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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt5215952 | Goksung | A Japanese man has recently arrived at a little village in the mountains of South Korea, living in a secluded house. A mysterious disease starts spreading among the villagers, causing a rash which precedes violent murderous outbreaks followed by stupor and eventually death.
Police officer Jong-goo, who is investigating the case, meets a mysterious young woman called Moo-myeong (“no name” in Korean), who tells him about the Japanese stranger, and later disappears. A local hunter tells Jong-goo that he saw the near-naked stranger eating a deer, with glowing red eyes. Jong-goo is unsettled, as he has had dreams about this stranger, which the hunter had described to him. He enlists the help of another police officer, and a Japanese-speaking priest to serve as translator, and they investigate the stranger's house while he is away. The other police officer finds pictures of the infected and murdered residents and their belongings. He is too shocked to say anything to the others. The stranger's house guard dog attacks the priest and Jong-goo. The stranger arrives and pacifies the dog, and the other three leave.
The police officer tells Jong-goo of what he saw, and hands over a shoe which belongs to Jong-goo's daughter, Hyo-jin. Soon, Hyo-jin becomes sick and displays similar symptoms as the other infected villagers. Jong-goo makes his way to the stranger’s house with the priest in anger, but finds that the pictures and evidence have been burned. Infuriated, he destroys the stranger's worship room and kills the dog when it attacks him, ordering the stranger to leave the village.
Distraught about Hyo-jin's condition, Jong-goo's mother-in-law seeks help from a shaman, Il-gwang. As Il-gwang performs a ritual to exorcise the demon, Jong-goo finds his daughter in pain and interrupts the ritual, taking her to a hospital instead. The following day, he gathers his friends to hunt down the stranger, believing that the stranger is responsible for the disease and murders. Jong-goo and his friends go after the stranger, and eventually end up hitting him with their vehicle. They dispose of his body as Moo-myeong watches from the hills. When Jong-goo returns home, he finds that Hyo-jin's condition has seemingly improved. Il-gwang suspects they killed the wrong person; he later encounters Moo-myeong, and starts vomiting blood. He calls Jong-goo, telling him that Moo-myeong is the demon.
Jong-goo finds Moo-myeong near his house. She requests Jong-goo to believe her, telling him she had set a trap for the demon, but the trap will not work if Jong-goo goes back to his house. Confused and hesitant, Jong-goo eventually leaves to save his family, but Moo-myeong grabs him, her skin turning a ghostly white as he notices that she is wearing the personal items of some of the victims. He pulls himself away, and as he crosses his home's threshold, the floral trap withers.
The priest encounters the still-alive Japanese stranger in a cave. After being photographed by the stranger, the priest witnesses the stranger evolving into a demon. Back at his house, Jong-goo arrives to find that Hyo-jin has murdered their family. He calls out to her, but she stabs him and falls into a stupor. Il-gwang arrives at Jong-goo's house and takes photographs of them, and while returning to his car, unintentionally drops a box filled with photos of the other victims.
As Jong-goo lies dying in his home, he sees visions of happier times with his daughter and assures her he will protect her. | paranormal, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | It's like one of those optical illusions or Escher drawings that appear to describe a physical object, but in fact don't make physical sense.Accordingly, whether one enjoys this movie or not boils down to whether one can be content with a movie that is technically well-made (cinematography, acting, costumes, etc.), but (a) its plot makes no sense, and (b) it is told in a deceptive way as to lure you into thinking that the plot would make sense if only you gave the matter sufficient thought, thus leaving you with a lingering, irritating feeling of dissatisfaction and confusion.And maybe this is precisely the point of the movie: rather than telling a story, its purpose is to instill in the audience a feeling of confusion in the face of a sequence of events that almost, but not quite, makes sense.
Both film-makers understand the "big secret" of story telling which is, if you can present your story in such a way that the viewer feels he or she is sharing the experience with the protagonist, you can tell any story you like and the viewer will just keep going.I will not even try to provide an explanation for what THE WAILING means, other than to re-quote the writer/director himself who, in numerous interviews on his film, said enigmatically "I began to wonder about the nature of God -- what if he was not always good?" Recommended on many levels.
Instead, we, the viewers, are taken through a story rich with mystery, great characters and their struggles, dark atmosphere with well designed and amazingly crafted horror scenes that make your blood run cold.
One might find The Wailing a bit boring because the film is a slow burner and not constructed as most of modern horror films, or might find the film too long (running time 2h 36min) but if you are patient man it will pay off by the end.Who says that the horror genre is dead.
All of the elements in the film which were so compelling and enjoyable are not allowed to coalesce together in the end, and the actions and motives of the major characters – the Japanese man, Jong-gu and his daughter, the shaman, the nameless girl – are ultimately rendered disparate, abstract and illogical.
I can keep on going on how bad this movie is compared to the reviews you read here, but then I waste even more time on this garbage.By the way, are the police in Korea all morons, who scream like little children and run away when they see people make scary noises??
If this was made as some serious drama or horror movie I can't understand why they would have the police who are central characters act like teenage girls in a Friday 13th movie.The scenes that are made to be a suspenseful fail because of the sissy behavior of our hero cops.
Goksung (original title) or The Wailing (English title), the new film from South Korean director and writer Hong-jin Na (known for Chugyeogja - Chaser - 2008 and Hwanghae - The Yellow Sea - 2010), is already considered one of the great works in the horror genre, addressing a macabre part of eastern culture on legends, curses, evil spirits and mysticism, being one of the highlights at the Cannes Film Festival.Coincidentally after the arrival of a stranger, a strange disease begins to spread in the small village of Goksung, triggering a series of brutal murders.
When his daughter, Hyo-jin (played by Kim Hwan-hee), begins to feel the strange symptoms of the disease, he has to fight against time to solve the mysterious case and save her life.With a rhythmic narrative, The Wailing presents a folk story associated with Eastern mysticism and also the occultism, marked by elements of mystery, horror and supernatural, as guardians, demons and shamans, and the unfolding of the plot gradually gets more intense and disquieting contours.
Here it is worth mentioning the great performance of Do Won Kwak in the caricatured role of the lazy, fumbling and fearful police officer, though well intentioned.With a competent job of the cast, efficient direction creating an atmosphere that blends mystery, horror and comedy as well as providing much reflection with an end open to different interpretations and also for its originality, The Wailing is one of the most significant movies within the genre in recent years..
I loved The Chaser, The Yellow Sea and of course Memories of Murder and while Horror isn't really my genre I'm willing to go on a hell-raising roller-coaster ride to unravel the frightening intrigues that this film promises.From all the reviews, the forum discussing what really happened, YouTube "spoiler" videos clarifying the loose ends and the chatter in the cinema when the credits start to roll, it is quite clear that the audience are mostly left greatly mystified rather than delivered by a well-resolved end moment when pieces of the puzzle start to fall together in a satisfying manner.Fans of mystery understand the need for red herrings, unexplained characters and details that throw the scent off and suggest multiple possibilities, but in this movie, they remain glaring plot holes and still don't make sense even by the end when the answer to the mystery is all but apparent.
More like leads down the garden, or rather, mountain path...It is especially frustrating as the movie is long, there's little build-up to the horrors, few techniques that could be effective in moving the story-telling along were used and the terrifying moments become repetitious and drawn-out.
Many of these repetitious scenes could have been cut to focus instead on the background to some of the key characters, not only to increase audience understanding of the families, the cultural context, religious beliefs and superstitions but to help to make the final conclusions comprehensible in flashback....that "oh I missed that bit about character X, it explains why things turn out this way, etc." moment.Acting was really good, which is the high point of the movie for me.That's what the 5 is for.Shame the talent wasn't put to more effective use, as the story has great potential..
Who might be the demon that is bringing sickness to Goksung?"Goksung" is South Korean horror movie with a long, melodramatic and messy ghost story.
Moreover, great atmosphere is pointless if you don't actually do anything with it, and this film didn't -- at least not until the last fifteen minutes or so.Another thing that made it difficult to sit through once (and nearly unbearable to sit through a second time) was the lack of a "good" character whom I truly liked.
I know that it's a thing to be annoyed with some characters in a horror movie ("Too Stupid To Live" is a trope for a reason), but this is the first film where I actively cheered for the evil side to win before the end.
After catapulting himself into the league of South Korea's brightest up-n-coming filmmakers with his extremely polished & mercilessly violent directional debut and then following it up with another thriller that was more or less a misfire, director Na Hong-jin makes a splendid return to form after six years of inactivity, and delivers a cinema that's drenched in blood, sickness & devilry.The story of The Wailing unfolds in a small South Korean village where a mysterious illness begins to spread & claim many lives after the arrival of a strange Japanese man in the nearby mountains.
Investigating the case is a police officer who becomes all the more involved after his own daughter begins exhibiting similar symptoms and enlists the help of a shaman to solve the mystery before its too late.Written & directed by Na Hong-jin, The Wailing finds the budding filmmaker stepping into the realms of supernatural horror and features numerous elements that made his first film an instant classic.
But the two most measured inputs comes from Jun Kunimura & Chin Woo-hee who play the Japanese stranger & a mysterious woman respectively.On an overall scale, The Wailing is a fresh, fascinating & ferocious entry in the world of horror that makes terrific use of its atmosphere & supernatural elements to deliver a thoroughly unsettling & consistently engaging experience.
This movie is a revelation, being a fan of Ha Hong-Jin's who had previously directed two of the best thrillers of recent memory (The Chaser and The Yellow Sea) i had great expectations for this but as I was watching I knew that this is going to be something else, it looks like an urban legend of some kind but I'm not sure, the exorcism scene in this made me jump from my seat.
The movie takes place in a small village in south Korea, a policeman is investigating a series of murders but then more strange things start to happen, people losing their minds, Houses burning, suicides...
and at the center of all this mystery is The Japenese Man "the stranger" and the mysterious Woman in White, I don't want to spoil the rest of the movie for you but it's really one of the most original and most Clever mystery/horror films ever made in my opinion especially in the midst of all the Hollywood recycled movies, rip offs and remakes that strangely make a sh!t load of money at the box office but films like this, ones that challenge viewers both mentally and emotionally, are completely ignored by movie goers, I'm sure Horror fans will consider this film a miracle and non Horror fans will enjoy it even more because I think it works really well as a Mystery/Thriller, the characters are well developed and you start to care for them especially the Protagonist and his daughter who deliver stunning performances and the cinematography is spot on.
Since this movie doesn't get a wider release in North American and European cinemas despite being a massive success at the South Korean box office, I urge you to buy it on BluRay or DVD as soon as you can to experience this unforgettable masterpiece.The story of this mystery and horror film takes place in a remote and rather poor Korean village where a series of strange events occurs.
Police officer Jong-goo meets a mysterious woman dressed in white who seems to give him clues to solve the strange murder cases and save his daughter but at certain points in the story, she seems strangely passive and might even try to fool the main character.
Obviously, there is the mysterious Japanese stranger who only communicates in his mother tongue and whose recent appearance in the remote Korean community evokes numerous questions.The combination of an extremely professional director, an intriguing script and story that requests multiple views, a cast consisting of young and veteran actors who put all their heart and soul into their performances, an intense yet realistic atmosphere supported by a haunting soundtrack, scary settings and costumes and gloomy light techniques and a great production that takes its time to develop a perfect pace without any flaws such as shaky cameras or unrealistic special effects make this film a masterpiece of the contemporary art of film-making.
Hoping they can figure out what is really going on, and do what they can to protect themselves.He reveals, to them, that the suspected Japanese man is actually a ghost- or more accurately a demon...and he's out to get the Sergeant for wronging him.What follows is nothing short of an epic battle of dark vs light, as the two shaman's face off, ritualistically, in an attempt to hex each other to death.But, perhaps things are not exactly as they seem...just when you think it is over...As someone who is interested in Shamanism, I really enjoyed this film!
If you enjoy South Korean cinema, or just plain good cinema, I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy "The Wailing." It was directed by the same filmmaker who made "The Chaser."Part thriller, part horror movie, the story involves ghosts, possession, a strange illness, and lots of wailing.
The Wailing (Gokseong in Korean) is a 2016 South Korean horror movie directed by Na Hong-Jin. The movie is set in a little village in the mountains of South Korea and it's about a police officer named Jong- Goo (Kwak Do-hon) who investigates a series of mysterious killings and illnesses.
He see a girl with white dress in front of one of the victims house that she claims she knows who is responsible for this disease and killing, a Japanese stranger who lives in a cabin in the woods...I highly recommend The Wailing to horror movie fans who liked movies Rosemary's Baby, I Saw the Devil and The Exorcist.
Like all great horror films, this one shows how fear builds up from ignorant rumors and gossip as the villagers of this backwater town start to lose their grip on reality.When incompetent police officer Jon-Goo is hired to investigate the multiple murders of man and a woman, he finds the killer covered in blood and shaking at the scene, as though in some kind of trance.
The one thing I have come to love about Foreign films especially Korean ones is how much raw emotion and talent they can portray in a movie with actors I know nothing about and that they can pull you into caring deeply about these people.
This review of The Wailing is spoiler free**** (4/5)AFTER HIS STUNNINGLY and shockingly assured debut, The Chaser back in 2008 which finally dimmed the burning candle that was left alight after The Silence of the Lambs shocked audiences, and after his grim, gripping and excruciatingly violent crime thriller The Yellow Sea. Korean writer/director Na Hong-jin turns to horror which has a rather ambitious mixture of police procedural drama, part visceral and demonic horror, sometimes hilarious black comedy with a couple of laugh out loud parts, and finally part socio-theological allegory as you're trying to figure out some of the more difficult and somewhat confusing parts of this clever screenplay which leads to a shocking mystery towards the end.
Until Jong seeks the help of Il-Gwang (Hwang Jong-min) the village shaman, unfortunately the film starts to flag a little during the second act perhaps due to the excessive time spent on the exorcism ritual, but it's essential stuff as this is used for setting up a third and final which leads a finale which is both genuinely shocking and ingeniously inevitable, as this will leave you with an unshakeable sense of dread.Na Hong-jin keeps with the traits through and through firstly starting with a scene with Jong and his young daughter and it seems that she has been cured from the almost futile illness which is an odd switch in tone but it's nice to be included, but as the third act continues the thrills and mysterious escalate.
It is directed by "Hong-jin" Na who previously have made best Korean movies like "yellow sea" and "chaser" ( Watch these masterpieces too , if you didn't watch yet ) .It is one of the best horror movies i have seen in long time, it doesn't have jump scares.
While I didn't quite taste the amazingness after watch the movie, the analysis around my head after few days justify the lack of ending.Focus on a village that attacked by mysterious plague; when people suddenly turns crazy and murder his/her family, a police investigates the case while his daughter is slowly corrupted by the plague.My first salutation is given to the main character, the police.
It's probably best if you watch it twice to get all details.For those who loves a Korean horror film with hidden details and lots of mystery, I feel The Wailing can be one of the best choices.
The Wailing/Goksung (2016): If you are a horror fan then you must be really aware of South Korean horrors because they are best at it.Ever year they release lot of horrors and most of them impresses.This year they already delivered a hit with Train to Busan and now its time for The Wailing.The Wailing already released with widespread critical acclaim and received standing ovation at film festivals.So how is The Wailing?Plot: In the small village Goksung in South Korea, police officer Jong-Goo (Do-won Kwak) investigates bizarre murders caused by a mysterious disease.
The movie runs a bit over two and a half hours, but it actually manages to remain interesting and captivating throughout the course of this time frame.The story is about a strange disease that spreads in a small rural settlement in South Korea.
A local policeman becomes involved in the case and finds himself deep in a very strange mystery, which involves supernatural elements and it is a race against time to find the culprit and the source of this bizarre sickness.I will say that the story is good and interesting, especially because director Hong-jin Na managed to build up the movie in such a way that the audience is given bits and pieces of information throughout the course of the movie, and thus keeps the audience in the dark and trying to put the pieces together themselves and trying to figure out who is the cause of it all.And just when you think you have it all figured out, something happens and the movie takes an unforeseen turn, which just further keeps the audience on edge and trying to make sense of it all.
Hong-jin's direction is deceptively simple, without too much stylistic ornaments, but achieving a perfect harmony between movement, image and symbolism; the production design is so natural that I couldn't notice where the set ends and where the Korean cottage begins; and the actors make an excellent work in their roles, highlighting Kwak Do-won, who makes the main character's evolution completely credible, and the girl Kim Hwan-hee, who faces physical and emotionally difficult scenes with a devastating aplomb.
And like those great movies of the 50s and 60s, Gok-seung has a surprisingly deep undertow, reflecting those American science fiction films in the way that the characters must struggle with the question of how exactly we can tell the difference between good and evil. |
tt0081187 | The Mountain Men | Bill Tyler (Heston) is an argumentative, curmudgeonly mountain man. Henry Frapp (Keith) is Tyler's good friend and fellow trapper. Together, they trap beaver, fight Native Americans, and drink at a mountain man rendezvous while trying to sell their "plews", or beaver skins, to a cutthroat French trader named Fontenelle.
Tyler looks for a legendary valley, in Blackfoot territory, "so full of beaver that they just jump in the traps." Running Moon leaves her abusive husband, a ruthless Blackfoot warrior named Heavy Eagle, and comes across the two trappers in the dying days of the fur trapping era. While at first Bill only wants to take her to safety at the rendezvous, she eventually becomes his woman. While trapping Bill and Henry are attacked by Blackfeet and Henry is scalped by Heavy Eagle in front of Bill. Bill runs back to camp and he and Running Moon flee only to be caught. Later, Bill (thinking Running Moon has also been killed) is given a chance to run (similar to the real life event of John Colter) and is chased by warriors whom he initially eludes by hiding in a beaver den. They pursue him until he and Heavy Eagle fall into a raging river. Heavy Eagle makes it to shore and Bill goes over a waterfall. Heavy Eagle tries to make Running Moon his woman again which he cannot do. He knows Bill Tyler survived and will come for her as he had done.
On his survival trek Bill comes across Henry who had survived the scalping and eventually learns that Running Moon is still alive. He and Henry set out to rescue her while they are followed by a pair of trappers (Cassell and Lucking) also looking for the valley of beavers.
The story takes place during 1838, although it's never stated in the film, based on the fact that the beaver market was declining and the rendezvous was held on the Popoagie River. The "Era of the Mountain Man" ended two years later.
The story was written by Heston's son. The film was Lang's directorial debut. This was Victor Jory's last film. John Glover's character Nathan Wyeth was clearly inspired by the historical Nataniel Wyeth, a New England ice merchant who pioneered the marketing of Northwest salmon. Keith's character Henry Frapp could have been inspired by Henry Fraeb, a nineteenth century trapper and fur trader. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | `Got sand in her, she does,' Brian Keith says when an Indian woman wants to latch on to Charlton Heston; which leads to the normal function of having a mate, and that becomes the main story because the squaws mate from the Blackfoot tribe pursues in getting her back.
The Wyoming Grand Teton national park is an excellent location; it sets the scene for Heston who loves to trap beaver; it sets the scene for a period of time when their where few luxuries; it sets the scene for the battle between Heston and the Blackfoot warrior.
Maligned upon its release for its vivid violence, course language and questionable script, this film plays a bit better a quarter of a century later (now that vivid violence, course language and questionable scripts are almost all Hollywood has to offer!) Heston and Keith play feisty, rowdy, rugged trappers, swathed from head to toe in pelts and eking out a living selling their wares once a year or so to other frontiersmen.
A variety of other characters turn up along the way including frontier newcomer Glover, old Indian friend Ackroyd and French Canadian trapper Cassel.
Just goes to show that even two well-placed thumbs can be wrong.This is a fairly entertaining film, detailing the rowdy lives of two hunters (Heston and Keith) living in the mountains, drinking bad whiskey and fighting off attacks by bad guy Indians like Heavy Eagle, who scalps poor Keith at one point.
The stereotypes are a little thick in spots, but the story is so well-told that one hardly notices.The film was written by Fraser Clark Heston, Charlton's son, and a fine writer he is, blending humor, action and sentiment all into one neat little package.
It's always good to have a movie star father and young Fraser Clarke Heston was able to get father Charlton to star in a film adaptation of his script about The Mountain Men. Of course Dad was able to get friend Brian Keith into the film as well, they had worked together previously on a western called Arrowhead back in the salad days of both of them.Charlton Heston has always been generous with praise of his colleagues so I don't think he begrudged Brian Keith a bit for totally stealing this film away from the Heston clan.
Keith's portrayal of the rollicking, hard drinking, hard cussing, mountain man pal of Charlton Heston is the highlight of the film.
You learned Indian ways and skills of all kinds or you did not survive.The plot of this film has Heston rescuing an Indian princess, Victoria Racimo, a Crow away from her Blackfeet captors and earning the undying hatred of Stephen Macht, a chief among the Blackfeet.
Very similar to the plot of Robert Redford's Jeremiah Johnson where Redford was also an object of Indian vengeance.This film marked the farewell performance of that grand character actor Victor Jory.
Jory plays a Crow chief who may look old but seems to have found Viagara long before the FDA approved it.Unfortunately for The Mountain Men it got caught up in the wake of the approval for Jeremiah Johnson.
Charlton Heston and Brien Keith should be remembered in the History Books for this Movie as one of their Best.
Charlton Heston and Brian Keith, while first-rate in this film, came in second to the stupendous scenery of the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone National Park in this story of two crotchety, fiercely individualistic fur trappers in the mid-18th century who fight the elements, Indians, and occasionally each other.
The action scenes are extremely well done and quite intense, actually--especially when Keith and Heston are ambushed by an Indian war party at their camp--and there is a rollicking scene at a large meadow where the annual trappers' gathering (a sort of swap meet) is held.
certainly the best delivered line of his career.Heston and Keith play grizzled trappers who accept the chore of shepherding a young, green, ex-military type to Rendezvous.
ahhhh, the Indians are mostly European, at least the ones with speaking parts (thinking here of Victory Jory and Stephen Macht, not the devastating Victoria Racimo).Much of the scenery mirrors the earlier Jeremiah Johnson (1972), but, sadly, the emphasis of this film seemed to be the enjoyment of the actors, rather than advancement of plot, historical accuracy, and numerous other niggling little details.I like this movie very much...
Charlton Heston and Brian Keith are fur trappers out west during the mid 1800's.
This one depicts white fur trappers' encounters with native Americans at the time.The lives of mountain men are well portrayed; realistically dramatized.
The dialogue is very interesting to listen to.Considering when it was made, before politcally correct was really in style(not that I approve of P.C. films), and considering its star is Charlton Heston, it's not a bad movie, I enjoyed it.
A duo of valiant frontiersmen named Bill (Charlton Heston) and Henry (Brian Keith) struggle Black Foot , Crow Indians , guzzle liquor , shoot efficiently his preys and in search for a legendary valley plenty of beavers that they jump right into their traps .
Intesesting screenplay by Fraser Clarke Heston , Charlton's son , narrates the odyssey of grizzled scouts , expert hunters that one time dreary of civilization go to West developing their natural senses and becoming into mountain man , as they take part of the wildlife and landscape .
The magnificent cast is starred by an excellent Charlton Heston , a simple man who has no taste for cities and becomes a tough and two-fisted mountain man and Brian Keith as feisty old trapper , both of whom developing an intimate relationship .
There aren't enough movies out there about furtrappers or this extremely adventurous era of our country's history.Brian Keith's character(Frapp)in the movie was the best part.
Rowdy trappers Charleton Heston and Brian Keith take a little time off from trapping beaver and arguing amongst themselves, in order to fight off a hostile tribe of Blackfoot, that takes a special disliking to them after Heston makes off with the war-chief's wife.A crude, action-packed movie, the two leads wear massive helmets of fake hair under even bigger fur hats and seem to be having a lot of fun, spouting hilariously vulgar lines, while they drink, brawl, and shoot their flintlock rifles in an orgy of excessively macho violence.Though not very subtle at all, Heston and Keith's enthusiasm is pretty damn infectious, making this well worth checking out for fans of muscular action yarns.Production values, cinematography, and beautiful Wyoming locations are all first-rate.
Also great is the performance by Brian Keith, who easily steals the movie away from top-billed Charleton Heston!.
However by the time our two heroes, in the film " Mountain Men " Bill Tyler and Henry Frapp (Charlton Heston and Brian Keith) return from their high peaks in the spring of 1838, the fur trade, like the beaver, has all but vanished.
For Bill Tyler his life is saddled with a spirited Indian woman called Running Moon Victoria Racino) who technically belong to a fierce and somewhat brutal warrior called Heavy Eagle (Stephen Macht) who wants her back.
One of my favorite movies, mostly because of Kieth's(Frapp) and Heston's(Tyler's) comical relationship and dialouge.
Yes, the plot is simple and unoriginal, the indians are white actors and drop like flies in battle, but the cinematography is glorious in nearly every scene, the movie works quite well as a "period piece" and the relationships between the characters are fun and believable.
Released in 1980, "The Mountain Men" chronicles the adventures of two mountain men in 1838 played by Charlton Heston and Brian Keith.
When Tyler (Heston) acquires a Native woman named Running Moon (Victoria Racimo) her ex, a ruthless Blackfoot warrior named Heavy Eagle (Stephen Macht), wants her back and will kill to get her.This movie has a bad reputation with critics, but is generally praised by Western fans.
"The Mountain Men" takes the topic of 1972's "Jeremiah Johnson" and mixes it with the tone of 1953's "Hondo" and, more so, 1977's "Grayeagle." It's mostly like the latter two in the way the Native Americans are depicted -- wild and savage.
For instance, the Crow Natives are friendly toward the mountain men in the movie whereas the Blackfoot are hostile.
In any case, if you favor the aforementioned Westerns, you'll probably appreciate "The Mountain Men."I can understand the criticism of the film in that the first act is weak and tempts the viewer to tune out.
Heavy Eagle is also a quality antagonist.I suppose you could say it's a flaw that the principle Native characters speak English too well, but I'm pretty sure the script was written this way to get away from the sometimes laughable broken English that Natives would speak in older Westerns (the screenplay was incidentally written by Heston's son, Fraser).
It would've helped if the Indians spoke their native language in the Native sequences, but it's assumed that they ARE speaking their native tongue, just like Germans are speaking German in WWII movies, not English, even though they're shown speaking English.Numerous other things impressed me about "Mountain Men." For instance, the Natives and their encampments look authentic even while one or two of the Indians seemed to act too modern, e.g. Cross Otter.
Furthermore, there's a lot of muscular Western action with the mountain men fighting the Natives.
While "The Mountain Men" starts off weak it gets better as you catch a grip with the characters and the tone of the movie.
Let me put it this way: I'd watch "The Mountain Men" any day before I'd watch the wildly overrated and lagging "The Wild Bunch." The film runs 102 minutes and was shot entirely in Northwestern Wyoming.GRADE: B.
Western classic starring Charlton Heston and Brian Keith.
The Mountain Men was a western vehicle for acclaimed actor and legend Charlton Heston .
Heston and Keith wander the great American landscape , drink a lot of liquor , murder various critters, Blackfoot Indians and the English language .
The Mountain Men is beautifully shot and ( for the most part) well acted .My only complainant is the casting of white actors for the Indian characters, which is acceptable for a western in 1950.
But once we get introduced to the two guys in this particular deck of cards, the truth comes out: Grizzly Adams, this ain't.Charlton Heston and Brian Keith, who had previously teamed up in their early days in the 1953 western ARROWHEAD, are, respectively, Bill Tyler and Henry Frapp, two grizzled, hard-living mountain men living out in the Grand Tetons of Wyoming in the days just prior to wagon trains and immigrants making the big move out West.
Keith, meantime, gets into something of a running gag feud with Heston as to whether the Indian tribes that keep pursuing them are Crow or Blackfoot.
Not only does it turn out to be Blackfoot, but the Blackfoot chief Heavy Eagle (Stephen Macht) is out to get them after his slave bride Yellow Moon (Victoria Racimo) escapes from his iron grasp, and gets Heston's and Keith's protection.
The end result is, not surprisingly, rather rough and violent.Featuring the usual expected professional performances from old pros Heston and Keith (Keith, in particular, with his four-letter tirades, minus any F-bombs, almost overshadows Heston--not an easy thing to do even when the man who played Moses and Ben-Hur isn't up to par), THE MOUNTAIN MEN is not a particularly spectacular piece of work in the hands of director Richard Lang, but it is hardly the atrocity that a lot of critics made it out to be when it was released in 1980.
This was a project close to Heston's heart, as its screenplay was written by his son Fraser Clarke Heston; and it is true to the historical essentials of the lives of mountain men, if not necessarily to Indian culture.
But with two stalwarts like Heston and Keith leading the way, Racimo being quite good as a squaw, and Macht making for a convincing foe (if not a truly convincing Indian), it makes for solid entertainment, if sometimes drenched in bloodiness and off-color language--particularly as it may have been one of the last reasonably good Westerns made in Hollywood before Cimino's atrocious HEAVEN'S GATE all but killed off everyone's appetite for the genre..
Ford, Wayne, and Bond never had this much fun doing a movie.Keith and Heston play two grizzled old farts who grumble all the time and shake off injuries in much the Wayne style.
They fight tons of Indians.Heston hooks up with this young woman who becomes central to the story.
He would have kicked butt like Heston and Keith.The movie pits man against man, man against animal, and occasionally woman against man.
All fight with honor, with the exception of one lone Frenchman.Despite my love of good action scenes, my favorite parts of this movie are the wisecracks, especially Keith.
Very nice scenery to look at, cinematography is pretty good all the way, except lighting on some scenes felt a bit unnatural.Even tho it feels like a family comedy, there are a lot of strong scenes and brutal, bloody violence.
May not be that extreme on today's standards, but back in the 80's a scene where a man get's his head chopped off was quite a lot to stomach.The movie has a some real old school stunts, might not be a good idea to watch this if you're easily shocked by western style stunts involving horses.
Terrific Grand Tetons scenary, good action, stunt work, passable acting by Heston and Keith, less so by Macht, Cassel and co.
Most of the film deals with a Blackfoot Indian, Heavy Eagle (soap-opera star, David Ackroyd) and his warriors going after mountain man, Bill Tyler (Charlton Heston) for 'stealing' his squaw, Running Moon (Victoria Racimo).
Heavy Eagle has to preserve his honor.There's a side plot about the shortage of beaver that Tyler and his partner/sidekick Henry Frapp (Brian Keith) have to deal with, but this is mostly a pursuit film with Heston being chased all over Wyoming and engaging in lots of hand-to-hand combat with the Blackfoot.
An offbeat "western",with very crude language,a scene of sodomy ,much violence .The reason why you would watch this Heston project is the splendor of the Wyoming landscapes ;the director almost make us believe his heroes have found their Eldorado ,their "Beavers Valley".Much more eventful than "Jeremiah Johnson" ,"Mountain men" came too late ,at a time westerns were overshadowed by sci-fi.The squaw displays woman's lib before its time .Her character is not very plausible though.It's hard to believe she speaks "their" language so well;and anyway her (Indian) husband does speak English too .There's a good use of Brian Keith's character and the last picture is really original and moving..
Bad but Fun. Mountain Men, The (1980) * 1/2 (out of 4)Charlton Heston and Brian Keith play beaver hunters in the early 1800s who battle Indians and eventually take one of the females (Victoria Racimo) with them.
You get really embarrassing scenes of Indians mooning one another, mountain men flicking them off and the childish nature continues and I have to wonder why no one questioned this stuff before the movie was filmed.
You also have Heston and Keith constantly fighting and cussing one another in what seems like a major influence on something like Grumpy Old Men. As for Heston, he certainly doesn't give a good performance here but it's campy enough to be entertaining.
The film starts out with Mr. Bill Tyler (Charlton Heston) meeting up with old friend Henry Frapp (Brian Keith) by way of Frapp knocking Tyler down into the water along with his horses...HAHAHAHA...oh ok sorry I lost it for a second there.
Have seen this movie at least 5 times,and still love it.It's funny,has good action,and the Charlton Heston/Brian Keith combo is great..
Charlton Heston hams it up like never before as a beaver-trapper reluctant to make way for progress and accept the fact that his precious trade is being supplanted by finer materials like silk; Brian Keith provides the brightest spot in the film as Heston's foul-mouthed partner, along with Michel Legrand's beautiful score and the desolate snowy landscapes.
The plot, also involving Indian ambushes, the abduction of a squaw (who, of course, falls for Heston at his hairiest!) and rival trappers (notably Seymour Cassel playing a Canadian), renders the film just about watchable but in no way memorable..
Note to the director: Don't use helicopter shots in westerns.Listen for when Heston farts about five minutes into the movie, and watch as one of the Indians checks his loose dental plate after he jumps over a log..
What do you get when you cast Charlton Heston as a mountain man and put him in a confused movie badly written by his son Fraser?
To the amusement of Brian Keith but the irritation of Charlton Heston.
It is a glimpse at what life MIGHT have been like as the mid-western frontier was being opened up by White American and French trappers.
Brian Keith and Heston seemed to be enjoying their characterizations.
The "love interest" angle with Heston and Running Moon, and the base story line are solid, as is the apparent brotherly love shared between the two main characters.This is a good, solid "easy-entertainment" movie, OK to share with your teens (a little rough language), the family, and/or the wife/girlfriend/significant other.
The film begins with an extended aerial view of aging beaver trapper Bill Tyler(Chuck Heston)slogging through snow with his horse and pack animals.
I suspect the eagle is meant to symbolize the free-spirited lives of the hardy independent trappers on the western frontier at this time(1838).This was the first screen writing by Heston's son, Fraser.
Like the second film he wrote: "Mother Lode", the on location shooting was done in spectacular lush western mountain country.
Heston ends up with an unwanted Indian girl 17 minutes into the movie. |
tt0304669 | The Santa Clause 2 | Eight years have elapsed since Scott Calvin took on the mantle of Santa Claus and became subject to The Santa Clause. Now he is at the top of his game at the North Pole and could not be happier, at least until Head Elf Bernard and Curtis, the Keeper of the Handbook of Christmas break the news that there is another clause — the "Mrs. Clause".
Santa/Scott is now pressed to get married before the next Christmas Eve, or the clause will be broken and Christmas will fade away. At the same time, Abby the Elf delivers news that is more distressing: Santa's own son Charlie is on the naughty list, for acts including vandalizing the walls of the school gymnasium with spray paint, until he is caught by Principal Carol Newman. Scott must return to his home to search for a wife and set things right with Charlie. He brings this up when visited by the Council of Legendary Figures consisting of Mother Nature, Father Time, Cupid, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman.
To cover for Santa's prolonged absence, Curtis helps Santa create a life-size toy replica of Santa, much to Bernard's horror. However, this replacement cannot find any grace or slack in his plastic heart for minor infractions by children the world over, having followed the Handbook too strictly. Toy Santa takes control of the North Pole with an army of life-size toy soldiers. He thinks that everyone is naughty, and he plans to give the entire world lumps of coal.
Because of the impending end of his contract, Scott undergoes a "de-Santafication process" that gradually turns him back into Scott Calvin. He has a limited amount of magic to help him. Scott attempts to reconcile with Charlie, who keeps vandalizing his school to get attention. He and Charlie both face the ire of Principal Newman when Charlie defaces the lockers.
Charlie confesses to Scott how hard it is for him that Scott is never around like other fathers, and reveals the stress he is under to conceal the secret that his father is Santa. Scott vows to try harder as a dad, and he and Charlie reconcile.
After a few failed dates, Scott finds himself falling for Carol, the school principal. He accompanies her in a sleigh to the faculty Christmas party, which turns out to be dull. Using a little of his Christmas magic, Scott enlivens the party by presenting everyone with their childhood dream gifts. He makes a special presentation to Carol, and, with his last remnant of magic, wins her over and they kiss passionately. However, she balks when he attempts to explain he is Santa, believing that Scott is mocking her childhood, until Charlie manages to convince her by showing her his magic snow globe.
Curtis flies in to deliver the news about the Toy Santa's coal binge. However, Scott has used up the last of his magic wooing Carol, and Comet has eaten too many chocolate bars. With a little help from the Tooth Fairy, Scott and Curtis return to the North Pole. Toy Santa wastes no time in subduing Scott, but Charlie and a now-believing Carol spring him free by summoning the Tooth Fairy to fly them there. Scott goes after the Toy Santa, who has already left with the sleigh, riding Chet, a reindeer-in-training, and they both crash back into the village. With an army of elves, Carol, Bernard, Charlie and Curtis lead a snowball war to overthrow the toy soldiers. Toy Santa is reduced to his normal six-inch height, Scott marries Carol in a ceremony presided over by Mother Nature herself, Scott transforms back to Santa, and Christmas proceeds as it always has. Scott and Carol have a three month honeymoon to go on the next day. In addition, Scott and Charlie reveal the truth to Lucy, Charlie's younger half-sister (the daughter of Laura and Neil) about Scott being Santa Claus. | prank | train | wikipedia | Good Christmas Fun. It's been quite a while since I've seen the first Santa Clause movie, but I remember being quite surprised by it.
Released November 1st, 2002Director: Michael LembeckStarring: Tim Allen, Elizabeth Mitchell, Nicole Leroux, Judge Reinhold, Spencer Breslin, Wendy Crewson, Eric Lloyd, Kevin Pollak, Molly Shannon, Jay Thomas, Aisha Tyler, Michael DornPremise: Scott Calvin has been Santa Claus for the past eight years, and his loyal elves consider him the best Santa ever.
But Santa's world is turned upside down when he's dealt a double whammy of bad news: not only has his son, Charlie, landed on this year's `naughty' list, but if Scott doesn't marry by Christmas Eve, he'll stop being Santa forever.
Things quickly go south at the North Pole when Santa II institutes some strange redefinitions of what's naughty and nice; worse, when Scott finally falls for a potential Mrs. Claus, she threatens to drive a wedge between him and Charlie.
In a climactic battle pitting Santa, Charlie, the new Mrs. Claus, and the elves against Santa II and his army of tin soldiers, the future of Scott's family, the North Pole, and Christmas itself, hangs in the balance.
The Santa Clause 2 was originally slanted for release in 2001 but the executives at Disney became aware that sequels to moderately old films won't automatically become the same hit as the original after 102 Dalmatians flopped in 2000 thanks in part to The Grinch.
Will The Santa Clause 2 be as magical as the original or will the sequel follow the same steps as 102 Dalmatians?The story goes that Scott Calvin has been Santa for eight years and it declared the best Santa ever by his elves and the children of the world.
It introduced all the original characters in very nice fashion and brings good attention to brand new ones like Curtis, the keeper of the Santa handbook.
One of the especially good parts was how they introduced Miss Mitchell and how she soon came to be the love interest of Scott Calvin a.k.a. Santa Claus.
There were little or no problems with the story that tries hard to live up to the original.The characters in The Santa Clause 2 are very funny and do a great job of bringing the audience into the holiday world of the North Pole.
All the original characters are back and do a extraordinary jobs returning to their old roles.Overall, The Santa Clause 2 is as funny or better then the 1994 original in many areas of the story and characters.
The first movie gave me the feeling of joy at the thought of grownups finding the wonder of Christmas again (Laura and Neal realizing Scott was indeed Santa).
The woman who plays Allen's possible love interest was also pretty good, but her character fell in love with Scott Calvin so fast it seemed like the script was forcing the relationship.
Anyway, this review is getting kind of long, so I'll wrap it up by saying that The Santa Clause 2 is a great movie to take the family to, but don't expect long-lasting memories.
The first movie saw Tim Allen's character "Scott Calvin" become Santa Claus after the previous Santa Claus fell off of his roof on Christmas Eve. Well in this one Scott has settled in nicely to his role as Mr. Claus, but there is one problem.
It's up to Scott to defeat him and save Christmas.The Santa Clause 2 is not nearly as good as the first film.
And considering that was the major obstacle in this film for the main character to overcome, I wasn't really engaged in it.Children will love this movie (I know I did years ago), and that's really all that matters with a Christmas movie.
But as an adult looking for a good holiday film, this one fell flat up against others such as Home Alone 1/2, Christmas Vacation and even the first Santa Clause.6/10.
(Who takes these polls?) But as Christmas draws closer, Scott realizes that not only is his son, Charlie, on the Naughty List, there's a second clause in the contract that states he must become married to "The Mrs. Claus" in 27 days, or he'll be history.The head elf, Bernard, along with the help of another fellow elf (Specer Breslin, "The Cat in the Hat"), duplicates a fake Santa to watch over things as the real Scott goes home to tend to family matters.
(Tim is mimicking his own Buzz Lightyear character from Disney/Pixar's "Toy Story.")"The Santa Clause 2" got a lot of good reviews that called it an enjoyable and charming little movie, but I missed something.
(At the end of "2," Scott hangs off the back of Evil Santa's flying sleigh and...it simply has to be seen to be appalled by.)There's a major plot hole in the entire idea of Santa Claus existing in our world that need not be pointed out by me -- and I won't, in case there are children reading this.
This movie doesn't really have one.I like Tim Allen's dry ironic humor because I think he knows how to make good use of it.
He used it to perfection in "Home Improvement," used it even better in "The Santa Clause," voiced the witty Buzz Lightyears, and then appeared in a string of flops, including "Big Trouble" and "Who is Cletis Tout?" Here's to "Toy Story 3" -- if Pixar ever manages to break away from Disney and its stupid no-more-sequels contract.2/5 stars.John Ulmer.
The Santa Clause 2 stars Tim Allen, Wendy Crewson, Judge Reinhold, Eric Lloyd, Peter Boyle, Elizabeth Mitchell, Art LaFleur, Michael Dorn, and David Krumholtz.
If you are looking for a great Christmas film and if you like the cast mentioned above that I strongly recommend The Santa Clause 2!.
This sequel was made 8 years later and what the first film did correctly this film does wrong, In the original film Charlie (Santa/Scott's Son) was a sweet little boy who's on screen charm help make the original so good.
So, if you like the subject of Christmas, or just want to see a movie with these stars, watch The Santa Clause 2!!!!!!!.
I laughed almost the whole time, the music was phenomenal, and the graphics were awesome....The first was funny, but this was a whole heck of a lot funnier, along with a great cast of some new characters....a great movie for the whole family!.
Everyone who came out of the theatre had a big smile on their face at the end, even the Mums, Dads, and GrandParents!Tim Allen does a good job (again) as Santa, and there are plenty of nice in-jokes in there - Allen wearing a flannel shirt (remind anyone of Al Borland), and of course all the car references...and there are also some movie homages in there - did the duplicator machine remind anyone else of Bride Of Frankenstein!?The first 15-20 minutes are a little slow but once Allen returns to America the film really begins to pick up.
It's pretty rare that I go to the theater to see a "G-rated" movie, but it's Christmas time, I loved the first Santa Clause and I thought it would be nice to take my fiance to see it.
I think they make movies like those over the top, they start with simple ideas and then bombard the audience with alot of visual effects and no plot.I saw very little character development.
A Great feel good movie to ring in Holiday Cheer for kids with there family member or members..
Talented, funny-man, Tim Allen, is definitely on top of his 'movie star' game (with the new addition of his driven 'Toy Santa' alter-ego), and it was great to see the old cast back in action with many welcomed new-comers.
I'm predicting that The Santa Clause 2 is going to have a lot of repeat business in its 2 month run, and hey -- perhaps all sequels should spend 8 years to find the right story worth telling to honor (and exceed) the original!.
The Santa Clause" is a holiday movie that my family has watched and loved multiple times every year.
In this movie, the entire original cast returns for a story that's actually quite clever for a "part II." Colorful and fun from beginning to end, the humor is genuine, and not the 'corny' kind you might expect.
If you don't already know the story, here it is in a nutshell: Scott needs a wife in order to remain Santa forever; the "Mrs. Clause." His son Charlie is falling into 'bad behavior' because he feels neglected and upset that he must keep his father's secret, when his dad's got the coolest job of all.
The reindeer, Scott's ex-wife and Neil, the hilarious Council of Legendary Figures, etc., all combine to make a truly satisfying movie that is a very, very worthy successor to "The Santa Clause." I am pleased to say, a longtime fan of the original was not disappointed at all.
And despite the odd release of this sequel some 8 years after the first, in addition to the uninteresting TV advertisements - this is an incredibly good movie.It'd been a long time (probably when it first came out) since I watched 'The Santa Clause,' until a week or so ago at work when I watched it yet again.
Tim Allen has found his nitch with Santa Clause and the wonderful addition of Elizabeth Mitchell makes this movie an entertaining, heart warming Christmas movie.
Seems he'll have to give up his Santa role for good unless (as the clause goes) he finds a woman willing to be his wife.None of the situations are able to lift this sequel into the sort of original territory that the first movie had, but at least the cast gives it all a good try.
ELIZABETH MITCHELL is completely charming as the school principal who is romanced by Allen in what really is the centerpiece of the story and very well handled by both of them.JUDGE REINHOLD is on hand again, as Dr. Neil Miller along with WENDY CREWSON as his wife and ERIC LLOYD as "Charlie." Unfortunately, Reinhold and Crewson have little to do this time while the plot concentrates on the solution to Allen's romantic dilemma.Nice settings, plenty of holiday cheer, and an inventive plot twist involving a substitute Santa (also played effectively by Allen) combine to make this a pleasant enough family entertainment.Not quite as cleverly scripted as the original, it manages to keep the viewer interested thanks mainly to the lead performances of Allen and Mitchell..
Tim Allen and Judge Reinhold provided plenty of good laughs here.Overall, this is a great film that will bring holiday cheer to most people who see this.
But in the first movie, the Santa before Tim Allen's character didn't have a wife!) Anyway, as it is, the movie's mainly for kids, especially kids who haven't seen that many superior Christmas-themed films.
this sequel lacks the heart and soul of the first one.it's not very funny.in fact,i found it mean spirited and depressing.it also has none of the magic of the first one.if you don't like feeling like you are being preached to,you probably won't like this movie.i also felt a bit creeped out by certain parts of it.it's much too dark to be enjoyable in the same way as the first one.i also felt it strayed into sappiness territory.actually forget strayed into.it went straight into sappiness territory.this movie also has a lot of predictability to it.it's formulaic at times.but the biggest downfall for this movie,in my opinion,is it's sombre atmosphere.i don't think it's a horrible movie,but it sure is a few steps down in quality from the original.not quite painful to watch,but not enjoyable,either.and although i may be out to lunch here,i think parents should use discretion about letting their children watch this,because it is so dark.but that's just my opinion.my vote for the Santa Clause 2 is a 5/10..
I have a copy of the original "The Santa Clause" and watch it 3 or 4 times a year along with "A Christmas Story" and the original black and white "Miracle on 34th Street".This is a really fun sequel.
The North Pole storyline was silly and unsatisfying, while the story of Scott Calvin's struggle to straighten out his son and find a wife by Christmas was touching and too short.When Tim Allen's Santa, a.k.a. Scott, has to leave the North Pole to deal with his twin crises of fulfilling the Mrs. Clause and getting his son off the naughty list, he and his top two elves agree on the terrible idea of substituting a giant, clone-like toy Santa in his place.
There must have been a better way to make use of the North Pole set and several rather good elf characters, but this film never found it while Scott was out of town.
The reason given, that he's feeling the burden of not being able to talk about what his dad does for a living, doesn't explain why he's suddenly causing trouble after eight years of knowing this secret, nor why he suddenly turns himself around at the end.The part of this movie that really shines is the love story between Scott and Charlie's principal.
When Tim Allen's Santa, a.k.a. Scott, has to leave the North Pole to deal with his twin crises of fulfilling the Mrs. Clause and getting his son off the naughty list, he and his top two elves agree on the terrible idea of substituting a giant, clone-like toy Santa in his place.
There must be a better way to make use of the North Pole set and several rather good elf characters, but this film never finds it while Scott is out of town.
Well, folks, he's back: Tim Allen returns as Scott Calvin in Disney's The Santa Clause 2.
Scott Calvin (played by Tim Allen) has been doing his job as the new Santa, so things are pretty much the same – except for one small matter.
This second installment of the Santa Clause franchise wasn't quite as good as the first movie, but it was a very good film on it's own.
The Santa Clause 2 is a great movie with a well developed storyline and a good cast.Tim Allen is back once again as Scott Calvin/Santa Claus and despite the eight year gap between this movie and the first Santa Clause,he steps right back in to this role very naturally,as if he never stopped playing him,and I think those few years gave him time to improve as an actor and do an even better job this time around,he is given a lot of emotional scenes,particularly between him and his love interest,and he shines in these parts,he's in practically every scene as he also plays the villain and it dosen't get annoying to see him constantly for most of the movie.I preferred this to the first one and I know people will disagree with me,but the original is very straight forward,in this there is a lot more adventure and there's a more joyous Christmas feel to it,I love all three Santa Clause movies as they were a big part of my childhood at Christmas time,but this one is certainly my favourite.Its obviously not perfect,but the Santa Clause 2 is entertaining and funny for the whole family and I would recommend it if you're looking for a good Christmas movie.
I'm not a big fan of "The Santa Clause" and in fact, I don't really think it's a good movie for a number of reasons.
While a robotic Santa is created to keep the North Pole running, Scott has to go back to the human world in order to find a wife and straighten out his son, who is now on the "naughty" list.I was actually surprised to see how many of the actors came back for this second film.
There are two plots going on, the first with the robot Santa running the North Pole (and yes, that goes about as well as you expect it to) and the other has Scott having to not only find a wife in 28 days (no small feat) but also looking for a way to discipline his son and get him off the "naughty" list.
Good job screenwriters!To me, "The Santa Clause 2" is better than the first one because we're used to this universe the plot is set in, the actions of the characters make more sense and it brings back everything that was good about the first movie while dropping everything that didn't work.
Tim Allen is good and goofy at the same time but this movie really did not have been made.They is really no reason for it..
This sequel returns Tim Allen and crew from the original movie as Santa must find a wife before Xmas or he looses his job...
If you are reading this review, then you probably know the plot.If you saw Santa Clause (1) and liked it, then you should enjoy this movie too.
It will definitley get the whole family in the mood for the festive season!Ok, so what could possibly happen in a sequel to a christmas film about Santa Clause?Let's review....
I think Santa Clause 2 is one of the best movie sequels out there.
Being eight years after the original, I believe the film makers designed a well crafted solution to the tastes of both the teens and young adults that seen the first movie, to the kids that never saw the first Santa Clause.First thing first, for new fans, do watch Santa Clause.
If you want a funny, enjoyable, cute, movie the entire family can go see, even your young kids, then I highly recommend this film..
If you want a funny, enjoyable, cute, movie the entire family can go see, even your young kids, then I highly recommend this film.. |
tt0086350 | Special Bulletin | A "Special Bulletin" slide interrupts commercials on the fictional RBS television network for its TV shows. A TV crew covering a dockworkers' strike are caught in the middle of a firefight between the U.S. Coast Guard and the crew of a tugboat sitting at a dock in Charleston, South Carolina. The coast guardsmen surrender and are taken hostage, as are the reporter and cameraman.
The reporter is asked to televise a statement by the terrorists calling for delivery to them of every nuclear trigger device at the U.S. Naval Base in Charleston. Without these triggers, nuclear weapons on the naval warships and nuclear-powered submarines based at Charleston cannot be used. The terrorists reveal their motive is to completely disarm America of Nuclear weapons as well as to convince the Soviet Union to the same, which they believe will completely prevent possible nuclear war. They also mention they have constructed their own nuclear device—one roughly equivalent to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. Their device is set to detonate within 24 hours if their demand is not met, and has anti-tampering devices that will set it off if any attempt is made to move or disarm it.
Details about the terrorists slowly begin to emerge as the broadcast hosted by Susan Myles (Kathryn Walker) and veteran newscaster John Woodley (Ed Flanders) continues. The group is led by Dr. Bruce Lyman (David Clennon), a scientist and designer of nuclear weapons for the American government. His fellow conspirators include David McKeeson (David Rasche) a nuclear scientist who stole weapons grade plutonium and constructed the bomb; Jim Sever (Ebbe Roe Smith), a bank robber; Frieda Barton (Rosalind Cash), a poet and anti-war activist implicated in a bombing that killed several people a decade earlier; and Diane Silverman (Roberta Maxwell), a married social worker who had been friends with Lyman back in college.
At first the government chooses to ignore or underplay the story. McKeeson eventually reveals his device to RBS's cameraman. Public announcements include the decision to order the evacuation of downtown Charleston, which causes panic. The Government later announces, just before the terrorist's deadline, that it would accede to their demands. A van rolls up to the tugboat, allegedly containing the first load of nuclear triggers.
The terrorists become suspicious when the TV monitoring the RBS broadcast goes blank, to conceal a Delta Force commando team sneaking aboard the tugboat. In the ensuing gun battle, Lyman, Sever, and Silverman are killed by the commandos. The journalists survive without major injury. McKeeson commits suicide before he can be captured and Barton is taken into custody.
Members of the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) board the tugboat to defuse the bomb. The reporter and cameraman remain despite pleas from the news anchors in New York City that they leave the area. The NEST team argue about how to bypass McKeeson's many safeguards. As they attempt to defuse the bomb, they realize that they have made a mistake and have accidentally triggered one of the safeguard devices. At the studio, an expert says that there are conventional explosives in the device, geared to set up the chain reaction. The members of the NEST work frantically to stabilize the bomb, then begin to panic. One member rushes to leave the ship's hold as two others keep working desperately on the device. Suddenly, static fills the screen as all contact with Charleston is lost.
The network switches to the main RBS newsroom in New York. Woodley is stunned and alarmed as he realizes what has probably happened. Myles, nervous and fighting to control her voice, advises viewers that they "seem to have lost contact" with Charleston. After considerable effort to reestablish contact, the anchors manage to get hold of Megan "Meg" Barclay (Roxanne Hart), a reporter for the local RBS television affiliate station in Charleston, WPIV, who was two miles from the tugboat aboard the aircraft carrier museum ship USS Yorktown. Amid burning wreckage aboard the aircraft carrier, with huge fires blazing in downtown Charleston in the background, Meg veers between trying to report what happened and expressing fear of radiation. The cameraman pans across the harbor, which is now a firestorm. Seeing this, the traumatized Myles breaks down, saying "Oh, my God!" on the air.
Meg's cameraman had been recording a few moments earlier, and the network anchors ask Meg to ask him to rewind and play back the tape. The tape shows Barclay standing in front of a relatively normal-seeming harbor scene, overlooking the tugboat; Meg is facing the camera, her back to the boat. We see an enormous bright light exploding into view across the harbor and then flooding the screen. When the camera recovers from the sudden flash of light, we see a mushroom cloud rising over the burning shoreline, followed by a huge blast of wind—the shock-wave from the explosion—that knocks over everything, including the cameraman and his camera. The tape ends as Woodley can only ask, over and over again, whether someone can get help to his colleagues on the carrier.
Further reports from Charleston follow, showing the city badly damaged and consumed by fire; there is mass destruction and many are burned and otherwise injured by the explosion. It now emerges that the government's intention was to play for time until the Delta Force team could board and capture the ship and defuse the nuclear weapon. The film moves ahead three days to reveal the aftermath of the explosion, narrated by Myles. Thanks to the evacuation order, the death toll is estimated at less than 2,000; however, another 25,000 suffer severe injuries, including 4,800 severe burn cases; half a million are left homeless due to fallout, and the region is expected to be uninhabitable for decades. | anti war, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0092548 | American Ninja 2: The Confrontation | Now promoted to Army Rangers, Joe Armstrong (Michael Dudikoff) and Curtis Jackson (Steve James) are sent to a remote Caribbean island to aid the Marine Corps in investigating the disappearance of many of its soldiers. The commanding officer, "Wild Bill" Woodward (Jeff Weston) briefs them on the situation: four marines were captured, but he doesn't know who or what they are since terrorism is out of the question. A boy named Toto (Elmo Fillis) is the only witness when he saw two soldiers get beat up by a gang and then taken by a group of men in black suits. Both men look at each other, realizing that they've been in this situation before.
Upon arriving, Charlie McDonald invites them to go water skiing. Tommy Taylor (Jonathan Pienaar) takes them on their boat to Mangrove Island, but sabotages it by unhooking the motor source. Everyone decides to swim, but Joe becomes suspicious, and wants to stay on shore. Shortly thereafter, he is attacked by ninjas but is rescued by Curtis. Their report back is discarded, nevertheless Woodward gives them a week to investigate. Tommy is told to lure Armstrong into a trap during a phone conversation with the Lion, and tells Joe where to meet him: at the Blind Beggar Bar. Joe is attacked by the same group of thugs from the beginning of the film, and proceeds to get little from Taylor about a drug dealer by the nickname of The Lion (Gary Conway) before he is killed by ninjas. Joe and Curtis inform Wild Bill who tells them that Taylor told of a location in which the Lion conducts his experiments: Blackbeard Island. Wild Bill is all for it, but while awaiting for approval, he invites them to the governor's ball. They arrive, and Inspector Singh (Bill Curry) quickly accuses Armstrong of killing Taylor.
Wild Bill gives Jackson and Armstrong permission to rescue a girl named Alicia Sanborn (Michelle Botes) after she is taken by local thugs after crashing the ball upon seeing that The Lion was there. Jackson and Armstrong (along with Charlie) follow them into the Blind Beggar's Bar and fight the local gang and escape. They pick up Wild Bill from the ball and make up a story about Armstrong disappearing to avoid being questioned by Singh. Armstrong tracks Alicia with the help of Toto, but are attacked by ninjas. He single-handedly takes them out, before being rescued by a truck-driving Toto. One of the ninjas manages to get on the vehicle, but Armstrong makes both Toto and Alicia jump out of the vehicle before Armstrong himself jumps. The vehicle crashes into gas cans and a building, exploding the truck and killing the ninja. Joe and Alicia head on over to the boats, while Joe gives Toto a message to give to Wild Bill that they are on their way to Blackbeard Island. They have to wait awhile as patrol guards are in the water; they must wait until nighttime to travel. Alicia tells Joe about her father's plans of a scientific breakthrough to cure cancer before Burke (The Lion) bought his lab and had other plans. Jackson and the other marines have to wait on the base for a go-ahead from the ambassador, and that Armstrong is on his own for now.
Joe and Alicia reach the island and infiltrate the lab by donning ninja clothing, all while Burke is introducing his SuperNinja program. They rescue Professor Sanborn, who informs Joe where the captive marines are being held. Joe rescues the captive marines, but are caught trying to escape. All face off against a group of ninjas. Joe and the marines eventually gain the upper hand at first, but the ninjas eventually kill all but 2 of the marines. The marines stage an attack on the base, and reveal that the governor and Inspector Singh are also part of Burke's scheme. The governor is arrested by Wild Bill and his men while Singh's fate is unknown. The Professor confronts Burke and manages to destroy his SuperNinja program with a remote-control bomb, killing them both. Joe Armstrong does one final battle with Tojo Ken and kills him. The marines leave the island and celebrate, while Jackson and Armstrong say goodbye to their friends as they head back to America. | violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | American Ninja 2: The Confrontation is the best movie in the whole series and one of the best action movies I have ever seen.
But what makes this movie great is the unbelievable amount of action: ninja fights on a beach, bar fights, car chases, explosions, more explosions, sword fights.
Because ninjas look cool and have three main characteristics that common soldiers don't have: they are FAST (the quickness with which their ass gets kicked is just amazing), they are SILENT (maybe they're silent, but that doesn't help them when they wander around in their black suits in broad daylight!) and they are DEADLY (I don't think they managed to kill anyone in the movie let alone even scratching Dudikoff).
Prior to the first AN, American Ninja 2, provide lots of action and suspense just like the first one.
Both Armstrong and Jackson(Michael Dudikoff and Steve James) were always on top of things.
This movie is just as good as first, however it does have more action though, which I like the best.
Like the first movie, James steals the show from Dudikoff, both in his martial arts skills and with a bouncy performance that makes him a treat to watch.
He's still very unemotional, has almost no dialogue, and it's still clear he knows little to nothing about martial arts, seeing how he does pretty simple moves (when not being doubled.)Despite the movie being weighed down by Dudikoff's presence, it's still a fun movie, certainly better than the first movie.
You get some classic one liners out of Steve James (who is the real star of this movie), The Dude (Mikael Dudikoff) kicking people half way across the screen.
What makes this movie is the bar room scene nearing the end of the film, this is where James shines he combines a bad-a$$ fighting technique and great one liners at the same time.
to me,this sequel had a more developed plot line than the first movie.it a fairly preposterous one,but it is semblance of a story nonetheless.and besides,reality doesn't necessarily factor into these movies in a big way,so that's not surprising.there are many more fight sequences in this one as well.and to me,the fight scenes seemed better executed,much more exciting.the acting is no better or worse than in the first one.i actually think as a whole the movie is slightly better due to the improved fight sequences.again you just have to remember that it's not high art you're in for when you sit down to view this film,or it's prequel/sequels.it basically a disposable(but enjoyable)ninety +/-minutes.for me,American Ninja 2: The Confrontation is an 8/10.
This violent art-martial film is the second entry about our heroes, the Rangers duo, Sergeant Armstrong(Michel Dudikoff)along with his proficient sidekick, Sergeant Jackson(Steve James) who are assigned a difficult mission at Caribbean Island( at the original film was Philipines).
The movie is co-starred by Steve James(1952-1993), a corpulent fighter, he usually acted partner to tough stars, Michael Dudikoff(three times), Chuck Norris and David Carradine, but sadly he early deceased.Besides appear a flashbacks scenes with John Fujioka, the coach who trained Dudikoff on the art-martial world.
Dudikoff and Steve James return as karate-kicking Army soldiers, this time investigating a mysterious Caribbean island where soldiers have been disappearing.
The bad guy there is creating genetically-enhanced super Ninjas or something like that, using the work of a kidnapped doctor, who's daughter informs Dudikoff about his abduction and imprisonment on the island.
There's a wild truck chase and a fun bar fight, and an all-out action-packed climax on the island between an army of Ninja and the Army.
American Ninja 2: The Confrontation was a fairly good B film.
He was also a Martial arts coordinator in the first four "American ninja" films.
It's a good job, then, that new recruits to the island are Joe Armstrong (Dudikoff) and Curtis Jackson (James), hard-hitting army boys with PhDs in Macho and becoming slightly used to this kind of thing by now.
The whole affair's a charade, comic-book action at its relentless best that seems to retain a certain charm and good nature despite its B-movie faults - and the returning duo do well; Dudikoff playing it straight and stern while James supplies crucial comic relief..
The American Ninja films are notorious for movie mistakes, but this one takes the cake.
No matter how dumb the director may be, Michael Dudikoff and Steve James still kick ass and that's what the first two movies are all about.
American Ninja 2, or Episode II as I like to call it, is about Joe Armstrong's encounter with genetically enhanced clones.
Dudikoff isn't in the third film so you can skip it; after all, he IS the American Ninja..
I have never laughed so hard than when watching the hilarious fight scenes (which I'm sure they must have slowed the cameras down for), and the brilliantly bad plot (given to us after a thrilling high speed chase and fight, with our hero (played with no great sense of irony by Michael Dudikoff)and his lady taking a break to watch the sun set and fill us in on the background details.This is a must-see bad film classic.
There was once a day when non-ironic movies about a ninja battling an army of genetically altered, cyberneticly enhanced super ninja's, who were really brain washed marines controlled by an evil drug king pin could still get into theater.
The American Ninja and his commando friend Curtis "The Power House" Jackson show up on an island where marines are disappearing.
The American Ninja series is famous (wait don't laugh let me finish the sentence) for employing sword slashing that is so fake looking it seems realistic...
It is a real shame Steve James (Curt) passed away because the American Ninja series really suffered after he left.
While the 1st was made in the Philippines, this time the 2nd is made in South Africa and even though MGM took custody later, the movie was made with local budget and local actors with exceptional with Michael Dudikoff and Steve James.Joe and his friend Curtis leave the army to help out an investigation for the marine core in a tropical island.
Later in the investigation Joe learn that the ninjas are back and they are involved with the 4 men's disappearance.Even though the acting has disproved compared with the first movie, it's still enjoyable, it's one of those that is bad that it's excellent.
The second installment of the "American Ninja" series isn't very good, but is made watchable thanks tho Steve James.
Besides from his awesome hair, he spouts out one-liners and is the person in the film who can do that thing where lots of people jumps on him and he can throw them all off at once and get them to sound like someone has just got a strike bowling.
The premise is pure comic book and this may be a Cannon movie, but the production values seem pretty good and I think non-martial artist Dudikoff's fighting is a bit better than it was in the jokey original.This isn't actually a bad effort for a film of this genre.
Michael Dudikoff and Steve James are back as Army Ranger buddies sent to an island where some Marines have disappeared.
Overall, most of the secondary fight scenes are much better done than in the first movie.What I Didn't Like
Amiable sequel to the popular Cannon Group martial arts potboiler reunites Michael Dudikoff and Steve James as Army Rangers Armstrong and Jackson.
As great drama or even great action films the American Ninja series will never be up there with Rambo or Dirty Harry.
Just don't take this seriously folks.The second of the American Ninja series has Dudikoff and Steve James sent as army rangers on a case to discover why some Marines are disappearing on a Caribbean tropic island country where these Marines are most informal.
And if you didn't like part one, then you will not like part two either.Again, you got all the campy ingredients; cheesy storyline, generic characters, stereotypical villain, worthless henchmen, wonderful dialogue (you see the irony here, right?), action, martial arts, explosions and, of course, ninjas!
Didn't he himself request the help?Story-wise, well with little deviation from part one, it is about American ninja Joe Armstrong who is on a Caribbean island to solve the mysterious disappearances of US marine personnel, when he is confronted by a ninja syndicate.While not a masterpiece, "American Ninja 2: The Confrontation" is as enjoyable as the previous movie.
More Dumb Fun. Sequel to the "classic" American Ninja sees Michael Dudikoff and Steve James tackling a villain named The Lion.
This to me is the best out of American Ninja series movies.
This really added to its atmosphere.Michael Dudikoff and Steven Jones looked great in the Marine's uniform, and the cast of girls they collected (even as extras) were notches above the other movies from this series.If there's one American Ninja series movie to watch, this one is highly recommended..
After watching the first American Ninja, I had high hopes for the second one and in the end, I got exactly what I wanted from this film.
It had everything (well almost everything) that I expected, more ninjas, more action, more silliness and more Michael Dudikoff kicking some ninja butt compared to the first oneMichael is as cool as ever, had more lines in this movie compared to the first one (although still not that much) and as usual likes to let his hands do the talking most of the time for him.
I thought that he would have been given a more challenging situation in this film seeing that the organization that he fighting up against are producing super ninja soldiers but once again he made look like he was just going up against a bunch of kindergarden ninjas who weren't even worthy of challenging him at all.
Even the main head ninja in the end was also just out of Dudikoff's league and how he managed to stuff a shotgun under his ninja gear, I have no ideaI didn't really like Steve Jame's character much in this second film since I felt like he was too cocky in when he fights (especially the part where he, Dudikoff and one of their marine friends had that brawl at the bar) but he still does a solid job in this one I still like the part where he finished last ninja just simply shouting 'STAY DOWN' at himHowever, these are just minor complaints that I could come out with since overall, the movie was still mindlessly fun to watch for two hours.
I would recommend this to anyone out there who would love to get spend two or three hours of their time watching some mindless but yet still fun ninja buttkicking action film.
1.)A solid action movie about an American fighting ninjas or 2.)You're gonna laugh till you hurt.
Seems the drug-lord is looking to build a super ninja army and are kidnapping marines to do it.
"American Ninja 2" continues exactly in the same way the first movie ended.
It's the same thing all over again: Cheesy story, tons of ninjas, fighting scenes and standard mediocre b-action movie acting.
The bar-fight and the last scene are especially great, he shows that he is THE KING himself in this movie-series.
Michael Dudikoff and Steve James return as Joe Armstrong and Curtis Jackson two martial arts experts who hunt a drug lord who is geneticly altering soldiers in this slightly improved yet still ultimately mediocre sequel.
Actually i take that back, watch if you love to critize the hell out of this and want a good laugh from a really bad movie..
American Ninja 2 has plenty of action, but still can't match the entertainment of the original.
This is the last pretty good movie in the American Ninja series.
There is as much story in "American ninja 2" as in a porn movie .
The kindest thing that can be said of this movie is that they did not intend for American Ninja 2 to be so homo-erotic.
Clearly the producers were hoping to make a much different sort of action film, and when you watch it you see two visions at war with each other, one force wanting to make a ninja movie and the other force wanting to make gay porn.
Ninja films are probably the lowest kind of subgenre within the genre of martial arts flicks, and AMERICAN NINJA 2: THE CONFRONTATION isit's biggest example.
For example, He would say the line "I want to kill you!" the same way he would say, "I love you" or "The president has been kidnapped." And also his giant package that my girlfriend noticed last viewing of the movie which is ridiculous and pertruding.Now for individual scenes; When Dudikoff and James are meeting with Wild Bill for the first time, look at Dudikoff at the end of the scene and you will see that it isn't dudikoff at all but a stunt double.
The time flies by as you watch American Ninja 2 because it satisfies all your action needs!.
It's easy to see why people have such fond memories of the American Ninja series after watching this enjoyable movie.Sgt. Joe Armstrong (The Dude) and Sgt. Curtis Jackson (James) return, this time sent to a Caribbean island to find some missing Marines.
This REAL sequel (as opposed to the miserable American Ninja 5, 1993 thankfully Cannon didn't decide to go all "30% new footage" on us) delivers the goods, as it doesn't retread the first film, but still provides all the best elements that fans want to see: cool stunts, well-timed moves, barfights, chases, blow-ups, tasteful humor, and Dudikoff's cool hair.
Now add to that some out-and-out ninja fighting, and the chemistry between Dudikoff and James and you have a winner.
The whole movie has a sense of fun to it, which is refreshing, and due in large part to the underrated Steve James.
It's a fairly common problem, but the sawdust-covered arena where the final battle takes place is an ideal location for the inevitable "Confrontation" we were promised in the movie's subtitle.The time flies by as you watch American Ninja 2 because it satisfies all your action needs.
Two Rangers are called in to replace the marines and find out what is going on, Curtis Jackson (Steve James) and Joe Armstrong (Michael Dudikoff) who contrary to his anme fights with his feet.The movie is 80's corny.
And yet somehow just like the first one it is watchable and fun and has this bizarre likable quality to the stars who try so hard and act so serious in such a cheesy movie.
The plot is even more cheesy and fun than the first film and adds in a "beach" quality to the story as Joe and Curtis are brought to a Caribbean Island where marines are disappearing.
As if we needed more reason to be a cheese-fest, an evil villain is building an army of super-ninjas (who really aren't that super at all and Joe Armstrong still manages to beat up bunches of them.) Its dumb, brainless, takes itself way too seriously and is fun and simple and you'll laugh and cheer despite yourself at the sheer 80's silliness.
It is as bad as the first one which makes this sequel as good as the first one too.Michael Dudikoff returns to do what he does best...or worst.
He probably should have been the star but he definitely gets plenty of screen time and somehow he and Dudikoff work as a team, better than the first film actually.
The film this time gets a definitive evil villain in the form of Gary Conway as "The Lion." He is appropriate bad and Bond-villain like and ridiculous all at once.
Joe Armstrong (the likable Michael Dudikoff) and Curtis Jackson (the equally engaging Steve James) battle a legion of genetically engineered ninja assassins on a Caribbean island.
Dudikoff and James become involved with some problems when a few marines in Bermuda shorts get kidnapped by......ninjas.Someones dad has been kidnapped too, because the bad guy in the white suit wants to create the perfect specimen.
And he must be dangerous, because one of his henchmen has a lazy eye, and kills other ninjas for a laugh.The guy with the lazy eye is the toughest ninja because on the beach, he stands on a rock and makes threatening hand gestures to Dudikoff.The second installment of the series isn't very good, but is made watchable thanks tho Steve James.
Besides from his awesome hair, he spouts out one-liners and is the person in the film who can do that thing where lots of people jumps on him and he can throw them all off at once and get them to sound like someone has just got a strike bowling.Dudikoff doesn't fare as well though.
Michael Dudikoff and Steve James reprise their roles as ninja exterminators in this classic sequel to one of the best black masked franchise's of all times.
It's action like this that makes the series magical, i only wish they could have kept Dudikoff and James in all of them.
plus, when the army storms the HQ at the end of the film, weapons seem to appear from nowhere.I would say "American Ninja 2" is an example of how not to make movies.
The lion's crew had been successful at kidnapping marines for further testing so two Army Rangers, Joe & Curtis(Michael Dudikoff & Steve James)are brought in to find their whereabouts.
If you like corny 80's ninja actioners where bad guys wait to be punched and couldn't hurt Dudikoff if they wanted to, this is right up your alley.
The film provides those who like this sort of thing a small plot, with little acting, and a lot of people getting kicked and thrown in the air.
A lot of the fight sequences are badly choreographed so that Dudikoff could come off unstoppable as ninjas seem to fall right into their demise. |
tt0082206 | Coup de torchon | In a little town in French West Africa in 1938, Lucien Cordier is the only policeman. Unable or unwilling to impose his authority, he is treated with scorn by everybody. His sexy wife Huguette has brought a lover, Nono, to live openly with them, claiming he is her brother. Lucien fancies the mischievous young bride Rose, but lets her brutal husband beat her in the street unchallenged. The head of the timber company, Vanderbrouck, daily insults him for all to see. And the bane of his life is a pair of slimy pimps, who flout the law and enjoy humiliating him.
It is the pimps that take him to the brink, so he gets on a train to consult his superior Chavasson, who tells him to act forcefully. On the train home is the attractive new teacher for his town, Anne, who he warms to immediately. Once back, he catches the two pimps alone and, after shooting both dead, throws the corpses in the river. When Chavasson learns of this, he rushes down to question Lucien, who says it was in effect Chavasson who killed them. Having outwitted his boss and removed his prime tormentors, he starts on the others who have made his life a misery. Vanderbrouck is dropped in a privy and Rose's husband, like the pimps, is shot dead and thrown in the river. When his servant retrieves his master's body and brings it back to the house, Lucien has to kill the man too.
Catching Nono peeping at Anne in her shower, he beats him up in the street. Then he steals the money which his wife had been saving up in order to leave him and goes off to see the newly widowed Rose. His wife and Nono, reckoning that he is going to abscond with Rose and the money, storm round there and in self defence Rose shoots both dead. Lucien gives her the money and tells her to get away fast. All he has left in life is Anne, to whom he confesses his general malaise and specific crimes. She is ready to accept him but he says he is now incapable of love. In the closing shot, he is alone under a tree caressing a revolver. | psychedelic, humor, murder | train | wikipedia | It's surreal, funny, tragic, strange, and somehow all holds together.Noiret is wonderful, and a great foil for Huppert, with his hang-dog looks and understated acting.
Bertrand Tavernier has taken the novel "TOP 1280" by Jim Thompson set in North Carolina and produced a riveting French film noir set in Senegal in 1938.
Tavernier in his comments about the film on the DVD talks about the change in the light in the late afternoon in west Africa.
Isabelle Huppert who plays the mistress of Cordier with intensity and humor and the other actors make this a must see film.
This is French film noir at it's best..
BT is a genius.Every moment is pure gold, every second to be treasured.Like the best detective stories ever written, the puzzle is the least of the viewer's concerns.
Brutal, darkly humorous and brilliantly done film noir.
After reading some of the reviews on here, I felt compelled to write one myself simply because it seems most of the people who reviewed this film did not read the book it was based on (POP 1280 by Jim Thompson).
Some found it astonishing that one would actually seek out this book in the first place (including the director), but I happen to be a Jim Thompson junkie and I would say POP 1280 stands as his best work in the "psycho-lawman" sub-genre that he single-handedly created.
This is one of the best Thompson adaptations and I highly recommend it, especially if you have read the novel.
I saw this as part of a Jim Thompson quest.The film opens with a solar eclipse, a mythic way perhaps of foreshadowing the eclipse of humanity and values that follows.
The West African setting is only proper in that aspect, like the setting of the Jim Thompson book, it's a doomed dusty limbo blotted out of the map where, in the absence of palpable law or ethos, humans are allowed to be the lowest they can be.
Thompson had a dark view of humanity, for his own reasons, and for his protagonists, his crazed sheriffs and murderous sociopaths, he seems to reserve a last word that justifies their existence.It's a really funny film, as a comedy it works marvels, and I like how Tavernier shifts the tone light to dark, goofy to perverse.But what about Codier, the policeman of the small African town at the edge of the desert?
Another reviewer reads in him a deranged figure of destiny that smites down people who deserve it, a vengeful Jesus placed on this earth not to save souls but to release them.
If the film was a thriller it might have not worked, but I saw an absurd comedy foremost, and the laughter of that amoral universe is also echoed in Codier himself.When he goes on on his little soliloquis on existence, Tavernier reaches for a solemn tone that seems strange at first, but at least we can understand that this murderous buffoon is no better than anyone else around him.
As a human being he's pathetic, but as a movie character I find him fascinating to watch.
Looking at the slew of negative comments that this movie has racked up I can't help wondering what drew these people to it in the first place.
What drew ME were the names attached to it, Tavernier, one of THE great contemporary French directors, Phillipe Noiret and Isabelle Huppert, two all-time GREAT French actors.
So I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that all these whingers must have wandered into the movie theater thinking they were going to see Gidget Goes Hawaian or How To Stuff A Wild Bikini in which case it is easy to understand their misgivings.
Lucien is a man of principles, but to say exactly what or why is a mystery.This is what makes Coup de tochon, or Clean Slate, based on the Jim Thompson novel Pop 1280 (mentioned in passing as Pop. 1275 for no good reason at one point in the film), is about this man who is warm, lustful, proud, and perhaps a not entirely bright but not stupid either.
And as played by Philippe Noiret he makes this film compulsively watchable.
He makes Lucien a guy we might like to know or talk to for a little while, until we see the veneer peel away, a fragile man who has been pushed around by his bosses and his wife (Stephan Audran) and in a position with such little power that the only way to bust loose is senseless killing.
As he says, "Would a man with these eyes be a killer?" Tavernier's direction is lax and smooth, jagged with some documentary style and realism (it was shot all on location, and it looks it always), but there's also a distance I felt to many of the scenes, a deliberate attempt to strip down film-noir elements to light absurdism mixed with sardonic tragedy.
There are some great moments, don't get me wrong: the scene with the film screened for the village people at night that gets ruined by a windstorm as the audio keeps playing on with the film cut off and people scrambling for cover; the first killing scene of the pimps where Lucien becomes a larger threat with every passing second leading up to a predictable but still shocking climax; an ending, which I won't mention here.
And yet, I have to give it to Philippe Noiret: in any other film noir he'd be out of place, and yet here, he's perfect..
Bertrand Tavernier once again shows why he's one of his country's most challenging directors with this disturbing dark comedy, loosely adapted from a Jim Thompson novel ('POP 1280') but relocated to French Equatorial Africa just before World War II.
After suffering the indignities of a natural born doormat all his life, he strikes back with a vengeance, slowly descending into a rational madness that commands sympathy while simultaneously provoking moral outrage (at one point he callously murders the innocent native servant who mistakenly witnessed on of his killings).
Tavernier builds the tension from his characters rather than from the plot, using touches of unsettling black humor to further blur the line dividing comedy and tragedy..
It is possible that European viewers are more familiar with the colonial history behind it, though the script is based on an American novel (Pop.1280 by Jim Thompson).
The original story is based in America, but here it is based in a French-African colony in the 1930's.The baseline is a global truth: everybody has his breaking point.
Don't forget to check out the other films by this French director; he often shows he's one of the best!And while you're there: some of the best movies (Tati, Resnais, Truffaut...) ever were made in France; so are some of the worst(DO NOT check out French comedies, they are mostly awful).
When a Man Has to Clean Up. The story is pure trash and that is where the film gets its charm and class from: In a French colony in Africa in 1938, Lucien Cordier (Philippe Noiret) is a policeman in a village which is mostly inhabited by Africans and only a few racist, empty-headed Europeans.
It is actually very witty with many hilarious situations: All the deeply macabre murder scenes and shot downs, a blind man who yells: "Get out of my sight!", or the dodgy relationship between Lucien, his wife, her lover, and Lucien's two mistresses, in addition to the documentary-style steady-cam, makes the whole scenery, admittedly unrealistic and bizarre, but very entertaining and, at the end, a bit thoughtful.
Also, it's always a tremendous delight to watch the grand Philippe Noiret, who sadly passed away not a long time ago..
I've read most of Jim Thompson's novels (The Grifters, The Killer Inside Me), and this story "Pop. 1280" is one of his best.
It would seem a hard novel to adapt to film, but Bertrand Tavernier adapts the story to 1930's Senegal flawlessly, and captures the essence of Jim Thompson's writing better than any other film adaptation I have seen of his books.
Great acting here too; Philippe Noiret, Isabelle Huppert and the rest of the cast are superb and utterly convincing in their roles.
The first part of the film sees Bertrand Tavernier, helped along by Pilippe Noiret's broad acting and more co-operation than was strictly necessary from the rest of the cast and crew, establish again and again and again that Lucien is a doormat.
It's like watching George McFly from "Back to the Future".Then, in the latter and believe it or not better part of the film, Tavernier and Noiret slam on the brakes, skid 180 degrees and show us Lucien going nutzoid, killing off whoever gets or has gotten in his way, safe from suspicion because of his established persona.
The film ends when it ends.I saw a 16mm print which did little for what I suspected was nice, crisp location photography, but it was clear enough Tavernier was trying (with success) to make the remote and somewhat neglected African village look like a bare stage; which, along with the hints of pervasive colonial corruption, was necessary to allow such a piece of conceptual art as "Doormat Goes Nutzoid" to come to life.
This film is an adaptation of an U.S. novel of Jim Tompson.
All his novels are precious like that of Chandler and, almost,of the Great Dashiell HAMMET!The novel is situed in the Kansas, but the film in old french Africa just before the War II.
The characters are so bad as racist without any pity for the black like for each other.To my opinion we must read whole the opus of Jim Tompson and of course Larry Beinheart: "an american hero" or "Wag the dog" with De Niro and Dustin Hoffman .
In Europe the "polard in french" ( novel of investigation) is the best way to know the U.S.A.But it's my opinion, no more!.
Quite a few funny events, but killing several people is not really humorous..
As the film starts, one can quickly make up its mind about whether it's enjoyable to watch or not.
However, just like the description of French comedy, it isn't what it seems.The dark humor, film-noir in a town filled with light, the little rhymes in the dialogues: it's been thought over, earning good ratings from critics.
For some reasons, it felt like watching a play at the theater, as well due to the intense dialogues.However, it fails to capture the attention.
The main character is a corrupt, weak and feckless officer of the law in a small colonial African village.
Burt Reynolds (of all people!) once commented that it was pointless remaking classic films because of the difficulty of improving on them.
Instead Hollywood would be better served by remaking movies that are either good but could be improved or that are unknown or forgotten in the first place.
This French version of a Texas set novel by Jim Thompson(best known for writing the Steve McQueen thriller The Getaway) is a classic example of the second category.
Set in a French African colony (it was filmed in Senegal) in the 1930's, Philipe Noiret in a terrific performance plays a passive police officer who lets everyone push him around until he discovers that a few well placed killings can get him what he wants.
The plot takes a few twists and turns and ends up a satisfying little black comedy/thriller.
I would like to know, honestly, how many people (film lovers, that is), really like the recent remakes of "The Vanishing" or "La Femme Nikita".
But we know no U.S. aging star could act in a Tavernier movie without a fistfight..
written by jim thompson, originally located in Florida, adapted by Tavernier, suspected by american viewers --- does it make sense ?
I know, too many question marks, but there are many excellent movies (films) made out of (below) average novels - "The Informer" or "The Shop on the Main Street" come to mind.
It seems to me that the Hollywood formula for sex and violence has you by the "cojones" and has got to include a lot of music - especially in a "film noir".
As happens on occasion with subtitled foreign films I become confused and perplexed at what appears to be the discrepancy between what the characters are doing and/or involved with and what the subtitles have them saying.
*I was told some time ago that if a foreign film (or an English speaking one) is not wildly popular when first released, but has something appealing that a distributor thinks might make a few bucks then, in some cases, the bottom line rule gets applied and the subtitling job goes out for bids to companies that don't apply standards that are usually applied to movies with more popular pedigree.
It is clear that Lucien Cordier (Philippe Noiret) is very well aware of who and what he is -from the beginning of the film.
The mere fact that he acts in function of his later deeds, makes this film not a "real time" story, but something of a far more mythological nature.
As in many European films, they tell you not just the story, but an Idea behind it.
no, because this is one of the best films ever made, and where you think it should have been set doesn't matter a bit.
and don't be put off by comments of this being about an idiot who finally gets offended and runs amuck, or a serial killer, or that it lacks the suspense a good thriller needs,or that the film is a failed noir; it is a noir that breaks the mold and never tries to insert venetian blinds into colonial Africa.
Lucien (Philippe Noiret) our thickset protagonist is a bit of a beguiling figure.
Something in Lucien finally snaps and he uses his only two advantages to rid the world of his problems; his intelligence and his remote location.Coup de Torchon (1981) takes place "at the edge of civilization" on the outskirts of a French African colony mere months before WWII.
One minute he's shooting a man in the stomach, the next he's genteel with his mistress.At one point Lucien remarks that he is the devil incarnate which while giving him a bit too much credit nevertheless plays into the themes of good and evil in the film.
The story is bookended by a scene where Lucien is acting as a Prometheus-like figure to a group of African children; then by another where he aims his shotgun at one of the same children as a boy stares at him blankly.
I have not read the Thompson novel from which it was drawn, but transplanting a story from the American South to crumbling colonial West Africa alone is inspired.If the film is a comedy, then it did not work me.
That character alone was worth the watch for me, especially a couple of more serious discussions he has.But ultimately what does the film do?
I do know that it makes me want to read the Thompson novel to see what inspired Tavernier to take on this.See what you think, but if you think I'm too harsh on the stupidity of the film, I hope you get the DVD that offers the proposed alternate ending with two monkeys...
Then, sadly, the film seemed to lose its way--mostly because the main character was practically impossible to understand or appreciate.
BUT, as there are so many interesting elements to the film, it's still worth seeing...though it clearly misses the mark.The film follows the actions of an ineffectual policeman in French West Africa just before the Second World War. Lucien (Philippe Noiret) does nothing as sheriff but collect a paycheck and ignore crime.
The murder victims really do 'have it coming' and you want to see Lucien to get away with it.Later, however, the film gets pretty muddled.
First, he ends up killing an innocent guy simply because he knew too much--and it was hard to feel sympathy for Lucien--particularly because before this you did like him a lot because he DID stand up for the black natives--though not obviously so.
Third, I was a psychotherapist and psychology teacher and I STILL had a hard time understanding Lucien--his character, though interesting, made little sense and just confused me.
With a bit of a rewrite, this could have gone from a good and thought-provoking film to a classic.
It begins as a pitch-black comedy, but it stops being funny when Noiret kills a completely innocent person; from that point on, it seems to have nowhere to go but down.
Despite seeing his name mentioned in connection with French cinema for a number of years,I've never had the chance to see a work from auteur Bertrand Tavernier.
Getting set for a poll on the best films of 1981 on ICM,I took a look at French movies from the year,and was thrilled to spot to see Tavernier take on Jim Thompson!,which led to me flying the coup.The plot:1938-A French colony in West Africa.Being one of the few "symbols" of law and order in the colony,police officer Lucien Cordier shows a disregard for the powers which matches the state of his personal life,where his wife Huguette has invited a "fake brother"/lover round to live with them,and Cordier himself tries starting an affair up with Rose Mercaillou.
View on the film:Appearing in Cordier's life like a flower in the desert, Isabelle Huppert gives an impeccable performance as Rose Mercaillou,with Huppert giving Rose pointed petals which get burnt by the simmering Noir frustrations of Cordier.
Stomping round the colony like a crusty warthog, Philippe Noiret gives a magnificent performance as Lucien Cordier.
Wanting to do as little work as possible,Noiret gives Cordier an unsettling casual attitude to fights on the street,and signs of annoyance at even the suggestion of helping out black people in the colony. |
tt5523174 | Pichaikkaran | Arul (Vijay Antony) is a rich businessman based out of Palladam, Tirupur district. His mother Bhuvaneshwari (Dheepa Ramanujam) is the person behind the growth of their textile business following her husband’s early death. Avinashi (Muthuraman) is her brother-in-law who is money minded and has plans to grab Arul’s properties. Arul returns from abroad after graduation and takes charge of all the business responsibilities from his mother. In the meantime, Bhuvaneshwari meets with an accident in the factory and falls into a coma with all the efforts taken by Arul goes in vain to cure her. Finally, Arul meets a Swamiji who suggests that Arul should lead a life of a beggar for 48 days and this would help his mother to recover. He also says that Arul should never reveal this to anyone.
Arul accepts and goes to Chennai to beg without informing any one and only his friend Rajesh (Bagavathi Perumal) knows the truth as he has been asked to look after the business until he comes back. Arul sits along with a few other beggars in front of a temple and starts begging. He meets Magizhini (Satna Titus) and develops affection seeing her good nature. Actually Arul and his mother had initially decided to approach Magizhini for an alliance through a matrimonial site. Magizhini also encounters Arul in a few situations and likes his character not knowing that he is a beggar. Avinashi tries to take over Arul’s businesses as both Arul and his mother are unavailable now. Magizhini finds out that Arul is a beggar and gets angry thinking Arul has cheated her but still could not avoid him as she is impressed more by his good nature. One day Magizhini’s mother sees Arul’s photo in her laptop and says that he is a rich businessman and also she had sent her photos to him through matrimony website a few months back. Magizhini is shocked hearing this and goes to meet Arul where she overhears the conversation between Arul and Rajesh which makes her realise Arul’s life as a beggar is to save his mother and she is impressed a lot seeing his good nature. Magizhini decides not to disturb Arul until his life as a beggar is complete.
Meanwhile, there is a group of doctors who manage a mental health centre but they use the patients admitted in the hospital for medical experiments and Arul gets to know this with the help of a beggar who stays there pretending as a mentally challenged girl. Knowing this, the doctors approach a gang asking them to murder Arul. Arul manages to escape from the gang. On the last day as a beggar, Arul is spotted by Avinashi and he tries to kill him but accidentally, Magizhini gets stabbed on her neck and is admitted to hospital. But Arul is unable to pay the hospital expenses as his last day as a beggar is not yet complete. His beggar friends come up with some money to help Arul. Avinashi is arrested by police.
Arul gets back after 48 days along with Rajesh to visit his mother and comes to know that there is no improvement in her health. Arul holds his mother’s hands and begs to live for long. Suddenly he sees his mother’s hands moving and holding his hand. After six months, his mother is recovered and both Arul and Magizhini get married to each other. A beggar begs to Arul in front of a temple but Arul gets busy with a phone call not noticing the beggar. Arul’s mother gives money to the beggar and informs Arul that life of a beggar is so pathetic and we should never hurt them. She also says that people like us cannot lead a beggar’s lifestyle even a single day. Arul apologises for not noticing the beggar to his mother and the film ends there signalling that Arul’s mother never came to know about her son’s struggle as a beggar to bring her back to normal life. Magizhini feels very proud about her husband Arul. | romantic, sentimental | train | wikipedia | excellent thought,nice movie to watch.
the movie script goes in a smooth manner , another hit to Mr.vijayantony.
The movie portrays the changeover in life of a rich businessman to beggar for the sake of his mother.
used the characters effectively good direction by director a unique title and with unique concept want to see the hero and director combination once again the climax scene realise every beggar(nice hearted) has some feelings and their survival for a living ,(IMPORTANT question:: why one should see this movie?////ANS : portrays the feeling of the son in a natural manner who is ready to give up everything for his mother)overall nice to watch.
Good Movie giving good message.
Good movie to watch.
You will feel love between a mother and son.
Also you will know about poor people life.
You will know about how to treat people.
we should not treat people badly by their appearance or anything.
You will feel like "This life will go away soon" so have to do good things to society.Nice action from Vijay.
Movie means it should create good thoughts to viewers.
I like it very much.
Money won't do anything.
Love does all.I got below messages from this movie: Love all Help all Wait for your turn Hope god who can give goodness.
If you get bad then just accept it I recommend people to watch.
Thanks.
Nice story and wonderfully screen played for a film.
I rarely come across a beautiful story with a good screen play This film has the commercial as well as the emotional element executed very well by the director Along with some great acting by Vijay Antony and others.
Also those humorous rendition in the film were very well defined to express the social cause.
It's emotion packed humorous thriller film over all, you would not leave any single shot out of it.
People should not miss watching such films, these are the film's which Indian cultural audience would expect and I suppose such films would make a healthy environment.
Family audience would love the film and kids as well not sure about the youths..
simply but with best contain.
This movie among one those wonderful movie that i have seen in my life.
i love so much this movie and beggar life of actor is so thrilling,entertaining and thoughtful..
Nice movie with quite different love story.
In this movie each an every person playing role in way that conclude the heart touching movie..
Pichaikkaran (2016).
It has a good story.
Vijay Antony mass in acting.
The sentiment scenes are very touching.
The songs were very good..
good movie.
good movie.
No words actually the concept was New and Vijay Antony's performance was remarkable!The scenes going through the Movie are basically in relation that how Our Indian people respect their values.
one of the best heart touching piece is where Vijay gets the alms of his girlfriend.
Really tears were down the line in this scene.
Hats off to Vijay sir for opting this sort of stories & shashi sir who were part, sorry the main- who directed the movie so beautifully.
really Amazing one from shashi sir.Hope more & more movies of this sort come up & entertain all of the people out there.wish the Team crew of'Bichagadu' a very good future & success..
deep truth !!.
Nice..Its not just a movie but the present condition of India..
Humans give more respect for money.on watching , understand something that they don't give respect for them but the money they have ..
Yes its so hard to beg ..
the reason for 8/10 is because of imaging begging as something right ..
And also you people will notice a accident involving a man with Audi car scolding a pizza delivery girl for damaging his car ..
Its not just act but the truth behind more then 70 % of rich people in India ..As it goes like that they will teach their son/daughter how to be rich in look(indicating money) and speech(indicating money) so they grow with out knowing ,how to behave and the value of life ..soon corruption take control of their brain ..In ultimate these are the reasons why there's more black money... |
tt0116289 | Feeling Minnesota | Freddie (Cameron Diaz) is a former stripper marrying Sam (Vincent D'Onofrio) to repay a debt owed to nightclub owner Red (Delroy Lindo). When Freddie meets Jjaks (Keanu Reeves), Sam's brother, they instantly fall in love. Jjaks and Freddie decide to run off together, eventually staying in a motel. After realizing that they don't have any money, Freddie and Jjaks decide to go back and steal some of Sam's money. Sam catches Jjaks in the act and they have a fight. After escaping, Jjaks returns to the motel, unaware that Sam has been following him. After Jjaks passes out due to the fight, Sam ends up shooting Freddie in the stomach in Jjak's car, and tries to frame the killing on Jjaks by returning Freddie's body to the motel room along with the murder weapon.
The next morning, Jjaks awakens having no memory of anything that happened after his fight with Sam. Seeing Freddie's body in the room along with the gun, he briefly thinks that maybe he killed Freddie. After being tipped off by Sam, the police arrive but Jjaks hastily avoids being caught. He drives Freddie's body to a remote area in the woods and proceeds to lay her to rest. All the while, Sam has been watching these events from afar, hoping to see his brother arrested.
Sam now calls a friend, Detective Ben Costikyan (Dan Aykroyd), who promptly arrests Jjaks. The three of them, along with Ben's partner Lloyd (David Alan Smith), drive to the area where supposedly Freddie's body is. However upon arrival Freddie is nowhere to be found. Angered at Sam for wasting his time, Costikyan, along with Lloyd, drive off, leaving the brothers by the side of the road.
Jjaks and Sam return home. They receive a phone call from the manager of the motel (Michael Rispoli), who, based on seeing Sam carrying Freddie's body INTO the motel room and Jjaks carrying the body OUT OF the motel room, wants $50,000 to keep quiet. Jjaks now realizes that Sam was setting him up. After another fight, they come up with a plan: Jjaks will go to the motel to talk to the manager while Sam will see Red, hoping for a loan.
At this point, Red has learned that Sam's been stealing money from him for the past year. Sam ends up shooting and killing Red after a brief skirmish and collects the $50,000 from a safe. Jjaks meets with the motel manager but sees Freddie's necklace on the floor of the manager's apartment. Confused and angry, Jjaks throws the manager outside and threatens to kill him. Suddenly out of nowhere, an alive Freddie walks towards them, calling out Jjaks' name. She shows Jjaks her bullet wound and tell him that Sam's a bad shot. Also, someone picked her up from the side of the road where he'd left her body.
The next morning Sam calls Jjaks and tells him he got the money. However, after seeing Freddie alive from a nearby diner, he confronts Jjaks and Freddie in the manager's apartment. Sam ends up getting shot when Jjaks and Freddie try to defend themselves. Costikyan enters the hotel room and suffocates Sam by holding his hand against his mouth. It turns out that Freddie had called Costikyan after being rescued and used him to help her get the $50,000. A betrayed and wounded Jjaks is left helpless.
Some time later, Costikyan is arrested in his underwear inside a hotel. Freddie had tipped off the cops and left with the money. Jjaks and Freddie have since had a falling out, however Jjaks remembers Freddie's dream: that she wants to live in Las Vegas and be a dancer. He hitchhikes there and she says, with a smile: "what took you f***ing so long?" They embrace each other. | comedy | train | wikipedia | Most films starring Keanu Reeves or Cameron Diaz are a safe bet for a big Hollywood blockbuster.
Watching this movie on running trait in all the characters stood out, their quirkiness.
I watched this with a couple of friends, they too liked it, but we each noticed and laughed at different things.I also loved the constant twists and turns and changes to the dynamic of the story.
Oddly despite all of these twists and turns I never got lost but was glued to my screen figuring out who's with who and who's looking out for who.The fights between the two brothers, Sam (Vince D'Onofrio) and Jjax(Keanu Reeves) are some of the funniest things i have ever seen on screen.
Reeves put in a good performance as a bumbling crook and D'Onofrio carries himself well as his childish brother.
This is a piece that almost everyone can identify themselves with,in one way or another.Everyone that has been hurt early on in his life,someway.And not given a chance to hit a better road.Keanu portrays a lost young man who has been mistreated in his childhood mostly by his brother,but also by his mother who decided to get rid of him while he was still a kid.Cameron Diaz is a tough girl with no future who gets caught up in trouble which ends up having to marry Keanu's brother,played excellently by Vince D'Onofrio.Whole establishment of the town is rotten.Specially the police officer played by Dan Aykroyd and a stripjoint shark played by Delroy Lindo.Keanu meets Cameron on his brother's wedding and love blossoms.Watching this movie is quite enjoyable and i easily fall for these stories,of paradise lost and love happening on the worst place possible.I dont know why,but i kind of felt like it was me on the screen,or a part of me playing the part of Jjaks.Iam sure many more felt the same.Whats so great with this film is that it makes us feel so many different emotions at the same time,and the moods change incredibly fast.First,everything is dark and then hope starts to come and we feel like Jjaks and Freddie might make it,before our hopes come crashing down again and in the end come true.Its the main accomplishment of this film.Creating so many intense and dramatic situations.Contrasts are strong here.This is one of Reeves' best roles in my opinion.Same goes for Cameron and D'Onofrio.Dont believe the poor reviews of this film.Watch it..
You get the idea the real "bad guy" in the film is the neglectful, dope-smoking mother who allows the older brother to brutalize and bully the younger.
I missed this one when it came out and rented the video because I found the name, Feeling Minnesota, remindful of the Coen Brother's Raising Arizona.
Black comedy it is, I never thought I would enjoy that genre but apparently I do.Its an entertaining movie, I highly suggest it for anyone that enjoys a twisty plot....Wils.
Feeling Minnesota is not really a road movie, but that's still the best categorization I can generate.
Unfortunately the staff of Feeling Minnesota fails utterly in producing this excitement.The initializing presentation of the characters is unsatisfying and confusing; I can, for example, not figure out whether Jjaks (Keanu Reeves) did grow up in the house of his mother and brother or not.
They appear irrational, and no real explanation is given to why they do so.The bottom line is that I leave the movie without any feelings for the characters, except dullness and perhaps a tiny kick of attraction for the cute Cameron Diaz..
It reminded me of the movie "Fargo." There were enough twists and turns mixed in with the goofball depiction of the characters to keep me interested.
As usual, Keanu Reeves does a great job with his character from beginning to end in a spontaneous fashion as the situation is very fluid..
Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo).
Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect.
the main reason i had the impetus to write about this film was that it was likely the only (or one of the only) keanu reeves films in which he actually performs well and gives an engaging and three dimensional character with EMOTIONS ...
During a lifetime of seeing and enjoying thousands of films, Feeling Minnesota is absolutely the worst (**major film with A-list stars) that I have ever seen.
Steven Baigelman wrote and directed this uncertain comedy-drama concerning estranged brothers (Keanu Reeves and Vincent D'Onofrio) battling over embezzled cash as well as the affections of a pretty blonde (Cameron Diaz).
The gritty ambiance inherent in Walt Lloyd's incredibly vivid cinematography is the most memorable aspect of the picture; capturing a blue-collar realism with such clarity, however, tends to emphasize the unreality of these dunderhead characters, and the movie's look and its story fail to cohere.
I felt like watching the trailer for a new release.The acting was good, especially the lead characters: Cameron Diaz and Keanu Reeves.
I also liked the location where most of the film was shot: St-Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota.In all, not a great movie but still enjoyable to watch.Out of 100, I gave it 74.
done poorly.There is no real mystery to the plot.Diaz's performance is totally uninspired.The quirky characters don't really work.There are a lot of "duh" moments.I love black comedy, but this film isn't funny.In my view, it wasn't worth the electricity.There are many films in this genre which are much more entertaining.I hope you find this review helpful..
You know, the Hollywood movie that tries to be an Independent film in the way that it tries to be like real life, but it ends in a way that is so obviously Hollywood?
I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes to mix things up a bit, or is just tired of the same old movie plots - and especially anyone who would love to see Keanu and Cameron together!
the movie is a surprising acting performance from Keanu and Cameron, refreshing to see Keanu play something else besides some moron-like action figure.
The actors are the integral component in this movie; each and every one of them is so totally believable that I am still disgusted when I think of the film.
If you like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz, Dan Ackroyd and Vincent D'onofrio.
What are big leaguers like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Dan Aykroyd wasting their time being in such rubbish?.
Petty criminal Reeves turns up to his brothers (Vincent D'Onofrio) wedding and ends up leaving with the bride.
Reeves is wooden in the lead and casting Dan Aykroyd as a cop is so dreadful it has to be seen to be believed!.
With the possible exception of the minister who performs the wedding, every character in "Feeling Minnesota" is seriously flawed and not quite able to have a normal take on life.
Keaunu Reeves, Vincent D'Onofrio, Dan Ackroyd, Cameron Diaz, Delroy Lindo, and even Tuesday Weld as the mother who dies during the wedding reception all play their roles to the hilt to create this hodge-hodge of ultimately quirky characters.
How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity.
The tension between the brothers is nothing more than rough housing and the film's tone changes so much it is dizzying.This mess is a movie that does not entertain or even pass as anything but an unrelenting bore.
The performances are good for the most part, but it is really difficult to like a movie when every single character in it is so damned unlikable.
I watched it once, and then rented it again to watch it again (perhaps thinking it would grow on me the second time) but I turned it off round about the "motel blow job" scene when I really got very bored with the whole thing.
(and is it just me or does Keanu Reeves wear that same damn suede jacket in EVERY movie he is in?
Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz, who I usually like, are bad in this film and have zero chemistry.
The story isn't bad, but the film is so poorly acted and directed that it's hard to like and tough to sit through (I couldn't stay up through most of it).
There's not a whole lot to say about this silly, violent flick, so I won't.However, it is worth pointing out a few things:#1) This was one of Keanu Reeves' worst films.
She's cute and grungy, but won't show her energy until "My Best Friend's Wedding".#3) Tuesday Weld, an actress that I haven't really seen a whole lot in films appears as Keanu Reeves' mother.
It was the first time i saw Keanu Reeves, and i fell in love instantly.
My mom freaked when she found out I watched that kind of movie, saying I was like 9, and she didn't know that I knew what sex was.
Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz, Vincent D'Onofrio and even Dan Aykroyd as the annoying cop are all seriously flawed and unlikable.What a disappointment..
Now very much like 'The Lake House,' this film has Keanu Reeves, and he's acting in the film.
Bottom line, this is a very funny, silly, slapstick, goofy film - but very adult, with twists and turns as the largely amoral characters grapple and use each other to get what they want.
None of the characters are particularly likable, Jjaks (Reeves) seems the most put upon but he's in and out of prison and Freddie (Diaz) is a good time girl who messed with the wrong people and is just doing what she has to do to get by.
It's also a sort of romantic love story although despite Reeves acting superbly and being rather cute, the chemistry between him and Diaz is lacking something.
Diaz, I don't feel is acting her best and often is a somewhat monotone, as if reading lines, but they are enjoyable to watch and whilst I think she's the weakest performance she has the most difficult and emotionally exposing role and in that case I think she does well.
Reeves is animated and light - like Diaz, I think he suits comedy and there are plenty of funny scenes (albeit black comedy as often as not) to enjoy.
Diaz is both charming and annoying - her character is understandable and relatable (possibly due to her performance making it so) but also largely without scruples and single mindedness: her dream of working in Vegas - and I like that whilst it ends satisfactorily, it's not particularly Hollywood in it's ending and it's predictable but pleasantly so.
Keanu Reeves and Vince D'Onofrio play two feuding brothers who want the same women.
The women, played very sexily by Cameron Diaz, likes Reeves but is married to D'Onofrio and has eyes on his money.Some people get murdered but the show is really more of a comedy.
The three leads do a great job as do the supporting actors like Dan Aykroyd and the always watchable Delroy Lindo.
They then proceed to get the hell out of no-wheres-ville, which strings a interesting and chaotic chain of events together.There's some neat twists, a few edge-of-your-seat moments, nice story, good and funny (in a black comedy style) script, but what impressed me the most was that, this has to be Keanu Reeve's only convincing role in his lucky-as-hell career.The whole cast performed way beyond my expectations, maybe this is the result of such a low budget and thus, without special effects and fancy dress, the likes of Cameron Diaz, Vincent D'Onofrio, Tuesday Weld, Dan Aykroyd and Delroy Lindo are truly forced to 'act'!
It hasn't even been two years since I first saw this film, and yet, I can barely remember a thing about this movie.
After watching this film, you will come to the unshakeable conclusion that Minnesota feels like a giant mosquito bite..
It is badly done with poor dialogues, Reeves played as bad as ever and Cameron Diaz competed with him.
And after I watched, it still seemed 'ok.'Feeling Minnesota is about a former stripper, Freddy (Diaz) who owes a debt to a nightclub owner (Lindo).
Great chemistry between the actors, cinematography (it's always cloudy and gives it a nice depressing feel to the movie) and a decent ending add up to make this an enjoyable viewing experience.P.S. I loved the opening credits.
See it because of Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz..
And if it didn't have Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz, I wouldn't have watched the whole thing.Reeves plays Jjaks, a man who lives his life on the road, because his mother threw him out when he was only 8.
They run off together and things turn into a disaster.If you enjoy movies with 2 men fighting over the same woman, then I would recommend Feeling Minnesota to you..
This is a great little dark/Comedy/Romance film, that's quite entertaining and funny, with a good story and excellent performances!.
This is a great little dark/Comedy/Romance film, that's quite entertaining and funny, with a good story and excellent performances!.
All the characters are great, and it has some very good dramatic moments as well ( a lot of them actually), plus Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz are simply amazing in this!.
OK yes the finale was a bit predictable, however that didn't ruin it for me at all, and I thought Reeves and Diaz had excellent chemistry together, plus it has a few very good plot twists as well, even if I did see one of them coming and that was the big one!.
It's pretty well made and written, and I thought Vincent D'Onofrio was brilliant in his role, as the brother of Jjaks, plus I really liked the ending as well.
This is a great little dark/Comedy romance film, that's quite entertaining and funny, with a good story and excellent performances, I highly recommend this one!.
Keanu Reeves is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, had excellent chemistry with Diaz, had some powerful scenes with D'Onofrio, had plenty of charisma as always, and I consider this to be one of his best performances!
Cameron Diaz is incredibly gorgeous and is amazing here, she is very likable, had an unpredictable character, was vulnerable, had excellent chemistry with Reeves, and I felt sorry for her in a lot of scenes(Diaz Rules!!!!!!!).
Vincent D'Onofrio is brilliant here as the brother of Reeves, he really was a sorry excuse for a human being, but he played it so brilliantly that I couldn't help but like him, he is one of the main reasons I enjoyed this film so much.
Feeling Minnesota is an entertaining movie, and though it may require some rewatching to be sure, it's probably now one of my favorites.
From the beginning it reminded me quite a bit of a certain Coen brothers film with a similar title, only it is much more violent and a little darker.For those of you who haven't seen it, and to sum it up without spoilers, it's basically a movie about two brothers- Keanu Reeves, the petty crook who has a habit of holding up convenience stores (again, remind you of anything?), and D'Onofrio, his jerky brother.
There are a bunch of scenes where he and Reeves are stumbling around or beating each other up and the nearly slapstick physical comedy was great.D'Onofrio and Aykroyd especially are great as the whiny, violent brother with a bizarre taste in clothes and the crooked cop with the hots for Diaz.
Reeves wasn't the best choice, though he's passable (especially in scenes involving sibling rivalry), but the rest of the cast wasn't exactly delightful.The sex scenes between Reeves and Diaz (again, not exactly my two favorite performers) were pretty awful, there were parts of the ending that I didn't like, and I wish the film had omitted some of the more annoying romantic elements in general, but I really enjoyed it overall.It's certainly something I'd recommend, though it's a little odd and very dark (pretty much all of the characters are simultaneously likable and disgusting), so it may not be for everyone.
Cameron Diaz, Keanu Reeves, and Dan Akroyed.
Instead, it just kept getting worse and worse.When I see a movie that is as bad as this one I always try to find at least one good thing to say about it.
Well, here's an example: Towards the end Dan Akroyd smothers and kills Vincent D'Onofrio while Reeves and Diaz watch!
Feeling Minnesota (1996): Dir: Steve Baigelman / Cast: Keanu Reeves, Vincent D'Onofrio, Cameron Diaz, Delroy Lindo, Dan Aykroyd: Bizarre and twisted tale about places that hail dreaded memories and pain.
Keanu Reeves and Vincent D'Onofrio play two feuding brothers.
Cameron Diaz is sold as a wedding gift to D'Onofrio by his boss, played by Delroy Lindo, as punishment.
Watching this movie was like watching "Dumb & Dumber" except the characters aren't as dumb nor as funny.
But the humor isn't all that well grafted and is nowhere near as good as the Coen brothers films.
Keanu Reeves who plays the slight good brother between the two brothers is right for this role and although his acting needed some work.
Very poor film dealing with quite a dysfunctional family to put it mildly.This must have been one of Cameron Diaz's first films and she set the standard for her career: A real cute young lady with absolutely no acting talent whatsoever.In this sub-standard film, two brothers vie for attention and one, Vincent D'Onofrio actually marries her. |
tt1673734 | Jamesy Boy | James Burns (Spencer Lofranco) is in prison for selling guns, drug possession and illegal possession of a firearm. Some years earlier, his mother Tracy (Mary-Louise Parker) attempts to enroll him in school, but is turned away due to his past in juvenile detention. One night, James meets Crystal (Rosa Salazar) and Drew (Keon Clayton) after they steal from a convenience store, and befriends them. Crystal tells James about Roc (Michael Trotter), a guy they do illegal odd jobs for and offers him a chance to get in on it. James' mother finds out and reminds him that they are close to his legal appeal, but he defies his incarceration by cutting off his ankle bracelet.
James goes to Roc's house asking how he can make money. Roc propositions James to be his getaway driver, then offers a chance to work for him full-time. Later, James and Crystal are horsing around in a convenience store; when James tries to buy cigarettes and liquor, the cashier, Sarah (Taissa Farmiga), tells him to take it as she does not want trouble. Drew and James go to a strip club and Drew points out a man who owes Roc money. Bursting into the man's office, James pulls a gun on him but his thugs break in and beat him up. In the parking lot, James busts the windows out of the man's car and finds a bag of guns. Afterward, James runs into Roc, who orders him to fix the situation.
Meanwhile, James befriends Sarah and begins a relationship with her. He then tries to leave Roc's crew, but Roc tells James that there is a deal going down that night and guilt trips him into going. James and Drew show up to sell the guns he stole, but the police arrive. James escapes to Sarah's house and tells her to pack so they can leave town together. She refuses, leaving him to face his crimes.
In the present day, James makes an enemy in Guillermo (Taboo), who picks on a new inmate, Chris Cesario (Ben Rosenfield). Later, Guillermo's gang attempts to stab James in the shower; during the fight, Chris is mortally wounded instead. James has nightmares from the incident, and takes up poetry in order to block out prison. Worried about Chris, James goes to Lt. Falton (James Woods) to request that Chris be taken out of the yard until his hearing, but Falton refuses. The next day, Guillermo tries to start a fight, but James refuses to join in. Weeks later, Chris hangs himself in the hallway after getting another six years on his sentence. Out of anger, James beats up Guillermo. Later, James starts a fight in the yard, but fellow inmate Conrad (Ving Rhames) breaks it up by telling James that he needs to keep to himself because of his upcoming hearing.
At his hearing, James admits regret over Chris' death and his past decisions; he is subsequently released from prison and gets a job as a janitor. One night, an old acquaintance comes by and offers him some work, but he turns it down. Arriving at Sarah's convenience store, he finds it boarded up. He goes to Sarah's house, but her father says she has moved out. He finds her at a new house that she shares with her fiancé. The two talk about their lives, and James says he may move to New York City. At Sarah's request, he recites some of his poetry for her. | violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | This isn't a perfect movie but I do recommend this & was surprised by how good it was.
I think I let them down by convincing myself I never had a choice to begin with." James (Lofranco) has been in and out of correction facilities his entire life since he was 8.
While not nearly as powerful the movie did remind me a little of American History X in the the way that a person can live his life one way without apologizing but when removed from that life he realizes the error in his ways and tries everything he can to change.
There are some pretty big names in this movie but the kid that plays James is a perfect choice and really carries as well as outshines everyone else.
While this is in no way a perfect movie I do recommend this and was surprised by how good it was.
Any film starring or co-starring James Woods deserves some attention.Cast and crew all do their part to make this a really well told story and of cause it is going through some formula depiction of crime does not pay.But I was well entertained through the entire length of the film.For a movie with this plot everything when right and for a defined budget you get exactly what the media can materialize.Well done and good job.
Jamesy boy does a great job at the parrell story , but at the end of the movie you kind of knew what he was going to do.
The characters interacting made the movie better and better as the story goes on.
Also Taissa Farmiga who he meets and starts to like throughout the movie.
I like how James finally decides to eventually find work and save money and not try to take the easy way and try to move to NY and pursue a better life for himself..
It's more of a modern day teenage gangster movie which depicts the reality of a 14 year old violent, drug dealing, stick up kid, hard ass who weaves his way in and out of jail.
I rated this movie 8 stars due to the fact that I had expected very little from this film, and yet it delivered a true, gritty, grimy, feel of the life of a teenage gangster.
Based on ex-convict James Burns's early life, 'Jamesy Boy' makes an earnest attempt to portray a true-story, with honesty.
'Jamesy Boy' Synopsis: A young gang member turns his life around in prison, thanks to the friendship he forms with a convicted murderer who becomes his mentor.'Jamesy Boy' aces in one department & that being its performances.
James Woods is unbelievably powerful in his portrayal of a warden, who knows the difference between a true criminal & a man thrown into crime.
He delivers a worthy performance as James Burns/Jamesy Boy. Trevor White's Writing could've been tighter for sure, but he still manages to tell a story that has merit.
But what I was left with was just a horrid film with terrible performances and a laughable plot line that we've seen done a thousand times over and done way better in films like Midnight Express and American History X.
The supporting actors make Lofranco look like a fish out of water as he tries to navigate the film and keep his head above float when acting with veteran actors such as James Woods and Ving Rhames.
The story of the little prison boy going straight wears out its welcome after the first five minutes as it dabs into every cliché in the metaphoric book, from befriending the friendly rapist killer in Ving Rhames to going head to head with the "evil" warden in James Woods.
I didn't know whether this film was a satire on prison movie clichés or the script was really just that bad.
Overall, Jamesy Boy is one bad film from top to bottom and the only reason why this film is remotely watchable is because of Taissa Farmiga...and even she can't save this film from itself..
Jamesy Boy was one of the best action movies I've ever seen.
On the other side of that, there are other stories, which just aren't that unique or interesting, and in my opinion really don't warrant a full length feature film, Jamesy Boy is an example of this.
Once there, James witnesses a crime, and meets a man who helps him unlock a talent he never knew he had, but will James turn to the straight and narrow or will his friends pull him back into his old life?
This is a true story and newcomer Spencer Lofranco was fantastic, but haven't we seen stories like this done over and over again?
I wanted to see how his life turned out, but either way, we've seen films like this many times before and Jamesy Boy doesn't stand out in any type of significant way.
If you want to do a film that has been done over and over again, true story or not, there has to be something about it that makes it stand out from the pack, and that doesn't happen here.
This movie might not be for everyone, when I read some of the reviews I can understand your point of view when remembering it in hindsight but I must tell you I was unable to notice any of the small mistakes while I was watching.Maybe because I've been in the same situation at the same age, made all the same mistakes with the feeling of it being right at the time, like you had no other choice.If you lived the life of a child believing it was full-grown surrounded by vicious criminals whose "standards and morals" you thought was real and you believed it like this kid did and had to go trough it the hard way to finally realize, or if you can relate to that, then this movie might be for you.Not because it will make you feel good or not because it is portrayed in a way that makes "thug life" seem cool like these movies I grew up with and became classics.In a way that made me feel as the main character went through life making decisions, I could understand and relate to his choices, it wasn't always spelled out why he took upon himself to do some of the things he did.His standards and morals, he stood up for them even though it is a rare thing in that world, a very rare thing I must say knowing what I speak of.
And when he was old enough to realize that he had to pay the price knowing he was trying to hold up this "standard and moral" that does not even exist in that world and the one who payed the price was him.I liked this film and the main character, it made me feel through the whole movie as the decisions was made and I reminisced on my own life from an adults point of view gone through hell and back.Best luck to you James, best luck..
An urban tell of a kid who took the wrong path for a long time, then decides to get his life together..
The first being the story will likely be long so the writers can embellish where they need to, and the second guarantee is that for every interesting moment in the film, you are guaranteed at least 10-20 minutes of boredom.
Jamesy Boy is no different, but unfortunately while other films make up for those 10-20 minutes by using jokes or drama, Jamesy Boy just gives same old same, same old.Characters & StoryThe focus of the film is James (played by Spencer Lofranco) who is a troubled kid.
However, a mother's love sometimes isn't enough, so James goes out into the world and ends up finding Roc (played by Michael Trotter).This leads to James being Roc's errand boy and him hanging with this girl name Crystal (played by Rosa Salazar) who is somewhat the village bicycle, but James' main squeeze.
But, as time goes on, and James realizes he can't keep up with the gangster life, he tries to trade in Crystal for Sarah (played by Taissa Farmiga) and maybe try to live a normal life.
However, with one last deal asked by Roc, everything goes to hell as Crystal snitches on him and then James ends up in prison.From there, James meets Guillermo (played by Taboo from the Black Eyed Peas) who is in a rival gang; Chris (played by Ben Rosenfield) who is the new kid on the block; and most importantly Conrad (played by Ving Rhames) who seemingly acts as some type of father figure to James.
But, with all that has happened, though we see James get out of prison, and are told before the credits what has happened to the real James, you are left wondering if he will stay on the straight and narrow and prevent himself from being a statistic, or lead the life expected?PraiseWhen it comes to the film, certain scenes and elements are worth praising and act as a silver lining to the overall production.
Also, though not always, Lofranco does well in some scenes and does show why he was casted as the lead in the film.CriticismHowever, most of the film feels like a drain on your time in which you could find something better to do.
And this is not said to take anything away from the real James or those who participated in the movie, but between them jumping from before James was locked up, to him when he was; watching him as an errand boy, which may include guns and drugs, but plays out so familiar that even those moments don't wake you up; and then with most of the performances not drawing you into the story nor characters, I do feel that while the story perhaps would be interesting if told by the source, the movie portrays that story with one too many flaws to really get into it.Overall: Skip ItThough it was good to learn at the end of the movie James is doing well in his life, this to me would have been better as a documentary than as a dramatic film.
One of those life in a bottle, kid goes to jail and learns to be a real man movies.
This is a good movie, most of the time, just not when it really should be.
I Enjoyed the movie as it was presented over all, there is a nice transition of the life in side, and the life outside beginning, and ending in parallel with each other, however the movie's film quality is a lot lower than it should be, it feels like art house film, but with great acting.
Justin Beiber gets involved in a life of crime and goes to juvenile hall which in turn is prison with adults, or something like that.
Ving Rhames tells him the correct pronunciation of Rio De Janero and this inspires Justin to turn his life around.
Gritty yet inspiring, based-upon-truth story of an angry young gangster-criminal who gets paroled, faces the hardships of being a parolee, and manages to stay out despite the temptations of going back to his old "friends" and lifestyle.
Yet, the whole point seems to be that even though his writing is nothing exceptional and he doesn't have any big dreams of "making it" as a poet/author, the very act of writing still gives James a means of expression and purpose that saves him in the end.Probably worth seeing if you generally like crime drama with young gangster characters and prison settings..
Very good movie about a difficult subject, a teen going into a life of crime..
Spencer Lofranco, a good-looking kid bearing an uncanny resemblance to a young Matt Damon, is 14-yr-old James.
Somehow he and James began to interact and it was this spark that enabled James to figure out a few things and make use of his parole after 4 years.This is based on a true story, a photo of the real James is shown, at the time 25, had moved to New York and was in the process of getting his life straightened out.
I bet there are more kids like James in this world.
It don't matter about what, it don't even matter if it's good or not.Yet another moralizing "boy-on-bad-path-comes-to-reflection" story.
Despite the fact that this is a story based on true events, it is a film stuffed with cliché elements.
It will be an inspiration for some, but that was the movie "Life of a King" with Cuba Gooding Jr..
Hopefully the air conditioners worked on maximum in the cinema, so that they didn't need to evacuate massively fainted teenage girls.James Burns ( Spencer Lofranco ) is a troubled boy who has spent most of his youth in institutions and already running around with an ankle strap at the age of 14.
Only James feels misunderstood, and he lacks the will to tackle his life in a different way.
Yet James tries to get his life back in order and he meets Sarah (Taissa Farmiga), the daughter of the owner of the local store they have previously robbed.
Eventually it goes wrong anyway and James ends up in jail.
Partly caused by Conrad (Ving Rhames) who's been sentenced to life and tries to convince James not to end up in the same way.Besides the cliché content, also the implausible performance of Lofranco is a setback.
Prison life is of course a battleground with different rival gangs and a rather impressive tough gang leader (Taboo from The Black Eyed Peas) of whom, how is it possible, James isn't impressed.
James played by Spencer Lofranco is a troubled kid in America, who has a single mother Mary played by Mary-Louise Parker, thats about it.
In jail he has about 2 scenes with an old man (Ving Rhames) and James is let out of prison and goes straight.
During the film the do these cut scenes from his prison to his arrest so I'm waiting for this huge turn of events, or something shocking happen, like he kills his mum or his girl.
The bad part is if you read the movie description it says how he is a young boy befriending an older inmate, they hardly have a scene together and when they do its not very good no chemistry or powerful words of wisdom.
Jamesy Boy is one of the best true to life juvenile delinquent/prison films I've seen.
Spencer Lofranco's portrayal for me was like looking back at the guys I hung around.
Everyone in this film brought a realness to their role and didn't just put on a show and that is what makes a really good movie.If you're looking for violence and hard core thugs maybe this isn't for you...but if you have ever had a young loved one do time then find a way to get away from that life style this should be on your must see list.
If you have someone like that around you now this would be good to see together and maybe they'll see there is a way out.
Another excellent movie like this with a little more violence but still a good underlying message is Starred Up with Jack O'Connell who also costars with the star of Jamesy Boy in Unbroken.
Both these actors deliver in their performances in both prison films in different but amazing ways.
If the movie let the environments sink in for longer time, say like twenty five minutes or so before alternating, I think the impact will be far better.
Having Ving Rhames helped a bit in giving depth to this movie..
Its good to see a true life story of a person turning there life around after going through the Correctional System.
Jamesy Boy in my opinion is considered to be a "real movie" involving sex, drugs, and money, it goes to the streets, and shows you what the life of drug dealers is, not only does it show you but this movie isn't biased.
The money, it shows how you can make a lot of movie but also lose it because "dirty money" isn't good money but as they say not all "dirty money" is bad.
He starts a life of crime, gets caught and writes poetry, of which we hear very little.
Yes, licence has been taken when telling a true life story as it should be and
I'm sure that the real "Jamesy Boy"(James Burns, one of the producers), would
This is NOT a true "prison movie" such as the Shawshank Redemption.
and I think it a lot better then some of these films now days I've watched it twice it based on his life it shows what he went through and what choices James burns had to make and what them choices get him through the film is based on the teenagers in the world today that hang in the wrong crowd so stop hate in okay.....
anyways the film amazing I cud watch it like a thousand times it that good it better than green street in ma point of view best film I've ever watched........
the characters play perfect in the scenes and are amazing I love it how James meet the right girl in the end it a love story that don't happen how u would suspect in some films they do now days (girl gets the boy and they live happily ever after etc.
his life in prison explained what he had gone through while he was their though not all of us get it that tough.....he was trying to explain in ma eyes that u do make mistakes and with them mistakes they will have a problem the film is a must see because you would understand it better especially my age.... |
tt0067741 | Shaft | NYPD Detective John Shaft II (Samuel L. Jackson) is called in to investigate the racially motivated murder of Trey Howard (Mekhi Phifer), committed by Walter Wade, Jr. (Christian Bale), the son of a wealthy real estate tycoon. Shaft briefly meets a potential eyewitness to the murder, Diane Palmieri (Toni Collette), but she disappears soon after and cannot be found for the trial. Wade is released on bail and flees to Switzerland.
Two years later, Wade returns and Shaft rearrests him for leaving the country. During his temporary incarceration at police headquarters, Wade meets Peoples Hernandez (Jeffrey Wright), a Dominican drug lord. Wade relinquishes his passport and is released on bail again; in frustration Shaft resigns from the police force, promising to bring Wade to justice on his own terms. Worried that Shaft might find the missing eyewitness, Wade hires Peoples to find and kill her first.
Shaft continues his search for Diane, enlisting the help of his friends Detective Carmen Vasquez (Vanessa L. Williams) and taxi driver Rasaan (Busta Rhymes). While visiting Diane's uncooperative mother, Shaft and Carmen realise they are being followed by officers Jack Roselli (Dan Hedaya) and Jimmy Groves (Ruben Santiago-Hudson), who have been paid by Peoples to follow Shaft and get to Diane. Shaft finally finds her, but before they can talk, they are attacked by Peoples's men. In the shootout, Shaft kills Peoples's younger brother. Shaft, Diane, Rasaan, and Diane's brother manage to escape to Rasaan's apartment, but they are followed by Roselli and Groves. While at the apartment, Diane confesses that she saw the entire murder, and kept silent in return for a payoff from Wade's father.
When Peoples arrives at the location, another shootout takes place. Roselli and Groves, outed as corrupt, are killed by Carmen. In a face-off between Shaft and Peoples, Peoples insinuates that he's been working for Wade, and Shaft kills him. Wade's trial finally arrives. Before it can begin, however, he is gunned down by Trey's mother, Carla Howard (Lynne Thigpen). In the police station, Shaft reiterates to Carmen that he prefers to be a private detective. A woman arrives, asking for Shaft to help her, claiming to have an abusive boyfriend. Shaft is initially reluctant, but when he sees her injury, he decides to help her anyway. Shaft, along with his uncle, John Shaft I (Richard Roundtree) and Rasaan, go together to confront the abusive boyfriend. | grindhouse film, murder, cult, violence, atmospheric, suspenseful, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0073091 | The Happy Hooker | As prostitutes are arrested in New York, a flashback begins to the life of one of them, a Dutch secretary Xaviera Hollander (Redgrave) who moved to New York in hopes of marrying her fiancé Carl (Nicholas Pryor), whom she met whilst visiting her sister in South Africa.
Observing how Carl does not help her take her bags off the airplane and his increasingly long morning routine and primping, Xaviera grows concerned he is not the man she thought he was. Her suspicions are confirmed when his mother insults her over dinner. Xaviera offers him a choice of her or his mother and he picks his mother.
Xaviera finds work at the Dutch Embassy as a translator and secretary. She is asked on a date by Frenchman Yves (Jean-Pierre Aumont) and quickly falls in love with him and his extravagant lifestyle, as Yves has made a small fortune as a consultant for large corporations and even small countries.
