average in that aspect.
It's been a very long time since a Vijay movie without a "kuthu" number .
Coming in the background of string of box-office duds "Kavalan" may help Vijay salvage some pride in the B-O.
I guess Vijay has changed a lot from this movie.
Vijay and Asin has done their role neat.
Another important thing to be noticed here is that after long time, female lead has played a important role in a Vijay movie.
Mithra Kurian has got a good start in tamil movies.
In the initial part of the movie, a villain role was introduced, but its totally forgotten.
But may be if that role has come back to the story, it would have looked like just another movie..
vijay has made the kollywood shut with a blockbuster movie...
awesome movie by vijay once again..
facing many hurdles vijay has succeeded and he has given a wonderful performance throughout the film.
vijay acting has been matured and his expressions are awesome..
vadivelu and vijay having a good chemistry in comedy has given a wonderful comedy track..
asin and vijay combination has made their hat-trick in the order of sivakasi, thirupatchi, and now its kaavalan..
the highlight of the movies are vijay's casual steps, comfortable acting, good expressions, excellent romance and a huge mass..
it is a feel good movie for everyone.
Kaavalan,the remake of bodyguard is not as great as its predecessor.The movie has 2 action sequences which were not in the original,inserted perhaps on vijay's wish.The first half is altered and somewhat OK.But a scene in which the hero chases the drug sellers from the school is removed in this film.If it had been placed the first half would have been better.The second half is full of dialogues and drags a little bit.The climax is touching.But is it necessary for vijay to pose as the original bodyguard(dileep)by even imitating his hairstyle,moustache and dress code in the climax?
Asin looks old and unfit as a heroine.Vadivelu carries the pace in the first half on his shoulders.Rajkiran scores in some places.The background score by vidyasagar is good but only the opening song is good and the other songs are average.All siddique films have a sense of humour but this one is a way down.It does not keep us entertained like his previous combo with vijay-friends and lacks both humour and concept.On the whole this is a different film for Vijay and his fans......not for Tamil Cinema!.
Movie is good.
but this story already have taken in Tamil film in the name of PUNNAGAI POOVE, Nanda acted as a hero.
Director changed a little bit in climax to show the difference from that film.
if u have not seen that movie, Kaavalan will be good.
In this film Nothing wrong with Vijay.
After long time Vijay came out from flaps.Its worth to see. |
tt0997047 | College Road Trip | The film is about Melanie Porter (Raven-Symoné), a 17-year-old college-bound girl who is getting ready to graduate from high school and really wants to go to Georgetown University. However, her father James Porter (Martin Lawrence), the chief of police in the quiet Chicago suburb where they live, is overprotective of Melanie, and isn't ready for her to leave and study so far away from home. Chief Porter has other plans for Melanie; he wants her to go to Northwestern University which is only 28 minutes away from home. Porter also receives problems from disagreements with his real estate agent wife, Michelle (Kym E. Whitley), the family pig Albert, who continuously annoys him, and his young son Trey (Eshaya Draper), who spends much time with the pig. Melanie gets invited to an interview at Georgetown after a college recruiter saw her performance at a mock trial. Her two best friends, Nancy (Brenda Song) and Katie (Margo Harshman), offer to take her on their college road trip to Pittsburgh. Melanie is all set to go with her friends until her father surprises her with his own college road trip to Washington, D.C..
On their way, Melanie reluctantly visits Northwestern to take a tour. They meet an almost-too-happy father and daughter duo, Doug (Donny Osmond) and Wendy (Molly Ephraim), who are on their own college road trip. Porter has planted actors at Northwestern, one screaming at Melanie they lost an eye at Georgetown. Melanie almost falls for it until one of the actors says to her "Yeah, the chief's a pretty smart guy", since he never met Porter.
Their car soon breaks down and they find Trey in the trunk with Albert and a supply of oxygen. They stop at a hotel (thanks to Albert's navigating) but end up causing trouble when Albert eats coffee beans and becomes hyperactive. They run into Doug and Wendy again, who offer Melanie and Porter a ride since Porter's car broke down. Later, Melanie and her father ride on a tour bus where they try to work out their differences. At one destination, Nancy and Katie show up and take Melanie to a sorority house. Porter, due to a misunderstanding, and the owner not letting him in to check on her, sneaks into the house. After hearing that his daughter has faith in him, he decides to leave the next morning. Unfortunately, after Melanie leaves, he gets caught by the owner, brutally tazed, and arrested. Porter's mother comes to bail him out, and opens up about her own past fears when her son went to the Army, but still believed in her son to go his own path.
Porter and Melanie end up forgiving each other at the airport. After dropping off Trey, they skydive to make the interview at Georgetown. Melanie is nervous, but Porter tells her she can do it and that they didn't come all this way for nothing. She then is accepted into Georgetown, which Wendy is accepted into too.
In the end, James copes with letting go and the final scene shows the Porter and Greenhut families at Thanksgiving dinner. Melanie introduces her boyfriend Tracy (Benjamin Patterson),who turns out to be a male. James accepts this, and Wendy announces her engagement to Scooter (Lucas Grabeel), a chipper young man who behaves exactly like Doug. This causes Doug to finally snap and attacks Scooter.
Deleted scenes include an alternate opening where James foils a bank robbery and a phone conversation where Michelle Porter, a real estate agent, is listening to Melanie's and James's complaints while Michelle is in the middle of showing a house to a couple. The couple think Michelle is talking to another buyer and decide to buy the house themselves. | comedy, satire, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0119167 | Funny Games | George and Ann Farber, their son Georgie, and their dog arrive at their lake house. Their next-door neighbour, Fred, is seen with two young men, Peter and Paul, who seem to be friends or relatives. They find Fred reacting somewhat awkwardly. Fred and Paul come over to help put the boat into the lake. Lucky, the dog, keeps barking at Paul, but George ignores it. After Fred and Paul leave, George and Georgie stay outside by the lake, tending to their boat. Georgie asks his father why Fred was behaving so strangely.
While Ann is in the kitchen cooking, Peter comes by to borrow some eggs. Ann gives him the eggs but Peter drops them. Feeling a little annoyed, Ann gives him another four eggs and Peter takes off. Soon afterwards she hears Lucky barking and Peter and Paul show up together. They seem friendly, and they admire a golf club belonging to George. Paul asks her to try out one of the clubs outside and she approves. In the boat, George and Georgie hear Lucky is barking hysterically when suddenly the barking stops.
Peter and Paul request more eggs, because the last ones also ended up broken, Ann becomes frustrated, but when George tries to force the men to leave, Peter breaks George's leg with the golf club. The two young men then take the family hostage.
Ann tries to call for help on a cell phone, but finds it unusable because Peter had dropped it in the sink. Paul then guides Ann on a hunt to find the family's dog, which he has killed with George's golf club. When neighbors visit, Ann passes the two men off as friends.
The family is forced to participate in a number of sadistic games in order to stay alive. Paul asks if George or Ann wants to bet that they will be alive by 9:00 in the morning, and says that he and Peter are betting they won't be. Between playing their games, the two men keep up a constant patter. Paul frequently ridicules Peter's weight and lack of intelligence. He describes a number of contradicting stories of Peter's past, although no definitive explanation is ever presented as to the men's origins or motives.
During the "games" Peter and Paul put Georgie in a bag, nearly suffocating him; to stop this George is forced to request Ann uncover her breast to Peter and Paul. When released from the bag, Georgie tries to escape. He attempts to climb a locked gate but changes his mind and goes to the neighbors' empty house. There he discovers that they have been killed.
At the same time Paul goes out searching for Georgie after having Ann's hands tied behind her back and ankles also tied with tapes, with Peter left to guard her and George. Ann asks Peter why he does not kill them directly, and Peter replies that they should not forget the fun of games. Ann attempts to be freed by George in an absence of Peter but fails to make it before his return and is beaten again. Ann begs him to let them go, but Peter refuses. When found, Georgie attempts to shoot Paul with a shotgun, but the gun fails to go off. Paul returns him to the living room, along with the shotgun.
The men play a new game, saying whoever gets counted out will be shot. Georgie panics and makes a run for his life which results in Peter shooting and killing him. Paul is a little annoyed that Peter didn't follow the rules of their game to the letter.
George and Ann are grief-stricken, but they eventually resolve to survive. Ann is able to free herself and flee the house while George, with a broken leg, desperately tries to make a call on the malfunctioning phone. Ann struggles to find help, only to be re-captured by Peter and Paul, who return her to the house. After stabbing George, they attempt to force Ann to make a choice for her husband, between a painful, prolonged death with the knife or a quick death with the shotgun.
Ann seizes the shotgun on the table in front of her and kills Peter. An enraged Paul grabs the shotgun and starts looking for the television remote. Upon finding it, he literally rewinds the last occurrences back to a moment before Ann grabs the shotgun, thereby breaking the fourth wall. On the "do over", Paul snatches the shotgun away and admonishes her, saying she isn't allowed to break the rules.
Peter and Paul then kill George and they take Ann, bound and gagged, out onto the family's boat. Around eight o'clock in the morning, they nonchalantly throw her into the water to drown, thus winning their bet. They knock at the house of the neighbors who had previously visited the family. They request some eggs, thereby restarting their cycle of murder. | violence, dark, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | I've never seen such great acting in a German language movie (the film is Austrian - just to be precise); the script is full of surprises and the whole film has a tightness that is very rare; every little detail is in the right place.Michael Haneke always likes to challenge his audience, but even among his more controversial films 'Funny Games' stands out.
Perhaps it refers to the funny games built on standard film violence in everyday movies.
Going through the comments index, I see the expected responses: it was boring: it was pointless: it was too long: it's a satire: the games aren't actually that funny: it involved the audience in a neato way: it's nothing new: it's been done before.
While watching this movie last night, I thought of another reference, this time from "King Lear": "Like flies to wanton schoolboys are we to the gods;/ They kill us for their sport." What this movie does is challenge the audience's own involvement in visual narrative -- usually, we watch movies from somewhere on-high and omniscient; we're invisible but we see all; we're voyeurs, just like God. In Haneke's film, we identify not with the victims but with the all-powerful killers as they set about their funny games.
This is not how violence is in the real world, violence is a horrible fact of life, not a glamourous thing for youths to copy, and I think Haneke intended Funny Games to show it how it really is.
You don't want to watch it, but at the same time, you feel hypnotised by it.I will not detail any events of the film, to save spoiling the atmosphere, but I will note one thing that people tend to be confused about:- "Why did the family let them into the house in the first place?" The two characters of Peter and Paul are let to walk all over the family because of one flaw in the bourgios psyche - 'The more polite a person is, the better a person they are.' This absurd way of thinking is played on by Peter and Paul and they obviously score, plus 'getting into the house without breaking in' is also one of their 'games'.For those who haven't seen the film, I definitely wouldn't recommend this for a night in with the parents/girlfriend, but I definitely would for people who want to see the difference between death and Tarantino-glam.
I think there is a valid argument to make that the universal visceral impact that Funny Games has on audiences undermines the very thesis of its director Michael Haneke.
You could argue that Haneke had to resort to making such an extreme film to have the intended impact on an audience dulled by years of cinematic violence.
Watching "Funny Games" (1997) directed by Michael Haneke for the first time was an unforgettable visceral experience.
It's been several years since I saw the film but it still makes me shiver just to think about it."Funny Games" can be first mistaken for yet another conventional thriller where the good guys always win in the end and the evil is punished.
No, "they are among us", they are nice and polite, well read, shy and ironic, they have the names from the new Testament, Paul and Peter, they talk with the soft refined voices but they are monsters nevertheless who have no regard for a human life and who want to play their sadistic funny games to the extreme."Funny Games" is a controversial film and I've read many reviews and comments that call it "a failure", accusing the film and its creator of not having said anything new or original on the connected subjects of violence, the media, and voyeuristic audience.
Indeed, the fact that the entire story takes place in pretty much one place would suggest it might struggle to capture the viewer's attention, certainly for its duration.However, the simple combination of the mechanics of the performances, the script and the general tension make this story work outstandingly well; indeed, its isolated feel simply adds to the overall claustrophobia.Peter and Paul are two apparently genial young men, who show up at the isolated boathouse of Anna and Georg, a mature couple with a child, who are all taking a couple of weeks holiday.When Peter seems to be making a nuisance of himself, Anna starts to lose her patience with him.
Paul then arrives on the scene and before long it has converted from an underbelly of irritation to outright intimidation, followed by crude violence.It is extremely hard to sum this movie up without making it sound like a highly unoriginal piece of cinema, but there can be no question it is anything but.The script is simply incredible; the overtone of terror slowly creeps up on the viewer, and on Anna and Georg, with more than a dose of psychological manipulation.
Almost by pretending they are doing nothing wrong, with more than a hint of cordiality along the way, the two perpetrators manage to inflict a disturbing level of fear upon the family, and yet it is the most subtle form of assault.Rather than constant threats, the two act like dinner guests who just happen to be terrifying the heck out of their hosts.When things go further, and violence joins in, it takes the trauma to a new level, as it is gritty horror rather than a splatterfest.
As opposed to Oliver Stone's speculative box office hit NATURAL BORN KILLERS, that actually made us laugh and thus destroyed the whole threat of violence, Michael Haneke's FUNNY GAMES turns the art of cinema into a loaded gun.
And thus Haneke's point that "violence is bad" is made terribly clear.Not an easy task, but Haneke pulled it off like there was no tomorrow, and for that he deserves our praise in a time when violence is synonymous with entertainment.See FUNNY GAMES - if you dare!.
By having one of the psychos address the camera a few times, saying things to the effect that they have to give the viewers their money's worth, Haneke is essentially wagging his finger at anyone who has ever enjoyed the portrayal of violence in a film.
But there's a flaw in Haneke's logic: the only time we consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment is in recondite European art films like I STAND ALONE, MAN BITES DOG, and FUNNY GAMES.This is the kind of picture that gets bluenose types all huffy, and prone to pronouncements on the order of, "This is the most repellent movie ever made!" I'll stay off that high horse--but I will say, a few hours after seeing the picture, that there is something singularly loathsome in the hypocrisy of Haneke's coating a suspenseless piece of fictional snuff porn in the sanctimony of its being a Statement on Violence and Media.
And you know what side the filmmakers are on when one of the sadists terrifies a little kid by slipping on a CD in a neighbor's house the kid has escaped to, and the music is that well-known favorite of middle-aged bourgeois people on vacation...John Zorn and the Naked City.This kind of Extreme Cinema has worked much better when practiced by artists in totally disreputable sub-pulp forms--like Lucio Fulci and Ruggero Deodato, whose sometimes almost unwatchable films engage in a spiritual wrestling match between the desire to go to the limits, and the conscience that watches over the mayhem.
At every level, Funny Games likes to set up what it sees as high culture versus low culture in general (classical versus rock being just one instance) then says that all this low culture is junk culture and tied in with all this excessive violence that the film wants us to question in the cinema.
Yet these same people were content to watch the didactic sadism of Funny Games, knowing that it's directed by an intellectual Austrian and will pat them on the back in the end and reinforce their viewpoint, which is that horror/violence in cinema is trash.
This seemed to me like a remarkable high-handed attitude for a film director to take, as if the inability to watch his film was somehow proof of the viewer having a more beautiful soul than that of somebody who can sit through the whole thing without dropping their popcorn.I realised fairly quickly that 'Funny Games' is not a movie in the conventional sense of being a filmed dramatic fiction designed to give the viewer a satisfying aesthetic experience.
It's some sort of art gesture, designed to make Michael Haneke feel like he's doing something special, something higher than other film-makers.I don't like Quentin Tarantino's films not because they are very violent, but because I find them boring; I don't like all the trashy B-movies that Tarantino is in thrall to, so I don't appreciate it when he cannibalises their plots and motifs for his own stuff instead of writing about real people.
'Funny Games' is nothing more than a humourless art-house version of a Tarantino movie, in which the smirking protagonists systematically terrorise a family and wink at the camera throughout, asking us if we want to keep watching.
By the end, I was astonished by writer-director Michael Haneke's audacity in telling a macabre home-invasion story devoid of Hollywood glamour, humor, and mercyremake or no, it's still one of the ballsiest exercises in visceral, reality-based horror ever released by a major studio.So, when I decided to give the original "Funny Games" a spin (mere days after my viewing of American version), I was filled with presupposition toward how much I would appreciate the original (with the twists of Haneke's shot-for-shot remake still mapped out in my mind)similar to a sadistic "bet" our captors make with their prey, I was wondering if this earlier, German-language version would survive on its own terms.
Unlike the much-derided American remakes of "The Vanishing" and "Les Diaboliques," Haneke sees no need to let either culture off the hook, especially when each has its own prominent history of violence, on- and off-camera.Ironically, the references to metalhead couch potatoes Beavis and Butt-Head probably seemed like an incendiary bitch-slap to the passive glamorization of American filmed violence in the 1997 version, but there is an even stronger sense of irony when the MTV-hosted duo are referenced in the remakeon the shores that birthed them, and the cult following of Generation Y-ers that has accumulated in the years since the show's cancellation (a sure sign that our passivity, if anything, is more pronounced now).
It is truly stunning how Haneke mines the same static framing and intense performances to ends that are equally effective in both films (even knowing the outcome of a protracted long take following a pivotal off-screen event, I found the experience just as emotionally agonizing to witness).While it may seem hypocritical to "side" with Haneke (at least in the context his film creates), especially when I patronize (and am prone to enjoying) films that frequently downplay the reality of human suffering, the effect in both versions of "Funny Games" is undeniably powerfulthese are difficult, ugly, and emotionally draining films crafted with undeniable (and remarkably subtle) purpose.
When her husband and her son arrive from the lake, Georg is hit on his knee by Paul with a golf club and the family is imprisoned by the strangers that start to play a sick and sadistic deadly game along the night with the defenseless family."Funny Game" is the movie that made Michael Haneke worldwide known and certainly is ahead of time and a masterpiece of sadism, alienation and cruelty.
They take the family hostage in their cabin and all of them are physically and mentally submitted to coercion , torture , punches , kicks and many others things .Violent as well as disturbing film about two psychotic young men take a mother , father, and son hostage in their vacation cabin and the family is forced to participate in a number of sadistic games in order to stay alive .
Director Michael Haneke has said that he never intended 'Funny Games' to be a horror film ; instead his idea was to make a film with a moralistic comment about the influence of media violence on society , it's a subject that Haneke is quite passionate about.
Like the films Funny Games lampoons, the opening is an invitation, hits a few very obvious buttons preparing the audience, gearing us up, winding...
But get this: making this movie is an act of sadism directed at an audience no more deserving of its suffering than the victims in the film itself.
Yeah,I see the point of the director who tried to create the most frightening,chilling atmosphere ever made.But the film totally lacks of any plot,being only mindless violence.Beside,acting is terrible throughout the whole movie,and it only deepens the sense of boredom.One of the worst film ever seen:1,and I feel kind enough not to spend other bad words..
"Sherlock Jr." (1924) shatters more boundaries between film and audience than a boatload of Hanekes.On the positive side, the direction, acting, and cinematography in "Funny Games" are quite good, but only as far as the script allows.
Sure, you'll watch it just to see how it ends, but please don't tell me that this movie depicts deep philosophical questions about media or morality any more than a video game does.As for terror, Haneke has just taken a lesson from Hitchcock or Lynch (Blue Velvet) who have shown that it often works best in seemingly nice circumstances when it is unexpected and therefore unsettling.And as for the character winking at us, I think that is just because the joke is on us for having watched.
However, reputation and moral outrage does not, a good film make -- and the over-hyped shock of reactionary audiences could not be more present than in the backlash/acclaim dished-out to Haneke's psychological thriller/cum social conscience -- 'Funny Games'.
To those who trash the film on grounds of violence and pretension, I think you're watching the wrong kind of movie.
Haneke has said he didn't want to make a film which exploited the hypocrisy of a sensation-hungry audience by wallowing in the kind of on-screen brutality which caused him to make FUNNY GAMES in the first place.
When *that* scene comes around (believe me, you'll know it when you see it), you'll probably begin to understand how she feels.As much as you may be insulted by Haneke's point of view - his film is an antidote to the sanitised, beautifully choreographed violence of Hollywood movies and the audiences who lap them up - he's certainly got a point.
Anyone who has ever seen a Michael Haneke film will know he can provide a near to perfect, yet challenging piece of cinema and Funny Games is perhaps just a close to perfection like any of the other films which he made that I have seen.
He made this film where two sadistic young men capture and torture an upper-middle class family because he wanted to make the audience aware of the fact that we enjoy this types of cruel movies.
Funny Games is an expertly crafted insult to the audience for liking a genre of movies the director does not.
I am not saying that film should be brutally violent, but it should aspire to the level of genius in Michael Haneke's Funny Games..
While I watched it I thought about every cliché seen in horror Thrillers of this type, and how this film approached them on purpose, to destroy them and give them an unexpected twist, playing with the expectations and making the audience laugh nervously whenever the fourth wall was broke or the opportunities for the protagonists to get aired out of the situation were crushed.
I've seen a lot of brutal and disturbing stuff for example "Cannibal Holocaust","Day of the Woman","Last House on the Left","Guinea Pig:Devil's Experiment","Man Behind the Sun","Forced Entry" etc.,and this film is also pretty harsh and unsettling,but rather in non-violent way.Most of the sadistic violence occurs off-screen,and the ending is very bleak and depressing.The acting is extremely believable,the photography is excellent,the characters are well-developed and two white-gloved sadists are pure evil.Austrian director Michael Haneke,responsible for earlier equally disturbing and powerful "Benny's Video",manages to create a horrific atmosphere of dread and fear.No gore or bloody violence,just good sheer terror!This is the way horror should be!!!So if you're into extreme cinema this one is a must-see!.
Whoever finds this shocking story of torture and murder that can happen to anyone, even a perfectly normal family (of bad actors) to be any funny have got to be sick (I've read some of the reviews) Funny Games is not funny...it's a dull, tedious film with stupid characters you just want to slap in the face (that's not just the bad guys!).
So i do not recommend this film to anyone but indie buffs who understands a filmmaker's goal (even if its a disturbing one) to explain what this movie is about (or maybe this director is one sick puppy.) As for the trickery thrown at us, that's the director's way of playing funny games on us....get it?.
The remote trick pulls back the satisfaction of revenge and the ending makes it clear that the fear not only hasn't gone away but instead must be relived again and again!Arno Frisch [the skinny bad guy] can be viewed as the director who periodically peers at us thru the camera, smirks and reminds us that we are watching a movie, and reveals to us the funny games that he and other directors play on us at our insistence..
I want the two hours of my life back.] I'm still in shock over "Funny Games." How could Haneke have made these two films?
The film appears to want to analyse the relationship between the audience and a movie, and it does this by way of having the lead characters ask the audience questions (like "You are on their side, aren't you?"), and this does somewhat work...just not all that well.Basically, Funny Games is a thriller that overstepped it's mark. |
tt0006206 | Les vampires | === Episode 1 – "The Severed Head" ===
Philipe Guérande (Édouard Mathé), a reporter working for the newspaper "The Paris Chronicle" who is investigating a criminal organisation called the Vampires, receives a telegram at work stating that the decapitated body of the national security agent in charge of the Vampire investigations, Inspector Durtal, was found in the swamps near Saint-Clement-Sur-Cher, with the head missing. Being turned down by the local magistrate (Thelès), he spends the night in a nearby castle owned by Dr. Nox (Jean Aymé), an old friend of his father, along with Mrs. Simpson (Rita Herlor), an American multimillionaire who desires the property. After waking up in the night, Philipe finds a note in his pocket saying "Give up your search, otherwise bad luck awaits you! – The Vampires", and discovers a mysterious passage behind a painting in his room. Meanwhile, Mrs. Simpson’s money and jewels are stolen in her sleep by a masked thief, but Philipe is suspected of the crime. Philipe again visits the magistrate, who now believes his case, and they trick Dr. Nox and Mrs. Simpson into waiting in an anteroom. At the castle, Philipe and the magistrate find the head of Inspector Durtal hidden in the passage in Philipe’s room. Back in the anteroom, they find that Mrs. Simpson is dead and that Dr. Nox has vanished. Her pocket contains a note from the Grand Vampire saying that he has murdered the real Dr. Nox and is now assuming his identity.
=== Episode 2 – "The Ring That Kills" ===
Grand Vampire in disguise as Count de Noirmoutier, reads that ballerina Marfa Koutiloff (Stacia Napierkowska), who is engaged to Philipe, will perform a ballet called The Vampires. To prevent her from publicizing the Vampires' activities and to deter Philipe, he gives Marfa a poisoned ring before her performance, which kills her onstage. Amidst the panicking crowds Philipe recognizes the Grand Vampire and follows him to an abandoned fort and is captured by the gang. They agree to interrogate Philipe at midnight and execute him at dawn. Philipe finds that the Vampire guarding him is one of his co-workers, Oscar-Cloud Mazamette (Marcel Lévesque). They decide to work together and capture the Grand Inquisitor when he arrives at midnight. They bind and hood the Grand Inquisitor, and set him up for execution in place of Phillipe. At dawn the Vampires arrive for the execution, but the police raid the lair. The Vampires escape, but as they flee they mistakenly execute their own Grand Inquisitor, who turns out to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
=== Episode 3 – "The Red Codebook" ===
While faking illness to get off work, Philipe tries to decode a red booklet that he lifted from the Grand Inquisitor’s body, which contains the crimes of the Vampires. He discovers that his house is under surveillance by the Vampires, so he leaves in disguise. Following clues in the booklet he arrives at "The Howling Cat" night club. Performing there is Irma Vep (Musidora), whose name Philipe sees is an anagram for vampire. After her act, the Grand Vampire assigns Irma to retrieve the red booklet. As Philipe returns home Mazamette arrives, along with a poison pen he stole from the Grand Vampire. A few days later, Irma arrives at their house disguised as a new maid, but Philipe recognizes her. She tries to poison him, but fails. His mother (Delphine Renot) leaves to meet her brother after receiving word that he has been in a car accident, but it turns out to be a trap and she is captured by the Vampires. While Philipe is asleep, Irma lets another Vampire into his home but he shoots them. They escape, however, because his gun was loaded with blanks. In a shack in the slums, Philipe’s mother is held by Father Silence (Louis Leubas), a deaf-mute, and is forced to sign a ransom note, but she kills him with Mazamette’s poison pen and escapes.
=== Episode 4 – "The Spectre" ===
The Grand Vampire, under the alias of a real estate broker "Treps", meets Juan-José Moréno (Fernand Herrmann), a businessman, who asks for an apartment with a safe. The Grand Vampire puts Moréno into an apartment whose safe is rigged to be opened from the rear through the party wall of an apartment belonging to Irma Vep and the Grand Vampire. However, the case Moréno places inside contains the Vampires’ black attire. Later, in disguise as bank secretary "Juliette Bertaux", Irma learns that a man called Mr. Metadier has to bring ₣300,000 to another branch. In the event that he is unable to make the delivery, Irma will. Soon afterward, Mr. Metadier is murdered by the Vampires and his body thrown from a train. When Irma is about to take the money for him a spectre of Mr. Metadier appears and takes it instead. The Grand Vampire pursues the spectre, who escapes down a manhole. Later that day, Mme. Metadier appears at the bank, saying she hasn’t seen her husband in days. They also find out that the money hasn’t been delivered. Philipe learns of this and goes to the bank in disguise. Recognizing the secretary as Irma, he finds her address and a few hours later sneaks in, using Mazamette as a ploy. Irma and the Grand Vampire open the safe from their side, only to find Metadier’s body and the money. Philipe tries to capture them but is knocked down and they escape. Philipe calls the police just as Moréno enters and finds his safe opened from the other side. He walks through and is caught by Philipe. Moréno is revealed to be another criminal in disguise, and claims not to have killed Metadier, but to have found his body by the train tracks where the Vampires had dumped it. Moréno found Metadier's letter of authority on his corpse, took Metadier's body home, disguised himself as Metadier, put the body in his safe, assumed Metadier's identity, took the money, and put it too in his safe. The upshot is that the money is now in the Vampires' possession. The police arrive and arrest Moréno.
=== Episode 5 – "Dead Man's Escape" ===
The examining magistrate from Saint-Clement-Sur-Cher relocates to Paris and is assigned to the Vampire case and the Moréno affair. After being summoned to the magistrate, Moréno commits suicide using a concealed cyanide capsule. His body is left in his cell, but during the night he wakes up, very much alive. He kills the night-watchman and takes his clothes, escaping from the prison. He is noticed by Mazamette, who is suffering from insomnia. The following morning, Moréno is found to have escaped. While writing an account of the events, Philipe is pulled out of his window by the Vampires and whisked into a large costume box. He is driven away and the box is unloaded, but incompetently, and it slides down a large flight of stairs. The Vampires retreat and Philipe is let out by two bystanders. He visits the costume designer Pugenc whose name and box number (13) are on the costume box, just missing Moréno and his gang who have bought police uniforms for a scheme of their own. Philipe learns from Pugenc that the costume box was to go to Baron de Mortesalgues on Maillot Avenue, and realizes that "Mortesalgues" must be another alias of the Grand Vampire. Later, Moréno confronts Philipe in a café, but when Philipe calls for the nearby policemen, they turn out to be part of Moréno’s gang and he is again captured. Meanwhile, Mazamette breaks into Moréno's hideout. Philipe is taken there to be hanged by the gang, unless he can give them means to revenge themselves against the Vampires. He tells them that Baron de Mortesalgues is the Grand Vampire, and they spare him, tying him up. Mazamette appears and frees him. That evening, the Grand Vampire, in disguise as Baron de Mortesalgues, holds a party for his "niece", who is Irma Vep in disguise. The party attracts many members of the Parisian aristocracy. "Mortesalgues" reveals that at midnight there will be a surprise; but the "surprise" is a sleeping-gas attack on the guests. The Vampires steal all of the guests' valuables while they are unconscious. The Vampires flee with the stolen items on the top of their car, but Moréno, forewarned by Philipe, robs the Vampires and sends Philipe a letter telling him that, for the moment, they are even. Mazamette visits Philipe; he is angry with their lack of progress and wants to quit. Philipe opens a book of La Fontaine's Fables and points to the line, “in all things, one must take the end into account”, and Mazamette's resolve is renewed.
=== Episode 6 – "Hypnotic Eyes" ===
Fifteen days have passed since the events at Maillot. Moréno is looking for clues to lead him to the Vampires, and reads in a paper that a Fontainebleau notary has been murdered by them; as he happens to possess a gaze with a terrible hypnotic power, he takes control of his new maid, Laura, to turn her into his slave. Meanwhile, Philipe and Mazamette happen to see a newsreel on the murder inquest, in which they spot Irma Vep and the Grand Vampire. They cycle to Fontainebleau to investigate. En route they spot an American tourist, Horatio Werner, riding fast into the forest, and follow him. He places a box under one of the boulders, and they take it. The Grand Vampire, who is staying in the Royal Hunt Hotel under the pseudonym of Count Kerlor, along with Irma in disguise as his son, Viscount Guy, reads in a paper that George Baldwin (Émile Keppens), an American millionaire, has been robbed of $200,000. Whoever can capture the criminal, Raphael Norton, who has fled to Europe with the actress Ethel Florid, will be awarded the unspent balance of the loot. "Kerlor" notices that Mr and Mrs. Werner, who are staying at the hotel, are distressed by this notice, and concludes that Mr. Werner is Raphael Norton. Philipe and Mazamette arrive at the hotel and find that the Vampires are based there. In a different hotel they force open the box and find Baldwin’s stolen money inside. Moréno comes to the Royal Hunt in disguise. While the Grand Vampire tells the hotel guests a story, Irma breaks into the Werners' suite, finding a map leading to the box in the forest. When she leaves, she is captured and chloroformed by Moréno, who takes the map. While his gang take Irma away, he dresses his hypnotized maid, Laura, as Irma and tells her to give the Vampires the map. Once one of the Vampires (Miss Édith) follows the map to get the treasure, Moréno’s gang ambushes her, only to find that Philipe has already taken it. Moreno demands that the Grand Vampire ransom Irma Vep. In the early morning, the police raid the hotel and find that Werner is actually Norton, so Philipe and Mazamette win the money. Moréno falls in love with Irma and decides not to return her to the Grand Vampire. Instead, he hypnotizes her and causes her to write a confession of her involvement in the murders of the Fontainbleau notary (in this episode), Metadier (episode 4), the ballerina Marfa Koutiloff (episode 2), and Dr. Nox (episode 1). The Grand Vampire comes to meet Moréno, but Moréno by hypnotic command compels Irma to kill him. The episode ends with the now-wealthy Mazamette informing a dozen adoring journalists that "although vice is seldom punished, virtue is always rewarded".
=== Episode 7 – "Satanas" ===
A mysterious man (Louis Leubas) arrives at Moréno’s home, and shows that he knows that the Grand Vampire’s body is inside a trunk. Moréno tries to get rid of him, but he is paralysed by a pin in the man’s glove. The man reveals himself to be the true Grand Vampire, Satanas, and that the first was a subordinate. While at a cabaret called the "Happy Shack", Moréno and Irma receive a note from Satanas saying they will see proof of his power at two o'clock. At two he fires a powerful cannon at the "Happy Shack", largely destroying it. Meanwhile, Philipe decides to visit Mazamette, but he is out "chasing the girls." He hides as Mazamette arrives home, drunk, with two women and a friend, who he later chases out angrily at gunpoint. The next morning, Irma and Moréno go to Satanas’ home to surrender, and Satanas offers them the chance to work with him, informing them that American millionaire George Baldwin is stopping at the Park Hotel. Satanas wants Baldwin's signature. One of Moréno’s accomplices, Lily Flower (Suzanne Delvé), goes to the Park Hotel and poses as an interviewer from "Modern Woman" magazine and through trickery gets Baldwin to sign a blank piece of paper. Afterwards, Irma enters and dupes Baldwin into recording his voice saying "Parisian women are the most charming I've ever seen, all right!" Lily Flower brings Baldwin's signature to Moréno’s home, and Moréno writes out an order (over Baldwin's signature) to pay Lily Flower $100,000. Moréno’s gang seize the hotel telephone operator of Baldwin's hotel; Irma takes her place by using a forged note. When the bank cashier calls Baldwin to confirm that he has given a very large draft to an attractive Parisian woman, Irma intercepts the call, and plays the recording she made of Baldwin's voice, and the cashier is persuaded. While Lily Flower is taking the money, Mazamette comes in, recognising her as his old squeeze from the "Happy Shack", and follows her, seeing her hand the money to a man in a taxi – Moréno! Moréno gives Satanas the money, but he is given it back as a present. Philipe and Mazamette capture Lily Flower at her home and make her call Moréno and tell him to come, but when he and Irma arrive they fall into a trap and are caught by the police.
=== Episode 8 – "The Thunder Master" ===
Irma, sentenced to life imprisonment, has been sent to St. Lazarus’ prison. A transfer order is sent to the prison to send Irma to a penal colony in Algeria. On the day of her departure, Irma finds out that Moréno has been executed. Satanas follows Irma’s transportation route, stopping at a seaside hotel in disguise as a priest. At the port, he gives some religious comfort to the prisoners, but Irma’s copy contains a secret message saying “the ship will blow up” and giving her directions on how to safeguard herself. Satanas destroys the ship with his cannon. Meanwhile, Philipe finds through the red codebook that the explosive shell that landed on the “Happy Shack” came from Montmartre, and Mazamette goes to investigate. His son, Eustache Mazamette (René Poyen), is sent home from school for bad behaviour, so they go to "investigate" together. They find some men loading boxes into a house, and notice one of the top hat cases contains a shell. Later, reading that no survivors have been found from the exploding ship, Satanas visits Philipe to avenge Irma’s death. Satanas paralyses Phillipe with the poisoned pin in his glove and leaves a bomb in a top hat to kill him off. Mazamette arrives and throws the top hat out the window just in time. At Satanas’ home, Eustache is used as a ploy to hide Mazamette in a box, but Satanas sees this through a spy-hole. Satanas threatens Eustache, but Eustache shoots at Satanas, and the police raid the building and arrest him. After the action, they find that Mazamette’s nose has been broken by Eustache’s shot. Meanwhile, Irma is shown to have survived the blast on the ship, and is on her way back to Paris as a stowaway under a train. She is helped by the station staff and police, pretending that she is in “one of those eternal love stories beloved by popular imagination.” She makes her way to the Vampire hangout, the “Howling Cat” nightclub, where she performs, and is rapturously greeted by the Vampires. Upon hearing of the arrest of Satanas, one of the Vampires, Venomous (Frederik Moriss), appoints himself the new chief. By Satanas’ orders, they mail him an envelope containing a poisoned note, which he eats to commit suicide.
=== Episode 9 – "The Poisoner" ===
Irma is now a devoted collaborator of Venomous, who is set on getting rid of Philipe and Mazamette. He learns that Philipe is engaged to Jane Bremontier (Louise Lagrange), and the following day Irma and Lily Flower rent an apartment above hers. Irma’s maid, a Vampire also, hears that Philipe and Jane’s engagement party will be catered for by the famous Béchamel House. Venomous cancels their catering order, and on the day of the party the Vampires appear instead. Jane’s mother (Jeanne Marie-Laurent) gives the concierges one bottle of the Vampires' champagne as a present, and just as dinner is served the male concierge, Leon Charlet, drinks it, is poisoned and dies. His wife stops the party guests from drinking their champagne just in time, and the Vampires make a hasty escape. A few days later, Mazamette and Philipe’s mother pick up Jane and her mother in the night in order to take them to a safe retreat near Fontainebleau. Irma, who tries to fill the getaway car with soporific gas, is spotted by Mazamette, but Irma gasses him, and he is taken away asleep while Irma hides in a box on the car. Mazamette is dumped on the street and taken to the police station, believed to be drunk. When he wakens, he calls Philipe to warn him, but Irma slips out of the box and gets away in the car before Philipe can catch her. Irma jumps off the car near the Pyramid Hotel, and calls Venomous to meet her there, but Philipe has also arranged to meet Mazamette there. Philipe spots Irma at the Pyramid Hotel, captures her and ties her up. Philipe and Mazamette leave Irma in Mazamette's car and attempt to ambush Venomous, but Irma honks the car horn to warn him. Venomous saves Irma and drives off in Mazamette’s car, so Philipe and Mazamette chase him in his. Venomous leaps off; Philipe chases Venomous on foot, following him onto the top of a moving train, but Venomous gets away. Mazamette, enraged at the police for not letting him help Philipe on the train, hits one of the officers, who arrest him. At the police station, Philipe and Mazamette carry on so dramatically that the police decide not to book Mazamette, who is after all a famous philanthropist. But the Vampires are still on the loose.
=== Episode 10 – "The Terrible Wedding" ===
A few months have passed, and Philipe and Jane are now married. Augustine Charlet (Germaine Rouer), widow of the poisoned concierge, is hired by the Guérandes to be their chamber maid. Augustine, still tormented by the mysterious poisoning death of her husband, receives an advertising circular for a psychic, Madame d’Alba of 13 Avenue Junot, and decides to consult her. Madame d’Alba, a Vampire, hypnotises Augustine and instructs her to unlock the door of Philipe’s apartment at 2 am. Mazamette, who has taken an attraction to Augustine, awakens that night and sees her descend the stairs to unlock the door. The Vampires enter, tie her up, and feed poisonous gas into the Guérandes’ room. Mazamette shoots at them and they flee, and Augustine explains her actions. As they go to the police, Venomous tries to break in through a bedroom window, but Jane shoots at him. When she looks out the window she is lassoed down and carried away. At daybreak, the police raid Avenue Junot; however Irma and Venomous escape through the roof and a bomb is left behind. Augustine is recaptured by the Vampires during their escape. Mazamette shoots at the getaway car, causing an oil leak. Philipe follows the trail to the Vampires’ lair and discovers Augustine and Jane, to whom he passes a gun before leaving. Returning at night, he sets up an escape during the celebration of Irma's marriage to Venomous. At daybreak, the police prepare for a massive raid as the party continues. The police burst in and a running gun battle ensues, ending when the remaining Vampires (save Irma) are driven out onto the balcony which Philipe earlier rigged and are killed in the fall. Irma prepares to kill Jane and Augustine, but Jane shoots her dead. A few days later Mazamette makes a proposal of marriage to Augustine, which she accepts. The film ends with the two couples (Philipe and Jane, and Mazamette and Augustine) standing side by side. | revenge, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Lensed in an eerily abandoned Paris in 1915, Louis Feuillade's stark chapterplay LES VAMPIRES is a grim and powerful work which is worlds apart from the later glitz and polish of the golden age serials produced by the American studios.It should be noted that serials were nothing new at this point in time.
Formative efforts such as THE PERILS OF PAULINE had already established the appeal of these generally inexpensive actioners, with their bizarre twists and inventive death traps.The emphasis was generally on a resourceful protagonist pitted against an equally inventive and determined fiend -- frequently an unsuspected heir or lawyer out to obtain an undeserved inheritance.LES VAMPIRES did this formula one better, making the menace a vast and largely unsuspected criminal empire which is devouring Paris from inside.
This continues until their removal of a government investigator brings ambitious reporter Philippe Guerande (Edouard Mathe) into things.Sent to the country to search for details on the official's murder, Philippe plans to combine business and pleasure by meeting Dr. Lox, an old family friend who has a chateau in the area.Arriving at Lox's estate at the same time as an American heiress who means to purchase the property, the reporter is promptly framed for theft by the hooded agents of the gang, who are secreted in the ancient building.Locating the dead investigator's head, Philippe manages to turn suspicion on Lox. Murdering the heiress and making his escape across the rooftops, the "doctor" is revealed as the Grand Vampire the (evident) leader of the criminal society.Philippe falls into the Vampires' hands but is rescued by Oscar Cloud Mazamette (Marcel Levesque) -- a clerk and minor member of the gang whom he had helped earlier.
Philippe and Mazamette combine to try to expose the society's operations and bring the gang to a deserved end.A series of adventures follow, with the Grand Vampire (Fernand Herrmann) and exotic dancer/criminal Irma Vep (Musidora) providing much of the opposition.
He, in turn, commits suicide when he is imprisoned by the police.Satanas, the criminal mastermind behind the group's poisons and explosives steps in and assumes co-command with Irma Vep. This occurs too late, however, as Philippe is closing in on the gang's chief meeting place.After a series of close calls, the reporter and the reformed Mazamette succeed in destroying the Vampires' leadership and bringing the rank and file members to justice.Not enough emphasis can be placed on the serial's grim and stark look, which almost functions as a characters of its own.
I mean, you can see the splice whenever a character turns on the light, so when the bitchy criminal mastermind Irma Vep gets wrapped up in rope, then rolls down the side of a four-story building like a human yo-yo, you know you're watching history in the making.
Feuillade has become much more popular abroad than in his native France where his movies are seldom screened on "cultural TV ,the Arte Channel or the "Cinema De Minuit".Some critics call "Les Vampires" brainwashing at a time when France was at war .Some critics praise it to the skies.I'm for the golden middle .Feuillade was certainly important in the shaping of the serial (along "the perils of Pauline" in America)but he was not as great a director as his contemporaries David Wark Griffith and Abel Gance (whose career did not begin with "Napoleon" in 1926).The screenplay of "Les Vampires" is pretty silly,definitely weaker than that of "Fantomas" and it is sure easy to see why: "Fantomas " was first a set of volumes written by Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain -and Feuillade botched the first chapters which were the best of the saga :see Paul Fejos's "Fantomas" (1932) for that matter.But the rest was quite acceptable,some movies(the third episode :"Le Mort Qui Tue" notably) highly commendable."Les Vampires" was a different matter ,because it was an original screenplay and the writer/director had to kill the "Chef Des Vampires" ,not because he thought the audience needed change ,but because it was the war and the actors were mobilized.That's why Feuillade gave up making "lEs Vampires" after 10 episodes and opted for a "good " hero ,Judex ,a conjurer fighting against the villains.The stories are far-fetched to a fault ,pleasant to watch,but not particularly memorable (Maurice Leblanc was writing much more brilliant stories at the time featuring his hero Arsene Lupin who is much more exciting than his bland hero Philippe Guérande and his mate/undertaker.Much more than the stories,it's the details that are interesting: the maid Mrs Guerande hires is a Girl from Britanny ,and at the time most of the servants came from that region:this was the subject of Becassine ,a comic strip of the era;it's interesting to note that whereas the villains have lovers,the hero,after losing his fiancée in the second chapter-and he doesn't even shed a tear-,remains chaste till the ...ninth episode in which he finds another one.Musidora's famous black tight caused an outcry : the series remained famous for her but she only appears in her outfit in two brief moments: one when she's scrawling on the roofs and the other one in a hotel where she also appears (that crowns it!) dressed as a young man complete with mustache .Feuillade's most salutary quality was story -telling :even if the plot seems too often too much ,we can't help but admire the way he uses the pictures and thus keeps his lines to the minimum -a thing many of his colleagues could not do-.Feuillade's influence in France?One sees little of it in the great directors of the Golden Era (Carné,Renoir,Guitry,Duvivier,Et Al).
Feuillade's influence shows ,however,in one of Duvivier's silent films " Le Mystere De La Tour Eiffel" or even in Clair's "Le Fantome Du Moulin Rouge" .Feuillade 's most dedicated follower was Georges Franju who made a remake of "Judex"(1963) and "Les Nuits Rouges"(1973) ,a failed attempt at a seventies "Vampires".Most of this director's works have something of Feuillade : "Les Yeux Sans Visage"(1959) "La Tête Contre Les Murs" (1960)"Pleins Feux Sur L'Assassin".(1961)In the seventies,Feuillade's touch appeared again in Rivette's stuff ,but it's reserved for intellectuals.What was once the most popular French cinema of an era became one inspiration for the most cerebral (who said boring?) art..
"Les Vampires" is an 10 episodes long French serial, by Louis Feuillade.
I can't imaging how incredibly gripped the audience must have been while watching one of the episodes in the theater and couldn't hardly wait for the next chapter of the story.Of course these sort of chapter-plays weren't really anything new at the time of 1915 but still "Les Vampires" is one of the best and most unique as well as accessible of its kind.
It has a greatly written and intriguing story, that shows the dark side of common men and the criminal and more disturbing, less peaceful and dangerous side of beautiful Paris.The serial tells the story of an organized criminal organization, known as 'Les Vampires'.
The episodes follow this organization as well as the groups who battle them; a rivaling criminal organization, the police and a journalist and his friend, who are the real main characters of the movie.Perhaps the entire serial can also be seen as a social commentary on the life of the rich in Paris but I can't be completely sure of this were the creators intentions.The first four episodes are perhaps a bit of a drag, since it mostly focuses on development of the characters and the events.
The later episodes are all around an hour long.The serial features lots of daring escapes, traitorous characters and criminal plans to cause mayhem in the everyday society.
It makes the whole story a bit too hard to follow- and not always completely interesting and credibly at times.It is well cast and especially Musidora as the über-lady vamp Irma Vep is great and impressive.
Also Marcel Lévesque is great, as the sort of comical relief of the serials and Édouard Mathé also plays a likable main character.There are some really daring and dangerous, for its time looking, stunts in this production.
The dreamlike scenes add to the story of a reporter Phillipe Guerande (Edouard Mathe) who is looking to a criminal organization known as The Vampires (sorry, bloodsucking fans, it's not about Dracula or his minions.).The crime syndicate could be considered a forerunner of the Mafia as it had it's tentacles in every level of society from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to nobility.A classic silent film.Louis Feuillade, who directed over 600 films is the film great grandfather of Alfred Hitchcock and David Lynch.
"Les Vampires" (1915 - 398 minutes - B&W) is a classic of the mute cinema series directed by Louis Feuillade.
The film was saved from destruction thanks to the efforts of the founder of the French Film library, Henri Langlois, and after years forgotten, "Les Vampires" was exhibited again in the sixties, in concurred sessions that had marked time, especially in Paris, London and New York, causing a reevaluation of the critics relatively to the work of Feuillade.
Andres Bazin, the great critic of the French cinema, said that "Les Vampires" was "one of the biggest film of all the times", admiration shared with the directors of the new French cinema.
It represents the dawn of the motion picture industry before we had well-known movie stars and blockbusters like Intolerance (1916) and Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919).This film, a series of 10 episodes, tells the story of a gang of thieves and murderers (The Vampire Gang) who are out to create havoc in Paris for their own personal goals.
The first is a royal waste (a true supernavel, or "turnip" according to the French), the second is a cute story starring the young boy who played Mazamette's son in "Les Vampires"..
The filmmaker makes extensive use of real Parisian street locations, which seem always, oddly, to be drained of pedestrian life; watching "Les Vampires" is like getting into a time machine.View "Les Vampires" first, then see "Irma Vep" (France, 1996) so you have a point of reference..
Louis Feuillade may have been an early French pioneer of silent shorts but "Les Vampires" is still bogged down in plot contrivances.
And at 7 plus hours long, to view it in one sitting can be an act of futility and frustration.Feuillade's great strength was short films but with most of these 10 episodes reaching 45 minutes apiece, he extended his stay a large part of the time, serial or not.
The Vampires leader, the Grand Vampire, actually changes three different times during the story and it is the little nuances like this that spoil the film.Whereas having fun can be quite entertaining, plot can kill the messenger even at this early stage of cinematic history.
She fails at practically every assignment she is given yet not only continually gets away but also is still a highly desired commodity by both the Grand Vampire and Moreno himself.Of course we know why these continual lapses in anything reminiscent of an actual plot and purpose occur...Feuillade has to push this baby to ten episodes to entertain the masses of 1915 for whom it was intended.
In fact by virtue of trimming seconds off of every scene that went on too long "Les Vampires" could have made an excellent feature length picture around 210 minutes and we could have cleared up the ridiculous plot lapses to boot.From an acting standpoint it is neither forgettable nor excellent with the possible exception of Levesque's Mazamette character who steals the show with his hilarious mannerisms and comic imagery.
Like early pulp fiction its nonstop use of dastardly doings, devious schemes, and nasty devices may keep you coming back for the next episode time and time again (same bat time, same bat channel) but the plot will probably slow you down in the end.
Possibly worth watching to get a look at early French cinema but when compared to Griffith like all 1912-1920 films must be, Feuillade doesn't even come close...6/10..
Admittedly, I was skeptical to watch this not only because of its 7-hour runtime, but also because it is silent and that staying interested for that long on a silent film would be too much of a challenge.I was wrong however, this is quite watchable and the fact that it is split into ten episodes (of widely varying lengths) makes it all the more accessible.The plot is also interesting.
This plot takes many twists and turns over the course of its runtime with many surprises and also gags (at the hands of Mazamette - the journalist's accomplice).The acting (despite it being melodramatic due to the time period) is pretty good - especially that of Musidora, who plays Irma Vep of the Vampire gang and is a real scene-stealer.Overall, this was enjoyable to watch for the most part however it is probably best watched as separate episodes and not in one go.6/10.
It's a story that is a procedural of the hunt AND about the criminals - and is really about, in each 'episode', drawing out the suspense of a moment and a beat and how, as we can assume, someone will get out of the jam they've been put in, whether that's the criminal or the intrepid Globe writer Philippe Gerande (even that seems to have been echoed years later in certain comic books).So much happens in the seven hours of this "film" (I'll call it that, but put quotes around it as it's technically a serial, but hey, it's a full work at the end of it all), and to recount every turn of the story would miss the point of its effectiveness.
The interest in Feuillade's stories is to draw the audience in finding more clues on the Gerande's side - and, eventually, the former undertaker Mazamette with his mustache and nose and (a little too much) looking at the camera for audience emphasis as his sometimes partner - and then, perhaps daringly, into how the vampires work on their end.
There's equal time spent between Gerande's side of the story, as well as some of the other characters connected with him like his mother (there's a terribly exciting episode where she gets kidnapped by the vampires and how she gets out of it is fantastic as it relies on a plant earlier that gets paid off, so to speak, that we almost don't expect), and then on the side of Irma Vep, the non-vampire-but-still-very-much-criminal Moreno, and the others like the villainous scientist who Irma ultimately falls for, and Satanas, the "Grande Vampire" of them all.What this does is not so much make us feel more sympathetic to them, they are the villains in a story that isn't subtle about drawing the distinctions between good and not, but to have us understand them as people, however they might be duplicitous in their line of operations, and a character like Irma Vep becomes the most memorable thing about this all for a reason.
If any of the Batman writers and creators saw this, it'd be clear as day she was the inspiration for Catwoman (I have no way of knowing that, it's an assumption I'm reading in to).Louis Feuillade isn't exactly out for the *most* realistic depiction of a story of criminals and heroes, but it also sees cinema as an art form to be used for the utmost effect to give information (there's a great many newspaper clipping to look at to move the plot forward), and he's creating his own simple and effective cinematic grammar to keep the audience invested.
An intrepid reporter and his loyal friend battle a bizarre secret society of criminals known as The Vampires.Director Louis Feuillade is something of a legend, having directed an astonishing 630 films in the silent era (and perhaps more).
He is best known for "Fantomas", the serial he made prior to "Vampires", and while the former may be marginally superior, they are both exquisite in their own way, and a great example of early thrillers.Indeed, it is quite impressive that a film is seven hours long and still exists one hundred years later.
The most striking thing about the series is how fantastical the stories are – even though there isn't a real vampire in sight (which is a bit of a let-down really).
This is more an indication of how public expectations have changed in the ninety-plus years since this serial was produced than it is of a weakness in the films, I suppose, but to try to appreciate a film from the perspective of the audience for which it was initially intended is damn near impossible.The story revolves around the efforts of Philippe Guerande and Mazzematte, his ex-undertaker sidekick and (fairly hopeless) comic relief, to bring to justice the members of Les Vampires Crime Enterprise (French Division).
In many ways, TV series are today's serials.Feuillade further popularized serials in France, which was probably inescapable anyhow with the flood of American films (and serials) into the cinemas.
Such innovation, staging, composition, or mastery is lacking in "Les Vampires." The actors do all the work, and the camera just sits there.You might, but I don't like this serial's content, either.
It's a series of convoluted story lines involving a reporter detective and his sidekick Mazamette (played by an awful mugger of an actor) trying to rid Paris of Irma Vep and the underworld criminal gang known as the "vampires." To me it seems to be nearly seven hours of each side ineptly attempting to capture, imprison or kill the other.In episode eight: Why did they give Mazamette's child a gun, and why did they originate such an elaborate scheme to arrest the bad guy in the first place?
It's pretty dumb, but at least Feuillade was trying here.Conclusion for Episodes 1-4: all in all, an interesting bit of early cinema, but The Vampires really doesn't hold up very well today.
Sure, it's still early as heck in the cinema, but by the end of the silent period the art form had gone light years beyond Les Vampires. |
tt0301082 | Gekijô-ban Kâdokaputâ Sakura | Cardcaptor Sakura takes place in the fictional Japanese city of Tomoeda which is somewhere near Tokyo. Ten-year-old Sakura Kinomoto accidentally releases a set of magical cards known as Clow Cards from a book in her basement created and named after the sorcerer Clow Reed. Each card has its own unique ability and can assume an alternate form when activated. The guardian of the cards, Cerberus, emerges from the book and chooses Sakura to retrieve the missing cards. As she finds each card, she battles its magical personification and defeats it by sealing it away. Cerberus acts as her guide, while her best friend and second cousin, Tomoyo Daidouji films her exploits and provides her with battle costumes. Sakura's older brother Toya Kinomoto watches over her, while pretending that he is unaware of what is going on.
Syaoran Li, a boy Sakura's age and descendant of Clow Reed, arrives from Hong Kong to recapture the cards himself. While initially antagonistic, he comes to respect Sakura and begins aiding her to capture the cards. Once Sakura captures all of the cards, she is tested by Yue the judge, the cards' second guardian, to determine if she is worthy of becoming the cards' true master; Yue is also the true form of Yukito Tsukishiro, Toya's best friend. Aided by her teacher Kaho Mizuki, Sakura passes the test and becomes the new master of the Clow Cards.
Afterwards, Eriol Hiiragizawa, a transfer student from England, arrives in Tomoeda and begins causing disturbances with two guardian-like creatures, Spinel Sun and Ruby Moon. Sakura is suddenly unable to use the Clow Cards and transforms her wand, beginning the process of evolving the cards into Sakura Cards as Eriol causes strange occurrences that forces her to use and thus transform certain cards. Once all the cards have been transformed, Eriol tells Sakura that he aided her in converting the cards so they would not lose their magic powers. Syaoran later confesses his love to Sakura, who comes to realize she also loves him. Cardcaptor Sakura concludes with Syaoran returning to Hong Kong with a promise to return. Two years later, Syaoran moves back to Tomoeda permanently.
The plot of the anime series is extended, featuring 52 Clow Cards from the manga's original 19, and certain scenes are stretched and delayed, such as Cerberus' true form not being revealed until just before Yue's appearance. Sakura creates a 53rd card, Hope, a talent she is not shown to have in the manga. Some of the circumstances around the capturing of the cards is changed, such as Syaoran capturing several cards himself and being tested by Yue in the Final Judgment. Syaoran's cousin and fiancée Meiling Li is introduced in the anime, who positions herself as a romantic rival for Sakura later in the series and also a friend until she returns to Hong Kong. The TV series leaves the relationship between Sakura and Syaoran unresolved, but Sakura confesses her love to Syaoran at the end of the second anime film.
Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card Edition starts at the point where the first series ends, when Sakura starts junior high school along her friends, including Syaoran, who had just returned to Tomoeda. After having a dream with a mysterious cloaked figure, all of Sakura's cards turn blank and are rendered powerless, thus she starts her quest to find out what is wrong. In doing so, Sakura and her allies discover and capture new transparent cards using a new key. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0049201 | The Fastest Gun Alive | Son of a notorious fast-drawing sheriff, George Kelby Jr. (Ford) and his wife Dora (Jeanne Crain) settle down in the peaceful town of Cross Creek under assumed identities to avoid having to continually face men out to become famous for shooting down the "fastest gun alive". Now known as George Temple, he becomes a mild-mannered teetotalling shopkeeper, little respected by the other townsfolk.
One day comes news that outlaw Vinnie Harold (Crawford) has gunned down Clint Fallon (Walter Coy, reputedly the "fastest draw in the west." George listens to the townsmen talk about Wyatt Earp, Wes Hardin, and other so-called "fast guns". They are also laughing at George, seeing him as nothing but a "ribbon clerk".
