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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0210609 | China Gate | Sergeant Brock (Gene Barry) and Goldie (Nat King Cole) are American Korean War veterans now serving as French Foreign Legion mercenaries in the First Indochina War. Angie Dickinson plays Brock's wife, a "half caste" Chinese Eurasian named "Lucky Legs" who resorts to smuggling to feed her five-year-old son she had with Brock. Brock abandoned her and the baby when he was born with Asian features, feeling a "half breed" would not be welcome in America; an attitude towards miscegenation prevalent at the time. Lucky is recruited by the French high command to use her expert knowledge of the area and her friendship with the communist Major Cham (Lee Van Cleef) to get a demolition squad of Legionnaires led by Brock to a vital hidden Viet Minh ammunition dump on the border with Red China. In return for her services, Lucky is promised by the French that they will arrange for her son's emigration to America.
The raid is filled with animosity between the former lovers, booby traps, and enemy patrols. On arrival at the ammunition dump hidden in a mountain, Dickinson discovers the commanding officer is a former friend Major Cham who wants to take her and her son to a new life in Moscow. Van Cleef plays his role as a high flyer corporate executive (in the manner of Fuller's gangsters in Underworld USA) marked for great things in the world of international communism. The sabotage mission is successful but at great cost; Lucky dies blowing up the dump. Brock reconciles with his child and is last seen walking along holding his hand in preparation for returning to America, as Cole reprises the title song. | good versus evil, violence, revenge, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0038395 | Canyon Passage | In 1856, ambitious freight company and store owner Logan Stuart (Dana Andrews) agrees to escort Lucy Overmire (Susan Hayward) home to the settlement of Jacksonville, Oregon, along with his latest shipment. Lucy is engaged to Logan's best friend, George Camrose (Brian Donlevy). The night before they depart, however, Logan has to defend himself from a sneak attack in his hotel room; though it is too dark to be sure, he believes his assailant is Honey Bragg (Ward Bond). Later, he explains to Susan that he once saw Bragg leaving the vicinity of two murdered miners. Despite Logan's unwillingness to accuse Bragg (since he did not actually witness the crime), Bragg apparently wants to take no chances.
On their journey, Logan and Lucy become attracted to each other. They stop one night at the homestead of Ben Dance (Andy Devine) and his family. There, Logan introduces Lucy to his girlfriend, Caroline Marsh (Patricia Roc).
In Jacksonville, Logan tries to get George to stop playing poker with (and losing to) professional gambler Jack Lestrade (Onslow Stevens), even giving him $2000 to pay off his debts, but George is more interested in the prospect of getting rich quick without hard work. What Logan does not know is that George has been stealing gold dust left in his safekeeping by the miners to pay some of his losses. George also has a secret he is keeping from Lucy; he keeps propositioning Lestrade's wife Marta (Rose Hobart), though she shows no interest in him.
Meanwhile, the burly Bragg keeps trying to provoke Logan into a fight. Finally, he succeeds. Logan wins, but does not kill his opponent when he has the chance. A humiliated Bragg tries to ride Logan down on his way out of town.
George decides to move away to make a fresh start and finally gets Lucy to agree to marry him. Logan then proposes to Caroline and is accepted, much to the disappointment of Vane Blazier, Logan's employee, who is in love with Caroline himself.
Lucy decides to accompany Logan to San Francisco to pick out a wedding dress. Along the way, they are ambushed by Bragg. Though their horses are shot dead, they get away and return to town, only to discover that George is in grave trouble.
When a miner appears months earlier than George had expected and informs him that he wants to get his gold the next day, George kills the drunk man late that night. However, his crimes are traced to him; shopkeeper Hi Linnet (Hoagy Carmichael) saw him stealing some gold, and the miner's lucky gold nugget is found in George's possession. The locals, led by Johnny Steele (Lloyd Bridges), find George guilty of murder and lock him up, intending a late-night lynching. However, when one of the settlers rides in with the warning that the Indians are on the warpath after Bragg killed one of their women, Logan helps his friend escape in the confusion.
Logan organizes a party to fight. When Bragg seeks their protection, Logan drives him off, to be killed by the Indians. They are then driven off by Logan's men.
Afterward, Logan and Lucy learn that George was found and killed by one of the townsfolk. Caroline also has second thoughts about marriage to a man who is away so frequently on business; she breaks their engagement and accepts Vane. Logan and Lucy are free to follow their hearts. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0078330 | Stranger in Our House | The story concerns a young woman named Julia (Lee Purcell) who goes to live with her aunt's family after she loses both her parents and their housekeeper in a car crash. Although they haven't seen her in ten years, Julia's aunt Leslie, her husband Tom (Jeremy Slate), her son Peter (Jeff East), daughter Rachel (Linda Blair) and youngest son Bobby (James Jarnigan) are all eager to make the new member of the house feel welcome. Rachel is especially thrilled at the thought of having a girl her age around the house and even offers to split her bedroom with her cousin, but Julia seems painfully shy. The family takes note of her strange accent, as it's not the way most people who live on the east coast speak. Trying to open up a bit, Julia gets a makeover and develops a more sophisticated façade.
One day, Rachel's horse Sundance attacks Julia and tries to trample her. Julia recovers and begins insinuating herself into the family. Rachel's brother and dad seem particularly taken with the fetching young lady in their midst. Odd things begin to happen. After having earlier found a human tooth among Julia's belongings, Rachel discovers a photo of herself missing...and her face breaks out in blotchy hives. She also begins to notice that Julia doesn't always have a reflection in the mirror. The hives render Rachel unable to attend a dance. Julia accompanies Rachel's boyfriend Mike (Jeff McCracken) instead, borrowing a dress that Rachel had made for herself; an arrangement that Rachel should never have agreed to because Mike becomes smitten with Julia and they begin dating. To make matters worse, the cousin also forges a close friendship with Carolyn (Fran Drescher), Rachel's best friend. The next day, Rachel enters into a competition with Sundance, where the horse flips out, breaking its leg in the process and forcing a vet to put it to sleep.
To her surprise, Rachel finds things in Julia dresser drawers that point to something sinister - burned hair from her fallen horse and her missing photo covered in red paint spots. She speaks to Professor Jarvis (Macdonald Carey) who tells her it may indeed be the work of someone who practices black magic. Before she can show him the evidence however, the professor collapses and is rushed to the hospital. A letter that Julia receives from a friend gets the best of Rachel's curiosity. Rachel phones the friend in Boston and discovers that Julia supposedly sings in her school's glee club. Knowing that the person living in her house doesn't have any interest in music, Rachel further suspects something is not right. Immersing herself in books on the occult, Rachel starts to believe Julia is a witch. During a visit to the professor at the hospital, he tells her that witches do not show up in photographs. A camera is a machine and machines cannot be coerced, she's told. The next day, Rachel encourages her mother to take pictures of the reluctant cousin. Everything comes to a head when Leslie plans a road trip and Rachel finds a map with burn marks on it. It looks as if Julia is planning on causing her mother to have an accident. She also sees Julia overtly seducing her father.
Too late to stop Leslie from leaving on the trip, Rachel develops the roll of film herself and clearly sees that her suspicions have been correct all along...Julia is nowhere to be found in the photos. Suddenly, Julia comes pounding into the darkroom and the two have a fierce struggle. Rachel manages to break away and she locks the door to the room. She then evades her dad, who tries to stop her. Julia breaks out of the room...her eyes a ghastly white and red. Rachel rushes over to Mike and tells him to get in his car so they can find her mother. Julia takes off after them, hitting Mike's car and trying to drive them off the road. Finally, Rachel and Mike catch sight of Rachel's mom, whose car causes Julia to drive off a cliff to a fiery explosion below. It is then revealed that the real Julia perished alongside her parents in the car crash, and that it was actually Sarah, their housekeeper, who survived the accident. The Bryant family tries to return to normal. Meanwhile, another family welcomes a new nanny into their household. A woman who looks remarkably like the stranger who terrorized the Bryant home... | cult, romantic | train | wikipedia | Linda Blair is this film's main draw today, but Lee Purcell is the real star of the show: at first I wasn't too sure about her, but she has the mysteriously seductive presence that her role calls for, and her performance literally gets better by the minute.
This may be a Wes Craven movie, but it is also a TV movie, so it is rather tame in terms of sexuality and violence; there are few real surprises and few real thrills until the last 15 minutes and the (long awaited) catfight between Blair and Purcell.
With its "evil stranger is disrupting the life of a normal happy family" plot, you could say that this film was ahead of its time; thrillers of this type didn't become popular until the early 90's, with "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" and others like it.
Lois Duncan's young-adult mystery novel "Summer of Fear" gets a fine, if low-budget, television treatment, capably directed by Wes Craven.
Intriguing story features an appealing Linda Blair playing popular young woman and horse-rider whose family takes in her orphaned cousin--a perplexing girl who harbors secret evil powers.
Lee Purcell is excellent as cousin Julia, pulling off a showy role without lapsing into camp (although the make-up and special effects near the finish are somewhat cartoonish by today's standards).
It involves a young girl (like most of Duncan's books) who finds herself confronted by the possibility that her 'dear' cousin is actually a witch hell bent on destroying her family and small circle of friends.
Seeing that this was from legendary horror director Wes Craven, and starring Linda Blair (who served as the demon-possessed girl, Regan, in "The Exorcist"), I decided to give "Summer of Fear" a chance.
I wasn't expecting a TV movie (which was titled "Stranger In Our House" during it's television run), but I actually ended up enjoying it.The film centers around a teenage girl named Rachel.
Julia seems somewhat normal, if not a little bit shy and withdrawn, but as time progresses, she puts an alluring spell over everyone she meets, and pulls all of Rachel's family and friends away from her.
I have to admit, some things in this movie were a bit laughable, mostly Linda Blair's poofy, frizzed out hairdo.
Linda Blair's performance was decent, if not a little whiny at times, Lee Purcell pulled off the 'mysterious cousin' archetype, and Fran Drescher even had a small role as one of Rachel's friends.
I found it interesting to see Craven directing a film of this nature in his earlier years, considering he had just done brutal horror films such as "The Hills Have Eyes" and "Last House on the Left".To sum things up, I have to give "Summer of Fear" some credit— being a campy TV movie from the '70s, it has some chops.
Give it a look if you enjoy campy '70s horror, or if you want to see some of Craven's earlier work, because it is quite different from the films that he is most known for.
Yet, it is not a bad movie, if you can get past the special effects.Yes, Linda Blair has that weird perm-thing going on; she is the daughter who suspects something is amiss with her cousin, played by Lee Purcell.
Carol Lawrence plays Blair's mother, and there is an amusing scene where Purcell flirts with Jeff East, Ms. Blair's father.As this story was written by Lois Duncan, upon whose stories "I Know What You Did Last Summer" as well as "Killing Mr. Griffin" were turned into film, one can at least enjoy the story; and Wes Craven does an interesting job of directing this.
Campy, Kooky Made-For-TV Fun. After Wes Craven made the groundbreaking "Last House on the Left" and "Hills Have Eyes", he fell into a bit of a rut before finally finding his footing again with the 1984 classic "A Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Summer of Fear", the film I will be looking at today, is Wes Craven's third directorial effort.
It's an ambitious effort to say the least but how well does a made for TV horror movie stand up 30 years last?The story is about a girl, Rachel Bryant (Linda Blair), who lives with her wealthy family in a nice house in the hills of Northern California.
After her mother's sister, brother-in-law, and housekeeper die in a horrible car crash, the couple's daughter, Julia (Lee Purcell) comes to live with them.
Julia seems a little shy if anything, but as time goes on, she begins to put an alluring spell over everyone she meets, pulling all of Rachel's family and friends away from her.
After finding some odd things that belong to Julia (including a human tooth and burnt hair from Rachel's dog Trickle (for the movie the dog was changed to a horse due to Blair's love of horses and the name of the horse was Sundance instead of Trickle), Rachel begins to suspect that her cousin may be a practitioner of witchcraft, and she's hell-bent on turning Rachel's life upside down.
The plot has something to do with this evil girl from the south that is sent to live with Linda Blair and her family after her parents die in a car accident.
The special effects are corny, the editing choppy, and the acting is mediocre at best (wait till you see Fran "The Nanny" Dresher as Linda Blair's nasally best friend) and yet I still kinda enjoyed this picture.
I wasn't surprised, as most '70s movies like this are cheesy, but I had still been hoping for something a little better.First of all, the actress who played Julia was horrible.
Gimme a break!All in all, this movie is slightly entertaining due to horrible '70s hair, incestuous family members, Fran Drescher as a teenager, and the dildo type thing that Rachel finds with Julia's stuff.
They start living in the same house and as time goes by strange things start to happen to the girl (Blair) and Blair soon finds out that her cousin is a witch and is out to make Blair's life a living hell by takeing away her boyfriend as well as stealing affection away from her family.
Anyone who is familiar with Wes Craven's films knows that he is a horror legend, making such classics as A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, and Scream.
Linda Blair, Lee Purcell, and Fran Drescher gave the best performances of the film.
Linda Blair known for her 1973 hit, "The Exorcist", plays Rachel, a girl on a ranch who has a younger brother gets to have a sibling her own age.
After the success of low-budget shockers The Last House on The Left and The Hills Have Eyes, Craven opted to pay the bills by working on this made-for-TV chiller starring a podgy Linda Blair.
Bound by broadcasting regulations, the result is a tepid and predictable affair, lacking the imagination and visceral impact of the director's previous horror films.Blair stars as teenager Rachel Bryant, whose idyllic life gradually turns into a nightmare after her pretty cousin Julia (Lee Purcell) moves into her home, her own parents having accidentally driven off the edge of a cliff.
How wrong can they be?As things unfold exactly as you imagine they will, Craven delivers a few scenes of 'mild peril' but nothing truly scary (although Blair's huge hair, the sight of the dumpy actress crammed into a nasty pink dress, and Fran Drescher's voice are somewhat disturbing).
Stranger in Our House (1978) ** (out of 4) Made-for-TV horror film about teenager Rachel Bryant (Linda Blair) whose life turns upside down when her cousin Julia (Lee Purcell) comes to live with her family after the death of her parents.
At first everything seems okay but soon all sorts of strange things start to happen and soon Rachel begins to think that her cousin is a witch.Wes Craven made this shortly after THE HILLS HAVE EYES and it should go without saying that this here isn't in the same league as that terrifying thriller.
Jeremy Slate, Carol Lawrence and Macdonald Carey are all good in their supporting roles.STRANGER IN OUR HOUSE is a pretty bland and boring movie that doesn't have too much going for it..
A teenage girl (Linda Blair)'s life is turned upside down after her cousin (Lee Purcell) moves into her house, and as time goes by, she begins to suspect that she may be a practitioner of witchcraft.One has to go into this film with the right mindset.
Cheesy but entertaining '70s TV movie starring Scream Queen Linda Blair.
SUMMER OF FEAR started out as a 1978 made-for-TV movie, directed by LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT's Wes Craven and starring THE EXORCIST actress Linda Blair.
The storyline is a straightforward 'cuckoo in the nest' type one, in which spoilt rich girl Linda Blair is put out of joint when her cousin joins the family after her parents are killed in a car accident.It soon transpires that said cousin has been dabbling in witchcraft, something confirmed by a put-upon college professor (a welcome role for SHADOW OF A DOUBT's Macdonald Carey).
You can hardly blame them: dressing in the frumpiest clothes imaginable and saddled with an appalling 'Afro' haircut, the Blair looks like an eyesore here and her character's a real whiner.The supernatural elements of the narrative are limited, but there's some good stuff with spooked horses and an action-packed climax that involves car chases and cat-fights, all well handled on a low budget.
It's a 'Summer of Fear' for Rachel and her family when cousin Julia comes to live with them.
With no one believing her, can Rachel save her family and herself from death at the hands of witchcraft?'Summer of Fear' tells a good story and is enjoyable to watch, but can't get past it's "Made for TV" label.
The acting was stellar from Linda Blair as Rachel, and Lee Purcell as the witch Julia.
Wow, you'd think a TV movie by Wes Craven would be pretty suspenseful, right?
By 1978, director Wes Craven was best known for his brash exploitation thrillers The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, making this film something of a change of pace for him as not only doesn't it feature the hardcore violence of the latter two films - it's actually a 'made for TV' picture!
Fair enough, it doesn't break any traditions and it doesn't have a whole lot of 'bite', but the story is perfectly paced and this ensures that the director is able to keep things interesting throughout, and this is what makes Summer of Fear a cut above your average TV movie.
Her aunt and uncle are killed in a car crash one day and, other than the obvious implications of this event, it turns out to be really bad news for her as her cousin comes to stay with the family.
Julia Trent is an instant hit with the household and all their friends - but her antics aren't fooling Rachel, who comes to believe that Julia is a witch.This is the sort of story that would lend itself brilliantly to a book (the film is based on the children's novel of the same title written by Lois Duncan), but doesn't often translate well to the big screen.
The film stars Linda Blair in one of her first post-Exorcist horror roles, and she does brilliantly with it.
Rachael Bryant's cousin, Julia comes to live with her family at the country farm, after her parents where killed in a car accident.
Though during her stay, strange things begin to happen, like the horse seems to lose it around Julia and men in the Rachael's life seem to fall under her spell.
She tries to convince her family and friends that there's something not quite right about Julia, but she gets dismissed as nothing more but jealously.I was quite impressed for what is was and Craven's low-budget TV feature (after such brutally raw efforts as "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes") is an earnest curio, despite its timid treatment for a wider audience.
Stranger in Our house is a pretty good film as TV movies go.
The script takes some of the best elements from Lois Duncan's great book, Summer of Fear.
My main motivation to watch "Summer of Fear" actually was the devilish bit of hope to witness Drescher die painfully on screen, but alas, this is a TV-movie so there's really not that much suffering going on.
"Summer of Fear" is a modest, well-intended and remotely atmospheric little thriller, but it's far too tame to satisfy real horror fans and it honestly would have ended up in oblivion long time ago already if it weren't for the names of Wes Craven and Linda Blair parading the DVD-cover.
Craven had already built up a solid reputation with the genuine 70's shockers "Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes", and Linda Blair was undeniably one of the genre's best-selling faces since her unforgettable role in "The Exorcist".
These three titles definitely qualify as rough and mature horror movies unsuitable for squeamish viewers, but here Craven and Blair team up for a "soft" story about a teenage girl who's the only one to realize her enchanting niece is really a deceptive and malignant sorceress.
The competitive and notably hostile on screen chemistry between Linda Blair and Lee Purcell keeps the wholesome endurable and even a bit entertaining but "Summer of Fear" is overlong and unexciting.
Julia's cousin Rachel (Linda Blair), on the other hand, is no assumer.
Right off, Mr. Craven tells us this was Linda Blair's first film after being in trouble with the police.
This TV movie is now perhaps more fairly titled the same as its (Lois Duncan) book source, although was originally shown more accurately with the title 'Stranger in Our House', since it's an early example of the ' dangerous / nutter cuckoo in the nest' genre that became popular later (like Single White Female and Hand that Rocks Cradle etc.), and so, if not matched with such as some sort of double bill, is otherwise a fairly routine 'nobody believes me, I'm the only one who can see we have a destructive force right under our noses' more or less forgettable offering
Ah, that is UNLESS, in curio, you watch keeping in mind it was the late W.Craven's not only, only third film, but also his first in 35 mm apparently (Last House and Hills were in 16mm, did you know?
(Being a TV film, certainly none of his more characteristic horror gore.)OR, for the real reason a must see watch, is if you are a fan of pint sized, cherub faced beauty dear Linda Blair, coz in which case, this becomes a simply unmissable TEN STAR film in her oeuvre, since she is not only in virtually every scene, but she sports an utterly magnificent 70's style big hair ringlet perm throughout by which to top some superb flashing eyes and smiles sessions (particularly when grooming her horse) - e.g. at one time slapped in the face by Mom that appears to be so realistically hard, that her subsequent burst into tears is surely genuine rather than acting.
Good, Stupid Fun. Imagine "All About Eve," except it's about some stupid family out West instead of theater and you have Linda Blair instead of Bette Davis and the dialogue is unintentionally as opposed to intentionally hilarious, and you've pretty much got this movie.
But all you Linda Blair fans out there know something terrible is about to happen to her, and it does -- the arrival of a taller, prettier cousin from Boston who survived a car crash that killed the rest of her family and left her talking like a Mandrell sister.
It's a TV movie and Craven directs it like one - big long takes of people spouting the most truly hilarious dialogue you can imagine...
It is funny to think this was the same guy that made Nightmare on Elmstreet.The entire film is shot on the brightest of days and this serious doesn't help in building any terror but strangely it does enhance that play on teenage anxiety, jealousy and insecurity and I guess this is what keeps you watching to the end - you can identify with that position of being a teen again and all the terror (and boy oh boy that's real terror) that goes with it - if only the dialogue, plotting and direction (sorry Wes) wasn't so bad.
This movie is based on the book "Summer of Fear" by Lois Duncan, and it's the greatest book!
Their daughter, her cousin, Julia, is coming to live with the family.
The dog growls at Cousin Julia and nips at her but that in no way is as threatning as when the horse goes aftyer her in the movie (a good scene in the movie).
For swhile it was hard getting a copy of the Tv movie that goes by two titles: SUMMER OF FEAR and STRANGER IN OUR HOUSE.
The box boasts that it is drirected by WES CRAVEN, maker of SCREAM and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and that it stars Linda Blair.
After reading SUMMER OF FEAR by great author Ms. Lois Duncan, I had discovered this little film.
Sure it is no where near Craven's SCREAM or A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET but it is a good movie.
This movie makes me feel like Im watching one of those lifetime network films...but in a good way.
This October 31,2008 will mark the 30th anniversary of "Summer of Fear"/"Stranger in our House"(which ever you prefer).A young girl named Rachel (played by the Exorcist's Linda Blair)is visited by her cousin Julia(Lee Purcell)after Julia's parents are killed in a car accident.Everyone likes Julia and is taken by her at first. |
tt1781775 | Beneath the Darkness | Vaughn Ely is a beloved native of a small Texas town with a dark secret. Formerly the star quarterback, now he's the local mortician. When Ely discovers that his wife Rosemary is cheating on him with the high school English teacher's husband, David Moore, he makes sure they can't do it again. First, he kills Rosemary, but he does not bury her body. Instead, he hides it in his house and dances with the body each night, as though she's still alive. Second, he chases down her lover while he's out jogging at night and buries him alive in Rosemary's empty grave.
Two years later, four high school kids, Travis, Danny, Brian and his girlfriend Abby think they see a ghost in Ely's window when they see Ely dance with his wife's body. They assume since Ely's van is gone, that he is not home. They sneak inside and see what is going on. Enraged, Ely chases them down the stairs and grabs Danny before he can get away. Travis rushes back inside just in time to see Ely shove Danny down the stairs. Ely taunts Travis as he breaks Danny's neck. Ely declines to press charges against the teens, and the police do not believe Travis' accusations.