Yves announces that he must leave as he has been summoned by the king of a Middle Eastern country. Xaviera breaks down crying. He hands her a large envelope containing cash. Although it makes her feel like a prostitute, she realizes quickly that this may be her calling in life because she loves sex and money. She starts meeting up with Yves' friends.
Xaviera prospers as a prostitute until she is shaken down by a corrupt cop (Richard Lynch) who takes her money and tries to rape her. Instead of paying him off, she goes to work at a local bordello with a madam who offers her a 50/50 split. Xaviera decides that she can do better on her own, so leaves to open her own bordello ten blocks away. After a while, she is the most successful madam in New York City and buys out her former madam's business as well.
All is well until the police officer sees her and instigates a raid, sending her to jail. Xaviera's attorney bails her out of jail and sets her up with a friend of his who is coming in from Montreal. | adult comedy, flashback | train | wikipedia | One of my all-time favorites.
I loved this film from the first time I saw it, on cable, as a kid.
It's the first movie I ever saw that was about sex from beginning to end but could've been rated G, or at least PG.
No one is shown having sex, and it's discussed in such a clinical way it DOES become the "business of pleasure." Of course, a literal film adaptation of the book by Xaviera Hollander would have to be a porn film.
I'm glad this movie isn't like that.
I've never seen anything like it.Lynne Redgrave, newly slim after "Georgy Girl," plays Xaviera, a young woman who has flown to New York to marry a man she met in South Africa.
Once there she meets his bitchy old hag of a mom and the deal falls apart.
She hits the 70's singles bar scene ("I've never been shy and I love sex, so why not?" Well yeah...why not?) and after that gets old meets up with a free-spirited Frenchman who pays her "for the pleasure of her company." At first she's insulted he's treated her like a whore, then she realizes if she's going to be sleeping around so much, why not get some fringe benefits too?
Circumstances lead her to joining the brothel of a wonderfully obscene older madame and then branching out on her own before the movie ends on a surprisingly somber note, at Christmastime.Lynne carries the movie, of course, and one of the main joys is just watching her work.
It's clear she'd only do the film with limitations, as there's no nudity on her part (or much else, really), and only a few "daring" scenes (a spontaneous lesbian act is more like a carefully choreographed "sensual dance" than an act of sex).
It's a "Julie Andrews" version of what it means to be a prostitute, Lynn never gets her hands, or anything else, sullied and I was captivated by that aspect of it all.
Not to mention that her make-up, hair and Anne Roth costumes, and her stature, make her look like a drag queen, even among the other characters of the film.There are so many weird and wonderful joys to the movie though.
A bevy of second-rate/down on their luck stars--how did they get them all for THIS movie??--including Jean-Pierre Aumont, Tom Poston, Elizabeth Wilson, Conrad Janis, Richard Lynch, Anita Morris and a cameo by the wonderful Vincent Shiavelli as a stoned-out john.
This was the first I learned about fetishes, "We have French, Greek, we can take you around the world!", a German dominatrix who "comes in for special assignments" and a pretty young woman who describes being sexually abused as a child...right before the john who has bought her takes her upstairs to re-enact those very "crimes." When the john asks her if it's OK if they can do this, the hooker responds with understanding and enthusiasm, "Of course...!" and later you realize it's just her "routine." In this way, most of the brothel scenes come off like musical numbers, and it's curious, captivating and often slyly funny.All this is done with a happy-go-lucky t.v. sitcom mentality that suits the proceedings well.
With a heavier hand it would be ugly and dreary.
There are plenty of movies out there that discuss how awful prostitution really is and how ugly sex can get, or show endless shots glorifying women's bare breasts (the sequels took this route to dull effect).
Here's a REAL movie about women who have almost complete control over their bodies and minds, and the men who pay them, and all these ladies are unashamed and strong in their convictions that what they are doing is right for them.
The fact that the end isn't exactly a happy one doesn't take away from this, it only reinforces it.
Xaviera tells her lawyer, who'd like her to entertain some of his friends, that when she "finds a bed," to have them call her.
All the women will go on and the cycle will go on--Xaviera points it out when a group of little Italian boys harass them.
"You're all little boys," she says with weary, but compassionate, understanding to the shopkeeper who apologizes on their behalf.She also has the thematic line of the film, "I was able to bring something romantic to it {her "work"} simply because I loved it." There are worse things, and far worse movies.
For it's flaws, which are many (sloppy editing, cheapness, lack of logic and yes, lack of realism) there are great lines ("We got a primadonna up there who thinks her ass is cast in platinum..." "Before I knew it I'd gone from office girl to working girl" "I...I think they're fagz!
Ernie and Bert on Sesame Street!") and it's that rarity of a movie that reads differently if you're an adult than if you're a kid.
I had no idea what it was about as a kid, but I enjoyed it all the same.Oh, and not to forget Anita Morris in the only real nude scenes, being turned into "The Human Ice Cream Sundae" while she cackles hysterically.
Weird and unforgettable, but not for those craving hot sex scenes, or a frank treatment of the world's oldest profession.The fact that it ends with a Christmas party makes it must-see holiday viewing in my house, oddly enough, alongside "Christmas Evil."**update** This was recently released on DVD which is great, but only in an old fashioned matted letterbox version, not a cleaned up anamorphic version for wide screen, which is a bummer!.
And this was R rated because...?.
Purportedly this is supposed to be a film version of Xavier Hollander's X rated book.
What you get is a PG version of it!
Seriously--what were they thinking?
A good strong R rated version of her book could have been made but this one wimps out completely.
There's no sex and no nudity (unless you count a shot of a guys butt as nudity).
It's sanitized to the point where you could have gotten Julie Andrews to do it!
There's talk about sex but it's hardly explicit and certainly not enough to warrant an R rating.
Even worse it's pretty dull.
Hard to believe that a movie about a woman who was a prostitute could be dull--but it is!
Lynn Redgrave gives a very good performance (that's why i give this a 3) but that's not enough to recommend this.
The sequels were much more explicit (and more fun).
Not worth anyone's time..
Strong outfits, weak plot..
Well, there's not much smut to be had here.
Not much humor, really, either.
So what does this film have to recommend it?
Well, Lynn Redgrave wears a series of smashing early-70s outfits--floppy hats, go-go boots, backless evening gowns, big-sleeved minidresses...
and the other hookers have some fresh attire as well (some charming negligees, lavender disco dresses, etc.).
And some of the scenes of her tricks are mildly amusing (although many inadvertently so), particularly the one where she does a reverse striptease while reciting a business report.
Still, it starts off excruciatingly slow and you can see what plot twists there are coming a mile away with bludgeoning sticks in hand.
And the party scenes in the brothel aren't nearly as much fun as you'd expect, considering as the 70s was a golden era for movie party scenes and this is supposedly a whorehouse.
Not worth watching, really, although it is worth flipping back and forth to if there's not much else on..
A very tame adult comedy.
A very tame adult comedy that despite its title and its somewhat of a cult reputation does not contain any sex whatsoever (unless I missed something).
There was an opportunity here to create a seriously dirty film but you get the sense that the makers were to gutless to take the chance.
Instead all you are left with is a mildly amusing comedy where the most explicit image is Lynn Redgrave in her panties.
A disappointment..
Tame and lame "adult" comedy based upon the 70's most famous madam!.
The Happy Hooker (1975) was loosely based upon the best seller about of the era's most popular and successful madam's.
Lynn Redgrave stars as the happy one.
But the film is just bad in all aspects.
It fails at being an "adult" comedy and it fails at being a biography.
I wouldn't even catagorize it in the "trying too hard" section because it didn't even do that.
Boring stuff that deserves to be buried.
May it never see the light of day.
By the way, this movie ruined my tastes for sundaes and banana splits.
Don't watch this one.
The sequels are a lot better than this one.
That's not saying much either because they're both bad.Followed by "Happy Hooker Goes to Washington" and "Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood".
Too tame and way too lame.Not recommended.F. An X rated Life played to Mainstream for R rated Humor.
Lynn Redgrave and the 70's.
This film is quite the cliché.
If anyone wants to look back at the early 70's for research, this is a film to see.Xaviera Hollander was the beginning of the exposure of modern day Madame in a so-called clean American world.
This movie tells of how she got there, what she did once she was there and why.
Whether one agrees with that lifestyle or not, this is quite interesting to say the least.
I would guess that "The Mayflower Madame" Sydney Biddle Barrows and Hedi Fleiss got their ques from Miss Hollander.But what get me about THIS film is that -- it's a pretty much a Hollywood mainstream telling of the tale.
Of course, it would have been obviously for this film to go the X rated 70's route....but it did not.
It tells the tale deftly, but it tells the tale.
This is not a titillating romp as the title suggests and I think a lot of guys renting this film will be very disappointed."The Happy Hooker" plays like a 70's soap opera.
Over dramatized, lotsa 70's funky fashion, make up and hair, stiff acting but acting just enough to maybe keep you interested in the tale.
It is about the "tale" more than anything else in this version.(Some spoilers) Miss Hollander is a woman who falls in love and is invited to America to marry but upon coming here, she learns that he's a momma's boy.
She is then thrust in a country she knows little about, gets into many hateful situations and falls into being a call girl in a house with an understanding, but tired, Madame.
How does she get happy?
well, Xaviera buys out this Madame when an opportunity presents itself and off she goes.While this has all the elements of being a tawdry sex romp with lots of "t" and "a" and sex, it's NOT played that way.
What you do see is the "difference" in the types of Hookers of the 70's..at least, the difference as Miss Hollander sees it: the street hookers versus the house hookers.
You can tell that Miss Hollander felt that house hookers were more elite than street hookers..that was until they met face to face and found out they were all doing the same thing.It is a film of the 70's, and this spawned a few "Happy Hooker" sequels that aren't as good (and that's not saying much) as this one.
But the wonderful Lynn Redgrave does a nice job of playing one of America's best known Madame for a mainstream audience.
If you're a Lynn Redgrave fan, you might enjoy this one.
If you're a fan of the early 70's fashions/attitudes and when New York was crummy, you might like this film.
If you're a pornography fan looking for titillation...this is DEFINATELY not the film for you..
An extremely amiable, but much too toned down diversion.
Brassy, shrewd, and resourceful Dutch lady Xaviera Hollander (a marvelously sexy and vibrant performance by Lynn Redgrave, who looks absolutely ravishing) comes to America and becomes a much sought after call girl.
Pretty soon Xaviera is the highly successful madam of a posh New York City bordello that provides assorted "services" to a diverse array of clients.
Director Nicholas Sgarro and writer William Richert do a good job of maintaining an engagingly breezy'n'easy tone throughout and neatly peg the whole anything-goes swinging 70's zeitgeist, but crucially fail to depict the various kinky sexual fetishes in a more appropriately daring and explicit manner.
There's precious little nudity and the sex is disappointingly mild and inoffensive stuff, but the prevalent good-natured sensibility and several funny moments (for example, Xaviera does a hysterical reverse striptease while reciting a business report for some pervy CEO!) ensure that this picture still passes muster as a perfectly engaging diversion.
Moreover, the cast have a field day with their colorful roles: Redgrave positively glows with her radiant portrayal of the clever and headstrong Xaviera, Jean-Pierre Aumont is likewise a charming treat as suave French high roller Yves St. Jacques, Lovelady Powell does well as classy no-nonsense madam Madelaine, plus there are nifty bits by Nicholas Pryor as Xariera's meek, narcissistic fiancé Carl Gordon, Conrad James as wormy sleazeball Fred, Richard Lynch as a bullying cop, George Dzundza and Kenneth Tiger as a couple of bumbling businessmen, Vincent Schiavelli as a stoned pot-smoking music guru and Anita Morris as the sassy Mary Smith.
Richard C.
Kratina's glossy cinematography gives the movie an attractive polished look.
Don Elliott's lush and funky score hits the right-on groovy spot.
Comes close to scoring a bull's eye, but falls a tad short because of its rather frustrating and unnecessary use of restraint and an overall tastefulness that negates the seamier aspects of the sordid subject matter. |
tt0108810 | Im Namen des Gesetzes | The series is based on the long-running U.S. television series Law & Order and uses a similar narrated intro and scene change titles.
=== Mistakes ===
The police officers and prosecutors act in the same way the detectives and district attorneys in Law & Order do, although they actually interact different in Germany. Especially the procedures in court are completely different as it is mainly the judge who questions the defendants and witnesses.
=== Intro ===
Much like Law & Order, every episode starts with a narrated intro.
Die folgende Geschichte beruht auf Tatsachen. Sie schildert die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Polizei und Staatsanwaltschaft bei der Bekämpfung von Straftaten. Die Staatsanwaltschaft beauftragt die Polizei mit der Aufklärung der Straftaten und klagt die Täter vor Gericht an. Polizei und Staatsanwaltschaft handeln im Namen des Gesetzes.
In English:
The following story is based on actual events. It tells of the co-operation between the criminal police and the prosecutor's office when combating criminality. The prosecutor's office orders the police to solve crimes and charges the offenders in court. Police officers and prosecutors act in the name of the law. | violence | train | wikipedia | In the name of the law. In the name of the law, the work of police and prosecutors is described. Well, a German series. |
tt0061752 | Hasta el viento tiene miedo | The film is about a group of students in an exclusive college for women, led by Claudia (Alicia Bonet) who decide to investigate a local tower that has figured prominently in disturbing and recurring dreams Claudia has been having. The dream also features a hanged woman's body. They are suspended from school for their antics, but Claudia learns from one of the female staff members that the person in the dream is a student who killed herself years before, and that the teacher has seen her ghost.
Andrea, the young woman who committed suicide in the tower, haunts the women's college seeking revenge for her terrible tragedy. When Andrea attended the college she learned that her mother was gravely ill and wished to be excused from school to visit her dying mother. When Bernarda, the principal, forbade her to leave, Andrea became distraught and overcome with grief. In a manic episode she decided to hang herself in the tower after the news of her mother's death.
Andrea now seeks revenge and won't rest until Bernarda pays for what she did to her. One windy night Andrea beckons Claudia to climb the stairs to the tower. Bernarda follows her and attempts to stop her. When Bernarda reaches the top of the stair where Andrea hanged herself, she is met by the ghost. Paralyzed by fear, Bernarda can't defend herself from Andrea and is hanged by the ghost.
Some time after the terrible events of the stormy night, Claudia is set to go home and the new headmistress assures her that all is well in the college; as she walks to the school's main gate, she stares to the tower with fear, but the school's gardener tells her that Andrea rests in peace now and Claudia shouldn't fear her ghost anymore. | paranormal, revenge, suspenseful, murder, haunting | train | wikipedia | Nowadays, I am rather bored with the same movies about spiteful little ghosts of teenage girls or resentful children who want to give someone a message or simply punish their murderers.
Don't get the wrong idea about me, I am not trying to be rude or offensive, but horror movies nowadays tend to be way too similar when it comes to the whole "vindictive ghost" subject matter.
Fortunately, we can always rely on a good horror gem from many years ago and that is the case of "Hasta el viento tiene miedo".
In "Hasta el viento tiene miedo", a group of boarding school girls suffer from the torments of a authoritarian and conniving headmistress called Bernarda, who seems to unload of all her anger on the girls.
In contrast, Lucia, the vice-headmistress, tries to be as easy-going as possible to make up for Bernarda's unkind behavior, earning that way, the girls' friendliness One night, Claudia, a student from the boarding school, suffers from a nightmare, in which she hears a ghostly voice that calls her name from the heights of a tower that is situated in the school garden.
There's a ghost seeking for revenge and one of them is going to be chosen as a messenger and living avenger."Hasta el viento tiene miedo", is a well made Gothic horror gem, that not only frightens more than once, but also offers a lot of amusing scenes that work as some kind of humorous relief, without turning the whole movie into a comedy.
Marga Lopez, as the evil headmistress, probably offered one of the best performances in this film.
Her character, Mrs. Bernarda, reminded me of those days when I used to go to school and I would feel a shiver up from down my spine, every time I saw an intimidating teacher or headmistress.
"Hasta el viento tiene miedo" probably even delivers a hidden message regarding the severity of school authorities back then and the fact that violence can only produce more violence.
It's been over thirty years since I've seen "Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo" but I still think it is the best thriller movie ever...I can still picture some of the scenes.
A prolific horror writer and filmmaker as well, Taboada left an indelible mark in the Mexican cinema industry.
Even without being aware of it, because many of us, as merely spectators -at least me and some other persons I've spoken to-, didn't realize for many years that El libro de piedra (1968) and Más negro que la noche (1975), were part of Taboada's film history.Though i dig more El libro de piedra to a level as considering it his masterpiece, Hasta el viento tiene miedo (Even the wind's scared) it's such a powerful ghost story, that happens in a boarding school for girls.
Since the beginning, the film warns you about what you're going to see because of a creepy start, that involves a sleepwalking girl on the outside in a windy night, attending a call made by another girl from the bell tower of the school's chappel.
The first half of this story is told in such a brilliant way, that can only be surpassed by El libro de piedra in a whole; with good acting by names like Marga López, Norma Lazareno and Maricruz Olivier, Hasta el viento...
Taboada surely knew the sources of primal fear and took them to cinema extends, making you jump with scenes that has the ability to caught unaware, or leading tension into almost unbearable levels.
Carlos Enrique Taboada's Hasta el viento tiene miedo has a great reputation amongst those who have seen it; and after having finally tracked the film down myself, I have to say that its reputation is completely deserved!
Like the classics The House That Screamed and Suspiria, this film focuses on an all-girl boarding house.
Naturally the girls are not too pleased, and things take a turn for the worse when a long dead student is sighted during the heavy winds, and seems to be after a student named Claudia...The story is very much of the slow burn variety and while we do get plenty of horror; the film focuses more on building the characters, their relationships and the central situation.
The horror is brought forward more through atmosphere and while the locations used are not as Gothic as those seen in similar Italian films; the film does deliver a great air of creepiness and the way that the wind is used provides one of the main highlights.
It all boils down to an engaging and original (for the time) climax and overall; Hasta el viento tiene miedo may not be one of the best known horror films ever made, but it will certainly be of interest to horror fans.
This movie is worth of my collection of cool horror films.
This movie is a very good one, you have to check out Mr.Taboada´s directing,It´s ageless and even if its mexican oldstyle movie making, you can still feel the scary vibes he was aiming for.
The movie centers around a group of girls that because of disobeying some orders stay stranded in their college all summer long, one of them starts having some weird dreams and theres a ghost rounding that college with a dark past.
There´s a strip tease scene that can show some lesbian shadows on the girls, you have to see it yourself, spine tingling and horror at it´s best on this 70´s horror story..
"Hasta el viento tiene miedo" is a good offering of Mexican horror.
But "Hasta el viento tiene miedo" is the better film.
"Hasta el viento.." tells the story in a very straightforward way, no room for ambiguity is left, so it becomes predictable and this takes away some of the film's edge.
The girls, though, are very charming and add eye candy to the film.You can't compare it to the Italian Gothic films ( by Bava, Margheriti, Freda, Caiano..) with their visual grandeur (lighting, decors, camera work ..), and their magnificent soundtracks.Anyway "Hasta el viento...." is an interesting film - I think that it won't scare the modern viewer, but it offers in return a well-crafted atmosphere, with touches of suspense and comedy.
Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo, show us the story of a group of young ladies, that as a punishment, they have to stay in the boarding school for vacations.
It also shows a great perspective of the Mexican society and with the scene of the striptease, I believe that it goes a little beyond the times when it was released.
Whether you like Mexican movies or not this movie proves that although the lack of resources which it was made, at least we can say that we have a great horror ancient film, a genre that isn't common at all in this industry..
After hearing from neighbors and friends about a Mexican movie that sure will scare you, and also that the story was happening in a school, i was waiting for Televisa to show this movie, without any luck i had to wait about 7 years to find this movie on DVD and finally Watch, i would say the wait was worth it , sure is a 60's movie and the image, picture and sound is not that great, but the way the history is deliver will make you watch until the end.
With an exceptional cast and successful, the film is full of subtle horror, fine and perhaps therefore highly effective, unlike anything he had done before..
The wind sound is scary as itself, and the voice saying "Claaaaaaaudia" is the best!Carlos Taboada had very clear the effect that this sub-rated film would have through the time..
Even the Mexican movie industry is short on horror films, this one stands out among the lot.The story is about some girls who have to spend their summer vacations on the school due their cruel principal.
What they don´t know is that the school is haunted by a ghost.Although the story might not seem very original, director Taboada manages to keep it moving and adds a few twists along the way.
The acting is somewhat irregular but the main cast is good, specially Marga Lopez as the only adult who takes the matter seriously.Believe me, this film is so eerie that you´re going to be looking twice before entering a dark room for a long time..
No doubt about it, Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo is the best horror-suspense Mexican movie..
Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo is 36 years old, and still is so fresh and captivating.Carlos Enrique Taboada didn't need special make up, mutilated bodies, rivers of blood, FX nor a budget of millions of dollars to create the best horror-suspense Mexican movie.
No names to point, but in fact this movie is much better than many other popular horror movies you have seen.To listen the spectral voice calling "Claudia...Claudia"; see her slowly go towards that voice; watching Claudia dead covered by a blanket and suddenly to see her arm moving under the blanket; still takes my breath away.Yes, the final part is a cliché.
Dignifyng Mexican Horror Films.
and was Guillermo del Toro( twenty years after wards) with Cronos(1993) when we can see another interesting Mexican director of horror films.Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo(Even the Wind is Scared) written and directed by Carlos Enrique Taboada confirmed his talent as a writer and shows his ability as director, with scarce resources he got a real horror atmosphere obviously more suggested than visual., besides ,he knows how to get the maximum of a very limited feminine cast, (just three men appears during the movie in very secondary roles,)so we can believe the words of Alicia Bonet more than her exaggerated facial expressions every time she finish any phrase ,or the intense performance of Maricruz Olivier as the kind teacher even we can hate the uncompromising director of the girls institute played by Marga Lopez, without many movies of the genre to compete with Hasta el viento tiene miedo has all the ingredients to be consider a classic of the Mexican horrors Films.
I watched this movie when I was a little kid with my mom a long time ago, I never thought too much about it, I just considered it a decent horror movie with a pretty good title.
Seeing it again after all these years I realize just how good it is.Its as classic of a horror story as you can get, a ghost in a school, its relatable and familiar, a bit cliché by now but what makes you forget about how much this concept has been used is its execution, this is a genuinely eerie film, it doesn't use the usual cliché "scary faces" or "creepy sounds", however, it uses elements that are often used in classic horror like darkness, the wind, lightnings and cries (this is the first time I found someone crying in the dark of the night to be scary) but uses this elements at the right time, it doesn't waste them trying to scare you every so often, it builds the mood and the setting in such an astounding way before something scary actually happens in the story.Taboada is often considered to be the master of Mexican horror and I agree, while there have been other great directors who have made horror films, Taboada is the only director who worked consistently in the horror genre and not only that, but his movies are always great.
He also understands the genre very well, he knows that in movies like these the special effects wont be effective, he knows that characters, mood and execution are priorities.
Taboada knows that ghosts aren't evil entities but souls in pain who look for redemption.An amazing film that deals with many interesting themes and subjects, this is probably one of the movies I would like to re watch soon if I find the time to do it..
I began watching this Mexican horror film, a thriller set in a girl's school, with some excitement since I had read nothing but praise for it.
Perhaps one has to see Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo young, before watching many horror movies.
I do realize that a ghost story is built upon mood and atmosphere rather than shock scenes, but, really, this is a horror film for one's grandmother.
That was the year of Night of the Living Dead, the year of Targets, the year of Naked You Die, a much better school girl mystery.Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo does have a few surprises.
'Hasta el viento tiene miedo' is a supremely atmospheric Gothic horror from the Mexican maestro of understated chills, Carlos Enrique Taboada.
To my shame I was, until recently, entirely unaware of Taboada's genre cinema, and it becomes apparent fairly swiftly that he is a true master of horror; the opening gambit of 'Hasta el viento tiene miedo' is creepy, subtle and shows a great mastery of camera that brings to mind the visionary genius of, Mario Bava.
'Hasta el viento tiene miedo' is clearly an important work, whose chilling Gothic motifs rivals that of 'Black Sunday', 'N.O.T.L.D', and 'Carnival of Souls', and it remains a profound injustice to genre cineastes everywhere that Taboada's majestic, penetrating visions of fear aren't more recognized for the landmark films that they so clearly are..
When the students at an-all female boarding house are forced to stay on campus during a holiday break, they find themselves in the middle of a suspected haunting that has ties to those in charge and try to stop it before it gets deadly.This was an utterly enjoyable and engrossing Mexican horror effort, with one of the better and more entertaining ghost stories around that make for some incredibly enjoyable times around.
Filled with lots of atmosphere in the gigantic facility, a perfectly captivating mystery and the right amount of tension-release, from cheesy dance numbers and slight lesbian undertones to the gang's night-time investigations and the interactions with the headmistress make for some somewhat slow-going but still decent-enough interludes from the haunting action, and while it's not a real go-for-the-throat style of haunting where it constantly reinforces it's there but contains enough set-pieces to make it consciously part of the film.
The last half is a little too cheesy to mesh with the classic first-half, but it's still a great old-school ghost story and a highly entertaining one at that.Today's Rating-Unrated/PG: Violence..
Creepy and colourful ghost tale from Mexico and set in a girls school.
An assured ghost story with some great scenes.
An assured ghost story with some great scenes.
The rest of the young girls continue acting in Mexican soaps and movies to this day.
The Best Horror Movie.
Yes. That's right, "Hasta el viento tiene miedo" is the best horror movie ever made.
If you can catch this movie on tv don't hesitate to put some popcorn in the mcrowave 'cause you will be about to witness horror at it's best..
Until the wind he/she is afraid (version of 1968), he/she comes to also give a turn in the cinema goods that it was developed in Mexico, with a cast of first actresses, as Marga López, Norma Lazareno, and several more.
I don't know if it is of cult, but I consider it one of the classics of the Mexican cinema, since they are few the films of this gender in Mexico that you/they are able to convince..
The best Mexican horror film.
"Hasta el Viento tiene Miedo", the original version, is the best Mexican horror film ever.
No discussions.But it's not the only great movie by Carlos Enrique Taboada.
If you liked this, there are other great movies by him, including the horror movie "El Libro de Piedra", the extremely underrated and little know "Rapina", what many consider to be his major work "La Guerra Santa".
In addition to his very good stories, Taboada should be admired for giving great roles to some of Mexico greatest actors including Ignacio Lopez Tarso, Marga Lopez, German Robles, Norma Lazareno, and especially two of our most intriguing actresses, Maricruz Olivier and Sonia Furio..
"Hasta El Viento Tiene Miedo" is truly a chilling, unsettling, atmospheric Horror movie.
I'm not sure but this may be the first ghost possession movie that deals with revenge.
This is a visually stunning Horror movie mainly because of Taboada's direction.
The movie relies it's creepiness on the settings (Gothic) and the shocking factor on the usual scary images that pop out of nowhere.
For example, when the girls are dancing along with the piano music, and Kitty is performing a striptease, the ghost of Andrea appears through the window and scares the hell out of the girls.
And there are more "shocking/scary" scenes through the movie.
"Hasta el Viento Tiene Miedo" is a pioneer in the genre and probably among Mèxico's best Horrors movie to date.
There's no need of gore, or f/x in order to create a scary, creepy, and moving Horror movie.
"Hasta El Viento Tiene MIedo" succeeds on every possible aspect.
Almost every time an American filmmaker wants to do an Horror film, without a doubt goes direct to the blood and to the grotesque thing, even the superb Shamalayan.
Carlos Taboada does a great job to get chills and terror from this masterpiece.Claudia is a student in an all girl college that have dreams about a hanged woman that calls her.
After all girls see the ghost, her beloved teacher Lucia tells them that the hanged woman was Andrea a former student who had committed suicide five years earlier because she was punished the same way the girls were and doesn't have the chance to go see her dying mother, her only living relative.
After possessing Claudia, the spirit of Andrea seeks revenge and hangs the principal.Aside the final scene with the swimming pool that appears to have thrown in because of the time (just to see girls on swimsuits), all the movie has memorable cuts of truly suspense scenes. |
tt1306980 | 50/50 | Adam Lerner is a 27-year-old public radio journalist in Seattle with girlfriend and artist Rachael, of whom best friend and co-worker Kyle disapproves. While Kyle is brash and outspoken, Adam is more introverted and mild-mannered.
After experiencing harsh pains in his back, Adam is diagnosed with schwannoma neurofibrosarcoma, a malignant tumor in his spine, and must undergo chemotherapy. He sees on the Internet that survival is 50/50. After Adam reveals this, his overbearing mother, Diane, who nurses her Alzheimer's-stricken husband Richard, offers care for him but Adam rejects, as Rachael promised to this. However, she is "uncomfortable" during his treatments and is often late to pick him up since he doesn't drive. She also gets him a retired racing greyhound, Skeletor, as a pet. Throughout Adam's struggle, Kyle attempts to maintain his morale, helping Adam shave his head and openly using his illness to pick up women. While on a date, Kyle sees Rachael with another man at a gallery, forcing her to confess; Adam then breaks up for good. He starts to follow Kyle, using his illness to successfully pick up two women at a bar.
Meanwhile, Adam skeptically begins going to a young, inexperienced therapist, Katherine McKay, a PhD candidate doing the clinical aspect of her thesis at the hospital. Although their relationship and sessions begin unevenly, he slowly begins to open up to her. After she drives him home after one of his chemo sessions, the two develop a rapport, blurring their professional and personal relationship as friends. She helps Adam understand his mother's situation and that even loved ones feel just as much stress as the patient, which helps Adam repair the rift between him and his mother. During treatments, Adam befriends Alan and Mitch, two older cancer patients also undergoing chemotherapy, who offer advice and smoke marijuana with him.
After Mitch dies, Adam's fear of his potential death and future surface as he's subsequently informed that he needs to undergo surgery. The night before, Adam argues with a drunk Kyle, demanding to drive even though he can't. After a near miss, Adam breaks down and berates Kyle for seemingly not taking him seriously and using it for his own gain. Adam calls Katherine and tells her that he wishes he had a girlfriend like her, but also says he is tired and just wants it to be over. That night, Adam stays at Kyle's and finds a book entitled 'Facing Cancer Together' from their first trip to a bookstore where Kyle picked up the shop clerk—filled with notes, highlighted paragraphs and turned-down pages, proving that Kyle sincerely cares and has been simply continuing to treat Adam the same since pre-diagnosis.
The next day, Kyle drops Adam off, who embraces Kyle for being a good friend and apologizes for the previous night. After Adam says his farewells to family, he undergoes the surgery. During the wait, Katherine goes to the waiting room and inadvertently meets Adam's family and Kyle. After the surgery, Kyle, Diane, and Katherine are told that although the bone degradation was worse than they had thought, the tumor was removed successfully, and that Adam would recover.
Some time later, Adam is getting ready for a date with Katherine, while Kyle encourages him and cleans the incision on Adam's back from the surgery. The doorbell rings and Adam lets Katherine inside. After Kyle leaves, Katherine asks, "Now what?," and Adam simply smiles - at last being free of cancer. | comedy, romantic, humor, entertaining, sentimental | train | wikipedia | So, trust me when I tell you, that this movie gets it.It gets what it is like to receive a horrific diagnosis out of the blue, the numbness and shock of dealing with it, the well meaning friends and acquaintances who say the stupidest things ("every time I feel sorry for myself, I just think of you..."), and those friends who really become your rock as you go through the miasma of treatment and try to still make your life have meaning.
Again, this movie gets it.Joseph Gordon Levitt and Seth Rogen deserve high praise for the honesty that they bring to their performances.
Easy: Just give them equal measure with the title 50/50 -- light treatment of a dark subject.Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has to deal not only with his own emotions when he is diagnosed, but also those of a close friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen), an inveterate partier and ribald quipper, and his chronically worrisome mother (Anjelica Huston).
Yet director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser keep it all as upbeat as possible, not in small part due to Rogen's constantly funny chatter, which comes at just the right times as the plot gets heavy with cancer surviving techniques (the film turns out to show the way to battle: with humor).
Cancer, or any other terminal illness for that matter, almost always plays some kind x-factor in a film — that is when a film even dares to enter a realm often deemed depressing and "not for the movies." Most often, scripts will position cancer as a tearjerking emotional turning point in a film or as the initial spark of some banal "live life to the fullest" comedy."50/50" puts an end to that.
Reiser's story provides a mostly unforced and honest depiction of a young man's diagnosis and treatment for potentially fatal spinal cancer, one where cancer isn't the conflict in and of itself, but the way it so dramatically changes the behavior of the people whose lives it enters and positively and negatively alters relationships.Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues his spree of playing absolutely lovable main characters as Adam, a play-it-safe 27-year-old who after the initial shock handles his diagnosis in stride, keeping his ups and downs internal other than when the script cues him to let it out a bit.
The more external symptoms come from Adam's girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and mother (Anjelica Huston).Other than focusing on these relationships, director Jonathan Levine ("The Wackness") puts particular emphasis on character perspective, which will change instantaneously at points throughout the film.
Even though Rogen exerted his usual shtick a bit more than needed, he handles his character as written, someone who wants desperately to help his best friend but hides behind shallow self-centered form of support that many men turn to because they can't communicate emotions all that well.The women of "50/50" also deliver if not more so.
Those who can't help but fixate on this being a movie about cancer will likely have to remind themselves to feel serious when "50/50" just wants you to simply absorb it as you would any other film.Other than some predictable moments and plot devices to give the film a nicer Hollywood sheen, "50/50" provides a genuine and heartfelt movie experience, one that neither goes for the emotional sucker punch nor the sugarcoated version.
There is little doubt that the subject matter of this film will limit its audience, but for those brave souls who give it a shot, I believe you will find it funny, touching and insightful.The film introduces us to Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who is a very nice, very normal, very low-key guy who works at a radio station as a writer ...
From this point forward, the film borders on brilliance at times.Adam's girlfriend is played by Bryce Dallas Howard; his mother by Angelica Huston; and his best friend by Seth Rogen.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Adam, a 27 year old easy going guy who unexpectedly gets diagnosed with cancer.
Seth Rogen plays his best friend, Kyle, who always tries to help Adam out, but doesn't always know how to go about it.
The writer of the film, Will Reiser, based the film on his own experiences with fighting and beating cancer at a young age, and his passion and understanding of this story shine beautifully through the film and its characters which surely all resemble Reiser's own friends and family in some way.
And so as we watch the relationships between Adam and the people in his life grow and fade we develop a deeper understanding of his character, making 50/50 an incredibly human story.It's always nice to be so surprised by a film's quality.
While 50/50 has a heartbreaking, and is sometimes emotion-testing and tear-jerking, it still has a strong comedic relief thanks to Seth Rogen, who is rather unfairly bashed in a majority of his films.The acting is superb by both leads, the parents of Adam played by Angelica Houston and Serge Houde are portrayed effectively and in a loving way, and the screenplay and Johnathan Levine's direction never fails or works against this film in any way.
It is the best "disease of the week" film ever made, which sounds like a backhanded compliment but I don't know how to describe the genre any better.I have always felt that Gordon-Levitt along with Gosling are far and away the two best young actors working today.
Well, the young director Jonathan Levine and Will Reiser (screenplay) found a formidable new vision of it all.The film tells the story of Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young man of twenty-seven years working for a radio company in Seattle.
While "50/50" is a moving, and sometimes it is emotion-test and tearful, he still has a strong comic relief thanks to Seth Rogen, and several occasions that Adam and Kyle meddle.The film is a drama, that works as a comedy very well written.
It's as if the film were telling us, "if it is your last minutes, let then be smiling!".The cast is terrific, even comic, Seth manages to have an interesting dramatic performance; Anna Kendrick formidable as ever; Angelica Houston and Serge Houde as Adam's parents with great performances; but who shines above everyone is Joseph Levitt with a fantastic performance, proving to be an very promising actor.Thanks to a wonderful third act, in terms of direction and screenplay that never fail or work against the film at any time, the public has an emotional breakdown all of the characters and the story itself and fantastic to witness..
First-time writer Will Reiser uses his own experience with cancer at a young age to play down the dramatic aspects of illness, and instead showcase the lighter side of things, showing that even when you have cancer you still want to get laid and stoned with your best friend.
Adam learns his diagnosis early on in the film and we're not given enough time to understand the character before this, so the whole thing ends up revolving around the cancer.
They all just feel like these movie types we've already seen instead of real people, the most offensive of which being Adam's therapist played by Anna Kendrick.
There are a lot of genuine emotions going on here and I appreciate Reiser and director Jonathan Levine not going the easy route with melodrama and emotional manipulation that you find in most stories dealing with this topic, but the film has quite a few contrivances that betray the characters in order to benefit story progression and the therapist relationship is something that left a bad taste in my mouth all the way through.
What basically saves the film in the end is Joseph Gordon Levitt's likability factor, and a very strong performance by his mother, Angelica Houston, who unfortunately, didn't get more screen time.
Seth Rogan's character seems only to serve as a device for comic relief, to make sure we don't get too down.The last part of the film ends strong and hits all the emotional buttons (it would've made a great short), but the majority of the film is basically another arrested development story, with Rogan's character acting like the affable, 12-year old boy, providing his fair share of penis and weed jokes, that we've grown to love...or at least tolerate.
The evolution of Adam (Levitt) is realistic and touching, and by the time the inevitable "confrontation" takes place, you'll feel like you've endured something miraculous.To further comment on the layered plot and what it implies about the needs of everyone "surviving" all walks of life would be to ruin some of the more unexpected revelations that come from 50/50, so I'll end by saying, quite simply, that it's a wonderful movie.In fact, there's a 99.9% chance that you'll leave the theater with a huge smile on your face.
This poignant story is about a 27-year old healthy, reserved, safe character Adam (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is suddenly diagnosed with a rare and malignant type of cancer and is given a 50/50 chance of beating it.
The screenplay really deserves credit; it deals with the traumatic illness of cancer in an honest way, without ever feeling fake; and the acting really compliments that, Joseph Gordon Levitt gives a truly believable and excellent performance of a young man facing this trouble; and the best friend (Seth Rogan) portrays his characters sentimental big heart underneath his awkwardly funny and sexually-driven personality perfectly.
The scenes between the trainee psychiatrist (Anna Kendrick) and Adam are a pleasure because of her obvious instant attraction conflicted by her obligation to stay within the boundaries of patient conduct and give her best professional objective help.The story is primarily a comedy but its subtleties and underlying themes are truly excellent and what makes it thoroughly pleasant to watch and a touching experience.
This definitely a movie for our time, and being a twenty-something myself, I connected with any aspects of this film, especially the relationship between Gordon-Levitt and Rogen's characters.
Seth Rogen plays the cool friend, which was perfect and the way he handled things in this movie made me say, "He's a really cool guy".
I think this film features Seth Rogen's (Kyle) best acting and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Adam) was as solid as ever.
It is a difficult task to find some comedy to counter balance Cancer, but writer Will Reiser draws appropriately from his own experiences of illness and with friend Seth Rogen, co-star and producer, to ensure that the story moves along organically and smoothly.
I might not know much about reviewing movies but one thing i know for sure is that if you're really human inside, you will feel and get what this movie is about the message is clear and simple, that might sound a bit dull but some times simple things turn out to be the best of them all, if you're not sure give it a chance you won't know for sure until you judge it by yourself.If you cannot relate to the movie and its main character not in the specific way he's experiencing life but emotionally, you have to get out there experience life a little then re-watch it and tell me how you feel by the end of this wonderful film..
Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Kyle (Seth Rogen) are best friends co-workers.
He has to rely on his best friend played by Seth Rogen, his fellow patients getting their chemotherapy treatments and a young psychiatrist in training who he goes to deal with the issues of his situation.With this movie and other stuff like (500) Days of Summer and being one of the hottest in demand actors right now JGL is definitely turning out to be one of the best actors of his generation..
Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivers another winning screen performance as Adam Lerner, a 27-year old who surprisingly gets cancer, and now everyone is trying to help him out, from his gorgeous and unexplainable girlfriend, portrayed by Bryce Dallas Howard, and his over-protective mother, portrayed brilliantly by Anjelica Huston.
Stars: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anna Kendrick are all outstanding in this film (yet another) on the Fallen Human condition of humanity, this film using cancer.
So JGL gets cancer and of course he starts to lose his hair and all the other stuff that goes along with cancer treatment but there by his side is his trusty best friend Seth Rogen in all his comedic cliché but excellent glory.It's pretty good that the subject of cancer can be used in TV and film and it not be a total drag and make you depressed, between this film and The Big C I think a lot of people are enjoying TV and movies about cancer.
Seth Rogen does the film so much good, he's just such a lovable guy it's hard not to like him, JGL is also pretty good as usual also, although his character does sometimes get a bit boring.
Anna Kendrick is so great in everything, she is a very talented young actress and I hope people like her continue to get the good roles, she manages to stand out in everything she's in.I've heard so many great things about this movie, and I agree with a lot of it but it is a little over hyped, I mean it's good but i have seen better this year , in all honesty I don't think this movie will clean up in awards season, there's just too many other movies that are better.This movie kinda brings together two audiences, the older generation who like serious films and the younger crowd who enjoy the Seth Rogen style comedies, and both audiences will be pleased.
For every crude joke, there are enough interesting character dynamics and real human emotions in this to make it a solid, thoroughly enjoyable and heart-wrenching film.That fine balance between comedy and drama can partly be attributed to Will Reiser, who wrote the story and script based on his own experiences with cancer.
However, the story also makes sure to deal with the serious issues around the disease too, such as how Adam handles his situation and the various ill-effects of cancer treatment, as well as how his diagnosis effects his relationships with his overbearing mother, and his girlfriend.While the script itself does a good job of bringing in humor to an fairly dramatic story, it's the actors who really bring out the emotions of those affected by Adam's disease.
Anna Kendrick also stars as Katherine, Adam's inexperienced therapist, and works well as the earnest, somewhat bumbling, young doctor.The best part of the movie though, is quite easily Joseph Gordon Levitt as Adam.
While the topic may sound like a strange one for a comedy, 50/50 works well, thanks to its well balanced script and a great cast, topped off by an award-worthy performance from Joseph Gordon Levitt.
50/50 shows real cancer and not the fake movie kind ala this month's Gus Van Sant film Restless.Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a 27 year old sound editor for Seattle Public Radio.
Unlike Seth Rogen, Kendrick is extremely capable and her scenes with Gordon-Levitt are as uncomfortable and stunted as they would be in a real hospital.Bryce Dallas Howard has now played back to back roles as an extremely unsympathetic and callous character; this summer's The Help has Howard as a conniving villain.
She overshadows Gordon-Levitt and annihilates Seth Rogen when they share the screen.I mentioned Restless earlier because both of these films were released close together, have a main character with cancer, and are even both based in the Pacific Northwest.
50/50 looks and feels that much better because I saw Restless recently and it was so ridiculous in how it showed a character with cancer that 50/50 shines bright above it.Even though I complain about Seth Rogen's acting, 50/50 is a very powerful film and does not match the comedy its preview promises.
The movie handles it well with a good balance of drama and humor, much of the latter of which comes from Seth Rogen in one of his best roles.
Joseph being that suffering personification as in (500) Days Of Summer (2009); Seth Rogen being that boring and over the top "funny" character that tries to make people laugh and forget that it's a drama; Bryce Dallas acting as the same selfish girl; Anna Kendrick the same insecure and enthusiast as in Up In The Air (2009); Angelica Houston the same old mother.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is doing some of the best work of his career in here and along with the help of a good supporting cast like Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard and Seth Rogen it pretty much gets it right on performance level.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is heartbreaking yet understated as twenty-something cancer sufferer Adam, though at many times his character comes off as completely unlikable which makes it hard to root for him.Though within the film, Seth Rogen's as the best friend Kyle steals majority of the film with his typical wise cracks and Seth Rogen type humor.
A 27-year old man, Adam (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.
But even though Seth Rogen is in the film, this is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's movie all the way and he does a great job of carrying it.
50/50 is about a man, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who discovers he has cancer and only has a 50/50 chance of surviving.The fact that his best friend, played by Seth Rogen, takes a prevalent place at his side on all advertising, might make people think that this is a comedy.
Anyways that's just me.There are several humorous moments along the way as Kyle (Seth Rogen) tries to keep Adam's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) spirits up through his 50/50 survival rate cancer diagnosis, his treatment, subsequent pot smoking and loss of his bee-atch of a girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard).
Now I really do like Joseph gordon levitt as an actor and he owns this film with his wonderful performance that shows just how good he is. |
tt0459327 | Gie | Soe Hok Gie grew up in a lower-middle class Chinese Indonesian family in Jakarta. In his early teens, young Gie had developed a fascination in concepts and idealisms advocated by world class intellectuals. Combined with a fighter's passion, faithfulness to friends, and a heart filled with genuine care for others and for his country, young Gie grew to become intolerant with injustice, and dreamt of an Indonesia that is truly founded on justice, equality, and righteousness. This passion was frequently misunderstood by others. Even Soe's best friends, Tan Tjin Han and Herman Lantang posed the question "What is all this fighting for?" which Soe would calmly respond with his awareness that freedom has a price tag that must be paid. Soe's motto, as written on the movie poster, is translated as "It is better to be singled out than to surrender to hypocrisy".
Soe's teen and college years was spent under the regime of Indonesia's founding father Sukarno, which was characterised with conflict between the military and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Soe and his friends insisted that they were politically neutral; and as much as Soe has respect for Sukarno as Indonesia's founding father, Soe detested Sukarno's dictatorship which caused the poor and the oppressed to suffer. Soe was well aware of the social inequality, power abuse, and corruption under the government of Sukarno, and courageously spoke out against it in discussion groups, student unions, and wrote sharp criticisms in the media. Soe also abhorred the fact that too many students appeared to others as advocates of positive change, who in fact were just taking advantage of the political situation to make personal gain. This attracted much sympathy as well as opposition. Many interest groups sought Soe to support their campaigns, while many enemies of Soe jump at any opportunity to intimidate him.
Tan, Soe's childhood friend, had always deeply admired Soe's prudence and courage but lacked that fighter's spirit himself. In their twenties, the boys were reunited again for a short time. Soe finds out that Tan had become seduced and deeply involved with the PKI but was ignorant as to what this implied or what consequences awaited. Soe urges Tan to relinquish his ties with the PKI and hide out, but Tan did not listen.
Soe and his friends spend their leisure time hiking and enjoy nature with the Nature-Loving Students of the University of Indonesia (Mapala UI). Other things they enjoyed doing included watching and analysing movies, attending traditional Indonesian performing arts, and hanging out at parties. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0284328 | Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai | The story revolves around a sensitive young adult named Karan (Tusshar), who frequently skips college. Despite his poor academic performance, he displays other talents. He is clever, an excellent musician, and plays in a band. His father constantly expresses his disappointment in him which often leads to Karan having outbursts of frustration and anger. One day in a deserted street, he lays eyes on Pooja (Kareena Kapoor) for the first time and falls in love with her. Following this brief acquaintance, he looks all over for her, but fails to find her. He slowly begins to lose hope in his quest, stops playing music and decides to move to another city with his uncle. While on his way there, his car breaks down, and he is forced to hitch a ride. To his amazement, he finds Pooja in the driver's seat. As they introduce themselves, an accident occurs when a truck collides with their car, which subsequently falls into a valley. Karan and Pooja find themselves hanging from a cliff, and even though Karan manages to haul Pooja back up the steep cliff, he loses his grip and falls into the ravine.
When Pooja regains consciousness, she assumes responsibility for Karan's death and offers to help in the search for his body. Meanwhile, Karan has survived the fall but is seriously injured and unconscious. He is found by a man who takes him to the hospital and soon after, Karan is reunited with his family. As he recovers, he reflects on how he should have confessed his love to Pooja in the few moments they were together. He also begins to focus on his education instead of his music. In time, Pooja arrives at his doorstep to apologize and offers her friendship. They become good friends and then Pooja tells Karan that she must leave for the United States for further studies. Devastated, he finally confesses his love for her. Pooja feels the same way and cannot deny her feelings for Karan, and promises that she will return to him once she completes her education. Karan agrees to patiently wait for her. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Despite the fact that this movie got average commercial success and it's a remake of a Telugu movie - Tholi Prema (1998), it is to be acknowledged that it's a good movie.
It is a romantic movie but it portrays silent love in the hearts of teenagers who are hesitant to express their feelings to their love-interest because of fear of refusal.
In this teenybopper love story, the boy feels his love towards the girl since her very first sight but unable to convey it to the girl whereas the girl comes to know of her feelings towards the boy in the end only.
And in between goes a rom-com with songs, comedy and some action, summing up to an entertaining journey for the spectator.Mujhe Kuchh Kehna Hai tells the story of Karan (Tushar Kapoor) and the narrative moves with him only.
He belongs to a well off family with a loving mother (Himani Shivpuri), a stern father (Dalip Taahil), a benevolent and jolly uncle who is his father's elder brother (Amrish Puri), a loving and caring elder brother (Pankaj Berry) and an affectionate sister, Priya (Rinki Khanna).
Karan is careless as far as the studies are concerned.
Amidst the frolic and enjoyment of his happy-go-lucky life, appears Pooja (Kareena Kapoor).
Karan starts feeling some unknown bond between himself and herself and once she gets introduced to him by sheer stroke of luck, gradually love blossoms in his heart.
However silent waves keep on going from his heart towards Pooja's heart and when she is about to depart for abroad (for pursuing higher studies), all of a sudden Karan's love becomes visible to her something like an illumination in her heart.
Now she is no more willing to leave India but Karan admonishes her and they conclude to wait for each other and let their love ripen with time while pursuing their respective careers meantime.Mujhe Kuchh Kehna Hai has a youth appeal and the director of this movie, Satish Kaushik has handled the plot of the original Telugu movie with utmost care.
He has presented an entertaining movie to the audience with ample doses of comedy and emotions.
In addition to the silent love between a boy and a girl, the movie highlights family bonds also in an impressive manner.
brother and sister, father and son, uncle and nephew, elder brother and younger brother etc.
becomes restless in the climax to know that the love-interest of his son is leaving India and gets too much concerned for the feelings of the boy, leaving all his resentment towards him behind.
And then, he is further amazed to know that it's his sister herself who has arranged this marriage because the groom has been in love with her for three years and she feels that it will be unwise to turn down the proposal of such a loving person.
The sister understands the sentiments of her brother towards Pooja very well and she is less a sister, more a friend.
In my view, an ideal family should be like that only with everyone caring for the others.The character of the hero's uncle has a comic flavour and enough laughs have been generated through it for the audience.
The activities of the hero and his friends are also rib-tickling (though some action has also been forced through them).
Though most of the characters playing the hero's friends are sketchy and somewhat over the top, they are able to amuse the spectator.
The scene in which a friend of the hero gains a lift from him to attend an interview by lying to him that he had seen the hero's love-interest there and the hero's reaction upon coming to know of this cheating is touching and an eye-opener for many.
Seek help of a benevolent person by telling him the truth instead of playing with his emotions by lying to him.
I praise the script-writer for thinking of such a thing which is a lesson for life.This entertaining movie boasts of good music by Anu Malik also.
However the song which won my heart is Jab Se Dekha Hai Tere Haath Ka Chaand, Maine Dekha Nahin Raat Ka Chaand in which Tushar visualizes the moon made by myrtle on the palm of Pooja while getting lost in his romantic thoughts of hers.This is the debut movie of Jeetendra's son Tushar Kapoor and he is so-so.
Frankly, enough maturity does not seem to have come to him to play the pivotal role despite the fact that the role is of a teenager.
The heroine of this movie - Kareena looks more mature than him.
The best performer is Amrish Puri who as the romantic and frolicsome uncle of the hero is awesome in his performance.
This is the debut movie of Jeetendra's son Tusshar Kapoor.
It is a light hearted family movie with plenty of romance and comedy.
It tells the simple story of a Boy who falls in love with a girl, but is not sure how to express his love.
Its a 2 in a half hour movie, about him trying to show his love, but still manages to entertain.
Tusshar Kapoor delivers a Good performance, not bad at all for a debut.
Kareena Kapoor was quite good believe it or Not. Amrish Puri was amazingly funny in a great performance.
Satish Kaushik makes a great movie that you can enjoy.
Overall, this is worth the watch, give the movie a chance, You may like it..
Believe it or not....its pretty good!.
Boy meets girl...he falls instantly for her...he struggles to find a way to enter her heart...dramatic twists...and eventually they end up together.
Isn't this a typical Hindi film plot outline?
You bet.But to be honest, MKKH is a pretty decent film.
This was my first ever Hindi film I think, and I fell in love with it on the first screening.
Seeing it again, I see the negative points too, but there is no doubt it is a good movie.I thought Tusshar Kapoor does an impressive job for his first film.
He and Kareena have a great chemistry.
I admit, Kareena is good too, these were the days when she was all innocent and pretty.
I liked her in this movie, and I like her in these types of roles.
This is the first Bollywood film I'm giving my "5 out of 10" rating.
I usually reserve that for "So bad it's good" films.
Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai is no exception.
Although it's clearly a comedy at times, it's just as often funny when it's not supposed to be--both the comedy and the serious bits are frequently ridiculous.
That makes it a lot of fun to watch, but it's not exactly a good film.The plot, in a nutshell (a nutshell is really all there is to it), features Karan (Tusshar Kapoor) trying to find and court Pooja Saxena (Kareena Kapoor--she and Tusshar are not related as far as I know; they at least do not seem to be closely related).
Karan happened to see Pooja from a distance and instantly fell in love with her.
They keep having close encounters, but something always interrupts, and in a typical Bollywood move, Karan never musters the courage to initiate anything other than polite, casual conversation.
Pooja is from the States, visiting relatives to do research on "Indian culture", and trying to get accepted into Harvard.
He has a cadre of relatively goofy friends, they have a band, and we learn that he can fight unbelievably well.The idea of the plot isn't horrible, even if it is simplistic.
Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai is basically a series of misadventures.
The problems with the plot arise in the way director Satish Kaushik and writers Rumi Jaffrey and Karunakar handle it.
Kareena Kapoor doesn't appear until the 35-minute mark.
We have a fifth of a typically overlong film just to introduce characters, in absence of any real story.
Further, because of the simplicity and the necessity of increasing the severity of the misadventures, and also related to length, we have a film that peaks at least 40 minutes before it is over.
Like too many Bollywood films, this story would have played much better if kept to 90 minutes.
Kaushik and crew avoid simply resorting to clichés.But there are bigger problems with Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai than the plot.
Kareena Kapoor, although more than pleasant to look at, consistently comes across as if she thinks she's doing a shampoo commercial rather than a dramatic film.
This was one of her earlier films, so maybe the ridiculous and ill-suited overacting is more excusable, but that makes it no less unintentionally funny to watch.
She didn't seem so out of place in Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (2003), although on the other hand, that film is absurdly cartoonish at times.Tusshar Kapoor comes across as the better actor here, even though this was his first film.
But as decent as he is, Kaushik and crew have him and the rest of the cast doing ridiculous things.
The bits that are supposed to be comic--like Karan's daydreaming leading to him using his friend as a guitar--are okay for their ridiculousness.
But a number of scenes that are supposed to be climactically dramatic--such as an attempted rescue from a cliff, or Karan's proposed and actual birthday presents to Pooja, end up being just as funny.Kaushik also stages a couple absurd fight scenes, with random "striking" sound effects that reminded me of the hilarious fight scenes in Mudda (2003).
For my tastes, there was also an overabundance of songs, which featured way too much "look how young and hip we are" mugging, some very fake musicianship from our stars (doesn't any member of an Indian film crew know how to set up a drumset?), and some very "flamboyant" dancing and posing from some of the male back-up dancers.
Of course, the typical travelogue cinematography accompanies most of the love songs.
Much of the Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai was filmed in New Zealand, and Kaushik does a good job of exploiting the setting, even if that means prominent appearances of businesses such as McDonald's and Burger King.
No one involved with this film is reluctant to show their immersion in popular western youth culture, even though it usually comes across as more goofy (and occasionally behind the times--just check out the preppy shoulder sweater) than anything else.
The first scene is in a disco, with a crowd dancing to "Who let the Dogs Out", before Balram Singh (Amrish Puri) begins his constant utterances of "very good, very very good", as he has a group of girls "rate" boys he parades across the stage.
That gives you a good taste of what is in store for the length of the film.If you do not speak Hindi, you're in for a bit of an extra challenge with Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai, as much of the dialogue moves by very quickly, resulting in subtitles that disappear quicker than you can read them.
You'll laugh at the film as often as you laugh with it.
Just don't use this film to introduce any of your friends to Bollywood..
MUJHE KUCH KEHNA HAI was the first film of Tusshar plus it was actually Kareena's first hitThe movie is a typical love story where the guy proposes only in the end but it's well handled and tusshar's character is shown very boy next door which worksHis scenes with his father(Dalip Tahil) and Tauji(Amrish in a delightful role) are well handled the love story is well treated though they are some additional scenes like the prolonged first half and also the forced action scene between Tusshar and YashpalEven the end is a bit implausible and looks too sudden but yet the film has nice moments like the entire track where Kareena is saved by Tusshar, even your heart does go for TussharDirection by Satish Kaushik is good thakfully not overboard with drama Music is good Camera-work is decentTusshar looks the boy next door but a problem with him is his too laidback and his expressions are too babyish at many places but however Satish directs him well, and he does well in emotions and comedy but his screen presence is always a problem and also his dial delivery Kareena is decent however she tends to overdo her role many times yet she is simple compared to her crap poo roles Amrish is wonderful, i like to see him in such roles rather then the bordering on comic villainy roles he did many times though he excelled in many villainous roles yet he did some crap ones In this film he is superb in comedy and steals the show and he has always been a delight in comedy Dalip Tahil is okay Himani Shivpuri is alright Rinki khanna is too loud.
A nice, refreshingly different love story.
They fall in love and end up together after fights and misunderstandings.
That is typical Bollywood love story for you.
Directed by Satish Kaushik, MKKH is a refreshingly different romantic story.
The story centers on Karan (Tusshar) who is weak in studies but is good at heart.
He helps friends and is good in music but is disinterested in studies.
On a Diwali night, after being rebuked by his Dad (Dalip Tahil) for helping a friend in attempting to elope with a politician's daughter, he sees a girl for the first time on a road.
He gets infatuated with this beautiful girl and would later come in contact with her.
She is Pooja (Kareena).Fate has Karan saving Pooja, almost dying in the attempt.
Pooja and Karan become fast friends.
Karan, who was already attracted to Pooja, falls madly in love with her.
Despite repeated prods from friends and his sister (Rinkie Khanna), Karan fails to open up his heart to Pooja.
One day, Pooja gets a chance to study in Harvard and off she has to go.
Will Karan be ever able to tell her his feelings?
A simple love story on the surface, MKKH has symbolic undertones that I guess very few can comprehend.
On a Diwali night, the inner darkness of Karan is dispelled by the divinity in the form of Pooja, a bright student.
The point is clear, the divinity has plans to show Karan the true meaning of life through Pooja.
Not for nothing does Karan feel that he has a timeless relationship with Pooja.
It is actually divinity that touches Karan in the form of Pooja.Slowly, Karan transforms into a responsible man.
It seemed to me also as a story of a young, irresponsible man trying to find a goal in his life.
In his case, it is love that shows him the way.Brilliant direction by Satish Kaushik with not one scene extra in the film and no excess KJo type emotions.
I particularly liked "Rabba Mere rabba", though other songs like the title track, "Maine koi Jadoo", "Jabse Dekha Hai", "Dupatta Mera" and "Pyar Re" are also great to listen to.
"Rehna Hai" is also great.
10 years have passed and they frequently come back to my play-list.Tusshar was nice as a newcomer.
He was an excellent choice and the feeling you get of a mismatched couple when you watch him and Kareena together just makes it right for the film.
Kareena seldom looked so beautiful and acted well, though she was a bit raw those days.
Dalip, Amrish and the rest are first-rate too.Overall, a nice movie that can give you a long, lingering smile that will come back every time you remember about the film.
To be honest when I first heard about this movie I was sceptical as to whether or not it was going to be good.
I instantly liked the songs but just because the songs are good doesn't always mean that the film would be good.
And the fact that there was a new-comer opposite Kareena Kapoor (in only her 2nd film) didn't help the pre-discussion about this film as hit films tend to have the likes of Shahrukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit in the lead roles.So when I saw this movie for the first time I was so sure I knew what was going to happen (as a lot of Indian movies tend follow the same sort of endings) that I expected one thing to happen and something completely out of the blue happened at the end.
I liked this film so much that I purchased it on DVD (and I only ever buy the ones I really like...)The acting of Tusshar and especially Kareena Kapoor was beyond a doubt one of the finest performances for fairly new-comers to the acting scene and the roles seem to fit both Tusshar and Kareena perfectly.
And not having seen Refugee yet (shame on me I know) I will definately be watching it soon and undoubtedly commending on Kareena's performance (and probably buying it on DVD).
as a viewer I would say the movie was great, especially for Tusshar as a new comer..
he was brilliant and the manner he delivered his role was just great.
I would say that he is a good actor.
son like father.....Kareena was good and has delivered her role well.
Both of them have delivered their role in the manner I expected them..
Great Film Ever.
It was one of the best movies i have ever seen in my whole life.
Great acting and good composing.
Awesome editing and a lot of action is there in this movie.
Hero was dying to say that he loves the heroin.
you have to see this movie to believe that there are a lot of things which you should understand before proposing someone.
his film is about passion, love, bravery, romance, fight and a lot of genre you want to see in a single movie.
One of the great actors of all time "Mr Amrish Puri" worked in this film.
But in this film he played a positive role which is another unique thing about this movie. |
tt0063819 | Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day | The story begins when Winnie the Pooh is on his way to his thoughtful spot. Today is a very windy day. But as Pooh sits thinking, Gopher pops out of the ground and advises Pooh to leave the spot because of it being "Winds-day". Pooh having misunderstood his warning goes across the Hundred Acre Wood to wish everyone a happy Winds-day. Pooh first goes to his friend Piglet who lives in a beech tree. Piglet initially came out to rake leaves but the wind proves too strong for him to handle. Piglet is nearly blown away but Pooh quickly hangs on to him by his scarf, like a kite on a string. As Pooh struggles to keep a hold of the scarf he passes by Kanga and Roo, wishing them both a happy Winds-day; Eeyore, whose stick house Pooh breaks as he passes; and finally Rabbit, who Pooh inadvertently helps harvest the carrots in his vegetable garden as he slides by.
The blustery wind finally blows Pooh and Piglet over to Owl's treehouse, where he invites them in. Pooh wishes Owl a happy Winds-day, as he has everyone else, but Owl informs them that the wind is due to "a mild spring zephyr" rather than to a particular holiday. While Owl begins telling Pooh and Piglet stories of adventures his relatives had, the strong wind rocks his house back and forth causing it to sway and eventually the tree and house both collapse. Owl blames Pooh at first but Pooh says he did not do it. Christopher Robin and the others come and examine the wrecked house and since it cannot be repaired, Eeyore volunteers to seek out a new house for Owl, who proceeds to tell the others more stories of his relatives for quite some time; talking from page 41 to page 62.
Meanwhile, on page 62, as night falls, the wind is still blowing and Pooh is kept awake by growling and scratching noise and he opens his door for the visitor outside. An orange bouncing tiger named Tigger emerges from outside, rolling over Pooh and sitting on him. Tigger introduces himself with his signature song ("The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers") and informs Pooh that he has come looking for something to eat. He then decides to try some of Pooh's honey but after some tastes he gets disgusted and decides that "Tiggers don't like honey". Before leaving Pooh's house, Tigger tells him that there are Heffalumps and Woozles in the forest that steal honey. Pooh, frightened by Tigger's tale, stays up to guard his honey, but eventually falls fast asleep. As he is sleeping, he has a nightmare about Heffalumps and Woozles stealing his honey and chasing him around until he wakes up during a flood-inducing rainfall.
Later, Piglet is washed away from his home. He writes a bottle-note for help just before the waters carry him off, sitting on a chair. Pooh manages to reach higher ground with only ten honey pots. However, as he is eating some of the honey the rising waters carry him away. Kanga, Roo, Rabbit and Tigger all gather at Christopher Robin's house, which is situated on the highest ground, while Eeyore continues house hunting for Owl. Roo finds Piglet's bottle, and Owl flies off to tell Piglet that help is on the way.
Owl manages to reach Piglet and Pooh, but before he can inform them of the impending rescue (and telling them another one of his boring stories) a waterfall threatens to carry them all over the side. Pooh switches places with Piglet as they take the plunge, and luckily for them the waterfall washes them right into Christopher Robin's yard. Thinking that Pooh had rescued Piglet, Christopher Robin decides to throw a party celebrating Pooh's heroic deed. During the party, Eeyore announces that he has found a new home for Owl. He leads everyone over to his discovery, which, known to everyone except for Owl and Eeyore, is Piglet's beech tree. Owl is very impressed with the house, but before anyone can tell him who the home belongs to, Piglet decides that Owl should have the house. Pooh decides to allow Piglet to move into his home and, is very impressed by his selflessness, asks Christopher Robin to make the hero party for two instead of one. | psychedelic, cute, entertaining | train | wikipedia | A wonderful piece of whimsy.
Winnie the Pooh has always been a favorite of mine.
The original stories are in the realm of the Mary Poppins stories, i.e., difficult to translate to film.
In this instance, Disney has managed to transfer the charm of the Pooh stories intact to the screen.
Winnie is simply adorable as an animated character, and Sterling Holloway gives him the perfect voice.
All the other characters are voiced with perfection, too, especially Tigger, who makes his debut in this short film.
Tigger almost steals the show from Pooh; when he's onscreen, you don't notice anything else.
Sebastian Cabot adds just the right touch as the narrator.The entire film has the feel of the pink elephant sequence in Dumbo; inspired, creative and unforgettable.
During the storm, pages from the book blow away as the wind rises, rain washes text down the page and away into a stream, etc.
Everyone should love this adaptation; Disney soon cranked Pooh out as a series, and it got tedious and sloppy.
But this early effort is a real masterpiece..
a big part of my childhood (as were the other two short films).
Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day was the second part of the 1977 release of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.
'Many Adventures' was probably more crucial to me than I'll ever remember since it was the first film I ever saw, over and over, before I could even speak.
Looking back on it, as well as on the film, I realized this entry had the biggest effect on me- it had lots of humor (and some of it still funny, if only in the 'cute' sense), everlasting themes, splendid songs, and Tigger too.
But more than anything else I think what was most fascinating about this entry (and possibly what the Academy saw in it to give the film an Oscar) was the dream sequence.
I can't really be sure of it, yet on a recent viewing I realized much of what goes into that dream of Helfflumps and Woozles is akin to surrealism (another example could be of the Pink Elephant sequence in Dumbo).
For young children it is perhaps the most frightening and intense sequence of the film as a whole (a couple of images from it stayed with me through the years), and that gives it the edge to appeal to older audiences.
While I would usually recommend The Many Adventures, if one just wants to see part of the film, this is the one to see.
A+ (as much for quality as for nostalgia).
Disney got it right with Pooh!.
Disney's track record when it comes to adapting other source material to the screen is mixed, to say the least.
But with their adaptaions of Pooh,they succeed marvelously.
This short won the Academy Award for Animated Short and it's easy to see why: everything clicks.
The voice casting is great, the design is superb, animation is top-notch and the source material is accorded with the respect and affection it merits.
By all means, find this and watch it if you can.
As of this writing, it is in-print.
Most joyously recommended..
A Wonderful Movie!.
I always like Winnie The Pooh movies,but I really like the older Winnie The Pooh movies.I like the background art and the songs are great!I like the way the story goes because one thing leads to another.
I would recommend this movie to children ages 5+ and I would recommend it for a family movie.This movie has the original voices of Winnie The Pooh and Tigger.It is a great film and it made me sing along and laugh.If you like Winnie The Pooh I would recommend this one!
because it's full of fun adventures for the whole family to enjoy.
It may be an older movie but it is a great one!
Actually I prefer the older Winnie The Pooh movies,but I like all the Winnie The Pooh movies!.
Another short Disney masterpiece!.
This is the second of the four Winnie the Pooh featurettes.
Not only this is enjoyable, but it's also memorable and successful.
This probably had the most songs in one short film, and all of them are really memorable.
What also made me happy about this film is that although I didn't know this little fact until about a few years ago, It won the 1968 Academy Award for Best Cartoon Short!
I am very happy for Winnie the Pooh to win this award.
The score is also memorable, too.
What didn't satisfy me was that it didn't include the Winnie the Pooh theme song.
Does anyone know why?
Anyway, in conclusion, Walt Disney died during the production of this short and the Academy Award was given posthumous.
So see it for him if you haven't already, because I'm very sure he would've liked it..
Hugely entertaining vignette, helped enormously by the presence of Tigger!.
By that, I mean that I absolutely love all the Pooh vignettes, with or without Tigger.
But Tigger, marvellously voiced by Paul Winchell, absolutely hilarious he was, was so memorable in this vignette that I can't help mention him.The vignette has a great story, the animation is wonderful, and the songs are highly memorable.
I loved the songs, every one of them memorable in every way.Especially the Heffalumps and Woozles song, that did scare me as a child, but now it is very entertaining.
The voice acting is terrific from all involved, Sebastian Cabot as the narrator shines particularly.Overall, a hugely entertaining gem, flawless from the start, but Tigger's presence elevates it to a greater level.
10/10 Bethany Cox. Hello!
T-I-double Ger. That spells Tigger!.
"Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day", the second of the Winnie the Pooh's shorts, introduces us the characters that were missing in the first one: Piglet (who becomes Pooh's best friend) and the very humorous and super-amusing Tigger.It has all of the qualities already seen in the first one, including cheerful songs such as "The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers", "Hip Hip Pooh-ray!" and "The Rain Rain Rain Came Down Down Down".This one has a funny plot as well.
In the first part of the story, Winnie the Pooh wishes a «Happy winds-day» to his friends (because it's a very windy day), starting with Piglet.
The second part of the story takes place later, while Pooh's in bed and hears strange noises and decides to open the door anyway (after all, he's not the smartest bear in the world).
This visit is...
Tigger!
Tigger!
Tigger is so funny!
I love his remarkable personality, his sense of humor, his singing and his bounces!
It's impossible not to like Tigger!
During the third part of our story, there's a rain storm and a Hero Party that becomes a Two Hero Party, celebrated by Cristopher Robin and his pals.
The Owl is a character that loves to talk.
Once he starts, he doesn't stop and he dislikes to be interrupted, although he is always polite.
The Gopher appears in this one too, but he's not in the book, you know.
My favorite Piglet's line is «Oh, dear!
Oh, d-d-d-dear-dear!».My least favorite part is Pooh's dream about "hefalumps and woozels" trying to steal his honey.
Nevertheless, it's bizarre, original and creative.
I can't help but think of the "Pink Elephants" sequence from "Dumbo", because they're both so odd.Initially I had doubts about the sex of Rabbit and Piglet because their voices sound somewhat feminine.Well, T-T-F-N!
Fun Even for Non-Fans.
Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968) *** 1/2 (out of 4)Oscar-winning short from Disney has Pooh, Tigger, Piglet and the rest of the gang being forced to leave their homes after a storm with heavy rainfall comes through.
I'll admit right up front that I'm really not that big of a Pooh fan.
I didn't care too much for him as a kid and my tolerance level hasn't grown much more in the three decades that followed.
With that said, I think even a person who hates Pooh would still find this film to be a winner simply because of the imagination that's on full display.
The greatest sequence in the entire film happens during a dream sequence where the term psychedelic would certainly fit.
The song is a very good once but the wonderful use of colors is what really makes this sequence jump off the screen.
There are also some very funny bits to be found in the film including one inside Owl's house where everyone keeps sliding around the place.
The animation quality is certainly very high but that's exactly what you expect when it comes to Disney.
Fans of Pooh will certainly love this film but even those non-fans should be entertained..
Perfect for all children..
One of the best shorts ever, it marked my childhood a lot.
Highly recommend..
Happy Winds-day.
Oscar-winning Winnie the Pooh cartoon is a wonderful piece of entertainment.
The story starts out on a very windy day, where Piglet is blown around like a kite and poor owl has his tree knocked over.
From there we meet Tigger, who sings the classic song "The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers." Tigger warns Pooh that Heffalumps and Woozles love to steal honey.
This leads to Pooh having a nightmare about them (and another wonderful song).
Then it begins to rain, eventually flooding poor Piglet's home and it's up to his friends to save him.
They really crammed a lot into this one but it flows together nicely.Great animation, wonderful voicework, and some terrific songs make this a classic.
Later made up part of the Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh movie..
A real masterpiece!.
(CONTAINS SPOILERS!!)This early Disney movie is a real masterpiece.
I love it so much, and I'm sure Walt Disney would have also liked it.
This movie is one of the best Disney movies ever.In this movie, we are introduced to Piglet, and while he flies up in the air, Pooh holds on, like a kite.
Since Piglet is in this one a lot, and I like Piglet, I particularly liked this one.
The wind blows them through Rabbit's garden, pulling the carrots out of the ground, until they get to Rabbit's house.
Owl's house blows down, and Eeyore helps to find a new one.Next, Pooh meets Tigger, who tells him about threats of thieves who steal honey.
Pooh has a dream about Heffalumps and Woozles.
When he wakes up, his house is flooded.
Piglet's house is flooded, and he writes a message in a bottle.
Next, Pooh rescues him accidentally, and has a hero party.
Piglet gives up his house for Owl, and Piglet lives with Pooh.
They were both heroes.I especially was happy with certain cast members.
In this one, Sterling Holloway is perfect as Pooh, John Fiedler is fabulous as Piglet, and all the other voices are great.
Junius Matthews adds a nice touch as Rabbit, and Sebastian Cabot is a good narrator.
This movie is highly recommended..
Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day. This sequel to the original book based Walt Disney cartoon is a lot better.
It also introduces the characters Piglet and Tigger.
Winnie the Pooh, bear with little brain, goes out and it is a very blustery day.
He sings a little song about it and then sits and thinks in his thinking spot.
A chipmunk or something tells him its Wednesday, so he decides to wish everyone a Happy Wednesday.
He starts with Piglet who is being blown away by the strong wind.
Later this blustery day turns into a rainy day and it turns into a flood.
There was a pretty good song by a bunch of "hephalumps", or elephants, in Pooh's dream.
Kids will love Tigger.
It won the Oscar Best Short Subject, Cartoons.
Winnie the Pooh was number 55 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons.
Worth watching!.
New friends and new adventures.
They say when you have nothing to talk about you just talk about the weather and this also applies to this 20-minute short film.
Basically, everything that happens in here is massive rainfall and resulting from it a huge flood.
The director is Wolfgang Reitherman again and this one here won an Oscar even, the last for Walt Disney, quite a while after his death already.
It was the second entry to the American Pooh series.
However, I felt that just like with the first there was too little interesting action in here.
Tigger was entirely forgettable really in here.
Even his presentation was nothing special.
Piglet added something nice and also shows us that Pooh is not only an always-hungry bear, but also a loyal friend.
But the ending was so weird nonetheless.
Owl randomly moves into Piglet's home and he just have to go?
That was so strange.
Why wouldn't the owl simply move in with Pooh.
Anyway, all in all certainly one of the weaker Academy Award winners from the Best Animated Short Film category.
Not recommended. |
tt0270880 | Champion | The film CHAMPION is a tale about a man who has a quest, a dream to be the best of the best. The film centres on four main characters, namely Rajveer Singh (Sunny Deol), a simpleton from a village in Punjab, whose sole dream in life is to become a super-cop and wipe off all crime. After, training, he gets his first posting at Mumbai for a special assignment. Bubbling with enthusiasm, an arrival, he is shocked to find that his job is to protect a nine-year-old boy, Abbas Khan (Abhishek Sharma). A bodyguard, after all the rigorous training to eliminate hardcore criminals! Abbas is the sole heir to millions of riches left to him by his parents, who have expired in a drastic plane crash. The only threat to Abbas's life is Nazir (Rahul Dev), who has a personal vendetta because of which he venomously stalks the innocent child. Abbas's only guardian is Sapna (Manisha Koirala), who is close to Abbas and his family. Sapna, a vivacious lady and a successful model, is the only source of love, affection and fun in Abbas's life. Rajveer and Abbas hate each other from the world go. Rajveer dislikes this naughty spoilt rich brat for being the cause of his shattered dream of becoming a super-cop whereas Abbas hates Rajveer for curtailing his freedom to do things as he pleases. Abbas then calls upon his messiah, Sapna, to take care of this dictator in his life and together they play pranks on Rajveer to get rid of him. From here starts a very interesting love-hate relationship filled with fun and laughter, only to culminate into Rajveer and Sapna falling in love and Abbas and Rajveer developing a relationship of understanding by the end of the day where Rajveer is ready to risk everything to protect Abbas from Nazir, the only danger in Abbas's life. But this time Nazir has made several chilling attempts to eliminate Abbas. Now the only way to get Abbas out of danger is for Rajveer to nab Nazir and he does not just that, with a powerful climax to this saga. Rajveer kills Nazir in a thrilling climax, rescuing Abbas. | murder, prank | train | wikipedia | Good!. Champion is an interesting action thriller, and it is true to its title, as Sunny Deol is the cop hero in this movie. Overall, the film has enough thrills to keep you at the edge of your seat. Early in the movie, the mini tussles with that kid are kind of fun before Sunny becomes his hero. Sunny's introduction is definitely worth watching. The villain (a killer) is excellent and clever, and he does well at matching wits with Sunny. How Sunny deals with this killer down to the final fight is well done. Only Sunny Deol could fit this cop role and pull it off so well, which is why he is the best. Go for this and enjoy it!. A bad movie with useless action. Champion is a bad movie directed by a first-timer Padam Kumar with lots of sloppy actions and romance.The film revolves round a wealthy boy named Abbas (Abhishek Sharma) whose parents were killed in a plane crash caused by a lunatic, Nazeer (newcomer Rahul Dev). The task of keeping Abbas safe is given to an aspiring cop from Patiala, Rajveer Singh (Sunny Deol, who looks chubby as ever). Rajveer dreams of becoming a well-known cop and receiving lots of medals from the authorities by nabbing all the baddies of the city. But his task is not an easy one since the child refuses to cooperate with him and in comes the chief of the children, Sapna (Manisha Koirala, who also looks chubby as ever). Abbas and Sapna scheme to throw Rajveer out of the house but with little success. It's not until later that Rajveer and the child bond and Abbas agrees to cooperate. How the hero saves the child and kills the villain forms the climax.The plot is simple and is an old wine in a new bottle for most of the Indian audiences. The director put no effort in establishing the plot. He just keeps putting useless action and romance between the hero and the heroine.Talking about the performances, we know Sunny Deol is tailor-made for this role. Because action is his only forte. He looks like he gained a lot of weight and coming to his dancing abilities, he's a complete zero in that department. Manisha Koirala looks fat and the clothes she wears in the dance sequences keep accentuating her heaviness. It's about time for Koirala to pack her bags. Rahul Dev shows promise and he is the only character who's likable throughout this dismal movie. Abhishek Sharma is okay considering he's a kid and is not expected to act anyways. The rest of the cast is routine.Finally, Champion disappoints. But if you have nothing better to do, just watch it once!. Good after most of the first half. After a few more typical action movies, Deol stared in one of his first serial killer movies. But, the movie gets ruined by some of the most retarted kiddish scenes in the first half. The jokes are stupid, and a person with piles getting beaten on his butt is not funny stupid kids. The movie drags with boring kiddish comedy, but takes a turn when a prank played on Deol actually gets him scolded by his senior. But, the second half is terrific. Even the last 20 minutes of the 1st have is good. When Rahul fails to attack the child, he gets so angry and his portrayal of a mental villain is good but Ashutosh Rana was more horrific in Sangharsh. The movie keeps you thrilled and the action sequences are realistic and well made. There is no MITHUN FLYING ACTION LOL. Though, Deol still shouts at parts, he has improved his acting skills and has matured. Manisha Koirala is average, her comic timing is bad. Abhishek Sharma is the scene stealer as the frightened child. Overall, a decent movie but most of the first half is nonsense.. An average Bollywood action movie. Sunny Deol plays Rajveer a police officer who has been given the task of protecting a young boy named Abbas from a killer called Naseer who has already killed Abbas's parents and has only one target left.I found this film to be thrilling at times but the action sequences were a little corny but its an action movie. I've seen better Bollywood action movies but this film does incorporate an interesting side, the villains back story, his motivation to kill and the training he puts himself through.Manisha Koirala however was a little annoying there was no need for her character but I guess Bollywood needs to throw in a love interest....Its one of the unwritten rules. |
tt1520494 | BlinkyTM | In the near future, where robotics have greatly evolved, Alex (Max Records) is looking for the normal loving family that he doesn't have - his parents (played by Jenni Fontana and James Nardini) are always too busy fighting with each other to worry about the effect on him. After seeing an advertisement for a domestic robot named 'Blinky', he asks his parents for one for Christmas, hoping that it will bring his family together as is shown in the advert. Blinky's advertisement and conduct at this point indicate that Blinky is specifically designed to provide friendship to its masters. After obtaining Blinky and playing with him for a while, shown in a home-video style montage, Alex feels disappointment in the fact that Blinky hasn't changed anything and his parents continue to argue. Eventually, Alex becomes tired of the robot and ignores him, even when Blinky persistently asks to play games.
After leaving Blinky to count down from 1 million outside in the rain in a game of Hide and Seek, Alex becomes frustrated and gives Blinky multiple conflicting orders, such as telling him to be still and at the same time cleaning up, as well as telling him to kill both his parents, himself, and everyone else in his rage, leading Blinky to malfunction. After Alex informs his mother about the glitched robot and that they need to buy a new one, she suggests rebooting him, and that Alex must clean up the mess he made or she will tell Blinky to ″clean [him] up and cook [him] for dinner". Alex reboots Blinky, appearing to have reverted to factory settings, and asking Alex "will you be my best friend?" Alex continues to ignore Blinky as normal.
Soon afterwards, Blinky starts to behave abnormally, such as showing up in Alex's room overnight, and continuing the count down from before. The next day the family dog appears to be gone, with Alex believing that the robot had something to do with it. Alex goes into another rage with Blinky, throwing an electronic tablet at him. The tablet simply shatters glass throughout the room, causing no damage to Blinky. Alex gets even angrier and blames the mess on Blinky, so Blinky retreats to the kitchen to 'clean', counting down from 10 and grabbing an electric knife from the drawers, proclaiming "ready or not, here I come". That evening, both parents are eating dinner at the table, with Blinky present and Alex's seat empty. As Alex's mother asks Blinky if he has seen Alex, the robot replies that he is right there at the table, and reveals that he has carried out the mother's 'command' from before: he has killed Alex and cooked him into meatballs, which they are now eating. The parents scream in horror as Blinky asks if he has "done good".
The police arrive at the house as Blinky is cleaning up supposedly the parents' blood. He lets two officers into the house, and shuts the door behind them. The last shot shows Blinky as he kills his next victim, himself and the camera covered in blood, as he carries out Alex's past 'commands' to kill everybody. | plot twist, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | A bit more subtlety would have made it better but the effects are very well done.
A boy decides he wants a robot companion like the friendly, smiling Blinky that he sees on the TV adverts.
His parents oblige and he finds himself with a great friend and servant who never tires and always does what he is told.
However, while the boy has this friend he has to see his parent's relationship deteriorate in front of him.This short film has a nice air in brooding tension and it builds it pretty well across the film.
The main selling point is of course in the area of the visual effects because for a short film these are very well done.
Blinky looks convincingly real for the majority of the time, but he also has a nice sense of menace in the way that all dead-eyed staring and smiling things do; he feels wrong even when he is so clearly just a loyal robotic dog of a thing.
So on this level it works but the problem is that the narrative moves us too quickly and the further it goes the more blatant it gets.
This is seen very quickly as the brooding menace becomes almost comic excess, whether it be the melodramatics of the boy yelling at the robot or final shots.
This disappointed me a bit because it felt like the leaps were too big and undercut the nice build up it had mostly done.It does still work for what it is and the visual effects are well worth a look, but at times it appeared much smarter and more subtle that it ultimately turned out to be, and it was hard not to feel like the journey was better than the destination..
Me and my robot.
In the future a child is given a pet robot by his warring parents.
Before long the neglected child grows tired of Blinky the robot and begins to play unkind games on it.
It all ends in tears.This was a decent enough, if unremarkable, little short.
The robot is easily the best character, although the child actor is incredibly convincing as an annoying little brat.
Mostly, this is a showcase for the animation of Blinky.
We also get to see an unusual scene where Blinky and the boy pass by another android in the street, with a future city-scape in the distance.
Although it isn't a sequence that has much relevance to the plot-line it's probably the most memorable moment in the film.
As short films go though, this isn't too bad.
The ending is quite amusing as well..
where to even start with this thing?!
so, "BlinkyTM" is a short "horror" movie by Ruairi Robinson that tells the story of a kid, who's hates his life and adopts a robot.
the kid starts slapping the robot around and tells the robot to kill his family and gets what he wanted.now, what i liked: the premise overall looked interesting.
ya know, kid adopts a robot and starts slapping it around, and robot goes in a killing rampage.
and it also had good visuals, it wasn't like any indie movie or something.
they had good cameras and good quality, and Ruairi's direction was alright.what i hated: everything else!
the dialogue..
oh god!
oh god!
the dialogue in this thing was really bad.
every line that comes from either the robot or the kid is either stupid or nonsensical.
and the pacing...
oh my god, the pacing!
this is thing that i hated the most in this movie.
There's mountains of time where nothing's happening, it's just a annoying little kid talking to either his parents or his robot friend and the conversation goes nowhere.
this makes the movie really disjointed and depressing.
all the kid ever thought was just "I want a friend; i feel lonely; i want you to kill my family".
this thing either had me laughing to tears or it had me falling asleep.
and there was almost no f***ing writing here either.
whatever script this thing had was probably written on a cocktail napkin.
i don't know if Ruairi Robinson was brain-dead when he made this movie.so, can i recommend this movie?
hell no!
there's no way i'm gonna recommend this horrid thing to anybody!
Quality special effects, good cinematography.
I couldn't help but crack up at the parts where Blinky was starting to go bad, I'd like to believe it's possible to depict a cute little robot going evil in a non-comical way, but maybe in this medium such a scenario just isn't possible and I should excuse the director.
It was a very predictable short and nothing too clever, but the special effects were top-notch and the acting was above average.
The idea behind BlinkyTM was unoriginal but the story seemed very fleshed out and set in reality compared to most other shorts of the horror genre, if you can even consider BlinkyTM "horror".
That's the main problem I had with this short: the absolute lack of horror aspects in it.
The film dragged on and that's saying a lot when talking about a 13 minute short; nothing really happened, 12 minutes were used to set the stage, and 1 minute was used for horror.The short itself--regardless of the lack of horror--was still well done, albeit riddled with clichés (fighting parents, neglected kid, takes it out on the robot, etc.) which make the film rather uninteresting.
It's definitely not a short you'll remember for years to come, it's very forgettable but the quality of special effects and execution of the short overall--even though lacking in the horror field--earns itself a generous 7/10 from me..
Don't let your child get spoiled..
This short is well made, great realistic visuals,and even though the gore factor is not present it will leave you with a bit of a sick stomach.
The story is obvious, boy gets robot, robot gets boring, boy plays cruel games with robot and acts like an annoying prepubescent tyrant with his electronic companion.
Blinky is indeed cute and lovable, but as we know this is not going to end well.
The performances are strong for the kid and his dog, and the short screen time for mom is also convincing even though rushed.
It is an easy watch and would recommend it to all parents who what a robot to cook for them.
Oh and if you don't want to spoil your child, keep them in the fridge..
Blinky TM.
I liked Blinky.
At first the kid gets Blinky for a Christmas present.
The thing must have costed a fortune.
It's a fully functioning artificially intelligent robot.
It's designed to keep kids company, and play with them.
You almost develop a warm feeling with this robot.
It does everything the child asks.The kid who was gifted it by his fighting parents, eventually goes nuts, and makes Blinky clean up after him.
He blatantly abuses the robot throughout, as he notices his parents fighting more and more.
Sooner or later, Karma kicks in, and Blinky gets even.This is a classic tale about revenge, and how you should treat others how you would like to be treated, even robots.
I think this was an excellent short film.
Who ever appreciates film as art will like this horror short.
I did.I won't tell you what happens, but let's just say the brat is in better taste by the end of this short film..
A visual effects demo, nothing more.
(www.plasticpals.com) I thought Blinky was decent, though it definitely couldn't sustain a full-length film.
Technically speaking it's a great demo, used as an excuse to show off the director's expertise with visual effects.
The story focuses on a boy's relationship with his pet robot during the break-up of his parent's marriage.
You'll have to venture into spoiler territory (and past the break) to get my full thoughts on it.Alex, played by Max Records (Where The Wild Things Are), knows what he wants for Christmas: a 4 foot tall humanoid robot named Blinky.
Alex is initially overjoyed, but he soon becomes bored of it.
Unable to provide any real comfort or support, the robot is revealed for what it really is: a machine incapable of true compassion or friendship.
Alex's anger towards his parents leads him to command the robot to kill his family, and when the robot malfunctions it complies.Unfortunately, both the script and the acting aren't very good.
We're never given a scene where the parents sit Alex down and explain they are getting divorced, so we don't see Alex's world really fall apart.
It would have helped to show that Alex was an unpopular kid at school to further highlight his isolation and dependence on the robot, while also engendering some sympathy from the audience.
Instead, we're given a brief scene where Alex and Blinky are carrying groceries – what's the point?
Well a fancy robot walks by, and that seems to be it: to show off more special effects.Sure, the attention to detail on the robot and some of the near-future background elements is nice, but it fails as a film.
If you're interested in robots it is probably worth the 12 minute running time, but personally I can think of a dozen ways this could have been better.
As a fun aside Blinky looks quite a bit like LG's robot mascot (both feature bulbous heads and are entirely computer-generated)..
Could have been better.
If you look past the horror/violence elements from this 12-minute short movie, there really is not that much left.
A boy gets a robot as a gift, but after spending some time with it initially, he quickly loses interest and starts mistreating his new pal.
The fact that he asked for a new one when old Blinky seems broken shows that the boy definitely had a touch of sadism to his character.
He does not simply lose interest and stops caring, he wants to keep humiliating the robot.
But revenge is a dish best served cold.
In cold metal robot-style here in this short film.
The writer and director is Ruairi Robinson from Ireland and he made this one 10 years after his Academy Award nomination.
The lead actor is Max Records and he was already a bit of a star when this was made due to his turn in Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are".
There's some drama in here, some horror, some humor even (the scene with the war robots with the actual danger being Blinky), but none of the aspects were really fascinating enough to let me recommend it.
However, I did like the early parts with all their fake harmony and music, even if there was something really scary and eerie about the robot from the beginning.
All in all, I hoped for more though.
Not recommended..
"No problem!".
One of the things I really liked about this short was how it, before rushing headlong and irrevocably into horror territory, does an effective enough job with the few more dramatic scenes of establishing why the kid is so lonely and messed up inside that he would treat the poor little robot helper like complete s**t until he eventually scrambles its circuits and causes it to turn homicidal!
When I first watched it I thought that the constant mistreatment had somehow bred some kind of resentment in the robot against the boy, what especially make me think that theory was the definite 'tone' with which it says "Look at the mess you made." But I suppose the most credible and obvious reason it turns murderous would be simple "user error." It did get left out in the rain, was given multiple conflicting commands, the order by the kid to kill everyone and probably the mother's "If you make a mess like this again I'll have him clean and cook you for dinner", creating an order 'stack' so that when it rebooted, it was simply doing what it was told to as perceived orders from the family.
The robot was the only real intelligent character in the story!
The robot's design was eerie because it looked so innocent, like it had a permanent sweet smile on its face.
It looked like a cross between Wall-E and R2-D2, and I honestly had no clue that it was a CGI creation, it looked like it was really there to me.
It is such a wonderfully chilling moment when it grabs the meat carver from the kitchen drawer and says "Ready or not, here I come!" And that sure is one helluva nightmarishly grisly twist!
The moment is all the more disturbing because it's slightly humorous by the cheery matter-of-fact way in which it informs the astonished parents!
It's more effective in that it's what the robot was implied to have done, not what was shown.
I think the ending would have worked better if they'd have just left it with the door closing instead of showing the unnecessary moment of gore which I found a little tacky.
It just goes to show you, don't ever take out your troubles on someone that's only there to help and wants to be your friend, even when it's just a machine.
Alex would have been just fine if he'd only respected Blinky, but the constant abuse made a monster out of it.
Very good, it seamlessly blends elements of family sci-fi and horror into a wicked short which combines the creepy terror of the killer robot with the more old-fashioned macabre horror of cannibalism.
That horrid little brat was a creep, he asked for it!
Not too many problems that I personally can think of with this short, it delivers the goods.
Later! |
tt1533013 | Beautiful Boy | The film opens up with home videos of a husband and wife at the beach with their young son. A young man reads a short story about a boy and girl; saying that they didn't know it, but their lives would one day irrevocably change. Bill (Michael Sheen) and Kate (Maria Bello) are a married couple who are tightly wound and devoted to their work. Bill is a businessman, and Kate proofreads books for a living. The only thing keeping them together is their eighteen-year-old son Sam (Kyle Gallner), who is having trouble adjusting to college.
One morning, it's reported on the news that there has been a shooting spree at Sam's school. They are then visited by the police who inform them that Sam is not only dead, but that he was the gunman. Kate refuses to believe that their son would do something so horrible, and spends the night tidying up Sam's room as if nothing has happened. As the news media descends upon the couple, Bill and Kate decide to stay with Kate's brother Eric (Alan Tudyk) and his wife Trish (Moon Bloodgood). The next morning, Eric and Trish's son Dylan (Cody Wai-Ho Lee) turns on the television to see a video made by Sam about the impending massacre. Bill then decides to issue a public statement, saying that they are both deeply sorry over what has happened, and ask for their privacy as they endeavor to get their lives back on track. They have a small funeral with only family present.
Trish soon becomes agitated at Kate's nit-picking, and her attempts to mother Dylan, but Eric says that she has to be sensitive to their situation since Sam was her only child. They eventually leave, saying they are going to visit a friend, but check into a motel instead. The manager (Meat Loaf) not knowing who they are, makes a comment about Sam and his "monster family". Bill goes back to the house where he finds a teenage boy in Sam's room. They have a short scuffle where Bill cuts his hand, and the boy calls him a "psycho". He returns to the motel with their laptop, and finds a video from Sam. He and Kate view it together; Sam only says "mom and dad , I'm sorry ,please don't hate me"
Bill and Kate get into an argument about what could have caused Sam to kill all those innocent people. Bill lashes out at Kate for always critiquing every decision that Sam made, but she says that he was never there for them because he was always so busy working. Bill ends up saying that he wishes that Sam was never born, and Kate leaves.
She goes back to their house for the first time since the shooting, and looks through Sam's room. Bill meets with his boss Harry (Bruce French), who agrees that he can return to work next week. While grocery shopping, Kate runs into her young co-worker Cooper (Austin Nichols). They go back to the house, and she catches him looking through Sam's short stories. He says that he is writing a piece about the shooting, but that he wanted to portray Sam in a more human light by learning more about him. Bill finally returns to work, but feels alienated by the rest of the staff. Harry tells Bill to take more time off to see a therapist, so he quits.
Bill later visits the cemetery to find Sam's gravestone vandalized, with the word killer written on it. He breaks down both physically and emotionally as he tries to scrub the word off with his bandaged hand. Kate reads all of Sam's stories, and goes to Sam's gravestone as well. She gets a call from the motel manager about Bill, and finds him curled up in their old room. Kate embraces the emotionally distraught Bill, and takes him home.
Sam's voice is heard again as he ends his short story about the boy and girl. He says that no matter what they do, their lives will never be the same. | murder | train | wikipedia | Mom Kate (Maria Bello) is a typical concerned parent, wanting her child to do well; Dad Bill (Michael Sheen) asks is Sam needs any money and is doing well, and he hangs up.
The next morning, the terrible news: Sam has shot 18 students and teachers in his college before killing himself.The movie wisely shows us nothing of the massacre; its focus is on the aftermath.
Both Bill and Kate seem completely believable, and with the tragedies in places such as Columbine and Virginia Tech, they are characters who very much feel like they could be living next door to us right now.
Kate (Maria Bello) and Bill (Michael Sheen) have been struggling with their marriage for years and have decided to give it one final go before actually calling it quits.
A raw, realistic, and heart-wrenching look into our society ensues...Man, do I love movies like this!
Beautiful Boy is not only a realistic tale about a crumbling marriage, but also a unique look at the family of a trouble college student who did the unthinkable.
In a time where school shootings are at an all time high, there comes a movie like this that dares to examine the subject matter from a unique perspective.
For years after mass shooting at various schools like Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, and of course the notorious Columbine, its about time some filmmaker dared to take a look into this subject and from the parents point of view.When we hear about school shootings, we always think about the crazy kid who shot up the school, but we never question for a second, what about the parents and how are they taking the news.
No one knows and this film doesn't necessarily answer that questions, but instead does show how hard the parents not only take the loss, but how it makes them feel as people who have to live with knowing what their child is a killer.While this film not only tackles that difficult subject matter; it also takes a brutally honest look at divorce and the basic struggles of every day life.
Beautiful Boy shows this with Bill and Kate throughout the film and how the couple goes through periods where their love is strong and where it is weak.
There is a huge fight scene near the end of the film in which Kate and Bill begin to violently argue about the relationship and whose fault it is that Sam turned out the way he did.
It is gripping, raw, and unforgettable.In order for this film to work as perfectly as it did, it clearly depended on Maria Bello and Michael Sheen to give realistic and believable performances.
Bello and Sheen are the ones knock this film out of the park and give some truly Oscar worthy performances.I applaud director/writer Shawn Ku as well as co-writer Michael Armbruster for creating a film that makes our society look at life, marriage, and adolescent violence from a whole new perspective.
With Wu's direction, Beautiful Boy feels makes the audience feel as though we are dealing with the events that are taking place on screen and as filmmakers that is a great accomplishment.At the end of the day, Beautiful Boy is definitely not the feel good film of the summer, but is probably one of the most powerful and realistic films that I have seen in many years.
Beautiful Boy will more than likely be one of those films that around December of this year that will make it's way onto my " best of" list for the year..
Michael Sheen and Maria Bello play parents who lose their college-age son, but worse is their son died after shooting up his school.
So along with them having to grieve the loss of their boy, they have to suffer the scrutiny of the media attacking their son and them publicly, along with fighting themselves in trying to figure out what led to this awful thing happening.
They fight with whether they're responsible, whether they should take time to grieve or try to go back into things and as many other things as you can think of in this struggle for normalcy in understanding when everything else is fighting against them.Of course anything dealing with themes like this gives way to a lot of opportunity for melodrama.
These characters suffer in real ways and even though the film initially splits the two into stereotypes, Bello having the hysterical screams and disbelief and Sheen with the stunned silence, as it progresses they both go through phases of devastation, denial and just a need to understand and get past it.
They bring a lot of power to their roles and it can definitely hit very hard at times.Both Sheen and Bello have always been fine actors who rarely get the chance to demonstrate their immense talents.
Shawn Ku's Beautiful Boy examines the aftermath of a young man, Sammy, that commits a mass shooting at his school and ultimately takes his own life.
Bill (Michael Sheen) and Kate (Maria Bello) are your average married couple.
As a small and obviously personal film, Michael Sheen and Maria Bello deliver clear and cut, two of the most worthy performances of award's recognition this year.
The decision to use distant camera shots that are then zoomed in provides a layer between the characters and the audience that works in this film as we are invading the private lives during their most difficult times.The film follows the emotional journey of Bill (Michael Sheen) and wife Kate (Maria Bello) who are coping with the loss of their son from a college shooting incident.
However, the emotions of the families are completely foreign.The supporting roles are quietly powerful with Alan Tudyk (mostly known for his role of Steve the Pirate in "Dodgeball") as the brother of Kate, who defends his sister to his own wife when she is acting like "supermom" to her nephew.
But one too many things go wrong with this film that are results of maybe the film's own personal setbacks, and the screenplay's too.Bill (Sheen) and Kate (Bello) are a middle-class couple with a son in his Freshman year of College.
Bill and Kate are shocked and in denial when they get the news the next day that their son walked into his morning class, with a handgun, and opened fire on his teacher and classmates.Now is the part we rarely think about when it comes to tragedies like school shootings - the aftermath for the shooter's parents.
They are unfairly blamed, stamped with the seal of "bad parents," and are now trying to save their already dying marriage by holding onto the only one who knows their pain.It's heartbreaking to think about both of the affected sides in an incident like this.
It's hard on everyone.Michael Sheen and Maria Bello create pretty well acted chemistry, but ultimately, the film is its own worst enemy.
The film is free from waterworks, and this is coming from a guy who cries during My Girl, Stand By Me, and Toy Story 3.It might seem like I'm being way too critical, but once you get past those minor setbacks, Beautiful Boy truly is a pretty good film.
We don't really think about the parents of the murderer, or how they are affected.One sub-plot I wish the film would've explored was maybe having one of the neighbor's kids being killed and then the aftermath of between the couple of the killer and the couple of the victim.
I feel that that would've made a great little addition to a film already very limited.Beautiful Boy is a good first effort for a plot like this, and hopefully, more films will explore this topic with a heftier budget and further pursuing of the story would occur.
There is a film coming out pretty soon called We Need to Talk About Kevin, and from reading the plot and details of it, it seems Beautiful Boy wanted to be something just like that.
It will most likely suffer by comparison when that comes out, when really, its setbacks are some that you just can't really overcome.Starring: Michael Sheen, Maria Bello, and Kyle Gallner.
Bill (Micheal Sheen) and Kate (Maria Bello) are sharing a marriage that has no love.
Two detectives walk up to Bills front door, Kate knew that Sammy is dead even before a word is said; however what she didn't know is that her son is the killer and he took his own life as well after shooting down the other students.
Shawn Ku has all the right moves with the camera angles, the close up shots, the abrupt silence to build interest, but his efforts would have gone a longer way if the emotional factor which is in my case the most pre-dominant of all factors is present.Mass high school and college massacres always have been a thriving issue in some countries.
Title: Beautiful Boy Directed by: Shawn Ku Starring: Michael Sheen and Maria Bello Rated: R for some Language and a scene of sexuality Rated: 04/10.
It speaks loudly to contemporary marriages and families torn asunder by lack of communication in a time of sheltered or imposed privacy of cellphones, blogging, computers that prevent face to face communications at critical times.Bill (Michael Sheen) and Kate (Maria Bello) are living a stalemate of a marriage on the brink of ending: Kate is a proofreader for writers (currently for Cooper played with great sincerity by Austin Nichols) while Bill immerses himself in his business life.
Instead of a predictable happy ending the audience is left in the throes of the mending process - a writer/director choice that makes the film far more dramatic than most.Sheen and Bello give razor sharp portrayals of these two devastated, questioning people.
A very powerful and moving movie dealing with parents of a student who goes on a shooting spree and kills 17.
This movie did tackle the rarely seen subject of what the parents of someone who does that goes through and made you take a second thought at how you may have felt after the Columbine or Virgina Tech families.
This is another movie about a couple whom has lost a child except the difference is it is told from the perspective of parents whose child killed other students before committing suicide.The movie starts out with the couple, Kate and Bill, planning a vacation with their son.
It tells the story about business man Bill Carroll and proof-reader Kate Caroll, a conflicted married couple who is on the verge of separating when they learn that their 18-year-old son Sam has shoot numerous students at his university, including himself.
To get away from the media Bill and Kate move in with Kate's brother Eric and his wife Trish, but as time goes by they begin to question themselves as parents and is tormented by questions of why and how their son could have ended up doing what he did and if they could have done anything to prevent it.Finely and acutely directed by American filmmaker Shawn Ku, this quietly paced fictional tale which is narrated from the two main character's point of view, draws a compassionate and intimate portrayal of a married couple's struggle to recuperate and find their way back to each other after being left in shock and devastation by their young son.
While notable for it's naturalistic milieu depictions, low-keyed production design by Hungarian production designer and art director Gabor Norman and realism, this dialog-driven indie and psychological drama depicts two dense and interrelated studies of character and contains a good score by Canadian composer Trevor Morris.This at times heartrending, at times romantic, at times humorous and at times afflicting love-story which examines themes like grief, guilt, marriage and love, is impelled and reinforced by it's subtle character development and the heartfelt and empathic acting performances by English actor Michael Sheen and American actress and singer Maria Bello.
The shooting should have happened in the middle of the movie- instead, it happens right away before you get to know the characters or feel anything for them-there's no contrast to the movie-the acting is not the best either--or the directing.
It's not about the violence, but about the nightmare it is to be the parents of what has been a nice boy, doing atrocities.This film is about coping, about dealing with something that can't be undone, about getting through, about reconciliation, about trying to move on.
It's a love story, and an unusual one, about surviving the impossible.Maria Bello and Michael Sheen does another great acting job here.
In a way this film both gives us the feeling, and an impression of there still being hope even after an unspeakable tragedy like this.Meat Loaf is turning up in a y role as a motel clerk..
Its striking realism is both a gift and a curse: seeing its protagonists in their naturally empty and shell-shocked state for much of the film doesn't make for entertaining viewing - nonetheless its emotional scenes pack such a weighty punch, heightened by Sheen and Bello's terrific performances, you can truly feel their agony.While the fallout from the unconscionable number of tragedies that inspired this film tends to focus mainly on the perpetrator, then on the victims and their families, "Beautiful Boy" wisely forces its audience to think about the side of the story that is rarely heard..
More focused on their own troubles, the couple must deal with the aftermath that ensues after their son decides to kill himself and others in a college mass shooting incident.
Kate (Maria Bello) and Bill (Michael Sheen) are a struggling couple who are sleeping in separate rooms.
The onslaught of media forces them to stay with her brother Eric (Alan Tudyk) and his wife Trish (Moon Bloodgood).Bello and Sheen are using all their acting skills to drive this movie.
Going beyond blame and fear that is conventional in the media, the movie takes the perspective of the child's parents, who are in shock and grief, and simply can't understand what went wrong, with such a "normal" child.
There are moments in the film where the estranged couple begin to talk about how they feel in general and show a care for the other, moments of letting go of the pain and embracing intimacy, and moments where they hit rock bottom and attack each other for their personal suffering and the suffering of their dead child, rather than bear any responsibility, even if just by communication and intimacy and love.
I'd love to see someone write a movie on this subject again, only this time do it the right way..
there also should of been more flashbacks to when the boy was much younger...other than the very first scene, this movie is more about the parents grieving than it is the actually shooting, which i thought was terrible in terms of the plot.
The son, played by Kyle Gallner, is mesmerizing in his few moments of screen time, and I feel that the movie would have been much stronger if we were permitted to see a little more of his college environment and the days leading up to the shooting.However, I recognize that is the very point of the movie - - we want to understand how people make these terrible decisions, but we never can see enough evidence because ultimately there is nothing that can justify such evil.
Husband Bill (Michael Sheen) and wife Kate (Maria Bello) and their son who is in his first year of college.
Tudyk's torn love and Bloodgood's icy stare easily matched Sheen and Bello's ceaseless emotional range.When giving us supporting characters whose roles in the couple's partnership seemed obvious, both the supportive neighbour and the young, handsome writer became more than their cliché counterparts would suggest, and added substantial interest to the already engaging dynamics of all the relationships.The audience is given plenty of time to cry.
They brought real pause for thought about the fear and grief that parents go through when their child is off at university and sounds depressed and might not be adjusting all that well."Beautiful Boy" ends as it began—with people.
A saving grace of this film was the magnificent performances of Maria Bello and Michael Sheen in the title roles, a couple who are totally devastated when their beloved son takes his own life at his college after committing mass murder.While truly a depressing film, it examines the effects of this tragedy on the parents.
The performances by Michael Sheen and Maria Bello are moving.
I will be honest, I saw this film listed on the movie channels and looked at the information and upon seeing it had Maria Bello and Michael Sheen in it, I wanted to watch it.
The fact it was about parents dealing with the fallout of their sons college shooting pulled me in all the more.Having just watched it, I wanted to have a look what others made of it.
For Beautiful Boy, you don't have the son available to speak about his actions like the other film, you only get a couple of tiny snippets, the film doesn't focus on him or the shooting at the same time that it is entirely focused on them, but via the parents' reaction.I think this film stands out because there is no way to determine any wrong doing, and it feels that there really isn't any.
They have the double whammy of not only dealing with their child's death, but the fact that he had it in him to kill so many people.I don't think that Maria Bello and Michael Sheen deliver a well acted chemistry, I think they deliver a superb estranged numbness that would be evident in parents like them.
As well as Maria Bello, and Kyle Gallner, both recognizable, and well-known faces in the film industry, who both also did a fantastic job.Centering around a family, who've lost touch, Beautiful Boy hits incredibly close to home for late-teen-to-mid-twenties males, as well as parents. |
tt1525835 | Gantz | A pair of high school students, Kei Kurono and Masaru Kato, are hit by a subway train in an attempt to save the life of a drunk homeless man who had fallen onto the tracks. Following their deaths, Kurono and Kato find themselves transported to the interior of an unfurnished Tokyo apartment, where they meet Joichiro Nishi, a Gantz veteran, and other clueless participants. The pair soon realizes that they are not allowed to leave the apartment. At one end of the room there is a large black sphere known as "Gantz".
After some time in the room, the Gantz sphere opens up, revealing a bald naked man with a breathing mask and wires attached to his head, and various weapons for them to use. These include the custom fitting black suits which give them super-human strength, speed, stamina and damage resistance, a controller which acts as a radar and stealth unit, X-gun, X-Shotgun, Y-Gun. Later on the series the Gantz sword, Gantz Bike are made available as well as much more powerful weapons are awarded in the 100 point menu.
When the Gantz sphere opens, green text appears on its surface, informing those present that their "lives have ended and now belong to him". A picture and brief information is shown of some of the Gantz' targets; Gantz orders them to go and kill them. Except for a single mission, all the targets are aliens living on Earth, which take on a wide variety of forms. During the mission, normal people cannot see the players or the aliens. Gantz transports them to the area of the mission, and they cannot leave or return until all the enemies have been killed, or the time limit has run out. If they survive a successful mission, each individual is awarded points for the aliens they have killed. Once a participant has scored 100 points, a "100 point menu" will appear. The menu offers three options:
Option 1: The participant can return to their normal life, never having to be summoned by Gantz again. As a price, their memories of Gantz and the missions will be erased.
Option 2: The participant obtains a unique and extremely-powerful weapon.
Option 3: The participant can revive someone who has died during a mission from Gantz' memory.
After a mission has been completed, points are tallied up, the participants are allowed to leave and do as they see fit until their next mission, with the exception of talking about Gantz which would lead to their heads exploding. During Kurono and Kato's third mission, all the participants including Kato are killed, however Kato kills the last boss giving Kurono a chance to survive. Kurono survives the third mission bleeding on the floor with his limbs cut apart. After the third mission Kurono starts to change inside adopting a hero, leader complex similar to Kato. As the series continues, Kurono participates with the objective of reviving his deceased friends with the 100 point reward option. A new team of Gantz players is assembled, which Kurono leads, as the most experienced veteran and one of the best fighters. In the Oni mission it is shown that with Kurono's "will to live" he becomes the most ferocious Gantz hunter in the team. Through his interactions with the other members of the team and his life or death battles, Kurono gradually grows into a responsible leader. After the Oni mission Kato is revived by Kurono, and soon after Kurono meets his demise against the vampires. As the series goes on, the rules of the missions change; they can now be seen by regular people, the aliens they encounter are increasingly more powerful and dangerous, and they participate in a mission with another Gantz team from Osaka. Kato becomes the center of attention in the manga and his quest to revive Kurono. In a desperate attempt to revive his best friend, Kato fights the one hundred point alien Nurarihyon which obliterates both Osaka and Kurono's team. At the end of the mission, similar to the first time Kato died, he defeats arguably the strongest alien in the series and is laid bleeding on the floor. The series depicts both the missions and Kurono's regular life, as well as the daily lives of other Gantz players (to a lesser extent).
After several missions, an old participant named Nishi, who knows more than the others about how Gantz works, shows them a "catastrophe countdown" on the Gantz sphere which the other players were unaware of. The countdown reveals that there is one week left until some unknown "catastrophe." At the end of that week, a massive alien force invades the Earth and begins exterminating the human race, while Kurono and his companions try their best to make use of Gantz' advanced technology and weaponry in defense. At the end, Nishi and Kurono are depicted to be similar, both of whom were despised by their family and were sinister; however, unlike Nishi, Kurono has a reason to live. Nishi, in the chapter "The Great Escape", is left for dead by Kurono, vowing vengeance against him and crying out for Gantz and mother for help. It is hinted that Nishi died, but his death seems to be unclear. The Japanese also learn of the existence of Gantz teams all around the world. After a long battle, the humans manage to stop the alien invasion and soon after, it is revealed that it was another, highly advanced alien species that provided mankind with the means to defend itself against the invaders, for reasons they refuse to reveal and calls it a whim. In a desperate last effort, the leader of the alien forces, Eeva, challenges the whole human race, promising to exterminate every inhabitant by himself by crashing their mother ship, killing both races if Kurono does not come to their mother ship to fight him. Prior to this announcement Eeva completely dominates all Gantz teams in his vicinity by killing all the hunters, giving the human race a sense of their mortality. The world calls on Kurono, which is broadcast to the entire world, and, with a revived Kato's help, Kurono bets all his chance of winning and saving the human race on himself. Kurono manages to defeat Eeva, thus preventing the alien mothership from destroying Earth. The series ends with Kurono and Kato returning safely to Earth and being greeted as heroes. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0416243 | Submerged | Chris Cody (Steven Seagal) is a top-ranked mercenary who took part in an undercover operation to stop a major terrorist strike on U.S. soil; a strike that the UN refused to believe was about to happen. Cody had to break a number of laws in order to do the job, and he's in a military prison.
At the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, Uruguay, Secret Service agents are briefing the ambassador on a terrorist base when they suddenly go haywire and kill her, and then themselves. Later, in Washington DC, intelligence analyst Dr. Chappell (Christine Adams) concludes that some sort of mind control device must have been used. A Delta Force commando team is sent to Uruguay to investigate, but they are quickly ambushed and captured. Taken to the terrorist base, they are brainwashed by Dr. Adrian Lehder (Nick Brimble), a scientist who heads a secret CIA experiment in mind control, programming soldiers to become virtually unstoppable killing machines when they're given the right commands.
The Navy recruits Cody and his talented crew to take Chappell and special agent Fletcher (William Hope) with them in an effort to destroy the facility and take down Lehder. Cody is promised that in exchange, he and his crew will be freed and cleared of the alleged misconduct that they were accused of and receive $100,000 each. Suspicious, Cody quickly jettisons Fletcher, who turns out to be in league with Lehder. Fletcher tips off Lehder, and they quickly abandon Lehder's facility, leaving behind a few American prisoners as Trojan horses.
One team of Cody’s men commandeers a submarine, while the others secure the base and rescue the prisoners. The team fights its way past a tank, destroys the base, and escapes on the sub. But they end up stuck on the sub with some of the mind-controlled soldiers. After fighting off the soldiers and escaping from the sub, Cody and his crew realize that they must race to bring down Lehder before the rest of his soldiers claim them all. | brainwashing, suspenseful, comedy, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Clever tricks such as close editing in the fight scenes so you can't actually see Seagal isn't doing anything very impressive, dark lighting to hide his jowls and breadth and loose clothing so as to not accentuate his less than athletic physique.Anyway, the movie involves Seagal and a ragtag group of ex navy bad-arses being pulled out of prison (There is some lame political cover-up after an operation gone wrong angle to explain their presence there) to go after an evil scientist who has developed a mind control device and hiding out with some vaguely motivated militants in Uruguay.
It is never made clear exactly why the hell the government is using a bunch of convicts for this mission- I thought perhaps they would have been selected as it was more likely they hadn't been got at by the mind control device when it had been established the US special forces had already been compromised this way but such explanation was not offered on screen- in other words if the script-writers for this movie actually put as much thought into the plot in writing the script as I did in watching it for a few minutes it was lost in the editing stage.
At least Seagal isn't playing an archaeologist, a scientist or an arch bishop or some equally unbelievable profession in this one.Although the movie is called Submerged very little of it actually set on a submarine.
The last section of this meandering and goofy storyline is set in some South American city (Yes I'm too lazy to look it up).The plot is meandering, is full of holes and makes little sense (I was quite frankly shocked) but the film is full of action and is never dull, even if it is because of unintentional laughs, of which there are many.
Seagal doesn't actually do much in the way of martial arts (Wonder why?) but there are plenty of goofy action sequences such as a Commando like sequence where Segal and friends take on a small army, complete with tanks and barely get hurt.
There is a large supporting cast to distract from Seagals non-acting, most of whom are dead by the end of the movie, including two Lock Stock and two Smoking Barrels alumni- Vinnie Jones, applying his usual cheerfully violent soccer hooligan type character that brings some much needed colour to the screen and Hatchet Harry.
Most of Seagal's team is forgettable, the only other ones I remember a few days after watching it are stiff faced woman and skinny Latino dude.In summation, if you want to watch a stupid, cheesy but on the whole entertaining(ly bad) action flick and laugh at the comedy institution that is Steven Seagal then Submerged is pure gold..
The level of ignorance of these people is astounding!!What you can find in the real Uruguay: people whose language is Spanish and whose accent is different from the rest of South America and only similar to the Argentinian accent; democracy; very little evidence of our Indian heritage; European looking people (we are mostly descendants of Spanish and Italian immigrants)What you will find in "submerged" Uruguay: people who speak Spanish with a totally different accent from ours, probably from Central America; people whose written language is sometimes Italian, sometimes another language (pay attention to submarine instructions, find the words "telefon" and "revolution"); a revolution going on; Mayan ruins (!!!); Viking looking men and Swedish looking women(!!!!!)So, just for the record, the country you'll see in submerged is not Uruguay (actually, it's Bulgaria), though for some reason the people involved in submerged thought it would be a good idea to say it takes place here.
And if you don't understand the Way in which Seagal rules, then you have no business renting his movies.Submerged is actually pretty good.
Hello Everyone:I have just rented and watched Steven Seagal's latest film entitled," Submerged." To tell you the truth Steven Seagal is not only the reason why this movie is so poor.
It really seemed as if nobody gave a damn with this flick as the disappointment just sets in and sinks really hard!!I know for a fact that Seagal's film," Ticker," was done rather quickly but ended up a good solid feature, which by the way starred not only Steven Seagal, but veteran actor Mr.Dennis Hopper and Mr.Tom Sizemore who did a great job, as these are clearly experienced actor's who know just what to do with a little bit and turn out a fine movie.And finally let us get to the acting.....
Every action hero is entitled to a dud so let us just forget about " Submerged," and make like it was never made.Now I am looking forward to September 2005's release of " Today You Die," and the December 2005 release of," Black Dawn." These two are expected to be much better films, more like his last grouping of movies.
Though I rented this movie because I am a Seagal fan, I found that Vinnie Jones played a pretty good role and B+ movie action lead Gary Daniels is totally under-utilized.
I like old movies of Steven Seagal, but i think that we are watching the end of his career.
Even if they have to use a lot of stunt doubles and trick photography.Just when I thought Seagal reinvented himself just like Jean Claude Van Damme, he had to ruin his reputation by making a horrible action movie.
Yesterday i was checking on the news when suddenly the reporter started to talk about a Steven Seagal's movie where he has to kill a bunch of terrorist which nationality is URUGUAYAN.
The talk-lines hit the bottom being just ridiculous, stupid, old, flat and unfitting (get your WHITE ass out of here!) Poor knowledge of geographical facts, bad directing, movie title, voice-over's, special effects (I could do the scene with the recon drone myself with a toy plane and my mobile-camera), editing have all been mentioned before in other comments.Where's the majestic ass-kicking aikido-action Steven became famous with?
He has not the slightest bit of pride left!The least thing he owes his fans is to be in shape and to do some serious fighting, plots have all more or less been secondary anyway.Just look at Kurt Russell in 'Soldier', he's the same age...Most people considered 'Out for a Kill' Seagal's worst one, I think 'Submerged' is it once and for all and will remain undisputed.
for the first time for a Seagal movie I didn't even finish watching but started to write this comment while listing to some of the noise still coming from the TV hoping to catch something exiting, but it never happened.OFAK offered at least lots of fighting and good credit music, that makes it good enough for me.
STEVEN SEAGAL's Direct-to-Video career since his last Theatrical bomb that was 'HALF PAST DEAD' 8 years ago has been pretty terrible, with the only half decent DTV release being 'BELLY OF THE BEAST' in a sea of awful trash, So my expectation were rock bottom going into this.SUBMERGED is not THAT bad, but it isn't THAT good either, in essence it's a rip-off of THE DIRTY DOZEN with STEVEN SEAGAL playing Mercenary Chris Cody being freed from Prison and reunited with his previously incarcerated team, but there is one catch, They have to take down a renegade Scientist who has created some sort of mind control technology which has turned American Soldiers into mind controlling killers.There's plenty of action throughout, especially in the last quarter with a very high body countCo-Starring B-Movie Martial Artist Gary Daniels in a minor role & Former Footballer turned Movie tough guy Vinnie Jones as one of the good guys.There really is no need to go into the acting on display, because this being a Seagal Flick - The Acting is neither here nor there, It's decently Directed by Anthony Hickox (who has dozens of B-Movies to his name) The Plot on the other hand is muddled and incoherent but I've come to expect that from Seagal.Pleasant enough trash, It's not up there with Seagal's best (Under Siege) but it won't go down among his worst (Flight of Fury,Into the Sun & Shadow Man) Keep your expectations low and if you're in the mood for some mindless action, then you should enjoy.*** out of *****.
Unfortunately, this total stinker of a movie repeats all the previous mistakes from Steven Seagal's recent films.
I have never seen Steven Segal in something as dire as this garbage.The only thing going for the film was the gorgeous and sexy Christine Adams - a real treat for the eye - her mere presence in the movie being the only reason I saw this crap through to the bitter end.
I have never seen Steven Segal in something as dire as this garbage.The only thing going for the film was the gorgeous and sexy Christine Adams - a real treat for the eye - her mere presence in the movie being the only reason I saw this crap through to the bitter end.
I am a big Steven Segal fan and though, sure, virtually every movie the man has made is the same movie, still, Segal's ability to pull it off time and again, and indeed do it well, puts him at the top of the class of these types of action heroes.But this movie was a complete and total let-down, not only confusing as all get-out, but poorly filmed, written, and acted.
This looks like a movie someone got him out of some Home for Old Action Heroes to go film.
the idea not bad but the actors so much weak in acting really i didn't get any good time watching this crap,Steven wasn't all good as he used to be and the stuff from his team is so strange and not acting well i think and also i think it took some actions from matrix and the cold old way of talking Steven used is so much bad and not in his character so i really hope he stop make this cray not to eliminate his great history and loss more fans,and for real i did waste the time watching this movie as its really not worth any time to watch it even the bad guy wasn't so much good in his character,the woman was in his team i think she hasn't any work in movie as she just trying to be good and thats seems not.
I was kind of shocked that another Seagal movie would hit the video rack so soon after the modestly-entertaining Into the Sun a few mere months.I thought Maybe Seagal would take a small sabbatical and focus on finding a good script or acting gig.Heck,maybe even get the long-rumored Under Siege 3 going.Not a chance!If there ever was one,I am sure Submerged has sank all that wishful thinking.Note the Pun if you will.Submerged is a normal b-movie with a "plot" that combines the dirty dozen.Manchurian Canidate,and elements of Seagals best movie,Under Siege all thrown in the proverbial oven to emerge...Half baked.No!Quarter-baked if you ask me.Aside from a couple of cool Death scenes It is lame action all the way through.Seagal has just let himself go.Fellow B star Gary Daniels shows up as a bad guy.You would think that a better Mano a Mano would go down between Seagal and Gary.A cinematic opportunity blown!The plot holes begin to pile up until you start to throw the remote in disbelief at how fast this flounders.Oops.Another Pun.The one saving Grace here is the casting of Vinnie Jones of Snatch and Eurotrip.He is his usual self here.Growling and snarling all the way as Seagal's sniper.They could have made the movie about him.I suspect Vinnie could make a lot of bank if he entered the DTV action market as the headliner.Anthony Hickox does all he can with the resources he has.The movie looks pretty good.Hickox is probably one the few good directors Seagal has worked with since Exit wounds.He has come a long way since his Waxwork days,and deserves a major shot.But the script sinks all that ambition.Not another Pun.With Jones and Hickox embracing the cheese,one would think the same of the main star.Seagal looks and sounds comatose to here.It make you wonder how he signed on for this.That voice raspier and more dubbed than ever.At this rate of disappointment I don't know how Seagal could ever get back into the major limelight.If Into the Sun was the light shining through.The Submerged is one of the ever-increasing nails in the coffin of his Carrer.2/10.
Next, there were some pretty good fight scenes...however...only "2" of them involved Steven Seagal, one of which at the end is involved with a character who we had not even been introduced to at all in the movie!In summary, I am truly and deeply disappointed in this movie and would consider it the worst waste of money I have EVER spent in my life!
Vinnie Jones plays Henry, and still looks good in his fight scenes, Nick Brimble is Lehder, William Hope is Fletcher, and Alison King and the lovely Christine Adams play the female roles.This time our hero plays Chris Kody, the world's best mercenary – he must use his lethal weapons and fighting skills to stop a group of terrorists who have taken over a nuclear sub.For a straight-to-video film this is about average.
I have seen many bad Seagal movies that still were somewhat enjoyable, but this movie is just crap, and as experienced watched one will notice this immediately, especially the scene with the drone above the dam clearly reveals the budget and quality of this movie and my feeling was that I should stop watching the movie right there, everything beyond this scene just confirms this feeling.The acting is very bad, with Vinnie Jones probably being the worst of the bunch of good guys.
The plot is pathetic at best and more illogical than ever, on the other hand this is probably the best that can be made out of the following pieces:submarine - country referred to as Uruguay that does not look like Uruguay at all - mad scientists - mind control - S.S. and a bunch of mercenaries - Vinnie "The Ax" JonesIn the extra material on the DVD they also talk about atom bomb, seems that they had even more idea which, fortunately, did not make it into the movie.The rating on this site seems to be far too good.
Supporting actors help out especially Christine Adams, who is English but does a dead on American accent, and is believably good looking, intelligent and action oriented all at the same time.Seagal has one decent fight scene one terrible one but mostly stays in the dark occasionally trying to seem like he's "down with it." Director Hickox does some silly jump cutting to music early on then seems to forget he was going for any style at all by the end and shoots it bland like a TV show of old.
The movie has a good cast, with no fewer than 3 people who appeared in Guy Ritchie films, most notably Vinnie Jones, who is the best thing in the film.
Action veteran Gary Daniels appears, acts as badly as we know he can, and gets killed like a little bitch and after co-starring with another action superstar Dolph Lundgren, he has been thoroughly wasted in what should have been his best two movies.
Jones in fact revels as an action man and you can't help but feel that when he puts on his crazy face in his fights scenes, he is a bit too into it and probably landing a few punches on the poor old stunt guys or co-stars.Overall this is fairly polished and although not as crisp looking as Seagal's Into The Sun, looks better than some of his other efforts, while the amount of action is ample for genre lovers.
Seagal (the fat, boring walrus) is the leading man, followed by Vinnie Jones (who seems to play himself also in more upcoming films, he was better in Guy Ritchie films) and Nick Brimble (he is a good actor, but I don't understand how he get here?).
I suspect the die-hard Stevie fans will be disappointed in the lack of hand-to-hand stuff that Seagall does here, but as an action film I've seen far, far worse.It does appear, though, as if the heyday of Segall's fighting movies is over.
One of the best thing about watching films from this stage of Seagal's career is having a good laugh at the evident poorness on display.This ranges from mumbled (often re-looped by a different actor) lines from Mr Seagal, to cleverly shot action scenes that disguise the fact that Seagal was no where near it.Submerged scores on both these points and many others.
I would call it style over substance, but there is no style and even less substance.If you want a good laugh with a Seagal film then I suggest Into the Sun. Submereged (which is the worst name as they are in a sub for all of 10 minutes) is just a mess with only Vinnie Jones making it even close to being worth your valuable time.
Camera shots: The jumpy camera work was a cool feature to the movie.The actors: Steven Segal and Gary Daniels together in a film and they fight each other!
It's all about halting the brainwashing, ultimately, and Cody will do his very level best to stop all who wish to see this dangerous weapon sold to the highest bidder.If you were ever interested in what a Steven Seagal picture would be like directed by Anthony Hickox, then here it is, Submerged, which might disappoint those expecting an action thriller specifically set in a submarine.
He is in the movie, but it seems like the script was probably changed in a few spots to make it kind of a Seagal film.
I like Steven Seagal movies.