His pride stung, George retrieves a gun from hiding (he told his wife he had tossed it into a river years ago) and—over her desperate pleading not to destroy the peaceful life they have built—says "they have to know who I am." The men are astonished at seeing George wearing a gun, believing him to be drunk. He sets about destroying the myths these men have about gunmen, displaying a detailed knowledge of guns and gunmen they never suspected he had. George then blurts out his secret that he is the fastest gun alive, "...faster than Earp, faster than Hardin, faster than Fallon, and faster than the man who killed him."
With the citizens understandably skeptical, George takes them into the street and gives them a demonstration of his skill. First, with only two shots, he hits two silver dollars tossed into the air on the count of three. Following that, he shoots a beer glass full of beer dropped from Harvey Maxwell's (Allyn Joslyn) hand at 20 feet, hitting it almost immediately after it left the man's hand.
Later, while everyone is in church, where they have taken an oath not to tell George's secret, Harold rides into town. A local boy tells him about George's display of gun skill. Though he is on the run—and over the objections of his fellow bank robbers, Taylor Swope (John Dehner) and Dink Wells (Noah Beery, Jr.), who just want to escape the law—Harold is intent to remain in town until he can see this George Temple face-to-face.
Harold finds out that the "fast gun" is in the church. He sends Swope there to call him out. When the townspeople refuse to send out "the man who shot two silver dollars at the same time," Harold gives an order to Dink to find some kerosene and pour it everywhere. He then instructs Swope to deliver a message to the people in the church that if their fast gun does not come out in five minutes, Vinnie and his men will burn down the whole town.
The townspeople now try to force George into the street. George must reveal the whole truth, explaining that he is no gunman, that he has never been in a real gunfight. The gun with the notches in the handle actually belonged to his father George Kelby (a famous lawman shot down in an ambush) and he is terrified at the prospect of actually facing a man in a gunfight.
Swope and Wells elect to abandon Vinnie. Dink stays for a while, but he also rides off. Swope, who decides to take his share of the gang's loot, is told by Vinnie to either draw or ride out, but without any of the loot. Swope toys with the idea of drawing on Vinnie, but thinks better of it and leaves.
Realizing that George is too terrified to face Harold, Lou Glover asks George for his gun. Glover intends to pose as George for the sake of the town. Reluctantly, George straps on his gun and walks toward the door, warning everyone not to say anything because it will not take much for him to change his mind.
George meets Vinnie in the street, where both men draw their guns and fire. When a posse pursuing the outlaws shows up, the townspeople are attending the burials of both Harold and Kelby, telling the posse how the two men shot each other dead. Both the tombstones of Harold and Kelby are dated November 7, 1889. After the posse leaves, it is revealed that Kelby was not killed. A coffin filled with stones, Kelby's gun, and his reputation as "the fastest gun alive", was buried, instead. This allows George and Dora to resume their peaceful existence in Cross Creek. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0171259 | Earthly Possessions | Thirty-five-year-old Charlotte Emory has felt trapped her whole life in Clarion, Maryland--first by her embarrassingly eccentric parents, then by her preacher-husband whom she married too young, and eventually by "his variously afflicted brothers, a daughter who won't answer to her own name, a house full of refugees, an impossible clutter." She finally decides to run away from it all, rid herself of her "earthly possessions," and start over. When she goes to the bank to withdraw funds for her escape, she gets taken hostage during a holdup. Prison escapee Jake Simms forces Charlotte into a stolen car and they head for Florida.
"Earthly Possessions…contains a chilling portrait of a habitual criminal, Jake Simms, Jr., who blames every destructive and chaotic act of his own on someone else. He kidnaps our heroine, the surpassingly amiable Charlotte Emory because while he was robbing a bank a bystander happened to produce a gun. “I could be clean free,” he tells his victim, “and you safe home with your kids by now if it wasn’t for him. Guy like that ought to be locked up.” As the chase continues, and the kidnapping lengthens into a kind of marriage, he persuades himself, “it ain’t me keeping you it’s them. If they would quit hounding me then we could go our separate ways…” This is perfect loser psychology, the mental technology of digging a bottomless pit; but Anne Tyler would have us believe that Jake is saved from falling in by the doll-like apparition of a wee seventeen-year-old girl he has impregnated, Mindy Callender.”
Jake Simms’ mission—besides avoiding arrest—is to “rescue” Mindy from a “home for wayward girls” where she is preparing to have his child. If Mindy is the essence of pure innocence, then Charlotte Emory is the earthbound mooring for this homeless couple—at least for a time. One irony here is that, when she was taken hostage, Charlotte herself was in the process of withdrawing her savings to run away from her own family and home. This is not the first time Charlotte has intended to run away, with no real plan or expectations. Charlotte has escaped one trap to find herself in another, but perhaps this "adventure" will provide her a new perspective. | flashback | train | wikipedia | I thought this was quite a good movie.
It stirred something in me.I thought that Charlotte and Jake had real passion.
picturing people in their situation doing the things they did.I really liked it because it was so different and unpredictable.
Well, I rented this film because I like "Hostage and Kidnapper fall in love" kind of movies and I must say I wasn't too disappointed.
Stephen Dorff is (without sounding too shallow) really cute.
I too was disappointed by the ending, but I still liked the film.
Not one viewer has commented on the age difference between Dorff and Sarandon...I can't believe it.
The movie itself was awesome...fun and easy to imagine (or wish) that this could truly take place.
Sarandon did a SUPER job with her role...a very believable bored wife.
A very great movie, full of drama and comedy..
This movie was a big breakthrough for HBO.
I have seen some of HBO's original movies, and I have to say that with most of them I was disappointed, but this movie it was the exact opposite.
Stephen Dorff made the character seem real, he really got into his role.
Also the humor of the movie was great, at certain parts you were on the edge of your seat, wondering what happened next.
Susan Sarandon did a GREAT job, and as one of her biggest fans, I have to say that this is one of her greatest films, although all of them are great!Earthly Possessions is a great combination of drama, suspense, and comedy.
Although it is an original HBO movie, I would love to see it out on video, because it is a very great movie.
There are real sparks here between Sarandon and Dorff and their performances give Earthly Possessions some real emotional weight.
I've never been much impressed with Dorff in the past, but playing against Sarandon seems to lift him to a new level as an actor.
Sarandon builds her character so effortlessly that all of Charlotte's personality just magically appears before the viewer.
The screenplay shows some big changes from Anne Tyler's book, but it does do a good job of capturing the novel's quirky mix of drama and comedy.
Many people mention dissatisfaction with the movie's ending and I felt it too.
In the novel the ending feels natural and right, but it's as if this screenplay didn't quite take into account the sexual sparks that would be generated between the two leads.
Because Sarandon and Dorff have this chemistry together and do such a great job showing the characters challenging each other to be better people, the inclusion of the girlfriend and the "earthly" resolution feel like intruders in a great romantic drama.
It left me wishing that instead of an adaptation of Tyler's book (which deals with taking responsibility for choices), the movie was just a continuation of Charlotte and Jake's journey together.
In the movie, you just KNOW that their being together is right, even if this isn't the message in the screenplay; that difference leaves the viewer dissatisfied.
In a way though, it is more satisfying that the movie doesn't have a pat ending and Charlotte and Jake's relationship is more complicated than it has to be.
A FANTASTIC MOVIE with great performances of Sarandon and Dorff....
Charlotte (Susan Sarandon) wants to leave her husband, Zack, because she is not happy at all with her life.
But then Jack (Stepen Dorff) comes in that bank and robbers it and she has to go with him.
Jack needs the money for his pregnant girlfriend and he wants to help her.
But then they see Mindy, the pregnant girlfriend of Jack and that is more or less the end of their love together.
She decides to go back to her husband and Jack and Mindy go to Mexico were they have a good life with their daughter.
Although Jack misses Charlotte a lot, she knows that this is the best for both.CRITIC: SUSAN SARANDON: she is the actress with the most style and talent in Hollywood.
She can play everything and she made great films.
So is STEPHEN DORFF, who is not so well known but he surely plays a great role.WORTH SEEING, EVEN WHEN IT IS A TELEVISION MOVIE...Rating; 8/10 or *** out of ****.
Anyway, I loved the movie, it is really funny in certain places and the acting is really great too.
I am a huge Stephen Dorff fan so I figured it would be good anyway, but it was surprisingly good.
It wasn't the most original concept -bank robber, hostage, but it all worked and was enjoyable!
It is a story many people can relate too if you find yourself tired of your life, or "feel the world is closing in on you" like the characters do in the film.
Interesting use of Susan Sarandon.
On the day she plans to take her money from the bank and run she is taken hostage by(Jake) played by actor Stephen Dorff,a very appealing guy!
All the time through the film, Stephen Dorff's inner violence ,just under his calmer surface, smolders.
There is a surprise "almost end" (I thought it was the end,) to the film that blows your mind, and it positively shocked me.
Mostly, because I'm a sucker for the kind of impossible romance stories like 'kidnapper falls in love with hostage' as seen in this movie.The few times that I watched this movie later, I was kind of disappointed.
In my head, the movie had been so much better than it was in real life, but the fact the movie isn't brilliant and the storyline isn't always very much believable, doesn't take away the fact that the movie is beyond entertaining.There is some serious chemistry between Susan Sarandon and Stephen Dorff.
The way they interact and their conversations are definitely enough reason for someone to instantly love the movie.
Susan Sarandon is a respected actress in Hollywood and I believe almost every single movie with her in it is worth watching.
Stephen Dorff managed to impress me with something other than his cuteness, his acting.
Having two great actors in a mediocre movie kind of helps to reach the movie a higher level and that is definitely the case in this movie.
I think the movie is entertaining by itself, but the fact Susan Sarandon and Stephen Dorff are in it, adds to its appeal.
The movie is there not to be taken too literally and to just sit back and enjoy.Just like most other people, I was fairly disappointed once the character of Mindy joined the duo.
Charlotte and Jake were still entertaining enough together and a third character was not necessary to keep the movie interesting.The ending may have disappointed some people out there, but I think the ending was decent.
It's obvious that the 'happily ever after'-ending everyone's hoping for isn't going to come and it is inevitable that Jake and Charlotte had to say goodbye at some point.Conclusion: Not good in the traditional sense, but good in the way that it'll keep you entertained for the entire time.
The movie has got its flaws that will sometimes disappoint you, but at the same time the movie has got enough charm to keep you interested all the way and will make you love it from start to finish.
I am suprised to read so many positive comments about this movie that is soooooooooo predictable and gets dumber and dumber by the minute ...
especially near the end where that annoying girlfriend of Dorff shows up ...
Definately one of the most annoying characters I have seen in a long time !I thought this movie was almost a waste of my time and give it a 1.5/5 mainly because I am usually a fan of Susan Sarandon (She was the only reason I was interested in seeing this movie in the first place !) but in this one she is really wasted.What can you do with a story and some dialogues like that ...
Cute movie but doesn't leave you with much..
The story was sometimes believable, but most of the time it seemed like the actors were "acting" to make this movie.
Susan Sarandon was really good in this so-so story but I can overall only give it 5 of 10 rating.
Then they run away together, and get to know each other...Even tough this, in the beginning anyway, is supposed to be a comedy I really just laughed once during the whole movie.
I like the opening scene in this movie, with a person walking down the street under an umbrella.
I like the opening scene in this movie, with a person walking down the street under an umbrella.
This movie is about a woman who ends up being taken hostage by a young man during a bank robbery.
This movie is about a woman who ends up being taken hostage by a young man during a bank robbery.
Then they run away together, and get to know each other...Even tough this, in the beginning anyway, is supposed to be a comedy I didn´t really laugh once during the whole movie.
The story is pretty simple and the movie doesn´t feel really believable or original.
The story is pretty simple and the movie doesn´t feel really believable or original.
A cute fun movie.
I really liked the chemistry between Sarandon and Dorff to surprise me.
It has solid acting performances by Stephen Dorff and Oscar winner, Susan Sarandon.
Anyway, the film begins with a hostage played by Sarandon who is an unhappy housewife trying to get away from her life and marriage.
Dorff's character is desperate for some money.
The leads provide an entertaining interaction between two very different characters..
Based on the famous syndrome of Stockholm, this very entertaining film likes at the same moment of the road movie and the romantic comedy.
Fertile in events and in new developments, the history is situated in the vein of "Thelma & Louise", analogy was strengthened by Susan Sarandon's presence.
And when to Stephen Dorff ("Blade"), he confirms that his talent does not limit itself to its beautiful mouth..
All right, so the film will never win an Oscar for Best Picture and the performances weren't amazing but still they were good and the movie was pretty decent for a made for TV HBO movie.Susan Sarandon plays a lady who's leaving her husband and ends up being held hostage by Stephen Dorff.
At first it is a simple, "move and I'll shoot" relationship but when Sarandon plays with his head he ends up opening up to her and they both find a slight attraction in the other.What comes about is a tremendous love story and truly a fine picture..
He is holding a real gun against her ribs after robbing a bank- are we supposed to believe that this is an appropriate setting for plucky cutesy music and Susan musing how she's never left town before or that she is really concerned that he's playing with her Keep-On-Truckin' pin?
And to think that I almost didn't watch Earthly Possessions.
You know, it's a made for HBO comedy action adventure, you can never tell if it's going to be worth it.
I don't normally count how many times a movie makes me laugh, but when I had to laugh twice before the opening credits were done, I thought I might as well try.
Susan Sarandon was wonderful.
It's a fun movie..
Very funny movie!.
This movie was wonderful.
Funny, strangely romantic and very entertaining!
Susan Sarandon is a great actress, as always.
I thought that this movie was one of the best movies that I've seen this year this movie was funny, and most of all it was romantic.
Stephen Dorff did a very good job in this movie it also help that he is very fine I very highly recommed this movie..
Stephen Dorff!!.
I love this movie it`s a romantic movie where the thief falls in love with the hostage...
so romantic and Stephen Dorff is gorgeous!!!
I mean I would not complain if Stephen Dorff or some other hunk took me as a hostage and we fall in love...!
Anyway back to the movie, Susan is as great as ever and in this role she turns from a boring house wife to a sexy woman that wants to divorce her husband.
I like this movie because it`s so warm and romantic and Stephen Dorff is so pretty!!!
Who knew Stephen Dorff could really strike a cord with Susan Sarandon, but both do a wonderful turn in this strangely romantic comedy about a bank robbery with a twist.
What a great story line, but light enough to keep it easy, nice movie watching..
I didn't even know this movie existed....
I came in a little late but when I saw gorgeous Stephen Dorff and always exceptional Susan Sarandon I decided to keep watching.
I'm glad I did.The story is nothing new but I found the dialogue very interesting (until the end where it got very predictable) and Dorff and Sarandon are obviously enjoying themselves and play off each other very well.
Dorff proves here he's not just another pretty face--he's a very talented actor who just happens to be extremely good-looking and have a nice body.
Sarandon is always good and extremely sexy in anything she does.
As I said before, the dialogue was very well-written (for a TV movie) and the two actors give it their all--heck, these two could read a phone book and make it interesting!The movie does disappoint at the end when Elizabeth Moss joins them.
I also didn't buy Sarandon's decision at the end in the least.
She should have stayed with Dorff--I can't believe Dorff ended up with his annoying girlfriend.
Still, it's played as a happy ending.So, all in all, I did enjoy this.
I too was a bit disapointed with the ending (personally I thought they should have ended up together) and that annoying character Mindy please someone take her out to the paddock and put her out of her misery.
I think the chemistry between Susan Sarandon (Charlotte) and Stephen Dorff (Jake) was unbelievable, It made me think that there was really something going on off the screen (of course there wasn't).I would recomend this film to anyone who likes the film genre kidnapper and hostage fall for each other..
My Favorite movie that I saw this year!!
and THANK GOD that I saw this Movie.
The story was great.
The characters were great!!
( Except Mindy!)So this will be one of the movie's I'm definitely Buy.But I really liked the ending.
because they both knew that it couldn't be the right thing to stay with each other.But what I didn't like about the movie was that Mindy was such an annoying character..
I really liked the movie - until the end.
I agree with another reviewer who wrote that the producers probably did not expect the great chemistry between Sarandon and Dorff and therefore did not expect people to be disappointed by the ending.
I have not read the book, but after watching the movie I cannot expect this ending to work in written form either.
I rather got the impression that the makers thought they wouldn't get away with an ending where a man and a much older woman stay together, but, hello, it's the 21st century and it always has been and still is more disgusting if the man is much older and this even has multiple biological reasons.
And if a couple does have such chemistry, obvious physical attraction and a soul mate thing going on like in this case - why force an illogical different ending on them?
And it doesn't make sense for the baby either, because a divorce is nothing fun to go through as a child and this is what happens to pretty much all reasoned but not wanted relationships/marriages.
But enough about the sad stuff, the rest of the movie/ the trip is a fun ride, hilarious, suspenseful and even sexy (because of the great and matching actors), and you want it to go on and on and on.
I loved this easy on the eye 'little' film, adapted from a story written by the great chronicler of American ennui – Anne Tyler.
Bored, frumpy vicar's wife Charlotte (Susan Sarandon) thinks that, today, she's finally going to make a break from her dull life.
Arriving at the bank to withdraw her money, she is grabbed by a useless young bank robber, Jake (Stephen Dorff), who makes his escape with her in tow.
But the things that were wrong with both their pasts are never far away, and this tension leads to an ending which I can see many reviewers found unsatisfactory.
But it's the "right" ending, really.
We only feel cheated because the chemistry between the bank robber and his 'hostage' is so great.
You feel with them; you want them to work it out so badly; you wish them a magic carpet, or a wand, or a desert island.Both actors do a great job.
When Sarandon's frumpy Charlotte first sees her kidnapper and exclaims "oh!
Stephen Dorff has had a bit of a raw deal in the leading man stakes.
I don't think he's a particularly less talented or good-looking actor than many A-listers who have languidly hogged the limelight forever...*&!brad?:£!pitt&!$**
.I hope Dorff gets better luck in the next decade, or the next life.
Sarandon was excellent in "White Palace" from the same period as "Earthly Possessions"; and I remember Dorff being pretty good as the 'fifth' Beatle in "Backbeat".Film distributors should stop freaking out about film clips being posted on, ahem, certain websites.
"Earthly Possessions" is just one of many films I first saw on one of these sites, without which I wouldn't have known they existed; and then rushed out to buy on DVD. |
tt0016544 | The Wizard of Oz | The film begins in Kansas, which is depicted in a sepia tone. Dorothy Gale lives with her dog Toto on the farm of her Aunt Em and Uncle Henry. Dorothy's dog gets in trouble with a mean neighbor, Miss Almira Gulch, when Toto bites her. However, Dorothy's family and the farmhands are all too busy to pay her any attention. Miss Gulch arrives with permission from the sheriff to have Toto put down. She takes him away, but he escapes and returns to Dorothy, who then decides to run away from home, fearing that Miss Gulch will return.
They meet Professor Marvel, a phony but kindly fortune teller, who realizes Dorothy has run away and uses his crystal ball to dupe her into believing that Aunt Em is ill so that she must return home. She races home just as a powerful tornado strikes. Unable to get into her family's storm cellar, she seeks safety in her bedroom. A wind-blown window sash hits her in the head, knocking her out. Dorothy then awakens to find the house has apparently been picked up and sent spinning up into the air by the twister. She looks outside the window and sees an elderly lady (not Aunt Em as some thought) in a chair, several farm animals, two men rowing a boat, and Miss Gulch (still pedaling her bicycle), who transforms into a cackling Wicked Witch of the East flying on a broomstick.
The farmhouse crashes in Munchkinland in the Land of Oz, and just as Dorothy opens the door of her house the film changes to Technicolor. Glinda the Good Witch of the North and the Munchkins welcome her as their heroine, singing "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" - the house has landed on and killed the Wicked Witch of the East, leaving only her feet poking out from under the house. In the middle of the celebration, the Wicked Witch of the West arrives in a ball of smoke and fire to claim her sister's ruby slippers, but Glinda transports the shoes onto Dorothy's feet before the witch can get them. The Wicked Witch of the West swears revenge on Dorothy for her sister's death. Glinda tells Dorothy to follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City, where the Wizard of Oz might be able to help her get back home.
On her way, Dorothy meets and befriends the Scarecrow, who wants a brain, and is invited by Dorothy to join her on her journey. Eventually Dorothy and Scarecrow come to an apple tree orchard where Dorothy picks an apple off a tree and the trees come to life and scold her for it. But Scarecrow taunts and provokes the trees, causing them to become angry and throw apples at him. As Dorothy picks up the thrown apples, she and Scarecrow find and befriend the Tin Woodman, who desires a heart. After they invite the Tin Man to come along, the Witch appears and makes threats to the three of them. Then deep in the woods, they meet the Cowardly Lion, who is in need of courage and he too is invited to come along as well. After the Witch attempts to stop them several times, they finally reach the Emerald City. Inside, after being initially rejected, they are permitted to see the Wizard (who appears as a large disembodied head surrounded by fire). He agrees to grant their wishes when they bring him the Witch of the West's broomstick (which implies they must kill her to get it).
On their journey to the Witch's castle, the group passes through the Haunted Forest, while the Witch views their progress through a crystal ball. She sends her winged monkeys to attack the group; they capture Dorothy and Toto. At the castle, the Witch receives a magical shock when she tries to get the slippers off Dorothy, then remembers that Dorothy must be dead first. Toto escapes and leads her friends to the castle. After ambushing three Winkie guards, they march inside wearing the stolen guards' uniforms and free her, but the Witch discovers them and traps them. However, the Scarecrow uses the Tin Man's axe to cut a rope nearby and send a gigantic chandelier, swinging overhead, down onto the Witch's soldiers, knocking them to the floor and the quartet attempt to escape. The Witch and her guards chase them through the castle, across battlements and finally surround them. When the Witch sets fire to the Scarecrow, Dorothy puts out the flames with a bucket of water which splashes on the Witch and it causes her to melt away. The guards rejoice that she is dead and give Dorothy the charred broomstick in gratitude.
Back at the Emerald City, the Wizard delays granting their requests. Then Toto pulls back a curtain and exposes the "Wizard" as a normal middle-aged man who has been projecting the fearsome image; he denies Dorothy's accusation that he is a bad man, but admits to being a humbug. He then gives the Scarecrow a diploma, the Lion a medal, and the Tin Man a ticking heart-shaped watch, making them realize that they had what they wanted all along, they just did not know it yet. He then prepares to launch his hot air balloon to take Dorothy home, but Toto chases a cat, Dorothy follows, and the balloon leaves without them. Suddenly, Glinda returns and tells her that she can still return home by using the Ruby Slippers. Dorothy then shares a tearful farewell with her friends. Following Glinda's instructions, Dorothy taps her heels together three times and repeats, "There's no place like home". Dorothy wakes up in bed at her home in Kansas, surrounded by her family, the farmhands, Professor Marvel and Toto. Though her family and friends dismiss her adventure as a dream, Dorothy insists that it was all real, and that there is no place like home. | flashback | train | wikipedia | This is a pretty weird adaptation of the "Wizard of Oz", bearing only a passing resemblance either to the original book or to the beloved Judy Garland version.
Frankly, most of it isn't really very good, although for those who enjoy silent films there are some points of historical interest.Instead of the more familiar story of young Dorothy's trip to Oz, the scenario here has a melodrama centering on a somewhat older Dorothy (Dorothy Dwan), combined with some slapstick involving the Oz characters.
It really looks as if Larry Semon just tried far too hard to put his own personal stamp on the story, instead of simply trying to make a good movie version of the Wizard.
It's also plagued with a lot of excruciating puns in the title cards, plus other similar problems.Some of the finest movies ever made came from this era, when the silents were at their peak, and it should have been possible to make a first-rate adaptation of the Oz story, but unfortunately this isn't it.
Instead of the usual short films he was known for, Semon decided to do something "important" and made this (for the time) long film adaptation of THE WIZARD OF OZ,....or at least that's what the title indicates it should be.
In fact, apart from a few names here and there, it is pretty much unrecognizable as the story about Dorothy and Oz. Instead, it was just an excuse to string along a lot of familiar and not especially funny gags--like I have seen in several other Larry Semon films, the big stunt is his swinging from tower to tower.
This one is better off staying forgotten or seen by the morbidly curious as the project that may have ultimately destroyed Semon's career.PS--In addition to being a terrible movie, there is a Black man named "Snowflake" that likes to eat watermelon!
This WIZARD OF OZ is merely a frantic slapstick showcase for LARRY SEMON, apparently a silent comedian who is unknown to today's audiences and who died at a young age (39).
He had a hand in the production and even designed his own Scarecrow costume, but the film is a curio that starts with a toymaker (again, LARRY SEMON) who tells a little girl the story of Dorothy (DOROTHY DWAN) from Kansas who, it turns out, is heir to be ruler of The Land of Oz.But the story he tells has nothing whatsoever to do with L.
Frank Baum's story as we know it from the '39 version starring Judy Garland.
And this Dorothy is a grown-up young lady of 18 who bats her eyelashes and puts a finger to her lips in a coy manner as though signifying youthful uncertainty.The only connection to the Oz story Baum gave us is the tornado, the effects for which are very good for 1925, and the combination of the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion.
OLIVER HARDY is the Tin Man (before his screen partnership with Stan Laurel), SPENCER BELL, a black man, is the Cowardly Lion and LARRY SEMON hogs the whole show as The Scarecrow.
Frank Baum's famous story "The Wizard Of Oz" - the most interesting thing about it being that it seems to have little to do with either L.
Frank Baum or The Wizard Of Oz. The story, as it's told here, is really about the attempt of a wicked tyrant named "Kruel" to continue to oppress the inhabitants of a land called "Oz." In this version of the story, there is no wicked witch - nor is there a good witch for that matter.
The movie revolves around the characters played by Larry Semon, a successful veteran of silent films, who also directed and produced this, along with helping to adapt the book.
I'd have to believe that the reason a lot of people think it's so bad is because it just isn't "The Wizard Of Oz." It was a very expensive movie for its day, and basically was responsible for bankrupting Chadwick Pictures.
In many cases I wouldn't think a small child would even want to watch a film with no talking (I certainly didn't), even if it is the Wizard of Oz. A lot of the actors are funny.
The film is definitely a product of it's time, with the black man being the whipping boy and Dorothy playing a demure female..
But, the story isn't.**** The Wizard of Oz (4/13/25) Larry Semon ~ Larry Semon, Dorothy Dwan, Bryant Washburn, Oliver Hardy.
Larry Semon, who plays a farmhand and the scarecrow, also directed this version.
Other than that, it isn't too bad a movie.This version has a lot of politics in Oz which is not in the 1939 version, but since I have not read the original book I don't know whether it was added here or omitted in 1939.
Larry Semon and Oliver Hardy are hilarious in their roles as farmhands who end up disguising themselves as a scarecrow and a tin woodsman..
The 1925 silent "Wizard of Oz' Is, in many ways, a vanity project for Larry Semon, his brand of mugging to the camera comedy is a bit hard to take now, that said this is still pretty interesting and good for a silent.Rather different from the book and later MGM Movie, this version, the print I saw is the restored 100 minute print with added narration by Jaqueline Lovell, bookends the story with a grandfather reading Baum's book to his granddaughter.
The land of OZ is basically a big soundstage, but it moves pretty well for a silent.Some things are bad though, the character of Snowball is listed as being played by G.
Frank Baum's story about an 18-year-old Dorothy who learns that she's the future ruler of Oz but of course there are some bad men who want to keep her away from her position.
Those expecting anything in common with the Baum stories are going to be disappointed because this film might contain 10% of the stories and the rest is all slapstick for Semon fans.
The majority of the film has Semon getting injured by various falls and we have Oliver Hardy in a role that doesn't allow him to do very much.
The farm hands dress in costume as the lion, scarecrow and tin man so I'm sure this is going to disappoint many but once again you shouldn't go into this thing expecting any type of real adaptation.
This version of THE WIZARD OF OZ is a pretty bad movie but at the same time it's almost worth viewing just to see how badly Semon messed it up..
Way too much slapstick that isn't funny, and way too much air time for Larry Semon, who plays the Scarecrow and also produced, directed, and wrote this mess.
Frank Baum Jr., that's the original author's son who was probably more involved in the business aspects, and regardless, his father must have been rolling over in his grave.) Semon put his real-life fiancé Dorothy Dwan in the role of an 18-year-old Dorothy, courted by two farmhands (himself and Oliver Hardy), but there's nothing at all interesting in her surprisingly limited role.
Eventually whisked off to Oz in a magnificent windstorm, Dorothy and her friends, soon disguising themselves as the Tin Woodsman, the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion, try to do their best to ensure she gains and remains on the throne of Oz while most of the male characters also seem to want to wed her!
But getting past that, this really does provide one with plenty of moments almost certain to result in belly-shaking laughter, director Larry Semon's sweet-natured Scarecrow providing the best moments especially during his interactions with a young Oliver Hardy's Tin Woodsman and earlier on as a farmhand under Uncle Henry..
Before films were a going concern, The Wizard Of Oz had a stage version that ran a couple of years in the first decade of the last century that starred the famous vaudeville team of David Montgomery&Fred Stone.This silent version of Larry Semon's creation will never replace the MGM classic of 1939.
She discovers this on her 18th birthday when her heritage is revealed.Another thing is that indeed the Wizard is as much a humbug as Frank Morgan was in 1939, but here he's supposed to change the farmhands who along with Uncle Henry and Auntie Em have come with Dorothy to Oz in that massive tornado.
What happens just isn't funny and worse you know that Lahr and Bolger would have carried off the comedy.I think most people watch this version of The Wizard Of Oz to see Oliver Hardy as the Tin Man. At this time before he teamed with Stan Laurel, Ollie was doing a lot of work as a second banana comedian with Semon.
Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" is a movie that needs to be re-evaluated.
It also may be one of those films that just needs all the help it can get, which it does get in a pristine print with a brilliant soundtrack by Robert Israel, via WarnerVideo.So far as I can find, there is only ONE source for this version: The Wizard of Oz (Four-Disc Emerald Edition) (2006) "70th Anniversary", selling on Amazon for a mere $13.58.Being interested in early cinema fantasy, I bought this set specifically for its inclusion of the 1910 Oz movie (pretty good, by the way).
And with Semon's imaginative cinematography, the movie was playing out like a classic.
Forgotten silent film comedian Larry Semon co-writes directs and stars (Scarecrow) in this disembodied film version of the Frank Baum novel.
Semon's faithfulness to the book goes awry early making it more of a curiosity piece in the shadow of the 39 Oz to end all Ozes but it does have a modicum of comic moments and high wire slapstick to keep itself above water some of the of the way.A toy maker commences to tell a little girl a story about the Kingdom of Oz. Suffering from early signs of undetected ADD the child is soon bored by the structure and requests the old man to leap ahead to the meanwhile back at the farm segment where Dorothy heir to the thrown of Oz, living an Anastasia like existence in Kansas remains a disquieting presence to the farm's male population much to the chagrin of a brutish uncle (limberly played by 325 pound Frank Alexander) who bullies one and all.
Before this happens however Dorothy and farmhands (no Totos allowed) are blown by what looks like a hurricane as much as a tornado to you guessed it, Oz. Vishus accepts Dorothy as Queen of Oz but remains steadfast ("But I'm still dictator") in keeping his position and power to liquidate threats, especially The Scarecrow and Prince Kynd.Semon's adaptatation is bizarre bric a brac; his acting lifeless and unfunny; his direction a free for all of Sennett pratfalls and rage sluggishley conveyed save for a couple of gripping swan dives and aeronautic stunts.
When the great John and Dorothy Hampton were running The Silent Movie Theatre in Los Angeles, a Larry Semon picture was the occasional fare, so I speak from actual knowledge and experience, and unfailingly it was dismal.Tarmcgator noted correctly the stunt work was outstanding in this otherwise very bad movie.And I repeat that, otherwise, it is worth watching solely as an intriguing stage along the evolution of the motion picture..
A Scarecrow In The Slapstick Land Of Oz. In the silent year of 1925, the popular Amerikan comedian Herr Larry Semon, adapted, produced and starred in Frank Baum's greatest children 's book "The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz"and this German count finds it is possible to say that it is a perfect film vehicle for Herr Semon but no one else in the story.
Except for that popular silent comedian, there is no room or chance for the other characters; Dorothy ( Dame Dorothy Dwan ) is no more than a supporting character( no trace of Toto ) and the great wizard seems no mightier than a magician's apprentice.The first half of the film might be described as "A Farmhand ( obviously Herr Larry Semon himself ) In The Pratfall Land Of Texas" where a lot of sight gags are displayed, especially the inventive use of many animations tricks (amazing to this German count) The second half of the film or "A Scarecrow ( Herr Larry Semon himself again )In The Slapstick Land Of Oz", includes funny and elaborate and very well assembled scenes with walker boxes and hungry lions.Due to the omnipresent Herr Semon , the rest of the cast has little to do.
Oliver Hardy (The Tin Woodsman) and Dorothy Dwan were regular supporting actors in many of Herr Semon comedy shorts.
Dame Dwan is pretty old for her character so it is no great loss that her part is so minor but it's a pity in Herr Hardy's case, especially since he has a triple role."The Wizard Of Oz" is, in spite of it all, is an interesting oeuvre but Herr Larry Semon's artistic selfishness and his presence in almost scene becomes a kind of artistic egocentrism; a great classic becomes no more than a vanity project.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must go to Berlin, the nearest place to Oz.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/.
In fact, aside from the obvious enlargement of Larry Semon's role with the addition of a goodly number of comic routines, this movie is a pretty faithful transcription of the play.True, some of the best jokes (the business with packing cases, for example), are worked to exhaustion.
In this silent film version, everything is minimal but still it is entertaining at times.
The film has retained Dorothy, the scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion in it's cast.
But then there's Larry Semon's 1925 version, which has to be one of the single weirdest movies ever made.
And by very loosely I mean its taken a few basic ideas - a girl called Dorothy, three workers from her farm in Kansas who (sort of) become a scarecrow, a tin woodman and a lion, and a far off land called Oz where resides a 'wizard'.Larry Semon's complete re-working of the story just fails.
Some of the elements of Baum's original story are shoe-horned into the plot without much logic behind them, and there are a number of sub-plots that are not satisfactorily resolved.Dorothy loves her Auntie Em - but once the action switches to Oz, Auntie Em and Kansas are just forgotten about.Then there's Oliver Hardy's character which is inconsistent throughout the film.
Likewise Dorothy's Uncle Henry is initially hostile towards her, then is a protective guardian before becoming a bit of a villain again by the end.Most disgracefully the film's eponymous character, the Wizard, is hardly in the plot at all.
He's not a wizard but a charlatan and has little relevance to the story other than to provide a (very tenuous) reason why the farmhands disguise themselves as a scarecrow, tin man and lion.Dorothy totally lacks any motive throughout this film.
Dorothy falls for the prince she hardly knows (just like that) and the supposed hero of the film, Semon, is seen falling (to his death?) from an aeroplane.
But, uh, good luck reminding yourself of this as you try to sit through the movie.Some boys play with electric trains to feel like big men, Semon played with L Frank Baum's novel and a film camera and then sought to inflict this film upon cinema-goers when it seems to have been made solely to amuse himself.
The movie strings together slapstick moments, a story about Dorothy being a kidnapped and relocated princess of Oz, a perverted uncle, a racially-stereotyped black farmhand, and a convoluted set of scenes with a disturbing-looking grandfather reading the Oz story to his granddaughter and presenting the story.
All these ideas that may seem inspired in isolation are not presented in any coherent form here, and the movie comes across as a contrived attempt at a star vehicle for Semon.Yes, every film adaptation of a story will make departures from the original material.
However, if other films put a few dents and dings in Baum's novel, this one smashed it into Semon's oncoming ego.Watch it for historical interest, see Oliver Hardy developing the characteristics that would become legendary in his partnerships with Stan Laurel, chuckle at the occasional stunts and pratfalls, but don't expect to be too impressed...
A few years later, Frank Baum himself produced three Wizard of Oz movies, the most notable being "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz" (1914).
It just might be the best version before 1939.Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" (1925), produced six years after Baum's death, is dreadful.
Rather, the film is a silent showpiece for comedic actor Larry Semon, who not only butchers the basic story-line, but morphs it into a bizarre tale that ultimately bankrupted him.
Frank Baum Jr. really co-write this beauty?The movie commences with Semon, starring as an eerie-looking toymaker (in one of several roles), who is coaxed into reading the Wizard of Oz tale by his granddaughter.
Semon would become the Wizard's Scarecrow in Oz, and also would court Dorothy, who is really destined for Prince Kynd.
So it's probable that Larry Semon developed his version less from the book(s) than from the play.Though they are disguises and not characters, Semon and Hardy made a pretty good Scarecrow and Tin Woodman.Semon didn't seem to know when to stop wringing a joke.
Now,I'm not saying it's a bad movie but it's certainly not at the level of "silent era creativity" I expect from that time.The best things here are the sets for one,very inventive,some of the visual effects (like the director/star jumping hundreds of feet to the ground and surviving!) Yeah..right!
Frank Baum classic - so memorably filmed in glorious Technicolor in 1939 - is nothing like the famous version we all know and love. |
tt0071688 | Jakob, der Lügner | In a Jewish ghetto in German-occupied Poland, a man named Jakob is caught on the streets after curfew. He is told to report to a German military office where he finds the officer in charge passed out drunk. The radio is running and Jakob hears a broadcast about the advances of the Soviet Army. Eventually, Jakob sneaks out and goes home. Later he tells his friends that the Russians are not very far away. As no one believes he went to the Nazi office and came out alive, Jakob makes up a lie, claiming he owns a radio – a crime punishable by death. This puts Jakob in a difficult position since he is constantly asked for further news. He then starts encouraging his friends with false reports about the advance of the Red Army towards their ghetto. The residents, who are desperate and starved, find new hope in Jakob's stories. Even when he eventually confesses to his friend that only the first report was true and all the rest is made up, his friend points out that his stories give people hope and a will a to live. The film ends with the deportation of Jakob and the others to the extermination camps. | comedy, fantasy, murder, suicidal, violence, flashback, tragedy | train | wikipedia | The Best East German Film Ever Made.
The visuals of Aryan supremacy in Leni Reifenstahl's Nazi propaganda films, images of mountains of dead Jews and extremely inhumane conditions in death camps in Schindler's List, serve not merely to drive the film narrative but stir our emotions as well.
These images have conditioned us to read such films and documentaries using stereotypes of both the Jews and the Nazi Jews are good and the Nazi, evil.
The film Jakob the Liar explores the holocaust in a new light, presenting anti-Semitism in a relatively subtle way without compromising its substance as well as the film's power to move human emotion.The music is monotonous suggesting the monotony of the protagonists' lives in the ghetto.
Close-ups also give specific information about the character, their feelings, the way they live, the things they've gone thought and their relationships with each other.
Midway in the film, we already have a bond with the characters, we already know their real feelings despite the lightness, surrealistic and oftentimes humorous treatment of the scenes.
It is also quite extraordinary to depict the Nazi they way this film did considering that this is a holocaust film and one of the first East German film to tackle the subject.
Unlike in other film where the Nazis are portrayed as unreasonably evil and sadistic, here we are given a glimpse of their humanity.
In the introductory scene where a tower guard tells Jakob to report to Gestapo headquarters for not complying with the curfew, we saw instances where Jakob would have surely been severely punished or even killed but the officers were surprisingly reasonable and just.
We also saw guards who are not necessarily the perfect Aryan depicted in Riefenstahl films.
There was also a scene where one guard beats up a Jew (Kowalski), then later returns and drops two sticks of cigarettes for Kowalski - an unspoken apology for having beaten up the Jew. A Nazi apologizing to a Jew in a holocaust film!
This is not a movie pitting the Jews against their Nazi guards like the director's own "Naked among Wolves"; this is a film about a people's struggle to maintain their dignity and humanity amidst the hardships they have suffered.The film started with glimpses of the ghetto and Jakob checking out his sick niece, all these visuals already gives us an idea of the life of the protagonist and the place he lives in.
Then in a very short verbal exchange with one of the ghetto's denizen, Jakob gives us a background of his situation, that a guard took his watch from him.
The guy he was talking to on the other hand warns him about the curfew to which he answers that without his watch, has no way to tell time.
This sequence tells us that first, the guards can take and do take from the Jews anything they want and second, that the people are in constant fear of the guards and dare not disobey any rules lest one wants to be severely punished or killed.
It also tells us that in the event that Jakob gets killed, he will be leaving his young and sick niece to care for herself.
The character's actions and mood also imply of a prevailing state of constant fear - whether that of being killed or seeing someone close to you die a meaningless death.The Jews in the film were waiting for an inevitable annihilation, a fate they have long accepted until Jakob gave them an alternate view of the future because of his news of a possible liberation by the Russians.Through out the film, we are still constantly given pieces of Jewish life before the ghetto.
Through flashbacks and what the characters say, we are presented concrete glimpses of how their lives of the films protagonists were before the ghetto.
Everybody suffers, everyone is subjected to the harshness of ghetto life everyday there's no distinction in class, social status, age and/or sex.
Frank Bayer told the story and made us feel what the characters felt using visuals and very powerful visuals at that..
An exception is the 1974 DEFA (GDR successor to pre-1945 Ufa Film Studio) production "Jacob the Liar", which enjoyed a brief exposure in the US in the late '70s, even being nominated for an Academy Award.
Although it can be viewed without, the subtitles (your choice of language)are well-worded and legible."Jacob" centers on a man inadvertently finding himself a focus of hope among the doomed in a Polish ghetto.
Billed as a tragic comedy, the acting and pacing of the story are equal to the serious nature of the subject.Director Frank Beyer's "Jacob" should not be confused with the 1999 Hollywood remake starring the talented (but often glib and facetious) Robin Williams.
In 1944, in Poland, the Jew Jakob Heym (Vlastimil Brodský) breaks the curfew in the ghetto where he lives and a guard in the lookout sends him to see the chief of the guards.
Jakob is released by the German, but overhears a radio broadcasting that the Russians are advancing towards their town.
On the next morning, his comrade Mischa (Henry Hübchen) wants to risk his life to steal a couple of potatoes in a German store, Jakob tells that the Russians are coming and confides that he has a radio.
Soon the secret Jakob has told to Mischa is known by the residents of the ghetto and Jakob notes that his lies give hope to the Jews, reducing the number of suicide.
Meanwhile his niece Lina (Manuela Simon), who is sick, gets better with Jakob stories and believes that clouds are made of cotton balls.
"Jakob, der Lügner" is a dramatic film with a beautiful and heartbreaking story of hope and survival in one of the saddest and darkest moments of the contemporary history.
The analogy between Jakob's radio that gives hope to his comrades and the cotton balls that helps his niece to live a fairytale is the summit of this tale and the open conclusion where the viewer does not know what he will tell to Lina are amazing.
I would reccommend this film to anyone who would enjoy a new outlook on life.
I know that is one of the things I got from watching this movie.
This movie is a story full of lies that brought more hope to the Jews living in the Ghetto.
Jakob was the one being outside after curfew and he had to report to the Police, and after walking into the station he heard some news on the Radio.
He thought that it was good news that the Russians were coming closer.
After a short while the whole Ghetto was talking about those news.
Jakob saw that everybody was feeling much better so he continued to tell lies about the news.
It also gives hope to the Jewish people in the Ghetto and Jakob was having good intentions but it just complicated itself more and more..
Jacob the LiarI liked this movie, and I think it had good lessons to learn from.
She was completely innocent throughout the entire movie, and I felt that she showed not everyone had lost hope during the time.
Jacob starting telling stories about the Russians and other things he knew about the war.
But in the end, everyone was unhappy because their optimism was crushed with the sign that said everyone was to gather together with less than 5 kilos in luggage so they could `go away'.I think my favorite scene was when the old man thought he heard voices in the freight car.
The reality was that there was someone in the car, but they never showed who and a guard shot the old man before he could tell anyone.
The scene sparked my curiosity on who it was exactly in the car and why that person was being held in there, or if they were being held in the at all.The whole radio lie caused a lot of problems in the movie, and that's why I said above that there were some good lessons to be learned in the movie.
One lie sparked another for him, and that got him in deeper into his stories until so many people were asking about the radio that he just couldn't make anything else up and he finally told his friend.
The movie shows that lying for whatever cause is never a good cause no matter how much you think it may help the situation.
Although this wasn't my favorite movie in class so far, I did enjoy watching it, and it kept my attention throughout the story..
The original award-winning "Jacob the Liar".
This was the first and only East German film ever to be nominated for the Best Foreign Language film Oscar.
For all the accolades the film received, I must say that I enjoyed the recent American remake, directed by a Hungarian Holocaust Survivor, much more.
In any case, the original is also good, though disappointing if you enjoyed the recent JACOB...
Interestingly, he also starred in the recent remake as the sixtyish doctor in the film.
This East German movie is a very unusual movie about the Holocaust because it focuses on life within the ghetto.
Whatever is the case, this aspect of the film did surprise me a bit.Now as for the rest of the film, it was marvelous and provided an odd insight into life in the ghettos.
I have not seen the recent remake starring Robin Williams, so I can't really compare the two, but my inclination is almost always to go with the originals.PS--The English captioning for this film is pretty poor.
Only a very few films have succeeded in treating the plight of the Jews under the Nazis with a sense of humor, but this is one of them.
In a Jewish ghetto in 1944, Jacob is brought to the police station for curfew violation.
There he hears news on the radio that the Russians are advancing nearer.
He uses this hopeful news to stop a fellow ghetto resident from committing sure suicide by trying to steal extra food.
But in a moment of foolishness, Jacob claims he heard the news on his own secret radio.
Soon the entire town is hounding him for positive news, and the shy quiet Jacob has become an unwanted celebrity and bringer of hope, forcing him into a moral quandary and more lies.
The power of this simple fable is enhanced by some very touching flashbacks where we see these now beaten down characters as their lives were just a few years before – full of love, laughter, food to eat, nice homes.
Vlastimil Brodsky is great as Jacob, even if he's unfortunately dubbed into German.
(This was the only East German film ever nominated for an Oscar).
Exemplary Situations of life in a Jewish Ghetto, during the reign of Hitler's forces were very much present in "Jakob der Lügner".
One such occurrence of how the Jews tried to deal with their new realities involved the substitution of thoughts about reality and the invading/controlling Nazi War machine in many of their lives, for other exciting and positive experiences, of which they tried to focus.
Jakob tries to focus on such an experience, which occurred in his past, before he was forced to move to the Ghetto.
Through his invention of the "radio broadcasts", he helps others living in the Ghetto to think of a reality, on which they can believe, due to its similarity with their wishes for their futures and even for their reality under Nazi control to be different than it was in reality..
A historically very significant east German movie.
The role of Jacob is that he is a Jewish man who lives in Poland at the time of the Nazi-rule.
He falsely tells a coworker about a radio he owns and he tells him good news about the Russian Army getting closer and closer everyday.
This lie spreads quickly thru the Jewish ghetto and immediately all coworkers ask Jacob daily about news.
In desperation Jacob makes up good news and spreads them around the ghetto.
As the movie moves along it shows violence and prosecution of the Jewish people.
At the end of the movie the ghetto including Jacob leave their home town and head in unknown direction.
Jacob lied about the radio and spread good news to keep hope and live in his community.
The acting is mixed--Manuela Simon, who plays Jacob's ten-year old (or so) niece, out-acts them all, except for of course Vlastimil Brodský (Jacob) and Erwin Geschonneck (Kowalski) who do give fine performances.
It reminded me a bit of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant," where we see the mundane, somewhat boring day in the life of some high school students--it moves at a snail's pace, but that's what makes the ending especially shocking and disturbing.
So I have a lot of nits to pick with this film, but I'll be haunted by the ending forever.
The film is about Jacob, an old Jewish man.
He lies throughout the movie that he has a Radio, just to keep the hopes up of the people around him.
Everyday he tells the people around him that the Russians are moving closer and that soon they will be free from the Nazis.
As the movie goes on things get more complicated and at the end he decides to tell the truth, but no one believes him.
Jacob the liar, one of the great German films.
By using close-up shots, we could see and feel the character's feelings and emotions first hand, as if we are right in front of them, every detail of it, and we can really relate to that kind of scene, and that makes the film more personal and up-close to the viewers.
Another thing is the claustrophobic environment which depicts the kind of life in the polish ghetto and makes us feel and experience that we are also in that environment.
Another interesting shots in these film is the long shot used in the somewhat castle like structure and the clouds in the end part.
Another intriguing fact here, that's the first ever German Film that I had watched in colored and so does Frank Beyer's first time to use modern technology to enhance his film.
The blending of colors as I may say is good and it really enhances the scenes and the character's emotion.
You could see that much livelier and lighter colors appears when Jacob and his niece were in a dream sequence, so does when people gets hope from the news Jacob brings, their faces light-up and so does the surrounding.
When it come to the storyline and background of the film, you could easily see that the film really focuses on people's reactions, emotions and their life as a whole in the ghetto rather than really opposing and getting into the antifascist theme that Beyer usually does in his films.
I have also seen the remake of this film, the one starred by Robin Williams.
I really never thought that this film is much better than the remake.
Nothing beats the original.To sum it all up, I think it's really one of the best movies Frank Beyer has ever done..
"Jakob, der Lügner" or "Jacob the Liar" is an East German 100-minute movie from 1974, so this one is already over 40 years old.
Went his film came out, World War II had been over for 30 years approximately, so this is also the gap in time between what we see and when this was made.
It may have been the subject that appealed to the Academy as it plays in the Jewish ghetto in the final years of Nazi Germany.
And it is the story of one man, the title character, a career-defining performance by Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský.
I would not call it great or one of the very best I have seen from the year 1974, but it was still a pretty good watch, mostly thanks to Brodský.
Life in the ghettos of Poland
we can't see it enough
the lessons are that important!
Lives condemned to Purgatory
stripped of their possessions
relocated
waiting for the trains
waiting for "resettlement"
waiting to see if the unthinkable was more than rumor.The feeling of hopelessness would be overwhelming
yet the feeling of hope would also be present as that is human nature
and that is perfectly captured in this remarkable East German film!
Who would think that such a great film could come out of E Germany in 1975!
PS: Agree with the review that stated that "the English captioning for this film is pretty poor." I don't speak German but could easily tell it was off.
The movie starts with a violin and scenes of the Jewish ghetto.
Jakob is one of many Jews in a German-controlled, Polish ghetto.
He twists the story and it soon is believed that he possess a radio.
In order to protect his exaggeration, he continues to tell more and more lies by pretending he hears them on the radio.
His lies have a huge impact on camp, but he eventually needs to tell the truth to his friend Kowalski, who kills himself out of despair for living another day in the ghetto.
The Jakob's lie remains largely undiscovered, his street is eventually deported to their presumed death.At the beginning of watching the movie I was quite sick of seeing another German movie about WW2.
Though the obvious interpretation is that life in the ghetto was terrible, and that Jakob's lives were pure hearted, it's also a statement on underlying scientific notions that we cannot legitimately achieve through personal work what we can do together.
That notion is very clear for an East German movie.
I enjoyed the way the film cut to flashbacks to explain who characters were.
The movie knows that abuses are known, it's the stories of relationships that aren't as things like letters and radio were banned. |
tt0052698 | Classe tous risques | French gangster Abel Davos, having been tried in absentia and sentenced to death, flees to Italy with his wife and their two children. After a successful holdup in Milan with an accomplice Raymond, they try to re-enter France by boat, but while landing at a deserted cove by night are surprised by two customs officers. After a gun battle which leaves the customs men, his wife and Raymond dead, a massive police hunt begins. Hidden with his two boys in Nice by a former associate, Abel rings Riton, an old ally in Paris, asking him and his friend Fargier to come and collect him. Riton now runs a bar and Fargier a hotel; neither wants to risk his life or reputation for a lone wanted man. However they buy an ambulance and recruit a young gangster called Éric to bring Abel and his children back in it. On the way, Éric saves a young woman Liliane, who is being attacked by a man, and she agrees to pose as a nurse for Abel, who is bandaged to conceal him.
Back in Paris, his friends tell Abel there is little more they can do for him. Éric however is sympathetic to the man's plight and, after hiding him in the building where he lives, helps him place his children with family friends. He also gets him a false passport but Abel, needing money to escape, robs the respected fence Gibelin. Unable to go to the police, Gibelin consults Fargier and Riton, who are both under police pressure because of their past association with Abel. They hire a private detective to find Abel's hideout, but Abel captures the man and forces the truth out of him. Realising he is betrayed, Abel starts his revenge by killing Fargier, whose wife then dies of shock. Riton, whose wife has always mistrusted Abel, informs the police. As they storm Abel's hideout, Éric creates a diversion and is shot in both legs. Though Abel gets away, an epilogue says he is later caught, tried and executed. | violence, neo noir, murder | train | wikipedia | Odd one should be able to stumble into "Classe Tous Risques" only by chance; it should be on any "best of film-noir" list, including IMDb's.Lino Ventura is as good as ever; knowing of his dire, delicate family situation gives extra weight to his almost expressionless face and brief dialogues.
Belmondo's restrained performance under Sautet's firm direction only shows what a wonderful actor he could - and should -have been."Classe Tous Risques" is utterly mininal, dry and cold, without Melville's artistic scenery, pretty faces and fancy cars.
The final sentence of the film - a voice-over telling of Davos' end in no more than ten dry, sombre words - leaves you with a hard punch in the stomach.A true jewel in the great crown of French film-noir..
When I also read that it was in the vein of the classic French crime films ala Jean Pierre Melville, I jumped at the chance to check it out (at best it would rank up with his great works, and at worst I would get some good popcorn in a great theater).
It was well worth the admission, as Classe tous risques is one of those kinds of French films that is just waiting to be re-discovered (or discovered for the first time).
With a film in the vein of this sort, you know how it will end, but it's the cool, observant journey that counts.The film features a performance with some real truth and honesty, amid the "old-school" criminal's code, by Lino Ventura as Aldo, who at the start of the film (one of the best beginnings to a film in this genre and country) steals a hefty amount of money with his partner in crime).
Like Melville, Sautet doesn't allow any fat to his story, and it's a very tightly structured film, with some good doses of humor here and there (I was sometimes grinning at the audacity of the criminals in the beginning chase sequence, and also with a particular woman who had a finicky thing with her cat and a fish).Along with a fine score by the great George Delerue, exceptional cinematography, and a mood that is seldom met let alone matched now adays, Classe tous risques is a reminder of that bridge between the real old-school film-noir, and the latter day crime films.
Gangsters in these new sort of "thug-life" movies have a 1000th of the class and honor of the thieves in this film, and is a second banana to the works of Melville and Jules Dassin (a compliment I assure you).
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is repeatedly recommended every time I look up a Jean-Pierre Melville film that I had to give it a watch as soon as possible.
Since I've been discovering Melville and seemingly working backwards through his filmography, it would be easy for me to mistake this as one of his films, but it was made in 1960, by Claude Sautet, before Melville would come and stake his claim on french neo-noir.Classe Tous Risques has two of the best lead men of the time, Lino Ventura and Jean-Paul Belmondo.
Ventura plays Abel, a gangster exiled in Italy with his wife and two kids, who wants to come back to Paris because the police are closing in on him.
The film shows the the duality of the two men, the older Abel at the end of his time after tragedy strikes him, and the younger Eric starting off the same way Abel did, falling in love with a beautiful woman who sticks with her man despite the world they are a part of.
Its one thing to see a individual criminal come to his demise, its different when he has loved ones he risks taking down with him.Much like Melville's film, the seemingly simple story gets more subtlety complicated as it goes along.
As usual, as what I feel with Melville's films, it left my head spinning (in a good way) and dying to re watch it again to pick up what I missed the first time.
"Classe tous risques" feels like the granddaddy of "The Sopranos" in mixing the criminal and the domestic, and of the buddy film to feel as contemporary as "Reservoir Dogs."Even as these gangsters are affectionately entangled with wives, children, lovers and parents, they are coldly ruthless, and we are constantly reminded they are, no matter what warm situation we also see them in.
It is a high point of emotion when a wife is told off that she's not the one the gangster is friends with, while virtually the only time we hear music on the soundtrack is when he recalls his wife.Streetscapes in Italy and France are marvelously used, in blinding daylight to dark water and highways, from the opening set up of a pair of brazen robbers -- who are traveling with one's wife and two kids.
This is not the cliché crusty old guy softened with the big-eyed orphan; these are their jobs and their families and they intersect in horrific ways.The film pulls no punches in unexpectedly killing off characters, directly and as collateral damage, and challenging our sympathy for them, right through to the unsentimental end, which is probably why there was never an American remake.
It seems so fresh that it's not until Jean-Paul Belmondo enters almost a third of the way into the film, looking so insouciant as a young punk, that one realizes that this is from 1960.
I have just watched on Italian TV the excellent crime drama CLASSE TOUS RISQUES (1960; aka: THE BIG RISK), directed by Claude Sautet and starring the late Lino Ventura (in one of his best roles) and a very young Jean-Paul Belmondo.
Ventura was a regular in gangster films of the period: he was in Jacques Becker's masterful TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI (1953; aka: HANDS OFF THE LOOT!) playing the main villainous role and in which he conducts an effective vis-à-vis with nominal star Jean Gabin, but he then took the lead for Jean-Pierre Melville's magnificent thriller set in WWII, L'ARMEE' DES OMBRES (1969; aka: ARMY OF SHADOWS).
Incidentally, next week Criterion will release Melville's BOB LE FLAMBEUR (1955) and I hope they can put their hands on other films by this French master, notably LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES (1950), from the play by Jean Cocteau; LE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE (1966; aka: SECOND BREATH), also starring Lino Ventura; LE SAMOURAI (1967), his undisputed chef d'oeuvre; the aforementioned L'ARMEE' DES OMBRES and LE CERCLE ROUGE (1970; aka: THE RED CIRCLE).
It is worth noting that the last two may very well be future Criterion DVDs. For the record, I have recorded ENFANTS, SAMOURAI, ARMEE' and CERCLE (which I have yet to watch) off French TV, along with the atypical LEON MORIN, PRETRE (1961) and the little-seen LE DOULOS (1962; aka: THE FINGER MAN), both of which star Jean-Paul Belmondo.