Travis and Abby become determined to find proof to support that they are telling the truth, that Ely is crazy, and that he killed Danny. When they break into Ely's house a second time, Ely captures Abby and hides her unconscious body in a casket buried in his backyard. As Travis escapes, Ely shoots and wounds him. At the hospital, the doctor notifies the police, and they keep Travis under guard. Travis recruits Brian to help him escape, and while the police chase after Brian, who they think to be Travis, Travis returns to confront Ely and free Abby.
Ely captures Travis and takes both teens to the cemetery, where he intends to bury them alive. On the way, Travis urges Abby to save herself and promises to catch up with her. While Ely forces Travis to dig his own grave, Abby frees herself and flees, only to return to rescue Travis. Abby dresses in Rosemary's clothes and berates Ely for his part in killing her. Ely's grip on his sanity, already tenuous, falters. While Ely argues with Abby-as-Rosemary, Travis sneak attacks him and Abby knocks him out before they bury him alive. The two then walk back to town to get the Sheriff. Ely is rescued from the grave but ends up in an insane asylum. Inside his cell, he proclaims that love sucks while looking into the camera, thus breaking the fourth wall. | flashback | train | wikipedia | When one of them gets murdered it's up to the others to prove the morticians guilt.The movie follows a lot of the classic thriller trappings and pitfalls.
No one believes the kids story despite the obvious weirdness of the mortician character played brilliantly by Dennis Quaid with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
There are some very funny cheesy lines in there some quite tense moments too.There are some pointless parts like the main teens back story which never really amounts to anything and the fact we never get to see the teachers reaction to one of the bits of story that is eventually revealed (one that if you're paying attention you'll know before any of the characters in the movie do).
Like when you find out what the kids had seen going on through the window as well as Some of the morticians one-liners.The main cast do a pretty good job, everyone is very capable.
I always thought that a lot of his characters had a kind of wild edge to them and it was great for me in this movie to see him let that edge take over.The movie looks great and professionally filmed.
Technically you can't fault it.Strangely there seems to be a lot of hate for Beneath the darkness but If you're willingly to let it, this movie can be an enjoyable ride..
I Liked It. After watching their best friend get murdered, a group of teens struggle to expose a local mortician (Dennis Quaid) as the vicious killer and keep from becoming his next victims.I see this film has a pretty low rating and has some rather scathing reviews.
Dennis Quaid is always a joy, and the overall concept was entertaining.If I had to make any complaint, it is that the mother character is just really, really poorly acted.
That's how this excellent little mystery-horror film from 2011 struck me, and I mean that in a good way.PLOT: Dennis Quaid plays a creepy mortician in a central Texas town.
A group of teens decide to trespass his abode for thrills and everything goes awry.Quaid and cutie Aimee Teegarden head the cast, but it's Tony Oller who shines here as the troubled protagonist.
I was surprised by the dramatic score and a few really touching scenes.Some complain that the subplot of a dead sister and a ghost sighting goes nowhere, but it's there for a reason, just think about it.Although there's some realistic cussing there's zero raunch.BOTTOM LINE: I was pleasantly surprised by this great little film.
Like watching Paint Dry. I looked at the IMDb rating, thought I would give this movie a go.What a waste of time!
In marketing the product must be declared correctly: if you declare horror in a product, horror must be in the product.In the music business there is a genre named easy-listening, translated into the movie business I would say this film is a "easy-watching" film: not bad and not really good..
I was hugely looking forward to "Beneath the Darkness" when it played at the annual Brussels Festival of Fantastic Films during a midnight screening, because I was told – and I eagerly believed – that it was an uncompromising and outrageous horror/thriller that granted Dennis Quaid the opportunity to depict a psychotic and derailed small Texas-town serial killer.
Together with a theater full of enthusiast people, I expected a tremendously high body count, lots of pitch-black humor, perverted undertones and a totally whack Dennis Quaid one-man-show.
Things didn't exactly turn out as favorable
I wouldn't go as far to call "Beneath the Darkness" a disastrous film, but it's definitely a bit too ambitious and wannabe intelligent for its own good.
Quaid's character Ely Vaughn, the local undertaker who's still highly admired within the community because he used to be a star quarterback in high school, is indeed an utterly disturbed individual but he's not a maniac on a rampage.
Quite the contrary, in fact, Ely is a very distinguished person and his dark side only comes to the surface when a couple of school kids decide to sniffle around in his private business.
The first five minutes of the film, as well as the final fifteen, are very entertaining and exciting, not coincidentally because these are the only times that Quaid gets to showcase his evil grimaces and madman capacities.
In spite of being the big star of the picture, Dennis Quaid actually has surprisingly little screen time and – frankly – nearly not enough chances to illustrate the craziness of his character's persona.
First let me say I love Dennis Quaid and just about every movie I've seen him in.
It is great to finally see Dennis Quaid play a character with personality again!
Dennis Quaid plays Vaughn Ely, a mortician who is crazy.
I already mentioned how good Quaid is, but the star of this film is Tony Oller.
Beneath The Darkness is strange and not everyone is going to like it, but it's one of these films that you keep watching, because you want to know what's going to happen.
"Beneath the Darkness" was a great movie in some ways, but also a somewhat mediocre movie in others.
Personally I found the story a little bit too far fetched for my liking, as I didn't think that any rational and sane person would return to the house after seeing a friend killed.
But hey, wouldn't be much of a movie if they didn't, eh?The story in "Beneath the Darkness" is about a couple of young people who break into a mortician's house as they believe it to be haunted.
I will not reveal the ending here, but personally I found that ending to be one of the worst endings to an otherwise alright thriller.What I really enjoyed most in the movie was Dennis Quaid's (playing Ely) performance.
(Right up to the ending, that is.) And the people they had cast for the roles of Abby and Travis, played by Aimee Teegarden and Tony Oller respectively, also did good jobs.There weren't all that much suspense to the movie, sadly enough.
I think that "Beneath the Darkness" could have been a much better movie with some improvements.
A horror/thriller starring Dennis Quaid looked a decent prospect on paper however from the start it was pretty clear this would be no masterpiece.
Dennis Quaid is a decent actor but unfortunately this is not one of his best efforts and I found him way over the top and unbelievable in this role.
I've always been a big fan of Dennis Quaid's but my God, what was going on in his head when he agreed to do this B-movie horror/chiller?!
I liked the casting and the actors did a good job with the story they were given.
I would like to see more of the actors in future films and hope this movies poor post-production does not harm their careers..
Lifeless Thriller that although Marketed as a Horror Movie it falls way short because aside from some Graveyard Stuff about Premature Burials, Paranormal Ghost Happenings, and wait a minute this is trying to be a Horror Movie, so why is it so Not-Horrible?Because everything is pulled back quite a bit here to almost PG-Land with most of the Elements lacking any real Deliverance.
Dennis Quaid might give this movie an interesting note, but all in all, you might find it quite uninteresting and not even worth the (kind) 5 points I gave it.
Such a film came to Dennis Quaid with Beneath The Darkness where the respected mortician of this small Texas town has an interesting sideline with some of the bodies he has.
But I always maintain that these slasher films are great because overacting is a requirement and players just have a ball with these parts.Dennis really lets it rip in Beneath The Darkness.
Dennis Quaid is always good as playing these grumpy old characters and he does a good job of playing this psychotic grumpy mortician.
Dennis Quaid plays against type as Eli a mortician with a secret, and a dark compulsion.
Although the character of Dennis Quaid's Ely doesn't meet the excellence of Kevin Costner's Mr. Brook's, Ely is still a pretty creepy weirdo, a mortician who is trying to hide the corpse of his embalmed wife, who he enjoys dancing with every night in front of the second floor window, as well as the corpse of his wife's lover.
Not a Bad film but not Great either.(Just a Fun Time waster)..
I thought this film was okay it entertained me and kept me watching and i liked all of the people in it and i thought it had a good story line and i don't understand why so many people hate this film i thought it was good for what it was and i thought all of the actors did a good job and i really liked Denis Quaid in this film he plays a creepy bad guy and i liked that role he played and i thought he played it pretty well.
He was very believable in his role as the Bad guy and i actually found him quite funny at times with some of the lines he comes out with.
The story is about three teenagers who are best friends and they are all suspicious about the man who lives alone near their street played by Denis Quaid and they go over to his house because they've all heard rumours about his house being haunted and they think a ghost lives there so they hide out in the bushes and watch him and they keep seeing strange things moving around in his house.
I thought this film was quite suspenseful and i thought the film had a good pace to it, it wasn't too fast or too slow it was just right, and like many films this film has a few flaws but they didn't bother me much because i liked the story and the characters and i found them interesting.the rest of the film is about the teenagers investigating and going into Quaids house because they think he has some secrets and i thought the story was quite interesting and mysterious, they find out in the end that the man is crazy when he kills one of their friends and then he tries to stop them from leaving his house but they all get away from him and during the rest of the film the teenagers are basically trying to prove to everyone that Dennis Quaid is Crazy and that he's a killer but no one would take them seriously so the kids do everything in their power to prove he's guilty and at the end of the film Quaid kidnaps two of the teenagers and takes them to the cemetery and i quite liked that part of the film i thought it was quite exciting and i couldn't wait to see what Quaid would do to them at the cemetery.he forces the boy to dig his own grave and he threatens to kill both of them.
I wont give away how the film ends but i will say i thought this film was okay its not Great but i liked it for what it was and yes i know the story was a little cliché at times but that didn't bother me much either, i usually don't get bothered by things like that, its only when something Major stupid happens that i get annoyed!
and i didn't find many stupid things in this film i thought it was an Average movie with okay acting and an okay performance from everyone and none of the characters annoyed me either so in my opinion this isn't a bad film and its worth a watch.
In Smithville, Texas, the teenagers Brian (Stephen Lunsford), Abby (Aimee Teegarden), Travis (Tony Oller) and Danny (Devon Werkheiser) are classmates of the Smithville High School and best friends.
One day, they are reading Macbeth for a class and they decide to investigate the rumors that the house of the mortician Ely Vaughn (Dennis Quaid) is haunted by ghosts.
Will they be successful in their intent?"Beneath the Darkness" is a totally forgettable and absurd movie full of clichés about a deranged man that lives with the corpse of his dead wife Rosemary.
Dennis Quaid is not a bad actor, but he is awfully ham with grimaces.
The main reason for me watching this movie is that I am a big fan of Dennis Quaid but his performance in this flick leaves a lot to be desired!
Quaid plays the role of the town's mortician and the audience is quickly introduced to the dark side of his character when he takes his first victim within the first few minutes.
This movie quickly went nowhere and the final minutes (especially the final words from Quaid's character) were simply ridiculous.If you have nothing better to do......still give this a miss!!.
But what ever they paid him to make this dreadful movie must have been where the 7 million budget went, hope he got all 7 million.The acting is the worst I have seen in a long time.The little blond girl is from Friday night lights and I liked her in that, if this is her idea of a career path she needs to double check her agents mental state.I have nothing good to say about this movie, don't bother.If there was a o score I would have given it a 0Sorry mr Quaid, you are a legend but this is not very ajoba (south African slang for good).
Quaids character was neat to see, movie was not.
"Help me prove he killed Danny." After thinking they saw a ghost a group of friends start to snoop around the home of local mortician Ely (Quaid).
I really liked "Mr. Brooks" and I like Dennis Quaid and seeing him play a psycho I thought would be cool.
Once again though like most movies the idea is better then the real thing.
This movie doesn't compare at all to "Mr. Brooks", but I would like to see Quaid in a better movie playing a character like this one.
Sort of like saying, "Hi, I am as original as Gothika, but I'm only famous because of Limpbizkit's remake of Behind blue eyes." Plus, when the teacher asks why Edgar Allan Poe's murderer from The- Tell-Tale Heart would be able to hear the slow beating heart beneath the planks to which he confesses to his crimes, I could not but utter the exact word which would come out of the main-character's mouth 3 seconds later - "guilt", and that is only six minutes in.2 - When the main characters best friend Danny gets pushed from the stairs and gets his neck broken from Quaid's well placed foot, there is no question about how he died.
No mention of fracture, no forensic team spotting the obvious bruise or disjointed neck, no check-up what so ever, and the teenagers are still questioned for breaking into the murderer's house, worst cops ever!.Then again, there's also at least two positive things to say about it: Even though the characters are stale, the high-school feeling is not as traumatizing as it usually portrays, and being fair to Quaid, his character is probably the only one that at least makes you smile, just for a second, although his performance is practically a clone of Jack Nicholson dancing around as the Joker from Tim Burtons: Batman.
'Beneath the Darkness' (1/10 Stars) makes me feel bad.
For instance, I feel I'm way too harsh on other movies when you see a beneath the soil film like this.
Even if Dennis Quaid should know better.
I know what doesn't lie beneath the darkness: a good movie.
Despondent and depressed over the untimely death of his sister, teenage Travis believes that the local shady mortician (played with much ham by Dennis Quaid) is responsible for her murder.
The movie is nothing we haven't seen a million times before, the acting is all right in an over the top way.
It moves to a classroom scene where the discussion is about both Poe and Macbeth...nice tie-in.Travis (Tony Oller) plays the moody teen lead who laments over his dead sister, and sometimes sees ghosts which he confides in cheerleader Abby (Aimee Teegarden).
One night some of the teens, thinking Quaid isn't home, enter his mortician residence ghost hunting, only to find he is at home and has an unhealthy relationship with his dead, embalmed, not exactly buried wife.The movie starts out like it is going to be a barn burner, then it slows and dies.Parental Guides: infrequent F-bomb, no sex or nudity..
I hate seeing a great actor like Dennis Quaid trapped in a load of crap like "Beneath the Darkness" which just diminishes his talents.
It is the "psychotic mortician" part where two teenagers (Aimee Teegarden and Tony Oller) are aware of his murder of their friend, stumbling upon a wicked secret he holds (he dances with his wife's corpse at night).
Quaid's Ely is a former star quarterback and remains a recognizable figure in his Texas town, so the kids will need to put themselves in danger in order to expose his loony ass.
You have seen this a million times, and if you are expecting the miracle of something original in "Beneath the Darkness" then you will be sorely disappointed.
When Quaid looks right at the camera at the end and repeats, "Love sucks", I think he should have said instead, "This movie sucks.".
Even if you like Dennis Quaid (which I do), even he did not make this movie worthwhile.
This 2011 thriller stars Dennis Quaid, Tony Oller and Aimee Teegarden.
Quaid (Innerspace) plays mortician, Ely Vaughn who lost his wife a 2 years prior.
After one of their friends is killed, Travis and Abby are determined to expose Ely. This isn't a bad thriller that sort of pays homage to Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "Rear Window" and Quaid is great in it. |
tt0968264 | The Conspirator | On April 14, 1865, five days after the Civil War ends with the South's surrender to the North at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, lawyer and Union veteran Frederick Aiken, with his friends, William Thomas Hamilton and Nicholas Baker, and girlfriend, Sarah Weston, celebrate. Later that same night, Southerner Lewis Payne unsuccessfully attempts to kill Secretary of State William Seward, only seriously wounding him. German immigrant and carriage repair business owner George Atzerodt is assigned to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson but becomes afraid and runs away. Meanwhile, actor John Wilkes Booth enters Ford's Theatre and sees his target, President Abraham Lincoln. Booth sneaks into the President's box and shoots Lincoln, mortally wounding him. Booth stabs diplomat and military officer Henry Rathbone who was a guest in Lincoln's box, and leaps onto the stage, shouting, "Sic Semper Tyrannis! The South is avenged!" before escaping. A crowd, including Aiken, Hamilton and Baker, watch in horror as the unconscious President is taken to a nearby boarding house where he dies early the next morning.
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton orders all suspects, including Mary Surratt, arrested. Booth and David Herold manage to evade capture for some days, but Union soldiers find a barn where they suspect the conspirators are hiding and set it on fire. Herold is arrested, while Booth is shot and killed by sergeant Boston Corbett.
Maryland Senator Reverdy Johnson is Mary Surratt's lawyer. Her son, John Surratt, had escaped with hundreds of agents looking for him. Feeling unable to defend Surratt because he's a Southerner, Reverdy asks Aiken, a Northerner, to take over, but he tries to refuse. He is ordered to defend her and tells Sarah and his friends, who are shocked to hear this.
Aiken visits Mary in her cell to question her. Mary asks Aiken to look in on her daughter Anna. Aiken does so and searches the boarding house for clues. He finds a ticket with the initials "LJW" (Louis J. Weichmann). At the court, Weichman - a seminary friend of Mary's son John, is the first witness and describes John Surratt's meetings with Booth. Aiken incriminates Weichman, making him appear as guilty as the rest of the conspirators.
Aiken again tries to give up defending Mary, believing her guilty. He meets with her, intending to get evidence of her guilt. She explains that John and the others conspired to kidnap Lincoln, not to kill him. They were about to attack a carriage but were stopped by Booth who reported that Lincoln was elsewhere. She says John left town and went into hiding after this, two weeks before the assassination. Aiken asks Anna for information to help with his trial preparations, but she refuses.
At the court, Chief Prosecutor Joseph Holt brings Innkeeper John Lloyd to the stand. Lloyd claims that Mary sent binoculars to Booth and prepared shooting irons and whiskey for Booth and Herold on the night of the assassination. Aiken angers Lloyd, implying that he was bribed for his testimony in whiskey. Lloyd is dragged out of the courtroom after threatening Aiken.
While attempting to attend a party at the Century Club, Aiken finds his membership has been revoked due to his defending Mary Surratt. This triggers an argument with Sarah and she disowns and abandons him. Aiken asks Anna to testify next. Anna testifies that Mary had no part in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but that it was her brother John instead. Anna visits Aiken at his house and tells him about Booth and John, and sends him to where John Surratt is hiding. He brings the message that John must surrender or his mother will hang for his crimes. On July 6, Mary is found guilty on all charges and, with Stanton's intervention, sentenced to hang with three others on the 7th. Aiken procures a writ of habeas corpus to try Mary in civilian court, but President Johnson suspends the writ and Mary is hanged.
Sixteen months later, Aiken visits John Surratt, who was captured abroad and is in jail. John thanks him for his kindness to his mother. Aiken offers him Mary's rosary but he declines. The epilogue goes on to state that a year later the Supreme Court ruled that citizens were entitled to trial by a civilian jury and not a military tribunal, even in times of war (Ex parte Milligan). A jury of Northerners and Southerners could not agree on a verdict for John Surratt so he was freed. Aiken left the law and became The Washington Post's first City Editor. | revenge, sentimental, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0206314 | Joy Ride | Rob and Candy are holed up in a motel room, using methamphetine and having sex. When they run out of drugs, Rob convinces Candy to use the CB to lure a trucker to their room, so they can rob him. Rusty Nail responds to Candy's summons. When Rob answers the door, Rusty realizes he's been tricked and takes the pair captive. Rob and Candy are chained to each other and the axle of Rusty Nail's truck. He takes them to a deserted stretch of Highway 17 and tells them he will let them go if they can hang onto the hood of the truck for a mile. If one of them falls, the other will be pulled off the truck by the chain, and both will die under the truck. He tapes a bag of meth to the windshield of his truck, telling them they can have the drugs after they make it. After riding awhile, Rob calls out that they have ridden for at least a mile, and Rusty Nail agrees. Thinking they have made it, Candy reaches for the bag of drugs; her chain is pulled into the axle, and she and Rob are both pulled underneath the still-moving truck and killed. Later, the authorities are called to the scene; Officer Williams, a newly appointed deputy, wants to investigate further, but is encouraged by Officer Jenkins to make it an open-and-shut case.
Racecar drivers Jordon and Austin, along with their team -- Jewel (manager and Jordon's girlfriend), Mickey (mechanic and pit crew chief), Alisa (PR), and Bobby (groupie) -- are caravanning from Kansas to Canada so that they can compete in the Road Rally 1000; they have an SUV with a flatbed trailer for the racecar, and walkie-talkies to communicate from car to car. When they stop at Headingley Grill for lunch, Austin finds Highway 17 on a map; he discovers that it would shorten their journey by a day and give them more time to get the lay of the land. When they ask a creepy truck driver, Barry, for directions, he warns them against taking 17; he tells them it's called "Slaughter Alley" (which the cops at the scene of Rob and Candy's deaths also claimed), and tells them the story of Rusty Nail, who has become something of an urban legend. Jenkins stops in for a cup of coffee and denies Barry's claims, encouraging them to take 17. Barry tells them that stretch of highway is unpatrolled, which appeals to Austin, who wants to be able to test the limits of their car on open road, so they agree to go that way.
Austin drives the racecar and Jordon, Jewel, and Alisa ride along. They tease Austin about a wreck he had previously gotten in. This is clearly a sore subject for Austin, who vents his frustration by messing with a truck driver (who just happens to be Rusty Nail) and then speeding off. Jordon makes Austin pull over and takes the driver's seat; just as they catch up to Mickey and Bobby in the SUV, Rusty Nail catches up to the group and starts laying on his horn. When Jordon tries to let him pass, he boxes them in, switching lanes so neither car can get around him. Jordon gets around, but as Mickey tries to pass, Rusty rams the flatbed trailer, causing it to detach from the SUV and run off the road. He then tailgates Jordon, who dodges to get out of the way of an oncoming station wagon; when Rusty tries to do the same, he jackknifes. Jewel and Alisa try to convince Jordon to stop, but he refuses, worried a mark on his record will cost them the race. Rusty checks a camera he has mounted to the front of the truck, identifying Jordon's license number, and then uses the CB to hail them; he has found their website and now knows exactly who they all are, threatening to make them pay for what they did. Jordon disregards his threats, and the team continues on.
Night falls, and the group stops at a gas station. Everyone is at odds over how to proceed. After Jewel fights with Jordon, she and Austin leave in the SUV to go to the police, as the others continue on in the racecar. Rusty Nail catches up to Jewel and Austin and tries to run them off the road; they desperately try to call Jordon for help on the walkie-talkie, which doesn't work on Jordon's end (as Barry warned them might happen). Rusty runs them off the road and puts their unconscious bodies in the back of his truck. Just then, the gang in the racecar gets their signals back and worry when they can't reach Jewel and Austin.
Rusty takes Jewel and Austin to a deserted field, and then kills Austin by putting his hands and then face through the engine fan of his truck. He then calls Jordon on the walkie-talkie, telling him he'll trade Jewel and Austin for the racecar. Rusty instructs Jordon to come to an old warehouse in an hour; Jordon and the others devise a plan to ensure that Rusty Nail will not double cross them, as Rusty torments Jewel. Meanwhile, Officer Williams finds the wrecked and abandoned SUV.
Jordon, Mickey, Alisa and Bobby arrive at the warehouse and split up; Alisa stays with the car, Bobby and Mickey go around the perimeter, and Jordon heads inside. After a tense search of the warehouse, during which Rusty kidnaps Bobby, Rusty flees in the truck. Jordon, Mickey, and Alisa follow in the racecar. When they come across a police cruiser, they pull over to find Jenkins; after convincing him of their story with a photo Rusty sent of Jules, he agrees to help them catch up to Rusty Nail. However, Rusty comes out of nowhere and obliterates Jenkins and his cruiser; Jordon, Mickey, and Alisa give chase. Meanwhile, Officer Williams encounters a truck weaving recklessly, and flags it down; however, it's a driver for a meat packing plant on a rush to deliver his cargo. When Williams searches the cargo, he finds parts of Austin's body; the driver claims he picked up a "rogue load" from a fellow trucker who needed help, but Williams subdues him and tries to hail Jenkins on the CB. He then tells dispatch he's bringing the meat truck driver in. Later he finds the burning wreckage of Jenkins' cruiser.