Steven Seagal is a good action/star since 1988. |
tt0043340 | The Big Night | On the New Jersey Shore in the 1950s, two Italian immigrant brothers from Abruzzo own and operate a restaurant called "Paradise." One brother, Primo, is a brilliant, perfectionist chef who chafes under their few customers' expectations of "Americanized" Italian food. Their uncle's offer for them to return to Rome to help with his restaurant is growing in appeal to Primo. The younger brother, Secondo, is the restaurant manager, a man enamored of the possibilities presented by their new endeavor and life in America. Despite Secondo's efforts and Primo's magnificent food, their restaurant is failing.
Secondo's struggles as a businessman render him unable to commit to his girlfriend Phyllis, and he has recently been sleeping with Gabriella, the wife of a competitor. Her husband's eponymous restaurant, "Pascal's", has succeeded despite (or perhaps due to) the mediocre, uninspired food served there. Desperate to keep Paradise afloat, Secondo asks Pascal for a loan. Pascal demurs, repeating a past offer for the brothers to work for him. This Secondo refuses to do; he and his brother want their own restaurant. In a seemingly generous gesture, Pascal insists that he will persuade popular Italian-American singer Louis Prima to dine at Paradise when in town, assuming the celebrity jazz singer's patronage will revitalize the brothers' business. Primo and Secondo plunge themselves into preparation for this "big night", spending their entire savings on food and inviting people (including a newspaper reporter) to join them in a magnificent feast centered around a timpano, a complicated baked pasta dish. Primo pours his heart into every dish, lavishing care and great expertise on the cooking.
As they wait for Prima and his entourage to arrive, the diners indulge in the exquisite food and partake in a fabulous celebration. Hours pass, however, and it becomes apparent that the famous singer is not coming. Phyllis catches Secondo and Gabriella kissing and runs off to the beach. At Gabriella's insistence, Pascal admits that he never called Louis Prima, thus ending the party.
Secondo follows Phyllis to the beach where they have a final quarrel. Primo and Secondo have a fiery, heart-wrenching argument, chafing at their mutual differences. In the wee hours of the morning, Pascal admits to Secondo that he set the brothers up for failure; not as revenge for Secondo's affair with Gabriella but because the brothers would have no choice but to return to Italy or work for Pascal. Secondo denies him, saying they will never work for him.
As dawn breaks, Secondo silently cooks an omelette. When done, he divides it among three plates, giving one to Cristiano, their waiter, and eating one himself. Primo hesitantly enters, and Secondo hands him the last plate. They eat without speaking, and lay their arms across one another's shoulders. | revenge | train | wikipedia | A teenager on the verge of becoming a man watches his father get beaten to a pulp by a gangster.
This leads to the teen going on a short odyssey for vengeance, where he discovers some ugly things about himself and his father.This is a short b-movie without much story, concentrating on the passionate lives of hard folks living in a 1950s cityscape.
The teen is enraged, but he's also idealistic; in a night club he hears a woman belting out a torch song and is entranced; later when he gets to meet her, the teen tells her how beautiful he thinks she is, even if she is, you know, a black woman.
The look of pain on the singer's face rips the heart out of the white teen, who for all his idealism still can't get over the fact that the singer is Negro, and he was transported by her.This film has one of the great film noir lines ever.
The father, a broken man who lost his wife when she ran out on him with another man, and who had chances to marry again but remained in love with that betrayer, tells his son, "Some men are like that.
Sometimes a man loves one woman in the whole world.
If she turns out to be the wrong one...well, it's just tough." That's the sense of this film: haunting loss that comes back and smacks you down, day after day.
Strong stuff..
A Little Deeper Look at an Oddly Affecting Noir.
Uneven film that at times seems to drift.
Still, there are genuinely compelling moments, as when burly dad LeMaine (Foster, in a fine performance) meekly submits to a brutal cane lashing that had me cringing.
Why he's submitting remains a puzzle until the end.
Because of the beating, Dad's insecure son George (Barrymore Jr.) spends the movie's remainder trying to avenge his father.Beneath the revenge narrative, however, is really a rite-of-passage story.
For example, in a not very believable opening, a cringing George is pounded in humiliating fashion by his teenage peers.
We're given no explanation, nor does actor Barrymore physically resemble an easy mark.
It's not a promising beginning.
Then, in a much more persuasive scene, Dad casts a slightly disapproving eye over his nervous son's birthday cake (symbolic of the story).
So the kid must prove himself not only to Dad, but to himself.It's not a tight screenplay.
Events more or less simply follow one another, tied together by the theme of vengeance.
Happily, however, the narrative doesn't drag.
Actor Barrymore Jr. had a rather brief career despite the pedigree.
One thing for sure, he's certainly different looking.
With a mop of unruly hair and slightly crooked mouth, he's no glamor boy.
Nonetheless, his looks are perfect for the role, such that, when he dons a sport coat and hat, he still looks like a kid trying to take a big step up.
All in all, the young actor does pretty well in the kind of difficult role that would later go to James Dean.
I also like a de-glamorized Joan Lorring, who's a good match for him.
My one real complaint is the way Al Judge (St. John) is written.
His behavior is so crude and ugly, it's hard thinking of him as a respected sports writer.
A racketeer would have been more credible and easier, so the scriptwriters must have had a reason.Then too, the screenwriters, Butler and Lardner Jr., along with director Losey, were all blacklisted during Hollywood's commie hunting period.
I suspect it was their leftist leanings that are responsible for one of the film's most arresting sequences.
George goes to a nightclub where a drop-dead beautiful black songstress (Mauri Lynn) entertains.
Afterward, he encounters her outside and is compelled to compliment her looks and talent.
She glows at the flattering remark.
Trouble is his heartfelt momentum carries over to the unspoken qualification "for a Negro woman".
She grasps the unfortunate hanging-in-the-air racial reference, and is reminded of her not-fully-equal status.
Thus, disappointment clouds her former glow.
It's a beautifully played moment and quite powerful in emotional impact.
I wonder what happened to that fine actress.Anyway, the movie does have a number of effective noir touches, especially George's twilight escape through LA's towering industrial district.
It's a mysterious world so much larger than himself.
All in all, the film is oddly memorable, thanks, I think, to Barrymore's unusual presence.
I know I sought it out on DVD, lo, so many years after having first seen it in a theatre.
(In passing—the burly guy sitting next to Barrymore and Bourneuf ringside at the fights is Robert Aldrich, the great director of such classics as Kiss Me Deadly {1955} and Attack {1956}.).
THE BIG NIGHT (Joseph Losey, 1951) **1/2.
From Losey's American feature films (a period which barely lasted four years, when he fell victim to political persecution) I had only previously watched his eccentric debut, THE BOY WITH GREEN HAIR (1948).
The same year he made THE BIG NIGHT, a low-budget noir, he directed two other thrillers - THE PROWLER, Losey's own favorite from this early phase of his career and M, an Americanization of Fritz Lang's German masterpiece.
Both these films promise to be a good deal more interesting than the ones I watched, and I hope I get the chance to view them someday...Anyway, back to THE BIG NIGHT: in itself, it wasn't too bad but it didn't feel at all like a Losey film; perhaps that's because I'm not used to watching him dealing with an American setting - but it's still a minor film, not quite knowing where it's going and not even that compelling while it's on.
The noir-ish atmosphere (courtesy of cinematographer Hal Mohr), however, is quite interestingly deployed - sometimes with an audacious psychological resonance, as in the nightclub scene where a riotous drum solo brings back to lead John Barrymore Jr.
(looking more like Sean Penn than his matinée' idol father!) memories of his father's vicious beating at the hands of a crippled but influential sports columnist (an effectively sinister Howard St. John); the latter episode is actually a key scene, which sets the plot in motion and sends Barrymore - who witnessed father Preston Foster's humiliation and whom he idolized - seething with revenge in search of St. John.The characters are largely stereotypes - caring bartender (Foster owns a bar), philosophical drunk pal, his bitter girlfriend (a rather spent Dorothy Comingore, who 10 years earlier had played Susan Alexander in CITIZEN KANE [1941]!), her good-girl sister who falls for and yearns to 'save' Barrymore, shady promoter Emil Meyer (a dry run for his memorable turn as a crooked cop in SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS [1957]), etc.
- but the last act provides a couple of ironic twists involving the characters of Foster, St. John and the tragic fate of a woman they both loved in their own way..
John Barrymore, Jr., memorable in coming-of-age noir.
Joseph Losey's The Big Night is a film noir that's also, like Moonrise and Talk About A Stranger, a coming-of-age story.
The young male undergoing his transformational journey is John Barrymore, Jr., son of the Great Profile and father of Drew.
His film career was not high-profile, as he inherited the family disposition toward chemical dependency (blood will tell).
But here, boasting a luxuriantly healthy crown of hair, he gives a surprisingly intense yet controlled performance.
His big night happens to be his 16th or 17th birthday, when his barkeep father is brutally beaten and publicly humiliated by a local sportswriter (Losey's staging is unflinching).
Frustrations about his own Hamlet-like ditherings and confusions impel him to seek revenge on his father's behalf, and, gun in pocket, he sets out into a nightscape of prize fights, gin mills and the walk-up flats of casually met strangers.
While Losey's sympathies lie with Barrymore, it's always clear that the emergent man is still a callow stripling, incapable of apprehending the complex reality he crashes into, like a fatted calf in a china shop.
Though the director refrains from pushing the conclusion to where it might logically go -- he retreats into sentimentality and sententiousness -- The Big Night still scores as a provocative, moodily shot film..
The Wrong Woman.
The Wrong Woman.
The story here is revenge, more real-life based, a 1950's version of the crime of passion.
A teenager's good-hearted father is beaten to a pulp by a gangster, so the kid invades the streets to get some payback.
The father's not worried about the floor-wiping, which leads to a mystery behind the teen's mother, who skipped out on the family long ago, and a woman the father knows who has committed suicide.Seeing this film, there's not much in terms of plot, but there are some notable scenes, particularly when the kid hears a beautiful night-club singer, becomes entranced, gets a chance to meet her on the street, and tells her how beautiful she is.
Even though she's, you know,black.
The pain in the singer's face rends the poor kid, who was transported by her voice, but can't get beyond her skin color.This film also has one of THE great lines ever in any film noir or any movie period, at least concerning the tragedy between a man and a woman, when there is love involved.
There are no words more powerful or poignant, especially for a man who loves a woman beyond reason, who knows he has lost the love of his life.
Unable to move on, to love or marry another woman after that one woman has destroyed him, and in fact still very much in love with his destroyer,Preston Foster tells his son, "Sometimes a man loves one woman in the whole world.
If she turns out to be the wrong one, well...that's just tough." Truly, the heart of noir is not blackness, but the white-hot scars of passion..
Too stage bound!.
As someone who knew John Barrymore Jr. 25 years ago, I was heartbroken to see him early in his aborted film career.
Though not as charismatic as James Dean would be just a couple of years later, he was certainly Dean's prototype in The Big Night.
Perhaps with a better film and a less disturbed personality, Barrymore might have been a working Hollywood actor for many years to come.
Anyway, what director Joseph Losey lacked here was the Los Angeles cityscape he used to full effect that same year in his retelling of Fritz Lang's M.
The Big Night was screaming for a location project on downtown L.A.'s seedy, beaten down Bunker Hill, a neighborhood of crumbling Victorian mansions and apartment buildings with vertiginous stairways that provided so much atmosphere to other films, such as Kiss Me Deadly, Criss-Cross, The Exiles and, yes, M.
Instead, the movie is stage bound and hemmed in by sets that never look convincing.
With its rambling "a night in the life" plot line, The Big Night needed another character: a dark city of real streets, background lights, rambling old house, and dingy clubs and bars.
In other words, the kind of verisimilitude that transports the viewer into the protagonist's world.
The back lot, unfortunately, was a poor stand-in..
Vivid and dark and despairing...with that spark of survival throughout.
The Big Night (1951)Wow, the dark scenes and the dark mood of this movie are gripping stuff.
Even the ever-struggling Barrymore in the lead role--Drew's dad, John Drew Barrymore--is edgy and tough enough to carry it through some very intense emotional stuff.
Ultimately the movie is about redemption, but it is mostly an exploration of nihilism--a kind of self-defeating despair that was probably in the air for many in post-war America.The plot is pure Hitchcock--a murder takes place at the wrong time for the wrong reason.
The difference is that the focus here isn't on the innocent man accused (there is one of those, and we don't sympathize with him) but on the guilty man unaccused.
And so there is a psychological thread as we see his decline, and the pressure around him build.
Other layers to the plot include his mother dying, and an overall desperation to survive in the most basic ways, paying the rent and eating.
Don't expect to be cheered up on this one.
But do expect to be deeply embroiled.
If it lacks the depth and drama of, say, "On the Waterfront" or some other movie set in the New York area around the same time, it makes up for it at least partially in gritty realism.
This is small time stuff without the gloss and hype.
But with director Joseph Losey's famous use of photography (brilliant, by Hal Mohr) and ambiance (the art director went on to do a lot of classic "Gunsmoke" episodes).
A great one for what works best here..
The night has its secrets.
***SPOILERS**** At a coming of age 17th birthday party at a neighborhood bar young George La Main, Drew Barrymore, is shocked to see his father Andrew, Preston Forster, meekly allow himself to be whipped black and blue in front all the shocked costumers by crippled sportswriter Al Judge, Howard St. John, without as much as raising a finger in his defense.
Seeking revenge against Judge for what he did to his father George gets a .38 revolver from his room and goes out into the night looking for him and planning to blow Judge away in an act of revenge.This all has George later find Judge in his pad writing a story about a fight that he and George witnessed at the garden arena who seems not at all surprised to see him even with a gun pointed at his head.
It's then that Judge gives George the lowdown to why he so brutally beat his father and why he being far bigger and much stronger the the crippled and old Judge that he took the beating almost willingly!
Soon a fight erupts between George and Judge with Judge enduing up on the floor from a bullet wound with George fleeing from the oncoming, who were alerted by the neighbors, police!***SPOILERS***Back home with his dad and waiting to be arrested for the murder of Mr. Judge George finds out that his dad is taking the rap for what he just did.
It also turns out that despite George being more then willing to take the blame for shooting Judge everything is soon to turn out to be find with Judge alive and well suffering only powder burns and Judge willing to drop all charges against George or his dad who's taking the rap for him.
We and George then learn from his dad that he more then deserved what he got from Judge by driving his sister to suicide by refusing to marry her.
We also find out that George's dad is still married to his wife whom he told his son has died soon after he was born!
Which is the reason he couldn't marry Judge's sister that drove her to kill herself!
So as we and George found out his dad really got off light in what he did and even in taking responsibility for shooting Judge, who dropped all the charges against him, it was his actions that lead his son George to try to blast Judge!
Who as it turned out was the real injured party in this strange and baffling case. |
tt2096672 | Dumb and Dumber To | Twenty years after the events of the first film, Lloyd Christmas has been committed at Baldy View Sanitarium, a mental institution, ever since his doomed romance with Mary Swanson (from the first film). During a recent visit, Harry Dunne discovers that Lloyd pranked him into thinking he was handicapped the entire time. They both laugh and head to their apartment, where Harry reveals one of his kidneys is bad and he needs a donor soon.
They go to Harry's old home, but Harry could not get a kidney from his parents since he was adopted. Harry's dad gives him his mail that has been piling up since he moved out. It includes a postcard from a former girlfriend, Fraida Felcher, dating back to 1991. It says she is pregnant and needs Harry to call. Fraida admits that she had a daughter named Fanny that she gave up for adoption. She wrote Fanny a letter, only for it to be returned and instructed to never contact her again.
Hoping she can provide a kidney, Lloyd and Harry decide to find Fanny and drive to Oxford, Maryland, where she now lives. Dr. Bernard Pinchelow and his wife Adele are the adoptive parents of Fanny, who has taken up the new name Penny. She is going to a KEN Convention in El Paso, Texas to give a speech on her father's life work. Penny is also given a package to be given to one of the convention heads, but the dim Penny ends up forgetting the package and her phone.
Adele is secretly trying to poison Bernard and Penny out of jealousy, with the help of her secret lover, the family's housekeeper, Travis Lippincott. Harry and Lloyd arrive to inform the Pinchelows of their situation, at which point Bernard realizes Penny left the package, which he says is an invention worth billions. Adele suggests that Harry and Lloyd deliver the package to Penny. So that he and Adele can get whatever is inside in the box, Travis goes along, but he becomes annoyed with the duo's antics, eventually deciding to kill them. Instead, a train collision kills Travis. Adele hears of the death from Travis's twin brother Captain Lippincott, a former military man who agrees to help her kill Harry and Lloyd.
The duo arrives safely in El Paso for the KEN Convention. While there, Harry impersonates Bernard, so he and Lloyd are invited to a seminar. They get into an argument when Harry discovers that Lloyd has developed a romantic attraction to Penny. After being escorted out of the convention due to not being on the attendance list, Lloyd gets a call from Penny to arrange a meeting after informing Penny that he is in town with her dad. They head to a restaurant, where Lloyd deduces he, not Harry, is the real biological father of Penny.
Adele arrives at the convention with Lippincott and exposes Harry as a fraud, telling the convention heads he is not her husband and lies that he stole the package. Fraida also arrives and tampers with the fire alarm as a diversion after she and Penny are denied entry, causing everybody to exit. Harry runs into Fraida and Penny, only to have Lippincott and Adele draw guns on them. The villains corner the trio in a bathroom. When Lloyd returns, Lippincott and Adele are about to shoot, but three FBI agents bust in with a healthy-looking Bernard, who knew that Adele was trying to poison him, and he reveals that it was Adele who wrote "do not contact again" on the letter, not Penny. The package he gave Penny included only cupcakes, and that there was never priceless invention. In retaliation, Adele attempts to shoot Penny, but Harry jumps in front of the bullet and is severely injured. Adele and Lippincott are arrested.
Harry is rushed to the hospital, where he reveals that he was pranking Lloyd about needing a kidney and both laugh. Harry and Lloyd are told by Fraida that neither is Penny’s father and that her biological father is a dead high school friend of theirs named Pete "Pee-Stain" Stainer. As the duo leave El Paso, they spot two women walking in their direction and they shove both women into a bush as a joke. They run off and high-five each other. | revenge, prank, flashback | train | wikipedia | But I feel like that disclaimer only goes so far, because frankly, the original "Dumb and Dumber" is one of the funniest films I've ever seen -- endlessly quotable, thoroughly likable.
The key to the movie, I think, is that there's an underlying sweetness to the humor: Lloyd and Harry (Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels) are never presented as malicious.
It's immature, it's crass, and most importantly, *it goes against the very thing that made these characters funny in the first place!*I find it hard to believe all these original cast and crew members could re-assemble for a film 20 years later and so completely misunderstand the appeal of their own movie.
Sorry, but no matter how many times you repeat it, using the word 'butthole' isn't really that amusing.The film also lazily falls back on repeating some of the original film's plot points and, indeed, one-liners (e.g. Lloyd's "I like it a lawwwt" or the mannerisms he makes when mixing a drink, identical to the first film).
The Farrellys said Jim Carrey hadn't seen the original movie for something like 15 years before agreeing to doing the sequel, and I'm not surprised.
Instead, it's not only unfunny, it's egregiously nasty and vile, and when I left the theater I just immediately wanted to wash the taste out.I remember seeing "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd" years ago in theaters, hating it, and thinking how much better it would have been if they had convinced Jim Carrey to come back for a proper sequel.
Harry and Lloyd felt like exaggerated versions of themselves, the storyline was just OK, and I think what threw me off the most was that so much of the movie was recycled.I mean, you wait this long for a sequel to an absolutely classic movie, you start wondering what brilliance they must be cooking up.
Well, I was pretty excited to see this one, knowing that no matter how bad it might turn out to be, these two still would never fail at making you laugh, now it's not as good as the first, but it sure does make you laugh, it's just unbelievable how dumb these two are, time will never heal how stupid they are, and they sure won't be getting better any time soon, they're still as dumb, still funny, and still as entertaining as they were in the first, but I don't know if it's just me or the fact that the first was just too good to beat, I was honestly expecting this one to be even more fun, but it wasn't, the first was better, but this one wasn't bad at all, I would go back to watch it again with a friend if I was asked to, you wouldn't get bored watching this, as everything these two do is a complete mess, it's worth the watch, and definitely worth the ticket..
And it seemed the only reason they made this sequel is because the directors and one of the actors haven't been doing good stuff, the last couple of years.But surprisingly, Dumb and Dumber To is actually pretty fun.
Unlike the god-awful prequel this film really feels like Dumb and Dumber and it's actually fun to see some scenes re-created, but with a new little twist, or characters from the original film returning.
And even though some jokes and scenes are forced, I have to admit the film actually had a great deal of scenes that made me laugh a lot.So as a big fan of the original film I was surprised that I enjoyed this film as much as I did.
That and the fact that they tried to "raunch it up" a notch I guess thinking it would make it funnier.....it didn't.I'm all about silly comedy such as the original D&D and Ace Ventura movies but this movie isn't silly, just stupid.This worst thing about it is that since seeing this movie was my idea, my GF says I'm not allowed to select the movies we go see anymore!.
that's one of the best comedies in years..i have absolutely no idea why people don't like this, or at least the fans of the original .it's exactly what we should expect it would be and even, even better.
i mean, if you love Jim in the Ace Venturas, Dumb and Dumber and The Mask, how could you possible not like him in this sequel??
ps: it's also sad, what the people who cut and edit film scenes from a comedy to make a trailer, are being through..i admit, after rewatching many times the movie's trailer my hopes were lowering and lowering..it's just difficult to make a trailer from a comedy sequel like that..few scenes that didn't work for me in the trailer, were apparently hilarious in the movie..Dumb and Dumber fans, don't believe the trailer and don't listen to the negative word..go watch the f-ckng movie!.
The film features multiple actors with disabilities, and every time one was on screen I bit my bottom lip expecting the worst, but every time the movie did not disappoint.The only reason I gave it 9 stars out of 10 is because it had a bit of potty humor that I didn't find funny, but I came in expecting that anyway and it didn't bother me either.If you liked the first movie then you will like this one as well (and I'm not talking about that garbage prequel Dumb and Dumberer!)Do yourself a favor and go see it..
This one might be the best of the whole series it really knocked me for a loop, maybe because it's been a while since I actually laugh out loud at a comedy to the point of having to rewind because I missed what they said next on account of actually laughing my a** off!And to the haters who watch a movie called dumb and dumber and god knows what you expect..
Almost exactly twenty years after the release of the original Dumb and Dumber, The Farrelly Brothers, Jim Carrey, and Jeff Daniel return to the classic characters that we have loved so much over the years.
The following is my review of Dumb and Dumber To.The film this time around was not only written by The Farrelly Brothers and Bennett Yellin, but also newcomers Sean Anders, Mike Cerrone, John Morris.
After the disaster that was the prequel film, and Jim Carrey repeatedly saying no to a real sequel, we finally got another real Dumb and Dumber movie.
But, in the middle of this "framework" the dialogue, jokes, and slapstick humor are lost in a fading mirage of the original film.There are a few moments that take us back to the magic that was before but it quickly dissipates as one cannot help but feel a little resentment towards the "New" Harry and Lloyd.
Because when thinking about the first Dumb and Dumber and having seen Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels' sound comedic technique in action and how nicely they complimented each other - it was truly magical and based on these facts this, of course, would also have to be a pretty darn magical movie.
I grew up with Harry and LLoyd, the two dumb butts, and I missed seeing them, so I got what i wanted, a sequel after 20 years of waiting!
Harry receives a letter that he did not open 20 years ago (how dumb) and he finds out he is a father and has a daughter and him and LLoyd embark on a huge road trip to find her.Nothing can describe to you how Happy and how much I laughed hysterically at this movie.
It passed the LOL test on way more than 5 occasions and more than any recent film I'd seen.The script is a bit clunky but the gags flow at a regular rate and there are a few BIG laughs to hopefully satisfy fans and non fans alike.I expect critics to give the movie a hard time, as they did the original and being critical the main shortcoming of the movie is that it doesn't explore much in the way of NEW gags and physical comedy, which is where the first film really stood out.There is a good springing of reference to the original which is what fans would demand.As the title says, don't think about the movie too hard, or you'll be disappointed, absorb it for what it is and you'll have plenty of laughs along the way..
Honestly, I didn't expect it to be funny after I read those stupid reviews by users..Like "It's disappointing" or "worst movie" or whatever...But I just wanted to watch it cause I really like "Dumb and Dumber" (first one) and I am also a fan of Jim Carrey.
It is certainly as good a sequel as we have any right to expect, when making a comparison to a 20 year old legend.I am a big fan of JC's funnier films; Cable Guy, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Me Myself & Irene.
This stands up there with those as far as I'm concerned.Maybe the bad reviews helped me as my expectations weren't through the roof, I don't know but the whole cinema was cracking up with laughter right through the movie.There are some 'plot building moments' that aren't LOL funny ...
Reading the negative reviews really affected me as I went to see this movie, and yes you can right away tell Carry and Daniels are of course not their younger selves, and yeah yeah the whole premise of the film looks forced, I know - but after watching I think it's not half as forced as other US-made comedies and their plastic "jokes".
There was a great sense of desperation in his lonely hopes of having more friends.As the first film goes on, it's amusing and funny seeing exactly why he and Harry can't have friends ("You don't kill people you don't know, that's the rule." *minutes after meeting Harry and Lloyd, pulls for his gun*), and even getting insight into Lloyd's warped mind of what it could be like to live a more active social life (joking with friends by the fireplace, pleasant dinner with lovely girlfriend, chomping on someone's nuts and ripping out a chef's heart....)the first film literally starts on Hope Street.Best of all, I love that at the end of everything, Harry and Lloyd still at least have each other.No, it wasn't a big quality film, it was largely a string of dumb jokes.
Just about every other scene had some sort of wacky antic coming from either Lloyd or Harry and also like the original, this sequel did not take itself too seriously.I could tell that the Farrelly Bro's and other writers knew they had a big undertaking in creating this movie.
I had some good laughs in this one.It felt great seeing Jim Carrey again in his top form, in a kind of movie that lets him be himself.
It is not hard to see why because although the characters operate on the same level of intellect (if not less) then they do in the first movie there are some things that are clear for why the movie doesn't work for these people.The plot of this movie is basically after Lloyd tricks Harry into seeing him for 20 years thinking he's catatonic, they go back and find out Harry needs a kidney transplant and ask from his Asian parents completely oblivious to the fact that he was adopted but he finds out that Frainer Feltcher from the first movie had a child and they decide to go find them both but Frainer adopted her too and they go across the country to find her and catch up to her at a science convention being as that her adoptive father is a prominent scientist, and she is just as dumb as her father.
Problems/Flaws that I had with this movie: Some of the jokes were trying too hard, Lloyd was made into a dick, Carrey was way too over-the-top and didn't fall back into his character so much as Daniels managed to quite well, there were some racist/handicap jokes that were too mean-spirited for this type of film, the tone and humor did not line up with the original, the characters were turned into 5 year- old children, there was far too much bathroom/fart jokes throughout, the film relied on a lot of gags that were very cartoon- ish and unrealistic, there were other dumb characters in the movie that were flat out annoying, the plot was weak and some of the flashback gags fell flat.Now that those are out of the way, let me list a few positives.
Definitely a disappointing comedy sequel, more so than Anchorman 2.The original was silly and dumb, but at least it was somewhat realistic with like-able characters.
Undeniably Bad. First things first, I'm a big fan of the original Dumb and Dumber film, which was released in 1994, so I thought I'd give this sequel a chance.
Dumb and Dumber To (2014) is the "official" followup to the original 1994 classic that helped jump-start the cinematic career of Jim Carrey, guaranteed Jeff Daniels a healthy future in cinema, and introduced the Farrelly Brothers' unique brand of comedy to the world.
Kathleen Turner is an unfunny, and bored-looking shell of her former self, and it's regrettable considering she once voiced Jessica Rabbit, and was the star of Romancing the Stone (1984) and Peggy Sue Got Married (1986).Overall, Dumb and Dumber To feels not like a necessary sequel to a true comedy classic, but rather as a desperate act by Carrey, Daniels, and the Farrelly Brothers to relive the glory days.
Not because it was a bad dumb and dumber movie, but because Carrey, and the entire team behind this film felt so off and so out of touch that I wonder if they will ever make another good comedy ever again.
their characters are botched in this film, turning them from good hearted yet highly unintelligent grown men, to bullying pranksters who cause so much trouble, you don't root for them as you did originally.Another problem is they rehash jokes from the original and dumb them down a lot, (Weird Outfits, Lloyds daydream about killing baddies to impress his crush, strange cars, and having a henchman riding with them.) overall it just comes off as a cheap re hash of the original.As with a lot of Adam Sandlers recent movies, the same brand of humour that The Farrelly Brothers made us crack up at in the original, are lost here..
There are a couple funny scenes though, and again, I would recommend that fans of the original watch it simply because of the characters and the fine performances by aging Carrey and Daniels.
There just wasn't enough funny parts in the movie like the original Dumb and Dumber.
The original movie, their debut in fact, was actually quite clever about the 'dumb'-ness, as the main hero-team of Lloyd and Harry (Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels) was caught in the middle of a kidnapping plot which involved a beautiful woman and a mysterious object.
At least, for me when I saw it as a kid, it worked as comedy, nay it cemented Jim Carrey as a star to notice - Jeff Daniels, too, who I hadn't seen in a lot of movies since (and since then he's impressed more as a dramatic actor, which makes that 1994 movie a really interesting note, a winning one too).I wondered about that movie as I watched Dumb and Dumber To...
In Dumb and Dumber To, the Farrelly Brothers re-team with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels 20 years after the original.
After becoming a classic in the comedy film space, years of rumors surrounding a sequel were talked about, and although a (less than admirable to say the least) prequel was made, fans still hoped to one day see the hilarious duo of Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne played by Carrey and Jeff Daniels back together for another adventure.
20 years later, we finally have our long awaited sequel with Dumb and Dumber To, a film which seems like a full length homage to the '94 classic.As with the original, Dumb and Dumber To gets its laughs from what's right in the title: being dumb.
Despite the lack of a solid script backing them, seeing Carrey and Daniels on screen together again is enough to see this movie and they are able to take the worn down script and make it mostly enjoyable, a hard feat to accomplish in the comedy realm of film.So does Dumb and Dumber To surpass the original?
Its Dumb And Dumber - in many ways the same movie - up to date on the jokes so you will laugh your butt off.
Fast forward 20 years later to 2014, and Dumb and Dumber To saw the return of the dim-witted duo Lloyd Christmas (Jim Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Jeff Daniels).To my dismay and horror, this was one of the worst movies that I have had the misfortune to see.
Christ, this movie is dumb, Harry and Lloyd is dumber than ever, original fans (most of which now have kids of their own) will recognize themselves, and newcomers will probably laugh with this film as much as I do.
'DUMB AND DUMBER TO': Three Stars (Out of Five)20 years after the original hit comedy film 'DUMB & DUMBER', Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels reunite for this sequel (which completely ignores the 2003 prequel, 'DUMB AND DUMBERER: WHEN HARRY MET LLOYD', ever happened).
Even though the story was stale and it was quite funny at times, I think them acting more like they did in the first film might just have saved it and made it more watchable.They seem as if they were trying way too hard to make it good, by that I mean everyone involved in the making of the movie.I enjoyed it for the nostalgia and getting to see Jeff and Jim back together again. |
tt0203230 | You Can Count on Me | As children, Sammy and Terry Prescott lose their parents to a car accident. Years later, Sammy (Laura Linney), a single mother and lending officer at a bank, still lives in her childhood home in Scottsville, New York, while Terry (Mark Ruffalo) has drifted around the country, scraping by and getting in and out of trouble.
After months of no communication with his sister, Terry is desperate for money, so he comes to visit her and her son, Rudy (Rory Culkin), who are excited about reuniting with him. Sammy lends him the money, which he mails back to his girlfriend. After the girlfriend attempts suicide, he decides to extend his stay with his sister, which she welcomes.
For a school writing assignment, Rudy imagines his absent father as a fantastic hero. Sammy only gives him vague descriptions of the truth while Terry lets his feelings be known about Rudy Sr.'s abandonment. Sammy rekindles a relationship with an old boyfriend, but is surprised when he proposes to her after a short time. She needs time to consider it.
At the bank, the new manager, Brian (Matthew Broderick), tries to make his mark with unusual demands about computer color schemes and daily timesheets. He is particularly tough on Sammy, requesting that she make arrangements for someone else to pick up her son from the school bus rather than leaving work. After some minor arguments, they end up having an affair, despite Brian's wife's being six months pregnant.
Terry grows close to Rudy during their time together. Yet he pushes the limits of Sammy's parental control during a late-night game of pool at a bar. She turns to her minister (Kenneth Lonergan) to counsel Terry about his outlook on life. While Terry resists his sister's advice, he stays on good terms with his nephew. Realizing her own questionable decisions, Sammy turns down her boyfriend's marriage proposal and breaks off her relationship with Brian.
After a day of fishing, Terry and Rudy decide to visit Rudy Sr. in the town of Auburn. Confronted by his past, Rudy Sr. (Josh Lucas) is incensed, leading Terry to assault him and get arrested.
Sammy brings her brother and son home and asks Terry to move out, which he does the next day. He plans to go back to Alaska and scoffs at Sammy's suggestion to remain in town and get his life back on track. While at first it appears the separation will be another heartache, they reconcile before Terry leaves, coming to terms with their respective lifestyles. | tragedy, realism | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0171356 | Gun Shy | Charlie Mayeaux (Liam Neeson) is an undercover DEA agent suffering from anxiety and gastrointestinal problems after a bust gone wrong. During the aforementioned incident, his partner was killed and he found himself served up on a platter of watermelon with a gun shoved in his face just before back-up arrived. Charlie, once known for his ease and almost "magical" talent on the job, is finding it very hard to return to work. His requests to be taken off the case or retired are denied by his bosses, Lonny Ward (Louis Giambalvo) and Dexter Helvenshaw (Mitch Pileggi) as so much time was put into his cover. Charlie works with the dream of one day retiring to Ocean Views, a luxury housing complex with servants and utilities.
During his flight to New York, where his job will resume, another passenger strikes up a conversation with him. It turns out that this man, Dr. Jeff Bleckner (Michael Mantell), is a psychiatrist and upon arriving to New York, Charlie enlists his services. Dr. Bleckner listens to his troubles and prescribes him anti-anxiety medication to help him deal with stress. He also encourages him to join a group therapy session. At therapy, Charlie meets and befriends a group of stressed out men from the business world.
To deal with his gastrointestinal issues, Charlie goes to the doctor where he meets the free-spirited and beautiful Judy Tipp (Sandra Bullock), the self-proclaimed "Enema Queen" who introduces him to alternative therapies to his problems as well as some romantic interest.
Back on the job, Charlie is knee-deep in negotiations for high-stakes money laundering and stock manipulation. He was brought into the group by the passionate Fidel Vaillar (José Zúñiga) and his close bodyguard, Estuvio Clavo (Michael DeLorenzo). Vaillar is a son of an important Colombian drug cartel and fears being viewed as a stereotype. They are dealing with an intense man with an unpredictable temper named Fulvio Nesstra (Oliver Platt) who represents the Italian mob in New York. Fulvio is disfavored son-in-law of high-ranking Italian mobster, Carmine Minetti (Frank Vincent). Jason Cane (Andrew Lauer), a young Wall street-type with a plan, but poor taste, completes the group. Each thinks he understands the other players, but there is more to these characters than meets the eye. | psychedelic, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Although there are several parts of the film which exercise Neeson's great gifts for interaction, most of the movie scenes are hampered with too many issues and little cohesion and this makes for awkward moments.
He gets involved more deeply into trying to do a decent job and in the process, he falls in love with the woman who understands what has to be done to relieve his symptoms.Erik Blakeney has written and directed a film that should have been seen by a wider audience, yet, this movie came and went without fanfare.
This is clearly not a Sandra Bullock vehicle at all!Liam Neeson and Oliver Platt are about the best thing going for the movie.
The same goes for Oliver Platt who plays a bad guy interested in domestic activities such as cleaning a messy kitchen, or even thinking about a life in Italy growing tomatoes.The minor roles are equally good.
The group therapy sessions involving Charlie and other law enforcing people are fun to watch.Erik Blakeney shows he can do good work if only he could have the right studio people behind him..
This is an honest, funny view of what happens when Liam Neeson's character, a former DEA golden-boy, starts getting job-related panic attacks...
Add Oliver Platt as a high-strung gangster with marital problems, Jose Zuniga as a secretly-homosexual drug lord, and group therapy, and the result is GUNSHY, a smart, wicked, sweet, fast, and funny look at the modern gangster flick.
(like the gay thing-no one in this film is what they seem - get it?) maybe this is too complicated of a movie for everyone to enjoy.
With great performances by Liam Neason as well as some of his supports, writer / director Eric Blakeney has managed to realise and create one of the most refreshing films to come out of the US for a long time.
GUN SHY is a peculiar movie, one that purports to have a significant storyline but one that splinters ideas all over the place, leaving the viewer wondering what all the fuss is about.'Charlie' Mayeaux (Liam Neeson) is a bummed out DEA agent fresh from a bungled case yet given an important assignment to break a Columbian drug cartel represented by Fidel (José Zúñiga) and his boyfriend Estuvio (Michael DeLorenzo).
People are maimed (gunshot castration), killed, made to look foolish, all to the end of supposedly belly laughs on the part of the audience.True, Neeson shows a flair for comedy and Platt manages to convey a breakthrough role for him, but the rest is a jumbled mess.
With the cast list containing both Liam Neeson and Sandra Bullock we though we could give it a try.We nearly turned this one off after the first 30 minutes.
I was personally worried this would be another Bullock movie like Hangmen, a TRULY horrific flick, but that's another story.At the beginning the plot was all over the place.
While Gun Shy definitely does have some glaring weaknesses, it does have at least three things going for it in my mind: the performances of Liam Neeson and Oliver Platt, and some clever editing.I found that Neeson struck a terrific balance between presenting the steely, fearless undercover persona and the shell-shocked cop underneath.
Platt's "Life could be sweet" speech is far more convincing than DeNiro's comical bawling.Finally, the editor did a terrific job, playing up Charlie's crumbling facade of fearlessness, constructing Fulvio's introduction as simultaneously menacing and absurd, and using an odd kind of show-and-tell technique in the bar scene towards the end.One little point I enjoyed was Charlie's discussion of the undercover lifestyle, which reminded me of how the movie Rounders offered an insider's angle on the psychology and tricks involved in gambling.
You had in this film some of Hollywood's most dramatic, comedic, and talented people doing their best work in this little film called Gun Shy. Liam Neeson represented his character so well, that I nearly forgot most of the time that he was Neeson from Schindler's List, but instead this neurotic agent with problems around every bend.
From Charlie's hatred and fear of getting killed by his job, to Fulvio's passion for a better life, to the Colombian's wanting to escape in love together, to even all of Charlie's friends in his group therapy that hate their lives as well, there is just this overwhelming sense of dislike for the world when this film begins.
So many times in Hollywood we see the happy family man who gets caught up in the mob mess, but never have we seen so many disillusioned people gathered in one film and still make it a comedy.
It didn't work either way.It was incongruous to see actors like Liam Neeson and Sandra Bullock in a film with such a low budget look and such poor direction.
Oliver Platt was the closest thing to providing saving grace to this film as he was consistently funny.Eric Blakeney and Hollywood Pictures should be tried and convicted for actor and audience abuse with this film.
GUN SHY (2000) ** Liam Neeson, Oliver Platt, Sandra Bullock, Jose Zuniga, Michael DeLorenzo, Andy Lauer, Richard Schiff, Paul Ben-Victor, Mitch Pileggi, Gregg Daniel, Ben Weber, Mary McCormack, Michael Mantell.Liam Neeson may not be known for his comic flair in spite of his wide dramatic range in serious films but here he displays a low underwhelming charm that has a distinct world-weary sarcasm that helps make his nearly burnt out federal undercover agent Charlie a somewhat put-upon likable good guy.Charlie is on the verge of some kind of nervous breakdown ever since a botched assignment nearly got him killed and an aversion to watermelon (he was forced in a compromising position a la a roasted pig during the melee), that unless he can pull himself together the next job may send him over the edge.That's why while en route to his debriefing for a small-time made man in New York he makes small talk on the plane with a man who turns out to be a therapist and before he knows it is on the couch and later in group therapy with a quartet of stressed businessmen who seem to all share a common thread: fear of repercussions and termination.Charlie is so bent out of shape in his recovery from his life-threatening incident and the upcoming ploy to oust the violent tempered Fulvio Nesstra (Platt, one of our best comic actors playing it to the hilt a la Paul Sorvino) that the therapist recommend him to a gastrointestinal clinic where in arguably the oddest meet-cute in film history is ministered by the sunny Judy Tipp (wholesomely sexy Bullock, who also produced the comedy) and wind up falling in love with her post-enema treatment (!) What makes the film its own is its blend of the out-of-sort comic elements of Charlie's high stressed work and the group therapy's oddball patients , especially Richard Schiff (best know as the human wishbone in 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' and currently on tv's dramedy 'The West Wing') who is so beyond frazzled at his workplace he has to resort to some bizarre tactics to avoid blurting out a Tourette's Syndromelike spurt of vitriol (at least until the film needs it as a closure).Maybe because of the unusual hybrid of comedy a la 'Analyze This' with the broad character of Platt's Fulvio and the somewhat sardonic tone of Neeson's Charlie does it mesh often on the mark.
Yet the film suffers from trying to balance too much on its scales to begin with but comes across as a game effort with a fine ensemble and clever screenplay by new filmmaker Eric Blakeney.Give it an A for effort in attempting to make an original spin on a chestnut like the screwball comedy and fish out-of-water genre..
This character contrast with some tight dialogue provides for a very entertaining movie.Of course Oliver Platt steals every scene he is in..
Each of these aspects developed humorously and nicely (except his relationship with Bullock's character seemed to begin abruptly), and were tied together for the film's climax.All in all, Gun Shy is probably the first good comedy of the year 2000 (which is not the new millenium, that starts in 2001)..
Gone are the days when Liam Neeson participated in some decent films like The Mission (1986)(qv), Schindler's List (1993), Nell (1994), Rob Roy (1995) or even The Haunting (1999): today he is lined up for all the worst possible outcomes, like any other Keanu Reeves and such like: indistinguishable from anybody else queueing up for a number 57 bus in southern London.Such is this apology of a film; I only put it on as the first channel was showing the 111th flick with Sylvester Stallone being a tough guy, and a US-Mexican coproduction with some bloke doing more or less the same with lots of blood and gore thrown in for bad measure.
Neeson, Platt, and Bullock manage to shore up this marginally funny flick and make it worth watching.
Even though passed off as a comedy, I think I got more laughs out of 'Halloween' than I did this, it sets a new record for number of chuckles: 1.Sandra Bullock is third billed, but only has a minute or two of actual screen time, disappointing considering I rented it because of her...
What I mean with that is it was not a gripping film from start to end.(Gives opportunity to people who likes to doze off in movies) Gun Shy tells us the story of an undercover DEA AGENT(Liam Neeson)who is almost killed by gangsters.
Being stressed up he starts therapy and he also meets with a quirky nurse(Sandra Bullock)whom he falls for in another treatment.Meanwhile, his final case brings him into contact with Fulvio Nesstra(Oliver Platt)an insanely violent mobster with a surprisingly tender side.
Enjoyed this film greatly, Liam Neeson,(Charlie), showed his great acting abilities in both comedy and drama through out this film.
Charlie ran into Judy Tipp,(Sandra Bullock), who went along with his crazy ideas and got his mind off his problems by going to bed with her and making love quite often.
Or how to turn a imaginative idea (an anxious cop)into a movie crap...This isn't a comedy (I never laugh at the so-called moments however I think I am an average funny guy), this isn't a thriller, but there is a bit of melodrama (with the Don) and romance (with Sandra Bullock).
But, in all this crap, one thing stay immutable: Mitch Pileggi as a FBI Director.My worst movie of the year, and again starring Sandra Bullock !!!
Liam Neeson stars as a nervous undercover DEA agent that must bring an old world mafia thug, Oliver Platt, and Columbian drug kingpins together in a multi-million dollar sting operation.
This ending made sense (although still comic), and it provided a realistic outcome to the relationship between Liam Neeson and Oliver Platt.Only one complaint-- do we really need to have our movie homosexuals portrayed as lisping wannabe dress designers?
Neeson certainly turns in a good performance as he always has done but the true standout is Oliver Platt.His best role remains Porthos the Pirate just in watchability but with an accent he brings some depth and realism to his role, departing from the comedy nice guy he usually plays and turning into a 100% believable leg breaker, he has an air of confidence but also in his dialogue scenes the vulnerability that fits right in, a gangster you end up rooting for.
The flatulent and nervous Charlie is a comedic turn by Liam Neeson like I've never seen him; Oliver Platt's psychotic Mafia hitman Fulvio (who just wants to grow some great tomatoes) is tremendous - the next-door-neighbor scene had us rolling.
The gay drug lords, Sandra Bullock's Enema Queen, Fulvio's equally psychotic wife, and the men's support group are icing on the cake.You do have to pay some attention to this flick because the humor is character-based and until they develop it's slow.
The plot was fresh - not the tired, worn-out same-old story-line - and Liam Neeson's character is much more human than the Hollywood-cloned macho pistols-pressed-to-right-cheek cops.I also smiled at the inside "X-Files" joke, with Neeson's character smoking "Morley's." I saw that and said there had to be an X-Filer in here - and, within seconds, up popped Mitch Pileggi (Skinner) at the other end of the conference table.This is a film you can sit back and relax to and have a fairly enjoyable time, getting in some laughs.
If you consider a just a Oliver Platt's character the movie pay for itself,he is a odd and a interesting case for psycho analysis,trying raising tomatoes properly,Neeson is another case,he has fear....Bullock don't encrease nothing,neither in sex scenes, but in general way the movie get some funny moments and survive most of all for Platt's performance....and a lot of stupid gangster!!Resume:First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.
The person who said Sandra Bullock only has 2-3 minutes of actual screen time evidently did not watch the whole movie.
There is no character development, all of a sudden Sandra Bullock is in love with Liam Neeson, all of a sudden the two Columbians are Gay, and all of a sudden the therapy group is willing to help this guy.
While the performances of Neeson, Platt and Bullock are credible, the plot of the movie and the final cut lacks any sense of cohesion.
The movie contains every cliche in the book, and can't seem to remember if Oliver Platt plays an Arab or an Italian!The romance of Neeson and Bullock is forced, and the sets where the Mafia leaders, Columbian guys, and police all meet look so fake, it's hard to understand how the director thought his movie might pass for an intelligent film.
My local Blockbuster had the DVD in the "Action" section but, while it has two set-piece shootouts, one near the beginning and one at the end, this is not a film that has much in common with Face/Off or Die Hard.Charlie Mayo (Liam Neeson) is an undercover DEA agent whose bosses are very keen that he should single-handedly close down a Colombian drug cartel.
Most of it's pretty unsubtle but strong performances from Neeson, Bullock and Oliver Platt help.The best things about the film are plot-related.
The Sandra Bullock side plot doesn't go anywhere, we don't know what eased Liam Neeson's problem, and the ending seems too improbable for everything to go as it did.Still, not a disaster due to the characters..
Having waited for this film because it stars three of my favorite Hollywood people, Liam, Sandra, and Oliver, I finally viewed it this evening.
Neeson's fear was genuine, the "group's" response to his situation played out as plausibly as anything it the flick, and Bullock's solution (even though here character goes from zero to hero in no time flat) fits and accentuates the wierdness of the film.
This starts out as an interesting concept, but gets more and more absurd as it progresses - with the ending feeling contrived and unsatisfying.The title and cover art promise a decent amount of action - but you don't even get that.By far the best thing is that Sandra Bullock is superb - funny, a great actress...did I mention stunning?A few nice ideas, but overall unsuccessful as a comedy, or an action film..
The plot is tight, but I will say that the love interest (Sandra Bullock, who he meets when he visits for an enema) could have been completely taken out of the movie and it would not have lost anything.
It must be nice to live in movie world.Now, the whole story between Liam Neeson and Oliver Platt was fun and interesting.
This is just another mob comedy for Gun Shy. It stars Liam Neeson as a DEA agent with problems, not just mental but physical.
That alone is an amazing feat.PS - Liam Neeson is always great, and Oliver Platt...
Waiting in vain.Oliver Platt is the best thing here and he still seems out of place.Liam Neeson is embarrassingly bad.
I rented this one because of Liam Neeson, Sandra Bullock, and Oliver Platt.
But it is at the climax when it gets hilarious.I was a big fan of the Alec Guinness comedies, including his "crime" films, "The Lavender Hill Mob" and "The Ladykillers." The cinematic style is different but the understated humor is similar.Charlie Mayeaux (Liam Neeson) is an undercover agent suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.
Sandra Bullock, who I have always wanted to hate but always love every time I watch a film of hers is just "hot" and clever as hell in this.
I love his movie Gun Shy, and its all star cast.The director really has a knack for comedy.
If you liked Gun Shy you'll be sure to love this film.
Everyone is perfect in his or her role, from Liam Neeson as the undercover DEA agent who has lost his nerve, to Sandra Bullock as the love interest.
I really didn't like this movie that much the first time I watched it.
Within minutes of watching this movie, before the credits finished rolling, I could tell it had been written and directed by the same person.The writer had come up with what they obviously thought was a great idea, and no director was going to tell them they were wrong.I'm not sure how they convinced such big names as Liam Neesom and Sandra Bullock to star - maybe it looked better on paper?To begin with, (spoiler alert) having the main character sitting on the floor of the airport toilet interacting with imaginary people isn't a phobia or post traumatic stress syndrome - it's insanity.How is he able to magically distinguish between the phantom and real situations of his world?
Sandra Bullock, of course, is beautiful, confident and funny, and she almost makes the movie work.
And, while Neeson gets along okay, Sandra Bullock as the eccentric gastroenterologist drags the movie down. |
tt2118720 | Segunda mano | Owen (Rico Blanco) and Mariella (Angelica Panganiban) are fighting in a car by a lake. It appears that Owen has left his wife to be with Mariella, and is angry that Mariella is not willing to make the same sacrifice. The fight turns violent and Mariella tries to escape from the car. The scene cuts to flashback.
Mariella tells her husband, Ivan (Dingdong Dantes), that her best friend, Samantha (Bettina Carlos) needs company and drives off. Later, it is revealed that Mariella is dead.
Mabel (Kris Aquino) owns an antique store. She is the only child of her mother, Adela (Helen Gamboa). It is revealed that Mabel’s sister, Marie, was lost in an accident when they were children. Marie’s ghost haunts their home on the anniversary of her loss. One rainy day, Ivan meets Mabel and they begin a relationship. One year later, Ivan proposes. His daughter with Mariella, Angel, greets Mabel icily. Meanwhile, Samantha begins expressing her interest in Ivan, who does not reciprocate her feelings.
Mariella's ghost begins haunting Mabel. On some poor advice from Mabel’s best friend, Anna (Bangs Garcia), Mabel unknowingly buys Mariella’s red bag but throws it out when she realizes. Anna’s boyfriend, Dindo (Jhong Hilario), sees Mariella's ghost.
Samantha “jumps” out her window after seeing Mariella's ghost. Ivan and Mabel argue after Mabel tells him she has been seeing Mariella’s ghost. Angel and Mabel finally reconcile. Mabel and Anna turn to a medium, Manang Letty for advice. At a séance, Mabel is told Mariella’s soul has been released and the only way to set her free is to leave the red bag in church. However, an old lady sleeping inside the church takes the bag and leaves; the bag starts bleeding. Dindo sees Mariella's ghost again, and is killed. Mabel confronts Ivan, who thinks Mabel is leaving him for Dindo. Ivan turns violent, and Mabel ends the relationship.
Mabel takes Mariella's car to show Ivan as proof of the haunting. Mariella takes control and takes Mabel to the lake, revealing that it is Ivan who assaulted her at the beginning of the film, not Owen. Ivan then killed Mariella and ran the car, with Mariella in it, into the bottom of the lake.
Ivan calls and tells Mabel that Adela is with him. Mabel goes to save her mother. It is revealed that Ivan killed Owen, Mariella, Dindo, and Samantha. Mariella’s ghost appeared to Dindo and Samantha just before Ivan was to kill them. Mabel and Ivan fight but Ivan overpowers her and throws her limp body into the pool. As Adela lies injured, Marie appears to Adela, and morphs into Mariella. On the home CCTV, Ivan notices Mariella bringing Mabel to safety, and Mabel knocks Ivan into the pool. Mariella grabs Ivan to drown him.
The epilogue shows the remains of the car that are found by the river, and Adela expresses relief at learning that Marie had led a good life and that her soul is at peace. Later, Ivan’s ghost begins to haunt Mabel. | paranormal, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | The Entire Film Feels "Second-Hand". Being a fan of Pinoy horror films, this was the film that I was most looking forward to seeing in this year's Metro Manila Film Festival. The fact that it earned an A rating from the Film Ratings Board was the added push I needed to clear up some time from the busy holiday schedule to go see it. Maybe because of all of this heightened sense of expectation, I came out of the movie house today terribly disappointed.I am getting ahead of myself. "Segunda Mano" is about a sad antique- shop owner Mabel (Kris Aquino) who lives with her mother (Ms. Helen Gamboa) in a spooky old house. Both are still disturbed by the death of younger sister Marie in a freak beach accident twenty years ago. She meets Ivan (Dingdong Dantes), a wealthy architect who seemed to have it all on the surface. Why then does a spirit inhabiting the bag and dress of Ivan's estranged wife Marielle (Angelica Panganiban) seem to stop at nothing to scare Mabel away, as people around them get killed?Everything else in this movie is a horror cliché -- computer-generated spirits appearing on and off screen, séance scenes, comfort room stalls scenes, jumpy "scare" music, swimming pool scenes, cats, blackouts, all the way up to very last "shock" ending! The acting of the actors already telegraphed how everything was going to end, so there was practically no surprises. Kris looked very much older than Dingdong, and hardly his type based on his lifestyle, so they lack any sort of chemistry. Bangs Garcia was funny, but her ditzy character's "friendship" with Kris' morose character was so unlikely and felt forced and unrealistic. Trying to meld the stories of the unrelated deaths of Marie and Marielle was unnecessary and confusing.The main and probably the only good thing I can say about "Segunda Mano" is their idea that ghosts can inhabit used merchandise we may buy from a second-hand store. That idea is actually horror genius! However unfortunately, the originality begins and ends there. After a truly good Pinoy horror film like "The Road" earlier this month, I expected this film to also be that level. Unfortunately, this was such a letdown. "Segunda Mano" is so chock-full of previously-done scare tactics such that this entire film also feels "second-hand".. Kris Aquino fared better with SUKOB; Garcia and Panganiban steal the film from her. SEGUNDA MANO is Joyce Bernal's first serious foray into the horror genre (there was an attempt in 2005, D'ANOTHERS, but in comedy form, supplied by lead star Vhong Navarro), after some 20-odd films (mostly a bevy of rom-coms and saccharine love stories), and comes up with serviceable chills and thrills. Kris Aquino stars as a mousy, frumpy antiques store owner living in the shadow of her sister's death by drowning. Her distraught mother (Helen Gamboa, underplaying) cannot move on, and Kris has devoted her life to taking care of the old lady and the antiques store. Thrown into this hapless equation is a charming stranger (Dingdong Dantes), who is supposedly reeling from the "disappearance" of his wife (Angelica Panganiban) some years ago... He has a petulant kid (Sofia Millares) who doesn't like Kris. As Kris accepts the engagement ring from Dingdong, a ghostly presence begins revealing itself to her... does this ghost mean harm? Or does this ghost have a message from beyond the grave, for Kris? From a story by Joel Mercado, Bernal draws sedate performances from Aquino and Gamboa, and a properly sinister portrayal from the unbalanced Dantes. For a while, I was reminded of the Rory Quintos-crafted thriller, SA AKING MGA KAMAY (1996), where Aga Muhlach portrayed a man who has a deep-seated hatred and aversion to women... Dantes' role is much the same, and where his brooding look rendered his performances hammy in films like ETERNITY (2006), RESIKLO (2007), and YOU TO ME ARE EVERYTHING (2010), it serves him well here -- he won the MMFF Best Actor award (with much controversy, owing to Kris' overzealous public lobbying). Panganiban, as the mystery ghost, scores, and Bangs Garcia as the bosom buddy of Aquino, with her rapid-fire wisecracks and physical comedy, almost steals the film from Aquino. The premise, earthly possessions of murdered people falling into the hands of innocent people, has been done already (MATAKOT KA SA KARMA, WHITE LADY, etc.) but Bernal manages to add some human dimension to what would otherwise be a screamfest full of clichés. The recrimination-and-forgiveness scenes between Aquino and Gamboa gives goosebumps as much as the ghostly attacks. Aquino's thespic talents have improved slightly from her massacre movies of yore and last year's DALAW, and you can bet your grandmother's peineta she will have a horror film for December 2012 yet again. In a nutshell, SEGUNDA MANO fares better than most films of its ilk. |
tt0260113 | Julius Caesar | The play opens with the commoners of Rome celebrating Caesar's triumphant return from defeating Pompey's sons at the battle of Munda. Two tribunes, Flavius and Marrullus, discover the commoners celebrating, insult them for their change in loyalty from Pompey to Caesar, and break up the crowd. There are some jokes made by the commoners, who insult them back. They also plan on removing all decorations from Caesar's statues and ending any other festivities. In the next scene, during Caesar's parade on the feast of Lupercal, a soothsayer warns Caesar, "Beware the ides of March." This warning he disregards. The action then turns to the discussion between Brutus and Cassius. In this conversation, Cassius attempts to influence Brutus's opinions into believing Caesar should be killed, preparing to have Brutus join his conspiracy to kill Caesar. They then hear from Casca that Mark Antony has offered Caesar the crown of Rome three times and that each time Caesar refused it, fainting after the last refusal. Later, in act two, Brutus joins the conspiracy, although after much moral debate, eventually deciding that Caesar, although his friend and never having done anything against the people of Rome, should be killed to prevent him from doing anything against the people of Rome if he were ever to be crowned. He compares Caesar to "A serpents egg/ which hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,/ and kill him in the shell." He then decides to join Cassius in killing Caesar.
Caesar's assassination is one of the most famous scenes of the play, occurring in Act 3, scene 1. After ignoring the soothsayer, as well as his wife's own premonitions, Caesar comes to the Senate. The conspirators create a superficial motive for coming close enough to assassinate Caesar by means of a petition brought by Metellus Cimber, pleading on behalf of his banished brother. As Caesar, predictably, rejects the petition, Casca grazes Caesar in the back of his neck, and the others follow in stabbing him; Brutus is last. At this point, Shakespeare makes Caesar utter the famous line "Et tu, Brute?" ("And you, Brutus?", i.e. "You too, Brutus?") Shakespeare has him add, "Then fall, Caesar!" This suggests that such treachery destroyed Caesar's will to live.
The conspirators make clear that they committed this act for Rome, not for their own purposes, and do not attempt to flee the scene. After Caesar is killed, Brutus delivers an oration defending his actions, and for the moment, the crowd is on his side. However, Mark Antony makes a subtle and eloquent speech over Caesar's corpse, beginning with the much-quoted "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!" In this way, he deftly turns public opinion against the assassins by manipulating the emotions of the common people, in contrast to the rational tone of Brutus's speech, yet there is method in his rhetorical speech and gestures: he reminds them of the good Caesar had done for Rome, his sympathy with the poor, and his refusal of the crown at the Lupercal, thus questioning Brutus's claim of Caesar's ambition; he shows Caesar's bloody, lifeless body to the crowd to have them shed tears and gain sympathy for their fallen hero; and he reads Caesar's will, in which every Roman citizen would receive 75 drachmas. Antony, even as he states his intentions against it, rouses the mob to drive the conspirators from Rome. Amid the violence, an innocent poet, Cinna, is confused with the conspirator Lucius Cinna and is taken by the mob, which kills him by tearing him to pieces for such "offenses" as his bad verses.
The beginning of Act Four is marked by the quarrel scene, where Brutus attacks Cassius for supposedly soiling the noble act of regicide by having accepted bribes. ("Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake? / What villain touch'd his body, that did stab, / And not for justice?") The two are reconciled, especially after Brutus reveals that his beloved wife Portia had committed suicide under the stress of his absence from Rome; they prepare for a war against Mark Antony and Caesar's adopted son, Octavius. That night, Caesar's ghost appears to Brutus with a warning of defeat. (He informs Brutus, "Thou shalt see me at Philippi.")
At the battle, Cassius and Brutus, knowing that they will probably both die, smile their last smiles to each other and hold hands. During the battle, Cassius has his servant Pindarus kill him after hearing of the capture of his best friend, Titinius. After Titinius, who was not really captured, sees Cassius's corpse, he commits suicide. However, Brutus wins that stage of the battle--but his victory is not conclusive. With a heavy heart, Brutus battles again the next day. He loses and commits suicide by running on his own sword, which is held by a soldier named Strato.
The play ends with a tribute to Brutus by Antony, who proclaims that Brutus has remained "the noblest Roman of them all" because he was the only conspirator who acted, in his mind, for the good of Rome. There is then a small hint at the friction between Mark Antony and Octavius which characterizes another of Shakespeare's Roman plays, Antony and Cleopatra. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | Julius Caesar at the English National Opera. While not the most ideal production of Julius Caesar- there are some cuts of arias and within them also- there are many things to love about this production from English National Opera. The best production is for me the Glyndebourne production directed by David McVicar, while the Andreas Scholl production is very good and Peter Sellars' manages to be both impressive and frustrating. For authenticity and quality of how it is performed, this is very high up. The sets and costumes are very handsomely rendered- though the grainy picture quality doesn't it enough justice I find- and the staging intelligent. The production is also outstanding musically. The orchestral playing has the beautiful playing and stylistic touches needed for Handel, yet also brings out the power and nuances of the score as well. The conducting from Charles Mackerras shows a conductor who knows exactly what he wants and also one who is experienced in performing Handel's music. Janet Baker is perhaps rather matronly in stature, but she still sings elegantly and cuts a dignified presence. James Bowman suffers from most of cuts, but still brings out his character's lasciviousness brilliantly and his countertenor is flexible and with a commanding ping. Della Jones is her usual vibrant self in a very passionate interpretation, and Sarah Walker is a very intense and thrilling Cornelia. I found that John Tomlinson and particularly Valerie Masterson stood out. You do wonder after hearing him here why Tomlinson didn't do more Handel roles, as he is humorous and vocally resonant as Achillas, while Masterson's Cleopatra benefits from amazingly precise, often dazzling, singing and a sensual and above all superb understanding of the character. In conclusion, an excellent production if not the most ideal for anybody picky about cuts and such. 9/10 Bethany Cox |
tt0460792 | Fast Food Nation | Don Anderson is the Mickey's hamburger chain marketing director who helped develop the "Big One", its most popular menu item. When he learns that independent research has discovered a considerable presence of fecal matter in the meat, he travels to the fictitious town of Cody, Colorado to determine if the local Uni-Globe meatpacking processing plant, Mickey's main meat supplier, is guilty of sloppy production. Don's tour shows him only the pristine work areas and most efficient procedures, assuring him that everything the company produces is immaculate.
Suspicious of the facade he's been shown, Don meets rancher Rudy Martin, who used to supply cattle to the Uni-Globe plant. Rudy and his Chicana housekeeper both assure him that because of the plant's production level, several safety regulations are ignored or worked against; workers have no time to make sure that the manure coming from the intestines stays away from the meat. Don later meets with Harry Rydell, executive VP of Mickey's, who admits being aware of the issue, but is not concerned.
Amber is a young, upbeat employee of Mickey's, studying for college and living with her mother Cindy. While her life seems to be set, she continually faces the contrast between her current career and her own ambition, emphasized by her two lazy co-workers, Brian and Andrew, who, having heard of armed robberies at fast food restaurants in the area, start planning their own.
Amber and Cindy are visited by Cindy's brother Pete, who encourages Amber to leave town and start a real career. Amber eventually meets a group of young activists, Andrew, Alice, and Paco, who plan to liberate cattle from Uni-Globe as their first act of rebellion. They proceed to sneak up to a holding pen at the plant, but after breaking down the fence, they are shocked that the cattle make no attempt to leave. Upon hearing the police, they retreat and contemplate why the cattle decided to stay in confinement.
Raul, his love interest Sylvia, and Sylvia's sister Coco are illegal immigrants from Mexico, trying to make it in Colorado. They all go to Uni-Globe in hopes of finding a job - Raul becomes a cleaner, while Coco works on a meat processing conveyor belt. Sylvia, however, cannot take the environment, and instead finds a job as a hotel maid. Coco develops a drug habit, and begins an affair with her exploitative superior, Mike.
In a work accident, a friend of Raul's falls in a machine, and his leg is mangled. Raul, attempting to save him, falls and is injured. At the hospital, Sylvia is told that Raul was on amphetamines at work. Because Raul is now unable to work, Sylvia has sex with Mike in order to find a job at Uni-Globe. She ends up working on the "kill floor." | romantic, satire | train | wikipedia | The first time I tried was a few years back, after reading Eric Schlosser's non-fiction work, FAST FOOD NATION.
Unfortunately, Richard Linklater's narrative interpretation of Schlosser's novel is nowhere near as nauseating or as a big a turn-off as the feeling of a Big Mac sitting at the bottom of your stomach.The decision to translate FAST FOOD NATION from a non-fiction work of in-depth investigative journalism into a narrative film is a bold one.
Greg Kinnear plays Don Anderson, an advertising executive responsible for The Big One, the latest burger success at Mickey's, the fictional fast food chain at the center of the film.
Wilmer Valderrama and Catalina Sandino Moreno play Raul and Sylvia, two Mexican illegal immigrants who have been brought into the United States specifically to work at the rendering plant that manufactures the millions of patties that become The Big One. Very little is revealed about the characters themselves as they are merely symbols for the bigger picture.
A film that is trying to tell everyone, "America
this is what you've become," needs the audience to feel like this is their America.What FAST FOOD NATION best exemplifies is America's complacency with the progression of its society.
I really like Richard Linklater, the director of Fast Food Nation, because no matter what pop culture, market research, or his distributors tell him he continues to make movies where people talk.
I don't mean talk as in "Hasta la vista, baby," or some other cliché-ridden "isn't that clever" marketing jargon, but TALK, as in conversations; the kind that were common place before TV, the Internet, and X-Boxes.In Fast Food Nation, the film's message is mainly delivered through words.
Any Linklater film is going to be anticipated by fans of his work, and Fast Food Nation does not disappoint.Based on Eric Schlosser's non-fiction book of the same name, the film is a fictionalisation co-written by Schlosser and Linklater.
Sections are pieced together with a great line up of actors, such as Patricia Arquette, Bruce Willis, Ethan Hawke and Kris Kristofferson, each of whose characters are interesting enough to carry the film alone.The truth behind the burgers we eat is revealed through Mickey's Burgers Marketing Manager Don Henderson (Greg Kinnear) as he attempts to discover the source of faecal contamination of the burgers.
Though the story is American, there's relevance to Australia with the proliferation of fast food chains, the new IR laws, and cheap imported labour.The film is largely character-driven but be warned that there are some gruesome scenes towards the end scenes that should and need to be seen.
Spurlock uncovered a plethora of grotesque truths about fast food that not only made you think about that kind of diet, but also offered a compelling cinematic experience.It is after witnessing a film as disappointing as Fast Food Nation, that one appreciates a work like Thank You For Smoking (2006) all the more.
While filmmaker Richard Linklater doesn't make very simple statements like 'fast food will make you fat', he does try to push the message that the sort of machinery of corporation is similar to that of the assembly line, is what is crippling to those entwined in the circle of cheap product made from dead meat.
However, I do expect that if a filmmaker wants to put forward the message- and boy does Fast Food Nation do that more than anything- to make the characters &/or story lines interesting in the dramatic framework.
Amber's story, on the other hand, is sort of the opposite- she is just a small-town girl living in a lonely world (as the song goes), and sometimes listening to idiotic plots to rob the Mickey's by his co-workers, while here and there figuring out the future for herself.What's both fascinating and frustrating about the film though could be seen sort of from Amber's storyline, where you see scenes that are convincing both in characters talking like real people (ala Ethan Hawke's moments), but also having not as much to do with the real 'message' going across that one might think- that is until Amber joins up with the young Animal-rights/ecological brigade and goes to cut a fence down to let the cows out.
Acting wise it's hit or miss- Moreno is fantastic in a role that ends her up seeing the actual slaughtering of cows (which is staggering, whatever you think about serving meat in fast food).
There's even a convincing one-note turn by the sleazy, pig manager of the assembly line job (I forget his name), but he too only get to have his character do what's required in the script.As I walked out of the theater I realized that this wasn't at all a bad film, in fact it's a a pretty decent effort at dramatizing in small-town/big-ensemble fashion what it is to have the ugliness of consumer productivity.
Famed writer/director Richard Linklater directs an A-list cast in a dramatized version of the best-selling book Fast Food Nation.
Richard Linklater did a tremendous job at turning Eric Schlosser's best-selling investigative book "Fast Food Nation" into a shocking and inspiring piece of fiction.
"Fast Food Nation" (the movie) has a giant all-star cast and focuses primarily on three intersecting story lines the corporate executive who investigates claims that there is fecal matter in their meat patties, the teenage girl who works at a fast-food restaurant but becomes an environmental activist, and the illegal Mexican immigrants who risk their lives and dignity to work in the heinous slaughter houses and meat-packing plants.Do see this movie, but trust me when I advise you to not eat before walking into the theater.
There are snippets of nice storyline and characterisations, but they are few and far between.Catalina Sandino Moreno, as the main female character does a great job, and the storyline about the Mexican workers is well done, but the way the focus shifts between three main narratives, and some of the picayune detail of those stories is unwarranted, I feel.Some of the younger actors give the better performances, but Bruce Willis in particular is over the top and plays an almost clumsily drawn character.
It certainly doesn't work as a exploration of the fast food culture or the meat packing industry, and too much of the interesting depth in the book was glossed over, or missed altogether..
The movie is all about a few slightly interconnected story lines all about fast food, its culture in society, the way it's made, who it's made by, and even the disgusting truth behind what's in the meat.
The only one that stands out among this excess is Bruce Willis as the owner of the meat plant, who knows the unsanitary conditions and just doesn't care.Fast Food Nation is way overstuffed with far too many characters, story lines, and messages.
It is not nearly as eye opening as the book, and as a movie the only word to describe the experience is unsatisfying.I realize this review is very negative, so here are a few elements Fast Food Nation gets right.
The scenes spent inside the slaughter house are also very effective.Fast Food Nation just does not work as a movie.
The movie touches on important subjects in today's society (exploitation of Mexican immigrants, abusive US corporate power, the brutality of the meat industry, grass-root activism etc) but unfortunately it presents them in a shallow and dull way.
I had heard about how wonderful the book, Fast Food Nation was and I was impressed with the caliber of cast that participated - Greg Kinnear, Ethan Hawke, Academy award nominee Catalina Sandino Moreno, Luis Guzman, Esai Morales...and the others.However, as I sat in the screening room I was shocked at how badly this movie was made.
The writing at times felt like the actors were reading straight out of the book, the stories disjointed and unfocused which at times ended abruptly and left us wondering "what happened", the stereotypes abounded, especially those of the illegal immigrants.
The book was good and this movie had the opportunity to be insightful, but instead the characters are weak, the plot line non-existent, and the dialog is awful--it makes even someone awesome like Bruce Willis seem flaccid.
I was expecting this movie to be similar to the recent "Thank you for not smoking"- it is not.It was interesting seeing all the Hollywood cameos (I hope that they are all vegetarians) that must have really felt that they were delivering an important message by appearing in this stinker.This film is aimed squarely at the average dumb American who really never thought that cows are killed to make burgers and that there are really nasty businessmen that would happily sell s*** as food as long as it turns a profit.It is a bad, bad, bad movie.
The other major threads follow Greg Kinnear as an exec who has come to inspect the possibly poorly run mega-factory where the meat patties are produced, and a group of illegal immigrants (including Oscar nominee Catalina Sandino Moreno and surprisingly good TV comedian Wilmer Valderrama) who work at the mega-factory in dangerous conditions.
I also highly recommend the film to anyone who works at a fast food restaurant, or eat a lot of it, or just to anyone, WATCH THIS MOVIE, it will change what you do every time you walk into a fast food place.
This little film adapted by Richard Linklater from Eric Schlosser's frightening book is agonizingly biting and insightful: if you elect to watch it, be prepared for some ugly facts that may just produce insomnia.Don Henderson (Greg Kinnear) is a marketing strategist for 'Mickey's', a fast food chain that is highly successful in selling millions of 'The Big One' (the comparisons to the McDonald's Big Mac are not subtle!) and discovers that the meat patties have been found to grow E.
And so the plethora of story lines begin: the film examines the illegal immigrants from south of the border brought in by coyotes, treated like dirt, and given jobs 'cleaning' the meat plant and working the food chopping lines and eventually the killing and slaughtering of the cattle whose housing conditions are filth personified; the teenage workers who people the Mickey's chain are shown to be discontent and equally capable of planning robberies as they are of attempting to free the soon-to-be-burgers cattle; the callous corporate types who cover the facts in favor of increasing monetary gain; the plant workers who abuse the immigrant workers in every way possible; the utter boredom of the populace of Cody and the resultant pacified response to the 'big problems' that seethe through their town.
Yes, it is an expose of corruption on many levels, but the film doesn't stop there.Linklater and Schlosser are careful to include the individuals caught up in the mess and those individuals run the gamut from the immigrants who only want to find a better way of life and will subject themselves to horrors both in their trek across the border and the mistreatment in the factories to find it, to the honest men of the corporations, the ranchers, and the teenagers who try to make a stand against the many problems that overwhelm them.
And that is what makes the film so moving: it personalizes rather than generalizing.The cast is huge and without exception excellent: Greg Kinnear, Kris Kristofferson, Bruce Willis, Bobby Cannavale, Ashley Johnson, Paul Dano, Patricia Arquette, Luis Guzmán, Wilmer Valderrama, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ana Claudia Talancón, Juan Carlos Serrán, Armando Hernández, Esai Morales, Ethan Hawke, Avril Lavigne...the cast just goes on and on.
I will say that Richard Linklater's movie version of Eric Schlosser's expository "Fast Food Nation" could have been better.
Bruce Willis' character represents the other side of the coin who basically says- nobody is making immigrants come here (a big mac and a pair of Nikes is probably still better than what they had), plus plenty of other things kill people besides fast food.
But, I wasn't out to win awards; I was simply surviving.But that road trip effectively killed my liking for any fast food from any FFJ - forever.And, that's another reason I thoroughly enjoyed Fast Food Nation: despite the often heavy-handed socio-political docudrama feel of this film, it's a good story, well acted, and best of all timely.The narrative traces the interactions of various people in Cody, Colorado apparently the place that has the biggest cattle corral in the world and where most of the meat patties for hamburgers are made.
Greg Kinnear as Don Anderson, is an executive for a hamburger chain who's trying to get to the bottom of fecal contamination in their product; Kris Kristofferson is a disgruntled and angry rancher, Rudy Martin, with the inside dope on dirty meat from the nearby slaughterhouse and meat packaging company; Luis Guzman plays the part of a wetback smuggler, Benny, another link in the dirty chain of lousy meat product but big, meaty profits for unethical corporations; Ashley Johnson as Amber is the local girl who wakes up to the truth about fast food while working at Mickey's Big One chain; Patricia Arquette, as her mother Cindy, appears briefly, but effectively; and, Ethan Hawke, as the footloose uncle Pete, attempts to provide worldly advice for Ashley.But, for the piece de resistance, who better to appear than Bruce Wills, as Harry Rydell, to vigorously argue the case for fast food to serve a hungry and growing nation, not to mention the world.
You have doctored reports, tales from the production floor, sexual favours, poor work conditions and lack of benefits, and tons of lies.Richard Linklater movies have dialogue which rock, and there is no lack of those in Fast Food Nation.
There is a scene in Richard Linklater's Fast Food Nation where two illegal Mexican immigrants sit in the back of a pickup truck as they are being carted off to work at a meat packing plant in a midsize Colorado town.
This film tells the stories of people who work in the fast food industry, including top management, store manager, cashier, and illegal workers in meat processing plants.
Meanwhile, Mexican family crosses over the border of Mexico and moves to Colorodo where husband Raul (played by Wilmer Valderrama) gets a job at the meat factory, only to witness the horrifying truth of the backbone behind the fast food industry.This film is written with a somewhat similar story structure to Richard Linklater's other works which often revolve around the social interactions of characters and personal relationships.
Linklater's style of writing doesn't quite work as well here as it does in his other films, but luckily it manages to get its crucial message out that could have viewers thinking twice before making another trip to a fast food restaurant.Fast Food Nation is a fine movie with some fine performances by a solid cast and fine writing despite its flaws in direction.
Her sister Sylvia is not happy with the relationship and her drug use.Director Richard Linklater is adapting the scathing investigative book on the fast food industry by layering three stories on top of the material.
I guess I was misled because my video rental service classifies this film as a comedy, but in their defense, I noticed on another Fox Searchlight DVD that Fast Food Nation is listed in the previews section entitled "Other Comedies from Fox Searchlight." It definitely is not a comedy but instead, a sobering look at a number of disturbing aspects of big business in the United States.The film plays out as a series of extremely well acted character vignettes that serve to expose the factual information gathered by Schlosser for his book.The story focuses on three different groups of people who are all connected through a huge slaughter and meatpacking facility that provides meat for a McDonald-like fast food chain.Corporate headquarters is represented by an executive (Greg Kinnear) who is sent to investigate why fecal matter is showing up in the meat.
An impressive achievement of making a fictional movie based on a factual book (which I haven't read, but will!) about the rotten state of the American burger industry, both when it comes to treating animals and human employees- predominantly illegal Mexian immigrants.
None of that happens here.The Insider, again showed us how to tackle the Tobacco industry using a compelling true account, and telling the story in very dramatic fashion.Fast Food Nation is like a mix between both of those movies, minus the drama, comedy, and lacking a well told story.
It is a film made by vegetarians Richard Linklater and Greg Kinnear that attempts to open our eyes to the horror of one of our everyday activities: Eating.While "Fast Food Nation" is a fictionalized and dramatized version of the non-fiction book of the same name, it is hard to judge it like a normal movie.
And I'm sure the meat eaters/fast food eaters amongst you might have gotten that feeling as well, so that many people will disregard the message simply because of the way it was conveyed.This is a first for me: I'm going to complain about the use of sex in a film.
If Eric schlosser, the author of the book this film is based on, tried to get me off meat (Fat chance of that happening) than his take on the fast food industry is irrelevant.
But, before I alienate too many people, allow me to flesh out the movie a little.The story follows Greg Kinnear, an executive at a fictional fast food chain called Mickey's, from an optimistic meeting to the source of the meat he's just learned is tainted with fecal traces.
It is about so much more than just fast food.I must admit that I am somewhat biased, as I am a big fan of Richard Linklater's work (A Scanner Darkly is also excellent, and is an equally important film with a much needed message).
Greg Kinnear's character is also interesting as the fast food executive, I think that the way his story dropped off a little too soon was one of the few things I didn't quite like about the film. |
tt0381429 | Somersault | Heidi (Cornish), a somewhat isolated, sexually promiscuous teenager living in the suburbs of Canberra, flees her home after her mother, Nicole, finds Heidi kissing Nicole's boyfriend. Isolated and alone, she initially travels to Snowy River with the promise of a job offer, however after phoning the person who informed her of the job prospect, she is rebuffed as the person explains they do not remember her. Heidi's attractive appearance and vulnerability lead her into various situations and escapades in the small town. She meets a stranger at a bar and has sex with him. In the morning, he informs her of his plans to travel to Sydney and Heidi asks if she can accompany him. His friend informs her that he already has a girlfriend and the idea of Heidi travelling with him is dismissed as a result of this. She strikes up a friendship with Irene (Curran), an older woman who runs a motel in the town. Irene, realising Heidi has very little life experience and no permanent roots in the town, offers her a flatrent at the back of the motel. In order to pay the rent, Heidi must find a job, and after an unsuccessful attempt to work at a ski hire shop, she is hired at a Petrol station. One of Heidi's co-workers is Bianca (Andrew) and the two become friends after Bianca offers her a lift home one evening.
While in town, Heidi eventually meets Joe (Worthington), an equally confused young man who is having trouble with his sexuality. Joe is the son of a wealthy local farmer who finds comfort in her presence. However, Joe's insecurities towardshis sexual orientation lead to a turbulent relationship between the two. Staying with Joe's parents is Richard (Thomson), a gay man. Although the two share passion, Joe and Heidi's dysfunctional personalities sometimes lead to a disconnect between one another. One night, Joe takes Heidi to a Chinese restaurant, and she asks Joe if he loves her. When he refuses to answer, she swallows a small bowl of chilli. He drags her to the bathroom to expel the chilli and takes her back to the motel.
While trying to express and reciprocate feelings towards Heidi, Joe kisses Richard, leading to further problems for the newly acquainted couple. The following morning, Joe's cold and distant father fails to comfort Joe, who is both drunk and emotionally distressed. Eventually, he goes to visit Heidi, who has brought home two men from a club she visited and proceeded to have sex with them when they are interrupted by Joe. Heidi tells him that he shouldn't leave without calling her and says that her having sex with the men is the result of his actions. Joe punches one of the men after they make fun of him and leaves Heidi, much to her despair. The next morning, Irene tells Heidi that after the scene she made the night before, she is no longer welcome to stay in the rental apartment. Heidi breaks down and comes clean about her past with her mother, which Irene sees an act of desperation and comforts her in her own home. There, she asks Heidi to call her mother and make amends. The film ends as Heidi's mother comes to pick her up, as she reunites with Joe. The two smile at each other before she gets into the car and returns to an uncertain future in Canberra. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0050706 | Mon oncle | M. Hulot (Jacques Tati) is the dreamy, impractical, and adored uncle of nine-year-old Gérard Arpel, who lives with his materialistic parents, M. and Mme. Arpel, in an ultra-modern geometric house and garden, Villa Arpel, in a new suburb of Paris, situated just beyond the crumbling stone buildings of the old neighborhoods of the city. Gérard's parents are entrenched in a machine-like existence of work, fixed gender roles, the acquisition of status through possessions, and conspicuous displays to impress guests, such as the fish-shaped fountain at the center of the garden that, in a running gag, Mme. Arpel activates only for important visitors.
Each element of Villa Arpel is stylistically- rather than functionally-designed, creating an environment completely indifferent to the comfort, or lack of comfort, of its occupants. In choosing modern architecture to punctuate his satire, Tati once stated, "Les lignes géométriques ne rendent pas les gens aimables" ("geometrical lines do not produce likeable people"). From inconveniently-located stepping stones, to difficult-to-sit-on furniture, to a kitchen filled with deafeningly loud appliances, every facet of Villa Arpel emphasizes the impracticality of a dedication to superficial aesthetics and electrical gadgets over the necessities of daily living.
Despite the superficial beauty of its modern design, the Arpels' home is entirely impersonal, as are the Arpels themselves. In fact, M. and Mme. Arpel have completely subordinated their individuality to maintain their social position and their shiny new possessions. Tati emphasizes his themes surrounding the Arpel lifestyle (as well as M. Arpel's automatonic workplace, Plastac) with monochromatic shades and cloudy days.
By contrast, Monsieur Hulot lives in an old and run-down city district. He is unemployed, and gets around town either on foot or on a VéloSoleX motorized bicycle. Gérard, utterly bored by the sterility and monotony of his life with his parents, fastens himself to his uncle at every opportunity. Hulot, little more than a child himself at times, is completely at home with Gérard, but also completely ineffectual at controlling his horseplay with his school friends, who take delight in tormenting adults with practical jokes. Exasperated at their relative's perceived immaturity, the Arpels soon scheme to saddle him with the twin yokes of family and business responsibilities. | psychedelic, humor, satire, prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3582040 | Boomerang | Father Lambert (Wyrley Birch), a priest, is shot dead on a Bridgeport, Connecticut street at night. The police, led by Chief Robinson (Lee J. Cobb), fail to immediately find the murderer. It soon becomes a political hot potato, with the police accused of incompetence, and the city's reform-minded administration comes under attack. Robinson and the prosecutor Henry Harvey (Dana Andrews) come under severe pressure by political leaders to find the killer or bring in outside help.
After strenuous efforts yield nothing, a vagrant ex-serviceman, John Waldron (Arthur Kennedy), is apprehended and identified in a lineup. He is interrogated for two days by police until, deprived of sleep, he confesses. The evidence seems solid, and a gun in his possession is believed to be the gun that was used in the shooting.
Harvey, however, is not convinced. He questions Waldron, investigates the evidence and the witnesses. Harvey then risks his reputation and incurs the wrath of the police and the public in proposing that the defendant is innocent, while he and his wife (Jane Wyatt) are also being threatened by a businessman named Harris (Ed Begley). In court, even though he is the prosecutor, Harvey lays out the flaws in the case before the judge, and indicates he intends to dismiss the charges. The judge suspects Harvey's motives; Harvey's relationship with Chief Robinson is strained; and a mob unsuccessfully attempts to impose their own justice on Waldron.
A sub-plot involving Paul Harris and a property under consideration for sale to the city—at a price Harris desperately needs to keep himself afloat—also has a prominent place in the film. Harris tries to blackmail Harvey by threatening to destroy his wife, a City Council member, unless he supports the sale and sits idle, allowing Waldron to be convicted.
At a preliminary hearing, Harvey once again presents evidence that would lead to Waldron's exoneration. When a reporter gets wind of the double-dealing and threatens Harris with exposure, Harris commits suicide in the courtroom.
The film ends with a narration that the murder was never solved, and the real Henry Harvey was Homer Cummings who rose to the position of U.S. Attorney General. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Maybe the problem is the story.
It starts off very effectively; a car containing two people who are bickering loudly goes off the road, and both are injured.
The reasons for the argument are brought out during the film.
I had no concerns about the acting since Laurent Lafitte, Melanie Laurent and Audrey Dana handle their roles very well.
Especially Melanie Laurent who can make the most banal, trite story seem like a masterpiece.My problem was with the story which seemed old-fashioned: one character is positively Victorian in her moral judgements while another seems badly out of tune with the France of 2016.
If you're going to make a film that feels like a Simenon tale, it's better to set it in the 1950's, let's say, so that characters and actions can mesh better.
With this reservation noted, I want to finish by saying that this film is well worth your attention.
I gave it 8/10..
The black sheep of the family.
How the the black sheep of the family, is revealing the family secrets and becomes a survivor.
All encourages by his psychologist..
The problem is not the story, but the telling of it.
Every once in a while, you see a drama that is so well-intentioned, but so...'normal' (for lack of a better word) that you're left unable to decide whether it was bad or good.
Boomerang is one of those films.The story mainly revolves around Antoine's unhealthy obsession with what he perceives to be a mystery regarding the death of his mother.
Whenever he asks about it, he's given the silent treatment.
His sister, Agathe, has her own daily life problems and quickly gets sick of Antoine always hammering on about little details that just don't add up.
Nevertheless, as Antoine keeps digging, he finds answers and more questions.
This results in a film about the long-term harm family secrets can cause.The basic problem with Boomerang (besides the painfully symbolic title) is that it's really hard to care about these characters, particularly the main character.
Antoine is immediately suspicious about the perceived silence on his mother's death.
We don't get to see him slowly become suspicious, so we can share his anxieties.
The result is that, instead of rooting for Antoine, we tend to agree with Agathe and others who want him to stop whining.
I mean, get this: early in the film, Antoine crashes his car, out of anger or some subconscious desire to re-enact the death of his mother (which also involved a car), causing Agathe to be hospitalized.
The next day, Antoine's whining to someone about how he doesn't understand Agathe's reticence to talk about their mother's death and his suspicions!
This is our protagonist, ladies and gentlemen.
The only character I liked was the biker chick who's tragic past shared some similarities with Antoine's, so it was nice to see these two troubled souls getting together.But yeah, every problem Boomerang has can be traced back to its dreadful first act.
Here, the film should have made us root for Antoine, but it doesn't, which causes us to lose interest in the mystery.
A mystery by the way, that doesn't turn out to be as interesting as I hoped.
It's predictable in that, you already know it couldn't have been a murder due to the film's overall feel, so there's only one other option: social scandal.
The film is obviously well-intentioned and its themes of transgenerational family secrets and the grief enforced silences can cause come through loud and clear, but the film doesn't render these themes in an emotionally fulfilling fashion..
Great movie on the victory of the internal win.
A must see move that showcases the internal struggles and transformation through action and a moving storyline.
The movie revolves around the main character seeking the truth of his past.
During his journey, he is ignored and ridiculed by his family, but continues no matter what the sacrifice.
And in the end he finds himself.
What I liked so much about this movie was the slow transformation of the characters in the film.
Every time a layer of the onion is peeled i.e. getting closer to the core truth, the characters slightly change with each step.
It was a delight to be a part of the journey of transformation.
This movie is truly a gem that showcases in an authentic way the various shades of humankind from the courageous to the cowardice and everything in between.
And how each impacts the lives of the other..
Usual French drivel.
For thirty years a man is not bothered with his mom's death, and suddenly he gets obsessed with what happened to her.
He's rude, audacious and has no respect to any of his family members.
Even at the funeral of his grandmother he creates a scandal and insults his father.
Why did he need 30 years for coming to this?
The story is just unbelievable.
And it's boring as much as a French psychological drivel can be. |
tt0109607 | The Desperate Trail | On a stagecoach in the old West, Marshall Bill Speakes (Sam Elliott) is escorting his prisoner Sarah O'Rourke (Linda Fiorentino) to her hanging. Also in the stage are Jack Cooper (Craig Sheffer), Mamie Hollister (Robin Westphal), and her husband Zeb Hollister (John Furlong). The stage is attacked by three men (Boots Southerland, Daniel O'Haco, and Joey Hamlin). The stage runs over one, but the driver is killed by the leader and the stage takes off. The Marshall handcuffs Sarah to the stage and gains control of it. One of the bandits climbs onto the back. Sarah grabs his gun and she and the Marshall shoot him. The Marshall finally shoots kills the leader. Sarah then surprises the Marshall and takes his gun. The strongbox is opened and Sarah prepares to take off with the cash, but Jack wrestles her gun away and runs off with the cash himself.
Jack heads to a nearby town and takes a hooker up to his room. Some time later, Sarah drops by and gets the drop on him. She escorts him to the lobby to get the money from the safe, but they are both surprised by the Marshall and Mr. Hollister. In the shootout, they both escape.
Jack talks Sarah into a scheme to rob a bank. They get some cash from a poker game after Sarah shoots most of the other players. Meanwhile, the Marshall gathers a posse and heads after them. The posse catches up to them in another town. During a shootout, Jack is wounded and is rescued by Sarah. They ride off. Hollister has been shot and is acting incoherently, so the Marshall kills him, showing his dark side.
Jack and Sarah get chummy. She reveals that the person she was to be hanged for killing the Marshall's son, who had beaten her. They travel to the ranch of Jack's brother, Walter (Frank Whaley). Jack and Sarah fight, and she takes off but is captured by the posse and taken to town for hanging. Walter spots her there and tells Jack. They come up with a plan to rescue her. Meanwhile, the Marshall shows more of his bad side by mentally torturing Sarah in her cell.
Jack goes to town and gets captured intentionally. He is put into the jail with Sarah. Using some chemicals given to him by Walter, he breaks out of his cell and he and Sarah take off. They hide in a large crate in the shipping office. Walter picks up the crate the next day and gets them back to the ranch.
While Jack and Sarah are out, the posse comes to the ranch and starts to torture Walter. Jack breaks in and shoots some of the posse. In an involved shootout, all of the posse except the Marshall are killed. The Marshall kills Walter, then wounds Jack. Sarah distracts the Marshall and Jack shoots and kills him. Jack and Sarah ride off. | revenge, suspenseful, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0165057 | Rude Awakening | In 1969 New York City, two hippies, Fred Wook (Eric Roberts) and Jesus Monteya (Cheech Marin), flee the US to avoid arrest by the FBI and hide out in the jungles of Central America. Fred is an idealist, working on an underground newspaper with his friend Sammy (Robert Carradine), while Jesus is a stoner whose brain has been fried after being given huge amounts of LSD by researchers (the theory being that acid and appropriate visual stimulation can turn pacifist hippies into committed soldiers; Jesus proves their failure by wishing them 'peace' as he leaves the lab.) The two flee the inner-city commune they are living in, leaving behind Sammy who feels it is important that he keep writing and publishing their message, and Fred's girlfriend, artist Petra (Julie Hagerty).
Twenty years later, Fred and Jesus are still living in the jungle, when they find a dying man who has been shot by soldiers. He gives them some documents and tells them it is vital they get the papers back to the US government. The documents imply that the US is planning to invade that very country, and outraged, Fred and Jesus decide to return to the US to get the action stopped. Having been living in isolation (and by implication, stoned the entire time) for the last 20 years, Fred and Jesus return to New York City only to find the 1980s, entrenched in the yuppie ethos, to be something of a shock. Sammy and Petra have both embraced the materialistic culture, and it takes considerable persuasion from Fred and Jesus (including a memorable speech where Jesus makes numerous profound points, ending each one with 'That's all I got to say', before launching into another ramble) before they will agree to help.
Fred, Jesus, Sammy, and Petra join forces to lead a sit-in at the University of New York to protest the planned invasion, which leaves the group despondent; the student body is indifferent and the documents turn out to be a theoretical exercise and not any genuine invasion plans. However, the controversy brought up by their publication implies that Americans would welcome a war 'we can win' and so the invasion actually happens.
Fred is broken by the idea that he started a war, and gives up all hope for the world and human race in general. Fred plans to leave New York with Jesus for places unknown, while Sammy and Petra refuse to come along with them-relunctant to give up their yuppie lifestyle. Just then on the street, some college students show up and ask Fred for his help in mobilising action; they are concerned by the numerous ecological and social problems they see around them and that Fred's sit-down protest at the university inspired them. Fred realizes that despite having failed in his personal mission to prevent war, as long as there are young and idealistic people out there that share his views, there will always be hope for the world.
The film concluded with an onscreen sing-along to the song "Revolution" during the closing credits. | comedy, cult, dark, adult comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0251426 | Tarazu | Police Inspector Ram Yadav (Akshay Kumar) is an honest, handsome, and incorruptible young man. He lives with his sister-in-law, Shakuntala (Shashi Sharma), and elder brother, Raj (Anil Dhawan). A lovely yet petty thief, Pooja (Sonali Bendre) admires Ram so much that she moves into his house in the guise of a maid-servant, and eventually claims that she is to bear his child. Ram, unable to handle this, agrees to marry her. His duties and investigation lead him to suspect the influential Appa Rao (Amrish Puri). Appa Rao is enraged at Ram, and watches and waits for an opportunity to strike back at him. Janardan (Mohnish Behl), Appa Rao's spoiled and wayward son, initially attempts to pick up a college girl. When she refuses and humiliates him publicly, he retaliates by setting her on fire in broad daylight, in front of several college students. No one is bold enough to stop Janardan, nor even attempt to save the girl. When Ram finds out, he immediately arrests Janardan and holds him in custody. This enrages Appa Rao even more, and he schemes against Ram, a plot so devilish that will turn Ram's ordered life, his faith in the justice, and law of the country, upside down. | good versus evil, revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | 1997 worst year for Akki. Akshay Kumar is a decent actor and no I will not deny this even if he has acted in some of the worst Bollywood films ever. It was the 1997-1999 period that was his worst where his films came and all of them proved to be nothing but back to back failures. The worst part is that some of these films were not even worth watching, I can't believe Akki signed such movies without even thinking how crap the movie could turn out to be.Taarazu is another crap film from 1997 where Akki plays either a cop, a reformed thug, or a good for nothing in the disaster Lahoo Ke Do Rang. Taarazu has him playing a cop and honestly, Akki does good as the cop though he has done it so much now. His best cop acts were from Aan: Men at Work, Mohra, Sabse Bada Khiladi, Main Khiladi Tu Anari, Sapoot, Rowdy Rathore, Khakee, and even the most recent Khiladi 786. However, Taarazu falls into one of his worst cop actors ever. In Daava too, he just hams and completely hams. However, in that film the story is better executed and Akki does better sort of. However, this film is crass from every single aspect. The story is not worthy of even being labeled as an average. The typical story as I mentioned in many of my reviews I don't mind it. However, the problem is that if the handling, the performances, the songs, everything is not up to mark, the movie is considered a piece of crap. In this case, Taarazu fits along with this statement.The movie has no absolute story, it is about an honest cop Ram Yadav who lives with his brother and sister in law. They as well as their son gets killed by the villain Appa Rao and his gang of villains which include his son Jannardan. The reason why Appa Rao does this is because he is sick of Ram always intruding in their illegal business. In a typical police story this is what always happens. The police officer harms the villains and their illegal activities. Lots of family drama, comedy happens in the first half, the second half is when the hero's family is killed and he is jailed or left for dead. He then seeks revenge and kills all the villains and in this process he may loose his life. However, these typical movies are good when their handling is good. Taarazu fails to even do this properly. If the handling was decent, the film would be better.Direction by Vimal Kumar is crass, he gives his worst film ever. This is probably one of his few directional ventures and it is proved that not all assistant directors can give good directional ventures.Performances are okay. Akshay Kumar as Ram Yadav does his typical overacting comedy in the first half and some solid dialogs. After which he is harmed, and then he takes his revenge in style. However, the movie is so crass that this style gets quite boring as the editing and logic even in the culmination and post interval portions is completely missing. Sonali Bendre in her only film where she is paired with Akshay does OK. She is again mainly used as a romantic and comic prop. She does a fair job. Amrish Puri as Appa Rao gives one of his worst villainy acts ever, he overacts quite a lot. Monish Behl as the villain's son Jannardhan gives a crass performance. On the whole, the performances disappoint.IMDb doesn't allow the vote of giving no stars but this film even if that option was enables deserves a start for having a few good action scenes.However, for the most part, Taarazu is a must avoid garbage flick with lots of horrendous overacting and a stupid good for nothing lousy story. Akshay Kumar you are the only reason I saw this film and I must say, if I wasn't a good fan of yours, I would have never seen such a lousy garbage film.. An Average Akshay Kumar Starrer!. Akshay Kumar paired with the beautiful Sonali Bendre & fond memories of the hit song 'Haseena Gori Gori' gave me a good reason to want to give this film a look.Expecting this to be more of an action film akin to Akshay's earlier hits such as 'Sabse Bada Khiladi' & 'Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi', it was definitely a bit disappointing. From its weak plot & loads of overacting to it's mediocre action & bland comedy scenes. Sonali Bendre's beauty is mesmerizing, however her character in the film is that of an atrocious young woman who traps Inspector Ram Yadav (Akshay Kumar) into falling in love with her by deceptive & manipulative means. Akshay Kumar is not seen in any breathtaking action stunts in this film, there are some bland comedy scenes but overall a mediocre performance with some fair action sequences. Amrish Puri as the villain 'Appa Rao' does not give any great performance compared to some of his other films, but rather lots of overacting.Mohnish Bahl's character of 'Janardan' (Appa Rao's son) is typical of his acting roles & some scenes with him can be considered a bit unnecessary due to the lack of a stronger plot.Kader Khan is refreshing to see, however there are no comedy scenes from him, as his character in this film is that of a serious one as 'Dr. Khan Hindustani' which he does play well.The soundtrack by Rajesh Roshan is average, with two notably hit songs worth mentioning:The first is the memorable hit 'Haseena Gori Gori' with vocals by Udit Narayan & Alka Yagnik which is a copy of Shaggy & Ravon's 90's Reggae hit: 'In The Summer Time'. Picturisation of the song with African themed elements & Sonali's dances & costuming are well done & remain memorable till today.The second is 'Ai Deewane Dil' sung by Kumar Sanu & Alka Yagnik which features a great melody & well picturised again with Sonali's outfits & dances being the center of attraction. Overall, an average film that you can afford to pass up on, unless you are either a staunch Akshay Kumar or Sonali Bendre fan.. A good Akshay kumar film!. Inspector Ram Yadav (akshay kumar)is an honest policeman how have taken up on himself to eradicate injustice.In doing so he makes enemies namely appa rao (amrish puri) cause ram wants his brother Janardan (Mohnish Bahl) to be arrest for all the bad things he does but he fails to do so.Finally he gets a tip off that he is leaving the country in througth airport in a mask and he is able to at least shoot him on his leg while janardan escapes again but wounded.This makes appa rao rages with anger for ram and in answer to this he comes in his home and ties him up killing his sister in law and her baby in stomach with poison in front of him.(her husband has gone for a trip somewhere)thats make ram in a state of shock. When his brother comes to know about this he is devasticated and comes to appa rao to give him warning but on his way back he is also killed by appa rao orders.Ram discovers about this and then takes up revenge from them after losing everything.He is help by Dr khan (kader khan)and sonali Bendre who is also his love interest.The story is good and akshay does his powerful acting.Sonali does a good role in he film adding humor along with a good music and background score.highly recommended.. Akshay's bad days. 1997 was a flop year for Akshay Kumar, he had almost 6-7 films and all flops except a cameo in DIL TO PAAGAL HAI. His films those days were mostly similar, more focus given to his brawn In 1997 He played a cop in 3 films, DAAVA,INSAAF and this film. TARAZU has a story as old as hills. Nothing new in the film. We have Akshay who lives with his brother and sister in law, The film starts with some cheesy comic scenes and then becomes an actionner.Direction is nothing great Music is decent, Akshay Kumar just repeated his patented act again, those days he was not as great an actor he is today Sonali Bendre is okay Amrish Puri is as usual as the villain, Ranjeet is good Kader Khan is as usual, Anil Dhawan and others are all okay |
tt0048561 | Romeo i Dzhulyetta | The play, set in Verona, Italy, begins with a street brawl between Montague and Capulet servants who, like their masters, are sworn enemies. Prince Escalus of Verona intervenes and declares that further breach of the peace will be punishable by death. Later, Count Paris talks to Capulet about marrying his daughter Juliet, but Capulet asks Paris to wait another two years and invites him to attend a planned Capulet ball. Lady Capulet and Juliet's nurse try to persuade Juliet to accept Paris's courtship.
Meanwhile, Benvolio talks with his cousin Romeo, Montague's son, about Romeo's recent depression. Benvolio discovers that it stems from unrequited infatuation for a girl named Rosaline, one of Capulet's nieces. Persuaded by Benvolio and Mercutio, Romeo attends the ball at the Capulet house in hopes of meeting Rosaline. However, Romeo instead meets and falls in love with Juliet. Juliet's cousin, Tybalt, is enraged at Romeo for sneaking into the ball but is only stopped from killing Romeo by Juliet's father, who does not wish to shed blood in his house. After the ball, in what is now called the "balcony scene", Romeo sneaks into the Capulet orchard and overhears Juliet at her window vowing her love to him in spite of her family's hatred of the Montagues. Romeo makes himself known to her and they agree to be married. With the help of Friar Laurence, who hopes to reconcile the two families through their children's union, they are secretly married the next day.
Tybalt, meanwhile, still incensed that Romeo had sneaked into the Capulet ball, challenges him to a duel. Romeo, now considering Tybalt his kinsman, refuses to fight. Mercutio is offended by Tybalt's insolence, as well as Romeo's "vile submission", and accepts the duel on Romeo's behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded when Romeo attempts to break up the fight. Grief-stricken and wracked with guilt, Romeo confronts and slays Tybalt.
Montague argues that Romeo has justly executed Tybalt for the murder of Mercutio. The Prince, now having lost a kinsman in the warring families' feud, exiles Romeo from Verona, under penalty of death if he ever returns. Romeo secretly spends the night in Juliet's chamber, where they consummate their marriage. Capulet, misinterpreting Juliet's grief, agrees to marry her to Count Paris and threatens to disown her when she refuses to become Paris's "joyful bride". When she then pleads for the marriage to be delayed, her mother rejects her.
Juliet visits Friar Laurence for help, and he offers her a potion that will put her into a deathlike coma for "two and forty hours". The Friar promises to send a messenger to inform Romeo of the plan so that he can rejoin her when she awakens. On the night before the wedding, she takes the drug and, when discovered apparently dead, she is laid in the family crypt.
The messenger, however, does not reach Romeo and, instead, Romeo learns of Juliet's apparent death from his servant Balthasar. Heartbroken, Romeo buys poison from an apothecary and goes to the Capulet crypt. He encounters Paris who has come to mourn Juliet privately. Believing Romeo to be a vandal, Paris confronts him and, in the ensuing battle, Romeo kills Paris. Still believing Juliet to be dead, he drinks the poison. Juliet then awakens and, finding Romeo dead, stabs herself with his dagger. The feuding families and the Prince meet at the tomb to find all three dead. Friar Laurence recounts the story of the two "star-cross'd lovers". The families are reconciled by their children's deaths and agree to end their violent feud. The play ends with the Prince's elegy for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe/Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." | tragedy, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0099188 | 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, murder | train | wikipedia | Interesting revenge movie, with a dark tone that sucks you in from the start, a creepy soundtrack that fits the movie perfectly, beautifully designed sets, and great acting from the three leads, especially Leigh as a truly despicable person.
You really feel for Matheson's character and are rooting for him to take revenge on his evil wife...
All of a sudden Matheson dons gloves and a welder's mask, turning into a Jason-like movie monster, and we have no idea what he's up to.
After being on his side throughout the movie, we're suddenly watching from the perspective of his wife and her lover, wondering what the heck is going on.
When his revenge is finally revealed, it's mighty far-fetched (it involves completely remodeling the house, which he manages to do in a few hours), and somehow out of place for his character, at least as we've seen him so far.
The joiner Clint Goodman (Tim Matheson) is a man that has built his comfortable house and his construction company in his hometown with hard work.
He loves his wife Joanna (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and they have been unsuccessfully trying to have a baby.
Clint's best friend is the Sheriff Sam Eberly (Hoyt Axton) and every now and then they spend the night fishing in the lake.
Clint does not suspect that Joanna is having a love affair with the local doctor Cortland 'Cort' van Owen (William Atherton).
The lovers plot to kill Clint and sell his company and his house, and then they would move to New York City.
Clint plots a dark revenge against Joanna and Cort.
"Buried Alive" is a dark tale of betrayal and revenge for television by Frank Darabont in the beginning of his career.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is excellent as usual and Tim Matheson and William Atherton had good performances.The plot has many coincidences, but is engaging.
The sequel to this film isn't as good but worth watching if you enjoyed the first.
Scenes where Tim Matheson's character is seen to move when inside a zipped up body bag in the morgue, and when he is on the undertaker's embalming table are chilling, and when he eventually wakes up after he's been buried and subsequently digs his way out, the film totally delivers on its promise to thrill.
The music when he's stumbling through the cemetery is just perfect and will have you rooting for him as he plots his revenge on his uncaring wife.
"Dispensed of" husband gets imaginative, yet down-to-earth revenge on scheming wife and her sleazy lover..
The casting is great and Tim Matheson is what he's best at--a TV actor who fits the small screen as well as, well, some guys fit their jeans.
After numerous viewings, it's still one of those compelling tales, admittedly not deep, but filled with little details and nuances, like a good Stephen King short story.
While the performances by Tim Matheson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, William Atherton, and Hoyt Axton are totally acceptable, there is a gnawing distraction called lack of logic, that permeates the film.
The TV movie 'Buried Alive' is an exceptionally solid and always compelling atmospheric little revenge thriller with a considerable dark streak and a fitting sense of humour.
The gorgeous Jennifer Jason Leigh's sassy, but extremely cold-hearted turn is picture-perfect and William Atherton hammers down his seamy role.
Hoyt Axton is good with his short level headed part as the town sheriff.Clint Goodman is very likable, do-it-yourself man with a very productive timber business in a small town.
However his unhappy wife Joanna is having an affair with her Doctor, the weasel Cortland Van Owen.
Well not for long, as he didn't die and rises from his grave in anger for revenge on his wife and lover.The brooding story sometimes moves in and out of the profound concept with it leaking some contrived aspects, but it's scheming and double crossings are pulled off in a very entertaining (if not convincing) manner.
Director Frank Darabont (best known for Stephen King adaptations of 'Shawshank Redemption', 'The Green Mile' and 'The Mist') makes his directorial debut with great assurance.
Jennifer Jason Leigh, a very underrated actress, plays the wife who along with her lover plan to murder her husband Tim Matheson.
This is a film, which although having a somewhat implausable story line, isentertaining enough to keep you watching until the end.
Joanne (Jennifer Jason Leigh) plays the villianess of the film, administering the poison in an attempt to kill her husband and make off with the loot.
She plays the part well, right up to the last part of the film which ends in an unliely manner with the interior of the house undergoing structural changes which would take weeks to do in real life.Notwithstanding this it does enough to be worth watching, indeed I have seen it on several occasions when there has been nothing to watch on the TV..
Scary stuff that makes you think how low people will go.Top marks for Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tim Matheson, believable characters.Gripping story line full of suspense.Highly recommended and I believe you can now get this film on DVD.
It was pretty believable until you see the way Tim Matheson's character exacts his revenge on his cheating wife and her doctor lover, kind of far fetched but fun non the less.
This movie is not bad late night tube fodder, and I think is worth taking a look at.
Tim Matheson (Otter from Animal House fame) plays a hapless hardworking husband who does not expect that his wife is having an affair and her and her lover are plotting his demise.
Tim Matheson is a great character actor and was actually the voice of Johnny Quest the Hanna Barbera action adventure cartoon of 1964-65..
Clint (Tim Matheson) is a successful businessman living with his wife Joanna (Jennifer Jason Leigh) in small town USA.
However Joanna is not so happy and starts an affair with her Doctor, Cortland Van Owen (William Athertone).
However Glen rises from his grave and begins to plot his revenge.This TV movie is most notable for it's director - Shawshank Redemption's Frank Darabont.
However it is quite clever the way Clint takes his revenge on the plotting duo of his wife and her lover.Matheson is actually quite good here as Clint and brings an air of menace to his resurrected character.
Leigh is nearly always good but falls into playing the screaming wife for most of the film.
There was some notable actors like Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tim Matheson, and the Hoyt Axton guy!
I really liked Leigh's character having an affair with the Doctor who tries to get her husband but he returns later on in the film!
You know, the drawing of that cute little naked couple holding hands and looking into each other's eyes with a text underneath stating: "Love is
poisoning him with Japanese fish fluids, refusing to pay extra for his embalming and burying him in a rotten coffin barely two feet under the ground!" This modest and well-directed early 90's made-for-TV thriller guarantees decent suspense and entertainment as long as you don't set your expectations too high.
Hard-working family man Clint Goodman *thinks* he has a good marriage going on, but his spoiled wife Joanna is actually sleeping with her doctor and planning to run off to California with him.
Other than the occasionally lacking plot, "Buried Alive" does contain a surprisingly large amount of intense fright-moments, superb acting performances and tight direction from Frank Darabont (acclaimed director of "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile") in his long-feature debut.
Tim Matheson is good, but the always very sexy Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific as the battle-ax wife and William Atherton is simply brilliant as the sleazy scumbag lover.
Certain moments are reasonably icky, like the image of Clint's scratched-open fingertips and a sink full of hydrogen peroxide, but Darabont merely keeps the emphasis on atmosphere Moral of the story: don't use poisoned fish if you want to kill someone!
Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, "Buried Alive" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale.
The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining".
The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain.
Tim Matheson does a great job in his role as Clint Goodman, as a man who takes revenge on his cheating wife and her lover.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is good enough as Joanna, but I do think they could have gotten someone better.
Basically, the story surrounds a couple, Joanna (Jennifer Jason Leigh), and Clint (Tim Matheson) who have moved to the country to start a new life away from the city.
Joanna begins expecting a child and sees a doctor, Courtland, who is only interested in scamming Joanna out of the whole fortune Clint's carpentry business is worth.
Being a doctor, he devises a plan with Joanna to kill Clint by poisoning him so Joanna could sell his business and get the million and a half dollar fortune.
Clint couldn't have thought up a better plan to take revenge out on his wife and the doctor.
This movie is definitely worth seeing.
This movie is a good example of how greed can completely poison somebody's mind and ruin the lives of other people.
Joanna and Courtland definitely deserved the torment they received by Clint's revenge for trying to kill him and ruining his life forever after.
And Jennifer Jason Leigh makes a great villain here--I boo and hiss every time she's on screen.
**SPOILERS** Breaking his back by working long and hard hours at the construction site to make things fine and wonderful for his ungrateful wife Joanna, Jennifer Jason Leigh, the good natured hard working but somewhat naive, in what Joanna is planning for him, Clint Goodman (Tim Matheson) is unaware that his wife has been cheating on him.
Joanna's having an affair with the family doctor Courtland "Court" Van Owen, William Atherton.Wanting to have a child to add to his family Clint has been very disappointed in not having Joanna conceive feeling that maybe it was his not her fault, thats about he only bad thing that has happened to him since he married her.
Telling Joanna that it, by putting poison in his wine, will not only kill Clint but make it look like he had a sudden and fatal heart-attack.
The next day Joanna, after having second thoughts about doing it, slips the poison into Clint's wine as the two have a toast to their great and happy marriage.
Joanna is to inherit almost two million dollars from her late husbands estate but is so cheap that she doesn't even want him to be embalmed and buys the cheapest and flimsiest coffin, that you can easily put your fist through, that she could find at the funeral home which in the end will do her not Clint, who it later turns out is not really dead,in.The story reminds me of something that I read in an old "Tales from the Crypt" comic book where Clint raise from the dead, and his grave, and comes back home for a surprise visit to both haunt and finish off his two "killers" Joanna & Court.
This film was the first he'd ever get the chance to direct.Originally airing May 9, 1990 on the USA Network, this movie was produced under the title Till Death Do Us Part.
It's a very EC Comics-ish story of Clint Goodman (Tim Matheson, Animal House), a contractor who is very much in love with his wife, Joanna (perennial crush Jennifer Jason Leigh, the daughter of Vic Morrow who took the name Jason in her stage name as a tribute to family friend Jason Robards).
Joanna, however, wants out of Clint's small hometown, where he's content to live simply and fish with his best friend Sheriff Sam Eberly (Hoyt Axton, Gremlins).So she does what any of us would do.
He's played by William Atherton, who is the go to guy when you're making a movie in the 1980's and need someone to be a complete asshole.Needless to say, the bad guys are comically evil in this one and Clint is the nicest guy ever, until he awakens in his own grave and has to claw his way back.
It's one of Becca's favorite movies and we watch it pretty often in our house..
Tim Matheson gets to ham and chew the scenery with relish as he exacts his revenge while Jennifer Jason Leigh enjoys her role as an evil woman - and is surprisingly good as one, too.
However, it's always the underrated William Atherton who excels as the guilt-free, stop-at-nothing manipulator who wants the rewards all for himself.The film really picks up in the final half hour, as up until then not a lot really happens.
Matheson then goes on to devise a maze in his house which his enemies must face - a plot device seemingly lifted from the final segment of 1972's TALES FROM THE CRYPT, or possibly the original source comics.
It's just a shame that the rest of the film never breaks from its television movie origins..
From it's title I imagined it would be a movie with a guy agonizing after being buried alive, in the style of 2010's "Buried".
Fortunately, Clint being buried alive is just a detail and a short scene-- thank god.
Story is pretty much vindictive, since the main character (Clint) ends the movie burying her wife alive, just like she did to him.
Although it looks pretty evil in a first moment, if you watch the movie you'll feel he did just the right thing.
"Buried Alive" doesn't have anything special, but writing, directing and acting are professional enough to make this whole picture entertaining, convincing and with a "happy" ending.
To sum it up, "Buried Alive" is a good low-budget movie that you will probably enjoy if you prefer realistic stories to Hollywood clichés..
Pretty decent horror cum thriller from Frank Darabont, director of the critically acclaimed The Shawshank Redemption.Way above average in terms of both direction and acting for a made for TV movie, with some genuinely disturbing ideas, and some pretty creepy scenes, this is a chiller of surprising quality.The waking in the coffin scene is superb, as is the 'zombie' awakening sequence, and the last 20 minutes or so are excellent once the trap is set.Decent performances from the lead guy, Tim Matheson and Jennifer Jason Leigh is as reliable as ever.Check it out - it won't blow your mind but it certainly will entertain..
There is plenty of suspense and creepiness along the way with some humorous situations as well.Bsically BURIED ALIVE is all about deceit,money,and revenge.Tim Matherson plays Clint and is the nicest bloke one would wish to meet and he absolutely adores his wife Joanna played by Jennifer Jason Leigh.Joanna is one real horrible number and is having an affair with the doubly horrible doctor and encourages her to kill Clint with one very bazaar toxin.The movie rolls on and locks the viewer right in.The shallow grave scene had me worried although if it was any deeper the movie would have ended real early as it would have lessoned Clints chance of digging himself free.The ending had me a little frustrated as I feel Clints decision not to go straight to his sheriff mate cost him dearly.Good movie 7 out of 10.ENJOY!.
Buried Alive is a simple little film, which is a passable way to spend an hour and half.
It's basic plot- man buried alive by wife and lover and seeks revenge is fairly bare bones and running at a slight 90 minutes the story feels like it was stretched as far as it could go.
William Atherton as a duplicitous slimeball, Jennifer Jason Leigh as a self centred, scheming wife, Tim Matheson as a slightly clueless everyman who is pushed too far.
The ease with which Clint Goodman is able to escape the grave is a bit hard to take, even if the wood in his coffin was rotten and the escape only seems possible as it was buried in a very, very shallow grave.
At the end of the day, despite its failings, Buried Alive is fun, macabre little movie..
Good film but could have been more plausible with a bit of forethought, i.e: Clint reaches up from the coffin & reaches the outside, the grave couldn't have been 6 foot deep, also did the sheriff at the end recognise Clint?
apparently so, wouldn't he have wondered why he was standing over his own grave with a shovel & given the recently excavated area was clearly much bigger than a standard grave an immediate exhumation would be in order, thus rescuing the errant wife, recovering the money and giving the recently deceased slime-bag doctor a Christian burial but perhaps the ending was deliberately structured that way, being buried alive being probably number one on everybody's list of ways NOT to die the director wanted people to say " maybe the sheriff went back & dug.." I disagree with some of the other reviewers about the joinery though, it was basic partitioning and could have been accomplished in a night.
Do not bury this movie.
This flick is more a thriller than a horror (in fact, it's _just_ a thriller) like many may think.Tim Matherson -- I hated him at the beginning (he sounded as John Ritter in "Child's Play") Leigh -- perfect as the witch (although sometimes her good side drops) and she's hot like Hell!
Atherton -- stereotyped bad guy, who loves animals (fishes!) he didn't convince very much Axton (sheriff Sam) -- the worst person in the whole movie! |
tt0093476 | Maid to Order | Jessie Montgomery (Ally Sheedy) is a spoiled rich girl in her mid 20's whose hard partying lifestyle and lack of self-respect as well as a lack of respect for others is starting to wear thin on her widowed father Charles (Tom Skerritt), a wealthy philanthropist, and on her boyfriend Brent (Jason Beghe), who breaks up with her over her immature and self-destructive behavior. When Jessie is arrested for drunk driving and drug possession, she finally pushes Charles beyond his limits. He is frustrated and disappointed. While in the company of family retainer Woodrow (Theodore Wilson), he says the one thing he thought he'd never say....he wishes he'd never had a daughter. In pops Stella Winston (Beverly D'Angelo), a fairy godmother who has been assigned to the Montgomery family. To keep Jessie from ruining her life, Stella casts a spell "erasing" Jessie's life as it is, as if Charles did never have a daughter. Then she bails Jessie out of jail.
When Jessie tries to go home, her father doesn't recognize her and claims that he has no daughter. Stella appears and tells her that she's getting what she deserves. She tells Jessie that if she wants to eat and have a place to sleep, she'll have to find employment. Jessie, who has never worked a day in her life, is forced to find work as a live-in maid for an eccentric couple named Starkey (Valerie Perrine and Dick Shawn) who got rich by winning the lottery some years back.
Jessie has to interact with the other mansion staff, consisting of former singer-turned-cook Audrey (Merry Clayton), Hispanic servant Maria (Begoña Plaza), and chauffeur Nick (Michael Ontkean), a struggling songwriter. Jessie learns the true meaning of love, friendship, hard work, and self-respect. When she chooses the happiness of her new friends over her own, she is rewarded with having her old life returned to her, albeit vastly improved. | alternate reality, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0028478 | The Walking Dead | In 1972 North Vietnam, short-timer Marines are dispatched by helicopter to conduct their last mission: to evacuate the survivors from a POW camp abandoned by the Viet Cong. The landing zone - which they expect to be cold - is actually hot (under fire) and after a short fight, only four members of the rescue mission survive. SSgt. Barkley and Hoover have a brief fight after Hoover wants to radio for an evacuation and Barkley insists they finish the mission. During their fight a mortar lands nearby, knocking them both into a swamp. Barkley saves Branche from drowning. They are joined shortly by Brooks and Evans. The soldiers defer to the ranking Marine, Sgt. Barkley, who insists that they press on to a nearby cathedral. They reach the building and kill several NVA soldiers. At morning, they are planning their next move when they are ambushed by more NVA soldiers including tree snipers. After a firefight they manage to kill the soldiers with the help of Cpl. Pippins, who appears from the brush and also begins attacking them. After subduing Pippins they look for the rest of his platoon and discover them murdered and their radio missing. They decide to tie Pippins up and bring him along as they march toward the POW camp. The group then recollect about each of their individual reasons for joining the Marines. SSgt Barkley was a preacher at a church until he came home to his bedroom seeing his wife in bed having sex with another man, Barkley shoots and kills the man and catches the train out of town. Hoover works for a meat packing place until he got fired for stealing meat. Cole tries to buy a new house, but he is turned down by the real estate agent,because of his race. Brooks tells his girlfriend that he's joining the Marine Corps to be like his grandfather, Pippins was working for Ray until he is killed by gangsters and chased into the military enlistment line without getting caught. While Cole and Barkley go ahead to survey the area, Hoover and Brooks smoke cannabis and talk about Brooks' girlfriend, who just dumped him via the mail. During their break, Pippins escapes and takes Brooks' pistol. The four men regroup and head out without Pippins. When they reach the camp, they discover a deranged Pippins holding a Vietnamese woman hostage. After killing the woman in front of them, Pippis turns on them with a gun and is killed by Sgt. Barkley. After seeing the camp is empty, the men realize they are expendable decoys. They radio in and are informed that the Marines cleared the POW camp four hours earlier, and that they have 20 minutes to reach their pickup point before the entire area is bombed. As the men go to leave bombs begin dropping on them. They escape the bombardment and head through the jungle to the landing zone, but are ambushed by more NVA soldiers. Brooks is killed, and Cole and Barkley wounded. Hoover goes back and rescues Barkley and the three men are evacuated by helicopter. During an epilogue, we are told that Cole became a career Marine who retired after 20 years of service, Sgt. Barkley took a job counseling troubled teens in Georgia, and Hoover went back home, married his girlfriend and opened up his own business. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | This film has stood the test of time well, and is a nice, taut story of a man wrongly accused of a crime, miraculously brought back to life, and eventually seeking vindication and justice from those that did him wrong.
THE WALKING DEAD (Warner Brothers, 1936), directed by Michael Curtiz, is an interesting little item from the "horror" genre of the 1930s.
Nolan (Ricardo Cortez), Martin's lawyer, sets out to do away with the judge by arranging one of his fellow racketeers, "Trigger" Smith (Joseph Sawyer), to employ John Ellman (Boris Karloff), an out-of-work musician out on parole for two weeks following his ten year prison sentence, to "spy" on Shaw, the judge who also had sent him up, on the grounds that Shaw's wife suspects her husband of being unfaithful, and all Ellman has to do is watch his house and take notes.
The next scene shifts to the courtroom where Ellman pleads his innocence and that there are witnesses who can verify his story, but with the "help" of his attorney Nolan, he gets him convicted of first degree murder and to face execution.
On the night he is to go to the electric chair, Jimmy and Nancy come forth to Doctor Beaumont (Edmund Gwenn), their employer and scientist, who immediately telephones Nolan to contact the governor to stop the execution.
After Ellman is brought back from the dead, he appears in a "zombie" state of mind, remembering nothing, but knowing precisely whom his enemies are, and through a supernatural force, goes after each one of those gangsters to learn why they had him framed, only to witness their destinies through accidental occurrences.Featured in the supporting cast are Warner Brothers stock company of Barton MacLane as Loder; Henry O'Neill as District Attorney Werner; Addison Richards as the Prison Warden; Eddie Acuff as Mitchell; with Paul Harvey as Blackstone and Robert Strange as Merritt.
Karloff's John Ellman is actually a gentle soul who, after being executed for a crime for which he is innocent, retains his gentleness even through his second life, yet, succeeds in bringing fright through his eyes to those who had done him wrong.
The Lord our God is a jealous God."In many ways, THE WALKING DEAD is highly original in its premise and during its short 66 minutes, starts off a bit slowly with some intrusive "comedy relief" provided by Eddie Acuff, whose sure thing in making wagers which turns out to be a bad gamble, but soon builds itself to a fast and memorable conclusion.
Michael Curtiz directed this odd combination of gangster and horror films for Warner Bros.
The execution scene is absolutely excruciating, as the only witnesses to the crime try to get the corrupt governor to call in a pardon while the music-loving Karloff walks to the electric chair, accompanied by a cello..
Excellent little horror film directed by the amazingly talented Michael Curtiz, the same man who would later give up Casablanca amongst many other classic films.The story is a genre mashup of gangster and horror and at only about 1 hour 5 minutes, there isn't much time to lag.
Gangster's led by Nolan (Ricardo Cortez) want to have a local law abiding judge killed, in doing so, they frame an ex-con, John Ellman (Boris Karloff) for the murder.
It's a dead man walking in this film with Boris Karloff brought back to life by a doctor (Edmund Gwenn - Miracle on 34th Street).There was no surprises as I would have expected, as the reanimation was posted all over the newspapers the next day.It's not just a horror film, but a gangster film, as Ellman (Karloff) was executed for a crime he didn't commit.It was really funny when he went after those involved in the conspiracy to frame him.
A bit of Frankenstein here, as a doctor (Edmund Gwenn)resurrects a man (Boris Karloff) wrongfully executed.
He is searching for answers, visiting each of the conspirators, who meet an untimely end.It is all presented as vengeance emanating from the hand of God. Karloff is excellent, and Gwenn was certainly showing the talent that would give him an Oscar later.A fascinating film..
I dare you to type the title of this film in Google, YouTube or even here on IMDb. As a fan of classic horror, I find it very frustrating that you must scroll down endlessly to find it, because the first eight pages or so are dedicated to articles, images and pages for the popular zombie TV-series with the same name!So, now that's off my chest, I can underline what a clever and atmospheric yet unjustly underrated horror/thriller "The Walking Dead" is!
The film is an early mixture of genres, namely gangster film and horror, but thanks to the phenomenal craftsmanship of director Michael Curtiz and lead star Boris Karloff, "The Walking Dead" doesn't feel like a cheap attempt to cash in on both streams at the same time.
The corrupt and ruthless Nolan instead frames Ellman for the murder of an eminent judge and defends him poorly enough to get him sentenced to death in the electric chair.
The corrupted men meet their fates in gruesome ways, like underneath trains or in nasty car accidents, making "The Walking Dead" a fierce film and Ellman an exceptional avenging angel who hardly even makes his hands dirty.
"The Walking Dead" is one of those films that may not be shown too often but when it is, you get your money's worth.Released in 1936, Boris Karloff plays a man who is wrongly convicted of the murder of a local judge.A scientist brings Karloff back to life after conducting various experiments.
Five Time Oscar Nominee Michael Curtiz Directed this Horror/Supernatural/Sci-Fi/Gangster Film.
Offhand, I cannot think of another actor who gave us a more impressive run of films in the horror genre than Boris Karloff did in the 1930s.
The film's plot is one that would be adapted and only slightly reworked for several future Karloff pictures, such as "The Man They Could Not Hang" and "Before I Hang," but one that here seems fresh and winning.In the film, Uncle Boris plays the part of John Ellman, a mild-mannered pianist who, when we first encounter him, has just been released from jail after a 10-year stretch for accidental homicide.
Before long, though, the sound of a piano recalls Ellman to himself, and, by dint of some sort of supernatural agency, he somehow gains knowledge of the men who had framed him...along with an awareness of their exact locations, and an overriding desire to go after them...."The Walking Dead," however, boasts a twist that some of those other reworked films do not.
And he is abetted by some other top-flight talent here, including Ricardo Cortez (the original Sam Spade, in 1931's "The Maltese Falcon") as Nolan, Edmund Gwenn (perhaps best known as Kris Kringle in 1947's "Miracle on 34th Street" and Dr. Harold Medford in 1954's "Them!") as Beaumont, and tough-guy Warner Brothers character actors Barton MacLane and Joe Sawyer as two of Ellman's "enemies." The film has been helmed with style to spare by the great Hungarian director Michael Curtiz (this was his only teaming with Karloff), whose use of odd camera angles, unsettling close-ups and striking use of light and shadow help to elevate the film to the level of screen art.