The plot does have its improbable turns: for example, Belmondo's and Sandra Milo's characters are a bit too good to be true, aiding Ventura without batting an eyelid (despite the obvious danger involved) just minutes after making his acquaintance, while the ending is a bit of a letdown (the film is abruptly interrupted and the plot resolved with a hurried voice-over explanation)...but Ventura's solid performance as a man betrayed, quietly desperate at first but driven eventually to sudden eruptions of violence, holds the film firmly together and makes THE BIG RISK a classic of its kind.
Other films by Claude Sautet I have watched are LES CHOSES DE LA VIE (1969), MAX ET LES FERRAILLEURS (1971; aka: MAX AND THE SCRAP-MONGERS), CESAR ET ROSALIE (1972), all on Italian TV, and VINCENT, FRANCOIS, PAUL ET LES AUTRES (1974), which I have recorded off French TV.
VINCENT, FRANCOIS, PAUL ET LES AUTRES is perhaps Sautet's best film: it co-stars Serge Reggiani, Gerard Depardieu (one of his first), Marie Dubois and Stephane Audran (an extended cameo, really, but effective nonetheless).As I have said, I wish that some of the films I mentioned by Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, including of course THE BIG RISK, will one day be released on DVD.
It ranks highly as a great noir-crime-drama, incredible performances by Belmondo and Lino Ventura.
"Classes tous risques" is one of the best "gangsters" films noirs France has ever produced.Perfect cast :Lino Ventura,a young Jean -Paul Belmondo (who made "a bout de souffle",Godard's thing, the same year),Marcel Dalio and a fine supporting cast ;brilliant script by José Giovanni -who also wrote "le trou" Becker's masterpièce the same year!What a year for him!;wonderful black and white cinematography by Ghislain Cloquet.And taut action,first-class directing by Claude Sautet,who surpasses Jean-Pierre Melville .Whereas the latter films gangsters movie with metaphysical pretensions,which sometimes lasts more than two hours,Claude Sautet directs men of flesh and blood,and the presence of the two children adds moments of extraordinary poignancy which Melville has never been able to generate .And Sautet avoids pathos,excessive sentimentality:the last time Ventura sees his children,coming down in the metro (subway)is a peak of restrained emotion.Ventura portrays a gangster whose die is cast when the movie begins.He thinks that he can rely on his former acquaintances ,but they are all cowards -we are far from manly friendship dear to Jacques Becker ("touchez pas au grisbi" ) which Melville was to continue throughout the sixties-sometimes abetted by mean women (the film noir misogyny par excellence),living in a rotten microcosm,ready to inform on -we are far from Jean Seberg's simplistic behavior in Godard's "opus"-.Cloquet works wonders with the picture:the scene on the beach in a starless night when the two children see their mother die after the shoot-out with the customs officers is absolutely mind-boggling.There's a good use of voice-over,which Sautet only uses when necessary;thus ,the last lines make the ending even stronger than if we have attended the scenes.Claude Sautet had found a good niche ,and he followed the "classes tous risques" rules quite well with his follow-up "l'arme à gauche" (1965) which featured Ventura again and made a good use of a desert island and a ship.Had he continued in that vein,France would have had a Howard Hawks.In his subsequent works ,only "Max et les ferrailleurs " (1971) showed something of the brilliance he displayed in the first half of the sixties.He had become ,from "les choses de la vie" onwards,the cinema de qualité director who used to focus on tender-hearted bourgeois in such works as "Cesar et Rosalie" (1972),"Vincent François ,Paul et les autres" (1974) or "Mado" (1976).
Both Bresson and Melville are reputed to be big fans of "Classe Tous Risques" and it's easy to see why; either man could have directed this classic French gangster picture.
From the absolutely stunning opening sequence it's clear that this film will be infused with a good dose of existential angst as well as the requisite thrills that a really good gangster movie needs.Two fugitives, (Lino Ventura and Stan Krol), have decided it's time to get out of Italy and back to France as the net closes in around them but they need money.
The money they make, however, is hardly enough to sustain them, (Ventura has a wife and two sons to support), so they must rely on a network of friends and criminal associates and men on the run, already operating on the very edge, need all the friends they can get, however untrustworthy they may be and these guys friends prove to be very untrustworthy indeed but when tragedy strikes Ventura seems to have no option.With the possible exceptions of Dassin's "Rififi" and several of Jean-Pierre Melville's classic gangster pictures this remains one of the greatest of genre films and is all the better for being, fundamentally, a low-key character piece.
Ventura is perfect as the world-weary thief who would really rather just settle down and raise his family and he is matched by a young Jean-Paul Belmondo as the stranger who becomes his only real friend and ally.
Milan, Nice, Paris, a journey from exile to tragedy, the disloyalty of old partners, a total stranger that becomes the younger image in the mirror, a new friendship---in Sautet hands, all of these human happenings are conveyed not by words but by the power of images, expressions, action, angles, movement, gestures, moments.
I agree with all the strenghts mentioned in the other reviews but there are some beats missing here that keep it firmly inside the genre of crime drama or film noir and limit it from being a great drama beyond the limits of the "elements" that make up film noir--not to say that the great film noirs aren't/can't/shouldn't be also great dramas, but this one isn't.One other note the music in the film is used sparingly but I would say is used to accentuate the action more frequently than the wife elements.Great set up to this film by the way with an abrupt sort of non ending ending that is either just right or a let down depends.Spoilers follow as to some specifics.The big turn in the story involves the children seeing their mother die, or it should be the big moment.
They really just have none, in the next scene they look as if nothing happened.In like fashion there is a bond that forms between Belmondo and Ventura's characters.
I don't know, other than maybe the goals of the film were limited to giving the audience what it wants from a crime melodrama--suggest some deeper elements, then move on to ignore them.IN CONCLUSION THEN.Too bad there is much to recommend this film, Ventura is very very good, but too bad it could have been a great drama as well as a crime story--as with IMDb favorite movie of all time THE GODFATHER.
Lino Ventura stars in this and although born in Italy lived most of his life in France and was a great favourite of French cinema in the 50s through to the 80s but he was no Belmondo.
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for style.
And because Abel Davos is played by Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint.
Lino Ventura dominates the movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens.
Career criminal and crime boss, Abel Davos (Lino Ventura) has been on the run for more than 10 years, hiding out in Milan, Italy.
A now wounded Davos with two kids in tow is going to be easily spotted by police, so he calls on his old friends in Paris to send help, but they have moved on since their old friend went into hiding and are not too inclined to take a risk themselves, so they send small time thief, Eric Stark (Jean Paul Belmondo) to rescue him.
Davos is disgusted that such a lowly thief is sent to his aid, despite the fact he hits it off immediately with the charming Stark, he sets out to find out why he has been snubbed, but their betrayal doesn't stop there.Classe Tous Risques (aka the Big Risk) was written for the screen by former death row inmate and crime writer Jose Giovanni (Le Trou, Le Clan des Siciliens), with Ventura already on board for the project, Giovanniwanted someone unique to direct the project, Ventura suggested an assistant director that had caught his attention on a previous project,one Claude Sautet, best known at the time for assisting Georges Franju on Les Yeux sans Visage.
I've only seen about a half dozen films starring Lino Ventura, but this one seems very much like the others.
And, like these other films, he also has a very strong, though twisted, moral code.Abel Davos (Ventura) and his partner, Lilane, are both living in Italy and are career criminals.
In fact, their tepid response to his return ends up unleashing a series of terrible events towards the end of the film.Along the way, Davos meets and is taken in my a stranger, Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo).
Overall, this is a very good crime film--sort of like French Film Noir.
The acting is first-rate (especially from Ventura and Belmondo), the direction very sure and the writing very nice, though I am sure many won't like the ending.
Talking to a fellow IMDber about the Robert Hossein Film Noir Night Is Not For Sleep,I got given a list of French Film Noir (FFN) recs.Cutting away the FFN's I've seen,I spotted a Fabulous-looking Film Noir that Criterion has put out,which led to me deciding to risk it.The plot:Performing a successful robbery in Italy, Abel Davos and Raymond Naldi decide to escape the police by running off to France.
Folding other gangsters into Davos tragic family drama,Sautet and Cloquet keep Davos undercover with a Film Noir elegance,with long shadows curling round each of Davos and Stark's hide-outs, until they all choke on Film Noir doom.Fighting at the side of the road,the gorgeous Sandra Milo gives a superb performance as Liliane.Dressed as a hard-edge Punk Rocker,Milo gives Liliane a warm,heart-felt mood,as Liliane gradually finds herself being on Stark's side.Entering as an outsider, Jean-Paul Belmondo gives an excellent performance as Stark,thanks to Belmondo threading Stark with an out of his depth eagerness,with rough Film Noir street fighting smarts.Trying to keep his sons away from seeing his work, Lino Ventura gives a magnificent performance as Abel Davos.
This is a Black and White film from France,Simple plot, gangster on the run seeking & getting help etc.
especially the lead played by Lino Ventura & in a smaller BUT vital role Jean Paul Belmondo.
On the other hand second lead Jean-Paul Belmondo was here making his second film in one year; the other one was Brainless for Godard, and here he shows what he can do when there is a REAL director behind the camera. |
tt0030993 | You Can't Take It with You | A successful banker, Anthony P. Kirby (Edward Arnold), has just returned from Washington, D.C., where he was effectively granted a government-sanctioned munitions monopoly, which will make him very rich. He intends to buy up a 12-block radius around a competitor's factory to put him out of business, but there is one house that is a holdout to selling. Kirby instructs his real estate broker, John Blakely (Clarence Wilson), to offer a huge sum for the house, and if that is not accepted, to cause trouble for the family.
Kirby's son, Tony (James Stewart), a vice president in the family company, has fallen in love with a company stenographer, Alice Sycamore (Jean Arthur). When Tony proposes marriage, Alice is worried that her family would be looked upon poorly by Tony's rich and famous family. In fact, Alice is the only relatively normal member of the eccentric Sycamore family, led by Grandpa Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore). Unbeknownst to the players, Alice's family lives in the house that will not sell out.
Kirby and the snobbish Mrs. Kirby (Mary Forbes) strongly disapprove of Tony's choice for marriage. Before she accepts, Alice forces Tony to bring his family to become better acquainted with their future in-laws. But when Tony purposely brings his family on the wrong day, the Sycamore family is caught off-guard and the house is in disarray. As the Kirbys are preparing to leave after a rather disastrous meeting, the police arrest everyone in the house for making unlicensed fireworks and disturbing the peace.
Held up in the drunk tank preparing to see the night court judge, Mrs. Kirby repeatedly insults Alice and makes her feel unworthy of her son. At the court hearing, the judge (Harry Davenport) repeatedly asks why the Kirbys were at the Vanderhof house. When Grandpa says it was to talk over selling the house, Alice has an outburst and says it was because she was engaged to Tony but is spurning him because of how poorly she has been treated by his family. This causes a sensation in the papers, and Alice flees the city.
With Alice gone, Grandpa decides to sell the house, thus meaning the whole section of the town must vacate in preparation for building a new factory. Now, the Kirby companies merge, creating a huge fluctuation in the stock market. When Kirby's competitor, Ramsey (H. B. Warner), dies after confronting him for being ruthless and a failure of a man, Kirby has a realization that he does not have any friends – just as Grandpa Vanderhof told him back in the drunk tank.
Kirby visits the Vanderhofs as they are moving out of the house, and Kirby lets loose and plays the harmonica and realizes these lower-class people he previously belittled are good people. Alice takes Tony back, the Vanderhofs don't move, and the film ends with the Vanderhofs and Kirbys enjoying a meal together. | entertaining | train | wikipedia | Ask someone my age, who would now be 25, what the best movie of all time is, they're likely to say Pulp Fiction or Fight Club.Not to take away from today's movies, but for anyone who has not gone back and viewed classic Capra, such as "You Can't Take it With You," then they are truly missing out.This movie is pure magic and beauty.
This is a rare gem of a film and in true Capra fashion, the climactic final scene brings tear to the eye, much the same way as Harry Bailey's toast in "It's a Wonderful Life.".
That he did so, winning the 1938 Best Picture Oscar, is immensely to his credit.Hobbling on the crutches that signaled the crippling arthritis that would soon confine him to a wheelchair, Lionel Barrymore is the focal point of the film as the grandfather of a wacky clan that believes in doing whatever makes them happy.
Jean Arthur, James Stewart & Edward Arnold co-star, with a mammoth cast of supporting players.This is the movie for viewers who want to feel warm & safe & cuddled & protected..
The movie pleasantly surprised me in *not* having young Tony Kirby (James Stewart) be assigned to get Vanderhof to sell his house and thereby falling in love with Alice Sycamore (Jean Arthur) and her zany family.
Evidently I was completely charmed by James Stewart and Jean Arthur, who are both incredibly believable both as real people and movie stars, and who together make Tony and Alice an utterly credible, true-to-life couple.
I sincerely hope that every person making this film had just as much fun as I did watching it, because the whole secondary cast was excellent, and I loved all the characters we were introduced to, particularly the entire Sycamore family with their attendant friends (the ex-iceman DePinna, or the toymaker Poppins) and even their servants Rheba and Donald, who were treated almost as much as part of the family as could be expected at that time.
But my greatest praise would have to be reserved for Lionel Barrymore as Martin Vanderhof--a sweeter, lovelier old man you just couldn't imagine, and a complete change from his much-better-known Mr. Potter in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.
This is better.The madcap adventures of a crazy family during the depression is a life affirming film that shows us that money isn't everything and that yes, you can't take it with you.One of the joys of this film is the cast Lionel Barrymore, Jimmy Stewart, Ann Miller, Dub Taylor, Edward Arnold, Eddie Rochester Anderson, Misha Auer and just about every great supporting actor and actress under the sun, all acting completely and wonderfully mad.
This is yet another great film by Frank Capra and was rewarded with an Oscar for Best Picture in 1938.Stewart comes from a rich and completely uptight family.
George Kaufman and Moss Hart, the playwrights of the original play in which this film is based, seemed to have been keenly aware that most people in their pursuit of wealth and success in life basically forget the most important point of all: To live life to its fullest, enjoying every minute of it and sharing with loved ones and friends everything, good, or bad."You Can't Take it with You" is an enormously satisfying theater play, which must have drawn Frank Capra's attention to bring it to the movies.
Mr. Arnold was a great actor.The other notable character in the film is Alice Sycamore, the young secretary that happens to fall in love with the rich Kirby heir.
My favorite american director is Frank Capra."It Happened One Night" is his first great film."Mr.Deeds Goes To Town","Mr.Smith Goes To Washington" and "Meet John Doe" are perfect examples of how to make a great film about simple,ordinary man."It's A Wonderful Life" is everybody's favorite holiday film.But "You Can't Take It With You" is Capra's masterpiece.The story is perfect,The direction is brilliant and it's impossible you don't get tears in your eyes with the sweetness and shear simplicity of Martin Vanderhof.That leads us to the best thing in this classic:Lionel Barrymore,one of the greatests actors in film history.All you have to do is see this film and "It's a Wonderful Life" and see for yourselfs.Mr.Potter is cruel,heartless,despicable and absolute fascinating(I still can't believe it ranked only 6 in the AFI list,because for me he's the greatest villain in film history)All Mr.Potter lack,Martin Vanderhof has to share.He is absolutely adorable,he has a lot of friends.(The scene in the court room is magnificent)he is sweet,and equally fascinating.(Not to mention that Lionel is really gorgeous in this film)One must remember the shining presence of Jean Arthur,and equally portrayal of good and young Jimmy Stewart.Not to forget Edward Arnold and his greedy Anthony P.
Kirby,who tries at all costs to buy Grandpa's house.But Lionel teaches him in a marvelous harmonica duet,how to enjoy life.The Plot is simply and delightul.Jean is Lionel's granddaughter,and she loves Jimmy Stewart,who is the son of the blood sucking banker Arnold.Jean decided that the two family's shall met,But Stewart's family will have a shock when they meet the wonderful and very eccentric Vanderhof family with Lionel,the grandfather anyone would love to have,Spring Byington as the writing mother(Only because someone forgot a typing writer in her house)Ann Miller as the adorable dancing sister,Essie,and a very funny Mischa Auer as the russian dancing teacher,who always arrives just in time for dinner.Pay also attencion in a small but memorable perfomance of the forgotten silent actor H.B.Warner as the broken Mr.Ramsey.I believe I already say to much,but not all this site will be enough to say what this masterpiece and Martin Vanderhof means to me
It's a warm, uplifting comedy with romance, drama, and lots of little bits for people who like "windows into the past." Just a real treat for anyone who loves getting lost in classic films..
Jean Arthur lives with an eccentric, extended family that does not worry about money (although its is made plain early on that family patriarch Lionel Barrymore earned quite a bit of moolah in his time, so no one in this crazy family need worry about where their next meal is coming from or whether they will have a roof over their heads.
As is often the case when a film is based on a stage play, there is too much fast paced dialog going on at almost any given moment.Not even stars like JEAN ARTHUR and JAMES STEWART can overcome this sort of Capra-corn which is so thick you could cut it with a pocketknife.
So simplistic are the messages trying to get through that it becomes clear we are just supposed to sit back and watch the shenanigans of a bunch of eccentrics play out to a silly and predictable conclusion.In a year that included such standouts as THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, considered a classic piece of cinema entertainment in gorgeous three-strip technicolor, it's sad to learn that Capra's stagey comedy, hammed up by a large cast that plays the comedy for sledgehammer delivery, was the winner in 1938.
Lionel Barrymore and Edward Arnold have a magnificent duel of philosophies of life, and Jean Arthur and James Stewart a perfect chemistry in this lovely romantic comedy.
As life WILL sometimes imitate art, I've gotten into some good "discussions" with folks about Grandpas way of thinking.By all means, purchase this film, see the play, and learn from it..
Watching Ann Miller, Donald Meek (he was so gosh darn cute in the movie), Jean Arthur and especially Lionel Barrymore act was a real treat.
James Stewart was fine in this picture, but he didn't really figure that prominently in it; I was much more interested in the Lionel Barrymore grandfather who long ago decided to have some fun in life and leave everything else behind, and Stewart's stuffy old rich father (well played by Edward Arnold), who eventually learns that money really means nothing in the end.
(I've always suspected that the TV series "The Munsters" was based more on this story than on "The Addams Family.") "You Can't Take It With You," originally a Kaufman/Hart play, was directed by Frank Capra, one of the great figures of the film industry.
Maybe it is just this film because normally I like Arthur, but she's awful in here.When you add Lionel Barrymore, Edward Arnold, Micha Auer and Spring Byington and have the famous Frank Capra directing, you would think this is going to be topnotch, but the movie is anything but impressive or entertaining, especially now in this day-and-age.
The movie hinges on the notion that having money is less important than having friends (ala Wonderful Life), but gets a little to black and white with the characterizations - deep down, the wealthy folks are miserable people, and the poor and middle class are noble citizens.
You'd never know it from his performance on crutches (conveniently excused in the film as a misadventurous slide down the banister in his home).More of Barrymore (the REAL actor: not the alcoholic eye-shadowed ham his brother John became) momentarily.Watch the initial scene with James Stewart and Jean Arthur.
Though there may be double and even triple entendres underlying this brilliant bit of business (pure Capra), it plays like the innocent goodnight kiss on your first date – though in fact it's a proposal of marriage.Or watch Miss Arthur and Mr. Barrymore in the bedroom scene, where he reveals why he'll never sell this house, and she reveals how much she loves James Stewart's character.
and contrast his playing here, as Grandpa Vanderhof, who has lived and survived his beloved wife's death and his decision to leave the rat-race with easy gusto, ready humor and sheer delight at the human condition.Or contrast his thoroughly detestable "Mr. Potter" in Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" eight years later, and confined to a wheelchair.THIS Barrymore played roles long after his younger brother, John, died of alcoholism and stardom.Not to slight James Stewart and Jean Arthur.
In a time where It's a Wonderful Life is known now as one of the greatest films of all time, I think a lot of people forget about the greatness that is, You Can't Take it With You. Capra's films often deal a lot with the essence of community and family that trumps all.
Capra does a great job of directing his actors to some of their best performances of their career, along with creating a unique household full of what is probably one of my favorite families in film history.
Everyone loves the Vanderhof's, and so do I.The film is very light hearted and I can understand if people think it could be corny, much like It's a Wonderful Life, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having a story that everyone can enjoy.
The mother writes plays, the daughter dances, the father makes fireworks and a few other people find their way into the house and get swept up in the same fervor.The patriarch of this clan is Grandpa, played with incredible joy and sincerity by the great Lionel Barrymore, who is unquestionably one of the finest and most versatile actors of all time.
It's funny, touching and overall great entertainment.This is a great feel-good film, and if you enjoyed It's a Wonderful Life, I would highly recommend that you see this one too..
Capra the director has great fun with some individual scenes, though others are very slackly edited and directed without much imagination, and he presides over lovely performances from Stewart (playing the same character as usual) and Jean Arthur (in a dullish, underwritten role), notably in their first scene together (she on the telephone); Lionel Barrymore looks generally rather joyless, which actually makes the role more palatable than as written - one gets the impression that all his jollity is forced, and that the spectral presence of his dead wife is what really drives the film.
P. Kirby) is, as I've said, a mere figure of fun, designed to make her husband look salvageable by comparison.The argument appears to be that all of society is one big extended family (the whole block calls Barrymore 'Grandpa', not just his own household) and the film hopes to use the model to justify a paradoxical conservatism in which the good really do know and like their place, but have also chosen it.
Lionel Barrymore gives a great performance delivering the messages of this film.Jimmy Stewart is good in this but as in some of his other earlier performances, he seems restrained in this one.
What a great Capra movie (you'll see a lot of the same people from "It's a Wonderful Life") - sit, watch, and enjoy it!.
It's been said before that other superior Capra movies were less well rewarded than this one which unaccountably for me won the "Best Director" & "Best Film" Oscars of its year, this in a vintage year with "The Adventures Of Robin Hood" and "Angels With Dirty Faces" amongst the shouldn't-have-been runners up.Of course it's not without its charms, with the seniors leading the way in the acting stakes, especially Lionel Barrymore and Edward Arnold, followed by the always watchable James Stewart and Jean Arthur, both, like so many others on view, Capra perennials.
Never mind that Edward Arnold's "Tammany Hall" prototype AP Kirby drives an innocent man to an early death; within minutes he's leading the party in a jamboree by playing a mouth-organ duet with Barrymore to salve his conscience and get us to the predictable happy-ending.Certain scenes are redolent of other films, for example Stewart and Arthur's goofy dance in the park prompted by a bunch of what look like refugee kids from "Our Town" was reworked better in "It's A Wonderful Life", while the couple's embarrassing entrance and exit at a society dinner pales alongside Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn's hilarious doings in a similar scene in Hawks' "Bringing Up Baby".
One further point to James Stewart's credit - he had the sense to recognise Jean Arthur as `the finest actress I ever worked with'.As always with Capra, the quality of the performances of the supporting cast is superb and the scenes between Lionel Barrymore and Jean Arthur are lovely as are the Vanderhoff ensemble scenes but for my money (hopeless romantic that I am) James Stewart and Jean Arthur on screen together is where this film shines - they made the cutest couple of the thirties, if not longer!.
I loved working with such a wonderful script, and it remains one of my favorite stories to this day.I enjoyed the quirkiness of the characters in this movie; however, they have been dummied down from the outrageousness of those in the play.
Frank Capra won his third and final Oscar with this very good comedy that has Jean Arthur and James Stewart falling in love.
Arthur's family, led by the priceless Lionel Barrymore, are eccentrics that just take life as it comes to them while Stewart's parents are well-to-do aristocrats that look down upon those who are not like them.
It's wonderful to see Lionel Barrymore play the completely opposite role from his Mr. Potter in Wonderful Life.This movie is required viewing for all Franco Capra fans.
In a convenient coincidence, the banker's son (Jimmy Stewart) is dating the old man's granddaughter (Jean Arthur), and the pair want to get married, so there are two conflicts here.Barrymore is in the role of the good guy, the one who's figured out that material things are less important than having friends and enjoying life.
"With malice toward none and charity to all," he quotes Lincoln, "Nowadays they say think the way I do or I'll bomb the daylights out of you." It's a wonderful character, and well played by Barrymore.Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur are endearing in their roles as well, and they also turn in very good performances.
When he finally begs Lionel Barrymore for help, we can see that he is a broken man, and it's deeply moving because Arnold plays it so well, and because Capra directs his scenes so quietly and with such understatement.Yes, there is a lot of excess here, especially with the Vanderhof family.
Barrymore is in top form as a warm, lovable man (a totally different character from what he played in "It's a Wonderful Life" 7 years later), Arthur is fresh and appealing and Arnold is very good too.
Lional Barrymore (Grandpa Martin Vanderhof) gave one of his greatest performances as a wise old man who knew that the simple things in life were more important than riches and great ambitions and gave Edward Arnold(Anthony Kirby) "The City That Never Sleeps"'53 who thought money and power was everything in this world, soon learned a very important moral lesson.
The best performance probably comes from Lionel Barrymore: he seems beleaguered by a world that just won't let him and his family *be*, and your heart goes out to him.Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours, but you'd do better to watch "It Happened One Night" if you have a taste for screwball Capra.Grade: B.
The movie works best with Stewart and Arthur but at times, they seem to be the side show.
Kaufman and Moss Hart.The cast is perfect in this movie.Jean Arthur is superb as Alice Sycamore.Lionel Barrymore is brilliant as Grandpa Martin Vanderhof.We've seen it in a few movies how well Frank Capra and James Stewart work together.This movie is not an exception.Jimmy is just terrific as Tony Kirby.Edward Arnold and Mary Forbes do very good job as his parents.Mischa Auer is very funny as Kolenkhov.It's great to watch Ann Miller and her dancing as Essie Carmichael.Dub Taylor plays Ed Carmichael.Charles Lane plays Wilbur G.
I am a big fan of Jean Arthur (Grandpa Vanderhof's granddaughter) and Jimmy Stewart (Mr. Kirby's silver-spoon fed son and love interest of Ms. Vanderhof) as well and their chemistry in this movie was very good.
I saw It's a Wonderful Life before this and it was great seeing Lionel Barrymore play a genuine, kind character - such a contrast from Mr. Potter! |
tt0114697 | Top Dog | The film opens as two white nationalists destroy an apartment complex in which most of the residents are minorities. Veteran police officer, Sgt. Lou Swanson, and his police dog, Reno, investigate the crime and realize the explosives are military in style. Their investigation takes them to the harbor, where they find a ship loaded with weapons. They are discovered and shot. Lou dies, but Reno survives.
Maverick cop Jake Wilder (Chuck Norris), is called by police captain Ken Callahan (Clyde Kusatsu), who requests Jake to take over the case. Jake is angered that he has to work with Reno, despite Reno proving himself capable through a battle training scenario.
Meanwhile, Neo-Nazis are trying to smuggle weapons across the border from Mexico. It is implied that they murdered their Mexican arms dealers. They are stopped by the Border Patrol and try to escape, but their car is destroyed in the process.
Jake and Reno survive an assassination attempt at Jake's home. Afterwards, Jake is visiting his mother, who reveals that Adolf Hitler's birthday will be the following day. Jake realizes this a clue, and takes off running. The police department works with the sheriff's office, as well as the FBI in determining where the Neo-Nazis are going to hit. One officer reveals that on Hitler's birthday (April 20), the Pope, and several other of his esteemed bishops will host the Coalition for Racial Unity.
As the Neo-Nazis hitmen are practicing for their attack, the leaders are revealed not to be just one white supremacist group, but an alliance of several including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, and the Church of the Creator. They plan to use their attack on the Coalition for Racial Unity as an opportunity to unite all the Neo-Nazi groups in the US, as well as the world.
Jake discovers the location of the warehouse where the Neo-Nazis are located. He and Reno go undercover and manage to steal a piece of evidence that could be used to convict the Neo-Nazi leaders. They are discovered and Jake orders Reno to flee with the evidence. Wilder subdues several radicals during the following fight, however he is finally captured, after a dozen attackers confront him at all once, and he's then hit on the head with a blunt object. He wakes up to find that he is tied up and the Neo-Nazi plan is now under way. Reno finds Jake, and eats away his rope bindings, just before a Neo-Nazi has the chance to kill him. Jake is able to call the police chief and tells him that the plan is in motion.
The police, FBI, CTU, and Sheriff's Department arrive as the Coalition for Racial Unity is attacked and in a gun battle many Neo-Nazis are killed. The Pope and his Bishops get in their bulletproof car, but it is rigged to explode. Wilder defuses the bomb, while Reno goes after the Neo-Nazi leader. Wilder chases after him as well, and after a vicious fight, manages to subdue him. Reno is set to attack the Neo-Nazi leader, who confesses to killing Reno's former veteran cop owner. Just before Reno can attack the leader, Lou's grandson, Matthew, arrives to stop him. | violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0025464 | Manhattan Melodrama | On June 15, 1904, the ship General Slocum catches fire and sinks in New York's East River. Two boys, Blackie Gallagher (Mickey Rooney) and Jim Wade (Jimmy Butler), are rescued by a priest, Father Joe (Leo Carrillo), but are orphaned by the disaster. They are taken in by another survivor, Poppa Rosen (George Sidney), who lost his young son in the sinking. The boys live with Poppa Rosen for a short while; then Rosen, a Russian Jew, is trampled to death by a policeman's horse after he heckles Leon Trotsky at a Communist rally and a melee breaks out.
The boys remain close friends, though their lives diverge. Studious from the very beginning, Jim (played as an adult by William Powell) gets his law degree and eventually becomes the assistant district attorney. Blackie is a cheerful, happy-go-lucky kid who loves to throw dice and trick other kids out of their money; he (Clark Gable) becomes the owner of a fancy, if illegal, casino. Though his casino is regularly "raided", the cops have been paid off and business resumes immediately after they leave. Blackie's girlfriend Eleanor (Myrna Loy) loves him, but pleads with him in vain to marry her and give up his dangerous life.
Jim is elected district attorney. Blackie, always a supporter and admirer of Jim's, knowing that he is incorruptible, arranges to meet him for a celebration, but something comes up, and he sends Eleanor to keep Jim company at the Cotton Club until he can join them. Jim and Eleanor talk the night away. Afterward, she gives Blackie one last chance to marry her and settle down. When Blackie refuses, she leaves him.
Months later, Jim and Eleanor meet by chance and start keeping company (she informs Jim that she has not seen Blackie for months). Meanwhile, Blackie kills Manny Arnold (Noel Madison) for not paying his gambling debts. Jim summons him to his office, where he tells him that he and Eleanor are going to get married. Blackie is sincerely happy for both of them. Jim also informs his friend that he is a suspect in the Arnold murder. However, there is no real evidence, so the crime goes unsolved.
Though Jim invites him to be the best man at his wedding, Blackie discreetly turns him down. After returning from his honeymoon, Jim runs for governor of New York. Snow (Thomas E. Jackson), who had been his chief assistant until Jim fired him for corruption, threatens to tell reporters that Jim covered up for Blackie in the Arnold case. Though untrue, this would lose Jim a close race for the governorship. By chance, Blackie and Eleanor meet at the horse track. Eleanor tells Blackie about Snow. Blackie shoots Snow dead in a washroom of Madison Square Garden during a hockey game. A beggar who pretends to be blind sees him leave the scene of the crime. Jim has no choice but to prosecute Blackie. Blackie is convicted and sentenced to death.
Jim wins the election, partly because the public knows that Jim is so honest he prosecuted his childhood friend. Eleanor tries to get him to commute the sentence to life imprisonment, revealing Blackie's selfless motive for killing Snow, but that only makes things worse. When Jim remains steadfast, Eleanor leaves him. At the last moment, Jim hurries to Sing Sing Prison and meets Blackie, together with Father Joe, who is now the prison's chaplain. Jim finally offers to commute the death sentence, but Blackie turns him down. Father Joe leads Blackie to the electric chair while saying last rites.
A few days later Jim calls a special joint session of the New York Legislature. He reveals how the murder helped him win the election and how at the end he compromised his principles and was willing to commute his friend's sentence. He then tenders his resignation. When he leaves, Eleanor is waiting for him. She tells him that she was wrong about him, and they leave together to start a new life. | murder | train | wikipedia | 'Manhattan Melodrama' may not have the stylistic finish to it to make it a great message movie about contemporary 30s issues, but it does go a long way towards that end, and is never less than engaging.Clark Gable is the happy-go-lucky gangster Blackie who is being tried for murder by his boyhood best friend Jim, William Powell, a D.A. who has made it to governor of New York because of a murder done by Blackie, unbeknownst to Jim. On top of it all they both love the same woman, Myrna Loy.Despite its melodramatic but never overwrought style 'Manhattan Melodrama' has sufficient weight and substance to make itself heard 70 years after the fact.
It cuts no convenient corners in the description of the governor's sad plight of having to decide whether his friend should live or die, and it paints a wonderful and believable picture of Loy's character who does what she deems best.
Clark Gable and William Powell are boyhood friends who end up on opposite sides of the law in "Manhattan Melodrama," also starring Myrna Loy. Loy is lovely here, as usual, but she doesn't really have much of a role.
In the first scenes of the film, we see that they are orphaned and taken in by a man who has lost his son in the same fire that killed the boys' friends and family.When we see them in present day, Gable is running an illegal gambling joint, leaning on people for money they owe, and dating the Loy character.
Powell's scene at the end of the film is very touching.Enjoy the great stars and the story, but don't look for laughs..
But for me, watching Clark Gable portray a happy-go-lucky double murderer, who garners tons of sympathy from the audience; it was a first.Manhattan Melodrama is a film of dubious and rather interesting morals.
But here he's played by Clark Gable, about as charming an actor as ever lived, and the movie takes place in the 1930s, when gangster pictures like Little Caesar elevated these types of men into hero roles.The picture makes a very blatant message against the heroic vision of gangsters (In a speech by Jim that feels as if the men who controlled the Production Code were standing off screen holding the cue cards for him).
The second was the Great Depression, and how it impacted the traditional notion of the "American dream." Families – regardless of character or social standing – were torn apart amid the economic collapse, and no doubt many ordinary citizens contemplated crime as the route to happiness.Films like 'Manhattan Melodrama (1934)' and 'Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)' place great emphasis on the thin line between "good" and "bad" characters, and often the central criminals are lamented as victims of circumstance.
Circumstance, too, drives the fates of the characters in 'Manhattan Melodrama.' As children, both Jim Wade (William Powell) and Blackie Gallagher (Clark Gable) lose their parents in the burning of the steamship SS General Slocum, a true-life disaster caused by gross negligence that cost over 1000 lives.
Instead, the story's central conflict unfolds entirely within the righteous Wade, who must choose between his personal and professional allegiances.'Manhattan Melodrama' has achieved some notoriety for being the film that killed John Dillinger, so to speak.
These curious circumstances can't help but make one ponder what Dillinger had thought of 'Manhattan Melodrama.' Had he, like Blackie, accepted that his time was coming to an end?
And Myrna Loy, less than a month before she first appeared as wealthy gumshoe-ette Nora Charles, is the Woman Who Loves Them Both.Gable finds himself in a quandary: should he let old buddy Powell lose the big election over a dirty lie?
The story is a simple one about two men (William Powell, Clark Gable) who grew up together but are on opposite sides of the law.
Myrna Loy also stars as the woman initially with Blackie (Gable) who falls for and marries Jim (Powell).
Myrna Loy, who was often paired with William Powell or Clark Gable, is paired with both in "Manhattan Melodrama".
Powell plays Jim--a childhood friend of Blackie, who, due to shared tragedies, becomes his spiritual brother, but finds success as a D.A. and politician.The film covers a lot of ground and the early scenes move at breakneck speed to bring the story to the adult lives of the main characters.
What is so especially fascinating about this film is that Myrna Loy and Clark Gable do not 'click' at all, and glaze over when they look at one another, despite their best acting efforts to simulate at least some flickers of passion.
MANHATTAN MELODRAMA (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1934), directed by W.S. Van Dyke, has the distinction of being the last movie seen by gangster, John Dillinger, before being gunned down outside Chicago's Biograph Theater by federal agents.
For film historians, it's the first of thirteen movies to team William Powell and Myrna Loy. While not a history about Manhattan and the melodrama involving its police force fighting crime, the movie very much involves the lasting friendship between two men, as played by Clark Gable (excellent portrayal) and William Powell (in MGM debut).
Interestingly both actors were Academy Award nominated as best actors that year of 1934, but for different performances: Gable for IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (Columbia) and Powell for his next assignment, THE THIN MAN, opposite Myrna Loy, yet this was their only melodrama on film together.The story opens with a prologue set on a riverboat, the U.S.S. General Slocum, Wednesday, June 15, 1904.
Move forward to 1920: Blackie (Clark Gable) is now a ruthless underworld leader and owner of a gambling house in Manhattan with Spud (Nat Pendleton) as one of the members of his mob, while Jim (William Powell), a graduate from Columbia University, working his way up from assistant district attorney to district attorney.
With Blackie's arrest and trial, Jim faces a difficult task as to whether to convict his very best friend or lose his respected title as governor.Other appearing in the cast include: Isabel Jewell (Annabelle, a dumb blonde comedy relief); Muriel Evans ("Tootsie" Malone); Frank Conroy, Edward Van Sloan and Samuel S.
Shirley Ross appears briefly in the Cotton Club sequence singing a Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart tune, "The Bad in Every Man," made famous years later under another title, "Blue Moon." A plot devise of boyhood pals growing up on opposite sides of the law may seem unoriginal considering many themes of this nature being played over the years, but depending on how its all played out and performed would give the distinction of success and failure.
While the versatile Cagney continued to play gangster tough guy-types for many years, MANHATTAN MELODRAMA became the last to have Gable leading a mob and carrying a gun.
Myrna Loy's character plays with conviction as well, changing from woman of the world mistress to lady with class, as well as a welcome change of pace watching Leo Carrillo playing his role straight without the usual broken dialect for which he is famous.While MANHATTAN MELODRAMA did not have as many television broadcasts in the sixties and seventies as any James Cagney or Humphrey Bogart crime melodramas for Warner Brothers, with the only way of viewing it back then was attending a revival movie house, the film does deserve to be part of the classic crime films of the 1930s, while in fact it is.
What a year Clark Gable, Myrna Loy and William Powell had in 1934, huh?
But Manhattan Melodrama shouldn't be discounted too quickly - at the least it's more than the simple footnote of Dillinger's pre-death-flick (I can relate - I would be there to see Myrna Loy, too).The film actually reminds me a bit of a later 30's flick, Angels with Dirty Faces - that film too was about two childhood friends, New Yorkers all the way, who go through paths in life that diverse, one to crime, the other to a more professional/helpful path.
Powell becomes a lawyer, then a prosecutor for the state and, eventually, governor, while Gable is always the gambler, the gangster, the guy who just wants to have a good time.
And Loy plays the girl who doesn't really come between them as stay friendly-if-neutral to Blackie while marrying Jim Wade - that, give the movie credit, would've been an easy direction for the melodrama as a love triangle, but it's more complicated, to be sure.The script gives its actors some good dramatic dialog to chew on, and among all the roles Gable probably gets to have the most fun while playing a not-too-good guy.
This has star power to burn; the actors all click together, and no wonder with Loy, but Gable and Powell work very well and believably together too, with the conflicts that come up between the brothers - of law and order vs the gangster way, albeit this isn't as harsh a look as 'Angels' - and how the dynamics subtly change over time.You might not think there's any arc here, but there are, at the least with Powell's Jim Wade who gets on the rise as a law-and-order man but has this friend who could be his downfall.
he's Gable - but watch for him in the last scene he has with Powell, he goes between a range of emotions that is just electrifying to watch (for me more believable than almost anything in Gone with the Wind).If Manhattan Melodrama is successful, and I think it is, it's because watching these actors - stars - in these roles, acting their asses off to make this more than believable, rather natural work, and van Dyke has some nice directorial choices.
That film history fact is about the only real distinction this well named "melodrama" has.Once again, it's a buddy story for Gable, this time the childhood pal of WILLIAM POWELL.
The cast surrounding the stars is an excellent one and Woody Van Dyke II directed with his usual skill, but there's no doubt of the film's dated attitudes and style as an old-fashioned melodrama.Trivia note: Hardest to accept is the fact that Mickey Rooney grows up to be Clark Gable!
If the story sounds familiar, you might be thinking of "San Francisco" which had Gable and Tracy taking different paths and in love with the same woman--this time it's MYRNA LOY.Loy plays her role as though it's an extension of her Nora role in "The Thin Man", so nothing seems fresh and original about the characters.
It's a well done examination of self, brought on by his great friendship with Gable and the final scenes are effectively played.Too slow for modern audiences, the film is notable only for the good chemistry between the stars but is overly melodramatic at every turn.
I didn't see it in 1934, I saw it last night; and the trouble is that almost anybody my age has seen 1938's San Francisco wherein Clark Gable once again played the semi-bad guy called Blackie, and the story was similar.
The movie also suffers from having Clark Gable, Merna Loy and William Powell in a romantic triangle.
Two kids, Mickey Rooney and Jimmy Butler who later become Clark Gable and William Powell, are left orphaned as a result of the famous General Slocum disaster in the first years of the 20th century.
If he wanted to see Gable, Powell, and Loy so badly, he should have waited later in the year for It Happened One Night or The Thin Man..
After all, it's hard NOT to enjoy a film starring Clark Gable, William Powell and Myrna Loy--they were dynamite actors and professionals.
It saw the first pairing of William Powell and Myrna Loy, whose chemistry on screen here worked so well that they would ultimately be teamed 14 times together in films.
Today, almost 80 years since its release, the film still retains its impact and wonderful entertainment value, thanks largely to a terrific script and the megawatt star power of its three leads.In the film, we meet two young chums, Jim Wade and "Blackie" Gallegher (the latter played by 13-year-old, 14th billed Mickey Rooney).
And then things become even more problematic, when Blackie kills a man and D.A. Wade must prosecute the case and find the killer....Harking back to Dillinger, I must say that if you are ever given the choice as to what your last movie will be before being executed, you could do a lot worse than "Manhattan Melodrama." All three stars are given ample opportunities to shine here: Gable is extremely likable, his faithfulness to his old buddy never wavering; Powell gives two tremendous speeches, one in the courtroom as he urges for the death penalty for his old friend, the other in front of the State Assembly; and Loy is just as sexy and beautiful as can be.
(Lorenz Hart would later rewrite the lyrics and turn it into the familiar standard "Blue Moon"!) Not to mention the crackerjack direction of W.S. Van Dyke, who would go on to helm four of the six "Thin Man" films starring Powell and Loy, and three films with Gable, including "San Francisco." Perfect entertainment package that the film is, it also offers the viewer a trip to Harlem's Cotton Club, a hockey game at Madison Square Garden AND a horse race at Belmont (during which the boys get out of Manhattan for a while, for an afternoon in Queens).
I mentioned "San Francisco" (1936); in that film his character was also named Blackie; and there was a conflict between the somewhat bad Blackie there and another man (in that case Spencer Tracy instead of William Powell) and a sort of battle of wills as to what kind of woman she (Jeanette MacDonald instead of Myrna Loy) would become.This is one of William Powell's better roles...and he usually was wonderful!
It takes this storyline very seriously and it works in large part thanks to the performances of both Powell and his counter part who is of course the suave and cool Clark Gable as the gangster Blackie Gallagher.
Powell is good as Wade and I like how the character is written as a man with an insanely strict moral compass who has a friend in Blackie.The biggest thing I wanted to see though was these friends being forced to reconcile their natures with their friendship.
One can't go wrong with Clark Gable, William Powell and Myrna Loy in the leads, and they all do commendable work.
I was on the lookout for this film after watching 2009's "Public Enemies", a story about 1930's gangster John Dillinger, who met his end coming out of a theater after watching "Manhattan Melodrama".
At least Blackie saw it coming, Dillinger got it in the back.I've recently been on a William Powell/Myrna Loy kick, but this one was more of a Powell/Gable flick.
The difference between the careers of a gangster and a politician are a matter of degree.Aside from the 'melodrama' aspects of the story, I was fascinated by an early scene when Blackie and Jim were still young boys.
"Manhattan Melodrama" is the only movie that Clark Gable and William Powell made together.
Nowhere is such honor better displayed than in the ending, which is a nice surprise, Although Gable and Powell had only this one film between them, female co-star Myrna Loy had many more films with both actors.
Clark Gable may be the gangster here, but Dillinger apparently went to see this because of his affection for its leading lady, Myrna Loy. She's Gable's old girlfriend who ends up choosing to become the wife of his old pal, William Powell, who is a candidate for governor.
The film earned a special place in history as, after John Dillinger attended a screening of it in Chicago on July 22, 1934, he was gunned down by the FBI.The film stars Clark Gable and William Powell as the gangster and illegal casino owner Edward J.
"Blackie" Gallagher and William Powell as the Manhattan District Attorney turned Governor of New York James W.
After seeing this one for the first time, I wonder how the entire public missed a great film.Clark Gable played a killer named Blackie in this one.
Myrna Loy is the woman between both of them.After watching Powell and Loy in the Thin Man movies, this film is a guilty sin of pleasure watching them getting involved in a triangle with Clark Gable.
Mankiewicz and stars William Powell, Clark Gable and Myrna Loy.William Powell gives one of his best performances in this as District Attorney Jim Wade.
In my opinion though this film is Powell's, he gives one of his best performances especially in the later scenes where he wrestles with his own conscience about Blackie's sentence.Over the years the film has become famous as well for being the film that John Dillinger had just finished watching when he was killed..
The difference between his noble refusal to live imprisoned rather than to get it all over with as soon as possible and Powell's presentation of the governor as weak makes Gable look that much more charismatic.But what I found strange here was Myrna Loy's character's efforts to get her husband the governor to pardon Blackie.
Fast forward 16 years, Jim (William Powell) has earned a law degree; Blackie (Clark Gable) runs an illegal gambling establishment.
In black and white for everyone to see.A gangster movie starring Clark Gable, William Powell and Myrna Loy, thankfully I was not disappointed.
I cannot believe anyone who is a gangster film fan, or a fan of Powell, Loy or Gable cannot love this film.
Clark Gable, William Powell, Myrna Loy. How could it be a bad movie?
It's an MGM A-Frame with Gable & Powell as boyhood friends and Myrna Loy as the woman they both grew up loving.Everyone acts their guts out in this aptly-titled tearjerker which was evidently filmed and released before lunch. |
tt0119115 | Fierce Creatures | The film opens with Willa Weston (Jamie Lee Curtis) arriving in Atlanta to take a high ranking position in a company recently acquired by Octopus Inc.'s owner, Rod McCain (Kevin Kline). But Rod informs her that he has already sold the company where she was to work. Willa then agrees to run another recent acquisition, Marwood Zoo, in an attempt to create a business model that can be used for multiple zoos in the future. Rod McCain's son Vincent (Kevin Kline), who feels an unreciprocated attraction to Willa, announces that he will join her at the zoo.
The newly appointed director of the zoo is a retired Hong Kong Police Force officer and former Octopus Television employee, Rollo Lee (John Cleese). In order to meet Octopus's revenue target of 20% from all assets, Rollo institutes a "fierce creatures" theme on the assumption that dangerous and violent animals will attract more visitors. All animals not meeting those requirements must go. All the animal keepers, including spider-handler Bugsy (Michael Palin), make various attempts to get Rollo to change his mind. One of which is getting Rollo to exterminate five cute animals himself. But Rollo, seeing through their prank, fakes the animals' extermination. Rolls keeps the animals in his bedroom which later caused Willa and Vincent to misunderstand that Rollo is having sex orgy with female staff.
Rollo discovers that several staffs are faking horrific animal attack injuries. Rollo fires several warning shots at those responsible and Reggae (Ronnie Corbett) rushed in, mistook one of them is shot. Rollo then finds a visitor who has had a genuine accident but, not believing it is real, tastes the blood of the visitor whilst loudly proclaiming that it is fake. Just then Willa and Vincent arrive and this fiasco sees Rollo demoted to middle management. Vince even threatens to fire him if his apparent activities with female staff do not cease.
Vince covers zoo and animals alike with advertisements after secretly garnering sponsors; dresses the staff in ridiculous outfits and installs an artificial panda in one the enclosures. His continued attempts to seduce Willa fail, while she comes to enjoy working at the zoo, after having a close encounter with a silver-back gorilla. She finds herself attracted to Rollo after becoming fascinated by his apparent ability to attract multiple women. When Rollo attempts to have a discussion about Vince's marketing plan, she suggests they have dinner. But she is forced to postpone when she remembers Rod is coming from Atlanta to discuss the running of the zoo.
Worried that the visit may be part of a plan to close the zoo, Rollo and the zookeepers quickly bug Rod's hotel room to find out. Although the plan goes awry, they learn that Rod wants to turn over the zoo to the Japanese to make a golf-course and is not intending to die.
Upon discovering that Vince has stolen sponsorship money he raised, Willa warns him to return it, or else, she will tell Rod. When Rollo attempts to work out how the theft can be traced,he and Willa finally kiss, just as Vince arrives to return the money. A confrontation takes place first at the zoo office, and then outside as Willa, Rollo, Bugsy and several others attempt to stop Vince from running off with the money. Bugsy refuses to shut up, so Vince loses his temper and grabs a pistol from the management office. Rod arrives just as Vince is being subdued and announces the police are on their way to arrest Vince for stealing. Vince tries and fails to shoot his father, but then Bugsy takes the pistol and accidentally shoots Rod between the eyes.
In the panic that follows, a plan emerges to fool Neville (Bille Brown) and the arriving police. The keepers work together to dress Vince up as Rod, since he can imitate his father's accent fairly well. When the police and Neville arrive, Vince (as Rod) tells them that he has re-written Rod's will, specifying that the zoo will become a trust of the caretakers while Vince will inherit everything else, and he wants all of them to be witnesses. After signing the new will, Vince locks himself in a caretaker hut where he feigns Rod's suicide. Although Neville becomes suspicious, he is left dumbstruck when he discovers the dead body of his boss in the hut (and Vince promptly fires him before he can recover).
Now free, the zookeepers destroy the evidence of McCain's ownership. Vince becomes the new CEO of Octopus, while Willa and Rollo happily begin a new life together continuing to run the zoo. | cult, comedy, humor | train | wikipedia | "Fierce Creatures" was marketed as a somewhat adventurous endeavour in teaming up much of the old team from the highly acclaimed "A Fish called Wanda" to do another film that was completely different and had nothing the same, except much of the cast.Does this have the same sparkle?
Put in charge is Rollo Lee (John Cleese), who is then somewhat overthrown by new recruit Willa Weston (Jamie Lee Curtis) and McCain's 'idiot' son Vince (also Kline).
It's by no means the best comedy put on film but it has a lot of the same laughs as a normal Cleese-written comedy; in some ways the character of Rollo Lee is very much like the character of Basil Fawlty.
Yes, I know it wasn't as good as A Fish Called Wanda (which it was the unofficial "sequel" to - being not a continuation of the same characters, but featuring all the same lead actors, in roughly the same configuration and relation to one another as in the previous film).
All the while, a budding romance between Cleese and Curtis is playing out behind the scenes, and the two eventually join forces to try and save the zoo from the clutches of the crass and evil conglomerate.Any one of the comic scenarios the film-makers bring up would be worth exploring to the end.
Although Cleese's character is somewhat 'Fawlty-esque', and let's face it - this is what he does best, I found it thoroughly enjoyable.Jamie lee Curtis and Michael Palin do equally well, though Palin's character is almost as frustrating / annoying as was his role in 'Wanda', but I don't think this detracts from the enjoyability factor of the film.This is an uplifting, and heart-warming affair, packed full of laughs, but with a more than reasonable plot line, and I really liked the ending, which cleverly capitalizes on Klines excellent character acting.If I had to level any sort of criticism at 'Fierce creatures', it would be in the soundtrack department - i just didn't think it was as good as it could have been - but this makes little difference to the overall flow of the film, and I have no hesitation in awarding it 9.5 out of 10, and recommending it to anyone that enjoys a well made and endearing, quality comedy..
It may be that Michael Palin is just so damn funny and typically Monty Python-like in the film, it may be that Jamie Lee Curtis has a surprising amount of comedic talent, it may be that Kevin Kline is excellent in both of his roles in the film...
The acting is very good, but one wouldn't expect any less from such names as John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin.
I understand that this is, in some ways, apparently a sequel to the late-80's comedy A Fish Called Wanda; now, I haven't seen that film, so I can't really comment on how the two relate to each other, but if "Wanda" is in any way as funny as this movie, I'm gonna have to see it sometime.
What makes is outstanding, are the four partners in crime as written by John Cleese and played by Cleese himself, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Palin, and Kevin Kline that were simply incredible, and, let's face it, despite being criminals and back-stabbers, you would love them all.
The best, the funniest moments play off mistaken assuming that John Cleese's character Rollo, ex-cop appointed the London Marwood Zoo Director, is a sexy beast for whom one woman is not enough.
The film has so many hilarious jokes and witty references not only to A Fish Called Wanda but to Monty Python series that by the time of the conclusion, I had enough fun and laughs to tolerate and forgive the loud and messy final act..
Kevin Kline plays a double role as a media mogul (obviously based on Rupert Murdoch) and the mogul's parasitic son, totally indifferent about animals; both characters will probably make your skin crawl.Most of the humor here involves things such as men getting caught with their pants down and Freudian slips.
Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Palin play the only two 100% respectable characters in the movie, but you gotta love the other stars' performances.
When a old farting heartless corporate mogul (Oscar-Winner:Kevin Kline) takes over a failing Zoo. The mogul is hoping to make money out of it by hiring a new Zoo director (John Clesse) by making the animals fiercer under the supervision of a bright business woman (Jamie Lee Curtis) and the dumb mogul's son (Played by Kline also).
The bad guys are Kevin Kline, Jamie Lee Curtis, and John Cleese, at least until Curtis and Cleese fall for each other.Cleese intends to make money from the zoo by offing all the cuddly little animals and replacing them with "fierce creatures." The tree huggers who run the zoo and love all the animals try to convince the dim-witted Cleese that the cuddly things are in actuality deadly when provoke, telling him tales of people who have torn to shreds by an angry lemur and other nonsense.Cleese is persuaded not to kill the animals but he advertises them all as Dangerous to Man and, to boost profits, drags in merchandising in various forms.
One has to forget the concern that might be felt for characters in pain in most movies or TV shows, and just enjoy the moment.John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis both do fine jobs here.
Despite the fact that this movie isn't a sequel to "A Fish Called Wanda", many people like to compare this "Fierce Creatures" with it.
This movie is from the same people who starred in the english comedy "a fish called wanda"!!A tycoon takes over a zoo.
Eventually the son and the zoo staff come up with a way to save the zoo!!If you Kevin Kline(in 2 roles),John Cleese(The Out of Towners,The World is Not Enough), Jamie Lee Curtis(True Lies,Halloween) and Micheal Palin(I dont know anything about him,Sorry!!) , then you might like this farce about a very strange zoo with the "fish called wanda" gang!!!.
As with Wanda, though, it's Kevin Kline who really steals the show - this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis's pants).
As with Wanda, though, it's Kevin Kline who really steals the show - this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis's pants).
Jon Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Micheal Palin make this one of the funniest movies of all time..
John's and Kevin's characters were not as interesting to watch in this film when compared to their performances in a fish called wanda.
John Cleese is much more enjoyable as characters who more closely resemble the refined, innocent man finding himself turning to sinful desire and being conflicted about the entire process (such as he played in a fish called wanda) and is not nearly as interesting to watch as the fast talking, sarcastic, hyper, off-the-hinge, raspy voiced, domineering man in charge (such as he played in fierce creatures and rat race).
Sadly the latter has become his go to role and it lacks depth of some of his former roles of conflict over innocence and desire.Kevin Kline was much more interesting to watch as the dangerous, manly, cunning, jealous, criminal airhead that he played in a fish called wanda more so than the character he played in this movie which was more less masculine, more effeminate (scarf wearing entrance), metrosexual, suit and tie, submissive, airhead, incompetent son who pervertedly and awkwardly pines for dates with the ladies..
It seemed that after the legendary Monty Python films and TV series, the brilliant Fawlty Towers and the hilarious A Fish Called Wanda, writer-actor John Cleese couldn't go wrong.
Rather than laughing, it pained me to see such a talented cast as Cleese, Palin, Kline, Curtis and Aitken wasted in undeveloped roles as they waddle through this puerile, unfunny and badly written film.How can people say this is better than Fish Called Wanda?
I think the box office takings speak for themselves: Wanda - US$150 million, Fierce Creatures - US$20 million.I tried watching this film a second time, to see if it gets better, it didn't.
Whatever you do, forget this piece of trash and watch something by Monty Python or A Fish Called Wanda, which is John Cleese at his absolute writing and acting best..
"Fierce Creatures" reunites basically the entire starring cast from that movie (John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Palin and Kevin Kline) but gives them a totally unrelated and original story to work with (although the very last scene of the movie does pay homage to the earlier movie, as Cleese's character inadvertently calls Curtis's "Wanda.") So this isn't a sequel in any way, shape or form.
But if you've ever seen "A Fish Called Wanda" you're going to be painfully aware that this isn't as good.In this, Curtis is actually playing Willa Weston, an employee of a media mogul who's just bought a zoo in England and - unknown to Willa, who's sent to take charge of it - is planning to close it.
(Cleese is perhaps the only one of the stars who I thought was as good and as much fun as in "Wanda.") Kline played both the mogul and his son Vince, sent with Willa, and in love with her (and equally convinced that she's in love with him) while Palin played one of the zookeepers, with a particular soft spot for tarantulas.It is, in fact, nowhere near as good as "A Fish Called Wanda." What I liked about it, though, was that it did make me laugh out loud several times - and many so-called comedies don't do that, and don't even come close to doing that.
The actors are great, they work well together but the script just seems flat.One amusing little bit is that again John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis wind up as lovers as they did in their previous movie.
With the return of the main cast of Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin and Cleese, its follow-up, "Fierce Creatures" overcompensates with its touchy-feely sentimentality for animals locked in cages.