Rusty contacts Jordon, and kills Bobby as the group listens helplessly over the walkie-talkie. Rusty then tells Jordon to meet him at a junkyard and give himself up; only then will he set Jewel and Austin free. Mickey wants to go get help instead, and forces Jordon off the road; he tries to convince Alisa to come with him, but she refuses and leaves with Jordon to go save their friends. Mickey goes for help on foot; he finds the truck parked on a side road, and is overpowered by Rusty Nail. Rusty crushes Mickey's head in a wench, then lights the semi-trailer of his truck on fire, driving off in just the tractor unit.
Jordon sends Alisa to go get help and enters the junkyard alone. Jewel's screams draw him into the final showdown with Rusty Nail. The two fight, as Rusty indicates Jewel is trapped in a dangling car about to be crushed. Just as it seems Rusty has the upper hand, Alisa runs him over with the racecar, and she and Jordon go to rescue Jewel from the crusher. However, Jordon finds the video camera in the trunk of the crushed car; it is playing previously shot footage of Jewel. It's revealed that Rusty Nail tied her to the roof of the truck and ran her into the girders of a steel bridge, killing her.
Enraged, Jordon and Alisa get in the car to go find Rusty Nail, but he rams into them, trying to crush them. Alisa's leg is stuck, keeping her from getting out. Jordon runs to a nearby wrecking claw and uses it to put Rusty's truck in the crusher, with Rusty inside. Later, however, when Williams and his men investigate, Rusty Nail is nowhere to be found. The film ends with Rusty Nail hitching a ride with another truck driver. | dark, suspenseful, cruelty, murder, romantic, revenge, prank | train | wikipedia | "Joy Ride" is an extremely entertaining road-set horror/thriller that was surprisingly quite good.
The film is about Lewis (Paul Walker), a college coed who decides to buy himself a car and take off across the desert to pick up a would-be-girlfriend, Venna (Leelee Sobieski) in Colorado for a road trip together.
After having a CB radio installed into the car, the two take off to pick up Venna, but end up pulling a prank on an anonymous trucker who goes by the name of "Rusty Nail" (excellently voiced by Ted Levine) on the CB radio.
But soon after they pick up Venna, the menacing truck driver begins harassing them again, seeking revenge for the joke they decided to play on him - he'll stop at nothing to get it, and he's looking for more than an apology.Reminiscent of "The Hitcher" in quite a few ways, but also a much different film, "Joy Ride" was a surprise for me.
Whereas in DUEL one just had the man (Dennis Weaver is his best movie) and a truck (without the driver ever to be seen), Dahl added more characters and a more visible (actually audible) driver + police, etc, but the basic plot, people running away from mad truck/driver, is left intact.
The "unknown" rig driver is properly menacing, and I can completely suspend disbelief and place myself in either of these actors' roles (more likely Walker's role as he originally goes with the prank and then thinks otherwise when the prank starts to get into the "iffy" category but his buddy eggs him on).Like I said, pop yourself some popcorn, don't expect a deep and mind-bending thriller, turn the lights off and cozy up with your guy or girl and enjoy a satisfyingly entertaining movie with a solid storyline that will not give you nightmares.Cheers :).
I say above average, but as far as teen thrillers go, with "I know what you did last summer", "Urban Legends", and their ilk cluttering up the sub-genre, a movie like this is frigging' Macbeth.Not to say this film is without flaws, Leelee Sobieski is pretty wooden in her role as Venna and there are plot holes that you can even drive Rusty Nail's truck through.
However it does create some good tension, so I'm willing to overlook that.My Grade: B- Fox DVD Extras: Commentary by Director John Dahl; 2nd commentary by Writes Clay Tarver and J.J. Abrams; 3rd Commentary by Steve Zahn and Leelee Sobrieski; Making-of; Deleted scenes; 4 alternate endings; Voice auditions for Rusty Nail; White Rabbit type Branching option; Theatrical trailer.
Dahl is actually quite good at handling the action scenes, but his film is a bit cruder, a bit more over-the-top, and a considerably less plausible than Spielberg's masterpiece (the truck, for example, seems to have a tighter turning circle than a running human!) 'Roadkill' is still possessed of a certain gut power; but less, in the case of this comparison, is definitely more..
Gripping, white-knuckler of a film was one of the best thrillers of its year!Brothers driving across the American west play a prank on a truck driver, who then seeks some harsh vengeance.Joy Ride may recall a lot of road thrillers, such as Duel (1971), Road Games (1981), or The Hitcher (1986), but it's a film that firmly stands out among the genre.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsLewis Thomas (Paul Walker) is a young man who must head cross-country to bail his deadbeat brother Fuller (Steve Zahn) from the county jail.On the way to meet his girlfriend Venna (Leelee Sibieski),Fuller leads Lewis up the alley and encourages him to use a CV radio he has aquired in order to play a practical joke on a trucker.It is from here that a nightmare ride of mayhem,destruction and death will ensue.This is quite a pleasant surprise indeed.In what must be his least nauseating,most watchable performance to date,the hardly-master thespian Walker commandeers the lead role with nerve and a quirky humour.The supporting cast are excellent too,and are well served by a tense,tightly written script that throws in the appropriate lashings of suspense as well as side portions of pathos and black humour that keeps the boat flowing nicely.It's a suspense thriller in the vein of the similarly themed Duel and,like that movie,has moments that are genuinely terrifying and which accomplish the movie's task perfectly.****.
The plot wasn't extremely original, the movie was unrealistic (seriously, do you think such a thing would happen in reality?), and the protagonists were pretty stupid (in a lot of horror movies, the protagonists are, but it would be nice to see one where they are at least not complete idiots).
Fans of Paul Walker, of Fast and Furious fame, might also endure the movie for his sake.Steve Zahn tries to steal the movie, and almost succeeds, but ends up overacting to overcome the bad script.I gave this a 6 for LeeLee, but recommend you watch The Glass House instead..
It's truly mind boggling when you consider that with all the people involved in a movie no one could come up with a better conclusion to the story they meticulously set up during the first hour.Anyway, at least the first half is good, even if it's predictable and implausible (the killer knows a lot about the two pranksters...).
How did the killer know which way these little pricks were going to be driving?The killer retrieving the CB radio after they throw it out the window onto the highway and putting it in there car without them noticing- that's not too unbelievable either.The killer driving his 18 wheeler following them to a college and kidnapping their girlfriend's roommate- almost makes the last two statements believable.Then after all that running around the killer turns out to be NOBODY.
After seeing those movies, this movie really feels like a breath of fresh air.What makes "Joy Ride" so incredibly good and effective is the build-up of the tension.
It provides the movie with some typical 'edge-of-your-seat' kind of moments and also for most part makes this an unpredictable movie to watch, with plenty of good genre surprises in it.Even though this movie doesn't really have a monster or gore in it, it still can really be seen as an horror movie, not in the least thanks to it's wonderful build-up and overall atmosphere.
The movie wants you to feel safe while watching and makes you feel at ease, until it then suddenly lets its action and tension kick in again, which makes it all the more effective of course.Seemed to me that Steve Zahn was thinking he was making a comedy at times.
Well, you'll see what I mean when you see the film, but the story is a cool tense one.Lewis is coming home from college, and when he learns that his crush would like to drive home from her college, he turns in his airline ticket and buys a car and is headed to pick her up.
He does so and then installs a CB radio to know the way home, but Fuller wants to have fun and plays a prank on another truck driver, he makes Lewis pretend to be a girl called Candy Cane and to meet them at the hotel in a different room where another guest is staying.
for fun.Joy Ride is a constant tense thriller that reminded me somewhat of the Hitcher, it was awesome, it reminded me of some John Carpenter films.
Dahl's stylish direction, good performances by the three leads and the chilling voice-work by Levine (Which he's best known playing Buffalo Bill in "The Silence of the Lambs") makes this film a genuine thrill-ride.DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound.
So I proceeded to ask myself: What is it about cinema that allows us to enjoy the process--the journey, if you will--yet you are having problems with what is taking place?For example, things were happening in JR that were rather unbelievable, yet watching the film was enjoyable because of the storyline, the possibilities, the characters and the filmmaking.
meld of Duel and The Hitcher.Okay, so the plot is nothing special, and we've seen it all before, but that is a very easy flaw to forgive once this movie gets rolling, because it is just so damned good!I didn't think Hollywood was making films like this any more.
Don't watch the trailer, though, as it spoils some great moments.See it in a double feature with Jeepers Creepers, the other surprisingly good teen horror road movie of recent years..
Without a notable road horror movie since The Hitcher, Joy Ride came out and became a hit with younger audiences and established itself as one of the better horror films at the start of the twenty first century in 2001.
The idea of two brothers playing pranks on a trucking radio systems is a good initial concept of a thrilling road movie.
DUEL, RACE WITH THE DEVIL, THE HITCHER, BREAKDOWN, that stuff's great.JOY RIDE excels in all the same areas those movies did for exactly half of its running time.
Had this movie stuck with the brothers while relegating Rusty Nail to just some deranged, detached voice on a CB radio, we'd have a near classic on our hands.JOY RIDE comes recommended, with a caveat that it could have been better..
Good Fun. Three young people on a road trip from Colorado to New Jersey talk to a trucker (Ted Levine) on their CB radio, then must escape when he turns out to be a psychotic killer.This film is sort of like "Duel", though some or most of the action takes place outside of the car.
I liked this film from start to finish fully entertaining and a solid twist really made for a good watch.The chemistry between Steve Zahn and Paul walker worked really well through the whole movie.Good action scenes along with good pacing and score gave this a must watch flick.This was as good as Duel in many places if not better.
After a prank that is not really all that mean-spirited, a trucker begins mercilessly stalking them, and the guy's idea of "getting even" is much too close to "murder" for everyone else's tastes.What I liked about the movie above all is that Steve Zahn and Paul Walker make a convincing set of brothers.
It keeps the violence to a tasteful level and if you're looking for a horror/thriller film that has a bit of bite but never goes into very gruesome levels (save maybe for a brief scene in the beginning) it's fun and has some good laughs too.
this is not a excellent movie,it has a pretty good plot about a college student that decides to take a cross country road trip to pick up his girlfriend,along the way he decides to bail his trouble making brother out of jail,his trouble making brother decides to put a CB radio in the car to have a little fun they play a prank on this lonesome trucker named rusty nail,but the prank backfires with some shocking results,now the trucker (rusy nail) is out for vengeance he wants one of them to pay with their life.this movie is entertaining from the beginning to the end,it has you guessing which one of the characters is gonna die,but there's this one thing I find interesting how is it possible to stalk someone in a tractor trailer?
The ending could've been better, but it was still pretty good.Up until now, the only Paul Walker movie I had ever seen was The Fast and the Furious.
Although, personally, this is one movie that doesn't need a sequel, even though the ending leaves it open for one.Overall: Joy Ride is a good, suspenseful flick.
Two twenty-something brothers, Lewis and Fuller (Paul Walker and Steve Zahn), take a cross-country drive to pick up Lewis' would-be girlfriend Venna (Leelee Sobieski).
Two less-than-intelligent young guys (Paul Walker, Steve Zahn) play a trick on a deranged truck driver named Rusty Nails over a CB radio that leads to a hellish chain of events in JOY RIDE, a 2001 horror/suspense teen flick that comes off as a Generation X version of Steven Spielberg's 1971 suspense classic DUEL.But despite the great potential of the premise, JOY RIDE is a let down.
Much of this is due to the fact that Walker and Zahn, by virtue of their silly little prank, behave just like far too many young folks we've seen in horror films ever since HALLOWEEN; they basically ask for what they eventually get.
Furthermore, Dahl, although he does create a certain tension in the film and has a great feel for the truck attacks and the stunts, is not of Steven Spielberg's caliber when it comes to building real suspense to a fever-pitch level.All in all, JOY RIDE falls into the same cracks as did THE RAGE: CARRIE 2.
A taught, white-knuckle thriller directed with panache by genre master John Dahl.Featuring fine performances form Leelee Sobeski, Steve Zahn, and gorgeous Paul Walker.Despite a fairly empty plot & some thin characterization, it manages to contain enough moments of suspense, humour and twists to carry it through with aplomb.The DVD edition is a joy, with one 30-minute alternative ending (picking up from the moment when the guys walk naked into the diner), that changes the whole outcome of the movie - along with one deleted scene, three other alternative shorter endings of the original ending (including a storyboard one), and some good commentaries.Recommended.Note: In my personal opinion the UK/IRELAND/AUSTRALIAN title "Road Kill" is by far superior to "Joy Ride", which I consider to be a real nothing title..
--0r during the first 20 minutes of the film, anyway, as the hero's brother urges him to take advantage of his anonymity and use the CB radio in his new car to taunt a hitting-on-five-cylinders trucker by the handle Rusty Nail.
Unless this particular psychopath has God-like qualities, it couldn't possibly pull off it's elaborate (and ridiculously phony) revenge plot.The film starts out plausibly, with Paul Walker and Steve Zahn, both very good in the set up, but by the time they drag poor Leeleeh Sobieski into the mess, it has worn out it's welcome.
I recently rented Joy Ride on DVD and i must say, that was one the best suspense thriller films that i have seen in a while.
Sure it seems like a little innocent fun until they mess with the wrong guy.While watching Joy Ride, I had various mixed emotions because thats what kind of movie it is.
Joy Ride reminded me of Spielberg's classic film "Duel" with Dennis Weaver, except that in addition to the malevolence of the unknown trucker, we understand the reason for the senseless brutal attacks, and there is a viable subplot with a cast of interesting characters, fleshed out by a talented cast.Paul Walker was hired for one reason - he has a pretty face.
Joy Ride is an adrenaline-pumping Duel meets I Know What You Did Last Summer thrill-packer which wears its B Movie status on its bloody sleeve and is goofily proud of it.Placing believable characters who do ALL the right things in terrifying situations put this a cut above the usual teen slashers.Walker is less bland than usual while Sobieski and Zahn are excellent.Sobieski once again proves that she is one of the most versatile teen actors around and Zahn is frequently hilarious.
Realizing this forces you to watch this flick differently than how you might watch "What Lies Beneath" or "The Others."The acting is fairly good, I think Leelee Sobieski stole the show with her ever present charm and gave life to Paul Walker's and Steve Zahn's roles as well.My only objection, and a suggestion that would have made this film totally better would have been to slash out at least half of the profanity and the meaningless conversations between the brothers in the beginning.
This was a pretty good movie as far as a teen thriller/horror flick.
LeeLee Sobieski was unexpectedly absent for at least the entire first half of the movie, so at the beginning it appears to be the humorous story of Lewis and Fuller (played by Paul Walker and Steve Zahn) as they travel across country.
"Joy Ride" is typical of movies these days that present a few good set-piece scenes but don't make them come together into a satisfying whole.The problem here is almost exclusively in the script.
A couple of questions can come to your mind as you watch: the truck driver must be psychic, and the soon-to-be-infamous nude scene with Paul Walker and Steve Zahn seems a little off from the rest of the movie.
A college girl, her best friend & his rebellious brother are hunted across the highways by a mad trucker after a practical joke with a CB goes wrong.Inspired by such classic road movie thrillers as Duel & The Hitcher John Dahl gives us another warning about long distance driving in the states with Roadkill (UK title).
im not much of a horror-thriller fan (at least not the run-of-the-mill hollywood types), so i didnt expect much from joy ride, but it turned out to be a rather enjoyable movie.
Granted, it looked like another silly horror/stalker flick from the previews way back when, but I kept an open mind as I sat down to watch this latest suspense/thriller.While it wasn't spectacular, I did have some fun with it.I think that came from the fact that the leads were enjoyable, and there were some entertaining and funny moments throughout all of "Rusty Nail's" stalking.
The film required a bit more thought, some scenes were very frustrating to watch.The acting is actually pretty good, there's a lot of chemistry between the characters.Overall, a fun picture, which deserves a rental..
Starring: Paul Walker, Steve Zahn and Leelee SobieskiGenre: Horror/ThrillerRated R for Terror/Violence and LanguageStar Rating: ** out of 5Joy Ride was an okay movie. |
tt0027521 | The Devil-Doll | Paul Lavond (Barrymore), who was wrongly convicted of robbing his own Paris bank and killing a night watchman more than seventeen years ago, escapes Devil's Island with Marcel (Henry B. Walthall), a scientist who is trying to create a formula to reduce people to one-sixth of their original size. The intended purpose of the formula is to make the Earth's limited resources last longer for an ever-growing population. The scientist dies after their escape.
Lavond joins the scientist's widow, Malita (Rafaela Ottiano), and decides to use the shrinking technique to obtain revenge on the three former business associates who had framed him and to vindicate himself. He returns to Paris and disguises himself as an old woman who sells lifelike dolls. He shrinks a young girl and one of his former associates to infiltrate the homes of the other two former associates, paralyzing one.
When the final associate confesses before he is attacked, Lavond clears his name and secures the future happiness of his estranged daughter, Lorraine (O'Sullivan), in the process. Malita isn't satisfied, and wants to continue to use the formula to carry on her husband's work. She tries to kill Paul when he announces that he is finished with their partnership, having accomplished all he intended, but she blows up their lab, killing herself.
Paul tells Toto, Lorraine's fiancé, about what happened. He meets his daughter, pretending to be the deceased Marcel. He tells Lorraine that Paul Lavond died during their escape from prison, but that he loved her very much. Lavond then departs, to an uncertain fate. | revenge, murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Disguised as an old woman, an escaped convict uses the creations of a pair of mad scientists to further his schemes of personal revenge.Director Tod Browning, master of the macabre, had another winner with this little horror/science fiction film.
The actual story itself - with tiny, shrunken people being used to carry out dastardly deeds in Paris - is quite absurd, but the cast is so good and the direction so able that the viewer can simply sit back and enjoy the results.Lionel Barrymore, one of America's greatest character actors, has a field day in the lead role and is actually quite compelling dressed as an elderly lady, hobbling about like an authentic beldame.
Lionel Barrymore is great in this film as an escaped convict out for revenge against the three bankers who framed him for embezzlement and murder seventeen years before.
When the scientist dies, Barrymore devises to use these dolls to get revenge on his enemies.There are a lot of relatively good special effects in the film, and, like I said, Lionel Barrymore is fantastic.
While he managed to recover from this, he never had again the commercial success of "Dracula"; a real shame, because in 1936 he directed the film that finally proved that he had understood the benefits of the new sound era: "The Devil-Doll".In this film, Lionel Barrymore plays Paul Lavond, a former banker who was wrongfully accused of fraud and sent to prison for 17 years.
Now, disguised as an innocent old lady, Lavond returns to Paris with his devilish living dolls, decided to make those who send him to prison pay for every year he spent without his family.The story was written by Browning himself, giving his very own spin to the plot of Abraham Merritt's novel "Burn Witch Burn"; however, the screenplay was done by Guy Endore, Garrett Fort and Erich Von Stroheim, so actually very few remains from Merritt's novel in the movie, and it's truly more a Browning film.
This is definitely because the characters of the film are so very well developed that truly feel and act like real complex persons despite the fantasy elements of the story.Now, the true surprise of the film is definitely Tod Browning's effective direction of the whole thing.
Italian actress Rafaela Ottiano gives a very good and scary performance, although the fact that Barrymore's character is the focus of the film limits her screen time quite a lot.
While the story has that feeling of being taken straight from a pulp novel, it's very emotional and dramatic (without being overtly sappy), and it could be said that it's in this movie where Browning finally combines the best of both worlds.Like most people, I too used to believe that Browning's best days happened along Lon Chaney during the years of the silent era, however, "The Devil-Doll" is a film that has made me reconsider that thought as this movie has everything that made Browning great in the silents, as well as his full domination of the new technology.
The sci/fi & fantasy elements - a mad scientist's ability to shrink people and control their actions - are exciting plot devices that allows Barrymore to exact revenge on the men who destroyed his life and family.Director Tod Browning ("Freaks", the original "Dracula", and many Lon Chaney films) has created a great mix of suspense, action, light humor, & heart-tugging emotions in this tale of revenge and redemption.The efx are (mostly) ahead of their time, and as good as the later shrunken-people sci-fi movies of the 40s and 50s, such as "Dr Cyclops", "Attack of the Puppet People", and "The Incredible Shrinking Man".But the best part is the great acting of Barrymore.
Fans of the genre remember him as the director not only of that movie, but of 'Freaks' as well.But there is a great slightly campy classic that he directed near the end of his career, The Devil Doll.While it never hits the highs of those earlier films, it is certainly worth a watch.
The story concerns Paul Lavond (played by the always awesome Lionel Barrymore) - an escaped prisoner who learns a way to shrink humans to 1/6th their size, and rob them of their free will.
He uses this secret to enact revenge on the men who framed him and sent him to prison.Like his other films, this Tod Browning film also started a bit of a subgenre in the horror field - no, I'm not talking about creepy dolls (though a case could perhaps be made for that), I'm talking about the wronged individual that seeks redress in a vengeful manner (sure, earlier films danced around the concept - notably 'The Phantom of the Opera' - but here it is so straightforward.
For those who remember the word "camp," that description would apply to this film and especially the character played by lead actor Lionel Barrymore.He makes this movie really fun to watch, adding humor to the "horror" story, dressing up and talking like an old woman en route to satisfying his revenge.
After the death of Marcel, Paul Lavond sees the chance to use the miniaturization process as instrument of vengeance and he travels to Paris with the insane Malita disguised of Madame Mandilip, a nice old lady and owner of a dolls store.
"The Devil Doll" is an entertaining film by Tod Browning with a good story and special effects still impressive in 2011.
This could as easily have been given the name of Browning's previous movie: "Freaks."Lionel Barrymore demonstrates more range than we're accustomed to, playing an escaped convict and, much of the time, a sweet old lady.Ottiano is scary as the widow of his jail buddy, who has the patent on making live people into dolls.The print shown this week on Turner Classics is beautiful but seems to have gaps in its continuity, as if all that survives may be something cut up for commercials in the days when local stations showed old movies..
Looking at this film on paper would easily lead any sane person into thinking that its going to be a great big mess, but somehow Todd Browning has pulled together ideas including a criminal on the run, a mad science project to shrink every living thing in the world, transvestism and a story about a man wanting to reconcile with the daughter who hates him, and created a masterpiece out of it!
Lavond seizes an opportunity to use this discovery to get his own back on those who framed him; and at the same time clear his name so his only daughter won't hate his memory.The film is extremely entertaining to watch; Browning keeps things going with a real verve and since there's so much diversity on display, things simply don't have chance to get boring.