Ex-convict John Ellman (Boris Karloff) is framed by crooked lawyer Nolan (Ricardo Cortez) and executed for a murder he didn't commit.
In this case, "The Walking Dead" is the story of John Ellman - an ex-con who just two weeks after his release from prison is wrongfully convicted of the murder of the judge who originally sentenced him for his earlier crime.
Convinced by two of his associates (who know Ellman is innocent) to try his procedure on Ellman, Beaumont succeeds in raising him from the dead - and becomes fixated on what Ellman experienced while dead (although that really isn't a particularly well developed sidebar to the story.) Ultimately, Ellman takes revenge on those who framed him - although his revenge seems to be somewhat supernatural, and he never actually touches anyone.There's a "Frankenstein-ish" quality to this very short movie - which includes Boris Karloff (famous, of course, as Frankenstein's monster in the 1931 movie and the later "Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935.) In fact, Karloff apparently expressed some concerns that in the original script, Ellman was too much like the monster - especially because of his inability to speak - and the script was rewritten to accommodate Karloff's concerns.
Michael Curtiz directed this beautifully filmed story of poor luckless John Elman(played superbly by Boris Karloff) who was framed by racketeers for the murder of a judge.
Still, a Dr. Beaumont(played by Edmund Gwenn) has developed a way to bring back the recently dead, and resurrects Elman, who resumes his pianist skills to conduct eerie concerts, though also is compelled to confront those responsible for framing him...
The classic film is outstanding and very much worth watching.Karloff plays John Ellman - a man framed for a murder he did not commit, was electrocuted and brought back to life.
Ellman (Karloff) is, throughout, an innocent party who only wants to make good music, an ultimately tragic figure caught up in a strange universe.Now, there may be a cosmic sense of justice in the unseen hand that punishes those responsible for Karloff's execution.
Hollywood great Michael Curtiz directs Boris Karloff in this middling thriller about an ex-con, just out prison, who is framed for a judge's murder by racketeers; after he's convicted and killed in the electric chair, a team of scientists revive him.
It's not without a flaw here or there, but in general it's effectively atmospheric, quite snappy (it only runs an hour and six minutes), and features a mostly wonderful cast, led by the powerfully expressive Boris Karloff, who does a fine job of underplaying his part.He plays John Ellman, a pathetic sap who'd been sent up the river for murder and who makes the ideal patsy for mobsters who conspire to kill a judge.
In "The Walking Dead", I saw the sympathetic reanimated Karloff character (looking much like the 'monster' in the shadows) lumbering around while some really bad 'know it all characters' get their comeuppance, one by one.
Interesting Warner Brothers blend of gangster, horror, and science fiction genres features Boris Karloff in a strong sympathetic performance as an innocent pianist framed for murder by a group of mobsters and their unscrupulous attorney.
Walking Dead, The (1936) *** (out of 4) Michael Curtiz directed film about an innocent man (Boris Karloff) sentenced to death only to be brought back to life by a doctor and set out for revenge against those who framed him.
One of the masters of the genre, Boris Karloff plays John Ellman a small time ex-con that is framed and sentenced to death for murder.
Edmund Gwenn is also effective in one of his earlier roles as the doctor who brings Karloff back to life after he is wrongly executed: obsessed by an urge to learn what goes on after death, he drives Karloff on but the latter's only concern is to get even with the corrupt gang which set him up (including Ricardo Cortez's shady lawyer, Barton MacLane as one of his associates and Joe Sawyer as a hit-man, the real murderer).The film's best moments feature Karloff's zombie rampage which, incongruous as that may seem, have a touch of poetry about them - not least because of the way that every member of the gang dies by his own hand through accident rather than Karloff's!
At first, I was wary of the fact that a barely conscious Karloff could travel and somehow reach the gang's home addresses (of which he could have had no prior knowledge) in order to exact his revenge, but it is later suggested that Karloff became all-knowing in the hereafter - which is, after all, what every religion foresees for its believers.THE WALKING DEAD is a solid little film and I hope that someday Warners releases a Box Set of their lesser-known horror catalogue, to include THE MAD GENIUS (1931), DOCTOR X (1932), THE MASK OF FU MANCHU (1932), MAD LOVE (1935), MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935), THE DEVIL-DOLL (1936), THE RETURN OF DR.
This neat little Warner Brothers thriller with touches of science fiction and horror is the story of a group of legal eagles who find out that a man that they've sent to the electric chair (Boris Karloff) is innocent and delay their call to the governor to save his life.
Warner Brothers, so adept in prison and gangster films, throws in a bit of Universal style horror to make a better than average "B" film with some good character performances (Barton MacLane is memorably malevolent as one of the criminals) and usual romantic hero Ricardo Cortez as a bad guy.
For the premise of the story to work however, one has to get beyond the point where the murdered Judge Shaw was connected to the car John Ellman (Karloff) was driving.
It's amazing what we are left to figure out on our own without being beaten over the head as in most films of the genre.Boris Karloff, who is brought back from the dead - is a sympathetic character with a unique twist.THE FOLLOWING MIGHT BE A SPOILER (I don't really think so.
A Film starring the great Boris Karloff, directed by "Casablanca" director Michael Curtiz - Is there anything else a Classic Horror lover could desire?
"The Walking Dead" of 1936 is one of a handful of Warner Horror films from the 30s, and indeed a very original one.
As far as I am concerned, Karloff is not only one of the all-time Horror greats, but generally one of the greatest actors in motion picture history, and "The Walking Dead" is yet another proof of this brilliant man's greatness.
Apart from the great Karloff, the film is highly atmospheric and well-shot in dark eerie tones.After a gangster gets sentenced to a 10-year prison sentence, a group of fellow mobsters lead by the lawyer Nolan (Ricardo Cortez) decide to have the Judge killed.
In order to prevent being charged for their crime, they frame the naive musician John Ellman (Boris Karloff) for the murder.
When his innocence is proved minutes after his death, Ellman is resurrected by the ingenious scientist Dr. Beaumont, who has resurrected dead animals before...The scientific resurrection of the dead is generally one of my favorite topics in Horror films.
Boris Karloff plays John Elman, a former convict just out of prison for accidentally killing a man.
Director Michael Curtiz, here making his third horror movie after Dr. X and Mystery Of The Wax Museum, delivers another good addition to these films.
If you expect Karloff in monster mode you'll probably be disappointed, but The Walking Dead is interestingly different to the usual horror fare, and well worth a look..
After seeing Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein monster in those Universal horror classics, it must have been obvious to Jack Warner and director Michael Curtiz that he was the only player capable of bringing this film off.
Their reasons for originally not coming forward are specious as well, but Karloff's brilliant performance smooths that all over.They work for scientist Edmund Gwenn who uses electricity and a lab that looks a whole lot like Dr. Frankenstein's to shock Karloff's cadaver back to life.
When I read about this film, it sounded just like another zombie movie with Boris Karloff--nothing extraordinary and a very easy to guess plot.
But this wasn't the case at all, as it is more of a gangster film with a strange supernatural element.Karloff is set up to take a murder rap and is sentenced to the electric chair.
Fortunately, a physician named "Dr. Beaumont" (Edmund Gwenn) comes up with a novel idea to bring John Ellman back to life even though he has been dead for several hours.
A recently released ex-con, John Ellman(Boris Karloff)is framed by a gangster crime syndicate, with corrupt ties to the city, for the murder of a judge who sentenced one of their key powerful members to a harsh prison sentence without a possibility of parole.
It's a departure in that the case could be made that this is a horror film.It stars horror king Boris Karloff, as John Ellman, who is framed for the murder of a judge.
Ellman is brought back to life by Dr. Beaumont(Edmund Gwenn), who is a doctor that wants to help Karloff, and explore the possibility of heart transplants.Karloff spends the rest of the picture tracking down and destroying those who framed him.The rest of the supporting cast Ricardo Cortez, Marguerite Churchill, Warren Hull, and Barton MacLane are very good.Curtiz and cinematographer Hal Mohr do a great job of giving the film a haunting, eerie feeling, perfect for Halloween.
**SOME SPOILERS** Unusual movie with Boris Karloff that has him, playing ex-convict John Ellman, not as much as hitting much less killing anyone in it yet being responsible for the deaths of some half dozen men who framed the innocent Ellman for a murder that he didn't commit.With Steven Martin,Kenneth Harlan, having the book thrown at him for fraud and embezzlement Martin's fellow gangsters including his crooked lawyer Noland,Ricardo Cortez, plans to knock off the Judge who put him behind bars;the Honorable Roger Shaw, Joe King.
It's those powers that gives him the ability to not only know what's in the hearts and minds of the men who railroaded him into the chair, Noland Trigger & co, but is also able to make them pay with their lives for doing it.A very sensitive and sympathetic Boris Karloff, who's a former concert pianist in the film, together with a somewhat selfish and scheming Edmund Gwenn, make the movie "The Walking Dead" somewhat of a novelty to watch.
Very moving ending sequence with Karloff, or John Ellman, facing death for the second time in the movie. |
tt0048605 | The Seven Year Itch | Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) is a nerdy, faithful, middle-aged publishing executive with an overactive imagination and a mid-life crisis, whose wife, Helen (Evelyn Keyes), and son, Ricky (Butch Bernard), are spending the summer in Maine. When he returns home with the kayak paddle Ricky accidentally left behind, he meets a woman (Marilyn Monroe), who is a commercial actress and former model who rents the apartment upstairs while in town to make television spots for a brand of toothpaste. That evening, he works on reading the manuscript of a book in which psychiatrist Dr. Brubaker (Oskar Homolka) claims that almost all men are driven to have extra-marital affairs in the seventh year of marriage. Sherman has an imaginary conversation with Helen, trying to convince her, in three fantasy sequences, that he is irresistible to women, including his secretary, a nurse, and Helen's bridesmaid, but she laughs it off. A tomato plant then crashes into his lounge chair; the woman upstairs apologizes for accidentally knocking it off the balcony, and Richard invites her down for a drink.
He waits for her to get dressed, including in underwear she says she keeps cool in her icebox. When she arrives, a vision in pink, they have a drink and he lies about being married. When she sees his wedding ring, he backtracks but she is unconcerned, having no designs on him, only on his air-conditioning. He has a fantasy that she is a femme fatale overcome by his playing of Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto. In reality, she prefers Chopsticks, which they play together. Richard, overcome by his fantasies, awkwardly grabs at her, causing them to fall off the piano bench. He apologizes for his indiscretion but she says it happens to her all the time. Guilt-ridden, however, he asks her to leave.
Over the next few days, they spend more time together and Richard imagines that they are growing closer, although she is immune to his imagined charms. Helen continually calls her husband, asking him to send the paddle so Ricky can use the kayak, but Richard is repeatedly distracted. His waning resolve to resist temptation fuels his fear that he is succumbing to the "Seven Year Itch". He seeks help from Dr. Brubaker, but to no avail. His imagination then runs even wilder: the young woman tells a plumber (Victor Moore) how Richard is "just like The Creature from the Black Lagoon"; the plumber repeats her story to neighbor McKenzie, whom Helen had asked to drop by to pick up Ricky's paddle. Richard imagines his wife with McKenzie on a hayride which actually takes place but into which he injects his paranoia, guilt and jealousy. After seeing The Creature from the Black Lagoon, the young woman stands over the subway grate to experience the breeze – Monroe in the iconic scene in the pleated white halter dress, blowing her skirt in the wind.
Eventually coming to his senses, and fearing his wife's retribution, which he imagines in a fantasy scene, Richard, paddle in hand, tells the young woman she can stay in his apartment; then he runs off to catch the next train to Maine to be with Helen and Ricky. | pornographic, humor, satire, adult comedy | train | wikipedia | Along the days, he spends some time with the girl and feels tempted by her, but later he misses his family and travels to meet them."The Seven Year Itch" is a naive and innocent romantic comedy in accordance with the contemporary moral standards, but actually this feature tested the limits of censorship in a time when Hollywood was ruled by a rigid moral code.
However, to make the movie was a challenge for this great director, since many scenes and lines were ripped away by the censorship and by the National Legion of Decency, mutilating the plot.Marilyn Monroe was selected to the cast, but Billy Wilder wanted a plain, average and non-handsome actor for the role of Sherman.
The 1955 comedy, "The Seven Year Itch," directed by Billy Wilder, is one of the most amusing sex farces ever filmed.
Starring Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe, and based on George Axelrod's play, the film takes a humorous look at the problems of a typical middle-aged married man.
Not to mention she was a very beautiful actress.The Seven Year Itch is a great romantic comedy where a man has sent his wife and son into the country while he works on his business over the summer.
Victor Moore plays a doddery plumber and Oscar Homolka a shrink who advises Ewell not to consider anything as drastic as murder until he can get simple problems sorted out, while Evelyn Keyes makes the most of her few appearances as Ewell's wife (or is she his conscience?!).The film is fun, the famous skirt and grid scene is now legendary (but quite unlike the often-seen poster shot), and there is much in this bouncy production after nearly fifty years to entertain pretty much anyone..
In the 'fifties Hollywood created its biggest, best-loved and most powerful sex symbol of allMarilyn Monroe
Marilyn's appeal was, perhaps, in her weakness, in that revealing look of innocence and confidence, in her intense desire to be loved
The 'seven year itch' points out the instinctive desire to be disloyal after seven years of matrimony, with a longing to satisfy one's sexual needs
This amusing film was adapted from a Broadway play of the same name by George Axelrod, with Tom Ewell reprising his Broadway role, walking, worrying, and sweating
Tom and Evelyn Kayes have been married for seven years
While he remains in Manhattan on business, Evelyn and their son Ricky (Butch Bernard) go off to Maine to escape the sweltering summer
The apartment upstairs has been rented to a television blonde model (Marilyn Monroe).
On their way home, they stop on a subway
As the trains go by underneath, Marilyn's skirts billow up
It is so hot in the city she presumably loves the rush of air on her thighs
Marilyn plays the scene in innocent delight
And Billy Wilder's shot shows a strapping blonde with a white skirt blown out like a spinnaker above her waist
For this famous shot alone, the movie is a must see.
When his family , wife (Evelyn Keyes) and son , goes away for the summer, a so far faithful husband (Tom Ewell) is tempted by a beautiful neighbor (Marilyn Monroe) , a blonde model who moves upstairs .
Adding , of course , the funniest sequences of all being those in which Monroe's blown skirt and those in which Tom Ewell dreams as the great lover .Despite being one of the most iconic images in pop culture history, as well as one of the most recognizable photographs of Marilyn Monroe, the famous full-length image of Monroe standing with her dress being blown up never actually appears in the film ; the shot used in the film is only of her legs, cut with reaction shots, and never shown full-length.
Tom Ewell won the 1953 Tony Award for Actor in a Drama for "The Seven Year Itch" in the role of Richard Sherman, which he reprised in this film .
After that , they wrote/produced/directed such classics as ¨Ace in the hole¨ , the touching romantic comedy ¨Sabrina¨ , the Hickcoktian courtroom puzzle game ¨Witness for the prosecution¨ and two movies with the great star Marilyn Monroe , the warmth ¨Seven year itch¨ and this ¨Some like hot¨.
The Seven Year Itch is a fantastic movie with a very clever story line and an extremely talented cast.Marilyn Monroe is fantastic in this movie,her performance is brilliant,and,like always she is beautiful.If anyone ever wondered where the famous picture of her dress blowing in the air comes from,this is the movie.The script to the movie is very unusual,I was expecting it to be a simple fifties movie,but it wasn't,a lot of dialogue between the characters is strange,and Richard should probably be put into a mental hospital.Fans of Marilyn Monroe and classic movies from this era of film will definitely enjoy The Seven Year Itch.Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) makes an effort to dedicate his life to his business while his wife is away for the summer with their son,but an attractive new neighbor distracts him from doing what he promised..
The Seven Year Itch"is a minor comedy from Billy Wilder.However,it has an enduring magic that made special.Is the story of a husband whose wife and son are in vacation.He's alone and full of temptations with the new neighbour(Marilyn Monroe).Wilder has a great script with his usual elements:acid vision of the typical american and his problems,very good dialogues and magic.The only failure of the movie could be it's too much theatrical(is based on a play)but it's great anyway.I see this movie every summer and is special.Few movies capturing the essence of the summer(a summer in the 50's New York in this case).Also,the movie contains the most famous shot of Marilyn Monroe,when she is outing of the cinema.She was a great comical actress and this is very clear in this movie.
Director Billy Wilder gets a great, comic book-styled performance out of Marilyn Monroe: she's guilelessly sexy and playful, and has no idea she's enchanting the married man who lives downstairs in her building.
The minimal plot sees Tom Ewell's `summer bachelor' trying to resist the charms of neighbour Marilyn Monroe while his wife and son are shipped off for the season.
The problem with this film isn't Monroe, who turns in one of her best performances this side of "Some Like it Hot," but rather with Tom Ewell.
Even after sixty years, THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH retains its freshness and bounce - a delightful testament both to the script (by Billy Wilder and playwright George Axelrod) and the quality of the performances.The story is a simple one: left on his own during a hot New York summer, Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) tries his best to avoid the temptations of drink, tobacco and an extra-marital affair.
Plodding, occasionally amusing, massively over-rated piece of nonsense from the pens of Billy Wilder and George Axelrod, both of whom did much better work elsewhere - in the case of Wilder, we're talking of a man who created a number of bona-fide masterpieces, so goodness knows what was going on here.The performances are OK, although to be honest Monroe's eternal breathiness grates on me after a while, no matter how worthwhile her other talents.The piece stands somewhere between The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947) and Play It Again Sam (1972).
'The Seven Year Itch (1955)' has the best of intentions, and it showcases sex-icon Marilyn Monroe in one of her most alluring roles, but overall it just doesn't work; by the end of the film, I found myself more than a little exasperated.
That imaginative money shot above the New York subway is justly iconic, and probably most fully defines Monroe's screen persona, even though Wilder would utilise her to even greater effect in 'Some Like It Hot (1959)' four years later.
Monroe in her white dress, which blows up from the vents in the street, and Mr Sherman's line 'Cools the ankles doesn't it', while looking.The seven year itch is very important in Cinema history and any Monroe or Ewell fan must see it, or someone who loves a great film..
It's obvious that he lacked the chemistry for the part (a role he originated on stage), and someone like JACK LEMMON would have been a much better choice as the man downstairs.For Monroe's fans, this is one of her best performances coming at a time when she was doing some great work at The Actor's Studio in NYC.SONNY TUFTS and EVELYN KEYES have roles that don't amount to much and drift in and out of the story with very little effect.
Tom Ewell turns out a great performance in this movie as the happily married man who, after seven years of marriage, starts having fantasies about the sexy blonde who's just moved in upstairs.
Most people associate "The Seven Year Itch" with the famous scene of Marilyn Monroe standing over a subway grate and allowing her white dress to be flipped up by the breeze from a passing train.
Made famous for being the film that contains THAT money shot of Marilyn Monroe on the subway grating having her skirt blown up around her waist, the film actually suffers from bad casting and Billy Wilder not being able to realise his vision for the adaptation.Adapted along with Wilder by George Axlerod from his own Broadway play, the film version is far removed from the racy, farce laden stage version, and it really does shine thru that we are missing out on a fully fleshed out comedy.
Marilyn Monroe does just fine, it's a perfect vehicle for her, look gorgeous, play it with dopey innocence, and deliver the lines on time, she does all these well, and it's with much credit to Wilder for getting a decent performance from her as off the screen her marriage to Joe DiMaggio was crumbling apart.Censorship and snips mean that we have never seen the film that Billy Wilder envisaged, the censors even refused him having a somewhat tame ending to wrap the picture up, so what we are left with is a little laugh here and there, some Monroe texture, but ultimately the film just doesn't add up to being close to a real good sex comedy, 5/10..
Of course what's not to like with the provocative Marilyn Monroe heading the cast.Call me a rat if you will, but if Marilyn is giving Tom Ewell such an itch why not seek out the best upscale working girl that he can find so that he can be assured of being disease free and go for it while Evelyn Keyes and the kid are out of town.
As the Girl said: "it makes you think".But what a price to pay for posterity, if not a major comedy, not in the same league than the superior "Some Like it Hot", "The Seven Year Itch" blessed us with Monroe's signature shot, broke a few boundaries in terms of censorship and if the story isn't the most sensational, its making has everything, it is about sex, love, censorship, religion and marriage.
The romantic comedy The Seven Year Itch is directed by Billy Wilder and stars Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe.
But then the beautiful blonde girl (Monroe) moves in upstairs and Richard must resists his temptations...The screenplay for this film by Billy Wilder and George Axelrod based off of George Axelrod's play was decent.
The Seven Year Itch is a great Billy Wilder comedy and a showcase for Marilyn Monroe as sex symbol but also as a great actress.Like I said, today it seems tame, but at the time it was anything but.
The Seven Year Itch is a reasonably decent film which would have been mostly forgotten by now but for one thing...the performance of the incomparable Marilyn Monroe.
This is a fun movie from the 50's with Marilyn Monroe at the peak of her career in Billy Wilder's adaptation of the George Axelrod play The Seven Year Itch with Marilyn in the role of the girl with no name as the neighbor upstairs referred to only as The Girl.
This is also mid way through the 50's when Director Wilder was turning out some of his best loved films including Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, and Some Like it Hot. Tom Ewel in the lead role as Richard Sherman reprises his Tony Award winning role from the long running Broadway play of the same name.
Clever, funny dialog in this film but it stays pretty close to the play and Ewel is the principal character and there's not as much Monroe as in Bus Stop or Some Like it Hot which may make Monroe fans want to see more of her in this but it's a good movie and I've seen it many times on TV over the years and would give it an 8.0 out 10..
I have always liked Marilyn Monroe, but, with that said, I honestly think that Hollywood totally wasted her by squeezing her into a stereotypical straitjacket where they tried to repeatedly capitalize on that clichéd persona by starring her in such mediocre movie-nonsense as this here "Comedy" that was so funny I forgot to laugh.As usual, Monroe looked very hot in this flick (in fact, she was simply sensational to behold), but, since she was clearly being presented here as a sex-object and being defined within the rigid restrictions of a fantasy, dream woman for every man, any opportunity for Monroe to really shine was flatly denied her.And, so, Monroe (whose character wasn't even allowed a name, but was given some of the dumbest and most contrived dialog to speak) simply remained just some flighty, little figment of one man's lecherous imagination throughout the entire course of this so-so picture.What definitely brought this faltering film's appeal-level down several major notches was the gross miscasting of Tom Ewell as the Richard Sherman character, a family man who just so happened to be the publisher of lewd and lurid dime-novels.Put plain and simple, Ewell, to me, was sickening.
This film and "Some Like it Hot", also directed by the great Billy Wilder, gave Marilyn Monroe's admirers a glorious view of the actress at her best.Tom Ewell, is equally excellent as the summer bachelor, Richard Sherman, left alone in Manhattan to fend for himself.
This Billy Wilder classic,though somewhat dated in attitudes, is still very watchable fifty years later.Richard Sherman(the underrated Tom Ewell) lives an ordinary urban life of the post WWII married man:works a busy job,loves his wife(who puts up with him aplenty)and has a spunky,energetic young son.
The Seven Year Itch blew the lid off of 1950's stodgy conservatism, shocked audiences with its irrereverant view of marital infidelity and showcased the late, great Marilyn Monroe in her most sexually suggestive role to date (at the time the film was released).Of course, the premise of the story is simple (without giving too much away).
In this day when outrageous, gross-out comedies like "Wedding Crashers" are at the top of the box office, it is refreshing to see a classic movie like "The Seven Year Itch" that has nothing vulgar or raunchy, and is morally acceptable for me.Billy Wilder, the man who directed this movie and the extraordinary 1959 film "Some Like It Hot" (also starring Monroe) said about her: "She was an absolute genius as a comedic actress, with an extraordinary sense for comedic dialog.
It's fun, lighthearted, and has the benefit of Monroe's charm, but it's much more dated than Wilder's other ventures.Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe star in a film about men who send their wives and children off to Maine for the hot New York Summer while they fill their minds with ideas of adultery and temptation.
Not today".The story to The Seven Year Itch is about a New Yorker Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) ships his wife, Helen (Evelyn Keyes), and their son off to Maine for vacation.
But anywhere I'm only seeing these classic one by one, because it's all about perfect timing to watch them if I'm in the kind of mood to watching them, but after noticing that I haven't seen any Marilyn Monroe films so I quickly went to watch one of her films and I picked this movie and it was a good pick.Tom Ewell who plays the love himself thinking he can get any women he likes kind of guy and he was a funny character.
And though by no means does it mean that it's not a good film because it's another fine comedy from Wilder that teases with the idea of infidelity but is still no match to his most acclaimed works.The story of The Seven Year Itch concerns a faithful & overly imaginative middle-aged man who after sending his family off during summer holidays tries to live a bachelor's life but finds himself tempted by a beautiful neighbour.
Only Marilyn Monroe as The Girl brings life and effervescence to this movie; Tom Ewell, playing a summer vacation "bachelor" is dead weight.
That doesn't mean it gets boring, in fact Ewell and Monroe do handle the film whenever it gets shaky.Watch the Seven Year's Itch for its humor and the ensemble performance; Marilyn may favor serious performances over dumb blonde trifling roles, but I understand now why audiences love her so much – she plays a great dumb blonde!
Directed and partly written by the legendary Billy Wilder, the writing shows some insight and imagination about temptation and male-female relationships and does so in a humorous way.Marilyn Monroe portrays a character known only as "The Girl", who temporarily moves into an apartment building and meets a man who's wife and child have left for the summer.
My favorite scene is where the man has an imaginary conversation with his wife (actually gone on vacation for the summer) and they talk about his supposed powers over women.It's a significant film, but only for Marilyn Monroe fans, partly because it features the very famous, iconic white dress pose.
The Seven Year Itch is my favorite Marilyn Monroe movie. |
tt0368774 | The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things | Sarah (Asia Argento) becomes involved with a series of men who treat her and Jeremiah (Jimmy Bennett) poorly, and she uses them as an excuse to abandon her son. She disappears to Atlantic City with her boyfriend, Emerson (Jeremy Renner), and then abandons him; Emerson returns to their home and rapes Jeremiah. After a trip to hospital, Jeremiah's grandmother (Ornella Muti) takes him to a West Virginian radical Christian cult led by his grandfather (Peter Fonda). After he has been three years with the cult, Sarah returns to reclaim the 11-year-old Jeremiah (Dylan and Cole Sprouse).
Sarah's current lover, Kenny (Matt Schulze), a truck driver, eventually abandons them at a truck stop while Sarah is soliciting. Sarah realizes that if she is going to keep her men she cannot say Jeremiah is her son. She persuades Jeremiah to cross dress so he can act as her "little sister", and Jeremiah's cross-dressing evolves to include his mother's seduction techniques. After dressing up as a "baby doll" version of Sarah, Jeremiah/Sarah seduces Jackson (Marilyn Manson), his mother's latest man, who initially tries to rebuff the boy's advances, but then gives in. Sarah is furious with Jackson for giving in to the boy's advances and with Jeremiah for ruining her panties, and she takes Jeremiah and leaves.
Later, they are in a house where the basement houses a methamphetamine laboratory, which later blows up with Sarah's latest boyfriend inside. After fleeing, and while detoxing from methamphetamine, Sarah is convinced that everyone is after them and that only certain foods are edible (mainly chips and soda). She convinces Jeremiah that if they eat anything but those foods, they will be poisoned which leads them to a failed attempt to shoplift at a grocery store; afterwards, Jeremiah finds a hamburger to eat from a dumpster. His mother, in a state of "meth psychosis", is convinced the food he ate was poison, and makes him drink ipecac in order to make him better and rid him of any "poisons".
Jeremiah wakes up in the hospital with his grandmother beside him. She tells him that Sarah is in the psychiatric ward. Later that night, Sarah collects Jeremiah from his hospital room, and, rather than have him go back to the cult, she clutches his hand and they walk away in hospital gowns. The final scene is of Sarah and Jeremiah driving away. | autobiographical | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0090095 | Subway | Having stolen some compromising documents from a powerful and successful entrepreneur/gangster at a party, a man known as Fred (Lambert) escapes from the police and takes refuge in the underground world of the Paris Métro stations and tunnels. There he joins the dwellers and befriends several colourful characters, including others who are living under the subway to avoid police arrest. While the gangster's henchmen try to find Fred, he develops a romance with the gangster's young trophy wife Héléna (Adjani). She had originally invited Fred to the party featured at the opening of the film, and is bored with her gilded-caged life.
Fred forms a pop band with some of his friends, such as "The Drummer" (Reno) and Enrico (Serra), who compose the songs. While Fred is working on this project, Héléna's powerful husband pressures the police to find the fugitive. One of Fred's sidekicks, The Rollerskater, who has been wanted by the police for a long time, is captured by Commissioner Gesberg (Galabru). Fred and his friend The Florist rob a train carrying money; The Florist escapes, leaving Fred with the loot.
Fred uses money from the robbery to pay off a band scheduled to perform in the subway station. His new band replaces them but, at their performance, Fred is searched for by both the police and a henchman of Héléna's husband. The henchman shoots Fred just as Héléna was about to reach and warn him of danger. The film ends with Héléna kneeling beside Fred, who is lying on his back, looking content and singing along with the band. They are playing and being applauded by the audience in the background. | revenge, cult, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | At the time, a huge box-office hit in its native France - and as a result of the rising popularity of lead actors Christopher Lambert and Isabelle Adjani, something of a cult film in the UK - Subway (1985) was seen as a companion piece to Jean Jacques Beineix's earlier art-house classic, Diva (1981).
Together, these two films can be seen as both the development and the continuation of the concerns and preoccupations of the then-newly dubbed "cinema du look" movement; a brief cinematic resurgence in French cinema that saw a younger generation of filmmakers looking back to the days of Godard, Truffaut and the Nouvelle Vague, and combining that sense of playful experimentation with elements of early 80's pop culture.
It would be the film that finally introduced director Luc Besson to a wider commercial audience outside of the confines of the French art-house, and really - when looked at as part of the natural progression of his career - seems light years away from his first film, the wordless science fiction parable, Le Dernier Combat/The Last Battle (1983).The characteristics of the cinema du look movement involved preoccupations with doomed love and alienated Parisian youth, applied to a plot that was both cool and iconic.
This can be seen quite clearly in Subway, with its mixture of film noir conventions, pop music, subterranean youth-culture, action and broad attempts at humour.
As others have previously noted, the film and the style that it employs are very much of their time; presenting a very 80's take on listless youth replete with a central character that looks like Sting, a synthesiser heavy soundtrack that manages to work-in two specially composted New Wave pop songs, some shocking fashion choices (though most of these are admittedly back in vogue) and that general unique, indescribable feeling that you often get from many French films from this era; in particular Buffet Froid (1981), One Deadly Summer (1983), The Moon in the Gutter (1983), First Name: Carmen (1983) Hail Mary (1985), Betty Blue (1986), Mauvais Sang (1986), Jean de Florette/Manon des Sources (1986) and Besson's own subsequent picture, Le Grand Bleu (1988).
Subway doesn't necessarily have much in common with these particular films in terms of style or content, but it does have a similar languid feeling, bizarre eclecticism or eccentricity, and an atmosphere that feels very much true to the country and the time it was produced.Overall, the film could be seen by many viewers as something worryingly lightweight; with the knockabout plot, colourful caricatures and continual bombardment of cinematic style perhaps being seen as a smokescreen to the thin plot and ironic characterisations.
The opening car chase and initial descent into the bowels of this subterranean underworld hidden deep beneath the Parisian Metro system seem to suggests that the film will be all high-style and high-energy.
Subsequent scenes however take a step back, giving us some cool, neo-noir like interaction between Lambert's laconic safe-cracker and Adjani's bored trophy wife, while the opposing forces of police and gangsters begin closing in around them.
It is the kind of film that will definitely appeal to a certain kind of viewer, perhaps a more mature audience who are open minded to cult European art cinema, or perhaps maybe a dedicated audience interested in seeing how the director of such highly acclaimed action thrillers, such Nikita (1991) or Leon/The Professional (1994), started out.After first seeing the film a few years ago I wrote "This has no heart.
It is an experiment in cinematic formalism; obsessed with technicality but also consumed by the self-indulgence", which to some extent still stands, but I think, with repeated viewings, I've come to enjoy the film and see more of an allure and attraction to the characters of Fred and Héléna, who, quite clearly, struggle throughout to maintain face and make the right decisions in a world that neither of them truly understands.
Like his first film, Le Dernier Combat, and the recent Angel-A (2005), it shows Besson at his most inventive and experimental, sampling from a variety of different genres and producing something that is chic and stylish, without ever being truly captivating.
This is a pure exercise in style from the Luc Besson school of film making.
The trouble is that head honcho Fred has fallen in love with the pretty but stroppy wife of one of his BCBG victims, and strife ensues below the streets of gay Paree.Christopher Lambert is amazing as the stylish rebel gangster with a heart, Fred; Isabelle Adjani is pretty but, as always, deeply annoying -- she just exudes arrogance from the bottom of her dainty little heart.
It's amazing how Besson brings together great style, action, fun, pace, acting, dialogue and amazing characters.
The film starts with a heated heart-to-heart between Fred and pretty Héléna, and since we are aware that their affair can't end but unhappily (albeit in an incredibly chic way), the suspense is exactly zero.
Like many Luc Besson films, this one is over the top from the get-go, a crazy ride to nowhere, surreal, perhaps, but a bit obtuse at times with its eye-rolling symbolism.
all the movie (if you catch it in its widescreen edition) is filmed geometrically and Besson uses all the length of the field to capture emotions, moments, visions in a film that refuses to take itself seriously, and only wants to amuse people...
if you're looking for the typical Besson movie, watch this one: style-breathing, visionary, gripping and good-humored.
But it left me feeling like I'd missed something.The film included shady denizens of the Paris Metro, but I'm not sure it focused on them as much as I expected.
An unidentified main character having stolen mysterious "papers" from the unknown rich husband of some random woman he happened to meet on the street.I'm not sure what the movie was trying to get at, but I think it was leaning toward inspiring spontaneousness in all things and the consequences that brings.
It really didn't ring any bells of resemblance for me with any of Besson's newer movies (Léon, Fifth Element), even though it had a score by Eric Serra and Jean Reno made an appearance.
Truly I had no clue about what was going on in French director Luc Besson's offbeat, but terribly jerky story involving a sly safe cracker fleeing to the underground Paris Metro, after stealing some important documents off a millionaire that he would try to ransom off to.
Strange, but Lambert's early and best roles in "Subway" and Marco Ferreri's "I love you" are crossed out by his later films.
Talking about "Subway", this movie stands in a row of other films of the middle and the end of the 80-ies that were last before the sunset of european cinematograph and the wind of pan-american influence.
The opening scene with the car chase really gets the movie going and it just keeps up the speed and at the same time remains ironic and tongue-in-cheek.
'Subway' is one of them.The film opens in the midst of a car chase, and from there, Fred, the protagonist, finds himself sifting through the underground maze of the Paris Metro (or the subway).During his escape from the authorities, he meets all sorts of colourful characters.
I just purchased the Besson Movie set and watched Subway for the first time.
a skill so seldom seen in today's pathetic movie making "attempts".It's so refreshing to see a director not afraid to use the film medium so efficiently to foretell a story..
This film is about an upper class woman falling in love with a thief, who lives an alternative lief in the underground passages of the subway.I was hoping this film would be as exciting or suspenseful as the "Leon", "The Fifth Element" or "Joan of Arc".
When I saw Subway, I wanted to see mostly the talent of Isabelle Adjani, one of my favorites.As this movie starts, it seems promising with the dark Paris Metro atmosphere, which is a bit similar to our Subway system in Montreal.
And by the middle of the movie, mostly the last half hour, it is boring.Too bad for a story which started so well with such a offbeat caracter like Christophe Lambert (in blond, clad in a dark trenchcoat and bearing a neon stick) falling in love with a rich, sultry woman like Isabelle Adjani...See it for curiosity only....
But what is good about this movie is that it is an example of Besson's style, a mix of the French style of moviemaking and the American style.
Before I saw this movie, I was pretty excited because Luc Besson is one of my favorite directors since "Leon" and Isabelle Adjani is my favorite French actress.
The idea of people living under the subway station was great and I liked the car chasing scene at the first sequence but the plot was predictable and boring.
The romance between Christoper Rambert and Isabelle Adjani seems too quick and not reasonable enough and I was confused by the very ending scene.I assume that this movie was Besson's practice before making "Nikita" and "Leon"..
Subway is Luc Besson's finest hour; it is one of those movies the self-proclaimed experts of cinematography love to hate for the very same reason aged rock critics hated Kraftwerk and Depeche Mode in the eighties because they didn't play guitars.
Writing it off as pure junk is like writing off instrumental music because there's no singing.Subway is, in many ways, an eighties postmodern fairytale where our young new wave hero, Fred, sets out to get the girl of his dreams, Helena.
What follows, though, is exactly that, a dream, made of dark, underground labyrinths, cold neon light and electro-funk sounds courtesy of Eric Serra who, by the way, stars in the movie as himself, producing the music which is the soundtrack of the feature.
Subway is not pretentious at all but delves instead into style, humour and something which can best be described as sheer industrial aesthetics; quite frankly this is the movie that will make you love all the cold, neon-lit underground corridors in the world.
This film throws you into an unfamiliar world filled with quirky characters, all of which are involved in some sort of shenanigans deep in the depth of a Paris subway station.
The films main actors include Isabelle Adjani (Helena) and Christopher Lambert (Fred).
I think many people will enjoy this film, because Luc Besson has created something different from the norm.
To hide from the people of her influential husband, he goes to the Paris subway, where they live bright unusual characters.
Lambert played the role of eccentric romance with the ultra cool hairdo like his girlfriend in the film Adjani.
If you want an early-80s French film that looks good and has a perceptible plot, try DIVA instead of this eye-popping failure.I agree that Besson has a wonderful visual sense, and he obviously loves the Metro (as I do too, having visited Paris not long after this film was made).
(Jeunet figured this out and made MICMACS, a much better film about quirky characters who live at the fringe of society.) There's a wonderful car chase at the opening and then it's literally downhill from there.
Luc Besson directs a galaxy of French film stars playing truant in Parisian metro..
If there is a director in the realm of French cinema who can challenge American films in terms of content,narration,presentation,style etc,it is Monsieur Luc Besson.His cinematographic vision is so grand that even ordinary spectators from USA hold his films in high esteem.Most of his films like Subway,Leon,The Big Blue,The Fifth Element have fared well at American box office.Subway is a film that will always be remembered for its inventiveness.There are no so many directors who can film an impossible love story in Parisian metro,which is considered to be one of the most busiest areas in Paris.It is hard to tell who is the real star of this film ?
Is it Subway's central character Fred the burglar (Christopher Lambert) who is in love with bourgeois Héléna (Isabelle Adjani) or Parisian metro which is home to many oddball characters ?
The film depicts the 'underground culture' of the metro, where Fred meets many colourful characters, many of whom do not serve the plot, but bring humour to the film.
Subway is one of the first Luc Besson's movies, and one of his best too.It features a string of actors who are superstars in France (Galabru, Reno, Bohringer, Bacri, Adjiani, Lambert, Anglade), some of whom will later on get international recognition.
and a true love story.The script comes across quite well in English, but some of the humor gets lost along the way.This is cult movie from the 80s.
Director Luc Besson (La Femme Nikita, The Professional, The Fifth Element) originally wanted Sting for the role of Fred but couldn't do so Lambert got it...and luckily so.
The film is set inside a Parisian subway train station where dwellers (including Lambert's character) conduct their own activities and it involves a woman, Helena, played by Isabelle Adjani, who is classy and mysteriously hires Fred to steal her personal files.
Film Review: "Subway" (1985)Even though performers Isabelle Adjani and Christopher Lambert make a beautiful as stylish match, director Luc Besson's debut feature stays in emotional, restraining darkness of missing a point of living within the Parisian "Metro", when thrills are limited alongside supporting characters, portrayed by Richard Bohringer as the best scenes-giving "Le fleurist" and Michel Galabru (1922-2016) as Commissaire Gesberg always on the rush to catch leading character Fred as actor Christopher Lambert keeps the cool but in retrospective has not been tested enough by 25-year-old Luc Besson, who just uses an cinematic kaleidoscope of infinite ideas, clashing them, within never-seen-the-light-of-day scenes as "Subway" concludes at a slowly-received close to a 100-Minute-Editorial by editor Sophie Schmit, which then Luc Besson wisely exchanged to promoted editor Olivier Mauffroy, departing from life in 2013, for his first great motion picture "Le gran blue"; in reminiscene staying the opening spectacle of Cannes 1988.Copyright 2018 Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC.
Luc Besson was one of the leading directors of the French cinema movement which was to go on to be referred to as cinéma du look.
Consequently, this isn't really a film for showcasing acting, with Christopher Lambert certainly looking the part at least and Isabelle Adjani doing as much as she can with the material.
But ultimately, Subway is a film that never relies on its paper-thin characters and ropey story-line; its appeal is in its stylisation and quirks.
The camera-work is often very good and some of the action-oriented sequences such as the opening car chase and the various pursuits through the Métro are handled very well indeed and are an early indicator that Besson was a great director of stylised action, which he perfected later in the likes of Nikita (1990) and Léon (1994).
Fred (Christopher Lambert) escapes from gangsters stealing some important papers and crashes into the Paris Metro.
Roller has a gun and a scheme to rob the weekly subway money transfer.This is full of the Euro-fun style of Luc Besson.
It changed my life-I fell in love Christopher Lambert, car chases, foreign film and the buwaunwaun of the bass.
the kwirkyness of the story and characters blended with the atmospheric soundtrack creates a fun modern day twisted fairytale - a rare movie.
While it lacks some of the colour and punch of Luc Besson's later work (Fifth Element) it delivers complicated, though integrated plots by the dozen.On the surface it is a love story; that of a wannabe musician with a fetish for blowing up safes (Fred played by Christophe Lambert) and a bored socialite/housewife who feels trapped in a loveless marriage (Helena played by Isabelle Adjani).
When Fred decides to grab some important papers from Helena's safe after inviting himself to her birthday party, it leads to a merry chase through the streets of Paris and down into an alternate world...that of the Metro.Here we meet an eclectic group of people who, for whatever reason, choose to live in an underground society.
The movie starts with a car chase through the streets of Paris and then never lets you see the light of day again.
The characters are just too cool for words, the idea of an entire culture living in the subway system is too cool, the way Luc Besson manipulates the camera and the timing of the film is just too cool.
Some of the shades of character shown by the actors are quite intriguing - Lambert's slight insecurity, wisecracking (ha!) laugh and sob story; Adjani's impetuousness; Hugues-Anglade's nervy energy; Reno's nonchalance, percussive rattling and love of coffee; Galabru waxing philosophical with Bohringer about blind violence; Alexandov's nonchalance ("If you don't like me so much, get a divorce!"), etc.People are pretty much right when they say the film has no plot.
An enjoyably quirky early film from Luc Besson.
While this is going of the authorities are looking for Roller and the gangster's men are still searching for Fred.The way this early film from director Luc Besson opens is clearly a hint of things to come; the car chase might not be as intense as those in the 'Transporter' and 'Taxi' films but shows a similar style and is a lot of fun.
Once Fred is in the tunnels of the Paris Metro the characters he meets are as interesting as they are varied.
The cast did a fine job, most notably Christopher Lambert, who is on good form as Fred, but also Isabelle Adjani, as Héléna; Jean-Hugues Anglade as the Roller; Richard Bohringer as the florist and Jean Reno as the drummer amongst others.
Overall I'd certainly recommend this to fans of Luc Besson; it is good stylish fun.These comments are based on watching the film in French with English subtitles..
The movie has a terrific pace and the direction fun by Luc Besson, a director of talent. |
tt0480011 | Straightheads | Adam, a 23-year-old self-employed security technician, is hired by a businesswoman, Alice Comfort, to set up a security system in her flat. After finishing the work, Adam falls asleep on a lawnchair on her roof-garden. When Alice arrives home and finds him there, she impulsively asks him to accompany her to a housewarming party for her boss. He is unsure, but eventually agrees.
After a drive, Alice and Adam arrive at the party. Alice leaves Adam to speak to some people at the party. Adam leaves the house, feeling out of place. Alice later finds Adam outside in the grounds, then leads him into some woods and they have sex.
On the way home from the party, Alice and Adam are caught behind a slow-moving vehicle, which Alice frustratedly overtakes whilst Adam shouts out an obscenity at the driver. Shortly thereafter, Alice is distracted from driving and accidentally hits a stag. She brings the car to a stop, and they drag the stag off the road. While they are moving it, the car that Alice had earlier overtaken pulls up behind Alice's car. Three men get out, badly beat Adam and then rape Alice.
A month passes, during which Adam and Alice physically heal - the only reminder of the attack being an eyepatch that Adam must wear to protect an eye wound he received during the beating - but both remain emotionally wounded. Upon returning to work, Alice receives notification that, while she was hospitalized following her rape, her father died. Alice drives out to his country estate to put his affairs in order, where she discovers a locked chest that she recognizes from her childhood. On the way home, she passes by a group of riders on horseback, one of whom she recognizes as having raped her. She gets his name - Heffer - from one of the other riders.
Alice then contacts Adam, and he makes his way to Alice's father's house where she tells him that she's found one of the men responsible for attacking them. Alice shows Adam the contents of her father's locked chest: a sniper rifle and silencer that her father apparently smuggled home after being discharged from the army. Alice then tells Adam that she intends to avenge herself against Heffer.
Adam and Alice move into Alice's father's home, and spend their days practising shooting with the rifle. After they have become proficient with it, they take a trip out to the edge of Heffer's land and begin plotting the best way to kill him. During their reconnaissance, they learn that Heffer has a dog on his property, which barks whenever they approach the house. Alice shoots the dog, then makes Adam collect its body so that they can dispose of it. A moment later, Heffer comes outside looking for the dog; Alice is preparing to shoot him when a young woman (later identified as Heffer's daughter, Sophie) comes out of the house to help find the dog. Alice and Adam, disturbed by seeing their attacker as a human being, return home.
Over the next several days Alice and Adam try to determine if they should follow through with their plan. Adam, who has been impotent since the attack, steadily becomes more aggressive and committed to the idea of murdering Heffer. Alice, however, has grown reluctant to kill Heffer now that she has seen him in a human context; instead, she sends Adam to clandestinely set up security equipment in Heffer's house in an attempt to determine the identities and locations of his friends who participated in the gang-rape.
Adam succeeds in breaking into Heffer's house, where he learns that Heffer is the submissive party in his relationship with the other attackers. In need of money, they have decided to blackmail Heffer with their knowledge of the rape, forcing him to give them money in exchange for not anonymously tipping off the police as to his identity.
Adam, seeking a means of escape, ends up in Sophie's room; initially, he merely attempts to keep her quiet so that he can get out of the house, but he has a sudden fit of rage and begins raping her. In the middle of the attack, she escapes from his grasp, and Adam returns home, able to maintain an erection for the first time since the attack. He and Alice begin to have sex, but when he starts to become too rough with her she throws him off. Adam leaves the house and heads out into the woods.
The next day, Alice uses a laptop computer that controls the security cameras and watches Heffer in his house. She quickly realises his intention is to kill himself and after grabbing the rifle she drives over, and stops her car just in front of a garage upon hearing a car horn sounding. Alice gets inside the garage and finds Heffer, sitting in his running car, attempting to kill himself with carbon monoxide poisoning. Alice gets Heffer out of the car and into fresh air, saving his life; once he regains consciousness, she helps him back into his house. In the midst of a delirium from the carbon monoxide, Heffer—who doesn't recognize Alice—confesses that, a month ago, his friends voiced their intentions to rape his daughter, but that he convinced them to rape and beat a woman and her friend in the middle of the road instead.
Just then, Alice and Heffer hear Adam calling from outside, and Heffer suddenly turns violent, grabbing her roughly but Alice hits him and frees herself. Adam then bursts into the house, beats Heffer, duct-tapes him to the kitchen table, and holds him down while Alice sodomizes him with the barrel of the rifle that she has fetched from her car; once she is finished, she prepares to kill him, but now feeling pity for him because of the circumstances surrounding the rape, she decides not to pull the trigger. Adam, infuriated, takes out a hunting knife and carves out Heffer's eye. Horrified, Alice runs away; driving back to her father's home, Alice spots Sophie hitch-hiking, and invites her into her car. When Sophie realizes she isn't being taken home, she asks Alice where they're headed; Alice replies, "Somewhere safe."
Back at Heffer's house, Adam taunts Heffer until he hears a car pulling up; as one of the attackers approaches the house, Adam fatally shoots him in the head before pursuing the remaining attacker through the grounds of Heffer's house. Adam shoots him in the leg as he flees, causing him to fall to the ground. Adam then approaches the wounded man and bludgeons him to death with the butt of the rifle. In the final shot of the film, Adam walks away from his final victim and approaches the screen for a close up shot. He effectively breaks the fourth wall by glancing at the audience - leaving the viewer to reflect on the violent act of revenge Adam has committed. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Gillian Anderson was probably the best thing about the film but I don't really buy Danny Dyer playing opposite her and there were certain scenes that were unintentionally humorous because of this.
Great to see Gillian Anderson on screen again, and to be honest i would not have predicted this role for her however she was well cast.Personally i quite enjoyed the slightly comedic satire that ran through some of the scenes, and i think Danny Dyer helped with this.
It is hard to tell if the film would have maybe been stronger with a different leading male, but then Dyer plays the 'male struggling with his emasculation.Definitely lacking depth, i left wishing i had known exactly what happens with Anderson's character and her father, along with simply wishing i knew Dyer's character better.Some uncomfortable scenes which i felt were not always necessary, although they do help to give the film an edginess that i liked.
It's a little short, clocking in just over 70 minutes, so by the end I thought to myself, "is that all there is?" Yet the film did have something of an impact on me, because I found myself thinking about it all the next day and recommending it to friends.
When Alice (Gillian Anderson), a middle-class businesswoman, meets Adam (Danny Dyer) a working-class surveillance expert, she invites him to a party.
After encountering a group of locals on a country road, a shocking incident takes place that sees Adam lose an eye whilst Alice is brutally raped.
Several weeks later, Alice crosses paths with one of their attackers...I had heard a lot about this movie, although most of what I'd heard revolved around a scene near the end of the film involving Anderson's use of a gun barrel.
Their planning of revenge simply consists of creeping around spying on their attackers, and the scenes in which they try to deal with their anguish don't work either as both characters aren't given enough depth for us to care about them.The final scenes seem to come out of nowhere and are carried out in such a way that they're not satisfying to the audience.
On seeing that Danny Dyer was in it, I almost put the damn thing straight back (hell, I almost threw it in the bin), but being rather partial to a bit of Gillian Anderson, and noticing that she gets her kit off in this film (must be why I bought it in the first place), I opted to go ahead and watch it.
And it's pretty damn good, a brutal rape/revenge tale that isn't afraid to play things a little differently.Anderson is Alice, a successful London businesswoman who sinks her cougar claws into cheeky Cockney alarm installer Adam (Dyer, who is actually bearable for a change), inviting him to a swanky party and then shagging him in the woods.
The evening ends badly, however, when a road-rage incident on the way home results in the couple being brutally attacked by three men; Adam receives a right-royal kicking that leaves him blind in one eye, and Alice is left walking funny after a brutal gang rape.A month later, while driving down a country lane, Alice recognises one of her attackers and follows him home.
The scene is now set for some good old-fashioned retribution, but matters become complicated due to Adam's initial reluctance to resort to violence and unforeseen developments that leave Alice ambivalent about her plans for revenge.These conflicting emotions go to make Straightheads far less 'cut and dried' and consequently more intriguing than many rape/revenge movies, which usually offer only one inevitable outcome; however, those viewers for whom a satisfying revenge is paramount needn't think that they're going to be cheated: all three men do get their just desserts, it's just not always obvious which character is going to serve it up.
The violence, when it eventually happens, is not as graphic as many (including myself) would probably like, but what occurs is still cringe-worthy, especially when the barrel of a rifle is used to give one unlucky rapist a taste of his own medicine and the term 'an eye for an eye' is taken literally with the help of a big knife.With justice having been done, the film ends abruptly, leaving the viewer to ponder what they would have done in the same situation.7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb, meaning that the film is now deserving of a permanent place on my shelf (although if that terrible deleted cake scene in the DVD extras had made it into the final cut, I might not have been quite as generous)..
After the installation of an alarm system by the twenty-three year old low-class Adam (Danny Dyer) in her fancy upper class apartment, the sophisticated owner Alice (Gillian Anderson) invites him to go with her in her boss' "opening house" boring party in the countryside.
Alice meets Adam and convinces him to come with her to take revenge against the violent man."Closure" is a weird movie, with a promising premise wasted in an awful and pointless screenplay.
The story begins with an absolutely poor development of the lead characters: who is upper-middle class Alice; what is her profession; and how is her relationship the "alarm guy" Adam?
In the story, Alice is a tough character seeking revenge while Adam is weak; however, the situation reverts in the end, and Adam's attitude is totally plausible and believable; but Alice seems to feel sorry and sympathy for the violent rapist and the whole plot becomes senseless and pointless.
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23?
You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims...
I thought this movie started out kind of slow because it was just random sex and nudity and then a brutal attack and nothing happened for like 30 minutes.
I wouldn't recommend it, but if u want to see a thriller and your bored, then go ahead and give it a chance because Gillian Anderson pulls off a pretty good performance as a victim out for revenge..
I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years.
Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong!
But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year?
The two of them suffer the mental strain of what happened and soon Alice thinks it would be best to get revenge on the attackers.CLOSURE was originally titled STRAIGHTHEADS when it was released in Britain but when it came to America it was given a new title and went straight-to-DVD, which is understandable because there's really nothing here that demands for it to have been shown in a theater.
Part of me wanted to enjoy this movie more than I actually did but there's just no way to get around the fact that there were all sorts of problems here.As you can tell, this is yet another rape/revenge tale and there have been countless ones made over the past few decades.
The film doesn't know what it wants to do so the viewer is pretty much just sitting there waiting for something to unfold and there were just too many logical issues that I had with the picture.For starters, not for a second did I buy the relationship between Alice and Adam.
I've read reviews where people called Adam a baby and a whiner but I don't mind seeing a "weak" guy on screen but the problem is the screenplay just doesn't do the character or the situation any favors.There's a twist that happens and some graphic violence that finally comes up.
Similarly, there's a part where a daughter runs out the house shouting for her dog which is swiftly avoided with yet another embarrassing sex scene between Danny and Gillian, but don't worry the camera's so clumsy that you can't see a thing!When the revenge finally does occur (after about an hour of no-suspense building up to it) it's so quick that it feels even more pointless.
You were never really sure of the exact relationship between Alice (Gillian Anderson), the cougar businesswoman, and Adam (Danny Dyer), the 23-year-old security installer.
The official synopsis is after surviving a gang rape and mugging, a middle aged businesswoman and her 23 year old boyfriend plot to murder their attackers, but find themselves conflicted about carrying out their plans.We kick this off with Adam (Danny Dyer).
Like most rape revenge films, she decides that she is going to take care of the men that hurt her.
I feel like there needed to have been more time to get to know the characters of Alice & Adam & to explore their relationship more.
High flying cougar Gillian Anderson and her unlikely toy boy lover Danny "geezer" Dyer find themselves in a spot of bother whilst driving home from a house party in the middle of the English countryside.
Straightheads wants to be a modern version of Straw Dogs but just ends up being low wattage, low grade muddled revenge tale.Alice (Gillian Anderson) is a high powered businesswoman who enters into a relationship with young Adam (Danny Dyer) who only came round to install a security system in her flat.Alice probably wants a bit of rough and asks Adam to attend a party in the countryside.
On their way home, Adam is attacked by three men, Alice is raped.A month later, still traumatised after the attack, Alice wants revenge and track the men down.Even with its short running time, this is a slow tedious film and badly shot.
What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness.
His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary.
Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money.
But then I took some time to read some of the reviews here and most of them pretty much summed up everything I felt about the movie.I'm a X-files fan, so I watched this only because featured Gillian Anderson, despite knowing that this was a bad movie.But come on!
The chemistry and sexual tension between Alice -Gillian Anderson- and Adam -Danny Dyer- is sizzling hot and quite erotic.
Alice, a well-educated professional woman, played by the tremendous Gillian Anderson, and Adam played by Danny Dyer, a younger man installing an elaborate security system in her apartment.
An unlikely couple thrown together by lust and opportunity whose connection takes on a much more complex and ambiguous character after the horrific events following the party and then the fortuitous chance to take revenge on the perpetrators.What appears to be a tale of revenge is really a healing process where uncertainty and doubt surround the quest of the two victims and eventually a denouement where separate solutions are sought and an outcome where fulfillment remains elusive.I really liked the way director Dan Reed handled the interplay between Alice and Adam after their terrible experience and explored the shifting ground of their relationship, complicated by contact with one of the perpetrators whose actions appear not to be motivated by criminal intent but something rather more understandable.
You are compelled to feel revulsion at her plight, and can understand her cry for revenge.The effects on the couple's relationships, and how they individually perceive revenge is a strong part of the storyline, as is how they both deal with the realisation that 'Revenge is sweet'.Danny Dyer portrays his character fairly effectively and the mood change towards the end is quite effective, but Gillian Anderson outshines him.Anthony Calf, who plays the instigator of the brutal rape, puts in a good performance and when he explains to his victim why he felt forced to do what he did, you could almost, but not quite, feel sorry for him.The Director, Dan Reed, is no stranger to awards for his work.
Making it in 2007, though, is just being behind the curve.The story is about successful British businesswoman Alice (Gillian Anderson) who invites security system installer Adam (Danny Dyer) to a party at her boss' country estate.
When she returns to her parent's home after her father dies, Alice sees one of the men who attacked them and she and Adam set out to get even and more.When I say it would have caused a minor stir 20 years ago, that's because this revenge film casts the woman as the cold hearted seeker of vengeance and the man as her conflicted, reluctant sidekick.
But we've seen this story so many times before, with the violence and emotional conflict far more heightened, that you can't help but notice the movie isn't quite as good as it could or should be.This certainly isn't a bad film but except for Gillian Anderson's impressive boobage, there's really no reason to watch this movie instead of something else..
Dan Reed, an award winning documentary director, débuts with a thriller that will only be watched for its self proclaimed shock value and soon forgotten for the lack of this and, quite frankly, any value whatsoever.Alice's (Gillian Anderson) and Adam's (Danny Dyer) meeting is one of a chance.
This comes across at first like just another rape revenge film but when Anderson confronts her rapist we learn there is more to it than first appears.
To be completely honest i didn't know what i was watching when i flicked this film on at 11 in the evening.I see Danny dyer, an actor who's work i do like and i see Gillian Anderson who has never looked better.
There is a spark between this cheeky London lad and older and more mature business woman, i like the way things are progressing, though cringing as a vehicle is mocked by our new couple as i half know something will come of that action.The scene to follow shocks and disturbs me, yet i'm unable to look away, i feel intense anger and helplessness for our victims.The revenge that follows is bloody and vicious yet almost justified but borderline sadistic.For me it's the little things that effect me the most and the scene that says with me is, the morning after the trauma of the night before, sitting on a tree stump looking deeply damaged, a small trickle of blood gently glide down our lead female actresses inner thigh.This film is very far from Hollywood, no glitz no real glamour, just an intense emotional story about revenge..
On the way home, they upset three locals in a Landover who take their revenge by giving Dyer a good shoeing and gang raping Anderson.
I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film.
While lacking the punch of either, at least it's trying to do something different.The X Files' Gillian Anderson plays wealthy singleton Alice who hires security expert Adam (Danny Dyer) to install CCTV cameras at her home.
There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it.
Straightheads starts as successful London businesswoman Alice Comfort (Gillian Anderson) talks her security installation guy Adam (Danny Dyer) into attending a big party at her boss's house out in the country, he agrees to go along.
(The second rape scene definitely was.We get it.She was raped and Adam is impotent!)The main reason I watched this movie was for Gillian Anderson (I'm a huge fan) and she was the best thing about it. |
tt0073015 | Framed | Mining engineer Mike Lambert (Glenn Ford) takes a temporary job driving a truck. When the brakes fail while coming down a steep highway, he steers his way through a small town and is lucky to just dent the pickup of Jeff Cunningham (Edgar Buchanan). Jeff demands Mike's employer pay for the damage, but the man refuses. Mike pays him himself. Later, the police find Mike in a bar and arrest him for reckless driving and having an expired license. A total stranger, barmaid Paula Craig (Janis Carter), pays his $50 fine. When Mike gets drunk, Paula quits her job and finds him a hotel room. Then she meets Steve Price (Barry Sullivan) and tell him, "I found him", a stranger with the same height and build as Steve.
The next day, Mike goes looking for a job. The clerk at the assay office puts him in touch with Jeff, a prospector who has found a rich vein in an old, abandoned silver mine. He offers to cut Mike in for 10%, a generous offer he quickly accepts. However, Mike makes the mistake of telling Paula all about it. When Jeff goes to get financing from Steve, the vice-president of the Empire Bank, Paula gets him to turn Jeff down.
An opportunist, Steve obtained his position through his wife Beth's father. He has embezzled $250,000 from the bank and hidden it in Paula's safety deposit box. The plan involves a fatal, fiery car crash, with Mike's body to be mistaken for Steve's.
Mike wins some money in a craps game and pays Paula back everything she spent on him. He saw her get in the car with Steve, and is very suspicious of a barmaid with lots of money. Paula tells him she persuaded Steve to reconsider Jeff's financing.
Mike, Steve and Paula drive out to see the mine. On the way back, Steve persuades Mike to stop for a drink at his place. However, when Mike goes to wash his hands, he notices a robe with "Paula" embroidered on it. Mike gets drunk and passes out. Steve drives him to the spot chosen for the accident, but Paula knocks Steve out and sends the car - and Steve - over a cliff. She is able to convince Mike that he accidentally killed Steve in a drunken rage and that she staged the accident to cover for him. She begs him to run away with her. Mike then learns that the authorities know Steve was killed and Jeff has been accused of his murder. After going to see Jeff in jail, Mike suspects Paula, but has no proof. He goes to question Mrs. Woodward, Steve's secretary, pretending to be a reporter. She confirms that a Helen Bailey called while Jeff was meeting Steve. The suspicious husband calls the police, but Mike punches him and gets away.
He asks Paula if she knows Helen Bailey. She denies it, then heads to the bank to get the money. Mike follows her there and confronts her. She begs him to go with her, but he turns her down, and the police, tipped off by him, place her under arrest. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0823668 | Screamers | In the year 2078, the planet Sirius 6B, once a thriving mining hub, has been reduced to a toxic wasteland by a civil war between the mining company, known as the New Economic Bloc (NEB), and the Alliance, a group of former mining and science personnel. Five years into the war, Alliance scientists created and deployed Autonomous Mobile Swords (AMS) — artificially intelligent self-replicating machines that hunt down and kill NEB soldiers on their own. They are nicknamed "screamers" because of a high-pitched noise they emit as they attack. Screamers track targets by their heartbeats, so Alliance soldiers wear "tabs" which broadcast a signal canceling out the wearer's heartbeat and rendering them "invisible" to the machines.
A fragile stalemate is in effect between the two exhausted, poorly supplied, and undermanned armies. A message guaranteeing safe passage through NEB territory to discuss a truce is recovered from a dead NEB soldier, killed by screamers as he approached the Alliance compound. When Alliance commanding officer Joe Hendricksson (Weller) reports this development to his Earth-based superiors, he is told that such a meeting won't be necessary; peace negotiations are already underway on Earth. Not true, says Private "Ace" Jefferson (Andrew Lauer), newly arrived from Earth. Hendricksson is not surprised, as he suspects that both sides have simply written off Sirius 6B and abandoned their armies.
Hendricksson decides that the only realistic chance of survival for himself and his soldiers is to accept the NEB truce offer. He sets out for a meeting with the NEB commander, accompanied by Jefferson. While traveling through a destroyed city they come upon a war orphan, a young boy named David (Michael Caloz), clutching a teddy bear. Unwilling to abandon a defenseless civilian, they bring the boy along. The following night they are attacked by a reptilian screamer that they have never before encountered. Hendricksson is alarmed that their Alliance tabs did not protect them.
As the group nears the NEB compound, two enemy soldiers, Becker (Dupuis) and Ross (Charles Powell), open fire on David, whose chest explodes in a shower of gears, bolts, and wires. They explain to the astonished Alliance men that David was a new "type 3" screamer impersonating a human. Most of the NEB contingent has been wiped out by another "David" screamer that a patrol unwittingly brought into the base; Becker, Ross, and a black marketeer named Jessica (Rubin) are the only survivors.
The group heads to the NEB command center but finds only an empty building and large pools of blood. Locating the mainframe computer, Hendricksson learns that the NEB truce offer was just as false as the Alliance message from Earth. The group retreats to the NEB bunker, pursued by "Davids". The discovery that the screamers have "evolved" new versions on their own that are indistinguishable from humans, and immune to Alliance tabs, leads to paranoia and distrust. Becker becomes convinced that Ross is a screamer and kills him, only to discover that he was human. The four survivors retreat to the Alliance base, only to find that the "Davids" have gained entrance to that compound as well, with equally devastating results. As dozens of "Davids" pour out of the bunker's entrance, Hendricksson fires a micro-nuclear missile into the bunker. Jefferson rushes to the aid of Becker, who was apparently injured in the blast, but Becker's cries of distress are a ruse; he is a "type 2" screamer, and he kills Jefferson. After Hendricksson destroys Becker, only he and Jessica remain.
Now quite paranoid, Hendricksson worries that Jessica could be a screamer as well. He slashes her hand, and is relieved to see blood dripping from the wound. They locate an emergency escape shuttle, but it can carry only one person. Hendricksson offers the shuttle to Jessica; but a second "Jessica" arrives, confirming that she is a screamer after all, and even more human-like. Hendricksson resigns himself to death; but to his surprise, Jessica shields him, then sacrifices herself in battle with her lookalike. With her last breath, Jessica confesses her love for Hendricksson.
Hendricksson departs for Earth on the escape shuttle with a single souvenir, the teddy bear carried by the original "David”. As the screen fades to black, the bear slowly begins to move on its own. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0385586 | Nekojiru-sô | Nyāko (にゃーこ), the older sister of Nyatta (にゃっ太), lies very ill in her room. By accident, Nyatta drowns in the bathtub and, whilst being clinically dead, sees his sister leaving the house holding hands with the Japanese version of Ksitigarbha (known as Jizou in Japanese) and proceeds to follow them. Nyatta tries to take his sister back from Jizou but it holds on to her refusing to let go. Nyāko splits in two leaving Jizou with half of her soul while her brother runs away with the other half. Jizou sends a clue about a flower they must search for in order to retrieve the missing half-soul, then walks away with it.
Meanwhile, Nyatta's father finds his son in the bathtub and revives him. Then, all the family members gather in Nyāko's room to find out that she is dead. Nyatta gets closer with the half-soul in his arms and puts it back in his sister's body through her nose. Nyāko wakes up, but she remains despondent and semi-catatonic. After that Nyatta and Nyāko begin their journey (because their mother asks them to go and buy some fried tofu). During their outing they visit the 'Big Whale Circus', the final act of which is a giant penguin-looking bird "filled" with various weather, causes a flood of water which covers everything. The two of them end up on an Ark-esque boat with a pig, which they eventually begin to eat (by unzipping his stomach and pulling out butcher slabs). God drains the world of the oceans (by holding up the world so the water on it runs down his arm), leaving the cats and pig stranded in a desert. The pig is beaten to death and bites off Nyatta's arm, which is repaired by a desert-dweller who makes dolls from the pieces of other cats.
Traveling across the desert, they are brought to a house by the smell of food, and are invited inside by a man. They are fed, and when full the man attempts to turn them into soup, attacking them with a pair of scissors. He ends up falling into the cauldron, Nyatta cuts him into pieces with the scissors and the cats escape. Wandering further across the desert dehydrated, Nyatta digs and finds an elephant made of water, which cools them off and travels with them, though the elephant eventually evaporates from the heat. God accidentally stops the flow of time and disrupts space, and the cats play with the time-frozen scenes. Father Time turns time back on, shooting it forward and reversing it, showing various scenes of random events either rapidly going forth in time or back. Eventually the cats find themselves back on their boat in the ocean. They drift into a marsh of metallic plants and creatures, coming across the flower they were seeking. Nyatta places the flower on Nyākos face, which restores her to normal. Together, they go back home.
In the end, the entire family of cats are gathered in their house leisurely watching TV. Nyatta leaves them to visit the toilet, and while he is gone, the other family members disappear one by one into thin air. The show on the TV also disappears, leaving only a flashing screen behind. Nyatta returns to find everyone gone. Outside the nearby lamppost extinguishes leaving the house in darkness. Finally the movie also "turns off", leaving behind a flashing screen of static before the credits roll. | psychedelic, dark | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0087428 | The Hotel New Hampshire | This novel is the story of the Berrys, a quirky New Hampshire family composed of a married couple, Win and Mary, and their five children. The parents, both from the small town of Dairy, New Hampshire, fall in love while working at a summer resort hotel in Maine as teenagers. There they meet a Viennese Jew named Freud who works at the resort as a handyman and entertainer, performing with his pet bear, State o' Maine; Freud comes to symbolize the magic of that summer for them. By summer's end the teens are engaged, and Win buys Freud's bear and motorcycle and travels the country performing to raise money to go to Harvard, which he subsequently attends while Mary starts their family. He then returns to Dairy and teaches at the local second-rate boys' prep school he attended, the Dairy School. But he is unsatisfied and dreaming of something better.
Brash, self-confident beauty Franny, is the object of her sibling John's adoration. John serves as the narrator, and is sweet, if naive. Frank is physically and socially awkward, reserved, and homosexual; he shares a friendship with his younger sister Lilly, a small, romantic girl who has "stopped growing". Egg, an immature little boy with a penchant for dressing up in costumes, is the baby of the family. John and Franny are companions, seeing themselves as the most normal of the children, aware that their family is rather strange. But, as John remarks, to themselves the family's oddness seems "right as rain."
Win conceives the idea of turning an abandoned girls' school into a hotel. He names it the Hotel New Hampshire and the family moves in. This becomes the first part of Irving's Dickensian-style tale. Key plot points include Franny's rape at the hands of quarterback Chipper Dove and several of his fellow football teammates. The actions and attitude of Chipper, with whom Franny is in love, are contrasted with those of her rescuer, Junior Jones, a black member of the team. The death of the family dog, Sorrow, provides dark comedy as he is repeatedly "resurrected" via taxidermy, literally scaring the family's grandfather to death at one point and foiling a sexual initiation of John's at another. John partakes in a continuing sexual/business relationship with the older hotel housekeeper, Ronda Ray, which ends when a letter arrives from Freud in Vienna, inviting the family to move to help him (and his new "smart" bear) run his hotel there.
Traveling separately from the rest of the family, the mother and Egg are killed in an airplane crash. The others take up life in Vienna at what is renamed the (second) Hotel New Hampshire, one floor of which is occupied by prostitutes and another floor by a group of radical communists. The family discover that Freud is now blind and the "smart bear" is actually a young woman named Susie, who has endured events which leave her with little fondness for humans and feeling most secure inside a very realistic bear suit. After the death of his wife, Win Berry retreats further into his own hazy, vague fantasy world, while the family navigate relationships with the prostitutes and the radicals. John and Franny experience the pain and desire of being in love with each other. The two also feel jealousy when John becomes romantically involved with a communist who commits suicide, and Franny finds comfort, freedom and excitement in sexual relationships with Susie the bear and Ernst, the "quarterback" of the radicals. Lilly develops as a writer and authors the story of the family, under whose noses an elaborate plot is being hatched by the radicals to blow up the opera house, using Freud and the family as hostages, which Freud and Win barely manage to stop. The family becomes famous, and with Frank as Lilly's agent, her book is published for a large amount of money. The family (with Susie the bear) returns to the States, taking up residence in The Stanhope hotel in New York.
In the final part of the novel, Franny and John find a way to resolve their love, and Franny, with Susie's ingenious assistance, gets revenge on her rapist. Franny finds success as a movie actress and marries Junior Jones, now a well-known civil rights lawyer. Lilly is unable to cope with the pressure of her career and her own self-criticism and commits suicide. John and Frank purchase the shut-down resort in Maine where their parents met during the "magical" summer, and the property becomes another hotel of sorts, functioning as a rape crisis center run by Susie. Susie, whose emotional pain and insecurities have healed somewhat with time and effort, builds a happy relationship with John, and a pregnant Franny asks them to raise her and Junior's impending baby.
The novel is evocative of the New Hampshire of Irving's childhood. | comedy, satire, romantic | train | wikipedia | Then you discover the other bizarre characters and their relationships and the movie becomes, to me at least, extremely lovable.Admittedly, Rob Lowe's acting isn't up to much, and that's glaringly obvious here, but it doesn't destroy the film, and there's great work, as usual, from Jodie Foster to compensate.Basically, this is a light-hearted, feel-good film that I would expect to have mass appeal.
Almost as good as The World According To Garp, which happens to be one of my favourite movies of all time.The excellence of these films is that they're so focused on the main characters in the movie, that you really start to know them, and care about them.
Here you follow the whole family from they're young 'till they're old, and you start understanding how they've become the way they are, and why they act the way they do.As Garp, this movie is also very much focused on sex and love, and in the most bizarre ways possible.
In Garp and New Hampshire the characters are not perfect, and that's what makes the films perfect...The cast also does an excellent work with their characters, everybody is believable.
And the director has done an excellent job pacing the film in a way that it doesn't move too fast, and it never bores you by going to slow.All in all: an excellent movie that I'd recommend to anyone who hasn't yet been completely brainwashed by Hollywood's image of perfectionism.
The ONLY movie I know "The Hotel New Hampshire" can be compared to is "The World According to Garp" - as this one based on a novel by John Irving.Sometimes this movie makes you think that it's a mediocre and senseless one.
In this movie, Jodie Foster is raped, she and her brother (Rob Lowe) want to make love and know that they will eventually - and they tell each other.
I love `The World According to Garp' as well, as movie and book and these two share a lot in common.
And how can anyone resist watching a film with such a wonderful cast Rob Lowe, Jodie Foster, Paul McCrane, Beau Bridges, Wallace Shawn, Matthew Modine, Wilford Brimley, Nastassja Kinski and Amanda Plummer
And Rob Lowe and Jodie Foster never looked cuter.
The story spans many years and places, and would touch on subject matters such as raising children, music, incest, homosexuality, communism, psychology, terrorism, writing, racism, hotel management and the recurring subjects with John Irving at least in what I read airplanes and bears (see Garp again for these too).A film that leaves you with a feeling of hope and a wish that you also knew these wonderful people.
But the single thread that runs through the film and ties the characters and their lives together is sorrow; and in this instance, using an extremely overt metaphor, `Sorrow' is the family pet-- a dog-- who comes to symbolize a seemingly prevalent condition of the Berry family in `The Hotel New Hampshire,' written for the screen and directed by Tony Richardson, adapted from the novel by John Irving.
The story centers on the Berry family, a close but eccentric clan, and is told from the perspective of John (Rob Lowe), who tries to make sense of his too familiar relationship with his sister, Frannie (Jodie Foster), his gay older brother, Frank (Paul McCrane), his literally `little' sister, Lilly (Jennifer Dundas) who `isn't a midget,' but who stopped growing too soon, the youngest of the bunch, Egg (Seth Green), his grandfather, Iowa Bob (Wilford Brimley) and his parents (Beau Bridges and Lisa Banes).John's father, Win, was a dreamer, or as Lilly called him, a `Gatsby,' always looking for something better, for `it.' Win and Mother Berry had met one summer working together at a hotel, and when Win tires of his job as a school teacher, he decides their town needs a hotel.
And it is here that the memories of his formative years are made for John; memories like struggling with his love for his sister while she lives through a particularly traumatic experience that involves a boy of whom she is enamored, Chip Dove (Matthew Modine), and tasting love himself for the first time with a waitress at the hotel (Joely Richardson).
This is simply the story of the Berry family, for better or worse, with John telling it like it is while refraining from any sensationalism or judgment calls, to which the likes of a film of this nature would ordinarily be disposed.
Lowe gives a convincing performance as John-- arguably some of the best work he's ever done-- and he underscores his role of narrator by making the story as much about the others as about himself, which is generous, and a good piece of acting.
Foster, who would've been twenty-one or twenty-two when this was filmed (1984), displays an insight, poise and maturity well beyond her years, with a performance that is intuitively discerning and believable, and which serves the character so well while bringing her vividly to life.
The young Dundas is also very impressive in the role of Lilly and, like Foster, manages to bring the necessary maturity to the character that makes her entirely credible.The supporting cast includes Wallace Shawn (Freud), Dorsey Wright (Junior), Cali Timmins (Bitty), Anita Morris (Ronda Ray) and Walter Massey (Texan).
I read this book (along with his other best-sellers "World According to Garp" and "Cider House Rules") back in the 80's when they were published, and I thought they were great, serious works of fiction full of colorful, off-the wall characters fleshed out in engaging prose.
Unfortunately, all of this is lost in this film adaptation.I don't know who Tony Richardson is, and if he directed any other movies, but if they are as poorly-lit, badly-recorded, ineptly edited, and haphazardly narrated as this one is, I'll pass.Although the movie sticks pretty closely to the original, it just doesn't work on the screen.
And the actress (whoever she is ) who plays the mother has such a tiny part that she barely registers.Incest, rape, murder, accidental death, suicide, radical German nihilists with bombs, pornography, and a lesbian in a bear suit are all in this movie, and it's all BORING.All I can recommend is that you read the book.
Everything that is confusing, depressing, and just plain weird in this movie makes great, if quirky, sense in the book..
Instead we get bizarre and inane scenes, sappy music, slapstick comedy, hundreds of plots thrown in a blender, and sad attempts at drama.There are so many issues, and possible themes here, familial violence, homosexual assault, gang rape, interracial relationships, pedophilia (waitress and John, come on, both sexes can be abused and confused by it!), prostitution, bestiality, incest, violent death, family relations, terrorism, promiscuity, pornography, sexual confusion...blah blah blah.
From such works of grandiose fiction and fantastic imagination as "A Prayer for Owen Meany" and "The World According to Garp", it stands out."Hotel New Hampshire" is even more difficult, and as such it is a difficult novel to adapt to the screen.
"Hotel New Hampshire" is very faithful to Irving's original story, and has the same way of "floating above" the hardships and adventures of the family.
Love and compassion also play important roles, most of all the love between Frannie and John (the narrator) and the friendship between Win Berry and Freud (and Freud's bear!).The macabre humor is very typical of John Irving, who is a master at writing the deepest tragedy and still make you smile, but the humor serves a greater purpose: ridicule is a way to express outrage and frustration - and "Hotel New Hampshire" has its share of that: the rape of the ambivalent Frannie, the death of the poor old dog and the insanely funny way it refuses to release its hold on the family, the ridiculous radicals in Vienna and the tragic loss of family members.
Excellent performances, great scenery and attention to detail added to humor and wit makes this film a very good adaptation of Irving's fascinating novel.
While it is one of Irving's best books, and gives a lot of history for each character, the movie left the characters shallow and undeveloped.
Rob Lowe's performance (or lack thereof) really hurts the movie, but the adaptation of Irving's novel to the big screen (unlike Cider House Rules) left much to be desired..
Some people might find this a bizarre film but, like the book on which it was based, the "bizarreness" has a point (all families seem somewhat bizarre to those outside the family, though they appear perfectly normal to those within).The acting is generally good.
"Garp", at least, had a coherent story.The makers of this film must have thought that stringing together various scenes that appear in the book would be enough to hold a movie together because Irving obviously knows what he's doing, right?
Unlike "The World According to Garp," which was translated to the big screen brilliantly, "The Hotel New Hampshire" (which is probably my favorite John Irving novel) is a disaster.
Author John Irving's "The World According To Garp" made a decent movie not just because the director and the stars were a perfect fit--it was an interesting study of eccentric lives and behavior, and the paths the characters took were worth following.
Young Rob Lowe comes off as the star here; he's very easy and pretty as Foster's brother who harbors a crush on sis, but the other actors (Nastassja Kinski, Beau Bridges, Matthew Modine, Paul McCrane, and wizened Jennie Dundas) are absolutely lost.
The dysfunctional families in The Royal Tenenbaums or Little Miss Sunshine have got nothing on this lot.Rob Lowe and Jodie Foster are a teenage brother and sister who harbor blatant incestuous desires for each other.
There's also a child authoress (Jennie Dundas), a weightlifting grandfather (Wilford Brimley), a real bear and a dog with "terminal flatulence".Tony Richardson is obviously going for a type of bizarre, surreal, epic black comedy, and he has faithfully adapted John Irving's sprawling, near-unfilmable 1981 novel.
I am not a fan of either Beau Bridges or Jodie Foster but they perform well enough, it is just regrettable that Natasha Kinski spends most of the film in a bear costume.
After seeing and loving "The World According To Garp" - maybe the only film I've seen in the last twenty-five years that I thought was better than the book after having read the book first - I was looking forward to seeing "The Hotel New Hampshire", another John Irving book I had enjoyed.What a disappointment.
This film was so bad I left the theater hating the book as well as the movie - a unique experience for me!
I have no other explanation for this anarchistically surreal, whirlwind mess of a 110 min' film: The saga of a large family of eccentrics trying to make it in the hotel business both on the American east coast and Vienna - oh, apart from all their sexual shenanigans, encounters of counterpart weirdos and inexplicable hang-ups about circus bears, of course...From the word go, I'm told not to take anything seriously (sort of like in a Fellini-world), so I don't...
Though I'd say that you rather read the book then watch this movie, if not for anything, then for Foster's performance..
Based on a celebrated satirical novel by John Irving (author of THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP [1982] which I guess I should get to now), it garnered mixed reactions but I found it quite engaging apart from the occasional heavy-handedness; that said, having read the source material for myself, I have to say that the film falls short of extracting its full potential.
There is no real plot to speak of, but a plethora of oddball characters not just the central family (among them Beau Bridges, Jodie Foster and Rob Lowe
not to mention their compulsively farting dog[!]) but also Wallace Shawn as a cycle-riding Dr. Freud with a bear companion, Nastassja Kinski as the latter's 'replacement' after it is killed(!) and Amanda Plummer as a gawky teen dubbed "Miss Carriage".
The argument is completely ridiculous, and it gets worse as the movie develops.I can think of many ways to describe this movie; lame, boring, stupid, weak, grotesque, absurd, poor...Only if you're curious to see the young Jodie Foster or Rob Lowe I would recommend this fiasco.
Okay, it wasn't all bad.-Good music, except the New Year's Eve celebration-The architecture of the first two hotels-Old cars -Jodie Foster's hair and smile -In fact, Jodie Foster was quite good and I could have liked her character-Jennifer Dundas was also good But if this was supposed to be a comedy, it was sick, sick, sick.Seth Green was the first name I saw in the closing credits, which reminds me that in certain circumstances I can handle sick humor.
However, do I really want to see a film of THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE that highlights THOSE parts of the book rather than the events as a whole?
I guess, yes, in a sense, because the events of THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE did get to me and did put images in my head that bothered me, and the fact that this film has these same images does much to help me identify with what's going on.
The film adaptation of THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP didn't try to capture all of these horrible and shocking things that occurred within the course of the book but rather set those aside in order to concentrate on telling a story and crafting characters.
If there were a story, I would have an easier time recommending it, but I think I will have to say that this is worth seeing by fans of John Irving's book only..
Win Berry (Beau Bridges) and his wife have five kids, John (Rob Lowe), Franny (Jodie Foster), Frank, Lilly, and Egg (Seth Green).
The family stays and renames the place Hotel New Hampshire.This is adapted from the John Irving novel who also wrote "The World According to Garp".
Rob Lowe trying to act, incest, gang rape, a farting dog, death, all in one film!
The Hotel New Hampshire is a bigger misfire than Tony Richardson's adaptation of The Loved One. Though I've never read the John Irving novel this disaster is based on, Richardson's hatchet job on Evelyn Waugh's Hollywood satire would suggest Irving's book is considerably better than the film.
It's as good , if not better than the film and opens up the world of john Irving to you-all his books are great, like 'The World According to Garp' or 'The Cider House Rules' etc...
First, I should note that I've never read John Irving's novel on which "The Hotel New Hampshire" is based.
I understand that John Irving liked Tony Richardson's movie, and his only criticism thereof was that it tried to be too faithful to the book, often making parts of it go by too quickly.
The cast includes Beau Bridges, Jodie Foster, Rob Lowe, Nastassja Kinski, Wallace Shawn - whom my parents met around the time that "My Dinner with Andre" got released - Seth Green and Amanda Plummer (put another way, it stars the Dude's brother, Clarice Starling, young #2, Nosferatu's daughter, Vizzini, Dr. Evil's son and Honeybunch)..
No doubt, those who have rated this garbage highly find it Real Interesting to watch a young Jodie Foster and a young Rob Lowe acting as brother and sister somehow inexplicably being in love with each other and having sex.
In particular, Jodie Foster, Rob Lowe and Alan Bates all excel, but the talented Natassia Kinski, who spends most of the film wearing a bear costume, is sadly wasted here and occasionally the viewer gets the feeling that she would have preferred not to have been there at all.
John Irvings story seems to be asking: "what if?" Jodie Foster gets rape but recovers with strength and courage.
Bizarre cult movie about Family,Incest,Rape and a beautiful girl on a bear costume!.
The acting is top notch and the little sister is so good in her role,i wonder if she is still working as an actress,see this film with and open mind and you´ll like it.
The Hotel New Hampshire has to rank up there with maybe the top 10 of weird films I've seen.
Children like Rob Lowe, Jodie Foster, and Seth Green and a crotchety old grandpa played by Wilford Brimley.
But interesting characters without a coherent plot is a chair with weak legs.In the best part of the film Jodie Foster gets some sweet revenge for being raped by Matthew Modine.
Rob Lowe and Jodie Foster were blood brother and sister but had an amazing time having sex which was uncomfortable to even watch.
The film of "The World According to Garp" left me with the feeling "What the hell was that all about?" .I think that the difficulty is that Irving's books do not always transfer well to the screen.
In the case of Irving, however, film directors seem to struggle to find any equivalent to his authorial voice to hold his rather sprawling stories together.The plot of "The Hotel New Hampshire" would be difficult to summarise.
Indeed the characters themselves don't seem particularly moved by half these events, while I found the suicide of the daughter Lilly (played by then 13 year old actress Jennifer Dundas) who kills herself jumping out the window of a New York City skyscraper, especially sad.Although the strangest part of the film was probably the Rob Lowe / Jodie Foster incest scene, in which they (siblings) basically have sex all day long, and neither of them seem a bit disturbed about it either during the orgy or at any point later in the film.Perhaps this is a "dark comedy"?.
Though not as richly realized as THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP, this is still a very successful film version of John Irving's novel. |
tt0112757 | The Cure | Set in a small town of Stillwater, Minnesota, Erik (Brad Renfro) is a 13-year-old adolescent loner with an emotionally abusive and neglectful workaholic mother, Gail (Diana Scarwid) who hardly spends time with him. His father, who treated Erik considerably better than his mother, lives in New Orleans. Dexter (Joseph Mazzello), an 11-year-old boy who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion, is Erik's neighbor. Initially, Dexter is put off by Erik, but they become both good friends despite their differences. Erik seeks a family in Dexter and his congenial mother, Linda (Annabella Sciorra), due to his bad relationship with Gail, but Erik keeps the friendship a secret from her, knowing that Gail won't approve.
Gail discovers the friendship one night after Linda comes over to ask Erik about something Dexter ate in the boys' quest to find a natural cure for his disease. She is furious and warns Linda to keep Dexter away, but Linda, who resents her, ignores her and encourages the friendship. When the boys read an article in a tabloid about a doctor in distant New Orleans who claims to have found a cure for AIDS, they set out on their own down the Mississippi River in the hope of finding a means of saving Dexter's life.
Initially, the boys start taking a boat down the river with a bunch of degenerates, but eventually steal their money (as they were never treated well by the group) and try to hitchhike the rest of the way. When the boatmen find that their money has been stolen, they locate the kids at a bus station and proceed to chase them until they reach a dead end in a dilapidated building. Erik draws a switchblade, causing one of the men to draw a knife as well. Dexter suddenly grabs the knife from Erik, and cuts his hand to cause himself to bleed. He threatens the boatman with his blood, saying that he has AIDS and could easily transfer the disease to him (the boatman has open wounds on his arm as a result of an injury received when chasing the boys). Dexter then chases the boatmen off, threatening them with his bleeding hand. Once the two men are gone, Dexter realizes what he has done in directly exposing his blood to the outside environment. He suddenly feels sick, so Erik helps to escort him back to the bus station. Realizing that their journey must end if Dexter is to be treated, Erik resorts to calling Linda to have her pick the boys up when they arrive on the bus in Stillwater.
Once they return, Dexter spends the rest of his time in the hospital. Erik stays with Linda, knowing that not only will Gail be angry, but she will not let him visit Dexter in the hospital. Dexter and Erik prank the doctors three times that Dexter's dead. But when the third doctor arrives to check him, Dexter really has died. While driving Erik home, Linda notices a mother holding her young child while crossing the street. With the child serving as a reminder of Dexter, she pulls over and breaks down crying. Erik apologizes to her, saying that he should have tried harder to find a cure. Linda, taken aback by his comment, embraces Erik, explaining that he was the happiest thing in Dexter's difficult life. Upon arrival at home, they are confronted by a furious Gail. When Gail starts to hit Erik, Linda quickly intervenes and asks to talk to her privately.
Once the two are inside Linda's home, Linda angrily and tearfully informs Gail about Dexter's death and demands that she allow Erik to go to the funeral and be a better parent to him or she will report her abuse and neglect to Child Protective Services. Realizing all that she has done to Erik, Gail breaks down and guiltily complies.
At the funeral, Erik places one of his shoes in the coffin and takes one of Dexter's to let sail down the river (as earlier in the trip when Dexter's having nightmares, Erik told Dexter to hold one of his sneakers as a reminder that he's always by his side). This way, the shoes represent the boys' souls and their will to live. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | The story is focused on the friendship between two young boys Erik and Dexter, eleven and twelve years old, who are very different from each other but they are becoming the best (and only) friends.
The movie also is full of incredibly powerful and emotional symbolism, (particularly strong with Erik's shoe) which also greatly increases visual impression from such beautiful work.
Both Brad Renfro as Erik and Joseph Mazello as Dexter created wonderful atmosphere of sincere friendship and magnificent chemistry between two main characters.
I don't want to write more about the movie because it's simply impossible to put its beauty and sincerity into words, so if you have any opportunity for watching The Cure, rent it or buy it and you wouldn't be disappointed.
Very quickly he develops a real friendship with Dexter, who is delicately built and frail due to his condition.The central theme of the movie the theme which makes it pervasively authentic and tragic at the same time is how Eric and Dexter try to find the ultimate cure.
Thus Dexter overcomes his isolation and sadness, and Eric learns what really counts in life; and both of them realize how much of a gift real friendship is when it comes to the hardest moments of life.This movie is tragic but its message is sheer inspiration..
It is also a film of remarkable bonds of friendship and the innocence of childhood.The film sees Erik, a dysfunctional adolescent boy with a distant mother, moving into a new area where their next-door neighbour is eleven-year-old Dexter, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion.
After his initial fears and ignorance over AIDS are allayed, Erik befriends Dexter and their almost fraternal friendship sees them embark on a journey down the Mississippi to where they have heard about a New Orleans doctor who claims to have found a cure for the disease.The talent from the two young leads of Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello, who play Erik and Dexter respectively, is exceptional.
Brad was able to portray Erik's harder edge without comprising the subtle childish innocence inherent to the character while Joseph depicts the sense of vulnerability to Dexter's character but injects the right amount of boyish enthusiasm and zeal to highlight that his illness doesn't mean he still isn't a child who wants to run and play like any other eleven-year-old boy.
Annabella Sciorra also delivers a touching performance as Dexter's mother Linda, who adores her son and delights in seeing him thrive with this new friendship to Erik and eventually becomes a surrogate mother-figure to the other boy.Set against an excellent soundtrack, 'The Cure' is a very bittersweet film that manages to flawlessly weave the story of boyhood friendship that survives unflinchingly in the midst of prejudice and terminal illness without resorting to sappiness or unnecessary saccharine sweet scenes.
What is also very touching is how, despite Erik's streetwise nature, he is the more naive one in his determination to cure Dexter while the younger boy has this haunting sense that he knows his fate but is swept away by his best friend's enthusiasm for a cure.I highly recommend 'The Cure' for it is rare to find a film that is simultaneously sad and uplifting..
It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.Right, you say.
It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way "hollywoody".
And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his "tough-guy" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor.
Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character.
Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort.
Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy...
Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro.
Although the story may seem slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life.
Being a "big brother" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS.
The younger of the two boys, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) is dying of AIDS; the older boy, Eric (Brad Renfro), is something of a sociopath.
The friendship solidifies as the story segues into a quest for an AIDS cure which takes them on a Tom Sawyer trek down the Mississippi River with lots of adventures.
Joseph Mazzello (Radio Flyer, Shadowlands) and Brad Renfro (The Client) delivered career best (and still best) performances and Annabella Sciorra (Hand that Rocks the Cradle) was good playing Dexter's (Mazzello) mom..
Although AIDS is supposed to be the main theme, the strong sup-text of friendship and love, as they evolve between Eric and Dexter, is a powerful message for teenagers.
A tale of a young boy, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) with AIDS who befriends a rough and tumble boy (played by Brad Renfro) his exact opposite, The Cure is a sad, if a bit too soapy, pull at your emotions "message" movie with it's heart in the right place.
However since the real story centers on the boy's AIDS - things take off when one day at the local supermarket, Dexter's eye catches a checkout tabloid magazine that states a New Orleans doctor has discovered the cure.
In his first lead role, 11 year old Joseph Mazzello is mesmerizing, his performance as a dying AIDS victim is the best I have ever seen from anyone.
Annabella Sciorra plays Mazzello's mom with such ability that makes me wonder why she isn't getting the roles Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan are getting.+ (GOOD THINGS) 1.) Joseph Mazzello's performance 2.)'Trillion light years away' scene 3.) 'Bus Arriving' Scene 4.) Filming Locations 5.) Chemistry between Mazzello and Renfro 6.) Annabella Sciorra's performance 7.) The Bad Guys 8.) The script(BAD THINGS) 1.) Diana Scarwid's performance 2.) Where the hell did that raft come from?Total: 9.5/10.
Probably the most moving scene I have seen in a movie.The child actors were great, the story moves along at just the right pace.
Erik (Brad Renfro) portrays the most rare of youngsters, in his friendship and care with his best friend, Dexter.
This movie is not just about a cure, but a passionate and devoted friendship between an innocent sick boy named Dexter and his neighbour Eric.
Of course, we also learn about a real truthful friendship and what it really takes to be a good person in someone's life and how people become when they realize that life can be short and we want to be remembered for all our characteristics.I have to say, this movie was exceptionally done.
If you like a good moral, clean, sad drama film with a lot of symbolism, this movie is highly recommended for you.
Because of the disease, he's isolated and has no friends, but he does have a loving and attentive mother (Annabella Sciorra.) After moving into a new neighbourhood, Dexter suddenly has a next door neighbour named Erik (Brad Renfro.) At first, Brad wants nothing to do with Dexter, but gradually they develop a close friendship, much to the displeasure of Erik's less than attentive mother (Diana Scarwid.)The movie revolves around the attempt by the two boys to travel form their home in Minnesota to New Orleans, where they've heard that a doctor has developed a cure for AIDS.
We follow their adventure and their growing friendship along the way, until Dexter becomes too ill to continue, which leads to the sad conclusion of the movie.This is a moving story, which isn't built around action or excitement but rather revolves at a leisurely and low-key pace around the friendship between Erik and Dexter.
It's a solid testimony to the importance of both friendship and hope, and the impact that both have, summed up by Dexter's mother near the end of the movie.
I'm currently one year away from graduating from pharmacy school and the whole scene involving the doctor and the nurse was definitely a learning point for me!Anyhow, I just wanted to post up letting the world know this is an amazing movie and not to be missed.
this movie is so amazing when i was 8 i lost my best friend to brain cancer on Christmas eve and we use to sit around and try and think of ways to make him better i have never cryied like i did when i saw this movie a truly great heartfelt movie.
this movie talks about things i have gone thought and to see this on a screen it hits home its more touching then i could of ever thought i hope one day that i could make take my life with my friend and make it into a story and maybe even a movie its hard to think of my life up on the big screen but i have never met someone who had such high hopes as my friend he is always with me and will be on my heart and in my mind for the rest of my life until i leave this earth to spend some more time with him ricky i love you.
The Cure, directed in 1995 by Robert Kuhn, is about a boy named Dexter Peterson (Joseph Mazzello) who is battling the AIDS Virus at the age of twelve.
`That is the kid with AIDS, don't get near him or you might catch it.' One day, when Dexter was playing outside in the garden, he met his neighbor Erik (Brad Refro).
Even thought Erik's mother (Diana Scorra) did not agree with her son playing with a boy who had AIDS, they became best friends.
When watching the movie Medicine Man, Erik and Dexter decided that maybe they could find the cure for AIDS.
A few days later, the boys found an article that read `Dr. Fish Bern has found the cure for AIDS in New Orleans.' Once Erik's mother had found out that her son had been spending time with Dexter, she had banned Erik from seeing him.
Hoping to find the cure for AIDS, they had planned to travel the Mississippi river to New Orleans by raft.I found this film to be and excellent production.
The way Erik took Dexter into his life without even thinking of his illness is a true way of showing friendship.
The story revolves around the unlikely friendship between Erik (Renfro) and Dexter ('Jurassic Park's Jospeh Mazzello) who is HIV positive.
And all I can say about it is, that it's true, what Dexter's mom tells Eric at the end of the story: he actually did 'cure' her son, by taking away his sad feelings and his loneliness.This movie emphasis a philosophy I can very well agree with.
I would particularly like to mention the Oscar-deserving performances from young Joseph Mazzello as Dexter, the one with AIDS and from Brad Renfro as his best friend Erik.
Pure poetry in cinema form.Uppers:1-The story; 2-Mazzello and Renfro's performances; 3-The music; 4-Annabella Sciorra's performance; 5-The tent scene; 6-The "My blood is poison" scene; 7-The backgrounds; 8-The last scenes; 9-It's just the right length:never gets boring; 10-The backgronds; 11-The realistic portrayal of friendship.Downers:1-um..er..the soundtrack doesn't contain "My great escape"!This film found the hole in my cynical armour and it opened my eyes to the reality of AIDS.
Joseph Mazello and Brad Renfro were supurb in their potrayals of a young boy outcast with AIDS and his best friend.
The performances of the two young actors are wonderful, I think Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello are two real promises of the next century cinematography.
Unlike many television films of the week, where disease and death are central to the story, "The Cure" is not so much about AIDS as it is friendship.
'The Cure' is a touching film about a true friendship.
Erik's neighbor Dexter is 11 (like Joseph Mazzello at the time).
The nice tyke doesn't make it.The two boys take the movie all by themselves and shine like stars: Brad Renfro as Erik and Joseph Mazzello as Dexter.Brad Renfro was talented and always looked mature for his age.
When the movie "The Cure" starts, we find out about a young man named Erik (Brad Renfro).
Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother Annabella Sciorra.When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was about.
Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends.During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as they kept me wondering.
*** Contains spoilers ***A lovely film this, starring Brad Renfro and the ever wonderful Joseph Mazzello.
I like Joseph Mazzello, out of all his films I've seen to date I've loved every single one of them for many different reasons and The Cure is no different.
The Cure is a drama/coming of age movie from the viewpoint of an ill child and his friend.The basic idea is: Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) has AIDS.
She thinks AIDS is contagious like the Common Cold so doesn't want her son going anywhere near Dexter.After many attempts at making their own cure with no success, the boys go on their way to New Orleans to find the cure after reading a pamphlet about it.
I first saw "The Cure" when I was really young; I remember my mother used to watch this film with me, mainly because I was a kid with a few friends.
Erik is a boy that decides becoming friends with Dexter, a younger kid infected with AIDS and full of life restrictions.
This is the first Western drama I watched when I was a kid that showed me how fun it is to have a childhood adventure with your best friend but at the same time it touched my childish heart with its poignant plot.I think it's a great movie because I really enjoyed it and I could easily relate to the two lead characters: a hard-edged, misfit Erik and Dexter, an eleven years old boy who got AIDS from blood transfusion.
The way these kids deal with the horrible disease and then embark on an adventure to find the cure – is natural and uplifting.After growing up and watch it again, I've noticed some things that intensify my love for this movie, which I didn't fully understand then.
And Dexter beautifully portrays a terminally-ill kid who is just too young to understand his situation and decides to just live with it.The acting of Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello, who play Erik and Dexter respectively, is impeccable.
Eric's mission is to help Dexter find a cure for AIDS, and this becomes their summer quest as they run away to New Orleans.Words can't really express just how good this film is, so all I can really say is that I loved it.
This neighbour, Erik, is looking for a friend for the summer and he assumes the situation in which Dexter is naturally but with a tremendous optimism trying by all means to find a cure in some plants, concocting all kinds of potions for his friend.But the best side of the story is how these two boys develop a loving relationship that makes them adventurous, courageous, even reckless, just to get a cure for the disease or to get to New Orleans where there supposedly is some doctor who would have a cure.
This is the story of Dexter, a kid with a heart of gold who has AIDS (which he got from a blood transfusion).
The two boys's quest to find a cure for Dexter's disease is a failure, but at least Erik managed to bring much joy for Dexter's difficult life and was the best thing that ever happened to him.
But in real life the actor who portrayed Erik died.Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello illuminate the screen with their amazing performances. |
tt0210719 | The Great Gatsby | In 1929, Nick Carraway, a World War I veteran, is receiving treatment for alcoholism at a psychiatric hospital. He talks about Jay Gatsby, the most hopeful man he had ever met. Nick's doctor suggests that he writes his thoughts down, since writing is Nick's passion.
In the summer of 1922, Nick moves from the Midwest to New York after abandoning writing. He rents a small house in the North Shore village of West Egg, next to the mansion of Gatsby, a mysterious business magnate who often holds extravagant parties. One day, while Nick has dinner with his cousin, Daisy Buchanan, and her husband, Tom, he is introduced to Jordan Baker by Daisy, who hopes to make a match between them. When Nick returns home, he sees Gatsby standing on the dock, reaching towards the green light coming from the Buchanan dock.
Jordan tells Nick that Tom has a mistress who lives in the "valley of ashes", an industrial dumping site between West Egg and New York City. Nick and Tom visit the valley and stop at a garage owned by George Wilson and his wife, Myrtle, who is Tom's mistress. Later, Nick receives an invitation to one of Gatsby's parties. Upon arrival, Nick learns he is the only one to receive an invitation and none of the guests have ever met Gatsby. Nick encounters Jordan, and both meet Gatsby. Gatsby offers Nick a ride to town for lunch. On the way, Gatsby tells Nick he is an Oxford graduate and war hero from a wealthy Midwestern family. They go to a speakeasy, where Gatsby introduces Nick to his business partner, Meyer Wolfsheim.
Jordan tells Nick that Gatsby had a relationship with Daisy years ago and is still in love with her, and that Gatsby threw parties in the hopes that Daisy would attend. Gatsby asks Nick to invite Daisy to tea. After an awkward reunion, Gatsby and Daisy begin an affair. Gatsby is dismayed when Daisy wants to run away with him and wants her to get a divorce. He asks Nick and Jordan to accompany him to the Buchanan home, where he and Daisy plan to tell Tom that Daisy is leaving him. During the luncheon, Tom becomes suspicious of Gatsby and Daisy, but Daisy stops Gatsby from revealing anything and suggests they all go to the Plaza Hotel. Tom drives Nick and Jordan in Gatsby's car, while Gatsby drives Daisy in Tom's car. Tom stops for gas at George's garage, where George tells him that he and Myrtle are moving and that he suspects Myrtle is unfaithful.
At the Plaza, Gatsby tells Tom of his affair with Daisy. Tom accuses Gatsby of having never attended Oxford and having made his fortune through bootlegging with mobsters. Daisy says she loves Gatsby but cannot bring herself to say she never loved Tom. Eventually, both Gatsby and Daisy leave. After a fight with George over her infidelity, Myrtle runs into the street and is fatally struck by Gatsby's car after mistaking it for Tom's. After learning about Myrtle's death, Tom tells George that the car belongs to Gatsby and that he suspects Gatsby was Myrtle's lover. Nick deduces Daisy was the driver, though Gatsby intends to take the blame. Nick overhears Daisy accepting Tom's promise to take care of everything, but he does not tell Gatsby. Gatsby admits to Nick that he was born penniless; his real name is James Gatz, and he had asked Daisy to wait for him until he had made something of himself.
The next morning, Gatsby hears the phone ringing and thinks it is Daisy. Before he can answer it, he is shot and killed by George, who then kills himself. Nick is the only person other than reporters to attend Gatsby's funeral, as Daisy and Tom are leaving New York. The media paints Gatsby as Myrtle's lover and killer. Disgusted with both the city and its inhabitants, Nick leaves after taking a final walk through Gatsby's deserted mansion and reflecting on Gatsby's ability to hope. In the sanatorium, Nick finishes typing his memoir, titling it The Great Gatsby. | tragedy, romantic, depressing, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0118735 | Blackrock | Blackrock is an Australian beachside working-class suburb where surfing is popular among youths like Jared (Laurence Breuls). His first serious girlfriend is Rachel (Jessica Napier), who comes from a much wealthier part of the city. One day, Ricko (Simon Lyndon), a surfer popular among the local youths, returns from an eleven-month trip. Jared's mother Diane (Linda Cropper) attempts to tell Jared that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer, though Jared insists on talking to her later as he is busy arranging a "welcome home" party for Ricko at the local surf club. Rachel's father, a photographer who takes provocative images of women, forbids her from attending the party, though he allows her older brother Toby (Heath Ledger) to attend.
While driving to the party, Toby sees Tracy (Bojana Novakovic), Cherie (Rebecca Smart) and two other girls, and gives them a ride. Jared flirts with Tracy at the party and subsequently gets into a fight with Toby. Ricko comes to Jared's defence, though Jared breaks up the fight after Ricko has hit Toby several times. Tracy comes to comfort Toby and Jared leaves the party to head to the beach alone. Jared sees Toby having consensual sex with Tracy on the beach. He then witnesses three of his male friends interrupting the couple and raping Tracy. Tracy calls out for help, though Jared, who is visibly disturbed by what he is witnessing, does not intervene. Toby and the other three boys, who never noticed Jared was watching, flee the area. Jared also runs away, leaving Tracy alone and distressed. Later that night Rachel, who has snuck out of home to attend the party, finds Tracy's beaten corpse on the beach.
Jared initially tells the police nothing of what he saw. He is torn between the need to tell the truth and the desire to protect his friends; his anger leads to the breakdown of his relationships with both Rachel and Diane. Despite Jared's silence, police arrest Toby and the three other boys within a few days. Jared decides to tell the police what he saw, as he believes Toby and the other boys will be charged with Tracy's murder; however, on his way into the police station he is confronted by Ricko. Ricko confesses to Jared that he killed Tracy, but claims it was an accident – that she hit her head on a rock when he attempted to have sex with her. He has already told police that he was with Jared all night and asks Jared to confirm his alibi in the name of mateship. Diane, who still has not been able to tell Jared that she has cancer due to his behaviour, goes in to have surgery.
Jared tells the police that he was with Ricko; when he tries to suggest Tracy's death may have been an accident, the police show him the photos of Tracy's battered body. Jared aggressively confronts Ricko at the beach and Ricko confesses that Tracy's death was not an accident. He had found her walking on the beach after the rape and she asked him to take her home. He agreed, but wanted to have sex with her first. She tried to fight him off and bit him in the process, which enraged him enough to beat her to death.
As Ricko finishes his confession, the police arrive and he realises that Jared has turned him in. He attempts to escape but the police give chase and corner him on a cliff. Rather than go to jail, and ignoring Jared's screams of protest, he jumps to his death. In the weeks that follow, Jared's life collapses. Despite learning of Diane's illness, he moves out of her house, choosing instead to be homeless. Jared returns home one day to collect his belongings; after arguing with Diane, he confesses that he witnessed Tracy's rape and could have saved her life if he had intervened or helped her afterwards. Later that day, Jared joins Diane and Cherie in cleaning graffiti from Tracy's grave. | tragedy, revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | Stunning acting from a young cast.
The subject matter is completely galling, that of a mass rape and subsequent murder of a teenage girl.
This movie's strength however should not be underestimated.
It doesn't really attempt to moralise or provide answers, it simply examines the interactions of the teenagers affected by the tragedy.
Great acting from a young cast, I have to disagree with dita-3 suggesting that the characters don't develop.
The main problem that today's youth faces worldwide is the fact that they are increasingly apathetic and lack true ambition.
This movie sets out to make you think, and is overlaid with a churning grungey soundtrack throbbing it's way through.
A lovely poignant moment with the Cranberries "No Need To Argue" playing, but the film never dips into sentimentality.
Hollywood would have liked to pour a healthy dose of treacle over the ending, thank goodness they never had the chance to do so.
I cannot recommended this film highly enough.
Is anyone else who commented aware that this is based on a true story?.
I am so glad that I am not the girl who was called "Cherie" in the movie as the above comments on "how it is supposed to make us think" etc, is irrelevant.
She was Tracey Warners (Leigh Lee's) best friend and suffered along with the rest of the innocents portrayed in Blackrock.
I lived 5 minutes away from Stockton (which is the "mythical" town in which Blackrock is set), and I remember this murder happening at the time.
It is unfair to judge this movie on "the ideals" we were meant to gain from watching it as it was a factual encounter.
It is too bad if you don't "get" this film, as it is not meant to be "got".
As for the characters not evolving - well, you will have to take that up with the people on who they were depicting.
I am sure that they are sorry that their everyday lives do not summarise the lives YOU think they should have led..
Brilliant Aussie film, CLASSIC!!!!.
Blackrock should go down as one of the best Aussie films around.
I remember when it came out in 97' n' i thought it was the coolest movie, n' disturbing .
I saw the play in High school at the Bogga Road Jail in 98'too.The acting is great from all the cast, especially Simon Lyndon, one of his best performances and the filming is shot so well.
Songs from The Cruel Sea, Sidewinder, Rebeca's Empire, Beast of Burben and The Cranberry's, they set the time and place.This film would get pretty disturbing for some viewer's but stuff like this does happen.
But i think it's a great film, go check it out!!
David Field has a small roll in this but brilliant acting, if your an Aussie n' you have'nt seen it, GET IT NOW!!!
I bought this film on DVD for 1 UK pound and have watched it over and over again a great story handled with care and told from no one in particulars point of view.
OK so its not going to win any Oscars for having the biggest budget but i cant recommend this enough a truly under rated piece of Aussie cinema.
If your looking for something different rent it or buy it i imagine you can pick it up cheap enough anywhere in the free world.A lot of great photography and beautiful Australian scenery great direction great script.also a ton of great music (austrailia and new Zealand have the best undiscovered bands music scenes and movies).
What would you do if you saw this crime committed?.
What would you do if you witnessed some of your friends committing a terrible crime?
What would you do if you saw a friend of yours being gang raped?
Would you have sat there and watched?.
This is the dilemma faced by Jared played by Laurence Breuls.
This gritty Australian drama explores not only Jared's reactions and feelings about this crime but all of the victim's friends feelings as well.
Jared is shattered by the fact that he did not help his friend Leigh when she needed him and even more horrified to find out that his best mate Ricko finished off the job - raping Leigh yet again and then killing her.
This movie details how each friend came to grips with this tragic but too often everyday crime..
A must- see movie.
Black rock is a very dramatic movie, and therefore would come under the Genre Drama.
The movie is set in Black Rock at the beach.
Some of the main features of the movie, are: Truth, conflict, hatred, loyalty, fear, moral conflict, adolescence and man hood, tragedy, responsibility, community and most importantly, consent.Jared is a 17 year old boy who has had a lot on his mind lately, what would you do if you saw something you knew that you could easily stop?
In Jared's case, he sat there and observed the dreadful incident, he didn't say a word.
Before this incident Jared used to be a typical 17 year old boy who surfed, slept-in and hung out with his friends, now he can't escape his thoughts.I won't spoil the plot, but this is a film that you must see, at the right moments it was very intense, this film shows you that you must be truthful, or the truth will haunt you forever..
I was an extra in this movie and being a local and having friends living in the area where it happened i had high hopes .
The day or so i was on set was fun and the cast seemed pretty down to earth , plenty of sun and some waves at the beach .After the long wait for it to be in the cinemas and getting my friends to go , i wanted to crawl out of there after 5 minutes , i felt way too old(was 23).
In retrospect i should have asked for my money back but i think i was in shock .
Instead of a real life event that effected many peoples lives it looked trivialised on screen .Anybody remember a series called heartbreak high well that was better !.
Director Steven Vidler's film of the Nick Enright play is emotionally weightless.
Vidler seems so concerned to make it relevant to the teen generation it's about that he has made what reads as an extended music video complete with a loud soundtrack, an abundance of surfing footage, orange tinting and shorthand editing.
It's shocking to see the indifference he applies to the character of the girl who is raped and murdered though this superficiality extends to all the characters.
The material originated as Property of the Clan for the stage but Enright reworked it for a larger theater company, doubling the cast and I feel losing the purity of his intention.
Enright's comment on male aggression which is meant to explain the violence is echoed in the protagonist Jared (Laurence Breals) delivering a climactic speech about `mates is all you got' though it rings false when he is shown to have an interest in photography and a girlfriend.
The actors have little to work with and Vidler winds them up to a level of hysteria so that the strine accents and performances by Simon Lyndon, Chris Haywood and David Field are simply ludicrous.
Vidler thankfully deprives us of footage of the murder but repeats flashbacks of the rape as Jared's conscience, though his long range witnessing becomes closeup memory..
Blackrock is what Australian film is all about..
Steve Vilder's controversial "Blackrock" is a disturbing film and one which is relevant and important to Australian society.
As with basiclly all Australian film it is a movie by which it is easy for Australians to relate to.
The character of Jared could easily be anyone of many surfers from the east coast of Australia, and the un-named town in which he lives in could easily be any industrial town along the shoreline.
It confront's issues such as rape, death, guilt, family rivalry and trust/mis-trust with such a raw realism and intensity that the film almost looks and feels like a real life documentry at times.
Blackrock is not afraid to delve into the depths of the Australian community and show it how it really is.
Unlike "The Castle" or "Muriels Wedding" Blackrock gives us an honest portrayal of the darker side of our society.It is what Australian film is all about.
Quality Australian films aren't made with the box office or international sucess in mind.
They're made to make us look at ourselves as a society and think.
This is the reason why many Australian films don't usually do well in the U.S and overseas.
It's a shame with such quality film's and film makers, our films can't get wider recognition amognst our own country, instead of most of the trash put out by Hollywood these days..
This film has its head in the clouds, trying to teach the audience something they already knew!.
The point of this film is that rape is bad.
The filmmakers have their heads in the clouds, making this film so self-important and self-righteous, thinking it will set the world on fire with its important groundbreaking never seen before theme.
The characters repeat stock lines at regular intervals (I didn't do Anything...
I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING) with such obvious force that it appears this film was made to be studied by Year 12 English students.
The characterisation in awful and the characters spend half the film standing around doing nothing, hoping the important message this film is trying to send out will carry them.
This film could have been better in the hands of a more competent director and not merely some low budget actor trying to make a name for himself behind the scenes.
This film is now being marketed on DVD as "Heath Ledger's first film" which is the only way they could sell it.
A shame because it had real potential.
Worst movie ever, if you are roped into seeing this one try to fall a sleep within the first 5 minutes so that you wont have to endure the horrific plot and even poorer acting.
The badly developed story makes the movie tedious to watch falling into the "I don't really care what happens in this movie as long as it ends" category.
The makeup was really bad as well, actors looked mentally inadequate.
This movie even makes "Soul Plane" look good.
Please don't watch this movie as it only encourages the sad sad people who make junk like this.-Stu3.
Blackrock seemed unfinished....
Blackrock was not a film I would recommend.
All of the characters were extremely undeveloped.
The plot seemed unfinished.
This film had the potential to be a quite good movie, but seemed like it was unfinished.
The character of Jared didn't have any motive for not saying anything about the rape.
It was absolutely ridiculous, and an extremely unrealistic portrayal of Australian teenagers..
worse movie ever.
We were forced to watch this movie in English.
We were forced to watch this movie in English.
I wish i could give it a 0/10 however IMDb does not allow me too.We were forced to watch this movie in English.
I wish i could give it a 0/10 however IMDb does not allow me too.We were forced to watch this movie in English.
I wish i could give it a 0/10 however IMDb does not allow me too.We were forced to watch this movie in English.
I could not believe that I was forced to sit through this atrocity of a movie.
I could not believe that I was forced to sit through this atrocity of a movie.
I could not believe that I was forced to sit through this atrocity of a movie.
I could not believe that I was forced to sit through this atrocity of a movie.
I could not believe that I was forced to sit through this atrocity of a movie.
To be completely honest, the only reason i saw this movie was because in our English class we read the screenplay by Nick Enright.
I wouldn't have watched this movie otherwise.
Yes, this movie contained an almost-taboo subject that hasn't been seen all that often before.
But that is the problem: The whole movie rotated around that one happening, this one occurrence.
And, 10 years later, we have become somewhat desensitized to those occurrences, making them not as shocking as they would have been say, 10 years ago.If that doesn't collapse an already shaky plot, nothing will.Put it simply, this movie was made to shock people.
Another thing i noticed was that the acting was extremely rushed.
The dialogue was rushed.
The reactions and emotions were rushed.
Some of the characters would scream and cry and shout insults at mere words that would only at most leave us frowning.
What the director was trying to convey as hopelessness and devastation only came through as characters in need of intense anger management.
Another is that the characters themselves were not given anything to hold onto.
If i hadn't read the original screenplay, half of these characters morals would be foreign to me.
I had an advantage not many would have had before this by actually having an idea of what these people were like.
But the thing is, that shouldn't happen.
People shouldn't have to read the original works just to get a genuine idea of the movie.There were also tiny sub-plots that i guess were added in for extra depth, but only ended up being completely unnecessary.
Now, because this movie was set in Australia, and hey, i'm Australian too, i can spot when the slang is forced - a feat that appears in so many other Australian movies.
And my gosh, it's forced in this movie.
One of the only things i can commend the director on is keeping me somewhat entranced for the better part of the movie.
I was interested in what was going to happen, but after the climax i felt it was a little stretched.
the dark underlying themes - domestic violence, rape, suicide and relationship issues, kept that interest, as weird as it is to admit.
Also, the party scenes in particular were spot-on.
The director conveyed the frenzy of teenage parties so accurately i found myself comparing them to some of the own i've been to.
I was also happy to see a few familiar faces - a cameo-like appearance from Health Ledger, Jade Gatt off of one of my old favourite cartoon TV shows and that guy off all saints whose name i can never remember.
For what it's worth, the movie does make you think.
I know the rape scene haunted me for a little while even after the movie finished.
Mostly if you just approach it with the fact it is only a movie you'll appreciate it in the slightest..
Superb Australian Drama.
Black Rock is an excellent little known Australian film, with the fact that Heath Ledger has a very small role in it (his first) being one of the only things giving it any recognition today.The plot is that of a more or less run of the mill drama, the story centered around a young girl who gets raped at a party which focuses on the repercussions that it strikes throughout the community.
The story is simple, but the implications that extend beyond it because the way it is handled show that less can be more.
of the exploitation genre that feature "worse" depictions of rape), there is some incredible acting and a complex dramatic angle between characters at work here.The real star of this film is its display of early 90's Australian surfer youth culture, this film screams bogan and for the many who grew up in the era its pure nostalgia.
The Aussie grunge/rock soundtrack is superb, making you think of the years long past and really strikes a raw nerve.
The Australian landscapes are nothing short of beautiful and make me proud the land is my home.Black Rock is a great film, if you are looking to get into some great Australian movies you could do worse then starting here..
This was one of the most powerful and heartbreaking films I have ever seen.
This was one of the most powerful and heartbreaking films I have ever seen.
I think it is just amazing, and it should definitely be seen by as many people as possible, especially young men and women, as it deals with important issues like the aftermath of a rape, murder, mate ship and the teenage culture of silence.
I think it is just amazing, and it should definitely be seen by as many people as possible, especially young men and women, as it deals with important issues like the aftermath of a rape, murder, mate ship and the teenage culture of silence.
The acting is superb, so much Aussie talent, and the characters are so convincing you can also spot most of your friends.
The acting is superb, so much Aussie talent, and the characters are so convincing you can also spot most of your friends.
Laurence Breuls is the standout actor (and not too hard on the eyes either)..
Laurence Breuls is the standout actor (and not too hard on the eyes either)..
very good film.
Spoiler Alert This film is very well done.
I would have liked to see the film leave the murder unresoved and showing the community closing up a bit more.
From what I understand no real resolution came out of the true murder this film is based on.
To see the killer take his own life and provide closure (if only for the audiences sake) seems a little to much like a "Hollywood ending".
Other than that its a thought provoking and emotional film.
The characters very believeable. |
tt0034946 | Kings Row | The film commences in 1890 in the small midwestern town of Kings Row, focusing on five children. They are 1) Parris Mitchell (Robert Cummings), who lives with his grandmother; 2) Cassandra Tower (Betty Field), daughter of Dr. Alexander Tower (Claude Rains); 3) the wealthy and fun-loving orphan Drake McHugh (Ronald Reagan); 4) Louise Gordon (Nancy Coleman), daughter of the sadistic town physician Dr. Henry Gordon (Charles Coburn), who has been known to perform operations without anesthetic; and 5) the tomboy Randy Monaghan (Ann Sheridan), whose father is a railroad worker.
Parris is attracted to Cassandra, whom the other children avoid because her family is "strange": her mother is confined to the house and never seen. Dr. Tower takes Cassie out of school; she is confined at home and Parris does not see her again until years later, when he begins his medical studies under Dr. Tower's tutelage.
Parris' best friend, Drake, intends to marry Louise despite the disapproval of her father. Louise, however, refuses to defy her parents and will not marry him. Parris and Cassie begin a secret romance, seeing each other at Drake's house. At about this time, Parris' grandmother becomes ill from terminal cancer and dies as he is about to go overseas to Vienna for medical school. Parris, who decides to study psychiatry, proposes marriage to Cassie. She initially resists, running away, but later comes begging him to take her with him to Vienna. She then runs away again, back home.
The next day, Parris learns that Dr. Tower has poisoned Cassie and shot himself, and has left his estate to him. He learns from Dr. Tower's notebook that he killed Cassie because he believed he saw early signs that she might go insane like her mother, and he wanted to prevent Parris from ruining his life by marrying her, just as Tower's life had been ruined by marrying Cassie's mother.
While Parris is in Vienna, Drake's trust fund is stolen by a dishonest bank official. Drake is forced to work locally for the railroad, and his legs are injured in a boxcar accident. Dr. Gordon amputates both of his legs. Drake, who had been courting Randy before the accident, marries her but is now embittered by the loss of his legs and refuses to leave his bed. Nonetheless they commence a business, begun with Parris' financial help, building houses for working families. When Parris suggests they move into one of the homes they've built, away from the railroad tracks and sounds of the trains that plague Drake, he becomes hysterical and makes Randy swear to never make him leave the room.
Parris returns from Vienna to Kings Row and decides to remain there, when he learns that Dr. Gordon has died, leaving the town with no doctor. Louise reveals that her father amputated Drake's legs unnecessarily, because he hated Drake and thought it was his duty to punish wickedness. Parris at first wishes to withhold the truth from Drake, fearing it will destroy his fragile recovery. He considers confining Louise to a mental institution, even though she is not insane, to prevent the truth from being revealed to Drake and other victims of her father. But instead, persuaded by his new friend Elise (Kaaren Verne) to treat Drake like any other patient rather than his best friend, he tells Drake what happened. Drake reacts with defiance and summons a renewed will to live instead of the deep clinical depression Parris had feared. Parris is now free to marry Elise, having helped his old friend return to a productive life. | romantic, murder, sadist, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Betty Field did an outstanding job as the doomed Cassie.The film also deals with a sadistic surgeon played by Charles Coburn, in a terrific brief dramatic performance.
We see the class differences among Drake, Dr. Mitchell (Cummings) and in a terrific performance, Ann Sheridan as a girl from the wrong side of the tracks that shows her devotion to Drake when he has a series of unbelievable misfortunes befall him.Drake's line "Where's the rest of me," when he awakes to find that his legs have been amputated is unforgettable."Kings Row" was nominated for best picture in 1942.
I've only recently seen this film in its entirety (after decades of watching the clip of Ronnie Reagan's best scene in it) and am totally surprised by how fine this film really is; in fact, when it ended, I found myself wanting to burst into applause.
Radio, since radio drama was a major national venue then and all of these older players, in fact, most major stars, had starring roles in radio plays.This picture would have been shown in its first run in the chain of theaters owned by Warners, mostly large ones, and shown in a large house, holding an audience of a thousand people or more, with a very large screen yards wide and high and a sound system that was louder and definitely more "high fidelity" than any member of the audience had at home or had heard anywhere else.
Reagan is the real surprise here; totally unaffected, he acts effortlessly here on film, building a character, listening to the actors in the scene and reacting in the moment.
Add to it James Wong Howe's lustrous b&w photography like an old family photo polished everyday by the doting old maid, the assured editing that pieces together scenes straddling across time [Parris, the good little boy to Parris the good young man] & space [Americana to Vienna, like the new year msg in Parris' letter from Vienna dissolving into another msg scratched out on the snow in King's Row], Sam Wood's confident direction [he had done 'Our Town' too] & brilliant all round acting.
For those who made fun of President Reagan's movie career by always citing "Bedtime for Bonzo" and laughing may be surprised if they take the time to watch "Kings Row." Even "Bedtime for Bonzo" is not as bad as those who have never seen it think it is, because of the ridiculous title.
There's also Judith Anderson of "Rebecca" fame; Claude Rains who first made a name for himself in a part were he was invisible through most of the film; Charles Coburn, the grand old man of 40's cinema, playing against type in "Kings Row" as not such a grand old man; Maria Ouspenskaya in a non-horror role; and Betty Field shines as the tortured soul, Cassie.Sam Wood's magnificent direction plus the acting keep the story from slipping into soap opera melodrama.
Claude Rains, Harry Davenport, Ronald Reagan, and especially Ann Sheridan are outstanding in supporting roles.I am not an "old geezer", a phrase used by Ronald Reagan in describing Dr. Gordon, who appreciates films from the 30's and 40's; unless being 59 qualifies me as such.
Kings Row is perhaps the granddaddy of all small-town epics--a strong story line, an excellent cast and all of it punctuated by one of Erich Wolfgang Korngold's most melodious background scores.
Two outstanding leads are Ann Sheridan (never more heartbreakingly honest and moving as the girl from the wrong side of the tracks) and Ronald Reagan as the carefree man she loves and sticks by when fate deals him a hard blow.
But the rest of the large supporting cast are extremely effective--Nancy Coleman (on the brink of insanity after her doctor father's horrific act), Judith Anderson, Charles Coburn (as the sadistic doctor), Claude Rains and Betty Field.
Wonderful black and white photography by James Wong Howe, excellent script by Casey Robinson, meticulous production design by William Cameron Menzies and, of course, that pulsating Korngold score--all create one of the most powerful films of the '40s.
Sixty years later, "King's Row" as a film holds an important place in American history for more reasons than just a famous line barked by a future American president.The central character is Paris Mitchell (Robert Cummings), the epitome of goodness and virtue.
His wife (Judith Anderson) supports him, but daughter Louise (Nancy Coleman) is desperately in love with Drake, and would do anything to be with him, even defying her parents.A childhood chum, Randi Monahan (Ann Sheridan) is the spunky girl from the other side of the tracks who grows up to be a beautiful and kind woman.
None the less there is sufficient balance between the dreadful happenings and human goodness to turn the film into the popular success it undoubtedly was in the early '40s, the mutual love between the hero (Robert Cummings) and his grandmother, the devotion through times good and bad of Ann Sheridan to Ronald Reagan and the unassailable friendship between Cummings and Reagan.
In what other Hollywood film of that time would one character - Claude Rains as the good doctor - say to another - his pupil, "I seem to be in a vein of epigramatic sententiousness today"!
Besides providing Ronald Reagan with his career role and the title of his pre-presidential autobiography, Kings Row is a finely crafted piece of film making by director Sam Wood.
The film got Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best black and white Cinematography for James Wong Howe.Incredibly though, the rich musical score that Erich Wolfgang Korngold did was overlooked by the Academy.
That's the thing you will take away from watching the film, even more so than Ronald Reagan's anguished cry of 'where's the rest of me'.The story takes place at the turn of the last century with an interlude of ten years from 1890 to 1900 where we see the leads as children first and then as adults.
Above him are Ann Sheridan and Robert Cummings and it's really the Cummings character whom the film is centered around.King's Row is the town these folks inhabit, purportedly based on Fulton Missouri, the hometown of author Henry Bellamann.