Here, some jabs are taken at American corporate greed, and, at least, Kline gets to play dual roles again--more obviously this time by playing two different characters, but Curtis is entirely reduced to being a prize for the hero, and instead of counter jab at the English, there's a running gag of Cleese being mistaken as sexually promiscuous.Sure, it's funny in parts.
This film reunites the cast of "A Fish Called Wanda." I've never seen it but I have seen "Fierce Creatures" and Kevin Kline is one of my favorite actors.When I watched this film I laughed as much as I laughed during Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
John Cleese appears to now have "got lucky" with his previous effort, "A Fish Called Wanda" as this garbage, masquerading as a comedy fails to meet any criteria required of one.The crude caricature of an Australian media magnate, played by Kevin Kline sums up the movie.
I would certainly be rating this film much lower if it was not for the undeniable chemistry and comic timing between Kevin Kline, John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Palin.
As much as it is a pleasure to see these four on screen once again, Fierce Creatures is a let down for fans of both Monty Python and A Fish Called Wanda, if you see it on television it is worth a watch, but do not go out of your way to see it.
A follow-up to the wildly popular 'A Fish Called Wanda', starring the same four legendary actors, John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin.
In order to boost profits, Lee decides to institute a "fierce creatures" policy that means, that only potentially deadly animals will be featured in the zoo.Clesse's Writing is funny at parts, but at times, it's dumb.
Even Maria Aitken, who was great as the wife in A Fish Called Wanda, has a small part in this film, which she plays well.The script for this movie is excellent.
Fierce Creatures is the quasi-sequel to the great A Fish Called Wanda, a movie I need to revisit as well.
Well, of course it's no "A Fish Called Wanda", but be realistic; how often can one obtain perfection?This still has a lot of laughs for me, like when the zoo workers try to convince Cleese how dangerous some actually harmless animals are, or the corporate sponsorship gags, or even how Kline and Curtis mistook Cleese for a sex machine.
Well, the comedy quad of John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Palin, and Kevin Kline have done it again.
A fish called Wanda was a classic Adult comedy.this has a PG so its more Carry On.this has its share of belly laughs.the movie has a Terrific cast.Kline was great as the inept son.Cleese was also excellent.the supporting cast Robert Lindsay Ronnie Corbett and Derek Griffiths are given little to do which was a shame.the music score by my favourite composer is probably his worst score ever.Carey Lowell one of the best ever Bond Girls has a thankless role.but as a comedy it made me laugh.nice and colourful a great movie.
The cast is still great as is the script.Rollo Lee(Cleese)is determined to change the image of his zoo by only putting fierce animals in the cages for the public to see while his staff(which includes the always funny Michael Palin)tries to stop it.
That is to say, none of the actors involved in the two movies - John Cleese, Michael Palin, Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline - play the same characters, and the setting is completely different.
It's not nearly as good as "A fish called Wanda", which deserves to be remembered.To me, this movie fails not so much in the comic timing or its delivery - the situation development is clearly Cleese, and smacks of the classic 'Fawlty Towers' episodes - but the subject matter.
The big brash head of the company (Kevin Kline) demands a 20% return on his money from all his enterprises, so he hires a chinese ex-policeman called Rollo Lee (John Cleese - and no, he doesn't look chinese at all) to supervise the zoo's earnings and get them over the 20% limit.
To do this, he demands that the only animals allowed in the zoo are supposed to be fierce man-eaters, to get the audiences.Well, the boss sends two supervisors; his son (Kevin Kline again, he can't resist those roles where he gets to dress up) and a girl called Willa (Jamie Lee Curtis).
This is one of the funniest pictures I have seen .Even though their was some confusion regarding if this was a sequel to a Fish Called Wanda which it wasn't.People just thought that because of the actors.but this movie is hysterical and a little violent but funny violent not morbid.****.
Arguably the greatest quartet of actors (John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin) assembled for a movie return one more time in "Fierce Creatures", an unofficial reunion of the major players from the excellent "A Fish Called Wanda".
Kline's son (played by Kline again) and new employee Jamie Lee Curtis come to take over the duties of former director John Cleese (keeping him on in a lesser role) and Curtis falls in love with the way the zoo is while Kline thinks about nothing except making money.
So is John Cleese, Michael Palin, Kevin Kline and Jamie Lee Curtis.Fierce Creatures is not a sequel to the hilarious A Fish Called Wanda from 1988, it just a film that contains the same main actors playing entirely different characters.Cleese plays Rollo Lee a former Chinese policeman now Director of an English Zoo for a new parent company ingeniously named Octopus Inc. It is Octopus's policy to bring all businesses up to a rigid 20% profit margin or risk being closed down.
because its a different movie and i think the critics were expecting a sequel of Wanda...what they get is something even more original, even funnier and in keeping with British farce with a plot...we get good comedy, beautiful ladies and brilliant performances from the animals...one of the funniest scenes is the hotel spider set always makes me laugh.If u ever need to introduce a fierce creatures policy - watch this film on NOT how to do it.....its an education.
At the same time Rollo must contend with Willa Weston and Vince McCain (Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline) who are overseeing this latest acquisition by the company to make sure it makes money.You see the problem with this comedy is the fact they have tried to basically remake 'Wanda'.
The film comprises of the actors from A Fish Called Wanda, but unlike the previous movie, the comedy in Fierce Creatures is much more Pythonisque.
I didn't really enjoy "A Fish Called Wanda" mostly because of the total lack of scenes between Cleese's character and Michael Palin's.
Anyway, A Fish Called Wanda was a fantastic comedy written by John Cleese, this follow-up may not be as funny, but it is quite fun to watch.
The moments between Rollo (John Cleese) and Willa (Wanda- I mean Jamie Lee Curtis) are even more forced than in A Fish Called Wanda, which was at least part deliberate.
Fierce Creatures (1997): Dir: Fred Schepisi, Robert Young / Cast: John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin, Robert Lindsay: Not a sequel to the superior A Fish Called Wanda as it is a reunion of the cast. |
tt2053352 | Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel | The film features recorded audio and filmed interviews of Vreeland, as well as interviews with colleagues, family, and friends of Vreeland. Beginning with an exploration of Vreeland’s childhood, the film offers a glimpse of fashionable Paris during the Belle Époque, a time when Vreeland had access to exciting and influential friends of her parents, such as ballet dancer Sergei Diaghilev. She even claimed to have ridden with Buffalo Bill Cody, though the documentary makes it clear that Vreeland would occasionally exaggerate for the sake of storytelling.
The film then focuses on Diana’s move to New York City in the 1920s, where she was inspired by the dancing, jazz, and new fashions of the time, and her subsequent move to London with her husband, Reed Vreeland. Here she opened a lingerie shop, thus beginning her career in fashion. Shortly after moving back to New York when war broke out in Europe, Vreeland was asked to do a column in Harper’s Bazaar called “Why Don’t You…?” She quickly became the magazine’s fashion editor and, as such, revolutionized fashion by doing such acts as popularizing the blue jean and the bikini.
Much of the documentary looks at Vreeland’s time at Vogue, where she began working after nearly two-and-a-half decades at Harper’s Bazaar. Vreeland quickly became the editor-in-chief at Vogue, making the magazine into a much-loved artistic publication. The documentary features several accounts from people who worked with Vreeland during this time, including models, photographers, and fellow editors, discussing Vreeland’s drive and her vision for the magazine.
The film ends with Vreeland’s time as a consultant for the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which she became after being asked to leave Vogue in 1971, and final recollections of Vreeland and her fashion legacy. | romantic, philosophical, storytelling, home movie | train | wikipedia | An audacious lady who became the First Name of Fashion in "Modern Times ". Her first name Diana is pronounced "Deeanna). Unsure if that was to sound better with Vreeland or was the original pronunciation. It would surprise me not one whit if she suddenly changed it because it went better - that is the audaciousness of who she was.To view this very well done documentary is a sheer delight and an amazing time capsule of women's fashions and a very intimate and up close documentary of the woman who has had the biggest impact of anyone on the planet on women's fashions.You will be highly entertained, laugh often at this most audacious lady who says "Live the life you know you want, make it your own". Who's statements of fact become what she terms "faction" a better story than telling it like it actually was.It is rare to meet someone who so lived their life at full throttle. A fascinating in-depth documentary that includes conversation with Diana, those who worked with her, celebrities, musicians, etc.You cannot help but be mesmerized and riveted. Loads of pictures, covers of Vogue, Harpers Bazaar, and notable people.Her impact on fashion, photography, creating an experience on the pages of these fashion magazines that challenged, entertained and gave snippets of geography, history and knowledge to the reader was and still is unmeasurable.I am so happy that I enjoyed the full movie experience to this bigger than life Grand Dame. A definite buy when available on DVD - but I do encourage you to see it in the theater.. A feast for the eye. This is an art history of the twentieth century as seen through fashion, its most glittering art form. Weaving together video footage, magazine layouts, and first-hand accounts, the filmmakers trace the life of DV, one of fashion's all-time most imaginative thinkers.Born rich ('but ugly', as her mother would have said) in Paris at the turn of the century, she partied her way to New York. When Carmel Snow noticed her chic outfit in a nightclub, she offered her a job at Harper's Bazaar. Thus began a fabulous self-created career, first at HB through the thirties forties and fifties, and then at Vogue in the sixties. There, she launched photographers like Richard Avedon and David Bailey, and put designers like Yves St Laurent on the map. She discovered an endless succession of models like Verushka and Iman, who turned notions of beauty inside out. And she originated idea of celebrities as models, studding Vogue with wonderful shots of Cher, Mick Jagger, and Jacqueline Kennedy. She also spent staggering amounts of Vogue's money pursuing fashionable subjects around the globe; they she fired her in 1972. She was not idle for long- soon the Metropolitan Museum persuaded her to help launch the Costume Institute. There, she was able to bring her extravagant sense of fashion to a wide audience, and, not incidentally, throw some great parties.The best thing a documentary can do is pick a fascinating subject, and clearly, DV was a LOT of fun. A Who's Who of actors, artists, writers, and fashion luminaries signed on to supply their recollections, both then and now. Her interviews with George Plimpton, Jack Paar, and Dick Cavett are lavishly excerpted, as well as material from her sons and grandchildren. (Her granddaughter's reading aloud from a vintage issue of Vogue is definitely a high point!) The wealth of material here is stunning- and the filmmakers' skill in handling it is a triumph.. enjoyable but annoying. Diana Vreeland: The Eye has to Travel, was an interesting film but a few jarring issues made it hard for me to really enjoy it. Firstly, the decision by the film maker (who I assume is a relative of the subject) to leave unchallenged Ms Vreeland's assertion that she was "not rich". How can anyone how has their clothes tailor-made by Coco Chanel be anything else! Not rich compared to whom, the Vanderbilts? Also the decision not to name any of the talking heads was infuriating. I note one of the other reviewers claims that the child reading from a magazine column was a grandchild of the subject. How did they know that? The print I saw did not identify a single soul. Finally, several of these nameless heads spoke in languages other than English, and none of what they said was translated. Mystifying! Maybe I saw a dodgy version, and all the captions and subtitles left off... Or maybe I am too much of a pleb to be included in the target audience for this film (who are trilingual and have an intimate inside knowledge of the fashion industry and an encyclopeadic knowledge of the physical appearance of dozens of designers, photographers, models and, I assume, hangers on of the fashion world). Bah humbug.. Fascinating Documentary of a Unique Personality. I found this documentary of the life and career of Diana Vreeland to be very fascinating. The journey of her life is conveyed through recorded interviews she game to writer George Plimpton , who was writing her autobiography "D.V.", as well as clips from interviews she gave to Diane Sawyer, Jane Pauley, and Dick Cavett, among others. Additionally, there's interviews with many people that worked with her over the years such as designers, models, photographers, film stars, assistants, and her family. There's many wondrous film clips of the eras and people of her time.The movie covers her personal life and personality to some degree as well. She had a pampered childhood growing up in Europe, but suffered, it seemed, verbal abuse at the hands of her mother who referred to her as her "ugly little monster" and "ugly duckling". Eventually she met her husband Reed Vreeland and entered a marriage that lasted nearly a half century. Before, WWII, she moved to America, and eventually began working for the famed Harper's Bazaar magazine. She quickly rose to become fashion editor, but was notorious for her demanding and rude ways with her assistants, one of which surprisingly was the future movie actress Ali MacGraw.At Harper's, Vreeland displayed many of the characteristics that made her so unique. She was an amazing visionary with seemingly impeccable instincts for fashion and how to transform that onto the pages of the mag. She also had an amazing eye for beauty in the models that were photographed and knew how to accentuate those features of the models that no one else could. Such notables as Lauren Bacall, Cher, Lauren Hutton, Twiggy, Marisa Berenson, Penelope, and Veruschka, all thrived under her watch at Harper's and later Vogue magazine.After many years at Harper's, Vreeland was lured to Vogue to become Editor-In-Chief. It was the 1960's and the freedom and revolutionary spirit of the time were perfect for her. She thrived there as well and added to her legend. In her seventies, she became a lead consultant for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and their Costume Institute, where she staged fantastic exhibitions for the museum.All in all, I was quite fascinated by this detailed documentary on the genius, and the "warts", of a very unique personality who added so much to the eras she lived through. |
tt0463034 | You, Me and Dupree | Molly (Kate Hudson) and Carl (Matt Dillon) are preparing for their wedding day in Hawaii, until Carl's friend Neil (Seth Rogen) interrupts to say that Randolph Dupree (Owen Wilson) got lost. They drive off together to pick up Dupree, who appeared to have hitched a ride with a light plane after landing on the wrong island. A day before the wedding, Molly's father, Bob Thompson (Michael Douglas), who is also CEO of the company that Carl works for, makes a toast with humorous remarks at Carl's expense, foreshadowing a conflict between the two. Later at a pre-celebration at a bar, Carl neglects Dupree to be with Molly. Carl and Dupree later make up on the beach, as Dupree apologizes for laughing at Molly's father's jokes. Carl and Molly get married. When Carl returns to work, at Molly's father's Thompson Land Development, he is surprised to find that Mr. Thompson has promoted him to be in charge of a design he proposed, though it had been altered somewhat.
Mr. Thompson makes absurd requests which proceed to get worse, starting with Thompson's drastic reimagining of Carl's new architecture project and that Carl get a vasectomy to prevent any future children with his daughter. Before returning home to celebrate his promotion with Molly, Carl stops by the bar, where he finds Neil and Dupree. After Neil leaves, Dupree reveals that he has financial problems, such as being evicted from his home and losing his job and car. Carl and Molly take Dupree into their home, though clearly they are frustrated as he is disruptive and messy. Molly sets up Dupree with a woman at her work, a primary school, who is a Mormon librarian. Dupree agrees, though Molly is shocked to find them having graphic sex when she comes home from dinner. Romantic candles burn down the front of the living room, and Dupree is kicked out.
Meanwhile, Carl is being continually stressed out from work, though he and Molly find time to go out for dinner. On the way back they find Dupree sitting on a bench in heavy rain with his belongings. Dupree reveals that the librarian had just dumped him. Feeling pity, Molly insists they take him back in. Dupree apologizes for being disruptive and agrees to mend his ways. The next day, Dupree makes amends, refurbishing the living room, and doing Carl's thank-you letters, as well as making friends with kids from the block. Dupree cooks a large dinner for Molly and Carl, though Carl is late again, so Molly and Dupree start without him. When Carl finally shows up, he is a little jealous that they were having dinner together, and have a fight. Carl kicks Dupree out, suspecting an affair, which shocks Dupree. The following night, Mr. Thompson comes over for dinner. Dupree attempts to sneak back in to their home to get some of his belongings, but fails and falls off the roof. He is found outside and is invited in for dinner.
After Mr. Thompson takes a liking to Dupree and asks him to go fishing with him, it enrages Carl because - even though he doesn't like fishing - it's Mr. Thompson's way of approving someone. Carl's fury boils over as he then imagines Dupree hanging out with Mr. Thompson and engaging in sex with Molly, causing Carl to jump across the table and attempting to strangle Dupree; Mr. Thompson hits Carl over the head with a candlestick shortly after. After returning from the hospital with a neck brace, Dupree and Molly confront Mr. Thompson about what he really thinks of his new son-in-law, while Carl had left. The next morning, Dupree gets all the local kids to search for Carl. Dupree eventually finds Carl in the bar, and convinces him to chase after Molly. Dupree helps Carl break into Mr. Thompson's office and confront him while Dupree himself distracts and evades a Samoan guard. Carl and Mr. Thompson finally reach an understanding and Thompson admits to his agenda of insulting Carl. Dupree and Carl return to the house, where Carl and Molly reunite, Carl apologizing, and agree to work it all out. Glad that he did his job, Dupree celebrates by leaping into the air with joy, until he falls to ground.
All turns out well, with Dupree becoming a motivational speaker, Carl and Molly spending more time with each other, and Mr. Thompson accepting Carl as family. In a post-credits scene, then-famed bicyclist Lance Armstrong is seen reading Dupree's motivation book, 7 Different Kinds of Smoke: Living, Loving, and Finding your Inner "-ness". | prank | train | wikipedia | I'm one of about three movie reviewers to boldly make that claim, but doggone on it, I'm sticking by it.Granted, my enjoyment was heightened due to the fact that I kept my expectations low and didn't have to pay to see the movie, but I was entertained all the same.It's only fair that I be perfectly honest and admit I'm somewhat easily amused when it comes to watching actors and actresses that I really like, and Dupree sports a great cast.
She plays this role a little more low key than usual, but she's still irresistible, evidenced by her black bikini scene where she proves that she inherited what was always her mom's best *ahem* asset.Rounding out the cast, straight-man Matt Dillon's cool as always, and Seth Rogen, though woefully underused, brings an impressive laughs-to-screen time ratio.
I've personally never had nor been a third wheel like Dupree, but those of you who can relate to such an experience might appreciate it on a different level.I can't say that You, Me and Dupree is a film that just absolutely demands to be seen on the big screen, but it's certainly the kind of movie that you usually watch with friends and family where most everyone will walk away with a good chuckle, no one will be overly offended, Aunt Ella will comment on how "it was cute," no one's life will be dramatically altered, and Uncle Larry's uninvited segue into some boring recollections about his own "Dupree" experiences will wake everybody back up to their nightmare reality.All in all, if you think no one can bring seven different kinds of smoke like Owen Wilson, and you find Kate Hudson to be seven different kinds of smokin' then there's something here for you to enjoy.
It doesn't necessarily make it stand out (it's not a very good film) - but the movie moves away from Dupree being a pest and actually begins to focus on Dillon's growing anger towards his friend as he believes him to be developing a crush on his wife.
Towards the end he's like a mad, violent alcoholic and I started to feel like Dupree should end up with his wife instead.Overall the first hour of this movie is fun and entertaining and has its fair share of humorous segments - I laughed a lot when Dupree burns down a house and at some of the early jokes involving his interaction with old buddies - but the movie obviously realizes this isn't enough of a plot for a 90-minute feature and tries to develop other plot lines 3/4 of the way through, and that's when it gets tiresome.
A relationship crisis involving Dupree is never even resolved in the movie - as if the crew totally forgot about it.I guess I would have left the theater feeling more fulfilled if perhaps the film had continued as a lightweight "frat pack"-style comedy rather than trying to rise above other genre entries.
He was very good, as he was in the "Wedding Crashers." Kate Hudson was perky as always, and did a splendid job; and anyone who has loved her mother over the years will find Goldie's "clone" just as lovely as ever.Matt Dillon did a terrific job, and was totally believable comically; and Michael Douglas was very good too, playing his character with aplomb.
The premise of You, Me and Dupree is that Carl Peterson (Matt Dillon) marries his boss's daughter, Molly (Kate Hudson), and then his best man, Dupree (Owen Wilson) stays with them after losing his job and all his earthly possessions.You, Me and Dupree is bad.
Dupree was in a sense predictable and certain scenes were drawn out, but the overall plot was cute and the movie itself had some memorable moments, including yet another great performance from Michael Douglas.
Plus, Matt Dillon is a good-looking man, even for a forty-sum year old!Although I enjoyed the movie, as well as the acting, Michael Douglas did not impress me at all.
And shortly after his buddy Carl(Matt Dillon)gets married to Molly(Kate Hudson),DuPree's now in need of a home.
Also,the relationship shifts in the movie were so sharp that one might be confused and/or skeptical of just how well this would play out.Directors Anthony and Joe Russo don't seem to have any problem with this,opting to go with a fast flow of jokes and character interplay.While I sorta get why this film hasn't been getting great reviews,I still think this film is a fun summer flick.
Well this movie is basically the same movie.Owen Wilson moves in with his best friend and wife right after they get married because he lost his job while taking time off for their wedding.
Combine that with a god awful script from screenplay rookie Mike LeSieur and the same old-same old lame, basset hound loser man-child, played ad nauseate by the now long in the tooth Owen Wilson, and all the pieces come together for a ticking bomb.On top of that, we can't help but wonder about the age difference between Dillon and Hudson as newlyweds.
'You Me and Dupree', the new comedy starring the Texas charmer Owen Wilson, represents two of the breeziest hours in film this year.Quirky and funny 'You Me and Dupree' might be a film likely to catch you by surprise.
Surely they have their positive qualities, but unfortunately they are blindsided by the negative ones.If one specific character cannot be our favorite, then we must equally support all of them: "You," Kate Hudson's Molly, is betrothed to "Me," Matt Dillon's Carl, who works for his father- in-law, Micheal Douglas' Mr. Thompson (okay, he can be "and"), and is best friends with Owen Wilson's "Dupree." Four principles, no protagonist.
In the Russo Brothers' disappointing You, Me and Dupree, Owen Wilson's Dupree expounds an existential philosophy of keeping one's own character, a "ness" tacked on to a first name, such as his best friend's (Matt Dillon) "Carlness." It's a good idea dramatically to remind us all of our uniqueness and the necessity to nurture and protect it from, say, marauding fathers-in-law (in this case Michael Douglas), who might want to efface our individuality as well as get us vasectomies.Yet the philosophical theme doesn't fit this comedy as it might Chekov's.
As the married couple, Kate Hudson has several good scenes, and she's put some thought into her characterization, but I'm not sure how well-cast Matt Dillon is (he doesn't look comfortable playing the patsy, he doesn't match up quite right with Hudson and, although he makes an attempt to be loose, he can't bring laughs to his role).
A sub-plot involving Dillon working for his property developing father-in-law (Michael Douglas, phoning it in) fails to jell with the rest (doesn't Hudson know what a sonuvabitch her father is?), and the third act of the movie manages to lose all the bounce from the first half-hour.
(a much funnier working of the butt naked joke above) Or perhaps a real classic like 'Animal House' which has crazed characters but unleashes them in short and very very funny bursts This movie however sucks big time and can only appeal if you need the equivalent of comedy electroshock treatment to get you laughing.
Things don't go according to plan as Dupree quickly becomes a burden and the stress of Carl's new job and his step-father as his boss is taking a toll on him.Coming off his success of Wedding Crashers, Owen Wilson quickly pumps out another comedy in which he plays the same loser character with a heart of gold.
The film even has the wacky, cool because he's an old school actor type character, Michael Douglas and of course the montage to show he's back on track segment with Dupree.From directors Anthony and Joe Russo, who have had their hands in the hilariously funny television series Arrested Development, one would expect some form of hilarity to be present.
That certain supporting characters, chiefly Douglas's tight-ass father-in-law/CEO, are all without much dimension until the end, adds to the frustration.In fact, it got to the point once the credits rolled where I thought 'gee, this may be the first time, speaking of Wilson, that I almost want to watch the flawed but enjoyable Wedding Crashers again; it may have had a similar problem with this film as to balancing comedy and typical romance carp, but at least it did give some solid laughs'.
I like Kate Hudson and Matt Dillon just fine, and I really like Owen Wilson (and who doesn't after his hysterical turn in The Wedding Crashers?).
The wedding toasts also give us a good look at Molly's real estate magnate father, the judgmental Bob Thompson (Michael Douglas).In the way of many young and very much in love couples, neither Dupree nor Mr. Thompson can sully Carl and Molly's big day.
Molly, meanwhile, is relegated to complaining that Carl's not home often enough while Dupree just won't leave.Of course, bad things happen, understandings are reached, and everybody learns something before the all too predictable end of this thankfully not too long (108 minutes) movie.
Meanwhile, Michael Douglas may come out the best of the bunch as he shows a real joy in playing the role of a manipulative and overbearing father-in-law who knows full well what he is but who blithely just doesn't care.Directing team Anthony and Joe Russo (they're brothers) have a far more impressive television résumé than they do in the movies (the two have, for example, directed several episode of critical darling Arrested Development).
Owen Wilson is amazing as Randy Dupree, yet the supporting cast led by Kate Hudson and Matt Dillon manage to give this comedy a smart sharp edge.
This train wreck features Kate Hudson, Matt Dillon, and Owen Wilson, all who play unlikeable and uninteresting, bland characters.
Matt Dillon, Kate Hudson, and Owen Wilson were in the film entirely, and only about two more were in it for over 5 scenes.
I came out a little disappointed, but overall it was a great flick.Matt Dillon and Kate Hudson where really good in this film, although I thought that Micheal Douglas could have done a little better.There where many funny parts in this movie, but I thought it would have a little more comedy in it like the trailer showed it to be.
Okay, i get that people didn't like the story, because it wasn't that well written but I'm sorry, that was the funniest movie I've ever seen, this movie proves that you can put Owen Wilson and a bunch of unfunny people and let him do what he does best and make a good film.
The movie started off bad, as did the comedy as it seemed forced as the guy above me mentioned, but after about 10 minutes its non stop side splitting laughter, Owen Wilson did a great job, and the movie was very good.
Owen Wilson is great at playing those lost and troubled type anti heroes as witnessed in Wes Anderson's films (Life Aquatic anyone?), and there are moments in You, Me and Dupree where he does a pretty good job, and despite my distaste for the movie, it did provide a couple of laughs.
Dupree (Owen Wilson playing Owen Wilson) is the best man at his buddy Matt Dillon's wedding to Kate Hudson (the You and Me) and subsequently moves in with them, causing all manner of mayhem and bad taste and faux pas and grim situations (think toilet problems etc).
Ask directors Anthony and Joe Russo for the rest.We know that Hudson, Dillon and Douglas have much better roles to offer (Wilson seems to have found his niche), and the only reason films like this keep getting made is because they make money (for some reason) at the box office.
The lady is beautiful but it is not a pornographic movie and she ain't worth wasting your time for.Owen Wilson acts like his just starting his acting career, I think his career is over.Michael Douglas has insignificant role and is quite tiresome like the film..If you really desperate to watch this movie do not watch the trailer as all the best material in the film has been used in it.
But things take a turn when everyone but Matt love Dupree.This is an honest and funny movie that I think anyone could enjoy.
Dupree (Owen Wilson) is the lovable slacker best man for Molly (Kate Hudson) and Carl Peterson (Matt Dillon)'s Hawaiian wedding.
This very much starts as a slacker type comedy with raucous male friends as Matt Dillon gets married and starts a new life as a newlywed married to Kate Hudson and he is working at his father in law's company (Michael Douglas.)However Dillon takes in Dupree (Owen Wilson) when he goes through a rough patch and we cringe as Dupree turns his life upside down with his nasty habits even leading to his house being burnt down.At work his father in law becomes overbearing even hinting that he does not want him to have children and wanting him to take his own surname.
You,Me and Dupree is a very funny movie with a great cast and a good storyline.This movie isn't very well rated,especially on Rotten Tomatos where it only has 21%,I think its very underrated because I found some parts it the movie very funny with some cringe moments,like the part with the fire,that had me laughing out loud.Some moments in it reminded me of the Meet The Parents series,which I liked because I find them very funny.I really liked the films cast,especially Matt Dillon,Owen Wilson and Seth Rogen,I find them all great.Newlyweds,Molly (Kate Hudson) and Carl (Matt Dillon),a settling in there new house in the suburbs until Carl finds out that his best man,Dupree (Owen Wilson) is down on his luck and sleeping in a bar every night.Without Mollys permission,Carl lets Dupree move in with them.Dupree promises he will move out as soon as he gets a new job,which doesn't seem to be happening and Dupree overstays his welcome..
Owen Wilson plays Dupree the lovable loser who comes to stay with Molly (Kate Hudson) and Carl (Matt Dillon) shortly after their honeymoon.
The star-cast of this movie and the fact that I was desperate to watch a good English comedy made watching this movie unavoidable.Yet I was apprehensive given the fact that Kate Hudsons presence means that this movie will probably have the elements of the chick flick.Also even though the star-cast of the film is power-laden the repetitive and run of the mill characters being played by all these actors especially Owen Wilson in recent times also made me reduce my expectations somewhat.And unfortunately I was right on all counts.This movie is in fact made for the women and yes the next time I watch a romantic comedy with Owen Wilson in it will be at least one year if ever.However this movie is not bad from any angle it has it fair share of moments.Some of the memorable moments are the jealousy scenes towards the end, the hilarious house burning, and the woman who had been everywhere (if you know what I mean).Other than that too this movie had loads of scenes that will bring a chuckle to your face the common factor in most of these scenes was the hilarious Seth Rogen as the henpecked husband.This movie also displayed flashes of creativity by doing stuff like not showing us the minor characters despite the fact that they were spoken of a lot.Michael Douglas displayed the fact that he is a fine actor and his willingness to take on non-starring roles and Despite this he shines in this movie and was one the better things about this movie.But the problem with all of this is we have scene it all before henpecked husband, the man who ignores his family for his career.
Sure, the movie is about how the newlywed Peterson couple, Carl and Molly (Matt Dillon and Hudson) invited trouble into their lives when Carl's best friend Randy Dupree (Owen Wilson) "temporarily" lives with them, it's precisely her role as the frustrated wife turned sympathizer who gets less screen time, less development of sorts, and as a comedy, less of the laughs.I'm unsure if comedies of such nature tend to like to take the dramatic route halfway, as even supposedly laugh-out-loud offerings like Talladega Nights (in another review) seem to like to venture into drama to say, hey, I've got a message here that I'd like to share, so that you can take something home with you when the lights come on.
A So-So movie, but better than expected Molly (Hudson) and Carl (Dillon) and Newlyweds and are as happy as can be, but when Dupree (Wilson) Carl's best mate loses his home, car and job, they take him in for a little while, but a little while soon becomes a long time and he starts to cause problems in their lives and their marriage, to make matter worse Carl recently got promoted at molly's dad's (Douglas) company but his promotion starts to put a lot of stress on Carl, and as molly dad starts to make snide comments to Carl, about him and their marriage he starts to get frustrated.
"You, Me and Dupree" is not the funniest movie you will ever see, but it is still a funny film, which is what one expects with such talented leads Owen Wilson, Kate Hudson and of course Matt Dillon.
But then Carls good friend and best man at his wedding named Randy Dupree(Owen Wilson) loses his job and his apartment.
I don't like Owen Wilson and I couldn't stand his character in this movie, it was annoying and certainly not funny.
Owen Wilson and Matt Dillon have some funny moments on screen but that is just the script and comedic talent coming out, not flashes of a good movie.
And much like Wilson's performance, this film is feeling a bit too stale for its own good.After a wonderful wedding in Hawaii, newlyweds Carl (Matt Dillon) and Molly (Kate Hudson) come back home only to find out that Carl's best friend and best man Dupree (Wilson) has had a lot of bad luck. |
tt0479199 | Buried Alive | Rene is in the bath having a conversation with her cousin Zane, who is in the bathroom with her. He pushes her underwater, and she begins to drown. While looking up at his face from under the water, she sees the visage of an old woman above her. She awakes with a start, having fallen asleep and begun to drown. Her boyfriend Danny wakes her up, and the two make out.
Zane, who has enlisted the help of a Phil to research his family history. Zane visits his family home with Phil, Rene, Danny, and her two sorority pledges, Julie "Cow" and Laura "Dog. The two pledges have been forced to dress up as animals as an initiation. Zane constantly sees an old woman on the side of the road, culminating in her appearance in the middle of the road, which causes him to almost crash.
Lester, the caretaker, is living in a trailer on the land, and searching for gold. He has found some, but does not tell anyone. The college students marvel at his stuffed oddities, since he is an amateur taxidermist. He warns the group not to go into the subcellar, or to go outside after dark.
Settling in, Rene enslaves Julie and Laura and forces Phil to explain how he knows so much about Rene and Zane's family history. Phil goes outside to get a signal on his mobile phone, but is cut in half by a ghost armed with an axe.
The five remaining teens decide to learn more about the family history. Rene has fun with Julie and Laura by making them run to Lester's caravan and bring back one of his stuffed animals. They must wear one item of clothing and it can't be an overcoat. Julie chooses to wear her pants and Laura chooses to wear her boots. Laura accomplishes the task, but Julie doesn't because she sprains her ankle.
Rene gives Julie one more task to take off her clothes, except for underwear, and be blindfolded. Rene takes Zane's belt and uses it on Julie as a test of trust. Soon, Rene and Laura depart, leaving Julie standing there. Danny decides to go to get Phil but finds out that he's dead just before his face is cut off. When the lights go out, Zane goes out to check the machine to find it's still functioning normally, but the cable was cut. Zane finds Danny's faceless body, as do Rene and Laura. Zane, Rene and Laura dash back inside the house, thinking Lester is behind Danny's murder, but they find Lester dead as well.
They try to escape with their car, but find it has been sabotaged. They grab Lester's keys and Laura dashes to Lester's caravan to get his truck. While Zane and Rene are still in the house, Zane gets locked in another room and Rene is knocked unconscious with the spirit scratching the words "Sins Of The Father" on her back. Zane finally breaks through and kills the woman, but whilst barricading them in a room, the woman appears and knocks Zane unconscious.
Laura returns with Lester's truck and the woman is about to slaughter Laura, but disappears after seeing a tattoo that's similar to the necklace Rene had throughout the movie. Laura escapes and Rene and Zane wake to find themselves in some kind of box. The old woman quickly grabs the necklace and drops the gold ring taken by the caretaker in the beginning of the movie. Rene and Zane scream in fear as the old woman buries them alive. | revenge, prank | train | wikipedia | The unfortunate thing about this film is that Kurtzman adds nothing special to his resume: while the directing overall seems much tighter than "Wishmaster", the story he was given to work with just isn't as enjoyable.
Most of all Buried Alive goes a good thirty or forty minutes before anything scary or gory happens, and then you have another long wait to the end.
I do want to make some criticisms of this movie, though, and let me get those out of the way first.Buried Alive is basically a solid slasher movie but there are some real problems with the script that detracted.
Now that I am through complaining, let me say some positive things.Terrence Jay delivered a solid performance as did Tobin Bell, but the real surprise of the movie for me was newcomer Leah Rachel.
Friday the 13th's from the 1980's have better nudity...The movie is BEYOND SLOW and feels like 180 minutes, rather than 90, because you just want it to end!!Honestly, do not waste your time.
'Buried Alive' is a failed attempt to bring back a once promising genre (horror) and revive it into something new.The main problem I had with this film is that it never truly finds itself a climax or a theme.
-lots of repetition -lots of repetition -lots of repetitionVISUAL: decent sets, some great and not-so-great specialFX CAMERA: decent shooting, nothing too special, but good placements SOUND:great music choices, average sound effects CAST: great to look at, but their characters seemed out.CUTE: no CREEPY: nope DRAMATIC: no FUNNY: Yes MELODRAMATIC: not really GORY: not very SAD: no SCARY: No SEXY: moderately SMART: not at all TENSE: maybe WORTH WATCHING: for fun WORTH PAYING: noRECAP: -worth watching purely for some eye candy and something to chat about with friends once in a while.
Two college students Rene (Leah Rachel) and Zane (Terence Jay) invite their friends (Erin Lokitz, Lindsay Scott, Steve Sandvoss and Germaine De Leon) to their family ranch for the weekend somewhere in the desert.
Her spirit wants revenge and one by one, they are killed by this vengeful ghost.Directed by Robert Kurtzman (The Demolitionlist, The Rage, Wishmaster) made an pretty dull, lifeless supernatural slasher horror film with some neat special effects and good production values can't save it.
I went out to the video store to get myself something to watch besides the boring drama films that keeps showing on TV all day long, and so I found buried alive, it wasn't boring just very uninteresting, the pace is extremely slow and I would sum up the storyline, but the whole sorority thing, the one guy on a treasure hunt and the ghost story thing makes it a little confusing, because judging from the cover you'd expect a horror film but its over shadowed by a very slow storyline consisting of very dull and stereotypical characters, although the cast isn't bad but they should'vie considered something other than this, and the gore effects are very forgettable and not as well done as in many of the good horror filmsOverall, a good horror film is one that scares you so much you lie awake at night still thinking about it, a bad horror movie is one that bores you so much you fall asleep during the day and you won't even remember it the following day, so consider getting something like saw if want to see Tobin Bell at his best, or vacancy for mixture of 80's horror with a modern twist, because this won't satisfy horror fans very much.3 out of 10.
Zane (Terence Jay) and Renee (Leah Rachel) play incestuous cousins who get Renee's boyfriend Danny (Steve Sandvoss) nerd Phil and two fraternity pledges to a big old deserted house in the middle of the desert.
Journeying to a secluded house, a group of friends head into the desert as part of a sorority initiation activity but awaken the murderous spirit of an ancestor that is seeking out a way of revenge against her treatment and tries to stop their rampage before they're all killed off.On the whole this one wasn't that bad at all.
One of it's better features here is the film's rather nice and enjoyable plot as once it gets going, it has a ton of good stuff to it.
The first time it appears in the bedroom is quite a nice stalking scene, the surprise attack on the one friend in the middle of the basement and the big surprise ambush on them at the house which is where this one becomes really enjoyable with the build-up to the creature coming out of the darkness even though they don't realize the ghost is the cause and the fun chaos that results from the discovery of the bodies and the race to get out which is all classic slasher film fun.
Filled with some fun supernatural-themed action to come from the big battle at the end and some great work tying in the legend of the ghost's ancestors to the whole revenge plot involved here, that becomes quite enjoyable as well detailing all the nice action to come from this part of the film.
One interview video I watched once involved, after the interviews, the interviewer/presenter stated that the reason one person wasn't hired was because she would've made a good drinking buddy, but wasn't the material they needed."Buried Alive" is kinda like that.
Little happens, but the characters are very entertaining, and mostly juvenile, but their antics stopped the movie from being boring.Tobin Bell is essentially a poor man's Tony Todd, wondering around and providing some sense of menace.There's some very gory murders, but much screen time is taken up watching the amusing potential victims, which alone should tell you whether you would enjoy watching this or not..
As the kids fool around more of them start dying until Zane and Rene confront the ghost.Buried Alive is a high quality B horror movie- small cast, few locations, CGI gore effects.
When you think B horror movie, this is the kind of movie you want to see- with pretty girls, some nudity, gory death scenes.
It has all the elements expected from a upper-B horror movie: Sudden chills, half-naked girls and even decent actors (Tobin Bell).The story is believable, the action is not bad...
It is centered on a group of college friends Erin Lokitz, Leah Rachel, Terence Jay, Steve Sandvoss, Lindsey Scott, Germaine De Leon and it featured Tobin Bell as the creepy caretaker of the home that the friends plan to party in for the weekend deep in the desert.
I though, based on the cover art and the hype that Tobin Bell is in it, that it would be a terrible movie but it's pretty good.
I enjoyed it.The acting was pretty good and the obvious Tobin Bell did a fantastic job, like he always does but you also had some great acting by Terence Jay and Leah Rachel.
To say the least, the acting could have been a lot better, but it could have been a lot, a lot worse.There was some pretty good gore effects, though coming from Robert Kurtzman, who did Dusk Till Dawn, I was a bit disappointed to see noticeable pre-cut and pre-expression dummies, CG blood and rubber bodies.
Granted, I enjoyed the chopping and knifing and "face off" scene, but when you do good blood effects, please take it to the next level and not rely on computers.The one thing that I did not like about this movie was the unnecessary nudity and sex.
Again and again I'm warning people not to fall for words on DVD covers like "starring Tobin Bell from Saw" or "it's gory".
Synopsis: A group of college kids at an abandoned house pull a prank that sets loose a murderous ghost.Review: There's something strange, these days and in the past, that often happens to stars of major horror films.
When it comes to a straight-to-video slasher film like this (especially one marketed by the usually trustworthy Dimension Extreme), there are certain things horror fans have come to expect: Heavy gore, attractive women (who, most often, take off their clothes), and, at the very least, some entertainment.
I won't bore you with any of the story because quite frankly it doesn't really have one...in fact the plot is so thin that i found myself actually staring through the t.v and longing for the storyline to kick in.....i got to the end and it never did kick in.Apart from the lack of a story..this film has terrible acting.....the two main guys are by far the worst and the leading lady isn't up to much either.
What this film does have is pointless female nudity that seems to be there for no aparant reason except to give the director some nubile young bodies to leer over....i actually found myself feeling sorry for the two girls forced to strip at every opportunity...i bet after shooting they felt dead inside....but kudos to 'the cow' and 'the dog' for being the only half decent characters in this mess....even 'that guy from Saw' seemed ashamed to be in it.
Which begs the question why this film carries the Dimension Extreme tag....if 'extreme' stands for extremely devoid of any actually horror then it's suitably fitting....maybe the 'extreme' comes for the porno-like aspect to the ways the girls are paraded.
The ole "sins of the father" is mined once again in another vengeful spirit story as troubled college student Zane(Terence Jay)is hard up to find his great grandfather's buried gold and was recently put on probation for not paying as much attention to studies as he was clowning around and partying.
Zane's cousin is Rene(Leah Rachel), head of a sorority who will accompany him with two pledges, Laura(Erin Reese;looking like a young Charisma Carpenter)& Julie(Lindsey Scott), and boyfriend Danny(Steve Sandvoss).
Lester is a perverted rascal who often makes sneering remarks and gestures to the girls, while also playing a series of scare-pranks on them.A Native American girl was murdered by her husband, Zane's great-grandfather(..who remarried, which birthed the new family line that would lead to Zane and Rene), buried alive presumably where the gold was hidden.
The characters are Rene, who seems to have a lot of bad dreams; Zane (Rene's cousin), who's looking for a lost fortune from his family's history; Phil, the nerd who's helping Zane; Danny, who's cool for some unseen reason; Julie (dressed as cow) and Laura (dressed as dog), two sorority pledges who try to make Rene happy.The six of them head out to the desert to find the 'treasure.' In parallel, Lester has been digging for gold out in the sticks, and seems to find some early on.Zane starts seeing things.
Gore, drugs, sex, nudity, teens, and bad dialogue; perfect ingredients for a B-movie; Buried Alive has them all.
She's really the only interesting and good character that deserves any love, and movie survivors never turn out how I want them to be, so I enjoyed that.
I will say the rating is a little unfair, but I can see why it would have so many people who hate it, but yet I'm a person who can enjoy these types of movies for what they are and they have always had a small place in my heart, whether they are so bad it's good or just all around okay for any film in general.
I wish someone could tell me how many horror films are going to be named "Buried Alive" when it's all said and done?
Well, if you've ever seen a horror film in your life, you could probably write the rest yourself, and chances are whatever you came up with would turn out better than this forgettable exercise.Our cohort of future victims includes the largely unlikeable lead girl Rene, her lusty male cousin (with whom she shares a bizarre incestuous connection that includes exchanging passionate kisses with him), her impressively useless boyfriend, a duo of bubble-headed sorority pledges, and a computer geek thrown in for good measure.
Buried Alive follows the "How To Make A Slasher Movie" guidebook to the letter, so the first third of the film is devoted to the mostly pointless development of characters we truly don't give a crap about, with a few false scares and a dab of nudity tacked on to try to stop you from ejecting the disc.The ground rules are clearly established up front (one character is nice enough to inform us, via an intrusively placed bit of awkward dialogue, that the locale the horror is set to take place in has no landlines and no cell phone service), and our archetypes are reinforced through the sort of hijinks the genre has made you intimately familiar with by now.
The nerdy tag-along is "tortured" into fessing up the film's back-story when the two co-eds team up to kiss, fondle, and disrobe him (poor guy), and our token blonde nymphette falls prey to one of the worst pick-up lines ever delivered (her wooer basically points out a piece of furniture that used to be in a brothel and suggests that they should "keep history alive," a seductive invitation which entices her to immediately strip and have sex with a character she met approximately three scenes before that).Even by the standards of bargain basement horror, the goings-on here are especially senseless.
Worse, Buried Alive is too tedious to fall into the "so bad it's good" category, so the rewards here are minimal at best.The climax incorporates a few decent sequences that liven things up a bit, but after the slow road there something truly spectacular would be required to redeem this outing; that, we don't get.
Like a lot of other people, I was sold this film on the fact that it starred Tobin Bell.
I did enjoy the film after an hour or so.It's not scary, creepy or anything; I did find a couple of the killings (the ones outside) were pretty good and original, but other than that, I wouldn't really say that this was a horror.
Rene's boyfriend Danny(Steve Sandvoss)is joined by two sorority girls(Erin Reese and Lindsey Scott)and a nerdy friend(Germaine De Leon)of Zane's as the group heads out to be frightened and violated and more.
Buried Alive starts as cousins Rene (Leah Rachel) & Zane (Terence Jay who also composed the music) decide to spend a weekend at a family ranch in the middle of the desert, Rene wants wants to play some tricks on two sorority wannabes Laura (Erin Reese) & Julie (Lindsey Scott) while Zane wants to search for some legendary buried gold.
As the teenage friends try to enjoy themselves it seems that the vengeful ghost of the buried woman has returned to seek revenge on the ancestor's of the man that murdered her...Directed by Robert Kurtzman who used to be part of KNB Effects buts seems to like directing horror films as much as providing gory make-up effects for them, while Buried Alive is competent as a teen slasher I suppose I expected a little bit more.
The character's are walking clichés, there's a spotty nerd type who wears glasses & carries a laptop around all the time, there's the bitchy popular girl & her jock boyfriend, there's a crazy local who warns the kids about dangers & the whole back-story about the woman being buried alive & coming back for revenge is underwhelming.
At a shade over 90 minutes there's very little story here & the idiot, annoying, clichéd character's make the film a drag to watch & the lack of any proper kills until the last fifteen minutes means Buried Alive is a bit of a chore to sit through.Even though there's no much here the gores pretty good, someone is chopped down the middle with an axe & the two halves of his body are seen later, there's some blood splatter & a cool bit where someone gets his face sliced off with an axe but disappointingly some of the kills are off screen.
Buried Alive is a fairly generic sounding title & there are at least ten other films that use the title.Filmed in Santa Fe in New Mexico this is well made with surprisingly good production values, it actually looks like a professional film even though it's rather dull at times.
The acting is OK at vest, Tobin Bell for Saw fame gets about five minutes of screen time.Buried Alive is well made & has one or two decent gore scenes but the sluggish pace & predictable plot means actually sitting though it is harder than it should have been.
Someone said I bet you can't make a good horror/slasher flick and they said 'oh yes we can...you need hot buxom girls too old to be teenagers, gratuitous nudity, an old man, a haunted house, and some gory death and its gonna be perfect.' In all fairness that idea doesn't sound half bad.
The lead college 'kids' are played by Leah Rachel, Erin Reese, Germaine De Leon, Terence Jay, Steve Sandvoss, and Lindsey Scott.
Then you have the man who is becoming synonymous with horror Mr. Tobin Bell who is always awesome and actually does have a more meaty role and is fun to watch.
Buried Alive Tobin Bell deserves an Oscar for best actor in this gripping horror film.
~Spoiler~Buried Alive is the new film from effects man turned director, Robert Kurtzman.
I like movies that take some time to introduce their characters.
The only character I was interested in was Tobin Bell's caretaker, and he gets the least screen time.
This movie is a good time, and Tobin Bell is what really makes it.
The film has a thin story line that could have been good but they didn't really do anything with it to make it very effective.
Overall I found this one very enjoyable, it's a fun little movie that has some good points in it. |
tt0116661 | It's in the Water | Alex is a married Junior Leaguer with a penchant for interesting shoes. Her Junior League chapter's annual project is to volunteer at Hope House, an AIDS hospice that recently opened in her home town of Azalea Springs, Texas. Alex and her League friends, including her friend Sloan, tour Hope House. Alex runs into her best friend Spencer, whose lover Bruce is a resident, and Grace, a friend from high school who had recently moved back to Azalea Springs to work at Hope House as a nurse.
That night at the town's annual Azalea Ball, a drunken Spencer tells a society matron that his homosexuality was caused by drinking the local water. An equally drunken Sloan overhears and spreads the story. A panic ensues, with the local newspaper printing the story and commissioning testing of the water supply. Mark, the son of the publisher, objects to his father, but because Mark is himself struggling with his homosexuality and attending meetings of an ex-gay group at the local church, he's limited in what he can do to mitigate the story and the resultant damage. The leader of the ex-gay group, Brother Daniel, announces plans to protest for the closing of Hope House.
Alex and Grace renew their friendship and Grace comes out as a lesbian to her. Grace returned to Azalea Springs because her husband found out about an affair she was having with another woman and is now in prison for assaulting Grace.
At an ex-gay meeting, Mark meets Tomas, a painter. Mark hires Tomas to re-paint his dining room.
The Junior League decides not to continue volunteering at Hope House. Alex, who's resigned from the League, goes to work full-time at the hospice over her husband Robert's objections.
Alex develops some curiosity about her possible lesbianism and rents a number of classic lesbian-themed films: Desert Hearts; Lianna; Personal Best; Heavenly Creatures; Bar Girls; Claire of the Moon; The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love; an unnamed, presumably pornographic video; and, inexplicably, The Godfather Part III.
At Hope House, Alex gives in to her growing attraction to Grace and they kiss passionately in a supply room. Sloan catches them and spreads the story all over town. After Tomas paints Mark's dining room, they go out on a dinner date, where Mark learns that Tomas stumbled into the ex-gay meeting by mistake. After dinner they go to Tomas's studio and Tomas shows Mark his paintings. They make love. Reaction is immediate and hostile, with Alex suffering indignities great and small, everything from the breakup of her marriage to the closing of her credit account at the local fried pie shop.
Following this, Mark gains the courage to break up with the woman he's been dating as a "beard" and to come out to his father. He demands that his father drop the story on the water supply (testing proves that the water is completely ordinary) and stop the negative coverage of Hope House.
Mark and Tomas and Alex and Grace go out dancing at a big-city gay club, where they see Ray Ray, the son of Alex's family housekeeper, performing as a drag queen called Obsession. Ray Ray leads Mark and Tomas to a leather bar where they catch ex-gay leader Brother Daniel in full leather gear (Mark has a photo published in the paper to discredit Brother Daniel's anti-Hope House protests). Meanwhile, Alex and Grace go to a hotel room where they make love for the first time.
Back in Azalea Springs, Spencer's lover Bruce dies of AIDS-related complications. At his funeral, Alex's father comforts her and her mother, while still upset over Alex's lesbianism, shows that she still loves her daughter (by insulting her shoes, something she's done repeatedly through the film). | romantic, satire | train | wikipedia | I can tell you that Kelli Herd is a brilliant, bold story-teller with a great sense of timing.
Barbara Lassiter (mom) is too much, I remember when they were shooting the scene where she is lecturing her daughter Alex about her gay kiss,noting "Couldn't you have done something like this on the weekend?" The scene when shot, was very moving, dramatic, powerful.
One of the more outstanding moments in the making of the movie was when we were filming in the hospital.
If you grew up in the South, especially if you are gay, you will see people you know or knew in all of these characters - even the ones that seem a little extreme.
Seeing her reaction as she told us that in 6 years she'd never shown in at school made me begin to understand how exposed we are putting not only our 'projects' but our entire life in front of people for the sake of art."It's in the Water" is lots of fun.
The character of Spencer is HILARIOUS, but not drawn up as a caricature like most of the straight people in the film.
One of the truest pleasures of the film.Otherwise, the previous reviewer was right--the love making scenes are tasteful and...pretty for lack of a better word.
It helps, of course, that the two leading couples (Alex and Grace, and Mark and Tomas) are absolutely gorgeous, but the characters individually just light up from the inside out.Witty, excellent visual design and touching, this is certainly a film that I would recommend.
This isn't the best gay and lesbian comedy around, but it certainly isn't the stinker that some of the other IMDb user comments claim it to be.It's camp and extravagantly acted -- okay, maybe a bit overacted -- in the way, say, "But I'm A Cheerleader" is.
Most LGBT movies stick to one group; "It's In The Water" shows a lesbian discovering what she is from out of a loveless marriage and a "cured" gay guy finding love with an unashamed gay decorator.
Lots of good lines here especially for the Spenser character.
I thought the film was very funny and has a lot of great scenes.
Rent the film its good.
This film has some very good characters,especially the scene with the mother finding out about her daughter being a lesbian,very Cruella DeVille,I laugh until it hurts when I saw this scene.
The film was shot in Texas "George Bush Country" I can only imagine that some people here in Texas would think the water could cause people to become gay.You should really check out this film it has some great laughs..
This movie pokes fun at society and how narrow minded people can really be, you can actually see some of these things happening, maybe not all in the same town, but happening still.
This is a very strange amalgamation of brutally embarrassing stereotypes mixed with insights and issues that I can't remember having seen addressed by a gay-related film before.The main lesbian relationship is handled in a satisfying and balanced manner and the secondary gay relationship has some nice elements as well.
Worth seeing.But these are surrounded with such jaw-dropping stereotypes -- both gay and straight -- that I was left wondering how these could be co-existing in the same film, written and directed by the same person.
The difference is so extreme you could get whip-lash.Performance quality is all over the map, characters are given prime placement in the story but nothing comes of them.
The best thing the film has going for it is the central lesbian and gay characters; the worst thing is that they are given cartoon characters to interact with..
After living nine years in Texas, I don't find, as some others, that the people in the film are caricatures.
There are really people that shallow in society - especially at the top.All of the AIDS myths are exposed, and rumors are floating around town that it's the water that makes you gay.
It spread like wildfire.In the meantime, Spencer's friend, Alex (Keri Jo Chapman) is reconnecting with her best friend from high school, Grace (Teresa Garrett), and finds that her marriage broke up because of a lesbian affair.The local reverend (John Addington), who runs an ex-gay ministry, is leading protest against an AIDS hospice.
When Alex isn't helping Spencer fight them, she rents a stack of lesbian films to watch.
Soon, she is in the supply closet at the hospice with Grace.Mark Anderson (Derrick Sanders), who works at his father's paper, meets a new friend at the ex-gay ministry, who came to the meeting by mistake.
There may have been too many stories to fit into the time, but it all worked, and it was an enjoyable film..
The movie actually is pretty mild but contains probably the best male erotica scene of kissing that you will ever see.
Of course this movie was made before Aimee and Jaguar.The whole movie plays on all those wonderful stereotypes of gays.
I loved the guy whose father sent him to therapy and the silly gay church meetings.
And I even had an acquaintance who told me that my brother should be dead since he has AIDS.But this movie is quite light, not deep and easily watchable by anyone.
Otherwise, sit back and wonder if the lead character's husband wasn't just a little bit gay himself.
i thought it was a well-made film that had some interesting characters and a storyline that had something to say about tolerance, love and acceptance.
while i agree that the whole 'something in the water makes you gay' storyline didn't play out too well, the rest of the plot was great.
a film that stays true to it's heart by not taking it's subject matter too seriously and being funny..
This is one of the worst Gay or Lesbian movies I have ever seen!One cliche after another right down to horribly offensive stereotypes of both gay male and African Americans.
The gay male characters are Badly acted, simpering wimpering, the black maid is right out of an Amos and Andy TV show.
The end of course features a simply awful black church choir (How's that for a stereotype in a movie)singing one of dem good ol gopel songs.
There was no reality to the characters, nor was there and tone of clever.The film only came to life for about three minutes, when a gifted Gospel singer sang words not written by the writer/director.There could have been a good comedy with the premise, but it never surfaced..
As a member of the gay community I can justifiably comment that this movie was SUPERFICIAL at best: It only TOUCHED on the idiosyncrasies of the gay lifestyle and DID NOT delve into any real issues concerning the gay culture.
Kerri Jo Chapman was the only thing worth viewing in the movie as the remainder of the "actors" and extras looked like something dug out of a southern swamp.
if a film was to be measured in pants, this film would be the pants found at the bottom of your laundry basket you thought you threw out at least 3 boyfriends ago." Do not waste your time unless you're especially bored and need a good laugh at terrible acting..
One of my first expirences with lesbians in film and I love it.
I am gay and the stereo types and the strange reactions of the the town's people and families etc.
But this show was funny to me, because I have lived in places where being gay was dangerous at best and this little movie put into my minds eye and I hope in others as well, just how much people do not look outside of the box, or just how back water a majority of people still would like to tar and fête anyone that is different and that includes loving someone of the same sex, or even of a different race.
I hope Kelli Herd writes an It's in the Water two, I would like to see a show, that evolves and involves gay and Hetro couples living in the same town, even as small as this little made up town in Texas, and believe me, I lived in Texas in the 70's and this was very light judgementalism compared to the real dangers that were present at the time, with out a lot of bull or xxx rated stuff.
Great Little film that could.
Movie about a small Texas town where the country club set rules and a rumor that the water will make you gay sends them all into a tailspin.Not the best production values in the world, but the wires aren't obvious, and, all-in-all an enjoyable movie, one of the few that I could pretty much watch anytime.There's a message in it, but it's not at all preachy.
The comedy/drama in the film is mostly unfunny and undramatic, but some scenes do contain real impact.
And one scene is very funny - when the main character goes to the video store for lesbian movies.
Otherwise, a good attempt at creating a gay and lesbian movie.
Sorry, but I found this film very predictable and badly acted by the two female leads Keri-Jo Chapman [Alex] and Teresa Garrett [Grace].
For this is where I think it could have been a good movie.
The over acting of Alex's Mom [didn't understand credits] and the character of Sloan was downright embarrasing.
The story certainly had potential but the overall quality is worse than a B movie.
I'm totally amazed at the people that gave it a score better than a one, the one would be for a story with potential, nothing else in this movie deserved a point.
I waited for a love story to develop in this movie as a point of redemption but all I got at the end could be called a childish same sex experiment.
I can't think of many that are from the gay perspective that try to be funny.
Which is probably a bad thing.This movie tries to be funny.
I am from the South and perhaps that makes it a lot harder for me to like this movie.