The lead character Paul Lavond at first appears to be a dastardly opportunist; but through this story of revenge and shrunken people, his character develops and by the end, we not only like the character - but actually understand and respect his actions throughout the film!
Browning made 4 awesome classic horrors in his time (Dracula, Freaks,Mark of the Vampire, and now the devil doll!) Very good movie with awesome eerie moody settings at the night of the streets of Paris!
This works for humans and animals and inexplicably the controller (usually Lionel Barrymore, the wronged banker), gets feedback somehow so he can direct the little people even when he can't see what's happening.Things are complicated by a slew of women: the newly dead scientist's wife who has the shrinking secret and who thinks everyone should be shrunk to save food, you see.
His love for his daughter and mother comes through strongly, and with an actor as compulsively watchable as Lionel Barrymore in the lead, the movie is certainly easy enough to follow.Barrymore plays Paul Lavond, a banker framed by his partners and sent up the river, who at the beginning of the movie breaks out of Devil's Island prison in the company of a persecuted scientist, Marcel (Henry B.
The thing, Marcel and his wife Malita (Rafaela Ottiano) are clearly mad, and despite Pauls' own misgivings about their actions (yes, our antagonist does have some morals) he's still okay with using them towards his own ends.This leads to some fairly well realized sequences in which "miniaturized" dogs, horses, and people are controlled by masters such as Barrymore.
But getting to watch the interesting Mr. Barrymore at work is really the main reason to watch "The Devil-Doll", especially as he dresses in drag as Lavond masquerades as a doddering old character named Miss Mandilip.Set in Paris, and scripted by Garrett Fort, Guy Endore, and Erich von Stroheim, this does have solid atmosphere going for it, as well as an affecting, emotional ending.
While this is not as well-known as "Dracula" or "Freaks", "The Devil-Doll" is yet a highly memorable classic with an ingenious storyline and a very intense, often mesmerizing atmosphere.Paul Lavand (Lionell Barrymore), a formerly respected Paris banker, has innocently spent many years in a Devil's Island prison.
This was quite the different role for Lionel Barrymore, a respected, serious actor who appeared in films such as "Grand Hotel," "Dinner at Eight," & "Sadie Thompson." He plays an escaped Devils Island convict who is bitter and wants revenge on those who wrongly sent him to prison.
An escaped Devil's Island convict (Lionel Barrymore) uses miniaturized humans to wreak vengeance on those that framed him.This story started out from a 1934 novel by Abraham Merritt called "Burn, Witch, Burn" and a 14-page article Merritt wrote with a Dr. Lowell.
The plan is to shrink everyone in the world down to this size and control the Earth's food supply, but when Marcel dies suddenly, Lavond convinces Malita to come to Paris with him to seek revenge on the three bankers that wronged him.The plot has no credibility at all.
But Tod Browning's solid, reliable direction (here still piecing together his career after 1932's Freaks) and Lionel Barrymore's excellent, if camp, performance, makes The Devil- Doll is a must-see curiosity for horror buffs.
Barrymore certainly doesn't shrink from the task, tackling this ludicrous plot device with gutso, and rather it coming across as simply preposterous, the film becomes memorable for it.The special effects deserve a mention also, as the three set-pieces where Lavond uses his miniature people dolls as instruments of death provide some nice moments.
Here it is Lionel Barrymore dressed as an old lady, posing as a Parisian toy manufacturer, when he is in fact hunted fugitive Paul Lavond, who was framed 17 years before by three associates and sent to Devil's Island for life.
The ending is left so open it's hard to know what Paul Lavond's final move will be.Kudos to Rafaela Ottiano as Marcel's crazed widow with that streak of white in her hair and that Mrs. Danvers of the Devil Dolls vibe going for her as she somewhat steals the show.
In fact, THE DEVIL-DOLL, with director/actor Erich Von Stroheim being one of the screenplay collaborators, is set in Paris, lifting themes to both Browning's THE UNHOLY THREE (MGM, 1925) featuring Chaney, and Alexandre Dumas' literary classic novel of "The Count of Monte Cristo." No doubt THE DEVIL DOLL might have served the great talent of the late Lon Chaney (1883-1930), especially during the silent era, but with Lionel Barrymore, the final result is just as good.Plot summary: Paul Lavond, a bank president who, seventeen years earlier, was falsely accused of embezzlement and the killing a night watchman.
Special effects revolving around the miniature people known as devil dolls are an asset, while Franz Waxman's soothing score played during its opening and closing credits give the movie some great distinction.
****** The Devil-Doll (7/10/36) Tod Browning ~ Lionel Barrymore, Rafaela Ottiano, Henry B.
The penultimate film from director Tod Browning, whose career was languishing after the release of the then highly controversial (and now legendary) "Freaks" (1932), the inaptly titled "The Devil Doll" finds escaped con Paul Lavond (Lionel Barrymore) seeking revenge on his former partners who framed him.
Barrymore is quite good, playing much of the film in drag as he evades the Gendarmes by disguising himself as an elderly female toymaker (Browning had previously directed the great Lon Chaney in a similar 'drag role' in the silent "The Unholy Three" (1925)).
Tod Browning's second-to-last film is campy as hell, and ya gotta love Lionel Barrymore in drag exacting revenge on enemies of his using miniaturized people he can control (but of course).
From Tod Browning, the director of horror classic Dracula (1931) and the infamous Freaks (1932), The Devil-Doll is a fun horror/fantasy that, while patently absurd, is very entertaining, with a great cast and some impressive special effects.Lionel Barrymore plays convicted banker Paul Lavond, who was sent to prison after being framed by his co-workers for embezzlement and murder.
And with some great visual trickery, using a combination of mattes and excellent oversized props, The Devil-Doll is a delight for anyone interested in the history of movie special effects.The film is also very touching at times, with Lavond desperately wanting to clear his name so that his daughter Lorraine (the lovely Maureen O'Sullivan) will no longer hate him.
The movie is preposterous, but elevated by impressive 1930s special effects along the lines of those in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935).THE DEVIL-DOLL tells the story of a man bent on revenge who gets mixed up in the outlandish schemes of a mad scientist.
The scientist had hoped to shrink everyone in the world to make the food supply last longer, but having miniature mind-control zombies has its uses, too.Oscar-winner Lionel Barrymore stars and spends much of the film in his disguise as an old woman.
Todd Browning is so much seen in every shot , even the romantic sequences & it's overall casting and plot that one can only say that aside from stealing the idea of the miniature people from the prior year's The Bride Of Frankenstein that either it was Browning that either had a hand in creating the script or that another writer submitting said as a project for contractually clad MGM director Browning that it's premise oddities are the only element that gave Browning interest in bringing it to life as every & all of his other films, be them as Chaney Sr projects or atmospheric "Freaks" that needed a type of acute way of looking at the odd that only Herr Browning had & could offer to the studio system.
Upon learning of the formula, and disguising himself as an old woman, Lavond plans to wreak horrific revenge on those who framed him and sent him to prison.It's not very often that I actually wish myself to be older than I am, but this is one such case, I can't believe I wouldn't have been terrified back in 1936 as Todd Browning's little people went out bidding Lionel Barrymore's vengeful work!
Paul is also very interested to see both his old and infirmed mother Madame Lavond, Guck Beaumon, and his daughter Lorraine, Maureen O'Sullivan, whom he hasn't seen or even got a letter from since he was sent away.Being a wanted man Paul went undercover as the sweet and kindly Madame Mandelip the owner of the aforementioned toy store and when going to see Lorrine, as Madame Mandelip, where she's working at a local Laundromat Paul is shocked to hear what she really thinks of her long lost and concerned father: Not Much!Getting back to business and the real reason that he came back to Paris Paul then goes after the three criminal bankers who made his life a living hell by framing him for a crime that they committed.
Tod Browning directed a great film from 1936 with a story about two escaped prisoners from Devils Island, one was a banker who was framed by his fellow workers and another was a scientist who was experimenting with animals and being able to make them into miniature dolls.
Tod Browning directed this Science Fiction/Revenge film that stars Lionel Barrymore as Paris banker Paul Lavond, who was wrongfully convicted of robbery and murder(framed by two crooked associates) and sent to Devil's Island, where years later he escapes with a fellow prisoner who also happens to be a brilliant scientist who invented a technique to shrink people and animals!
The inventor dies in flight, but Lavond survives and makes his way home, where he begins a campaign of revenge against his enemies, though does take time to reunite with his daughter(played by Maureen O' Sullivan)in disguise as a woman, which is part of the overall plot.
Silly horror-melodrama is loads of fun, with Tod Browning ably directing a creepy story set in then-modern Paris, and Lionel Barrymore showing rather more range than usual as a wrongfully convicted criminal exacting terrible revenge on the bankers who set him up.
It seems like a simple (even silly) story, but director Tod Browning creates an chilling atmosphere that, coupled with solid trick photography, makes The Devil Doll into an effective, spooky horror movie.
A prisoner, Paul Lavond(Lionel Barrymore), a banker framed by three of his associated for a crime he didn't commit, escapes with another inmate who is in fact a scientist practicing experiments on shrinking animals to a doll size to increase the world's food supply.
And, Rafaela Ottiano is a blast as the loony mad scientist Malita, with the gray streak in her hair and eyes bulging in delight at what she has created.There's some pretty good special effects(regarding the doll-size characters doing their master's wishes)for a film made in 1936..
THE DEVIL DOLL calls to mind an earlier Tod Browning film, the Silent classic THE UNHOLY THREE- and the Sound remake (directed by Jack Conway); both featured Lon Chaney in drag, and Barrymore's performance here is a Carbon Copy thereof. |
tt0417001 | Must Love Dogs | Sarah Nolan, an attractive 40-year-old divorced preschool teacher, is urged by her family to date more. Although they show her photos of men with whom they want to set her up, Sarah does not seem interested in pursuing any relationships. Jake Anderson, another recent divorcee, finds himself in a similar position; his lawyer, Charlie, wants to set him up with a woman named Sherry. However, Jake would rather focus on creating his handcrafted boats.
Sarah's sister Carol visits and they discuss Bob Connor, a parent from school. Sarah is attracted to him but does not want anything complicated. Carol reveals she set up an ad for Sarah on an online dating site, perfectmatch.com, using a picture from Sarah's high school graduation. The description declares she is voluptuous and that her dates "must love dogs" (Sarah is currently caring for her brother Michael's Newfoundland dog, "Mother Teresa", while he goes through his own marital problems). Sarah proceeds to suffer through several disastrous dates with men who cannot stop crying, are criminal, or like girls who are barely legal.
Jake is confronted by Sherry at an art gallery; she is curious why he did not call her, but again Jake does not seem interested. Charlie then hands him a printout of Sarah's dating profile and tells Jake he has a date with her the next day at a dog park. The date proves to be awkward: Jake shows up with a borrowed terrier and offends Sarah when he begins to analyze her profile. Even worse, he reveals that the dog is not really his. When she accuses him of being deceptive he points out that the requirement was "Must love dogs," not "Must own a dog." Sarah leaves abruptly but agrees to see him again.
Sarah and Jake go on a dinner date where he asks her why she is not with her husband anymore. She explains that he just stopped loving her and that he was never ready to have children. Sarah acknowledges that her ex-husband is now with a woman fifteen years younger than she with a baby on the way. The date progresses back to Sarah's house where they discover that neither has a condom. They hastily drive around but when they finally find protection neither of them is in the mood.
Jake and Charlie are discussing Sarah when he admits that she intrigued him. That night, Jake tries to call Sarah. Meanwhile, Sarah has connected with Bob Connor. She checks to see if Bob is home but discovers he is with June, one of her co-workers. Sarah assumes they are on a date, and while fleeing the scene she drops her wallet. Sarah arrives home to find her brother Michael, who is drunkenly dealing with his own marital problems, and Jake, who has been taking care of him. Jake takes Sarah rowing and they share a kiss. Afterward he takes Michael home while Sarah lights candles and sets the mood. But Bob shows up instead of Jake. He returns her wallet, explains that he and June are not involved, and then kisses Sarah just as Jake gets back. Jake leaves, upset.
Around Thanksgiving Sarah calls Bob and they go to a hotel and have sex. In the morning Bob is rude to Sarah and during the drive home Sarah realizes that he really did sleep with June. He admits he didn't tell her because he thought they were good together and didn't want that getting in the way. Meanwhile, Jake is talked into taking Sherry to see Doctor Zhivago. Sarah notices Jake leaving the theater afterward, but while discussing the film with him she notices Sherry and realizes the two of them are on a date. Sarah flees again, and when Sherry asks Jake up to her apartment, he declines and instead walks home.
Jake runs into a man named Bill outside a coffee shop, not realizing that this man is Sarah's father. When Jake confesses that he is heartbroken, Bill mentions that he has a daughter who is single but Jake declines. While drinking coffee with Sarah later, Bill quotes something that Jake said to him and Sarah realizes that Jake was talking about her. She heads over to Jake's with Mother Teresa, but he is out on the lake with his boat. When Jake can't hear her yelling from the shore she convinces a girls crew team to take her out to him. Eventually she dives in and swims over to his boat. After climbing in Sarah tells Jake how she feels about him and they kiss. Later, when telling the story of how they met, they mention in unison that they found each other at a dog park. | romantic | train | wikipedia | She then finds herself caught between two men, as she starts seeing the father of one her students (Mulroney) and a man who she meets through the dating service who seems far too perfect (Cusack).Must Love Dogs is a familiar yet enjoyable romantic comedy that should keep you entertained for a while.
The film works well because of its two stars John Cusack and Diane Lane.
The rest of the supporting cast consists of Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing and Julie Gonzalo.A few things are keeping me from rating the film higher.
While John Cusack escapes most of the embarrassment (he has the best lines, and the best performance), it is still a film beneath him.The movie has too many false moments in it to be entirely enjoyed - the obligatory gay friend Diane has, and of course his drop dead gorgeous model-like boyfriend; the large Irish family that seems to drop their accents from scene to scene; the trailer-park girlfriend; Diane's scene where she just shows up at Cusack's home (how did she know where to go, and what was her hurry?); and of course the 'chase' scene at the end where of course she had to bring her dog.
( Plain, slightly boring, inoffensive) John Cusack and Diane Lane play angst ridden characters, slightly caricatured ( no one I know is quite as oddball as Jake- is Cusack being typecast?- or quite as neurotic as Sarah).
Christopher Plummer as the Dad was a shock ( esp with Irish accent) - but Stockard Channing plays the girlfriend very well - mature aged vanity and all.I liked this movie - a pleasant way to end a Monday night....
John Cusack and Diane Lane, two of the most interesting actors working today, make this somewhat predictable romantic comedy work.
They flesh out characters from a pretty weak script, and make you want to know those characters better.This film is not rocket science, but if you expect to enjoy a bit of romantic fluff, you will not be disappointed.
If he was really a great guy, wouldn't he continue to act that way?Also, the script never seems sure whether it wants Diane Lane's character to be comical or touching.
Yes, it is much of what the reviewers said, but John Cusack and Diane Lane were just great to watch play their parts.
I particularly like romantic comedies, and I will buy this movie the day it comes out on DVD.
I was surprised to find that this wasn't 'Must Love Dogs' director Gary David Goldberg's first attempt at film direction and feature screen writing.
The steering of his own script adaptation was plodding at best, only made passable by the spirited and professional performances from the stars Diane Lane and John Cusack.
My company publishes The New York Dog Magazine and The Hollywood Dog Magazine and some of our staff (four women in their 20s) saw a preview of the movie yesterday (we have Diane Lane and John Cusack on the cover of our new issue).
The movie is never as good as the book, but this one comes close, and I'm a big fan of all of Claire Cook's books, especially Must Love Dogs and Multiple Choice.
Diane Lane, John Cusack, Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, Elizabeth Perkins are all so good in it.
Diane Lane was great and very sweet (nice looking too!) and John Cusack stole his scenes with his usual offbeat charisma.
Add into the mix other great performances from a support cast including Stockard Channing, Elizabeth Perkins, Dermot Mulroney and Christopher Plummer and you have a very interesting and entertaining comedy with a lot to recommend it for.
Anyway, so I went to see Must Love Dogs, and still thought it would be OK because John Cusack is a very charismatic actor, and Diane Lane is quite appealing.
And I really hated seeing a fine actress like Stockard Channing play a nutty, in-denial, hairspray up-to-here, desperate woman who puts up with her man's roving eye 'cause he's 'worth it.'But what really got my goat was Diane Lane's character.
The film seemed to have potential, two great stars, Diane Lane and John Cusack, a contemporary topic full of comic and heartfelt pitfalls, internet dating, and of course man's best friend.
Case in point: Diane Lane's father (played by the wonderful Christopher Plummer who is the only reason I can give this film 2 stars) who surrounds himself with all three of his current lady-friends at family functions and decides which one he will sleep with that night, while foisting off the two unwanted women onto his family to drive home.
John Cusak, Diane Lane, Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, and Elizabeth Perkins I mean, come on, wow what a cast!!
The one thing that amazed me as I watched "Must Love Dogs" was the cast - Diane Lane, John Cusack, Elizabeth Perkins, Dermot Mulroney, Stockard Channing, Christopher Plummer.What were these folks thinking when they agreed to make this film?
I realize it is their wont to make any film they wish, but surely the likes of Lane, Cusack and Mulroney are not wanting for good scripts.I don't mind predictable scripts - and romantic comedies, by their very nature, are awfully predictable - if they're good, offer some laughs, a few nice moments, a few scenes that ring true.
There's not a single genuine character or an honest moment in this entire film.Everything about this film screams "movie moment," from the family get-togethers to the plot twists, from the inter-family conversations to the dialogue between Lane and Cusack.
I love Diane Lane and John Cusak, so I was so disappointed in this movie!!!
Yes, Diane Lane looked great and John Cusak was as charming as ever, but I am so embarrassed for them and the other world-class actors (Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing...) who appeared in this very predictable disaster..
If you're expecting a romantic comedy where the woman can't find love, then finally does meet the right guy, but some twist of fate causes a misunderstanding which throws things off course, and then everything is resolved after a ridiculous effort of trying to get back together (perhaps with a musical montage of scenes where said woman tries to get her life back on track), then you won't be disappointed.
The story is kind of cute, just kind of felt similar to Diane Lanes last film of Under the Tuscan Sun with playing a single frustrated character looking for love.
If you like a movie that is romantic, funny and has a happy ending you will enjoy "Must Love Dogs"..
Dianne and John had great chemistry and looked so great together and the story was very decent.Sarah is a divorced woman who's family is just pressuring her like crazy to go out and start dating again.
Anothe divorced man who is absolutely caught by Sarah's vulnerability, but she's not ready for him yet until she realizes maybe that he is what she should be looking for in life.Must Love Dogs is great because it has comedy, romance, and just some very fun moments.
I've always loved Diane Lane and John Cusack, but my favorite actors in the movie by far were those little preschoolers in Lane's class.
Just think "Sleepless in Seattle" or "You've Got Mail" without any suspense, intrigue or romance.Strangely, the movie begins at what seems like the middle of the first Act, and we're introduced to Sarah and her lovable, interfering siblings and odd father (is Christopher Plummer supposed to be Irish in this film?).
I'm very sad to report that Cuzak's acting is wooden, forced, and equally embarrassing to watch, which makes me think that it probably has as much to do with the director as it does with him.Finally, after an agonizing 25 minutes or so into the film, Jake and Sarah meet in a playground with dogs they've both borrowed.
Later Sarah finds that Jake is her perfect match.The beginning of "Must Love Dogs" is very funny and I particularly liked the sharp and ironic dialogs.
I really like Diane Lane and LOVE John Cusak but this movie reminded me of Under the Tuscan Sun which I also found to be a bit boring.
Diane Lane and John Cusak star in this modern-day twist on the romantic comedy.
Most of the movie feels forced, especially the scenes between Dolly (Stockard Channing) and Sarah (Diane Lane) and the infamous singing at dinner.
The acting was fabulous by everyone in the cast especially the cute Diane Lane and the quirky John Cusack.
I really liked the way the characters interacted and the chemistry was very palpable between Cusack and Diane Lane.
It had the same lame acting and awful writing.I must confess I think Diane Lane is gorgeous, although she's looking a little older now, and that's attracted me to her movies.
The end result is a fascinating web of characters and insights about finding love and keeping it, reflecting every person in today's society who struggles with the same problem as Sarah.John Cusack is delightful as always on screen, and Diane Lane shines once again.
MUST LOVE DOGS (2005) ** Diane Lane, John Cusack, Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer, Dermot Mulroney, Stockard Channing, Ali Hillis, Ben Shenkman, Julie Gonzalo, Jordana Spiro.
Inert and inept romantic comedy about a recently divorced Lane and Cusack (both deserving a much better rom-com offering; Hollywood pay attention!) both struggling to come to terms with their new dilemma: getting back on the saddle of the dating world.
With Lane's pushy older sister Perkins (ditto) and Cusack's perv buddy (Shenkman; I can't stand this guy period) placing and answering an online dating service ad the would-be couple face a thicket of sexual stereotypical clichés (women can only cope with heartbreak by soaking in a warm tub or eating ice cream in a cozy bathrobe while guys can only seek solace in strip clubs and viewing sappy romantic films on DVD Paging "Dr. Zhivago" ; only the latter is false by the way!) A horrible screenplay by director Gary David Goldberg (the poor man's James L.
I went to see this movie because John Cusack is in it, it has the word "dogs" in the title, and it involves online dating, which I'm interested in because my daughter met her boyfriend that way.
But this can be done in a clever way, with an actual plot (e.g., "Only You", "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle") or it can be boring, improbable, and stupid like this film.We know what Diane Lane's character does--she works in a preschool.
On the director's commentary for "Love Actually" they talk about the standing joke that Colin Firth's characters always have to end up getting wet since women loved the way he looked in "Pride and Prejudice." Diane Lane does not look good wet, and why didn't she just wait on the dock?
Don't let the title fool you...you must NOT love dogs to like this movie..
One point, however, Dermot Mulroney's character was almost superfluous to this movie, I know it shows the Dilemma Diane Lanes Character must go through.Christopher Plummer gives great rendition of the loving father and his need for companionship amongst other things and Stockard Channing, is at least alive (as distinct from the The Three Wives Club) and is a good mentor to Diane Lane.
I mean, I'm going to try to like a film with John Cusack, Diane Lane, Dermot Mulrooney, Elizabeth Perkins, and Christopher Plummer...
It sounds pretty but like Lane's character Sarah says in the film "I don't understand all of it." John also looked tired most of the time.
I usually like Cusack but just not in this film.One place the direction failed was in setting up the Sarah/Jake relationship.
It's sad because the cast were full of familiar faces who had films before, that I liked.Don't bother watching this if you want a good romance movie.
Must Love Dogs is a charming movie about a recent divorcée (that only Diane Lane can play) whose family is attempting to set her up on several dates.
It is also realistic as far as the type of people that Diane Lane's character goes on dates with.All in all, I would recommend this movie right up there with "Under the Tuscan Sun" or "You've Got Mail." The chemistry between Lane and Cusack is great, and "Mother Teresa" is absolutely adorable!.