If in fact the novel is based on Bellamann's experiences growing up, he must have had one Gothic childhood.Sam Wood assembled an incredible cast of supporting players, like Claude Rains, Judith Anderson, Charles Coburn, Harry Davenport, Minor Watson, Nancy Coleman, and Kaaren Verne.
Coburn and Anderson are the parents of Coleman and they don't like the fact she's keeping company with Reagan who's playing the entire Kings Row field.
Kings Row begs comparison to Our Town which is partly set in the generation where the Cummings, Field, Reagan, and Sheridan characters all grow up.
There are good performances from Cummings as an earnest fellow who wants to become a doctor, Field as a mysterious young woman he loves, Rains as her domineering father, Reagan, in his finest role, as Cummings' best friend, and the radiant Sheridan as the former tomboy from the wrong side of the tracks who loves Reagan.
The second part of the film, which focuses on the other major love story, that of Parris' best friend Drake (Ronald Reagan) and Randy (Ann Sheridan), the poor girl from the wrong side of the tracks, is more faithful to Bellamann's novel and altogether more satisfying.
Though Cummings, as Parris, is bland and overly-sincere, the movie contains what is considered to be Ronald Reagan's finest screen performance (not that the competition had been that keen) and Ann Sheridan is an immensely warm and lovely presence.
The film belongs, however, to it's amazing supporting cast, comprised of some of Hollywood's finest character players: Betty Field, touching as the frightened and disturbed Cassie; the wonderful Claude Rains, beautifully underplaying as Cassie's sad, troubled father; Maria Ouspenskaya, characteristically cast as Parris' wise and loving grandmother; and, in particular, Nancy Coleman as the hysterical Louise, the sexually repressed daughter of religious fanatics (Charles Coburn and Judith Anderson).
The actors I wanted the most of, Claude Rains and Charles Coburn, as two small-town nutjobs, are sadly given little screen time.Warner Bros.
The final image in that film is the two grown sisters playing the hand-clapping game they once played as children.Then there is the magnificent "Kings Row" which says that, yes, we can go home again, and that things that turned bad can be put right.
Ann Sheridan, Robert Cummings, Claude Raines, and Reagen spin a charming piece of magical story telling."Since You Went Away", "The Human Comedy", and "The Bishop's Wife" kind of movie...
This movie is so catty-womanish, it's sickening.What a shame considering the talents of Ann Sheridan, Ronald Reagan, Bob Cummings, Charles Coburn, Claude Rains and more.
The story takes place in a small town at the turn of the 20th century and centers on the relationship between two friends, Drake (Ronald Reagan) and Parris (Robert Cummings), and their lives and loves from early childhood to young adulthood.
Sam Wood directed this turn-of-the-century drama that stars Ronald Reagan as Drake McHugh, an amiable young man who plans on becoming a businessman as soon as he comes into his full inheritance; in the meantime, he is also a ladies man...Robert Cummings plays Parris Mitchell, who plans on becoming a doctor, though is in love with Cassandra Tower(played by Betty Field) who lives with her reclusive father(played by Claude Rains) whose fates will be tragic...
Fine acting and interesting plot in this memorable film, based on a successful novel.Features the famous "Where's The Rest Of Me!?" scene with Ronald Reagan, the future 40th U.S. President..
Reading this book awakened my desire to study Medicine, which I did after the War with help of GI Bill and money I saved during my 5 years in USN, spent mostly in combat in the Pacific.Ronald Reagan's casting I thought was good, but thought Robert Cumming's could have better done.
Maybe because I didn't like Peyton Place, which Kings Row has been compared to, contributes to my dislike of the movie.I adore Ronald Reagan and he was the one bright spot.
The breathless enthusiasm of Robert Cummings' Parris takes some getting used to, but it is Ronald Reagan as Drake who burns himself into the memory with his cry of "Where's the rest of me?" Ann Sheridan glows in her role as Randy, the girl from the other side of the tracks who has more class and substance than most from the snootier end of town.The supporting cast adds much to "Kings Row" especially Claude Raines and Betty Field as the troubled Dr. Tower and his daughter Cassandra.
I remember during Reagan's political career his detractors used to deride him as a "B-Grade Actor" with such classics as "Bed Time For Bonzo".King's Row is about 2 boyhood friends growing up in 1890 in a small town somewhere in America.
Without spoiling anything I'll just say there are enough subplots that, by themselves, would still make a great movie but together make it a great movie.Others have described this movie as being like a soap opera - I think it goes deeper that.The central characters are Drake (Reagan) and Perris (Cummings) - how time has changed them - molded them - and their other friends - with some of the town's long held secrets finally revealed..
Also the supporting cast is great with Ann Sheridan, Charles Coburn and Claude Rains in some notable roles.The movie doesn't really ever pick on true main character.
Certainly, I felt Ann Sheridan was a good choice, and it was perhaps her best acting in her career, but both Ronald Reagan and Robert Cummings were too lightweight for the imporant roles they had.
The supporting cast of Claude Rains, Charles Coburn, Judith Anderson and Nancy Coleman were very good, but Betty Fields' Cassie fell a little short.
The story is long as it traces the lives of two men (Robert Cummings, Ronald Reagan) in the town of Kings Row from childhood through trials and tribulations as adults.
Two boyhood pals from the 1890s grow into young adults with tumultuous lives: Robert Cummings is the studious kid who moves away from small town America to study psychiatry in Vienna (!), while Ronald Reagan loses all his money in a bank swindle and has to find work on the opposite side of the tracks.
Stars along with Reagan are:Ann Sheridan, Robert Cummings, Betty Field, Charles Coburn, Claude Rains and Ernest Cossart..
A "must-view" for my group of friends growing up in the 50's and 60's, mostly for Eric Korngold's incredible score (with the main theme including consecutive measures in 4/4 3/4 and 2/4 time) and to see the finest screen moments of Ronald Reagan and Bob Cummings.
All the King's Horses and All the King's Men. Robert Cummings (as Parris), from the small town of "Kings Row", grows up to be a doctor of psychiatry - which winds up helping childhood friends like Ronald Reagan (as Drake) and Ann Sheridan (as Randy)...The Good: Mr. Reagan and Ms. Sheridan are terrific.
******* Kings Row (2/2/42) Sam Wood ~ Robert Cummings, Ronald Reagan, Ann Sheridan.
With a rousing and melodious score, this is filmmaking and storytelling at its best with all the actors given time to shine in their own role in the little slice of life shown here in "King Row.".
"Kings Row" (1942) directed by Sam Wood with enormous sensibleness for children at the beginning of this romantic fiction movie, whose action narrated occurs between 1890 and the happy new Century as one character, performed by Ronald Reagan, writes on the snow before her beloved of the moment.
Excellent too is Claude Rains as Dr. Towers and Parris' mentor, Betty Field as his deranged daughter, Charles Coburn as the sadistic doctor, the great Russian actress Maria Ouspenskaya as Parris' grandmother and her good friend Col. Skeffington played by the always likable Harry Davenport ("When she passes ...how much passes with her?....a whole way of life, a way of gentleness...
It provided Ronald Reagan with his finest performance (he even entitled a pre-Presidential autobiography "Where's the Rest of Me?", from his most famous line of dialog from the film), moved Ann Sheridan to the "A-List" of WB stars, and offered one of the most memorable musical themes in film history, by composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold.The story of a group of children growing up in a small community prior to the turn of the century, and the adults they would become, screenwriter Casey Robinson infuses the youngsters' escapades with an innocence that makes their actions (performing acrobatics in their underwear in a freight car, a nude 'dip' in a local pond) seem sweet, not naughty.
The 'leader' of the children, Drake McHugh (Douglas Croft/Ronald Reagan) is a rich, likable rogue, popular with girls, but most devoted to his best friend, serious Parris Mitchell (Scotty Beckett/Robert Cummings), a gifted piano student living with his grandmother (the remarkable Maria Ouspenskaya), who dreams of someday becoming a doctor.
The girls in their lives are Randy Monaghan (Ann Todd/Ann Sheridan), a good-hearted girl from the 'wrong side of the tracks'; Louise Gordon (Joan Duvalle/Nancy Coleman), boy-crazy, and the most popular girl in town; and mysterious Cassandra 'Cassie' Tower (Mary Thomas/Betty Field), who Parris secretly adores, the daughter of the reclusive Dr. Tower (Claude Rains).
Upon his shoulders would lie everyone's redemption and recovery.Despite an overly earnest performance by Cummings (with some of the most flowery dialog ever recorded on film), KINGS ROW works, thanks to the wonderful performances of Reagan and Sheridan.
You actually believe that she might be a very young Ann Sheridan.Reagan, Cummings, Sheridan, and Claude Rains are all excellent.
Soon, the story jumps ahead a decade and you see them as young adults--noticing how they have changed for the better or worse.Parris Mitchell (Bob Cummings) is the star of the film--especially the first half.
While Ann Sheridan did great in the film and you couldn't help but admire her performance, she was not the star of the movie.
It was upsetting to invest this much time in the movie and just have a cheap and manipulative ending.Overall, despite my many complaints about the unevenness, the great moments are so many and the film is such a wonderful showcase for Reagan and Sheridan that I strongly recommend it.
Before the surgery, I kept thinking of Ronald Reagan (Drake) in "King's Row") -- one of my favorite classic movies of all time.
Ronald Reagan is especially good in what would have to be his best film performance.
Another point to mention is Ronald Reagan's entertaining portrayal of Drake, can't remember the first name, along with the famous line; "Where's the rest of me?" All in all this is a classic movie and should be watched by all!Also, many young people complain about black and white movies being old and boring without colour without even giving them a shot.
Loved the music, Kings Row was one if his best for me, but every time I hear the opening theme it is clear where the Star Wars main march comes from.
Directed by Sam Wood, the film tells a story of Paris Mitchell (Robert Cumming) growing up in a small American town call Kings Row during the turn of the century of the 20th century.
But the film goes even further: when Parris returns to Kings Row as the new doctor, he almost have to be in the same way.
The movie does somewhat become, Ronald Reagan's movie, half way in the film since Parris goes off to study psychiatry in Vienna as Drake's life really takes a dive.
It stars Robert Cummings, Ronald Reagan, Betty Field, and Ann Sheridan.The role of Parris was intended to be the star role and go to a big name.
With the passing of years and the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that Ronald Reagan and Bob Cummings might have been better off in each other's roles in "Kings Row". |
tt0926762 | Loft | Five married men share ownership of an upmarket loft, which they use to discreetly meet their respective mistresses. When the body of a murdered woman is found in that loft, the men begin to suspect each other of having committed the gruesome crime, as they are the only ones with keys to the premises. Through flashbacks, which are intertwined with scenes from the present, the story is unraveled.
The five men are:
Vincent Stevens (Karl Urban): architect and designer of the building where the loft is situated; married to Barbara (Valerie Cruz) and has children; the one who initially suggests the five use the loft as a private oasis, he is set up by the other men to be accused of the murder.
Luke Seacord (Wentworth Miller): married to Ellie (Elaine Cassidy), who is an insulin-dependent diabetic; the one who discovered the body and initially calls Vincent and the others over to the loft. The police later insinuate that he is attracted to Vincent. He also recorded the men's activities in the loft without them knowing.
Dr. Chris Vanowen (James Marsden): a psychiatrist married to Allison (Rhona Mitra), half-brother to Philip. Chris and Philip have a half-sister, Zoe (Madison Burge). The most reluctant of the men to the idea and the last to accept a key to the loft, Chris eventually does so because he is attracted to Ann (Rachael Taylor), who eventually becomes his mistress. She tells Chris not to fall in love with her because she is a prostitute. He gives her his key as proof he does not use the loft with other women.
Marty Landry (Eric Stonestreet): married to Mimi (Kali Rocha); a heavy drinker and an obvious lech. He and Mimi become separated when a woman he fooled around with shows up at his home.
Philip Williams (Matthias Schoenaerts): half-brother to Chris as they have the same mother; recently married to Vicky (Margarita Levieva), who is the only daughter of a wealthy property developer, who is also his boss. He is a drug user who grew up in a dysfunctional household with his abusive father; very protective of his younger sister Zoe, and warns the other men off having sex with her.
The murder victim is Sarah Deakins (Isabel Lucas): Vincent, Luke, and Marty met her at a bar; both Vincent and Luke are attracted to her, but she hooks up with Vincent and becomes attached to him. At a party they are both attending, Sarah threatened to tell Vincent's wife about the affair as a way to have them break up, but she is dissuaded from this by Luke. She seemingly tries to commit suicide at the loft, by taking pills with champagne. She is discovered by Luke, who calls Chris, Marty and Philip, showing them a note to Vincent. The note read "See you in the next life"; this note is taken from the loft by Chris.
The men were motivated to set Vincent up by Luke, who showed them DVDs of Vincent having sex with Marty's wife, Mimi; Chris's prostitute, Ann (who Vincent had paid to allow Chris to seduce her, so that he would take a key to and use the loft), and Zoe, Philip and Chris's younger sister. Three of the men leave to set up their alibis, with Philip remaining at the loft to stage the scene. He takes some cocaine and cuts Sarah's wrists, using her bloodied finger to write a Latin phrase similar to that in her suicide note. He then handcuffs Sarah's right hand to the bed.
Over the course of the movie, as the five men discuss what to do with the body, Luke, Chris, Marty, and Philip drug Vincent, strip and handcuff him to the body on the bed. Before Vincent passes out completely, Chris tells him about Sarah's suicide and the contents of her note. While being questioned by the police, Vincent tells them of the set-up, but they do not believe him as the only prints found were Vincent's and Sarah's. They also have the DVDs of his sexual exploits, except the ones with Mimi, Ann, and Zoe; they won't believe him that Luke made the videos and the DVDs of the other men were not found. The police also mention that all four men have alibis for that morning — Chris and Luke were seen together having breakfast, Marty was at his office, Philip was alibied by his father-in-law (who was blackmailed with information about his own cheating, information Philip had because he knew Vincent used that same information to blackmail his father-in-law to give him a contract on a project).
Releasing Chris from interrogation, Detective Huggins (Kristin Lehman) tells him that Vincent has been arrested for murder; he is surprised as he thought Vincent would only be implicated in Sarah's suicide. The detective further states that the pills did not kill Sarah, that her wrist cuts were not self-inflicted, the prints on the knife were Vincent's and they didn't find a suicide note. The surprised Chris thanks Huggins and leaves. Outside of the police station, he reaches into his jacket pocket, only to find that the suicide note Luke gave to him is gone. He then walks to the loft and confronts Luke about the missing note. After initially denying that he had it, Luke leads Chris to the note, which was in the garbage. Chris looks at the note and wonders why Luke would get rid of the only evidence of the attempted suicide, speculating that Luke, not Sarah, was the author of the note. Luke then tells Chris everything; he framed Vincent, because he was attracted to Sarah himself, and felt that Vincent stood between him and Sarah.
We see that Luke had gone after Sarah the night she almost told Vincent's wife about the affair. He told her that Vincent was using her and not worth it, and that he could treat her better. She rebuffs him, saying she felt nothing for Luke. Hurt, Luke turns around to find that his wife saw him talking to Sarah. When Sarah returned to visit Vincent at the loft, Luke showed up and drugged Sarah, trying to kill her — out of "love" — with an insulin overdose. He then staged the suicide with the pills, champagne bottle, and suicide note. Chris then tells him that Vincent is being charged with murder as Sarah hadn't been dead when they left her with Philip. Luke then states that technically it was Philip who killed Sarah and that he will clean the situation up. When Chris says no more cleaning up, Luke pulls out a kitchen knife and threatens him. Sirens can be heard and Chris says he called the police, told them everything and that it is over. He and Luke struggle, and he gets the knife from Luke. Luke tells Chris to tell Ellie and their kids that he's sorry; he then jumps from the loft's balcony, killing himself.
Six months later, Mimi and Marty are reconciled, Philip is facing trial for manslaughter, and Chris is divorced, sharing custody of his kids. He runs into Ann after leaving a bar, and she asks if he needs the loft key, that he had given her for them to meet up. Chris mentions the key would not work as Vincent now lives at the loft, since it was the only thing his wife left him with from their divorce. Ann asks if Chris would like to join her for a drink sometime. | intrigue, revenge, mystery, murder, plot twist | train | wikipedia | Highly recommended Belgian movie Loft (2008), proved to be a very engaging cinematic fare about five married men renting a state-of-the-art loft apartment as a playground for their extramarital affairs and a meeting point for encounters with their mistresses, one of them, eventually, becoming an object of a crime scene, so the initial story about five "allies", plotting together, united around their common gains and benefits, evolves into exciting whodunit puzzle about five "enemies" scheming against each other, divided by their individual excuses and vindication, a group of supposed-to-be friends now going through self-exposing, eye-opening exercise, with a number of revealing-concealing, (un)intentionally deceiving, mystery building flash-backs, leading to a numerous clever twists and turns..
The movie takes a while to pick up steam but soon enough the director takes us on exactly the kind of roller-coaster ride we want out of a whodunit thriller.
Without losing pace, we manage to really get to know the pawns in our chess game, and as each one's motivations start to sink in, even the most unlikely become suspect.We see here assembled a who's who of Belgian stars, the dream team cast, even the smaller roles are given to top class actors (Jan Decleir).
The film's lighter on it's feet than Van Looy's previous, we (on first sight) get to deal with far less tortured souls, which makes some room for humorous intervals, I fear a lot of these will get lost in translation.As in all stories, but even more so in plot-driven thrillers, the end's the most important part.
It stings your interest, it bites your brainwaves and in a completely natural way it wakes up the hidden private detective in the spectators mind.You're no longer watching the movie, you are in it yourself."Loft" is a well build-up whodunit-flick, both worth your money & your time..
five men share a loft where they meet their fancy women (read mistresses), they all have different personalities and that's a lot to take in a movie, but they are so well pictured and so well drawn in the script(Bart De Pauw) that they all become our friends sooner or later.
Then include the wives and the mistresses, it's a real challenge to think who DID it.Apart from that and without giving out any clues, it's so well acted, and the LOFT where most of the scenes are shot feels like a tremendous dangerous being.
The LOFT has an extra role in this movie, believe me.This movie, as a good friend told me, is not "The Usual Suspects" but it's close...
I thought about this a lot and then I think of course it is not the Usual Suspects, nobody wants a remake of that movie.Loft is different but you will like the characters, not one second bores you except maybe the knife combat which takes a bit too long.I especially enjoyed the Düsseldorf bar and the Casino scene.
Great cinematography.For people who enjoyed this I recommend the movie "Shades" with Mickey Rourke, I preferred this one a lot more than The Alzheimer Affair.
Although 'Loft's purely Belgian outlook and atmosphere may not appeal too much to Americans, one should not be deceived by this.When looking through, it soon becomes clear that 'Loft' is a very good film.
'Loft's picturing is adequate at least, too, supporting its plot rightly by creating a tense mood.Also pretty characteristic for this film is its very Belgian pace.
Relaxed and unhurried, it allows you a fair amount of time to follow all its twists & turns.The 100% Belgian 'Loft' no doubt will rank among the great films from the Low Countries.
Well, this is my first comment, and no other movie made me write one, although i've seen a lot, believe me.Good story, maybe a little bit over the top, but then again, you go to the movies to be surprised.
I thought it was the only part where the script failed in the sense that it dropped the pace of the movie a little bit.Overall, very well done.
The direction is great, the story is gripping, every little piece fits into the other, making this movie into a masterpiece.For me that is, the tension that is built holds up from the very start until the end.
Look out for it, if you like intelligent and tension filled thrillers that keep you guessing until the end ....
I guess it's only a matter of months before Hollywood will start a remake of this movie, which -if properly filmed- WILL be world wide hit.There's been a lot comparing with "The Usual Suspects", and I can get the point: the interrogation filled with flashbacks, the witty and clever plot and the unexpected end, when you believe all was solved.
Simply, Loft stands on its own and apart from what I wrote above, has little to do with "The Usual Suspects".
Loft, yet another masterpiece sets its roots in Flemish movie history.10 thumbs up for brilliant directing from Erik Van Looy, who proves himself once more as one of Belgians greatest directors!
Overall it's a lot better than Erik Van Looy's previous movie : 'De Zaak Alzheimer' although here you don't have the acting one man show that 'Jan Decleir' gave in that one.Matthias Schoenaerts and Bruno Vanden Broucke show their talent in this one, as does Filip Peeters.If go for International standards, this is still one of the better movies that you can go see in the theater.
Sometimes the acting is a bit off, but that negligible...Overall, this is a great a movie and hope it will make the trip abroad to the states or what not, so it can be acknowledged by everyone !!Best regards,Raf. Love is
Sharing a loft with friends so your wife can't find out you're unfaithful..
I don't really have a valid excuse for waiting so long (perhaps didn't want to jump into the momentarily hype?) but I'm glad to announce that "Loft" is a solid and suspenseful thriller that can easily compete with the large foreign offer of similar movies.
The film deals with typical Hollywood themes (adultery, murder, conspiracy theories
) and implements the contemporary popular narrative structure of flashbacks and messed up continuity, but luckily enough the atmosphere and character drawings remain old-fashioned Flemish.
Through a series of flashbacks and deeper character elaborations, the script illustrates that the five perhaps aren't the loyal and close friends than they might think and that their lies, unfaithfulness and deception will finally bring them down.
I really enjoyed the film, it is the best Belgian movie I've ever seen.
I recommend every grown-up who likes thrillers to watch LOFT..
In Flanders, there has been such a huge hype about this movie that it's almost impossible for director Erik Van Looy to live up to the expectations.
If we are to believe everything that has been told about it, this is supposed to be the best movie ever made in Flanders, and a Hollywood remake would only be a matter of time.Let's face it: Loft is a run-of-the-mill thriller.
The whodunit-story is OK, but twists and turns just a little bit too much for my taste.
The characters are flat - we don't know why they do what they do.The movie lacks a little bit extra that could have made it really good.
And now one year later, I have finally seen this Belgian movie entitled "Loft." I do not know any of the cast, but she mentioned that these are some of Belgium's greatest actors, and that was enough for me."Loft" tells the story of five male friends who each have a key to plush penthouse loft in a snazzy apartment complex.
This is the same loft we see in American movies like "Sliver" or "Basic Instinct".
The plot could have already ended neatly, but still he decided to push for another one, making matters too convoluted.Overall, this movie is good to watch, exciting and tense as it went along.
But do not try to analyze too much watching it, as this would cause you to discover a lot of questions about the plot and its various holes, especially when it comes to the sequence of events..
the story keeps you curious till the near ending that's tho (in my opinion )when the movie goes too far.
for the rest it's a very entertaining movie indeed a shame that Dutch isn't a world language else this one would have been a big global success whit-out a doubt.i truly recommend even for those of you who don't understand a word of dutch (like 99,97% of the world population :p ) but it is truly a magnificent film.
Full of twists & turns from start to finish, Loft concerns a group of 5 friends, all of them married, who share the ownership of a secret loft together where they meet their mistresses.
And thus begins the blame game where each person begins suspecting the other one of committing the crime & collectively try to solve the mystery before police come knocking at the door.Directed by Erik Van Looy, the film smartly intertwines present with flashbacks to give viewers the backstory of each of its characters & create fresh doubts in their minds about who could be the real suspect among these.
The writing is equally good too as each character is presented in a grey shade, thus making it difficult for the viewers to converge on a single suspect until the film reveals all on its own.
The acting is quite convincing by its ensemble cast, cinematography makes great use of lighting, editing is brilliantly carried out & the music is a big plus here.There is no denying that viewers will try to solve this mysterious puzzle as soon as the film begins since no time is wasted in taking a linear approach and yet, the film will be able to surprise most of them not once but multiple times.
On an overall scale, Loft is an amazing mystery thriller that is cleverly plotted, has an atmosphere of tension & suspicion from the very beginning, is perplexing but never confusing to the extent that makes the viewers reject it outright & didn't put a foot wrong until the film's third act, which is the only part that disappointed me though not majorly & will even work for most.Out of the very few Belgian films that I've seen so far, this one is arguably my new favorite as of now.
And I've no problem in recommending this film to anyone for it has the charged tension of a Hitchcock thriller & really deserves a wider audience.
Dark mystery films with a lot of twist.
"The Loft" follows the same pattern and does so successfully.The themes of the film are friendship, love and cheating in a twisted plot that repeatedly keeps the spectators on their toes.
Matthias Schoenaerts is perfect as a simple brute, a role which he has to some extent repeated in other films like "Bullhead" and "Rust and Bone"."The Loft" is shot beautifully with lots of different lenses, crane cameras and lighted in a way that underlines the tension and the feelings of the actors.I had a good time watching this one and I believe you will too..
Keeps the viewer guessing with numerous twists and turns - one too many but really that's what adds more WTF moments which is awesome to watch.I didn't go into this one with high expectations but for a late night ''can't sleep so I'm watching a movie on my laptop with headphones and a blanket'' it was pretty darn bearable.Recommended for thriller addicts..
The Loft is one of the best Belgium movies ever.
I loved every second of it.After Luc finds the body of a mysterious girl in his loft which he share with his four friends, chris, vincent, Filip and Marnix.
Because if this comes out not only their freedom is in jeopardy but also their marriages.It's an amazing whodunit story, and I still love watching the movie again..
Few of the characters are really likable; the men are sexist bastards save for a repressed slob, the women in the plot get little screen time and spend that being sex objects or sharp-tongued hags of wives.In short, the movie piles on the clichés, and so it's exhaustive location scouting delivers the death-stroke.
Earlier that same day, five friends sharing a loft apartment for their extramarital conquests discover the bloodstained body of a woman sprawled across the bed where the affairs take place.
When architect Vincent Stevens hands his four friends the keys to the sky parlor through which they may indulge themselves in secret, it is here that the unraveling truly begins and we discover whose declarations end at posturing bravado and who truly believes that adultery is an honest acceptance of male desires.All of which give 'Loft' its light and shade.
If redemption is on the cards, 'Loft' is not concerned with winning the audience over to their side and in the end, this is my biggest problem with it – not a desire for some tired, shoehorned play for morality before the end credits as Hollywood typically insists so as to keep the audience's fantasy of human virtue intact, but simply the fact that in human drama, a cast of unlikable characters is the true act of murder for the audience, their empathy dead and buried for the duration of a film that demands two hours of attention.Doubtless, there are many fans of the modern crime thriller who revel in the self-destructive anti-hero, seeing him or her as the truly honest figure driven to be nothing more than earnestly human in an uncompromising world.
It feels tacked on as a last desperate twist, yet given what carnal descent into hell writer Bart de Pauw has presented beforehand, better to let the film remain in that melancholy storm of Dante's second circle where it can at least stand with its own self-prescribed dignity.Of director Erik Van Looy, I would praise his creation of a suitably dark and forebodingly-lit story.
In amidst this gallery of the fallen stands the film itself, aiming high in terms of plot twist and drama, but sinking slowly through the ground for failing to engage the viewer on the most fundamental level: empathy..
One of the first scenes bring to mind the opening sequence of 'Inside Man', a man dead on his feet grilled by two unrelenting policemen, he stammers a fogy story, a story that makes less and less sense with each new sentence uttered; the intrigues spreads through the audience, let the games begin!The gorgeous stylized look captured my attention immediately, cinematographically 'Loft' without a doubt means a new high for production values in Belgian cinema.
I personally prefer this more minimalistic (less locations, less movement in the scenes), more plot-driven film over Van Looy's previous.
Anyone of this group could have committed the crime, yet nothing is clear in the narrative until the surprise ending.Eric Von Looy, the director of "Loft" has explored the kind of people at the center of the film before with his "Yuppies".
We were lucky to have found a copy of this Belgian film, but we don't think it had a commercial run that we know of.The director gets great acting from all the principals, Koen De Bouw, Filip Peeters, Matthias Schoenaerts, Bruno Vanden Broucken, and Koen De Graeve are all excellent as the friends that share the loft.
Loft is recommended for all lovers of murder mysteries.
Here, Each character can have several motives, but not necessarily those you may think
the film will have you in its grip the whole time as you will keep guessing, and of course most of your guesses won't come true!As in many other murder mysteries, one of the themes here is that NO ONE can be trusted.
if I am not mistaken he's the one that says: "now we must look for someone to take to the loft!"the film has a well-developed plot.
with all those short cuts, The film moves so fast that at some points, you may not even have the time to think about the plot itself!!
Now that I think about it, I understand how those friends lost trust in each other, but I don't know why they trusted each other in the first place!And I should also admit that the ending did not satisfy me as it did not match the dynamic plot of the film
But overall, I enjoyed the film and look forward to learning more about Belgian cinema.
Let me first start with the look of it all, the short cuts make this film try to be more of an action flick which is not helpful because it tries to be a thriller.
A very moral tale about friends sharing an apartment for sexual adventures; that one day find out a dead woman body in the bed and try to find out who did it.Obviously was one of them and in a things has an unexpected twist in the third act (and another one in the fourth ); but the first one is absurd and the second even worse.
To be sincere; the first half of the movie; is intriguing; but as things start to clarify, events seems forced and without any reasonable logic.In brief; do not lose your time with this.
The movie starts off on a high note in an attempt to take a hold of viewer attention, which it does.
I don't know whether it's to keep integrity of the story, or out of respect to the screenplay,but, the director took a little too much time to establish a character attributes.
At the same time took a great detail in not to give out the main crucial point of the plot.The motive of Luc Seynaeve, and eventual involvement of others is a little too thin.
Apart from two or three leaky sub plots from the respective character's, and the run time, it's a decent enough movie.
Not one you will remember when you think of Best Mystery movies. |
tt0427528 | Mercenary for Justice | CIA dirty deeds man John Dresham (Luke Goss) and Black Ops organiser Anthony Chapel (Roger Guenveur Smith) hire John Seeger (Steven Seagal) and his crew for a mission in the French-controlled Galmoral Island in Southern Africa. They tell them they are helping the locals when in reality they just want to get rich on oil and diamonds.
John gets steamed when the mission goes wrong. Some of his soldiers take the French Ambassador (Rudiger Eberle) and his family hostage for leverage and later blow them all up. The French close in on them, his best friend Radio Jones (Zaa Nkweta) is killed, and Maxine Barnol, his spy posing as a journalist, suggests CIA involvement.
John heads back to the U.S.A. and goes to the home of Radio's wife Shondra (Faye Peters), tells her the news, and then promises her that he'll take care of her and her young son Eddie (Tumi Mogoje). While there he kills two of Dresham's men sent to kill him and discovers Dresham's implication.
Chapel again hires the team of mercenaries, kidnapping Shondra and Eddie to force John into cooperating. The mission involves rescuing Kamal Dasan, the son of prominent gun runner Ahmet Dasan (Peter Butler), who has been arrested and thrown into the Randveld Prison outside of Cape Town, South Africa, and is due to be transferred to the States.
Dresham discovers the job but not its object and when he bumps into Maxine he forces her to work for him instead of Chapel. Maxine leads him to believe that the target is the safe of the bank of South Africa and Dresham uses his CIA influence to be shown round the security installation. Maxine listens attentively and takes photos.
John leads Dresham in circles but when the mercenaries break into the prison Kamal isn't there any more and the bad elements of the team get killed. Next stop the bank. In the safe John persuades the Greeks to arrest Kamal's father, then escapes making sure Dresham will be arrested too.
Finally, with a few faithful members of his team, John rescues Shondra and Eddie and kills Chapel and his guards. | revenge, violence | train | wikipedia | If you've kept up with Seagal's direct-to-video career (as I diligently have) "Mercenary for Justice" is certainly a step in the right direction.
Second, although there's more gun-play than Aikido, Seagal performs in all his own action sequences (no stunt/body doubles) and the fight choreography is relatively classic Seagal (arm and wrist twisting / body tossing).
The opening also suffers from the classic low budget, "shooting a stunt from multiple angles – then intermittently cutting those different shots of the same stunt into the movie trying to sell it as a new event each time" trick.
However Seagal has one of the most forgiving and undemandingly loyal fan bases out there, so he's getting away with it.Mercenary For Justice is on one hand the usually bog standard he's been doing lately, but on a slightly more positive not he does most of his ADR looping and also all his own fights.
Now that might seem like something that should be a given for an action man but these days Seagal films are rated on the following: Participation in fights, stunts, in the shooting itself (not using stand ins!) and participation in performing his own dialogue.
As such this film is a step up from Black Dawn and Today You Die, his previous two, poor, poor movies.The trouble is that the film has an awful script, poor direction and of course an incredibly wooden performance by its lead.
How true this is I don't know but certainly in this film and TYD, Seagal is probably only present for 2/3 of the movie.
Thankfully MFJ marks the last time Seagal will work with these producers and this director, following a much publicised legal battle of suing and counter suing.MFJ makes no sense whatsoever, perhaps largely due to the slipshod and difficult production thanks to the problems between the producers and the star.
This is so poorly constructed and shabbily put together that it makes one wonder just how Seagal fans (myself included can keep coming back in the vein hope he'll do a good movie again.
Similarly the film is not helped by a poor cast around Seagal, who lest we not forget is not in the movie that much.
In perhaps the most awful performance ever committed to a B action film, Roger Guenveur Smith, grates, and annoys in the most clichéd British bad guy role, in which every word is ludicrously overly enunciated.
There's plenty of explosions but the film is badly edited and the fights sequences are particularly dull, despite Seagal's participation in them.
They unfortunately lack imagination and aside from some bone breaking and flushing peoples heads down toilets, it's all pretty brief and uninspired.The sad thing is that many Seagal fans will "settle" for this junk.
I hope Seagal takes note in his next few films, but thankfully I see there will be little chance they are as bad as this.
A long time ago, (Okay, 1989) Steven Seagal was the master of the martial arts, A man who speaks little, but makes up for it in kicking ass...
For Seagal DTV standards, (does that even make sense?) it isn't as bad as "Submerged" , but it's not as good as "Belly Of The Beast".The plot: John Seeger (you know who...) is an ex-mercenary, CIA, FBI dude, who has to break into a prison, while orchestrating a bank robbery.
A mercenary works for money and he has no soul, he doesn't do it for justice.The only actors good in this is Roger Guenveur Smith as the villain Mr. Chapel and Luke Goss as Dresham.
The story makes no sense whatsoever from beginning to end, and Seagal's ego-feeding is in full-force here (he is introduced as "the most decorated soldier in Gulf War I" - apparently he wouldn't even settle for "second most decorated" - and, of course, nobody can land a single tiny hit on him in a fight, despite the fact that these days he has to send his stunt double to climb over a 10-foot wall).
The viewer has no idea what is going on or why, and in a turn of events that shows just how utterly moronic this script is, Seagal and his female partner Jacqueline Lord kill several perfectly innocent Cape Town cops and security people who were just trying to protect the bank that these two were (inexplicably) robbing, yet the film apparently expects us to continue regarding them as the good guys (!!!), because they are trying to save a black kid and his mother.
It starts on a war-torn battlefield with Seagal and a group of mercenaries fighting a legion of French soldiers after having kidnapped and killed the French ambassador.
FauntLeRoy, who did the so-so "Today You Die" with Seagal, proves his worth with this sequence as the action is fluid and crisp and looks like it cost way more than the reported $15 million it actually did.
Another thankful gesture to his loyal fans in this film is Seagal actually does his own fighting, and while the fight scenes are less impressive, at least it's him doing it.
(That was a huge problem if you have ever watched "Flight of Fury (2007)").Overall, the acting is decent, the story almost un-followable, and the action is good.
what a great movie,, the best Seagal DVD in years,, even better than the new Pistol Whipped, this one has everything,, an opening Army battle scene,, everything blowing up,, good fight scenes for Seagal that we haven't really seen in years, a decent plot line,, also lacking for many of those DVD's of his in recent years, and this one even has a sexy as heck girl for Seagal to be with,, i liked the many different characters in this one,, Chappel for one was pretty good,, i don't touch guns...
Its a regular Steven Seagal film, with good action & a strictly passable story.'Mercenary for Justice' Synopsis: A mercenary gets involved in a mission that threatens the lives of his kin.
Surprisingly here Seagal looks like his doing most of his own stunts, but then again the martial art combat is lacking (plenty of slapping and people being thrown about) and more time is taken up with relentless gunfire and explosions.
I liked most of Seagal's recent movies such as "The Foreigner" or "Out For A Kill" (and many who watched those don't agree with me).
The two only good points were some camera work (many shots were hand-held, looks more realistic than nice crane moves) and beautiful Jacqueline Lord who bears a strong resemblance with Catherine Zeta-Jones and plays her role convincingly no matter if she is at a dinner party or a battle..
In Mercenary For Justice Steven Seagal is turning away from his recent Direct-To-DVD releases and opening with a great 'war' scene one that comes close to "Saving Private Ryan".
Steven also his hearing his fan base and decided to do his own fights scenes, also at the end he gets back to his 'movie' roots when he goes after the man who set him up in the beginning.
Steven Seagal might be getting old and he also might not have the same shape he had 20 years ago but he certainly still can make a movie great just by being in it.Actually, this movie itself is pretty good.
Steven Seagal might be getting old and he also might not have the same shape he had 20 years ago but he certainly still can make a movie great just by being in it.Actually, this movie itself is pretty good.
Reminds you of the good old days when Van Damme and Seagal were backed by big budgets.Mercenary for Justice is a colorful film filled with explosive action scenes, great dialogues and one-liners, fight scenes in which Seagal actually takes part.
Reminds you of the good old days when Van Damme and Seagal were backed by big budgets.Mercenary for Justice is a colorful film filled with explosive action scenes, great dialogues and one-liners, fight scenes in which Seagal actually takes part.
Just like romantic comedies and politic thrillers all follow some basic rules, action movies are also lead by a set of pre-requisites that you just expect to be there.
Just like romantic comedies and politic thrillers all follow some basic rules, action movies are also lead by a set of pre-requisites that you just expect to be there.
Really, I couldn't keep track of Good People and the Bad People, or when they switches sides or why, or which side Black Tech Guy is on from minute to minute.On the plus sides, Seagal does his own "fight" scenes, but they're just sad now.
uh, sorry, Luke Goss owns the few scenes that he's in, but there's just not enough of them to save this movie, and they're irrelevant anyway since Seagal is playing his usual immortal Myrmidon Let's give Goss the last word though: "This is unbelievable," he opines, and there's not much to disabuse that notion here..
The heart felt story begins with Seagal being described the as a wild card and the best at his job i.e blowing stuff up in slow-mo.A mercenary gets involved in a mission that threatens the lives of his kin.
In order to succeed, he must break into one of the most wellguarded prisons in Eastern Europe and free the son of the most notorious drug lord in the world todayIn conclusion this is a great and refreshing change from the average action film with real heart felt drama its only rival release may be firewall, however Harrison Ford struggles to compete with Seagal in every aspect."It's time to fight again"....
The action sequences are staged rather well and the production stands higher than expected for this typical Seagal film direct-to-video entry.
god, all I could ask was: who the hell wrote this?We have a good idea for a film: Seagal is a mercenary and we'll throw in some twists, some bad people, some friction with the other merc's he works with, a hot blonde - oh no, she's a crappy fighter, let's kill her off!
The fighting took much much less screen time then gunfights, but alas, Seagal stayed true to his Aikido background.I thought the special effects were good, and the acting wasn't all that bad, which was a pleasant surprise.All things considered, it is worth the watch.
With a face of a stupid lion, a twice as much his old weight, a monster of a hair, and not much Aikido to perform STILL Steven Seagal is making movies as long as there are millions of idiot people who keep watching him.
Really movies come and go, good or bad, but he's in much worse case as he aged.
Whether his recent movies have attractive points or not, be sure, dear Seagal is having zero acting talent, zero funniness, and zero charisma, transforming from the master of Aikido, into the waster of Aikido!
(Mercenary for Justice) isn't a bad movie.
This movie isn't funny or tries to be; there is just one one-liner delivered horribly by Seagal near the end (whether the directors of his movies don't dare to tell him "please act", or they just despaired !).
It seems Steven Seagal's moves are becoming slower and slower after each film he makes.
You will quickly notice his huge gut within 10 minutes into the movie (God forbid should you watch this crap longer than 10 minutes).The movie starts off with scenes of men gunning each other like they're auditioning for Saving Seagal's Private.
I didn't quite understand why they were fighting; actually, I didn't understand what the movie is supposed to be about other than John Seeger, Seagal's character, wanting to get revenge after someone used him for whatever purpose the writers threw into the script.
If you watch this, DON'T RENT, and find a plot please let me know what it is because while watching the 84 minutes of this trash, in between the horrible acting and watching Seagal being out of breath, I couldn't find one.Now lets talk about the scenes a little.
Seagal (John Seeger, who's the genius who came up with that one) in one scene goes to "punch" someone in the bathroom and you can see obviously that he doesn't, I mean the guy he's trying to hit isn't even in the picture, and there's a punching sound.
This one seems like a sequel to Submerged, in that Seagal is working as part of a team again (thus meaning that other actors get the bulk of the meaty action sequences) and this movie (sadly) is all over the place (plot-wise) as Submerged.
And this movie (the second by Faunteroy, director of the equally fragmented Today You Die) has plenty of action (to make up for the lack of logic, perhaps?) and (what seems like) no fight-doubling for the stout sensei.
Seagal certainly performs a few of his (feared lost) classic Aikido moves (the fight in the bathroom, being a brutal notable) but the surrounding stuff (i.e, plot) is up there with the manic confusion of The Foreigner, Out for a kill, Out of reach and Submerged.A fair portion of this, could be down to the fact, that Seagal crammed filming this one with (roughly) about three other direct-to-video classics......so i guess you've got to credit quantity over quality, nowadays?
Technically, it's sound, the performances are OK, the action scenes are fine....i just wish these Direct-to-video releases would tone down the 'filler' plot, thus making the movie easier to understand?
So I went rented this movie along with Black Dawn because the thought of a good Seagal film got me overly excited.
I actually watched Black Dawn the next day and while Seagal was doubled for all his fight scenes the movie was much funner to watch than MFJ..
The fight scenes are credible, the action staged well, and Seagal's old persona comes out in this film.
Mercenary for Justice starts as corrupt CIA agent John Dresham (Luke Goss) & all round bad guy Anthony Chapel (Roger Guenveur Smith) arrange the kidnapping of the French Ambassador in a remote African island using hard as nails Gulf war veteran John Seeger (co-executive producer & uncredited co-writer Steven Seagal) & some of his mates as cover, plausible deniability & all that apparently.
FauntLeRoy who is also credited as cinematographer Mercenary for Justice was the second of three awful straight-to-video/DVD action flicks he made with Seagal (the other's being Today You Die (2005) & Urban Justice (2007) which are just as bad) & at this stage I seriously doubt whether Seagal will ever make a decent action film again, entertaining action fare such as Hard to Kill (1990), Marked for Death (1990), Out for Justice (1991) & the two Under Siege (1992, 1995) films seem a distant memory from a very long time ago.
One of the main problems with Mercenary for Justice in my opinion is that it's insanely complicated & tries to be too clever, there are all sorts of vague double crosses & ulterior motives & supposed twists & turns that are just so contrived & convoluted that they make little sense & are so badly written & presented end up making the whole film feel like a complete unfocused mess.
No-ones motives are ever fully revealed, I still don't really know what that CIA guy played by Luke Goss is all about, why were Seagal & his men fighting at the start, who was Chapel & why did he hire people he couldn't control & the whole thing is just a mess that jumps around from scene to scene trying to be clever but it's so poorly put together it's annoyingly confusing.
Even though it only lasts for about an hour & a half it feels much, much longer which is never a good sign, the dialogue is terrible, the character's are not fleshed out & their motives are never made clear & there isn't even much action in it which is the final nail in it's coffin really as far as I am concerned.These days Seagal is fat, you can see it & he's out of shape & not that menacing & he looks sluggish, slow & unconvincing in the action scenes.
Steven Seagal's direct-to-video movies have been on something of a downward spiral as of late, so it's nice to see a film that finally takes a step in the right direction.
At least fans can be thankful that he doesn't have somebody else dubbing his voice this time around (as in the likes of TICKER) and we do get to see him take part in some fun fight scenes, displaying his trademark aikido moves.
Elsewhere a body double steps in as Seagal's character runs across some rocks, but we can forgive that.The plot is typically convoluted, but then you wouldn't expect anything else from this kind of movie.
All in all, MERCENARY FOR JUSTICE is a film more entertaining than it has any right to be, and a real treat for Seagal fans who thought the actor had lost his way..
Come one man you can do better than this ,i used to like your movies until now that is .
a pretty good steven seagal movie,.
Die-Hard fans will be pleased to know Seagal does a lot of his own hand-to hand fights here.
"Mercenary for justice"- surely a candidate for oxymoron of the year -is the first Stephen Seagal movie I have seen since the excellent "The Foreigner" and I am disappointed to report that the dear boy has let his love for the folding green overcome his artistic sensibilities once more.What are you like,Steve?
Blah blah kills someone he likes out for revenge something or another...the usual seagal movie.
No justice and victory of good over evil, something i've always appreciated and looked forward to in these kinds of movies no matter how bad the rest of it was. |
tt0116705 | Jingle All the Way | Howard Langston is a workaholic mattress salesman with no time for his wife, Liz, and his 9-year-old son, Jamie — especially when compared to next door "superdad" divorcee, Ted Maltin, who continually puts Howard in a bad light. After missing Jamie's karate class graduation, Howard resolves to redeem himself by fulfilling Jamie's ultimate Christmas wish: getting an action figure of Turbo-Man, a wildly popular children's TV superhero toy. Along the way, Howard meets Myron Larabee, a postal worker dad with a rival ambition, and the two soon become bitter competitors in their race for the action figure. During his search, Howard repeatedly runs into Officer Alexander Hummell, a police officer who had earlier pulled him over for a traffic violation. After several failed attempts to find the toy in a store, Howard attempts to buy a Turbo-Man from a Mall of America Santa, who is actually the leader of a band of counterfeit toy makers. When he accuses the Santa of undermining the values of Christmas (having been sold a defective toy that falls apart the moment he opened the package), Howard ends up in a brawl with the gang. He narrowly escapes when the police raid their warehouse and gets out by posing as an undercover detective using a toy badge.
Later, Howard arrives at Mickey's Diner and uses their phone to call home. As he tried to get a hold of Liz, he unintentionally scolds Jamie on the phone over Turbo-Man. Jamie, in turn, rebukes his father about how he never keeps his promises, and hangs up. Liz overhears the argument and becomes disappointed in her husband. Howard then encounters Myron at the diner. As they sat down and talk, Myron tells Howard about the time when his father was unable to get him a Johnny Seven OMA toy on Christmas. They hear on the KQRS radio station that the D.J. is running a Turbo-Man competition. When they get to the studio, they find out they can only win a gift certificate. They are nearly arrested, but Myron bluffs the police into backing off by threatening them with a package (which he claims is a mail bomb, unaware that it really is one). Officer Hummell tries to open it and it blows up in his face. After his car is stripped by thieves, Howard is ultimately forced to return home empty-handed. Upon seeing Ted in his house placing the star on his tree, Howard gets angry and attempts to steal the Turbo-Man doll from Ted's house that he had bought for his son Johnny (E.J. De La Pena), but changes his mind at the last moment as he could not see himself stealing from a child. He is attacked by Ted's pet reindeer and the commotion leads him to be caught by Ted and a distraught Liz. Liz and Jamie leave for the local Wintertainment Parade with Ted; Howard follows, aiming to make amends. At the parade, Ted makes a pass at Liz, but after seeing what he really is, she turns him down by hitting him with a thermos of eggnog.
Howard runs into a bandaged Officer Hummell and accidentally drenches him with hot coffee. In the ensuing chase, Howard runs into a preparations room for the parade and is mistaken for a replacement for the actor who will play Turbo-Man on a parade float. As the "real" Turbo-Man, he presents the coveted limited-edition Turbo-Man doll to his awed son. Before he recognizes his father, Jamie is chased by Myron, who has dressed as Turbo-Man's arch enemy Dementor (having caught, tied up and gagged the real actor). As the crowd assumes this is all part of the show, Howard attempts to rescue his son by utilizing the Turbo-Man suit's equipment.
Howard catches Jamie as he falls from a roof and reveals himself to his son. Officer Hummell gives the doll to Jamie, then is shocked to discover that Howard was Turbo-Man; Howard then apologizes to Officer Hummell about everything. Myron is arrested while ranting about having to explain his failure to get the Turbo-Man toy for his son. Touched by Myron's words, Jamie gives the doll to him and tells Howard that he does not need it since his father is "the real Turbo-Man". Howard is crowd-surfed away as Liz, Jamie and Myron happily look on.
In a post-credits scene, Howard puts the star on the top of his tree and shares a great Christmas spirit with Jamie and Liz until he realizes he also forgot to get a present for Liz. Howard stares in shock at the camera before the fadeout. | comic | train | wikipedia | By throwing a social commentary joke over the heads of audiences instead of into their minds, and then by delivering a biting message that stands just as true today as it did when it first came out, Jingle All The Way went from disappointment to one of the most realistic holiday films ever, despite its lack of realism.
Even if you don't want to look into the deeper details, why skip out on Sinbad and The Terminator going at it?Jingle All The Way follows a workaholic dad by the name of Howard who disappoints his wife and son year after year.
Looking past the seemingly heavy dosage of criticism against American society and Big Business, we see the cast throw our victim fathers into every possible awful and unfortunate scenario possible, and the range of ideas presented are amazing.Arnold Schwarzenegger must have a sense of humor, because he isn't afraid of embarrassing himself by getting beat up and pulverized by the holiday rush, a bitter mailman, and a Santa Claus that can scare blind children.
Rounding out the cast is a bunch of underrated and/or B-list stars like the brilliant Phil Hartman, Rita Wilson, Robert Conrad, and James Belushi.Why in the world would anyone want to skip a movie in which we see a rumble involving an angry dad and a bunch of Santa Claus frauds running an illegal toy-manufacturing/distributing operation (Best scene of the movie for sure)?
With an endless amount of silly, over-the-top, brilliant moments in which represent Christmas at its truest, Jingle All The Way stands as the most realistic holiday movie ever, since it really shows what its all about.
So idea of the movie is great,and its pretty familiar to EVERY father on Christmas.And that's why people like to associate themselves with Arnie's character.There are a lot of misadventures(you wont remember every after ending i promise),but they actually work out pretty entertaining,sometimes even laughably funny (Santa's gang scene).
A great script with loads of laughter.It's obviously created as a spoof for the Christmas buying crazes that go on in the world, where everybody must have that one very special toy.It has the look and feel of a children's movie - but I'm not sure it is, or was ever designed to be.Don't expect a Schwarzie action movie.
and the many times he says "Jamie", I hated that darn brat...what a spoiled kid Anakin was.But this movie is funny how it shows that parents are crazy to get one toy for their spoiled little brat.
Sinbad is hilarious, and I miss him in movies, and it has the good 'ol Phil Hartman.Arnold faces an army of Santas, which is funny as well as his corny lines I watch this to hear.
The actors filled their roles well and their is no one else I would have liked to see more as the father then Schwarzenegger.The film also shows how some people go all out on Christmas but they fail to get the true meaning of what it is really all about.
Howard also has to deal with his sleazy neighbour (The late Phil Hartman), who wants Howard's wife Liz (Rita Wilson).Directed by Brian Levant (Problem Child 2, Beethoven, The Flintstones) made an enjoyable, wildly crazy Holiday movie about commercialism.
"Jingle All the Way", it is an fun movie to watch during the holidays, along with "Richard Donner's Scrooged", "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation", "The Ref" and "Bad Santa".
The only problem is it's Christmas Eve and turbo man is the hottest selling present ever.Inspired by the sales of tickle me Elmo, this movie shows the crazy side of Christmas shopping as Arnold battles a disgruntled mail man, a police officer, a reindeer, a room full of people dressed as Santa clauses, fellow shoppers, and even chases a little kid through a play place.His son's affection, trust, and his marriage are all on the line over him simply getting one toy.
"Jingle all the way" is a fine Christmas movie a light-hearted comedy and family film and should be judged accordingly...
If you love Arnold and the other cast members and love Christmas action comedy films then I strongly recommend Jingle All The Way today!Movie Nuttball's NOTES:Here are some other Arnold recommendations: Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Red Sonja, The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines, The Running Man, Raw Deal, Commando, Predator, Total Recall, Kindergarten Cop, Last Action Hero, True Lies, Junior, Eraser, Batman and Robin, End of Days, and Collateral Damage!.
It is silly, but there is a mix of typical Arnold humor giving you that feel of some of his other action movies with a holiday twist.Overall it isn't a great movie, but good enough that your kids will like it..
Arnold Schwarzenegger stars as Howard Langston, a hard-working salesman, who tries as hard as he can to spend time with his family especially his son, Jamie (played by child star Jake Lloyd).
i truly fail to see how this movie has such a low rating(4.7/10)on this site.i mean not only is it funny,but it's action packed,and family friendly.this is one fast paced movie,that doesn't let up.it's a true comedy of errors.the acting is also great in this one Schwarzenegger is in great comedic form here,as is Sinbad.i don't usually find Sinbad funny,but he was in this movie.and Arnie has shown his comedic side in a few movies,but i never expected him to be this funny in a comedy that fires on all cylinders.the only negative thing i would say about this movie is that it strays a bit into sappy territory briefly.there are a few suggestive scenes,but these would be above the heads of most kids,so like i said,this is a family friendly movie.there are some very funny moments throughout,and the movie is always entertaining.for me,Jingle All the way is an 8/10.
The little brat named Jamie(Jake "I ruined Star Wars forever" Lloyd) makes his father promise to buy him a Turbo man doll for Christmas and acts like a spoiled brat when he doesn't get what he wants.
BUT if you expect a film in which Schwarzenegger does some totally awesome Arnold stuff the way only he can, like:trying to play a caring father but coming off as more of a closeted paedophile fighting a huge, bare-chested Santa punching a reindeer in the snout then, my friend, you will walk away from the movie a better person, with a big, earnest smile on your face and a steady stream of drool running down your chin.
Jingle All the Way Review 3/5It's Christmas Eve and desperate father Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to win his son over by getting him the latest action figure.
Like every other spoilt brat he wants a Turbo Man doll for Christmas - Hot on the market and sold out everywhere, Arnold has to go store to store having to endure brawls and chases along the way.
I would be lying if I said it wasn't fun, the film has a giddy childish energy to it and it knows what it wants to be - There are cameos from actors like Jim Belushi who plays a drunk dodgy Santa, a reindeer gets punched to the floor, Arnold has a brawl with about 20 people dressed as Santa Clause and the Christmas parade climax involves him having a fight in spandex complete with a jet pack.
It stars a yowling, hopped up Arnold Schwarzenegger as a neglectful dad stuck in a mad dash to get ahold of a special Toy for his son on Christmas Eve, plagued by all kinds of random, inane obstacles including trying to pronounce words so he doesn't sound like he's got a mouthful of eggnog in every scene.
To be blunt, Jingle All The Way is nothing more than it is intended to be: a fun, warm, Christmas-y movie with a good message about being the best father you can be (it also includes a not-so-subtle message about commercialism and fads).And I must say I was pleasantly surprised with Arnie's acting here.
It's no fun when the desperation comes from some giant, intimidating man who, when smiles, appears to be in a permanent sarcastic state.Jingle All The Way remakes that faithful Christmas where Cabbage Patch Kids and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers were selling like hot cakes in local toy stores.
Howard lies to Liz about getting the toy, and now spends his entire Christmas Eve frantically running around in search of comedic inspiration and a TurboMan action figure.The plot is very slim, and seems like it would be perfect for a twenty-two minute episode of Full House.
He and Sinbad are a terrific combination in this film about two fathers from different walks of life trying to buy their sons the most popular X-mas toy .........ON Christmas EVE!
What happens when all Christmas Eve all you do it try to go looking for that one toy, only to find it's not so easy to please your kid as you thought it was and the true meaning between the love of a father and son.
The scenes he is in involving him and Myron battle for the one toy are hilarious, there is definitely a Christmas feeling in this film, Phil Hartman is excellent as the bachelor Tad, and most of all: There is snow.Throughout the entire film, the father Howard (aside from trying to get the Turbo Man figure) has an inner struggle with himself concerning the promises he has made to his family- and he eventually does his best to keep his promises..
I admit that I did think that a movie involving Phil, Arnold, and Sinbad would be weird since the three are nothing alike.So, as my friend and I sat down to watch it, within the first five minutes, I saw that there was some good adult humor in the flick and that it wasn't just for kids.
I thought that Jingle All Way was a great movie.They say that its a family film,but it has some stuff that might be offensive to some people,a dear gets punched,stuff like that.The comedy material is extremely funny,basically because Sinbad was in it.Lots of the stuff is funny,but parts like when Arnold Schwarzenegger says "Poor baby",or other stuff like that,was just funny because Arnold says it.Other stuff like facial expressions can be found funny,most of the facial expressions in the movie are done by Sinbad.The acting was pretty good,Arnold Schwarzenegger doesnt play the bad-ass in this movie like he usually does.Other co-stars such as Phil Hartman,Rita Wilson,and newcomer Jake Lloyd do give pretty good performances.The plot is pretty good,but it kind of maintains a Liar Liar quality to it.Like in the movie Liar Liar,Arnold Schwarzenegger's character goes along the lines of Jim Carrey's character in Liar Liar,a father tells his son that he will do some stuff with him,like be there at important events,but never shows up.Like I said,some animal groups like p.i.t.a would get offended by some of the stuff,for instance,schwarzenegger punches a deer in the jaw,and he gives it beer.The whole concept of the film was very clever.One of the funniest parts in the film was when Arnold punched the deer.Overall,Jingle All the Way is one of my favorite comedys of all time.
He and Sinbad here have a nice, unforced comic chemistry together.Besides being a comedy, the film shows the the total insanity and crass commercialization of the holiday season in this day and age, which is both funny and thought-provoking.It may never be an enduring classic, but I laugh alot whenever I watch this movie.
Maybe it's because this movie came a few years later than the above mentioned films, and Arnie stopped trying as hard to make great movies towards the late 1990s when he started making serious plans to become governor of California."Jingle all the way" has the overacting style of typical B comedies of the 1990s like "The jerky boys", "Clifford", or "The stupids" (a movie which really fitted it's title and not in a good funny way).
Arnie continued his quest of mixing bone crunching action films with kid friendly comedies since he made Twins.'Jingle All the Way' wants to take pot shots at the over commercialisation of Christmas when each year the must have toy is highly sought after and always in short supply.Arnie plays a busy executive who forgot to get the Turbo Man toy for his son and then rushes around at Christmas Eve trying to track this must have toy down.Hot on his tail is Sinbad, another father looking for the same toy.
In fact Sinbad a postal worker is going crazy leading to several slapstick fights, even being held up by the police at one point.Phil Hartman makes one of his final film appearances as the maybe too creepy neighbour trying to entice Arnie's wife.The film ends with Arnie appearing in a parade dressed as the real Turbo man and being unrecognised by his family despite a heavy Austrian accent!It's a lightweight, easy going silly Christmas film.
Good Christmas Fun. A father (Arnold Schwarzenegger) decides to dream the impossible; to get a Turbo Man action figure for his son (Jake Lloyd) just before Christmas.Is this a good Christmas film?
I never really found him much funny on his own show anyway, and with this script he doesn't do that much better with scenes that are forced with the comedy.Maybe a little better is Phil Hartman, who probably has the best line of the whole movie from my perspective (when he finds out Arnold's character is caught red-handed with his own Turbo-Man doll kept under his tree), "you can't bench-press your way out of this one." But even he is subservient to a character who is too thin to even fit into a one-dimensional character of the 'very kind and generous but really sleazy' dad of the bunch.
Although I can't say "Jingle all the way is the greatest movie ever made, it is a film that's good for what it is: A Christmas comedy!
Starring Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Phil Hartman, Sinbad, Rita Wilson, and Jake Lloyd, it's a film about a father (Arnold) who, getting buried in his work and missing the important things in his, forgets to get his son the Christmas gift he wants most of all: The Turbo Man action figurine doll.
The show is being watched by a certain Jaime Langston (Lloyd), and he observes in awe the might of its lead character: Turbo Man, a red armour with a gold trim-clad super hero whose merchandise in the form of an action figure is the toy every kid wants for the imminent Christmas.Enter his father, Schwarzenegger's Howard – a ruthless business executive whose falsity extends to his telling of every customer with whom he deals down the phone that they're his "number one".
At the beginning of the movie, we're introduced to Howard (Arnold Schwarzenegger), his wife, Liz (Rita Wilson), and their son, Jamie (Jake Lloyd).
Most people either hate it or love it, and though I feel like I belong in the latter, I'm going to have to indulge the haters too.Two rival fathers, workaholic Howard Langston (Schwarzenegger) and postal worker Myron Larabee (Sinbad), both desperately try to retrieve a Turbo-Man action figure for their respective sons on a last minute shopping spree on Christmas Eve. Mishaps, accidents and hilarious antics of course precede them along their journey on this day to see who can race and get the toy first.
it was sort of like a series of little skits (The Blues Brothers) rather than a real movie at times.Who should see this film:-- parents who want a kids film they'll actually like for once-- Arnold Schwartzenegger fans, oh and see Last Action Hero, which is also highly underrated.-- comedy lovers who want a Xmas film to see, but only on a rainy day, a very rainy dayI'll give "Jingle All the Way" a 6 out of 10..
Arnold Schwarzenegger does comedy again as he plays workaholic businessman Howard Langston, who promises his son, Jamie (Jake Lloyd), that he will get him a Turbo Man action figure for Christmas.
Fun tale about a man, trying desperately hard to make his son happy and get him a particular gift for Christmas, after waiting until the last minute.Schwarzenegger actually does well with comedy, as it seems that he can be so naturally animated to begin with; Sinbad is annoying and confrontational, but his character is supposed to be the foil of Schwartzenegger's Angry Dad, constantly competing for the last of these obnoxious little toys.
He serves his purpose in the film, because without his character, there would be no competition or confrontation to laugh at.Schwarzenegger at Santa's warehouse, trying to buy a black market version of the coveted toy, being attacked by nunchuck-wielding elves was an amusingly surreal moment, showing consumerism at its lowest.Phil Hartman was a humorously sleazy neighbour, trying to bang Schwarzenegger's wife (played by the always likable Rita Wilson) James Belushi is amusing in his cameo; which perhaps could have even been a bit extended.Surprisingly fun, for its first two thirds, but in the final act, it goes off into outlandish comic book/ video game territory, and that mars an otherwise funny movie.
The only modern Christmas movie I like is Elf. But as I said this film is so bad and so cheesy that you end up watching and laughing for all the wrong reasons.
A formulaic holiday film for the family, Jingle All the Way is a waste of Sinbad's and Phil Hartman's talents, though may be the best we could hope for from Arnold Schwarzenegger.
We follow Howard Langston (Schwarzeneggar), the too-busy-to-be-a-good-father we always see in holiday movies, who has one job during for Christmas: get the Turbo Man Doll his son demands.
Continuing my plan to watch ever movie in Arnold Schwarzenegger's filmography in order, I come to Jingle All The Way. Plot In A Paragraph: A workaholic father (Arnie) vows to get his son a Turbo Man action figure for Christmas, however, it's Christmas Eve and every store is sold out of them. |
tt0042007 | Undertow | Miguel (Cristian Mercado) is a young fisherman of Cabo Blanco, a small village in northern Peru with specific traditions regarding death. He is married to Mariela (Tatiana Astengo), who is pregnant with their first son, but he also has a secret affair with a male painter called Santiago (Manolo Cardona).
Santiago accidentally drowns at sea, and his ghost returns to ask Miguel to find his body, in order to bury it with their village's rituals. Miguel eventually finds Santiago's body in the water, but does not tell his ghost of the discovery. Meanwhile, the villagers discover nude paintings of Miguel at Santiago's house, fueling a rumour that he was having an affair. Mariela hears the rumours, confronts Miguel about them, and upon hearing him confess, she goes to her mother's house with their newborn child.
Miguel returns to look for the body of Santiago, but he finds that the current has taken it away. Mariela eventually returns home, but then the body of Santiago appears in the nets of a fishing boat. Miguel decides to claim the body of Santiago for a burial at sea. He takes the coffin of Santiago to sea, but a second after the coffin glides into the sea and Miguel is in bitter tears, the ghost of Santiago reappears for a last time, caressing Miguel, who returns home alone in the sundown. | murder | train | wikipedia | Pretty much pure plot, still, one of the bricks making up the noir cycle.
There's more to Undertow than the first screen credit of young `Roc' Hudson (in fact his tiny role as a police detective barely registers).
It's one of a handful of noirs that William Castle directed before turning his attention to, and making his name in, gimmicky schlock.
While none of them is so good as his first When Strangers Marry, with Robert Mitchum and Kim Hunter they're more than passable.
As is Undertow.Scott Brady looks like Lawrence Tierney's kid brother (which in fact he was).
In Reno after a stint at a mountain lodge he wants to buy and run, he bumps into an old pal from mobbed-up Chicago (John Russell).
They compare the diamond rings they've bought for their respective fiancees, though that doesn't stop Brady from flirting with a girl (Peggy Dow) he met in a casino and shares a flight home with.
Since the police meet him at the plane, any extracurricular romance comes to naught, so Brady dutifully hooks up with his intended (Dorothy Hart).
Next thing, he's taken for a ride and framed for the murder of unseen crime boss Big Jim, who happens to be Hart's uncle.
Trying to clear himself while on the lam, he enlists Dow's help; he also happens to stumble onto the fact that his fiancee and Russell's are the same woman....Undertow is pure story, competently enough executed if devoid of anything particular to lodge in the memory.
It preserves evidence of why Brady stayed in his brother's imposing shadow, and leads one to wonder why Hart made so few movies (though, of her handful of credits, roughly half are noirs).
While not an essential title in the noir cycle by any means, Undertow was one of the hundreds of titles that went into making it a cycle, and far from the weakest of them..
The story is just OK but the atmosphere is fantastic.
This is an odd case of a film having the same title as a film from twenty years before with absolutely no relation between the two.
1930's "Undertow" was about a lifeguard who marries a selfish party girl and then moves her to a lighthouse where things go downhill from there for both of them.
This film has nothing to do with that forgotten but still surviving early sound film by the same studio and has nothing to do with an undertow, but I digress.Tony Reagan used to be in the rackets, but after two stints in the military he is ready to go straight.
He wants to buy and run a hunting and fishing lodge in the Rocky mountains and marry his girl, the daughter of an old rival of his back in his racketeering days.
The movie starts in Reno where Tony runs into one of his old friends who is running a casino.
While there he helps a schoolteacher on vacation (Peggy Dow as Ann McKnight) win 120 dollars rolling dice.
You see, Tony still knows some of the tricks of the house.
They share a plane ride home, and you can tell Ann thinks this might be headed some place romantic, something Tony does not pick up on.
When he mentions his fiancée to her you can see her facial expression sink along with her hopes.When they arrive in Chicago, Tony is met at the airport by the police.
They take him to headquarters and say that the word is on the street that he is there to murder "big Jim", his fiancée's father, and tell him to leave town.
Tony says to book him or leave him be.
They leave him be, but soon he'll wish they had put him in jail because he would have been safer.
That night he is knocked unconscious and when he comes to he is sitting in a parking lot in the car he rented earlier with a gunshot wound to his right hand and a gun sitting in the seat next to him.
Then he learns on the radio that "Big Jim" has been killed that very night and that he is suspect number one.
He tries all of his old friends looking for a hideout - the police have them all covered.Then it hits him - the cops don't know about Ann, the girl he met in Reno.
He dials her up and she helps him, even though she knows that he is a hunted murder suspect.
So together this street smart fellow and naïve schoolteacher have to figure out who has framed him before the police can catch him.
The suspense never lets up and there is some great photography and camera work involved here.
I'll let you watch and find out what happens.
Highly recommended..
Brisk and satisfying B movie.
William Castle was always a B movie director .His talent -amounting almost to genius -elevated some of his 50's work to the status of "event movies" but works like "The Tingler" "Homicidal"and "Macabre"were nothing but glorified B pictures wrapped in the razzle -dazzle of showmanship."Undertow"makes no pretense at being other than what it is-a brisk programmer for the bottom half of double features-and satisfies on this level Scott Brady is Tony Reagon,an ex-con going straight who is framed for the death of a mob boss,Big Jim,and the movie deals with Reagon's fight to clear his name with the help of a sympathetic cop and a schoolteacher with whom he struck up a friendship while en route to Chicago where the bulk of the movie is set.Good use of the Chicago locations and a brisk pace compensate for moderate acting.Its predictable but narrative pace stops it getting tiresome.
William Castle Directs a Good Murder Mystery.
Scott Brady meets Peggy Dow at the Reno gambling spot run by John Russell.
He helps her win $120 at the craps table.
They are seated next to each other on the flight to Chicago.
He tells her he's going to propose to Dorothy Hart.
He doesn't notice, but she looks disappointed.In Chicago, Miss Hart is enthusiastic, but she warns him her uncle will object.
He's the head of the Syndicate and he doesn't want her wedding anyone from the criminal world.
Brady says he'll talk to him, but on the way he is grabbed, shot and moved.
When he wakes, he discovers her uncle has been killed and he's been identified as the killer.
The cops are on to his old friends.
His only possible help is Miss Dow and his old friend Bruce Bennett, now a Chicago detective.William Castle directed this with a lot of Chicago location shooting.
It's more a Black Mask sort of story than a straight noir, with the lighting touches limited to the El system and the final couple of minutes.
The movie is directed for speed and efficiency -- a Universal programmer, but with a decent number of red herrings and good performances (particularly by Bennett) until the murk begins to clear for the viewer about two-thirds of the way through.Observant fans will want to keep an eye out for Rock Hudson in his first credited role..
A house with a long corridor.
Today ,William Castle is known as the man who bought Ira Levin's "Rosemary's baby " rights and produced one of the best horror movies of all time."Undertow" has a quite derivative screenplay but the director made the best of it and any film noir buff can give it a chance :it thoroughly deserves it.It features at least one unforgettable scene: the chase in the long corridor which gives you goose flesh.Of the two female leads,I prefer Dorothy Hart to the rather bland Peggy Dow.In the 1968 movie Castle produced ,there was a corridor which played a prominent part too..
Not Clever But Passable.
"Undertow" is a simplistic example of a good 'B' picture, your basic Film Noir 101 movie.
There are no surprises, lots of coincidences and plot contrivances, and the endgame is telegraphed about midway through.
Screenwriters could have written this one in their sleep, which may account for the flawed, unsatisfying nature of Undertow.The cast is attractive; several familiar 'B' actors put this picture over with performances that infuse it with much-needed energy.
I thought Scott Brady, John Russell, Bruce Bennett and Peggy Dow were just fine, production values were good, but the movie lacks suspense and tension.
Every time a crucial scene would come up you just knew the outcome.Nevertheless, 'Undertow" succeeds in its own unsophisticated way, and for 40's theater audiences it would have been a good time killer while waiting for the main feature to come on..
William Castle directs this dandy little noir thriller..
Tony (Scott Brady) is the perfect patsy.
He's an ex-con and the Chicago police are more than willing to believe the worst of him.
So, when some unknown people kidnap him, shoot him and set him up for his future father-in-law's murder, the case seems pretty air-tight.
However, like so many noir films, he investigates the case himself and aims to prove his innocence.
Along the way, he gets the help from a nice lady and even from a cop."Undertow" is an excellent and enjoyable film.
While Peggy Dow's character makes no sense (why would anyone help a wanted man when they barely know them?!), the overall story is quite well made and keeps your attention.
It has some excellent twists and the acting is quite good despite the actors mostly being second-tier.
It sure helped having the excellent director William Castle in charge, as he had a habit of making the most of lower budgets. |
tt0024537 | The Secret of Madame Blanche | Sally Sanders (Irene Dunne) is an American showgirl visiting London in 1898 when she marries Leonard St. John (Phillips Holmes), much to the displeasure of his wealthy and snobbish father, Aubrey St. Johns (Lionel Atwill), who cuts off his son. The couple moves to France. When Leonard is unable to provide a living for his new bride and himself, he eventually goes home to his father asking for help. St. Johns suggests that his son divorce his wife and keep her as a mistress, while marrying within his own class. He agrees to take his son back but only if he writes to Sally ending the marriage. Leonard, seeing no alternative, agrees. However, instead Leonard provides him with a suicide note and shoots himself.
When St. Johns discovers that Sally was carrying his grandson, he has her followed by a private detective in hopes of seizing custody of his only heir. When Sally, saving to return to America, is reduced to singing in a French bordello, St. Johns swiftly obtains a court order and seizes the infant while Sally is at work. After being assured of her legal defeat, Sally goes to St. Johns pleading for the return of her son on any terms, and is rudely rebuffed, banned from all contact with the family, and threatened with prison if she persists. The child is to be raised with no contact with or knowledge of his mother.
During World War I, Leonard Junior (Douglas Walton), now grown and in uniform as a British serviceman, visits the bordello with a date, hoping to obtain a room, which isn't available, and meets Sally, with neither aware of the other's identity. When he becomes drunk and disorderly he is knocked unconscious and Sally takes care of him, learning his identity from his date, whom she sends home with carfare. When Leonard awakens, the two become acquainted and then friendly, and Sally learns that her son was raised to despise women, including his mother, about whom he has heard only lies, including that she is dead. At this moment the enraged father of Leonard's abandoned date arrives and forces his way into the closed establishment, intending to kill Leonard. In the ensuing struggle Leonard kills the man with Sally's gun. She sends him away and confesses to the killing, without revealing her motive for helping him.
St. John encourages his grandson to go along with the lie, expecting blackmail, but at Sally's trial, as she pleads self-defense, he secretly recognizes her. The prosecutor then surprises everyone by debunking Sally's confession and revealing Sally's identity and motive for protecting Leonard. Mother and son are joyfully reunited as Leonard confesses to being the real shooter and angrily renounces his grandfather.
Leonard is sentenced to two years in jail for the shooting, and when Sally visits, the two plan their long-delayed trip to America as mother and son. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | Irene Dunne scores....
another winner is this Madame-X-type film about mother love.
She plays a classy stage performer who marries the spoiled son (Phillips Holmes)of a selfish rich man (Lionel Atwill).
The son commits suicide after the father cuts him off and Dunne then loses the baby to the evil old man.
She fends for herself over the next 20 years in French bars.
A curious set of coincidences reunites mother and son during WW I.
Anyway, Dunne is wonderful--as usual--as the mother and gets to age (as in Cimarron) into a spunky old lady.
Irene Dunne remains one of the most underrated stars of the 30s, excellent in drama, comedy, or musicals.
She's also one of the most likable..
Try to catch this sometime on TCM.
This is a close cousin of the classic (and often-filmed) "Madame X", but with some minor plot differences that make it worth watching.
Fans of Lana's 1966 "Madame X" and the other versions may be curious about its predecessors and similar movies.
In this one, Dunne gives a warm, heartfelt (and as is often the case with her) a startlingly contemporary and comfortable performance.
Her work in the '30's tends to transcend the span of time and come off fresh now, SEVENTY YEARS later!!
When her character ages, this quality is almost totally lost as she is buried in make-up and unnecessarily old-ladyish garb, wig etc....
(The most her character can conceivably be is 50 or so, but she looks like Bette Davis in "A Pocketful of Miracles"!!) Her mannerisms take over until it appears that Molly Shannon from SNL has stepped in to play the part!
However, her early scenes, where her romance blossoms with the rich young man who loves her, are the best.
She glows.
Her scene with her little baby boy is also worth the price of admission alone.
The child is adorable and the scene is spontaneous and beautiful.
Like most of these tales, the deck is stacked WAY against the leading lady and it gets to be almost ridiculous, but the film is most definitely worth watching as a curio.
The screenwriters Hackett and Goodrich were often called upon to translate plays and books to the screen.
This was their first try and they do a decent, if occasionally trite and contrived job (this was a different era of film making, though.) It is laughable to think that Irene Dunne has no Academy Award, yet Paltrow, Tomei and Sorvino do.....
Crazy!.
Despite being tough to believe, this is still a wonderful old fashioned soap opera.
This is a film that probably won't please everyone.
Viewers looking for a film with a lot of realism and a plot that is lacking plot holes would probably find it pretty tough going.
Plus, those who aren't particularly inclined to watch old fashioned soap operas might also balk at seeing this film.
However, for a lover of classic Hollywood films who accepts all the irony and melodrama without being too critical, the final product is lovely to watch and very satisfying.Now I must admit that usually a film with this many weepy scenes turns me off a bit, but the writers, directors and Irene Dunne manage to weave a tale so well that my sometime cynical nature was kept in abeyance.
Plus, the amazingly awful and evil character played by Lionel Atwill was one of his best roles--one that will definitely make an impression on the viewer.
Now I must admit that the impossibility of the final third of the film was at first a bit hard to take, but when the plot wrapped up like it did, I found I just didn't care--I wanted the hokey Hollywood ending and enjoyed it thoroughly.
An excellent weepy film--similar to, but in many ways superior to MADAME X and SO BIG!
If you liked this film, try Barbara Stanwyck's STELLA DALLAS--another great weepy melodrama..
Dunne and Holmes in teary romantic tale of mother love....
IRENE DUNNE had THE SECRET OF MADAME BLANCHE.
It's the forerunner of all those Madame X stories that gave actresses meaty roles in tear-jerkers.
For Olivia de Havilland it was TO EACH HIS OWN.
For Lana Turner and earlier, Ruth Chatterton, it was MADAME X.
For Helen Hayes it was THE SIN OF MADELON CLAUDET.
These were the kind of stories that spanned some twenty years, always about women who were cheated out of mother love--women who fell in love unwisely and were then cheated by circumstances.LIONEL ATWILL is the rich father whose son (PHILLIPS HOLMES) has fallen in love with a cabaret singer and he opposes the match from the start, threatening to stop giving his son handouts to keep them solvent.
The son is destitute when he learns that she's about to have a baby and finally commits suicide.
The years fly by and Dunne is now a working woman in London at a not very reputable establishment populated by servicemen.
It's World War I and one of the patrons is a young man who makes a fuss over not being given a room.
He turns out to be her son and she is soon protecting him from a murder charge.It's a pretty plot-heavy melodrama with enough twists and turns to keep the viewer interested, but you have to have a taste for these mother/son tear-jerkers to truly enjoy this sort of film.
The final scene with mother and son reunited at a prison after a stormy trial, is reminiscent of MADAME X--but at least here, the son learns the true identity of his mother..
The sublime Irene Dunne at low ebb.
This is a truly silly film in which Irene Dunne falls in love with Phillpis Homes.
She is a performer; so that won't do with his fine family.
She thinks she can get his father to reconsider.
But we know better: The father is the always scary Lionel Atwill!
She's lucky he doesn't mummify her on the pot.The actor who plays her son, many years later, is pallid and odd looking.
And the screenwriters (and censors) seem to have forgotten who is related to whom and how at the climax.Dunne is charming but she has a terribly corny plot to work with.
She ages well.
When she is an older woman, going under the name of the title, she is tougher than usual.
Maybe Barbara Stanywck could have done more with this role.
But it's pretty doubtful..
Yet Another Self-Sacrificing Mother.
Innocent woman meets rich playboy.
Innocent woman is seduced by rich playboy.
Innocent woman is abandoned by rich playboy.
Innocent woman has rich playboy's child.
Innocent woman loses rich playboy's child.
No-longer-innocent woman ages and prepares to sacrifice all for her child.An entire genre of motion pictures, which often feature Barbara Stanwyck or Lana Turner, has used this basic plot to wring tears from largely female audiences.
In "The Secret of Madame Blanche," Irene Dunne takes a turn at this well-worn routine and maintains her dignity throughout, despite the script's attempts to drown her in clichés.
In the role of showgirl, Sally Sanders, Dunne has a few opportunities to show off her fine voice, but the musical selections are poor.
The relatively short film, which was adapted from a play, lurches forward from hackneyed scene to hackneyed scene and leaves chasms of time for the audience to fill in.
Occasionally, patient viewers will be rewarded with dialog and delivery so rich in camp that they will howl helplessly with unintended laughter, although a mouth-to-mouth kiss between mother and son, perhaps common for the period, induces cringes today.
While Lionel Atwill is effective as Aubrey St. John, the selfish controlling father, and Philips Holmes is appropriately weak as his son, the rich playboy, the film offers little beyond the incomparable Irene Dunne slumming in a sub-par vehicle.
Coincidences abound, French accents come and go, laws benefit the rich and oppress the poor, and a mother's self-sacrificing love conquers all.
What more could one ask for?
Perhaps Barbara Stanwyck and "Stella Dallas?".
Stick with it: gets better as it moves.
It may be difficult to get past the premise of "Madame Blanche": movies always require a suspension of belief to some degree, but I had a very hard time with this one.
I can't swallow the idea that Irene Dunne would give up her career to marry Phillip Holmes' snivelling, substance-free, work-allergic wimp of a man, after knowing him for about 8 seconds.
Did young people in the 30's really marry so quickly without getting to know their potential spouses?Anyway, Holmes quickly justifies are suspicions.
His father disinherits him, so angry is he that Holmes has married so far below his station.
Holmes does nothing to make us feel any sympathy for him, but Irene Dunne loves him so!
A real unappealingly weak character, he is.The dialogue is so insipid and without drama in the first half of the film that I seriously wondered whether I had the will to see it through.Happily, there is much improvement in the second half.
Dunne's soldier-son, played by Douglas Walton, starts off as weak and selfish a person as his father (Holmes) was, but he does grow up and change nicely, and is somewhat appealing.
Dunne is fabulous and convincing as an older woman - actually, impressively so - it is hard to recognize her as an attractive younger woman in her "old age" make-up!
Lionel Atwill is absolutely evil as Holmes' brutally heartless father.
The best scene in the film actually occurs in the first half: look for the close-up, upper-bodies -only shot of Dunne and Holmes in what will be their final parting; the entire shot is beautifully and slightly and softly out of focus, and is quite effective and touching.Overall, this is a mixed bag, but if you love early sound films just for their own sake, or are a fan of Irene Dunne, then you will appreciate this little soap opera..
Falling for a wastrel.
If I had been Irene Dunne in The Secret Of Madame Blanche I might have thought
twice about eloping with charming wastrel Phillips Holmes..
Sadly she met his
ironfisted father Lionel Atwill only after they were married.
Dunne plays a singer and does get to show her vocal talents in this film which is
always appreciated.
Holmes who does nothing, but spend dear old dad's money
in various hedonistic pursuits.
Of course dad does not even try to channel Holmes into some useful profession where he could have an income.
wants and frankly I thought this a hoot, he wants to have him get a seat in
Parliament with of course an arranged marriage with a woman of the proper
station.
Atwill has really no redeeming qualities as a father.
He just wants to dominate
his kid.
Eventually he forces Dunne to give her child over to him to be raised
in the image.
As the kid grows up to be Douglas Walton he truly is a chip off the old Atwill/Holmes block.Fast forward to the World War I years and Walton while AWOL gets himself in
a big jackpot and he also meets Dunne with no idea she's his mom.
Atwill told
him she was dead.I won't go any farther except to say that the whole thing has a Madame X
quality to it.
It does work out better for the principal cast members.The Secret Of Madame Blanche is a property very unlikely to be remade.
the cast led by Dunne, Holmes, Atwill, and Walton does pull it together..
You will bawl or laugh at this...I bawled..
I am an Irene Dunne fan but had only seen her comedies, so I was surprised to see her in this one night after I got home from work.
I read the other review and thought it was rather harsh.
This IS from a different film-making era, so if it seems trite, that may be to our jaded modern sensibilities.
I was totally rooting for Dunne's heroine until the very end...and the part in which she discovers that the horrible soldier is her very own son that was stolen away from her...."Oh, my baby boy, what have they done to you?!?"...I mean, it will rip your heart out!!!!
I get misty just thinking of it.
You have to love the melodramatic twists and turns, and of course, I always appreciate a happy ending...even though he's in jail, you know they'll be alright!!!.
An Irene Dunne Tearjerker.
Irene Dunne falls in love with a well-bred gentleman, who is not suited for anything but to spend his daddy's money.
They marry, but the marriage doesn't last long, when he goes back to his father, played unmercifully well by Lionel Atwill.
But after Lionel gives him an ultimatum and feeling put in a no-win situation, his son commits suicide, thereby setting up the stage for pregnant Irene alone in the world, forced to do what she has to.
But Lionel quickly has his grandson taken from her and in his sole custody.
Fast forward, the son, played by Phillips Holmes, is a soldier who happens to come across her establishment, a bar with rooms to let!
You know the rest.
This is far from dull and does get rather melodramatic before the final fade-out, pulling no punches and no subtlety.
While not entirely one of Ms. Dunne's best, this certainly entertains..
Creepy father-in-law..
Spoilers.
Observations.Creepy pop in law.
He steals the baby.
How dare he?
He doesn't know how to raise male children, without spoiling them and making them into total wastrels.Irene Dunne always lovely.
Here, she falls for a puny, dorky rich kid, son of the above mentioned stupid idiot.
He has no career, and apparently no education.
Pop won't give him any more money, so he offs himself and leaves his wife, Irene, to raise the baby as best she can.Irene comes back from performing in a sleazy entertainment spot, finding the grandfatherly slimeball getting custody of her beloved baby boy.
Irene goes to grandpa's home to almost beg him to see the baby, but Grandpapa Dearest says no dice.Irene goes on to toil for many years in rathole after rathole, entertaining and becoming what looks sort of like a madam in a brothel, or as she describes later, a restaurant with rooms upstairs.Looks like the young WWI soldier wants to take HER upstairs, but actually he wants a room for himself and his teenage girlfriend who has run away from her parents.More spoilers.
Fast forward.
Girlfriend goes home.
Girlfriend's father comes looking for soldier who stole away his daughter.
Dad wants to beat the living stuffing out of soldier.
All of a sudden, kerblam.
Gunshot.
Soldier has gun in his hand, and the father is succumbed on the floor.Girlfriend had given Irene name of soldier.
Irene realizes it is her long lost baby son.
She tells police she did the deed, and that the soldier got away.Courtroom scene.
Irene has confessed to the crime, to protect her son.
Judge figures out the connection.
Soldier is in the room, and he realizes Irene is his long lost mother, about whom he was told by creepy grandpa that she was no good.
Grandpa, Irene's pop in law, is also in room, and cringes/realizes that she was the young woman married to his son against his wishes.Judge says Irene is innocent.
Next scene, Irene visits soldier in jail.
He didn't get capital punishment or a very long sentence; apparently, the verdict was self-defense, manslaughter or something like that.
He only gets around two years.Irene baked him a chocolate cake, but wasn't allowed to bring it into the jail.
Her son loves chocolate cake..
Dunne shines in mother son tearjerker..
Displaying the saddest (brown?) eyes in film Irene Dunne soldiers her way through one setback after the next in The Secret of Madame Blanche.
Dealing with three generations of an upper crust family Dunne finds all kinds of ways to sing the blues over a twenty year period.Silver spoon playboy Lenny St. John falls hard for showgirl Sally (Dunne) and in no time they are hitched.
Dad Aubrey (Lionel Atwell) will have none of it and he browbeats sonny to end it who does so in the most extreme fashion by committing suicide.
Aubrey, distraught by the realization that his money will be orphaned with no one to carry on his name has a detective shadow the pregnant Sally who after giving birth to a boy, sings for a living in a Paris pick-up joint.
Aubrey abducts the child after slandering her and pulling some strings to get full custody.
Years pass when her soldier son turns up at her bar makes a scene and gets involved in a murder.
Madame Blanche in turn selflessly takes the fall instead.On stage Dunne is more Chevalier than Mistinquette but when she deals with the family St. John she delivers powerfully in scene after scene as well as age convincingly.
Atwell as old man Aubrey also registers powerfully with an intractable condescending cruelty.
As Sally's son Holmes Philips chips in commendably as well playing at first a loutish dough boy before moving on to some tender moments with Dunne.Taking place between fin de siècle and World War One the film is both sharply costumed (Adrian) and set designed (Cedric Gibbons) providing a lush look and background for Dunne's tragic Sally in this well mounted if at times far fetched tearjerker. |
tt5463338 | Bastion | Set in a dark, dystopian world of the near future, the Cold War never ended and instead has seen the other side gain the upper hand. The British Prime Minister (John Alcock) addresses the nation as the newly formed CSR (Coalition of Socialist Republics), headed by the USSR and the People’s Republic of China is tipped to initiate military action into Western Europe and Central America. Tensions are high as the United Nations has crumbled as the League of Nations before it, and NATO is powerless against a greatly superior force.
London is now unrecognisable; the British Security Forces have turned the capital into a virtual prison with armed officers patrolling the ground and security drones and cameras watching from the sky, a city where privacy is a thing of the past and suspicion is everywhere. This is everyday life for David (Leo Taylor-Jannati), a lowly government office worker, whose position is trusted, but his paranoia increases with whispers of Russian infiltration of the Government. His pregnant wife, Abigail (Victoria Slinger), a pretty young school teacher has a particular passion for classical literature, such as George Orwell's Animal Farm, which is banned under the Government's crack down over Communist ideology, a worrying development that has not gone unnoticed by David. Their emotional separation has been growing rapidly since the discovery of Abigail’s pregnancy and it shows no signs of slowing.
David, already unnerved by society changing rapidly, witnesses a protester attempting to gain access to his heavily guarded Homeland Security Offices, seeing first hand the extreme tactics of the British Security Forces. But his day goes from bad to worse when he accidentally overhears office clerks discussing Russian spies and Government counter measures. Everyone is under suspicion. His mind flashes with doubts and fears, Abigail, is he under suspicion? Is he being watched? He has already decided what has to be done, but with a chance encounter with an advertisement for Taverstone Butter, a product made in a quiet village in the North of England, his mind is made up.
But in David’s head, he is already under surveillance. David rushes home to tell Abigail about overhearing the classified conversation but she refuses to listen, and refuses the idea of getting away from London. David’s paranoia deepens when he learns of the arrest of office clerks from the previous day. Convinced he is next, David drives to Abigail’s school to convince her that leaving London is the best course of action. His judgement is further clouded by meeting a fellow teacher at the school, William (Peter Adams), noticing a connection between him and Abigail. Driving out into the night, David and Abigail take a detour, heading out of London. But they begin to loose their nerve at a security checkpoint, arousing suspicion. Whilst the guards are distracted by another irate driver, David crashes through the checkpoint and out of the city.
Arriving in the small picturesque hamlet of Taverstone, David and Abigail head to the village public house to look for a room but find themselves confronted by the villagers and the hostile landlord, Chris (Andrew Swift). Luckily they find an ally in the Taverstone Dairy’s Tour Guide, Lawrence (John Michael Lowe). The divide between the couple resurfaces when haunted by a vision of her child in the woods surrounding the village, Abigail expresses a desire to return to London, clashing with David who wishes remain in Taverstone. Lawrence guides the couple to Taverstone Hall where a village meeting has been called to discuss the new arrivals. Chris expresses resentment at their presence at the meeting and an argument breaks out between him and Lawrence, cementing the idea in Abigail’s mind that they can’t stay in Taverstone.
David is collected from the public house by Lord Taverstone’s silent man servant, Gordon (Craig Carr) and taken to a lone statue for a meeting with the village leader, Lord Alistair Taverstone (Keith Flood). Lord Taverstone explains that the village operates independently from the State, with the Government preoccupied with centres of industry, the capital and the brewing conflict overseas, but expresses awareness of a foreign spy in the village and, using David’s place as a newcomer to the society, plans to root out the wrong doer with his help. With a firm reason now to stay in the village, David readily accepts.
As much as David integrates into village life, Abigail equally keeps away from the others, much to the villager’s suspicions. As their relationship deteriorates, Abigail continues to experience visions and turns on her husband, even attempting to leave the village alone. After an argument with Abigail, David unwittingly stumbles across the darker side of the village when he witnesses the violent expulsion of Lawrence by the villagers, lead by Chris. Suspected of being a spy, Lawrence is brutally beaten before being murdered in the wood. With Lord Taverstone mysteriously having left the village on secret business, leaving David in charge, leading to another and very public confrontation with Chris in the pub. Blinded by his new power, David seemingly forgets the horrors be witnessed in the woods and works on gaining the trust of the other villagers. The discovery of a copy of the Communist Manifesto in their bedroom, sets David’s suspicions firmly on his wife.
Upon Lord Taverstone’s return, and his revelation he is an agent of Her Majesty’s Government working to preserve British values, David is more confident than ever with his position of trust in the village. Lord Taverstone rubbishes the suspicions on Abigail, claiming the spy is one of the villagers. After confronting her over the Communist Manifesto, Abigail and David end their marriage, just as David is called to Taverstone Hall. During another meeting, David witnesses Abigail flee the village, rather than be confronted by the villagers. But they instantly find themselves in a far more deadly confrontation as the Prime Minister is assassinated live on television and the CSR’s invasion of Great Britain begins. Chris uses the opportunity for one more confrontation with David, resulting in a fist fight between the two. During the confusion, the spy reveals themselves and shoots Lord Taverstone. Chris and David race out into the night after the spy, but seizing his opportunity for ultimate power, David murders Chris in cold blood.
After the fall of London, David takes control of the village as they bury Lord Taverstone. But his reign doesn’t last long as the CSR forces begin to close in. | psychological | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0220627 | Maelström | The story is told by a fish (with the voice of Pierre Lebeau). In Quebec during the autumn of 1999, twenty-five-year-old Bibiane Champagne (Marie-Josée Croze), head of three clothing boutiques, is being crushed by the expectations put on her for being the daughter of a celebrity, Flo Fabert. She resorts to drugs and alcohol in an effort to cope, while trying in vain to keep her problems from her brother Philippe (Bobby Beshro) and a persistent magazine reporter (Marie-France Lambert). The early scenes of the film show her friends supporting her through her first abortion and her inability to function in her job.
One night, Bibiane fatally wounds a 53-year-old fishmonger, Annstein Karson, in a hit and run accident. Wracked by guilt, and wanting to erase the evidence, she drives her car into the river. She survives, and interprets her survival as a sign that she deserves to recover her life. The fishmonger's son Evian, a diver who was recently inspecting Manicouagan River, encounters Bibiane by surprise and she quickly poses as his late father's neighbour. Evian falls in love with her, and Bibiane confesses eventually that she is his father's killer.
She later helps him sort through Annstein's possessions, and in the final scene, Bibiane accompanies Evian to Lofoten to dispose of the ashes. | psychedelic, romantic | train | wikipedia | There are opening scenes to movies, and then there's Maelstrom!
The tale is simple, easy to follow, but I won't give it away - the unusual coincidences and twists in this film should be experienced fresh.
However, the course of the story brings the viewer various emotions; frustration and disdain at a young woman engaging in questionable activities (not to mention the crime that she goes relatively unpunished for), humour in foreign situations (a heavy car, fisherman versions of justice), and finally happiness (but I won't say how).
Which gives the film a quirkiness that's refreshing, given the sometimes dark and depressing subject matter.
Maelstrom is a unique blend of happenstance, a touch of magical realism and a cautionary tale wrapped in the stunning cinematography Andre Turpin.
The irony is this scene is handled deftly and tastefully by Director Denis Villeneuve.
This is a well crafted film whose visual elements carry the tale, (a lesson M.
Here is a tale as grave and dark, and yet as lovely, as Grimm's original plots used to be, with however, a very personal imagery and contemporary twist.
Fishes being cut in pieces by a fisherman tell this story about a young upper class women's life going from bad to worse.
Then, as the story turns, with odds only reality itself could invent, witty dialogs and situations light up the tale into a true bliss.
The whole movie is thoughtful, questioning to the viewer and articulate in its very own way..
Simply put, it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen.
Too often directors forget that film is meant to be a VISUAL medium, and bludgeon their audience with a 10 minute scene of actors blathering at each other.
An intelligent treatment of the human condition, a wry sense of humour, great acting performances, and an excellent visual style make Denis Villeneuve a director to keep track of, and this film a joy to watch..
The film opens with a large, visibly injured, and obviously fake fish talking directly to the audience.
The talking fish says that his life in nearly over, and he would like to tell a "pretty" story with his last breaths.
This is obviously not going to be your normal film.The woman is named Bibiane (Marie-Josée Croze), and she turns out to be the main character.
Not long into the film she is removed from her position in the family business, a chain of upscale clothing stores, by her brother (although at first I thought he was her estranged or ex-husband).Most reviews or plot summaries go into more detail about events that occur in the middle and end of the film, but I'll keep it to that.
I would classify the film as primarily a drama, since the laughs are mostly at surprising events rather than strictly funny ones, and because the film kept me feeling slightly uncomfortable throughout.Marie-Josée Croze is very good here.
The story and the direction, both by Denis Villeneuve, on the other hand, are somewhat suspect.
Now this could just be a mechanism to get you to think, and in the wake of Memento (which came out at about the same time as this film) one is becoming used to the idea of the film structure mirroring the main character's thought processes.
I'm not sure I completely buy this argument, but I'll give it a little leeway.This film won the best picture, direction, cinematography, screenplay, and actress awards in Canada at their equivalent of the Academy Awards, but it is only just now getting to the United States, where it is expected to play for a very short time.
Hypnotic, good story, but a little slow in places.
This is a somewhat 'arthouse' film with lots of symbolic metaphors intertwined into the story.
The story itself is not bad, it is focused around one main character and manages to sustain the interest of the viewer through some clever turns.
The filming, the imagery, are extremely well done at times, managing to convey perfectly a sense of isolation/dissociation.
Some scenes could have been put, like the fish in this movie, on the chopping block.
This is not a movie for the squeamish or for folks who need to understand everything...and frankly, I didn't see the point to one part of it...what the heck was that fish all about?
The movie would have been better with no narration, let alone narration from something horrible and divorced from reality.But there are a lot of great moments.
Dennis Villenueve's Maelstrom is filled with multiple levels of water imagery: a fish as narrator, a suicide attempt in a river, the main character falling in love with a frogman, and scenes of repeated cleansing by water.
Winner of five major Genie awards in 2001, Maelstrom is a playfully alive but dramatically intense look at the life a pleasure-seeking 25-year old boutique executive of (Marie Josee Croze) who runs into an emotional storm following an abortion and a fatal accident that she does not report.
Like many who exist solely for their own pleasure, she manages to avoid responsibility but ends up having to deal with the results and becomes transformed in the process.Pierre Lebeau narrates the film in a heavy voice as a fish awaiting decapitation.
The fish tells the story of Bibi and we first meet her at a medical clinic undergoing an abortion.
She is fired for incompetence by her brother and, after drinking heavily, is involved in a hit and run accident in which a Norwegian fish industry worker is killed.
Spiraling downward, she attempts suicide but survives and falls in love with the dead man's son Evian (Jean-Nicholas Verreault) after attending the father's funeral.
Maelstrom does not sound much like a romantic comedy but it is full of off-the-wall humor and suffers from an overabundance of cleverness.
The film does not progress in linear fashion and there are several shifts of time and perspective to keep the viewer on edge.
Philosophical, surreal, absurd, symbolic, all with a creative touch similar to Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Amelie, Maelstrom tells us that the secret of life is
to be continued..
After an abortion (pro-life activists beware!), Bibi runs down an old man while driving drunk.
Marie-Josée Croze is excellent in her role.
The film starts promisingly, with the fish head narrator, but descends so quickly into arty pretentiousness that any goodwill is quickly squandered.
I'd seen "Possible Worlds" a few weekends before, and it was truly an excellent movie, no cliches...
It was a cross between a bad French comedy and a pretentious artsy movie.
True, it was sometimes funny, and sometimes powerful - but it just seemed like a bunch of references scattered on screen, with music, imagery and pause used not to built the story, but to shock through being "unexpected" and "French artsy".But it was worth seeing.
French-Canadian movies have a feeling of Nordic melancholy that can turn to the good or the bad.
One of the best french-canadian movie of this year.
Remarkable big screen debut by Jean-Nicholas Verreault and Croze in leading roles.
Unusual surprize movie at Toronto Film Festival 2000.
Life as told from a fish's mouth makes this psycho-drama rich with visual delight.
The lead actress, Marie-Josée Croze, is perfect in her role, I wouldn't want it any other way.
This is one of those films I wish I could have been creatively involved in in any way because just being a part of it is a special thing.
It reminded me a lot of Kieslowski's Blue, and also a little bit of Red, in the character interaction, the cinematography, the use of colors, and just the overall mood.
Perhaps my least favorite part of the entire movie comes at the ending on the boat, only because the song being played does not fit the mood at all, and changed my outlook entirely.
MAELSTROM labored far too hard be unconventional, yet Denis Villeneuve(director) did demonstrate the possibility for a very interesting film.
Guilt due to an abortion which is exacerbated by a hit and run incident communicates a compelling narrative, but why introduce...a talking fish???
MAELSTROM had a fine cast, but the script failed to blend the ham-fisted element of 'the fishy fable' with the story's inherent dramatic subject matter, and in the end, the film aborted.
The closest thing to a "Perfect Movie" I have ever seen.
Maelstrom is a beautiful film told in a unique way.
The director uses the unlikely narrator of a fish (with it's head perpetually about to/being cut off) telling the story of a beautiful woman who's life is a complete wreck.
Denis Villeneuve's weakest movie.a movie trying to display about sin and redemption.like all other 'guilty spoiled female protagonist' movies, she transformed into a new person.and then the funniest thing.our revenge seeking hero (who realized his enemy is a woman instead of a man) fall in love with her, have sex with her and that's the end of the film..
I expected much better after watching Prisoners from Villeneuve.
After watching the excellent movie "Prisoners" from 2013 from director Denis Villeneuve I decide to look up what else he made for movies.
Prisoners was exceptionally good so I thought his other work would be of the same level but with Maelström I am a bit disappointed.
The cast of Maelström is good, nothing bad at all to say about the actors.
Marie-Josée Croze gives a good performance, playing the woman that has big issues in her life.
The narrating voice from the fish played by Pierre Lebeau works perfectly well in the story.
I could understand Pierre Lebeau and Marie-Josée Croze very well but Jean-Nicolas Verreault and his accent from Quebec I couldn't understand a word of his mumbling.
Anyways, it doesn't matter to the story or movie, because I could just read the English subtitles, but Maelström is just an average movie to me..
Denis Villeneuve film I saw years ago.
Denis Villeneuve's sophomore effort may not be as rewarding as his later features and is unrefined in many aspects too but it is a bizarre piece of work that tackles the themes of guilt, grief, regret & atonement in its own wicked manner but what makes it worthy of a sit is the brilliant performance from its leading lady.Maelström tells the story of a young, depressed & alcoholic woman who is having a hard time living up to the expectations of being a celeb's daughter.
Yet to recover from an unexpected pregnancy that led her to have an abortion, she finds herself in another mess after being involved in a hit-n- run accident while drunk driving.Written & directed by Denis Villeneuve, the story is narrated by a fish awaiting decapitation on a butcher's block and that opening moment when the fish starts talking nearly made me turn it off because what the f*ck.
Fishes do play a symbolic role here but Villeneuve could've done without the voice-over because it adds nothing to the plot.The director's attempts to make it funny hits the right spot only on few occasions while falling flat other times.
How the story unfolds carries an experimental feel and camera is finely utilised from start to finish.
Other than the protagonist, there aren't any interesting characters in it but Marie- Josée Croze plays her part sincerely and her performance is this film's highlight.On an overall scale, Maelström inclines a little more towards the art-house section but it has plenty of moments that will keep the mainstream viewers around as well.
An early effort from the then-budding filmmaker trying to carve his own distinct style, Maelström is frustrating at times but it may still amuse some..
If you have read any summary for this film, either given by this site or other reviewers, then there you have it: you've seen the movie.
Do not waste your time on this mess, you can thank me by renting a better movie like Abre Los Ojos or Magnolia..
The ultimate fish story.
"Maelstrom" is all about Bibi (Croze) who has an abortion and then, traumatized and suffering pangs of guilt, she proceeds to perpetrate a series of felonies.
So goes the plot of this amateurish film which is narrated by a fish.
The upside of this subtitled French-Canadian film is good work by Croze and cast.
I saw this film at Sundance and it was the best film I saw there by far.Marie-Josée Croze is a French-speaking long-lost sexy little sister of Maura Tierney (for all you casting directors out there).
The first scene of the movie is likely to shock 95% of viewers, but if they can get past it this twisted caper is not only worth seeing at the theater/theatre/cinema, but a good candidate for DVD collections.
memorable Denis Villeneuve vision.
A creepy fish being chopped up by a bloody butcher tells the story of 25 year old Bibiane Champagne (Marie-Josée Croze).
She is struggling in her life and then kills fishmonger Annstein Karson in a hit and run accident.
She encounters Annstein's son Evian at the funeral home and pretends to be Annstein's neighbor.On the good side, the surrealism is memorable.
*** 1/2 Quirky Canadian Film.
There's not much you can say about a movie narrated by a bloody, dying fish.
Quirky and wry, this French-Canadian film tells the story of a young woman who is not having the best week: she's suffering with guilt over the abortion she's just had, her career as a boutique-chain owner is threatening to flush down the toilet, and she's just run over an innocent pedestrian with her car without stopping to see if he was alright.
The story tries for poignancy, but as it takes half the film's running time just to figure out what it's all about it fails to really make its mark.
What you are left with, though, is gorgeous cinematography of Montreal locations and an excellent lead performance by Marie-Josee Croze.
If you dislike fish, you had best not watch this film for it is decidedly fishy from beginning to end.
Let it be said, this film is never dull.Misfortune they say never comes singly as Bibiane ( Marie-Josee Croze) soon discovers.
In the depths of despair through most of the film, she finally falls in love with the son of the fisherman she accidentally kills.
But then there are many surprises in this film.
But there is an interesting twist to this later in the film.
Indeed the film is all twists and turns and convolutions together with lots of fish and fishy smells and water everywhere.
But after all this is a story taking place in Norway.If imagination is a measure of quality, this film is it!
Maelstrom is obviously a film with a unique vision, told by a dying fish.
We have an abortion, which will enrage some of the audience, but playing Good Morning Starshine next as she leaves sets a humourous, ironic tone.
Much of this tone prevails; while I was expecting something darker like Incendies, a colourful, unique tone runs throughout Maelstrom.
After learning she accidentally kills a man with a vehicle, she confides in a stranger who tells her what's done is done; later, the son of the man falls in love with her, and in a quirk of fate, he confides in the same stranger who tells her what's done is done.
This time the poor girl is Bibiane Champagne (Marie-Josée Croze), she's supposed to be daughter of some very important figure.
After a rough night at some club, while driving home with quite an excess of alcohol in her blood, half awake half asleep, she hits a fishmonger.
Few days later, the fishmonger she had hit before was found dead at home.
This whole story is brought to you by the strangest means: the mouth of a huge and heinous fish, in a table waiting to have its head cut.
Dennis uses a lot of bright colours, especially white and blue to contrast with the old and dragged voice of the dying fish.
Made in Québec, Maelström tells the story of Bibiane Champagne, a young entrepreneur stuck in a downward spiral leading to a suicide attempt and redemption through a relationship with a man whose father she hit and killed while drunk driving.Denis Villeneuve's film opens with his lead character undergoing an abortion.
We then see Bibiane giving a phone call in the elevator declaring: "It's settled." Showing up at work, she is fired by her business partner, her own brother, for bad management that cost the clothing company $200 000.
On her way home, she hits an old fishmonger crossing the street and drives on, leaving him half-conscious on the road.
The young woman survives and gets another chance at life.
When Bibiane goes to the funeral home where her victim's ashes are, she meets the fishmonger's son Evian and pretends to be a neighbour.
Love is kindled and Bibiane finally admits she is the murderer, asking Evian to kill her.
Evian is torn, but chooses to forgive her and allows Bibiane to find grace.Put into context, this is a surprising film.
We see Bibiane numerous times in the shower trying to get clean, but only reconciliation through the son leads her to freedom..
Maelstrom (2000): Dir: Denis Villeneuve / Cast: Marie-Josee Croze, Jean-Nicholas Verreault, Stephanie Morgenstern, John Dunn-Hill / Voice: Pierre Lebeau: Dark comic drama that is predictable but stylish.
The heroine's state of mind is in a whirlpool of burden due to alcohol and guilt after she hits someone while driving and doesn't realize it until the following day.
Narrated by a fish that is about to be slaughtered, the heroine too feels within the same state as she runs her car off a bridge.
Brilliantly shot with fable-like narrative style with director Denis Villeneuve with great use of dark humour.
Pierre Lebeau is the voice of the narrator fish whose fate is sealed and who has time for this last tale. |
tt0098625 | We're No Angels | Three convicts – Joseph, Albert and Jules – escape from prison on Devil's Island just before Christmas and arrive at a nearby French colonial town. They go to a store managed by the Ducotel family, the only one to give supplies on credit. While there, they notice its roof is leaking, and offer to fix it. They do not actually intend to, but decide to remain there until nightfall, when they will steal clothes and supplies and escape on a ship waiting in the harbor. As they wait, they find that the small family of Felix, Amelie, and daughter Isabelle, is in financial distress and offer their services to hide the trio's all-too-sinister ruse. Joseph even gets to work conning people and falsifying records to make the store prosperous. However, the three felons begin to have a change of heart after they fix a delicious Christmas dinner for the Ducotels made mostly of stolen items.
Tensions heighten after store owner Andre Trochard arrives from Paris with his nephew Paul, the light in Isabelle's eye. The Trochards plan on taking over the store, which they perceive is unprofitable due to its use of credit. It turns out that Paul is betrothed to another woman, to Isabelle's dismay. Before any action can be taken, both men are bitten by Albert's pet viper, Adolphe, and die nearly instantly. Isabelle finds another love, and the family is happy as the convicts finally ready for their postponed escape. However, while waiting on the docks for their boat to arrive, the threesome reconsiders. Judging that the outside world is likely to be worse than that of the prison, they decide to turn themselves back in. As they walk toward it at film's end halos appear over their heads...followed by one above the cage of Adolphe. | comedy | train | wikipedia | The acting is perfect for this script, DeNiro and Penn are so funny and also serious when is needed.
For the people of our days a comedy is something like Scary Movie or a movie that makes you laugh every minute because of something stupid.
But "We're No Angels" is funny, is romantic, is serious, is educative, is simply GREAT MOVIE.
With practically no resemblance to the 1955 Humphrey Bogart movie (nor to the play it was adapted from), film-buffs might find themselves perplexed as how to take this remake: two convicts escape prison and find themselves in a border town disguised as priests.
Demi Moore, as a single mother of ill repute, gives one of her best performances here and works very well with Robert De Niro, while Sean Penn takes a while to get warmed up (and his thick accent is mildly irritating).
Reilly has a fantastic supporting bit as a novice priest who worships Penn, and there's a cute little girl in the movie who never acts like a movie kid (she's a natural).
Simple, yet funny film, good acting.
We're No Angels,First-Viewing, owned VHS,(Neil Jordan)- Robert DeNiro, Sean Penn, Demi Moore, John C.
DeNiro and Penn play escaped convicts who disguise themselves in a small town.
Although DeNiro is great, and in certain scenes definitely shows his superiority as an actor, Penn overall gives the better performance.
One of Demi Moore's best (yet small) roles (I'm not a big fan of hers.) Great script (Mamet).
In the same way that '21 Grams' works a fairly serious portrayal of a crisis of faith into a tense melodramatic thriller, 'We're No Angels' actually masks some serious thoughtfulness about the importance of faith and hope into a decently funny comedy of mistaken identity.
A pleasant comedy with fine acting and an occasionally laugh-out-loud script by David Mamet.
It's far more serious and moralistic than I had ever imagined, and Robert De Niro and Sean Penn essentially run around posing funny faces for the camera throughout, whilst the Catholic religion is used as a structural backdrop.
This time the loser is equal to a pair of two escaped convicts and the teacher position is likewise that of priests.The story all begins with Ned (De Niro) and Jimmy (Penn) escaping from a northern jail circa 1930.
Luckily for the duo, right before they come to the Canadian border, they are mistaken for two long-lost Catholic priests, Fathers Brown (Penn) and O'Reilly (De Niro).
So you can imagine the fear that Jimmy experiences when he is asked to lead the church in a pray prior to a meal.Meanwhile, the mandatory romance is inserted into the movie, using Demi Moore's single, rough, over-protective mother as the love angle for De Niro's character.
But I figured De Niro and Penn couldn't be that bad, and I was right.I think part of the reason so many people like to ignore it is that it doesn't poke fun at religion.
The spirituality affects Penn's character, Jimmy, and his final decision on the bridge that separates Canada from America is one that we have sensed was long coming since his fascination in the church grew.De Niro and Penn have two of the best faces in Hollywood, and a movie like "We're No Angels" uses this to its advantage.
Most of the time throughout the film, De Niro shrugs his shoulders a lot and emits low, agreeable groans from his throat in response to questions, while Penn looks confused and bewildered.
Reilly) asks "Father Brown" something about his book, and Penn sort of stares at him for a few moments with searching eyes, trying to find a way out of the situation.
This movie really got me thinking about how short life is and how we should spend it the best way possible, which Sean Penn did at the end of the movie, which is to love and serve God..
I admire the story, first; I admire wonderful text and phrases and use to quote them; but, what is the most important about this movie, it's really an example of GOOD, nice and gentle, Christian humor.
I loved the atmosphere of the movie, and the characters, and again and again, this gentle humor, so you can laugh and think about belief things...
I always look for the beginning choices of an actor,Demi Moore stays constant in her choice of roles(outsider),Sean Penn with his usual dichotomy of hard guy/softie and De Niro himself but with a twist of humour.I enjoyed the epoch and the guilt and penitance idea of choices we make in life.I just liked the film and I could see a few times Demi Moore trying to keep a straight face which made me laugh..
We're No Angels (1989) *** (out of 4) Remake of the 1955 film has Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn playing escaped convicts who hide out as priests in a small town where they try to sneak across the border into Canada.
Most of the reviews you read for this film will probably be negative but I've always enjoyed what the movie has to offer even though there's no way of denying that it could have and should have been a lot better than it turned out.
Demi Moore has a supporting role, which brings in more darkness that really isn't needed but Bruno Kirby and John C.
You really don't expect to see DeNiro and Penn in a movie like this but they both pull it off very well and make it worth viewing..
In all respects; casting, acting, direction, production and screen writing, We're No Angels is one of the best movies I have ever seen.
I was on the edge of my seat, hoping that Penn and DeNiro make-good their escape to Canada, while at the same time, noticing the relaxed, comfortable overall feel of the movie.
His totally-failed attempts at acting "priest-like" are hilarious, especially as he trades barbs with Demi Moore's irate character.Bruno Kirby is wonderful.
At the end of the movie, we are rewarded for our faith in DeNiro's and Penn's characters, for they risk all for a child they have been entrusted with.
"We're No Angels" is a movie made for those faces, and one of the pleasures of watching the film is to see them looking sidelong at each other as they try to figure a way out of the complicated mess they're in.
The movie has a lot of other good stuff to look at (including dramatic period locations in a small Canadian town) and to listen to (dialogue by David Mamet), but I can think of no other recent movie in which so much of the pleasure lies in watching the expressions on the faces of the actors - especially when they're reacting, not talking.
Mamet and Neil Jordan, who directed the movie, wisely remember the most important thing about any mistaken- identity comedy: The fact that someone's identity is mistaken is not always funny even the first time and rarely thereafter.
Movies that depend on mistaken identities for their laughs are among the slowest, dreariest slogs through cinema.Too bad that the film came out to be both simplistic and ordinary despite of the talent involved especially when it features De Niro and Penn,two of the best actors in Hollywood; and Jordan,one of the finest director of the industry.There were a lot of boring moments.Also,it just turned out to be somewhat corny and provides minimal laughter in a lot of scenes.Overall,it was definitely a misfire from the cast and the director involved as it does not live up to its potential.Overall rating: 6 out of 10..
Take DeNiro's unhumorous mawkish clown faces, Penn's tongue-in-cheek, insincere innocence, and add Demi Moore's heart-rending desperation, and you end up with two hours it would be more pleasant to spend in the Dentist's chair.
If I didn't know better I would say that DeNiro and Penn were deliberately doing bad acting.
Neither is Sean Penn who at the time was better known as a B movie actor who was previously married to Madonna and who liked to punch journalists who took his photo without asking .
The only two performances I can describe as bad are Demi Moore who`s even more unconvincing here than she usually is because she`s playing a character that requires acting , and veteran Irish award winning actor Ray McNally who is playing a sadistic caricture of a prison warder .
Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, David Mamet, and Neil Jordan combine their considerable talents to produce this sorry little mess of a film.
While the plot has terrific potential to be a good comedy, very little actually works here.
Sean Penn is little better, using a wide-eyed, lost-little-boy expression throughout the film in an attempt to convey his character's wise-simpleton persona.
I'm not sure if it is just because it hasn't aged well but seriously I have never been so disappointed in a movie choice from Robert De Niro or Sean Penn until this moment.
I thought I was in for an old-time laugh out loud comedy but not so; I didn't laugh once through the entire thing.It looks like from the other comments that the only people who enjoyed this movie have some sort of religious affiliation or belief.
This movie is shocking: it drains a huge amount of talent (Moore, Penn!, De Niro!!) in a stale non-story.Moore acts as a single, prostetuting herself to make some money for her ill child.
Although the decision to take part in this film must have given her the proper mindset, one is left with the impression that Demi got stuck in her first attempt.Penn is a bit like Stan, but only a bit.De Niro seems to have thought that making faces and funny gestures should be enough for a comedy; it isn't.Why do people participate in a film like this?
Mr Penn gives a good Stan Laurel-like performance and Mr de Niro keeps on amazing me.
Nice bit of film, a treat on the eyes and nostalgic to see John C Riely and Demi Moore as young actors whom played respectable roles..
I really interested by watching it, it is a very good movie..
Penn's Performance seemed sound from what i could see through my red mist and basically saved the film, he also resisted from picking up this head bobbing method under immense pressure to do so, I wasn't so lucky for three days i couldn't keep it still.
I watched this movie dubbed on TV in Turkey some two years ago and was shocked to see De Niro and Penn in this rubbish.
But it's natural and acceptable that people like Penn and De Niro sometimes need bull**it.
I can't believe DeNiro and Penn made this movie.
You'd think actors of their caliber might have managed to save this film, but DeNiro, especially, sunk it.
Terrible film that has two of the greatest actors of our time (Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn) acting like idiots as they escape prison and pose as two Catholic priests to hide away from the authorities.
I mean no criticism by that - it is a very good film that is marred by some terrible choices that feel to me like they should be blamed on production/direction, not the material, cast or setting.It could have been great.
- If you can just imagine Robert De Niro and Sean Penn (with matching hairdos, no less) being totally confined to have to work with a lame script and having to ultimately play a couple of really lunk-headed convicts on the run, then I think you get a fairly clear picture of what this film's got to offer when it comes to entertainment value.Set in the 1930s - Ned and Jim (2 of the most idiotic convicts you're ever gonna meet) inadvertently get the chance to escape from prison, and then find that once on the outside their only saving grace is to pose as priests visiting a monastery near the Canadian border.De Niro, who also served as Executive Producer for this goofy misfire, mugs his way through the story like you've never seen him mug before.We're No Angels also stars Demi Moore, who plays Molly, a piece of white-trash with a heart of gold (natch), who helps our 2 dimwits out of a fix and also provides the sappy love-interest for convict Jim.Personally, I think that there should be some kinda law protecting viewers from comedy as bad as this one.
Got this DVD as a birthday gift and watched it.It is like "Heaven Help Us" in the sense that the nuances of the religion really are key to the comedic effect best portrayed by a look or a line that is subtle.Sure it could be better but depending on Budget and schedules not every movie can be Titanic, Longest Day, Gone with the wind,etc.If you like Deniro, or Penn...you'll like it.If you are from a Catholic or parochial upbringing you will like it.I'm not Siskel or Ebert; but I liked it.Close to the Canadien border and being set as other than the height of summer I'm surprised there we're ANY daylight scenes.
There is a little girl in the Movie who sort of steals the show,A Demi Moore that supports this plot as it builds and Sean Penn makes you believe the ending.If on TV or available for rental; watch this movie for a relaxed comedy..
Ned (Robert DeNiro), Jim (Sean Penn), Molly (Demi Moore), and her daughter.
Obviously, the daughter being able to speak and the affect on Molly (Regaining her faith) was most important, but also how Jim was chosen to give a Sermon, and as he said it was the first time he "Ever won anything." This led him down a path that God had planned for him, which is learning how to become a Priest, and influence others in his new identity as "Father Brown." Ned, gains the least of the four (Although getting Demi Moore is not bad), but his role is the most important because he is the one who jumps in and tries to save the little girl and the presence of the statute of the Virgin Mary saves both of them.
Sadly, said lines are a quote from the film, and not anything anyone has actually ever said about this comedy.With a regular run of comedic roles in the 90s it seemed as if De Niro was taking a dramatic shift away from his regular persona.
But even Laurel and Hardy couldn't string an amusing feature-length picture out of two escaped convicts (as the less than great Pardon Us would attest) so De Niro and Penn are on a hiding to nothing.We're No Angels is well acted, well directed and pretty well written.
Honestly, this film was funny as ****, seriously Robert De Niro and Sean Penn were just brilliant together.
I liked how this was a different story because I never even heard of any films about convicts pretending to be priests.
Never in ages did i have a film giving me laughing pills, it was just unbelievable!I had an idea that Demi Moore was involved in this but I never knew straight away that the woman asking for her deaf child to heal directly to the convicts was actually her!
I generally like De Niro, and generally like Penn, so had high hopes for this comedy of sorts.
Really beautiful scenery.Robert De Niro is Ned and Sean Penn is Jim, they manage an escape from prison and head for the Canadian border.
Had De Niro acted like he should have, he would have blown away Moore in their scenes.
Again I found it hard to believe he and Demi were "getting it on" It was more amusing to me to see Kirby and De Niro in the same scene and envisioned them from way back in The Godfather:Part 2(1974) as Young Corleone and young Clemenza.The late Ray McNally, who by the way this film is dedicated to in memory, did a great small role as the warden.
So all in all these bit character actors made the film better than the main stars!
DeNiro and Penn do great work together, having very good chemistry with one another, and it took a risk by going over the line, but managed to keep it amusing and fun.
It moves along at a decent clip, with an extremely good opening of Bobby|Russo|, Ned|DeNiro| and Jim|Penn| escaping from prison, it was funny and very exciting.
I laughed at the way he got annoyed with Demi Moore's character, or his silly little prayers to get out of trouble, he was a lot of fun.
James Russo is amusing as Bobby, he had good chemistry with Deniro and Penn.Bottom line.
We're No Angels is a comedy that features Robert De Niro and Sean Penn together with Demi Moore,Bruno Kirby,Ray McAnally and James Russo.It tells the story of a couple of 1930's Great Depression-era convicts,Ned and Jim, that were able to escape prison and the death penalty via electric chair that was imposed on them.Both settle on a small upstate New York town near the Canadian border when both disguised themselves as a priests that were expected to arrive at a local monastery.A lot of comedic events happen afterwards especially when they were welcomed by Father Levesque and got involved with the deaf-mute daughter of Molly, a local laundress and prostitute.Neil Jordan directed this remake of the 1955 film of Humphrey Bogart with the same title.Too bad that the film came out to be both simplistic and ordinary despite of the talent involved especially when it features De Niro and Penn,two of the best actors in Hollywood; and Jordan,one of the finest director of the industry.There were a lot of boring moments.Also,it just turned out to be somewhat corny and provides minimal laughter in a lot of scenes.Overall,it was definitely a misfire from the cast and the director involved as it does not live up to its potential. |
tt2337576 | Scooby-Doo! WrestleMania Mystery | Scooby-Doo and Shaggy win an all-expenses-paid stay at WWE City to watch WrestleMania after beating the hardest level of the organization's latest video game. At the insistence of the duo, Fred, Daphne, and Velma agree to join them on the trip to WWE City. Upon their arrival, the Mystery Machine crashes on a ditch after Fred narrowly avoids a crossing raccoon. The gang meets John Cena, his trainer Cookie, and Cookie's nephew, Ruben, before Cena lifts the Mystery Machine back on the road. They also encounter Bayard, a hunter who despises WWE for building their city in his forest. Cena gives the gang VIP tickets to the next event to make up for their altercation with Bayard.
At the show, Mr. McMahon unveils the WWE Championship belt, which has been held vacant since Kane's last match was overturned. The title is up for grabs over the weekend at WrestleMania. The gang is then offered a tour of WWE's training camp before arriving at their cabins. Later that night, Daphne and Velma overhear Ruben arguing with Cookie over not becoming a WWE wrestler because of Cookie's leg injury. Meanwhile, Scooby has a dream about wrestling giant food monsters when Shaggy wakes him up and they both encounter a monster called the Ghost Bear before running for their lives. The WWE wrestlers intervene during the chase, but Triple H and Brodus Clay are overpowered by the monster, which disappears after throwing Sin Cara's hot rod toward a water tower. The next morning, the gang is briefed by WWE executive Ms. Richards that the city has been terrorized by bear attacks over the past few weeks. Mr. McMahon asks the gang to solve the Ghost Bear mystery to ensure the security of the WWE belt. Cena and Sin Cara explain to the gang that the legend of the Ghost Bear started over 100 years ago with a wrestling bear named Vicious, who was defeated by Sin Cara's great-great-great grandfather Sin Cara Grande at the grounds that would be WWE City. Furious over its loss, Vicious vented its frustration on the town until Sin Cara Grande warded it off to a cave at the cost of a career-ending leg injury. It is believed by Sin Cara that the spirit of the bear has been stirred by WrestleMania.
Next morning, the gang is notified by Ms. Richards that the WWE belt has been stolen, and Scooby is arrested after being caught with it around his waist, with security footage showing him caught in the act. Velma, however, proves Scooby's innocence by showing that he was in a deep state of hypnosis when he stole the belt. Ruben then deduces that the WWE video game contains light flashes that implanted post-hypnotic suggestions to Scooby's brain. Mr. McMahon offers Scooby and Shaggy a chance at freedom if they defeat Kane at WrestleMania. The duo receive a crash course training from Cookie and AJ Lee. That night, the gang and Cena wander along the forest until they reach the bear cave. Inside, they discover a room with books on hypnotism, schematics of an EMP device, and a calendar indicating that the culprit plans to target WrestleMania. Suddenly, the Ghost Bear appears and chases the gang through a storm drain. They escape after Cena slams the Ghost Bear away from them before realizing that the storm drain is directly underneath WWE City. After the gang gives Ms. Richards details on their encounter with the Ghost Bear, Cookie advises that WrestleMania should be cancelled, much to Ms. Richards' disapproval. Fred suggests that the gang uses WrestleMania to nab the Ghost Bear.
During the main event, Velma deduces that the WWE belt is the EMP device. After the gang discovers that the belt is a fake and the EMP device is set to go off in 30 seconds, Cena tries to get rid of it, but it activates and shuts off the underground power generator. When the Ghost Bear appears and wreaks havoc all over the arena, the WWE wrestlers ignite green pyrotechnics to light up the stage while Scooby uses his dance moves to throw Kane off guard. The Ghost Bear arrives at ringside, but is confronted by Ruben in his wrestling attire before both combatants are launched into the ring by a floor catapult. The ring is then enclosed inside a steel cage before Cena, Sin Cara, Kane, and Ruben pin down the monster for Scooby to land a belly bomb off the top rope, leveling the ring in the process. The Ghost Bear is revealed to be Cookie, who resented WWE due to his injury ending his career too soon and plotted the perfect crime to steal the title belt using Scooby as a pawn and tarnish the organization's reputation. As Cookie is taken away by the police and Ms. Richards (who is now displeased that she was wrong about Scooby stealing the belt), Mr. McMahon offers Ruben a spot on the WWE roster before awarding the WWE belt to Scooby and Shaggy. | horror | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0167116 | Desert Saints | Arthur Banks (Kiefer Sutherland) is an Ivy League-educated hitman for Latin American drug cartels who picks up solitary women, uses them as cover for a hit, then kills them. His trademark is a bullet with a tungsten core. Over the years, he has become wary of the FBI's attempts to catch him, including by use of satellite and security cameras, which leads him to mostly stay in rural desert areas when not working. The FBI team is spearheaded by Agent George Scanlon (Jamey Sheridan), who lost five years of his career when Banks killed a witness he was guarding 15 years ago while leaving no evidence behind. In a desperation sting, Scanlon plants Agent Bennie Harper (Melora Walters), portraying a drifter, in Banks' path, and Banks picks her up for what he says will be his last job, a hit on a Mexican presidential candidate. Scanlon and Agent Donna Marbury (Leslie Stefanson), along with several support agents, follow Banks and Harper through the Southwest, but the scheme goes wrong when one of the tailing agents is spotted and caught by Banks.
Thinking quickly, the agent pretends to be Harper's jealous and abusive ex-husband, but this plan goes awry when Banks, who seems more interested in Harper than normal, kills the agent out of Harper's sight and then disposes of the body in a manner not witnessed by Harper (incineration), leaving the FBI once again with no evidence to arrest him. That night, Banks and Harper become lovers at a remote motel. Scanlon decides to cancel the sting after the agent's death and to withdraw Harper, but Harper talks him out of it, pointing out that Banks is their only lead to his employers in the drug cartels. On the road, Banks confides to Harper that he hates his job but hasn't had a chance to get out of it for years until now.