Gay life in the South can produce some outlandish characters that were hinted at in the movie but were colorless and forced.
The real life characters I grew up with were/are much funnier and smarter.But hey, I give Kelli Herd and her group 3 stars for trying.
She just needs to recruit less of her actors from dinner theater next time.I think we need more movies that from a gay perspective that are funny.
Hopefully funnier than this one, but still as "nice".I think my favorite character was the knitter in the mens "hetero is good" group..
The title and the promotional copy pushed the movie as a farce, but the film shied away from really exploring the grotesquery and silliness of the situation.
So I settle myself down for a great gay movie from the distribution company that brought me "Defying Gravity" and the wonderful "Big Edin" and I had to struggle to make it through, hoping for a redeeming moment.
A Good-Effort, Campy B-Movie.
Although a big hit at gay and lesbian film festivals nation-wide, It's In the Water lacks in artistic merit and quality acting.
If you just want a fun little movie then this is the flick for you.
This had to be one of the all-time worst movies I have ever seen.
And the stereotypes of everyone, straight, gay or whatever, were all exacerbated further along by this movie.
This film might be entertaining for those starved for gay and lesbian film.
The characters don't even make good campy caricatures.
With all the excellent gay and lesbian cinema out there, there is no need to waste 100 minutes of your life on this valiant but failed Texas small-town effort.
The four other gay and lesbian friends who saw this film with me would agree..
This is easily one of the most horribly-acted, derived, uninteresting, stereotypical movies I've ever seen.
And of course, the leader of the "ex-gay" group HAD to get caught coming out of a leather bar, in full leather regalia, have his picture snapped and spread on the front page of the local paper...didn't see that one coming six miles away.)Please, don't rent this film; it's mere existence is pointless, except to provoke commentary like this and to diminish my faith in the movie-viewing public..
Quite frankly it was the most depressing movie I've seen in a long time.
If you want a good movie of that subject try "Better Than Chocolate".
With such a working title as it was, the screen writers, producers, directors etc could have had a field day and come up with a brilliant movie.
Stereotypical homophobic characters are simply not funny in movies or really life.
What I was expecting was a lovely town with gays in it, suddenly thrust into comic scenarios and panic over the state of their water supply.
Script is banal; the only reasons worth seeing this film are to hear the gospel choir at the end (the scene is annoying but the singing itself is good) and the relationship between Mark and Tomas.
A Must-Have for Every Gay/Lesbian Video Library!.
If you're ready for a great lesbian and gay romance that's also hysterically funny ...
or a brilliant film that projects positive lesbi-gay images with eye-pleasing protagonists ...
or something you'd love to watch with Mom or Dad, then RUN, DON'T WALK, to your local video store (Blockbuster carries it) and rent IT'S IN THE WATER!
Come to think of it, buy your own copy, as you'll want to watch it over and over again!Rarely have I seen any production (film, television, stage) that accurately portrays the South, much less what life is like for a lesbian from a socially prominent family in a small southern town.
Though some of Kelli Herd's characters may seem bigger-than-life (Hell, it is Texas, after all), let me tell you characters like these truly exist in my home town -- maybe even in yours.Though set in the South, this has been an audience favorite at festivals the world over.
It is truly one of the best films I've seen in years.
Excellent gay/lesbian film.
This film offers a very funny look at small-town Texas with a healthy helping of gay and lesbian sensibility and a silly dose of heterosexist paranoia.
The movie was clearly focused on Alex and her character and story were the most well-told.
I'd definitely recommend it to anyone needing a good laugh that can appreciate gay-themed stories or that need to have some of their heterosexism deflated..
The best gay/lesbian film I have seen.
Much recommended, both.Though unpolished at spots, this is overall a very good indie film.
But, they are great.The clueless socialite -- who of all things recently played a nurse (available free at her IMDb page; a very good performance) in an AIDS hospital -- was also wonderful.
The gay couple gets less play, but they are nice too.
I also am not sure if the "water" thing totally worked.
It ultimately was a bit silly and the true focus of the movie are the two couples.The commentary is also recommended -- the w/d and the two female leads take part.
Such is life, surely in a conservative little town in Texas, and it should be pointed out that even the mother did hire the gay decorator.
And, deep down, we see many in the town are good people.Finally, I love the expressions on the characters' faces ...
The friend who rented this thought the story line was that something actually WAS in the water which turned everyone in town gay for a short period of time.
Unfortunately, this benighted offering gets its title from a joke told by one of the characters about a third of the way through the film.
Sadly, the film is as lame as the joke.The story follows the residents of Azalea Springs, a small, Southern town, as they deal with an AIDS hospice opening in their midst.
However, Alex Stratton (Keri Jo Chapman) thinks it's a good idea, and despite the objection of her overbearing mother (Barbara Lasater), and wimpy, uncaring husband (Matthew Tompkins), she goes to work there.
Meanwhile, Mark Anderson (Derrick Sanders), son of the owner of the local paper, wants to cover the story in a light sympathetic to the hospice, but his father (Tommy Townsend) is only interested in sensationalistic news.
The acting and dialogue are uneven, brilliant at times and embarrassing at others.The two leads, Keli Jo Chapman as Alex and Teresa Garrettt as Grace were exceptions, they were always right on and believable, their dialogue also rarely hit a false note.
Another total stand out and always worth watching when on screen was Sloan the ex cheerleader clueless society social climber whose facial expressions were priceless.Spencer, was also one of those you know someone just like that characters.(as were all of the gay men for that matter, with the exception of "Brother Dan" who was a little too over the top.
It would have been better if he wasn't so despicable.What didn't work and got in the way of a perfectly wonderful movie, was the obvious good health of the dying Bruce.(Although his old queen was again a stereotype that must exist in every American town.) The anguish and eventual coming out of the newspaper owners son was flawed as was Alex's coming out by the fact that we wanted to see personal reaction and got political statement.
He is desperately trying to be what his father and the community want but, finding himself drawn in another direction by the very handsome Tomas who ends up painting Mark's dining room and his life a better colour.
All in all this is one film very worth watching and is very finely acted. |
tt0116762 | Keys to Tulsa | The story revolves around a perpetual loser and slacker named Richter Boudreau (Eric Stoltz). Richter is from a privileged background in Tulsa, Oklahoma and works as a movie reviewer at a local newspaper only because his sour mother Cynthia (Mary Tyler Moore) pulled strings for him to land the job. He is dissatisfied with the direction that his life has taken; his girlfriend Trudy (Cameron Diaz) breaks up with him in the opening scene after another disastrous date, he is about to be fired any day from his job because he can't meet deadlines, he lives in a dilapidated farmhouse, he uses and sells drugs behind the scenes for some extra cash, and he is so irresponsible with life in which he has gotten so far behind on his bills that his electricity has just been cut off.
Richter also owes money to Ronnie Stover (James Spader), an abusive drug dealer who he deals with. Ronnie is married to Vicky (Deborah Kara Unger), a beautiful woman who was disowned by her socially prominent family for her involvement with Ronnie. Richter is still in love with Vicky despite having ended their relationship many years before. Vicky is the sister of Keith (Michael Rooker), a misogynistic alcoholic whose large inheritance fails to soothe his anger, loneliness, and depression. Cherry (Joanna Going) is an exotic dancer from Chicago who buys drugs from Ronnie and gets romantically involved with Richter.
Ronnie plans to blackmail Bedford Shaw (Marco Perella), the son of a socially prominent businessman named Harmon Shaw (James Coburn), after Cherry tells him that Shaw murdered her friend, a stripper/prostitute, in a motel room and that she took photographs. Ronnie attempts to involve Richter by having him hold on to a mysterious black pouch and by exploiting Richter's newspaper connections. Richter wants no part of the blackmail scheme. But he gets in over his head when Keith discovers that Richter has been sleeping with Vicky. | murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | A twisted plot and good acting.
Forget what some of those other reviewers said--this is a good movie!
(Perhaps the plot twists were a little too challenging for them to follow.) The acting is great--especially Deborah Unger and James Spader.
And Mary Tyler Moore does a great holier-than-thou slut-turned-society-swell.
And Cameron Diaz is dead-on as a ditzy blind date.
And Joanna Going does a hot striptease.
Call me crazy, but I really enjoyed this flick.
I'm not nominating anyone for awards, but can't help but love the cast.Being a heterosexual male, I am in TOTAL love with Joanna Going and Deborah Unger.
Not all movies have to reinvent the wheel.
Good Grief!.
Handsome red-haired Eric Stoltz (as Richter Boudreau) has trouble making ends meet on the salary he makes as a "Tulsa" Okalahoma newspaper movie critic.
One end he likes to meet is his nose to a line of coke, though Mr. Stoltz never seems to get a buzz off the stuff.
He also smokes cigarettes constantly, probably because nobody told him you have to inhale the dammed things for the desired effect; since the character Stoltz plays would work just as well if he did not smoke, why he pretends is a mystery.Another end Stoltz likes to meet is the one that finds what he calls the "nether regions" of topless house-guests who spread their legs, like strung-out stripper Joanna Going (as Cherry).
Her line, "Sometimes I feel like a little animal protein," is a tip off.
Ms. Going is introduced by Stoltz' dark hair-dyed dealer James Spader (as Ronnie Stover).
Mr. Spader, who fills his tight clothing well, is married to Stoltz' lusciously lusty ex, Deborah Kara Unger (as Vicky).
Trigger-happy Michael Rooker (as Keith) connects everyone.Supporting and cameo shots come from Mary Tyler Moore, James Coburn, Cameron Diaz, and Peter Strauss.
The DVD sleeve touts Ms. Diaz as one of the top-billed stars, but her "comic" interlude lasts only a few minutes.
The synopsis reads, "The black sheep son of a wealthy Tulsa family returns to the world he'd renounced and is forced into a blackmail scheme by his high school sweetheart's menacing husband.
When he helps the only eyewitness to a murder, he gets caught in a web of revenge, deceit and redemption." Sometimes "Tulsa" seems an awful lot like a "Hollywood" acting class.
Stoltz seems to play it straight, while most of the others seem to be having some scenery-chewing fun with their characters.
This film was promoted as a "crime thriller" but often looks like it was really intended to be a "comedy thriller" - at least, that is how it comes across.
In any case, it's not entirely clear - or successful - but the society "party" scene is funny, with Ms. Moore, Going and Josh Ridgway (as Billy) seeming to capture the film's mood.***** Keys to Tulsa (11/20/96) Leslie Grief ~ Eric Stoltz, James Spader, Joanna Going, Mary Tyler Moore.
Could of been great...
Had this been produced by a major studio with an experienced director at the helm, this movie would of been so much better.
Keys to Tulsa contains both the look and music of countless straight to video/cable movies from the same period.
Which is a shame because the cast is great and was clearly game for anything.
Fans of David Cronenberg's Crash will find it amusing to see James Spader and Deborah Kara Unger reuniting, playing a trailer trash couple instead of a yuppie couple.
But just like in Crash, their characters aren't exactly faithful to each other.
However it's the beautiful Joanna Going who steals the show, looking like a skinnier and smaller breasted Alyssa Milano as the stripper named Cherry who is constantly under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at all the wrong times.
It's surprising to know that she was around 34 when she made this movie, as she looks more like 24.
Adding more insult to her great performance, despite her large role her name nor picture is nowhere to be found on the region 1 DVD case from Artisan.
Meanwhile, Cameron Diaz who only has a cameo that lasts a few minutes at the beginning of the film has second billing..
Keys To Tulsa spends most of its two-hour length teetering on the brink of being a convoluted mess, but the wit and charm of the script and the cast combine to make it a worthwhile watch.
Eric Stoltz is hilarious as the hapless Richter, delivering some great one-liners and generally appearing to enjoy the hell out of most of the movie despite his character's fairly pathetic situation.
There are a lot of characters with a lot of back story in Keys To Tulsa, and at times it's easy to forget who has done what to whom.
(There are also three characters named Richter, Victor and Vicki in this movie, which may work on paper, but phonetically it's a little jarring, and there's no apparent reason for them to have such similar-sounding names.) Overall, though, it works as kind of a slapsticky film noir.
Mary Tyler Moore is a scream as Richter's mother, and Michael Rooker is reliably freaky as Richter's childhood friend.
It's not what you'd call high art, but it's a lot of fun..
While I may be wrong about many things, compelling trash is not one of them.
This film, like the much under-appreciated "Freeway" is NOT a "so-bad-it's-good" film.
The film has a definite made-for-cable pace, but I think this adds to its "colored-umbrella in my drink" ambiance.
Kind of like "Miami Vice" should have been.
The primary reasons to see this film are the acting and the script.
First, Eric Stoltz is wonderfully blissed out and funny.
Second, Spader does a great stretch in this film, and he makes the catch.
Third, Ms. Going walks on water.
Fourth, so does Michael Rooker.
Trust me; you really want to see James Coburn say "We, Richter, we're men, we love our women badly." It's a grade "A" genuine hoot and a half.
And Cameron Diaz has precisely 3 minutes of screen time..
"Keys To Tulsa" is not completely uninteresting - that would be impossible with the cast it has (including a made-up-to-look-like-Elvis James Spader and a HOT Deborah Unger).
But the story never seems to build and the movie drags from one purposeless dialogue scene to another; it goes on so long that it begins to resemble a soap opera.
Took too long to get going.
About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored.
Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull.
Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all.
However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes.
So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment..
Wow. Great movie.
This is a really good movie.
Great acting, dialogue, and full bodied plot keep this film moving just fine.
You'll need to dig this one up in VHS at your local video dealer, but it's well worth the search.
Lock This One Up And Throw Away The 'Keys".
I am glad to see most other people here don't think much of this movie, either.
It has some big names in the cast, but that's it.
There is nothing else to recommend, save ogling a few pretty women which you can do in a thousand films.The story involves nothing but unlikable, self-centered, chain-smoking, "hip" characters that national film critics all seem to like....and most of the public can't stand.
The Oklahoma accents are so fake they are laughable, the southern racist stereotypes are right from Liberal Hollywood 101 and the story is depressing..
I saw this movie late at a Saturday night on Tv and after all I think it worth staying awake .
It's not a perfect or even a very good film but it has a very interesting story and many well-known performers in big or small roles.
Acting is not at it's best though I would like to mention Deborah Unger's performance (or should I say magnetism).
It's kind of reminding me those doomed generation movies of the 80's like "Less than zero" or so.
Anyway I rate it with a straight 9 out of 10 for personal reasons, for all of you that haven't seen it yet, I think that at least it worth a look!.
James spider was pretty cool in the film.
I don't think I've seen him play a role like that.
Though he's good at playing a dick, he had this kinda Elvis thing going on in the film that made him almost unrecognizable at first.Of course I could be given Mr. Blacklist too much credit.
He was good in a sea of bad performances.
Everyone was trying to be cool and dramatic and tortured all at once and it was coming across nothing but lame.It's funny that the movie is made in 1997 or more likely it was just released in 97.
The filmed screamed early to mid-90s with the clothes and hair cut.It feels aged and out dated as it reflects the culture of rich white people in the 90s.
You would think being rich and white was ageless as it still exist today, but I definitely walked into a time warp with this one.Overall, it's long and boring and feels like it goes nowhere, so I can't recommend.
Keys to What?.
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going.
Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff.
It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright.
Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie.
Not much to like here..
This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so.
I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere.
To me the action isn't worth recounting.
Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk.
A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail.
Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger.
That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture..
The worst movie of all time?
This is the most lifeless, souless, plotless mess that I have ever witnessed and isn't remotely as fun as any bad Ed Wood movie.
Eric Stoltz, looking like Bridgette Fonda's twin sister, er brother, laughingly fakes his way through this as some kind of stud.
Defying all laws of science, Stoltz "attracts" every woman that he comes up to.
Michael Rooker portrays somebody, possibly a Southern stereotype but I have yet to see anyone who looks or acts like this while I've lived in the South.
This movies's problem, other then the terrible acting, the lifeless characters and the dead story, is that it knows nothing about places like Tulsa, Oklahoma, yet portrays them with a seriousness that makes you believe that they live there.
We find out what the "plot" is about an hour and a half into the movie.
It has something to do with white people being evil.
The problem is that there is not one black person in the entire movie (other then a waiter with a five second part) and the story is being told by rich, white actors so there is ZERO credibility and is completely insulting.
Until the "plot" unfolds an hour and a half into the movie, people stumble around and don't do much of anything.
On the positive side, I did use to like the moody "Keys to Tulsa" theme until I realized that it was depressing.
On the other hand , James Spader is seen here as a very menacing and masculine character and Deborah Unger , Eric Stoltz and Cameron Diaz all do a fine job of showing us the kind of trouble that wealth coupled with boredom can get a spoiled and no longer quite that young brat or two into .
I enjoyed it .
I got it out to see a bit more of Ms. Unger , but I gained a much greater appreciation of Mr. Spader ..
Where's the plot ?.
If you want to see a mystery, don't watch this.
Though there are elements straight out of Elmore Leonard territory, this comes closer to an episode of "Dynasty", since the filmmaker focuses on "character development" - i.e. long, boring talks between stupid, un-involving characters.
Some people can make fascinating movies without real action (see "Exotica"), but not this one.
Avoid it, especially if you like the actors involved in this one..
Where are the keys to get outta this movie?!.
My boyfriend and I made the horrible mistake of renting this one evening.
We were intrigued as it had several actors in it that we liked.
Also, I am from Tulsa, and not many movies are made that even mention Oklahoma (aside from stereotyping us as inbred crackers and redneck bigots).
This film doesn't get away from the stereotyping at all.
The accents were completely inaccurate, as well.
This movie was so boring that after about an hour, we both agreed to shut it off.
What was Cameron Diaz thinking when she agreed to do this one?
If this is the only thing left on Saturday night at the video store, I recommend that you take the keys to the nearest theater.
You'll pay more money, but at least you won't be wasting time.
This is a genuinely horrible film.
The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable.
(I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches.
The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it..
Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf.
If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction.
I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it.
How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas?
The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in.
Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it.
I know this sounds picky but I can't help it.
I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting.
But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!!
I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma.
What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto?
Sexy people for every gender to enjoy **slight spoilers**.
The first time I watched this movie, I hated it.
The second time I watched it, I liked it.
The third time, it actually started to make sense.
So ultimately there IS a cohesive plot, you just have to really pay attention, or watch it a few more times, which you won't mind doing if you like seeing a very-close-to-naked Eric Stoltz or a viciously sexy James Spader strutting around like Elvis.
Or, if you prefer women, there's the beautiful and talented Deborah Unger, some gratuitous strippers, and this completely unrealistic Cherry girl who keeps peeling off her clothes at the first drop of alcohol.
The reason I didn't like this film is the dialogue is so trite and predictable that you roll your eyes after every other line, and even though 1997 wasn't that long ago, this film feels completed dated.
The didjeri doo (however you spell it) music is completely out of place, and obviously just trying to be trendy.
Cameron Diaz serves no purpose except to be annoying, and the Keith/brother character is so offensive and unlikable that I was actually disappointed when he didn't blow his own head off.
The 'adolescent male' conversation he has in the bar with Richter was almost enough to make me stop watching.
I did think the acting was good.
I especially liked the interplay between James Spader and Deborah Unger.
These two also appeared as a married couple in David Cronenberg's Crash, but their characters in that were completely different.
So I thought this film was a good example of their versatility.
Otherwise, the film is worth a rent to see James Coburn say 'sit down son, have a .
nut.' And of course, half naked Eric Stoltz and James Spader as Elvis. |
tt1795096 | Behzat Ç.: Bir Ankara Polisiyesi | Behzat Ç. is a rough, violent, and morally ambiguous police officer who is the head of the homicide department in Ankara. His team consists of five people: Harun, Hayalet (Ghost), Akbaba (Vulture), Cevdet, Selim and Eda. Behzat Ç and his team usually work together with the public prosecutor Esra, who later becomes his love interest. They chase criminals with perseverance and solve murders while sometimes (and usually unwillingly) getting involved in different cases.
=== Character background ===
Behzat Ç. graduated from the police academy in 1985. He does not care much about his superiors — not even the law in some cases. He only follows his inner conscience and instincts. This often brings him trouble. Even though he graduated from the police academy many years ago, suspensions and reprimands have kept him in the same position for years while his colleagues have reached the top of their careers.
After an unsuccessful marriage, he no longer trusts women. The only woman he seems to care about is his daughter Berna. During the first season, Berna is found dead, which looks like a case of suicide at first glance, but turns out to be a murder. Behzat Ç. and his team attempt to solve the secrets behind her murder. During the ordeal, he becomes close to his ex-wife, but she turns down the relationship. He gets in a relationship with a club singer named Gönül and then becomes interested in Esra. The main suspect in Berna's death is flamboyant mob boss and businessman, Ercüment Çözer, who is tracked down successfully by Behzat Ç., but flees abroad using his deep political connections.
At the end of the first season, Berna's killer is revealed to be Şule, a girl who has been living with Behzat Ç. for months and whom Behzat Ç. treats as a second daughter. Later in the episode, Şule also confesses to Behzat Ç. that she is his biological daughter. The final episode of the first season was considered by many critics as the best season finale of a Turkish TV series.
The second season begins a few months the events of the first season. During the first episode of the second season, Behzat Ç. does not speak (which was a running theme for most of the second novel, Son Hafriyat). This season also involves a new main plot as well as numerous new and old subplots that introduce and explore new characters. The main plot of the second season is the search for the Parmak Kesen Katil (Finger-Cutter Killer), who started killing again after a hiatus of 15 years.
The series is currently planned to last three seasons and up to 100 episodes. | murder | train | wikipedia | The Legend Series Behzat Ç..
Through this series I liked Ankara.
Behzat Ç is a rough, violent and morally ambiguous police officer who is the head of the homicide department in Ankara.
Behzat Ç and his team usually work together with the public prosecutor Esra, who later becomes his love interest.
I wish though that all police officers.A series of very sincere.
All the characters in the series so good.
They complement each other.
Array doing different from other series.
'La' word stuck in my mouth.
Unfortunately, the series it was finished.
I wish I had not been this way.
Very more should be done like this series.
It became one of the series will not be forgotten.
Too Good For Turkey.
This show airs in Turkey where there are a lot of censorship.
The committee is really conservative and they tend to censor all kinds of sexual activity(mostly even kissing), insulting, blood etc.
Yet, life's itself has a lot of these situations.
And this show clearly has the purpose of being natural.
They use insultive words just as all Turkish people do.
I am from the US and loved the Series.
Saw this on NETFLIX.
Gave me a great view on what Turkish life and customs and political issues .
I was sad to see it end at 96 episodes as I felt like I was loosing friends.
I know they are only TV characters, but still I wonder what happened to them, how their lives went.
That is what a great TV series should do it should make you feel the characters are real and care about them..
Impressive series.
The series is about a homicide detective, the people around him and his mental state.This series is very well executed, all questions get answers.
There are even a few plot twists that I didn't see coming.
The characters are believable, and they are acted skillfully.
It captures the social conflicts in Turkey well.
The murder cases are usually interesting.
It is one of the best shows I've ever watched, a list that includes many expensive Hollywood productions.
It was actually very surprising that I'd like a show from Turkey this much.There are a few negative points however, for which people who consider watching this should prepare themselves.
First, there is a lot of swearing.
This is made worse by the censorship enforced by Turkish TV.
All the swearing is bleeped out, so sometimes it feels like you are listening to a voice-over by R2D2.
Some visual elements are censored as well, such as alcoholic drinks later in the show.
As the last point, English subtitles are not very well translated.
You'll get the point, but sometimes how something is said is important to capture the depth of the scene, which is typically lost.All in all, I'd recommend this to anyone who are interested in a police drama..
Something rotten in Ankara.
IMHO,this TV series makes more damage to the ruling party in Turkey than the total damage made by all opposition parties.
I observe that the criticism directed by Behzat Ç toward the ruling AKPARTİ and the system in general has a great influence on ordinary people.
In this respect, it should be acknowledged as an epitome of social impact made by a quality artwork.
Moreover this impact is not limited to those who detest the government.
For example, I never refrain pressing people to watch Behzat Ç.
which contains numerous issues disturbing for a conservative, though I am an ardent conservative and supporter of AKPARTİ.
Interestingly, I know many Erdogan (premier) admirers who disconnect home phones and close cellphones on Friday nights.
What allures me and the others in Behzat Ç.
is the property that nothing seems phony in it.
The unification of genuineness, and heartfelt and balanced criticism turned out to be a shattering source of strength.
Hence, its impact ratio is massive, however Behzat ç.
is not a rating monster..
A great combination of reality and fiction.
Behzat Ç.one of the best realistic shows in Turkey maybe the best.As writers says:what's happening in life it must be in Behzat Ç.
to because of that the show has pressures from a lot of different organizations so producers decided to end the show in 100 episodes.You can see reality in everywhere from Actors's language to extras-es.Behzat Ç.
is fiction part of the show.He's a police who doesn't care politic,religion,ideology.He's just want to do his job.He also just watch documentaries in TV(i guess there's a joke behind it to) but in that job you can't escape from politics and some dark relationships when show gone forward Behzat finds himself a lot of dirty jobs,danger,puzzles and of course murders.It's really hard to review about Behzat Ç.
but in the end I just can say a great Drama including great writers,actors and great puzzles.I don't know what more can i say but i know a year later from now.We all feel emptiness of Behzat Ç.
its very special and hard to fill its spot..
Best of Turkish Series.
More than Series.
Sincerity, Mystery, Drama, Comedy, Ankara, Detective.
More than one array, separate.
Are you going to another world.
unusual for a Turkish series will capture your soul.
The characters are all like one of us.
The characters are all like one of us.
They are not made up nor irrational.
They are not made up nor irrational.
And this novel based show, is the best of it's genre in Turkey by far.
And this novel based show, is the best of it's genre in Turkey by far.
The leading role is quite charismatic, reckless, smart and good-hearted character but he's still perfectly natural.
The leading role is quite charismatic, reckless, smart and good-hearted character but he's still perfectly natural.
he doesn't use unrealistically expensive phones, he doesn't wear different clothes in each scene.
he doesn't use unrealistically expensive phones, he doesn't wear different clothes in each scene.
They focus on the story which consists of crime scenes with secrets and enigmas in Behzat C's psychological situation and history..
They focus on the story which consists of crime scenes with secrets and enigmas in Behzat C's psychological situation and history..
Fascinating Turkish Crime Soap Opera.
This series is interesting to view in terms of an insight into the Turkish way of life.
The story lines are sometimes good and sometimes totally crazy.
The characters are extremely well acted but at times annoying to watch which is what they are supposed to be and is a tribute to the professionalism of the actors.
To complete the series is a marathon.
Individual episodes are complete in themselves but there are several continuing story lines which attract you to the next episode to see what happens.
What is fascinating is portrayal of the way policing operates in Turkish Muslem society and how citizens and police have to be wary of potentially corrupt entities within a highly authoritarian state.
With potentially 150 hours of watching time I suspect not many people will make it to the end..
Best show made for TV - most clever and intense scenario.
Best because it is daily life..
they are not acting, it is like a window to someone's real life..
so intense, so sincere, so real..
You can find friendship, sacrifice, pain, empathy, understanding, passion, intelligence unlike modern series..
I wish I was one of them.you must know that series can be found in youtube, and if you are a real fan of these guys and their dialouges, you should also check cep dizi series..movies are also nice, completing the missing parts in TV episodes..as my last words, I could say that, I cried and laughed with the series for the last 6 years...
I keep restarting from the first episode and everytime I watch one more time, I see what I have missed in the previous time I watched.
.definitely helpful for your psyhcology..
especially if you are emotional..remember to buy beer or raki before you start, believe me you will need that!.
widening understanding.
Cinema and series from all parts of this world can entertain,enlighten,help understanding a country and its people...Behzat does that,yes a "cop show" of all things!The characters are real it seems,we get glimpses of life in Turkey/Ankara,we have a taste of levels of government,police structures,modern and more traditional aspects of a country portrayed by some media(all!?)in a over simplistic manner....amazing show,thank you to the Turkish People!.
Best TV series ever in Turkey.
is basically about the adventures of a homicide detective and his squad in Ankara, the capital city of Turkey.
The series are adapted from the novels of Emrah Serbes (Her Temas İz Bırakır and Son Hafriyat) and directed by famous Turkish film director Serdar Akar, known with his movies Gemide, Dar Alanda Kısa Paslaşmalar, Barda and Kurtlar Vadisi Irak.
Erdal Besikcioglu is the star of the series.
He previously performed in Turkish movies Vali, Eve Giden Yol and Bal as well as various TV series (Ayrılık, Köprü, Es Es) although he is originally a theater actor.
The series enjoyed a widespread popularity especially among the Turkish youth because of its realistic dialogs (also including the use of slang) showing the injustices and controversies in juridical system and law enforcement agency.
Stories also touch upon some political discussions and criticize chauvinism..
When it is too good.
I am probably writing this because of the last scene on the 30th episode.
However by itself the 30th episode could not be the reason.
Constant quality of the work delivered by this group of artist had been bewitching me to the point that nothing else could satisfy my taste for crime drama.
I used to be a fan of Law and Order Criminal Intent, now it seems all too fictionalized for me.
The fact may or may not be seen by watching the broken life of Behzat C, his love interests or his bizarre roommate Sule, not even his crew who consists of a Ghost, a Vulture and a Tosun Pasa.
However they are so close to the fact, they make you think about them even can visualize them in your life.
And the Expert of Crimes Against Life continues on living and solving those crimes, while he lives, more or less like anyone of us..
Truly an Ankara thriller.
The series, now in its second season, is a scripted show that is shot over the general scenery of Ankara, Turkey's capital.
It employs local people, amateur actors, students, local celebrities and man off the street for walk-on roles.
Shooting the episodes mostly in popular local venues and people's homes, the series has a rather short list of permanent shooting sets: only the the homes of the main characters and the offices for the Homicide Squad is kept as a shooting set.
The scores generally belong to local bands or artists, Pilli Bebek being the most frequently featured.The characters support local teams, share Bohemian flats, get drunk, enjoy paid female company in shady night clubs and swear consistent with authentic local slang and swear words instead of sanitized versions usually preferred on Turkish TV.
Supplemented with excellent, authentic dialog, these provide an authentic realism to the stories and allows the series to delve deep into the personal demons of the characters.
The top brass detective in the Homicide Squad, Behzat C., (the series' namesake), is an anti-hero with the worst (and most) personal demons.The series has a definitive "left" stance and frequently delves into the superstructure of crime, crime organizations and the state-within-a-state.Each episode (usually 9o minutes long) starts with a homicide and the case is normally resolved by the end.
Each season also has a background story of a long running case.It's an exhilarating production, aired late night on Sunday..
A Psychological Politic TV Series.
What makes Behzat Ç Bir Ankara Polisiyesi such a great series not only its' story, but also its' characters and their depth.
None of the characters are shallow, they all have their own past and they are all played by great actors and actresses.
Erdal Beşikçioğlu as Behzat Ç, and Canan Ergüder as Savcı Esra are the most notable of these examples.
Origins of characters shown from time to time by flashbacks usually, especially if they are related with the topic of the episode.
Almost every episode starts with a homicide, and because our main characters works as homicidal investigations; they try to find the murderer.
But also there is a greater plot per season.
Behzat Ç even has a nemesis whose past and his motives for hostility against Behzat Ç has not been revealed completely.
Political side of the series is also highly controversial; some episodes attracted attention from officials, representatives and even from ministers because they contain serious criticism against the current administration..
absorptive capacity.
Behzat Ç.
Behzat Ç.
is a not a kind of TV serials which you are familiar with.
Its on its best when it makes a balance between your realities and your illusions.
A routine story of life goes parallel with the story of pressure which you already have because of the unwritten rules of the society, politics, family, even friends.
The naturalistic details are well structured within the story and it actually lies behind your story.
No fantasy, no hero, no fear, no side, no documentary, no fun, no show, no adventure, no eroticism
etc.
there is no clichés here.
As if it is the advantage of having dreams in which you become who you are in your subconscious.
i.e. when you get stress and feel pressure intrinsically in your any daily life , you may dream that you are punching a sand bag or something else to renew your physiological body by making you stress absorptive capacity empty again for the next morning.
The effects are the same in the serial.
I have no idea how they can do that.
Buy they are doing..
Episode 78.
I have thoroughly enjoyed watching this series.
When I have reached the final episode it will feel as though I am saying farewell to friends.
This is an incredibly written, directed, and acted series.
It is so realistic in many instances, to me, who knew very little of Turkish culture.
I have learned so much having watched this series through 78 episodes.
The characters are so dynamic, unpredictable, funny, loyal, and likable despite their flaws.
I particularly enjoyed Episode 78 due to how incredibly honest it was.
Vulture painfully recalling why the woman he had loved for so long committed the murders she did and Behzat admitting that Sule is his daughter.
How many times have we sat with friends, drinking, recalling past stories that have made our lives what they are?
I felt as if I was sitting with Behzat, Harun,Vulture, Ghost, and Cevdet sharing their pain , yet on the outside,able to laugh at their expressions and antics.
I will miss you, Homicide Bureau and all those characters who have made this a remarkable series.
I have come to the end of this incredible series that has captured my attention and heart through 96 episodes.
To me, the finest police drama I have seen to date.
Thank you, Behzat and all the members of your world. |
tt0416316 | Volkodav iz roda Serykh Psov | The setting of the film is a high fantasy Dark Ages Europe, in which desperate and bloodthirsty warlords fight brutal battles in their eternal quest for overlordship. Yet their swords, shields, lances, spears and arrows are all brittle, prone to wear and tear, and dull, protracting their campaigns against each other without end. Word spreads of a man in one of the Northern tribes: an adept blacksmith capable of crafting far hardier, stronger, sharper, and more durable weapons than any other known to exist, with aid of a mystical element. The warlords search for the enigmatic master of weapons to no avail.
A former druid chieftain named Zhadoba, jaded by years of warfare and believing the Radiant Gods have abandoned him, learns of the identity and whereabouts of the blacksmith and his coveted weapons, more valuable than any gold in such a time. With this knowledge, Zhadoba's heart is hardened to mercy and replaced with greed and bloodlust. Bringing even the feared warlord, the Man-Eater, under his spell, Zhadoba massacres an entire people, the Clan of the Grey Hounds, including their blacksmith, and takes his legendary weapons. The only survivor of the tribe, the blacksmith's fair-haired son, witnesses the slaughter and bites at Zhadoba's tattooed hand. Instead of killing the boy, Zhadoba orders the boy to be sent into the savage mines of the Crystal Mountains and to live a life of hard labor there, in conditions which will no doubt kill the boy anyway.
Against all odds, the boy cheats death through sheer determination and will, his strength becomes powerful through many years of hard labor, scarred by violence, and his prowess honed by a hunger for revenge. For many years his only companions were disheartened, tortured slaves and a strangely intelligent bat, Ragged Wing, who is destined to become his constant companion. After killing his overseers with weapons created using his father's secret techniques and escaping the mines, he becomes a wanderer known as Wolfhound: a great and fearless warrior, as well as a true master of weapons like his father before him.
After making the long journey to the Man-Eater’s castle, Wolfhound finally conquers his archenemy. He also frees two prisoners, the sage and healer Tilorn and slave-girl Niilit. Wolfhound accompanies them to their home city of Galirad, which has been thrown into turmoil. The power-crazed forces under Zhadoba are poised to attack the city with their superior weapons at any moment. With enough bloodshed, and the right ritual involving royal blood, Zhadoba believes he can resurrect the ancient Dark Goddess Morana from the Celestial Gates and draw power from her. The King of Galirad, to save the city from destruction, is giving his daughter away in marriage to Vinitar, a young warrior-prince who promises to protect Galirad - and who also happens to be the son of the late warlord, the Man-Eater. Princess Elen must travel to the land of her husband-to-be, and asks Wolfhound to be her guard in this dangerous journey. Wolfhound agrees to serve the princess and is caught up in a whirlwind of mysterious events, as the true purpose of the journey is gradually revealed, a secret which could plunge the world into an eternal living nightmare... | revenge, violence | train | wikipedia | A Mixed Bag. Russia's first proper foray into Tolkeinesque fantasy cinema, WOLFHOUND, based on the first novel of a tetralogy by Maria Semyonova about a last-of-his-tribe mighty warrior, is a mixed bag on the one hand, it is formulaic, derivative and uneven in terms of acting and pacing; on the other, there is enough novelty in the film's distinctly Slavic demeanor, philosophical subtext and production design to make it play well internationally as a crossover curio.WOLFHOUND opens with the back-story of the main character, a mighty warrior from the Grey Hound tribe named Wolfhound (Bukharov).
Standing between him and his goal is Wolfhound, who, after saving Helen from an assassination attempt in Galirad, becomes her bodyguard.Contrary to many Russians' fatalistic attitudes towards life, the film presents a new and intriguing philosophical slant in terms of the free will versus determinism debate, which comes out in favor of free will.
As a free man, he pursues revenge, but throughout the film, his conscience, in the form of visions of a female spirit, comes to question whether the seemingly fated cycle of killing is worth continuing when he encounters Vinitar, the last of his enemies, in battle.If the plot sounds formulaic and derivative, it is.
In terms of editing, the film could have been better served with a classic, chronological progression of the main character's life rather than its more trendy, non-linear, flashback tack, which dampens its philosophical message.The performances are uneven, with the supporting cast generally better than the leads.
Since this is Russia's first LOTR-style fantasy and the genre is very alien to Russian cinema, some sequences feel downright awkward in terms of acting.
Also a bit gawky is the very noticeable use of facial close-ups, presumably in order for the film to subsequently play well on the small screen.One of the more memorable performances was that of the matronly Nina Usatova as the leader of the savage Kharyuk people, whose lands Helen's entourage has to cross to reach her betrothed.
Usatova steals every scene in that sequence, which is somewhat obviously played for comic relief.Nevertheless, the film acquits itself well by stretching its comparatively shoestring budget to the limit.
It uses heat provided from the campfires and the three healing sequences (one of them repairing the bat's wing) elicit a sense of wonder.Outside of Russia, the film should benefit from the post-Lord-of-the-Rings renewed interest in the fantasy genre and the general curiosity about Russians' take on the genre..
'Wolfhound' sounded like it would be an entertaining joke - some low budget tragedy of a movie with a bunch of men running around with swords.However, while it wasn't the most amazing film I'd ever seen, there was very little to make fun of as I was shocked to find I actually enjoyed watching it.
(Yes, the fight scenes are hokey at times, but the way it's done you kind of start to transcend the action on screen and imagine more than there is.
Wolfhound's bat is an obvious gem, but there's enough other things to wonder about the various characters (the details that are glossed over sometimes) to keep you wondering despite the somewhat plain meta-story.Lush, interesting scenery also pops up from time to time, giving it hints of Lord of the Rings, and yet it's somehow nice not having over-exaggerated scenes.The clincher, though, is that there was something altogether too real about the movie.
Following his destiny Valkodav makes new friends in the face of a charming bat, a blind magician, a saved victim and a bedazzling princess.What I particularly like about this movie is its realistic atmosphere.
When the ultimate battle takes place Valkodav is at his upsurge to change the course of history.If you liked Conan and The Lord of the Rings, Wolfhound would certainly surge some emotions you though you had forgotten.
Russian made fantasy film concerning Wolfhound who seeks to get revenge on the people who killed his family and his tribe and threw him into slavery.
He ends up meeting a princess and...well thats the story.I don't know if this is a great film, I really don't care, Frankly the film grabbed on an emotional level and took me back to the place I go when I read good swords and sorcery novels.
This film has the high adventure of old Hollywood fantasy films but mixes it with a sense of reality and gravitas that is missing in pretty much every sword and sorcery fantasy movie.
This is a world where magic works and for most of the film its kept to a minimum so that the magic we see is special (indeed the film is reasonably free of CGI which only really shows up for the final show down between the various factions, and while the CGI at the end isn't LOTR perfect, it gets the job done).The story, based in some form on a novel or novels, is nicely dense.
The music is often married to some very beautiful sequences to stunning effect, I'm particularly thinking of the song of the prisoner who changed his fate and the sequence when the princess heads off to meet her bridegroom the latter is a beautiful sequence that is cross cut with the bad guys getting ready to attack.I love the film.
It may not be the best fantasy movie ever, but it's definitely in the top of my list.The story is not really all that original, but it's different enough from the typical Hollywood to feel fresh.
I'm still not convinced it's 100%, I think they "cheated" by using a real bat in some of the shots.Acting is good, even though it's not stellar; the characters are somewhat underdeveloped.Overall, I think it's a must-see movie - if only to see something different than you're used to.
It looked so fake, so cliché, so much obsessed with the big stars it had on-screen that the story had to take the backseat, that I couldn't watch it.) With this film, the Russians have shown that they still can do great movies.
Even from the start you know this is a heroic fantasy and the film fully delivers both in action and special effects and background story.
It also suffers from the Russian book worm: a lot of characters, sometimes you don't know who is who, since they all look dirty and long haired.
If you take Conan, you add a bit of Lord of the Rings and a little of the Sergiu Nicolaescu movies, you get an American-Romanian Wolfhound :) The ending is a bit pathetic, but the lead character is truly well played.
This movie is very well made, full of high tension fighting scenes and quite a nice plot (slightly touched by clichés like LOTR or Conan, of course).
Before 1989, living in Romania, I was intoxicated with Russian movies (the war ones, quite good, the classics - exceptional, but some of them were really crap), maybe more than other people behind the Iron Curtain.
Now, it's good to see there is a new fresh breath in the Russian movie-making..
I've just seen this glorious epic at a Kiev cinema and am amazed at how Russian cinema can release such a superb fantasy film.
This is an adaptation of the first Volkodav fantasy novel by Maria Semyonova that draws on a wide range of Slavic mythology.Alexander Bukharov is well cast as the hero, the "wolfhound" fighting the evil "wolf", with a strong supporting cast that relies on impact more than the hairstyles, tooth-whitener and revealing loincloths of Hollywood.
The obvious comparison is to Lord of the Rings, but the movie manages to keep originality in many plot strands, effects and characterization's.
By having the main effects based on primal forces of nature, rather than a new-generation iteration of Predator or Alien, it avoids the typical clichés that most fantasy films suffer from.
For start let me say that I am aware that this was adaptation of Mariya Semyonova's book which btw I haven't read, but I have read a lot of other fantasy/adventure books including many of Conan's adventures and I must say that this movie reminds me most of him (with some name changes and some addition of strength to main character).Volkodav visually looks very appealing and CGI was done well and not on expense of storyline (like most of Hollywood flicks this days).
but not better than anything else of what I have seen from fantasy movies...except maybe some of TV series crap.
looked like they decided "oh gosh, those saber-things in Star Wars looks good, we need a bigger and better one!".
The bat does look good...Another failing, but this is usual one for most fantasy movies, there is a single example of partially functional armour in the movie - main heroine wears a mail shirt at one point.
Rest wear some crazy mix of stupid looking non-functional stuff that would restrict movement and make it much harder to fight - no surprise that main hero ignores that crap and fights unarmoured, even if in book he preferred to wear a mail when possible.All in all, it is clear that with enough money they can get effects on the level of world standard, but otherwise this movie is a waste of time..
The main (and originally deep) idea of "Wolfhound looking for another life purpose after having done the only thing he've been dreaming about for 20 years" was transformed in an ordinary love story with some extra mystical evil.
The only good thing about the movie is the Bat -- the Wolfhound's pet.
Coming from someone who has no prior knowledge of the book and who loves Russian fantasy, Wolfhound was a film with good things as well as a lot of problems.
The way that Wolfhound looks is its best asset, the scenery is just breathtaking, the costumes really suit the fantasy atmosphere and most of the photography- excepting some slow-motion that doesn't add anything- and CGI are similarly great(loved the bat).
The atmosphere is brilliantly evocative as well, and there is some good acting in the supporting cast, Nina Usatova knows how to steal a scene and it is thrilling to watch.
The script is rather stilted and doesn't give the actors much to work with or give us time to properly get to know the characters(basically left as fantasy clichés), while the story is formulaic(much has been said about the Conan the Barbarian-like beginning and understandably), very daft at times and not always very engaging.
In conclusion, a fantasy film that induced mixed results from this viewer, some good things on display(the production values and music) but there's too much bad too(story, script and action scenes).
But the big difference with US pictures is that the narration here clearly has elements of Russian Folk Traditions, something that really adds to the usual fantasy/action films.
The dialog is so simplistic, the story is...i would say the writers made it along the way while shooting the movie - what ever something happens each of the main characters just calls for the help of some god that we never know the story of their relationship with.
I haven't read the book and maybe if i had many of the gaps would've been filled, but LOTR did fine filling any gaps for the people who haven't read the books...Ooops - I compared Volkodav with LOTR...:)the movie is not badly made, has some nice effects and thats basically it....
Right up there with the best Hollywood sword and sorcerer genre films, but this was even better as the characters weren't silly Americans.
Best Russian movie I've ever seen.
The story was a little hard to follow at times, and overall I found them pretty boring.When I picked up Wolfhound I was really expecting more of the same.However, it turns out Wolfhound is a pretty good movie.
I don't really have anything to complain about with this movie.I would have to say I liker it better than Eragon and In the Name of the King.The DVD case says "Conan the Barbarian meets Lord of the Rings".
Sure, I think it's a little better than the first Conan movie, but it really doesn't come close to The Lord of the Rings (what does?).
The very cliché colourless blue-green photography that has become almost universal since "Lord of the Rings" and makes me wonder if fans of those films (and the CGI artists responsible for them) have ever experienced real sunlight; 2.
This is a Russian fantasy film that can look back to a great tradition of movies like "Sadko" (1954); 2.
This movie has nothing left to see, it is the single greatest production I've seen in the past years in this genre.I have no idea how this movie managed to get to Germany because we don't have many east European productions synchronized but I'm happy that I've got the opportunity to see this.The acting is great, the story full plotted.
This movie isn't boring and also complete, it is five times better than Lord of the rings.
It's a classic but at the same time tries to avoid clichés.Sometimes there are some bad cuts, but it doesn't disturb the enjoyment of watching this movie.ALso, for the Germans, the synchronization is exceptional good..
If you are looking for something to compare it to, the cover of the movie comes pretty close.
This has to be a very poor attempt of fantasy, if this is the best the Russians can do then we don't have to worry about the movie industry in the West.
I suspect that the scene introducing her was cut for time or some such reason.However, this movie is ultimately about the titular hero being a bad-ass warrior rather than clever plotting, or careful film work.
The quote on the DVD cover for Russian fantasy/adventure flick Wolfhound describes this as 'Conan the Barbarian meets Lord of the Rings', and that is definitely what the film aspires to be, boasting a story that is remarkably similar to the Schwarzenneggar movie, and with director Nikolay Lebedev clearly attempting to emulate the epic grandeur of Peter Jackson's Tolkien trilogy in his more elaborate set-pieces.However, despite some fun moments and excellent production values—plenty of rubles having clearly been spent on state-of-the-art CGI and brilliant set design—Wolfhound cannot match either film in terms of sheer entertainment value.
It falls way short of Conan, its barbarian lacking Arnie's physical presence, and its narrative lacking the scope of the epic Middle-Earth movies, with Lebedev's chaotic direction and editing sapping potentially impressive scenes of excitement (the 'rousing' finalé is a noisy, confusing whirlwind of in-your-face effects).If you're an avid fan of the sword and fantasy genre, then I recommend checking the film out—it's got enough fun stuff in it to make it worth a go (Wolfhound's trained bat is particularly good); it is certainly no worse than a lot of the CGI-laden tosh that comes out of Hollywood.
This is the one of the best fantasy books from M.Semionova,and at least a true diamond of Russian literature from this field.I know that for the average people is sometimes hard to read the book and then to watch the movie...but hear this,there is a big difference from someone who only knows for movie version and a true admirer of this stuff.I think most of people were expecting to much,at least.Pay more attention on acting and the atmosphere thru the movie...Hollywood is,for a long time now,without a good script,and i will always more appreciate an European movie...this is the best advice i can give it to you all...
Because the story is quite good, for a fantasy movie.
Or let's say a fantasy-action movie if you will.
I think I still rated it too good, but only because I still give the Russians credit for trying to break into a film market that is run by financially bigger "players".
Every time an action scene occurs on screen (in the script), you can feel how the movie changes ...
Oh yes, one more thing...the special effects was so impressive, I felt like I was in movie lala land!
Now you know, thats quality film making and writing there *wink* If you enjoy this genre in films, sword fighting, fantasy, and happy endings...don't miss this little gem!.
Whoever the director ,don't deserves to be mentioned , I read the book and it is perfect ,but movie from start shows that the story was revised,and now is average ..
this movie is a shame for one of the best epic fantasy book that I ever read !Only what i like in this movie is casting of actors .
I am shame to say that I wish one of Hollywood studios buy the rights to the film and make better remake ,or HBO make series like they make book Game of throne in such perfect adaptation !!!!.
in Russia there are a lot of talented people to do something on the Hollywood level, and in this movie they should do a better effort.Fights...
I like all kinds of fights without fire arms, there are a lot of movies with good fights out there.
here you'll find a lot of changing very fast bad pictures.There is magic in the book, but NOT so absurd magic like in the movie.
horrible.I recommend to read the book and to understand that the movie should be on the LOTR level..
The last years we could see that Russian cinema produced some really great movies - Night Watch is a great example of that.
Well Im agree with the guy who said that the movie has a good part inside and that is the BAT :-) I cannot say that the actors are talented or not - the main heroine is pretty and sexy.
Wolfhound looks like Brad Pitt from time to time and other faces are typically Russian and not suitable for that kind of movie.
I saw some good CGI effects , some nice cadres - the one with falling arrows.I find the battle scenes well done - the movements are not typical for the other action movies - they are real and good. |
tt0146984 | The Legend of Bagger Vance | As an old man having his sixth heart attack while playing golf, Hardy Greaves (Jack Lemmon), contemplates how his wife used to ask him (before her passing) why he insisted on playing "a game that seems destined to kill" him. Explaining his love for the game, he begins the story of his childhood idol; Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon).
Junuh is the favorite son of Savannah, Georgia and a noteworthy golfer. From a wealthy family, the beautiful Adele Invergordon (Charlize Theron) was Junuh's girlfriend before he went off to war. While serving as a captain in the US Army during World War I, Junuh is traumatized when his entire company is wiped out in battle. Though he earns the Medal of Honor, he disappears after the war, returning to Georgia years later to live a shadowy life as a drunk, golf being just a distant memory.
At the start of the Great Depression (circa 1930), Adele is trying to recover her family's lost fortune by holding a four-round, two-day exhibition match between Bobby Jones (Joel Gretsch) and Walter Hagen (Bruce McGill), the best golfers of the era, with a grand prize of $10,000, at a golf resort her father opened as the Depression struck. However, she needs a local participant to generate local interest. The young Greaves (J. Michael Moncrief) speaks up for his golf hero, Junuh, prompting Adele to ask her estranged love to play.
Junuh is approached by a mysterious traveler carrying a suitcase, who appears while Junuh is trying to hit golf balls into the dark void of night. The man identifies himself as Bagger Vance (Will Smith) and says he will be Junuh's caddy. With Greaves as the young assistant caddy, Bagger helps Junuh come to grips with his personal demons and play golf again.
When the match starts, Jones and Hagen each play well in their distinctive ways, but the disengaged Junuh plays poorly and is far behind after the first round. With Bagger caddying for him and giving advice, Junuh rediscovers his "authentic swing" in the second round and makes up some ground. In the third round, he closes the gap even more, hitting a hole in one in the process. Junuh and Adele find their romance rekindling.
Late in the final round, Junuh disregards Bagger's advice at a crucial point and after that plays poorly. He hits a ball into a forest, where he has a traumatic World War I flashback, but Bagger's words help him to focus on golf. Junuh pulls back to a tie with Jones and Hagen, then has a chance to win on the final hole, but has the integrity to call a penalty on himself when his ball moves after he tries to remove a loose impediment.
Seeing from this that Junuh has grown and matured, Bagger decides his golfer doesn't need him any more. With the 18th hole left unfinished, Bagger gives the position of caddy to Greaves, and leaves Junuh as mysteriously as he came.
Though losing a chance to win because of the penalty, Junuh sinks an improbable putt and the match ends in a gentlemanly three-way tie. The three golfers shake hands with all of Savannah cheering. Junuh and Adele get back together.
The old Greaves wakes up seemingly fine and sees an unaged Bagger Vance beckoning him from a distance. Hardy follows, presumably to the after life. | romantic, boring, depressing, storytelling, flashback | train | wikipedia | advises him over i think 14 days the logic of war and why he has to fight and make things right..the movie: rannulph has lost his swing or the will to play golf...
Basketball movies meanwhile often rely on the street/hip hop connection and are just as loud, but with a slightly more gritty edge to them, provided you completely forget about the atrocious Space Jam. Bagger Vance on the other hand revolves entirely around golf and consequently, is a lot quieter, slower paced and gentle than its brash genre cousins, but it nevertheless possesses a charm and subtlety that is quite endearing.Told completely in flashback, the film's story involves Matt Damon's depressed World War One veteran Rannulph Junnuh taking part in a highly publicised golf tournament against two established (real life) professionals - Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones.
Thankfully, Junnuh's redemption and Vance's easy going friendship is enough to carry the film and the story, while corny, is just as charming as the title character.Elsewhere, director Robert Redford once again shows off his knack for beautiful cinematography.
As most of the film takes place on golf courses you're never too far away from some gorgeous scenery and the contrast between the vibrant green vegetation and stunning blue sky makes Bagger Vance a feast for the eyes.
He has lost his faith in himself and his ability to face life after his return from the war.The role of Bagger Vance, ably played by Will Smith, was not as God like as the character described by Steven Pressfield in his book from which this film was adapted.
We don't always have an opportunity to go back and take a second stab at life and that is the beauty of this movie.It is a wonderful thing to be able to go back and make amends for mistakes we have made in our lives and to come out on the other side as a better person.
I've seen it three times and enjoyed it immensely each time.It reminded me a bit, too, of "The Natural," but instead of baseball, this one features golf and real-life legends Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen playing the local guy, "Rannulph Junuh" (Matt Damon).
Charlize Theron is the beauty, playing "Adele Invergordon," a woman who organizes this famous golf match between the greatest amateur player of the world, the best professional and "Junuh," who is the focus of this story.
Damon had to learn the game from scratch, and did a fine job with his swing.The only part of this film that went a little overboard - but it's the fantasy part of the story - was the New Age-type preaching by "Bagger." However, some of his speeches were simply golf visualization, which has always been taught as a means to concentrate better on one's shot-making.
If you showed a golf or baseball movie today it would not be as believable because they no longer play for the love of the game but for the money.
If Redford had a mental picture of Bagger Vance before this movie started, I think he actually saw how Will Smith performed in this film.
By following this process and relating to it ourselves, this movie is a wonderful tool for becoming more present and being masterful in whatever we happen to be doing in our own lives.Bagger Vance (Will Smith) basically tells that the only thing that Junuh can do in order to win this game of golf is let go of his thoughts.
Still I regard it as a pretty good film, for a number of reasons.First, it is very well made, and artistically shot with some highly memorable scenes, such as the one where Will Smith first appears out of the dark.Second, it is very well directed, by Robert Redford.Third and finally it has a smashing cast, with Will Smith and Matt Damon carrying it beautifully.
Also, look out for Jack Lemmon's (for some reason uncredited) role as the old Hardy Greaves (it was one of his final roles)."The Legend of Bagger Vance" is a good watch, but it does get a bit monotonous after a while.
is also very well executed.I thought that Damon did a very credible job as Junuh, although his character is a Redford clone, right down to the haircut and whispery delivery of his lines, and Will Smith was surprisingly quite good as Bagger Vance.
I must admit when I read the novel I had a hard time imagining Smith playing this part, but he carries it off with Morgan Freeman-esque style.I completely disagree with every reviewer who enjoyed Charlize Theron's performance.
Her character is little more than a footnote in the book, and in this film they greatly expanded her role to have a romantic subplot that frankly has nothing to do with the rest of the movie and bogs down the story.
Like some of Redford's best films this one is also about life and death --old age and/or the coming of death are part of the resolutions of "The Milagro Beanfield War" and "A River Runs Through It. This is an unabashedly emotional and sentimental film, and that's great.
The Legend of Bagger Vance is one of those movies that are all about feeling good and inspiring messages all of which we have seen a trillion times before.: Chocolat, You've got Mail, etc.
Yet, it kind of works and Redford succeeds in persuading you to stay till the ending credits though the core of the story is not a romantic plot but rather the personal development of the Matt Damon's character Junuh.
A large part of the charm of the film is the beautiful setting of Savannah, and a very luscious Charlize Theron playing a glamorous local socialite who incites the exhibition golf match around which the whole story is revolving.
Just as golf is a game, so is life -- to some extent -- and cannot be won, but merely played.People that didn't like this movie obviously didn't think deep enough to realize how symbolic it truly is.
The Bagger Vance character in the book was a Christ-Like/Buddha figure, helping Junuh overcome the obstacles in his life.
Take "The Legend Of Bagger Vance".It's about a Georgian named Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon) who marches off to World War I one of America's greatest golfers but comes back without his swing.
Michael Moncrief) who won't stop believing in him, and the title figure, a mysterious caddy (Will Smith) who tells Junuh that golf, like life, is "a game that can't be won, only played."As with other Redford films, there is no real dialogue in "Bagger Vance".
Beauty is everywhere in "Bagger Vance", and the camera and lighting work here are exceptional, but there's never a feeling of real life creeping into the corners of the frame.What's good in this film is Moncrief, the one real Southern accent in the cast who has fun and a disarmingly non-precocious way about him.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsHaving directed Brad Pitt in A River Runs Through It,Robert Redford directs Matt Damon in The Legend Of Bagger Vance,a sentimental,warm hearted tale with a stern hint of life's misapprehensions at it's core.Indeed it is very pleasant,with some beautiful cinematography and engaging ,thoughtful performances.However,it gets kind of long and drawn out towards the end,and the end outcome is pretty obvious if you think about it.Still,Will Smith carries on from Enemy Of The State in proving he's got versatility as an actor aside from comedy films,in a cliched but thoughtfully pinned role as the mystical caddy arriving to aid Damon's struggling former golfer.Charlize Theron is also stunningly beautiful in her role,at one scene revealing herself in sexy lengeraie which should set pulses of the male viewer's running.The film is interestingly told from the perspective of an aged golfer suffering a heart attack on the golf coarse at the opening of the film,reliving his experiences as a 10 year old boy at the time the film is set.A sweeping score accompanies the proceedings ,nicely rounding off the film's whole.A tee in one,or whatever.***and a half..