Hollywood knows a good plot for a romantic comedy, that is why every couple of years there's a new movie very similar to Sleepless.
Diane Lane and John Cusack just didn't seem like a great couple to me.
This comedy follows the bumpy road to romance between a divorced boat builder (John Cusack) and a divorced schoolteacher (Diane Lane), who meet through submitting their romantic profiles on PerfectMatch.com.
Bright quirky comedy dealing with love and relationships with a wonderful cast.John Cusack and Diane Lane are both recent divorcees from others and find romance through the internet and love of dogs.Lane has a strong family to support her emotionally and keep finding possible suitors for her.Nice seeing veteran actor Christopher Plummer in a comedic role as Lane's widowed father who has a variety of dates so that he shall never forget the true love that he lost.
I wasn't surprised by stunning plot twists or unbelievably great acting (although Diane Lane and John Cusak did well with what they were given) but at how much I enjoyed the movie given the shabby reviews posted here.I wasn't awestruck but I did enjoy watching the movie and at times was drawn into the movie enough to feel as though some of the characters were speaking for me.
(I question the motives of anyone who says the only good thing about this movie is that they had an openly gay couple with a happy relationship) Don't watch "Must Love Dogs" if you are expecting the next great Romantic Comedy.
Soon, Sarah reveals the dog she's with is not hers either; and we feel the chemistry between the characters.The story is the one we know by heart, and the one anyone should expect when watching films like these; because if not, we wouldn't even watch them.
"Must Love Dogs" also has Diane Lane and a couple of elements more that make the picture simply irresistible.
John Cusack's character was terrific -- unsure, philosophical, yet committed to love in the real world and wooden boats (somehow they are indeed related).Diane Lane had the difficulty of being on camera almost the whole movie and of showing she didn't mind the encroaching, critical, no boundary love her family was at great pains to show her.
I love John Cusack in this movie~.
"Must Love Dogs" (2005), written and directed by Gary David Goldberg, is a formulaic film that works because of the acting skills of the two lead actors.
A very funny and charming movie in a 2005 James Garner (John Cusack) and Doris Day (Diane Lane)type romantic comedy.
while i certainly was not disappointed at all with the dogs, i was definitely disappointed in the story.Diane Lane is cute but annoyingly passive as Sarah, and John Cusack is typically quirky but definitely appealing as Jake.
How can you lose with a romantic comedy starring John Cusack and Diane Lane?
John Cusack, you have done so many good films in your time.
I gave this movie 3 stars: 1 for the Newfoundland dogs (I do love dogs) and 2 for John Cusack.
Diane Lane (lead character "Sarah") is wonderful, as always - a breath of fresh, and authentic, air in this quite predictable, but still lovely, romantic comedy.
One of "Sarah's" love interests, "Jake," is played by John Cusack, who seems a little less present in his role, but is adorable enough to overcome whatever is lacking in his performance; I hoped for a little more "Lloyd Dobler" laser focus romantically speaking, but did find hints of it in his yearning looks and obsession with the movie "Dr. Zhivago." Among the other story lines played out by an impressive supporting cast, Stockard Channing's is my favorite; the vulnerability she displays as she searches for love in middle age is quite touching.
I saw this movie with the assumption that it would be great because John Cusack usually does not fail to deliver awesome romantic comedies.
And apparently Diane Lane and John Cusack HAD a relationship that I wasn't aware of, I must have been looking down at my popcorn at that moment in the movie and missed it.
I loved the way it was put, and it was very funny.:] Diane Lane is such a talented actress and is such a pretty woman, that even though it was a movie, I would be surprised if she had trouble finding a boyfriend.
This in an agreeable film with decent chemistry between Diane Lane and John Cusack, a good supporting cast with real roles to play, and better writing than expected.The problems are twofold.
Well, in Must Love Dogs, Gary David Goldberg simply writes some witty lines about contemporary sexual politics and directs an able cast headed by John Cusack and Diane Lane as the aging sweetheart wannabees.
Diane Lane, John Cusack, Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer and Stockard Channing what an outstanding cast of performers who just click together in this movie "Must Love Dogs".
An enjoyable character to wrap up a delightful movie.I guarantee you will like this perfect date film.
Diane Lane was great in the lead role of Sarah and John Cusack was also very good in the quirky comedy role he does so well.
'Must Love Dogs' is very, very recommended if you want a good and entertaining time at the movies.
With a cast of John Cusack, Diane Lane, Dermot Mulroney, Elizabeth Perkins, Stockard Channing and Christopher Plummer and writing by Gary David Goldberg, I thought this would be very good.
I only watched it because I like John Cusack and Diane Lane,the whole cast actually. |
tt0255198 | Gojira tai Megagirasu: Jî shômetsu sakusen | The prologue of the film acknowledges the events of the first Godzilla film (using the present Godzilla monster rather than the 1954 monster), while inventing its own timeline, explaining that the capital of Japan was moved from Tokyo to Osaka. The film takes place in an alternate universe with advanced technology, explaining that in 1966, Godzilla attacks the first Japanese nuclear plant in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture. After this, a section of Japanese Self Defence Force was dedicated to fight Godzilla, and was called G-Graspers. In 1996, clean plasma energy replaced nuclear energy, however this did not deter Godzilla from attacking. Plasma energy is also banned, due to the fact that Godzilla attacked the original plasma energy reactor.
In 2001, an experimental satellite-based weapon that fires miniature black holes, called the Dimension Tide, opens a wormhole through which a prehistoric dragonfly enters the present and deposits a single egg before exiting through the wormhole. A boy finds the egg and takes it with him when he moves to Tokyo. The egg starts oozing a strange liquid, so the boy throws the egg in the sewer. The egg, actually a mass of hundreds of eggs, splits up and starts growing when exposed to water, hatching into large dragonfly larva called Meganulon that come out of the sewer to feed. They flood a portion of the city and moult on the sides of buildings, becoming adult Meganula.
Meanwhile, the atomic dinosaur Godzilla appears, in search of a source of nuclear energy, despite the edict shutting down all such attractants after its three previous appearances. While Godzilla is fighting the G-Graspers, who are assisted by rebellious scientist Hajime Kudo, the swarm of Meganula are attracted in turn to Godzilla's energy, and attack it. During the course of the battle, the Dimension tide is launched, but Godzilla survives the attack. Most of the Meganula are killed by both Godzilla and the Dimension Tide, but a few manage to drain off some of Godzilla's energy and return to the sewer. With the last of their strength, the Meganula inject Godzilla's energy into a huge, sleeping larva that is in a giant, pulsating cocoon. It molts and appears from the water as Megaguirus, the queen of the Meganula.
After destroying part of the city with shock waves generated by her beating wings, Megaguirus heads to the waterfront and faces Godzilla. Being territorial, Megaguirus considers the city to be her hunting ground. As they engage in a lengthy battle, she uses her speed to avoid Godzilla's attacks, but Godzilla eventually uses his speed against her. As she flies toward Godzilla, Godzilla lunges forward with its dorsal fins in her path. She flies into the fins, and one of her arms is severed.
During the battle, a special ability of Megaguirus is revealed: Having been mutated by Godzilla's energy, she can generate a blast similar to Godzilla's atomic breath. She fires a huge ball of radiation, knocking Godzilla down. Godzilla gets back up, and Megaguirus goes in for the kill. She speeds forward with the stinger on her long tail lowered, trying to stab Godzilla between the eyes. In a climactic moment, Godzilla catches the stinger in its mouth. Godzilla bites down, crushing the stinger. Megaguirus rears up in pain, and Godzilla takes the chance to finally blast her with atomic breath. Megaguirus bursts into flames and Godzilla blasts her a second time and destroys her.
It is revealed that Godzilla was attracted to the energy of a secret Plasma Energy project housed at the Science Institute, in violation of the ban, by Professor Yoshino Yoshizawa. The G-Graspers continue their mission to destroy Godzilla, but with the Dimension Tide falling out of orbit they are unable to get a lock on Godzilla, until the vengeful Major Kiriko Tsujimori pilots a ship called Gryphon towards Godzilla, ejecting only at the last second. The Dimension Tide is able to lock on to the craft and fires just before burning up on reentry; Godzilla blasts at the approaching black hole with its atomic fire but vanishes and everyone celebrates. In a postlude, however, Major Tsujimori again enlists Kudo to investigate suspicious seismic activity; then in an after-credits scene, Godzilla's roar is heard again at the school room where the boy who originally found the egg is, shakes. An after-effect of the Dimension Tide machine is temporary wormholes. As Megaguirus came to Earth through one, did Godzilla return to Earth through a wormhole caused by it being sent into the black hole? | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1937506 | The Philly Kid | Following ten years in a Louisiana prison after being wrongly convicted of assault and murder of a police officer, NCAA champion wrestler Dillon is paroled. Back in his home neighborhood in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, his friend Jake is in deep trouble with gamblers, and Dillon agrees to pay off his debt by cage fighting. Complications occur with Dillon's parole officer, a corrupt cop, Dillon's new girlfriend, and fight promoters. His problems compound with his victories; eventually the system demands that he throw a bout.
Dillon and his friend Jake and David are having fun until David is picked on by a couple of thugs. David ends up scaring off the thugs while Dillon uses his wrestling and slams him to the ground. David has a gun when the police arrive and Ray Marks (Chris Browning) shoots him three times in the chest, killing him and forcing the gun to go off and kill Marks' partner.
Ten years pass and Dillon is released from prison, he meets his parole officer Ryan Maygold (Adam Mervis) and Ryan hands him a paper of list of jobs. He is able to find a job with the help of his friend Jake.
Jake is kidnapped and held for ransom by Ace Reed (Lucky Johnson), Dillon agrees to pay his debts and Ace agrees that if he wins three fights, he's done and can let him go. He wins his next three fights.
After Dillon's first fight in which he violently knocks out his opponent, he is invited by LA Jim to train with him. He ends up winning his next fight by submission. Jake tells Dillon that he should continue his MMA Career since he's The Philly Kid and defeat Titan Powell. Dillon gets annoyed and grabs a hold of Jake and tells him that the Philly Kid is dead. He died in prison. He only fought to pay of Jake's debts and can't believe him.
Jake ends up fighting Andres Titov (Shawn Jordan). He wins the fight after choking Titov out with a rear naked choke. We find out that he's been drugged by the water he drank. He asks L.A. Jim how did he do, LA Jim tells him he did good, that's why he chose to train him. L.A. Jim walks away but he is shot in the chest by Marks and dies.
Dillon is choked and held by Spencer while Jake is severely beaten up by Marks. Marks tells Jake that he owes him money to whereas Jake replies he doesn't owe him shit. Jake is pistol-whipped in the face by Marks and told to open his mouth. Marks blackmails Dillon and Jake, Dillon agrees to lose accept the fight against Titan Powell (Kyle Bradley) and to lose in the second. Marks then shoots Jake in the cheek and they leave.
Jake is stitched up while Dillon goes to visit Ryan and tell him if he knows a LA Jim or a Marks to whereas Ryan knows both of them since he knows their full names. Dillon hands Ryan a bullet and tells him that he plans to blame Ace Reed for the murder of LA Jim and pin it on him. Ryan tells him that he's going to need more evidence than a bullet to put Marks away for a long time. Dillon agrees to tell Ryan that he should send cops at the fight and be there since Marks try to kill him after he wins the fight. This is off-screen.
The fight between Dillon and Powell takes place. Powell dominates the first round, meanwhile in the middle of the second round, Spencer is drugged by a drink Amy gave him. She knees him in the nuts and he is dragged away by Ace's bodyguards and apprehend and arrested by the cops. Powell is dominated by Dillon and then submitted by a neck crank as Marks looks in disbelief, Dillon walks out of the cage with his trainer Sanchez and his best friend Jake. Marks yells Dillon's name and is furious with him. He shows his gun and attempts to pull it out until he sees that he walked into a trap full of police. With nowhere to run or hide, the cops take action. Marks is apprehended and arrested. He brags about killing the cops and everyone, it is considered he is sent to jail for the rest of his life and was killed in prison as soon as he got there. The film ends with Dillon walking on a bus and making out with his new girlfriend, Amy. | murder | train | wikipedia | OK, It's not an epic, and it certainly could have some smoother edits, but as jaded as I can be after roughly 5000 movies I think that this is a very good film.First remember the genre'.
Fun,engaging and well acted,Wes Chatham,Devon Sawa, Sarah Butler,and Adam Mervis do a lot to develop believable and vulnerable characters within the constraints of a compact but well written script.
Sarah Butler deserves kudos for being extremely endearing quickly and adding real weight to the tension within the story.
I've always been Neal McDonough fan and he has the talent and charisma that makes the viewer hope for more screen time.A very good movie.
I think anytime you watch a movie about something in which you are knowledgeable there is an excellent chance you will be disappointed.
Movies when people click on a keyboard for 2 minutes and crack the CIA firewall or alien codes!
Or football movies where people are diving left and right, but never at the ball carrier.This film is no different.
The fight scenes weren't bad.
Not even close to real, but better than other movies I've seen.
Bearable, entertaining, but nothing exceptional.The plot has the lead actor fighting THREE fights to pay off a debt of his loser friend.
His first fight was with no training after 10 years in prison.
Good grief.His third fight is against a guy twice his weight that moves like an 80-year-old.
Decent "B" MMA/Fight drama.
The star Wes chatham as a recently paroled ex- NCAA wrestler played a believable role as someone forced to fight in the cage in order to save his longtime friend played by Devon sawa (almost unregognizable with his new veneer teeth) the fights are pretty well choreographed and are pretty realistic.
To sum things up I would recommend this to fight fans or anyone looking to be entertained for 90 minutes.
Step into the cage with the Philly Kid. With the explosion of the MMA world there have been more and more films following it but much like every other genre they don't always work.
The latest to tackle the genre is the Philly Kid featuring Wes Chatham, Devon Sawa, Neal McDonough, and Michael Jai White.
Can this latest fight drama deliver the one two punch is it striving for or will it get knocked down for the count?
Philly Kid follows a former NCAA wrestler just out of jail who is forced into the underground cage fighting scene to save a friend's life.
This film doesn't bring anything all that new to the genre, but it is still well crafted enough to be entertaining.
The story here is a pretty straight forward formula that has been used countless times, but works to deliver the overall feel they are going for.
The performances were all decent enough, but sadly Michael Jai White is barely here.
He has such a commanding presence whether he is fighting of just talking that his bits are great, but isn't given anything to do to bring this movie up a notch.
Neal McDonough did a great job, but in reality it would have been nice to see him and White switch places as they are both better fit for the other parts.
IT was nice to see Devon Sawa who had a huge surge for a while there, then seemingly dropped out of the spotlight for a bit.
Chatham did a decent job carrying the film, but just didn't bring anything all that special to the role.
The real spotlight here is really the fighting which is well done, but never really pushes the boundaries to give it the stand out action it needed.Philly Kid is a decent addition to the MMA genre delivering some decent performances and action.
With a little more time spent on stepping up the quality of the action it could have been so much more, but unless you are actually into martial arts, then it probably won't be anything you notice because it is well shot and executed.
If you're looking for a decent martial arts rental then give Philly Kid a try..
Another "Warrior" type movie that is actually pretty good.
Fight scenes were realistic but acting was lacking.
"I took these fights to pay off your debt, do you understand that?
I fight one more time and that's where it ends." Dillon (Chatham) is among, if the the best NCAA wrestlers in the country.
One night when him and his friends are at a convenience store something goes wrong and he ends up in jail.
After his friend is taken and beaten because he owes money Dillon agrees to do cage fights in order to pay back the debt.
In the 80's it seemed like any type of fighting movie was based in the boxing world.
After movies like "Warrior" more and more are being made about that life.
To start with I will say that this is actually a very good movie with the most realistic fighting scenes I have seen in a movie in a long time.
The acting is decent and passable for a movie like this, but most people don't watch this for the acting.
We watched this on Netflix with my friends one night and man am I surprised we managed to complete it, it was probably because it made us laugh so hard and in that respect it could be given a few stars, the problem is that it wasn't a comedy.
Nope, instead, it was a poor attempt at something which failed miserably.I have seriously never seen a script that was as ridiculously mediocre, cliché driven, boring and retarded as the one that this movie was based on.
The acting was very average and only added to the fact that you simply could not take this movie seriously.
Every scene was shot like an amateur would shoot it.
I mean I didn't find one redeeming factor in this whole film.This is at the level of old b-grade action movies of the 80's and 90's, except that it was done in the 21st century.
I mean usually even if there is a bad action movie now days, it simply does not reach the level of amateur camera work and retarded shots as this one.
Oh man I don't understand how anybody could succeed in doing something so retarded.The behavior of the people in this script was taken straight from a soap opera, the emotions and expressions were not believable, rather made you laugh.
It was all just so stupid that you ended up laughing the whole movie.
If you are going to watch this film, prepare to roll on the floor..
for a UFC fighting style movie.
looked more like thugs and holding grudge for 10 yrs against the man who didn't shoot his partner is such a weak plot.
2) the parole officer is also a very weird role created in this movie.
5) the time frame of being a young man then spent 10 years in prison, came out still looked the same is another stretch; out of prison at age of ???
6) the underground UFC style cage fights arrangement is a bit weak; 7) a billet shot through the cheek, yet not even swollen after the stitching-up is another stretch, and the bullet wound scar just like a dimple?
korean plastic surgery?anyway, this is still a movie with very weak screenplay but performed by a very good tense gradually matured actor with quite believable fighting act..
The Philly Kid is a film about the Mixed Martial Arts fight game and if you think it's set in Philadelphia as I did you will be wrong.
You might as well have set the film in Philadelphia.Other than that this is a pretty good film in the tradition of such fine boxing films like Champion, The Set-Up, The Square Jungle and the more recent Split Decisions.
Young Wes Chatham and his friends Devon Sawa and Kris Von Damme are just out for an evening and truly and innocently get involved in a cop killing.
He learns the mixed martial arts game and agrees to some fights to get Sawa out of debt.
Like those other cited films The Philly Game is very honest and lucid about showing all the crookedness and double dealing that goes on.
Chatham has to navigate between gangsters, crooked promoters, and one bad crooked cop.The fight scenes are as realistic as when I've looked in on real mixed martial arts matches.
All due to a fighting heart and an old wrestling maneuver.The Philly Game did not get much notice coming out, but it's an undiscovered diamond in the raw if you look..
All in all I give it a 7 out of 10, it's at least worth a one-time watch especially for MMA fans.
I thought the acting of course could have been better and the budget was a bit bad (the gunshot wound), but the story was decent in my opinion.
My first review of the new year goes to "The Philly Kid" - Nice punching sounds....
"The Philly Kid" has some nice punching sounds.
Of all the low-budget martial arts action movies in recent years, there's finally a fight movie with some impressive punching sound effects.
Of course movies in recent years are going for more realism than in times past, but sometimes I really yearn for the old-school days of outrageous sound effects sometimes.But despite the obviously low budget, "The Philly Kid" has a typical-sounding plot that serves merely as a thread for impressively choreographed fight sequences.
But the by-the-numbers plot is carried by an enthusiastic lead performance by Wes Chatham, who is able to make his character all of likable and sympathetic - like the best characters that Jean-Claude Van Damme played early in his career in movies like "Bloodsport" (1988), "Kickboxer" (1989) and "Lionheart" (1990), the latter film which this movie (and most others like it) owes the biggest debt of legacy to.And despite his impressive good-boy looks, he is not a lunk-head, but is actually bright and intelligent and believes in doing the right thing.
And it certainly makes his progression through the film's flimsy plot not a chore but something close to an actual journey as he undergoes some form of a positive transformation into a better person, however marginalized by society at large.Things begin with a simple quest for booze for a night of harmless underage drinking with Dillon Maguire (Chatham), his friend Jake (Devon Sawa), and a third friend.
To make matters worse, one of his friends was carrying a gun and accidentally shot and killed one of the police officers responding to the disturbance.As a result, both Dillon and Jake are sent to prison for 10 years.
When Dillon is finally released, Jake (who had been paroled four years earlier) manages to track him down and get him a job with his uncle in a liquor store.
Because Jake has suddenly become indebted to some ruthless local gangsters, Dillon agrees to settle his debts for him by jumping into the world of underground mixed martial arts fighting.
In doing so, he seeks out the training of a former champ, LA Jim (Neal McDonough), so he can compete and settle his friend's pricey debts."The Philly Kid" is a lot like most underground fight competition movies in the four decades since the explosion of martial arts movies in the 1970s in the wake of Bruce Lee. But what gets it by is the lead performance by Wes Chatham.
As I stated before, his character has been through some pretty rough patches for such a young man, and his journey into the world of underground cage fighting can be seen as his way of seeking redemption and becoming a better person so he can enjoy a better life for himself - and his new love Amy (Sarah Butler).The fight sequences are pretty brutal and look realistic, with Dillon Maguire dishing out punishment to his opponents while also taking some punishment of his own.
"The Philly Kid" was directed by Jason Connery and written by Adam Mervis, and it's an impressive low-budget feature with some good performances.
The action scenes are also stand-out, as I previously mentioned.It's well worth at least one viewing.7/10.
His Only Way Out is Getting Back In. Ever since the popularity of HUNGER GAMES the concept of watching young people in cages fight each other with no holds barred even to the death, have proliferated.
THE PHILLY KID is a low budget little pertinent drama that for the genre is better than the usual.
Written by Adam Mervis (who also acts the role of the main character's understanding parole officer) and directed with fine pacing by Jason Connery, the movie somehow catches fire - likely due to a cast of up and coming young actors.Dillon (Wes Chatham, a hunk newbie the camera loves) is a former NCAA champion wrestler has just been released form 10 years in prison for braking the neck of a thug during a holdup in front of a liquor store where he (at around age 16) was buying alcohol with a fake ID for his friend Jake (Devon Sawa, impressive in a difficult role).
Dillon now lives in a filthy halfway house and is without money until his old friend Jake finds him a job in a liquor store owned by a kindly man Lenny (Bernard Hocke).
Jake's sister Amy (Sarah Butler) is on the scene and eventually becomes the love interest for Dillon.
It seems Jake is heavily in debt to conman Ace (Lucky Johnson) and Jake, knowing Dillon's ability as a wrestler, pleads with Dillon to fight for money in the underground cage fighting scene to save a Jake's life.
Another evil force is the police officer Marks (Chris Browning) who arrested Dillon and who hates him and threatens his life if he doesn't fix a fight.
Dillon trains, wins some fights, (he is supposed to fight only three fights for Ace to release Jake's debt), and is observed and ultimately trained by LA Jim (Neal McDonough).
From there on it is a succession of bloody fights and gore until the end finds a resolution.The cat is strong and is supported by some solid work by Eric Scott Woods and Michael Jai White.
Not a great film, but a well crafted one for the genre.