In Mexico, Harper double-crosses both Banks and the FBI, first shooting Banks to stop him from committing the assassination and handcuffing him to the balcony, but then killing the thugs who hired him and taking their key for the payoff from the hit. She tells Banks that she expects the FBI will be so happy to catch and question him that she'll depart with the payoff without much problem, which is why she leaves him alive. However, by the time Scanlon responds to her call on Banks' location, he has escaped. Meanwhile, the FBI agents follow Agent Marbury's sighting of a fleeing Harper to the local airport, only to lose her there, because the "sighting" was actually Marbury herself in a disguise, which she sheds in a washroom, permitting Harper's undetected escape.
In the last scene, Harper and Marbury meet in the desert and kiss, while discussing their new wealth. In the distant brush, we see Banks' boots and bloody hand, unnoticed by the two women. After the screen goes black, we hear a single shot. | violence, neo noir, philosophical | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0465339 | Madlax | The first half of the series alternates between the two leads. Madlax is one of the most efficient special ops agents for hire in the war-torn Gazth-Sonika, while Margaret Burton is a sleepy, clumsy amnesiac living in Nafrece, a country styled after France. When a "picture book", presumably given to Margaret by her late father, attracts the attention of international criminal network Enfant, she discovers that the origins of the book lie in Gazth-Sonika. Enfant's top operative, Carrossea Doon, tracks Margaret down but tips off his superiors in the wrong direction, towards Madlax, who has been causing Enfant trouble for some time. Meanwhile, Vanessa Rene, Margaret's former tutor whose parents died because of Gazth-Sonikan war, discovers that her current employer, Bookwald Industries, covertly supports the war by supplying both sides with firearms and starts investigating its true cause. Her investigation brings her to Gazth-Sonika, where Madlax is hired as her bodyguard, and together, they uncover data that proves that Enfant orchestrated the entire conflict. Enfant eventually intercepts them and they are forced into hiding. Back in Nafrece, Margaret decides to help Vanessa and travels to Gazth-Sonika, accompanied by her devoted and sometimes overprotective maid Elenore Baker and Carrossea Doon.
Eventually, Madlax and Margaret meet and embark on a search for Quanzitta Marison, a Gazth-Sonikan mystic who supposedly knows about Margaret's book, Enfant's involvement with it, and Enfant itself. Lady Quanzitta does indeed tell them about Enfant and its plans to plunge the entire world into a total war, starting with Gazth-Sonika. She reveals that Enfant's leader Friday Monday possesses supernatural powers connected to the three ancient books, one of which belongs to Margaret. Margaret uses her own supernatural abilities and that of her book to return her lost memories. Carrossea, who has been aiding Margaret, requests that his memories be restored as well despite warnings not to do so; he discovers that he, in fact, died 12 years ago and held on to life only by sheer force of will to protect Margaret. Carrossea disappears, and Margaret is captured by Monday who intends to use her abilities to advance his own plans.
While Margaret and Carrossea perform the ritual, Madlax is attacked by Limelda Jorg, a Gazth-Sonikan sniper who holds a grudge against Madlax ever since she failed to stop an assassination by Madlax earlier in the show. Limelda kills Vanessa while targeting Madlax, sending the latter into clinical depression. Elenore and Lady Quanzitta's servant Nakhl manage to restore Madlax's will to live and persuade her to save Margaret, and the three storm Enfant's headquarters together. During the assault, Elenore is killed and Margaret, now under Monday's control, shoots Madlax. Believing her to be dead, Monday commences a ritual to unleash people's inhibitions and trigger worldwide anarchy; but Margaret's memories return and she snaps out of his mind control. Only now does the audience learn the back-story: back in 1999, Monday drove Margaret's father insane with his powers and she was forced to kill her own father. To escape the horrible truth of her patricide, Margaret split herself into three personae: the "memory keeper" Laetitia, the sinful Madlax, and the innocent Margaret herself. Margaret then fuses her three personae back together to undo the ritual she previously performed with Monday, saving the world from insanity. Madlax, who should no longer exist after the fusion, appears and guns down Monday. It becomes apparent that Margaret has once again split herself into three, judging that after twelve years, she no longer has the right to make decisions for her other personae. | paranormal, brainwashing, romantic | train | wikipedia | An excellent piece of Japanese animation.
These last year Japan has been producing really few nice material, from 24 minutes propaganda of toys and cars to blackmail oriented themes (just for adults), it was nothing really good to see, even sagas like Gundam were suffering a "pussification" (come on guys, Kira, Athrun, Lacus.
etc were freaking disappointing characters).
Well, Madlax make us forgive the past, particularly in the design of the storyline and the graphics.
I wont tell you the synopsis of the series, you can find it in the web, however, I want to remark the strong symbolism about this anime (just like Noir, another masterpiece of Bee Train), which bring us interesting messages about our world, our human nature , and about the eternal conflict between civilization and barbarism, at first time perhaps you couldn't see this but believe me, thinking a little about every part of the story will make as reflect about the universe and about us (just like all the good stories), of course Madlax isn't a moral tale, so don't worry, you will see urban fights, sniper missions, war battles, and freaking skirmishes.
The characters are wonderful done, making excellent combinations of textures and colors without abuse of the computer generated image, it looks like Bee Train is definitely one of the best studios of Japan, in fact they have already created Noir, Hack Sign and Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicles (which unfortunately results in a Today's combo of the Clamp arsenal, of course I can't denied graphics were really nice).
Another thing i want to recognize of this production is it's music, Yuki Kajiura, the composer behind the tracks of the blonde agent anime bring us a unique style of exotic and delightful sounds, I enjoy particularly the use of the violin in Nowhere (track commonly used in the action scenes), the opening and the ending are wonderful too, holding the high artistic and synchronized level.
Finally I only have to say Madlax is an excellent choice to see something new in our clone based TV options even if you are not a anime fan the experience will be enjoyable..
Pretty good anime.
Really liked Madlax, she's like Vast the Stompade but in more rather serious tone.
Man, some girls with guns anime like this one does bring the hype up to make it a good anime to watch!
One of the Best Anime Out There!.
This is the best of the best!
A wonderful masterpiece!
Probably the best TV series I've ever seen.
It's just freakin' awesome!
It has a fantastic storyline and awesome characters, especially the main character Madlax.
(She is sooooo hot!) The animation and artwork were gorgeous, and the story was very original and very well-written.
It kept me at the edge of my seat from start to finish.
The action scenes were also stunning.
The English dubs were near perfect!
The voice actors did a fantastic job and their voices fit the characters very well.
Nancy Novotny as Madlax and Vic Mignogna as Carrossea Doon were perfect choices.***Spoilers*** Elenore Baker refusing to shoot the soldier as she pointed the gun at his head was an awesome scene.
It showed how important Margaret was to her.
She's a true character.
I was surprised how many characters died in this show.
Elenore, Vanessa, Carrossea, and many others who were a main part of the storyline all died.
Even though it was tragic, it made the story even better.
I was glad that Madlax didn't disappear.
I would've hated the series if she reunited with Margaret and just vanished.
I loved the ending, how Margaret wished for Madlax and Laetitia to remain in the existing world as an individual.
It was much better than a satisfying conclusion.
***Spoilers End***I have to say that this is one of the best anime out there, a true masterpiece, so don't miss out.
I definitely recommend this title for any of those who are fans of complex story lines, twists and turns, and mysteries!.
The Most intriguing Mystery I have Ever Seen!.
This show is so freaking awesome!
It's got action, a bit of romance, and the best part of all mystery.
It's from Director Koichi Mashimo, who brought us NOIR, and .hack//SIGN.
In the beginning I only saw a few episodes, and I was impressed, and excited for the next episode.
And now, I own the entire series on DVD and it was well worth it for each waitFantastic story.
Smart well written, It's a mix of warfare, the occult, romance, drama, mystery and so much more.
Also shows some interesting view points about the chaos of war, and how capitalism is involved, yet with out getting on a soap box and preaching.
And surprisingly it's very much a talkie.
I love how they have the guts to do a talkie.
It proves to me, they are less concerned with success, and more with a good story.
Sure talkies can get a little slow, but hey Vol. 3 is a real nail biter.
episodes 9-12 Whew!
Intense.
And Volume 5 is when we see the giant jig-saw puzzle starting to come together.
Truly an excellent screenplay.
I also love the characters.
Margert, although off, she's really adorable.
She's cute, lovable, slow, just this strange girl, you have no idea about.
And Elenore, is a wonderful character too.
The way she is so protective, and loyal to Margeret makes her the not a-typical house maid.
It was great to see a character that didn't fall to the common stereotype of maids.Fantastic Direction from Koichi Mashimo.
He always does fine work, plus Bee Train's Animation is spectacular.
And the most key element for me, music.
From the esteemed composer of .hack//SIGN and NOIR, Yuki Kajiura has some beautiful, and haunting melodies.
I even heard re-arranged parts from the song "A Stray Child" (.hack//SIGN) and I heard a modified version of "Aura." I love when composers reincorporate their themes and melodies.
Her opening theme is spectacular, and her ending theme is great.
And there is this really cool piece that sounds like a waltz.
And the song "Nowhere" which is featured when MADLAX get's gun crazy, is such a fun song to listen to.
All her music is so darn excellent.
Great Vocing too.
Dubbed by ADV Films, no repetitious VA's and VAC's, all fresh voicing.
And from what I've been told the Amercian VA's match very well to their Japanese counter parts.
How many times do you see that happen?
It may not always be the best idea, but it did.
As much as I love ADV actress Hilary Hagg, I don't think she would have been fitting in any of these roles.
So they have a really nice voice cast.************SPOILER DANGER************* ***SCROLL DOWN PAST THE END Spoiler MARK IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO READ***And the ending was shocking, intense and sad.
Elenore and Vanessa both killed, what the doll really was, how and why Margert lost her memories.
And Elenore, classy and dignified character to the end, always marinating her dignity, always willing to protect Margaret.
Especially as she held the gun to that soldiers head and refused to shoot!
That is true character!** ** ***********************END Spoiler******************So do I recommend this Anime?
You bet, if you love Action, pretty girls, adventure, mystery, and a beautiful original score, MADLAX is for you!
Excellent, truly excellent.
The most amazing and intriguing mystery I have seen..
Great "girls with guns" anime.
Having enjoyed Noir I decided to watch the second series in the "girls and guns" trilogy even though it sounded fairly similar from the description I read.
While the two series do look outwardly similar there are are plenty of differences.
The two leading ladies; Madlax and Margaret Burton do not meet until late in the series even though it is clear that they are some how linked by something that happened twelve years previously.This series had plenty of great characters, as well as the two protagonists we have Elenore, Margaret's faithful maid, Vanessa Rene a friend of Margaret's who hires Madlax when she goes to the wore torn nation of Gazth-Sonika, Limelda Jorg, a sniper who is hunting Madlax and Carrossea Doon a suspicious man who is after a book that Margaret possesses.
As well as having many more primary characters the series is less episodic; the main plot starts early on and continues until the end...
an ending which I would never have guessed.
The series has a sense of danger and not all of the characters survive till the end.I liked to look of the characters and the animation was of a high standard making the action scenes genuinely exciting.
Even though some of the action is not realistic it is easier to accept in an animation than it would have been in a live action story.
I'd certainly recommend this to anybody who enjoyed Noir or action anime in general.These comments are based on watching the series in Japanese with English subtitles. |
tt0024747 | Waltzes from Vienna | Waltzes from Vienna begins the sound of the fire brigade horn and the clip-clop of horses’ hooves, as the firemen race towards a fire at Ebezeder’s Café. Upstairs from the café, Resi and Schani are oblivious to the danger, lost in a love duet that concludes with Schani telling Resi that he has dedicated his newest song to her. At the same time, Schani’s music attracts the attention of the Countess Helga von Stahl, who is shopping in the dressmaker’s store next door. Schani and Resi’s romantic interlude is interrupted by Leopold, a baker in Resi’s father's café who is in love with Resi, as he awkwardly climbs up the ladder to save her. Schani and Leopold argue over who will save Resi from the fire, but Leopold eventually wins and hauls Resi over his shoulder and down the ladder, causing her to lose her skirt on the way. Resi races to the dressmaker’s shop to get away from the laughter of the onlookers. Schani retrieves Resi’s skirt and then stumbles into the dressmaker’s in search of Resi, where he meets the Countess. When the Countess learns that Schani is an aspiring musician, she proposes that he set some of her verses to music. As the Countess offers Schani her card, Resi enters the room and becomes immediately suspicious of the Countess’s intentions.
With the romantic triangle set up, the next scene sets up the conflict between Schani and his father. At orchestra rehearsal, in which Schani plays second violin under his father’s baton, Schani gets himself in trouble when he insults his father’s music to his stand partner. The elder Strauss overhears and demands that Schani perform one of his own compositions for the members of the orchestra. Strauss Sr. then ridicules his son’s waltz and tells him he could never have a career as a composer, inciting Schani to quit the orchestra.
Excited by his newfound freedom and the commission from the Countess, Schani visits Resi at her father’s bakery to tell her his news. Resi initially berates Schani and informs him that, if he wants to marry her, he will have to give up music and take over the bakery. However, when she reads the Countess’s lyrics, she is drawn into the music, singing the opening of The Blue Danube waltz to Schani. Their moment of composition is interrupted when Resi’s father arrives to give Schani a tour of the bakery. As Schani and Ebezeder walk into the basement, a memorable and unusual scene of musical composition begins. While Schani looks around, the tune that Resi sang begins to evolve. Two men throwing bread back and forth inspire the second phrase of the melody; a man tossing croissants into a box creates the offbeat rhythm of the waltz. The rhythm of the dough mixing machine provides Schani with the second main theme of the first waltz. As he tells the begrudging Leopold to go faster, this second theme turns into the beginning of the second large section of piece, at which point Schani runs upstairs, exclaiming to Resi that he has finished the composition. He then rushes off to tell the Countess that he has composed the perfect waltz to accompany her verses.
The next scene opens with Schani playing the final measures of the waltz to the Countess. After he finishes, she kisses him and then apologizes profusely, explaining that she was overwhelmed by his wonderful music. Schani then plays the second section of the waltz while her hand rests possessively on his shoulder, which, through a dissolve, becomes Resi’s hand. After thanking Resi for coming up with the phrase, Schani agrees to dedicate the song to her. As the scene fades away, the page with Schani’s dedication to Resi flips up to reveal another page with the same title, but dedicated to the Countess.
The duplicitous dedication is discovered when Resi hears Schani and the Countess playing the waltz for the publisher, Anton Drexler. Schani runs after Resi to explain and they reconcile only when Schani tells her that he will give up his music to work in the bakery. However, Schani is clearly miserable in his new job and he fights with Resi when he receives an invitation from the Countess to attend St. Stephen’s Festival. Resi tells Schani that, if he attends, it will mean the end of their relationship. Meanwhile, the Countess plots a ruse that will cause Strauss Sr. to be late for the festival so that Schani can take his father's place to conduct his new waltz.
As Schani conducts The Blue Danube at the festival, all of the film’s conflicts come to a climax. The Countess detains the elder Strauss by asking the dancers at the festival to play to his ego, requesting that he play his waltzes over and over for their pleasure in a back room. Strauss Sr. finally arrives to find that his son has taken his place, performing for an enthusiastic audience. Meanwhile, Resi laments that Schani betrayed her by coming to the festival at the Countess’s command.
Following the performance, the elder Strauss angrily tells his son that he had not authorized the performance, as the Countess had led him to believe. Schani leaves the festival in confusion and the Countess follows him home where they share another kiss. However, the romantic moment is interrupted by the Count, who, upon learning where the Countess had gone, left the party in a rage. Fortunately, Resi arrives in time to sneak in the back and replace the Countess, who then walks back up the front stairs to surprise her husband, as the crowd outside hums The Blue Danube Waltz. | romantic | train | wikipedia | This is a fairly entertaining pre-War cheaply made British musical comedy which sadly fails in a number of ways: it was the 3rd film with Jessie Matthews and Edmund Gwenn, and definitely the least satisfying of them; it was Hitchcock directing a non-thriller with his heart not in it; Hitchcock and Matthews didn't get on, and it showed in his screen treatment of her - Britain's top singing and dancing star at the time; and a ridiculously fictitious plot.
Hitch thought it was the worst film he'd ever made and Jessie thought it was "perfectly dreadful".It was an adaptation of a London musical stage play which apparently ran for over a year: Johann Strauss II played by Esmond Knight wants to be a composer like his father, I (Gwenn), who is arrogantly dismissive of his talents throughout.
On the other hand, Hitchcock seemed to be mining the One Hour With You stylistic vein a lot of the time albeit in a cheaper but still pleasant British way, there were some nice sets and of course there was Louis Levy's orchestrations for The Blue Danube to admire when it arrived.
The less said about how II was supposed to have composed it here, the better!It's a pleasant enough 76 minutes for someone like me who isn't a Hitchcock completist, but probably will be a real chore if you are..
Other than the fact it doesn't seem like a Hitchcock movie, it's a nice little story about the younger Strauss struggling for the respect of his father with a nice bit of romance and jealousy thrown in on the side.
The most amusing scene for me was when the younger Strauss was coming up with the music for his waltz at the bakery.
The stars are Jessie Matthews as Rasi, the daughter of a confectioner, Esmond Knight as Strauss Jr., and Edmun Gwenn as Strauss Sr. Also notable are Fay Compton as the countess, Frank Vosper as the count, and Robert Hale as the confectioner.What makes this film notable is that the director is Alfred Hitchcock.
Thus begins the triangle.Almost as a subplot, we get the adversarial relationship between the father and son since the film really focuses on the "love story." Although Hitchcock always thought this film his worst, there is much to enjoy.
Gwenn, for all his billing, gets less screen time than Matthews, Knight, and even Fay Compton..
Strauss's Great Waltz will go down as your most atypical Alfred Hitchcock film.
The Hitchcock stamp is definitely not on this one.But it is the only musical in his career so you would think something better would have come from it, especially since he had the United Kingdom's number one musical star at the time Jessie Matthews.
Her singing and dancing talents may have been left on the cutting room floor.The story was covered far better in MGM's high gloss film, The Great Waltz.
Young Johann Strauss, Jr. is considered by his father to be the least promising of his offspring and the senior Strauss Edmund Gwenn ridicules his efforts at composing at every opportunity.
Young Strauss who is Esmond Knight in this film has even gone to work in a bakery, in real life Strauss wanted his son to be a banker.Countess Fay Compton however encourages Knight's genius and we all know what happened after that.The musical with book and lyrics by Guy Bolton had a nice run on the London Stage.
Disagree with Hitchcock, Waltzes from Vienna is not his worst film.
The music sparkles with beauty and energy throughout, while Edmund Gwenn gives a great performance, Jessie Matthews is charming enough and there's also the Blue Danube scene which is by far the highlight of the film.
The comedy scenes are rather forced and are played too broadly, while the story has a little charm but can be a little dull and silly, with some underdeveloped characters and relationships- that of Johann and Rasi is rather un-engaging- and sub-plots that serve little point and the script is on the talky side.
Overall, one of Hitchcock's weakest but not his worst like he considered it to be, of the films of his personally seen there are at least 6 or 7 that are worse.
Strauss' Great Waltz meanders through a story about the inspiration behind The Blue Danube.
'Waltzes from Vienna' is Alfred Hitchcock's only musical and he directed this because he didn't have any other projects to choose from, and by that time he was still under the contract with British International Pictures.
The film is probably most notable of the use of combining the editing with the flow and rhythm of the music.Sweet little movie which proves that masterful director can turn quite shallow script into somewhat enjoyable entertainment..
Young composer Esmond Knight (as Johann "Schani" Strauss) goes to work in a bakery.
Their relationship must survive interfering father Edmund Gwenn (as Johann Strauss) and tempting older woman Fay Compton (as Helga von Stahl).
Watching the bakers toss rolls, as well as mix batter, inspires Mr. Knight to write "Strauss' Great Waltz" (the US title of this film).
The British cast and director Alfred Hitchcock have reputations greater than this dull affair.*** Waltzes from Vienna (3/34) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Esmond Knight, Jessie Matthews, Edmund Gwenn, Fay Compton.
After watching almost every Hitchcock film I have to agree with old Hitch himself it was his worst.
While Alfred Hitchcock did tell Francois Truffaut this film was "the lowest ebb" of his career, evidence on screen suggests nothing so dramatic.
Two words come to mind here, neither what you associate with Hitchcock: "pleasant" and "inconsequential."In 19th century Vienna, young Schani (Esmond Knight) dreams of a composing career.
Unfortunately, his father Johann Strauss (Edmund Gwenn) is already Vienna's most successful composer and doggedly committed not to be superseded by his son.
Can a crafty countess (Fay Compton) with amorous designs and a knack for lyrics help Schani break through?"My father's a great man, you know, but great men are very peculiar," Schani says."Like all great men, he has a peculiar dislike of hearing youth knocking at the door," the countess replies.Alternately titled "Waltzes From Vienna" or "Strauss' Great Waltz," this was based on a musical stage production, "the great London Alhambra success" as we are informed in the opening titles.
After agreeing to adapt the musical, Hitchcock decided to take nearly all the songs out, leaving his film's singing star, Jessie Matthews as Schani's sweetheart, with little to do but bat her eyes and look hurt.
The conflict is likewise labored, with Gwenn glowering enviously in nearly every scene he is in.Hitchcock enthusiasts point out, correctly, that "Waltzes From Vienna" is an important step in the evolution of his cinematic style.
As a director, he became quite the composer, and so naturally, making a film about a composer can't but anticipate some of that development.But when the principal act of musical composition we see on screen involves Schani watching rolls being tossed in a bakery, it's hard to take matters seriously.
Vosper had no confusion what kind of film he was making; Hitchcock seems less sure, and here is one time ambiguity was not his friend..
Hitchcock may have been unhappy whilst making the film, and dismayed at the finished product, but in all fairness it is nowhere near as bad as its reputation suggests.Johann Strauss Jr (Esmond Knight), or Schani as he calls himself, is a fairly talented young musician living under the immense shadow of his father, Johann Strauss Sr (Edmund Gwenn).
Schani spends much of his time teaching his sweetheart Rasi (Jessie Matthews) to play the piano, and writing tunes which he dedicates to her.
One day, he is approached by the wealthy Countess Helga Von Stahl (Fay Compton) who wants him to compose a waltz to go with some lyrics she has written.
In the end, Schani almost accidentally produces the Blue Danube waltz
a piece of music so spine-tingling, so perfect, that it becomes an instant sensation, much to the chagrin of his father.There are stories of Hitchcock unleashing his frustration upon his actors during the production, often bullying them and forcing them to work unthinkable hours to get the film completed on time and on budget.
Knight and Matthews are a little wooden as the lovestruck leads, but Gwenn is simply fantastic as the domineering Strauss Sr and Compton delivers a memorable turn as the designing Countess.
Perhaps Hitchcock's main beef with this film is that it is a soft, light-hearted romance with some features of a musical.
A Great Musical Film by Hitchcock.
I love the scenes where Esmond Knight develops his music by watching workers arrange the bread and other food."Fear" is one of the major elements in a Hitchcock film.
In this film, we see the fear of being ignored, fear of failure, fear of losing someone you love." Edmund Gwenn was brilliant as Johann Strauss Sr. We can really see his fear through his actions and emotions.
Perhaps even a back number." This is mentioned before Young Strauss plays his music in front of his father and other composers in the middle of the film.
Like Gwenn's character Johann Strauss Sr, Hitchcock did think about his future years as a filmmaker.
Jessie Matthews (Rasi) fears that she may lose Young Strauss to Countess Helga (Fay Compton).
Even though Hitchcock wasn't really interested in this project, still he put a great deal of effort into this film through the script and the direction.Like I mentioned before, another thing I love about this film is the personal elements applied by Hitchcock.
For Example, the scene where Rasi's father comes and talks to Rasi about Johann Strauss Jr (Esmond Knight).
He hasn't his heart in it." This is like Hitchcock saying "I am not interested in making musicals.
But she cunningly used the idea of providing a successful music career to Strauss Jr. so that she could eliminate the love relationship between Strauss Jr. and Rasi.
When Rasi tries to leave Strauss Jr. in the middle of the film, Strauss Jr. comes to her and tells her that he loves her and he sacrifices his whole music career for her by becoming a baker.
It must be noted that Strauss Jr. becomes a successful music career "mainly" because of Rasi.
It was Rasi who gives the "music tune" of success to Strauss Jr. Not Countess Helga.
Despite all the conflicts, the deep romantic feelings they (Strauss Jr. and Rasi) have for each other brings them back together in the end.I liked performances especially from Jessie Matthews, Esmond Knight, and Edmund Gwenn.
Esmond Knight {Johann Strauss Jr} was only adequate in the role and Jessie Matthews' singing ability was very much under-utilised, as was the opportunity to use more of the entertaining music of the Strauss family.
What makes the film worth watching is the great performance of Edmund Gwenn as the angry, jealous and dark Johann Strauss Sr. Fittingly, he has the last word in the film when he finally relents and signs his name for a young autograph hunter.
All-in-all, it's a film that makes no real demands but is worth having as an example of a very unusual sortie into the genre of the romantic musical by Hitchcock.
Although it contains none of the Hitch touches we had come to expect from his silent and early sound career (unusual camera angles and editing tricks), and is the least Hitchcockian of any of his films, it is an assured and confident directorial effort.It is fun to compare this to MGM's THE GREAT WALTZ of four years later.
We have the same concocted group of characters: young Strauss, his bake shop fiancé, Rasi, and a countess, forming a love triangle.
WALTZES centers around the composition of ON THE BEAUTIFUL BLUE DANUBE, while MGM's film centers around the creation of TALES OF THE VIENNA WOODS.Although Jessie Matthews (who is facially reminiscent of Ida Lupino, also a rising UK star of the era), is lovely as Rasi, she is no match for Luise Rainer in the MGM version.
Esmond Knight in WALTZES is equally forgettable as Fernand Gravet in the MGM film as Strauss Jr. Edmund Gwenn is fine as the intolerant patriarch.Hitch directs as if he were Ernst Lubitsch, whose elegant and humorous hand with lavish films in 19th century European Graustarkian settings dominated the early 1930s.
Note that Korngold was one of the adapters of the Strauss music for the film.The print I viewed, which was in impeccable condition, timed at 1:16:40.To sum up, this is a lovely confection and lots of fun.
Perhaps Alfred Hitchcock wasn't the right choice for this first film version of the story of composter Johan Strauss, played here by the handsome but bland Esmond Knight.
Edmund Gwenn gives the best performance as Johann Strauss the Elder but he's barely in the film.
And by 'musical numbers' I mean Esmond Knight playing the piano or being inspired to write "The Blue Danube" thanks to some bakers throwing some bread rolls around.
I don't know how historically accurate Alfred Hitchcock's 1934 operetta biopic "Waltzes from Vienna" is, but the hypothesis that Johann Strauss' "Blue Danube" might never have existed because of a juvenile romance with the baker's daughter, adds a delightful little twist to its already iconic dimension.
Indeed, it is like imagining that Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to paint a beautiful woman but she couldn't make it, so he picked Mona Lisa, sometimes, historical events come close to never exist, and if you have a hard time imagining what our universal musical heritage might have been had Johann Strauss traded his piano for a baker's hat, imagine what history might have been had Hitler been accepted in that Painting School.Still, when the film starts, we know "The Blue Danube" will exist and will become the most universally known Waltz tune, immortalized by cartoons and by a certain movie directed by Stanley Kubrick, as to convey the poetic symbiosis between the space vessel, a man's creation, and the universe, waltzing in sheer harmony.
And the most entertaining aspect of "Waltzes from Vienna" is to tell the genesis of this iconic melody, regardless of historical accuracy, when reality becomes legend, print the legend.So, Johann Strauss (Esmond Knight) tries to make a name for himself, a twice difficult task because his name also belongs to his father (Edmund Gwenn) who's one of the greatest composers of Vienna, famous for the "Lorelei" and the "Radetzky March", and because the paternal aura inevitably overshadows the son, and affect his self-confidence.
Junior has no more confidence in his talent, and his romance with the lovely but directive, Rasi (Jessie Matthews) doesn't help.
So even though Strauss can't equal his father's stature, in the worst case, he'll marry a beautiful woman, so much for self-motivation.So a kick from fate was much needed and it finally came with Countess Helga Von Stahl (Fay Compton) who asks him to compose a melody out of a poem she dedicated to the Danube.
From this point, there's a funny vaudeville aspect in that love triangle whose only 'tragic' aspect lies on the way it threatens the existence of a masterpiece to come, that and many other factors like Strauss Sr.' reluctance to play for such pointless lyrics, the Countess' husband jealousy (the film's comic-relief), and even Strauss is his own enemy, thinking of giving up if the price to pay is Rasi' love.
In a way, the film questions the notion of ambition and the misguiding effect of love but I might give more credit to the film than needed to, it's less a character study than the fun and enjoyable chronicles of the making of a music, and I don't think it tries to do more than that.Hitchcock himself considered it as one of the lowest points of his career and It's true there are some bits of overacting and under-acting, and the lead protagonist doesn't strike for his charisma, but it didn't bother me because the real star of the film is "The Blue Danube", and the movie is never as exciting as when you see the things that made its creation possible.
"The Blue Danube" is the film's central piece and we only get little bits of this much loved melody, never completely sung or hummed, not until the climax finally features the whole thing and that's the emotional pay-off we all waited for.And since cinema is a world of images, 'show and tell' you know, the ending was the perfect way to conclude Johann Strauss' journey without any words.
So you see, "Waltzes from Vienna" might belong to Hitch' period as British Gaumont contract-director and not be consider as part of his canon (it was his last musical film) but it can be seen as an enchanting interlude before serious things start with his next-project "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and not the least, in terms of music's use.
In fact it is probably beneficial that an unromantic like Hitchcock filmed it, for in the hands of another it might have become too sappy, but as it stands, Hitchcock appears to know which moments are the cheesiest, and never lingers on them.Strauss Jnr. is an aspiring classical musician, and son of a renowned one, Strauss Snr. He is in love with a bakers daughter Resi, yet tempted by the Countess, who has connections which would help him become famous.
I'm not sure if "The Blue Danube" bakery composure was intended as humour or not, I guess so, but either way it was great interplay between sound and image, which seems to be what Hitchcock most took out of this film.
It's in a fire, caused in a bakery, owned by Jessie Mathews father,played by Robert Hale,I think, that his works are being discovered by fay Compton as the countess, that she tries to help him to become famous.This causes jealousy with Mathews and pressures him to give up his career for her and works in a bakery. |
tt0065501 | A Bullet for Pretty Boy | Oklahoma farmer Charles Floyd marries Ruby. At the reception, some goons insult Ruby and Charles attacks them. This results in Floyd's father and one of the goons being killed. Floyd is convicted of the crime and sent to work on the chain gang.
Several years later Floyd escapes from prison and takes refuge in a brothel run by Beryl, where prostitute Betty falls for him. Beryl's brother Wallace wants Betty for himself and starts to hate Floyd, giving him the nickname "Pretty Boy".
The brothel is a hangout for Ned Short and his gang of bank robbers. Floyd joins them and becomes a full-fledged criminal.
Floyd returns to Oklahoma to see his wife. They still love each other but she can't be with him because he is now a bank robber.
He then goes on a crime spree with another member of the gang, an old friend called Preacher. Pretty Boy Floyd is eventually killed. | neo noir, suspenseful, depressing, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0113443 | It's My Party | It's My Party chronicles a two-day party hosted by Nick Stark (Eric Roberts) a gay architect who, having been diagnosed with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, will fall into a state of mental lapse lasting for months until his death. He decides to host a party for his family and friends, at the end of which he will commit suicide by taking Seconal.
"You won't leave me, will you?" Nick asks his estranged lover, Brandon Theis (Gregory Harrison) a B movie director, shortly after revealing to him the results of his last blood test for HIV. "I don't want to die alone." In spite of Brandon's protestations, the two soon find the love they had shared for many years in ruins. One year after their breakup, Nick is confronted with a ravaged immune system and a CT Scan and lab values which, along with his worsening forgetfulness, clinches the diagnosis of Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) -- a condition he has seen claim his friends and one which he vows will not take him. Due to the aggressive nature of the disease, he has only a few days of conscious life remaining. His plan, he announces to family and "extended family," is to voluntarily end his life himself before the disease renders him unrecognizable to those he loves and he, in turn, is unable to recognize them. Uninvited to the farewell party, Brandon's presence is greeted with jeers from those who see him as having abandoned Nick in his time of greatest need. | queer | train | wikipedia | ..well, almost.For me, the emotions start pouring over me when I empathize with all of Nick's loving friends, including his former lover Brandon, who are somewhat supportive of his decision, yet really not ready to let him go quite yet.As someone else mentioned, the wink that Nick gives Brandon, signalling his forgiveness of Brandon for his selfishness and lack of understanding, just does me in.
From that moment on, and up until the end, the tears keep running down my face.By the way, what a great cast for such a moving film!
Eric Roberts and Gregory Harrison are exceptional, and they get great support from Lee Grant, Bronson Pinchot, Margaret Cho, Erich Segal, the late Roddy McDowell, and the rest.I think I'll watch this DVD whenever I'm feelig cynical and weary of the events taking place in this world of bigotry, hatred and war.
Eric Roberts gives an all out performance as a gay male who decides to end his own life after he realizes he is losing his battle against AIDS.
Brandon Theis (Gregory Harrison) and Nick Stark (Eric Roberts) have been lovers for years.
There's a huge cast in this movie--Margaret Cho (hilarious); Marlee Matlin (wasted); Olivia Newton-John (just great); Bronson Pinchot (overdoing the bitchiness a bit); Bruce Davison; Roddy McDowall.
This one was very touching and I found myself rooting for the characters to work things out.I would totally recommend this movie for anyone looking to see something a little out of the ordinary..
Please keep your Kleenex close!I think the part where my eyes started getting watery was when Brandon(Gregory Harrison) and Nick (Eric Roberts) kissed.
This was a terrific movie, there wasn't a dull moment, a lot of flashbacks were shown of the relationship Brandon and Nick shared and I think everyone can relate to that it is never easy to lose someone you love especially to death, but it also shows a side of reality that we all have to go sometime and we might as well make the most of life.
Gregory was great as Brandon, the emotions of seeing his loved one die slowly and yet still being strong about it for his sake even sitting by his bedside when he dies I think we all want that, to at least have a person by our side so we don't die alone..
I also found the situation believable based on the type of character played by Eric Roberts...the farewell party seemed to fit his personality.
Dealing with everything from relationships to parents to unfortunately, death, this movie is the best written, directed and casted movies i have seen in a very long time..
Excellent and touching drama about a man who has AIDS and finds out he has not that much longer to live, decided to throw a farewell party for himself and invites his family and friends.
Eric Roberts as Nick who is dying of AIDS, Lee Grant as his mother, Maragret Cho as a best friend, Olivia Newton John as a best friend, and Gregory Harrison as Nick's ex.
I think that Eric Roberts, Gregory Harrison, and Lee Grant derserved an oscar nomination for this movie.
IT'S MY PARTY Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: DTSIn the last few days before an AIDS-related brain tumor renders him insensible, a young LA designer (Eric Roberts) decides to end his own life, and throws a final joyous bash for family and loved ones.
However, the occasion is strained by the arrival of Roberts' former lover (Gregory Harrison), seeking reconciliation at the eleventh hour...Randal Kleiser's powerful film - inspired by actual events - feels more like a reunion of showbiz friends than a structured narrative, though the results are often deeply moving.
Kleiser's defiant screenplay gives short shrift to the suicide debate (Roddy McDowall's character acts as the Voice of Conscience), and he employs mordant humor to keep mawkishness at bay (at one point, Roberts and best friend Bronson Pinchot launch into a rousing rendition of "It's my party / And I'll DIE if I want to"!).
That he could get the cast he did, and get them all to accept scale is another point in his favor.For the record, It's My Party is a film-filtered version of actual events in Randal Kleiser's life (Kleiser corresponds to Brandon, Gregory Harrison's character), in much the same way that Kleiser's earlier film, Summer Lovers, is a film-filtered (and re-gendered, to be sure) version of an earlier period in Kleiser's life.
And yes, the party that the film centers on actually took place, though certainly (one hopes) not as melodramatically.I have to say, I agree that quite a few characters could have been left on the cutting-room floor without marring the film, but at the same time, many of those "superfluous" characters were played by actors who were working virtually for free because they wanted to be involved in the project.The black comedy in a couple of the scenes was a device that was used to lighten things (however inappropriately, though, is a matter of personal taste) before the heavier side of the film kicked in, more or less a structural device, evidenced by the fact that it didn't return later.The notion that this film is not an accurate representation of the sequence of events involved in PML is certainly valid, but how often does film or theater get terminal disease completely right?
Eric Roberts doesn't look sick enough for his condition, the relationship between the lovers is ill-defined, and just because the theme is honorable, or just TIMELY, doesn't mean the film is FAABULOUS!!.
Excellent movie about a man who discovers he's dying of AIDS and wants to throw a farewell party to his friends and family.
Actors including comedian Margaret Cho, former singing sensation Olivia Newton-John, Eric Roberts, Bronson Pinchot, Marlee Matlin, and others may not be "Top Dogs" in Hollywood, but, deliver compelling, heart felt performances that seem to come naturally to them.
Perfect casting, good direction, and spectacular performances make "It's My Party" a must see film that you will never forget.
Randal Kleiser's "It's My Party" was one of the first movies to focus on AIDS patients dying with dignity.
The cast includes Eric Roberts, Lee Grant, George Segal, Marlee Matlin, Margaret Cho, Roddy McDowall, Sally Kellerman, Bruce Davison, Olivia Newton-John and Cassandra Peterson (best known as Elvira)..
a man finds out he has tested positive for AIDS, and he only has so long to live,, he tells his partner,, who doesn't really take it that well, as time passes we see what slowly starts to happen to our main character,, played by Eric Roberts.
after that sombering news he decides to have a farewell party for his family and friends, he invites everyone that has touched his life,, and a few people show up uninvited also, which thickens the plot,, including his former lover who tries to make peace with Nick.
When an upwardly-mobile gay man in Southern California gets a dreaded HIV-positive diagnosis, it helps to end the relationship he had with his lover; one year later, the two men find themselves reunited after the infected one discovers he has lesions on his brain and decides to throw a farewell party for himself before committing suicide.
Movies centering on big, noisy parties rarely work, but Kleiser's accuracy in capturing this (not all gay) eclectic group of family and friends shows off a great deal of heart, sentiment, and a small bit of the requisite bitchy humor.
A wonderfully odd gathering of celebrities and character-actors pop up in cameo roles, however the leads (Eric Roberts and Gregory Harrison) are the most surprising; with the help of astute editing, they are able to create a rapport that seems heartfelt and real, and Roberts in particular does some of his best work ever.
I borrowed 'It's My Party' from the library this weekend; a coincidentally timely moment to see this film as this weekend marked milestones in the discovery of AIDs, with MSN's homepage having stories this week on both the 25 years of AIDs in America as well as the struggles in Africa with the disease.This is a particularly sad film (although which one isn't?) about Nick Stark (Eric Roberts), a young West Coast architect who was diagnosed with HIV some time ago and learns from his doctor that he has reached a particularly debilitating stage of the disease known as PML.
The Party, in the title of this film, refers to the sort of substitution of a funeral for a party, one in which Nick, his friends, and family will gather around to enjoy the last few good times they might have together.
This is how he wants to say goodbye.Nick will be among many of his friends to have died from the disease, although this film relegates the disease solely to that of homosexual men, which I would caution in Hollywood because of the misconceptions that is a disease that only affects gay men.
The particularly sad thing is that you share among the assorted celebration (although not all of it is a particularly joyous occasion obviously because people are aware of Nick's plan to end his life) and in the end, the viewer may be fooled by their Hollywood conditioned expectations that somehow Nick will live in the end and everything will be okay.This is one film with a particularly familiar and good cast which join together in sort of an awareness project that reminds me of the Laramie Project made some time later.
I could put myself in so many shoes on this film ~ Gregory Harrison's thoughts, Lee Grant's feelings, Margaret Chou being a friend to Eric, etc.
Eric Roberts is so incredible in this movie and really I think it is his best performance ever.
I think What the character Nick does in this film is a hard choice to make..but one he made for himself and those he loved.
By the end of the film I felt I too had lost something......and that is the best part of the movie..it really does make you feel and everyone can relate to at least one of the characters ...this film is for everyone...with the possible exception of young children.
This is a true story and the characters were reflecting their real life counter parts, and this film could not show it any better than it did, what it is really like for someone saying farewell...or see you later.
Eric Roberts shows that Nick was such a good and forgiving person...who had laughter in his heart even until the end..who cared so much for his friends and his family that he gave them a party as well as gifts ..the party I don't believe was for him, but he did it for the one's he cared about.
Most of the actors, especially Olivia Newton John, Margaret Cho, Lee Grant, Gregory Harrison, and Marlee Matlin all turn in great performances as friends and family of the AIDS afflicted Nick (Eric Roberts).
There are many funny moments throughout the two day "party," which work well to temper the otherwise very sad business of coming to terms with Nick's impending death.
"It's My Party" is a very touching movie that benefits a lot from Eric Roberts great lead performance.
I am Eric Roberts' big fan and to my mind this movie shows once more that he's a very good dramatic actor and what he really needs is a good story and a good director because as an actor he can do everything.
Actually, I like the whole cast, especially Bronson Pinchot as Monty and Margaret Cho as Charlene.The music adds much to the atmosphere, too.It might be different approach to life and different believes, but the plot itself seems rather strange to me.
I think this situation would never happen in Russia, and here are three possible endings of a farewell party in Russian style: 1) Guests just didn't allow Nick to take his pills having persuaded him that he would be great and all these doctors are just waste of time and money.
3) Most probable: both Nick and his guests felt so involved into the party process that they kept celebrating this non stop for a week, until nobody could tell what they are celebrating, in fact.Please, be sure, I have no intention to offend anybody's feelings.I do like the movie, I do like the acting, the music, I think it's one of Eric Roberts' best movies.
i watched this film several times with several different people because i think it allows people to accept eric and brandon's relationship as a love relationship without the homosexual shroud of "lust" or "sin".
It's My Sanctimonious Party and I'll Die If I Want To. Admittedly it has been several years since I saw "It's My Party", but the thought of renting the video to refresh my memory causes me to shudder, so relying on faded impressions as my guide, I'll add my voice to the small chorus of commentors who warn you away from this movie."It's My Party" is about a gay man with an AIDS-related condition who knows he only has a few days before his brain goes.
He therefore throws himself a farewell/suicide party.The large number of attendees include family members, an ex-lover (Gregory Harrison), and friends both gay and straight.
I really do think this film is excellant and you anyone should try watching it sometime.
Eric Roberts best Film!.
Yes it's about two gay guys falling in love but it's the story that brings such heart and family together.
Eric Roberts has a last minute party and invites all of his family and friends.
It a touching story of friends and family getting together and helping someone they love very dearly.
Why does Hollywood feel that to discuss AIDS one has to make light of it?You have two truly bland actors playing the leads, Eric Roberts the dying man (who looks healthy as a horse, but plans to commit suicide "before" he starts to lose his functions), and Gregory Harrison the ex-lover, who now regrets not standing by his man when he came down with AIDS.
This overlong film is not really about AIDS or homosexuality, but about a man who wants death with dignity because he will die in a few days from a brain disease that will first turn him into a vegetable.
That should involve only a few close family members, but there were so many characters in this film I had a hard time sorting them out and wondered why some were invited to the party in the first place.The film focuses on the troubled relationship between the man in question, Eric Roberts, who gives an excellent low-keyed performance as the man in question, and his ex-lover, Gregory Harrison, who kicked him out once Roberts tested HIV positive.
1996's It's My Party is a smart, funny, and emotionally charged film that combines hot button issues with flawed, but richly drawn characters and had me riveted to the screen as well as fighting tears.This is the story of Nick (Eric Roberts), an architectural designer who is in a committed relationship with a film director named Brandon (Gregory Harrison), a relationship that ends shortly after Nick learns he has AIDS.
A year later, Nick learns he has contracted an AIDS-related disease that will soon be turning him into a vegetable and not wanting to live that way, decides to commit suicide by swallowing a bottle of pills and having a huge party the night before to say goodbye to his friends and family.This film sucked me in right from the beginning by establishing that this was first and foremost a love story...the relationship between Nick and Brandon rings true from the beginning and we are so happy when Brandon drops everything to be at the party when he learns about it, despite the initial tension his arrival causes, tension you can cut with a knife.Director and writer Randal Kleiser, who also directed Grease and The Blue Lagoon almost effortlessly ties together the tension of this situation with the bitchy gay sensibilities that would always be prevalent with these kind of characters, evidenced in the constant movie quotes offered by several characters, not to mention the handful guests at the party who are inevitably going to make what's going on all about them.
The scenes surrounding Brandon's initial arrival at the party and the scenes near the ends where Nick poses for final pictures with his family and friends perfectly display this fusion of humor and tension.Eric Roberts delivers a rich and layered performance as Nick and Harrison gives the performance of his career as Brandon, but what's more important here is the relationship that the two actors create on screen...it's completely believable and has us rooting for them from the beginning.
Christ how will I explain this in words, it was just so heartbreaking to think that Nick organised a two day party just to say goodbye to his friends and family because of the fact he was dying of AIDS.
I swear, I felt like shouting to Brandon!Anyway on the positive side, the good parts of this film were:*Margaret Cho and Olivia Newton-John: I was so excited to see these legends on this movie!Both looked stunning so they did!*Monty- guys, you better watch out for this guy cause he is hilarious!
At least Lee Remick has more to do as his mother, and oddly enough, the movie totally forgets about her and chooses instead to concentrate solely on the mechanics of the party, Nick's botched relationship with Brandon (Gregory Harrison) who left him when he learned of Nick's illness and has come to (maybe?) make amends, and scenes that spell Cute and Tender all the way.
I didn't buy it then, I still don't buy it now, and I certainly can't recommend a movie where a gay man decides that the best way to go is with a bang, even at the expense of family members and close friends. |
tt1484521 | 30 Beats | The plot is set in New York City over three days in the lives of 10 different characters who interact with each other in various sexual encounters which follows from one character to the next.
It begins when a young woman, named Julie (Condola Rashad), meets at a loft with her former anthropology professor, named Adam (Justin Kirk), where she tells him that she is a virgin and wants him to take her virginity.
Afterwords, the plot shifts to Adam who visits a tarot reader, named Erika (Jennifer Tilly), for advice on his sexual prowess and superstitions. She performs a ritual on him to "cleanse" Adam of his sexual needs.
Erika then meets with Diego (Jason Day), a much younger bicycle messenger whom she meets for weekly sexual trysts in a Harlem apartment, where Diego confides in her that he is in love with another woman and Erika gives him advice on how to court her.
Diego then goes to the house of Laura (Paz de la Huerta), the woman he has a fixation on, where she invites him in, but tells him that she cannot have sex, for she has a bad heart and had surgery where she carries a large scar on her chest. Diego tells her to accept her physical deformity as it is to feel accepted.
Laura then goes to her chiropractor, named Matt (Lee Pace) where she dresses up in revealing underwear and tries to seduce him, who at first refuses her advances, but eventually gives into them.
The next day, Matt visits Kim (Vahina Giocante), a young Frenchwoman he is dating, who reveals to him all about her own sexual active life with other men and women and of her comfort with it.
Kim works as a switchboard operator in a local answering service where a regular caller, named Julian (Thomas Sadoski), wants to meet with her for lunch the following day. Unsure of the man he is, Kim has her girlfriend meet with him at a local cafe where she becomes uncomfortable of the way Julian hits it off with the other woman, so she reveals herself. Julian understands Kim being unsure and they end up spending the night together in a threesome with Kim's girlfriend.
Julian is revealed to be a speechwriter who visits a call-girl, named Alice (Ingeborga Dapkunaite), on a weekly basis where she practices bondage acts on him. Alice tells Julien that she is considering giving up her call-girl profession to open her own art gallery and cannot see him anymore. Julian tries to persuade Alice not to give up on what she does best, but her mind is made up, and she walks out to spend alone time in her new artist studio.
Alice goes to a health spa where she meets and has a sexual encounter with a younger man, named Shawn (Ben Levin), in the steam room. Shawn is rushed to the hospital after he slips and hits his head, and cannot remember the sexual encounter due to short-term memory loss. Alice accompanies him to the hospital to tell Shawn that their encounter did happen.
After Shawn leaves the hospital, the events come full circle when he meets with his childhood friend, whom happens to be Julie. He first tells Julie that he wants to have sex with her and Julie disapproves claiming it would be weird since they are best friends. The next day they meet up and Julie decides she wants to try having sex and assumes Shawn is a virgin, he protests and says her reasons yesterday were valid and he is not a virgin but she does not believe it and convinces him to have sex on the rooftop. The final scene is of Julie breaking her red bracelet she shared with her anthropology professor and her holding hands with Shawn while he reads a book. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | I love Jennifer Tilly. And I got to see Jennifer Tilly do a great role here in 30 Beats!Ten people, ten little stories. Summer in New York City, people are hot and horny! Each character is linked to another in some way ... and each one is seeking sexual satisfaction.That's the story, these ten people can only find satisfaction in one but that one doesn't necessarily find satisfaction in the person who finds satisfaction in that person. (Does that make sense?) So the unsatisfied partner seeks another to fulfill their need. Some of the scenes are quiet and tender, others a bit kinky, but at movies conclusion each one found their partner.Alexis Lloyd has given us a peep into the private world one never, or seldom bothers to consider. I found the entire story captivating and entertaining. |
tt4018316 | My Name Is Nobody | Jack Beauregard (Henry Fonda) is an aging gunslinger who wants to retire peacefully to Europe. The film opens with three gunmen attempting to ambush him in a barbershop. After he has dispatched them, the barber's son asks his father if there is anyone in the world faster than Beauregard, to which the barber replies, "Faster than him? Nobody!"
Beauregard pauses on his way to watch a bum (Terence Hill) catching fish. He then carries on to an old goldmine, only to find a dying acquaintance (Red), who has just been shot by a gang. Beauregard asks about the whereabouts of a certain Nevada, but Red only manages to disclose Nevada's village.
At a horse relay station, the bum is asked by three men to deliver a basket to someone inside who turns out to be Beauregard. The bum impresses Beauregard with his knowledge of the latter's track record, and then throws the basket outside. This contained a bomb and explodes. The bum identifies himself as ‘Nobody’. He idolizes Beauregard and wants him to end his career in beauty by facing off the 150 members of the Wild Bunch single-handed. The bandits are using a fake goldmine to launder their gold train loot. The mine owner (Sullivan) thinks Beauregard is out to kill him, and so tries to get him first. The Wild Bunch, however, want Sullivan to focus on keeping his reputation clean.
At Nevada’s village, Beauregard is awaited by ‘Nobody’, who reveals that Nevada is dead. It turns out that Nevada was Beauregard's brother. Again ‘Nobody’ challenges him to face the Wild Bunch. Again Beauregard declines, and chides ‘Nobody’ for drawing attention to himself with his shining saddle decorations.
‘Nobody’ arrives at a saloon town where Sullivan tries to bribe him to kill Beauregard. Instead he helps Beauregard to do away with Sullivan's men. Then the Wild Bunch rides into town to collect sticks of dynamite, caching them in their saddles bags. Later an old resident tells Beauregard that he was bought out of a derelict gold mine by Nevada and Red, only to find the mine producing prodigious amounts of gold afterwards. Beauregard hurries off to the mine and catches Sullivan loading sacks of gold powder. Sullivan offers Beauregard Nevada's share in the mine but Beauregard tells him he couldn't care less about his brother, and just takes two sacks, as well as $500 out of Sullivan's wallet to pay for his passage to Europe. He then leaves to catch a train to New Orleans.
A train is being loaded at a station with bars of gold, under the protection of US troops, when ‘Nobody’ arrives, tricks the engineer and steals the train. Beauregard is waiting down the line when the Wild Bunch advances over the desert. ‘Nobody’ arrives with the stolen train but refuses to rescue Beauregard until he ‘makes his name in the history books’. Remembering the mirrored conchas on the gang’s dynamite-filled saddlebags, Beauregard aims at them. One by one they explode, blowing up most of the charging gang until ‘Nobody’ allows him to escape.
In New Orleans, Beauregard and Nobody finally face each other in a street duel, with a photographer on hand and lots of spectators. ‘Nobody’ draws faster and Beauregard falls to the ground. A sign is put up reading "Jack Beauregard, 1848–1899, Nobody was faster on the draw”, which the remaining members of the Wild Bunch see and transfer their search to the anonymous ‘Nobody’. Three days later ‘Nobody’ walks by the ship that was to take Beauregard to Europe. However, it is revealed that Beauregard is in his cabin writing ‘Nobody’ an affectionate farewell and leaving him to survive in his own playful and unheroic way. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0109642 | Dolores Claiborne | Dolores Claiborne (Kathy Bates) works as a domestic servant on a Maine island. The film opens with Dolores having a struggle with her elderly, paralyzed employer Vera Donovan (Judy Parfitt) in her mansion, after which Vera falls down the staircase. Dolores ransacks the kitchen and is then caught by a mailman as she stands over Vera with a rolling pin, apparently intending to kill her. Vera dies and the police begin a murder investigation.
Dolores' daughter, Selena St. George (Leigh), a successful New York City journalist who battles depression and alcoholism, arrives in town to support her mother, despite her own doubts about Dolores' innocence. Dolores insists that she did not kill her employer, but finds little sympathy as the entire town believes she murdered her husband, Joe St. George (David Strathairn) almost twenty years earlier. Some of the town's inhabitants harass her by vandalizing her home, taunting her in the street, and driving by her house screaming at her. Detective John Mackey (Christopher Plummer), who was the chief detective in her husband's murder case, is determined to put Dolores away for life.
Selena also believes that Dolores killed her father, and has not spoken to her mother in over a decade. As the film develops, it is revealed that Joe was an abusive alcoholic, and that one night Dolores had threatened to kill him if he ever harmed her again. Dolores went to work as a housemaid for millionaire Vera Donovan in order to raise enough money to pay for Selena's education, and had gone to the bank to withdraw her money so she and Selena could flee Joe's abuse. The plan backfired, however, when the bank notified Dolores that Joe stole the money from Selena's savings account.
In the present, Dolores says that Vera had thrown herself down the staircase and begged Dolores to put her out of her misery. Mackey refuses to believe her, and reveals that Vera has left her entire fortune to Dolores. Mackey informs them that the will is eight years old, which nearly convinces Selena that her mother is guilty. Dolores decides that it is time to reveal the truth to Selena: she did in fact kill Joe, and it was actually Vera who suggested the plan to her. Dolores says that she had been pushed to the breaking point upon realizing that Joe had been molesting Selena, which Selena furiously denies both in the past and present. After a fierce argument Selena storms out, leaving her mother to fend for herself.
In a flashback to a scene some 20 years before, Dolores breaks down and confesses of her troubled home life to Vera. An unusually sympathetic Vera implies that she had killed her late, unfaithful husband Jack, and engineered it to look like an accident. Vera's confession forms a bond between the two women and allows Dolores to take control of her situation. As a total solar eclipse approaches, Dolores and the young Selena have an argument about Dolores' suspicions regarding Joe's sexual abuse. Selena flees home for the weekend to work at a hotel, where guests have flocked for the eclipse. Joe soon returns from working on a fishing boat, and as a treat, Dolores offers him a bottle of Scotch. After Joe gets drunk, Dolores reveals that she knows that he has stolen from Selena's account and molested his own daughter. Dolores provokes him into attacking her and falling down an old well, leaving him to die as he plunges to the stone bottom.
In the present, Selena hears the story on a tape left for her by Dolores, who had foreseen her departure. While on the ferry, Selena suddenly uncovers a repressed memory of her father forcing her to give him a handjob. Realizing that her mother was telling the truth all along, Selena rushes back to Dolores as she is attending the coroner's inquest. As Mackey makes a case to be sent to a grand jury in an attempt to indict Dolores for murder, Selena tells him that he has no admissible evidence, and that despite an often-stormy relationship, Vera and Dolores loved each other. Realizing that the case would very likely fail, Mackey reluctantly drops the charges. The film ends with Dolores and Selena reconciling on the ferry wharf before Selena returns to New York. | dramatic, violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Somehow this gripping, brilliantly-acted thriller was overlooked and underrated when it was first released in 1995, but it's probably the best movie ever made from a Stephen King story.Kathy Bates has never been better.
She's better here than about ten Oscar-winning actors I can think of, put together -- a one-woman textbook of how to act for the screen.Bates won an Oscar for MISERY, but she's better here, because the story and the character are more interesting, complex and challenging.
With flawless technique, and great depth of feeling, she delivers one of the finest screen performances of the 1990s.Okay, the denouement's a bit strained, and there's a sprinkling of stilted, hokey lines (Stephen King was never good at writing believable dialogue, and his addition of forced scatology and cussing doesn't make it any less stilted.) But overall the complicated story, which flashes back and forth over a period of twenty years, is extremely well-told.
Kathy Bates made quite an impact, so to speak, on the movie-going public with her bravura performance in another Stephen King adaptation, 'Misery.' But showy (and fun) as that role was, it wasn't really much of an acting part--the real heavy lifting in that film was done by James Caan in his quieter, subtler role as the object of Bates's affection.In 'Dolores Claiborne,' Bates finally gets a King role fully worthy of her range and subtlety.
It's a remarkable performance, and the actress is probably right to remember it as her best role.The rest of the film into which the performance fits creaks a bit in places (the final melodramatic scene at the hearing is pretty hokey), and it's complicated somewhat by Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance, which may be *too* good--her Selena comes off as so angry and selfish that we don't particularly *want* her to reconcile with her mother.
How the story manages to make such initially repulsive characters (all of them!!) develop into sympathetic (or at least pathetic) ones is of course Stephen King's special talent, expertly translated by the fine jobs by the screenwriter, actors and director of "Dolores Claiborne".
The cinematography is kind of obvious in its distinct color treatment of past and present, but the entire cast is inspired, including Kathy Bates' best-ever performance (she has stated so herself), especially in the flash-back scenes; delightfully virtuoso Judy Parfitt (you just keep hoping along for more Vera's scenes, and each one of them is a knockout); and reliable pros Christopher Plummer, David Strathairn (such an underrated actor!) and John C.
Even Jennifer Jason Leigh for once has her irritating mannerisms fit perfectly to build her terribly tormented character.That's what good story-telling is all about: even if you already know the plot from A to Z, you just want to see once again the way it unfolds, like a good scary fairy tale.
More compact and deeply psychological than the novel, the film focuses almost exclusively on telling the story (in both present-day AND multiple flashback story lines) of Dolores Claiborne and her daughter, Selena.Charged with murdering her wealthy but crippled employer, Dolores (Kathy Bates) is reunited with her estranged daughter, Selena (Jennifer Jason-Leigh).
Sullen, brilliant, but deeply disturbed by a past that still obviously haunts her, Selena returns to the lonely and isolated Maine fishing village to help her mother face the legal and familial issues raised by the murder accusation.We learn that Dolores had previously been suspected of killing her abusive and alcoholic husband.
And as his work proceeds, secrets from the past reveal themselves, through brilliant use of flashbacks.The acting by all concerned is first rate, with Bates giving probably her finest non-Oscar-nominated performance.
Christopher Plummer is excellent as the detective.Taylor Hackford's direction is absolutely brilliant - as is the use of color saturation and creative scene blending and transition to move seamlessly between present and past.This is an outstanding film - well worth the Oscar nominations it received (as well as those it did not!).
Stephen King is a master of story-telling as the past and present unfold in front of our eyes and we get one piece of the puzzle at the time up to the great climax at the end.Taylor Hackford also did a great job directing this movie.
Released at a time when a drama, even a dramatic thriller, coming from Stephen King would be known more for being a drama from the master of horror than anything else, Dolores Claiborne is still a surprisingly capable legal thriller with a remarkably intricate story.
Detective Mackey (Plummer), let Dolores get away once and damned if that nonsense was going to happen again.Unfortunately, Jennifer Jason Leigh, a genuinely gifted actor, is saddled with a part that forces her to play within the confines of a tortured soul, making her performance come off as forced and unconvincing, meanwhile Kathy Bates once again fills the screen with her powerful presence, delivering what has to be one of her best performances.
Men who do such awful things can't be punished hard enough, but the movies that are made about this subjects are complete crap most of the time."Dolores Claiborne" tells the story of a woman who is accused of murdering the wealthy woman she worked for as a maid in Maine.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is nice as the daughter, but it's Kathy Bates and Christopher Plummer who give away the best performances in my opinion.
Reilly, Eric Bogosian (why 'Talk Radio is my favourite Oliver Stone movie and 'Under Siege 2' my favourite Steven Seagal film), David Strathairn, Christopher Plummer and especially, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and the Tony Gilroy script serves them beautifully.Unfairly, I tend to joke about director Taylor HACKford, but it just may be that he's a more contemporary model of such versatile directors from the past as Norman Jewison and Robert Wise.
You don't want to miss a second.The mere fact that this movie didn't make a clean sweep at the Academy Awards and walk with every Oscar is beyond me and probably the majority of the comments on IMDb. Stephen King's writing at its finest, the best possible dream casting, Kathy Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh gave monumental performances, I would say their career finest.
well, you don't really need to know any more details before seeing the movie.It's adapted from a Stephen King novel, and being a drama rather than a supernatural story, it has a flying headstart, being in the company of 'Green Mile', 'Stand By Me', and 'Shawshank Redemption' rather than 'Christine' or 'Salem's Lot'.
This is one of those movies I have on my must watch again list and have seen it numerous times, it never gets old.Being a fan of Stephen King, Kathy Bates, Jennifer Jason Leigh, David Strathairn, Christopher Plummer and John C.
Probably because it features only real people who most could relate to in real life.Kathy Bates is outstanding and probably up there with the best I have seen with her in the starring role, Misery would come a close second even though she got an Oscar for it, rather than this one.Early on some would regard this as a very dreary movie, which it probably is, just ignore that and continue watching all the way through.
This movie is a perfect portrait of this outrageously common injustice -- and how, in this case, a victim's strength of character prevailed and exonerated her on all fronts.I had the impression from trailers long ago that this was a typical Stephen King horror flick -- okay, maybe it was Kathy Bates smashing a window with an ax??That was very misleading.
It's actually taken me until now to watch Dolores Claiborne but better late than never.This is the very final Stephen King adaptation for me and that saddens me as I tend to very much enjoy them.Starring Kathy Bates, Jennifer Jason Leigh and the excellent Christopher Plummer this thriller blew me away to an extent I simply didn't expect.Set in New England (As all Stephen King tales tend to be) it tells the story of a woman arrested for the murder of the woman she worked for.
Over the course of over two hours the truth is gradually chipped away at until the highly impressive finale and series of twists.Kathy Bates & Christopher Plummer are on form as always and take this already masterful tale and truly make the characters their own.Also starring John C Reilly who would go onto do mostly comedy this is a near perfectly crafted little tale that begs the simple question "Why don't they make movies like this anymore?"Essential viewing.The Good:Cast knock it out of the parkBeautifully writtenVery well directedStunning locationThe Bad:Nothing springs to mindThings I Learnt From This Movie:Stephen King needs to write more books so they can adapt them into more movies before I start getting withdrawal symptoms.
Dolores' abusive drunken husband Joe St. George (David Strathairn) is revealed in flashbacks.Kathy Bates is great once again in another adaptation of a Stephen King psychological thriller.
Somebody in the town sends a fax of the local newspaper report to Dolores' estranged daughter Selena, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who is working as a reporter in New York, when she gets this she returns to Maine.What follows is a gripping story which not only includes the present case but the death of Selena's father many years before.
As mother and daughter come together, secrets of the past merge with the harshness of the present.A terrificly well acted and well mounted drama doing justice to a great book, Dolores Claiborne thrusts family trauma to the front of an on going murder investigation.
The minor Stephen King novel makes for a surprisingly good film.Credit for the film's quality must be given largely to Kathy Bates, in the title role, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays her estranged daughter.
This acting was excellent, including Kathy Bates, the brilliant Jennifer Jason Leigh, and great actor Christopher Plummer.
Kathy Bates,(Dolores Claiborne),"Bruno",'2000 played a very down to earth woman who loved her daughter very much and did everything to make certain she had a good education and free from the conditions that prevailed in her home town.
Of all of Stephen King's stories, Dolores Claiborne is one of favorite movies with an excellent cast, writing, and directing.
For starters, I am shocked that nobody received Oscar nominations especially Kathy Bates, the excellent Judy Parfitt, Christopher Plummer, Jennifer Jason Leigh, John C.
Reilly, Ellen Muth, David Straitharn just to name a few all provide excellent support in telling a story of a lifelong Maine woman Dolores Claiborne St. George who has an abusive husband played well by David Straitharn and a daughter Selena equally played well by Jennifer Jason Leigh and Ellen Muth.
The reasons:1) The dramatic bestseller story from Stephen King with.2) The professional direction of Taylor Hackford.3) The beautiful but in general cold pictures.4) The wonderful music from Danny Elfman.5) The great performances from all the actors, especially Kathy Bates.6) There were some funny dialogs where we could laugh.7) The makeups were very well made and the introductions into the telling story well executed.For every film fan of this genre I highly recommend it to see.
Dolores Claiborne is a moving,absorbing thriller that stays with you.Kathy Bates is a revelation in the title role.She deserved another oscar.Jennifer Jason Leigh is just as good as the daughter.Christopher Plummer,Judy Parfitt and David Strathairn are also excellent.9 out of 10..
Adapted from King's novel, the screenplay by Tony Gilroy is very different from the novel but tight and clever.Kathy Bates gives a fantastically rounded performance; with fine support from Jennifer Jason Leigh, David Straithan, Christopher Plummer, and Judy Parfitt.The direction by Taylor Hackford is suprisingly good.
The tension between Dolores (Kathy Bates) and her daughter Selena (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is very real.
The love Dolores has for her daughter Selena gives her the conviction to withstand years of hard living so that her daughter's life could be better.This is one of Kathy Bates' best roles.
The movie switches between the present and the past as the layers of each character's story and motivations unfold, showing a deeper side to Dolores and enabling Selena to finally grow up and see her mother for the resilient woman she is.
I've seen this movie many times and I always have the same reaction - Kathy Bates is simply a great actress and this is a fantastic performance..
Her mother, Dolores Claiborne (Kathy Bates), faces charges of murder when Judy Parfitt (Vera Donovan), the lady she was caring for, ends up dead.The movie is really about Dolores Claiborne's struggles in a small town in Maine.
The cast was outstanding, including Kathy Bates, Judy Parfitt, and Christopher Plummer; as well as Jennifer Jason Leigh and David Straithairn in a movie with a number of overlapping themes - strained family relationships, small town animosities, alcoholism, the overbearing boss, marital discord, murder...
The story revolved around the relationships between Dolores Claiborne (Bates) and the people in her story: her drunken, abusive husband (Strathairn), her overbearing employer (Parfitt), her estranged but feisty daughter (Leigh), and the tough local cop (Plummer).
Taylor Hackford directed this compelling adaptation of the Stephen King novel that stars Kathy Bates as Dolores Claiborne, a feisty woman living in remote Maine who is under investigation for the death of her long-time employer Vera Donovan(played by Judy Parfitt).
Dolores' daughter Selena(played by Jennifer Jason Leigh) now a big city reporter, goes back home to help her, but secrets from the past involving her father(played by David Strathairn) are uncovered that will change both women forever...
As for Jennifer Jason Leigh as Dolores's daughter, I didn't find her as intense as the aforementioned cast members, but she still did a good job.Anyway, if this movie doesn't make you feel like your breath got cut off, then I don't know what will.
The film concerns a woman, Selena (played by the underrated Jennifer Jason Leigh), who returns to her hometown island off the coast of Maine after her mother, Dolores (the brilliant Kathy Bates) is convicted of the murder of an eccentric woman she took care of for many many years.
The acting here was the most powerful point in the film, Kathy Bates was perfect, she and Jennifer Jason Leigh had some great chemistry together.
Christopher Plummer plays a detective investigating Dolores' case, and David Strathairn plays the abusive, drunken husband very well, making the audience really not like his character.Overall, "Dolores Claiborne" is an excellent adaptation to the novel by Stephen King.
Director Taylor Hackford, who's other accomplishments, An Officer and a Gentleman, Against All Odds, and most recently Ray, have established him as a Hollywood legend, creates a visually and emotionally stirring dark drama about evil, struggle and living a painful life with dignity.Hackford's ability to create a visual image, through his actors, the photography, the colors, settings, and locations, is, in my humble opinion, no more better showcased than in this film.If you are a fan of Steven King, Taylor Hackford, Bathy Bates, Jennifer Jason Leigh or dark family dramas, this is a MUST SEE film.I would be remiss if I didn't mention the exceptional performance by Judy Parfitt.
Every time I see this movie, I'm reminded that this is probably the finest screen adaption of a Stephen King novel (and what was probably his best book).Kathy Bates performance as Dolores is nothing short of superlative, even better than her turn in "Misery".
Kathy Bates as Dolores Claiborne; she showed how good she is as a frighting number 1 fan in Stephen King's Misery and she is just as phenomenally entertaining in this film.
Kathy Bates does an amazing job of portraying one of Stephen King's most powerful characters, and the supporting actors are also quite good.
Jennifer Jason Leigh and Christopher Plummer turn in fine performances, and Kathy Bates is fabulous, as usual.
Only after Delores is accused of killing her employer (an old witch) does Delores' daughter come to terms with what happened during her childhood and what lengths her mother went through to insure her a successful future.The movie is outstanding and Kathy Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh were gems as always..
The things that really impressed me was Kathy Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh's dazzling performances (also, keep your eyes open for Ellen Mull, who plays a younger version of Leigh's character, and couldn't look more like her, unless she was her.) It is a story about a New England maid, Dolores Claiborne (Bates), who is accused of killing the older, sick woman she worked for (Judy Parfitt.) Dolores's daughter, Selena (Leigh), comes back, and old secrets are revealed about the death of Selena's father (David Straithairn.) With two cops (Christopher Plummer and John C.
Meh. A big-city reporter (Jennifer Jason Leigh) travels to the small town where her mother (Kathy Bates) has been arrested for the murder of an elderly woman that she works for as a maid.Aside from the performances of Chris Plummer, John C.
Those roles were played by Kathy Bates and Jennifer Jason Leigh, two women who have played these kind of characters in other movies, especially Leigh.
Bates has mellowed with age but this role here reminded of another nasty one she played in a film called "Misery." That movie, as this one is, was based on a Stephen King book.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is very, very good, Christopher Plummer is magnificent while Kathy Bates steals very single scene she's in in another superb performance.In conclusion, this film is most excellent and highly recommended.
Director Taylor Hackford, not known for working well with actresses, helps Kathy Bates give another superb performance (in yet another Stephen King drama, following "Misery").
I LOVE IT..I watch the DVD at least once a month..Jennifer Jason Leigh and Kathy Bates in the same movie..brilliant acting duo!
Not a coming of age film, but a story of a mother (Dolores / KathyBates) and daughter (Selina / Jennifer Jason Leigh) who should have been so together, but were so far apart. |
tt0067185 | Harold and Maude | Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a young man obsessed with death. He stages elaborate fake suicides, attends funerals and drives a hearse, all to the chagrin of his socialite mother (Vivian Pickles). She sets him up appointments with a psychiatrist, but the doctor is befuddled by his case and fails to get Harold to talk about his real emotions.
At another stranger's funeral service, Harold meets Maude (Ruth Gordon), a 79-year-old woman who shares Harold's hobby of attending funerals. He is entranced by her quirky outlook on life, which is bright and excessively carefree in contrast with his morbidity. The pair form a bond and Maude shows Harold the pleasures of art and music (including how to play banjo), and teaches him how to "[make] the most of his time on earth". Meanwhile, Harold's mother is determined, against Harold's wishes, to find him a wife. One by one, Harold frightens and horrifies each of his appointed dates, by appearing to commit gruesome acts such as self-immolation, self-mutilation and seppuku. She tries enlisting him in the military instead, but he deters the recruiting officer by staging a scene in which Maude poses as a pacifist protester and Harold seemingly murders her out of militaristic fanaticism.
When Harold and Maude are talking at her home he tells her, without prompting, the motive for his fake suicides: When he was at boarding school, he accidentally caused an explosion in his chemistry lab, leading police to assume his death. Harold returned home just in time to witness his mother react to the news of his death with a ludicrously dramatized faint. As he reaches this part of the story, Harold bursts into tears and says, "I decided then I enjoyed being dead."
As they become closer, their friendship soon blossoms into a romance and Harold announces that he will marry Maude, resulting in disgusted outbursts from his family, psychiatrist, and priest. Maude's 80th birthday arrives and Harold throws a surprise party for her. As the couple dance, Maude tells Harold that she "couldn't imagine a lovelier farewell". Confused, he questions Maude as to her meaning and she reveals that she has taken an overdose of sleeping pills and will be dead by morning. She restates her firm belief that eighty is the proper age to die.
Harold rushes Maude to the hospital, where she is treated unsuccessfully and dies. In the final sequence, Harold's car is seen going off a seaside cliff but after the crash, the final shot reveals Harold standing calmly atop the cliff, holding his banjo. After gazing down at the wreckage, he dances away, picking out on his banjo Cat Stevens' "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out". | comedy, dark, cute, cult, psychedelic, humor | train | wikipedia | I first came to Harold and Maude from a suggestion from an eccentric friend who I thought I would humor by tracking down a 34-year-old movie.
Not that the list means anything, it didn't include DUMB & DUMBER the funniest damn movie ever made, but I agreed with this choice.Bud Cort is Harold, a morbid teenage boy neglected by his rich mother (Vivian Pickles), who spends her time trying to match him up with blind dates.
Some viewers may be disgusted at the thought of a teenage boy and an elderly woman being a hot item, but the idea and execution of it is more an act of respect and love for one another as people than an act of lust and romance, making this in my opinion the most romantic film of all time.
The self-destructive and needy wealthy teenager Harold (Bud Cort) is obsessed by death and spends his leisure time attending funerals, watching demolishing of buildings, visiting junkyards, simulating suicides trying to get attention of his indifferent, snobbish and egocentric mother and having sessions with his psychologist.
When Harold meets the anarchist seventy nine year-old Maude (Ruth Gordon) at a funeral, they become friends and the old lady discloses others perspectives of the cycle of life for him.
On the day of the eightieth anniversary of Maude, Harold proposes her but he finds the truth about the end of the cycle of life.The cult "Harold and Maude" was a huge success in Brazil for people of my generation with a refreshing and funny exposition of themes like death, love and life through the friendship and love of a teenager and a septuagenarian woman.
The performances of Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort in this weird love story are unforgettable and the soundtrack with Cat Steven's songs is another plus.
As was probably the case when the film was released, people would probably find the theme edgy, if not inappropriate.Such is the case with the cult film `Harold and Maude.' It openly explores themes of suicide, love, death and life with a fresh perspective.
However, Harold (Bud Cort)-a shy teenager with an affinity for death-meets his 80-year-old true love Maude (Ruth Gordon), not at a dance or social event, but at funerals.
In a way, this movie comes across as a bit dated in that time has indeed erased the '60s anticipation of The Age of Aquarius and replaced it with `Fight Club' desperation.However what the film lacks in reality, it makes up for in heart.
The film takes an unexpected turn with the introduction of Maude, a vivacious octogenarian who shares Harold's penchant for attending the funerals of strangers, but instead of being obsessed with death, she is obsessed with life.
Her unique outlook and interesting activities, which include grand theft auto, endear her to Harold, and the two kindred spirits form a close relationship, which eventually blossoms into romance.This may seem quite unbelievable (and frankly, disgusting) for a twenty-something to fall for an eighty-year-old, but through Ashby's beautiful, skilled direction and Bud Cort's and Ruth Gordon's wonderful performances, the love story is entirely convincing and quite beautifully handled.The humor, is as I said, to begin with, very black, but there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, particularly with Harold's methods of scaring of dates picked for him by his mother, and the reaction of Harold's family and friends to the news of his infatuation with Maude.
When Cameron Diaz's character in the Farrelly brothers' 1998 comedy There's Something About Mary describes Harold And Maude as the 'greatest love story of our time', she's not far wrong.
In a society that generally accept older men falling for younger women, to reverse that trend was extremely daring, especially back in 1971.Harold (Bud Cort) is a 20-something who feels isolated and disconnected with his life living with his rich mother who seems to only be concerned with finding her strange son a wife.
He seems doomed to life of morbidity until he meets 80-year old Maude (Ruth Gordon) who seems to share his passion of attending funerals.
The young girl screams in horror as Harold's mother sits embarrassed, only for Harold to appear next to her as if nothing happened.The relationship between Harold and Maude would probably be uncomfortable and strange in another director's hands, but with a fantastic script by Colin Higgins and a heartfelt soundtrack by Cat Stevens, the whole things is moving, profound and sweet.
Given that little resume of movie roles, he has forever won a place in my heart, as has this movie."Harold and Maude" is a modest little masterpiece from Hal Ashby, and deserves to be viewed as more than just an eccentric little cult hit appreciated by an elite few.
Ashby's film walks a tightrope between black (almost too black) comedy and sentimental (almost too sentimental) pathos, but manages to blend the two perfectly to produce something quite unlike anything else I've ever seen.Harold is a gloomy misfit with a morbid death obsession, who likes to stage his own fake suicides in order to win the attention of his dithery and oblivious mother (Vivian Pickles, in an uproarious performance).
He's got great actors in a great story, and he trusts both enough to stand back and let them work their magic.Ruth Gordon gives one of my favorite film performances of all time as Maude.
If I could think about life the way the character of Maude does in this movie, I know I would be a happier person."Harold and Maude" is a shining gem from the 1970s, and one of those movies I just have to watch every once in a while.
Harold, played by the criminally under-utilized Bud Cort, is the quintessential disaffected rich kid wanting to find some meaning in a vacuous life who hooks up with the devil-may-care Maude through their mutual love of attending funerals (Joyce's word 'fun-for-all' springs readily to mind in those scenes).
From Harold's unexpected antics - "sucide attempts," his mother's ignorance towards a son who would love nothing more than some attention from her, some bad blind dates and then there's Maude.It involves a lonely rich different type young man with too much apparent time on his hands and lacking a purposeful life.
After meeting Maude at funerals where he goes for fun, his life is opened up by this free spirited older women who shows him love in its true form (not in any cheesy way at all) and a well-lived life.It's so classic and quite funny - thoroughly enjoyable."A lot of people enjoy being dead.
They're just backing away from life" Maude says so many perfect quotes that define humanity and in fact Harold's life up until then.And the Cat Stevens soundtrack, so perfect, complete with feel-good catchy songs you can't help singing for days.
No, to be more precise, cinematic intergenerational romances remain conspicuous by their absence if the sexes are swapped the other way around.In this film, a young man with a death-fixation called Harold meets Maude, a 79 year old woman with a lust for life.
Bud Cort with his sickly pallor and bizarre eccentricities, such as driving a hearse and attending funerals recreationally, is believable as a lost young man, while Ruth Gordon makes for a genuinely alluring 79 year old.
Both films too have wonderful folk rock soundtracks and while Simon & Garfunkel edges it, Cat Stevens soundtrack for Harold and Maude is still a beautiful and perfect accompaniment to this great film..
The last fifteen minutes is not only gut wrenching and startling, it's also beautiful and necessary, as if the viewer wakes from the dream, too, and sees what was maybe impossible all along.Ashby pulled off a few well-received movies in his short career, including Being There (1979), and yet it is Harold and Maude that comes off as the most connected to its audience, and to the times, becoming a cult favorite.
Watch for searing, perfect performances by Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort as the titled characters, and also by Vivian Pickles as the mother.
If the opposites attract each other, there have not been perhaps more different in every possible way screen couple than 20 years old Harold (Bud Cort) and Maude(charming, clever, multi-talented Ruth Gordon, the Oscar winning actress and three times Oscar nominee for writing) who is just about to turn 80.
Harold's others hobbies are driving the hearse and to attend funerals where he meets one day a woman who will change his life forever, 79 years young free-spirit, rebel, and fighter for "Liberty.
Hal Ashby had made a series of memorable, intelligent, well acted films in the 70s, that included The Last Detail (1973), Shampoo (1975), Bound for Glory (1976), Coming Home (1978) and Being There (1979) but it is "Harold and Maude" that has become the cult classic from the first days of its release and it more than deserves its status.
Hal Ashby's film about the attraction of opposites caught me by surprise, and I am grateful for it.Harold (Bud Cort) is a 20-year-old who seems to be afraid of the future, so afraid in fact that he spends a majority of his time thinking of and staging his own death.
At one of the funerals he attends, Harold meets Maude (Ruth Gordon) a 79-year-old woman with a thirst for life.
In a Woody Allen-esque film, Harold and Maude deals with death and the pointlessness of life in a beautiful way.
Finally after 2 viewing of this Film, It has gone down on the list of my Favs Now.Cat Steven's Music is a Big Plus to the Movie, Whereas the screenplay is Fresh and Unique.The Story Revolves Around Harold who Stages Suicide and attempts couple of times, his Life Being empty and then enter Maude a 79yr old woman shows Harold something he never dream of that is life and everything that follows..
Music as mentioned above is soothing and suits the atmosphere of the film.Hal Ashby has treated the script in a sensible way and its an example of Great Film making.Seriously Iv'e Enjoyed Harold and Maude..
Life and Death are explored in cinema frequently and films have been created juxtaposing the two themes years before this came out but none has had the ability to make the heavy themes be condensed in a neat little story tied by love.
I don't think this film feels like it needed a score because that would undercut the humor that this film has to offer.Bud Cort was superb as Harold as he was able to play a character who was emotionally and psychologically tortured, but also deliver the comedic timing that Ashby wanted from him.
An introverted young man, Harold, played by Bud Cort, has a morbid fascination with death, meets 79 year old Maude, played by Ruth Gordon, with same interests.
We all know the expression "like Harold & Maude", even if we haven't seen this great film.
Young Harold, eccentric, spoiled, suicidal, is almost the exact opposite of old Maude (brilliantly played by the ever-feisty Ruth Gordon), who is vibrant and full of life's spirit.Following the pair on their "outings" is both hilarious and provocative.
To see the fearless Maude playfully "deal with" irritating police officers, or responding to a suspicious priest whose car she had recently "borrowed", or to pose nude for an elderly ice sculptor, to ensure he retains the memory of the female body, or to simply rejoice in the beauties of nature, is an inspiration to viewers at any stage of life.Harold's countless fake suicides are hilarious, but he eventually meets his match in a young prospective "date" sent by a matrimony agency.
Those of us in the "flyover" states, contentedly munching our cake and participating in league bowling and working for a living, were profoundly mystified by this trend, particularly since films like "Harold and Maude," "Love Story," "The Graduate," etc.
Just as the music of Cat Stevens is laughably inferior to the intense, passionate, vibrant music of the time, like Marvin Gaye or the O'Jays or Aretha Franklin or Van Morrison, so is Harold and Maude an empty shadow compared to the truly great movies about alienation and struggle and injustice of the late 60s and 70s..
Hal Ashby's Harold and Maude attained cult status for its portrayal of a morbid youth who falls in love with a spirited woman not twice, but four times his age.
Maude teaches Harold about life and the two fall in love.I don't know why the film didn't get nominated for any Oscars to be honest its a real shame because it deserved one.
Neither Harold nor Maude really fits in to such a staid society, so they participate in their own ways, however unusual or problematic.I'll watch almost any film that Ruth Gordon is in.
He meets an 79 years old woman and connects with her in many ways."Harold and Maude" begins with a suicide scene which is powerful and haunting.
This film not only sets itself apart from typical lines of thought, it challenges the viewer to view life in a totally new lens.The success of this movie is not itself in the characters or the story but the underlying message of challenging conventionalism, spontaneity,freedom and the idea that we must make the best of the time we have on this planet and savor all the beauty around us.The film hits home because of it's effective usage of witty dialogue, interesting dichotomies, and it's thick, yet subtle suggestions about morale subjectivity.Amist the sexual revolution, as the film does mention, the film directly takes aim at social conservative values and pierces the foundation of what love 'ought to be'.
This film is a truly beautiful work that will stand the tests of time and be a constant reminder to us all to live life to the fullest and of the importance of true love.10/10.
Wonderful set design that evokes the 70's and earlier decades (Maude's home is full of character and memorabilia.)The film touches on so many subjects (being a misfit, youth, old age, war, politics, life and death) but for me the main theme is to enjoy life - even the bad stuff.
And that maybe for some of us the only way to understand the precious joy of life is to engage with those who are closer to death.Probably the finest soundtrack of any film entirely by Cat Stevens..
No wonder it's considered a "cult classic," which usually translates into "sick-movie-that-a-select group- of-sick people-love." In this case, it's a story of a 79-year-old degenerate ("Maude," played by Ruth Gordon) hooking up with a 19-year-old "Harold Parker Chasen" (Burt Cort).
A suicide obsessed young rich kid meets up with an eighty year old "free sprite" at a funeral - for someone neither knows - and starts an unlikely "love" affair.A bittersweet movie unlike any other that has been made before or since.
But together they find a little romance and bring out the best in each other, even if no one else can see that.Harold and Maude is possibly one of the most unique and original stories I have watched, it was so strange and off putting, yet it worked and became a masterpiece that any film lover would enjoy.
A film like "Harold and Maude" is precious in the way it teaches the value of life before it's too late...
The two wacky main characters, Harold (Bud Cort), a 19 year old boy is obsessed with faking his own suicide and Maude (Ruth Gordon) a 79 year old woman who enjoys stealing cars and joyfully riding around, but never forgets that in just a small time she'll be 80.
What I saw charmed me and affected me in ways that were both disturbing and wonderful.The story's pretty well accounted for:the romance between spoiled,death-obsessed malcontent teen Harold(Bud Cort)and breezy,life-affiriming octogeneraian Maude(stage legend Ruth Gordon, relatively fresh from her praised work on Rosemary's Baby)is something so refreshing and odd,so nervy and strange that we're near forty years since this show's bow and one could DARE studios to try and make a film like it and get no takers!
Not many films, if any, are able to effectively portray a relationship between a teenager and an 80 year old woman in a believable and endearing way; Harold and Maude is one such exception.
Ironically, Harold comes across his polar opposite, the kind and generous Maude (Ruth Gordon), a woman whom values life to a great degree.
For sheer audacity, you have to congratulate the makers of HAROLD AND MAUDE for taking such a chance on this black comedy material and making it work, largely due to the title roles played so perfectly by RUTH GORDON and BUD CORT.The highly improbable story is entertaining enough to let anyone dismiss the flaws of logic--a suspension of disbelief that must be had in order to enjoy the wacky tale of how two people from opposite viewpoints (not to mention different ends of the generation gap), meet and fall in love.Funniest sequences are Cort's various attempts at suicide in front of his pragmatic mother, who then decides she must match him with a suitable girl so he can get married.
Harold and Maude is one of those obscure movies that not many people see, but almost every one who does loves it.
Cat Stevens songs works perfectly for this movie.Harold and Maude GIVE US A WONDERFUL VIEW of life,we can choose how to live or to love no matter what, if I choose not to be...
Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort are perfect as Harold and Maude.
Ruth Gordon is brilliant as Maude and Bud Cort as Harold is right behind her.
"Harold and Maude" is an uplifting, inspiring film about living life to the fullest whether you are really at the beginning of your journey or near the end.
I agree that Cat Steven's soundtrack doesn't blend seamlessly into the film, but after several viewings, it's come to seem really appropriate to me.This movie is eccentric and charming, like the characters involved. |
tt0104437 | Honey I Blew Up the Kid | Five years after inventor Wayne Szalinski shrunk his children, his family have moved to Nevada, and welcomed a new son, mischievous two-year old Adam. Wayne’s wife Diane leaves on a Friday with their daughter Amy for college, leaving Wayne to look after Adam and their teenage son Nick, who struggles with puberty. He develops a crush on Mandy Park, who Wayne later arranges to babysit Adam. One Saturday, Wayne takes his sons to Sterling Labs, where he has constructed a device which could make objects grow. He tests it out on Adam’s toy Big Bunny. However, when Wayne and Nick’s backs are turned, Adam retrieves his toy and is zapped by the machine, which appears to short circuit and not enlarge the targeted object.
Back home, Adam and Big Bunny are exposed to electrical waves from the microwave oven and grow in size, now seven feet tall. Wayne and Nick try to take Adam back to the lab to reverse the process, but are caught by Wayne’s superior Doctor Charles Hendrickson, who dislikes Wayne, later discovering his folly. Diane returns home and discovers the truth. Wayne and Diane drive to a warehouse and retrieve Wayne’s shrink ray to turn Adam back to normal. Mandy arrives to babysit Adam, Nick calming her down when she sees the gigantic toddler. Adam is exposed to a television’s electrical waves and grows to fourteen feet, before escaping through a wall.
Nick and Mandy search for him, but they and Adam are taken into custody, Adam placed into a truck. Wayne and Diane return home, finding the smug Hendrickson waiting for them. He has summoned Clifford Sterling, the company chairman, with the plan to fire Wayne and experiment on Adam. Sterling arrives, praising Wayne when he admits his mistake and agrees to help Adam, firing the rude Hendrickson as well. Adam grows even larger, escaping confinement, and heads for Las Vegas, pursued by his family and the authorities. Adam mistakes Nick and Mandy as toys and picks puts them in his overalls pocket.
Hendrickson gets permission to board a military helicopter and tranquilise Adam. Wayne needs Adam to stand still for twelve seconds so he can be shrunk. At first, he tries using Big Bunny to pacify Adam but it backfires when Wayne suggests his son takes a nap (which he hates). After wandering through Las Vegas, Adam saves the escaped Nick and Mandy in a sports car from falling off the Kicking Lady of Glitter Gultch and puts the car inside his pocket again, before pursuing an ice cream truck driven by Marshall Brooks to distract him away from the city. However, he continues to grow even larger and heads towards the Hard Rock Café, where he plays the lit up guitar. Hendrickson arrives and shoots Adam, causing him to drop the guitar and get an electric shock. Diane convinces Wayne to enlarge her so she can hug Adam, preventing Hendrickson from harming her son and getting Adam to stand still for the needed time period for the shrinking ray to work. Wayne then fires the shrink ray, returning Adam and Diane to normal size. Hendrickson arrives, attempting to justify his actions, but Diane knocks him out.
In the closing scene, Nick and Mandy are revealed to have been shrunk inside the car from inside Adam's pocket to the size of insects, only to be found by Wayne quickly. The only problem left is to shrink Big Bunny to normal size. | cult | train | wikipedia | Here's another example of the sequel being slightly better than the original, at least in my humble opinion.
However, the original ("Honey, I Shrunk The Kids") was nothing super, not something you'd call a "classic." It was "pretty good." This one is "good." It had more laughs and less irritating kids.
The little kid in here, who is turned into a giant, is cute and affable and his giggle is fun to hear.The first 40 minutes of this film are the best.
In this case, it was nice mother (Marcia Strassman.) Give me a break!The special-effects were okay but not totally convincing.
In fairness, it's not easy trying to produce the effects of a 100-foot child walking down the streets of Las Vegas, but they've still come along way from the days of "The Attack Of The 50- Foot Woman" in 1958.
However, there is still room for FX improvement.Overall, some good laughs in the film and - with one exception - likable characters..
In this inferior sequel to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, Dad blows up his little son to the size of a redwood.
As with the first film, Moranis brings a lot of energy to his role and Strassman still looks cute but the other kids and the nosy neighbors are missed.
The plot line about Moranis' wacky boss just gets out of hand and by the time the action moves to Vegas, the whole plot becomes tiresome.
It may have helped if they had a cuter kid play Adam or if they had him do some funnier things..
I don't mind sequels, some are great like Home Alone 2 and Empire Strikes Back, some are nothing special but can be an improvement over their originals like Garfield 2 and others that belong in the garbage like Home Alone 4 and NeverEnding Story 3.
This sequel really isn't that bad, at this point I don't think it belongs in either of these categories but in a category titled "a sequel that isn't as good as the original, but a sequel worth watching".
It is very daft, even more dafter than Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, with a very silly final 20 minutes and the pacing at this point in the film isn't as strong as it was in the first 40 minutes, which was fun, fun, fun personified.
It is nicely filmed, with a good soundtrack and some fun gags and physical comedy.
Rick Moranis reprises his role as Wayne and is immensely likable as always, and Marcia Strassman is great as Diane.
Daniel and Joshua Shalikar are very cute as Adam, who has a nice, funny little laugh that doesn't grate, thank goodness.
Overall, for a sequel, this is really not bad.
7/10 Bethany Cox. Wayne Szalinski does it again, except now he has a machine that makes things grow..
Those who say that he runs around in a stupid King Kong or Godzilla like fashion are wrong.
Moranis is excellent as his usual "eccentric" role in all three of these movies.
Too bad the Szalinski's moved, because I liked the Thompsons from the original.
But it seems like Amy has forgotten all about Little Russ Thompson by now, because she just goes off to college with no regrets or worries.
Bridges was good as Wayne's boss-totally different than his much earlier role as Harvey, the deputy, in the priceless classic, High Noon..
That affable, amiable, absent minded professor family man Wayne (Rick Moranis) is back, but now his experiments in size are funded by a big time company and he's a hot property.
Unfortunately, his new toddler son, Adam, is the one who gets zapped this time, but instead of shrinking, he's turned into a toddler of Godzilla proportions.
If you thought Wayne's wife was unhappy with Wayne shrinking their older son Nick and daughter Amy (who only cameos here) in the first film, just wait till you see her lose it here when she finds out her little boy Adam here!
Now it's a race against time for Wayne to shrink Adam back down to size before he's destroyed by an uncaring society, with help from his now teenage son Nick and his girlfriend, Kerri Russell before she hit it big with "Felicity".May strain the cuteness for some, will warm the hearts of others.
HONEY, I BLEW UP THE KID, in my opinion, is an absolutely wild and zany time which you will surely enjoy.
If you ask me, it was funny when Mandy (Keri Russell) said, "There's no way I'm changing those diapers." Also, if you ask me, Wayne (Rick Moranis) was even absent-minded than in the predecessor.
Don't get me wrong, but I thought that it was funny when he told Diane (Marcia Strassman) that he blew up Adam (Daniel and Joshua Shalikar).
Now, in conclusion, if you like Rick Moranis or hilarious sci-fi adventures, I highly recommend this absolutely wild and wacky adventure that you will surely enjoy.
I really like the original "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" movie because it was clever, fun and I grew up on it.
(Nostalgia always triumphs over film weaknesses.) However the sequel, "Honey I Blew Up the Kid," is absolutely terrible.
Although it's not quite as bad as "We Shrunk Ourselves," it's still disastrous and a really poor cash-in on the original (which was an unexpected hit when it came out).This one involves Wayne (Rick Moranis) the wacky inventor creating the opposite of his last machine - a ray gun that can blow up people (not literally, of course) and make them really huge.
(This would certainly replace certain genitalia enlargement pills that exist on the market right now.) But oops, Wayne's toddler gets zapped by the sucker and turns into Godzilla.The movie tries to rip off Godzilla and all those other cheesy movies by having Big Baby attack the Big City like a giant.
Thankfully, he doesn't poop, because that would surely leave a stain on the city.This movie is just lame.
It isn't funny, it isn't clever, it's hard to watch at times.
It's a disappointing sequel to a fun movie that never needed one..
"Honey, I blew up the kid" is wildly fun.
I actually prefer somewhat than Honey, I shrunk the kids.
Wayne's character was very well developed as a clumsy genius who feels his wife doesn't think he knows what he's doing.
I also like how the movie doesn't copy from the original at all..
The first film was pretty decent, but not great and this one is a very large step down.
Few sequels have even come close to the original film and this isn't one of them.
I liked the first film (but didn't love it).
Seeing the baby turn into a 7 foot person and still getting taller was much better than seeing the characters shrunk in the first movie.
I realized in a comical way that it is very hard to keep a giant baby from the neighbors, the press, the police, the government, the city, and his own mom!
No wonder people wanted another movie from this series.I had to go to the bathroom several times since, I was laughing so hard at what the baby did throughout the movie.
Even the animated introdution at the begining was great.Rent or buy this movie anyway you can it is so funny!
Rick Moranis, Marcia Strassman, and Robert Oliveri try valiantly, but cannot save this movie.
It's really simple, stupid and (of course) illogical, but denying that there's no absurd comedic moments (the baby is kind of funny!) and no funny scenarios (the teenagers being stuck in the "toy car") seems bizarre to me.I loved this film as a kid.
There were specials on the Disney Channel when it finally (after what seemed like forever) premiered on there, and it was a rather neat experience for an eight year old.In fact, I've watched this movie so many times as a kid that I've seen it a hell of a lot more than the unquestionably superior first movie.
It was just one of those things.Watching it now, I'll admit that the special effects can be rather cumbersome and the lines are almost always pure cheeseball (Rick Moranis' especially).
Also, Keri Russell's work here is absolutely terrible; after watching a lot of "Felicity," I for some reason expected her to be at least near that quality.
Not to mention the stupid "villian" who hits the baby with some projectile; very, very mock able.But it's a nice little dumb movie!
This sequel was just not funny.
Not Bad. The best part of this somewhat hacky comedy sequel is the genre change.
This one is a fairly straight-ahead comedy-cover of an old giant monster flick with a baby playing Godzilla.
But the effects are still super impressive, the humor is good-natured, and Moranis can make almost anything worth watching..
Honey I Blew Up The Kid is a decent family movie with an average story line.The movie will definitely entertain a younger audience,but adults watching this movie with their kids will probably be bored,although I will say it isn't a horrible family film,its not the best,but its not the worst.The original,Honey I Shrunk The Kids,is definitely a much better movie for the whole family to watch.Honey I Blew Up The Kid will appeal to very young children,but the older audience will be bored,and fans of Honey I Shrunk The Kids will be disappointed by this sequel.Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) gets himself into another very difficult situation when a new experiment causes his youngest child keep growing more and more stories tall..
Honey, they blew the sequel.
I'm surprised Wayne Szalinski did such a poor performance after he was great in the first movie.Only up side is mild entertainment.4/10.
Honey adventures continues with this sequel.
This is a really good sequel to "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids".
What I enjoyed the most about "Honey, I Blew Up the Kids" was just how different the plot was compared to the original movie, and that was a good thing.
In fact, this movie doesn't look like it has ties to the original at all, so in ineffectively, you could watch either in any order, really, and it still won't make much of a difference.
What I like about this sequel was just how funny it is compared to the first one.
I liked how the baby just kept growing bigger and bigger in a short amount of time.
Probably, the most difficult thing about this movie was picking the correct title for it, and it's a really good title too because I don't know what else you could've came up with other than "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid"..
This movie is so overrated I can't believe the critics would say its the worst script in the series this movie is great the kid is cute and funny the acting is really good.
I personally loved "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" and am a fan of Rick Moranis's work.
As most sequels are, "Honey I Blew Up The Kid" is not nearly as good.
Yes, the effects are pretty awful, but don't forget that this movie is 25 years old and it's demographic was aimed towards children and families.
I did enjoy getting to see Nick, who was only 11 in the first movie, as a young teen, dealing with fitting in and relationships (much like Amy's struggle in the first).
One thing that I wish this sequel would have given is a little bit of discussion on the aftermath of the kids who were shrunk in the first movie.
I would recommend watching this sequel if you were a fan of the first, but also to go into it knowing it's not as good..
This movie is the sequel to the movie "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids", a highly successful comedy film.
Here, the story continues, with the machine still working the wrong way.
This time, the younger son of Professor Szalinski (Rick Moranis) was unwittingly widened to the height of a giant.
The film continues to make you laugh like the first and have moments of great tenderness.
The other children scientist also enter the film, which retained the original cast, but it is the mother, Diane (Marcia Strassman) who has particular relevance in this sequel.
Despite being a sequel, the film maintained a good quality and went well.
It's interesting, fun, good to see in family, especially if you have children..
They knew that when "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" was a real financial success, they could do the opposite thing and it would also bring in more bucks.
Everything is predicated on a baby, getting to be 100 feet high, reacting to things like a baby would to colors and light and interesting objects.
The problem is that the joke gets stale about half way through the movie.
When the little big guy becomes a threat, it gets sort of serious.
I don't get whats wrong with people, this sequel was a damn good follow up to the original(HISTK is my favorite childhood movie).
We had all the characters back from the original, including Amy, in her very brief scene, the only people missing were the next door neighbors.
There is one section in the movie where i was really enjoying it, that was when Adam was only tall enough to fit in the house and he was running a muck,i really enjoyed that.
I really think they should have had Amy in it all the way to the end, if not, more little cameos of her, i thought it would have been cool if she was at collage and her and her friends were watching TV and then a news report pops up, like an update about the baby's massive proportions, and then she realizes its her brother.
All in all, this was a great movie, lighten up people, the sequel you all should be bagging is "we shrunk ourselves"..
Disney's second "Honey, I ___" movie, "Honey, I Blew Up The Kid," was made in 1992 and our geeky father who worked on the shrinking ray is back!!!!!
This time, he was working on some sort of growth ray which used the same machine, but the bottom of a Coke bottle was used instead.
Now that's awesome!!!!!These "Honey, I" movies are always good!
Rick Moranis does it again.Wayne Szalinski(Rock Moranis) is a genius.
Only thing is, He isn't a genius around children and it really shows when he blows his son Adam(Daniel Shalikar and Joshua Shalikar) up.
Now he, his eldest son Nick(Robert Oliveri) and a friend have to find him,catch him and shrink him before Dr.Charles Hendrickson(John Shea) finds him and makes him into a side show freak.I'd say a good classic that needs a loving place on your shelf.
Any film with Rick is a good one.
Honey, I Blew Up the Kid. After the first (successful) movie surrounding shrinkage, and being heavily influenced by some classic sci-fi flicks of the 50's, it was inevitable that we'd see this.
Again heavily influenced by some classic black and white sci-fi movies of the 50's, we now find the Szalinskis' with a bigger problem.
Oh OK, set five years after the tiny events of the first movie, the Szalinskis' now live in Nevada.
They have a new two year old son called Adam, Nick is now a teenager and Amy has gone to college.
Funnily enough Wayne (Rick Moranis) is now working on a ray gun that will increase the size of objects.
On a routine trip to his work space at Sterling Labs, little Adam is accidentally zapped with the ray but nothing seems to happen.
Slowly Adam begins to gradually grow bigger and bigger; Wayne and Nick must now try to reverse the process before Adam becomes a danger to himself and others.So again the main draw here are the effects, the big breezy colourful effects.
In some scenes we see live action shots Moranis with a live action giant toddler, but if you look closely this does appear to be a very good bodysuit on an obviously tall person.
The bulk of the effects are unfortunately reliant on these techniques and alas it all stands out like a sore thumb.
Overall the effect is just way too obvious and really takes you out of the movie.
Heck even some of the large sets are bad looking, when Nick and his young female counterpart are riding in Adams oversized pocket, it just looks poor.
Don't get me wrong I give them an A for effort but clearly the effects team needed more money or skills, many movies came out before this and looked way better.Other than the effects there isn't a great deal on offer here frankly.
The plot sees a clichéd company villain (John Shea) going after the oversized Adam for his own nefarious dastardly deeds (still not entirely sure why he gets fired by Sterling, for being mean?).
This inevitably brings about the inevitable 'King Kong' homages as they use helicopters to try and tranquilise Adam.
Nothing new really, they reverse or mirror some scenes and dialog from the first movie.The movie ends in Vegas which generally looks horrendous from start to finish effects wise.
The movie also becomes very stupid as they apparently evacuate the Las Vegas strip in around five minutes.
I guess its all understandable seeing as its essentially a kids movie but its still very lame, lazy and dull.Doesn't help that the kid they use for the role of Adam is just kinda annoying, but that's just me.
Add to that the fact its a giant toddler which isn't particularly interesting or threatening, and of course the fact the first movie used a less common theme which was executed way better.
Overall its all adds up to a relatively fun movie with the odd decent moment.
Its just fails to capture the magic of the first movie; in this case miniature things are more fun I think.5/10 |
tt0252444 | Rabbit-Proof Fence | Set in 1931, two sisters, 14-year-old Molly and 8-year-old Daisy, and their 10-year-old cousin Gracie live in the Western Australian town of Jigalong. The town lies along the northern part of Australia's rabbit-proof fence, which runs for several thousand miles.
Thousands of miles away, the official Protector of Western Australian Aborigines, A. O. Neville (called Mr. Devil by them), signs an order to relocate the three girls to his re-education camp. The children are referred to by Neville as "half-castes", because they have one white and one Aboriginal parent. Neville's reasoning is portrayed as: the Aboriginal peoples of Australia are a danger to themselves, and the "half-castes" must be bred out of existence. He plans to place the girls in a camp where they, along with all half-castes of that age range, will grow up. They will then presumably become labourers and servants to white families, regarded as a "good" situation for them in life. Eventually if they marry, it will be to white people and thus the Aboriginal "blood" will diminish. As such, the three girls are forcibly taken from Jigalong by a local constable, Riggs, and sent to camp at the Moore River Native Settlement, in the south.
During their time at the camp, Molly notices a rain cloud in the sky and infers that if she, Gracie and Daisy were to escape and go back to Jigalong on foot, the rain will cover their tracks, making them difficult to follow. Gracie and Daisy decide to go along with Molly and the three girls sneak off without being noticed and run away. Moments after their escape, an Aboriginal tracker, Moodoo, is called in to find them. However, the girls are well trained in disguising their tracks. They evade Moodoo several times, receiving aid from strangers in the harsh Australian country they travel. They eventually find the rabbit-proof fence, knowing they can follow it north to Jigalong. Neville soon figures out their strategy and sends Moodoo and Riggs after them. Although he is an experienced tracker, Moodoo is unable to find them.
Neville spreads word that Gracie's mother is waiting for her in the town of Wiluna. The information finds its way to an Aboriginal traveller who "helps" the girls. He tells Gracie about her mother and says they can get to Wiluna by train, causing her to break off from the group and attempt to catch a train to Wiluna. Molly and Daisy soon walk after her and find her at a train station. They are not reunited, however, as Riggs appears and Gracie is recaptured. The betrayal is revealed by Riggs, who tells the man he will receive a shilling for his help. Knowing they are powerless to aid her, Molly and Daisy continue on. In the end, after a harsh long journey, the two sisters make it home and go into hiding in the desert with their mother and grandmother. Meanwhile, Neville realizes he can no longer afford the search for Molly and Daisy and decides to suspend the pursuit.
=== Epilogue ===
The film's epilogue shows recent footage of Molly and Daisy. Molly explains that Gracie has died and she never returned to Jigalong. Molly also tells us of her own two daughters; she and they were taken from Jigalong back to Moore river. She managed to escape with one daughter, Annabelle, and once again, she walked the length of the fence back home. However, when Annabelle was 3 years old, she was taken away once more, and Molly never saw her again. In closing, Molly says that she and Daisy "... are never going back to that place". That is the end. This shows Molly and Daisy at the end. | melodrama, boring, historical, depressing, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0049130 | Death of a Scoundrel | Clementi Sabourin, a wealthy and scandalous businessman, is found dead. Police come to investigate, and when they question Bridget Kelly, who found the body, she tells them everything she knows about his past.
A Czech refugee, missing and believed dead, Sabourin one day turns up to find his love Zina is now married to his brother, Gerry. Out of spite, he betrays his brother to the police. Sabourin learns from the police prefect that Gerry was killed resisting arrest. The prefect gives Sabourin a passport and he sets sail for America.
At the port in New York he observes the shady Miss Kelly as she makes off with ship passenger Leonard Wilson's wallet. Sabourin makes a romantic play for Kelly, only to steal the wallet when her back is turned. Kelly's estranged husband Chuck pursues and shoots Sabourin in the street, but Sabourin escapes by pushing Chuck into the path of an oncoming car.
On a tip from the doctor who removes the bullet, Sabourin invests in a company that manufactures the drug penicillin. He fraudulently uses a $20,000 cashier's check from inside the stolen wallet to purchase the stock. Encountering the wealthy Mrs. Ryan, widow of a prominent businessman, Sabourin earns a considerable sum of money for her as well by tipping her to the stock. Mrs. Ryan writes Sabourin a $20,000 loan, which he uses to cover his forged check from Wilson. His stockbroker, O'Hara, spots the fraud but helps Sabourin in exchange for a share in his profit.
Sabourin uses a financial statement he found in Wilson's wallet to blackmail Wilson into selling him his oil company. Sabourin orchestrates a fake oil strike to gain profit, but his investors get the last laugh when oil is really found on the property and the stock soars to $30 a share. Sabourin, O'Hara, Miss Kelly and Sabourin's lawyer Bauman become successful by buying struggling companies, manipulating the price of stock and throwing the companies into receivership.
As he becomes increasingly successful, Sabourin begins courting a number of women romantically, including Mrs. Ryan's young secretary, Stephanie North. He invites North to a party and finances her ambition to become an actress. When she rejects his advances, he attempts to thwart her career, but is unsuccessful, as her producer recognizes that North does indeed have talent.
Sabourin then courts the affluent Edith van Renssalaer, married to a wealthy businessman. Sabourin attempts to interfere in her marriage to gain control of her stock and form a new uranium company, but Zina resurfaces one night and reveals that she learned he was responsible for his brother's death. He pledges his love to her and remorse for Gerry's death, lying through his teeth. Zina believes him, but when she sees him conspire with Edith, she kills herself and writes a note implicating Sabourin. The police arrest him, while Edith abandons him.
As Sabourin's embezzling is also uncovered, the court begins an attempt to deport him to Czechoslovakia. Knowing that the communists will confiscate his money there, Sabourin instructs Miss Kelly to contact his mother. The mother is initially happy to see her son, but refuses his plan to tell the court that Sabourin was born illegitimately in Switzerland and disowns him. Miss Kelly, who has long concealed her love and concern for Sabourin, implores him to return the stolen money and tells him that his way does not work out in the end.
Initially reluctant, Sabourin finally decides to return the money. No sooner does he endorse the stock certificates, O'Hara (who hitherto had qualms concerning their crooked dealings) arrives and confronts him at gunpoint. O'Hara announces that he and Bauman intend to let Sabourin be the fall guy and take all the money for themselves. A struggle ensues over O'Hara's gun in which Sabourin manages to kill O'Hara but is himself fatally wounded. As he returns home dejectedly, he sees all of his would-be victims emerging successful as wells as a billboard with the verse Mark 8:36 written on it. He also meets Kelly, and tells her that he returned the money.
When Sabourin returns home, he pleads with his mother, but she refuses to see him. He then calls Kelly, leaving a message telling her that he really did love her in his own way and begging for forgiveness. Finally, he collapses on the bed and dies.
The story ends as Kelly finishes reporting the story to the police and Sabourin's mother, who laments that she did not forgive her son for his crimes before he died. Kelly then surmises that it is possible Sabourin found forgiveness and peace in death, taking one last look around his magnificent house as she leaves.
As everyone in his life comes to understand just what a scoundrel Sabourin is, each has a reason to kill him, until someone ultimately does. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0114127 | The Piano Lesson | Act 1, Scene 1 Boy Willie and Lymon arrive in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from Mississippi and enter the Charles' household at five in the morning. They have brought a truck of watermelons to sell. Against Doaker's advice, Boy Willie wakes his sister Berniece, and tells her of Sutter's death. Berniece accuses Boy Willie of shoving Sutter down a well, and she asks him to leave. Instead, Boy Willie wakes Berniece's daughter, Maretha, causing Berniece to run back up the stairs where she sees Sutter's ghost. Lymon notices the piano which Willie intends to sell to buy Sutter's land. Doaker insists that Berniece will not sell the piano, because she refused to sell when Avery brought a buyer to the house. Willie insists that he will convince her. Maretha comes downstairs, and Willie asks her to play the piano. She plays the beginning of a few simple tunes, and he answers her song with a boogie-woogie. Berniece enters with Avery, and Willie asks whether she still has the prospective buyer's name, explaining he came to Pittsburgh to sell the piano. Berniece refuses to listen and walks out.
Act 1, Scene 2 Wining Boy and Doaker talk in the kitchen when Boy Willie and Lymon enter and claim to have located the piano buyer. Willie's uncles warn him that Sutter will cheat him but Boy Willie refuses to listen. The story behind Lymon and Boy Willie's term in Parchman Prison Farm is revealed. Lymon and Willie both gather different perspectives from their experiences. Lymon wants to flee to the North where he will be better treated, while Willie feels that whites only treat blacks badly if the blacks do not try and stop them. They ask Wining Boy to play the piano, but instead he explains that being seen as nothing more than a piano player became a burden.
Doaker then tells the story of the piano's history. Generations earlier, Sutter, their family's slave-owner, broke up a family by selling a mother and child to pay for the piano which he bought for his wife as an anniversary present. The wife was happy with the piano but missed having the slaves, so Sutter had that family's husband/father (who was a carpenter and too valuable to sell), carve their likenesses on the piano. He carved likenesses of his entire history on the piano. In 1911, Boy Willie's father stole the piano from the Sutters; in retaliation he was killed. Willie declares that these are stories of the past and that the piano should now be put to good use. Willie and Lymon attempt to move the piano to test its weight. As soon as they try to move it, Sutter's ghost is heard. Berniece tells Willie to stop and informs him that he is selling his soul for money. Willie refutes her, Berniece blames Crawley's death on Willie, and the two engage in a fight. Upstairs, Maretha is confronted by the ghosts, and she screams.
Act 2, Scene 1 Doaker and Wining Boy are again together in the house alone. Doaker confesses that he saw Sutter's ghost playing the piano and feels that Berniece should discard the piano so as to prevent spirits from traumatizing the Charles family. Wining Boy disagrees. Lymon and Willie walk into the room after a watermelon sale. Wining Boy sells his suit and shoes to Lymon, promising its swooning effects on women. Both Lymon and Willie leave the house in hot pursuit of women.
Act 2, Scene 2 Later that day as Berniece is preparing for her bath, Avery enters and proposes that Berniece should open up and let go. He tells her that she cannot continue to live her life with Crawley's memory shut inside her. Berniece changes the topic and asks Avery to bless the house, hoping to destroy the spirit of the Sutter ghost. Avery then brings up the piano and tells Berniece she should learn to not be afraid of her family's spirits and play it again. Berniece breaks down her story of her mother's tears and blood mingled with her father's soul on the piano and refuses to open her wounds for everyone to see.
Act 2, Scenes 3–5 Boy Willie enters the Charles house with Grace and begins to fool around on the couch. Berniece orders them out and opens the door to see Lymon. Lymon is upset over his inability to woo women and begins to talk about women's virtues to Berniece. The two kiss, breaking Berniece's discomfort over Crawley's death, and Berniece heads back upstairs.
The next morning, Lymon and Willie try to move the piano out and are stopped by Uncle Doaker. Willie, frustrated, demands that he will sell the piano no matter what. The day to move the piano draws closer. Excited to sell the piano, Willie quickly partakes on his actions without a care of his sister's words. Berniece appears with Crawley's gun, leading Doaker and Avery to urge them to talk it through first. Sutter's presence as a ghost is suddenly revived. Avery attempts to drive the ghost away with his blessings but is not successful. Suddenly, Berniece knows that she must play the piano again as a plea to her ancestors. Finally, the house is led to a calm aura, and Willie leaves. | depressing | train | wikipedia | Excellent play & film!.
I first viewed this film in a literature class in 2003, and it quickly became one of my favorites.
It rather saddens me that so many people complain that there's no story, no action.
There is a lot of story to this film, if you want to take the time to watch and appreciate it.
Not every movie has to be a massive epic.
This film is a story about a family and how some of the members want a better life and to purge the past of pain, and just like real life, some of the best stories are about the intimate moments and of the struggles we all face.If you enjoy a good drama, a story that slowly reveals the history behind the events you first see, this is the movie for you..
August Wilson at his Best.
Anyone who doesn't "understand" this movie probably doesn't understand African Americans.
It's a beautiful, poignant piece about a family and an heirloom piano.
I don't like everything August Wilson has done but this one is a gem.
The interaction between the characters is top notch.
Alfre Woodward is in her element.
For those who don't care for Charles Dutton, I know what they mean, but that's the way he acts -- in everything.
It's much more effective on the stage than on the screen.
As another reviewer has suggested, I also identify with every character.
I have uncles just like these men.
It's nice to see a movie that really touches you where you live and come from..
Simple and nice.
I liked the movie and its music.
The best scene is the one when they sing about Alberta.
I also think that actors realisticaly played the rolls of old time peoples way of communication.
I love that home feeling in the Berinces house.It also true that the story is simple and looks more like the gossip, that someone would tell you about people seeing a ghost..
Piano Lesson is wonderful: A play brought to life..
In all truth, I watched this by mistake, thinking i was about to see the 2006 film by the same name.
Although I still have to see the new film, this take of Piano Lesson was a nice surprise.
Funny, smart, touching - it had it all.
The storyline is great, evolving just at the right pace, without being too expected (as in Boring) or too melodramatic (as in Not my cup of tea).
The plot has twists and turns, the characters are 3-D and interesting and the actors convincingly bring them to life.
As I said - a very nice surprise for me, and I'm about to watch this all over again - this time with my boyfriend.
I give it an easy 10 out of 10.
Wonderful.
>> Kim B.
>> http://www.reviewsnest.com.
A family's past or its future - which is more important?.
This play is not as simple as it first appears.
There is great complexity in all of the major characters, especially in Bernice.
And the use of the 'jazz set' model instead of the traditional Aristotelian'plot graph' makes all the difference!
The language of the play is music itself, and eventually erupts into song.
This is a wonderful debate on the importance of the past and the future in the lives of these characters, symbolized by the piano which has been passed down through the family.
A cast full of excellent actors brings it to life.
Loved it!
I hope 'The Piano Lesson' and the other plays in Wilson's ten-play cycle will soon be available on film..
very funny.
You have to come up in a certain culture to understand the overreactions of Charles S.
Dutton.
They really weren't overreactions, but what makes the film so comical is that there were (and still are) African-Americans that behave that way.
What makes it funny is that we all at some point have relatives that are like those in the movie, esp.
the part where he comes to visit early in the morning unannounced and expects everyone to get up to greet him.
We also have some Uncle Doakers who minds his own business and some con artists like Uncle Whining Boy. Now the part I do agree on is the supernatural aspect of the film.
With all the joking and jesting going on, it does drown out the concept meaning it doesn't fit.
Otherwise it's a good movie if you want to have a good laugh..
Strange Movie.
This movie is a weird mix of a ghost story and a drama.
The story is in the beginning vague and when you continue watching it, it becomes clearer and clearer, but it does not suck you into the story and make you want to see how it ends, maybe because the director made it more dramatic then scary.I do not remember any background music in the movie, which makes it more special.
The music is coming from the actors themselves, which was amazing to me and I must say to the actors: well done!.
The Piano Is More About Music In This Film!.
Based on the August Wilson play, the cast is first rate with Alfre Woodard, Charles Dutton, Lou Myers, Courtney B.
Vance and others in this film.
The film was produced for the classic Hallmark Hall of Fame.
I didn't see the play so I don't know of the differences.
There is a lot of dialogue among the cast to help believability.
Back when they aired television movies on networks, Hallmark Hall of Fame produced the finest quality of films with cast and writing.
This film is worth viewing at least once..
rate 7 this is above average PLAY.
i emphasize Play because it seems that earlier commentators think Dutton over emotes.
all the actors are convincing.
this is not to say that all Afro-Americans always acted this way in the 30's.
Indeed some act this way today when they feel comfortable .
her uncle probably wouldn't be singing in the house except that he felt comfortable singing with these guys around a bottle of whiskey.
to say this is merely a ghost story is to miss the point.
this like A Raisen In The Sun where the man sees an opportunity to finally own a piece of the rock and a member of his family will not part with the means to acquire it.
Also, there is quite a lot more going on here if you watch the play a second time, as i did..
There's a reason why this is made for TV.
This is a TV film based off a play.
It should have stayed a play, because it just plain isn't good enough to be a movie.
It's a very hokey sort of piece, mostly because of the bad acting and the weak ending.Hmmm, what else can I say about this film in order to fill up the required minimum?
I don't really know.
It's a mundane sort of thing that your teacher makes you watch in theater class because (s)he can't show the really good stuff (or because (s)he has really tame tastes in what is considered engaging drama).I'll admit, this movie is socially significant, and August Wilson did a fine job with the original storyline.
But this made-for-TV thing is just verbatim crap.Final grade: 4/10.
A movie you will either like or hate.
I must confess I always have difficulty with some of the made for TV movies that I get to watch on my pay tv channels here in Australia.The Piano lesson is once such movie.The story line seems to have no real purpose other than a sibling squabble over a family piano.
And I am not sure as to what the "supernatural" element to the movie is supposed to do in relation to enhancing the story.
Without the absurdity of this, it may have passed as an acceptable "Afro american" period movie.I am not a big Charles Dutton fan and I feel there is an element of overacting at times with his character who I dislike more and more as the movie goes on.For me a 4/10 and that was being kind |
tt0083906 | Eureka | Eureka is a drama set mainly in rural Kyushu, Japan, and is almost entirely shot in sepia tone. It tells the story of the lasting effects of a violent experience on three people, a teenage brother and sister, Naoki and Kozue Tamura and a bus driver, Makoto Sawai. These three are the sole survivors after the bus is hijacked by a gunman. The actual violent events which traumatise them are not shown in detail. The extent to which the three have been affected slowly becomes apparent. Naoki and Kozue do not return to school, do not speak and become dissociated from their parents. Some time after the hijack, their mother abandons the family. Later their father is killed in a car crash. It is not clear whether his death is suicide. The two children continue to live alone in the family home. Meanwhile, Makoto is finding it impossible to carry on normal life and takes to the road, leaving his estranged wife living in the family home with his elderly father, elder brother, his wife and their daughter. After some time, Makoto returns home to find that his wife has left him. He cannot return to driving a bus and takes a job as a day-labourer with an old school-friend.
Relationships between Makoto and his brother begin to deteriorate and Makoto moves in with Naoki and Kozue. He takes over the housekeeping and makes sure they eat properly. Kozue now begins to communicate a little but Naoki remains mute. The detective who dealt with the hijacking begins to harass Makoto about the murder of a woman in the neighbourhood, apparently without any evidence. While Makoto is out at work one day, the children's older student cousin Akihiko arrives and states he intends to stay to look after the children. He and Makoto are uneasy with each other but the four people settle down into a kind of family arrangement.
A further murder takes place and this time the victim is a friend of Makoto's. He is arrested and questioned by the detective but is finally released. He talks to his friend and co-worker about his wish to return to driving and forms a plan to get all of them, Naoki, Kozue, Akihiko and himself away from their troubles. He buys an old bus which they convert for living accommodation and they all set off on an extended tour of the island. Kozue becomes more relaxed as they travel around but Naoki appears more disturbed. It eventually becomes clear that it is Naoki who is the murderer. Makoto confronts him and persuades him to give himself up. The remaining three carry on with the journey until Makoto finally loses his temper with Akihiko's cynical and shallow outlook and throws him off the bus. Makoto and Kozue continue on their journey until,finally, when they reach the peak of the highest mountain in Kyushu, both realise they are able to face ordinary life again. As they reach this understanding the film briefly turns to colour. | violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0094606 | The Accidental Tourist | Macon Leary (William Hurt) is a Baltimore writer of travel guides for reluctant business travelers, which detail how best to avoid unpleasantness and difficulty.
His marriage to his wife Sarah (Kathleen Turner) is disintegrating in the aftermath of the murder of their twelve-year-old son, Ethan. Sarah eventually leaves Macon, moving out of their house and into an apartment. After he falls down the basement stairs and breaks his leg, Macon returns to his childhood home to stay with his eccentric siblings.
Macon is pursued by Muriel Pritchett (Geena Davis), an animal hospital employee and dog trainer with a sickly son. Macon eventually hires Muriel to put his dog through much-needed obedience training. Although Muriel at first seems brash and unsophisticated, Macon finds himself slowly opening up to her and trusting her, and he spends most nights at her house. When Sarah becomes aware of the situation, she decides they should move back together into their old home. Macon leaves Muriel, and he and Sarah set up house once more.
When Macon visits Paris for research, Muriel surprises him by showing up on the same flight and stays in the same Paris hotel, recommended by Macon in one of his travel guides. She suggests that they enjoy themselves as if they are vacationing together. Macon insists he is there strictly for business, and he keeps Muriel at arm's length.
After Macon is bedridden in his room by his back problem, Sarah comes to Paris to care for him and make day-trips to help complete his travel research. After some time, Sarah confronts Macon about his relationship with Muriel, but he refuses to discuss the situation in any depth.
Macon dresses while Sarah still sleeps, then wakes her to tell her that he is going back to Muriel. On the way to the airport, Macon spots Muriel hailing a taxi and tells the driver to stop. Thinking the driver stopped for her, Muriel bends to gather her luggage and catches sight of Macon in the taxi. She smiles, and Macon returns the smile. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034368 | Wabbit Twouble | Elmer, riding in his old jalopy to a Conga beat, makes his way to Jellostone National Park (a pun on Yellowstone National Park) while looking forward to rest and relaxation. Elmer pitches a tent near Bugs Bunny's rabbit hole, and sets up camp by putting a fire stove, a mirror and a table to wash his face, and a hammock. However, he is very disappointed when Bugs unpitches and takes away his tent, but gets it back, this time tied up in knots. Bugs welcomes Elmer to Jellostone, then pulls Elmer's hat over his eyes. When Elmer reaches into the hole to grab Bugs, Bugs ties up his fingers. He passes a law against Bugs getting out of his hole by hammering a board. However, Bugs gets out, and mimics Elmer's weight and what he previously said, labeling it "phooey". Elmer lies down in his hammock and falls fast asleep, muttering to himself.
Bugs appears from the rabbit hole by Elmer's campsite. He takes a pair of glasses, paints them black, puts them on Elmer's face and sets Elmer's alarm clock to go off. Elmer now thinks it's night (since everything seems so dark), so he goes to his tent, gets undressed and goes to bed. Bugs then takes the glasses off and crows like a rooster, making Elmer think that it's the next morning.
When Elmer goes to wash his face again, Bugs keeps the towel at a short distance with a branch, causing Elmer to blindly follow the towel ("I do this kind of stuff to him all through the picture", he confides to the audience). He leads Elmer off a cliff edge. Elmer looks at the miraculous view of the Grand Canyon, but then realizes he's in midair. He runs back to safety and holds on to Bugs for dear life. Bugs then admits he's the one pulling these gags and runs off, with a furious Elmer giving chase after retrieving a gun from his tent. However, he runs into a black bear. The bear starts growling, and so Elmer turns to a wildlife handbook for advice, which directs him to play dead.
The bear soon gives up (after sniffing Elmer's "B.O." – his feet), but Bugs climbs on Elmer and starts growling exactly like the bear. Just as Bugs starts biting Elmer's foot, Elmer sees what's going on and grabs his rifle. Bugs runs away when the bear returns and Elmer ends up hitting the bear instead. A chase ensues with Elmer and the bear running through the trees to the tune of the William Tell Overture. Finally, the bear freaks Elmer out when he rides on top of him.
Eventually, Elmer gives up and packs everything back into his car. On his way out, he stops back at the sign and reads it again. This makes him say that it's "bawogney!" and to teach the park not to give false advertisement, he chops the sign up to bits with a hatchet and an ax and then stomps on the ruined sign while calling the park's "peace and wewaxation" promises "wubbish!" A ranger (along with Bugs) appears, with an angry expression on his face. Elmer is sad because he is arrested for the destruction of government property, and he is now in jail, where he's thankful that he's finally "wid of that gwizzwy bear and scwewy wabbit! West and wewaxation at wast!" Unfortunately, however, he turns to find out that somehow he's sharing his cell with both Bugs and the black bear. Both of them ask how long he is in jail for ("Pardon me but, how long are ya in for, doc?", they ask). | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0057122 | Gunfighters of Casa Grande | Joe Daylight is on the run along with members of his outlaw gang, The Kid, Doc and Henri. After fleeing from a bank robbery, they manage to elude the posse chasing them after crossing into Mexico. The gang had agreed to meet up later to divide up the money, however Daylight instead tells them that he has used the money to buy a hacienda, the Casa Grande. Although several of them protest, the gang agrees to follow Daylight to the ranch. He also enlists a mystical Mexican gunfighter called ”Viajero” (Traveller) – who knows the neighbourhood and comes from a haciendero family (though few know this) – to help him fit into the role of a Mexican hacienda owner, a hidalgo.
In effect, Daylight has won the hacienda in a poker game and his plan is to keep the gang together and use the ranch as a cover to rustle cattle from his neighbors and sell them at inflated prices across the border. However, his comrades soon adapt to life on the ranch. The Traveller and The Kid meet two women named Dona Maria de Castellar and Pacesita, with whom they eventually fall in love.