He is that good.Bagger Vance is a character that comes into Rannulph Junnah's ( Damon ) life just as he's entered into a golf tournament against the two best golfers of their era, Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones.
As Bagger Vance says in the film, "Golf is a game that can never be won, only played." Words to live by.
I am sorry, Mr. Robert Redford, but the story does not do justice to the calibre of your actors.Fairy tale story about a drunk (forget the World War I connection) who has lost his self-respect and confidence and is "lost" for 15 years (Matt Damon as Rannulph Junuh) and beautiful Charlize Theron (Adele Invergordon) who for 15 years still loves Junuh and pines for him when she should have moved on with her life.
Along comes an "angel" in the form of Will Smith (as Bagger Vance) who knows all about the golf game and for only "$5.00 guaranteed" and the pair of shoes he "broke in" becomes the caddy for Junuh and throughout the game "helps" him to regain his long lost self-confidence."What we have here - is failure to communicate!" What can you get out of a golf movie?
With only three players in the tournament why work harder?Jack Lemmon was uncredited in this film (WHY?) as he played the Old Hardy Greaves telling the dubbed-over story of that one special moment in his golf life before he, now an old man, walks into the sunset to die on the old golf course he played all his life.
The movie might have been more effective had like in Titanic (1997), the narrative have come from one of the main characters such as Adele (played by Charlize Theron) in her old age.
It might be an accident that the number of holes played in this epic showdown is about the same as the number of years we get in the big game (on average), but this film is quite clearly about the game of life.Matt Damon plays Rannulph Junuh, a promising golfer from Savannah whose prodigious career is interrupted, and ultimately diverted, by World War I.
What I really liked about The Legend Of Bagger Vance is the great care that director Robert Redford did in evoking the feel and ambiance of Savannah,
Lemmon also provides the narration for The Legend Of Bagger Vance.Damon eventually accepts, but it's only when Will Smith comes along playing
The Legend Of Bagger Vance (2000) Plot In A Paragraph: Rannulph Junna (Matt Damon) a down-and-out golfer attempts to recover his game and his life with help from a mystical caddy named Bagger Vance (Will Smith).Easily one of my favourite Will Smith movies and performances (possibly THE favourite) and it's easily one of his most under rated and overlooked pieces of Work.
I cannot fathom how a movie of this quality, directed by Robert Redford, starring Will Smith, Matt Damon and Charlize Theron got great reviews, and yet it failed to draw much of a crowd.I've said earlier in the thread, I prefer it when Smith is actually acting, instead of just playing versions of his public persona.
After I had watched it, I was telling a friend how wonderful it was, and he replied "I don't like Will Smith, I hate Matt Damon and I can't stand golf!!
Will Smith was different to the usual brash character he plays, though still with his own flair and very good, Matt Damon can do anything and do it well, and while Charlize Theron didn't have as big a role, I felt her contribution added the final touches to an interesting story.
Hardy Greaves really looked up to Junuh and volunteered him to play in a golf tournament that Adele Invergordon (Junuh's girlfriend before the war) had managed to set up with two of the world's best golfers, Bobby Jones and Walter Hagan.
The film ends with Hardy Greves getting up from his heart attack on the golf course and seeing an unaged Bagger Vance waving him over.The theme of this move could be 'the way we think affects our and actions'.
I haven't read any other reviews of this, but I'm surprised to see such a low rating."The Legend of Bagger Vance" from 2000 is a Robert Redford movie about one of his favorite topics - sports.
Lying on the ground, he talks about his love of golf and tells a story set in the post-World War I era.In Savannah, there was a promising young golfer, Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon) who went to fight in WW I and saw his entire battalion killed, except for him.
Matt Damon as Rannulph is a man burdened by the past, frustrated by the present, but with a winning smile who finally realizes he has to go for it.I have two problems with this film: One is, don't tell me Bobby Jones was that good-looking; and secondly, The Public Enemy, shown on a theater marquee, was released in 1931.
The Legend of Bagger Vance is the uplifting story of a former pro golfer and war veteran Rannulph Junnuh (played by Matt Damon) who, with the help of an unconventional caddy, tries to rediscover his "authentic swing." Directed by critically acclaimed storyteller Robert Redford, this film offers much more than a suspenseful game of golf - though it certainly succeeds in that regard.
Will Smith lends his talent as the mystical Bagger Vance who not only caddies for "Captain Junnuh," but helps him discover what it means to "play the game" of life.What I liked most about this movie is that, while it is played out on a golf course, it goes much deeper than just a sports movie.
But after reading all the magic negro stuff and complaints about the characters are too wooden, and that Matt Damon and Will Smith can't act, I gave it a 10 to balance out against all the bitter people who like to go on the internet and slag stuff, I bumped up what in reality is probably more fairly scored as a 7 or 8.In my opinion, Will Smith is excellent in this film, possibly one his best performances ever.
Using a combination of life experience and an unexplainable knowledge Bagger Vance helps Junah find what he has lost, his "swing." Director Robert Redford uses golf as a medium to explain this, painful and emotional, story of a man who once had everything and lost it all fighting for his country in World War 1.
This same can be said of many movies, but BAGGER VANCE appears to hold itself out as something different, as if it's going to offer something new and sort-of meaningful when really all it's doing is rehashing the increasingly tired 'sport as a metaphor for life' theme.Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon), once a hotshot teenage golfer, lives in drunken semi-seclusion in his hometown of Savannah after a traumatic experience in the Great War. Junuh is a lost soul, a fact signified by Redford's insistence in obscuring his leading actor's face in shadow for the early scenes.
Bagger is a figure of mystery, perhaps guardian angel, perhaps God, literally emerging from the darkness in answer to the apparent cry for help Junuh made when he picked up his golf clubs again
This film is such a slick and glossy example of Hollywood professionalism that at times you find yourself suddenly jettisoned from the story to reflect on how damn slick it all is.
That's not to say Smith doesn't give a good performance, in fact he's very good and, after all the no-brainer blockbusters he's appeared in over the past few years you start feeling optimistic about what might be ahead from him, but no actor, no matter how good, could come out on top when called upon to wrestle with some of the truly laughable lines he delivers that are supposed to be laden with deep mystical meaning.Despite all this, THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE kept me interested for the entirety of its long and slowly-paced running time.
Robert Redford directs this fable about a mysterious caddy(Will Smith)who helps a once promising young golfer(Matt Damon)regain his magic touch.
Matt Damon plays Rannulph Junuh, a golf champion from Savannah, who leaves his gorgeous (isn't she?) girlfriend Adele Invergordon (Charlize Theron) behind to serve his country in World War 1.
The mystique of Will Smith's caddy is intriguing from an idealistic perspective; the same goes for Matt Damon's once-promising golfer trying to recapture the skill of his youth--only to find that it must be recreated.In the case of each of the above films, it helps considerably if the viewer already likes the respective sports.
Will Smith is on top of his game with this performance as the mythical figure "Bagger Vance" who poses as Rannulph Junuhs (Damon) caddy.
This movie, directed by Robert Redford and very well performed by Damon and specially Theron, talks about life through a simply golf game.
I saw this for the second time the other night and I thought, "this is actually pretty good!" The golf is average, but Matt Damon and Will Smith perform very well, and the spiritual side of it was more interesting than I remember the first time.
Every time Matt Damon would "lose his swing", Will Smith would give him some speech about golf and life and that would work for a little while.
The Legend of Bagger Vance is much more than a film about golf.
As one who plays the game of golf with some competence, I really appreciate the film-making technology of Bagger Vance.
That is to say, if you're the kind that pays as much attention to each shot, how it was arranged, how the script flows, etc., this movie will irritate you.The movie is headlined by two of the best actors of our generation, Will Smith (Bagger Vance) and Matt Damon (Rannulph Junuh). |
tt0105488 | Strictly Ballroom | Strictly Ballroom tells the story of an Australian ballroom dancer, Scott Hastings (Paul Mercurio), and his struggle to establish his personal style of dance on his way to win the Pan-Pacific Grand Prix Dancing Championship. Scott's steps are not strictly ballroom. Scott comes from a family with a history of ballroom dancing and has been training since childhood. Scott's mother Shirley teaches ballroom dancing, and his father Doug meekly handles maintenance chores at the dance studio.
After losing a competition to a rival pair, because Scott started dancing his own steps, his dancing partner Liz Holt (Gia Carides) leaves him for the rival male, Ken Railings, after his partner Pam Short breaks both her legs in a car accident. With only weeks before the next Pan-Pacific competition, try-outs begin to find Scott a new dance partner but, unknown to his parents, Scott secretly begins rehearsing with frumpy outsider Fran (Tara Morice), a beginner dancer at his parents' studio.
Scott is initially sceptical, but when Fran introduces pasodoble steps into their routine, Scott realises her potential. He walks her home one night and finds her Spanish family living in a tiny home next to the railway tracks, where Fran's family show him the authentic Spanish pasodoble style. As their rehearsals progress, Fran grows more attractive and self-confident. A few days before the Pan-Pacifics, Fran's family decide they are ready to dance pasodoble. Scott and Fran are walking together and talking until they kiss, as they were already in love.
When Scott returns to the dance studio, he finds Barry Fife, the conniving president of the Australian Dancing Federation who proceeds to tell him "the truth" about his parents, Doug and Shirley — they too were ballroom dancing champions, especially his father, until they lost the Pan-Pacific Grand Prix because of Doug's self-obsession and unorthodox dance steps. According to Barry losing the contest left Doug a broken man, sustained by the hope that one day his son would learn from his father's mistakes and win the Grand Prix. Scott is convinced to dance with Liz instead of Fran so he can win "for his father's sake". However, this is later revealed as a lie, part of Barry's plot to fix the competition so Scott and Liz will lose. Scott starts training with Liz, while a heart-broken Fran goes back to the beginners' class.
At the Pan-Pacific Grand Prix, Scott's friend Wayne Burns and his partner Vanessa Cronin overhear Fife talking to Ken and his partner Tina Sparkle saying that they will win no matter what. Wayne tells Les Kendall (Ken's coach, Doug and Shirley's friend and one of the judges) who then confronts Fife about it. Meanwhile, Doug finally manages to pull Scott aside and tells him the real story — Doug never danced at the competition because Barry convinced Shirley the only way to win was to dance the conventional steps with Les, but Shirley and Les lost the contest anyway. After hearing his father's revelation, Scott finds Fran and asks her to dance with him. Fife tries to cut the music and stop them from dancing but Scott's sister Kylie and her partner Luke (from the children's division) interfere until Fife's loyal companion Charm Leachman cuts the music. Fife then disqualifies them, but Doug, along with Fran's family, claps out a beat which encourages Scott and Fran to "dance from the heart", drawing cheers from the crowd and tears of joy from Doug. Finally Liz, having had a change of heart, turns on Barry and Leachman and restores the music. The couple's spirited dancing brings down the house. Doug asks Shirley to dance with him and the whole audience joins them on the floor. As the performance finishes, Scott and Fran kiss, the competition forgotten, as it was never about winning or losing. | psychedelic, satire, romantic | train | wikipedia | Best Dance movie ever, Greatest choreography and costumes; also a good Romance with its moments.
That's Baz Luhrmann, who is an expert at swinging a visual feast; and Strictly Ballroom is his red curtain trio opening(together with Romeo+Juliet and Moulin Rouge!).
Here are some unforgettable and timelessly cult scenes and moments I most like: 1- Scott&Francesca dancing in front of the Coca Cola broad sheet at the roof 2- Scott&Francesca dancing with Doris Day's "Perhaps,Perhaps, Perhaps(1954 version)" behind the red curtain 3- Francesca and Scott's meeting scene and the way she introducing herself to Scott 4- Scott practicing his style of dance and watching himself by the mirror 5- Scott's father starting clapping in unison when Scott&Francesca turned back to the stage where they are banned 6- Francesca persuading Scott upon the choices they look forward to make beside the wire fences they walk through in the nightStrictly Ballroom is one of the best choices to watch and enjoy it with your beloved.
Filmed in Australia on a tight budget, this movie succeeds in the one area that counts most: it _entertains_ the viewer.A parody of "underdog makes good" movies, Strictly Ballroom is set in the competitive world of ballroom dancing.
The movie educates (about ballroom dancing), amuses (especially with the bumbling bad guys), and uplifts (with the take-home message about following your dreams).The show is stolen by Paul Mercurio, starring as the protagonist male dancer.
But the whole thing is a good time that ends up having unexpectedly warm, deep meaning, and not many movies these days can say that..
See if you like Moulin Rouge, Dirty dancing or Romeo and Juliet.*original review written by me at 15, re-written at 22*Of all the reviews I wrote in my teens this has to be my favourite, namely because I still whole-heartedly love this film.
Strictly Ballroom gives you a window to look through, a world of dance and instead of tentatively peering through it, forces you right up against it, where a sea of multicoloured dresses and sequins lie.
The performances are uniformly winning, especially Paul Mercurio (a natural in his first starring role), Bill Hunter (the King of Australian comedy films), and Pat Thomson (as a hysterical bulldozer of a stage mother).
Strictly Ballroom (1992)A campy, glossy, colorful, surprising fairy tale, total romance, lots of dancing, and inventive through and through.
But mostly I was happy to watch and wait for the next step toward the big climax.The two young leads, interestingly, came from nowhere (the perfectly named Paul Mercurio and the understated Tara Morice both in their first films).
I don't know about you, but I watch dance shows for the dancing).There are no deep plot twists to be analyzed, no characters I need to understand better...but we definitely plan to watch this again because the dancing is really good.If you liked this, you will enjoy Best in Show..
Besides the romance and the satisfying reconciliation between father and son, the movie's basic message is just inspiring (A life lived in fear is a life half-lived!) The dancing is wonderful and should really be seen on the big screen for best effect.
Baz Lurhman of recent "Moulin Rouge" fame wrote and directed it, in large part based on his own adventures in Australian ballroom dancing.
Oh, and of course, they fall in love in the process.There are several interesting extras on the DVD, including a 30-minute feature on actual Australian ballroom dancers, their stories, and the results of a competition.
A very entertaining film for anyone who like dancing, and a good story..
Here's a different kind of story: mocking the ultra-seriousness of ballroom dancing, at least among people in Australia, where the film was made.
(Will filmmakers ever get themselves out of the 1960s?)Add some stupid humor, a very annoying lead woman (the mother of the star dancer), and a predictable storyline and you have another overrated critics' favorite.The good parts of the film are the colorful dancers and general cinematography.
Almost ten years before "Moulin Rouge!" Baz Luhrmann debuted with this exhilarating and hilarious p***take-cum-homage to the world of competitive ballroom dancing, replete with all the fake tans, false smiles, and more sequins than you can shake a stick (or rather, a tailfeather) at.
It's not only a whimsical, off-kilter love story, but also very very funny, and although he is just as guilty of the crowd-pleasing moves as his characters, and the basic story has been told a million times before, you can't fail to be won over by the exuberance and theatricality which is now a trademark of this most unconventional of directors.There are the seeds of "Moulin Rouge!" sown throughout "Strictly Ballroom", but the latter has more truth, beauty, freedom, and love...plus passion in abundance..
However the acting, editing and humor overcome this and turn it into a really great-fun-to-watch movie - and not just for dance lovers.
Although perfection would not be reached until "Moulin Rouge", SB is nevertheless a great launch pad for Baz's unconventional artistry.Of his three films("Romeo+Juliet" and "Moulin Rouge" being the other two)SB is definitely the most campy, with its extreme close-ups, the bizarre costuming of the dancers(which actually isn't that far from the real thing-at least in the 70's-)and especially the John Waters- like flashback sequence.
But SB also contains hints of Baz's talent for mixing music, imagery and emotion- I point out the scene where Scott and Fran slowly dance the rumba to Doris Day's "Perhaps".It may not be everyone's cup of tea;none of Baz's films are.
i had to watch this for an english assignment, have to tell about the australian identity in the movie, but im not gonna bore u with that.this is a great film, i could go on foreva with that, but im gonna tell you about my fave scene- when they are doing the rumba to 'perhaps, perhaps, perhaps' by doris day backstage at the championaship, they really do dance the dance of love.
you can see who are the better dancers, even if they havent won a championship before.great movie, and i so recommend it, the dancing they do just makes you jealous, and its hilarious, the caricatures just add the fun..
I was very pleased to see that even though this was a film that involved dancing made by Baz Luhrmann, Americans love it!
(Make sure you see that part, it's hilarious.) Scott's parents, who own the local ballroom dancing school, decide to look for another partner for him, as the Pan Pacifics (massive dancing competition) are coming up, and Scott absolutely has to win!
The plot as well as the cast are great, the choreography is absolutely fantastic, and Paul Mercurio and Tara Morice dominate the scenes as the couple dances their way to the final moment.
Now, don't get me wrong -- The plot was predictable, and had a modern day Cinderella feel to it, but it was done so well, you can barely tell and just wanted to watch it.A very good effort from Baz Luhrman, who should of used his money to make a sequel and not the modern day, bamboo-under-fingernails version of Romeo and Juliet with two trite, Hollywood stars..
An entertaining low-budget Australian dancing and romance movie by Baz Luhrman.
It is the first movie of his trilogy The Red Curtain.Strictly Ballroom is, in few words, the story of a ugly dancing duckling who finds her break-the-rules swan dancer.
It is the story of Scott, a brilliant ballroom dancer trained in a prestigious dancing school since his childhood, who is to become the next Pan-Pacific champion if he follows traditional ballroom style and moves.
In his way to become himself as a dancer, he pairs -not previous begging and hard work- with beginner dancer Fran, a shy Spanish girl from a family of flamenco dancers.The movie has a predictable unoriginal story and stereotypical characters, but the script is light and funny, engaging and fresh, and a little bit Kitch but in a charming way.
I especially liked the funny retro images telling the story of Scott's dancing parents through dance, which are truly creative, theatrical, and delightful.To me, this is Baz Luhrman's most Australian movie, despite not pretending to be so.
The movie presents a mix of true Australian characters, Anglosaxons and immigrants (in this case Spaniards), passionate people about competition and sports, always giving their best to win anything - hard working dreamers.
All the supporting actors are terrific and nail their characters: Pat Thomson (who died before the movie was premiered) as Scott's mother Shirley, Barry Otto as Scott's father Doug, Gia Carides as Scott's first dancing partner Liz, Bill Hunter as the President of the Ballroom Australian Federation, and Peter Whitford as the owner and director of Les Kendall's Dance Academy.
If you want to encapulate the epitome of cinematic quality, watch for the first few shots right at the beginning of the film (the sillhouettes, the build up) and the shot of Scott Hastings sliding onto the dance floor on his knees.
The film is an hilarious parady of the ballroom dancing culture while managing to sustain an endearing love story.
Strictly Ballroom, directed by Baz Lurhman, is a great feel-good movie.
Strictly Ballroom is about Scott Hastings, a champion ballroom dancer, who, much to the annoyance of his parents, partner and judges, believes in dancing his own steps.
Together these two misfits set out to win the Pan Pacific Championships.Strictly Ballroom is a great movie.
Baz Luhrmann marks the debut of his wonderful career with such a sensational and dramatic movie, which would instantly make you want to go out and dance all night.
But throughout the movie, he has to face a hard choice - choose between the very official guidelines and rules of Ballroom Dancing or should he just follow the beat in his heart -- you should see for yourself what he chooses in the end!!!.
Before Baz Luhrmann made a mockery of "Romeo and Juliet" and assaulted the collective senses with that hyperkinetic load of fetid dingo's kidneys known as "Moulin Rouge", he created a timeless tale of romance, passion, and showcased the equally expressive and seductive power of dance in "Strictly Ballroom." Every single frame of this film is quintessentially Australian from the warped and macabre sense of humour to the thick accents all of the characters use.
Strictly Ballroom is a Cult film.If you like the story of Cinderella, then you will like this movie.
"I asked why?" (...and this is one of the lines in the movie!) This film highlights all that is bad about ballroom dancing.
Notice who is dancing with whom at the end; this is also very important.I have seen "Strictly Ballroom" 42 times.
Those of us in the dance world take ourselves WAY too seriously.....it is very funny watching this on film, there is never a time when the characters are not completely believable, even though they are each SO OVER THE TOP!!.....and somehow, in the end, there is even a moral to the story.........I have never seen anything like this.BRILLIANT screenplay...Brilliant director......I am not surprised now that I found out this is the director of the ground breaking MOULIN ROUGE!.
The driving force underneath this deliberate glitzfest (Baz Luhrmann, c'mon!) besides the dancing is the wonderful chemistry between dancing champion Scott Hastings and his supposedly ugly-duckling partner, Fran (After the predictable makeover, I thought she was rather pretty).
i can't believe I love a movie called strictly ballroom.
If you havent seen this film because ,like me, you were turned off by the title ,or thought you could never enjoy a movie about ballroom dancing, give it a chance, you'll be glad you did..
Check out Russ Tamblyn's dance moves and fan-friggin' amazing backflips in West Side Story and you'll see what I mean!Paul Mercurio is fantabulous as the hero, Scott Hastings and Tara Morice is equally fantabulous as Fran the ugly duckling turned beautiful swan.
It...well...heh-heh, I guess I get choked up more than a six foot two tall man should while watching a movie like this...And don't even get me started on the final scene where everyone dances to "Love Is In The Air"!
This is the best romantic comedy I have ever seen, with a touchingly weak hero and a heroine who Luhrmann isn't afraid to depict as ugly on her first appearance - so that we notice her growing more beautiful, and then even stunning, over time, in a way that makes us wonder what was wrong with our eyes to begin with.
The director of Strictly Ballroom, Baz Luhrmann, seemed struggle with the balance of drama and an almost stylized comedy act in making his movie.
The spirit of "Strictly Ballroom" is very campy, tongue-in-cheek and outright parodic, mercilessly skewering the pretentious world of ballroom dance competitions in a way that makes us wonder what planet this film was shot on.Immediately you might be reminded of the hilarious Christopher Guest mockumentaries (Spinal Tap, A Mighty Wind, etc), but Baz gives this production an extra little push over the cliff.
That's something I haven't seen since the days of Jerry Lewis directing."Strictly Ballroom" is one of the most entertaining and engaging movies about dancing I've ever seen.
The film gets off to a very promising start with humorous character interviews inserted in and around the protagonist's first attempt to impress a panel of judges by dancing his own style at the last minute; the glittery ballroom costumes are also impressive right from the very first scene.
The director successfully captures the world of ballroom dancing in a captivating way with quirky characters that truly make this movie irresistible.
It would due Luhrmann good to abandon the over-the-top big budget tragic love stories and return to smaller films like this which end up being infinitely more intimate and pleasurable to experience..
If you enjoyed Moulin Rouge then you owe it to yourself to check out Strictly Ballroom, which Baz Luhrmann wrote and directed nine years earlier.
There are several scenes, such as the one on the roof with the Coca Cola sign, that will have you thinking of scenes from Moulin Rouge.Strictly Ballroom has all the makings of a classic feelgood movie; a protagonist who has a story arc that takes him from hero to zero, before starting his journey back to redemption (or not), a heroin who starts of looking frumpy with a poor choice in glasses and acne, and a whole host of support actors who are truly marvellous.I don't want to spoil the movie for you so I'm not going to go into any of the plot twists and turns, but I can say that once you start watching you are unlikely to stop, as it is an absolute corker of a film..
Some of the characters and lines were a bit outlandish, but all in all, it fit together remarkable well, and created an enjoyable experience.Even thought there was nothing overly remarkable about the story's main love interest plot between Fran and Scott, I felt that it still worked out well.
I love the dancing scenes in this movie, especially the dad!
Before "Dancing with the Stars," there was "Strictly Ballroom," a 1992 Australian film written and directed by Baz Luhrmann and starring Paul Mercurio, Tara Morice, Bill Hunter and the late Pat Thomson, who died before the film was released.There's not much of a story - it's about an innovative dancer, Scott Hastings (Mercurio) whose parents (Thomson and Barry Otto) run a dance studio.
On the way to the competition, some family secrets are revealed, and he and Fran fall in love.Told with hilarity, poignancy, and beautiful dancing, this is one of the all-time great dance films with Mercurio's electrifying moves, hot body, and good looks raising it to a very high level.
But what makes this movie successful is that the director was able to make fun of competitive ballroom dancing while at the same time showing us the beauty and grace of ballroom dancing.
When you watch you just wish you could dance like that (and it's hard to believe that Tara Morice only had 6 weeks tuition for the film).
This is the only dance movie that I would watch and it surprised me how much I liked it.
Australin director Baz Luhrmann's first film is a glorious, over-the-top fairy-tale, which makes great fun from the unlikely subject material of ballroom dancing, taking a few swipes at aspects of his national culture along the way.
This movie has everything--great music and dancing, romance, satire--oh, sorry, it has no violence.
If you like comedy, romance, dancing, and costumes, "Strictly Ballroom" is the movie for you!.
If you like comedy, romance, dancing, and costumes, "Strictly Ballroom" is the movie for you!.
With Strictly Ballroom, I've completed Baz Luhrmann's Red Curtain Trilogy, with the other two diverse films Romeo and Juliet, and Moulin Rouge, common only on the theme of love.
Now-a-days, it is so hard to find a super'b film where you can really watch it and have your heart warmed by a really lovely story.
He wants to dance his own steps, but when he does so at a competition, he loses the trophy, his partner, and everyone in the ballroom world wonders what his problem is.
Fran, always referred to as an "ugly duckling," begins to change her appearance as she works all this time with Scott, who at first tells her that the rumba is "the dance of love, but it's pretend" to try to ward off any amorous feelings.
The film seems to make fun of ballroom dancers but it's in a good-natured way.
^_^9 out of 10 stars: this is a beautiful little Baz movie; a romantic film with a flare that's enjoyable for everyone..
This aligns the film equally with a dance show as with a movie.
This is an Australian film about the world of competitive ballroom dancing. |
tt0180316 | Women Talking Dirty | The story begins with Cora (Helena Bonham Carter) and Ellen (Gina McKee), two women in their thirties who are living in Edinburgh. While they are getting ready at a mirror they begin to discuss life and romance. The story then catapults itself into the past before the two women met and where their story really begins.
Quirky Cora is an aspiring biochemist with intention to go to university but ends up taking a jump towards late teenage rebellion in which she tries drugs and drinks excessively. After moving in with her boyfriend, Cora discovers she's pregnant and immediately all her dreams are shattered as she becomes a pregnant housewife who is eventually dumped by her passionate but slovenly boyfriend.
Ellen on the other hand is strait-laced and level-headed; a budding cartoonist with prospects to run her own business alongside her colleague Stanley (James Nesbitt). While out for a drink at her local pub, womanizing Daniel (James Purefoy), makes a pass at her and she is instantly smitten. Ellen invites Daniel to meet her very prim and proper mother who is instantly reviled by Daniel's revelation that he is writing a dissertation on the post-coital discussions women have with men after sleeping with them. Despite her mother's attempt to talk Ellen into dumping Daniel, Ellen decides to accept Daniel's marriage proposal and soon weds him, delighted with his wedding gift of a purple velvet Victorian style couch.
Not long into their marriage Ellen's hopes of having a family are forced out of the picture when Daniel reveals he doesn't want children. Despite being married, Daniel is still womanizing and gambling excessively (even stealing money from Ellen's purse). After a confrontation with Daniel after she discovers he has been cheating on her, Ellen walks out and goes to the pub to think things over where she meets heavily pregnant Cora. Despite their obvious differences immediately become friends and Ellen even becomes Cora's coach as she goes into hospital to give birth to her son Sam.
A year and a half later, Cora is given a night of freedom from her children when her parents offer to babysit, and she goes to the pub from which she calls Ellen's house to try and convince her friend to join her. Daniel, however, picks up the phone as Ellen is out. Daniel shows up at the pub to deliberately seduce Cora fully aware that the woman doesn't know what he looks like. After the one night stand, Cora is horrified when Daniel turns up at the café where she works and kisses Ellen in front of her; even more horrifying is the realization she has become pregnant once again, this time to her best-friend's husband. Although Cora decides to keep the child, Daniel decides he wants nothing to do with her, and refuses to even pay maintenance, leaving Cora once again a single mother with no additional income.
Years pass, and Ellen and Daniel are going through a rather messy divorce which is left slightly easier by the fact he has taken off to Barbados. Regardless of the hurt he has caused her, Ellen is still undeniably in love with him and still fully unaware that her best friend's youngest son Col is the son of her husband. Cora, on the other hand, is struggling with life still, and still depressed over the horrible guilt she has never been able to reveal to her friend the truth of her son's paternity. After Daniel makes a return, Cora realises that she is running out of time to tell Ellen the truth and all her friends and neighbours who are fully aware of what Cora did years before urge her to be honest.
While throwing a dinner party at her loft home, Ellen, Cora and some close neighbours become blindingly drunk, in which Cora finally confesses the truth at the dinner table. Humiliated, Ellen throws everyone out including Cora, and locks herself in her flat for days, becoming horribly depressed over the fact Cora had the son with Daniel that Ellen had always wanted. Daniel returns to Ellen following the dinner party although he finds immediately that he is unwelcome and Ellen doesn't want anything to do with him anymore. In the meantime, Cora develops a relationship with Ellen's co-worker Stanley and begins to feel more confident within herself and what she wants from life after a near-death experience. Finally she works up the courage to go to Ellen and apologise.
Regardless of their row, the two women manage to come to a mutual understanding just as Daniel bursts into the flat with a friend to remove the velvet couch he had given Ellen as a wedding present. After an argument between both women and Daniel ensues, Ellen forfeits the couch and throws Daniel and his friend out, immediately afterwards retrieving a bag from a cupboard which contains £25,000 which Daniel had won from gambling and stashed in the flat. Ellen splits the money, giving £13,000 of it to Cora to pay the maintenance Daniel had never paid for Col, and she takes the remaining money to the book-keepers where she bets the lot on a no-chance horse. Seconds after leaving the book-keepers she is approached by Daniel who has realised his mistake and is demanding his money back; Ellen hands him the betting slip and walks away with Cora, having finally got her revenge on him. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0431420 | Stone Cold | Jesse Stone (Tom Selleck) is the police chief of Paradise, Massachusetts, a small coastal town north of Boston. A former homicide detective in Los Angeles, Jesse was fired from the LAPD because of a drinking problem that began following his divorce. He was hired for the Paradise position by the corrupt president of the town council who thought he would be easy to control. After five years, Jesse is still in contact with his ex-wife Jenn, who calls him regularly. He also has a relationship with a beautiful lawyer named Abby Taylor (Polly Shannon), who sits on the town council. Although their relationship is mainly physical, they have a genuine affection and concern for each other.
One cold November night, a body is discovered on a rocky shoreline by Jesse's deputy, Officer Luther "Suitcase" Simpson (Kohl Sudduth). The victim was shot twice in the heart with a .22 caliber weapon. With no suspect, motive, or weapon, Jesse begins his investigation by gathering the names of gun owners in Paradise who have registered a .22. He also adopts the victim's loyal dog, Reggie. Soon a second victim is discovered in a parking lot—also shot twice in the heart by a .22. Jesse orders photographs taken of all the vehicles in the lot and their license plates, suspecting that the killer or killers are still in the area. Following a third killing with the same modus operandi, an eyewitness is found who saw a red Ford Explorer driving away from the scene of the crime. Jesse checks the photos from the parking lot of the second murder and discovers a red Ford Explorer, registered to someone who is also on the list of .22 caliber gun owners in Paradise, Andrew Lincoln.
Brianna and Andrew Lincoln are middle-aged thrill killers, independently wealthy from a patent Andrew obtained for an optical scanner he invented while practicing medicine. The couple moved to Paradise and began selecting random people and murdering them while videotaping their crimes. Later they find erotic pleasure in watching the videos of the murders while having sex. Jesse and Luther pay the Lincolns a visit and briefly interview the couple, who show interest in the murders. As they leave, Jesse tells Luther that the Lincolns are the killers.
Meanwhile, Jesse investigates the rape of a high school girl, Candace Pennington (Alexis Dziena), who refuses to talk about the incident and whose parents refuse to report the crime, to avoid scandal. Assisted by Officer Molly Crane (Viola Davis), Jesse discovers the identity of the three boys who raped Candace. After one of the rapists, Bo Marino (Shawn Roberts), is brought in on drug charges, Jesse discovers photos in the boy's possession of the naked Candace being raped. Bo's father and his attorney arrive at the police station, but the boy spends one night in jail. After Candace agrees to testify against the boys, Bo and his father storm into Jesse's office and force a confrontation, that ends with Candace's father knocking both Bo and his father to the floor. The attorneys for the three rapists agree to have their clients plead guilty, in exchange for sentences of "community service".
While Jesse struggles to find evidence on the Lincolns, the murderous couple begin to stalk Abby Taylor. One afternoon, while walking through a park trying to reach Jesse on her mobile phone, Abby is murdered by the Lincolns in cold blood. Devastated by his girlfriend's murder, Jesse devises a plan that will encourage the killers to attempt to kill him. He goes to the Lincolns' home and returns the .22 rifle. As they taunt the police chief with subtle talk of the murders, Jesse makes it clear that he knows they are the killers.
Jesse calls Andrew Lincoln and asks to meet later that night at the parking lot scene of the second crime and Andrew agrees. Jesse suspects that the Lincolns have other plans and while Molly and Luther wait at the parking lot, Jesse waits outside Candace's house, knowing the killers intend to kill Candace. The Lincolns show up at Candace's house and enter the living room where a tape recording of Candace and her parents is playing. Just as they realize they've been set up, Jesse enters the room. Brianna pulls out two .22 caliber pistols and shoots Jesse in the chest. Knowing of their ritualistic technique of shooting their victims in the heart, Jesse has come prepared with a bulletproof vest. Jesse returns fire and shoots Brianna dead. He turns to Andrew and tempts him to pick up his gun, but the cowering murderer refuses, saying no court will give him the death penalty and that he will outlive the police chief. Jesse responds by punching him in the face.
Afterwards, Jesse returns to his house by the water and pours himself a drink. His wife calls and begins to leave a message on the answering machine, but Jesse doesn't pick up the phone. Instead he walks outside and watches the tide beneath the evening sky. | suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | Acting is OK all around, especially from the underrated Tom Selleck, who does a fine job portraying the flinty, laconic police chief Jesse Stone, whose dialogue seems to come right out of a Hemingway novel.
"Stone Cold" is a 2005 made for television film noir starring Tom Selleck.
While the plot is rather simplistic, Tom Selleck, as the film's star, offers a strong performance as Jesse Stone, a worn down police chief now serving in the small Maine coastal community of Paradise.
Formerly a high profile homicide detective from Los Angeles, Selleck as Stone gives this film great appeal.
In addition, the supporting roles are all well cast, albeit with largely unknown actors except for Mimi Rogers who stars as a local defense attorney.Police Chief Jesse Stone has to deal with an ex-wife who is a national news reporter who is always hungry for a scoop.
He still has conflicted romantic feelings about her and will listen attentively to her messages on his answering machine, but he refuses her entreaties to insulate herself into his investigation in the hope of gaining inside access to the identity of a serial killer or killers suddenly plaguing the town.Helping Stone to pass the time in Paradise is the joyful presence of a much younger woman who is not only a dear friend but also a welcome sexual partner.
Making life more difficult for Chief Stone is the gang rape of a young high school student, Candace Pennington (Alexis Dziema), whose parents are strangely uncooperative when they all sit down in the police station for an interview.
Chief Stone realizes that he has what looks like a serial killer operating somewhere in town and he begins to wonder who will be next since he has no evidence to suspect anyone much less charge anybody."Stone Cold" is one of the better television movies that I have recently seen.
A better than average TV-drama/thriller.Tom Selleck is marvelous in the role of Jesse Stone, a former Los Angeles cop who, due to drinking problems, has relocated to a small town called Paradise.
It's only a matter of time between things become personal, both for Stone and the killers.The character of Jesse Stone makes or breaks a film like this.
Very serious, brooding and a borderline alcoholic but with a good heart, Selleck's Jesse Stone will make you nearly forget you're watching the same guy who played Magnum P.I. As for the story, it's never boring, it's fast paced and somewhat suspenseful but it's somewhat shallow.
This seaside town is an important character here and will undoubtedly play a part in the sequels.All in all a good TV movie with Tom Selleck in top form.
It is also implausible that the young rape victim would have held up as well as the girl in the movie did, and that the written press and broadcast TV did not get access to the story.However, given these faults,I still found this one to be a perfect movie to watch on a scorching NC afternoon.Tom Selleck has still got it..
In the small town of Paradise, Massachusetts, the experienced Chief of Police Jesse Stone (Tom Selleck) is investigating a murder and a rape case.
However, without the motive, proof or weapon, he has to wait for an opportunity to catch the murderers."Stone Cold' is a surprisingly good thriller, with an efficient direction, cold but beautiful cinematography and excellent screenplay with great lines, situations and characters.
This simple, low paced and realistic thriller is centered in the dark, flawed and silent character of Jesse Stone, magnificently performed by Tom Selleck.
On the other hand, the whole film is somehow unique and original, qualities one associates with the country side, where the movie is set.It contains great pictures with the seaside, where the little town 'Paradise' is located.
It has been a while since I read the book, but unlike most other adaptations, this one stays true to the original, and the story survives in the film.I was not aware that this movie had even been made until I saw and rented it this afternoon in my local video rental store.
Here, Selleck walks in the shoes of a far darker, even introspective, character in a small town in rural Massachusetts.Although their occupations are similar, a young independent private detective versus an LA cop in the twilight of his career, Jesse Stone and Thomas Magnum are quite polar opposites.
In Stone Cold, the gloomy mists off of Cape Cod are the backdrop to a haunting but compelling story of a tired urban investigator tracking senseless serial killings in a town where the entire police force is barely four people.There is a very deliberate but tempered pace to the film which matches the feel of a small New England community that is quite removed from the hurry and worry of New York or LA.
I felt like the the filmmakers wanted you to see and feel the fog-ridden ocean, the quiet streets, and crisp air of New England life as much as the other aspects of the story.All in all, a satisfying viewing experience, with an outstanding performance by Selleck.
And it looks as though the character of Jesse Stone continues in new films.
Tom Selleck is awesome as Jesse Stone, a flawed yet brilliant police chief with a great sense of humour.
I missed the other two films that have been made since Stone Cold (Night Passage and Death in Paradise) and am hoping they will be rebroadcast or also released on DVD.
Jesse Stone is destined to become a classic character as iconic as that other guy, Magnum P.I. Here's hoping there's a TV series in the works, because this has the makings of a great one.
It does have the police chief as the main character and it does present most of the movie investigations and killings and rapes and lawyers, but what it is really about is the personality of Tom Selleck's character.I personally like Tom Selleck and I think he could have been a great actor not given his apparent gentleness.
I don't see him performing great action roles or emotional roles for the money and the fame, I see him as a quiet guy and probably so do many casting people, although I am sure he would have done great in any of the above roles.The film is nicely shot, mixing the cold atmosphere of a small sea shore town with the beautiful scenery and the plot.
It was a very nice surprise since the movie is really good, the characters are well built and the whole place kind of grows on you as you get to know the town.
Tom Selleck gives a great performance as a lost and tortured police chief...
In Ike and in Stone Cold it's as if you're watching a different person.(Coincidentally, Tom Cruise's work in War of the Worlds also struck me as a breakthrough - something about his performance was more polished and less of the hysterical Cruise mannerisms that irritated me in all of his other movies.) I used to avoid Tom Sellick flicks, but after his last couple of performances, including the brooding old school cop in Stone Cold, I'm actually looking forward to seeing more of him..
His Jesse Stone novels are amongst some of the best writing that Parker has committed to paper and although I found this film engaging it cannot compare to the book.
I enjoyed the movie so much that I promptly ordered all of Robert Parker's Jesse Stone novels and read them.
Selleck does a great job as the generally unflappable but internally tormented Jesse Stone.
Tom Selleck does a great job playing an alcoholic former LA Detective who is now the sheriff of a small Massachusetts town.
I enjoyed the movie, "Stone Cold" with Tom Selleck very much.
Music is by Jeff Beal and cinematography by Rene Ohashi.In the small town of Paradise, Massachusetts, world weary Chief of Police Jesse Stone (Selleck) is thrust into a twin investigation involving a high school gang rape and what appears to be a serial killer at large.What a pleasant surprise!
I'm not familiar with the Parker novels that feature the character Jesse Stone, nor was I aware that this was the first of many TV films to feature said character played by Selleck.
But this is a little treat for Selleck fans and certainly enough for me to take more interest in his Jesse Stone series of films.
Since its adaptation, all of the Jesse Stone movies have been directed by Robert Harmon and have all starred Tom Selleck and this is a team that I say really works.
Parker and even makes a few twists that some could argue even improve upon the already absorbing storyline.For those who don't know what the Jesse Stone books/movies are about, here's what you're missing.
Jesse Stone is a former LA cop now chief of police of a small Massachusetts town.
While trying to mend the relationship between himself and his ex-wife, as well as solving a rape case at the local high school, Stone finds his toughest challenge ahead when two thrill-seeking serial killers enter town and go on a spree, eventually zeroing on him.What really makes this movie work as well as it does is Tom Selleck's performance.
Selleck has always been an interesting actor to watch and playing Jesse Stone is one of his crowning achievements.Robert Harmon's directing is also fabulous with wonderful shot set-ups, fast pacing, and a wonderful way of working with his cast and crew.
Tom Selleck is well cast as Jesse Stone, the remote coastal town cop with a past.
The best things to be said about the TV film is that it has a beautiful soundtrack, sound acting from Tom Selleck and Viola Davis, and an atmospheric setting.
It this first episode of the Jesse Stone series Tom Selleck portrays a small town cop who is forced to deal with killings that seem to keep piling up.
It looked might good to have been made specifically for TV.I like the pace this and all of the Jesse Stone series move at.
Being a fan of Blue Bloods and seeing several of Tom Selleck's films as Jesse Stone to me it's proof what a great actor Tom Selleck has become.
You couldn't find more different characters than the patriarch of the law enforcement family Frank Reagan with as strong a support system with said family with Jesse Stone the rather lonely figure who is police chief of a Massachusetts coastal town.
But Stone has got some real good instincts and after a lot of patient investigation he zeroes in on a pair of thrill killers.The other case his department is working on is a gang rape of a 14 year old with accompanying pictures that the boys who did this threaten the young girl Alex Dienza if she rats them out.
Also from the chief punk Shawn Roberts.This was an excellent beginning for the Jesse Stone series..
Don't worry about the proper introduction, at a relaxed atmosphere, it's set to begin with a simple crime solving plot.Sets in a small fictitious town called Paradise, but revolved around the title character Jesse Stone that beautifully played by Tom Selleck.
I know everything."Jesse is a unique character, like from the similar top cop films.
But overall pace was excellent, particularly all the character development which actually lacked, except Jesse, but somewhat becomes familiar during the midway and makes easier by the end to follow it.To be frank, I anticipated an average flick, but surprised for its biggest entry in the first film itself.
This is where the original writer, the author should be appreciated for his good work.I have said many times and I'm saying it again that I'm not a reader, but I love watching literature based films and I'm happy they have made this one, otherwise I would have missed such a cool detective story.
Stone Cold made in 2005 was the first film in the Jesse Stone series of films adapted from the novels written by Robert Parker.Confusingly the next film Night Passage served as a prequel of Jess Stone, a high profile police detective with a drinking problem arriving to small town of Paradise in Massachusetts.Tom Selleck is the world weary Stone, a recovering alcoholic with an ex wife almost starting out again in Paradise as the police chief.Paradise is plagued with a random shooter who is getting personal with Chief Stone as his girlfriend is targeted.
Jess Stone suspects a smarmy couple renting a house but he needs to prove it.There is also the shocking case of a high school student who is gang raped and threatened by fellow students.
As for the random shooter, again Jess Stone realises who the suspects may be so it is case of how they get caught.It is a character piece about Stone himself, a flawed man who is a good cop with principles.
I think that the whole Jesse Stones series has been really excellent entertainment, and the best thing Tom Selleck has ever done.
Stone Cold- Great Cold Performance By Tom Selleck But Where's the Beef?
As the alcoholic top cop in a small Massachusetts town, Tom Selleck gives one of his best performances in years.
Having left California and his marriage, Selleck seems to settle in this cold town but a rape and serial killer soon keeps him hopping.We never fully realize why the husband-wife killing team are doing what they're doing.
Maybe, had they tied the rape and the serial killings together, we would have had a better picture.The film ends where I can see a possibility of Selleck doing a weekly show on his character.
This is a very smart and kind man.I never saw the (apparently legendary) Magnum series (I was always at work in those days!) and so really know him from the appearances on Friends, his superb westerns and these two wonderful Robert Parker movies.And he's just so very interesting to watch - he's so down to earth, he's the least "grand thespian" of anyone.
This character and Selleck's performance - remind me of many of Robert Mitchum's roles actually - and that's really meant as a compliment.This movie is not a "who done it" - when we hear Selleck as a psychologically damaged, taciturn problem drinker small town police chief, identify whom he "knows" did the crime(s) - it is stated matter of factly, anti-climactically.
You likle seeing them together - they just fit.Finally - and not least - you have Mimi Rogers - beautiful, astonishingly sexy, sophisticated, humane - and with one of the greatest voices of any actress.There's a lot in this - wonderful dialogue, real wit - just not a complex plot (however one you've seen it, question how the climax came about - how the final setting was chosen - what clues were deliberately given to put people in that place).This was a hugely popular movie on American television - enough that they created an equally good "prequel" in "Night Passage".I hope they make many more - though I've mixed feelings about this typecasting Selleck being typecast -- when he can do so much.I really recommend this one.
Stone Cold is an adaptation of Robert Parker's new series about character Jesse Stone.
Stone, as played by Selleck, is a very appealing character and I hope Tom will make a few more telefilms based on this series.
Well done thriller in the old Columbo mold of "we know who the killer is, how will the cops catch him/her?" A few surprises along the way, some good Parkeresque dialogue, Selleck in an appealing performance with excellent support (especially Mimi Rogers) and a few crowd pleasing scenes, ie the arrest in the high school bathroom and the subsequent rhubarb in the police station.
Tom Selleck creates a real marketable character in Chief Jesse Stone.
I think a TV Series would have probably been a better vehicle for the characters and story in Stone Cold but we'll see I suppose for even as I write this a sequel to this film is airing on CBS.
He's the Chief of a small New England Town which suddenly has two big cases on it's hands and it's up to him to figure both out.I like Selleck, always have, he has a movie star, tough guy quality to him and this character is well done and has loads of back story and plenty more to do with and I think Selleck plays it perfectly.
My only disappointment with the roles in the film were that of the serial killers played by Jane Adams and Reg Rogers.
Of the Jesse Stone films I've seen, I have to say I liked this one the best.
Tom Selleck, he of the high testosterone and hairy chest, the iconic Magnum from the hit series "back in the day" was a young 60 years old when he decided to play a city cop who retired to "Paradise" - a perfect little town in an undisclosed location.
It was a TV movie based on a well-written detective series, filmed in Canada, and expectations were not high.
I rented this movie as I enjoyed Tom Selleck's character in Magnum (many moons ago) and was curious about him playing the stern looking person shown on the front cover of the DVD.Whilst I didn't expect a big production thriller, I didn't expect the plot to be as two dimensional and disjointed as it was.
This film about a flawed police chief solving crimes in small town America used well trodden themes (serial killers, rapists, unsympathetic parents) to get an emotional response from the audience but fell short with plots having little complexity and the cast being portrayed as either good, bad or love interest for Selleck's rather self pitying character.
Based on a Robert B Parker novel, Selleck plays Jesse Stone a former big-city detective turned laid-back police chief of a small fishing community Paradise, Massachuesetts. |
tt0037075 | Ministry of Fear | In wartime England during the Blitz, Stephen Neale (Ray Milland) is released from Lembridge Asylum. While waiting for a train to London, Neale visits a village fête hosted by the Mothers of Free Nations charity. He guesses the weight of a cake for a shilling, apparently failing to guess the cake's true weight, and is urged to go to the palm reader's tent to have his fortune told by Mrs. Bellane (Aminta Dyne), an older woman. He asks her to ignore the past and tell the future, which startles her. She cryptically tells him to take another guess at the weight of the cake at 4 pounds 15½ ounces. Neale does so and wins the prize, the cake itself. Then a young blond man hurries to see Mrs. Bellane. People try to persuade Neale to give the cake to the blond man, but Neale refuses, as his initial guess was closer to the cake's true weight than the blond man's guess, by a few ounces.
Neale departs Lembridge with only a blind man (Eustace Wyatt) sharing his compartment. Neale offers him some cake. Neale sees the blind man crumbling his portion. When the train stops during a Luftwaffe air raid, Neale's companion turns out not to be blind after all. He strikes Neale with his cane, steals the cake, and flees, with Neale in pursuit. The man shoots at him, but is killed by a German bomb. Neale finds his revolver and continues on to London.
Neale hires private detective George Rennit (Erskine Sanford) to help him investigate the Mothers of Free Nations. Neale meets Willi Hilfe (Carl Esmond) and his sister Carla (Marjorie Reynolds), refugees from Nazi Austria who run the charity. Willi takes him to Mrs. Bellane's London mansion (followed by Rennit). Neale is shocked to discover that this Mrs. Bellane (Hillary Brooke) is a beautiful young medium. She invites them to stay for her séance. Among the other attendees are artist Martha Panteel (Mary Field), psychiatrist Dr. Forrester (Alan Napier), and Mr. Cost (Dan Duryea), the blond man at the fête. After the lights are dimmed, a mysterious voice claims she was poisoned by Stephen, disconcerting Neale. Then a shot rings out – Cost is found shot dead. Neale admits to having the blind man's gun. He flees with Willi's help.
Neale goes to Rennit's office, only to find it ransacked. He talks to Carla. An air raid forces the two to shelter in an Underground station, where Neale reveals that he had planned to euthanize his terminally ill wife. He changed his mind, but she committed suicide anyway, using poison he had bought. Due to the circumstances, Neale received a light sentence of two years at the asylum. He confides that he is still unsure if in buying the poison for his wife he had made the right decision.
The next morning, Carla hides Neale at a friend's bookstore. Neale spots a book by Forrester, The Psychoanalysis of Nazidom. Carla reveals that Forrester is one of her volunteers as well as a consultant for the Ministry of Home Security. Neale is convinced that Carla's organization is a front for Nazi spies. Carla finds out that almost all the people Neale suspects are charity volunteers, but all recommended by Forrester. She tells Willi about her discovery, and admits that she loves Neale.
That afternoon, Neale goes to Panteel's flat, only to find Mrs. Bellane. The two verbally spar. He flees when Panteel returns and begins screaming for the police.
Later, Carla tells Neale what she has learned. The bookseller asks the couple to deliver some books in a suitcase since they are leaving. When they arrive at the address, they discover that no one lives there. Suspicious, Neale opens the suitcase. The bomb inside explodes, but Neale's quick reaction saves them both.
Neale awakens in the hospital, the prisoner of Scotland Yard Inspector Prentice (Percy Waram). Neale persuades Prentice to search the bombed-out cottage for evidence. About to be taken to jail, at the last minute Neale finds a microfilm of military secrets inside a portion of the cake hidden in a bird's nest. Officials insist that the top secret documents have only been taken out of a safe twice, the second time when Forrester's tailor, a man named Travers, was present. Neale recalls that the empty flat was leased in Travers' name.
Prentice and Neale go to the tailor's shop, and find that Travers is Cost. Travers pretends not to recognize Neale, and calls a client about a suit. Then, seeing he is trapped, he commits suicide. When Neale dials the number he saw Travers use, Carla answers.
Neale slips away to confront Carla. Willi emerges, armed with a pistol, and admits he is the head of the spy ring. Another copy of the microfilm is sewn into the suit he received from Travers. Carla throws a candlestick, striking her brother's gun hand. The two men struggle, and Carla picks up the gun. When she refuses to hand it over to Willi, he tries to flee, but she shoots him dead. Forrester and several other Nazi agents chase Neale and Carla onto the roof. Inspector Prentice arrives and kills the remaining Nazis.
Later, Carla and Neale drive in the country, talking about their wedding. Neale is comically horrified when she mentions planning the "cake". | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt4430212 | Drishyam | Georgekutty (Mohanlal) is an orphan who had dropped out of school after his 4th grade. Now he is a businessman running a cable TV service in a rural area. He is married to Rani (Meena) and they have two daughters, Anju (Ansiba Hassan) and Anu (Esther Anil). His only interest apart from his family is watching films. He spends most of his time in front of the TV in his small office.
During a nature camp, Anju gets photographed in the bathroom by a hidden cell phone. The culprit, Varun (Roshan Basheer), is the son of police inspector general Geetha Prabhakar (Asha Sarath). Varun is accidentally killed by Rani and her daughter when he comes to blackmail them. They hide his body in a compost pit, which is witnessed by Anu. Rani tells Georgekutty about the incident and he devises a way to save his family from the law. He removes the broken cell phone and disposes of Varun's car, which is seen by Constable Sahadevan (Kalabhavan Shajon), who has a grudge against Georgekutty. Georgekutty takes them out on a trip to Thodupuzha to pray in a church, watch a movie and eat at a restaurant. Geetha, seeing that her son has gone missing, starts an investigation.
After a preliminary investigation, Geetha calls Georgekutty and family for questioning. Georgekutty, who had predicted that this would happen, had already taught his family how to change their alibi at the time of murder. When questioned individually, they give the same replies. Georgekutty also presents the bill of the restaurant, the movie ticket and the bus tickets as proof of their alibi. Geetha questions the owners of the establishments they have been to and their statements prove Georgekutty's alibi. However, Geetha realizes later that Georgekutty had faked the evidence and established his alibi on the owners by going on a trip with his family to the same establishments later.
Geetha arrests Georgekutty and family and Sahadevan uses brute force to beat the truth out of them. Eventually, Anu gives in and reveals the place where the body is buried. After digging the compost pit, they find the carcass of a dog, indicating that Georgekutty had moved the body. Anu reports to the media and complains against Sahadevan. The constable is suspended and Geetha resigns from her post.
Later, Geetha and Prabhakar (Siddique) meet Georgekutty to ask forgiveness for their rude and violent behavior. Prabhakar asks Georgekutty if he can tell them about their son. Georgekutty then reveals indirectly that his family has committed a crime. Now in remand, Georgekutty signs a register at the newly constructed local police station. As he leaves, a flashback shows him leaving the incomplete police station with a shovel in hand, indicating that he has hidden Varun's body in the foundations of the police station itself. | murder | train | wikipedia | Casting – 4/5Acting – 4.5/5Story – 5/5Screenplay – 5/5Editing – 5/5Cinematography – 4/5Background Score – 4/5Wow, finally a good thriller movie after a long time.
The protagonist is a middle-class Goan Vijay Salgaonkar( Ajay Devgn) for whom his family's well being is paramount.Ajay plays the role of a 5th class school-dropout who runs a local cable-service provider shop.
The coziness of his family is shattered one night following an offhand chain of events.Vijay's character development is myriad throughout the film and it compels you to think away from the extreme principles of black vs white, right vs wrong, yin vs yang.
His strong will and steadfastness to protect his family at all costs forms the backbone of the story.The unfateful night's chain of events leads to a massive police search headed by the stern and steely IPS Meera Deshmukh (Tabu).Tabu's acting is top-notch in multiple interrogation scenes throughout the movie with a distinct no-nonsense persona on display at all times.Ishita Dutta is remarkable in her Bollywood debut with a wide palette of emotions.
Mrinal Jadhav plays the role of the innocent and adorable younger daughter splendidly, generating a few interspersed audience laughs.Rajat Kapoor has a knack for playing the upper-class, businessmen –roles and is casted perfectly as Tabu's husband.
However his character is a bit monochromatic, probably due to the script.The movie has multiple twists arousing the curiosity of the audience culminating into a superb climax.Even though the film is 2 hours and 43 minutes long, it binds the audience to their seats till the very last scene.I strongly recommend this film, especially to the thriller genre lovers.P.S. The film also teaches you why watching movies can impart you with paramount life-skills.
The trailers of this Hindi remake with powerful existence of Ajay Devgan (or Devgn, as he writes it now) and Tabu, motivated me to go for this movie after a tiring Thursday in office, (mentioning the tiring day as disappointment was the last this I was willing to accept after the day, Glad I chose this movie).
So the movie starts with a small happy family of Vishal Salgaonkar which is living happily in the ever happy town of Goa, there family was disrupted because of an unwanted person entering into their lives who happens to be the son of the Inspector general of Goa, Meera Deshmukh, then an accident happens which changes the life of this family for ever.
So the movie is about how actually Vishal safeguard his family and himself against powerful Meera and her Police Department.My special suggestion is to have patience and sit for the first half of the movie as nothing much will happen but the story will be built up.
After the interval when you come back with that tub of popcorn, its then the real investigation and the never ending plot of Vishal to safeguard his family starts, the proceedings will sometimes give you goose bumps and at times you will expect something to happen which will not happen and hence the tag line of the move "Visuals Can Be Deceptive" The Camera work of the movie is good.
Overall, Its 100% worth a watch on this weekend, so go ahead book your tickets and go for it, I am sure you wont be disappointed, specially people who like Ajay Devgn on screen should go for this movie for sure..
So, definitely the expectations would be high at least by the people who have seen it.The movie is super entertaining and comes off as a new genre.
The climax is brilliant.Ajay makes up for the time he was away from serious movies and excels scene by scene, Shriya is gorgeous and does well too.
A must watch if you are a fan of thriller and suspense moviesI have seen this movie in Tamil as well but I would give an extra star for the Hindi version.
Last but not least, Mr. Devgan has done a good job as a father who goes out of his ways to protect his family.If you are a Tabu fan, you would regret if you miss this movie.
Music wasn't much needed for movie,still 1 song after interval is situational which plays important role to make scene much tight.