You have to remember that most MMA films are from an alternate universe where the normal rules of film-making do not apply.Most MMA films are nod-nod-wink-wink "vanity" projects done mainly so the producers and stars can spend the next few years bragging they "did a movie." Scripts, acting, direction, all usually terrible.Every now and then you get a project like Warrior -- possibly the best MMA film ever done -- and you remember that it is indeed possible to do something that rises above the rest.Philly Kid is no WARRIOR but a decent script, a decent star and the frenetic pacing of Sean Connery's son Jason (as director) keeps it moving along nicely.In fact, whereas with most MMA efforts the challenge is listing all the reasons that it failed, with Philly the challenge is figuring out how it could have been even better?
Chatham does a great job.
He not only seems willing to tackle his next fight opponent, he seems willing to tackle a script that constantly has him playing catch-up.
This a character who has literally no control whatsoever over his life until the final scenes of the movie.I think that is the problem.The intention was likely to setup a "story" problem and then reverse it (just like in a real fight) but by the time Chatham's character comes into his own, it is arguably too little too late.And for that single reason, in the opinion of this reviewer, this solid effort never rises above the rank of wannabee.But for the genre, it is not bad at all..
Decent UFC cashing low budget fighting movie.
These days, UFC and MMA in general are all over the place and many movies with low budget are made in that vein.
The Philly Kid(or Born to Fight as its title in Canada on my DVD case) is one that pretty much work very fine.My only problem is about the intro sequence.
That he kill the thug is OK and could happen, but when the cops arrive, that his friend still hold the gun, that the cops are trigger happy and shoot even tough he dosen't aim them at all and more specifically the 10 years old grudge of the cop just because he was present(and yet cooperated in his arrest) when his dying friend Accidentally shot the other cop dosen't make sense at all.Then you see how dirty and rotten that cop is anyway and you can't really understand why he kept that grudge for so long and all.
Overall its a pretty bad plot point, but the rest of the movie and the rest of the characters are all fine and nicely done.One important thing tough that really annoyed me on my first view of the movie, i was expecting Michael Jay White to be one of the important characters considering he is on the cover yet he got only a VERY small role, merely an extended cameo and he dosen't fight at all.
I am glad i made my review on my second viewing cause it could had alter my review of an otherwise pretty good movie if i had done it on the first view.
I know they put him on the cover to make people rent/buy the movie, but its disappointing to expect something and be fooled.But like i said otherwise a pretty nice movie, this is one of the situation where i would like IMDb to include ratings with 0.5.
Cause i think this movie is a solid 7.5 rating, so i will go to 8/10 cause it deserve it more than 7. |
tt1055335 | Transformers: Animated | === Pilot episodes ===
The series began with a three-part pilot called "Transform and Roll Out!". Stellar cycles (centuries) after the Autobots won the great war for Cybertron against the Decepticons, an Autobot maintenance crew led by Optimus Prime and consisting of Ratchet, Bulkhead, Prowl, and Bumblebee discover the legendary Allspark buried on an asteroid. The Autobots take the Allspark back to their ship, but are soon confronted by a crew of Decepticons led by the notorious warlord Megatron and consisting of Blitzwing, Lugnut, Blackarachnia, and Starscream. Megatron attacks the Autobot ship and tries to retrieve the Allspark, but when an explosive planted on Megatron by the treacherous Starscream detonates, the ship crashes on Earth. The Autobots go into stasis to survive the crash, while the scattered remains of Megatron are discovered by a human scientist named Isaac Sumdac.
Fifty years later, Professor Sumdac is the CEO of a robotics company known as Sumdac Systems, which is based in a futuristic version of Detroit. Optimus Prime and the Autobots awaken from stasis and defend the people of Detroit from a monster, resulting in them becoming local celebrities. They befriend Sumdac's young daughter Sari, who teaches them about Earth customs. At the end of the pilot episodes, Starscream arrives on Earth and tries to take the Allspark for himself, but the Autobots successfully stop him and save the city once again.
=== Season One ===
In the first season, the Autobots settle into their new home and learn about Earth culture and customs, all of the while defending Detroit from various threats. Megatron's disembodied head, which has been in Professor Sumdac's laboratory since the ship crashed, comes back online and manipulates Sumdac into building him a new body, pretending that he is an Autobot. Blitzwing and Lugnut arrive on Earth searching for Megatron, while Blackarachnia targets Optimus Prime, blaming him for her techno-organic mutation. New Transformers introduced in the first season include the Autobot Arcee (who only appears in Ratchet's flashbacks), the Decepticon Soundwave, the bounty-hunter Lockdown, and the Dinobots Grimlock, Snarl, and Swoop. Several human villains are also introduced, including Nanosec (who can run at extreme speeds), the Headmaster (who pilots a machine that attaches to and controls large robots) and Meltdown (who is covered in a toxic and corrosive substance). The season ends with Megatron returning with a new body (built by the Allspark from his old body), and the Allspark exploding into fragments that scatter across Detroit.
=== Season Two ===
In the second season, the Autobot Elite Guard members Ultra Magnus, Sentinel Prime, and Jazz arrive on Earth to retrieve the Allspark, only to learn of its destruction in the Season One finale. While Sentinel completely disbelieves Optimus's claims, Optimus and his team are eventually able to convince Magnus of Decepticon activity on Earth. The main theme for Season Two is the discovery of small fragments of the Allspark littered across the city (and possibly, the entire planet), while the Decepticons work on building a space bridge back to Cybertron with the help of Issac Sumdac, who was kidnapped by Megatron in the previous season's finale. This is part of Megatron's plan to invade Cybertron from within, without the Autobots' awareness. New characters introduced in season 2 include the Autobots Omega Supreme (who was revealed to be Optimus Prime's team's spaceship), Wreck-Gar, Wasp and Blurr, the Decepticons Shockwave, Swindle, Mixmaster and Scrapper, the human villain Slo-Mo (who is able to slow down time), and Starscream's army of clones Thundercracker, Ramjet, Skywarp, Sunstorm, and Slipstream (none of the clones are openly referred to by name in the series, the names listed come from the toy-line, while Slipstream was retroactively given her name by Hasbro). At the end of the season, the Decepticon Space Bridge is destroyed, but Megatron, Starscream, and Omega Supreme are sucked through and lost in deep space. Sari meanwhile, notices an injury that exposes mechanical parts under her skin, revealing that she is not completely human.
=== Season Three ===
Following the events of the two-part second season finale, Sari is shocked and distraught over the revelation that she is a robot, and instantly assumes that her "father" had built her, refusing to believe Sumdac's claim that he discovered her as a small liquid metal body. Prowl does some research and discovers that Professor Sumdac was in fact telling the truth, and deduces that Sari is a Cybertronian protoform (the early development stage of an Autobot and Decepticon) that scanned Professor Sumdac's genetic information. Sari later uses the power from her AllSpark-powered key to upgrade herself into an armored techno-organic teenage form that is far taller and much stronger equipped with numerous weapons and special abilities.
Meanwhile, on Cybertron, Shockwave (disguised as the Autobot Longarm Prime) sabotages several Elite Guard operations in preparation for Megatron's return, unaware that Megatron and Starscream are lost in deep space, trying to gain control of Omega Supreme. Suspecting that the double-agent may be the escaped convict Wasp, Ultra Magnus sends Sentinel and Jazz back to Earth to find and apprehend Wasp, who has found his way to Earth to exact revenge on Bumblebee for framing him. Soundwave and Arcee reappear in season 3, with Soundwave being accompanied by minions Laserbeak and Ratbat. New characters introduced in season 3 include the Constructicon Dirt Boss, the Autobot scientist Perceptor, Prowl's mentor Yoketron (who only appears in Prowl's memory flashes), and the Elite Guard members Jetstorm and Jetfire.
In the two-part season finale, Jazz joins Optimus Prime's team on Earth, while Megatron and Starscream also find their way back to Earth, using information stored deep winin Arcee's subconscious mind to create an army of Omega Supreme-sized robots in Lugnut's likeness. Optimus defeats Megatron with the aid of Ultra Magnus' Magnus Hammer and a "Wingblade" jetpack built by Professor Sumdac, Ratchet, and Sari while Prowl sacrifices himself to re-assemble the Allspark and destroy the "Lugnut Supremes". The Autobots return to Cybertron with the apprehended Decepticons, and are hailed as heroes upon arriving on their home world.
=== Season Four ===
A fourth season, consisting of about 36 episodes, was initially planned and intended, but was cancelled. According to Transformers Animated: The AllSpark Almanac II, season four's main theme would have been the discovery of Energon deposits left by the Allspark across Detroit. Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Jazz and Ratchet would have returned to Earth along with new team member Ironhide (who would scan a pick-up truck vehicle mode resembling the live-action film version of the character), while Bulkhead and Sari would have remained on Cybertron, with Sari discovering more about her unique origins and Cybertronian species, and Bulkhead defending Cybertron's energon farms from the Decepticons. Megatron would also reformat into a new, Triple-Changer body, with his new vehicle modes being a fighter jet and a tank, both of which would be Cybertronian. An action figure was designed for Megatron's new body (along with figures for Powermaster Optimus Prime and Hot Shot's earth mode), but was never mass-produced or released at retail. Megatron would have broken out of Trypticon Prison on Cybertron and relocate the city of Kaon to Earth, using the Energon deposits to build machinations that could threaten all life on the planet.
Other ideas planned for the cancelled fourth season include Blackarachnia returning with an army of Predacons, Bulkhead and Sari entering a parallel universe with evil Autobots and heroic Decepticons (an homage to the Shattered Glass comic), Minicons from Kaon disabling all the machinery in Detroit (an homage to the film Gremlins), the introductions of the Autobot Cosmos (who would have scanned a prop flying saucer from the set of a B-Movie) and the Decepticon Bludgeon (who would have been a pirate), and a new group of human villains called S.T.E.A.M. (short for Saving The Earth And Mankind), who are against modern technology and use Steampunk-style weaponry.
=== Return to The Hub ===
The Hub started airing reruns of the show on July 9, 2012, in its original HD format until mid-2014. | sci-fi | train | wikipedia | More social themes like corruption, propaganda, the problems of single parenthood and "empty nest syndrome"(especially after the point where Sari "grows up) are thrown in in the later seasons allowing even older audiences to look at Transformers as not just a show to promote toys.Mentioning Sari, she is the mandatory "human" character this time around.
Now "characters" has always been the strongest point of the original series and Beast Wars.
In short, there characters are just as likable as in the original cartoon, though it may take some time to warm up to the many little changes.
Like the characters for who they are, or hate them for the changes made, its up to you.Ironically the weakest element in Transformers animated is its animation.(imagine that.
It just ends up giving a very jerky and jumpy feel to the movements.I must say that the characters actually look terrible in still shots or on posters(hence the negative fan reaction when still images of the characters were first revealed), but in constant animated movement, the character designs worked pretty well and like the characters themselves, it would eventually grow on you.I urge anyone who is looking for a good Transformers series to watch this show with an open mind.
Transformers: Animated proves that Generation 1 can live on in the modern day, whilst giving us a solid, fun, modern cartoon.
Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ratchet, Prowl, Arcee, Jazz, Ultra Magnus, Grimlock, Megatron, Wreck-Gar, Starscream, Blitzwing and Blurr are among just a few of the cast of robots in this series.
Of the recent incarnations, Transformers: Prime may be the better animated and written show, has more depth and also has the advantage of having Peter Cullen and Frank Welker as Optimus and Megatron.
But what Transformers: Animated does better is that none of the main characters are annoying(Prime had Miko), Bumblebee is much closer in characterisation to the original show, in Prime he was bland, and it is one of the better recent incarnations in terms of recreating the spirit of the original show.
Overall, not mind blowing but highly entertaining still, while some of the complaints are somewhat valid Transformers: Animated is not really that deserving of the hate it's gotten.
When it was announced that a new Transformers series had come out, I was initially a bit sceptical, but as time passed, I grew to love those character designs and the robots personalities from the clips.
The storyline was great and the voice-actors sounded like they were the characters - not just merely reading their lines or so.
In conclusion, this series might seem a little too kiddy for those who grew up with the original Transformers, but it's really worth watching.
Being a G1 die-hard, I was naturally skeptical about this new series (especially after catching glimpses of the questionable character design).
But I have to say that after watching the first 3 episodes (or was it a full 1 1/2 hour mini-movie?), I think this new series is pretty good.
Not great, but good.The high points: They kept the original transforming sound (which is more than I can say for that damn live-action movie).
However, it must be said that the writers/producers had the good sense to keep at least a few key characters perfectly intact...namely Bumblebee and Starscream.For somebody who loved the original so dearly, this series doesn't disappoint.
Then it just so happened, on Cartoon Network, I came across a TV promo for this new show simply titled, "Transformers: Animated".
My first thought was, "Well, the story seems pretty basic, but this Starscream guy looks like a cool character (by the way, this was the show that made me a Starscream fan-girl).
This of course, was a very common trope in Transformers since G1, but instead of just being a tag-a-long, Sari actually has a story arc in this series!
She's also not as useless as most Trans-Fans like to believe, she actually helps the Autobots multiple times.
I can understand that there were a few failures somewhat in the franchise, but come one this is actually pretty good mega tron everyones beloved transformers villain has a perfect voice actor and so does star scream, and many other characters,bumblebee is portrayed as a auto bot who never shuts up and always cracking jokes as opposed to him being completely silent in the movie can be funny sometimes, and the way the designers and voice actors manage pulled it off so well in this show from start to finish.
*For anyone who might not know, G1 refers to the original 1984-1986 transformers cartoon series.I'm very glad I checked out this show.
The other transformers series after G1 has not been able too keep my attention for more than two minutes.The cartoony style is nice, I love it but fans of a more "serious" style might not like it.
One nice thing is that they have the original transformation sound and even starscreams lasers sound a lot like before.It's great they built on the idea that the autobots are repair-bots, "ordinary people" who has to fight the decepticons, who are big and scary war-machines.
However most of the time he's likable.Worst thing to me is that they keep hiding the transformations and when they do show them it usually looks bad.
Sometimes it even looks like they're shapeshifting instead of transforming, and that looks terrible.Overall however Transformers Animated has so many good elements, it comes out as highly enjoyable.
I don't follow each of the reincarnations like Beast Wars and Armada.Transformers Animated sparked my interest back, especially seeing my kid watching it religiously.
They've also brainwashed my kid into buying the Animated style toys as opposed to the movie figures and Transformers Universe..
like the whole elita one episode the characterization of the characters is really well done, each has their own unique attributes and weakness, much like the G1 characters but much more a lot of people are saying how the human characters ruin it, but i really like sari and sumdac, shes much more of a kid who audiences can relate to, (and she doesn't wear a hardhat) shes like a fangirl to the autobots :D i really can't wait to see which transformers they animated next definitely give this one a chance, watch a full episode before saying anything.
I'll start off by saying I've been an active Transformers fan for years, not someone who watched G1 as a kid and then forgot about TFs until the recent live-action movie came out (In fact, I actually hated the movie, as both a Transformers fan and a fan of movies in general).
Beast Wars (especially the second and third seasons) is my favorite show to date, not because it was the first one I watched, but because the story lines, character development, and voice acting achieved a level of depth, emotion and overall quality which has been unmatched in TF cartoons before or since.With that being said, I was a bit skeptical going into this show.
Granted, Megatron is often pulling the strings of whatever enemy they may be facing, but so far the Transformer presence on the villains' side has been severely lacking, which is a shame since the episodes where they fight a Cybertronian enemy (be it a Decepticon or the Dinobots) are clearly the strongest of the bunch.
The people making this show are clearly aware that adult fans watch the show as well (as evidenced by all the G1 references), and could easily make it a bit more mature without alienating the kids (ie Beast Wars).In conclusion, I encourage you to give this show a chance if you are at all interested, and keep an open mind; you may be pleasantly surprised.
no one is going to believe a series based on some crazy robots with animation 30 yrs old.
Fun and entertaining, yes, but not good.It astounds me to this day that people think Transformers Animated is water-down, child friendly crap.
But it's worth it when you get to the third season, which features mature/dark storytelling, legitimate stakes, and on-screen character death- all things that the cartoon that aired after it, PRIME, failed to do properly.I could write a whole novel about how this show is actually really good, but instead I'll just highly recommend you give it a watch for more than 3 minutes..
Watching these characters grow and change, learn about there vast and interesting backstories and the backstory on the war and why everything is the way it is that's what's great about the show.
Me being such a mega transformers fan this show is still amazing although how different it takes the franchise and honestly if you just wanna watch a great anime like story here you go.
I am always amazed how a team can take a decent original cartoons plus a number of knock-offs ranging from rather good to fairly poor - and create something like this.
TransFormers: Animated serves as a defribrillator for the series, as well as showing that an old TV show can still pull it off.
If they can get past the weak spots at the beginning of the series, which do still have their good points.Transformers: Animated does have Teen Titans-influenced animation.
And cameos of original characters were abundant, including, but not limited to, Cliffjumper, Ironhide, Powerglide, Warpath, Beachcomber, Brawn, Wheeljack, Perceptor, Rodimus Prime, Cyclonus, and Stryka.Oh, and for the reviewer who complained that the Allspark looked like a car key: Did you actually watch the original series, or Beast Machines for that matter?
But I feel the show needs some justice done on how good it is.Its original in its own way but keeps to its G1 roots.I have to admit the first 3 shows didn't sell me on it, I found it a bit childish especially the infamous death scene of yet 'another' optimus prime near death scene.However the episode which sold me on it was the seventh episode "Thrill of the Hunt" with it being dramatic and having great tragedy, and helping to add back story to not one but two well known G1 character's it had more of an adult theme to it but still gave the feel of a message like G1.I've not yet seen all of the episodes but no matter how bad the episodes seem I know that they can produce an episode fit to be called "Transformers" and will continue to watch the entire season and the next.However when you watch it you must not judge it by only G1 and look at it with a clean plate.Id recommend it for children of any age with its humour and active plot line, while some episode would require an older audience to appreciate the scenes shown, its fit for all age groups..
After the 2007 Live Action Transformers Movie was a hit blockbuster film Hasbro has choice to create a new Transformers Cartoon that tells a different story with The Autobots and Decepcticons The Story is that Five Autobots, Optimus Prime (David Kaye) Prowl(Jeff Bennett) Bumblebee(Bumper Robinson) Bulkhead(Bill Fagerbakke)and Ratchet(Corey Burton) discover a ancient Allspark the forces that gave Life to all Transformers They are soon chase by the Decepticons with Megatron (Corey Burton) Starscream(Tom Kenny) Blitzwing (Bumper Robinson) Lugnut (David Kaye) and many more.The Autobots crash land on Earth where they remain for many years.
Years later the Autobots awaken and soon meet a human friend Sari Sumdac (Tara Strong) The daughter of Isaac Sumdac a man who discover Megatron and use what he learn to make a robot empire.As the series goes on we meet many Autobots and Decepticons and learn a great deal about their personally.The story I thought had some promise since they took the time to think of where they want the series to go and have some good characters to go with the storyline the Human villains are just terrible and unneeded.The cast and voice acting is very good and it was nice to have a great cast of many famous actors and Transformers Voice Acting Veterans like David Kaye and Corey Burton.The Animation still is a mix bag not that is bad but they really had some issues that I wish could have fix but still they did well with what they did.So over all if you're a fan of Transformers like me then Transformers Animated is worth a try.Too bad the series was canned before we could have more promising story lines to go with this series.
Cybertron was the kind of thing you play at Guantanamo to get a confession out of people.Then comes Transformers: Animated.
The greatest consistency is to make the Autobots look like advanced toys and let those toys battle it out with the kind of super-villain you think would be cute in a movie or show making a parody of DC COmics.
After watching the series all the way through, I can say without a doubt that it isn't as bad as a lot of people say it is.
First, while most transformers shows simply focus on the war between the Autobots and the Decepticons, this series is more like a superhero show, with a few episodes not featuring a single decepticon.
The animation, more specifically the character designs, seem to be what most people have a problem with.
A lot of People Hate how this show looks, though since I grew up watching Teen Titans this art style doesn't bother me.
But if you can look past this, the series is incredibly fun and the most unique transformers show barring maybe Beast Wars..
When I first heard or rather saw that Transformers the TV series was going to be remade, I like many other fans ran to our TV guides and marked the date of release.Unfortunately to many and my own dismay, this was nothing like the old shows.In fact I felt that this was a whole other show on its on, because it didn't feel like a remake or a continuation.My problems with the series begins with the voice actors.It feels as if they brought a heavily underpaid group of VA's to fill in some very huge shoes.I didn't expect A+ voice acting, but what was given isn't even worth of a C grade.They fail mostly on Optimus Prime's voice.While he is very articulate he sounds more like an angst teenager than a grown autobot.One could blame the poor writing but the voice itself just doesn't match the drawn character.Another problem I noticed was the transforming itself.I'm a huge fan of the transformers, mainly due to the unique transformations of every Autobot and decepticon.Now I know the old shows didn't lay out every part switching panel to panel, but some sort of transformation was shown.In this series it's only masked by a flash of light and some well sped action line.Ultimately leaving anyone wanting more out of a simple transformation that took Michael Bay all of five minutes to show.In conclusion this series needs a major overhaul and even some new artists.The show feels like it was rushed just to match the date of the movie.The action is very lackluster and most episodes consist of slapstick humor the easily becomes very old and very boring.If your a fan, you'll hate it, and if your into Animated Series you'll watch a few episodes here and there but will ultimately find something better to watch..
Cartoon Network ran the "Transformers Animated Special" which is essentially the pilot for the new series.
Let's start with the animation which looks awful, especially the humans.
I wonder if Cartoon Network has the same company do all their animation for them, because it looks just like all their other shows.
Plus, they drew Megatron's body to be so big that Optimus Prime looks like a midget standing next to him.
It's one of the reasons I have not liked a Transformers based cartoon since the original.
Watching this shows human characters made me appreciate the Movie a heck of a lot more.
COULD WE NOT HAVE THE GREAT PRIME AND MEGATRON BE HONORED BY HISTORY AND HAVE NEW CHARACTERS TO LOVE?
Transformers: Animated is Cartoon Network's answer to try and get quick ratings, by introducing a new storyline with timeless characters like Optimus Prime and Megatron, but in the end, Transformers: Animated becomes only a cheap movie cash-in, reminiscent to the Transformers video game.The plot is different than what fans are use to.
The opening credits make sure you know that fearless Optimus Prime, youthful Bumblebee, elderly Ratchet are in the show as well as non-movie characters like stealthy Prowl and lame Lugnut.
And two, some may be fooled by the idea that making an all-new Transformer that has never been in a cartoon is very difficult, but it's inexcusable when three of the Autobots plus one of the Decepticons have ridiculously long chins and sound terrible.Then the producers decided to throw in a girl named Sarry whose father creates robots (and ends up housing the head of the 'late' Megatron after Starscream's signature for treachery).
It's pretty bad.Transformers: Animated may have sounded like a good show on paper, but when you try so hard to not be like the movie and yet want people to think it's the movie at the same time, what you got is just a jumble of terrible ideas from people who read a few robot names, looked at the basic plot through a Transformer fan fiction, and decided "this would make an awesome cartoon!" I can't understand why there are people who actually like this show when it's only a cheap cash-in that fails on nearly every level.