Daylight's plans are temporarily threatened by another bandit gang led by Rojo, who begins stealing cattle from numerous ranches in the area including his own. Organizing the local ranchers against the bandits, they succeed in destroying Rojo and his men. This has an unintended consequence however as Daylight's men have decided to remain at Casa Grande. He and his men begin to argue and, during the course of events, shoots and kills Doc causing The Traveller to kill Daylight in turn. With their former leader dead, the men stay on the ranch and The Traveller and Maria begin a new life on the Casa Grande. | western, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0107979 | Robot Wars | By 2041, North America has been ravaged by "the great toxic gas scare of 1993": large swaths of land have been turned into inhospitable desert, where bands of raiders called "Centros" attack transports. The former United States have been assimilated into a Western bloc called the North Hemi. The opposing Eastern bloc is known as the Eastern Alliance, and the North Hemi is planning to salvage its economy by manufacturing defense robots called "mini-megs" for the Eastern Alliance. These robots would be smaller offshoots of giant "mega-robots", once ubiquitous in warfare but now reduced to a single specimen, the MRAS-2 (which looks like a mechanized scorpion).
MRAS-2 conducts tours for civilians, and carries laser assault weapons to defend itself. It is operated by Drake (Don Michael Paul) and his copilot Stumpy (James Staley). During a transport run, Drake's mech is ambushed by Centros. Drake opts for a defensive strategy, but his boss Rooney orders him to attack so he can show off the robot to general Wa-Lee (Danny Kamekona), a visiting dignitary from the Eastern Alliance sent to negotiate the purchase of the mini-megs. The violent rocking motions of the mech during the battle cause an archaeologist passenger, Leda (Barbara Crampton), to drop and break her valuable specimens. When Drake brings the robot to port, Leda angrily confronts him about the specimens, but he dismisses her with flirtatious remarks.
Drake is summoned to Rooney's office, and shows him a recovered Centro weapon which appears to be of Eastern alliance origin. Drake deduces that the Eastern alliance is conspiring with the Centros, but Rooney disbelieves him. Drake pressures Rooney to stop the MRAS-2 tours to avoid risking more lives, and when his boss refuses, Drake vows to quit piloting the robot. Meanwhile, Leda has met with her journalist friend Anne, and exposes some suspicious activity going on in Crystal Vista, a perfectly preserved 20th-century town that survived the toxic gas scare: the town is built on a layer of 21st-century materials which are impenetrable to satellite imaging, and she has found components similar to those of the old MEGA-1 robot, which was supposedly dismantled.
Later, Wa-Lee holds a traditional fighting ceremony and invites Drake, who apparently has long-standing animosity against him, to fight. Drake accepts, and knocks Wa-Lee down before the battle begins proper, cementing the tension between them. Drake then makes good on his promise to Rooney and gives up pilot duty to volunteer for a special op against the Centros; there he recovers more Eastern-manufactured equipment. Despite Drake's insistence that the MRAS-2 is under threat from Centros, Rooney allows the tour to proceed, and even has Wa-Lee taught how to pilot the robot as a courtesy. At a bar later on, Stumpy tells Drake that his grandfather was part of an effort to hide MEGA-1. Meanwhile, Leda and Anne have ridden the MRAS-2 to Crystal Vista. There, they go underground through the basement of a schoolhouse, and find the micron transponders of the MEGA-1. Anne returns to catch the MRAS-2 return trip, while Leda stays behind to continue the investigation.
Suddenly, Centros appear and chase Leda. She escapes for a while, and the rest of the Centros head for the Crystal Vista robot port. There, they join Wa-Lee's officers in a mutiny and kill the North Hemi security, proving Drake right about the Eastern alliance's duplicity. Wa-Lee hijacks the MRAS-2, taking the passengers hostage, and begins destroying strategic targets. Rooney pleads with Drake and Stumpy to retake the robot, and they agree upon learning that the Centros have captured Leda. The general heads for Crystal Vista to kill Drake, who has freed Leda, found the MEGA-1 intact, reactivated it and is now piloting it.
The two robots meet in the desert and begin fighting. Drake removes the MRAS-2's cabin, saving the passengers, and eventually manages to subdue the general. The film ends happily as he and Leda admit their attraction to each other. | cult, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0085224 | The Being | In the fictional town of Pottsville, Idaho citizens begin disappearing. Young Michael Smith, son of Marge Smith (Dorothy Malone) is the first to vanish. A young man is decapitated while fleeing from an unseen assailant, and patrons in a drive-in theater are brutally murdered inside their vehicles. At each scene a pile of green slime is found. Wanting to get to the bottom of the disappearances but afraid that the publicity might damage the town’s potato business, Mayor Gordon Lane (José Ferrer) hires Chemical safety engineer Garcon Jones (Martin Landau) to investigate. Also investigating the disappearances is Detective Mortimer Lutz (Bill Osco), who senses that something terrible has befallen the town.
Meanwhile, more and more people disappear, with a puddle of green slime found at each site. With this new string of disappearances Lutz begins to suspect that Jones knows more than he is willing to tell. His suspicions grow when he is attacked by something monstrous while at home, with Lutz barely managing to escape from his attacker. Lutz confronts Jones about the incident but is told that there is nothing wrong in the area. The following night while Lutz his waitress girlfriend Laurie (Marianne Gordon) home they are suddenly attacked by a hideous creature. After holing themselves inside a diner they manage to lock it inside a freezer. The couple then contacts Mayor Lane, however when he arrives they discover that the creature has vanished, leaving behind a puddle of green slime.
In light of this recent attack, Lutz confronts Jones again who then admits that a highly radioactive creature is responsible. It’s revealed that the town is home to one of 2,000 nuclear dump sites in the U.S. and the creature (who is implied to be young Michael Smith) is the resulting mutation due to repeated exposure to the site’s radioactive materials. The mutant, while intelligent, is completely psychotic and sensitive to light and is inactive during the day. Arming themselves with shotguns the two eventually manage to track the creature down to an abandoned warehouse where they are stalked by the hungry mutant. Jones is soon attacked and disemboweled by the creature, leaving Lutz alone to fend off the creature. Donning a gas mask, Lutz attempts to kill the creature with poison gas but it seems unfazed by the poisonous fumes and tosses Lutz around like a ragdoll. As the creature advances Lutz manages to toss a beaker of acid into the creature’s face momentarily stunning it. Taking advantage of the creature’s distraction, Lutz grabs a nearby axe and hacks the creature to death, ending the creature's reign of terror. However a new mutation is seen bursting from the ground as the credits roll. | cult, revenge | train | wikipedia | ripoff of some earlier toxic waste monster movies.
Martin Landau plays a 'scientist' who is heading up a toxic waste dump research project who tries at first to stand in the detective's way, but then conceded that 'yes in fact, there is a problem in Pottsville...' Along the way we meet some awful actors and actresses and we are treated to many cheeseball performances and some lame killings.
Hmmm....well, I was surfing around an internet video store, and I came across "The Being." After reading it's description, I thought this movie would be pretty good, and also full of gore, so I bought the factory sealed tape.
The film is about some stupid monster that lurks within a toxic disposal dump, tearing off the heads of its victims.
A cheesy old-fashioned monster movie that has camp value and little else..
If you like bad movies, you have to check it out.
My favorite scene is the one at the drive-in, where people are watching a movie with a cheesy monster attacking a bimbo, while the "being" attacks people in their cars.
There's nothing like seeing the name Ruth Buzzi during the opening credits to give a film some star quality.
It's really one of the best "it's so bad it's good" movies..
Dump a few barrels of radioactive waste on the outskirts of a small Idaho town and—Hey presto!—hideous slimy mutants are springing up out of the ground to attack the locals.Martin Landau and Jose Ferrer get top billing in this ridiculous piece of 80s trash, but it is the likes of Kinky Friedman and Rexx Coltrane (AKA Johnny Commander) who are the real stars, which should give you some idea of the true calibre of this film.
With writing and direction from Jackie Kong, who also gave us the execrable Blood Diner, this is one of the sorriest, most random pieces of garbage you're ever likely to witness.The film opens in promising style, a Twilight Zone narration leading into a splatteriffic scene in which a teenager gets his head yanked clean off by a mutant.
From then on, it all goes seriously pear-shaped, with a daft attack at a drive-in (the on screen movie provides some female nudity, so it's not all bad I suppose), a terrible children's easter egg hunt with the prize hidden in a monster's pit, a traffic cop having his heart ripped from his chest, a surreal dream sequence, and the revelation that the whole thing is part of an official cover-up to protect the town's potato industry.
Though it has its faults, this movie has several core messages that make it work as a horror film.
Second, the philosophical question of the innocence of children: The monster in this movie is just a mutated child who has little to no control over their actions, which brings into question the ethical validity of killing them/..
This one was pretty bad, I bought it simply because of the names of Ruth Buzzy and Martin Landau, I could just see a cheesy horror movie being made of these two and becoming more funny like a cheap William Shattner movie or something but what this movie turned out to be was one big bomb.
First of all, Buzzy's character was more like annoying than ever and the short role that she did play as a charismatic church lady I was glad when she was finally killed off in this film.
And the rest of the characters were just all over the place and the whole movie just did not make any sense at all and the film ended with an abrupt ending and I was just sitting there thinking about how much I wasted my money with all the other cooler videos I could have bought at that video store.
An Average Horror Movie Worth A Watch.
As always, with the plethora of horror films, this could have been better, especially the story which is only there to create The Being.What this film has in its favour is it's cast, though not the cream of the crop there are some very good masters of their craft involved.
In fact, most of the cast give good performances with the material they have, even Roxanne Cybelle Osco, who is the little girl in the Easter Egg Hunt scene (one of my favourites in the film).
Though Jackie Kong's story isn't too bad for an '80's horror film his directing skills aren't up to the same standard.
Kong is also good at filming in the dark as he opts to make everything visible (there's nothing worse than when a scene is so dark you cannot see what's happening).
The small town of Pottsville, Idaho (self-acclaimed potato capital of the world, mind you) has an unwelcome new arrival in the shape of a gooey & bloodthirsty mutated monster.
He clearly likes cars, as he always hides in them, and he's undeniably the result of years of pollution even though the local scientist openly claims that it's safe to dump toxic waste in the water reservoirs.
The mayor's wife is on a sole mission to banish all pornography, the potato export business may under no circumstances get in danger, there's a lonely woman wandering around the streets without apparent motives, the deputy is too busy arresting Mexican immigrants who're fishing without a license and the local radio DJ blames all the missing person files on the tornadoes even though I didn't notice the slightest sign of bad whether.
Rexx Coltrane his name makes him sound like a porn actor is probably the most wooden actor I ever saw and his lack of talent particularly becomes transparent when he tries to convince the mayor something stinks in Pottsville.
Some of the gore was alright in this, but this was just a big let-down of a monster horror film.
A very bad disappointing 80's horror, that I really thought was going to be good.
This is truly a very horrible film simply about a big glob of green mess that creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people in a small town of Idaho where Jose Ferrer, (Major Gordon Lane) runs a big potato processing plant.
"The Being" is a schlocky creature feature made by female director Jackie Kong.I remember seeing her horror comedy "Blood Diner" many years ago and I didn't like it one bit."The Being" is a better horror film which has its share of flaws.A hideous mutant is running rampant in the small town of Pottsville,Idaho.It seems there has been some disposing of nuclear waste in the town dump,thus spawning the bloodthirsty being.There are some neat gore effects in "The Being" including a juicy decapitation and ripped out heart.The monster looks cheesy and the acting is atrocious.Overall,Jackie Kong's debut is a harmless piece of trash that provides some laughts.5 out of 10..
PLS DON'T BEGIN TO WATCH THIS LIKE A GOOD HORROR-MOVIE, BUT ACCEPT IT AS A HUMOR-MOVIE.
It's got a few distinguished thespians slumming badly, crude direction by cult favourite Jackie Kong ("Blood Diner", "Night Patrol"), a routine and silly script, and enough hilarity to keep bad movie enthusiasts chortling for 82 minutes.Kongs' then-husband Bill Osco, the producer of this thing, also co-stars under the name Rexx Coltrane, as small town detective Mortimer Lutz, trying to solve the cases of missing people in his small town of Pottsville in Idaho.
The perpetually cranky mayor (Jose Ferrer) doesn't want anything to hurt local business, while Garson Jones (Martin Landau), a scientist who is a fairly slimy one himself, does some snooping around.One is certain to smile watching the ineptitude play out as "The Being" tells its tale.
It's pretty suggestive looking, for one thing.One could savour the casting mix here: also among the people wasting their time here are Marianne Gordon (wife of Kenny Rogers at the time), Dorothy Malone as a woman desperately searching for her son, Ruth Buzzi as the mayors' annoying wife, comedians Murray Langston & Johnny Dark and author / actor Kinky Friedman as a trio of cannon fodder, Jerry Maren as the Being, and Kent Perkins (Buzzis' husband) as dopey Officer Dudley.
The adorable tyke who gets too close to the Being at one point is played by Roxanne Cybelle, the daughter of Kong and Osco.Originally filmed in 1980 under the title "Easter Sunday", when capitalizing on the concept of holidays in horror was in vogue.This is a special kind of bad; my corresponding rating applies not to quality, obviously, but simple entertainment value.Seven out of 10..
A second testament to the picture's pathetic, yet oddly irresistible sub-par allure is the slumming and suitably embarrassed Hall of Shame Faded Name cast: a dour Martin Landau as a shady, spineless, untrustworthy scientist, a cranky Jose Ferror as the gloomy mayor, a highly annoying Ruth Buzzi as Hizzoner's nagging shrew wife, a haggard Dorothy Malone as the harried mother of a missing little boy (said tyke may just be the monster, but thanks to the murky script this particular plot point dangles unresolved throughout the film), the eternally goofy Murray "The Unknown Comic" Langston and saturnine country-and-western satirist Kinky Friedman as ill-fated local yokels, former porn filmmaker turned lousy thespian Bill Osco as the charmless good ol' boy sheriff, and Kenny Roger's hot babe "can't act for spit" wife Marianne Gordon as the constantly shrieking heroine.
Toss in Jackie Kong's fumbling (mis)direction, witless attempts at broad humor (two stoner guys are attacked by the monster while watching a cheesy fright feature at a drive-in theater), fake-looking gore, dimly lit cinematography, across-the-board cruddy production values, a meandering pace, a hilariously hokey and unconvincing titular creature, and one of those always irritating "it ain't over yet!" sequel set-up non-endings.
Oh boy, 1983 was a magical time to be alive, because this movie may have seemed stupid to critics when it came out way back when, but I loved every single minute of this.Much like Jaws, the authorities - including Mayor Lane (José Ferrer, The Sentinel) are covering everything up so that they don't damage the town's potato crop.
Osco produced this film, as well as plenty of more adult titles like Flesh Gordon and Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Fantasy.
He also worked with Jackie Kong, who directed The Being, to bring Night Patrol to the screen.Toss in Kenny Rogers' wife (at the time) as a love interest and a mutant who is totally influenced by Alien and we've got ourselves a movie.
Will Martin Landau and the film's producer be able to stop it in time?
Or that at the end of the movie, we get to learn what happened to every character after the film with title cards and then get to see every major character with a super of who played them (and anyone who has died, we get to see them die all over again)?
For these reasons and so many more - like a creature that has one eye and hundreds of teeth, this movie is a must see..
From the hilariously solemn voice-over narration at the film's opening to the tongue-in-cheek epilogue dialogue at the film's close (proclaming each surviving character's future fate), I enjoyed the hell out of this no-budget monster movie.
Take away the brief nudity and gore scenes and the resemblance would be uncanny.Along with all the problems listed above, the film has further flaws (it's kind of like the runt of the litter - maybe that's why I take pity on it).
For example, most of it is filmed at night (the monster only comes out at night, you see - gee, that's helpful for the special effects crew) and many scenes are so damned dark that you have to squint real hard in order to make out just what the hell is going on.
Also, the cheesy monster-on-the-loose stuff was very old, even when this film was made, and all it offers up are clichéd scares and broadcastable shock sequences.
There's even one of those damned jumping cats living in a cupboard scare scenes.It's a definite bad movie all right, but that doesn't stop it being unenjoyable.
His next hit is at the local drive-in theatre which seems to be showing a similar movie to this one (except with more gratuitous nudity thrown in for good measure).
Amid the monster attack sequences (which take up more than half of the film), we have the typical plodding police investigation.
It turns out that local scientist Garson Jones is responsible for dumping nuclear waste into the local river, which has in turn spawned the toxic monster.
Back to the monster action.One reason I enjoyed this movie was the cast of familiar faces.
Firstly we have Martin Landau (THE WARNING) as the local scientist who creates the monster unknowingly in the first place.
I like Landau's haunted performances and here he gives another good one.
But, although the special effects are cheap and awkward, I like this monster a lot.
I have a feeling that most people will hate this movie, and it's recommended to real monster lovers only, but I think it's a blast!.
In Jackie Kong's directorial debut, which was in fact shot three years before its cinema release, a small and peaceful town in the middle of nowhere (okay, Idaho) is overrun by destructive monsters spawned from irresponsibility (remember, this is years before "Gremlins", too), and it's up to the local lawman to save the day.
Woefully unprepared, he sets out.This film is unusual in that it attracted semi-major names (Martin Landau, Jose Ferrer, Ruth Buzzi and Dorothy Malone)to a project that clearly had no budget – no special effects, lousy sound and a script that has little to offer the actors or the audience.
It's not a good film at all, but I feel somewhat protective of it – despite the lousy sets, the repetitive action and one of the most wooden leading men (Bill Osco)of all B movies.
One eyed blob monster, a product of the usual toxic waste dumping(..as mayor José Ferrer put it so adequately, Pottsville was chosen by Industrial governmental scientist Martin Landau as "the most sophisticated dump site in the country."), with slobbery sharp teeth and terribly sensitive to light, attack the locals by wrapping it's lizard tongue around their throats, whisking them out of the camera frame.
Sheriff Bill Osco, who dresses like a truck driver, even when at the town station, is to the rescue, ready to kill the monster if he doesn't bore him to death first with his non-performance and monotone voice.
Marianne Gordon, who seems to escape the embarrassment in a low-key performance as a waitress and possible love-interest to Osco(..why she'd even be interested in someone as lively as a block of wood is anyone's guess), will be the woman in peril who would eventually walk Malone home and never be seen in the film again.Now, to take a moment to talk about Landau.
I actually think Ferrer, last seen in this film driving off, quite wasted and frightened after seeing the blob monster, plays his role a bit tongue-in-cheek as a constantly annoyed Mayor who just wants to grow his potatoes and make his little town a wealthy place to earn a spot in Washington.
I think Dorothy Malone is a sex icon thanks to her work with Douglas Sirk, specifically her delicious nymphomaniac in "Written in the Wind", but is handed a terribly thankless(..practically meaningless, if the script hadn't made her son the one effected by the toxic waste) role in this steaming pile.On Jackie Kong's directorial decisions come a narrative voice at the opening after a radio DJ tells us about rain showers and thunderstorms moving into the area, prophetically announces doom to the little town of Pottsville, Idaho.
The climactic showdown between the hilarious monster and Osco should earn some good laughs.
I did find the drive-in sequence near the beginning pretty fun..the movie playing equals "The Being" in quality which I find irony in.
There's an attack scene where the monster, in gelatinous form, oozes from the air conditioning vents and radio to somehow kill a couple making out.
Best kill is probably the poor kid who tries to escape the monster getting his head removed..
But Rexx Coltrane (aka Jackie "I'm the director folks" Kong's then husband Bill Osco) also shares a bit of lead.Toxic waste gets dumped into a local reservoir and creates a sci-fi monster.
Well, a B horror film with a couple of stars of note and a radioactive monster!
Still, while not a good film, it was entertaining in a way.
Some good kills to be had, though they brought out one of the best ones first and it also has that B movie charm of being so bad it is kind of good in a way.
Martin Landau is in the film too, and I have to wonder how the heck that convinced him to take this role.
There are a couple of other actors and actresses of note in it, but no one you will probably know by name, but rather the type you recognize them from something else cheesy.The story has a radio DJ always commenting on the weather and how bad the rain is, but come to think of it, I do not recall actually seeing it rain in the film...Well, a dude is getting chased right out of the gate and he tries to escape only to get his head torn off!
Then the film kind of slows down and it just is not as good as it seemed like it was going to be.
Literally, it looked like something was going to happen with the waitress at the woman's house and nothing ever came of it.So the film was a fun film to watch, but in the end it is a pretty bad film.
Seriously, that scene was really stupid as a cat startles the two leads as cats tend to do in these movies and they just life and hug each other and become good friends over a trivial thing. |
tt0108768 | Fantaghirò 4 | A mysterious black cloud is travelling across the land, bringing death and destruction wherever it goes. Fantaghirò is helping the people of her kingdom escape to safety when she crosses paths with young Prince Parsel. Parsel is chasing the black cloud because it took his castle, and he is trying to find a way to get it back. When the black cloud passes over Fantaghirò's castle, it too disappears, so she joins with Parsel to search for the origins of the black cloud. They travel to the kingdom of Tohor where they discover that Tarabas, the reformed dark wizard, has been imprisoned and accused of conjuring the black cloud. Fantaghirò, who knows that he has renounced his evil ways, helps him escape. Fantaghirò, Tarabas, Parsel and Princess Angelica of Tohor (who has fallen in love with Tarabas) leave Tohor to track down the black cloud, which they discover is conjured by a powerful dark magician named Darken.
Elsewhere, the Black Witch is struggling to revive her magical powers, which have become weak after she had helped Fantaghirò in the previous film. She revives Tarabas' mother Xellesia, who was killed by her rebellious gnomes, and the two witches fly off to find Tarabas and prevent him from discovering the origins of the dark cloud. Fantaghirò and her group have tracked the black cloud to Nekrad, a kingdom beneath a dormant volcano. There, they encounter a deformed man named Fiodor who tells them that the kingdom is ruled by Darken. Darken then emerges from Parsel's body, where he has been hiding from the very beginning. A fight ensues, and Fantaghirò is killed. An enraged Tarabas attempts to kill Darken, but Xellesia arrives and stops him. It is then revealed that Darken is Tarabas' father, and the black cloud was part of an elaborate plot to bring Tarabas back to his evil ways.
Darken promises to bring Fantaghirò back to life if Tarabas will embrace his dark side again. Tarabas is reluctant, but Fiodor talks him into it. It is revealed that Fiodor is actually Romualdo, transformed by Darken into a hideous monster in order to torment him with never being able to return to Fantaghirò. Fiodor also makes Tarabas promise to take care of Fantaghirò. Tarabas finally agrees to become evil again if it means that Fantaghirò can live, and Darken revives her. While Tarabas tries to convince Darken of his evil "honesty", Fantaghirò conspires with Fiodor, Angelica and a revived Parsel to rescue the stolen castles from Darken's collection and escape from the underground kingdom. After Darken is temporarily subdued, Tarabas, Xellesia and a reluctant Black Witch join the group in escaping from Darken's kingdom. Along the way, Xellesia sacrifices herself so her son will be safe.
Darken follows the group, and another fight ensues. In the end, Darken is defeated and Fantaghirò's castle is restored to its full glory. Fantaghirò has also realised that Fiodor is her beloved Romualdo. Fiodor tries to escape, embarrassed by his new form, but Fantaghirò insists that she does not love him for his looks. Tarabas is touched by Fantaghirò's devotion to Romualdo, and decides to move on with his life, promising Angelica that he will learn to love her. In the end, Fiodor transforms back into Romualdo (using edited footage from the first film), and the pair are reunited. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Star Wars in fairy tale land. Let's recall the three films preceding this one:1) Fantaghiro falls in love and unites three war-torn kingdoms 2) Fantaghiro fights an evil sorceress 3) The evil sorceress becomes a sidekick and Fantaghiro fights an evil sorcerer and now: 4) The evil sorceress remains a sidekick and the evil sorcerer becomes another sidekick to fight an even more evil sorcerer, who is (drumroll!) the father of the previous evil sorcerer! Seriously, those father-son things have been overdone in the movies....Do I see a trend developping? Do all previous bad guys have to become sidekicks in sequels? Oh well. Part 3 was still bearable, with the old "Evil guys stealing all children" plot eerily reminiscent of "Willow", but this one is just stupid. And full of sappy attempts to tear at 10 year old girl's hearts, with love interests being turned into ugly goblins etc.Avoid 4/10. much worse than Fantaghiro 3. I will start by saying I didn't like that part of the series and here are some of my reasons: 1) No strong storyline. The way older dark prince wanted to get Tarabas back was overcomplicated and strange.2) Tarabas, once a tragic and deep character, here becomes a parody of himself. His love for Fantaghiro is not eternal after all and he conveniently meets another love interest. Besides, he does not look as great as in Fantaghiro 3, too long hair and too much eyeliner:)3) The actors play bad, it often looks like a stage acting, overacted and feels like they read straight from the script or waited for prompts.What I liked: 1) Intense scene between Fantaghiro and Fiodor in the prison, very moving 2) Irrational love of Angelica for Tarabas before she has even seen him, quite funny.. Average, yes, but still entertaining. I must agree with the comment above regarding the quality of the fourth part of the Fantaghiró series. Nonetheless, after careful thinking, I must say I enjoyed most of it. It doesn't have the charm of the first and second movies, but I still saw some parts of the original plot: Fantaghiro saving those she loves regardless of how difficult things can get, and actually I must say I was surprised on the strong message given during the movie about "image is nothing". Her conversation with Fiodor regarding her love for Romualdo is truly touching, perhaps the highpoint of the movie. It's quite emotional to hear her talk about what she feels for him knowing he's in fact in front of her without Fantaghiró having any clue. The dialogue is simple yet truthful: she loves him above his beauty (and people, we're talking about Kim Rossi Stuart here, perhaps one of the most beautiful men in the world). I don't remember hearing her being so open about her love for Romualdo before, even in the 3rd movie, where she must save him from turning into stone. I would have liked to see this dialogue earlier in the movies, though. |
tt0432291 | The Fog | As the Californian coastal town of Antonio Bay is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, paranormal activity begins to occur at the stroke of midnight. Town priest Father Malone is in his church when a piece of masonry falls from the wall, revealing a cavity containing an old journal, his grandfather's diary from a century ago. It reveals that in 1880, six of the founders of Antonio Bay (including Malone's grandfather) deliberately sank and plundered a clipper ship named the Elizabeth Dane. The ship was owned by Blake, a wealthy man with leprosy who wanted to establish a leper colony nearby. Gold from the ship was used to build Antonio Bay and its church.
Meanwhile, three fishermen are out at sea when a strange, glowing fog envelops their trawler. The fog brings with it the Elizabeth Dane, carrying the vengeful revenants of Blake and his crew who kill the fishermen. Meanwhile, town resident Nick Castle is driving home and picks up a young hitchhiker named Elizabeth Solley. As they drive towards town, all the truck's windows inexplicably shatter.
The following morning, local radio DJ Stevie Wayne is given a piece of driftwood by her son Andy; it is inscribed with the word "DANE", and Andy says he found it on the beach. Intrigued, Stevie takes it with her to the lighthouse where she broadcasts her radio show. She sets the wood down next to a tape player that is playing, but the wood inexplicably begins to seep water, causing the tape player to short out. A mysterious man's voice emerges from the tape player swearing revenge, and the words "6 must die" appear on the wood before it bursts into flame. Stevie quickly extinguishes the fire, but then sees that the wood once again reads "DANE" and the tape player begins working normally again.
After locating the missing trawler, Nick and Elizabeth find the corpse of Dick Baxter with his eyes gouged out. The other two fishermen are missing, one of whom is the husband of Kathy Williams, who is overseeing the town's centennial celebrations. While Elizabeth is alone in the autopsy room, Baxter's corpse rises from the autopsy table and approaches her. As Elizabeth screams, Nick and coroner Dr. Phibes rush back into the room where they see the corpse lifeless again on the floor, upon which it has carved the number 3. That evening, as the town's celebrations begin, local weatherman Dan calls Stevie at the radio station to tell her that another fog bank has appeared and is moving towards town. As they are talking, the fog gathers outside the weather station and Dan hears a knock at the door. He answers it and is slaughtered by the revenants as Stevie listens in horror. As Stevie proceeds with her radio show, the fog starts moving inland, disrupting the town's telephone and power lines. Using a back-up generator, Stevie begs her listeners to go to her house and save her son when she sees the fog closing in from her lighthouse vantage point. As the fog envelops Stevie's house, the revenants kill her son's babysitter, Mrs. Kobritz. They then pursue Andy, but Nick arrives just in time to rescue him.
Stevie advises everyone to head to the town's church. Once inside, Nick, Elizabeth, Andy, Kathy, her assistant Sandy, and Father Malone take refuge in a back room as the fog arrives outside. Inside the room, they locate a gold cross in the wall cavity which is made from the stolen gold. As the revenants begin their attack, Malone takes the gold cross out into the chapel. Knowing that they have returned to take six lives in lieu of the six original conspirators who led them to their deaths, Malone offers the gold and himself to Blake to spare the others. At the lighthouse, more revenants attack Stevie, trapping her on the roof. Inside the church, Blake seizes the gold cross, which begins to glow. Nick pulls Malone away from the cross seconds before it disappears in a blinding flash of light along with Blake and his crew. The revenants at the lighthouse also disappear, and the fog vanishes. Later that night, Malone is alone in the church pondering why Blake did not kill him and thus take six lives. The fog then reappears inside the church along with the revenants, and Blake decapitates Malone. | revenge, murder, storytelling, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0076804 | Telefon | After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union planted a number of long-term, deep-cover sleeper agents all over the United States, spies so thoroughly brainwashed that even they did not know they were agents and can be activated only by a special code phrase (a line from Robert Frost's poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," followed by their real given names). Their mission was to sabotage crucial parts of the civil and military infrastructure in the event of conflict.
More than 20 years pass, and the Cold War gradually gives way to détente. Narrowly escaping a relentless purge of old Stalinism loyalists, Nikolai Dalchimsky (Donald Pleasence), a rogue KGB headquarters clerk, travels to America, taking with him the Telefon Book, which contains the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all the sleeper agents. He starts activating them, one by one. American counterintelligence is thrown into confusion when seemingly ordinary citizens blow up what are formerly top secret facilities that were declassified or abandoned years before, then commit suicide.
The KGB dares not tell its political leaders, much less the Americans, about its negligence in not deactivating the spy network. Major Grigori Borzov (Charles Bronson), who is selected for his photographic memory, memorizes the contents of the only other copy of the Telefon Book. He is then sent to find and stop Dalchimsky quietly before either side learns what is happening and embarrasses the KGB or possibly starts a nuclear war. He is given the assistance of only a single agent planted in America, Barbara (Lee Remick).
Eventually, Borzov discovers the method behind Dalchimsky's madness: he chooses the agents by the first letters of their hometowns, "writing" his own name in sabotage across America. Using that information, Borzov is finally able to locate Dalchimsky and kill him.
However, there are a number of twists. Barbara has orders from the KGB to assassinate Borzov once he succeeds to get rid of a dangerous loose end. She is a double agent, but when she informs her American superior, Sandburg (Frank Marth), he also tells her to kill Borzov, so she will gain the confidence of the KGB. However, she has fallen in love with her would-be target. She informs Borzov, and together, they blackmail both sides into leaving them alone, holding the threat of the remaining Telefon agents over their heads. | brainwashing | train | wikipedia | The Robert Frost poem, "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," utilized to trigger the drug-induced hypnotized Soviet agents to finish their mission becomes a pun for KGB agent Maj. Grigori Borzov (Bronson)when ready to give alluring Barbara (Lee Remick) a tumble in the hay.
Borzov looks KGB agent Barbara lustfully in the eyes and emphatically affirms, "Miles to go before we sleep."Though many consider the story fanciful, it is not as far fetched as some of the actual schemes concocted by overly zealous CIA and KGB officials during the Cold War, especially at the time of the eyeball to eyeball confrontation between the Soviets and the Americans during the days of U-2, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The fifty KGB agents trained at the time of the U-2 Incident to replace recently deceased Americans with similar profiles, to take out key installation sites when receiving the oral code, lines from the Robert Frost poem, are put on what seems to be permanent hold until one KGB trainer goes berserk and reopens the can of worms over a decade later, when many of the installations have been closed, converted, or moved.
Enter agents Borzov and his supposed helper, Barbara, to stop the madman, Nicolai Dalchimsky, played with his usual nefariousness by Donald Pleasence.
There's plenty of spills and thrills along the way with the seasoned actors given intelligent and often humorous lines by writer Peter Hyams whose script is based on the novel by Walter Wager.Though no one in the cast falters, even in the bit parts, Tyne Daly steals the show as Dorothy Putterman (oh, how the name fits), a computer nerd in those glorious DOS days of old before the world heard of Bill Gates.
One effect of watching this one is that you will always read Frost's "Stopping By Woods" from a very different point of view.No question, there's a whole lot of good acting in Don Siegel's "Telefon" (from Tyne Daly, for instance), but the story, from Walter Wager's novel, is, at least partly, ridiculous.
The film has got Charles Bronson in its center and he does his usual fine job as an ultra-cool Soviet major smuggled into the U.S. in order to exterminate a fellow KGB agent (Donald Pleasence) who has gone crazy there and is now endangering the whole Cold War balance system.Please note the important rôle telephones play throughout the whole film, not just for Pleasence's ambitions.
I am not going to rehash the entire plot, but let it suffice to say that we have a top Soviet Army General (played by Charles Bronson who mercifully does not even attempt a Russian accent) working together with American double agent Lee Remick, to battle forces more sinister than the current leadership of either the US or the USSR.
The renegade (Pleasence) has unearthed a 15 year-old plot that the Soviets had put into place and then abandoned in which 51 agents were brainwashed into believing that they were Americans, but who can be reactivated through verbal command to complete their missions.
Her character is not always particularly credible, but she adds tastefulness to any film and can always be counted on for good reactions (her eyes captured more light than practically anyone before or since, except maybe Meg Foster.) There are some other decent performances in the film (such as Magee as a weary Russian general) but one that grates is Daly as a know-it-all CIA computer technician.
I have no doubt about it: I went to the U.S. premier of "Naked Gun 33 1/3" in Milwaukee (the hometown of myself and the filmmakers) at which David Zucker said that for each of their movies, they would copy plot lines directly from serious, sometimes obscure genre films like this.
The ideas this movie adapted from Walter Wager's original novel were quite creative, but I recall the acting of everyone here to be pretty bad (especially leads Bronson and Remick).
Telefon casts Charles Bronson as a KGB agent on assignment in America trying to stop Donald Pleasance from igniting World War III.
Bronson is aided and abetted uneasily by CIA agent Lee Remick and the two of them get involved with each other as well as the mission at hand.It's quite a mission they have, Pleasance is an old line Stalinist and he's noticed the new regime is slowly doing away with his kind.
Bronson gets the list and follows Pleasance's trail hoping to head him off.A nice cast of talented players pulls off and makes entertaining when you think about it, a really silly Cold War era story.
Bronson's double-agent assistant is Lee Remick.The plot, though not hard to follow, is a bit intricate and involves the solution of several puzzles and a good deal of travel around the country, from Denver to Akron to Los Angeles to Cambridge (NM), to some dumpy bar in rural Texas with a rattlesnake in a cage.
I think spending the dough it would have taken to include the book's ending would have helped mitigate the low budget "TV Movie" feeling "Telefon" often suffers from.
The radical Russian Nicolai Dalchimsky (Donald Pleasence) steals some names and codes and flees to the United States of America with the intention of beginning the Third World War. The list is formed by ordinary American citizens that are actually brainwashed Russian agents that have been programmed fifteen years ago to destroy military bases and facilities and are triggered through a phone call with a message.
The responsible for the secret program, General Strelsky (Oatrick Magee) and Colonel Malchenko (Alan Badel) summon Major Grigori "Gregg" Borzov (Charles Bronson) to travel to the United States to eliminate Dalchimsky.
Gregg teams up with the Russian agent Barbara (Lee Remick) that was instructed to obey his orders but does not know what is happening.
"Telefon" is presently a dated rip-off of the central idea of "The Manchurian Candidate", with Russian agents with sleepy instructions and programmed to destroy but it is still engaging.
"Telefon" isn't exactly the most plausible espionage thriller ever made, but it was particularly the far-fetched and flamboyant plot line, along with the acting performances and harsh violence, that kept me glued to the screen.
The "Telefon" project got pretty much forgotten during the détente era, but now the dangerously berserk Stalinist Nicolai Dalchimsky single-handedly decide to awake the "sleeper" agents and leave a trail of destruction throughout America.
Still, "Telefon" is good solid Charlie Bronson entertainment with a totally bonkers plot line!.
His performances were usually always one note.Of the few films of his I have enjoyed (see also "The Mechanic" and "Hard Times") from that era, "Telefon is a surprisingly gripping thriller even though the story is downright silly at times.
Donald Pleasance convincingly plays the bad guy and that, I think, is what makes the movie work.
Also on hand is Lee Remick as an American agent assigned to help Bronson but who also has a hidden agenda of her own.Director Don Seigel handles the silly material in a straightforward manner never taking things too seriously.
Dalchimski heads to America to begin the process, so the Soviets send Colonel Borzov over there to put a stop to it before it causes a world war three.A curiously low-key, but plodding espionage cold war thriller (taken off Walter Wager's novel) by stalwart director Don Siegel.
It's quite a spotty cross-country trip (spending a lot of time with Charles Bronson and Lee Remick), which gathers a head of steam before letting go the in the final third when the two parties finally come to blows (some underground car parking) and then delivering a well-staged, but underwhelming climax.The plot-work (by Peter Hyams and Stirling Silliphant) is quite constructive (if outrageous) with its sober script consisting of humorous quirks, but Siegel's efficiently grounded direction tries to cleverly milk out the dramatic suspense, but is forced to sourcing the material in an mechanical fashion.
The music was composed by no other Lalo Schifrin (who's done quite a few scores for Siegel --- "Dirty Harry" (1971) comes to mind), as he chips in with an engrossingly simmering and characteristic score that works with its dangerous tone.The performances are acceptably spot-on with a sturdy as ever Charles Bronson and Lee Remick shines with her affable presence.
Donald Pleasance gleefully turns it up as the rogue Russian agent, but in the end I wished there was a little more to his character.
Also if you look at the cast there are some regulars, if only used in small parts that feature in other Bronson and Clint Eastwood films
with the likes of character actors Ed Bakey, John Mitchum and Roy Jenson.Hypnotically established gear work that's leisurely paced, but bestows little to no fireworks..
Charles Bronson, (Maj. Grigori Borzov),"Twinky",'69 played a Russian KGB agent who was assigned to stop a possible World Ward III with the United States.
Lee Remick,(Barbara),"No Way to Treat A Lady",'68, played the role of an agent for the United States and was assigned to work with Maj. Grigori.
Charles Bronson plays a KGB agent with a mission to stop deranged (whatelse?) Donald Pleasence from setting off a group of terrorists attacks by activating brain-washed agents via the telephone.
The film has a lot of good things going for it, like a great plot.
Bronson plays a Russian intelligence major assigned to stop programmed Stalinist agents from carrying out a possible doomsday plan.
Problem is if Pleasance is not stopped he could well set off a nuclear catastrophe.The movie has two elements from earlier Cold War films: The Manchurian Candidate (1962) and Dr. Strangelove (1964).
Fair Bronson movie that drags due to bad screenplay and bad script.But the story was good and so were the performances by the lead actors.Tough Bronson and sexy Remick have good chemistry here and we kind of wish to see more of them together at the end of the movie.Regarding the accent of Bronson,there are Russians out there (contrary to popular ignorant belief) that know how to speak fluent English thank you and when we have the scenes where he is talking to a fellow Soviet comrade,that is what is called conveient interpretation.Of coarse it would be much better if they forced Bronson to speak Russian for those particular scenes and then have subtitles in English but that was unfortunately not done.Youy can tell the budget here was limited but it is effective for pleasing the spy story fans as well as fans of suspense and the man Charles Bronson.......
It's not really followed up) Bronson was strictly "mission first" during 90 % of the movie, and immediately set the tone by asking Barbara not to be "so damned cheerful." But the American sun and beautiful all American girl Lee Remick had no trouble at all to melt the Soviet ice, and working at a détente at personal level.
Charles Bronson usually excels when he's surrounded by top talent on his action films, and on this explosive political thriller he has Don Siegel as director, Peter Hyams and Stirling Silliphant as the screenwriters (adapting Walter Wager's novel) and Lee Remick as his co-star (one assumes Bronson might have preferred wife and frequent co-star Jill Ireland for this role, but Remick fills the bill nicely).
Plot concerns "sleeper agents" (or Russian spies) placed all over the US during the Cold War, average-seeming men and women who have been brainwashed into believing they are ordinary but who can be 'activated' by special code into sabotaging military or civil structures and facilities--followed by their own suicides.
Donald Pleasence is the sinister KGB clerk who has come to America in hopes of straining US-Russian relations by methodically setting off agents over the telephone to cause destruction in various American cities.
Then I remembered having read the novel which was quite good but the movie went in another way and my disappointment was to see that the young main characters from the book were transformed into middle aged spies.
The middle is quite boring in some parts."Telefon" tells the story of a uncontrolled Stalinist Soviet agent named Dalchimsky (Donald Pleasence) who wants to cause the 3rd World War by activating Communist field agents living in U.S. and making them explode strategical military targets.
Following his tracks are a Soviet Major played by Charles Bronson and a American CIA Agent played by Lee Remick.
The good reason to watch this movie is that you're gonna see a different side of Charles Bronson, here he doesn't have that image of tough guy and he has some funny lines in the scenes with Remick.
Donald Pleasence plays the usual sinister guy but the problem was that his character wasn't too much developed in the book and throughout the movie you're gonna see him repeating Frost's poem and you'll never gonna see his character's motivations.
Tough guy Charles Bronson tries to track down nerdy Donald Pleasance before he triggers World War III via activating brain-washed, embedded KGB-planted saboteurs.
The beautiful Lee Remick plays an American double-agent as Bronson's US partner, who's willing to kill *if* it will stop WWIII.
The plot is good and the actors Bronson, General Strelsky (Patrick Mcgee) are good but the movie has gone out of time.
Charles Bronson as a Russian KGB agent....?.
as a recent fan of charlie bronson, i'd have to say this was a little bit of a stretch for me....personally i think charlie is the all american man, not to handsome, not ugly, soft spoken and kind of funny lookin'....he reacts wrongly to most situations but i'll be darned if i don't love him anyway.in this installment in the bronson legacy he plays a kgb agent trying to stop the world from being blown up by super socially inept bad guy, donald plesance.
Wanting to stop him at all costs, the KGB sends one of their top agents, "Major Grigori Borzov" (Charles Bronson) to the United States with orders to kill Dalchimsky before he can accomplish this scheme.
Assisting Major Borzov is a beautiful double agent by the name of "Barbara" (Lee Remick) who has orders to kill Major Borzov as soon as he accomplishes his top-secret mission.
Charles Bronson gives one of his better performances and Lee Remick adds some fairly nice scenery as well.
**SPOILERS** Whatever made high ranking KBG office clerk Nicolai Dalchimsky, Donald Pleasence,go off the deep end is never really explained in the movie "Telefon.
What's even worse Dalchisky has the code name for each agent that if he or she is told what it is will set them of to, like a bunch of mindless suicide bombers, blow themselves up together with the US military installations they were programed to destroy!Both the KGB and CIA work together in "Telefon" to stop Dalchimsky's madness by getting their two top agents Major Gigori Borzov, Charles Bronson, and Agent Barbara, Lee Remic, to both work together in stopping him.
Dalchimsky even went as far as having some two dozen top Soviet military and KGB personnel knocked offed which originally alerted the CIA with the help of their top computer whiz Dorothy Pullerman, Tyne Daly, of just what he's up to!***SPOILERS From This Point On**** The movie has Brozov and Brabara, posing as man and wife, chasing the slippery Dalchimsky from one major US city to another until they finally track the crazed psycho down in this little out of the way town in Texas.
Bronson is given more lines in the movie then he usually has which makes his acting far more creditable with him not having to work over or gun down some dozen bad guys to keep him focused.
The beautiful Lee Remic as US CIA Agent Barbara more then holds her own as Bronson's, or Borzov, partner.
To also insure that the both CIA and KGB doesn't get any bright ideas, in offing them, Borzov & Barbara also destroy the list of the remaining Soviet Agents!
No-nonsense Russian agent Major Grigori Borvoz (a credible performance by Charles Bronson) gets assigned to stop deranged renegade Stalinist defector Nicolai Dalchimsky (the always reliable Donald Pleasence in fine sinister form) from carrying out his nefarious plan to trigger brainwashed sleeper undercover agents hidden throughout America from committing extreme acts of terrorism.Director Don Siegel keeps the far-fetched, but still engrossing and exciting story moving at a steady pace, makes neat use of numerous exotic locations, and stages the action scenes with his trademark skill and aplomb.
It brings to mind the old saying "they don't make them like they used to anymore", as it takes its time to set up the (ingenious) story and build the relationship between the two central characters: Charles Bronson and Lee Remick have a genuine rapport, and Charlie in particular gives one of his best performances, both repeating his usual tough-and-taciturn persona and subtly having fun with it.
On the side of the flaws, Tyne Daly is cute as a computer expert but her scenes don't amount to much, and there is an inexplicable scene near the end where Bronson deliberately "triggers" a sleeper Russian agent (instead of protecting him, or sending him away, or hell, even just knocking him out for a while) and then, of course, he has to kill him.
Donald Pleasance is the rogue spy activating these sleeper agents with a series of phone calls, and Bronson is the bad-ass Russian Major determined to stop him.
He gets sent to America where he partners up with CIA Agent/love-interest Lee Remick.
The production values don't seem very good- like many Bronson quickies- and the movie has a made-for-TV visual look about it.
(Take THAT, PETA!) For a fun movie check out "Telefon," along with Bronson's classic "Death Wish" and the awesome "Mr. Majestyk"!GRADE: B-.
The computerized turquoise font in the credits is a good start (there will be a lot of clicking computer screens, and also techie Tyne Daly thrown in).A long scene between Bronson and Remick takes place in the most hideous motel room in movie history. |
tt1859603 | The Guest House | Rachel is a rebellious 18-year-old musician who lives with her father, Frank, at their Los Angeles home. Before leaving on a business trip one morning, her father informs her that his new employee, a recent college graduate named Amy, will be coming to stay in their guest house for a few days while she gets settled. Amy arrives and Rachel, lonely and still affected by the death of her mother, feels drawn to Amy. Over the course of the weekend, the two women spend much time together and become close. Eventually they become lovers. When Frank returns, he is shocked to find them in bed together and lashes out at both of them. To Rachel's shock, it is revealed that her father and Amy slept with each other. Disgusted and feeling betrayed, Rachel breaks off their relationship.
Some time later, Rachel performs a show at a small club in San Francisco. Afterwards, she exits and finds Amy waiting outside. The two reconcile and decide to pursue their relationship further. | pornographic, gothic | train | wikipedia | The Guest House is not, by any stretch of imagination, a "good movie." However, it is an enjoyable, easy to watch romp in lesbian fantasy-land.
If you are looking for flowing dialog, lack of cliché's, though- provoking storyline conflict, then this film is not for you.
However, if you would like to check out of the real world for a while, and watch two beautiful women fall in love Romeo and Juliet style (minus the suicides, plus the sensual sex scenes) then by all means, this film is worth your time.
But sometimes, that's all you want in a movie, right?.
Awful movie.
I would recommend you gouge your brain out with a spoon if you still want to see this movie ...
acting is terrible story is already predictable and the production quality is dismal to say the least The movie starts off with slow pace and promising beginning but meanders and loses course in mid you can guess the ending straightforward ...
well the lesbian scenes are sensuous but I m guessing if I really want some good soft core pornography i would rather order a DVD than waste my time on it which makes me wonder why i wasted 1hr and 22 min of my life on this utter piece of crap ...
well perhaps to warn you good folks to save your time and mind.
Worst acting I have seen possibly ever.
I seriously don't know how these actors could be so unconvincing.
It's not even mildly entertaining, because the poor acting is so distracting and annoying.Also, the dialogue is pathetic.
I don't know why anyone would waste the money or time to make this movie.
I am never motivated to write a review of a movie, but I needed to let others know that watching this is a complete waste of a couple hours of your life.
I hope that helps illustrate just how horrible this movie is..
This movie is HORRIBLE.
The acting was so bad.
I love movies about forbidden love.
The love scenes were so awkward and totally fake.
I know it's all acting but come on at least try to seem interested.
I've seen elementary school plays with better acting.
If I spent any sort of money on this movie alone I would have been upset.
Watching paint dry would be a better use of time than watching this movie.
The only character I liked was the boyfriend in the beginning.
He wasn't supposed to be funny though so he did a terrible job acting as well.
Kill Me. I have never seen more terrible acting in my life, the lines are awful, the sound is awful the whole "film" is as amusing as watching 2 snails completing a 10 mile race, i will never forgive this film as it has robbed me of 1 hour and 20 minutes of my life.
The people that made this monstrosity can not make a film, they are possibly the most terrible film makers in all of existence and i would really like to know what they were thinking when they made this pile of sh*t I am begging anyone watching this or myself from the past to not watch this, you would have more enjoyment just staring at a blank wall for 2 hours and it would most likely be more productive.0/10 would not watch again..
Enjoyable movie.
Great movie.
Pretty good acting.
If you're looking for something to look at with great chemistry and soft core sensual lesbian scenes then go for it.
It has a great ending and I hope for a part 2 :)It's something cute for a movie night with your girlfriend and the explore each other deeper than just in the sheets.
They try to learn about each other before anything happens which is astounding since some movies don't do that they just skip straight to the sex which gets old fast.
I just wish the acting was a bit better.
Hopefully they'll make a part 2 and it'll have better acting, an even better storyline, and a better insight on a lesbian relationships.
Not good at all but I've seen worse..
The worst part of this movie was the production value.
It honestly seemed like a high school student made this movie for a project.
The camera work and angles were horrible and even the sound was off.
The acting, while not stellar, wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
There are really only about four characters in the film.
There isn't much that goes on but if the acting and camera work were better, it would actually be a solid, intimate story.
Overall, this isn't a good movie but with a higher budget it could be more watchable..
As it is this really feels weak and while I guess it tried to shock as many people as possible, while maybe also making a socially significant point (again, that would be you trying to see something positive and I think you can make that case), it's delivery and general quality is rather bad.Again good intentions, that's why I won't go with the lowest possible score, but women making out with each other should not be a real shocker anymore.
Btw. if you are looking for a kick I don't think you will find it here, although I guess that depends on your kinkiness - no real nudity though.
Not that it would have made the movie better, just giving you the information you may need to decide if you want to watch or not.
I wish I'd read some of these reviews before watching this very frustrating movie.
The acting was wooden, the script/plot toe-curlingly poor.
I've seen better acting in porn films.
This travesty of a film would have redeemed itself if there had been some real sex and straight forward nudity.
I can only imagine that, by not showing all, the director thought it was elevating the film to that of a proper romance, but he would have needed a decent plot and some proper acting to do that.
They should've gone all out for a proper X-rated full-frontal romp and then it would have at least had something to redeem itself with, because I should imagine that most people coming to this film would be wanting to see that..
Decent movie.
If you want a movie that is just pure escapism then it is a very good movie.
The acting isn't bad, the 2 actresses seem to have chemistry and just are having fun with the movie.
In other words, it doesn't seem they were forced together to do a job and behind the scenes hated each other.
I have seen far worse acting.
When an actor can make you forget about reality and care about the character, then they are good at what they do.
BOTH actresses have that ability in this movie.As for nudity, IF that is all you truly want look elsewhere.
This is a simple love story and very realistic.
As a straight man, it made me think and appreciate women more..
It was almost like two heterosexual actresses pretending to be lesbians.2) There is never a single touch beyond kissing (even the kissing seemed lifeless) except a close up of an ass with 2 hands grasping it.
All of the touching was PG and, judging by the lack of sexual chemistry, I doubt it was even performed by the actresses.3) There is never a nipple, or the tender caress of a breast or naked ass.
While I can appreciate that I do not need to see full frontal nudity, I think that some semblance of physical intimacy would be a must.4) NO WOMAN ON EARTH would have naked, wild, passionate sex in a bed and fall asleep in her lovers arms THEN wake up the next morning wearing a bra and panties.
BOTH of these two woke up sometime during the night, put a bra and panties on, then got back into the bed to snuggle and sleep.5) If I give my female partner oral sex in a jacuzzi, i have to actually submerge my head below the level of her belly button and remain there for more than 5 seconds.6) I have never been in a club where a singer is performing and been able to hear a pin drop....unless the place was empty.
Apparently LA and San Fran are full of unique little places like that, because it happens twice.All in all....it was contrived, poorly acted, and atrociously written.
It really seemed like it was a Lesbian movie, written by ultra conservative religious zealots to show how insipid and banal lesbian relationships are..
Okay, not only is the movie fully predictable(you know the end about 5 minutes in) the acting is absolutely awful(absolutely not convincing) the actresses are trying to convince you that there is a connection when there really is nothing at all, the dialogues are cliché, and redundant.
It'a all marshmallow and sweet and vanilla....but, the story...I mean...falling-no wait- being in love, after knowing the person for a day?
I know, people talking about love at first sight but...this isn't it...somebody explain how this got good reviews...I am a lesbian, yes the girls are kinda sorta cute, but that doesn't cope for the rest...
the story and, the whole movie, is nothing close to good....
The acting isn't perfect, but I fell in love with these characters, maybe it's because I'm a lesbian, I know love isn't perfect, and it comes in all shapes, sizes, orientations, ethnicities, and religions.
Love isn't biased.
This movie shows you that even while someone is suffering, someone else is able to help them overcome that by love.
Honestly, I think the only way to truly understand this movie, is if you're a lesbian.
Etc. if you're not into that, it's not the movie for you..
The story is so that you could actually make something out of it and the film manages to fail miserably in every regard.
The acting is beyond bad - not for a second did I feel any authenticity in both actresses' play (or any other character for what it's worth).
And the sex scenes are so forced as to show not the tiniest bit of possibly bawdy nudity that it's just grotesque.
Granted, not every movie with a girl-girl story can be "Room in Rome", but please, if you actually feel that the actresses' biggest concern during a sex scene is not to show an uncovered breast, just leave it out.
Besides, there are movies with very sensual and authentic lesbian love scenes that do not include full nudity (such as "I Can't Think Straight"), so it's very well doable.
But again, you would need good actresses for that.The movie has a single decently funny scene - that is when Rachel's ex-boyfriend calls and accuses her of having stolen her phone.
That is 60 seconds where the movie actually produced an emotion in me in the form of a smile.
The rest is simply awkward.I sat through the whole thing because I made it a principle to always finish watching a movie after I started it.
Had it not been for that, I would have turned it off and forgotten about this thing after 10 minutes into the movie..
There are worse films out there I suppose, but where "The Guest House" falters is not its production values or low budget, but the fact that the love story between the two characters is so empty and their affection is so forced.I don't know if these women were uncomfortable with the homosexual aspect, if their acting was just *that* bad, or if the director had an unnatural vision of what women in love really looked like.
They would go from sweet nothings to forceful, aggressive making out; they would be having a random conversation about life and suddenly one of them would pounce on the other...lesbians or not, *people* don't do this.
The end result comes off as attempt at eye candy under the guise of of male's vision of what two women look like.
Now I *might* could suspend belief long enough when it came to this weird forced eroticism if the rest of the story had been convincing...but it isn't.
These girls fall in love with each other in a complete vacuum.
Nothing really happens - there's nothing to drive their relationship forward or test their limits or to develop them as characters that we can care about, relate to, and understand.
Really, how much of a story is there about two people falling in love who are almost completely cut off from the outside world?About the time that the film would've gotten interesting, when the couple hits their "speed bump" in the form of dad, we cut a few months later, gloss over it, and everything's fine.
Even when the film gives us conflict, we don't really get any.The dialog is pretty bad too, and this ties back into nothing much of any interest occurring.
The writers try to give the girls character through these long winded conversations amounting to "what's your favorite color" for half the film which is painful to listen to.
What they sound like are, like the sex scenes, uncomfortable teens.
They don't really know each other so they make nervous small talk that is unbearable.And so we have what might look like a sweet little love story that ultimately has very little humanity left in it.
We don't know the characters, their story happens outside of real life, and there's just nothing for the audience to connect with.
A real love story, between 2 people of any sex, should be able to speak to anybody (except perhaps the severely homo or heterophobic) because we're able to relate to how they get to know each other and their search for happiness.
Sometimes a good idea isn't enough.
So this love story happens over a weekend.
I mean there is nothing wrong with a story about love at first sight but this just felt really forced.
So the browned haired woman( can't remember her name) moved into her bosses'guest house and immediately starts to have really private conversations with her bosses's daughter, the blond hair goth girl( again cannot recall her name).
Then they film each other for hours with Canon hand-held cameras.
This only works, if you have really good actors( will come back to this later).
Then they have sex but they way they have sex is the funniest part of the whole movie.
They are portraying this " passionate love making" but both of them constantly make sure, that you cannot see their nipples.
Followed by more sex and a hilarious scene with the ex boyfriend.
Later they go to concert and i wonder if the people that made this movie, have ever been to a concert.
She later sings a terrible song, that goes on for hours .Oh yeah and after that great and necessary song, they have sex.
A) You are not suspicious at all that ONS lets you work for his company and that he lets you life in his guesthouse which is on his property B) okay let's imagine that the brown hair girl is really naive, then why don't you try to keep a distance from his daughter?
You never notices that she was in a moral dilemma C) let's even ignore this fact and imagine that the brown hair lady forgot about everything that happened.
He is a successful business man so he needs to be good in planning.
So he hired his ONS let her live in his guesthouse which is on the property because he thinks that he still has a shoot with her.
He is more likely to hit that in a hotel room then in house with his daughter around.
That story makes no logical sense, the characters motivation even less.
Acting: Boyfriend: I don't know if he was suppose to have such a poor line delivery and over the top acting or if this was just poor acting.
You really succeeded in pretending to be a terrible character.
Blond Goth Girl: She was better then the brown hair girl but that is not saying a lot.
i think that this is what 50 year old people think a teenager behaves like.
Furthermore, i don't want to discourage anyone but maybe you shouldn't' consider a career in singing and/ or acting.
Brown Hair Girl: Don't look directly at the the camera!!
So many times when she was suppose to be looking at the her partner, she is looking directly at the camera.
Also when she had her dramatic scene at the end( the one you can see her nipples), at least try to cry, if you can't then hide your face in your hands so it looks as if you are crying.
I don't care if people use certain angles, zoom out or in too much but even i notices that the camera work sucked.
In the beginning it looks okay but sometimes it looks like someone was filming it on their own home video camera.
This excludes the scenes, where the two ladies were filming each other.
Especially the shower scene is shot in a really wired angle.
So in conclusion, this movie isn't good and i am not going to give it a pass because it is a lGBT movie and because of the low budget.A low budget has no impact on the plot or the acting.
The movie had potential but sometimes a good idea isn't enough.PS: You do see nipples 10 minutes before the end..
Feel Good Movie.
I gave this movie a 10 because it made me feel good and I walked away smiling and pondering the good things about relationships and second chances at not losing a love to time or bitterness.
Also, I really liked Ruth Reynolds acting and her portrayal of her character.
Good Job. |
tt0783601 | Trainwreck: My Life as an Idiot | American Loser is a comedy-drama based upon the experiences of comedian Jeff Nichols; it follows Jeff as he encounters a remarkable variety of personal and emotional problems.
Edging closer to his thirties Jeff (Seann William Scott) has a heavy drinking problem coupled with ADHD, dyslexia, and a mild case of Tourette syndrome as well as constant absent-mindedness. He spends most of his time attending support meetings including ones which have no connection to the problems he suffers.
Jeff's attempts to hold down a job end in disaster. Jeff connects with Lynn (Gretchen Mol), a woman he met at a support group for people with relationship problems, but loses her when an expensive necklace he gives her as a gift is repossessed. Jeff rents a garage from his step brother Bert, whom he knows as "Uncle Popcorn", only to fall behind on the rent. His car is repeatedly ticketed. Jeff's parents Cynthia (Deirdre O'Connell) and Mike (Denis O'Hare) try to support him, but even the simple instructions they give him drive Jeff to distraction. Bert reproves Jeff, telling him that his behavior is childish. After being evicted from Bert's garage, and with nowhere else to go, Jeff sneaks back into his parents' expensive home. With no else at home, and not wanting to cause a spike in the heating bill, Jeff uses a space heater, and accidentally burns down the house. The next morning, Jeff's parents stare at the charred wreckage of their home, baffled at the cause of the fire. Jeff's parents guess that the cause was faulty wiring. Jeff admits he burned the house down. Jeff's mother, shocked, enters the scorched remains and recovers the remains of a striped bass that Jeff caught years ago. The scene cuts to Jeff at a support group, where his tale of wrecked lives and repeated failures drives the others in the group to laughter. The support group is replaced with an audience taking in Jeff's account as a stand-up act, and loving it. Jeff tells his family that stand-up doesn't pay well, but that he has a new job.
In the final scene, a more mature Jeff is shown by a pier, getting ready to take a boat (presumably his own) out to fish. There he is visited by Lynn, now pregnant. Lynn, realizing that Jeff is improving, reconnects with him, and they go fishing. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Funny and engaging.
I saw this film at SIFF last night with my g/f and her mother.I didn't research the film at all, just looked at the description and gave it a go.
So when the opening credits said it was a true story, i thought it was a joke.
It wasn't.The movie itself moves along very well and the main character pushes the plot along with his "sharing" sessions in various 12-step meetings.
He is ADD, alcoholic (recovering), has tourettes, and badly needs to be "liked".
He can't keep a job and depends on his "Mommy" for emotional and financial support.
Wholly self-absorbed, he is yet charming and innocent.There is a love interest in the plot, but it really doesn't come off as one of those forced Hollywood sub-plots added for mass appeal.
The male and female leads are impressive, as is the whole cast (many recognizable actors).
Not predictable, and as I learned after the film...
even the most ridiculous events were indeed factual.I'd hate to compare this movie to anything, but I can't help but thinking of American Splendor (or Crumb).
It's not quite as docu-drama as either of those two films, but the character (in real life and on screen) has very similar eccentricities.Don't know if it will be released nationwide, but will definitely be in the DVD (ugh) cult film section of your video store one day..
A good effort by "stifler (sp?)".
I did not believe that this movie is based on a true story till credits started to roll.
Sean Scott, "stifler" from the American pie movies has been doing same old college humor based films for which he is been stereotyped into.
He has taken little of all the characters he plays in his film and made this wonderful character which although you find it funny at times, you start feeling sad, cause he just cant seem to get it right.
He channels all his screw ups by sharing them with others making them laugh at them.
A good change, yet not totally different, from Sean Scott.
Keep up the good work "Stifler"!.
Not as shallow as it seems!.
When I first saw this movie on IMDb I taught that it is surely going to be a shallow comic-drama with a nice faced actor.
It started in that way too.
But when I first saw the way the movie was going I started to feel sorry for Jeff.
It does get boring from time to time (that's one minus star) and as much you feel sorry for the guy he starts to annoy you (another one).
The plot seems quite unique and it also is a very hard theme for a movie so the director and the writing staff did a very good job.
On the other side it could be done better.The final verdict is very positive.
I must say that I have never seen Seann Williiam Scott in a similar role and he has proved that he is a very good actor he is definitely one of the pros of this movie.
This movie gives you something to think about.
I strongly recommend you watch it!.
Great surprise!.
I have to be honest, I really wasn't expecting much out of this film, I mean, Stiffler in a serious role?
but wow was I pleasantly surprised, pleased as punch I would almost say.
A truly heartfelt film, you get the sense the writer/director genuinely felt for his subject, which from what I have read about this film is really based on a true story which makes it even more funny in my opinion.
The stuff in this movie is so funny it could not have been made up!
Really well done with the writing and directing and I think it was the writer/directors debut film?
which to me is even more impressive.
Some of the scenes had me rolling on the floor with laughter, all in all well worth seeing, great, original and heartfelt, I really look forward to seeing more from this writer/director and I heard a rumor he plays the banjo!.
Seann William Scott Pulls Off A Dramatic Role In Fine Fashion.
Who would have known that Seann William Scott could pull off such a fine performance in a dramatic film with a comedic overtone?
When I purchased American Loser I assumed I was purchasing just another stereo-typical Seann William Scott comedy role.
Much to my pleasant surprise I discovered (as will you if you watch this film) Seann was portraying a real life troubled young man named Jeff Nichols, who did in fact suffer from a number of abnormalities including an attention deficit disorder, early alcoholism, Tourette's syndrome, and a learning disorder.
I assume the writers took liberties with some of the characters in the film such as the sweet and lovable married girlfriend named Lynn (played by Gretchen Mol) that Jeff Nichols hooks up with at one of his AAA sessions.
Jeff also meets up with a guy named Lenny at the AAA sessions, played well by Jeff Garlin, who is a recovering alcoholic and construction manager.
Lenny looks up to Jeff (from one loser to a bigger loser) and so they are seen periodically hanging out together having coffee and discussing how to get out of their individual predicaments.Jeff Nichols had always depended upon his "mommy" Cynthia, played by Deirdre O'Connell and his stepfather Mike, played by Denis O'Hare, to bail him out with sufficient cash whenever he fell behind with any of his bills.
He tried his hand at various jobs such as a substitute Grade 3 teacher but could not handle a class full of kids without getting in to trouble with the principal and losing his job.
Jeff just seemed to be travelling through his depressed and troubled life falling further and further in to disarray.
It won't take you very long to realize Seann William Scott's portrayal of Jeff Nichols isn't funny at all, and that's because it is not intended to be funny.
This is a story of a young man with some serious troubles, real troubles, that even a loving girlfriend and parents can't help Jeff overcome.
Of course there is some humor in the casualties Jeff causes as when he finishes having wonderful intercourse with his girlfriend Lynn, and leaves her a little memento on the bed sheets.
There are numerous loser scenes that have some comedic value such as when he sinks his stepfather's expensive boat, or signs up for a month long job on a commercial fishing boat wearing nothing more than a Christmas sweater, or when he literally burns his parent's beautiful home down to the ground.Although these aforementioned scenes may be somewhat funny, each scene brings us closer to realizing a great empathy for the real life Jeff Nichols, who actually lived through the movie ordeal.
I do not want to give away the ending so I will close by saying that at some point Jeff realizes that he has to take responsibility for his own life and not depend upon mommy and daddy anymore.
Don't stop the DVD at the end credits or you will miss the cameo appearance of the real life Jeff Nichols in his current job.
This was a terrific dramatic real life role for Seann William Scott to sink his teeth in to.
I truly enjoyed seeing him play out of character that as his usual dim witted comedic roles he has previously starred in.
I was pleasantly surprised at how well Gretchen Mol and Seann William Scott carried this drama comedy through to fruition.
I gave it a 7 out of 10 rating..
I enjoyed this movie....
The story wasn't really straightforward (ie: it was a narrative of the character's screwed up life that didn't have a message or a lesson...
at least not superficially), but the ride that you get to go on while watching it is really fun...
especially because the actor is Seann William Scott, who (whom?) nobody expects anything good out of (b/c of all his mindless comedic roles), yet he totally owns the role...
I was super happy to see the clips of the actual character (many apologies for not remembering his name, especially since he so fondly reminds me of the glorious negativity of Bill Hicks) during the credits....
That showed me the difference between the real person and SWS's portrayal, yet it it proved to me how well (do not read "accurately", only read "well", considering SWS is portraying the character dramatically, which almost always, as in this story, embellishes/exaggerates reality) SWS portrayed the character..
Time of my life I'll never get back.
Whoever wrote this movie is the definition of "American Loser." Nothing whatsoever in this movie made sense.
Not funny, dramatic, or entertaining.
Watching paint dry would be more entertaining than having to sit through this nonsense..
not bad.
The movie directors made the viewer feel as if they identified with the main character's audience.
It starts off in a comedy club and ends with it.
The entire movie showcases and plays out his escapades, or rather errors and flaws, his "f" ups and how he perpetually turns to his mommy.
It's constantly because of his inattention to detail and his constant desire to be heard and blabbering, that leads him to an inability to decide what is right for him.
He can't even decide whether a yellow or white t shirt is better.
He has endless idiosyncrasies, which include hating the word "balance," and they all make the audience, including his peers in all his AA meetings laugh.
The ironic thing is he's a mentor to another b/c he's been sober for 10 years, and in the end, he's the one that is mentored.
The movie comes full circle in the end, but I have to admit there will be times where you'll ask yourself, OMG, how could he do that?
How could he possibly "f" that up?
And watching the entire movie knowing that it was largely based upon real events from a real person, made me an array of different emotions that made this movie extremely enjoyable..
It was good.
I am a great fan of Seann William Scott , And this movie has proved that he can do different kinds of role effortlessly the story was Excellent as it is based of real life It was a comedy cum drama based movie role played by Gretchen mol of Lynn was excellent it was simple and effective movie seann started as a comic actor now he is doing good movies , especially film like southland tales and train-wreck my life as an idiot .
film was a bit slow Jeff(seann) was at it's best certainly it is one of his greatest movie ,inspite of a bit slow it was not too long just one an half hours , in this movie Jeff is person suffering from many mental sickness how he try to overcome with this situation is shown in this movie it is great work by every one |
tt0034913 | Japoteurs | The story begins with a shot of the front page of the Daily Planet. The headline reads "World's Largest Bombing Plane Finally Completed." The man reading the newspaper is Japanese, he stands up and looks at a picture of the Statue of Liberty in his office, then pushes a button on his desk, and the picture changes into one of the Japanese flag. He bows to it and jams his glowing cigarette into the news headline. Later, the Japanese man and some acquaintances knock a guard out as the plane is being loaded for a test run. Clark Kent and Lois Lane are taking a tour of the new bombing plane for the Planet. When everyone is told to get off, Lois stays behind and hides in a locker on board the plane.
As the plane takes off, we see that there are other stowaways aboard. Hidden inside what look like bombs are the Japanese men. The spies tie and gag the pilots and hijack the plane. Meanwhile, Lois emerges from her hiding place and moves over to the cockpit. As she's about to open the door, she notices that the Japanese spies have hijacked the plane. She sneaks into the room and calls for help on the radio, however the spies seize her. In response to her calls for help, fighter planes are sent to stop the hijackers. In response, the hijackers deploy a bomb, which stops the fighters from taking off. Clark Kent goes into an elevator and changes into Superman as it goes up to the roof.
Superman enters the plane to stop the hijackers, but one of them has Lois tied up and is ready to drop her out of the plane through the bomb hatch. Superman jumps out of the plane and comes back in through the bomb hatch to save Lois as she's being dropped. He unties her and starts fighting the hijackers. One of them breaks the plane's controls, and the plane starts falling towards the city. Superman takes Lois out of the plane and places her on the ground, then flies back up and catches the plane, bringing it to a safe landing right in the middle of the street. | psychedelic, comic | train | wikipedia | LOOK, Up In the Sky!
It's a Bird!
It's a Plane!
It's a JAPOTEUR!
Hollywood Wartime Efforts even included making up new words!.
FOLLOWING the business coup of the year of 1941, Max and Dave, the Brothers Fleischer were removed from their own Studio by Paramount Pictures Corporation.
Former employees such as Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber were put in charge of the new operation, now renamed Famous Studios by Paramount.
Early on, the finished product of Famous was indiscernible from that of the recent output by Fleischer.
The existing series (Popeye, Superman) continued as if nothing at all had transpired.TODAY'S subject, JAPOTEURS is one of the earlier Famous Studio's SUPERMAN Shorts.AS had been the custom, the SUPERMAN Cartoons were a great combination of fine, fittingly fashioned music in the score.
That goes for the theme (overture) as well as all the multi-mood background (incidental) music.
It was if each cartoon short had its own background music, as all was kept fresh by apparently recording it anew with each picture.WITH regards to JAPOTEURS, we must remember that this was filmed during the first year of the United States' involvement and the characterization of the enemy was very stereotypical, short-handed and outright evil.
The dialog and personality of the villainous Japanese saboteurs was strictly from the stock characters of the old pulp magazine stories, with their every word being said in a sarcastic, totally insincere politeness as the characters would flaunt their cold bloodedness as they made the most demonic of threats and outrageous acts toward the occidental world.JAPOTEURS is visually bright and uplifting, stunningly laid out and makes use of some multi plane or table top animation in order to give its flying sequences a real depth.MAKING good use of the tie-ins between the animated cartoons, the SUPERMAN Radio Show then heard over the Mutual Broadcasting Network; the cartoon bears a close resemblance to the Comics Page and uses the very same talents of voice actors Bud Collyer and Joan Alexander from the Radio Show.WE rate it with a *** ½ stars.POODLE SCHNITZ!!.
Superman Enters the War. I love the Fleischer Superman cartoons.
The animation is smooth and fluid with vivid colors.
The distinct art-deco style, vintage science fiction imagery, and use of noirish shadows gave them a look unlike any other cartoons.
The music and voice work is superb.
They're fun, accessible, enduring animation classics.
While this is a cartoon from Fleischer Studios' successor, Famous Studios, it still tries to maintain the Fleischer style.In addition to being the first Superman cartoon from Famous, this tenth cartoon in the series is also the first with a World War II theme.
The plot is that a new American bombing plane (world's largest, according to a newspaper headline) is hijacked by Japanese saboteurs.
Lois Lane is on board the plane, of course.
Superman must save Lois, stop the saboteurs, and safely bring the expensive plane down.
This first effort from Famous Studios is a nice WW2 thriller with some good action, particularly the climactic scene of Superman catching the plane.
It's a good effort, about equal to the last couple of Fleischer toons, but not a patch on the best of the series..
Wartime Wasn't Funny...But One Could Get Carried Away.
Artistry can go out the window when propaganda comes in the door.
Here we have a plot that could be used in any setting.
Because we recently were attacked by Japan and made to enter the war, the villains are the Japanese.
They are portrayed with slanted eyes and big grins (of course, the must have been laughing at us through the whole war).
Anyway, instead of fighting crazy scientists and extra-terrestrials, the Mand of Steel is faced with the yellow horde, smiling and attacking at will.
We know who will get the better of this.
One issue that would have to be dealt with, considering the world of these cartoons.
If the U.S. had a weapon like Superman, would any force be able to attack anyone.
Our boy is straight shooter could be the ultimate defensive weapon.
Interesting..
Good Superman cartoon.
In WWII, America has developed a brand-new HUGE bomber plane.
Lois Lane and Clark Kent go to cover the story when the plane is going on its first mission.
Lois stows away on the plane before it takes off.
There are also some Japanese saboteurs on board who have every intention of flying the bomber to Tokyo.
Will Lois be able to warn Superman?
What do you think?Fast-moving, colorful cartoon.
The animation is a little jerky but much better than anything we see today.
The color and sound have been beautifully restored.
Just two problems--the lousy music score and the racism (especially in the title).
That aside this is pretty good.
Superman Versus Axis Villains.
A SUPERMAN Cartoon.When America unveils its colossal new bomber, the JAPOTEURS, an elite force of Japanese spies & saboteurs, strikes.
Stealing the behemoth, with intrepid girl reporter Lois Lane aboard, and the destination either Tokyo or destruction, it's time for Superman to get involved...This was another in the series of excellent cartoons initially created by Max Fleischer for Paramount Studio.
They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots.
Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts.
Bud Collyer is the voice of Superman; Joan Alexander does the honors for Lois Lane..
Ooooooo, those evil Japoteurs!.
"Japoteurs" is interesting because now, suddenly, Superman can fly.
In the earliest Fleischer Brothers Superman cartoons, he could only JUMP.
Big jumps, but certainly not flying.
But, soon he added a new ability to his repertoire and so the intro was changed and he flies about in this one in order to thwart evil Japanese espionage.The cartoon begins with an announcement that the Americans now have made a super-bomber--one that is pretty ridiculous as it's about 5 to 10 times bigger than a B-17 bomber!
But, the evil Japanese spies are lurking behind every corner and soon sneak aboard the plane.
And, Lois being a complete moron, she also sneaks aboard and is soon about to be killed for her trouble.
Of course, Superman saves her and the city is grateful...and Lois has learned absolutely nothing.This is an interesting curio, as it shows us the sort of propaganda they used in the States to bolster the war effort.
Reinforcing the notion that enemy agents are lurking behind EVERY corner, the show drives home the less than subtle message with extremely nice animation..
Superman #10.
Japoteurs (1942) ** (out of 4)The title itself should prepare you for the rather un-PC content in this WW2 era Superman episode.
This time out the Americans are building a huge plane, which is where we find Lois and Clark who are doing a story on it.
Lois ends up staying on board as it takes off and later some Japanese men take it over and threaten to drop a bomb on America.
If you've seen one of these shorts then you should know Superman must come to the rescue.
This short really isn't too entertaining but it's interesting to see as a film buff because of how Fleischer took a look at Japanese people during the times of WW2.
I'm sure many will be offended by the look and talk of the Japanese people here so it's important to keep in mind what was going on in this country at the time.
As far as the film goes, it's pretty much the same thing we've seen in the previous shorts with very little excitement..
Japoteurs is another World War II era Superman cartoon.
Despite some racism, Japoteurs is another pretty good Superman cartoon.
Clark and Lois are invited to inspect a new bomber.
A Japanese spy has stowed away in one of the bombs.
Lois, having stayed on after everyone left, informs the control tower.
The enemy spy manages to sabotage opponent by bombing it.
Clark turns into Superman and quickly manages to save Lois from being ejected before defeating spy after spy destroys instrument panel.
Supes then flies Lois to safety before going to plane's head and slowing its rough landing (just like he did in the recent Superman Returns).
All is well in the world again as Clark and Lois ride on an amusement park plane...Like I said, the pidgin English spoken by the Japanese spy borders on the offensive but worth a look for anyone interested in World War II propaganda.
Or for anyone interested in all things Superman..
Superman gets political.
"Japoteurs", which probably stands for Japanese saboteurs, is a 9-minute cartoon from 1942, the days of Woorld War II, so I am actually a bit surprised it took Dave Fleischer that long to become political with his Superman cartoons.
But this one here does and very much in your face so.
Japanese are trying to hijack a gigantic military jet and Superman has to make sure they don't and later on make sure it won't crash.
Lois is in the middle of it again as well acting as if she is some female James Bond I guess.
Looks like her stupidity knows no boundaries.
As for the action here: It is interesting in terms of the political climate back then, maybe mildly racist even, but in terms of the story, it is just not convincing I personally felt.
At least I wasn't convinced and I give it a thumbs down. |
tt0038977 | Springtime for Thomas | When the first day of Spring sets in, Jerry wants to play with Tom, but Tom's attention has become fully focused on Toodles Galore, a very feminine white cat, who is sunbathing outside. It is love at first sight, and as Tom rushes to pick up Toodles' handkerchief, she blows a kiss him, knocking him lovesick. As Toodles tosses sweets into Tom's mouth, a green devil appears and convinces Jerry to break things up between Tom and his new-found love as revenge. Jerry sends a forged letter supposedly from Toodles, with perfume, to Tom's rival Butch, who freshens up and then speeds off to meet Toodles for tea.
As Tom kisses Toodles, Butch lies on the sun lounger next to Toodles, starting a fight between the two over Toodles' heart. Tom hits Butch with a croquet mallet, but grabs Tom and throws him into the swimming pool. Butch then sings Quiéreme Mucho to Toodles with his guitar, but Tom tips Butch into the pool. As Tom drinks, Butch whacks a ball into his throat with a croquet mallet, knocking Tom out. Butch then whacks the ball onto Tom's head to send Tom sliding through croquet rings and crashing into a pole, causing Tom to land on a barbecue and be rotated around on a rotisserie.
Toodles then places flowers in Butch's hair, but Jerry and his anti-conscience place a pin under the lounger and jab him. Tom then picks the pin up, causing Butch to chase Tom. Tom whacks Butch by turning a statue before climbing the diving board and diving into the water. Tom quickly drinks all the water, making Butch crash onto the pool floor. Tom then places a flower pot on a swing and hurls the swing at Butch, but Butch throws the swing back, catching Tom on the seat. As Tom swings back, Butch hits him with his guitar, making Tom fly out of the garden.
Finally, Tom has had it and gives up. He reconciles with Jerry as they shake hands. Tom good-naturedly presents his hind end for Jerry to boot, Jerry does, and the chase is on again. However, Jerry then runs into a beautiful female mouse, and its love at first sight. After she blows a kiss to Jerry, Jerry pushes Tom away and snuggles up to his newfound girlfriend. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | How Easily We Males Are Ruined By A Beautiful Female.
This cartoon might be the ultimate - and wildly exaggerated - example of how us men can make such fools of ourselves over beautiful women.
We are just putty in their hands!It's springtime and Tom is love, so much so they doesn't even pay attention when Jerry rips off a large the fur on his back.
(This is why I usually root for Tom - and lose, of course.) The cat is staring out the window as the hot feline across the way, who is lounging in a chair reading "Har-Puss Bazaar." Tom is perched at the window just sighing at "Toodles."Some of the sight gags of Tom being totally enraptured by this "woman" are very funny.
Jerry doesn't think they are funny and when a little green devil pops out next to him, he hears "Hey, are you going to stand there and let a dame come between you and him?" The devil keeps urging Jerry to do something about the situation because "that dame has him eating out of her hand." Admittedly, Tom looks pretty silly and has lost all sense of dignity over this beautiful pussy with the long lashes.Anyway, the devil's plan is to provide another cat instead of Tom for the woman, so a black alley cat, living in a garbage can, is recruited.
This black cat turns out to be hilarious and the rest of the cartoon is the two males bashing the hell out of each other to try to get the female's affections.
These guys pull out all the stops!In the end, we get another surprise, and another example of what I mention in the first paragraph.
This was a solid Tom and Jerry cartoon and, to me, the year 1946 started ushering in a newer era of their material, more violent but also a lot funnier..
A spring in his step..
Jerry wakes and figures it's going to be another day of being chased by Tom. Thinking giving Tom a big kick in the ass will get the action started he's surprised to find Tom unresponsive.
The reason?
Tom is in love with Toodles, the girl cat across the street.
He's too head over heels to care about chasing a mouse.Jerry then thinks of a cunning plan to tear his attention away from Toodles by faking a love letter to local alley-cat Butch.
It's turns out Butch is more adept at making Toodles swoon and Tom is soon out of the picture as far as dating is concerned.With quite a few inventive moments and loads of visual gags and a nice twist ending, this is certainly one of the better T&J shorts..
Jerry or Toodles?.
Jerry is disappointed to find that Tom has a crush on Toodles, a beautiful female cat that he can see from his window.
Jerry, with the help of his evil side, tries to break them up by bringing in rival black cat (who later became known as Butch, after the dog's name changed from Butch to Spike).Very amusing stuff!.
A Tom & Jerry cartoon for Valentine's.
Here is another great cartoon for Valentine's Day (or any other day), starring the dynamic duo of "toondom:" Tom and Jerry.
This is my favorite Tom and Jerry cartoon from 1946, where Tom falls in love with a cute girl cat named Toodles.
In this short, Jerry peered by the spirit of jealously forges a letter laced with perfume (supposedly from Toodles) to an alley-cat named Butch to break-up Tom's romance, so Jerry could selfishly have his "frenemy" back.I don't have any particular scene that I like because I love this cartoon, and I love how Toodles is designed.
So that is all I could say about this cartoon..
Toodles is gorgeous!.
I loved Springtime for Thomas, it was a very interesting change of pace as the chases between the legendary cat and mouse duo are not abundant here, instead Tom is head over heels in love with Toodles.
Looking at Toodles, it is not hard to see why Tom AND Butch are smitten with her, she is gorgeous!
The animation is nice enough if not quite up to scratch with other Tom and Jerry cartoons, and the story does have its predictabilities.
But the characters are great and I was glad that there weren't many of them, that way the cartoon is more focused on what it should be focused on, the music is lovely and the visual gags still delight.
Overall, a very nice cartoon and an interesting change of pace.
9/10 Bethany Cox. The Love Cats..
Spring has sprung, love is in the air, and Thomas has fallen for Toodles, the fancy rich feline next door.
All gooey-eyed and completely under the posh pussy's spell, the once proud mouser no longer has time to chase poor old Jerry, preferring to wait hand and foot on the girl of his dreams.Nose put out of joint, the rejected rodent plots to ruin Tom's chances: he sends a local alley cat a fake love-letter signed by Toodles, and sits back as the mangy bit of rough becomes Tom's bitter love rival.After much mayhem, with the guys fighting furiously for temptress Toodles' attention, Tom admits defeat and returns to mouse-chasing duties, only to find Jerry cooing over a ravishing lady rodent.
Oh, the irony!Springtime for Thomas is another reasonable caper, with the usual quota of violence and laughs, but, once again, does not prove to be anything particularly special.
Fans of the cat and mouse duo will undoubtedly have fun, but with the old 'devil on the shoulder' gag proving to be the most inspired moment, I felt a little disappointed..
Love is a many splendored thing..
"Springtime for Thomas" is a 7.5-minute cartoon from the Golden Age of Animation, from 1946 to be more precise and it means that this one is already over 70 years old.
It is a Hanna Barbera production that is probably among their more known Tom and Jerry shorts these days.
It is also one of the rare films where we have Tom being referenced as Thomas and we also hear him talk on one occasion.
This one is all about love.
Tom prefers drooling over the female cat next door over playing cat-and-mouse games with Jerry, an unacceptable situation for the little mouse though and this film in its entirety is really a great deal about the playfulness between the two and not at all about them being enemies.
But in order to keep it from being too light, we have another male cat, a black one, being the antagonist to Tom as he clearly has his plans too with the attractive female cat.
Luckily for Tom, these cartoons often have David defeat Goliath and as he is physically inferior to the other cat, this means that he manages to defeat him most of the time, something he rarely manages when going up against Jerry.
And when eventually the status quo is restored, then things become difficult again quickly the way they were before and yet completely different.
A funny little film with several entertaining interactions.
Certainly a good watch if you love old cartoons.
I give it a thumbs-up and think you should see it..
Jerry interferes with Tom's love life!.
It is springtime; the flowers are in bloom and Thomas has fallen in love with Toodles, the cat sunbathing outside.
Jerry is not pleased with this; he wants to have fun tormenting Tom but no matter what he does Tom just keeps on staring at Toodles.
When Tom goes over to Toodles and starts to flirt, a little devil-mouse pops up next to Jerry and tells him to do something about the situation.
What he does is write a letter to an alley cat, claiming to be from Toodles, inviting him round.
Inevitably when the alley cat turns up and starts making advances towards Toodles a jealous fight starts and the two cats battle for her attention; eventually Tom is forced to concede defeat and it looks as though things will get back to usual with him and Jerry...
till a lady mouse appears on the scene.This was a fun short where Jerry is very much the antagonist for once.
It is also notable because Jerry is only slightly involved in most of the action as the fight between Tom and the alley cat provides the vast majority of the violent gags.
That is okay though as it is fun watching the two cats fighting.
The gags are of the sort one would expect; both creative and violent; they also come thick and fast.
Not all the gags are violent though; I particularly liked how the alley cat combed his hair with the bony remains of a fish before setting off to meet Toodles.
The animation is up to the usual high standard of the era and Scott Bradley's musical soundtrack was great too. |
tt1456603 | Release | Father Jack Gillie (Daniel Brocklebank) enters prison a guilty man, convicted for a crime that sees the Church abandon him, his congregation desert him and his faith challenged. His fellow inmates believe he's been convicted of paedophilia and begin to plant the seed of doubt into the mind of his teenage cellmate; Rook (Wayne Virgo). After rescuing Rook from a beating Jack now becomes the inmates prey. Protection comes in the unlikely form of a prison officer, Martin (Garry Summers) with whom Jack falls in love and together they embark on a dangerous and illicit affair behind cell doors. As trust forms between the two men so Jack feels enabled to confess the truth behind the crime for which he has been imprisoned. Emboldened by Jack's honesty the two men plan their lives together post Jack's release.
Prison gang leader Max (Bernie Hodges), however has ulterior objections and sets about ruining this relationship and manipulates the Governess; Heather (Dymphna Skehill), into suspending Martin for misconduct after disclosing the affair. Alone and vulnerable Jack is now tormented and hunted by Max who takes revenge on him for his crime.
Waking from the near fatal actions of Max, Jack keeps his head down and bides his time comforted by letters of love and support from Martin - delivered with disgust and loathing by one of Martin's colleagues. With the end of his sentence in sight Jack readies himself for a new life and a new beginning with Martin. The only obstacle to this, remains Max and Father Elliott (Dave Jones) the Church's messenger sent to establish what Jack's intentions are once free. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0259442 | The Monkey's Mask | A young woman called Mickey (Abbie Cornish) reads a poem to an audience at a bar. When she leaves, she gets into an unseen person's car.
Jill Fitzpatrick (Porter) is a former police officer and a private detective who investigates missing persons. She gets a job to look for Mickey, who has been missing for two weeks. Jill goes to Mickey's university and meets her poetry professor, Diana (McGillis). Jill is quickly attracted to Diana, who is married. They meet several times for coffee, not always talking about Mickey, and go out for a drink. They eventually sleep together.
Jill hears from Mickey's parents that Mickey's body has been found. They want Jill to continue investigating because the police are "no help". Jill continues working but is distracted by her affair with Diana. One day Diana's husband catches them together, but he is not bothered.
Jill's friend Lou introduces her to the poet community. She meets two poets, Bill and Tony, both of whom are older men who were having sexual relationships with Mickey. Neither want to talk to Jill. Jill reads some of Mickey's poems that were written about Bill. Sexually explicit, Diana calls them "victim poetry" and calls Mickey a "nympho". Jill starts receiving threatening telephone messages from someone with their voice disguised. Mickey's flatmate gives Jill a video taken of Mickey in the bar the night she went missing.
One night Diana chokes Jill during sex to achieve erotic asphyxiation. Later Diana asks her if she enjoyed it. Jill says she cannot remember. Jill meets Bill who tells her that Mickey "broke" him and made him write filth. He says he has evidence connected to the case and will come to Jill's house with it. On his way to her house, Bill's car explodes and he dies.
Jill tells Diana that Bill had told her about some "evil" poems Mickey had written. Diana says they must track them down. Jill begins to wonder who else was in Mickey's life and asks Diana if Mickey ever wrote poems for her. Diana says she does not know, but that Mickey was straight, that other women were just competition to her. Jill gets upset that Diana seems unconcerned by Mickey's death, and leaves.
She goes to Brisbane to meet the poet Tony. He tells her that Mickey kept a diary, that she handed it in to Diana as a poetry assignment. Later, Jill breaks into Diana's office but the diary is gone. She now knows that Diana has lied to her. Tony's wife Barbara comes to see Jill. She tells her that Diana tampered with Bill's car and that Diana has been seeing Tony for months and is crazy about him. She told Tony that Jill seduced her.
Jill goes home to find it broken into. The video of Mickey has been destroyed. Jill finds the copy of the tape she made and watches it. She sees Diana on the tape, talking to Mickey. She then sees Mickey leave the bar with Diana and her husband.
Jill meets Diana's husband Nick. She asks him if he loves Diana. He says yes, and that Jill does too. He flirts with her and they begin to have sex. He puts his hand on her throat and she asks him if he killed Mickey. He tells her he did, and that Diana was there. It was a sex game that went wrong.
Jill takes her evidence to the police. She meets Diana who tells her that if she tells anyone what she knows, they will sue her. Meanwhile, the police look at the evidence and listen to an audio tape Jill took of Nick confessing. | murder | train | wikipedia | Dorothy Porter's book "The Monkey's Mask" was a groundbreaker on numerous levels.
Furthermore, Porter took a harboiled detective/ noir narrative and relocated it from the streets of NY or LA to seamy inner-city Sydney.
Where once we had misogynist male gumshoes(i.e. Sam Spade), Porter gave us Jill Fitzpatrick, a female detective who was also - and proudly - a lesbian.So how does it translate to film?
Very interestingly, indeed.The story (for those unfamiliar) entails Jill investigating the disappearance and subsequent murder of Mickey Norris, a young Uni student whose amateurish poetry is laced with sex and death.
Jill's investigation leads her into Sydney's incestuous poetry scene, and particularly into the bed of Diana Maitland, Jill's duplicituous lecturer.
And that's where trouble starts ...Susie Porter and Kelly McGillis are brilliant as Jill and Diana respectively.
There is more emphasis given here to the sexual side of their relationship than there was in Porter's text, and some of the sex scenes do, alas, border on fetishistic.However, I was fascinated by the way their relationship was mediated by a whole range of other factors.
There is class: Diana is an uber-wealthy city dweller who dines at Darling Harbour, while Jill is a working-class woman living in a dingy caravan on Sydney's exclusive North Shore.
In The Monkey's Mask, Diana talks down about her students (the women in her class love 'victim poetry', apparently).
When Jill tells her of Mickey's gruesome murder, Diana is more excited over her latest academic grant!In support, Marton Csokas was brilliant as Diana's 'kept man' Nick.
Then there is the talented Deborah Mailman, wasted in a thinly-sketched role as Jill's best friend (the most she is given to do is 'come onto' her friend during a time of grief, and that - as another commentator suggested - suggests a dubious link between lesbians and sexual voraciousness.
This is a link that is made absolutely concrete in Diana's character, whose evil is - in the film - largely attributed to her sexual appetite).Also, the movie's conclusion was too neat and polished, given all the ambiguity and uncertainty that preceded it.
The ending of Porter's book wasn't nearly as cut-and-dried.And what was the point of Jill's closing line: "Forget the bitch"?
Worrying stuff, indeed.Having said that,though, Lang's 'The Monkey's Mask' is an interesting contributionto the noir genre.
"The Monkey's Mask" tells of a young Aussie woman who is 99.9% lesbian and 0.1% private detective charged with finding the killer of a young woman poet.
A naive flick which has some style but precious little reason to watch or keep watching and no reason to care about any of the characters, "TMM" is mostly pretentious hogwash with people behaving in ways people only behave when they're acting in a movie.
The film is annoyingly divided into chapters, the characters are boring, poetry and lesbian themes don't ring true, and the whole flick is about as palatable as Spackle on a Saltine.
Porter is very good and her character is interesting but she's really not cut out to be a private investigator.
I did enjoy the sex scenes with Kelly McGillis who doesn't appear in films nearly enough and she's always had great beauty and even though she's probably nearing 50, she looks great.
I recommend it for Porter's performance and her scenes with McGillis..
Caught this on cable last night and I've decided that I like Susie Porter very much - she's got an incredibly expressive face (along with her adorable body, which we get to see a LOT of) and she was thoroughly convincing as the p.i. trying to solve the murder of a teenage poet while falling in love with the poet's teacher (Kelly McGillis, not quite believable in her role but she still looked good with Porter in the bathtub).
Death in Inner City Poetry Scene.
It revolves around a female PI who is investigating the disappearance of young student poet who is later found murdered.
The movie is delineated into sections much like a poem and in some ways the lead (admirably played by Susie Porter) seems to float through this world of poetry readings, steamy love trysts and threatening phone calls a player yet somehow disassociated from it all.There were however some things that annoyed me a little about the whole film and while they didnt spoil it for me they nevertheless grated on me.
Susie Porters character though solidly played nevertheless did not ring true to me.
What I mean by this is that it was almost abit forced.To me It looked as though it was saying look how comfortable we are in showing nudity etc,I suspect it was almost there to spice things up rather than being integral to the plot (to be fair a pretty hard line to draw on many occasions).I also found the whole characterisation of the murdered girl and her parents abit annoying.
The parents are cardboard carictures of what inner city intellectuals view the suburbanites (with money) as -dull boring and clueless , & the murdered girl is portrayed as some spoilt little brat from the leafy suburbs on a parent subsidised rebellion - another cliche.
I find this more than a little ironic as the subject matter of this film is likely to draw an audience (in Australia anyway) that is largely the arthouse end of the market (ie monied and educated) Anyway these points though somewhat annoying to this viewer really are only minor distractions.Overall the film is worth seeing..
McGillis really steals the show.Even in her former parts ,she was an ambiguous androgynous person (in "the accused" which gave Foster her first Oscar,she had something male in her).She literally explodes here,she mesmerizes the audience,in her part of a lit professor in love with a lesbian private investigator.The movie contains plenty of gay women sex scenes ,so be warned:it's not for all tastes .As for the plot itself it's not really exciting.The characters are not very interesting,it's a pity that the victim's parents' parts should be so underwritten.The same goes for Nick.The soundtrack is good ,including excellent songs and haunting music.But it's not enough.Without Kelly McGillis,the movie would be completely undistinguished..
Prose and poetry divided into chapter headings and dished up as an experimental film failed as a piece of entertainment.
Believe me, there are no monkeys or masks, but after due consideration they might have livened up the film.The sex scenes were passable but with little delicacy.
We hear a man addressing a lesbian investigator ...."Thank you for making love to my wife; you sure put a light in her eyes".I'd be surprised to learn if a film like this could prove to be a profitable venture.
An interesting film, since there are only a few of this kind.
Bear in mind that K.McGillis is older than the woman she's impersonating, same stands for S.Porter.
It is not a 'MUST' film to see, but I do recommend it (at least is far and away more interesting from many others of its kind)..
Titilating sex scenes make up for the disjointed story line.
While investigating a missing-person case, a female detective(Susie Porter)is sidetracked when she enters a lesbian affair with a married professor(Kelly McGillis).
Totally nude love scenes are interesting.
Porter is a more convincing lesbian than private detective.
Hmm, not bad: this film has a lot going for it, the principal asset being Susie Porter, who is assured but vulnerable, believable and very sexy in the lead.
There is a pretty good chemistry between Kelly McGillis, who is always worth watching, regardless of whether or not she's playing steamy sex scenes with another woman, and she also conveys a dangerous ambivalence, for a good reason.Some of the dialogue is pretty good, and the poetry scene is always welcome as a setting for a film (only other one I can think of is Love Jones, which is in a diametrically opposite milieu).
Unfortunately, some of the dialogue is pretty awful, mostly involving Kelly McGillis character's husband, who was completely unconvincing to me throughout.
Still, to be fair, there may have been some clues earlier, which are touched on at the end.Worth it for Susie Porter, for the whodunnit which is quite well sustained, and (let's be honest) if love scenes between two very attractive women tickle your fancy....
Poetry, murder, lesbians...
Suzie Porter is fabulous as Jill, and Kelly McGillis is wonderful (and sexy) as Diana.
The poetry is present in some of the dialogue and in the voice of Jill as a narrator.
"The Monkey's Mask" knows the rules for a sex-and-crime detective adventure, involving a private eye (brand lonely-wolf), a mysterious femme fatale and a some irritating background information.
It converts all those generic ingredients by involving a lesbian woman as the detective.
As to be expected from a Neo-Noir, the she-detective falls in love with the beautiful, but irritating female suspect.
Second, the film is probably only appealing to those who don't mind a lot of foul language, or sex between characters who try to choke and/or insult each other.
I got this drivel for £0.33.This is a novel attempt at making a movie in the same way a poet makes a poem.
The movie revolves around the disappearance of a vulgar female sluttish poet.
Instead of making a crime thriller the director has made a new wave lesbian poetry thriller.
Unfortunately this movie does not work as a lesbian romp.
Nor does it work as a crime thriller only leaving the poetry.Kelly McGillis looks old in this movie.
Also is is not the greatest actress but as this movie is dire perhaps this is not the best advert for her acting abilities.On a plus side the music is good and the cinematography is great in parts.
This had to be Kelly McGillis' best work.
I've never heard of Susie Porter before this, but after reading some reviews and seeing some of her previous work, she is an actress well on her way.
The story itself can be a little confusing at times but it all works well.
For those of you out there who like to see an actual story with a plot, some wonderfully acted intimate scenes, this is a great movie.
The acting was serious considering that Kelly McGillis is not gay, nor has she done anything like this in the past.
If You're Looking for Lesbian SEX....
Kelly McGillis is one very sexy 'older' woman, but in bed, her talents were UNUSED.
The story is good, the movie is worth renting for it.
The book (on which this movie was based on) is supposed to be groundbreaking, fusing poetry and mystery.
Judging by the few snatches of poetry allowed in the movie and some interesting dialogue, that might be true.
The movie, however, fails on so many points - maybe only the cinematography is not bad - that it's useless to enumerate them.
Even the graphic sex scenes get boring after awhile.
Most of the actors are not convincing, except for two: Abbie Cornish who plays the captivating young poet Mickey, and in a more limited way, Marton Csokas as Nick.
Otherwise, and specially as a mystery, the movie completely fails..
A nice little movie but for a flick that is supposedly a crime / mystery the plot really moves along slowly and takes some fair turns away from the mystery part at some points.
Susie Porter is quite good in the role and since this is the first time I've seen her act I was quite impressed that she managed to pull off the tough PI role quite well.
The music in this film along with the cinematography is a very nice touch to the rest of the story and I really liked the usage of different shots to get the attention of the viewer and show them something new.
The plot itself was alright, not the greatest mystery movie I have seen but alright, but then again most people will probably not remember the story as well as the interesting characters it presents.
The whole movie has a `independent / student film' feeling to it which I really like so I would have to recommend this movie for anyone who is slightly bored of the fast paced mystery films which focus more on cheap thrills rather then character development ( ala Along Came a Spider )..
Just did not like this movie, or anything about it.
I don't mean to be rude but Susie Porter is utterly miscast and completely unbelievable as a "private detective" (c'mon).
She is also physically repulsive (makes me wonder how she ever made it in acting) literally hard to watch on film.
Mcgillis' acting performance (and looks) are slightly better but I think in truth she made this film just to be controversial and maybe revive her dying career.
Sex scenes are also poor and the films climax plain lame.
A movie just full of ugly lesbians and no backbone.Give it a miss!!.
A B-movie erotic lesbian thriller..
This Australian oddity - or piece of crap, depending how one chooses to look at it - is basically B-level trash disguised as a philosophical art detective story, about a lesbian version of Philip Marlowe(!) trying to solve a murder.
Of course, like Bogey, she gets involved with a woman who is in some way connected to the case.
The difference is that Bogey doesn't have more sex than he investigates - it's a wonder Susan Porter ever gets to the core of the case, what with her having lesbian sex every five minutes; the movie has more sex scenes than any "regular" film I've seen in quite a while.
But I don't mind: Susan Porter has a terrific pair of breasts and is kind of charismatic in a sort-of semi-lipstick-lesbian way.
From big-budget Hollywood hits to erotic B-movie Australian detective stories!
And God knows she hasn't aged well
The movie is based on a woman's novel, directed by a woman, and starring two women; obviously the first two are lesbian, and perhaps even Susan Porter.
It's funny to watch the Aborigine lesbian grope Porter in a library: however, not nearly as absurd as when the guy from "Lord Of The Rings" gropes her only minutes later: they actually show his penis - in erection which made me think that perhaps this is not so much a B-movie but a Z-movie.
What irony: we are shown an erect penis in a lesbian-filled sex movie!
Talking to a family friend about having greatly enjoyed the 2014 Aussie Neo-Noir film The Reckoning,I started to get told about an Aussie Noir title which he had been meaning to pick up for ages.Taking a look at Amazon Uk,I was happy to see a DVD of the movie being sold at a very cheap price,which led to me getting ready to wear the monkey's mask.The plot:Retiring from the police force, Jill Fitzpatrick decides to become a private detective.
Receiving a call from out of the blue,Fitzpatrick is asked by the parents of Mickey Norris if she can track down their daughter,due to Norris having been missing for 2 weeks.Visiting the last place that Mickey was seen,Fitzpatrick discovers that Norris was involved in underground poetry groups.Getting hold of Noirris poems,Fitzpatrick is disturbed to find that most of the poems involve violent sexual imagery.Tracking down Norris poet teacher Professor Diana Maitland,Fitzpatrick sets her sights on uncovering the meaning behind Norris poems,but soon finds herself writing sonnets for femme fatale Maitland,who seems to have her eyes set on writing the final verse.View on the film:Adapting Dorothy Porter's "poems novel" (!),the screenplay by Anne Kennedy gives the title a distinctive,quirky vibe,thanks to Kennedy playing around with the traditional amateur male investigator role of Film Noirs,and also offering a number of tantalising genre crashes,which leads to the movie switching from gritty Neo-Noir,to sharp lesbian Drama.Whilst Kennedy does well at offering a unique take on Film Noir,the dialogue sadly takes the sheen off the movie,due to it having a blunt feel which infects the movie with an atmosphere of Kennedy being desperate to make the dialogue as harsh as possible,which leads to it being at odds with the intelligent outline that Kennedy has given Fitzpatrick.Being one of the few women to have directed a Neo-Noir, Samantha Lang shows Fitzpatrick's (played by a very good Susie Porter,who also appears naked in the movie)growing attraction towards Professor Diana Maitland (played by a terrifically brittle Kelly McGillis) in an eye-catching manner,by making the striking sex scenes lose clarity,as Fitzpatrick finds herself getting steamy for Maitland.Making glass a prominent feature of the film,Lang shows an impressively subtle skill in using the glass to reflect clues towards Fitzpatrick,which leads to Lang slowly pushing the glass to the front of the screen,and smashing it in a deeply stylised manner,as Fitzpatrick's realises that she has uncovered missing Norris lost verse..
Good if You like soft-porn for women, bad if You want movie-quality and ugly if You love detective-stories ....
Pretending to be open-minded is easy nowadays - see a lousy movie with some unhetero-sexual scenes in and You're in with the IN-crowd ...
("Married with Bundy" !) This is one of a bunch of movies trying to "normalize" homosexuality and in this lesbian case show how sickening and dangerous men are.
It's very simple - Jill says to herself (like a true private dick, erh, I mean dyke) that she should find another woman and forget the love for Diana that still lingered on after she broke up ...
The Monkey's Mask is not a great film.
The lesbian love between Jill and Diana is very well interpreted by both Susie Porter and Kelly McGillis (a bit over-aged for nude scenes).
Even though the only remarkable detail which worth the vision of the movie is the superb erected penis showed by Marton Csokas at the end (almost) of the film.
She has directed sex scenes with authentic good taste.
Marton Csokas, here, is the husband of Poetry professor Diana/McGillis. |
tt0421357 | Hagane no renkinjutsushi | === Setting ===
Fullmetal Alchemist takes place in an alternate history, in the fictional country of Amestris (アメストリス, Amesutorisu). In the world, alchemy is one of the most-practiced sciences; Alchemists who work for the government are known as State Alchemists (国家錬金術師, Kokka Renkinjutsushi) and are automatically given the rank of Major in the military. Alchemists have the ability, with the help of patterns called Transmutation Circles, to create almost anything they desire. However, when they do so, they must provide something of equal value in accordance with the Law of Equivalent Exchange. The only things Alchemists are forbidden from transmuting are humans and gold. There has never been a successful human transmutation; those who attempt it lose a part of their body and the result is a horrific inhuman mass. Attemptees are confronted by Truth (真理, Shinri), a pantheistic and semi-cerebral God-like being who tauntingly regulates all alchemy use and whose nigh-featureless appearance is relative to whom Truth is conversing with; the series' antagonist, Father, and some other characters, claim and believe that Truth is a personal God who punishes the arrogant, a belief that Edward denies, citing a flaw in Father's interpretation of Truth's works.
Attemptees of Human Transmutation are also thrown into the Gate of Truth (真理の扉, Shinri no Tobira), where they receive an overwhelming dose of information, but also allowing them to transmute without a circle. All living things possess their own Gate of Truth, and per the Gaea hypothesis heavenly bodies like planets also have their own Gates of Truth. It is possible to bypass the Law of Equivalent Exchange (to an extent) using a Philosopher's Stone, a red, enigmatic substance. Philosopher's Stones can be used to create Homunculi, artificial humans of proud nature. Homunculi have numerous superhuman abilities unique amongst each other and look down upon all humanity. With the exception of one, they do not age and can only be killed via the destruction of their Philosopher's Stones.
There are several cities throughout Amestris. The main setting is the capital of Central City (セントラルシティ, Sentoraru Shiti), along with other military cities such as the northern city of Briggs (ブリッグズ, Burigguzu). Towns featured include Resembool (リゼンブール, Rizenbūru), the rural hometown of the Elrics; Liore (リオール, Riōru), a city tricked to follow a religion; Rush Valley (ラッシュバレー, Rasshu Barē), a town that specializes in automail manufacturing; and Ishbal, a conservative-religion region that rejects alchemy and was destroyed in the Ishbalan Civil War instigated after a soldier (actually the homunculus Envy) shot an Ishbalan child. Outside of Amestris, there are few named countries, and none are seen in the main story. The main foreign country is Xing. Heavily reminiscent of China, Xing has a complex system of clans and emperors, as opposed to Amestris's government-controlled election of a Führer. It also has its own system of alchemy, called Alkahestry (錬丹術, Rentanjutsu), which is more medical and can be bi-located using kunai; in turn, it is implied that all countries have different forms of alchemy.
=== Plot ===
Edward and Alphonse Elric live in the rural town of Resembool with their mother Trisha and their father Van Hohenheim, the latter having left home for an unknown reason. When Trisha dies of the plague, the brothers perform the forbidden alchemic technique of human transmutation in an attempt to resurrect her. Consequently, the transmutation backfires and in law with equivalent exchange, Edward's left leg and Alphonse's entire body are destroyed. Edward sacrifices his right arm to rescue Alphonse's soul, binding it to a suit of armor with a blood seal. Edward is invited by Roy Mustang to become a State Alchemist to research a way to restore Alphonse's body. Edward succeeds, becoming the Fullmetal Alchemist, the title based on his prosthetic automail limbs and use of alchemy involving metal materials.
Three years on, the Elrics search for the mythical Philosopher's Stone to achieve their goals. They free the citizens of the city Liore by exposing the corrupt motives of the local cult's prophetic founder. They are targeted by Scar, an Ishbalan serial killer who murders State Alchemists per his anti-alchemic religious beliefs, and their encounter with him forces them to return to Resembool to have their bodies repaired by their childhood friend and mechanic, Winry Rockbell. The Elrics meet Dr. Marcoh, a reclusive former State Alchemist who created Philosopher's Stones during the Ishbalan civil war. Marcoh sends them to find his notes, but they learn the key ingredient to make the Stone is human sacrifices. Reaching a dead end thanks to the Homunculi, the Elrics go to meet their alchemy teacher Izumi Curtis. Maes Hughes, Mustang's friend, carries on their research, but is shot dead by a disguised Envy for discovering the Homunculi's plans.
Visiting Izumi, the Elrics learn she committed human transmutation on her stillborn child. Alphonse is captured by the rogue homunculus Greed, but is rescued by Amestris' president King Bradley, revealed to be the homunculus Wrath. Greed is consequently melted down by and reabsorbed within the Homunculi's creator Father. The Elrics and Winry return to Central City to visit Hughes but learn of his death. Lieutenant Maria Ross is framed for Hughes' murder, but is seemingly murdered by Mustang. However, Edward learns Ross' death was staged so Mustang can smuggle her out of the country to Xing, assisted by Xingese prince Lin Yao. Meanwhile, Scar forms a small band with former soldier Yoki, Xingese princess May Chang, and later Dr. Marcoh. Edward reunites with Hohenheim but hates him for his lengthy absence from home.
As the story progresses, the protagonists encounter the Homunculi repeatedly. Lust is killed by Mustang; Gluttony is captured by Mustang and Lin, but he ends up swallowing Edward, Lin, and Envy into his void-like stomach. Gluttony takes Alphonse to meet Father, but when the others escape from Gluttony's stomach, Father turns Lin into a Homunculus, namely the new incarnation of Greed. The Elrics are released to continue their quest as long as they don't oppose Father.
The Elrics go to northern Amestris where they inform the soldiers of Fort Briggs of the conspiracies in Central. Finding an underground tunnel beneath Briggs, the Elrics and General Olivier Armstrong discover that Amestris is practically nothing more than a human farm created by Father, who has been creating a nationwide transmutation circle and plans to cull its citizens by converting them into an extremely powerful Philosopher's Stone, which he shall use as a weapon to ascend to godhood. The Elrics are forced to work with Solf J. Kimblee to track down Scar with Winry as a hostage. They learn Scar's brother created a new type of alchemy to combat Father, leading them to team up and go on the run from the military, though Edward is left behind to divert Kimblee. Greed regains his past self's memories and betrays Father, teaming up with Edward, Kimblee's chimera minions, and later Hohenheim. Hohenheim reveals to his sons separately that he is immortal, turned into a living Philosopher's Stone by Father four hundred years ago.
The Promised Day arrives and Father prepares to initiate his plan using an eclipse, whose light and shadow represents a perfect being, and those who tried human transmutation as his key sacrifices. The numerous protagonists battle Father's minions, with most of the Homunculi dying. Father activates the nationwide transmutation after the Elrics, Izumi, Hohenheim, and a forced Mustang are gathered as the triggers. However, Hohenheim and Scar activate countermeasures to save the Amestrians. Father is confronted above ground where the protagonists battle him to wear down his Philosopher's Stone, but Greed is destroyed by Father.
Alphonse, whose armor is all but destroyed, sacrifices his soul to retrieve Edward's right arm, who in turn destroys Father's Philosopher's Stone, sending him back to the divine Gate of Truth from which he was created. Edward sacrifices his ability to perform alchemy to retrieve Alphonse's body and soul. Hohenheim visits Trisha's grave where he dies with a smile. Several months later, Edward and Alphonse return home where they are reunited with Winry, though they both leave home two years later to explore the world. The epilogue finishes with a family photo of Alphonse, May, Edward, Winry, and Ed and Winry's son and daughter. | psychedelic, comedy, violence, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | If you watch them all together, it begins and ends so quickly you feel like you've been hit by a truck when it finally DOES end.Full Metal Alchemist is a prime example of excellent story writing.
In short: If your an anime fan, or just dipping your toes, FullMetal Alchemist is a showcase of wonderful characters and plot, action, drama, tears and laughs..
This was an aspiring animators dream world.I ended up spending the rest of the year watching all the episodes on Adult Swim...I'd even wake up in the morning and think Full Metal Alchemist's on tonight!
I also ended up buying the Manga which if you have cash to burn and love the series you should do so.The story itself is pretty straightforward at first and seems almost like Inu Yasha where there's the same premise behind every episode but that's only for a little while until you know the characters and than it starts adding to the background situations starts to show whats really going on and whats really behind their quest.The animation in itself just adds to the story with the rich backgrounds and the amazing fights.Overall this would be a good anime to start with if your looking for one.
Story line is good, a mix of brotherhood, friendship, love, humanity and (like any other anime) the effect of war on people, not to forget the hilarious moments this anime is mined with.
I myself am not a particularly big fan of anime - I enjoy one every so often, but this absolutely blew me away.The tragic story is of the two Elric brothers, Edward and Alphonse ("Al" for short).
The voice acting brings the characters to life in a way that no other anime ever has before.Overall, it's an incredible series.
Whilst there are obviously anime elements (the look, fighting segments) the story and, above all, the willingness to shock the audience by hurting and killing characters we have come to know and admire, make Fullmetal Alchemist well worth your time.
Out the half dozen other people I know who've seen the entire series, not one of us was able to even come close to guessing the ending.
FMA reminds me a bit of Harry Potter just in that, in both series, you have 1) child prodigies, 2) engrossing character growth and plot development, and 3) a story that individuals of all ages can appreciate and enjoy.
Probably the single best anime that I've ever seen, and certainly in my Top 10 favorite stories of all time.
Full Metal Alchemist, about 2 loving brothers who get thrown into a world a war and war craft just to receive a certain something, which therefore leads them into a completely different world, and opinion of their objective.I have been a fan of anime for a while now, ever since I was very small watching Sailor Moon and Pokémon.
But ever since then I was blinded from the world of anime and wasn't into it anymore.Well, until I contacted my long lost ex-girlfriend after about 6 months on MSN, I can seriously say I was hooked, for the first time in my life.So I downloaded all of the episodes and watched about 10 a day, my eyes couldn't move off the screen as they were fixed on only one thing, the show.
From Ed and Al longing for the philosopher's stone to revive their dear mother, to despising it on learning how to create it, then to learning on what the Homculus group is really doing to Ed and Al.I would definitely prefer watching this amazing Anime, then read the manga, believe me, it's worth the time..
My rating per episode fluctuated to crazy degrees and the average is a very underwhelming just above average overallFull Metal Alchemist is one of the premier anime series, hugely popular and I've heard no real criticism of.
Sadly, I have plenty.It tells the story of the Elric brothers, two young boys who tragically lose their mother and attempt to use the art of alchemy to bring her back but with unfortunate consequences.It's scored well, the animation is great, the voice acting is flawless and it's full of genuinely interesting engaging characters who over the course of the 51 episode single series I came to care for.So why such a low rating?For start I hate the overexaggerated reactions, I don't mean how anime characters insist on shouting all the time I mean when they constantly break from serious animation to show a silly overdrawn facial expressions complete with symbols around their head.
I really hate that nonsense!Next the plot as it develops begins to get a bit far fetched, yes I know we're talking about a world of alchemy but I mean the character additions, character behaviour and generally how an interesting plot gets convoluted to an extent it simply didn't need to.I like Full Metal Alchemist, I'm certainly glad I watched it.
And after that onto Brotherhood which I'm told is superior.The Good:Incredible voice actingSome very good ideasSeveral powerful momentsThe Bad:Silly expressionsLack of consistencyDumb finaleThings I Learnt From This Show:Edward might possibly be self concious about his heightAt no point did Edward during their long walks think it a good idea to get into Al (Then again when you put it like that...)I spent the entire show trying to work out if Envy was male or femaleAnyone who wants you to call them "Führer" is probably up to no good.
Fullmetal Alchemist...The Best Anime Series Ever!!!...NO QUESTIONS ASKED (This Comment is noted towards the Japanese version not the English version.).
I have just finished watching this amazing anime, Fullmetal Alchemist(Japanese version)is a series that anyone should watch, the series demonstrates the full and best potential a anime series has ever demonstrated, this show is a series that i just can't even explain in words...its amazing...the story is really touching and powerful...It tells you so much about the truth of reality.
The series is not long and it really can expand your view of everything around you and about everything you do.I recommend this series to everyone, either you like anime or not...this series is a must see.p.s if you decide to watch Fullmetal alchemist, watch the Japanese version with subtitles because the English version on cartoon network pretty much stinksp.s If your an anime watcher and you haven't watched this...you haven't seen nothing yet.
I mean, can you really feel a movie if people keep making faces at each other and getting annoyed by insignificant things while wars and death and magic surrounds them?OK, I understand that movies about responsibility are mostly directed towards children, but this could have been a more intense and with a wider success if the makers would have heightened the audience level a little.Overall, though, it is a great show.
this is the best series i have seen in my life,but how they continuously kill people is beyond me.the show is nothing like the manga,because in the manga,Scar is made out to be a evil dude,but in the anime,he kind of helps them instead of being this random dude who blows people up.to me,this series is also kind of sad because some of the nicest people die or get mortally wounded.it's also sentimental because of the relationship between Ed and Al,and i think it's awfully sweet.one of the best characters in the series would probably be Mustang or Bradley.
Cause it doesn't suck like other animes that people always make fun of.The story is about 2 brothers who lived in a normal life till they learned how to use Alchemy.
And they will encounter danger, mystery, rivals, and new friends.FullMetal Alchemist is highly recommend to those who want to see a great anime series that's not edited nor censored.
It has a griping story, great characters, beautiful art direction and it's just excellent altogether.Full Metal Alchemist is short compared to most animes, only 51 episodes.
I caught the anime late but from what i read he along with his brother were trying to used a form of alchemy to bring their mother back from the dead and they suffered a horrible fate ed lost his arm and leg and Al lost his entire body.
Full Metal Alchemist is one of my all time favourite shows (not just animes); the story lines, drawing, voice acting and soundtrack are all fantastic.
The supporting characters, both major (such as the arrogant, driven Roy Mustang, my personal favourite, and Winry, the brothers' machinery-obsessed childhood friend) and minor (like Rose, Marco and Barry the Chopper), are perfectly realised, and the host of evil beings they face are scary indeed.As well as watching the entire Japanese series, I have also seen some of the English versions of episodes.
Some of the voices are even improved, such as (in my opinion) Roy. I prefer the anime over the manga, but I don't think it really matters which version of the anime you watch, as little has been changed.I would recommend FMA to anyone over the age of 12, mainly because they would get more out of it, and because the themes are sometimes a bit dark (there are significant character deaths as well).
Full metal alchemist (FMA) is definitely the best anime I have ever seen.
Its not quite classic anime but close enough to where it would be perfect for drawing and can be beautiful AND cool, even at the same time.If you watch this, though I recommend the books too, which are just as good even though somewhat different.If you like this series I also recommend:Kino's Journey (its a beautiful world)-for a good deep oneEscaflowne-if you like the adventure styleKiddy Grade-One of those ones that tends to be a lot about what you believe in and the relationships between characters + some cool action :).
I wasn't a big anime fan but after watching this it totally changed my mind this is the best anime ever, excellent story writing although most of my friends told me to start brotherhood instead but am so happy I took the right decision.
I enjoyed how much the protagonists - those two alchemist brothers named Edward and Alphonse Elric - had more screen time which allowed their relationship and love for each other to blossom.
Unlike in the original manga series of the same name and its 2009 anime rebooted version, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, no character was a side character or a filler character.
However, I'll say this is probably not only my favourite anime but probably one of my favourite shows and one of the most consistently good across all 51.The plot (if you don't know already) is that it takes place in a parallel world in which science takes a different direction and is instead focused on alchemy and seemingly by an almost-magic they can transform something into something else provided it's equal.
Two brothers at a young age have to deal with their father running away and their mother dying of an illness she kept secret, they decide to try and use alchemy to bring their mother back from the dead but instead leaves Edward Elric without a right arm and left leg and Alphonse trapped in a suit of armour unable to eat, sleep or feel anything.
kind-of-people that want exactly what Edward and Alphonse are after in order to make themselves human no matter what the cost and the victim of an infamous military war leaving his people persecuted is cursed with a right arm that makes things explode despite his people not believing in Alchemy.Okay, what's good here?
I'll avoid spoilers but it almost feels like despite the fans saying it's bad that I should watch the movie to get full closure, my point is that they REALLY shouldn't have done what they did to Alphonse, it made his entire character growth seem pointless.
Having seen the entire series (3 times) and got it all on DVD (which is kind of difficult when you're living in England), i can now do a review on the series.Fullmetal Alchemist is a slow-to-star, but highly gripping anime.
With a storyline that is half-based on the original comic, and the other half invented for the anime, we basically have a story following two characters, Edward Elric and Alphonse Elric, as they travel across Amestris to regain their bodies.How can this storyline work?
The bond between Edward and Alphonse is a bond any person with a sibling or very close friend knows about, and in the anime, it's communicated so well, that it makes you want to watch the series.Of course, that isn't the only reason why i love this series, but it's something that stands out for me..
As a person who prefers watching the English dub of an anime I was incredibly happy with it, Vic Mignogna does a great job as Edward and I don't think anyone could have done it better.
They fail to revive their mother, instead creating an abomination which supposedly dies.(It all sounds macabre and ridiculous, but the actual events are heart-wrenching.) The boys' failed transmutation (that word shows up a lot in the series so you should look it up if you don't know what it means.) brings them to the attention of Roy Mustang, an alchemist who works for the military.
Their subsequent journey into the world of Alchemy and the life of a "military dog" is where the real meat of the story takes place, including a quest for the mythical Philosopher's Stone that makes the series intriguing and addictive to follow.
But not everything is perfect, maybe the worst of this show, is the annoying drama, the characters are crying almost all the time, and those scenes can be sometimes very predictable.Fullmetal Alchemist is one of the best anime series of all the time, but as I told before, is not perfect.
From what little I could understand from the subtitles I still thought the Full Metal Alchemist is amazing and I look forward to watching it again with proper English dubbing.It is very important to watch this series in a row.This is not an anime for kids.BTW: The 52nd episode in the series is the movie.
So it starts off like any other story with the great never ending search but with Full Metal Alchemist they do find what they are looking for early on in the series.
I was a real anime geek and would watch whatever would come on Adult swim, but there are certain shows, books, or movies that can change a person's life because of the characters.
I know most fans tend to compare this series unfavorably to "Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood", but personally I think this version of the story did many things right (and in some aspects, I think it handled a couple of parts of the story in a better way than the original) doing a pretty good balance of drama, suspense and comedy, with plenty of beautiful moments, even if the plot wasn't a 100 % faithful adaptation of the original manga.
Full Metal Alchemist follows the two brothers Edward and Alphonsoe Elric during their search for the philosopher's stone in order to get their bodies back to normal, after an alchemy experiment went horribly wrong.
While it may be nothing like the Manga in many respects, Full Metal Alchemist is, without a doubt, one of the best anime series out there (at least in the top ten).
Don't believe them and get over the fact that it's animated (it's better that way, anyway!), and you'll see a show of gold.It shows many vital things; character development, some hints of romance (especially in the manga), sibling love, family issues, determination, tear-jerking moments (MANY), laugh-out-loud moments, those warm moments, and how one boy who dared to try the impossible and almost lost his brother matured and starts to understand slowly that he's only a human, and that although he is an alchemist, things can still happen that no amount of alchemy can repair.
But he'll mature, and understand that the world moves in only one direction.Fullmetal Alchemist, in the end, is THE best anime out there, in my opinion..
They go searching for the Philosopher's Stone, turning up nothing, but helping people along the way.After losing their mother, Edward his right arm and left leg, Alphonse his whole body, his soul which is in a suit of armor, now, set off to become State Alchemists.
If anyone is looking into getting into anime, the original "Fullmetal Alchemist" is a great place to start..
The first episode was not that great and i stopped watching it for some days, and then when i started watching then continually and got the know the back story of the Elric brothers, I was hooked to the series.
The story follows Edward and Alphonse Eleric brothers on their search for the Philosopher stone to restore their bodies they had lost when they tried to bring their mother back to life.
As the story progresses onto the second half of the series you'll be introduced to even more great characters.Third is the Animation: The animation was excellent.
They go on many sad but memorial journeys that have a lot of action and use of alchemy.Everywhere the Full Metal go, he and Alphonse changed everyone's life.I watched all the episodes and watched again because it was still cool.This anime is one of the best that was created and whoever didn't see this anime, they are missing something good.I cried when Hughes died and you might too if you feel a connection to the one of the anime characters.
this has to be one of the best anime shows ever made (along with inuyasha, which is also amazing.) it has hilarious comedy, action, drama, and a good story.
ed becomes the youngest state alchemist ever, and the two brothers set off on a quest to find the philosopher's stone, and to get their bodies back.this anime is one of my favorite shows EVER and i think it always will be. |
tt2084989 | Upstream Color | The film starts with a man (mentioned in the credits as the "Thief") who appears to be harvesting a type of larva for the unusual effects it has on the human mind when ingested.
At a club, Kris (Amy Seimetz) is tasered and kidnapped by the Thief. He drugs her with a strange capsule, inducing a sort of hypnotic susceptibility, which causes an extremely suggestible mental state that the Thief then exploits. He uses an elaborate set of distractions, such as getting her to create a paper chain where each link features a transcription from the book Walden, in order to distract her while performing his mind control. He eventually manipulates her to liquidate her home equity and steals a valuable collection of rare coins. Through hypnotic suggestion, Kris is prevented from consuming solid foods. She is only allowed to drink small portions of water at regulated intervals, which she is compelled to perceive as extremely refreshing and delicious. The capsule administered to Kris contains a live larva found among the leaves of the Thief's special, blue-tinged orchid flowers—a larva that presumably is infected with a roundworm that subsequently infects Kris's system. She is released from her suspension of hunger by the Thief, presumably to trigger the onset of roundworm growth. Kris binges ravenously and falls asleep in soiled clothes. She awakes in her home to find one of several large roundworms visibly crawling under her skin. She unsuccessfully attempts to remove them by using a kitchen knife.
Later, a pig farmer and avid field recorder—the "Sampler"—draws Kris to his farm using infrasonics, which attracts the worm. The Sampler silently sets up a transfusion through which he transfers the worm from Kris's body into that of a young pig. Kris then awakens in an abandoned SUV on the freeway with no memory of these recent traumatic events. Upon arriving at her disordered house, she quizzically notices blood on her sheets and floors and considers calling the police. She realizes she has no information to tell them and stops dialing. After cleaning up, she heads to work where she is promptly fired for her unexplained absence. A trip to the grocery store reveals to Kris that her personal funds are gone, evidently stolen by the Thief.
A year later, Kris meets a man named Jeff (Shane Carruth) on a train and unknowingly connects with him, seemingly on a telepathic level. Kris and Jeff meet several times, before finally spending the night with each other, and afterward realize they both retain identical stitching scars from the aforementioned, forgotten, transfusions. The two of them soon realize that they both had similar experiences; Jeff lost his job as a broker due to shifting company funds around to cover for money stolen from him and attributes the incident to a psychotic break. At the same time, it is made clear to the audience that a parallel exists between the emotions Kris and Jeff have been feeling and two pigs, one of which is the host to Kris's parasite. As an example: Kris mistakenly believes herself to be pregnant at the same time her pig counterpart is actually pregnant. Upon consultation with a doctor, she is diagnosed with having had endometrial cancer that was successfully removed. The supposed cancer, she is told, is no longer a threat to her body, but it has rendered her infertile and she is unable to conceive.