Even though it is a remake of a Malyalam movie, there is no loss of quality and it delivered emphatically.The essence of the movie is that due to some unexpected turn of events, a normal middle-class family gets itself involved in the missing case of the son of Senior Police Officers.
As they never intended to do anything wrong, they decide to forge a story to dupe the police and save themselves.Ajay Devgan and Tabu are the two established actors in this movie, and both of them prove their mettle.
It is a welcome change for Ajay Devgan as he has made one bad movie after another despite possessing great acting talent.
She once again proved that she is the finest actress in Bollywood with a menacing, layered performance that will leave people spellbound.Drishyam is a suspense movie and the director does well to include several trademark techniques that are used in such movies.
The movie explores several elements of Indian life such as the rampant corruption of police officers, unyielding devotion to family, and the longing for revenge.
Best Family Thriller Movie In Bollywood.
A great family drama cum thriller cum suspense movie cum crime movie, filled the stuff of police brutality, innocent child acting, burning problems faced regularly by the teenager daughter and their parents-we are reading of news papers and seeing in all medias-mms scandal, blackmailing, etc.
A must watch family drama cum thriller cum spine-chilling suspense movie.
starting to end movie is great ...how a man who is 4 class fail done things that amaze you every time differently...
he done so many great serious role movie but every time he is different in his acting..
He loves watching action movies, law and crime dramas, and the accumulated wealth of knowledge help lay the path of deceit and red herrings for the police.
Rajat Kapoor looked wasted as he didn't have much lines but he has that upper class appeal and looked good with Tabu as her husband.They could have avoided the first song in the movie and just keeping the Rekha Bhardwaj song (which made sense).Otherwise,The story is 10/10.
So when it is time to protect our family anyone will do what Vijay has done in this movie.Kudos to the directer and all the cast and Crew.
Tabu and Ajay Devgan proved one more time, they are one of the finest actors in Bollywood..
i think a movie like DRISHYAM can never be made again in Bollywood film industry, this is something new for Indian cinema.
Start is little slow but after 30 mins movie really picks up and maintain great suspense till the end.Script is very strong, acting of co-starts(Ajay devgans wife, daughters) is great.
But this one is a master piece and it has the perfection of Hollywood level.In short great movie and must watch.
If you thought Ajay Devgan and Tabu's riveting performances would be a reason sufficient enough to watch this movie,then let me tell you.It is the film's story which wins in the end.
With all honesty, the Hindi version of DRISHYAM gives me no energy to write about it in details being the weakest 4th remake of the original Malayalam film featuring Mohan Lal in the lead.
Thankfully they use only two songs out of four (in the soundtrack) as required but fail to en-cash on the emotional aspect of the script that should ideally have been its key feature becoming a 'family- thriller'.As a bitter truth, the theme of the film didn't require any kind of philosophical soundtrack both Vishal and Gulzar are known for.
Moreover the most disappointing feature remains Tabu, who doesn't come up with anything even close to what was being expected quite surprisingly, whereas Kamlesh Sawant as the cruel sub- inspector scores the most.In comparative terms, it seems DRISHAYM (Hindi) has been made hurriedly in some kind of available time with the star or team, without giving any major emphasis on solid characterizations as seen in the original.
In clear words, where in all the four regional films, the actors seem like sinking deep into their given characters, the Hindi version has them all doing it as another of their professional assignment standing in front of the camera with no home-work done of any sort to play their given roles.
Made in all South regional languages, Ajay & co make another remake of a successful script in Bollywood and hardly anything goes wrong here .A powerful script that build up a bit slowly in the 1st half but once it starts , keeps you intrigued right till the end and has elements in store even in the very last scene.
Good acting by Tabu and Ishita as Anu.We must appreciate the director of this movie.
Ajay Devgan also suited for the role as calm, sharp till innocent Vijay./ I am sure that watcher will be spell bound till the credit scene comes.
About direction, NIhsikant Kamat delivered his best for what any thriller movie needs.
Best scene of art direction is when police come for first time to Vijay and his daughter was about to face them.
when you will leave the theater you will certainly appraise yourself saying yes you watched a movie .and thanks to the acting of all the characters.
they had given full justification to the roles they had played.yes you have to wait and watch the story to build as you know real man story cannot be build from starting , enjoy the base and then let rest part to be done by movie itself..
one hell of a movie u cant match Tabu and specially Ajay in their acting skill.
Tabu at its best..other actors did the acting pretty well its a must watch film and a sure shot winner.
After Baby Piku Tanu weds Manu and Bajrangi Bhaijaan now comes Drishyam...i have not watched the Malyalam Drishyam but this movie cannot be compared with other remakes...and i seriously don't have worlds to express my view on this movie as it is a class movie and a family drama movie with one of the best script and actors..
All characters are well performed specifically #Annu ,and Gaitonde will be recognize by directors in future , movie s fabulous, whole credit goes to Director , don't underestimate the power of uneducated man From the starting we know what happened ,why happened ,even after that known all these things the culprit is right there in your face from the word go, but the catch here is how will you prove it.
The movie rocks.It has many twists and turns.Ihave really enjoyed this movie and this movie keeps me at the edge of the seat from start till end.The story is superb and the suspense is terrrific and mastermind.The direction is good by Nishikant kamat.The screenplay was good.The by editing is nice.The acting was simply superb and outstanding from Ajay Devgan.He really get into the character and acted and behave like a ordinary guy.Tabu acted well.The Dialouges were good.It's like the shawshank redemption of bollywood.Bollywood should make more movies like this.Overall the movies is a must watch.And it will be a blockbuster.My opinion watch this movie to enjoy your weekend.Your will definitely like this..
I wouldn't say its the "Shawshank Redemption of Bollywood"; however It really is one of the best Bollywood movies i have ever seen.Don't think, just go and watch some of the best performances by Ajaz, Tabu and other actors..
One more act of crime follows, and that is when one gets the vibe of a thriller coming into form.The 50 minute second half, which is also the most engaging minutes for any Bollywood film this year, steals the show and keeps us on the edge of our seats as we are smothered by a series of twists.
BOTTOM LINE: Drishyam, as an edge-of-the-seat thriller, does not tell you how to act during time of brutal crimes, but it finely creates a story so charming that you will want to talk about it with your friends just to understand what is right and what is wrong.VERDICT: 6 stars out of 10.
Ajay Devgan and Tabu both gave top notch performances in this movie.
This movie presents us with a loving father, a middle class man who makes the best of efforts to defy political power by using just his mind.
A suspense drama, good thriller movie.
This is one of the best movie, and a must watch film.
You should watch this movie to understand what life is and a crime done to save lives of our loved ones is better than anything else..
The unfateful night's chain of events leads to a massive police search headed by the stern and steely IPS Meera Deshmukh (Tabu).Tabu's acting is top-notch in multiple interrogation scenes throughout the movie with a distinct no-nonsense persona on display at all times.Ishita Dutta is remarkable in her Bollywood debut with a wide palette of emotions.
As per as the remake phenomenon is there (movie is remade from Malayalam Drishyam), I would love to see these kinds of remakes instead of silly commercial ones.Both Tabu and Ajay Devgan were spot on in their part.
Not inspired of-course but both these movies are definitely a must watch.Overall, an astonishing script supported with great cinematography and direction..
Ajay Devgan portrays a character of a common middle-class man, Vijay Salgaonkar, who has a small family.
It's a great character to learn from throughout the movie.It's a much watch for everyone looking to watch an entertaining thriller in Hindi..
I have watched several remake South's movies made by Bollywood.
Like the trailer shows Vijay(Ajay) is a very good man , with a golden heart , but somehow his family is being caught by the police to prove that they have kidnapped the son of Meera Deshmukh (Tabu) a cop.
This movie has some of the best interrogation scenes which Bollywood haven't shown us till now.
The thing i said for PIKU i would like to repeat for this is that there exist no reasons why should anyone not watch this movie except in case you have seen the original one.
Coming to the story, it is about the family of Vijay Salgaonkar (Ajay Devgn) ,his wife (Shriya Saran) ,his elder daughter Anju (Ishita Dutta) and the younger daughter Anu. Vijay is a 4th fail illiterate (as has been emphasized a lot in the movie) who lives a happy and satisfied life.
Best Thriller Movie Of Bollywood.
Talking about the stars:- Ajay is fabulous in the role n I'm happy to see him doing such movies as i was very much disappointed by Action Jackson(It was one of his worst movie after Himmatwala), Tabbu n Shreya has done their part well n in fact everyone in the movie acted so well(including the little girl) that u will feel that everything is happening in real...special mention to Kamlesh Sawant(Inspector Gaitonde) he has done a great job...he was one of the main reason movie looked so interesting...!!
Its the best thriller movie i have watched in bollywood...
Its the best thriller movie i have watched in bollywood...
Please Bollywood come with some more movies like this one...
Watch it for one the best engaging screenplay, powerful script, great direction n brilliant performances...!!
When Vijay Salgaonkar (Ajay Devgn) decides that he'll pull out all the stops to protect his family, the intrigue and suspense mounts in this rather offbeat thriller.The other facet of this story that baffles me somewhat is why teenage daughter Anju (Ishita Dutta) became so distraught over the cell phone video.
Since all evidence from the time her son goes missing, points to the Salgaonkars, she bays for their blood, like a wounded lioness.Interestingly enough, the unassumingly 'innocent' Vijay matches her with his quick wit and sharp moves.A suspense drama with a nail-biting finish, Drishyam holds the viewer by the eyeballs till its' engaging climax.Ajay, who is the prey here, shines in his role of the protective father.
While his family definitely needed to be cast in a more discerning fashion, half a star in this review is reserved for Tabu, who is outstanding as his predator.If Kahaani was the last memorable mainstream Hindi suspense thriller you watched, then Drishyam will be a grand new entry to that list.
DRISHYAM, despite a few slack strokes of imperfections in various fields remains a desirable thriller for the most in its 2 hour 43 minutes long duration; and that's an achievement in itself.Vijay Salgaonkar (Ajay Devgn) is an almost illiterate middle-class family man with a questionably 'decked-up all the time' wife (Shriya Sharan, a complete misfit) and two lovely daughters by his side.
Running a local cable network for his living, Salgaonkar is a street-smart fellow who loves to learn from the movies he watches at his office in leisure.One dark night, his family accidentally falls for a crime that could lead them all to the pit of death but a good family man would never let that happen.
but i don't know whether my sixth sense was on at the time of watching the movie cause 80% of the suspense was predictable and the guesses i made 20-25 sec getting right(i'm not a criminal lol) except of the last scene where Ajay Devgn reveals the dead body was disposed in the police station itself(provided that i have not seen the Malayalam Drishyam nor even the trailer of this movie) and it truly gives a "thrill" factor.
This movie starts with a flash back to the past days of Vijay Salgaonkar (Ajay Devgan).
Drishyam is one of the best movies that came out India in the recent times, it is gripping, intense and keeps you engaged.
i think a movie like Drishyam can never be made again in Bollywood film industry, this movie is really fantastic By stretch of the imagination. |
tt0057465 | The Sadist | Three high school teachers, Ed, Doris, and Carl, are driving through California's Antelope Valley on their way to a Dodgers game in Los Angeles. The group’s Chevrolet Bel Air has some trouble and they are forced to pull off to a gas station/junkyard on the side of the road. After examining the vehicle Ed concludes that the fuel pump will need to be replaced. Doris and Carl search the junkyard looking for the owner, but they cannot find him.
In the residence Carl finds a warm meal with a table set for four, but oddly enough nobody is in the house. The three realize this is very peculiar and start to seriously worry about their situation. At this point Charlie Tibbs, a rather large man wielding a Colt .45, and his girlfriend Judy show up. Charlie and Judy have spent the past several days heading west from Arizona, leaving a trail of corpses behind them. Law enforcement is on the hunt for them, but Charlie has managed to stay a step ahead by changing vehicles frequently and then killing the people who offer their help.
Charlie demands that Ed finish repairing the car and informs him that he and Judy will be stealing the Belair and taking off when Ed is done. Charlie threatens that if the three don't cooperate "it'll be the end of them." During the next several hours Charlie and his girlfriend torment Ed, Doris, and Carl. | cult, grindhouse film, murder | train | wikipedia | It's also worth noting that it's subdued shocks are more effective than the graphic shocks seen in the majority of those later films.The acting is fine all around, but the film belongs to Arch Hall Jr. Long considered a camp king, he is chilling as the Starkweather-inspired sadist.
A cackling Charlie Tibb (Arch Hall Jr.) and his twisted lolita of a girlfriend (Marilyn Manning) creep out of the graveyard of abandoned cars and take the situation into their control..."The Sadist" is truly a great movie.
Every bit as good as any big-studio, low-budget production from the era (perhaps even better than most), "The Sadist" is truly a gem that'll never receive the recognition it deserves.Loosely based on serial killer Charles Starkweather, Arch Hall Jr plays Charlie Tibbs, a psychotic delinquent who, aided by his girlfriend, holds three travelers hostage at gunpoint as they attempt to fix their broken-down car, which Charlie intends to use for his getaway.
Arch Hall Jr even looks a little like Charlie Starkweather without the glasses.Three nerdy school teachers on their way across the desert to see a baseball game in LA have car trouble.
Little do they know that Charlie and Judy are waiting for some unsuspecting victim to stop so they can carjack and kill them.Arch Hall's performance is really chilling.
Struggling independent film makers should check this out as brutal proof of what an innovative artist can truly achieve with practically no money.Three school teachers (two men and a young prim and proper woman) arrive at a deserted rural service station after having car trouble.
They've acquired an infamous reputation as road killers and are being hunted by the law.What makes this film so powerfully suspenseful is that it follows real time from start to finish, imprisoning the viewer (like the victims) within every second by second development.
The photography is very impressive, utilising many unique angles, giving you a clear sense of the entrapping, isolating surroundings.I won't be a clot and tell you what happens but I am confident enough to bet that you will be extremely freaked by a totally unexpected surprise/shock that haunted me for a long while after seeing it.This film has so much integrity that it couldn't be camp no matter how hard it tried, but it does have the ironic humor in the respect that the joke ends up being on you.
Inspired by the commercial success of Psycho, as well as the real life murder spree of teenage killer Charles Starkweather and girlfriend - the exploits of whom also inspired the better known Badlands (1973), The Sadist comes as a revelation to those used to the inept dross Landis and Hall Jr were responsible for elsewhere.
Hall's moronically sneering Charlie is the most unsettling character in the film and the only role where the actor put in any kind of effort, although even here his performance would have benefited from a little more little more light and shade.
I was all set to enjoy yet another campy Arch Hall Jr. catastrophe("Eegah", "Wild Guitar", "The Nasty Rabbit"), when all of a sudden it hit me: "The Sadist" is purty durn good moovie!!
The movie lasts a little over 90 minutes and that is just how long it takes for the victims here to have their safe and secure lives ripped to shreds.Three school-teachers on their way to a Dodgers-Reds game in L.A. are forced to pull into a deserted junkyard when the water pump on their car goes.
Arch Hall Jr, star of fluffy programmers like EEGAH and Wild Guitar, leave nothing on the table with his crazed portrayal of Tibbs.SEE THIS MOVIE!.
'Charlie' Tibbs (Arch Hall Jr.) is a murderous delinquent aided by his juvenile girlfriend Judy Bradshaw (Marilyn Manning).
Looks like tall blonde Helen Hovey (Doris) got her part by being first cousins with Hall, because she sure has trouble with her lines, even if she does run well in a tight skirt.Nonetheless, it's a smoothly done, tightly paced little thriller, despite the unpromising ingredients..
Believed to be the first film production inspired by real-life killers Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate, the low budget effort "The Sadist" is a fine example of its kind: tense, affecting, sweat-inducing, and very well acted.
One genuinely gets involved with these characters; our protagonists are all sympathetic and our antagonist is one hell of a dangerous psycho.Three schoolteachers - Ed Stiles (Richard Alden), Carl Oliver (Don Russell), and Doris Page (Helen Hovey) - are on their way to a ball game when car troubles force them to pull into an isolated service station.
Lovely Hovey (Hall Jr.'s real life cousin, in her only movie appearance) is good, but the slinky Manning is just as watchable, not having very much in the way of spoken dialogue but often whispering ideas to Hall Jr., encouraging him with childlike glee.Directed with great efficiency by Landis, "The Sadist" has an incredible atmosphere and you can really see the sweat on peoples' foreheads here.
The Sadist was playing at a Drive-in movie I went to back in the early sixties...We were thinking ...hey we can get some laughs from this..Well we didn't laugh..except in a very nervous way...Archie Hall Jr. and Manning played their parts to the hilt...They displayed the Evil in dysfunctional people that lack the empathy gene...and have no problem killing innocent people for pleasure...It no doubt was based on the true Starkweather murders...and The In Cold Blood killings..The movie from beginning to end was tense, ruthless, and nightmarish...The Ending was as original as they come..and really insane justice...47 years later this movie is still in my memory bank as one of the best movies of it's kind....I would love to see a remake...I think Ben Stiller could play the lead..or Robert Downey..If I one into some money..I'm going to try to buy the rights to it...and the Creature from the Black Lagoon...another B movie favorite of mine..I try to rent it ...I loved to see it again after all these years..!.
It's now only a matter of time for Ed & Doris to stay alive as long as their needed to help Charlie & Judy and it's in that time that Ed devises a plan for him and Doris to escape.A true landmark in horror/crime movies "The Sadist" pulls no punches in getting it's message across to the public, back then in 1963, about psychotic and cold-blooded killers, like Charlie, in a way that's never been seen before in motion pictures.Charlie ,dispite his craziness, is no fool he's smart enough to have evaded the police and is smart enough to know if Ed & Doris are trying to escape and turn the tables on him by disarming and killing him.
The direction, screenplay and acting are all top-notch (Well, I did find Hall Jr. and Manning to be a tad over-the-top, but this is still a million times better than I had ever seen them before) and there is real tension and suspense throughout.The story concerns three teachers who are stranded in an isolated service station when their car breaks down on the way to a Dodgers game.
This 1963 classic scared the bejeezus out of me with the over-the-top performance of Mr. Hall.OK basic plot summary - 3 school teachers break down and end up in an automobile graveyard with a young man with a MAJOR inferiority complex and a gun and his silent-except-for-giggles girlfriend.
And I was sick of the baseball commentary by the end.Fail like the flop I expected -- whoever wrote the ending needs to be forced to watch the rest of Hall Jr's films.This is by far one of the best early psychological case study thriller I have come across.
Watching an Arch Hall film is like watching your kid's school play and pretending to be blown away by it.More than that, though, The Sadist is just a damn cool movie.
Some characters are killed when you don't think they will be and, generally, it surprises.As I said before Hall plays the sadist of the title but he is not the only standout performer, Marilyn Manning is very good too as his unhinged girlfriend.
The film takes place in real time in one place, and is surprisingly close to the bone for an old black and white film.Three teachers, having car trouble while on their way to a baseball game, pull in to a scrap yard for a spare fuel pump.
What I also liked was that the killer wasn't a wisecracking evil mastermind – he was just a dumb (but sly) kid with a victimised girlfriend he was trying to protect from the world.Another good point is the hyperactive camera-work that lends an almost sentient air to the abandoned junk yard: Very atmospheric.The Sadist gets my highest recommendation.
Their break is interrupted when a sadistic maniac and his girlfriend decide to join them, and hold the trio to hostage with his gun; while directing one of them to fix the car so that the pair can escape.This film features a whirlwind performance from Arch Hall Jr who gives the performance of his career in the role of the sadistic villain.
Having been familiar with Arch Hall Jr's lame-o performances in cheese like WILD GUITAR and other films -- and enjoying them for what they are, B-movie junk -- I was blown away by his performance in this film and walked out of my place and wandered the streets for an hour or so in a daze.
Hall's over-the-top, Jimmy Cagney-like performance in "The Sadist" is nearly perfect playing off the rather square actors who play his victims.I won't completely spoil the plot, but I will say that Freud would have a field day with this one--what else can you say about a flick that involves a psycho who forces a shirtless man to change a fuel pump at gunpoint?
The plot is simple as can be and tight as a drum, three teachers, Ed, Carl and Doris stop off at a junkyard on the way to a baseball game, but are held at gunpoint in a terrifying ordeal by crazed young villain Charlie Tibbs and his loyal girlfriend Judy.
I was in for a real good one hear this is one of the best independent b-movies ever very cool story and acting!Takes place in a junk yard the sadist is one of the best films i have seen a great 60s film 8/10.
"The Sadist" is a pretty bleak and unsettling horror thriller even by today's standards.Loosely based on Charles Starkweather's series of mass murders it tells the story of three high school teachers,who are terrorized by a young mass murderer with a Colt automatic and his girlfriend.The man's name is Charlie Tibbs.He and his girl Judy Bradshaw have spent the past several days heading west from Arizona murdering for kicks whenever their path crosses that of anyone else.Arch Hall Jr. is phenomenal as the Starkweather's inspired psycho.He is loathsome,cold-blooded and evil villain,who does everything what Judy demands him to do.The victims are likable and well-developed, especially Helen Hoven as a female teacher.Overall,"The Sadist" is a pretty powerful film that predates slasher movies of 70's and early 80's.Give it a look..
I approached "The Sadist" with a keen memory of the utterly unappealing Arch Hall, Jr., as the "hero" of "Eegah!" in mind -- yet within minutes was quite pleasantly surprised by the way the picture *worked*.There is no question that Hall, as "Charlie Tibbs," is a low-budget Charlie Starkweather -- you can't miss that this is a thinly-veiled Starkweather "a clef" if you know the real Starkweather/Fugate story (or have seen the TV-movie "Starkweather," or even the loosely-inspired-by "Badlands").I never thought I'd praise Arch Jr., but, frankly, his slack-jawed portrayal of the gun-wielding sociopath is the stuff your on-a-lonely-road nightmares are made of.
The main character played by Arch Hall Jr. is very creepy and even in his first scene you know that he has no compassion.Three school teachers break down in their car and end up in what appears to be a deserted breakers yard.
The film is also very extreme for its time.Arch Hall Jr in the lead gives an extraordinary performance as Tibbs- the Sadist in the title.
Played up to the hilt by Arch Hall Jr., this is the first movie made based upon the real life Charles Starkweather murderous crime spree case.
In an updated setting, the "villain" is that frightening "element" of society which will suddenly, and "inexplicably" slaughter its own.********* The Sadist (4/63) James Landis ~ Arch Hall Jr., Richard Alden, Helen Hovey, Marilyn Manning.
I heard that this was a breakthrough movie that gave a line-up to similar movies for many generations.The story is about 3 people a school teacher Carl Oliver (Don Russell) a Man Ed Stiles (Richard Alden) and a lady Doris Page (Helen Hovey) - driving to LA for a dodger game; and pull off to a highway roadside old yard when their car has some trouble; without knowing that they would walk into two psychotic killers Charlie (Arch Hall Jr.) and Judy (Marilyn Manning), who are on their road of serial killings.
This might have been better if the acting had been good but there's only one good performance here--Richard Alden as Ed. Arch Hall Jr. is just hysterically bad as the "sadist".
Just out of curiosity i watched this thinking, oh no not another arch hall Jr movie.after seeing eegah and the choppers i was'nt expecting a good film,but surprise its a good low budget melodrama,sort of a precursor(as Joe bob Briggs would say)to natural born killers.i don't want to give the plot away but anyone who enjoys crime melodramas will enjoy this.arch hall Jr comes across as a poor mans James dean but this is his best film,Marilyn manning co star of;eegah!
plays arch halls crazy girlfriend.this movie works,its an under rated gem.don't let the low budget or casting fool you.this is 90 Mon of nail biting edge of your seat suspense.7 out of 10.not to be missed..
Inspired by the exploits of real life thrill-killers Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate, the film stars Arch Hall Jr. as Charlie Tibbs, who, along with his teenage girlfriend Judy (Marilyn Manning), torments three teachers, Ed (Richard Alden), Doris (Helen Hovey) and Carl (Don Russell), who have the misfortune of bumping into the pair of psychos after experiencing car trouble on their way to a ball game.What follows is a lean exercise in suspense, director James Landis expertly wringing every ounce of tension from the situation, especially when it becomes clear that Tibbs has no intention of letting his victims live.
Landis handles the action, which unfolds in real time, with incredible skill, never letting the pace or tension drop, and commands superb performances from his cast, Hall Jr. being an utterly loathsome villain, and Hovey making for a very appealing heroine (what a shame that was her one and only movie).Landis also delivers one or two genuine gut-punches—scenes that deliver the kind of shock that stays with the viewer long after the film has finished—and rounds things off with a brilliant game of cat and mouse, as Doris, making a desperate bid for freedom, hides in a rundown house while Tibbs, brandishing a knife, closes in on his prey.
Not only do you learn that they already coldly murdered the people there but they have a whole string of senseless murders and are wanted by every police force on the West coast.What makes this different from thrillers like SUDDENLY or even PSYCHO, the film really shows something new to the movies--a killer who is 100% evil and truly enjoys making his victims suffer.
It's a situation, but a helluva one for one place: three people stop off to get some gas on the way to the ball game, find no one is there, except (gasp) Charlie (Arch Hall Jr) and his girlfriend Judy, who have been on a kind of killing spree across the state and are wanted by the cops.
Certainly also Hall Jr, who has a whole slew of B/C/Z-movie and exploitation crap to his name like Eegah is fun to watch, and his over-the-top nature helps to off-set some of the predictable acting by the good-guy/gal leads.
The stop off at a junk yard but before long they run into the psychopath Charlie (Arch Hall, Jr.) and his crazy girlfriend.THE SADIST is a very low-budget film that pretty much divides its fans and critics.
Not this time.Arch Hall, Jr. is more annoying than any character I have seen in a movie.
But somewhere in between all this, the film slows down just a bit too much, making it drag a little in some places.Arch"Babyface"Hall Jr. sure was good in his roll as the sadist, though to be honest, I think having seen him for 90 minutes straight in this movie was enough for me.
Charlie Starkweather & Tommy Udo. Film buffs will recognize Arch Hall, Jr.'s character as an excellent imitation/re-creation of Richard Widmark's Tommy Udo in "Kiss of Death", including his voice, his sadistic giggle and the habit of calling his enemies "Big Man".The young couple are, of course, based on Charlie Starkweather and his girlfriend Caril Fugate who roamed Nebraska & Wyoming in the late 50's on a thrill-killing spree that claimed 11 victims.The film was much better than I expected it to be.
'Charlie' Tibbs (Arch Hall Jr. of "The Choppers") takes school teachers Ed Stiles (Richard Arlen of "The Pit"), Carl Oliver (Don Russell of "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?") and Doris Page (one-time actress Helen Hovey) hostage.
Arch Hall gives the performance of his lifetime and the directions even different in a good way for movies of that era. |
tt1267379 | Dead Space: Downfall | An alien artifact, identified as a possible "second Marker", is discovered on the planet Aegis VII. The Church of Unitology uses its influence to send the mining ship USG Ishimura to retrieve this holy relic.
While the ship approaches, they receive radio reports of an outbreak of violent behavior among the colonists. The Marker is brought aboard by order of Captain Benjamin Mathius (Jim Cummings). Head of Security Alissa Vincent (Nika Futterman) asks to investigate the colony, but Mathius believes nothing is amiss. While the Ishimura extracts a chunk of the planet to mine, a man in the ship's sick bay, Hans Leggio, (Jeff Bennett) struggles against his restraints and resists sedation, begging to be killed.
Meanwhile, two miners on Aegis VII check an outpost that has gone silent. One man, Farum (Cummings) vanishes during a blackout, while the other, Colin Barrow (Bruce Boxleitner) sees his wife Jen (Lia Sargent) commit suicide. Barrow takes her body and flees the facility in a shuttle, unaware of an alien presence attached to the corpse.
The Ishimura re-establishes links with the colony, receiving evidence of a massacre. The captain refuses to radio for help, as he would face a court martial for entering a restricted system. He orders that the planet be quarantined and return to Earth with the Marker. Barrow's shuttle crashes into the Ishimura's hangar, just as he is killed by his mutated wife. Vincent and her security teammates Ramirez (Hal Sparks), Hanson (Phil Morris), Dobbs (Bennett), Pendleton (Kevin Michael Richardson), and Shen (Kelly Hu) are dispatched to arrest and quarantine the people on the shuttle, but they find nothing aboard but pools of blood. Leggio awakens to discover alien creatures mutating the corpses in the morgue, which then kill him. The security team follows trails of blood towards the morgue, where Dobbs is killed by an infected Leggio. Tensions flare as Unitologist crew members demand to see the Marker; they are quickly calmed and dispersed by engineer Samuel Irons (Richardson), a Unitologist.
The security team fight the infestation as it spreads through the ship, with Irons joining them after saving them from the Necromorphs in the ship's mess hall where Pendleton is swarmed and killed. Dr. Terrence Kyne (Keith Szarabajka) tells Mathius that the Marker is responsible for the colonists going insane, killing each other and causing the infestation and must not be taken to Earth, fearing that the Necromorphs will wipe out every last human on Earth, but the captain claims religious persecution and mutiny. As tension rises on the Bridge, captain Mathius is accidentally killed by Kyne in an attempt to sedate him, who flees the bridge. The escape pods are launched empty and the communications systems destroyed.
On the way to the bridge, Hanson goes insane and kills Shen, then is in turn killed by Ramirez. Vincent, Irons, and Ramirez return to the bridge where they learn that the ship is almost entirely overrun; they then discover that Kyne is sabotaging the ship's engines, to scuttle the ship on the planet to stop the Necromorphs from spreading.
On their way to confront Kyne, the team finds survivors trapped by Necromorphs. Irons buys time for Vincent and Ramirez to extract the scared crew members by using himself as bait, and is killed. Ramirez sacrifices himself getting Vincent into the control room. She confronts Kyne, who claims that his actions are necessary to stop the alien outbreak from leaving the system. Vincent fails to restore the engines, and Kyne escapes with her weapon.
Vincent finds herself surrounded by Necromorphs and run for the Marker, but learns that the creatures cannot come into close proximity with the artifact, which kept them imprisoned on Aegis VII. Spurred on by a vision of Ramirez, Vincent leaves a video log that details the entire sequence of events, adding that the Marker and the Ishimura must be destroyed. She uploads the video log to a distress beacon, opens the airlock and launches the beacon from the downed shuttle. Vincent and the Necromorphs are blown out into space.
Vincent's body drifts in space as the song "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" plays. The story ends as the USG Kellion arrives and prepares to dock on the Ishimura - the beginning of Dead Space. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0889595 | Dream Boy | Fifteen-year-old Nathan Davies (Stephan Bender) moves to St. Francisville, Louisiana, a small Southern town with his parents (Thomas Jay Ryan and Diana Scarwid) and starts to befriend the older boy next door, Roy (Maximillian Roeg), fellow high school student and bus driver, who is in a relationship with Evelyn (Rooney Mara). Nathan and Roy start to develop their relationship by helping each other with school work at Nathan's house. While Roy is teaching Nathan how to solve an Algebra problem, Nathan touches his hand. Roy pulls away at first, but then takes hold of Nathan's hand.
After they finish their work, the boys go for a walk in the woods, finding an old cemetery, where they stop and start kissing. They undress down to everything but socks and underwear, and lay in an embrace together. The relationship between Nathan and his father is revealed to be a little strange and full of tension. One morning Roy pulls the bus into a part in the woods and they kiss and Nathan touches Roy. Roy asks if Nathan has ever done this with anyone before, and he promises he never has. Roy takes Nathan swimming with Burke and Randy, but Nathan admits he can't swim. While watching Roy, Burke threatens to throw him in the water, but Roy stops him. While Roy is driving them home, he pulls onto the side of the road and they start kissing. When Nathan starts to have sex with Roy, Roy angrily stops him, asking "who taught [him] to screw like that". Nathan swears "no one".
When Nathan gets home that night, his father wants to know if he had a good time. Nathan is on the brink of tears as he answers his father. He ties a string up to his dresser drawer and bedpost, tucks his pillows under his sheets, and moves to the floor to sleep. In the night he hears a thud and runs from his room, because it was his father sneaking in. It is later revealed that his father had touched him in the past inappropriately. Nathan sleeps outside and doesn't come home. He does for meals but returns to his tree outside after.
Roy finds him and offers him a place to sleep in his family's barn. The next morning, Nathan goes home for breakfast and his father catches him, yelling at him to not run from him, but Nathan's mother interrupts and he runs to the school bus. Later, Roy tells Nathan they're going camping with Burke and Randy that weekend. That night, Roy tells ghost stories around the campfire, and in their tent, Nathan gives Roy a blowjob, and Roy asks him if he minds when Roy doesn't do those things back to him, and Nathan says he doesn't mind. Hiking through the woods, the boys find an old plantation house. They go inside to investigate, and Nathan hears a voice call his name, resembling his father's. They then find cloth with what looks like to be blood on it, and they smell sulfur (which Nathan says is the smell of the Devil), and the boys see a shadow move up the stairs.
Burke takes the flashlight from Roy and goes to investigate with Randy. Roy and Nathan go into a bedroom and talk, and Nathan says he feels as if he'll never leave that house. He hears the voice again and Roy goes to see if the guys are back. Nathan sees his father and closes his eyes tight, when Roy enters the room again. He tells Nathan not to look at whatever he's seeing anymore and kisses him. Roy gets down on his knees and proceeds to fellate Nathan, when Burke and Randy find them. Roy storms out of the room, and Nathan hears the voice again, and is suddenly knocked unconscious. A shadow of a person carries him up the stairs.
In the attic, Burke rapes Nathan, and realizing what he's done, disgusted with himself, he breaks an arm off a rocking chair and knocks Nathan over the head with it. Blood starts pooling on the floor beneath his head and he leaves Nathan in the attic. When Roy and Randy find him early the next morning, he appears to be dead. Roy tells Randy to go on and find Burke, whom he says he doesn't believe at this point about what happened. Roy cries once Randy leaves, then Roy leaves too. The police arrive, bringing Nathan's father who tearfully covers Nathan's face with a blanket.
Nathan awakens from a coma, or resurrected if he died, gets up and leaves the plantation house. He wanders for a long time still dazed from the blow to his head. Finally he sees Roy coming out of Sunday evening church, but Roy is with his family, so Nathan wanders around some more waiting for Roy to get home. Nathan's mother leaves his father, and Nathan, his head now clear finds Roy crying in the barn where Nathan slept while hiding from his father. As Roy looks up, he sees Nathan and hugs him.
At the end of the story, Roy is driving the bus and looks in the mirror to an empty seat, but when he looks a second time, Nathan is there smiling at him.
The movie departs from the novel and leaves the impression that Nathan is truly dead, and that the previous scenes were a wishful dream sequence of one of the two boy lovers, presumably Roy. In the book this scene does not take place. The book has the boys meeting in the yard of Roy's church, running together into the woods to talk things over, then and deciding to run away together since Roy has been seen sucking Nathan by both Burke and Randy, and both boys will surely will be outed to their families and the whole community. The book ends with: "They hear the voices of people searching for them in the woods. They stand and go. They never look back." | horror, murder, storytelling | train | wikipedia | Half way through things about Nathan become clearer--and more disturbing--and the movie gets dark.I read the book years ago and loved it but I hated the ending cause it's so ambiguous.
I bought this movie cautiously because I didn't think it could be as good as the book and I was curious HOW they would end it.
Bender and Roeg perfectly play two teenage boys in love--you can see the confusion and passion in their faces.
Like I said I hated that ending but I'm glad the movie didn't change it.
The two actors Stephan Bender and Maximillian Roeg that play the teenage boys are outstanding and should have very fruitful careers after this film.
The singer Rickie Lee Jones plays the other boys mother and in a small part creates a memorable and touching character.Don't want to give too much away about the plot but the center of the story is about two teenage boys.
In "Dream Boy," the mood is both melancholy and sweet and there is a constant, if not always apparent, hint of anxiety and apprehension that builds throughout the movie.
While the acting of the supporting cast in "Dream Boy" can be somewhat inconsistent, the acting of the two main characters, Roy (Max Roeg) and Nathan (Stephan Bender), is very strong.
I was particularly impressed with Bender whose performance reminds me of Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious." While it is true that the awkward, inarticulate teenager is well-trod territory in gay cinema, I've never seen the role acted so flawlessly.
I've read some criticism that Bender's performance was "wooden," and it strikes me that if you were not an awkward, inarticulate teenager you might not be able to identify with the performance, but if you were the kind of kid who stayed inside most of the day you will probably find the portrayal of your former self incredibly accurate and moving.There is a lot of attention paid to subtle, non-verbal forms of communication - glances, stares, half-smiles, physical contact - all of which create a much more realistic depiction of young, gay love than the more chatty gay coming-of-age movies that I'm used to seeing.
I was especially impressed with the performances of Stephan Bender as Nathan and Max Roeg as Roy. While I had no idea what the exact outcome of the film would be, there is a "foreboding" that overshadows the entire story; You get clues along the way that "something is wrong." But the final 20 minutes or so will probably really surprise you.
Exchanges of glances and the growth of mutual attraction between the boys lead to a very private but sincere physical relationship: Nathan does not share with Roy that he has suffered sexual abuse from his father.
What happens in this mysterious place provides the climax of the story - a brutal surprise ending that then transports the film into another dimension - a region the viewer must decide is satisfying or not.
There are some fine moments in this little low budget movie and the presence of Maximillian Roeg, Diana Scarwid, and Randy Wayne lifts the cast to a higher level of competence.
Bolton does have a fine touch with stories about the coming out of young men in his films and his ability to capture the Gothic atmosphere of the South is solid.
There is no chemistry portrayed here and although the leads are cute and the situations realistic, for the most part (teenagers take every moment for personal connections no matter how inappropriate or imprudent they may be) we are left with a coming-of-age story that while sweet and tender against all apparent odds is betrayed by a thin-as-paper, muddled plot that is formulaic and unsatisfying.
There are so many things wrong with this film it is hard to know where to begin, but I shall start with the poor excuse for a script, at first it was difficult to decide whether it was the acting that was bad or the script, and then after about half an hour I realised it was both.
Persevering in the hope that it would improve, I proceeded to waste another hour watching this poor excuse for a film, the sad part is it had the potential to be good, if only the script had done something other than hint at the issues it was attempting to deal with, barely scratching the surface of what in reality is a very serious issue.
The awkward acting (Stephen Bender) portraying an awkward, and mostly cringe worthy portrayal of a teen struggling with not only his sexuality but his horrendous home life, to be fair it isn't his fault though, the weak writing left him little to work with, and very little dialogue, other then the odd feeble response to a question, and fain glance here and there at his co-stars there really was not a lot he could do.
The depth of characters were about as deep as that which you would find in an episode of the hills, by the end of the film, other than the shoddy, and sloppy scene depicting his father attempting to abuse him we knew nothing about these characters as individuals, much less how they came to have such an 'intense' relationship, how they went from riding the school bus with each other to pulling each others clothes off in a grave yard is a mystery I think even Sherlock himself would struggle to fathom, yet we were supposed to believe in this relationship and it's struggles and somehow the emotional turmoil he was going through at the same time.
but to add in a rape scene for shock value seemed, vulgar, pathetic and illustrated just how poor the writing of this movie was, the fact that once he was dead his eyes moved several times as his co star was supposed to be sat mourning his loss was almost laughable.
I enjoyed the atmospheric, thoughtful and sensitive slow pace of this movie, but the dialog in important parts, and especially during the climax, was drowned out by some of the worst, most inappropriate, extremely annoying, repetitive, cloying and very loud music I've ever heard in a movie soundtrack.The dialog volume should have been turned up and the music _way_ down in this movie, and absent altogether in parts where the dialog was of utmost importance for revealing the plot.
I almost stopped watching this movie, despite liking the story and characters, specifically because of the awful "background" music that was much too often in the close foreground.
I can't help but think of "The Mudge Boy" (and "Fishbelly White") which also starts out with a lot of potential but the writer puts in a story arch that ruins the tale and turns what could be a good experience into a downer.The two lead actors were very good in their roles and the photography is lovely.
If it's a tender love story you want, don't watch the second half of this film.
The film is based on a novel which I haven't read but if the stories are the same, neither should be called "Dream Boy.".
The lack of talking would have been better if the acting was better, I just found the acting to be incredibly awkward.The second half of the movie left me thinking to myself, 'What just happened?' But not in a good way.
I was thoroughly enjoying this film, with its talented and attractive two leads, the evocative setting, and a decently realistic premise.Then came the final act.What happens in the ending is both poorly written and a waste of a potentially fantastic film.
In a story that felt so natural and real, the entire third act comes seemingly out of nowhere in effort to force the characters into a specific type of ending.
An ending which, though I would have preferred otherwise, could have been achieved much more organically with story pieces already in place (the father) instead of driving an underdeveloped secondary character into an unjustifiable decision, and forcing a main character to passively accept their fate with no fight.Awful.
Glass Menagerie meets Stand by Me. Unfortunately, just before I watched this movie, I read a review here stating that the story was based on a "thin-as-paper, muddled plot." With that in mind and the somewhat awkward, uncomfortable interactions between the actors at the start, I almost gave it up.
In fact, many of us are drawn to films like this because reliving some of those common experiences, distressing as they may have been when we were young, now contribute to a comforting feeling of connection to others.The distant, confused, tender-brutal, hateful-loving relationship between father and son, I suspect, drove a great deal of this story although it wasn't the central focus.
And the ending seems to make this just too "cutesy" and negates the entire horror/ghost story direction (it's almost as if the writer got stuck and didn't know where to go and wanted to end on some "feel good" note...just lazy).
Does Ray realize his blow-job has cost his lover Nathan his life as well as make his straight buddy a raping murderer ?Do we assume it's Nathan's ghost that haunts Roy in the final sequence or that everything is back to normal and nothing actually happened ?It all gets a bit Twin-Peaks at best with a big emphasis on the subject of being haunted, very muddled and confused and unbelievable for everybody else.That's a shame as it had a thing going for it for the first 3/4s of the movie..
This, of course, goes to all lengths, it can create hierarchies (for example, who penetrates who in jail), it can serve as an excuse for gay intercourse while maintaining a heterosexual façade, etc.Throughout the film problems are avoided as long as Roy remains in his active position.
Or perhaps the film simply imbricates the repercussions of real death versus the significance and emotional strength involved in symbolic death."Dream Boy" has a very sad and touching end.
I was expecting a cute gay love story, but it felt more like a disturbing version of Twilight.
Exactly what drove his father to get drunk all the time and for his mother to give away all sense of control away was unclear to me.Also, why they would perform gay sex acts in a tent next to the other boys or randomly in an abandoned house where there was clearly imminent danger to them being caught was confusing to me.
How could homophobia be so present yet the characters give no indication of their fear of being caught?The overall tone of the movie revolves around the two boys' pent up love for each other and the ensuing emotional tension.
I watched this entire film with the hope that it would turn around and get better, but honestly it just ended in utter tragedy with not much resolve.
Unfortunately, in act four the plot takes a turn for the worse, morphs into southern Gothic supernatural thriller, and enacts classic homophobia: gay love can't be show without being punished horribly, in this case with rape and murder.
Topping this off with a ghostly eternal love ending is the kind of red dye number 2 maraschino cherry only a teen could possibly swallow -- and it still wouldn't be good for him.I encourage those video savants out there to edit this down to a festive mix of the romance, love, and bootie scenes, preferably as background for parties and gay bars..
To me it's nothing more and nothing less than the usual typical gay-themed book or film where the gay character has to die in the end.
Yes, obviously real life isn't all gumdrops and rainbows but regardless of the author's intentions, did the world really need to see a movie where this kid gets brutally raped and murdered?
Personally I think not.In any event, I had no intention of ever watching this movie, having read the book and strongly disliking it as I mentioned above.
Unfortunately that's not the case at all, but in fact if you watch the first 2/3 of the movie and then just shut it off, it's a really beautiful love story and you can pretend that the 2 boys live happily ever after..
It wasn't exactly a masterpiece, having some issues, but it's unexpectedly warm and tender moments,the acting (especially Max Roeg) and the soundtrack (why so many people find it annoying is beyond me..) made it worth watching.
I think it's major issue was the ending and most of the movies second part.
While in the book, there was a subtle mix between reality and dream, the movie failed at this point, giving us just something confusing instead of something dreamlike.
The rest of the the movie was very well crafted, managing to depict the fragile love of the two boys, that seems almost unreal.
I loved the fact that teenage love was depicted (both in the novel and the movie) exactly the way it is: clumsy, awkward but of incredible depth and intensity.
Although there are some (love) scenes in the novel which weren't included in the movie (and they would have added so much to it!)they were able to portray the aching tenderness and profound love that the boys developed for each other.
The only objection I have regarding the love scenes is that maybe Nathan's character could have been a bit less shy-there were moments when it looked like Nathan was rather obeying the infatuated Roy and not reciprocating his feelings.Both actors did a good job, although it was Max Roeg that I liked the most.
He made the character look very real, a handsome and popular farm boy leading a normal life,whose world is suddenly turned upside down by the feelings he has for his shy schoolmate,feelings he cannot identify at first.All in all, it's a movie that worth a watch,not as good as the book though.
It's complex and subtle, but lacks the eeriness and dreamlike atmosphere of the novel, the mix between a touching love story and a Gothic horror tale.
I definitely recommend both the movie and Jim Grimsley's novel - it's a haunting story of first love, that will definitely haunt you for a while..
There is no chemistry between the boys (watch how they always fail to engage their kisses, but when Roy kisses - and just once - the girl, the straight element of the actor, to put it that way, seeps through).
When all such stories need a proper mood for anything in them to happen, and when we have in the film no mood at all, just amateurish, half-engaged and ill-conceived stabs at it, tell me where you think it will head to.Too bad, because it has Maximillian Roeg in it, who has something of his mother's, Theresa Russell, off-kilter beauty.
A Tragic Love Story about Two Gay Teenagers.
The movie deals with extremely dark subject matter so to call this film a 'love story' is a major stretch.
This film leaves you feeling empty and disturbed which i almost respect because in reality bad things happen to people and there is little happiness in certain situations.
I really loved this movie and thought that it was quite heart felt and beautiful.
If this was a multi-million dollar budget movie then I feel that some of that extra potential could have been reached but since there was so little of a budget, I feel that this movie is excellent.I watch a lot of Gay dramas and have to say that this one is uniquely different which is what gave it a lot of appeal to me and I'm looking forward to reading the book..
As I was watching the movie I was getting a better feeling than reading the book, I feel there should have been more on the interactions with the father, and the music was kind of annoying, But as a whole it was turning out to be a decent film...Until the "director" tried to be all artsy and suspenseful and ruined the climax ending.
The only person that really looked out of place was the kid playing Roy. That's only because he was shorter than the other cast of boys.
I think Randy Wayne (who plays Burke in the movie) would have been a better choice for the character Roy. This movie would have been so much better had the "director" focused more on the darker side of things, and knew just a little about using music in scenes..
As far as gay themed movies go, for the most part this is a beautiful and endearing love story handled with tenderness and all together quite amazingly done.
This movie could have could have taken this theme and launched into being one of the best gay films of the decade.
Some kind of self loathing from a writer director who needs to justify making a gay themed filmed?
Needed more depth, but otherwise, a good love story..
Of course, I believe Nathan Davies (Stephen Bender), our protagonist of the film, was a bit too awkward at the start of the movie, although maybe in his situation (a molested teenager in a secret relationship with his boy-next-door classmate) his overly awkwardness is justified.Maximilian Roeg did a good job playing Roy, although the audience may get mix feelings about the boy-next-door throughout the film because of his quick brutality and also his soft spot for Nathan.
Finally, the ending becomes a bit confusing, what with a ghostly apparition of Nathan's father, a creepy plantation seemingly just thrown into the movie to spice things up, quick short clips of Nathan being raped, and then the funeral.
An innocent boy lost his childhood and his life to molestation and finally rape, all because people couldn't accept the relationship between Roy and Nathan, as well as stand up against Nathan's father.
For these reasons, as well as the fact that the relationship between Nathan and Roy was overly quick, and the way the parents seemed underdeveloped, I give this movie 6 stars. |
tt0118615 | Anaconda | While shooting a documentary about a long-lost Indian tribe, the Shirishamas, on the Amazon River, director Terri Flores (Jennifer Lopez) and members of her crew—including cameraman Danny Rich (Ice Cube), production manager Denise Kalberg (Kari Wuhrer), her boyfriend, sound engineer Gary Dixon (Owen Wilson), visionary Warren Westridge (Jonathan Hyde), anthropologist Professor Steven Cale (Eric Stoltz), and boat skipper Mateo (Vincent Castellanos)—come across stranded Paraguayan snake hunter Paul Serone (Jon Voight) and help him, believing he knows how to find the tribe they are searching for.
Most of the crew are uncomfortable around Sarone, and Cale clashes with him several times in regards to Shirishama lore. Later, while trying to free the boat's propeller from a rope, Cale is stung in the throat by a wasp inside his scuba regulator, leaving him unconscious. With that, Sarone takes command of the boat and the crew. They are then forced to help him achieve his true objective—hunting down and capturing a record-breaking giant anaconda he had been tracking. One night, the Anaconda killed a jaguar.
Mateo is the first of the crew to be killed by the anaconda, which coils around him and then breaks his neck near a boat where a poacher (Danny Trejo) had been killed, by shooting himself, at the beginning of the film. A photograph in an old newspaper reveals that Mateo, Sarone and the unnamed poacher were working together to catch animals, including snakes. The others try to find him while Gary sides with Sarone, who promises if they help him find the anaconda, he will help them get out alive. Later at night, the anaconda attacks the boat. When Sarone attempts to capture the snake, it crushes Gary, killing and eating him, leaving Denise devastated. The survivors overcome Sarone and tie him up. The next day, the boat becomes stuck at a waterfall, requiring Terri, Danny and Westridge entering the water to winch it loose. When Denise attempts to kill Sarone as revenge for Gary's death, he gets the edge and strangles her to death with his legs before dumping her body in the river. When the anaconda returns, Westridge distracts it long enough for Terri and Danny to return to the boat while he ascends the waterfall. Danny and the freed Sarone fight, as Westridge is coiled by the snake. Before it can kill him, the tree supporting the anaconda breaks, sending everyone into the water and waking up Cale. With Westridge killed in the fall, the snake coils itself around Danny, only to be shot in the head by Terri. An enraged Sarone attacks Terri, only to be stabbed with the tranquilizer dart by Cale, who soon loses consciousness again. Danny punches the drugged Sarone, knocking him into the river.
However, Terri and Danny are soon re-captured when Sarone catches up to them. He dumps a bucket of monkey blood on them and uses them as bait in an attempt to capture a second, larger anaconda. The anaconda appears and coils around Terri and Danny and begins to suffocate them. They are caught in a net by Sarone, but the snake breaks free. Sarone tries to escape, but the anaconda finally manages to coil around him and suffocate him. Terri and Danny cut their bonds and watch in horror as the anaconda slowly swallows Sarone whole. Terri finds a nest of baby anacondas in a building, but the snake arrives and, after regurgitating the still twitching Sarone, chases her up a smoke stack. Danny traps the anaconda by pinning its tail to the ground with a pickaxe. Danny ignites a fire below the smoke shack and burns the snake alive. The burning anaconda is sent flying out of the building and plunges into the water where it sinks. As Terri and Danny recuperate on a nearby dock, the anaconda appears one final time before Danny slams a splitting maul into the snake's head, killing it. Afterwards, Terri and Danny reunite with Cale, who begins to revive on the boat. As they float down the river, they accidentally locate the natives for whom they were originally searching. They realize Sarone was right and begin filming their documentary as the film ends. | insanity, cult, comedy, suspenseful | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0038053 | Saratoga Trunk | In 1875, Clio Dulaine (Ingrid Bergman), the illegitimate daughter of an aristocratic New Orleans Creole father and a light-skinned Creole woman of color who was his placée, returns from Paris to her birthplace in Rampart Street to avenge her mother's mistreatment at the hands of her father's family, the Dulaines. Years ago, Clio's mother accidentally killed Dulaine when he tried to prevent her from committing suicide, and the scandalized Dulaines then exiled Clio and her mother to Paris. Clio is accompanied by her Haitian maid, Angelique (Flora Robson), and her dwarf manservant, Cupidon (Jerry Austin).
After fixing up the rundown house in Rampart Street, Clio ventures out, hoping to encounter the Dulaines, now comprising her father's widow, the widow's mother, and the widow's daughter (and Clio's half-sister) Charlotte Thérèse. At the French marketplace, Clio stops for a bowl of jambalaya and is immediately attracted to Clint Maroon (Gary Cooper), a tall Texan in a white hat, who is eating at the counter. The attraction is mutual, and Clint offers to drive Clio to the cathedral in his carriage, but a disapproving Angelique interferes, and Clio leaves without him. After the service, Clio, Angelique, and Cupidon breakfast at Begue's, the restaurant patronized by the Dulaines every Sunday. Announcing to the maitre d' that she is a relative, Clio sits at the table reserved for the Dulaines, but when the Dulaines arrive, they recognize her by her resemblance to her mother and leave without a confrontation. Clint and Clio meet again at the restaurant, and afterward he drives her home.
Soon after, Clio and Clint begin a courtship. Eventually, Clint moves into Clio's house. Although they are in love with each other, Clio, who is obsessed with her plans for revenge, intends to marry a rich and powerful man to prove that she is as good as her father's family. Clint, a gambler, who never intends to marry, is out for revenge against the railroaders who ruined his father in Texas.
Clio continues to embarrass the Dulaines at every opportunity, planning, if necessary, to sabotage the society debut of her half-sister Charlotte Thérèse. Exasperated by Clio's unrelenting machinations, Clint leaves for Saratoga Springs, New York. As the result of Clio's scheming, the Dulaines pay her $10,000 and agree to destroy the Rampart Street house and bury her mother in a New Orleans cemetery. Later, Clio joins Clint in Saratoga Springs, where she plots to marry wealthy railroad heir Bartholomew Van Steed (John Warburton). Clio's arrival with Angelique and Cupidon causes quite a stir, and because the hotel is completely booked, Clint, who is now calling himself Colonel Maroon, offers Clio two of the rooms in his suite. Privately, he explains that Bart owns a railroad, the Saratoga Trunk, which is suddenly worth millions of dollars because it connects the coal country with New York.
Railroader Raymond Soule (Louis Payne), the same man who ruined Clint's father, is trying to steal the railroad from Bart. Clio poses as the widow of a French count, a claim that many doubt until she is unexpectedly backed up by socialite Mrs. Coventry Bellop (Florence Bates), who intensely dislikes Van Steed's mother. Clio's beauty and melodramatic posturing quickly capture Bart's attentions.
Meanwhile, Clint offers to save the Saratoga Trunk from Soule in exchange for shares in the railroad. When Clio learns that Bart is paying Clint to do his dirty work, she hysterically accuses him of cowardice and sends him away. This excites Bart, who explains that he knows about her background, but wants to marry her anyway. The costume ball that evening is interrupted by the arrival of Clint and Cupidon, who were seriously wounded during a pitched battle with Soule's men. Clio realizes that she loves Clint too much to marry another man and nurses him back to health. Clint then tells Clio that, having saved the Saratoga Trunk from Soule, his railroad shares have made him a very rich man, and he plans to eventually take over the trunk line himself from Van Steed. | revenge, melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0036328 | Salute to the Marines | Having being stationed in the Philippines for years as a member of the United States Marine Corps, NCO Sgt. Maj. William Bailey (Beery) is retired after serving for 30 years. This happens several months prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and their laying siege to the South Pacific.
When the Japanese invade the Philippines, Bailey confronts and strangles a Nazi secret agent, who is now spreading anti-American, pro-Japanese propaganda. The spy had posed as a religious pacifist until a devastating Japanese air attack caused many casualties against the unarmed civilians that Bailey, his wife, and daughter (Maxwell) had been living among.
Bailey then takes command of the local Filipino militia that he had earlier trained just prior to his retirement. They fight a series of delaying actions against a Japanese ground invasion force, slowing their attack, while waiting for the U.S. Marine island forces to arrive and counter-attack.
Later, while wearing his one time "dress blues" uniform jacket, he takes out an enemy machine gun emplacement as Marines blow up a vital bridge, halting the Japanese advance. Sgt. Major Bailey is suddenly killed by an air bombing attack after his heroic delaying actions have succeeded.
Years later at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, CA, Sgt. Major Bailey is posthumously awarded, by his former commander in the Philippines, the corps' highest medal for valor. His daughter, now a Marine sergeant, gratefully accepts the medal for her late father, as the entire base's assembled corps passes in review. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Classic Wartime Film.
First one needs to remember this film was made DURING the war.
Anti Japanese resentment following Pearl Harbor and things like the Bataan Death March were running high.
And make no mistake, this film is pretty heavy on the anti Japanese message.But that is also one of the things that makes it interesting.
It is a glimpse into how people at the time were actually thinking.
And while the "dirty japs" were portrayed as squinty, murdering savages we must remember that at the time it wasn't a completely unfair criticism.The film is also unique in that it has a light "comedy" aspect to it.
Wallace Beery manages something like an Archie Bunker quality.
Probably much needed comic relief given that the news from the war was not always uplifting.But the final thing one needs to keep in mind is the purpose of this film and ones like it.
And that is how wars are won.
And if the worst thing that happens is our enemies are portrayed in a negative light, well that is hardly the worst thing that happens during wars..
Mr. Rap's 2003 review of this movie, its context, and the characterization by Wallace Berry, needs a reply.
First, the movie was released in 1943 -- at which time the US was not doing particularly well in the Pacific Theatre.
Second, the lead character is a career combat NCO who has never seen combat -- yet his outfit has left for the field leaving him behind.
Third, America used the theater as a way of seeing familiar faces (actors/actresses) in roles that many would be unable to fulfill, regardless of patriotism, fervor, or desire.
Besides Mr. Rap's comments seemingly being out of context as to what was happening in the film (e.g. drinking and fighting, BUT because he was ashamed at being left behind after 30 years of service), the comments also seem downright petty, juvenile, and mean-spirited ("old," "fat," "pot-bellied" etc.).
My assumption is that Mr. Rap has other motivations to examine and overcome, unrelated to the movie, but stimulated by the character of Beery..
A good balance of humor and drama & telling it like it was..
Wallace Beery is a fine, wonderfully rugged actor with a touch of tongue n' cheek hanging around in his lines.