Sari (who is more annoying then Miko from TFP) was a robot the whole time?I have never seen the Transformers Generation series but I am presuming this show is based off that series.Here is an idea: watch Transformers Prime, Transformers titans return or even Transformers Robots in disguise (both 2001 and 2015) instead.The only good elements to come out of this would have been Megatron and Shockwave. |
tt0038612 | Home on the Range | Maggie is the only cow left on the Dixon Ranch after Alameda Slim (a cattle rustler capable of stealing 500 in a single night) stole all the rest of Mr. Dixon's cattle. Dixon sells Maggie to Pearl, a kind and elderly woman who runs a small farm called Patch of Heaven. The local Sheriff arrives to tell Pearl that her bank is cracking down on debtors. Pearl has three days to pay the bank $750, or her farm will be sold to the highest bidder. Hearing this, Maggie convinces the other cows on the farm (Grace, a happy-go-lucky character, and Mrs. Caloway, who has had leadership go to her head) to go to town to attempt winning prize money at a fair. While the cows are in town, a bounty hunter named Rico (whom Buck, the Sheriff's horse, idolizes) drops a criminal off and collects the reward. Stating he needs a replacement horse to go after Alameda Slim while his own horse rests, he takes Buck. When Maggie find out that the reward for capturing Slim is exactly $750, she convinces the other cows to try to capture him to save Patch of Heaven.
That night, they hide among a large herd of steers, when Alameda Slim appears. Before any of them can do anything, Slim begins a yodeling song which sends all the cattle (except Grace, who is tone deaf) into a trance that causes them to dance madly and follow Slim anywhere. Grace is able to bring Maggie and Mrs. Caloway back to their senses just before Slim closes the path behind him with a rock-slide to stop Rico and his men from chasing him. As Rico discusses with his men what his next move will be, Buck starts talking with Maggie, Grace, and Mrs. Caloway as old friends and miming actions. This causes Rico to believe Buck is frightened by cows, so he sends Buck back to the Sheriff. Buck escapes, determined to capture Slim for himself to prove his worth.
Maggie, Grace, and Mrs. Caloway continue their search for Slim, determined to pass Buck and get to Slim first, but they have a fallout when they lose the trail in a downpour. Mrs. Caloway accuses Maggie of wanting to go after Slim only as a personal vendetta, arguing that she and Grace are better off without Maggie. The three spend the night under a large rock, with Maggie deciding to leave the next morning while Grace and Mrs. Caloway decide to return to Patch of Heaven to say their final farewells. The next morning, however, they are awakened by a peg-legged rabbit named Lucky Jack, who has also lost his home, an old mine, to Alameda Slim. Maggie decides to go after Slim with Lucky Jack in tow, but Grace convinces Mrs. Caloway that they help. Lucky Jack leads the three cows to Slim's hideout in Echo Mine. At the mine, Slim reveals that he has been stealing all cattle from his former patrons. When his former patrons can no longer support their land, Slim buys the land when it is auctioned off, under the guise of the respectable-looking Yancy O'Dell, using the very money he gets from selling the cattle he stole.
After arriving at Slim's hideout, the cows capture Slim. They run off with Slim's accomplices and buyer in pursuit on a steam train. Rico arrives. When the chase stops, Rico is revealed to work for Slim. Crushed by this, Buck decides to help the cows and fights Rico while setting the other cattle free. Slim dons his Yancy O'Dell costume and leaves the cows stranded in the middle of the desert with the train, while he goes to attend the auction. However, the cows arrive using the train to the farm and expose Slim. Slim is arrested, and Patch of Heaven is saved by the reward money.
A few weeks pass, and at the county fair most of the livestock on Patch of Heaven have won prizes. 'Lucky' Jack Rabbit moves in with Jebb the Goat, and two steer and Slim's charming and gentlemanly steed Junior the Buffalo arrive unexpectedly to live at Patch of Heaven, expanding the farm. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | gimmicks galore. As the genre wears on, I guess it becomes increasingly dependent on gimmicks. Well, perhaps these'll be enough to trip your trigger: pretty scenery filmed in color; a plot that emphasizes the importance of the game preserve (complete with much scene-stealing by the animals); the singing cowboy, reinforced by The Sons of the Pioneers; and a 13-year-old Robert (in those days, Bobby) Blake. These features produced my above-average vote. The storyline involves an inheirited tract, split between two brothers - one deceased, who's daughter is currently in charge of its being ranched; the other, doing nothing with his land other than allowing it to be a home for wild creatures. A would-be buyer of the conservationist's property, however, incites its neighbors by simulating the bear-caused deaths of their cattle, thinking that maybe it'll become "for sale" if everybody is mad at its owner. Monte Hale is the songster who is summoned by the surviving brother. I can't quite dismiss the corniness of the concept, but, if you're a REAL fan of the genre, then that doesn't seem to matter.. Worthy Message. Bad guy Dan Long (Mason) tries to trick old man Garth (Chatterton) and his boy (Blake) out of their land that they've turned into a game preserve. Hale helps expose the ruse and wins the affection of Garth's niece (Booth).Rather easy-going Western with a positive message, and surprisingly not much gunplay or hard riding. Hale is a pleasant enough cowboy lead if not much of an actor, even by matinée standards. In fact, except for Booth and Blake, the acting doesn't get much beyond delivering the lines. On the other hand, the strong conservation message about preserving wildlife seems strikingly relevant for contemporary audiences. Dragging the poor calves on screen to their bearbait doom, however, did strike me as questionable for a young audience. The early Technicolor process holds up pretty well, and even if the locations never get out of greater LA, they are well chosen. At the same time, staging much of the story lakeside is rather unusual for a matinée oater. All in all, a pleasant little diversion with a worthy message.. Preserving the Animal Preserve. Home On The Range is a film about the range being home to much wildlife and how we have to protect it. At least that's the way Tom Chatterton feels, but his next door neighbor and niece Lorna Gray feels a whole lot differently. Bears are killing her cattle and other rancher's cattle and she means to do something about it.Chatterton however has hired Monte Hale as a kind of game warden. Of course there's skullduggery afoot and Hale finds out what it is.This film has the look and feel of a Roy Rogers film which devolved on to Hale from Republic Studio boss Herbert J. Yates. It has scene stealing Bobby Blake and Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers to make Rogers identification complete. It's also the type of story that Roy was doing at this point in his career.Perennial western villain LeRoy Mason is at the bottom of the evil doing and he certainly meets a rather poetic end. Hale does fine pinch hitting for Roy as it were. |
tt0087197 | Electric Dreams | Miles Harding is an architect who envisions a brick shaped like a jigsaw puzzle piece that could enable buildings to withstand earthquakes. Seeking a way to get organized, he buys a personal computer to help him develop his ideas. Although he is initially unsure that he will even be able to correctly operate the computer, he later buys numerous extra gadgets that were not necessary for his work, such as switches to control household appliances like the blender, a speech synthesizer, and a microphone. The computer addresses Miles as "Moles", because Miles had incorrectly typed his name during the initial set-up. When Miles attempts to download the entire database from a mainframe computer at work, his computer begins to overheat. In a state of panic, Miles uses a nearby bottle of champagne to douse the overheating machine, which then becomes sentient.
A love triangle soon develops between Miles, his computer (who later identifies himself as "Edgar"), and Miles' neighbor, an attractive cellist named Madeline Robistat. Upon hearing her practicing a piece from Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach on her cello through an air vent connecting both apartments, Edgar promptly elaborates a parallel variation of the piece, leading to an improvised duet. Believing it was Miles who had engaged her in the duet, Madeline begins to fall in love with him in spite of her ongoing relationship with fellow musician Bill.
At Miles' request, Edgar composes a piece of music for Madeline. When their mutual love becomes evident, however, Edgar responds with jealousy, canceling Miles' credit cards and registering him as an "armed and dangerous" criminal. Miles shoves the computer and tries to unplug it, getting an electric shock. Then the computer retaliates by harassing him with household electronics.
Eventually, Edgar accepts Madeline and Miles' love for each other, and appears to commit suicide by sending a large electric current through his acoustic coupler, around the world, and back to himself.
Ultimately, a pop song, "Together in Electric Dreams," written by Edgar as a tribute to Miles and Madeline, plays on radio stations across California. | cult, romantic | train | wikipedia | The story of a boy, a girl, and a computer trying to find the meaning of love could have easily been a ridiculously campy movie, but instead is played out with a lighthearted sincerity.
Lenny Von Dolen's portrayal of architect Miles Harding is done well, conveying the feelings of insecurity and wonder of falling in love for the first time, and Virginia Madsen's performance as would-be girlfriend Madeline equally shines.
The movie is shot more like a music video (Director Steve Barron also worked on Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" video), and while there have been plenty of films that have used similar "MTV-style" techniques in the '90's, this was an unpioneered format at the time, and it seems to work the best here.
The computer technology and the commercials set this movie firmly in the early '80's, which may make it seem a little dated, but the overall story still holds up well and is fun.
Electric Dreams is an enjoyable romantic fantasy that a lot of people may have missed when it was first released (even more so since the film seems to be out of print), but for those wanting to see something a little different, this may be what you've been looking for..
This movie takes us back to 1984, a time when computers were still mysterious machines which inspired notions of science fiction in the minds of average persons.I was only 12 years old when I first saw this movie on HBO back in 1984(5?).
It has a very strong European influence to it that I appreciated--director Steve Barron has a true flair for combining nice visuals and story without each element bogging the other down.Miles (Lenny Von Dohlen) buys a computer to help in his quest to design the perfect earthquake-proof brick.
In the meantime, cellist Madeline (Virginial Madsen) moves in upstairs and guess who starts to like Madeline a LOT?....Several elements make this a winner: The fact that the lead actors Lenny Von Dohlen and Virginia Madsen were cast (relatively unknown actors then) instead of flavor-of-the-month ones.
Culture Club was a bit established, but artists like Heaven 17, Jeff Lynne (of ELO), Philip Oakey (of Human League), P.P. Arnold, and Helen Terry gave the film a great atmosphere with original songs that still hold up quite well today (yes, the soundtrack is available as an import on CD).
I'm proud to say I have the 12" remixes of the songs "Together In Electric Dreams," "Now You're Mine," and "Video" as well as the soundtrack.You don't have to exclusively like romance stories to enjoy this film.
It's charming, will make you laugh, and I dare you to not get a little teary-eyed when the phrase "I LOVE YOU ...ME" appears on the computer screen to the beautiful music piece "Madeline's Theme" from Giorgio Moroder.Two scenes in particular will have you feeling exhilarated--when Madeline and Edgar do a musical duet of a familiar classical piece, and the ending where the song "Together In Electric Dreams" is bringing everyone in the city of San Francisco to their feet dancing.
Just make sure to view all the way through the credits, there's a little surprise after them!At the time this review was written, Electric Dreams is only on out-of-print VHS in the United States, but is available on a European region 2 DVD.
I love this film immensely and can only recommend you get a bit of a shock by hiring Electric Dreams!Rating: 5 stars or 10/10.
Lenny Von Dohlen (never heard of him until I saw this movie) plays an architect who buys a computer to get better organized, but an unexpected event turns the thing into a sillier version of HAL...especially after the owner falls for his musician neighbor (a young Virginia Madsen).At once piece of light entertainment and a look at relationships, this movie does it just right.
Electric Dreams (1984) is a good fun film about a geeky office worker Miles Harding who has problems with his organisation skills and buys a computer to help him out.Meanwhile Miles has a new neighbour in the form of Madeline (Madsen), Miles soon falls in love with Madeline and the pair start dating.Everything seems to be going OK for Miles but there is a problem, his COMPUTER!!!!
A huge kick to hear the music of the 80s--all Giorgio Moroder electro-thump, with the likes of Boy George and Jeff Lynne, as well as classical bits, woven into this fun, occasionally darkly funny film.Although some may criticize the primitive computer effects, it's eerie to think of how prescient this movie was, having been made at the very dawn of the personal computer age.
Don't try this at home.Lenny Von Dohlen and Bud Cort deliver fine performances, and the still-lovely Virginia Madsen will make your knees weak with her fresh beauty here.I just procured a DVD, and enjoyed it as much as I had remembered doing two decades ago.
The films style has a zippy pace and feels like watching a long music video.
Miles discovers the thing that a computer can not give him, and Edgar, his computer, discovers what he cannot have and has always misunderstood about human feelings.It's a simple film with lots of cinematic trickery to make it appear bigger than it actually is.
The music is of course classic 80's fare, and the primitive electronic tones highlight's the time and themeIt's a delightful warm-hearted film that I waited many years to see again in its full widescreen glory, and relive some younger days when things were a little more innocent, and a little more lively.
When computers needed dialup modems, electronic music had just come into its own, and video games were still using cartridges (note the Activision cartridges for the Atari 2600 behind Miles when he purchases his computer, Edgar).Well, I waited well over 20 years to see it, and I'm glad I did.
Sadly, I have not seen it again for the past 20 years.I have been hoping that this will be released in DVD format soon.Every time I listen to "Together in Electric Dream", the last scene where Miles and Madeline driving a convertible on the Golden Gate Bridge comes flashing back to my mind!
It's worth seeing for anyone who appreciates movies that perfectly represent the time in which they were made (a la "Saturday Night Fever" to the late 70's, or "Singles" to the early 90's) San Francisco residents take note of the special cameos from old KJY DJs at the end of the film.
The soundtrack is just as poppy and fun as the movie, including rare new wave gems from Culture Club, Human League, Jeff Lynne, Heaven 17 and more.
With the one of the best romantic songs performed in the history of cinema..."Electric Dreams by Giorgio Moroder", who was also the composer of the soundtrack for this movie.
Yes, welcome to the pop 80's, with the first computers, who looks in todays "Internet era" slightly obsolete, simple, but cute romances and naturally, trendy pop music which gives a special push for love scenes.
So, all in all, Electric dreams will always have a special place in my heart, although it has some flaws, simple script and some holes in the story...but hey, it's either you fall in love with this one or it will leave you cold...I had to decided it, so I rented it again, and the rest you know, if you read my critic:)7 out of 10 (with a special ticket to my top 10 most special movies).
As I sat in that cinema full of bored teenagers, watching the story unfold, I was amazed at how similar an experience it actually was to the first film I really fell in love with, 'Electric Dreams'.I've never been completely sure what I especially liked about the film.
Its use of pop video, in the sequences of high emotion, especially in the scene of where Miles is chased around the house, are at least echoed in the chase sequence at the heart of 'Malkovich'.With all this in mind, its perhaps a time to re-assess this film as more than the fluff its previously been thought of as being..
Ironically, instead of being an assistant the computer becomes a competitor, making Miles' (or is that Moles'?) life even more complicated.The musical soundtrack is worth listening to especially if you like a more-modern Techno beat, with the talents of Jeff Lynne (ELO) and Giorgio Moroder to name a few.
Virginia Madsen is a typical 'english rose' type, Lenny Von Dohlen is just about geeky enough to be convincing but not stupid, and I wanted a computer like Edgar to help me get the girls!It's not on TV often, but if you find it, watch it!.
This movie was interesting on a couple of levels; the love story is good and Madsen looked marvelous, she still does.
This is a movie I saw when I was in college and, while I would freely admit it was a really silly and dopey film, it still had a lot of charm and I'm glad I saw it.In particular, I loved the music--even the stuff from (yuck) Boy George.
I even went so far as to pick up a copy of the album.Lenny von Dohlen and Virginia Madsen were both fine in the movie--he as a nerdy and hopeless nice guy and she as a beautiful cellist.
I'm not a big romance film buff but I like Electric Dreams.
Virginia Madsen is as pretty as ever, and the music is probably what makes the film better than just good.
The feel good decade of the 80's is all wrapped up in this fun film about Miles, his neighbor Madeline and his computer which comes to life and causes trouble.
I highly recommend this film to anyone that likes a nice sweet romantic movie!.
The film doesn't make sense, it's ridiculous, but it does have a good soundtrack, one of the most recognizable songs from the 80's and it can't help but make you laugh, even if the majority of this laughter comes from discussing what the hell is going on with whoever you're watching it with.
During the course of this Edgar himself falls in love with Madeline and a love triangle ensues with many funny and emotional consequence's.This is a fantastic movie that's very well acted by it's star's and has an amazing soundtrack which if you don't have already you should order asap!
Electric Dreams is a typical cheesy 80's movie with one original idea: a computer being in love, in the days before computers were considered to be mundane machines.
It's 80's music, while not all that bad (it is a bit too sappy at times), gives it away as well.The plot revolves around a geek, Miles, who falls in love with a woman next door, Madeline.
:)But seriously, a really fun movie, excellent music, awesome animation sequences, nice little love story.
The music for this film is excellent I like two tracks written by Jeff Lynne I found Madelene to be very pretty and clever with the cello, And I found the story to be funny how can a computer fall in love?
and I also am glad that I have finally bought both the DVD and the CD of the soundtrack I was surprised to find that the producer was Richard Branson and that it is released on Virgin films ltd I can watch this film without getting fed up with it as it is 95 minutes of fun and good music typically 1980's style I once borrowed it on video a long time ago that is where I first saw this brilliant film..
This was the movie which made me fall in love with the computers, cello and girls ha.
OK it was in 1980's but this movie is not about time, its still relevant today.Its an excellent movie over all with loads of music strong plot and funny moments.I like the part where a disorganised person goes out to get a "PC" to organise his life.
And say what you like about Boy George, but ya gotta love the music in this movie (Culture Club, Jeff Lyn, etc al, YES I have the soundtrack - OK!) AND I WISH IT WOULD COME OUT ON DVD, I'D BE FIRST IN LINE.
(And I usually HATE romantic comedies!) Lenny von Dohlen is great as a quirky architect next door, and Virginia Madsen is equally impressive as his love interest.
When I first watched this I was thinking like short circuit this film Would be you know a real family comedy It wasn't its can be rather dark at times yes there's some funny moments And there's the ending which I thought was funny and sweet but There was more then a few dark moments without giving anything away The way the computer tries to destroy his life how it messes with his credit cards Personal details now why it may of seen over the top in the 80s I mean a computer running ever appliance in your house and controlling Your life today it really has a creep factor to it A creep factor due to our strong dependency on computers This movie could almost be a true story lol.
Electric DreamsComputers make great lovers because they don't care if you text during sex.Mind you, the self-aware hardware in this romantic-comedy probably would have a problem.With hopes of designing an earthquake proof structure, architect Miles (Lenny Von Dohlen) purchases a computer to help in the process.But when an alcoholic beverage is spilt over its circuit board, the passive processor gains a playful personality, Edgar (Bud Cort).One day, Edgar makes a musical connection with Miles' neighbour Madeline (Virginia Madsen), who assumes that it is Miles she is communing with.Over time, however, Edgar begins to resent Miles' relationship with Madeline and electronically sabotages his financial and personal well-being.Pondering the pitfalls of online dating before it even existed, this silicon nod to Cyrano de Bergerac is a sly and sadistic snapshot of our soon-to-be society.Incidentally, computers don't mind it if you break-up with them via a text.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
I have not seen this film in many years, the last time I probably saw it was most likely in the 90's.
Most likely if one were to watch this film today it would be very dated and not quite as good as it would have been when viewed during the 80's..
Well, this movie is benign in comparison but the idea of an emotion feeling machine, and at the same time a living AI life form helping you around house is still pretty alive today.
Edgar is an awesome character that keeps you guessing throughout the movie on what it is he is thinking or feeling and you end up caring for him as he learns about life and love.
Electric Dreams is such an upbeat, uplifting film - I can watch it whenever it is on.
Fun movie, has been a favorite for years...but what you can't miss is the great music from this film.
Even though "Electric Dreams" is a love story, it is very insightful of the coming computer age.
If you are expecting an entertaining movie, I would recommend not watching Electric Dreams..
If you're looking for some escapism and some romance, then this may be the movie for you."Electric Dreams" is a love story for the computer age, a light, simple film about a guy who finds true love thanks to modern technology.
You've been "working up to them." You've got time to keep "working up to them."And they won't love you like Electric Dreams will.
Electric Dreams is a science fiction romantic comedy and dramatic film will that tells the story of a love triangle between an male architect,a female musician and a personal desktop computer.It stars Lenny Von Dohlen, Virginia Madsen, and the voice of Bud Cort as the computer.The setting of this movie directed by Steve Barron is at San Francisco.Architect Miles Harding falls head over heals with her beauteous neighbor musician Madeline.But later,he learns that he already has a rival in winning his heart - a personal computer named Edgar apparently owned by Miles.Upon hearing Madeline playing cello,Edgar composes his own tune and plays together with her.It impressed Madeline thinking that it happens to be Miles and they get to know each other by going on out of a date.This makes Edgar jealous that he starts to take over Miles' electronic appliances such as the TV set and radio.In addition to that,he also makes life miserable for Miles through more ways than one like pissing the dog for it to bark constantly and making him uncomfortable while using the computer.The movie definitely shows it age as we get to see how extremely old the desktop computer was considering it does not use a Graphic User Interface (GUI) as an operating system and when the internet wasn't yet available to the general public.Also,the visual effects were definitely old as Computer Generated Imagery(CGI) was still many years away.The story between Madeline and Miles were definitely clichéd and formulaic and escapism remains a common theme when it theatrically released.
But nevertheless,it introduces us to the endless capabilities of computers and the idea of artificial intelligence which will become a common theme for many movies to come in the future.The soundtrack was memorable as well as many songs were extremely popular like "Together In Electric Dreams" by Phil Oakey,which continues to be part of the encore performance of The Human League during their concert as of now.Overall,it remain a delight to view especially for fans belonging to the 80's generation..
Funny, Well-Acted Movie from the 80s with Great Music!.
And Together in Electric Dreams performed by Philip Oakley - it is really the music that really shines in this movie.
And they do seem to have personalities - work perfectly at one time and act stupid another.I found this film entertaining and enjoyable and if you like 80s music this one is for you.. |
tt0093407 | Less Than Zero | Clay Easton (Andrew McCarthy) is a straitlaced college freshman on the east coast, who returns home to Los Angeles, California, for Christmas to find things very different from the way he left them. His high school girlfriend, Blair (Jami Gertz), has become addicted to cocaine and has been having sex with his high school best friend, Julian Wells (Robert Downey, Jr.). Julian, whose life has gone downhill after his startup record company falls apart, has become a drug addict. He's also been cut off by his family for stealing to support his habit and reduced to homelessness. Julian is also being hassled by his dealer, an old classmate named Rip (James Spader), for a debt of $50,000 that he owes to him.
Clay's relationship with Blair rekindles and Julian's behavior becomes more volatile. His addiction is worsening and since he does not have the money to pay off his debt, Rip forces him to become a prostitute to work off the debt. After suffering through a night of withdrawal and hiding from Rip, Julian decides to quit and begs his father (Nicholas Pryor) to help him. He then tells Rip the next day his plans for sobriety, which Rip does not believe; Rip lures Julian back into doing drugs and hooking. Clay finds Julian and rescues him; after a violent confrontation with Rip and his henchman, Clay, Julian and Blair all escape and begin the long drive through the desert so Julian can attempt to achieve sobriety once and for all. However, the damage has already been done; the next morning Julian dies from heart failure in the car.