The Sampler finds that the pig containing Kris's worm has now given birth to piglets. He throws the piglets into a burlap sack and tosses them into a river. This event coincides with Jeff and Kris feeling an extreme sense of loss and frustration, and both act as if something terrible is happening to them; Jeff spontaneously picks a fight with two of his co-workers while Kris frantically searches as if she'd lost something. The two, in their panicked state, reunite and travel to Kris's house, where they gather supplies, including a gun, and make camp in her bathroom's tub, expecting the worst. Meanwhile, the sack of piglets is seen rotting away and a blue substance bursts from the piglets' open wounds, filling the surrounding waters, from which orchids have emerged. The orchids eventually turn the same color blue and are collected by farmers, who sell the plants in the neighborhood where the Thief operates.
These events seem to mark a change in the state of things. Kris and Jeff begin to remember each other's personal histories as their own. Jeff discovers Kris mumbling the text of Walden while swimming. It is while performing this ritual that Kris comes to sense things that the Sampler has sensed, and it is this moment that the two start to piece together what happened to them both. In a dreamlike sequence, Kris, Jeff, and the Sampler all sit down at the same table in a bare, white room where Kris reveals to the Sampler that she is aware of him; the Sampler collapses from an apparent heart attack. The scene then cuts suddenly to a parallel shot back at the pig farm, where Kris shoots and kills the collapsed Sampler. Kris and Jeff collect a box of written records revealing others who were similarly drugged, and the two summon these other past victims to the farm by sending them copies of Walden. The farm is thereafter remodeled and the pigs are better cared for; as a result, no more pigs are drowned, the orchids in the river no longer turn blue, the Thief is deprived of the roundworms for his drug. The film ends with Kris cradling a baby pig, as if for the moment, at peace. | dark, avant garde, murder, allegory, psychedelic, brainwashing | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1281374 | Don McKay | Don McKay (Thomas Haden Church) is a lonely high school janitor who one day receives a letter from his high school sweetheart, Sonny (Elisabeth Shue). In it, she asks him to come visit her back in their home town, because she is dying of an unnamed disease. At first he is reluctant because he had been a suspect in a murder case there years before, but Don decides to go. He arrives and gets a ride to Sonny's house by an eccentric cab driver named Samuel (M. Emmet Walsh).
Don meets Sonny, as well as her strange caregiver Marie (Melissa Leo). Marie's coldness towards Don makes it clear that she doesn't approve of his presence. Don spends the night, and he and Sonny make love. The next morning, Sonny's Doctor, Lance Pryce (James Rebhorn) visits. While Marie and Sonny are out, Pryce attacks Don, and after a struggle, Don kills the man, and hides the body in a bed of leaves behind the garden. However, Don had just suffered an allergic reaction to a bee sting, and blacks out shortly after hiding the body. He awakens in the hospital, where Sonny proposes marriage and claims that she had recently spoken to Pryce.
Don goes to see his old friend Otis (Keith David), and tells him what happened. Otis agrees to help Don get rid of the body that night, but when he arrives it has vanished. Sonny rushes out, thinking the men are burglars, and Otis runs off. After an argument, Don returns home for a few days, eventually getting another letter from Sonny asking him to come back to her.
Samuel picks Don up again, but they are intercepted and kidnapped by a man named Mel (Pruitt Taylor Vince). Mel takes Don to a hotel room, where it's revealed that both Mel and Marie were planning all along to kill Don and take an inheritance Don would receive upon Don's marriage. Don tries to reason with the two stating that there is no inheritance, and that he has no idea what they are talking about. Marie refuses to believe him and tells him to go along with the plan, or they will go to the police about the death of Pryce. With Samuel in Mel's trunk, the four drive back to Sonny's house, and demand that Don go in wearing a wire, threatening to go to the police if he doesn't cooperate with their plan.
Upon arriving at the house, Don hastily proposes to Sonny, stating that he was confused before, but realizes now that he loves her. The doorbell rings; It's Marie and Mel, who enter the house. After a long confrontation, Sonny hits Marie over the head with a frozen ham, and kills her. Sonny then grabs the phone and calls 911 for help, stating that a man pretending to be a private detective just killed someone in her house.
She tells Don to kill Mel, and Don refuses. She grabs an ax and again asks him to kill Mel, but he refuses. Sonny then asks Mel to kill Don, and a struggle over the ax ensues between the men. Sonny kills Mel with the same frozen ham she killed Marie with, and tries to concoct a story to cover all of it. She tells Don that she'd been planning all along to take a large inheritance from Pryce, not Don, that he had received from a relative. It's also revealed that Pryce was her husband, and that the two were going to kill him together.
The police arrive and Sonny lets them into the house. They find the bodies of Marie and Mel, and immediately arrest Don. Sonny is taken away in a police car, and the police start to take Don away. The police find Samuel and question Don about Samuel's involvement. Don asks Samuel to explain his knowledge of the situation to the police.
Samuel tells Don to contact him if he ever needs anything. Don takes Samuel's phone number and boards the bus back home. At home, Don is seen sitting in a chair, a wasp lands on his cheek and the movie ends, leaving Don's fate unknown. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | I didn't really know what to expect; it appeared to be a thriller and although I would categorize it as that, I was surprised at how funny it was.Seriously, the whole audience seemed to be caught up in the plot - the pace and the twists and turns leave you a little breathless at times, but belly-laughing as well.
I'm actually considering seeing it again since it's one of those movies that you might want to re-watch and "look for clues."Thomas Haden Church is perfect as Don the lonely janitor leading a solitary mundane life, pining for his lost love.
He has an expressive face that is compelling as he is in turns beguiled, curious, confused, frustrated, and desperate.Elisabeth Shue as Sunny is a complete wackadoo, I don't know how else to put it
she is manipulative to the extreme and it's entertaining to see her in action, turning on the charm and wrapping Don around her finger.
She takes full advantage of Don's vulnerability; it seems at times Don is vaguely aware of being played, but is enjoying the attention of this sexy creature so much that he willingly goes along for the ride.Melissa Leo appears as Sunny's uptight and prim caregiver.
I especially liked Keith David as Otis but they all delivered solid performances.I don't want to give too much of the plot away, but suffice it to say that there is a lot of double-crossing going on.
Don McKay combines a mystery drama with some thriller and comedy aspects sprinkled in.
The film starts off a little slow, but picks up and becomes one strange thriller and that is meant in a good way.
After the first major strange event happens in the film it changes the whole tone and as the movie progresses you keep getting the feeling everything is off with the story, and you just aren't quite sure where it is going.
As the story progresses and you start to understand what happened they feed you enough but not too much to keep the film interesting.
My only complaint with that is that some of the events in the film are a little too far fetched and you do need to suspend your belief a little to fully enjoy the film.Thomas Haden Church puts on a good performance as Don McKay, not necessarily for a standout performance, but his facial expressions and reactions to the events that happen bring them to life more.
I've never really been an Elisabeth Shue fan, but also liked her in the film as she played her role well and there was a certain chemistry with her and Thomas Haden Church.
With these types of films the ending usually makes or breaks them and for Don McKay I thought it came off somewhat believable amongst all the strangeness leading up to it.
I can only say that this was a very enjoyable tale start to end, and well worth watching particularly for anyone who enjoys a slow build to a finale.
I am always looking for an original story and original telling of it, and highly recommend this nice little gem that you will not regret seeing.Don McKay is a suspense crime thriller that you will want to watch a second time because the reveal at the end makes you re-examine the entire movie.
(However, if you don't like a slow build and pacing that takes it's time, then you probably won't like this movie.) I personally started to believe that this little movie could have gone for a major ending of epic proportions -- it was that well done in my opinion.
It keeps you guessing the entire time, and even when you do guess right, which I had done, the ending still took it to a whole new level that I did not expect.
The dark humor was really good.Acting was excellent, although I say that after understanding the whole situation at the end.
During the movie I felt it was more like average, but that ending puts it all in a new light.Cinematography, score, and sets were excellent, felt just right for the tone and added a nice reinforcing effect on the movie..
Two Femmes Fatale for the Price of One. Thomas Haden Church stars as the soft-spoken and slow-moving (but not necessarily slow-witted) titular character in this surprisingly entertaining black comedy.Why do I say surprising?
Like a lot of black comedies, it takes time to establish its tone and cue you in on what you should and shouldn't be finding funny.
His attempts to play Don McKay, a janitor who's summoned back to his hometown by a dying ex-girlfriend, as a shuffling and seemingly dim bulb come across instead as stiff and baffled.
But the film is saved by playful performances by Elisabeth Shue, as this sordid crime film's femme fatale, and especially Melissa Leo, as a suspicious nurse who channels Judith Anderson from Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca." It's up to these two, who are clearly having a ball with their roles, to get the film and us firmly into the black comedy spirit, and once they do so, the film plays as a quirky and entertaining bit of fun.Grade: B.
"Don McKay" is marketed as an edgy thriller, that's probably because they had no idea how to categorize it.The movie begins as a cross between a romantic drama, a character study, and a dark thriller.
Don McKay, played brilliantly by Thomas Haden Church, returns to his hometown by a letter from his high school girlfriend, Sunny (Elisabeth Shue).
Those are the dark thriller aspects.It seems as if it's going to be a character study, but its really not about McKay himself.
It's ultimately plot-driven and the mysterious problems that McKay gets himself into.
I was riveted throughout.I actually highly recommend "Don McKay" because it's cleverly written to throw its audience off-guard, it's completely original, and these film-makers know what they are doing.
Great old-school dark comedy.
Many modern filmmakers put an emphasis on darkness and disturbing situations like Tarantino ("Pulp Fiction") and the Coen Brothers ("Fargo"), whereas others hail from the old school approach of keeping violence to a minimum and instead drawing humor from the bizarre ways the characters act around it, such as in "Arsenic & Old Lace" (1944) or "Deathtrap" (1982).Here in "Don McKay" we fall squarely into the old school style.
There is 1 death early in the film, and the rest of the film is about the mysterious and absurd criss-crossings of schemes from each character whose intentions we don't know until the end.
Apologies to Tarantino & the Coens (whose films I really like), but I prefer this sort of approach because, although it may sacrifice thrills & action, it's ultimately a style that you can enjoy on a deeper psychological level.Don McKay (Thomas Hayden Church whom I'll always remember as the lovably slow mechanic in the 80s sitcom "Wings") is a lonely man whose entire life consists of cleaning the floors at a Boston high school.
And although this is not a whodunnit, it becomes a fun mystery as we try to figure out who each character is, including our hero Don McKay, a man of very few words.Thomas Hayden Church is brilliantly cast in the lead role, almost reprising his humorously awkward role in Wings but with a deep, observant intelligence that gives the film depth.
As we piece together the bizarre characters & circumstances surrounding the death, we are also hard at work trying to figure out what makes Don McKay tick and why he is apparently running from something.
Thus, there are 2 stories unfolding at the same time, and the brilliant (and hilarious!) climactic scene pulls it all together in a way that's tense, funny, enlightening and unmistakably human.And let me dwell on that word for a minute: human.
There are no wooden performances here, unless you count Thomas' deliberately wooden, stoic characterization of Don McKay. Elizabeth Shue absolutely blows this out of the park, playing a complex yet in many ways childlike character whom I can only compare to Vivien Leigh's famous performance in "Streetcar Named Desire".
Keith David, in one of the greatest comic-relief roles since the porter in Shakespeare's Macbeth, plays Don McKay's neurotic childhood friend, the perfect counterbalance to Thomas Hayden Church's emotionless enigma.
And there are 2 fantastic bit roles (1) the cab driver played by Emmet Walsh who's been in everything from Blood Simple to Bladerunner; and (2) Pruitt Taylor Vince as "Mel" the dorky crook who looks like he would be more comfortable working at Best Buy than being part of any sort of murder story.I also give major old school points to the director for pulling off some hilarious sight gags.
AXE??" (as if to point out the hilarious note: who keeps an axe in their living room?).If you enjoy subtle situational humor, as in other indie gems like "Buffalo 66", "Grand Theft Parsons" or "The Maiden Heist" (sorry I can't think of any popular films to compare this to, except maybe "Punch Drunk Love"), then don't miss "Don McKay"..
(Credit IMDb) Don McKay, a high school janitor who leaves his hometown after a tragedy, returns 25 years later to rekindle a romance with his old flame, who is dying, but this homecoming brings McKay more than he bargained for.
Don McKay was a peculiar little movie but one I heavily enjoyed.
Don McKay is full of neat surprises, and a film I would gladly see again if given the chance.
This movie had some wonderful comedy scenes.
I would recommend people to watch it.I loved the movie for sheer laughs.I give it a 7.Go and watch it..
Well you'd have the movie Don McKay.This movie is so stilted it only starts to get interesting in maybe the last 20 minutes before the credits roll, anything before that is just, sadly, nothing about nothing.
Within the first 10 minutes of the movie you, the viewer, know something is amiss but the movie gives no clues and drags out this expectation of answers until the very end.
The rest of the movie is padded with allusions of something happening 25 years prior and by the time it's all tied up in the end, it's ridiculous that it's all been withheld for the entire running time.Honestly this would have been perfect fodder for a hour long TV episode of the crime/suspense type, and probably gotten a much better treatment on the small screen.
I love Elizabeth Shue but what happened in this movie????
The old guy who plays the taxi driver is a great "character" actor and he is probably the best of the lineup..
I thought the movie "Don McKay" was something entirely different than it actually was.
The start of the movie was promising, introducing the character in a nice way and slowly building up to something promising.
I am sure the makers of the movie thought their story was a good and exciting one, but the end product turned out as a confusing mess.Throughout the movie, you sit there and gawk at the half-hearted acting performances and the dull dialogues.
However, I have to say one thing, Thomas Haden Church did a wonderful performance of portraying the gray and boring character of Don McKay. I thought he worked quite well in this role.The characters in the movie were well enough fleshed out.
Very nice and screwed up characters, that had potential, but failed to shine through because of the acting was below mediocre.The one good thing about the movie, was when Don revealed the ultimate truth towards the ending.
The rest of the movie, well not so much.I had thought this to be somewhat more of a thriller, but ended up with a lukewarm story that took forever to be told.
Definitely not a movie I recommend that you pick up, unless you are bored, fanatically fan of any of the actors/actresses, or if you just have nothing better to do.
Not Bad At All. Despite how weird and confusing Don Mckay, aka Moment of Truth, is, it ends up being a pretty nifty mystery.
This is a VERY BIZARRE film, a mystery during which every other minute you say, what the heck is going on, until the ending wraps it all up.
It features a very strange lead character as well, who is kind of grotesque and slow witted like Sling Blade.
Don McKay is an independent drama thriller film starring Thomas Haden Church and Elisabeth Shue together with Melissa Leo,James Rebhorn,Keith David and M.
Emmet Walsh.The story is about a about a man who returns to his hometown after receiving a letter from his high school sweetheart,who claims to be dying.It was written and directed by Jake Goldberger.
It's been 25 years since Don McKay turned his back on his hometown, and he never imagined he would ever return.
Meanwhile, Sonny's doctor and caretaker don't warm quickly to the returning visitor, and a chance run-in suddenly compounds Don's buried secret.The movie had its moments, but it never manages to maintain the consistent tone so crucial if a black comedy is going to actually be funny.Greenberg's tyro script was both dark comedy and slick whodunit and he handled his material and fine cast with a deft hand that belied his freshman status.The cast did very well in this film although they weren't able to elevate it to a better film.Overall,Don McKay entertains just like any other film despite of its label as an independent film..
But let's just say if it wasn't for Thomas Haden Church serving as the executive producer in this, the movie wouldn't be where it is now: RELEASED.It starts out mundane when we open with the titled character "Don McKay" (played by Church), doing his unremarkable duties as a high school janitor in Massachusetts (but probably filmed outside of L.A.).
Let's just say that what seems to be somewhat of a quirky and pedestrian indie-film turns to switch to such a violent tone so abruptly, that it looks like two different films we're watching.
And it's so coincidental that none of these people have lives- or moved on with families since high school- but then that would ruin the whole "plot" to the movie if they did, so we just need to accept this.
Elisabeth Shue does a little more than I've seen her do in most mainstream movies, but there's really nothing likable about her in this (except she wears a slip through a third of the film).
I guess I liked Keith David the most who showed more dimensionality than anyone else (and probably had about seven minutes of screen time).I'd just wait for this to come out on DVD.
Well, I started watching this movie in high hopes, reading previous reviews.
And, at first, I thought this is going to be great movie.
Everything was great to the half of the movie, and then all disappeared.
I got the feeling that the actors were trying to explain the truth to me, not to Don (he had his arms in his pockets all the time, looking unconcerned).
Acting was good, but only if you analyze it separated from the movie.
(Yet, at the end of the movie, Don's reply to the detective's comment of "You're crazy" : "No, I'm just lonely") does move me profoundly and make me remember this movie for the rest of my life!) The movie has good main actors and actresses, sadly they fall into the hand of a lousy director.
Some of the scenes even make you feel they are performing in a comedy-film.The camera-shooting and film-editing is poor enough to be graded "C".However, this is one of the very very few bad movies that could attract me to keep on watching up to the end.
And you know that the actors and actresses (they by themselves are excellent) in this movie could be spotted much more brilliant if given a better director.
May be it is the reason why this movie's popularity has shot up drastically ( Up 1,303% in popularity this week according to IMDb's Moviemeter).The release of this movie has rid the opportunity for other more capable movie-makers to produce a much better version: most people, having known the plot and story, would not watch a suspense / thriller movie a second time..
I have seen little of Thomas Haden Church since "Sideways", and Elizabeth Shue has been in many major and minor films, and I like thrillers usually, so I took a chance.
The first third of the movie built slowly, and had a feeling of mystery and suspense and strange things going on.
When Church first returns to his home town and sees Sunny, who is supposed to be dying of cancer, I immediately chuckled at how healthy she looked, figuring the director preferred to have an attractive lead over reality.As the film progressed, some scary moments occurred, as well as some darkly humorous ones, and for a while, I felt I was watching a terrific film.
But like many movies in this genre, the promise of a logical explanation is sacrificed for either a convoluted complicated ending or a simple nonsensical one.
This had more of the former than the latter, but it all happened so close to the end that it seemed more like a comedy than a thriller.
It reminded me of a better film "The Faculty", where one ending after another was piled on at the end in a "can you top this" fashion.Still, the movie held my attention, and I didn't fast forward, and though I felt a bit let down at the end, I still enjoyed it enough to give it a 7.
I tend to be easy on grading movies, saving grades of 4 or less for boring films like "The English Patient" which was like watching grass grow, only slower.
I had a smile on my face through much of Don McKay, along with a feeling of suspense. |
tt0194376 | Silent Hill | All the plots of the installments in the Silent Hill series, except Shattered Memories, share a common setting: the foggy rural American town of Silent Hill, which is a fictitious location set in the northeastern United States: some games specifically reference the town as being located in Maine, whereas in the film, the town is set in West Virginia. The town in the film series was inspired by Centralia, Pennsylvania. The series' player characters experience an occasional dark alteration of reality called the "Otherworld". In that reality, physical law often does not apply, with varying forms but most frequently ones whose physical appearance is based on that of Silent Hill, and the series' characters experience delusions and encounter tangible symbols of elements from their unconscious minds, mental states, and innermost thoughts when present in it, manifested into the real world. The origin of these manifestations is a malevolent power native to Silent Hill, which materializes human thoughts; this force was formerly non-evil, but was corrupted by the occurrence of certain events in the area. Recurring monsters include the Nurses who are included in almost every Silent Hill game; Pyramid Head, another recurring monster who became the series mascot; and Robbie the Rabbit, an amusement park mascot. A dog named Mira is also included in many joke endings. Another recurring plot trait in the Silent Hill series is a fictitious religious cult known only as The Order. The organization has certain members who act as antagonists in most of the series' installments (such as Dahila in the first and prequel, Claudia in 3, Walter in The Room, and Judge Holloway in Homecoming), and operates the "Wish House" (also called "Hope House"), an orphanage for poor and homeless children built by a charity organization called the "Silent Hill Smile Support Society". The religion followed by the Order is focused on the worship of a chief deity, who is named Samael but was always called "God". The group's dogma is derived from a myth: the deity set out to create paradise, but ran out of power during the process; she will someday be resurrected, thus becoming able to finally create paradise and save mankind. The town's cult repeatedly participates in illegal acts: ritual human sacrifices whose purpose is the deity's resurrection, illegal drug trade, and kidnapping and confinement of children in a facility to teach them its dogma through brainwashing, while presenting the facility as an orphanage. Also repeatedly featured are various religious items with magical properties, appearing widely in the games of the series.
Three thematic elements consistently drive the narratives of Silent Hill games: the theme of a main protagonist who is depicted as an "everyman" (with the exception of Homecoming, where the protagonist is thought to be a soldier and the game's mechanics operate as such), and the everyman's quest, either a search for a missing loved one or a situation where the protagonist wanders into the town apparently by accident but is in fact being "summoned" by a spiritual force in the town. Multiple endings are a staple of the series, with all installments featuring some, the realization of which often depends on in-game actions performed by the player. In all but two of the series' games, one of these endings is a joke ending in which the main protagonist comes in contact with unidentified flying objects: there is no joke ending in Silent Hill 4: The Room, and the only joke ending in Downpour is a surprise party for the player featuring characters from previous instalments of the franchise.
The installments in the Silent Hill series contain various symbolisms. The symbols are images, sounds, objects, creatures, or situations, and represent concepts and facts, as well as feelings, emotions, and mental states of the characters.
=== Gameplay ===
The installments in the Silent Hill series utilize a third-person view, with occasional fixed camera angles. While visibility is low due to the alternating fog and darkness, all of the series' player characters, except Henry Townshend of Silent Hill 4: The Room, are equipped with a flashlight and a portable device which warns the player of nearby monsters by emitting static (a transistor radio in Origins and the first three titles, a walkie-talkie in Homecoming and Downpour, and a mobile phone in Shattered Memories). The player characters of every Silent Hill game have access to a variety of melee weapons and firearms, with Origins and Downpour also featuring rudimentary hand-to-hand combat. Shattered Memories is the sole exception: it is designed without combat and based around evasion of the creatures. Another key feature of the series' gameplay is puzzle-solving, which often results in the acquisition of an item essential to advance in the games. | good versus evil, violence, suspenseful, gothic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0113828 | Les misérables | === Volume I – Fantine ===
The story begins in 1815 in Digne, as the peasant Jean Valjean, just released from 19 years' imprisonment in the Bagne of Toulon—five for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family and fourteen more for numerous escape attempts—is turned away by innkeepers because his yellow passport marks him as a former convict. He sleeps on the street, angry and bitter.
Digne's benevolent Bishop Myriel gives him shelter. At night, Valjean runs off with Myriel's silverware. When the police capture Valjean, Myriel pretends that he has given the silverware to Valjean and presses him to take two silver candlesticks as well, as if he had forgotten to take them. The police accept his explanation and leave. Myriel tells Valjean that his life has been spared for God, and that he should use money from the silver candlesticks to make an honest man of himself.
Valjean broods over Myriel's words. When opportunity presents itself, purely out of habit, he steals a 40-sous coin from 12-year-old Petit Gervais and chases the boy away. He quickly repents and searches the city in panic for Gervais. At the same time, his theft is reported to the authorities. Valjean hides as they search for him, because if apprehended he will be returned to the galleys for life as a repeat offender.
Six years pass and Valjean, using the alias Monsieur Madeleine, has become a wealthy factory owner and is appointed mayor of a town identified only as M____-sur-M__ (i.e., Montreuil-sur-Mer). Walking down the street, he sees a man named Fauchelevent pinned under the wheels of a cart. When no one volunteers to lift the cart, even for pay, he decides to rescue Fauchelevent himself. He crawls underneath the cart, manages to lift it, and frees him. The town's police inspector, Inspector Javert, who was an adjutant guard at the Bagne of Toulon during Valjean's incarceration, becomes suspicious of the mayor after witnessing this remarkable feat of strength. He has known only one other man, a convict named Jean Valjean, who could accomplish it.
Years earlier in Paris, a grisette named Fantine was very much in love with Félix Tholomyès. His friends, Listolier, Fameuil, and Blachevelle were also paired with Fantine's friends Dahlia, Zéphine, and Favourite. The men abandon the women, treating their relationships as youthful amusements. Fantine must draw on her own resources to care for her and Tholomyès' daughter, Cosette. When Fantine arrives at Montfermeil, she leaves Cosette in the care of the Thénardiers, a corrupt innkeeper and his selfish, cruel wife.
Fantine is unaware that they are abusing her daughter and using her as forced labor for their inn, and continues to try to meet their growing, extortionate and fictitious demands. She is later fired from her job at Jean Valjean's factory, because of the discovery of her daughter, who was born out of wedlock. Meanwhile, the Thénardiers' monetary demands continue to grow. In desperation, Fantine sells her hair and two front teeth, and she resorts to prostitution to pay the Thénardiers. Fantine is slowly dying from an unspecified disease.
A dandy named Bamatabois harasses Fantine in the street, and she reacts by striking him. Javert arrests Fantine. She begs to be released so that she can provide for her daughter, but Javert sentences her to six months in prison. Valjean (Mayor Madeleine) intervenes and orders Javert to release her. Javert resists but Valjean prevails. Valjean, feeling responsible because his factory turned her away, promises Fantine that he will bring Cosette to her. He takes her to a hospital.
Javert comes to see Valjean again. Javert admits that after being forced to free Fantine, he reported him as Valjean to the French authorities. He tells Valjean he realizes he was wrong, because the authorities have identified someone else as the real Jean Valjean, have him in custody, and plan to try him the next day. Valjean is torn, but decides to reveal himself to save the innocent man, whose real name is Champmathieu. He travels to attend the trial and there reveals his true identity. Valjean returns to M____-sur-M__ to see Fantine, followed by Javert, who confronts him in her hospital room.
After Javert grabs Valjean, Valjean asks for three days to bring Cosette to Fantine, but Javert refuses. Fantine discovers that Cosette is not at the hospital and fretfully asks where she is. Javert orders her to be quiet, and then reveals to her Valjean's real identity. Weakened by the severity of her illness, she falls back in shock and dies. Valjean goes to Fantine, speaks to her in an inaudible whisper, kisses her hand, and then leaves with Javert. Later, Fantine's body is unceremoniously thrown into a public grave.
=== Volume II – Cosette ===
Valjean escapes, is recaptured, and is sentenced to death. The king commutes his sentence to penal servitude for life. While imprisoned in the Bagne of Toulon, Valjean, at great personal risk, rescues a sailor caught in the ship's rigging. Spectators call for his release. Valjean fakes his own death by allowing himself to fall into the ocean. Authorities report him dead and his body lost.
Valjean arrives at Montfermeil on Christmas Eve. He finds Cosette fetching water in the woods alone and walks with her to the inn. He orders a meal and observes how the Thénardiers abuse her, while pampering their own daughters Éponine and Azelma, who mistreat Cosette for playing with their doll. Valjean leaves and returns to make Cosette a present of an expensive new doll which, after some hesitation, she happily accepts. Éponine and Azelma are envious. Madame Thénardier is furious with Valjean, while her husband makes light of Valjean's behaviour, caring only that he pay for his food and lodging.
The next morning, Valjean informs the Thénardiers that he wants to take Cosette with him. Madame Thénardier immediately accepts, while Thénardier pretends to love Cosette and be concerned for her welfare, reluctant to give her up. Valjean pays the Thénardiers 1,500 francs, and he and Cosette leave the inn. Thénardier, hoping to swindle more out of Valjean, runs after them, holding the 1,500 francs, and tells Valjean he wants Cosette back. He informs Valjean that he cannot release Cosette without a note from the child's mother. Valjean hands Thénardier Fantine's letter authorizing the bearer to take Cosette. Thénardier then demands that Valjean pay a thousand crowns, but Valjean and Cosette leave. Thénardier regrets that he did not bring his gun and turns back toward home.
Valjean and Cosette flee to Paris. Valjean rents new lodgings at Gorbeau House, where he and Cosette live happily. However, Javert discovers Valjean's lodgings there a few months later. Valjean takes Cosette and they try to escape from Javert. They soon find shelter in the Petit-Picpus convent with the help of Fauchelevent, the man whom Valjean once rescued from being crushed under a cart and who has become the convent's gardener. Valjean also becomes a gardener and Cosette becomes a student at the convent school.
=== Volume III – Marius ===
Eight years later, the Friends of the ABC, led by Enjolras, are preparing an act of anti-Orléanist civil unrest on the eve of the Paris uprising on 5–6 June 1832, following the death of General Lamarque, the only French leader who had sympathy towards the working class. Lamarque was a victim of a major cholera epidemic that had ravaged the city, particularly its poor neighborhoods, arousing suspicion that the government had been poisoning wells. The Friends of the ABC are joined by the poor of the Cour des miracles, including the Thénardiers' eldest son Gavroche, who is a street urchin.
One of the students, Marius Pontmercy, has become alienated from his family (especially his grandfather M. Gillenormand) because of his liberal views. After the death of his father Colonel Georges Pontmercy, Marius discovers a note from him instructing his son to provide help to a sergeant named Thénardier who saved Pontmercy's life at Waterloo—in reality Thénardier was looting corpses and only saved Pontmercy's life by accident; he had called himself a sergeant under Napoleon to avoid exposing himself as a robber.
At the Luxembourg Garden, Marius falls in love with the now grown and beautiful Cosette. The Thénardiers have also moved to Paris and now live in poverty after losing their inn. They live under the surname "Jondrette" at Gorbeau House (coincidentally, the same building Valjean and Cosette briefly lived in after leaving the Thénardiers' inn). Marius lives there as well, next door to the Thénardiers.
Éponine, now ragged and emaciated, visits Marius at his apartment to beg for money. To impress him, she tries to prove her literacy by reading aloud from a book and by writing "The Cops Are Here" on a sheet of paper. Marius pities her and gives her some money. After Éponine leaves, Marius observes the "Jondrettes" in their apartment through a crack in the wall. Éponine comes in and announces that a philanthropist and his daughter are arriving to visit them. In order to look poorer, Thénardier puts out the fire and breaks a chair. He also orders Azelma to punch out a window pane, which she does, resulting in cutting her hand (as Thénardier had hoped).
The philanthropist and his daughter enter—actually Valjean and Cosette. Marius immediately recognizes Cosette. After seeing them, Valjean promises them he will return with rent money for them. After he and Cosette leave, Marius asks Éponine to retrieve her address for him. Éponine, who is in love with Marius herself, reluctantly agrees to do so. The Thénardiers have also recognized Valjean and Cosette, and vow their revenge. Thénardier enlists the aid of the Patron-Minette, a well-known and feared gang of murderers and robbers.
Marius overhears Thénardier's plan and goes to Javert to report the crime. Javert gives Marius two pistols and instructs him to fire one into the air if things get dangerous. Marius returns home and waits for Javert and the police to arrive. Thénardier sends Éponine and Azelma outside to look out for the police. When Valjean returns with rent money, Thénardier, with Patron-Minette, ambushes him and he reveals his real identity to Valjean. Marius recognizes Thénardier as the man who "saved" his father's life at Waterloo and is caught in a dilemma.
He tries to find a way to save Valjean while not betraying Thénardier. Valjean denies knowing Thénardier and tells him that they have never met. Valjean tries to escape through a window but is subdued and tied up. Thénardier orders Valjean to pay him 200,000 francs. He also orders Valjean to write a letter to Cosette to return to the apartment, and they would keep her with them until he delivers the money. After Valjean writes the letter and informs Thénardier of his address, Thénardier sends out Mme. Thénardier to get Cosette. Mme. Thénardier comes back alone, and announces the address is a fake.
It is during this time that Valjean manages to free himself. Thénardier decides to kill Valjean. While he and Patron-Minette are about to do so, Marius remembers the scrap of paper that Éponine wrote on earlier. He throws it into the Thénardiers' apartment through the wall crack. Thénardier reads it and thinks Éponine threw it inside. He, Mme. Thénardier and Patron-Minette try to escape, only to be stopped by Javert.
He arrests all the Thénardiers and Patron-Minette (except Claquesous, who escapes during his transportation to prison; Montparnasse, who stops to run off with Éponine instead of joining in on the robbery; and Gavroche, who was not present and rarely participates in his family's crimes, a notable exception being his part in breaking his father out of prison). Valjean manages to escape the scene before Javert sees him.
=== Volume IV – The Idyll in the Rue Plumet and the Epic in the Rue St. Denis ===
After Éponine's release from prison, she finds Marius at "The Field of the Lark" and sadly tells him that she found Cosette's address. She leads him to Valjean's and Cosette's house on Rue Plumet, and Marius watches the house for a few days. He and Cosette then finally meet and declare their love for one another. Thénardier, Patron-Minette and Brujon manage to escape from prison with the aid of Gavroche. One night, during one of Marius's visits with Cosette, the six men attempt to raid Valjean's and Cosette's house. However, Éponine, who has been sitting by the gates of the house, threatens to scream and awaken the whole neighbourhood if the thieves do not leave. Hearing this, they reluctantly retire. Meanwhile, Cosette informs Marius that she and Valjean will be leaving for England in a week's time, which greatly troubles the pair.
The next day, Valjean is sitting in the Champ de Mars. He is feeling troubled about seeing Thénardier in the neighbourhood several times. Unexpectedly, a note lands in his lap, which says "Move Out." He sees a figure running away in the dim light. He goes back to his house, tells Cosette they will be staying at their other house on Rue de l'Homme Arme, and reconfirms to her that they will be moving to England. Marius tries to get permission from M. Gillenormand to marry Cosette. His grandfather seems stern and angry, but has been longing for Marius's return. When tempers flare, he refuses his assent to the marriage, telling Marius to make Cosette his mistress instead. Insulted, Marius leaves.
The following day, the students revolt and erect barricades in the narrow streets of Paris. Gavroche spots Javert and informs Enjolras that Javert is a spy. When Enjolras confronts him about this, he admits his identity and his orders to spy on the students. Enjolras and the other students tie him up to a pole in the Corinth restaurant. Later that evening, Marius goes back to Valjean's and Cosette's house on Rue Plumet, but finds the house no longer occupied. He then hears a voice telling him that his friends are waiting for him at the barricade. Distraught to find Cosette gone, he heeds the voice and goes.
When Marius arrives at the barricade, the "revolution" has already started. When he stoops down to pick up a powder keg, a soldier comes up to shoot Marius. However, a man covers the muzzle of the soldier's gun with his hand. The soldier fires, fatally wounding the man, while missing Marius. Meanwhile, the soldiers are closing in. Marius climbs to the top of the barricade, holding a torch in one hand, a powder keg in the other, and threatens to the soldiers that he will blow up the barricade. After confirming this, the soldiers retreat from the barricade.
Marius decides to go to the smaller barricade, which he finds empty. As he turns back, the man who took the fatal shot for Marius earlier calls Marius by his name. Marius discovers this man is Éponine, dressed in men's clothes. As she lies dying on his knees, she confesses that she was the one who told him to go to the barricade, hoping they would die together. She also confesses to saving his life because she wanted to die before he did.
The author also states to the reader that Éponine anonymously threw the note to Valjean. Éponine then tells Marius that she has a letter for him. She also confesses to have obtained the letter the day before, originally not planning to give it to him, but decides to do so in fear he would be angry at her about it in the afterlife. After Marius takes the letter, Éponine then asks him to kiss her on the forehead when she is dead, which he promises to do. With her last breath, she confesses that she was "a little bit in love" with him, and dies.
Marius fulfills her request and goes into a tavern to read the letter. It is written by Cosette. He learns Cosette's whereabouts and he writes a farewell letter to her. He sends Gavroche to deliver it to her, but Gavroche leaves it with Valjean. Valjean, learning that Cosette's lover is fighting, is at first relieved, but an hour later, he puts on a National Guard uniform, arms himself with a gun and ammunition, and leaves his home.
=== Volume V – Jean Valjean ===
Valjean arrives at the barricade and immediately saves a man's life. He is still not certain if he wants to protect Marius or kill him. Marius recognizes Valjean at first sight. Enjolras announces that they are almost out of cartridges. When Gavroche goes outside the barricade to collect more ammunition from the dead National Guardsmen, he is shot by the troops.
Valjean volunteers to execute Javert himself, and Enjolras grants permission. Valjean takes Javert out of sight, and then shoots into the air while letting him go. Marius mistakenly believes that Valjean has killed Javert. As the barricade falls, Valjean carries off the injured and unconscious Marius. All the other students are killed. Valjean escapes through the sewers, carrying Marius's body. He evades a police patrol, and reaches an exit gate but finds it locked. Thénardier emerges from the darkness. Valjean recognizes him, but his filthy appearance prevents Thénardier from recognizing him. Thinking Valjean a murderer lugging his victim's corpse, Thénardier offers to open the gate for money. As he searches Valjean and Marius's pockets, he surreptitiously tears off a piece of Marius's coat so he can later find out his identity. Thénardier takes the thirty francs he finds, opens the gate, and allows Valjean to leave, expecting Valjean's emergence from the sewer will distract the police who have been pursuing him.
Upon exiting, Valjean encounters Javert and requests time to return Marius to his family before surrendering to him. Javert agrees, assuming that Marius will be dead within minutes. After leaving Marius at his grandfather's house, Valjean asks to be allowed a brief visit to his own home, and Javert agrees. There, Javert tells Valjean he will wait for him in the street, but when Valjean scans the street from the landing window he finds Javert has gone. Javert walks down the street, realizing that he is caught between his strict belief in the law and the mercy Valjean has shown him. He feels he can no longer give Valjean up to the authorities but also cannot ignore his duty to the law. Unable to cope with this dilemma, Javert commits suicide by throwing himself into the Seine.
Marius slowly recovers from his injuries. As he and Cosette make wedding preparations, Valjean endows them with a fortune of nearly 600,000 francs. As their wedding party winds through Paris during Mardi Gras festivities, Valjean is spotted by Thénardier, who then orders Azelma to follow him. After the wedding, Valjean confesses to Marius that he is an ex-convict. Marius is horrified, assumes the worst about Valjean's moral character, and contrives to limit Valjean's time with Cosette. Valjean accedes to Marius' judgment and his separation from Cosette. Valjean loses the will to live and retires to his bed.
Thénardier approaches Marius in disguise, but Marius recognizes him. Thénardier attempts to blackmail Marius with what he knows of Valjean, but in doing so, he inadvertently corrects Marius's misconceptions about Valjean and reveals all of the good he has done. He tries to convince Marius that Valjean is actually a murderer, and presents the piece of coat he tore off as evidence. Stunned, Marius recognizes the fabric as part of his own coat and realizes that it was Valjean who rescued him from the barricade. Marius pulls out a fistful of notes and flings it at Thénardier's face. He then confronts Thénardier with his crimes and offers him an immense sum to depart and never return. Thénardier accepts the offer, and he and Azelma travel to America where he becomes a slave trader.
As they rush to Valjean's house, Marius tells Cosette that Valjean saved his life at the barricade. They arrive to find Valjean near death and are reconciled with him. Valjean tells Cosette her mother's story and name. He dies content and is buried beneath a blank slab in Père Lachaise Cemetery. | romantic, murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | And sometimes that quest for justice and truth must be mounted against all odds, as in this 1995 version of `Les Miserables,' written for the screen and directed by Claude Lelouch.
An imaginative retelling of the Hugo classic, Lelouch updates the story to the Twentieth Century, beginning with the stroke of midnight that ushers in the New Era.
It's an inauspicious beginning of a new year for Henri Fortin (Jean-Paul Belmondo), however, as he becomes a victim of circumstance and is convicted of a crime he did not commit.
Ultimately, this becomes the story of the young Henri, whom we next encounter at the end of World War I.
But at this point, we are introduced to Andre Ziman (Michel Boujenah) who has just met the soon-to-be Mme Ziman (Alessandra Martines), who by the beginning of the Second World War are destined, along with their young daughter, Salome (Salome), to become an integral part of Henri's (also played by Jean-Paul Belmondo) life.
Henri, like his father, is illiterate; and when circumstances bring him together with the Ziman's, he is inadvertently introduced to Hugo's novel, and soon begins to realize how his own life parallels that of, initially, Cosette, and later-- and most significantly-- Jean Valjean.
When they end up taking a journey together, Henri implores Ziman to read the story to him as they travel.
And it's as if in the words of Hugo and the life of Jean Valjean, Henri discovers within himself all that is good and worthwhile.
By interspersing scenes of the Hugo story as they are being read to Henri (in which Belmondo is Jean Valjean), we see the parallels being drawn even as they become clear to Henri.
The film is fraught with irony and succinctly captures the essence of Hugo's novel; it's as if Lelouch had been possessed of Hugo's spirit when he wrote the screenplay, as well as later when he brought his vision to fruition, the finished product of which has to rank among the best interpretations of the story ever.
A superior cinematic rendering of the classic story, this film-- especially for those to who love the novel-- is not to be missed.
one of the greatest French films of the last few decades yet, sadly, a film almost entirely overlooked by most critics...including the Lelouch-bashers of the contemporary French film industry.make no mistake: most of those who have seen it--certainly everyone I know who has seen it--tend to regard it as a genuine classic of world cinema and the finest film of the year of its release.powerful, skillful and impassioned, I can recommend it without reservation.a triumph for all concerned..
It requires concentration because of the different story strands (and the fact that Jean-Paul Belmondo plays different characters in different stories) but the reward is great.
Entertaining, haunting and enchanting film which intertwines the Victor Hugo novel with twentieth century events.
It's an old struggle, true...yet rarely done so well.The protagonist (Jean Paul Belmondo was born to play this role)Henri Fortin, struggles from his impoverished childhood to his adulthood where the struggle for criminality and nobleness compete heavily.
The people and the situations he encounters, all involve themselves in a montage of life and experiences.LES MISERABLES is a unique, beautiful and complex story about a simple man.
So how do you make a movie that truly captures the essence of what Victor Hugo's vision?
The Liam Neeson movie falls incredibly short, but this film captures the true essence and spirit of Jean Valjean!
It creatively tells you Hugo's story while telling you about another character's journey similiar to that of Valjean's!
This is a truly beautiful film, remarkable for it's simple elegance in unraveling the story of it's principal characters which belies the many complex layers that lie underneath, as Hugo's original characters make their increasing presence felt as the story progresses.
It would be highly advantageous to have a good grasp of the characters and plot/line of Hugo's "Les Miserables" in advance of watching the film in order to fully appreciate the universality and agelessness of the human situations which are re-encountered in this particular World War II setting.
Both Hugo's novel and the film fully empathize with our universal human experience, and what are still the central concerns of our lives: pleasure & pain, the love and hate present in our relationships, and at the most fundamental level, simple survival.
This French movie is a 20th century version of Hugo's classic.
The story itself is entirely different, with a new Jean Valjean who identifies with the original hero shown in flashback throughout the film.The story is mostly about this new Jean Valjean and his life during the Nazi occupation of France and his relationship with a Jewish family that he attempts to save from the Holocaust.
The story is beautifully told with a superb cast led by Jean-Paul Belmondo in three roles.
Superb in all aspects of film-making.Hats off to Claude Lelouche (writer-director) and everyone else associated with the making of this fabulous epic..
The movie is actually set during World War II, with a new plot, but one that echoes and follows the book constantly in surprising ways.
Claude Lelouche is an ideal Valjean--with the natural, powerful goodness Victor Hugo intended and none of the cloying or artificially heroic goodness Valjeans in movies often have.
Whether you've read the novel or not, this is a wonderful, emotionally wrenching movie, worth watching..
Beautifully filmed, edited and acted story for the ages.
This movie looks at the whole range of human behavior through the window of Victor Hugo's Les Miserable, transferred to two generations of people in the 20th century French setting.
The visual images of war, passion and humanity remain with you long after the movie ends, and its long playing time is well worth it!.
The "les Miserables" story has been told many times, but never with the emotional impact of this film.
Jean-Paul Belmondo plays multiple roles in this movie within a movie, and is outstanding in each.
Masterfully crafted and told, it leaves you with a warm feeling inside.One of only two movies I've been moved to stand and applaud at the end of.
Claude LeLouche does a brilliant job at incorporating Victor Hugo's novel into 20th Century WWII.
Jean Paul Belmondo plays a dual role that should have garnered him awards for his performance as both Valjean and as Henri Fortin who takes in a Jewish girl during World War II.
The girl reads to Henri from Victor Hugo's classic novel, Les Miserables, since I believe Henri himself can't read.
The film is dually impressive relating the past to the present day life of France during the French Revolution and World War II during the German occupation of France.
The great essence of Hugo's master work is perfectly represented and by moving it forward in time it somehow enters directly into our lives...
we saw it with french subtitles and for those who don't find subtitles annoying, i feel like this is a movie worth watching.
before seeing the movie, people probably should know that this was an adaptation of the original les miserables book by Victor Hugo.
the book was set during the french revolution but the director adapted the story to WWII.
the story is really powerful, it shows the aspects of human life and how on this earth, there are people who are truly evil and there are people who are just purely good.
in the beginning, there's a lot of confusion and it starts out weird but once you get interested in it, it's great.i recommend just going to sparknotes.com and reading the plot summary of Les Miserables.
Lelouch's version of Les Miserables really isn't a retelling of the oft told story.
Instead, the Hugo story is part of the background, while we see it applied to more current times -- in this case, 20th Century France, including the German occupation.
Les Miserables keeps playing itself out in the lives of everyday people.
That is part of what makes Hugo's story so powerful, that we are there -- or perhaps it's more accurate to say Valjean, Javert, Colette, and even the Bishop are in us..
Even if you haven't read the novel, or are familiar with it, this film is excellent in every way.
This movie tells the story of some of these people of each persuasion, as they interact in different ways with the forces around them.
One of them, himself the son of a wrongly convicted man and the woman who sold herself to keep her son alive, sees himself through the pen of Victor Hugo and, in living up to his conception of Jean Valjean, transcends all the ugliness about him.
Running parallel to the famous Victor Hugo classic, this movie introduces us to very complex characters in our recent past, the Twentieth Century.
You should see it, but make sure it is Les Miserables of the Twentieth Century, and that it was filmed in French in 1995..
This film is not as good as many would have you believe.The mixing of Henri Fortin's interest in the Victor Hugo novel is often corny.The ending is unnecessarily violent and confusing.
The main reason for this is that I hadn't read the book and had no idea of the storyline of Les Miserables.The second time I watched the movie, I understood it very well.
It is well done and one of my favorite movies of all time.Alessandra Martines is stunningly beautiful and Salomé Lelouch is fantastic also.Anyone who knows a little of the Les Miserables story should enjoy this movie.
Four people - mother, father, daughter, plus lorry driver who-is-helping-this-Jewish-family-escape-to-Switzerland-in-WW11 COULD get separated and survive ENDLESS hardships and meet up again after the war, and the Father COULD be the lawyer who defends the lorry-driver and saves him from the guillotine, and the lorry driver COULD be an illiterate who gets it into his head that he is the human incarnation of a fictional character (Jean Valjean)and that his life will follow the same pattern and he COULD become mayor of the town.
But this film, a relatively recent work (1995) by the great French director Claude Lelouch, contradicts that.
It is a brilliant reworking of Hugo's classic tale, set against the turmoil of occupied France and manages to be both epic and intimate.
In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape.
I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel..
A variation on Victor Hugo's classic novel by means of the story of a man whose life is affected by and somewhat duplicated by the Hugo story of the beleaguered Jean Valjean.There have been many, many film incarnations of "Les Miserables".
Despite the title, this film is not a straight-up adaptation of the classic novel but a loose updating to the 20th century but with events and characters mirroring those of the book(with Henri really identifying with Jean Valjean himself).
The story never feels rushed or stodgy even with the length instead it is ceaselessly compelling, you identify completely with every character and their increasingly intense and harrowing situation(especially with Henri's task and struggles to keep the Jewish family out of the Nazis' clutches.
In support, Annie Giradot is particularly heart-breaking but it is Jean-Paul Belmondo's outstanding lead performance that people will remember most.
Many French people would tell you that Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" is the greatest novel ever written.
To take such an esteemed book and adapt the story for one of the darkest periods in French history showed enormous courage by both the director and producer.Their courage was worth it.
Hugo's story is interwoven with the fictional life of Henri Fortin (Jean-Paul Belmondo) who both portrays the character of Jean Valjean and has Hugo's original story read to him during the film.
Fortin's life mirrors that of Valjean, but set in a later period.The film shows that Hugo's story is timeless.
The film remains true to the spirit and sequence of the original story although the setting is quite different.
This is not Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", its a modernized story.
But the original title of this remarkable 1995 version is "Les Misérables du vingtième siècle"(the miserable ones of the twentieth century.) The film title credits read "Les Miserables of Victor Hugo" but then adds "freely adapted" by Claude Lelouch." Lelouch was also the director and producer.I saw the film on television in the 4:3 format.
I would have preferred letterbox so I could have enlarged it to fit in my wide screen plasma TV, but the film is in French and the subtitles in letterbox format would have been hard for people viewing it on older sets to read.
The main characters in the film are Henri Fortin (Jean-Paul Belmondo), the father and his son by the same name, who earns the nickname of Jean Valjean (Victor Hugo's protagonist) because of events in his life that correspond to those of Hugo's Valjean.
When the novel is read to Henri Fortin to help him understand why the nickname, the story telling dissolves into an enactment of the novel.
In those sequences we see Fortin playing the part of Valjean.I had a little difficulty following the start of the movie, which opens with a wretchedly sad Henri Fortin as Jean Valjean regretting something he did and calling after "the little chimney sweep." (I am not familiar with that part of Hugo's novel.
This section of the film deals with Henri senior's life as a convict, his wife's and young son's lives during that time, and his escape attempt.Things advance from there to his son, now grown and a prize fighter, at the end of World War I.
The film then moves forward about 20 years and an older Henri junior is now a retired French champion driving a moving van as German rule begins to sweep Europe near the start of World War II (a couple of years before Pearl Harbor caused the US to enter that war.) I think that the more you know of the Victor Hugo book the more you will like this film, but I think that even without any knowledge of the original you will still get a lot out of watching it.From then on there is no dull moment as the protagonists move through lives of anguish and deceptions.Although the film is full of tragedy, it leaves you filling good at the end..
Absolute most intriguing version of Victor Hugo's novel!.
At the conclusion, we were all extremely moved, and I realized the incredible nature of this story by Victor Hugo.
I have since seen other versions of this timeless story, but I have to say, this one is the most moving and my favorite.It was so incredible to see the cross stories, of the WWII present and the Victor Hugo past.
This film tells the story of a man whose life parallels that of Jean Valjean.
The movie cuts back and forth between Nazi Germany and scenes from the original Hugo masterpiece.The film is towering, powerful and beautifully filmed.
It is wonderful to see Claude Lelouch's personal essay on Victor Hugo's themes.
He gives character to the normally colorless Cosette and he and Belmondo manage to communicate the sweet, un-educated simplicity of Valjean/*Fortin in scenes like the one in which he rides a truck across France and asks passengers to read the book to him and explain passages for him.
Amazing film, very true to the book..
This movie was, in every way, based around Victor Hugo's novel.
I'm in the middle of reading the book (unabridged version) and saw the movie a little while ago.
As I read I come across little things that make me think, "Wow, that movie was true to the book!" Perhaps not directly, but if one has the ability to read between the lines you will notice that this movie IS Les Miserables.
In the novel, Jean Valjean (the prisoner) jumps off a boat and swims to his freedom, but he must (obviously) hold his breath long enough to swim away without being noticed/having to go to the surface for air.This movie is excellent, dramatic, moving, and intriguing--never a boring moment.
I don't think this is too much of a spoiler to say the end of the film has Henri Fortin dancing a waltz.
I can't speak accurately for Mr Wallis, but I don't think most (any) of the rest of us think dancing a waltz is violent.I think Ms Huntress had unrealistic expectations for this film, It is NOT -- I repeat, NOT -- Victor Hugo's Les Miserables!
Henri Fortin has been told by people on many occasions that his life is like that of Jean Valjean.
Based upon Victor Hugo's classic nineteenth century novel is this lavish epic about humanity's many levels of compassion, selfishness, brutality and love.
In short, the good and evil of mankind.One can immediately appreciate writer/director Claude Lelouch's passion and sincere admiration for Hugo's story, as he lovingly relates to us the story of Henri Fontin, a man whose miserable beginnings yet big heart parallel those of the famed Jean Valjean.Lead actor Jean-Paul Belmondo is thoroughly enjoyable as the generous spirited Fontin, also playing on occasion the heroic Jean Valjean in flashback.
Helene de Luze provides the editing.Monday, March 24, 1997 - Hoyts CroydonClaude Lelouch lovingly tells this war time variation on Victor Hugo's novel.
Purists and fans of the musical may not get a great deal from this translation, but lovers of quality, epic cinema will.All credit must go to Lelouch for the way he nurtures this film, delivering excellence in all areas throughout the entire running time.
The music came from several sources.By far the best French film I have ever seen.Monday, November 27, 1997 - Video |
tt0487156 | In Her Line of Fire | 'Air Force Two', the aeroplane carrying the Vice-President of the United States and his staff, is flying over the South Pacific, when it's damaged by an electrical storm. It's forced to ditch in the ocean off the coast of the (fictional) country of San Pietro, near Solomon Islands.
As the few survivors make it onto a beach of a small off-shore island, one is immediately shot dead by a sniper from a guerrilla camp. The remaining survivors, including the Vice-President, who is a former US Marine, manage to escape and hide. It emerges that the sniper belongs to a group of armed rebel forces intent on overthrowing the island's dictatorial government. The rebels are led by Armstrong, a ruthless American mercenary.
The Vice-President is eventually caught by the rebels, who plan to hold him for ransom. It falls to his two aides, Secret Service agent Lynn Delaney (Hemingway) and press secretary Sharon Serrano to infiltrate the rebel camp and save him. They are also captured, but Delaney is able to escape and sets out to rescue the others.
As US helicopters search for them, Delaney's military and combat skills enable her to rescue them and kill Armstrong.
In return for the V-P's rescue and the cooperation of some of the rebel forces, the US offers aid to San Pietro on condition that they agree to hold democratic elections. | suspenseful, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | If you like action flicks it is quite entertaining.
Why the plane crashed in the first place is uncertain, when the plane crossed over the island it's engines where running and the pilot had both elevator and aileron control judging by the way it maneuvered around obstacles on the island.
The crash was of course necessary to set-up the main plot of the movie.
This is a pretty standard action flick except the main Rambo type hero character is female.
Like most movies of this genre the hero's seem to be immune to pain or serious physical injury even when they jump out of a moving jeep and slide down the side of a cliff, apart from the occasional cut or scratch.
If you like action flicks it is quite entertaining, but like most of this type of movie one is not expected to take them seriously.
I must admit I was a little surprised by MagicStarfire's review and his obsession with lesbian sexuality, I was not sure we had watched the same movie.
I saw Mariel Hemingway's character as a well-trained ex-marine as capable, tough and resourceful as any, regardless of gender.
The tension between the to female character's I saw as territorial in that the reporter was encroaching on her relationship with the Vice-president.
As to the suggestion that it should have had a sex scene I feel that given the time frame the events are supposed to have occurred, the plot scenario and the pace of the film any sex scene regardless of sexual orientation would have been inappropriate, Evan if MagicStarfire would have given more points.
PS:- with apology to MagicStarfire it appears that we were not watching quite the same movie in the Australian release for some reason all references to Mariel Hemingway's characters sexuality has been edited out so the character comes across as a strong resourceful woman and in the context of the plot (such as it is) the characters sexual orientation is irrelevant, there is no reason why a strong resourceful woman has to be a lesbian.Goofs In the opening scene's in the aircraft despite the apparent turbulence affecting the passengers the cards and glasses did not slide around on the polished wood table, although the liquid in the glasses did slop around slightly.Incorrect procedureWhen the six passengers put on their life jackets they all inflated them immediately.
If you inflate the life jacket before you leave the plane it will pin you to the ceiling with the rising water making it extremely difficult if not imposable to get out.When the plane crashes into the sea with enough force to rip the engines from the wings, the cards still do not slide off the table, even as the water rushes in the cards are still there..
A lesbian war movie?.
I'm the soldier in the machine gun pit at the beginning of the movie.
As a bit of a war buff myself, I would have done the movie for nothing, so was very pleased to get paid as well.
Once released, I was quite amazed that it was better than I thought it would be but some parts were quite unbelievable such as the big table they hugged during the crash, surely they would have proper airline seats to strap themselves into, the explosions looked too computer generated and David Milbern asking the Vice President if he'd ever heard of Mogadishu, both being ex-Marines, seemed rather ridiculous.
By the way, Mariel and David were very nice people to work with.
They showed respect to all on set, even us lowly extras and Mariel was wonderful and showed no fear toward us rather large Polynesians at the post-shoot drinkies.
To be in a lesbian war movie is something I can take to my grave with pride!!!.
The fact someone even wanted to do a female type Rambo movie with a lesbian character makes me give them kudos for trying.With a little tweaking, this could have been a pretty good film.It is sadly lacking in the lesbian department - all we get are a couple of kisses, that's it.The rest of it is non-stop jungle action.The heroine, played by Mariel Hemingway, who unfortunately is a bit past her prime, hangs tough and kicks major butt, as well as knowing how to handle a gun.Jill Bennett is her love interest, and she's attractive and brave, although of course she's not allowed to be quite as brave as Mariel's character.If only the writers had realized you need some breaks in all that action, at least a few minutes where maybe one woman bandages up the other gal's flesh wound, and then they strip off and go for a nude swim in a jungle pool, and do some making out--it could have gone all the way up to an 8 or 9 star film for me.The plot, such as it is, concerns the plane the Vice President is on going down in a storm near an island where some mercenaries and rebels have their training camp.Reality goes out the window from the get-go, because the Vice President has one bodyguard, Mariel Hemingway.
She may be as tough as a battalion of Marines, but people like Vice Presidents always have dozens of secret service people with them everywhere they go.They're still struggling ashore when they come under attack by the militant operation on the island, after that it's just action, action, and still more action.I gave it 6 stars out of 10.
I suppose it didn't deserve it, but positive lesbian films come along so rarely, I like to encourage them..
Sorry, lesbian content censored in the video release.
I am not a lesbian, but very much gay sympathetic, and I was attracted to this film because both reviews on this site commended this film for its featuring a lesbian heroine who just happened to be lesbian, and not making any big thing out of it.
It really did seem that someone very sensitive and sensible about human rights issues had gotten hold of the script.Imagine my dismay when I took this DVD home from the shop and found that any reference to the Meriel Hemingway character's sexuality had been expunged!.
Shame, shame on whoever released the movie on DVD in Australia.
Other than that the movie was very average indeed in spite of the non-stop action..
Don't expect too much high quality anything with this film and you should enjoy the action.Mariel Hemingway could still turn heads and interrupt conversations just by walking in the room and Jill Bennett would get more than her wanted fair share of female attention!
I reckon that it was the hope of the cast and crew that their audience would leave all sense of rationality and believability behind when they pushed the 'play' button on their DVD players.
As I had read the previous comments prior to buying the DVD (from overseas, thanks to the Aussie censors who cut references to the 'friendship' between the female characters), I wasn't expecting Academy Award performances and so found myself pleased with my purchase and a welcome addition to my 'collection'.Definitely a nice way to spend a spare afternoon.
I was working at my job and watched it one day at work or I may have even taken it home.
I always rent Mariel's movies since I used to take tennis lessons alongside her sister Margeaux.
I know, movies can be hard to get right, but it would be better sometimes if they'd apply more quality control.
I think I've watched worse movies, at least 3 or 4.
If you want to watch a pretty bad movie, go ahead..
Since I don't have cable & there ain't any good shows on Wed., I was watching Telefutura.
I learned from watchin' the opening the movie was called "Air Force Two," which I seriously doubt was a sequel to the Harrison Ford film.
Only as I found the film's page here on IMDb have I learned that Mariel Hemingway was playing a lesbian.
When I was watching the movie, I wouldn't notice it as it just appeared to be another shoot-'em-up, mindless action film w/ Spanish dubbing.
& yep, once I also found out that those reviewing this movie were Austrians, I must've been the only non-Hispanic American watching it.
A movie where the bad guys are jungle insurgents a la Iran-Contra/ Sandinistas/ Manuel Noriega?
The film was such a blatant throwback to those "Rambo" or "Die Hard" flics.
Besides, this is the type of film that Telefutura would air on a Wednesday, as opposed to a Sunday night, which would draw more viewers.
That's why I saw more promos for "Spider-Man 2" when it was on Telefutura on that Sunday night.
This is for sure a film you will likely stumble upon when nothing good's on TV, & not a movie you "prepare" for by w8n' for it 2 start, watch it w/ others & have a snack..
Lesbian Action in the Jungle (suitable for all ages ;-).
**possible thematic spoilers** (Excuse the length of this comment; I feel like I might be one of few IMDb users to see the film while it's in theaters, so I'm trying to be thorough) For years, Hollywood has been releasing big-budget, testosterone-driven action films.
TV has released its own challenge to the dominant paradigm.The film begins with a standard action plot: the Vice President's plane is caught in a storm, and crash-lands off the coast of a Pacific island, filled with violent rebel insurgents.
Fortunately, the VP was a former Marine, and he and his Secret Service agent manage to survive the crash, along with a garrulous and driven reporter, played with aplomb by Jill Bennett.
When discovered by the rebels, the agent must save the VP, find a way off the island, and get the girl.
The agent is, herself, female.There are many difficulties confronting any filmmaker deciding to show a gay or lesbian relationship.
Primarily, the trouble is one of focus; should the story take precedence over a character's sexuality, as in your average heterosexual film, or does a character need to have an emotional coming out (wherein their sexuality pulls focus from the plot)?
Unfortunately, those films that choose the latter path often end up losing any sort of impact on the audience, as their narratives become lost in a jumble of sexual definition and re-definition.
Happily, "In Her Line of Fire" begins with - and maintains - sexual tension between the two female leads, while the males who know Delaney seem to respect and jokingly admire her attraction to women.Even when these issues of plot can be resolved to include sexuality without fixating on - and thereby "othering" it, women rarely stand on their own as lesbians.
Films like "Kissing Jessica Stein" or "Chasing Amy" suffer from this second problem, if one can call it that, whereby characters that are bisexual or bi-curious stand in for true lesbians, giving a lesbian audience little with which to relate, even in supposedly "lesbian-themed" pictures.By choosing not to overemphasize the women's sexuality, "In Her Line of Fire" joins what will hopefully be a new upsurge in films (including such recent fare as "Imagine Me & You") which have the potential for mainstream acceptance, due to their classical Hollywood style and narratives, while still depicting lesbian and gay relationships.Of course, the main drive of the film is its plot, which stands up to most typical action fare.
The film is violent enough for any thrill-seeking viewer, whether their interest lies in the women's relationship or not; unfortunately, the violence is not tempered with enough sex and comic relief - some of which falls flat - but, despite this, "In Her Line of Fire" lives up capably to the legacy of action movies preceding it.The main flaw of the film is the lack of solid acting/writing on the part of the rebel leader(s).
The one-dimensional bad-guy is somewhat played out, and is not revitalized by the mediocrity of this film's characterization.
The best - and most surprising - part of the film is Jill Bennett, who manages to outshine most of the other actors.
Her relationship with Mariel Hemingway's character builds suitably, and, though clearly contrived, gives her an opportunity to express a range of emotion that feels natural.In terms of the visual style, it certainly seems like a made-for-TV film, and hopefully will get a strong run on DVD.
My tastes tend not to run to action films, and though not the best film I've ever seen - or even seen in the last month - hopefully this will be a precursor to stronger films with similar themes.
what a horrible horrible movie, the plot is outrageous...
if the second most powerful man's plane crashes somewhere in the so called "pacific" (which was quite amusing because geeez never realized the area was so dangerous) those types of planes, that carry people like the president and vice president of the mighty United States of America, usually have numerous tracking procedures, for not the man thats important, they can be replaced, but the secret paperwork and what not...another B grade movie, where the main character never gets shot, even though there are 10 men shooting with machine guns, although she can take them all down with 6 bullets...
sorry but this movie was just too ridiculous.
and extremely bad special effects when the plane was crashing.
do have to admit if anything, this movie was quite funny, even though i don't think it was its intent.but who am i to judge....
A Nice Action Movie!.
I'm a sucker for action movies and this one really lived up to my standards.
There's a whole lot of gun blazing, running for your life, making hard choices and good old fighting action.What intrigued and amused me about this movie was one of the posters I found on the internet.
I loved the tag line "Behind Enemy Lines No Man Can Stop Her. Only One Woman Can Touch Her." That obviously hinted that there was to be a lesbian storyline in the movie.But the movie does not revolve much around the main character's love interest, resulting in a lack of intimate scenes between Mariel Hemingway and Jill Bennett's characters, save for two brief kissing episodes.
But agreeing with another user's comments, it would not have seemed plausible for the movie to have a love scene seeing as the characters were always too busy looking over their shoulders and trying not to get killed and/or kidnapped.Besides the movie has lots to entertain audiences with, including realistic gun fighting and chase sequences through a muddy, green jungle.
The only disappointing scene in the movie was the plane scene.
It was quite obvious that it was a computer generated scene and as a user pointed out, many mistakes and improper procedures aboard the plane were made.But overall the actors did an amazing job at keeping my eyes glued to the screen.
The chemistry between Mariel Hemingway and Jill Bennett's characters were a bonus so kudos to them for making it so..
Low rent action thriller is clunky rather than slick.
A cheap, second-rate, save-the-vice-president thriller from hard-working director Brian Trenchard-Smith.
This is the chap who made THE MAN FROM HONG KONG and TURKEY SHOOT back in the day but who seems to have been abandoned by the studios to make inferior-scripted products like disaster movies or this cheap action thriller.
It's a pity as I've always enjoyed Trenchard-Smith's work and he really does need bigger budgets.
He shot this film in Auckland standing in for Central America.In any case, IN HER LINE OF FIRE (I saw it under the rip-off title AIR FORCE TWO) features Mariel Hemingway as a ferocious secret service agent who has to step into action when the vice president's plane crash lands onto an island occupied by mercenaries keen to catch him for ransom.
The cast is populated by stereotypical characters and poor actors, but there'a wealth of action here which makes it mindlessly enjoyable in places.
However, the low rent nature of the production is more than apparent and the action is often clunky rather than slick.
David Keith plays in support as the vice president..
Worst Movie Ever.
To all of those who were wasting time writing and commenting down on the plot and stuff, discerning between ailerons and rudder, and other craps, i have to tell that this is clearly the worst movie i have ever seen in my entire life.
Nobody knows why the VP was there, with only a crew of 3, getting to an Island with a couple of Maoris and rebel GIs...oh sweet Jesus...Some of you gave up to seven stars to it?
As for David Keith, i'm gonna forgive him provided i watch "an officer and a gentleman" this very night..
I rented this movie on DVD in Australia.
Is there such a thing as a D Grade movie?
If you wanted a study on how not to make a movie then this is the one.Location is supposed to be an island off South America but we are told that the Vice President is on his way to Tokyo.
Plane is struck by lightening and of course there is no time for a MayDay before it crashes conveniently near an island near the Solomons which is just closer to Australia.Of at least the 10 persons on the plane only 5 survive the belly landing in the water.
Of the 5 on the beach one is quickly shot on sight by "rebels" in what looks like Australian rainforest.
This could explain why all the rebels appear to be Polynesian and not of South American/Spanish origin.The first view of the rebel leader is that he sleeps under mosquito netting, has bad dreams and a USMC tattoo on his left forearm.This is a movie where you get a group of friends, beer and popcorn around a TV with the volume turned down and you each take turns doing the voice overs. |
tt0140379 | A Midsummer Night's Dream | The play consists of four interconnecting plots, connected by a celebration of the wedding of Duke Theseus of Athens and the Amazon queen, Hippolyta, which is set simultaneously in the woodland and in the realm of Fairyland, under the light of the moon.
The play opens with Hermia, who is in love with Lysander, resistant to her father Egeus' demand that she wed Demetrius, whom he has arranged for her to marry. Helena meanwhile pines unrequitedly for Demetrius. Enraged, Egeus invokes an ancient Athenian law before Duke Theseus, whereby a daughter must marry the suitor chosen by her father, or else face death. Theseus offers her another choice: lifelong chastity while worshipping the goddess Artemis as a nun.
Peter Quince and his fellow players Nick Bottom, Francis Flute, Robin Starveling, Tom Snout, and Snug plan to put on a play for the wedding of the Duke and the Queen, "the most lamentable comedy and most cruel death of Pyramus and Thisbe." Quince reads the names of characters and bestows them on the players. Nick Bottom, who is playing the main role of Pyramus, is over-enthusiastic and wants to dominate others by suggesting himself for the characters of Thisbe, the Lion, and Pyramus at the same time. He would also rather be a tyrant and recites some lines of Ercles. Bottom is told by Quince that he would do the Lion so terribly as to frighten the duchess and ladies enough for the Duke and Lords to have the players hanged. Quince ends the meeting with "at the Duke's oak we meet."
In a parallel plot line, Oberon, king of the fairies, and Titania, his queen, have come to the forest outside Athens. Titania tells Oberon that she plans to stay there until she has attended Theseus and Hippolyta's wedding. Oberon and Titania are estranged because Titania refuses to give her Indian changeling to Oberon for use as his "knight" or "henchman," since the child's mother was one of Titania's worshippers. Oberon seeks to punish Titania's disobedience. He calls upon Robin "Puck" Goodfellow, his "shrewd and knavish sprite," to help him concoct a magical juice derived from a flower called "love-in-idleness," which turns from white to purple when struck by Cupid's arrow. When the concoction is applied to the eyelids of a sleeping person, that person, upon waking, falls in love with the first living thing he perceives. He instructs Puck to retrieve the flower with the hope that he might make Titania fall in love with an animal of the forest and thereby shame her into giving up the little Indian boy. He says, "And ere I take this charm from off her sight,/As I can take it with another herb,/I'll make her render up her page to me."
Hermia and Lysander have escaped to the same forest in hopes of eloping. Helena, desperate to reclaim Demetrius's love, tells Demetrius about the plan and he follows them in hopes of killing Lysander. Helena continually makes advances towards Demetrius, promising to love him more than Hermia. However, he rebuffs her with cruel insults against her. Observing this, Oberon orders Puck to spread some of the magical juice from the flower on the eyelids of the young Athenian man. Instead, Puck mistakes Lysander for Demetrius, not having actually seen either before, and administers the juice to the sleeping Lysander. Helena, coming across him, wakes him while attempting to determine whether he is dead or asleep. Upon this happening, Lysander immediately falls in love with Helena. Oberon sees Demetrius still following Hermia and is enraged. When Demetrius goes to sleep, Oberon sends Puck to get Helena while he charms Demetrius' eyes. Upon waking up, he sees Helena. Now, both men are in pursuit of Helena. However, she is convinced that her two suitors are mocking her, as neither loved her originally. Hermia is at a loss to see why her lover has abandoned her, and accuses Helena of stealing Lysander away from her. The four quarrel with each other until Lysander and Demetrius become so enraged that they seek a place to duel to prove whose love for Helena is the greater. Oberon orders Puck to keep Lysander and Demetrius from catching up with one another and to remove the charm from Lysander so Lysander can return to love Hermia, while Demetrius continues to love Helena.
Meanwhile, Quince and his band of six labourers ("rude mechanicals," as they are described by Puck) have arranged to perform their play about Pyramus and Thisbe for Theseus' wedding and venture into the forest, near Titania's bower, for their rehearsal. Bottom is spotted by Puck, who (taking his name to be another word for a jackass) transforms his head into that of a donkey. When Bottom returns for his next lines, the other workmen run screaming in terror: They claim that they are haunted, much to Bottom's confusion. Determined to await his friends, he begins to sing to himself. Titania, having received the love-potion, is awakened by Bottom's singing and immediately falls in love with him. She lavishes him with the attention of her and her fairies, and while she is in this state of devotion, Oberon takes the changeling. Having achieved his goals, Oberon releases Titania, orders Puck to remove the donkey's head from Bottom, and arranges everything so Helena, Hermia, Demetrius and Lysander will all believe they have been dreaming when they awaken. Puck distracts Lysander and Demetrius from fighting over Helena's love by mimicking their voices and leading them apart. Eventually, all four find themselves separately falling asleep in the glade. Once they fall asleep, Puck administers the love potion to Lysander again, claiming all will be well in the morning.
The fairies then disappear, and Theseus and Hippolyta arrive on the scene, during an early morning hunt. They wake the lovers and, since Demetrius no longer loves Hermia, Theseus over-rules Egeus's demands and arranges a group wedding. The lovers decide that the night's events must have been a dream. After they exit, Bottom awakes, and he too decides that he must have experienced a dream "past the wit of man."
In Athens, Theseus, Hippolyta and the lovers watch the six workmen perform Pyramus and Thisbe. The performers are so terrible playing their roles that the guests laugh as if it were meant to be a comedy, and everyone retires to bed. Afterwards, Oberon, Titania, Puck, and other fairies enter, and bless the house and its occupants with good fortune. After all the other characters leave, Puck "restores amends" and suggests that what the audience experienced might just be a dream. | romantic, fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0113264 | Harrison Bergeron | In the year 2081, amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, radios inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.
One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent and athletic teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has "average" intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.
Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel's curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George's neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.
On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.
George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison himself then storms the television studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He calls himself the Emperor and rips off all of his handicaps, along with the handicaps of a ballerina who he proclaims his "Empress". He orders the musicians to play, promising them royalty if they do their best. Unhappy with their initial attempt, Harrison takes control for a short while, and the music improves. After listening and being moved by the music, Harrison and his Empress dance while flying to the ceiling, then pause in mid-air to kiss.
Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with a ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun. She forces the musicians to put on their handicaps, and the television goes dark. George, unaware of the televised incident, returns from the kitchen and asks Hazel why she was crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember. He comforts her and they return to their average lives. | comedy, satire | train | wikipedia | I had no idea what it was, and it had the familiar TV-movie feel but it also had something compelling which kept my interest so I sat and watched it through.I was amazed by this film, partly because of the scope, partly because of the parallels I could see in the world around me (which have only increased since), partly because it was so apparently innocent and unassuming and partly because I had never seen or heard of it before.
I think I realised shortly after that it was written by the respected Sci-Fi author K.V. and that I should really have read the story sometime.
You can't catch them all.However, much time passed and I forgot the name of the movie (it doesn't exactly stick in the mind) and I forgot which of the famous authors seeded it - but I didn't forget the content.
Kurt Vonnegut's story turned into an intriguing movie.
I read the Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" in the ninth grade, and in the tenth grade we tore it apart from beginning to end.
I loved that short story; I found it fascinating, the idea of a civilization where equality exists in its base form, and yet nothing is right.
Of course, the story Harrison Bergeron, as compared to Sean Astin, is as I said, Drastically Different (with capital letters included).
The film is nothing like the short story - the only things they have in common are the name and the base concept.
And if you haven't read the story, watch the movie anyway.
You'll get it right from the humorous beginning to a near tear-jerker ending.Thanks for making a film adaptation that I, for one, could enjoy..
The movie puts us in the future, where the not-so-intelligent have risen up against the intelligent and forced the government to create a mechanism (a head band) for ensuring that all citizens stay at the same level of intelligence - average.
Even though the film takes place in the future, it is an interesting and frightening look at our own times.
This is not the movie to watch right before you trust the government to do something that they say is in your best interest.Living some years from now, Harrison Bergeron is a smart young man.
Armed with this new knowledge, he feels compelled to act.In a wonderfully hilarious supporting role, Eugene Levy plays the randomly selected president, who has no idea how to lead a country but loves wielding power.
It's easy to imagine Mike Judge's hilarious film "Idiocracy" as a dumbed down version of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".
"Harrison Bergeron" is both darkly humorous, and at the same time frightening.
Sean Astin is Harrison Bergeron, a rebellious intellectual who tries to overthrow the system.
Bruce Pittman's intelligent and modest TV adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's short story is a wonderful and much under-appreciated piece of high sci-fi.
Films of this kind are rarely made, simply because there's not much potential audience for low-budget science fiction - most people are in sci-fi mainly for special effects and impressive battles.
Harrison Bergeron, though, is one of those few adaptations made of real philosophical sci-fi, the kind that creates an image of the future as a reflection of our own reality.
And it succeeds quite well in delivering its message, and for what it is it could be enjoyed by almost everyone - though I doubt it could have done well in the theaters.The film revolves around two wonderful lead actors - one is Sean Astin, who recently gained success and fame as Sam Gamgee in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
The story is of a future America in which equality is achieved by discouraging exceptional talent or intelligence and creating forced mediocrity.
Harrison (Sean Astin) is one of the exceptional few whose intelligence surfaces despite the government's best efforts and is therefore given the chance to work for the government.
The script does an excellent job of expanding Vonnegut's very short story into a 100 minute film.Harrison Bergeron is well worth watching - if you can get your hands on it.
As far as I know there isn't a DVD available, but the VHS can be ordered on Amazon and the movie plays occasionally on television.
Though I have always loved Sean Astin this movie is certainly a good reason to love him all the more.
The "utopia" idea is no new thing in a movie, and usually it's quite interesting how they figure it out eventually.
Let's admit: making a good future movie is like walking on eggshells, but I think the cast and crew of this small movie has nothing to be ashamed of.
It is very impressive how the story of Harrison and of his pure heart and mind talks about life, the equality of men, the lies, the love and of course the arts.
I think this movie had become a shiny little secret of the soul of the relatively few people who is lucky enough to have seen it..
Harrison Bergeron is a movie that illustrates something most people don't realize.
Theplot is simple, yet chilling in its display of cavalier inhumanity.Watch the movie for its unhidden message; enjoy it for its plot andturn of (tragic) events, but above all, learn from it ideologies suchas political correctness and its first cousin, affirmative action, areinhumane at their foundation, insidious in their progression, anddecidedly real in their ultimate danger..
From the opening credits, which scroll across the screen in all directions with "Lollipop" playing in the background, to the opening scene, in which the time is set as the mid 21st century, but the look is 1950's, this HBO made for TV movie promises to be strange, and it delivers.
I've only just seen this brilliant satirical sci-fi movie, and I think its one of the best stories I've seen for ages.
I read Kurt Vonnegut's story first and wrote a short essay on it.
With all that is going on in the world today, especially in the country I am in, it seems we are half way to this dystopian future Vonnegut imagined.
The movie seems to suggest that high intellect is fine aslong as its used economically and the system in place guards against high intellect entering into political reform to prevent the superior governance of monarchism, fascism or authoritarianism from appearing, by ensuring those systems never appear the unelected elite are able to run society & elections (eventually under global capitalism, ie run the whole world).
I think this movie is basically anti-leftist in every sense of the world & it portrays it realistically without suspending our disbelief..
Do your self a favour, read the short story, see the film (and other adaptations of K.V. works) and everything else Kurt Vonnegut ever wrote..
I believe the film is a terrific, endearing interpretation of the short story.
See this film if you have not read the story and if you have, because I guarantee you will enjoy it..
An adaptation of a memorable and loved Kurt Vonnegut Jr.short story.
I read the short story for which this film is based on in my English class, and then we proceded to watch the movie.
The cast was pretty good, Sean Astin (ENCINO MAN), Christopher Plummer (DRACULA 2000), and Eugene Levy (BEST IN SHOW) in a very small role as the president who likes to swear a lot (I thought his scenes were hilarious).
There is not much to HARRISON BERGERON, the story is good, but the whole being made for TV thing didn't help this film much.
Not the best film ever made and certainly not worthy of anything special, it is still worthy of your time and is definetly worth the watch.HARRISON BERGERON: 3/5..
It was an interesting choice that mixed the tones of idyllic 1950's television shows with other dystopia works to create the tone of fabrication that was so pervasive throughout the film..
I remember my high school made us read this story and watch this movie, the whole time presenting as some shining example of free thinkers winning out against oppressive blah blah blah.
At the time, I thought the dystopia society was so ridiculous and baseless that it was hard to take seriously as any kind of cautionary tale.Then, years later, I was doing research on Vonnegut and guess what?
The future society was intentionally so over the top and not grounded in any kind of reality that people would see how utterly ridiculous the end game logic of the "red menace" propagators was.Unfortunately, satire is always lost on reactionaries, and this story was taken at face value as a cautionary tale of what happens when Americans stop believing in Jesus and John Galt and embrace the evils of equality.
Harrison Bergeron (Sean Astin) has been held back for 3 years in school because he is too smart.
He is recruited to join.I can certainly understand what Kurt Vonnegut is driving at with his short story.
Having seen the film and red the comments in here, here's what I have to say about Harrison Bergeron: First of all, acting: Sean Astin is the obvious wrong choice for the lead in this TV film.
A better choice from within the cast would be his brother Mackenzie, but I guess the perfect Harrison would be Jonathan Brandis as he has eyes that pour out intelligence, the convincing looks that he may be darn intelligent - and even athletic- as Harrison Bergeron is described in the original story.
Sean Astin looks too old, too fat, too short for the part and most important of all, he looks as if he is Forrest Gump and it's definitely not what Harrison Bergeron should be represented as.
Astin doesn't look smart enough to work at the till at the local supermarket and give the right change to you, never mind masterminding a third American Revolution.
Miranda de Pencier seemed too old for her role and surely doesn't look at all like the love interest able to create an obsession for someone as smart and (supposedly) cool as Harrison.
Anyone as smart as Harrison should learn in four years in the same class that he should shut up and say "I don't have a clue," instead of telling who did what in the American War of Independence.
Yet, it's a shortcoming of the Vonnegut story as well as of the film.
I didn't bother too much about the now infamous Macaulay Culkin dialogue I red a lot about in the above comments, for I am sick of the fact that anytime someone mentions a film of quality from the 20th century, it must either be Casablanca -which is not credible enough in the year 2000 never mind 2053-, Citizen Kane -which is incomprehensibly boring for most people-, or It's A Wonderful Life.
Why should the people of the future wear dull, grey clothes; work and live in dull, confined, grey spaces which look like the interior of a crowded submarine; and never seem happy or joyful and never make any jokes at all?
It is too crowded with too many ideas so that they are either misrepresented, mis-emphasised or look silly; besides the film looks cheap, it has terrible acting at parts, but it is surprisingly all right to watch most of the time, too.
I'm a big vonnegut fan and am very familiar with the story this Showtime original film bastardized beyond belief, but even if I wasn't, the poor acting, VERY poor casting (Sean Astin as the brilliant, athletic, and all around individual, Harrison??
The Vonnegut short story was excellent, but this movie has little to do with that story.
Not that it is easy to make a full length movie from a short story only several pages long.
Other than that they just took Vonnegut's vision of a future world and did their own thing with it.
If you have never read the short story, go ahead and watch this movie though.
It sets a pace, speaks to a theme, and gives the viewer a story they could believe in.Other reviewers here have observed how "Harrison Bergeron" is a political commentary on the conduct of government (especially American government).
For the gifted and talented among us, the world looks much like Harrison's world in the beginning of the film.
The movie sums this up well with a line: "It's lonely, being smart." It would be arrogance to believe that people like Harrison are 'better' than the rest, but it would be foolish to say this difference does not matter.
Being different in any way is painful for young people, and even more so when the difference allows someone to more fully comprehend the meaning of it.I would never want to be as smart as Harrison Bergeron in a society where excellence was penalized.
At worst, the educational system destroys our brightest minds by teaching them to conform to the standard of the norm.When I saw this film, I remembered again the darkest parts of growing up smart in a place where intelligence is a liability.
The result: it is difficult to find groups who are together solving the greatest problems that beset humanity, as was once done.So, I enjoy Harrison Bergeron for its humor, political insight, and science (non)fiction, but I appreciate it more for its portrayal of the talented and gifted.
Movies like Harrison Bergeron remind us that there are others who experience the angst, the ennui, and the pain of being uncommonly gifted.
I won't take the time to re-cap the story line which all of the reviews here have already done so well, but I didn't want to comment on something that no one else has up until this point.First of all, I don't really see this as sci-fi, because it is already happening today- we don't even need the "mind bands" to dumb us down because there is already an insidious growing movement to see diversity squashed and mediocrity rewarded.
To be honest, my favorite scene is the one in which Plummer's character shows Astin's character Bergeron the DVD of the "cost" of intelligence and uniqueness.
An adaptation and expansion of the beloved Vonnegut short story.
(some spoilers below)_Harrison Bergeron_ is the film version of Kurt Vonnegut's short story.
Set 100 years in the future, it is the story of a young man brimming with intelligence, who unfortunately is born into a society where mediocrity is mandatory.
But Harrison has more inside of him than anyone knows.The brevity of the short story led me to be suspicious when I saw that there was a full-length movie made out of it.
The acting is good; although Sean Astin could do with a few more types of facial expressions, he does a good job as the gifted but iconoclastic kid who has grown up idolizing mediocrity, but suddenly finds himself immersed in the joys of the mind and the love of a woman.The world sketched by the short story is filled in just the way we knew it had to be (perhaps Vonnegut had a hand in this?).
Lucky us--we get to see all this unfold throughout the movie.The image I remember most from the story is that of the gorgeous ballerina, suddenly freed from her sandbagged state of mediocrity, dancing with Harrison in a joyous climax before disaster ensues.
The climactic scenes take place in the TV studio instead, with Harrison showing the world what they have missed in embracing mediocrity.Dialogue is a cut above your average sci fi drama, and one exchange is too cute not to quote:Phillipa: Have you been watching the old movies I gave you?
Harrison: Oh, yes.Yes, it's the obligatory reference to the time period in which the film was produced...but it's handled with wit.In sum, this is that rare movie that is utterly faithful to, but creatively expansive of, its literary source..
The story kept you interested throughout, and really made you think.
(In a good way, for those of you who just groaned at having to think...)The acting did leave something to be desired, but it didn't really detract from the movie.
However, even his performance wasn't bad - it was, ironically enough, mediocre.The story is handled so well throughout the film, that even though there isn't much surprise as to what is coming next, you are so interested in the characters and the story that you just have to keep watching.Possibly the most poignant moment of the film is when Harrison learns that his effort to start a 3rd revolution has only succeeded in affecting 1.3 percent of the population (give or take a .2 percent margin of error) - showing that people don't really want to strive for excellence and actually prefer mediocrity.Although the future the film portrayed strove for mediocrity, this movie was anything but average.
A film definitely worth your time..
Mid 1990s Movie That Feels Like It Was Made Today.
I'm not much of a Sean Astin fan, but in this film, he fits.
Soon, though, he understands the consequences of allowing the so-called "smart people" to govern the "average" (think political correctness, fascism, and other "isms" of today!).
A couple of plot twists at the end that give you something to think about; and suddenly what seems like it might be a boring made-for-cable movie turns into a relevant film for the political events of today's America.
Harrison Bergeron is an amazing little 1995 made-for-television film that is underrated and deserves some more respect.
it was beyond exceptional, especially for a TV movie.Harrison lives in a society where every person is equal...
The society, an alternate version of the United States, is styled to look like the 1950's (apparently because everybody appeared happy in the 1950's), although the film takes place in the 21st century.
It's certainly worth watching, I honestly think everybody should view it at least one time. |
tt1632479 | Call of Duty: Black Ops | === Single-player ===
==== Characters and setting ====
Call of Duty: Black Ops takes place during the 1960s in the Cold War, around 20 years after the events of World at War. It focuses on CIA clandestine black operations carried out behind enemy lines. Missions take place in various locations around the globe such as the Ural Mountains, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Hong Kong, Laos, South Vietnam, the Arctic circle and Siberia. The single-player campaign revolves around an experimental chemical weapon codenamed "Nova-6". This weapon is bound to be used by sleeper agents in the United States, who are infused with sequences of numbers, once broadcasts are transmitted from an unknown numbers station.
The main protagonist the player controls is SAD/SOG special forces operative Alex Mason (Sam Worthington). Occasionally CIA paramilitary operations officer Jason Hudson (Ed Harris), and some other characters are playable to progress the story. Alex is often joined by fellow operatives Frank Woods (James C. Burns) and Joseph Bowman (Ice Cube), while Jason teams up with Grigori Weaver (Gene Farber), a Russian-born field operative. Viktor Reznov (Gary Oldman), a key character from the Soviet campaign in World at War, returns along with that game's Russian protagonist Dimitri Petrenko (Boris Kievsky) also making an appearance. Oldman also voices Daniel Clarke, a British scientist assisting in the development of Project Nova. Opposing the CIA are the leaders of Project Nova: former Red Army General Nikita Dragovich (Eamon Hunt), Colonel Lev Kravchenko (Andrew Divoff), and former Nazi scientist Doctor Friedrich Steiner (Mark Bramhall). Black Ops also features several historical figures: during the story Mason meets John F. Kennedy, Robert McNamara, and Fidel Castro.
==== Story ====
On February 25, 1968, SAD operative Alex Mason is strapped to a chair in an interrogation room, bombarded with questions by his unseen captors about the location of a numbers station. Mason then recalls several events, as an attempt to answer their questions.
In 1961, Mason, Woods, and Bowman take part in Operation 40 to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Mason apparently succeeds and stays behind to protect the extraction plane from an oncoming blockade, before being captured by the real Castro, having shot a double. Handed over to General Nikita Dragovich to be held captive at Vorkuta Gulag, Mason befriends inmate and former Red Army soldier Viktor Reznov. Reznov recounts to Mason the identities of their enemies: Dragovich, his right-hand man Lev Kravchenko, and ex-Nazi scientist Friedrich Steiner, who defected to the Soviet Union. In October 1945, Reznov and Dimitri Petrenko were sent to extract Steiner from a Nazi base in the Arctic. However, they were betrayed by Dragovich, who tested Steiner's nerve gas known as "Nova-6" on Petrenko. Reznov was spared the same fate when British Commandos, also interested in acquiring Nova-6, attacked the Soviets. Reznov destroyed the Nova-6 and escaped, only to be captured by the Soviets and sent to Vorkuta. The Soviets later recreated Nova-6 with the help of a British scientist, Daniel Clarke.
Having spent over a year imprisoned, Mason and Reznov spark an uprising to flee the gulag, but only Mason manages to escape. In November 1963, Mason meets with President John F. Kennedy, who authorizes a mission to assassinate Dragovich; Mason briefly envisions aiming a handgun at Kennedy. Mason, Woods, Bowman, and Weaver are dispatched to the Baikonur Cosmodrome to disrupt the Soviet space program and eliminate members of "Ascension", a Soviet program giving sanctuary to Nazi scientists in exchange for their knowledge. The team destroys the Soyuz spacecraft, while Woods apparently kills Dragovich in a car explosion with a commandeered BTR.
In January 1968, Mason's team is sent to Vietnam. After defending Khe Sanh, they recover a dossier on Dragovich from a Russian defector in Hue City during the Tet Offensive. The defector turns out to be none other than Reznov, who joins them as they penetrate Laos to recover a Nova-6 shipment from a downed Soviet plane. They are captured by Viet Cong and Spetznaz infiltrators at the crash site. Bowman is executed, but Woods and Mason hijack an Mi-24 Hind in the confusion and escape, moving on to rescue Reznov from Kravchenko's base. They confront Kravchenko and Woods stabs him, but Kravchenko pulls the pins off of four grenades strapped to himself, forcing Woods to sacrifice himself by pushing both himself and Kravchenko out of a window. In a huge explosion, Mason presumes the two dead.
Meanwhile, Hudson and Weaver interrogate Clarke in Kowloon City. Clarke reveals the location of a hidden facility in Mount Yamantau before being killed by Dragovich's men. Hudson and Weaver move to destroy the facility and receive a transmission from Steiner requesting to meet at Rebirth Island, as Dragovich has begun killing loose ends. Mason and Reznov head there to assassinate Steiner at the same time, succeeding just as Hudson and Weaver arrive. Mason is adamant that Reznov executed Steiner, but Hudson had witnessed Mason carrying out the act alone.
Hudson and Weaver are revealed to be Mason's interrogators. Dragovich has communist sleeper cells placed all over the United States which, when ordered by the numbers broadcast, will release the Nova-6 gas. As a result, the U.S. is preparing a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, which would result in the inevitable Mutual Assured Destruction of World War III. Hudson needed Steiner to abort the gas launch, but after his death, only Mason has any knowledge of the numbers station. Hudson reveals that Dragovich brainwashed Mason to understand the numbers broadcasts and assassinate Kennedy, effectively making him a Soviet sleeper agent. The real Reznov never escaped, but died during the Vorkuta breakout attempt, and the Soviet defector in Hue was actually killed before Mason reached him. Mason’s visions of Reznov are a result of a dissociative disorder caused by the traumatic brainwashing program. Prior to the Vorkuta uprising, Reznov reprogrammed Mason to assassinate Dragovich, Kravchenko, and Steiner instead. Mason finally remembers the location of the broadcast station: a Russian cargo ship called Rusalka off the coast of Cuba. An assault on the Rusalka begins, with Mason and Hudson infiltrating the underwater submarine base protecting the ship. Hudson calls in the United States Navy to destroy the Rusalka. Mason and Hudson finally confront Dragovich in the lower levels of the facility, and Mason strangles and drowns him to death before escaping with Hudson. They regroup with Weaver, who declares victory.
Archive footage of President Kennedy prior to his assassination is shown, revealing Mason was among onlookers who watched Kennedy disembark from Air Force One at Love Field. His presence, and Dragovich's taunt before his death, suggest that Mason may have carried out his initial programming. A hidden message that can be accessed in the game's main menu reveals that Woods survived the confrontation with Kravchenko and is currently incarcerated in the Hanoi Hilton.
=== Zombies ===
==== Characters and settings ====
The Zombies story takes place over various eras of time, mostly during the final year of World War II, and the 1960s. The story mainly follows four soldiers: Corporal "Tank" Dempsey (Steven Blum) of the United States Marine Corps, Sergeant Nikolai Belinski (Fred Tatasciore) of the Red Army, Captain Takeo Masaki (Tom Kane) of the Imperial Japanese Army, and Doctor Edward Richtofen (Nolan North) of the Wehrmacht. Other characters include Doctor Ludvig Maxis (Fred Tatasciore) and his daughter Samantha (Julie Nathanson). The map "Five" features historical figures: John F. Kennedy (Jim Meskimen), Robert McNamara (Robert Picardo), Richard Nixon (Dave Mallow), and Fidel Castro (Marlon Correa). "Call of the Dead" features the appearance of celebrities: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Robert Englund, Danny Trejo, Michael Rooker, and George A. Romero, all playing themselves.
==== Story ====
During World War II, Doctor Ludvig Maxis formed Group 935, a group of scientists that was intended to improve the human condition. Lacking funds, they soon turned to creating weapons to aid the Nazis. Their discovery of Element 115 from a meteorite in Japan lead to the creation of zombies. Maxis and his assistant, Dr. Edward Richtofen, also work on other projects, leading to the creation of teleportation devices and 115-powered weapons. Attempting to use himself as a test subject, Richtofen accidentally teleports to a catacomb within the moon, where he comes into contact with a mysterious pyramid device that causes him to hear mysterious voices, slowly taking away his sanity. He is later teleported to an exotic jungle known as Shangri-La, where he spends three weeks studying the Vril energy force. Upon returning to Germany, Richtofen secretly forms a plan to kill Maxis, and gathers many members of Group 935 to build a moon base, known as Griffin Station. While maintaining his cover with Maxis and the rest of Group 935, Richtofen manages to capture three soldiers: Tank Dempsey, Nikolai Belinski, and Takeo Masaki; he begins to conduct experiments with Element 115, causing memory loss for all three soldiers.
Maxis continues his work on other experiments, attempting to use his daughter's dog, Fluffy, as a test subject for his own teleportation device. However, the experiment fails, and Fluffy is transformed into an undead hellhound. Richtofen takes the opportunity and traps Maxis and his daughter Samantha inside the teleporter with Fluffy, believing that they would die. Richtofen escapes with his three captured soldiers, and arrives at the Rising Sun research facility in Japan, where Element 115 was first discovered. After gathering a sample of 115 at the site, and recovering a weapon known as the Wunderwaffe DG-2, they return to the Der Riese factory in Germany. In an attempt to escape the zombie horde, the group accidentally overloads a teleporter with the DG-2, sending them forward in time. They arrive at an abandoned Nazi theater in the 1960s, where Richtofen discovers several recordings left behind by Dr. Maxis. Samantha, having survived and managing to control the zombies, continues raising the undead in order to hunt down Richtofen.
Some time in 1963, the United States government manages to grab hold of several of Group 935's inventions, keeping them hidden in the Pentagon. Due to the presence of the undead-raising Element 115, zombies breach the Pentagon. John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, and Fidel Castro are trapped within the Pentagon, forced to fight their way out. Meanwhile, Richtofen's crew arrive at a Soviet Cosmodrome site, where Richtofen intends to travel to Group 935's moon base, Griffin Station. The crew is contacted by Gersh, a member of the Ascension Group who requests to be freed from Samantha's grip. After freeing Gersh, the four of them are teleported further in time, and arrive at a Siberian lighthouse sometime in 2011, once used by Richtofen as a secret lab. However, they are trapped within a locked room, and forced to rely on four movie actors: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Danny Trejo, Robert Englund, and Michael Rooker, who are filming a zombie movie on-site along with director George A. Romero, who had been infected as well. Richtofen requests the four celebrities to find a golden rod, which is a Vril generator device, which he then uses to fix the teleporter. He transports himself and the other three soldiers back to Shangri-La, leaving the celebrities behind to continue fighting Romero and the horde. At Shangri-La, the group discovers two explorers, Gary and Brock, who died trapped within a time loop while trying to discover the secrets of the mythical Agartha realm. The group saves the explorers' lives by traveling back and forth in time, altering the environments of the temple in the process. They discover an altar within the temple with Richtofen's name written on it, as well as a piece of a meteorite containing Element 115. However, the explorers remain stuck in the never-ending loop.
With the Vril generator and the meteorite piece, Richtofen now believes he can control the zombies, and returns to Griffin Station. Here, they attempt to activate the MPD, a machine that controls the Aether energy, which opens to reveal Samantha inside; instead of dying by Richtofen's trap, Samantha was teleported to the moon while Maxis was sent somewhere else. Samantha accidentally triggered the MPD and was trapped within the device, but this also allowed her to enter the Aether realm. Maxis, who was retrieved by Group 935 scientists, apologized to his daughter and committed suicide in front of her, prompting her to assume control of the zombies and seek vengeance on Richtofen. Richtofen fuses the golden rod and the meteorite piece, and using it to switch souls with Samantha, takes over as the new zombie controller. This causes his former allies to feel betrayed, and they ally themselves with Samantha (who now resides in Richtofen's body). Maxis is revealed to have become a sentient artificial intelligence living within the systems of Griffin Station, and he guides his daughter and the three soldiers to launch three missiles at the Earth. This severs Richtofen's link with the Aether, but the launch results in the catastrophic destruction of the Earth, while still leaving Richtofen in control of the undead. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | An awesome game.Singleplayer campaign is very fun and interesting,but it's not a COD style and that's probably why so many people don't like it.In my opinion every Call Of Duty had a good story,especially first MW and it was always a good thing,of course.But this time they overdid it.In FPS,story should be there just so that the game doesn't get boring,but here you spend 50% of the time watching scripted events without actually participating.There are two whole missions where you don't even draw a weapon of any kind.Don't get me wrong,like I said,the whole campaign is great,but it just doesn't feel like COD.Story has MUCH bigger role than in any of previous games and there are a lot more scripted events.Multiplayer is well-balanced,one of the best so far,but there are lot of technical issues which will hopefully be corrected by future patches.And finally,it's one hell of a game that took COD franchise in totally new direction.Good or bad,it's up to you to decide.P.S. Forgive me if I made grammar mistakes,my English isn't exactly perfect..
The things that I didn't like in the game, mostly are the disorienting environments, and the need of the player to be rapid in certain objectives, as some new players may get frustrated at this.
Another bad element of the game is the "auto-pilot", in which the game basically prompts you to do something, and even if you don't actually do it, it still does it by itself, leaving you think that you did it yourself.Multiplayer - 9 The Multiplayer component has a lot of things too, like the other Call of Duty games.
Combat Training, which uses a separate leveling system, features bots versus you, but it still needs an online connection to operate.Zombies - 8,5 Zombies are good once again, also there are again a lot of clues to discover about the back-story.
It's disappointing to see co-op campaign not being here, as it was very fun to play campaign with your friends.Final Rating: 8,8 One of the most anticipated games, but it has it's flaws.
Multiplayer introduced enhanced gun customization, and single-player and zombies were fairly good.
Great story, fun gameplay, endless multiplayer, and amazing visuals..
(Kino Der Toten, Five, and Dead Ops Arcade) Kino Der Toten is a fun experience with the same familiar gameplay as Nazi Zombies in World at War that we all know and love.
I have just finished playing Call Of Duty: Black Ops on my XBOX 360 and I am simply blown away.
Let's start off on the campaign, Great story, Great action and since it's a Call Of Duty game that Treyarch made there's going to be two things: Swearing and Gory Violence.
There are some shock moments in Black Ops like an ill-fated game of Russian Roulette, an eye gouging, lots of slit throats, a scene showing Nova 6 destroying Russian soldiers, a violent Battle of Kne San, a grenade stuck onto a Viet Cong Soldier and last but not least the guns.
There are loads of guns to chose from in Black Ops. Like M16's and Ak-47's and there are even ways to spice up the multi-player after the not so good Modern Warfare 2's Multiplayer, with chopper gunners and gunships.
Overall this is the best Call of Duty to date (just beating Call of Duty 4) and has redeemed Call of Duty after the not so good Modern Warfare 2, the God-Awful Modern Warfare 3 and the OK Black Ops 2,this is the golden boy.
So if you want entertainment from a gory first person shooter that is fun to play and overall brilliance flowing from it get Call of Duty Black Ops..
anyways im gonna review the game in 3 parts:Singleplayer: 9,2 Very much fun, the characters are wonderful, the length is decent, i think Black Ops has the best CoD campaign ever, but Sam Worthington's bad voice acting, glitches ( especially the knife ) and lack of checkpoints are what they could have fixed.Multiplayer: 6,5 The multiplayer in black ops is the worst of any CoD game.
Had they worked on it a little more, it might have been better.Zombies: 9,6 Zombie mode is the best thing about this game, you can play with friends which is tons of fun and it's better than special ops from MW2, spec ops was really fun, but zombies is better.Overall rating: 7if you never play online in games, then get this game, single-player and zombie mode is really fun, but the multiplayer is just frustrating and awful..
COD Black Ops was and is fun.The perks are better, the guns are better, and just about everything else is better.The one major letdown was the graphic quality.The graphics were horrible compared to MW2.
However i wanted to review the online aspect.I've been having a blast online on the xbox and personally i don't think the game play is as good as it was on MW2.The customisation features are great, also like the wager matches and the numerous types of online games there are.Where i find the game falls down are - The guns have such a massive distinction from each other - The Ak74u is far to good imo.
Obviously a difference between weapons is required but there's taking it too far some guns are just useless and unfortunately they're the ones you start with.The maps are too small there's people everywhere you can spawn and be shot straight away, sometimes you cant even move without being shot, most games you end up with 20 plus kills, and for me a whole lot more deaths lol.A lot of the maps seem to be centred around an area which has nothing in it, you go into that area and get shot from every single direction, i don't see the point.I felt with MW2 if you played tactically, sneaking around, camping when necessary and playing as "dare i say it" it was real, you could do really well it was more of a tactical game.
I have just finished playing CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS..
awesome game..You can live the moment spent in a war, see how it feels when you are surrounded by the enemy behind enemy lines and feel what its like when you are in the middle of bullets shoot from every where...In that you can also see the mental state of a person, how he changed from a war hero into an assassin..
This game has it all; an completely riveting story in Campaign mode, an amazing multi-player option and the amazing addition of Zombies Mode.To start, playing through Black Ops' Single Player mode was like being slammed into a movie directed by Stephen Spielberg and David Fincher; gripping story, great plot twists and incredible action.
You will be hooked into the storyline as soon as you take control of main protagonist Alex Mason, who is trapped in an interrogation room, reliving flashbacks of his past missions until reaching the incredible climax of the game.The Call of Duty series has prided itself on it's Multi-player portion of the game.
This game has some great maps, weapons, perks and new customization options for your character to boot.
Another good feature it has added, is the ability to play 2 Player Split Screen on Xbox Live, much like in the Gears of War Series.
This is a great game mode for someone who is inexperienced when it comes to playing Call of Duty against other players online, hence the 'Training' part of the title.Finally, another great addition to Call of Duty: Black Ops, is the Zombie Mode.
This game mode makes its return from Call of Duty: World at War. It was a huge fan favourite of the game and many people will argue and say it was the only enjoyable part of World at War. Either way, it is a wonderful addition to Black Ops. You can play it Solo or with another player in Co-operative mode, in 2 different levels (so far).
Zombie mode is great if you don't have Xbox Live or don't feel like player Campaign.
Since this game was developed by Treyarch, who made Call of Duty: World at War and but not the Modern Warfare games, it will have a different feel to the game.
Some will find this a con to the game, others will see it as a pro.Looking at it in a positive way, Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best of the series thus far.
Give the game a chance, learn to adapt to the different feel of the game, and you will love Black Ops until the next Call of Duty title is released.Overall Score: 9.6 / 10.
Though this game is definitely all good and fun to play, I'm still disappointed with it.
I see it actually as a step down from the previous Call of Duty series entry; "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2".This just wasn't a game that I wanted to keep playing constantly and was anxious about seeing what would happen next with the story.
Perhaps it was because I really wasn't interest or following the story for the first half of the game because I simply wanted to shoot and blow up stuff, in some nice looking environments.
Besides, the story itself is being quite silly once you start analyzing it too thoroughly.Throughout the game you are playing multiple characters, during several different time periods and different continents.
Also the way the levels play out are being pretty formulaic, though I have to say that the game gets insanely difficult to play at times.
At times the sound effects are being louder than the voices and occasionally there would appear a pop-up on the screen for literally about 2 seconds that say what you HAVE TO do, while I'm still being busy running for cover and just playing the game.I hope I'm not sounding too bitter about this game, since it's still a good one and also one I enjoyed playing for most part but it just isn't anything too new or original to play.
Sure there are times when it's restrictive and it forces you to reach an objective in a very specific way, but the pretty scenery, availability of cool weapons, and ability to drive or fly some cool attack vehicles, make this game worthwhile.
Add to this is a cast of fairly well-known actors and you have a fun game that feels like a movie.
Call of Duty Black Ops for the Mac, despite having the feeling of a rail shooter game, is an excellent game with pretty graphics, fun scenarios, and a star-filled cast.
finally i got hold my hands on CALL OF DUTY: Black ops.have been a fan of COD series from a long time.
COD: Black Ops is a fully action packed game with good graphics, good characters and new weapons.
Mason is trapped in a chair by some people trying to reveal some number by using his memory.Pros: Good Graphics.Overall: 8/10Can be played once..
I don't play online, so cannot comment on this element of the game, so here's my summary: Good points: - Graphics - Voice acting (Sam Worthington does a really good job) - Parts of the story are quite interesting (others are boring) Bad points: - Zombies (the only co-operative option) is boring and lacks all the intensity of 'normal' play.
This was a great feature in MW2 and really good fun in both single player and co-operative modeI'm going to sell it straight away and buy MW2 again!.
Black Ops came on the back of MW2 – a fun game but one that had far too much frustration factors in the multiplayer even if the single player was really a very enjoyable action movie.
The story is so-so but it is so fragmented that I never really got into it – it doesn't flow because it jumps all over the place in time and I didn't "feel" for the characters like I did in MW2.
With Black Ops I did feel like I was being pulled along on a rope – and the heavy use of cut-scenes didn't help this either.
The voice cast is good, although in terms of graphics, sound design and everything else, the solo game never gets close to the Modern Warfare games.Fortunately nobody buys these games for the solo game because it is the multiplayer that gives you the time and value for money.
Removing stopping power, removing the nuke, detaching killstreaks from earning you other killstreaks, removing danger close, removing one-man-army, limiting scavenger in terms of restocking explosives, putting shotguns back into primary weapons, reducing the overall power of killstreak rewards, reducing the ridiculous knife lunge etc etc – all has made this game much more balanced and less frustrating to play.
In terms of what they actually brought to the game, the maps are mostly well balanced and, while not thrilling, are good to play on.
The multiplayer graphics are surprisingly weak compared to MW2, as are the sound effects – still good but just not as sharp or clear as I would have liked.
The COD dollars are pretty pointless even if the idea is good – it would be better to use XP and therefore slow levelling up as a sacrifice for getting things.
The zombie mode is fun, even if I have only done it a few times, but I can see the appeal and I did enjoy it.Overall Black Ops is a mixed bag.
The solo game is surprisingly poor, linear and felt a bit like a chore to do (I doubt I will play it again outside of the Kowloon level) but the multiplayer (while not amazing) is refreshingly solid and mostly free of the many frustrating overpowered aspects of MW2.
It is very well balanced and, even if it doesn't look or sound as good as MW2, it does play better and the various additions of theatre, combat training etc make it more interesting – which is important since the online aspects is really what we're all here for..
This is my favorite Call of Duty, have the best zombies mode of all the time and a nice multiplayer and campaign mode..
I really enjoyed playing Call of Duty Black Ops. Story is unique and we need more Call of Duty games with this kind of "time and place".Gameplay differs from any other Call of Duty as anybody can see.
Nothing to say more about it.I see that many players does not like Black Ops because story.
Call of Duty Black Ops has story that plays bigger role than in any other previous and future Call of Duty games.
Better story makes gaming experience way better.
And my gaming experience with Black Ops is way better than in any other Call of Duty.I recommend to everyone to try this game.
Not as good as Modern Warfare 1-2,but still an epic game..
And the best part: the epicness of the game: i said it after finishing Modern Warfare 1 and 2: CoD has some better action scenes than most of today's action movies.
Now MW2 wasn't that bad but the Multiplayer is WAY better on Black Ops, mainly because of the great amount of features that have been added to it which makes the Multiplayer better than MW2!
The campaign is even on both games but what makes black ops better is they brought back some of the great features from WaW.
Without giving away too much of the story, which I personally think is the best in the series, here is the campaign.
But unlike Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops does a wonderful job of cleaning everything up for the finale.The reason most people buy the Call of Duty games is to experience a great multi-player mode.
Ever since Call of Duty 4 the games have been amazing, from insane campaign battles, addictive multi player, and un-dead Nazis it's all been great.
It's a weird mix of their past World War II games and original modern warfare stories.
The leveling, maps, and game play are the same, well with a few exceptions.
Game play has changes too, however none are improvements, weapons like the RC-XD and flame thrower (which is now an attachment) are over powered.
The wager matches are fun, but can only go so far.The high point of the game is the zombies mode.
The final zombie mode is a top down shooter, similar to Gauntlet.In conclusion the game is fun, but has a lot of problem that ultimately stop the game from achieving what it could..
Fortunately the story is very well done and the game play itself was intense.
Now that I've told you how I really feel about that movie, back to Black Ops. The Vietnam levels were very well done and fighting Soviets never gets old.
Call of Duty: Black Ops. I played this game a few years ago and I liked it for it's setting in the 60's.
This is when I think the Call of Duty games started to get a little old l.
Anyway I still think this is the last of the good Call of Duty games so try and give it a play if you want to that is at least..
From the game play to the graphics and the campaign, Black Ops truly delivers a promising experience to whoever plays it.Starting with the campaign, Black Ops tells the story of a man who fights for his country, Alex Mason.
Throughout most of the game, we get to play previous missions that Mason has been through.
The campaign is phenomenal and moving, proving how video game story lines are much better than most movies.
It is truly a great experience you can only feel within a game.Secondly is the multi-player option.
before i said no, because of all the problems, but with them almost all worked out now, it's a fairly good game now......still not as good as call of duty: modern warfare: 2 though. |
tt0436992 | Doctor Who | Following the Master's trial and execution at the hands of the Daleks, the Doctor, currently in his seventh incarnation, is transporting the Master's remains to Gallifrey via his TARDIS. En route, the box with the remains breaks open and an ooze leaks out, infecting the TARDIS. The Doctor is forced to make an emergency materialisation in San Francisco's Chinatown on 30 December 1999.
As he exits and locks the TARDIS, the Doctor is shot by a gang chasing down Chang Lee, a young Chinese-American man. Lee calls for an ambulance and escorts the unconscious Doctor to a hospital, unaware the ooze from the TARDIS has gotten aboard. At the hospital, cardiologist Dr Grace Holloway attempts surgery to remove the bullet but is confused by his strange double-heart anatomy, and accidentally lodges a cardiac probe in the Doctor's body, apparently killing him. The Doctor's body is taken to the morgue, while Lee is given the Doctor's possessions including the TARDIS key. Meanwhile, the ooze takes over the body of the ambulance driver, Bruce, transforming him into a new body for the Master.
Later, the Doctor's body regenerates, and the new Doctor, suffering amnesia, gathers clothes from remnants of a recent party. He recognises Holloway, who has resigned from the hospital after the failed operation, and follows her to her car, proving to her he is the same man by pulling out the cardiac probe. Holloway takes him home to recover. Lee returns to the TARDIS where the Master arrives and puts him under his mind control by claiming the Doctor had stolen his body. The Master convinces Lee to open the TARDIS and then to open the Eye of Harmony within it, which requires a human retinal scan. When the Eye opens, the Doctor is flooded with memories and realises the Master is searching for him, and tries to block the scan. He warns Holloway that while the Eye is opened, the fabric of reality will weaken, and potentially destroy the Earth by midnight on New Year's Eve if they cannot close it. However, he needs an atomic clock to do so, and Holloway finds one on display at the San Francisco Institute of Technological Advancement and Research.
Outside, they find the ambulance with the Master and Lee waiting for them, offering them a ride. The Doctor does not immediately recognise the Master, but discovers his true identity en route, and he and Holloway escape, but not before the Master can spit an ooze-like substance on Holloway's wrist. The two continue to the Institute and obtain the clock, returning to the TARDIS. The Doctor installs the clock and successfully closes the Eye, but finds the damage to reality too great and that he must revert time before the Eye was opened to prevent the destruction of Earth. As he connects the proper TARDIS circuits to do this, the Master remotely takes control of Holloway's body, causing her eyes to become inhuman, and she strikes the Doctor unconscious.
The Doctor wakes to find himself chained above the Eye, the Master poised to take his remaining regenerations while Lee and Holloway watch. The Doctor is able to break the Master's control on Lee, and Lee refuses to open the Eye for the Master. The Master kills him, and then releases his control on Holloway to return her eyes to normal. He forces her to open the Eye and then begins drawing the Doctor's lifeforce. Holloway, under her own control, is able to complete the final circuits to put the TARDIS into a time-holding pattern, preventing Earth's destruction, and then goes to free the Doctor. The Master kills her, but this has given enough time for the Doctor to free himself and attack the Master. The Doctor gains the upper hand and pushes the Master into the Eye. The Eye closes and time reverts a few minutes, undoing Lee and Holloway's deaths.
With no further risk to Earth, the Doctor prepares to leave. Lee returns his possessions, and the Doctor warns him not to be in San Francisco on the next New Year's Eve. The Doctor offers Holloway the opportunity to travel with him, but she politely refuses, and instead kisses him goodbye. The Doctor departs alone in his TARDIS.
=== Continuity ===
==== The Doctor ====
Until 2013's "The Night of the Doctor", the television movie was Paul McGann's sole televised story as the Doctor. It has inspired an ongoing Doctor Who novel line, comic strip, and audio series that featured the Eighth Doctor for years, beyond the TV series' return in 2005. The Eighth Doctor was also featured in a series of BBC7 audio plays since 2007.
The Seventh Doctor is seen wearing a different costume from the one he wore during his 1987–1989 tenure: gone are the question mark pullover and umbrella. The costume does include the original hat, which is actually owned by Sylvester McCoy.
When reluctantly filling out an emergency medical treatment form, Chang Lee (who had only met the semi-conscious Seventh Doctor minutes earlier and did not know his identity) gives the Doctor's name as "John Smith", a recurring alias originally given to the Second Doctor by companion Jamie McCrimmon in The Wheel in Space.
Much of the movie's plot rests on a revelation that the Doctor is half-human, "on [his] mother's side". Following the movie, several Eighth Doctor Adventures novels seek either to explain or elaborate on this premise, often with conflicting results. Alien Bodies suggests that only the Eighth Doctor is half-human, and that his interest in Earth people is "something to do with his retroactive ancestry". Unnatural History and The Gallifrey Chronicles suggest that the Doctor is the child of a Victorian lady called Penelope Gate and a Time Lord named Ulysses. The Taking of Planet 5 takes a different approach, suggesting that the Doctor slowly became half-human through repeated regeneration in close proximity to humans, causing the Doctor to absorb aspects of their DNA. Although the issue has yet to be explicitly revisited on-screen, in "Journey's End" a second version of the Doctor is created through a combination of the Doctor's and his human companion's physiologies; unimpressed with his half-human body, this new Doctor wonders how humans can manage with only one heart. In the 2008 Doctor Who comic book The Forgotten the Doctor states that, upon finding out that the Master had escaped from the box, he used the Chameleon Arch to deceive the Master with the fiction of being half-human.
The Seventh Doctor's two hearts on the radiograph are seen but dismissed as a double-exposure. His newly regenerated third incarnation suffered the mistake in Spearhead From Space.
The Eighth Doctor steals his first wardrobe from a hospital staff locker room, as had the Third Doctor and, later, the Eleventh Doctor.
The Eighth Doctor examines a mask of Richard Nixon. The Third Doctor crossed paths with a Nixon waxwork figure in Spearhead From Space, and Nixon would be a significant supporting character in the Eleventh Doctor stories, "The Impossible Astronaut" & "Day of the Moon".
==== Daleks and the Master ====
Although the Doctor's most famous alien adversaries, the Daleks, are not seen in the film, they are heard condemning the Master to death during the film's opening sequence (sporting their trademark war cry of "EXTERMINATE!").
The Master tried to use the Eye of Harmony to obtain a new set of regenerations before, in The Deadly Assassin. He was also offered a new set of regenerations by the Time Lords in The Five Doctors, but his continued quest for regenerations in later stories like Planet of Fire implies that he never received them. Later, however, he would be granted a new cycle, as confirmed in the 2007 episode "The Sound of Drums".
==== The TARDIS ====
Although the TARDIS interior changed several times throughout the original series, the movie's set was the most dramatic change yet, replacing the sterile white corridors and "roundel"-based design. Several subsequent tie-in novels attempted to explain the change.
This film introduces the idea of including Earth-centric elements on the TARDIS control console, such as an early 20th-Century automobile handbrake, apparently used for a similar purpose. This was used again in the 2005 and 2010 designs of the console.
The Deadly Assassin (1976) established that the Eye of Harmony is held on Gallifrey; its inclusion on the TARDIS in the film conflicts with this.
The film further states that the "Eye" can only be opened with the scan of a human retina, a fact apparently tied to the Doctor's own partially human retinal pattern.
==== References to other stories ====
The book that the Doctor sits down to read at the beginning and the end of the movie is The Time Machine by H. G. Wells. The Doctor shared an adventure with Wells in the Sixth Doctor serial Timelash and would meet him again in the Tenth Doctor comic "The Time Machination". In 1973's Frontier in Space, the Master is seen reading Wells' The War of the Worlds. In the untelevised story Shada, Professor Chronotis can be seen with a copy of The Time Machine, which is later visible throughout the episode.
This is one of six Doctor Who adventures to be set on New Year's Eve 1999 and New Year's Day 2000. The comic strip Plastic Millennium, published in the Doctor Who Magazine Winter 1994 Special; Craig Hinton's Virgin Missing Adventures novel Millennial Rites (October 1995); Justin Richards's Past Doctor Adventures novel Millennium Shock (May 1999), the Short Trips: Seven Deadly Sins story "Suitors, Inc." (2005) and the Fourth Doctor's segment from the comic The Forgotten (2008) all take place on those dates, as do elements of the Torchwood episode "Fragments".
The "time tunnel" effect of the 2005 Doctor Who series onwards is reminiscent of the vortex that the TARDIS travels through in the opening credits and climax of the television movie which in itself is reminiscent of the vortex in the opening and closing sequences of 1974-1980.
=== Cast notes ===
Yee Jee Tso would later return in 2002 to play Major Jal Brant in the Seventh Doctor audio drama Excelis Decays and Doctor Reece Goddard in the Sixth Doctor webcast Real Time.
Daphne Ashbrook would later return in 2004 alongside Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor as Perfection in the audio drama The Next Life.
Tso and Ashbrook returned to Big Finish together playing Captain Ruth Matheson and Warrant Officer Charlie Sato of UNIT in the audio dramas Tales From The Vault and Mastermind, both part of the Companions Chronicles series, in 2011 and 2013. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0110510 | Midnight Run for Your Life | Lorna Bellstratten (Walters), a waitress with dreams of being in show business, is duped by her drug-dealer boyfriend Michael Vega (Guastaferro) into delivering a bomb to an undercover cop. Though Lorna survives the explosion (intended to kill her and the cop), she finds herself—as the only material witness to the crime she unwittingly abetted—wanted by both the cops and the mob (Vega's employers). Distraught, Lorna flees to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico and takes out a contract on her own life (suicide-by-hitman.) Meanwhile, Vega (posing as Lorna's father) hires Los Angeles bail bondsman, Eddie Moscone (Hedaya) to send in a bounty hunter to bring her back to LA alive. Eddie offers the job to bounty hunter Jack Walsh (McDonald) for $10,000. He doesn't want to take the job because Eddie keeps on stiffing him his money. Eddie threatens to give the job to rival bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler, who does not make an appearance. When Walsh finds her in Cabo San Lucas, Lorna thinks he's her hitman. After a night of dancing, Lorna finds out the truth, hits Walsh out of anger and returns to her hotel room in a huff. Walsh's attempt to recover her is initially thwarted by the untimely arrival of the real hit-man, but they escape—with the hitman, the cops, and Vega's goons all hot on their trail. Along the way, the still-despondent Lorna keeps looking for—and finding—all manner of new ways to kill herself. And for the tough Jack Walsh, there's another problem. He's falling in love. | comedy, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | An entertaining movie! Where is the DVD?. All of the fans of "Midnight Run" label this movie as extremely bad. Not at all. This movie has everything but the cursing.Midnight Run for Your Life was fantastic.Christopher McDonald plays Jack Walsh very well. Melora Walters is a perfect Lorna Bellstratten. The story for this movie is original and is very entertaining. What I like most, is the more mellower Jack Walsh that McDonald brings and the more darker story line. There is less comedy.Melora Walters character is always trying to kill herself and Christopher McDonald has to, in a way, jump in front of the bullet all the time.Since there is no DVD, it will be difficult to find. I strongly suggest seeing it. It was a very good movie.. As good as the original, but way too similar.. "Midnight Run for Your Life" is the third and last "Midnight Run" adventure in a series of television movies. Christopher McDonald gives a great performance as Jack Walsh.Chris McDonald gives Jack Walsh a new image than Robert De Niro. There's a lot of yelling and frustration, also he brings a little brain-less effect that gets him into trouble.The movie focuses on Lorna Bellstratten (Melora Walters) who is a waitress that has a dream in show business. She is dating a Hollwood producer, Micheal Vega, who is really a drug-dealer and uses her to drop a bomb.Lorna is on the run when the cops chase after her. She flees to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico where she hires a hit-man to kill her. This mission differs A LOT from the other movies. Lorna's father hired Eddie and Jack with the price of $10,000. Eddie wants to split the price 50/50 with Jack if he can track her down and bring her back to LA alive before anyone else gets to her.But, there is no Marvin Dorfler to sabotage Walsh's efforts in this movie.Walsh gets into a bigger problem when he reaches San Cabo Lucas. Vega sent his stupid henchmen, Hector and Benny, who are a lot like Joey and Tony from "Midnight Run", to chase after Walsh to find Lorna. The cops are also after her and so is the hit-man.The story becomes more serious by the end of the movie. Also dramatic, when it ends on a beach. The script was written by Shaun Cassidy. The funny scenes are in the beginning and serious, closer to the end.The movie features a more mellower Jack Walsh when he falls in love with Lorna("Jack...would you kiss me?"). A likeness of Walsh we haven't seen before, As for the music: it is way to silly to fit with the story. It didn't compliment the film like the first "Midnight Run." You won't find much information on this or any other "Midnight Run: Action Pack" movie. I was able to find a copy from a British video store. You might be able to find a bootleg somewhere...All in all, this is a great movie.. Great Fun. Before Hercules and Xena, the WB Network produced great made for TV movies. VANISHING SON, BANDIT (a spin-off of SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT) and THE MIDNIGHT RUN films. MIDNIGHT RUN FOR YOUR LIFE was fantastic. Christopher McDonald as the Robert DeNiro tough-guy bounty hunter with a heart was charming, funny, very entertaining. The beautiful Melora Walters (prior to BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA) is sweet as the lovable Lorna. I loved this movie, and luckily was smart enough to video tape it in 1994. I recently dug it out and enjoyed it again. It is a shame they don't make great movies like this for TV anymore, but it's great to see Christopher McDonald and Melora Walters still going strong. |
tt0083207 | Timon of Athens | In the beginning, Timon is a wealthy and generous Athenian gentleman. He hosts a large banquet, attended by nearly all the main characters. Timon gives away money wastefully, and everyone wants to please him to get more, except for Apemantus, a churlish philosopher whose cynicism Timon cannot yet appreciate. He accepts art from Poet and Painter, and a jewel from the Jeweller, but by the end of Act 1, he has given that away to another friend. Timon's servant, Lucilius, has been wooing the daughter of an old Athenian. The man is angry, but Timon pays him three talents in exchange for the couple being allowed to marry, because the happiness of his servant is worth the price. Timon is told that his friend, Ventidius, is in debtors' prison. He sends money to pay Ventidius's debt, and Ventidius is released and joins the banquet. Timon gives a speech on the value of friendship. The guests are entertained by a masque, followed by dancing. As the party winds down, Timon continues to give things away to his friends; his horses, and other possessions. The act is divided rather arbitrarily into two scenes but the experimental and/or unfinished nature of the play is reflected in that it does not naturally break into a five-act structure.
Now Timon has given away all his wealth. Flavius, Timon's steward, is upset by the way Timon has spent his wealth, overextending his munificence by showering patronage on the parasitic writers and artists, and delivering his dubious friends from their financial straits; this he tells Timon when he returns from a hunt. Timon is upset that he has not been told this before, and begins to vent his anger on Flavius, who tells him that he has tried repeatedly in the past without success, and now he is at the end; Timon's land has been sold. Shadowing Timon is another guest at the banquet: the cynical philosopher Apemantus, who terrorises Timon's shallow companions with his caustic raillery. He was the only guest not angling for money or possessions from Timon. Along with a Fool, he attacks Timon's creditors when they show up to make their demands for immediate payment. Timon cannot pay, and sends out his servants to make requests for help from those friends he considers closest.
Timon's servants are turned down, one by one, by Timon's false friends, two giving lengthy monologues as to their anger with them. Elsewhere, one of Alcibiades's junior officers has reached an even further point of rage, killing a man in "hot blood." Alcibiades pleads with the Senate for mercy, arguing that a crime of passion should not carry as severe a sentence as premeditated murder. The senators disagree, and, when Alcibiades persists, banish him forever. He vows revenge, with the support of his troops. The act finishes with Timon discussing with his servants the revenge he will carry out at his next banquet.
Timon hosts a smaller party, intended only for those he feels have betrayed him. The serving trays are brought in, but under them the friends find rocks and lukewarm water. Timon sprays them with the water, throws the dishes at them, and flees his home. The loyal Flavius vows to find him.
Cursing the city walls, Timon goes into the wilderness and makes his crude home in a cave, sustaining himself on roots. Here he discovers an underground trove of gold. The knowledge of his discovery spreads. Alcibiades, Apemantus, and three bandits are able to find Timon before Flavius does. Accompanying Alcibiades are two prostitutes, Phrynia and Timandra, who trade barbs with the bitter Timon on the subject of venereal disease. Timon offers most of the gold to the rebel Alcibiades to subsidise his assault on the city, which he now wants to see destroyed, as his experiences have reduced him to misanthropy. He gives the rest to his whores to spread disease, and much of the remainder to Poet and Painter, who arrive soon after, leaving little left for the senators who visit him. When Apemantus appears and accuses Timon of copying his pessimistic style there is a mutually misanthropic exchange of invective.
Flavius arrives. He wants the money as well, but he also wants Timon to come back into society. Timon acknowledges that he has had one true friend in Flavius, a shining example of an otherwise diseased and impure race, but laments that this man is a mere servant. He invites the last envoys from Athens, who hoped Timon might placate Alcibiades, to go hang themselves, and then dies in the wilderness. Alcibiades, marching on Athens, then throws down his glove, and ends the play reading the bitter epitaph Timon wrote for himself, part of which was composed by Callimachus: | satire | train | wikipedia | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.