He did a marvelous job in this old vintage Hollywood movie.
I had not thought of him as a leading man, but by golly he carries it off in fine form.
The Marines should be proud!
The movie with heart & humor.
It tells the story of a real war hero who won a medal.
It tells a fine tale, the characters are genuine and not too polished.
If I am not mistaken, there are real Marines in the parade sequences.
May God Bless em' and may we always honor their service..
A film I'll never forget.
I was only about 8 years old when I saw this film, I'm 69 now,but I never forgot it.
In fact it may have played a part in my joining the Marine corps 10 years later.
As I recall the story takes place in the Phillipine islands at the beginning of WW2.
Sgt. Baily is a crusty old recently retired Master Sergeant who does his best to repel the invading Jappanese with the help of a Phillipino boy.
The scene I remember the best was when US forces were trying to blow up a bridge and kept getting shot as they tried to set the charges.
I remember It was filmed in color.
I would sure like to see it again but I'm sure it must have been destroyed by time and neglect..
Wallace Beery, a consummate actor....
The jungle scene near the end of the movie is one of most moving scenes that I've ever witnessed.
This film deserves preservation consideration.
In this leisurely-paced Technicolor flag-waver, grizzled, beer-bellied lout Wallace Beery plays a thirty-year sergeant major stationed in the Philippines just before the war.
When he's forced into retirement, long-suffering wife Fay Bainter has to cope with his refusal to adapt to civilian life in their sleepy island village.
He antagonizes the peace-loving neighbors with his gross manners and anti-Japanese sentiments, trains the local children in military maneuvers, and gets into brawling confrontations with shifty Niponese sailors.
But once Pearl Harbor is attacked and the enemy advances on their town, Beery rallies the villagers to defense and goes out in a blaze of glory.The climactic combat action is a long time coming, since the bulk of the movie is devoted to Beery's fatuous, self-aggrandizing antics.
Whether condescending to his native troops (he refers to them as "little fellers" as though they were exotic incarnations of Jackie Cooper) or pouring on the 'aw shucks' geniality to a passel of adoring kids, this slob-king is a grating, grandstanding humbug.
Perhaps as a fanciful role model for home front-bound middle-aged men -- the run-to-seed but still vital codger.)No less phony is the hubba-hubba Marilyn Maxwell as his incessantly smirking daughter; it's tough enough to believe the refined, genteel Bainter could have ever had a booty call with Beery, much less produced so dishy a specimen from such rot-gut sperm.If one can last through all this spurious slop, the final thirty minutes deliver a Johnny-come-lately wallop.
As Japanese bombers hover over a crowded church, director S.
What follows is a grand scale action set-piece that is eye-filling and surprisingly fierce, weakened only by the unhinged spectacle of the tubby, lead-footed Beery traipsing through brush to single-handedly knock out an enemy machine gun emplacement.
The movie seems to be telling us that a regiment of lumbering, dissipated fat men could have shortened the war by years.
A classic Hollywood Patriotic War Film!
I enjoy watching war films and have seen countless films from the 30s onward to today.
An above-average war film.This film is a classic Hollywood War Film made during WWII in order to uplift the nation during its darkest days, sell War Bonds, and generate the much needed support for the United States Armed Forces in a time war!
But, you have to understand that this was a way for many in Hollywood who chose not serve or could not serve for various reasons to assist in the war effort.
In addition, it does a very good job as portraying the Marines as the best fighters of the US Military forces, no offense intended to the other branches.
The Marines are known for hitting the beaches first and leaving last.Wallace Beery does an excellent job telling the story of the tough drill Sergeant who has passed on his skills and knowledge for thirty years waiting for his chance to see combat.
He does his job well but wants what every Marine wants, to put his skills to the test.One rarity in Hollywood is the parts of the Filipinos and Japanese fighters are not being portrayed by White Men.In response to the Star-spangled hogwash review by Fred_Rap, I agree with Wholeben that Mr Rap's comments are out of context and unnecessarily harsh.The film was well made and made good use of scenery.
While the "green screen" scenes are obvious, the actors deliver their performances well.
The weakest part may be the overly friendly competition for the Helen Bailey's affections.The standout performance and reason to see this film is Wallace Beery's portrayal of a Marine who is a Marine regardless of whether he is in uniform.
His speech after the Japanese bombing to Colonel Casper was very powerful.
In addition the bar brawl against the Merchant Marines was great fun!
Sergeant Major William Bailey will not allow anyone to disrespect his Marine Corps!
My favorite scene in the film is the final moments with Beery in his Dress Blues sitting with his wife who has stayed behind to help instead of leaving with the other women and children.
While she prayed for peace, when war came she stood by her husband and does what she can to help in his "War"!PS: The Japanese soldiers in this film were also portrayed fairly considering when the film was made.
There is even a comment made about how smart their officers are in leading their troops.
While the Japanese are portrayed as being "sneaky" in using the fishing fleet to prepare for invasion this is entirely understandable considering that the Attack on Pearl Harbor happened only two years prior to the film's release..
"Salute to the Marines" ranks as a first-class example of Technicolor World War II propaganda.
The action opens and closes with the rousing Marine Corp anthem.
The first thing that we see is Marines splashing ashore from transports, bailing out of a C-47, flying fighters at low altitude, and careening through the jungle in tanks.
Not surprisingly, MGM released "Salute" the same year it released one of its more memorable last stand sagas "Bataan" with Robert Taylor, Lloyd Nolan, and Robert Walker.
In both movies, the heroes must destroy a bridge that the Japanese enemy needs to spearhead its advance, and our rough and tough leatherneck heroes perish in the process.
Basically, the title tells the tale about a veteran Marine drill instructor, Sergeant-Major Bailey (Wallace Beery of "The Champ") that's spent 30 years in the Corp, but has never acquired first-hand combat experience.
As the storm clouds of war huddle on the horizon, his long-time friend and Commanding Officer, Colonel Mason (the great Ray Collins of "Citizen Kane"), dispatches him to train Philippine civilians, an assignment the hard-nosed, blustering hero reluctantly carries out.
Thick-waisted Wallace Beery looks a mite long in the tooth to be playing such a vigorous man of action, but he delivers one of his best performances.
The dressing down that he gives a Marine about shoelaces during a barracks inspection is a great scene.
Look closely and you'll spot future "Dallas" TV star Jim Davis as a Marine private who butts heads with Beery's gruff sergeant-major.
Watch Beery during a barroom brawl scene as he drunkenly runs one hand over his head before he wades into a crowd of Merchant Marines and throws punches, eventually knocking everybody out cold on the floor about the time that the MPs enter the saloon.
When "Salute" isn't a hymn to the Marines, the filmmakers pay tribute to the valiant Philippines natives.
Initially, Beery condescends to these "little fellows." Before long, however, he alters his way of thinking and grows to admire them.
Beery trains the Phillipinos in the use of the bayonet.
The Beery character is inexplicably married to a woman (Fay Bainter) who hates the Corp and pleads with Bailey to hang up his bayonet and live a quiet peaceful life in her community of peace-lovers.
Clearly, this community of anti-war advocates serves as a metaphor for the United States before the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
Like other movies of its day, "Salute" chronicles the premeditated nature of the Asian Axis enemy.
The Japanese are portrayed as subhuman vermin.
The showdown between the captain of the steel-hulled Japanese fishing boat and Bailey is a classic, one-upsmanship encounter.
Later, the Nipponese strafe and bomb a church during worship service.
We watch in horror as a white woman running with a baby in her arms falls down between large explosives and lies strewn in the dirt dead.
A Japanese tank runs over a Philippine soldier.
Were that not enough, a young Robert Blake dies as the hands of the Japanese.
Of course, "Salute to the Marines" isn't very politically correct now, because the Japanese are no longer our enemies.
S. Sylvan Simon directs the action scenes with lean, muscular economy.
"Salute to the Marines" never runs out of steam..
Well, I am a fan of the Marine Corps.
True, I spent my four-year military career in the Coast Guard but it was just as rugged as the Marine Corps.
It was very nice to be served breakfast in bed by the attractive, blond, seventeen-year-old Swedish maids but there must be no expression in Swedish for "medium rare" because they kept fouling up the steak and eggs.
But I taught the Marines at Camp Lejeune for several years and they were among the best of students.
It's also the only service in which the officers' dress uniforms were less gaudy than the enlisted man's.With that prologue out of the way I can now go on to say that Wallace Beery is no marine.
He was fine as the comically sly Long John Silver but as a by-the-book top sergeant, he's plain incredible.
It's almost painful, watching him rearrange the manifold dimples and gyri of his face into one or another expression.The movie, told mostly in flashback, begins in 1941 in the Philippines.
Beery's job, as it must be in all such movies, is to bear down on his men and kick them into shape, the Filipino troops included, before he retires.
That impending retirement is an event he dreads because he has never won any "battle decorations." He gets his chance.
He retires at the proper time but just as he's finding out that inactivity doesn't suit him the Japanese invade the Philippine Islands pari passu.
A determined Beery struggles into his dress blue blouse, mobilizes the American and Filipino troops, and stops the enemy long enough for the women and children to escape across the bridge.They're successful despite the bombs delivered by Japanese airplanes.
The Japanese airplanes are dull-colored Vought Vindicators, an obsolete American dive bomber of the period, called disparagingly by pilots the "Vibrator" or "Wind Indicator." The Vindicator also plays itself, when American airplanes rush to the rescue of the beleaguered bridge defenders.Fans of old movies may enjoy it.
There are a lot of familiar names in the cast but you won't notice them on the screen.
But it's really made for Saturday afternoons when people went to the movies and didn't really care much about what was on the screen.
Kennedy -- claimed that he was seduced into joining the Marines after seeing the snazzy uniforms in "The Shores of Tripoli." One look at Wallace Beery wrestling to get into his tent-sized blouse, and Manchester would have joined the Coast Guard..
Class/caste system and scenes from the battle.
First of all, the Marine who forgot his extra shoelaces would have been verbally chewed out with foul language, probably a physical beating, and doing extra chores.
The sergeant would not be giving any rational explanation why you should be carrying extra shoe laces.
Back in those days, sergeants did not have to give any logical, practical, reasonable explanations for stuff like that.
They tell you to do something,and you did it.Like the movie The War against Mrs. Hadley, it is totally impossible for children of enlisted men and NCOs to have a relationship with officers.
The same thing could be said for people of different economic backgrounds to marry each other.
Let's face it America was a social class/caste system based the monetary system and political and religious ideologies.
Almost all of the officers for the 19th and 20th centuries came from the upper and rich classes families.
They only marry people within their social, political, and economic classes.
Even today, there is no contact between the officers, NCOs, and enlisted particularly their children when they are off duty and rich people do not marry people from the lower social and economic backgrounds plus the kind of job you have.
Why do you think Goucho Marx made fun of the rich people in many of his movies because he knew what they were really like (Bush, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Rothchilds, Duponts, etc).Om his speech the ex-sergeant told the local population, that people are sick, they see a doctor.
Well, back in those days the true is many people could not afford a doctor.
Finally, some of the air combat scenes were used in the 1977 movie Midway starring Henry Fonda and Charles Heston.
I wonder why they don't show more movies like that and the War against Ms. Hadley more often?
The Marines Deserved Better.
MGM did this 1943 film in color which was rare doing wartime in those years for any studio to use.
Probably 20th Century Fox filmed in color the most, still even their output was limited.Salute To The Marines stars Wallace Beery in one of his few color features and he brings his gruff, but lovable persona into the part of a training sergeant who is stationed in the Phillipines training new recruits for jungle combat which was thought by some to be inevitable.
This is what the Beery character is working at when he gets an assignment to train Filipino civilians to fight.But a character like Beery would NEVER have been training anyone.
The plot premise is that Beery, a thirty year veteran of the Corps would have missed every combat engagement in the Marines had which included Mexico, World War I, Haiti, Nicaragua etc.
Now somewhere down the line he'd have been assigned some action or he wouldn't be training anyone, let alone rise to the rank of Sergeant Major.Still train he does and his civilian trainees prove adequate to the task even though they're not the most disciplined bunch.The climax is when the Japanese come Beery also proves adequate in fighting a delaying action after the Japanese bomb the church where he and wife Fay Bainter are attending services.
This was on the same day where the Japanese were also doing a job on Pearl Harbor.
MGM did a far better film a year earlier about the Phillipine campaign and the last stand on Bataan with Robert Taylor.
That one holds up far better than Salute To The Marines.Shoehorned into the story is a kindly German store owner played by Reginald Owen who shows his true Nazi colors as the first Japanese troops land.
Beery makes short work of him.
The US Marines deserved a far better film than Salute To The Marines which is a dated relic of dubious propaganda value even then. |
tt0103850 | Bob Roberts | Bob Roberts takes place in Pennsylvania in 1990. It depicts a fictitious senatorial race between a conservative Republican folk singer, Bob Roberts (Tim Robbins), and the incumbent Democrat, Brickley Paiste (Gore Vidal). The film is shot through the perspective of Terry Manchester (Brian Murray), a British documentary filmmaker who is following the Roberts campaign. Through his lens we see Roberts travel across the state, performing songs about drug users, lazy people and the triumph of traditional family values over the rebelliousness of the 1960s. As the campaign continues, Paiste remains in the lead until a scandal arises involving him and a young woman who was seen emerging from a car with him. Paiste claims that she was a friend of his granddaughter whom he was driving home, but he cannot shake the accusations.
Throughout the campaign, reporter Bugs Raplin (Giancarlo Esposito) attempts to use the documentary being made about Roberts as a way to expose him to the public as a fraud. Raplin believes that Roberts' anti-drug charity, Broken Dove, is connected to an old Central Intelligence Agency drug trafficking scheme. As the election approaches, Roberts is asked to appear on a network's sketch comedy show. When Roberts announces that he will not be playing the song he had originally proposed, a dispute breaks out between the cast and producers of the show. This new song turns out to be nothing more than a thinly veiled campaign endorsement, and an angry staff member of the network pulls the plug mid-performance. As Roberts is leaving the studio, he is seemingly shot by a would-be assassin. Raplin, who has been causing problems for the campaign, is initially linked to the shooting, but he is later cleared when it is found that due to constrictive palsy in his right hand he physically could not have fired the gun. Following the incident, Raplin contends that Roberts was never actually shot and that the gun was fired into the ground.
The campaign is boosted by public support following the assassination attempt, and Roberts wins the election with 52 percent of the vote. Although Roberts claims that his wounds have left him paralyzed from the waist down, he is seen tapping his feet at a celebration party. While Terry Manchester is interviewing Roberts' supporters outside the new Senator's hotel, a boy runs up shouting, "He's dead, he's dead, they got him!" When Manchester asks him what he is talking about, the boy shouts, "Bugs Raplin! He's dead! They got him!" A joyful celebration breaks out among Roberts' supporters, the shot changes to an image of his hotel room, and an upright walking shadow suggesting Roberts' profile passes the window before the lights go out. The film ends with a radio news report about Raplin's death at the hands of a right-wing fanatic and a shot of Manchester standing in the Jefferson Memorial, looking at the words, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man", inscribed there. | cult, satire | train | wikipedia | It's also as paranoid as a junkie, and almost proudly one sided, which might be why it has slipped into relative obscurity - it's a film that could be very easily dismissed as a piece of left-wing propaganda, directed by and starring Tim Robbins, an outspokenly leftist actor.But, Bob Roberts is a film that deserves a lot more attention than it receives, largely because unlike a lot of political comedies, it's actually funny.
In Bob Roberts, Robbins has created a character who absolutely believes the terrible and terrifying things he sings about, and he plays the part with a wide eyed enthusiasm that makes you laugh, but in that oh so unsettling "I'm genuinely disturbed by this" kind of way.
From Alan Rickman's performance as the shadowy Big Business agent to Gore Vidal as Bob Roberts' running mate, the rest of the cast play the thing totally straight-faced.Sure, the movie's pretty preachy, but it never becomes boring: at a lean 102 minutes, it's a freight train of a film, spitting out characters, situations, and genuinely thrilling plot twists.Best of all is the film's ending, which is as cutting as the punchline to a sick joke.
The focus of most of these comments has been on the film's perceived political commentary on American politics.Let's make one thing clear: This film is a satire, not a commentary; in my opinion it's not about Republicans or Democrats, or conservatives or liberals; it is about the nature of democracies.The point that the film, "Bob Roberts", makes can be summed up very clearly.
His message is not unique or original; he speaks to the elements that have always appealed to the more right-wing or fascistic elements of society; marginalization of the weak (in this case, the poor), empowerment of the common man, family values, etc.Roberts' opponent, Paiste, is a textbook liberal; but this contest is not about left vs.
Roberts, on the other hand, says nothing about the real issues; he appeals only to the emotions of the mob, and because he uses the medium of folk music, he offends the sensibilities of liberals (both in the movie, and in its audience), because he uses the authenticity of the 60's and its messages of change, and "perverts" them to express his messages of reactionism and exclusion.And it works.Tim Robbins has a winner here, and this film gets overlooked because it gets dragged into these conversations about Robbins' own political views, and whether the film is making a statement about Republicans or Democrats.
But Robbins says something far more universal with this film; democracies are not safe from tyranny or fascism; all it takes is a charismatic reactionary who can manipulate the interests of the press and the political interests to rise to power by appealing to the worst elements of our psyche, for entertainment, glamour, and exclusionism.
The screenplay is brilliantly clever brimming with brutal honesty about the political battle in washington.Robbins plays the right-wing politician perfectly portraying a crooked yuppie business man willing to do anything to get elected to the US Senate a must see film one of the best films of the decade..
Tim Robbins' direction, writing, and acting were all phenomenal; I never really fully appreciated his talent and brilliance until this film; Gore Vidal's contribution was a special treat from both a fine actor and a remarkable intellect.Well worth the time - and a replay or two to capture, fully, all of the nuance and insight of this fine work..
"Bob Roberts" was a 1992 'mock-umentry' about the election of a Republican know-nothing (the title character) to a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania; in the movie Roberts wins against a too-brainy-to win Democrat played by Gore Vidal.
It is filmed in documentary style, telling the story of Bob Roberts, the conservative son of hippie parents who is running for the U.S. Senate seat from Pennsylvania.
Tim Robbins misses the point about what cultural populism really means.On a deeper level, this movie wants to leave you in a cold sweat, like Frankenheimer's 1962 version of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
On the other hand, the portrayals of the newscasters and Roberts' followers are a beautiful mix of satire and truth.There are so many broad caricatures on this film, I found myself wishing that Tim Robbins would have toned it down for the sake of believability.
This excellent mockumentary passed me by when it came out, so I was glad to discover it now.Strong performances by the whole cast really make this movie shine, Gore Vidal is especially convincing as the incumbent senator, as is Robbins himself and the eerie puppet master Alan Rickman.
an informed viewer will see it like a documentary but with fictionalized characters instead of the real people.anyone who thinks this is 'parody' or 'satire' needs to stop following the news via headlines and pundits.for example the speech by the underground reporter about Iran contra and everyone being the same players throughout the decades rings especially true and is an obvious example of how the movie parallels the political status quo today.a 'must watch' movie, much more so today than when it was originally released..
Bob Roberts is political satire at its best, written and directed by Tim Robbins who is hilarious a conservative senatorial candidate running for office in Pennsylvania against a liberal counterpart, Brickley Paiste(Gore Vidal), a casting stroke of genius.
Tim Robbins made his politics perfectly clear in his writing/directing debut, 'Bob Roberts'.
I never felt this was turning into a polemic because ANY politician who runs a dishonest campaign---no matter which "wing" they represent---will feel the sting of this mockumentary.As the title character, Robbins plays a right-wing senatorial candidate in Pennsylvania who badmouths the revolution of the '60s while prostituting '60s images and reworking old folk songs to sell his corrupt message.
In these two films and in 'Cradle Will Rock', he uses his friends and stock company of familiar names (including wife Susan Sarandon, Jack Black, John Cusack, Bob Balaban, and several family members).If 'This Is Spinal Tap', 'Best In Show', and 'Real Life' are among the best mockumentaries, 'Bob Roberts' is just a notch below.
The real sting in this film is that, devious and repulsive as Bob Roberts is, he is far more charismatic and interesting than his tired rival, Brickley Paiste (Gore Vidal), and he has managed to appropriate all of the weapons of the 1960s protest movements (including that most sacred insitution of all, folk music) and use them with a vigour that is scarily convincing.
But it was made 24 years before Trump was elected.Robbins plays Roberts, a right-wing politician who sings Bob Dylan-like songs that are twisted around 180 degrees.
A conservative folk singer, Bob Roberts, turns his hand to politics, running for the US Senate.
Meanwhile, a reporter is investigating Roberts's potential involvement in a drug ring.Written by, directed by and starring Tim Robbins, this is a brilliant satire on US politics.
This movie is a comment on all those politicians who do what Bob Roberts does in this movie--and if he doesn't resemble a Republican or two we have come too well to know in this country, well, then, I suppose you may as well believe you can have satire without commentary.
I had only seen a snippet of it before, the brilliant song parody of a right-wing folksinger singing about welfare recipients who "complain and complain and complain and complain and complaaaaain!" I was impressed by the quality of this ditty and rented the movie.Although billed as a comedy, I found this one to be a generally oil-and-water mixture of paranoid leftist diatribe and political comedy.
Songs like this wouldn't bring even the zombified audiences the movie postulates into a frenzy.Despite its flaws, however, I found Bob Roberts well worth watching for its star performances (Tim was great), its innovative camera work, and its emotional impact.
Tim Robbins is Bob Roberts, a right wing, Bob Dylan opposite, singing patriotic folk songs denigrating liberals.
The film relates the ascension of a charismatic yuppie from Philadelphia, a 35-year old self-made, a gifted swordsman, guitar player and folk singer named Bob Roberts.Like the most memorable movie characters, Bob Roberts is a man of fascinating contradictions: his conservative views are swept off by his youth, handsomeness and communicative smile while his notorious aversion toward the 60's rebelliousness is expressed through folk songs performed in public à la Bob Dylan.It's not coincidental that the film is Tim Robbins' directorial debut, and that he wrote and starred in it, for it immediately echoes another political classic : "Citizen Kane".
It's true that the portrayal of radicals flirt with caricature while the realism of movies like "JFK" and "Nixon" didn't make them less flattering about politicians."Bob Roberts" is refreshing because it points the finger on the danger of radical beliefs, and the way they lead to disasters, in the name of so-called values.
And since I mentioned "Nixon" and "JFK", I realize that the 90's might be the best decade for political movies, Oliver Stone took the dramatic approach while "Bob Roberts" and "Wag the Dog", another gem of Black comedy, were more satirical but, at the end, more prophetic.
As the title character - sort of a right-wing version of Bob Dylan - Tim Robbins mocks the whole American political process.
And the speech that Giancarlo Esposito's character Bugs Raplin gives towards the end of the film about how corporate media doesn't want to tell you the truth almost accurately predicts what we are seeing now with many media outlets being owned by corporations such as GE, Comcast, Time Warner and others who dilute the information we see every day on TV.For me, this film was perhaps more visionary than originally intended, and in future years might be looked at not as political satire, but as a very keen predictor of what has happened to our political process and the watering down of the corporate news media..
I'm politically left-wing, so I have nothing against the liberal slant of Bob Roberts per se.
But a movie having a message I agree with isn't enough to make me like it.Bob Roberts offers a ludicrous caricature of a Republican candidate as a corrupt, lying, violent, racist criminal.
The movie is very heavy-handed and makes its attack on conservatives so personal that I almost wonder if Robbins lacked the confidence to take on the content of their political ideas.
If you have convinced yourself that every Republican is somebody who (like Bob Roberts) makes David Duke look like a centrist, then nothing in this film will challenge your preconceptions.But the weakness of this movie isn't really why I'm commenting on it.
I recently saw him interviewed and all he could answer - to reporter who asked him a serious question - was, "Well, YOU join the Army!" The man is a typical ultra-Liberal of the last decade: full of hate and insults, but no solutions to anything.Never better was that presented in this lame so-called "satire," which was just another vehicle for a Hollywood Loony Left-winger to expunge his hatred of conservatives, Republicans, Christians, etc.
He's not even an actor, but being a left-wing icon, he gets a role.One thing this movie did well: it gave us a prime example of Hollywood and its extreme political leanings and bias.....and total disdain for the American viewing public, which appropriately turned thumbs down on this propaganda piece..
There is absolutely nothing in this film that makes it worth viewing unless you live in a fantasy world where Abby Hoffman is a hero.Basically, the movie is a mockumentary, where Bob Roberts is some hustler who ad-libs Conservative lines but is totally amoral.
But watching it now is like a slap in the face...we can see what the Bush No. 1 administration was up to then, and what W is continuing to do...it's as if writer/producer Tim Robbins had a crystal ball and what he saw in 1992 came true...just more terrifying, bloody and scary than any of us could have imagined 12 years ago.
It follows the rise of folk-rockin', anti-Dylan Bob Roberts (Robbins) and the tricks, ploys and misdirection used to combat and eventually defeat liberal incumbent Brickley Pace (Gore Vidal).
A filmmaker documents the rise of right wing folk singer Bob Roberts (Tim Robbins) as he runs for the Pennsylvanian Senate seat.
Bob Roberts is a timely movie about national political cynicism that was intended to satirize the Republican Revolution of 1994.
But--for the twin values to be found in this movie, in both entertainment AND timely social comment--it's just plain, hands-down my favorite goddamned film.Every single moment is a comment on some social, political, or popular institution (SNL, soundbites, Bob-Dylan-reference-galore, GE, the fatigue of the old Left, etc.).
Bob Roberts could have been a great political satire.
Bob Roberts could have been a great political satire.
Tim Robbins plays a right-wing singing political con-man and extortionist.
Since solid conservative political philosophies are inevitably treated in Hollywood as racist, corrupt, stupid, extortionary, unfair, and indefensible -- surely you wouldn't expect a movie directed by its star, Tim Robbins, to be any different.
The best part of the movie are the two scenes that are basically stolen right out of "A Face In The Crowd." Left to his own devices, Robbins attempts at Schulberg like satire have all the subtlety of a lug-wrench.
Very few films excluding `All The President's Men' have we seen a dramatization placing conservatives in a bad light, and while there are assertions that the media has liberal bias, most films/news coverage featuring a politician or having some political meaning proves otherwise.In the film, made-up U.S. Senate candidate Roberts (Tim Robbins) dodges questions about his stands on issues.
Conceivably, a fictional coincidence of the horribly oxymoron `compassionate conservatism' which, like Robert's ploy, is as commercially misleading as an Atkins diet.Whatever you feel about Tim Robbins now (i.e. his perplexing off-screen politics) he has created a rare bird of a movie here, which, despite being over 10 years old, is currently not so far from reality..
This was written and directed and stars Tim Robbins as a former folk singer turned politician who is running for the senate in Pennsylvania against incumbent democratic senator Gore Vidal.
If you're looking for a story that'll make you question the very foundation of the country while making you laugh and squirm simultaneously then yes, it's a good movie.It's hard to go very far into the plot without ruining some of the better surprises, so I'll just say this: Bob's a right-wing politician/folk-singer.
"Bob Roberts," Tim Robbins' 1992 fictional account of the political campaign of a folk-singing conservative businessman, is a remarkable film.
Echoing D.A. Pennebaker's 1966 documentary "Don't Look Back" (which covered Bob Dylan's 1965 U.K. tour; a number of scenes in "Bob Roberts" are cribbed directly from the Pennebaker film), "Bob Roberts" follows the title character (played by Robbins, who also directs and writes here) in his 1990 Senatorial campaign against Brickley Paiste, a once-vigorous, but now-weary and increasingly disenchanted New Frontier-era liberal democrat (played by author Gore Vidal).
It's interesting that Tim Robbins picked Pennsylvania of all places for his satirical film Bob Roberts.
However his folk singing and his media manipulation help keep the sinister facts from the public view.Using clever references and a very good satirical script this film shows the way that politics has become a mere media friendly activity and how it can be manipulated.
His story-line for Bob Roberts is campaigns and politics, a subject matter Tim Robbins the author has virtually no experience in professionally or intellectually (he was a drama major at UCLA), but alas, this is Hollywood where a drop-out like Martin Sheen can pretend he is President on screen and off.
During his professional career Tim Robbins formed his political views which became what the story of Bob Roberts is about dressed up as political satire.
"Bob Roberts" is a hilarious and scathing satire that pokes fun at right wing politicians perhaps a little too harshly-but it's still great (and sometimes depressingly accurate) fun.
If your politics are anti- Republican/conservative, than you will likely have a ball watching this movie!
But, at times, "Bob Roberts" also pokes fun at the media, extreme left wingers (not sure if this satire was intentional, though, but it seems like it), and just the nature politics in general.Tim Robbins writes, directs, and stars in this film-and does a great job, leading a cast of many fine and interesting actors that range from Ray Wise to Jack Black.This is definitely an entertaining watch for those who agree with its politics.
"Bob Roberts" is a messy satire on the American political campaign process which is shot as a pseudo-documentary.
This is the best film that Tim Robbins has ever made and the best political satire that I have ever seen.
The Film is Filled with Cameos of Well Known Faces and Co-Stars Alan Rickman as Robbins Muscle.Most Reviewers and Professional Critics now say that this is Perhaps the most Prophetic Political Satire Ever with the Possible Exception of "Citizen Kane" (1940).Turning the Right Wing and Left Wing on Their Heads, Robbins Plays "Bob Roberts", an Anti-Bob Dylan Folk Singer and Dylan is a LOL Thread Running through this Poke in the Eye at Hypocritical Conservative/Republican "Values".He Sings and Talks of Patriotism, Religion, the Flag, with a Hubris "Fox News" Utilizes with Irony on a Daily Basis.
The film is not only directed towards the American politics, with right and left wings of a determined type, but to any modern politician.
Tim Robbins is the new Orson Welles in the fact that he's able to direct, write, and star in his movie about corruption in the political arena.
I just rented it again (August 2003) and find that it is as relevant now as it was then -- perhaps even more so.I like the fact that the movie doesn't try to explain what exactly is behind Bob Roberts's campaign. |
tt1086334 | Manhunt 2 | In 2007, at the Dixmor Asylum for the Criminally Insane, a severe thunderstorm causes the security system at the asylum to momentarily go offline, opening the cell doors throughout the facility, resulting in the populace wandering freely through the corridors. Two such inmates are Daniel Lamb (Ptolemy Slocum) and Leo Kasper (Holter Graham). Daniel is disoriented and partly amnesiac, unable to remember how or why he came to Dixmor. Under Leo's guidance, they escape the facility and make their way to the ruins of Daniel's old home. Inside, Daniel recovers medication which Leo says he left there for himself in the event of his forgetting the past. The medication helps to clear his head somewhat, and he begins to remember fragments of his former life. He and Leo then set out to unravel the secrets of Daniel's past, all the while pursued by bounty hunters and agents of a mysterious organization called "The Project".
As the plot unfolds, Daniel learns that he was once a top scientist in the employ of the "Pickman Project", a government-sponsored weapons program involving brainwashing and mind control techniques. The Project's goal was to create the perfect assassin; to accomplish this, they developed the "Pickman Bridge", a brain implant containing the personality and skills of a trained assassin which could be activated on command. In theory, the two personalities could co-exist in the same mind, completely unaware of one another. The idea was that the assassin could be remotely triggered, carry out his mission, and then revert to the original persona, who would have no memory of what he had just done, hence would be immune to interrogation.
As Daniel puts the clues together and begins to remember more of his past, he and Leo set out to find Dr. Whyte (Linda Orth Pallavincini), a Project researcher and one of Daniel's co-workers. However, before they can get to her, they are ambushed and sedated. Daniel wakes up in a room with Whyte, who reveals the truth to him. Six years prior, with the Project's funds under threat, Daniel volunteered himself to test the Pickman Bridge, hoping that the resulting payoff would allow him to clear his family's debts and provide a financially secure future. However, the Bridge malfunctioned soon after it was implanted, causing Daniel to suffer from dissociative identity disorder, resulting in him being able to directly communicate with the implanted personality, who he perceives as a real person - Leo Kasper. Whyte explains that Leo is dangerously unstable, and has been working against Daniel from the very beginning.
She reveals that, after the implant malfunctioned, Leo's personality asserted itself, suppressing Daniel's own, and he went on a rampage across the city, murdering police officers and members of the Project, destroying the Project's records of Daniel and himself, and finally making his way to Daniel's household and killing his wife. His goal was to weaken Daniel's grip on reality to the point where Leo could take complete and total control of his mind. However, the Project caught Daniel/Leo after the murder, erased his memory, torched his house, and had him committed to Dixmor, where they had been working to study the effects of the implant and repair the damage, without success. Upon learning the truth, Daniel determines that he must destroy Leo once and for all. He enters a deep hypnotic state and faces off against Leo within the confines of his own mind. He is finally able to let go of the guilt he feels over his wife's death, allowing him to "kill" Leo and assert control.
Having done so, he awakens on a deserted road in San Andreas county, with his memory erased once more. However, he is holding an envelope informing him that his name is "David Joiner", providing him with a new home address at 526 Hope Street, Apartment B, in San Fierro and wishing him luck. Daniel briefly hesitates before walking towards San Fierro.
The game also includes an alternate final level, where the final battle is played from Leo's perspective. He successfully destroys Daniel's personality and wakes up in control of his mind and body. Whyte, who thinks she is speaking to Daniel, asks him if he is okay, to which he replies he is keen to get back to work on the Bridge. As he looks at himself in the mirror, Daniel sees Leo's reflection looking back at him. | murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0299892 | The Flintstones: On the Rocks | Several years after the events of the original series, Fred and Wilma's marriage is in serious jeopardy, as Wilma is growing tired of Fred's attitude, especially while Barney and Betty are enjoying a happy life well into their marriage, to the point that a visit to a family therapist results in a physical altercation between Fred and Wilma. On Fred and Wilma's anniversary, which they both forgot, the Rubbles arrange a trip to Rockapulco in an attempt to save the Flintstones' marriage.
Shortly after their arrival, a thief, Xavier, steals a diamond from a jewelry store and is chased by the guard into the same hotel the Flintstones and Rubbles are staying at. In the ensuing chaos, Xavier's bag is switched with Wilma's, and he immediately begins plotting to get the diamond back. At first, things do not improve between Fred and Wilma, to the point that Wilma lashes out at Fred and very nearly decides to divorce him, but she stumbles across the diamond in her suitcase and, assuming that Fred bought it as a surprise present, quickly makes up with him. Capitalising on the circumstances, Fred goes along with the charade, but their newfound passion is short lived, as Fred's demeanour slowly puts Wilma off again. While spying on Wilma, Xavier notices this and masquerades as a suave Englishman in order to woo Wilma by inviting her to dinner. Wilma accepts the invitation and spends time with Xavier.
Fred, feeling guilty, decides to make it up to Wilma, but catches her from afar with Xavier and is heartbroken, and he starts to drink himself silly while speaking with another attractive woman at the bar. Wilma rebuffs Xavier's advances out of loyalty to Fred, but changes her mind when she sees him with the lady. While dancing, however, Xavier reveals his true intentions and attempts to take the diamond from Wilma, who was wearing it as a necklace. A chase ensues throughout the ballroom with Fred, Barney and Xavier each trying to get the diamond, but it eventually falls into Wilma's hands, prompting Xavier to abduct her and flee in his car. The ensuing car chase eventually leads to a bridge above a volcano, where Xavier threatens to kill Wilma if she does not hand the diamond over. Fred appears and gives a passionate speech about how he has not realised until now that even though he was not rich enough to buy the diamond, he is still the richest man in the world just by having Wilma as his wife.
Wilma subdues Xavier and he is arrested by the lady who Fred spoke with at the bar, who is revealed to have been a policewoman on Xavier's trail. With their marriage restored, Fred and Wilma enjoy the rest of their trip, while Barney and Betty begin to bicker about their own marriage after seeing the passion Fred and Wilma ultimately displayed for each other. Over the end credits, Dino, who was assigned by Fred to guard their home, is revealed to have made a complete mess and left the home in the hands of his friends before leaving on his own trip. | psychedelic, alternate history | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0062155 | Privilege | The story is presented as a narrated documentary, set in a near-future 1970s England, and concerning a disillusioned pop singer, Steven Shorter (Paul Jones), who is the most-loved celebrity in the country. His stage show involves him appearing on stage in a jail cell with handcuffs, beaten by police, to the horror and sympathy of the audience. It is described that the two main parties of England have formed a coalition government and encourage the success of Shorter to placate the masses and divert them from political activity. Shorter is consistently monitored and manipulated by handlers consisting of manager Martin Crossley (Jeremy Child), public relations representative Alvin Kirsch (Mark London), record company executive Julie Jordan (Max Bacon), and financial backer Andrew Butler (William Job). Businesses including nightclubs, shopping centers, product brands, and media outlets, carry Shorter's name, demonstrating his appeal to consumers. An artist, Vanessa Ritchie (Jean Shrimpton) has been hired to paint his portrait, and Shorter gravitates to her amidst his loneliness and isolation.
Demands upon Shorter's time and energy increases. He is asked to film a commercial for the country's apple growers, hoping to convince citizens to eat a disproportionately large amount of apples to make up for a surplus supply. More ominously, the collective churches of England strike an arrangement with the government and Shorter's empire to turn him into a messianic leader that will boost church attendance and a sense of national unity. An image change is announced in advance of a huge stadium concert, where he will publicly "repent," no longer perform in handcuffs, and will espouse religious themes in his songs. Shorter's equilibrium becomes more shaky; at a picnic where lobster is served, he absurdly orders hot chocolate to drink, and everyone present in turn orders hot chocolate as well, demonstrating he will be enabled at all times.
The stadium rally has a record attendance, and features militarized performance from various nationalist organizations. A firebrand preacher, Reverend Jeremy Tate, tells the assembled crowd they will be handed cards reading "We Will Conform," rails against the perceived post-war apathy in the country, and demands they repeat the words at his prompting, which they follow. Shorter and his band take the stage, with the band members wearing costumes and assuming poses reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Disabled citizens are given preferential seating to the stage, in the hopes Shorter's music will heal them. When Shorter later watches footage of the rally on television, he is disgusted at the display, and goes on a furniture-breaking tear. He also reveals to Vanessa that contrary to the publicity that his old show was just an act, he bears real scars and bruises from being legitimately assaulted by the mock policemen in the act.
Shorter's record company holds a formal event to give him an achievement award and profess theirs and the nation's love for him. Shorter finally breaks down, inarticulately declaring disgust for the public that cannot see past his charade, and asking to be seen as an individual and not the inflated deity he has been presented as. After stunned silence, the public reacts angrily, and his popularity immediately plummets. Andrew Butler announces his immediate resignation from the Shorter organization, as it is no longer lucrative for his investors. The narrator states that to placate the now-hateful masses, and to preserve the viability of the still extant businesses that carry his name, Shorter's music will be banned from airplay, and he shall not be allowed to speak or perform publicly again.
In postscript, the narrator reveals that there is little left of Shorter's career, and over archival footage of him ("with the soundtrack removed, of course..."), declares, "It is going to be a happy time in England, this year in the future." | violence, romantic, satire, sadist, flashback | train | wikipedia | Privilege is one of those `lost' rarely screened masterpieces that always seem to end up on some critic's top-ten list, but you almost never know anyone who has seen the film.
Paul Jones (lead singer of Manfred Mann) plays Steve Shorter, a British manufactured rock-n-roll icon, who is shaped and molded into a tool used to sell every product imaginable.
His managers know this and there is no organization they will not sell him out to.`The Church', in an act to attract more young members into its congregation, hires Steve to convince the nation's youth to become God-fearing Christians.
Privilege, even though rarely shown, is a surreal motion picture every film fanatic and music historian should seek out.
A film society at my school showed this movie for free in a lecture hall last night.
They also showed the short film "Lonely Boy" just before "Privilege" (it's funny to hear Paul Anka's manager saying how no one will be as famous as Paul Anka ever again, knowing that only two short years later The Beatles were on Ed Sullivan).
The film society also said that the director of "Privilege" watched "Lonely Boy" repeatedly, to get a feel for the mass hysteria and hero worship of teen idols."Privilege" is about pop star Steven Shorter, who has the teen population of Britain in the palm of his hand.
Behind Steve, however, are the corporations and investors using him to control teens, which is pretty scary to think about, considering the same is very nearly true today.
Steve controlled the public so well that with just one speech, he is able to turn the teens against himself.I liked this movie.
Corporate ownership of a rock star...hmm..Singing the message his corporate masters want him to sing...hmmm...Using pop songs to manipulate the ideas and thoughts of youth in the mold that is 'desirable' by 'those in charge'...hmmm Naw, it'd never happen!!
Turns out this film was pre Beatles Apple (empire) and it turned out the idea was somewhat 'prophetic' I liked the film..I remember seeing it several times..bought the book, own two copies of the soundtrack.
(bought the Who's 'Who Sell Out' the same day...) Neither Paul Jones and Jean Shrimpton were particularly brilliant actors, but they were able to convey the feelings of the time.
The late Michael Leanders music is still enjoyable and interesting..check out the film's version of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' Overall, I would like to see this film again!.
Using the faux documentary style, Watkins' follows a year in the life of a pop star.
Paul Jones gives a wonderful performance as Steven Shorter, possibly the most famous man in Great Britain.
The original songs are great ("Privilege(Set Me Free)" was covered by Patti Smith in 1978) and the scenes of Shorter leading a fascist-like rally are still eerie (perhaps an influence on the film PINK FLOYD THE WALL?).
Another great scene deals with Shorter being conscripted into writing a Catholic rock song, which anticipates how the organized Christianity of today tries to use rock as a way of converting people.
The young pop star receives "Privilege" in return for exercising power (unknowing manipulation) over the masses for his unseen (but knowing) masters.
The finale of the film is an Orwellian vision where he has fallen from grace, his career is over, but since record of him cannot be erased so easily his publicised image is restricted to visual only, his voice is erased...I guess the film was originally created as a "pop" metaphor of Communist regimes, but my memory of it resonates with much of modern media, and public, pop-hysteria.Oh, I remember the music as good too, but I'm bracing myself for a shock if I hear it again...
Nowadays it feels very "middle of the road"!) Paul Jones still rocks, running his show on BBC Radio 2 on Blues (at time of writing)..
The formerly preposterously rare (two extant prints in the universe) 1967 film "Privilege" has just been digitally restored in its original color and is now available on any DVD sales site.This matters for several reasons.
Its plot, considered so far-fetched at the time that the film was oft labeled science fiction, centers around an increasingly totalitarian government in a first world country that attempts social engineering at all levels, including utilization of pop culture.
It's hit on the formula to control youthful rebellion and dissent in general by investing a young pop idol with state-sponsored power (more in a minute) as centerpiece of national obsession.
(Not like....now in 2008!) This person hired to quell all rebellion eventually starts to rebel against the state-sponsored "love." And the actor hired to be both this convincing a pop star and soul tormented practically to torpor was an actual rockgod, Paul Jones, the tall, good-looking blond singer of the Manfred Mann group of the mid-60's, if you recall the hearty voice on classic Brit oldies "Do Wah Diddy" and "Pretty Flamingo." "Privilege"'s director Peter Watkins, known for terrifying all of Britain with the first realistic, ultra-violent post nuclear apocalypse film "The War Game," knew how important casting is, despite trade-offs.
Paul Jones was of the minute modern, and could convey this fantastical idea of Orwellian government control through a pop star by being a credible pop star known at the time.
Suffice it to say, their roles and performances well hold up today: they are who they play, and they look perfect.Jones is actually a compelling performer and great vocalist, singing real (as opposed to "movie") rock songs in this film.
Pretty good rock songs too: one was covered 25 years later by Patti Smith and Paula Pierce and The Pandoras, which then sounded as modern as ever.
"Privilege" feels more real and works better today in 2008 than when it was released forty one years ago.
Peter Watkins "Privelege" pretends to be a documentary about a fictional rock star, "Steven Shorter".
Paul Jones (singer for Manfred Mann in the early, "Doo Wah Diddy"/"Quinn The Eskimo" days), struggles to deal with his personal problems, amidst violent live shows,and assorted political conspiracies that attempt to manipulate and control him.
Some pretty reasonable music, (the christian rock group made up of young robed monks, is an odd highlight!), including a visually stunning climactic performance of "Jerusalem", will make you wonder why this film isn't better known in America.
Not as sinister as Big Brother in Orwell's '1984' but an impressive and lighter look at how certain segments of the establishment can influence society via a mixture of nationalism and religion.A quality cast with original music and WOW clothes design.
Very fascinating movie about how a society can control their youth via a super star.
The one major flaw of the film is Paul Jones' performance as the Singer Steve.
Steven Shorter is a charismatic pop star with mesmerizing influence over his young impressionable audiences.
In this struggle, he is encouraged by the young artist who is painting his portrait.The original songs by Mike Leander and rock versions of "Jerusalem" and "Onward Christian Soldiers" are catchy and provide the movie's best moments.
Despite success as a fashion model, her lackluster performance herein was likely one reason she has only two film credits.In support of the two leads, Shorter's handlers and the clergy are convincing, and the film has a fascination that transcends its flaws, which include lazy overuse of narration.
Burning crosses, hysteria-induced "miracles," screaming young women with tear-stained cheeks, pounding hymns and anthems, sinister-looking clergymen, police brutality: "Privilege" seems to have been drawn from "Triumph of the Will" and, in turn, later inspired "Pink Floyd, The Wall." An often powerful warning about the evils of mixing church and state, restricting individual rights, and following demigods, "Privilege" remains a flawed work that is definitely worth a look..
Made on the cusp of 'swinging' London/Britain, this rather prescient story of the states use of popular culture as a form of mass control (in this instance, pop music), and the abuse of a single human in place of controlling everyone else of the same age group, is a bizarrely forgotten piece of British cinema.
Even the presence of two well-known figures of the time, did not seem to help this piece; these being Paul Jones (famous as front man for pop group Manfred Mann), and Jean Shrimpton, who is said to have been the world's first supermodel.Steven Shorter (Paul Jones), is "the most dangerously loved entertainer in the world".
Like Jones' character it is not complete, the surface of the canvas marked but not whole.Directed by British filmmaker Peter Watkins, it was a progression of his experiments mixing documentary and drama.
I believe Privilege should have its place along with these, and other British/European films of the time, and remembered for being a wildly interesting, and important British film - both sociologically and politically.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com.
It's really the first feature about the ugly side of the music business and with a thinking mans vile of sci-fi brew tinged with British black humor it's point is probably easier to convey than it was back then since we have seen so many media manufactured teen stars selling everything from, happy meals and fashions to virginity.
Vivid, effective mockumentary about a wildly popular rock star whom the Powers that Be are trying to turn into a tool of the state.
In short the music is by far the best thing about the movie So what's wrong with the rest of the miss en scene ?
It worked fine in Watkin's previous work like CULLODEN and THE WAR GAME but these were precursors to what we now call " docudramas " , the only time we see a natural home for the Italian neo-realist style .
You see both the state and the church want to use the popularity and charisma of Shorter to control the population for their own end , in short to make popular music in general and Stephen Shorter in particular the new opiate of the masses .
Let's not forget if Bush and Blair want to be seen doing good in the world then all they have to do is call a press conference and have Bob Geldof and Bono talk about AIDS , starving babies and third world debt and the link between Nuremberg rallies and present day rock concerts is presented very well , it's just that you're never entirely convinced an Illuminati would never need to pull strings in order to bring about fascist regimes or fundamentalist theocracies because these type of societies come about via more obvious methods PRIVILEGE was a film that was supposed to make a star out of Paul Jones and put Watkins on the map as Britain's most important film director .
It's also a film that very rarely crops up on network television either , to my knowledge Channel 4 last showed it 20 years ago which is a great pity because this deserves to be at least a cult classic whatever its flaws and for music fans who have bought Patti Smith's Easter album just wait till you hear Jones perform the original Set Me Free.
Besides being a classic rock film, the score of "Privilege" should be noted.
Also notable is that the role of Steven was played by Paul Jones who was the vocalist for the group "Manfred Mann." If for no other reason than its historical and sociological importance, this film and its score should be examined by students of our culture.
We still talk about it.Reviewer gein's comment reminded me that, like Steve Shorter, the Rolling Stones were asked to help the British necktie industry by wearing ties on-, and, probably, off-, stage.
Like "Darling" and the recent "Stoned," it's a great look into the darker side of "swinging London." chrish51 I, too regret that this film is not available on DVD or shown on TV.
Paul Jones is rock idol Steven Shorter in "Privilege," a 1967 film from Britain that also stars Jean Shrimpton.
Shorter (Jones) has the minds and hearts of the British public with his Beatle-like appearance and music, so the people behind him use him to promote any agenda they have, be it pushing the consumption of apples, conformity, religion, you name it.
He goes along with their current manipulation of the public until he meets a beautiful young artist (Shrimpton) who encourages him to delve deeper into his own feelings and desires.The film has a great premise and lots of potential but for this viewer, it wasn't realized.
The rock versions of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Jerusalem" are great.Jean Shrimpton at one time was a world-famous supermodel and a spectacular beauty.
Paul Jones is actually a very good actor, and gets to show it in a couple of scenes, but he was directed to have that empty vessel syndrome - where you're such a blank that an audience can infuse anything they want into you.
I saw Privilege years ago, when it had just come out on the screen and found it interesting, if a bit strange.
I was lucky enough to find this movie on Ebay, after hearing good things about it.Similar to other comments, I definitely can see how the main character Steven Shorter can be compared with some of today's pop stars.Originally I read that this film is a lot like the 'A Clockwork Orange', but with the exception of the whole conformity thing I didn't see it.It's a good movie in its own right, though.
The story is a interesting concept on how you could use a superstar singer to exploit products and ideals.The guy from Manfred Mann(Paul Jones) plays the lead, and even though he's not that great, he's not that bad either.The way the religious folks were kind of betrayed like Nazis wouldn't play too well today, but it was effective.The stunning visuals during the musical performances and the music is very good, but forget about a finding a soundtrack.Patti Smith does a cool version of 'Set me Free'.Maybe one day they'll release this on DVD..
As mentioned by another user, this film was clearly inspired by the b&w short subject, "Lonely Boy," including several scenes (such as the press conference) where entire snatches of dialogue from the short were integrated into the script.The songs were quite memorable, including, as I recall, two versions of the title theme ("It's an honor to see me, an honor to free me, an honor to have that privilege...") as well as rocked up versions of "Onward, Christian Soldiers!" and "Jerusalem." And the climatic night time concert sequence was quite compelling -- and very Nuremburg Rally.Finally, this rather intellectual British art film was basically remade in '68 in the dumbed down American film, "Wild in the Streets"..
Good thing, too, as I doubt my local Blockbuster (if it's still open) is stocking this next to all those copies of "The Hunger Games".Well, having read a bit about the movie's subject matter, I popped Privilege into my DVD player.
It worked for me for about 25 minutes, as I enjoyed the movie version performance of the aforementioned song, but it seemed like a long downhill slog from there.
Paul Jones seemed to do OK as the lead (even if he wasn't a "trained" actor), and Jean Shrimpton sure is nice to look at, but of course also not being a real actor, her part didn't seem too believable.You're going to have to really work to see this movie in 2012, as it won't be easy to find, or to make it all the way through a viewing.
Manfred Mann lead singer Paul Jones stars as Steven Shorter(SS),a pop star who is the creation of church and state.
Jones' gives an effectively introverted, naturalistic performance that was subject to unfairly harsh criticism when the film was released.
On a side issue I was rather surprised to note that the clothes, particularly the girls' seemed very much pre 1967 but thought maybe I was wrong and then watched another 1967 film (The Sorcerers) and there the cameraman is almost climbing up the slinky mini skirts so not quite sure why Watkins' girls looked from previous time..
If I'm being generous I'd not entirely castigate Paul Jones' performance for this, as I suspect he was being told Stephen Shorter should have 'no personality' and is a 'blank canvas'.
The producers ought to have held out for a talented actor who could have been dubbed, rather than a pop star who should have stuck with Manfred Mann (although if he had maybe we wouldn't have got all the brilliant Mike D'Abo hits such as Mighty Quinn or Ragamuffin Man).I thought 'Privilege' felt most like it could have been a British 'Network'?
But it is the phenomenal acting in the latter which raises it from rather preposterous story to completely believable gem, with Faye Dunaway demonstrating just what can be imbued in a character designed to be just as two-dimensional and vapid emotionally as Shorter.Looking at it 45 years on, the themes of state control and pop puppetry retain a contemporary relevance which make this film an interesting watch.
Since both films deal with rock star celebrity issues, it made some sense.
One example: in both films there is an interview with the manager who is asked if it is true that they sell the star's hair after a haircut and the answer is something like, "we donate it to charity.".
I wish this film was available, but I remember several images though it's been almost 30 years since I saw it on a late TV movie.
this film came out in the late sixties and pretty much died on its release, i saw it and did not like it that much, nor did most of the critics.
peter watkins the filmmaker with this film and his punishment park, another film which unbelievably is more relevant today than when it was made over 30 years ago, seems to have known where the world was going whilst the rest of us just partied on without a care. |
tt0486728 | De tre musketerer | In Venice, the musketeers Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, with the help of Milady de Winter, steal airship blueprints made by Leonardo da Vinci. However, they are betrayed by Milady, who incapacitates them and sells the blueprints to the Duke of Buckingham.
A year later, d'Artagnan leaves his village in Gascony for Paris in hopes of becoming a musketeer as his father was, only to learn that they were disbanded. At a rural bar, he challenges Captain Rochefort, leader of Cardinal Richelieu's guard, to a duel after being offended by him, but Rochefort merely shoots him while he's distracted. Once in Paris, d'Artagnan separately encounters Athos, Porthos and Aramis and, accidentally offending all three, schedules duels with each. Athos brings Porthos and Aramis to the duel as his seconds and d'Artagnan realizes who they are. Richelieu's guards arrive to arrest them, but, inspired by d'Artagnan, the musketeers fight together and win. All four are summoned before the young King Louis XIII and Richelieu urges him to execute them, but Queen Anne is impressed by their bravery and the king condecorates them instead.
Richelieu instructs Milady, now his accomplice, to plant false love letters among Queen Anne's possessions, steal her diamond necklace, and take it to the Tower of London in order to frame her as having an affair with Buckingham, which would force King Louis to execute her and declare war on England. At this point, the people would demand a more experienced leader: Richelieu himself. In order to secure her own position, Milady demands that Richelieu declare in a written authorization that she is working on behalf of France.
The false letters are found and given to King Louis, who is advised by Richelieu to set up a ball at which Queen Anne would be forced to wear the necklace. If she doesn't, then her affair is real, and there will be war. Queen Anne's lady-in-waiting Constance Bonacieux discovers Richelieu's plan and pleads with the musketeers to stop him. They follow Milady and Buckingham to London, while Constance is captured by Rochefort for helping the musketeers to escape from him.
In London, Milady tells Buckingham the musketeers have arrived to take revenge on him and teaches him all their tendencies in battle. D'Artagnan is captured, but turns out to be a decoy, allowing his associates to steal Buckingham's airship and rescue him. Milady's getaway coachman reveals himself as the musketeers' manservant Planchet and delivers her to his masters, who retrieve the necklace from her. Athos prepares to execute Milady for her treachery, but she leaps off the airship, apparently dying on her own terms.
The musketeers depart back to Paris, only to be intercepted by Rochefort in another airship, as Milady had given Richelieu copies of da Vinci's blueprints. Rochefort offers to exchange Constance for the necklace, but captures d'Artagnan and orders an attack as soon as he retrieves the jewels. His superior airship has the upper hand and severely damages the opposing ship, but the musketeers manage to crash both onto Notre Dame. On the roof, d'Artagnan duels and ultimately kills Rochefort. Constance is sent ahead to quietly return the necklace to Queen Anne.
The musketeers arrive at the ball and, for the sake of King Louis and his people, lie by claiming that Rochefort tried to sabotage an airship that Richelieu built for them, and that they executed him for his treason on Richelieu's permission. To convince the king, Athos presents Milady's authorization, which the former accepts. Richelieu, satisfied, offers the musketeers a place in his army, but they refuse, and Richelieu vows they will come to regret their decision.
Meanwhile, Milady is found alive at the English Channel by Buckingham, who declares his intention to exact revenge. He is then revealed to be advancing towards France with a massive fleet of battleships and airships. | historical fiction | train | wikipedia | Refresh view on the as-world-old story of the 3 musketeers. So far the longest and biggest animation of the best Latvian cartoon makers. Everybody has seen some movie about three musketeers, but, be assured, this, you haven't seen yet! The original story of musketeers is there, but, it's told in a very different way. There's good sense of humor used a lot, maybe even a bit too much, but, it's not getting worse, as you watch it. The music is well used and has a nice touch of Latvian traditional music to it. This animation probably will not be fully understood by kids - but it's great fun for both kids and adults alike. Basically this is the type of animation, that the producers of it have been making for years for Latvia (the name of the series is Avarijas Brigade - and it's as good as Three Musceteers!). It's animation of puppets, all movie is made of them (the same technique as Wallace & Gromit), but it's a bit more adult oriented then it.. Delightful film for young and old. Just about the cutest film I've ever seen. Extremely well done. Saw it in an audience of children and adults at the Mill Valley Film Festival, and everyone enjoyed it immensely. Very European in feeling, totally unlike anything that would be made in the U.S. Would love to see more of this Latvian claymation work; it appears to come out of a long history of puppetry. Found the English dialogue to be perfectly satisfactory. And the jerkiness of the claymation was part of the charm of the film. Great sense of humor in this version--the faces, the sheep, the dogs, etc. There is supposed to be a video on the Internet showing the making of this film, but have been unable to find it. (It was in that search that I came across this site.). Kids movie - and not a good one. Stop motion puppetry is known to most people (in the US at least) from the TV Christmas specials about Rudolph the red nosed reindeer. This film doesn't add much to the field. Stop motion puppetry is poorly suited to action sequences of sword fighting, the dialogue is average and I found some of the voices annoying, and the plot has been stripped down to the bare essentials, which leaves adult viewers wondering about the motivation of all of the characters.Lest you get them confused, stop motion puppetry does not mean the expressive claymation of Wallace and Grommit. The only facial motion these puppets are capable of is moving their mouths up and down. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.