After Julian's funeral, Clay and Blair are sitting on a cemetery bench reminiscing about him. Clay then tells Blair he is going back east and wants her to go with him, to which she agrees. We see the snapshot of the three of them at graduation—the last time all three of them were ever happy together. | romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1468381 | Undocumented | Filmmakers Travis, William, Liz, Davie, and Jim are filming a documentary on illegal Mexican immigrants. After interviewing several of Davie's family members and harassing an employer of illegal immigrants named Whitaker, the group accompanies a large group of immigrants including Davie's cousin Alberto and his wife and child, across the Mexican border into the U.S.
Once in the United States, the truck carrying the immigrants is stopped and taken by what seems to be the United States Border Patrol. The truck is instead taken to a facility where the filmmakers are interrogated and the immigrants taken captive. The group that has taken them is a radical patriot group that despises illegal immigrants, Mexicans in particular. The patriots, led by "Z", gives the filmmakers a proposition. Film the patriots and document what they do to captured illegal immigrants, and be let free, or die along with the immigrants. The leader of the patriots lets all of the children go, including Alberto's daughter.
The first part the filmmakers must film is the torture of an immigrant who smuggles drugs across the border into the U.S. Liz tries to intervene but the immigrant is beaten to death. The next morning, one of Z's henchman give the filmmakers a tour of the facility. When they are shown around the "pens" holding men and women, Alberto gets riled up and is sprayed by a high pressure hose. Alberto is then taken to a room where he is quizzed on several questions about America's government and history. If he gets a question wrong, Alberto's wife's joints are pulled into stress positions. When asked who said the quote "Give me liberty or give me death," Alberto incorrectly answers Thomas Jefferson after given the answer by William, causing Alberto's wife and William to be killed.
The same night, the group tries to escape from the facility in the cover of darkness by using the cameras night vision mode. During the attempt, Travis knocks over a metal fence, causing Z's wife to check on the imprisoned immigrants, where the filmmakers are hiding. After a close call, the group escapes outside, where Alberto's daughter was killed by razor wire. Alberto's grieving alerts Z's henchman and a watchdog that mangles Jim's arm and leg. The filmmakers are then forced to record a conscious immigrants organ removal, when Jim passes out. When the filmmakers visit Jim, Liz gets into a confrontation with Z, leading to them being trapped back in their room.
After trying to signal a truck that was unknowingly operated by one of Z's henchmen, Davie's aunt is killed, leading to Davie being beat to death after attacking a henchman. Travis is then forced to "interview" Whitaker and the coyote who led the immigrants into Mexico. Both are killed by Z. As a "parting gift," Liz and Travis are branded with the radical group's symbol. Travis, who was given an injection before the branding, is forced to swing a baseball bat at a pinata that is unknowingly wrapped around Jim. Liz attempts to kill Z with the bat, but is sedated before she can strike him.
The two are now being kept indefinitely. When the henchman in charge of guarding Travis and Liz gets impatient, Travis beats him to death and steals his gun, shooting a second henchman in the leg. Travis and Liz release the immigrants and save Alberto. When they attempt to start an old truck, Z nearly kills Travis, but he is shot by Alberto before doing so. After escaping, it is shown that the three reached help, and state police raided the compound. Alberto is sent back to Mexico after nine months and anonymous tapes are sent to a media center in Arizona, showing Z with an even larger group. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0079428 | The Lady Vanishes | English tourist Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood) arrives at the "Gasthof Petrus" inn in the country of Bandrika, "one of Europe's few undiscovered corners". Iris is returning to Britain to marry a "blue-blooded cheque chaser", but an avalanche has blocked the railway line. The stranded passengers are forced to stay the night at the inn, including Charters and Caldicott, cricket enthusiasts who want to return to England to see the last days of the Test match.
That evening, Iris complains about loud folk music coming from the room above her. She has the guilty musician, Gilbert Redman (Michael Redgrave), thrown out of his room, only to have him move into hers, forcing her to capitulate.
Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty), a former governess and music teacher, listens to a tune performed by a folk singer under her window. Unseen by her, the singer is killed.
The next morning, before catching the train, Iris is hit on the head by a planter apparently aimed at Miss Froy, who then helps Iris onto the train. Also on board are Charters and Caldicott, Gilbert, a lawyer named Todhunter and his mistress "Mrs. Todhunter". As a result of her injury, Iris blacks out. After the train is moving, Iris wakes up in a compartment with Miss Froy and several strangers. She joins Miss Froy in the dining car for tea. Unable to be heard above the train noise, the elderly lady writes her name on the window with her finger. Soon after, they return to their compartment, where Iris falls asleep.
When Iris awakens, Miss Froy has vanished. The strangers in her compartment say they know nothing about an English lady. Even Todhunter, who spoke with Miss Froy earlier, pretends not to remember her in an attempt to avoid any possible scandal. Iris searches, but cannot find her. She meets up with Gilbert, who agrees to help. Dr. Hartz (Paul Lukas), a brain surgeon, says Iris may be suffering from concussion-related hallucinations. Charters and Caldicott also claim not to remember Miss Froy, because they are afraid a delay would make them miss the cricket match.
Another lady appears, dressed exactly like Miss Froy, but Iris and Gilbert continue to search. They are attacked by a knife-wielding magician, Signor Doppo. They start to suspect that Dr. Hartz's patient, whose face is covered by bandages, is Miss Froy. Dr. Hartz tells his fellow conspirator, a British woman dressed as a nun, to drug Iris and Gilbert. Then, convinced they will soon be asleep, Hartz admits to them that he is involved in the conspiracy. The false nun does not follow Hartz's instructions out of loyalty to her fellow countrywoman; Gilbert and Iris escape, free Miss Froy and replace her with one of the conspirators.
When the train stops near the border, Dr. Hartz discovers the switch. He has part of the train diverted onto a branch line, where soldiers await. Gilbert and Iris inform their fellow passengers of what is happening. The train pulls to a stop and a uniformed soldier requests that they all accompany him. They knock him out and take his gun. Another soldier fires, wounding Charters in the hand, and a shootout begins.
During the gunfight, Miss Froy reveals to Gilbert and Iris that she is a British agent who must deliver a message to the Foreign Office in Whitehall. The message is encoded in the tune that the folk singer sang. Gilbert memorises the tune. With his help, Miss Froy slips away into the forest. Todhunter attempts to surrender, waving a white handkerchief, and is shot dead. Gilbert and Caldicott then commandeer the locomotive, and the group escape across the border.
In London, Charters and Caldicott discover the Test Match has been abandoned. Iris jumps into a cab with Gilbert in order to avoid her fiancé, and Gilbert kisses her. They arrive at the Foreign Office, but Gilbert is unable to remember the vital tune. Then he hears the melody on the piano; they are joyfully reunited with Miss Froy. | comedy, intrigue | train | wikipedia | The original is a classic and generally considered the best of Hitchcock's early British films.
But if you forget about the comparisons and let this remake stand on its own, it's actually pretty decent: good-looking, beautifully scored, and well-cast, even in the secondary roles.
The two leads are likably goofy (they do bring a 70's flavor to these 30's characters, which may or may not be to your taste), and male viewers will be glad to know that Cybill Shepherd spends the entire running time wearing a white dress that reveals her sexy back, arms and shoulders.
If I can point one flaw in this movie, it's that the script doesn't build enough ambiguity - even people who don't know the story won't think for a moment that it could all be "in Cybill's head".
There's a strong tendency to compare Hitchcock's version of "The Lady Vanishes" with the 1979 version starring Elliot Gould, Cybill Shepherd, and Angela Lansbury.
Both are enjoyable, but to interject a personal note, I tend to lean toward this 1979 version for its tone that's more like other mystery films such as "Charade" or "North By Northwest".
The story is silly -- well, preposterous really, but it's great fun.I agree that the Shepherd and Gould are a bit tiresome and overdone, but in fact, on the whole, they're fun too.The best feature of the film is Angela Lansbury.
She is brilliant as the nanny, catching every nuance with perfection, and should have had some kind of award for her performance.The cricket fans are good and Gerald Harper is also convincing and chilling as the hard-hearted adulterer.It is refreshing to see a film where there are no computer effects, and where real locations are used.
Anyway, if you would just put the two leads aside for a moment (although Eliot Gould was SO cute in the movie and Cybil Shepperd did the visual pun of Marilyn Monroe on the air vent very well when she gets out of the train...) The thing I really liked about this film were the characters of Charters and Caldicott - they made me laugh hysterically - there they are drinking tea - understating this understating that - then suddenly.....they are really terrific minor characters.
A Cybill Shepherd comedy, whereas Hitchcock's original was a mystery.
The 1979 version, done as a Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould vehicle, pushes mainly its comedic/farcical elements instead of it being s legitimate mystery itself.
The 1979 film isn't rotten but it simply doesn't hold up when weighed against Hitchcock's original.
If you watch the 1979 movie, do so expecting a comedy not a mystery, and do so before you ever have seen the Hitchcock version..
Much as I like and possess the DVD of the original Hitchcock version, this remake is a much better job.
Set in Pre-WWII Germany this movie chronicles the trip of Cybill Shepherds character back to the UK to be reunited with her fiancé.
This film is just a horrible remake of the classic 1938 original by Alfred Hitchcock which contains a first class cast from top to bottom and superior editing and cinematography.
I only wished this remake would have done the vanishing!Awful remake of the classic Hitchcock suspense thriller that is marred by the idiotic casting of Gould and Shephard, who spend most of their time turning the mystery into laughs.
Lansbury breathes the most life into the film as Miss Froy..
When she enquires, no one else can remember any such woman being on the train did she imagine it or is something more sinister afoot?Of course it isn't rubbish but no matter how "OK" this film it, it simply isn't comparable to the much, much better Hitchcock original sadly a statement that I consider true of all aspects of the film.
The lack of tension was a real surprise to me and the film failed to draw out the mystery of course I knew it was not in Amanda's head but I do when I watch the original as well this familiarity doesn't totally account for the lack of tension in the film generally, that is more to do with the lack of urgency and the starry feel of the film generally.
Viewers who have not seen the original might enjoy it but anyone coming to it second will struggle to find much added value in this retread.Gould and Shepherd both overegg their performances and lean too heavily on the side of humour without doing enough on the side of the mystery.
The rest of the cast however, just fill in the background without too much effort or style.Overall this is a distracting and OK film in its own right but I simply cannot see any reason why any viewer would find this a more worthwhile venture than the original.
In every way, from direction and tone through to performances and cinematography, the film is a poor photocopy of the original.
If you are a weary critic and insist that a remake of the original be more of the same but better, you will be wasting your time on this because it's played more kooky and comic than a suspenseful thriller.The movie keeps up a regular stream of witty patter, largely in the dialogue between her and Gould.
Both movies are good, in different ways.Second, I love Elliot Gould, usually, but in this film he's not good.
Under-appreciated as it is, this remake of Hitchcock's 1938 classic truly embodies my idea of how a well-crafted and entertaining light movie should be.
I'm sure Hitchcock himself wouldn't have done it better as a self-remake.
The actors like Herbert Lom and Angela Lansbury gave an excellent performance.
It would be wrong of me to say that this film is better than the original 1936 Alfred Hitchcock version, because both films do have their own merits.Admittedly, this version is in colour and the inevitability of a Second World War is played more topically, but one must remember that in 1938, the prospect of another war was something that was still tentative and the Munich Agreement on the 29th September of that year would have provided some hope with appeasement - controversial as it would have been.It was a good idea to change the delightful performance of the lovely Margaret Lockwood to a brash, excitable and more feminist character in the guise of an American heiress (Cybill Shepherd).
Changing the male lead to that of American war correspondent (Elliot Gould), instead of a British musician researching European folk compositions, was also a good idea, even though the part in the 1938 film was smartly played by Michael Redgrave, in his debut film role.The rest of the casting is very much true to the 1938 version, and all the parts were played beautifully, especially Herbert Lom and Daphne Anderson, playing the Nazi doctor and the politically motivated Baroness.Also, I should not forget Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael as the characters of Charters and Caldicot, respectively, who were originally played by Basil Radford and Naughton Wayne in the 1938 version.
The character was originally played in the 1938 version by the ever-reliable character actor, Cecil Parker.All in all, this was a very good and exciting film and I always enjoy it every time I watch it..
It doesn't help that the lead actress – Cybill Shepherd – is horribly miscast, giving a performance so awful that some viewers may turn off because of her alone.Then again, Shepherd may not be entirely at fault – I struggle to think of an alternative actress who could have brought her shrill, screechy character to life.
but this one never makes good use of the location and the constant moving between carriages and compartments becomes repetitive in the extreme (although a late stage train-climbing stunt sequence is breathtakingly good).Elliott Gould seems distinctly embarrassed by his presence here and can do nothing with his character, while Angela Lansbury seems to think she's still in BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS and gives a patronising turn.
Someone has commented here that you should not compare this film to the Hitchcock directed original as they are 'different' and 'comparisons are pointless'!
Their comment that they are good in different ways and rating this as 10/10 are extraordinary claims for quality in this film that most others as well as myself think are way off the mark.This film lacks all the charm, wit and directorial genius of the original.
Every character in Hitchcock's film is well developed as well as charmingly and brilliantly acted.
All actors are far inferior in this version as is the director.The original has all the camera shots, suspense building scenes and clever touches you would expect from Hitchcock.
Cybill Shepherd gives her usual acting performance (very poor), Angela Lansbury is, frankly, second rate and the rest of the cast seem embarrassed by the awful script.
At the time that the original was made film makers could get away with this sort of plot, and Hitchcock could make it (almost) believable, but these days a little more is required.
It's been a little while since I saw this, but I felt like Cybill Shepherd and Elliott let down our side.
This is a great film, everything about it is great and it is bound to be as it is an Alfred Hitchcock remake.
It full of suspense, its funny, thrilling, the direction is good, the sets and locations are excellent, the cast are excellent, Cybill Shepherd is funny and great as her hysterical character Amanda Kelly, Elliott Gould is great as Robert Condon and Angela Lansbury is perfect as the kidnapped Miss Froy!
Doesn't quite have the charm of the original, but as a remake it is slick, beautifully shot and the music is wonderful..
I will admit I do prefer the Hitchcock original, however one thing I did prefer about the remake is that it is slicker.
The remake doesn't quite have the charm of its original, and I do think it is to do with the fact that the screenplay at times is weak, the director is no Hitchcock and the film does meander in the last twenty minutes.
Angela Lansbury is marvellous as Miss Froy, despite her limited screen time.
Herbert Lom also impresses as usual, and while Cybill Sheppard has given better performances, she did look absolutely beautiful.
In fact the only actor who disappointed was Elliot Gould, he had the handsome screen presence but he didn't quite convince, and just for the record, his dialogue for me was the weakest of the film.
All in all, slick, underrated and well done remake, but if I were to compare the two, I would say the original was better.
An older lady (Angela Lansbury) disappears on a train in Europe before World War II after befriending an American girl (Cybill Shepherd), who searches for her with help from another American on board (Elliott Gould).I just watched both versions back-to-back (apparently there's a 2013 TV version too) and found this remake to be a charming romp, fun and scenic and fairly true to the original.Was it just fate or what, that they cast Angela Lansbury as an English nanny?
This is one of the dumbest movies i've ever seen, including the hitchcock original...the part you don't see until the reveal is just as stupid ...i can't stand angela lansbury so i was happy to see her disappear ...
I've seen Hitchcock's original and did not expect much for the remake.
Gould is too old and somewhat fey and Shepherd is acting as though she were in a Carole Lombard film.
The leads in the original film gave the roles more depth; perhaps it is also the fault of the screenplay.The overall production values are good and the supporting cast is wonderful especially Lansbury, of course, and Ian Carmichael--Lord Peter Wimsey in scenes with Cybill Shepherd!.I would buy this on DVD if available..
Almost all the ingredients are present for this to be a charming and colorful remake of an Alfred Hitchcock classic: stunning scenery, lovely music and talented behind-the-scenes craftspeople.
There's no need to get excited when you see George Axelrod listed in the credits as the screenwriter, for this is a very tepid remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic which comes off second best in all respects.
This movie, as the remake of a classic, could have been a brilliant success, such as "Murder on the Orient Express," and even the spoofy-but-still-compelling "Silver Streak." But the finished product turns out to be more of a comedy than the suspenseful "Who-Dunnit," like the original masterpiece this was supposed to have remade.Blame the absurd casting of Elliot Gould, and the horrid direction Sybil Sheppard was given..
He, in no way, even begins to fill those shoes.The European anti-American sentiments are well displayed and conveyed here, and Sheppard's character does little to change that.While this is still a fun, suspenseful film, it is nothing like the original in that it captures none of the fantastic suspense lent by Hitchcock's direction.
It's set one year after the original film (1938) and so uses WWII reasons for the plot.
The original film was made and set in 1938 and uses preWWI reasons and a fictitious country, highlighting just how separated from real events that movie was.
And for me, Arthur Lowe can get more dry comedy out of one line, or even one look, than several scenes with Basil Radford."Mrs Todhunter's" motivation for saying she saw Miss Froy is more slickly conveyed in the earlier version, but Herbert Lom's doctor is a more fully realised character in the later one so it came as a better twist for me when we find out what he's really up to.For me, Iris & Gilbert gradually bonding over lunch and in the luggage carriage was more endearing than Robert's leering appreciation of Amanda's bra-less figure in a slinky dress, regardless of how alluring she looked in it.
And the reason for the nun to switch sides is better hinted at in the 1938 version (because she's English) whereas the 1979 version unnecessarily complicates things by making her married to the doctor who in turn is the aristocratic lady's nephew- all for no story-telling gain.Hitchcock also wrings far more tension out of the drugged drinks than happens in the remake, as well as more daft comedy out of the inept fight in the luggage car.
Gould is naturally funny; Shepherd occasionally so.The shootout is much better acted out in the 1979 version, but changing the male lead's profession from musician to photographer meant that Miss Froy pulling him away from the life-or-death shooting match in order to teach him a vitally important piece of music -instead of teaching just Amanda- didn't make sense; better to have left him being a music specialist and thus having a good reason for pulling him away from a vital shootout.
What also adds to the final 3 minutes of the original, is delaying the clinch between the two leads until then, rather than Shepherd & Gould making it clear that they're a couple far earlier.I loved the musical score of the remake- it really added to the lush feel, along with the gorgeous location shots- and ironically, it reminded me in places of the score to one of Hitchcock's other movies- Marnie.So in summary:
1979 photography/scenery >19381979 music >1938Angela Lansbury >May WhittyArthur Lowe >Basil Radford1979 characters far less obnoxious with foreigners than 19381979 political backdrop >1938But1938 editing & tight story-telling >1979Margaret Lockwood >Cybill Shepherd1938 Plotting & motivation >19791938 mystery & suspense >1979All in all, I think I *just* prefer the original, mostly because Margaret Lockwood is so winningly gorgeous in it, but there is plenty to recommend the newer version, and it was by no means a pointless remake..
The film is a remake of a classic, which wasn't that great in the first place, but this is simply dire.
I have huge respect for all the actors: Angela Lansbury is a treasure (and is probably the only one to come out the film well), Elliot Gould tries his best with this nonsense and Cybill Shephard works her socks off to try to make the role something else.
If you watch as Cybill and Elliot deliver their lines, whether or not it was ad libbing, lots of it just looks, sounds and is played like a rehearsal - and not a good one at that.The Story: It's a good mystery story, but it comes off as fake.
I know the rest of the casehave to believe she's a bit mad and that her story isn't true, but I really wanted HER to vanish, not Miss Froy!
It's too bizarre for words - some of the scenes should not have made it into a finished project.This is just a bad film; everything's wrong with it from the stereotypes to the casting to the direction to the look of the whole thing.
Any film you can't watch without cringing doesn't deserve a good review.It gets 2 out of 10 from me because of its classic heritage and because of Angela Lansbury.
Granted that probably only Alfred Hitchcock could successfully replicate one of his films, this remake works in its own way.
I think that the pacing of this work is better than that of the original.
A rather bad remake and Hammer film.
On the other hand, the new material is fairly bad so perhaps I was spared from being even worse than it was.I like Elliot Gould but this isn't one of his better performances.
Cybill Shepherd is dreadful as Amanda Kelly, the "much married American heiress." She spends the entire film either speaking in a monotone, rushing her lines or screeching at the top of her lungs.
Incidentally, I think that Lom - who played the title character in "The Phantom of the Opera" - is the only Hammer veteran to appear in their final film for 29 years.
Angela Lansbury is good as Mrs Froy but, at 53, she was at least 15 years too young for the role.Alfred Hitchcock was still alive when the film was released. |
tt0112041 | Streets of Laredo | A trio of outlaws, Jim Dawkins (Holden), Loren Renning (Carey), and Reuben "Wahoo" Jones (Bendix), rob a stage. But when a young lady, Rannie Carter (Freeman), is menaced by rich and ruthless Charley Calico (Alfonso Bedoya) after her father is killed, the robbers come to her rescue. They run him off, then pay old Pop Lint (Clem Bevans) to watch over her at his ranch.
Loren ends up separated from his partners but continues his life of crime. Jim and Wahoo inadvertently aid some Texas Rangers and are sworn in as Rangers themselves. Loren sees an opportunity, steals a herd of cattle the Rangers are guarding, then lets Jim and Wahoo enhance their reputation by being the ones who bring the cattle back.
Loren's friends turn a blind eye to his activities for a while. Calico is a worse villain, burning Pop's barn and causing the old man to have a fatal heart attack. Calico assaults a Ranger as well, and is ultimately killed by Jim.
But it doesn't end there. Loren now wants Calico's empire for himself. He also wants Rannie, who has grown to be a beautiful woman. Jim, who loves her, calls off the agreement to look the other way at Loren's misdeeds. But he does remove a bullet when a wounded Loren hides out at Rannie's after a holdup.
Jim resigns as a lawman, then vows revenge after Wahoo is gunned down. Now that Rannie can see Loren for what he really is, she wishes Jim luck as he rides to Laredo for a showdown. The former partners face each other for the last time, then Loren is killed. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | Granted, both the original Lonesome Dove novel and film are unique works of extremely fascinating classic story telling.
Streets of Laredo obviously has a great deal to live up to and, when viewed or read in conjunction with Dove, it does suffer in the sense that our familiarity is slightly snubbed.
Violent death or at least the threat of it is an ever present character awash on Laredo's landscape much more than Dove.That said, Streets of Laredo as a film stands firmly upon its own merits which are quite impressive.Firstly, the cast is sublime.
Streets of Laredo - The sequel to Lonesome DoveStreets of Laredo has much to offer - a long tale of famous Texas legends - some fictional, like Captain Woodrow F.
Like Lonesome Dove it has heartbreak and pain, and some very quiet humor.
Roy Bean and Call have a particularly great scene together, as do the young killer Call is after and John Wesley Hardin.The story is also full of great ideas, something sorely lacking in most films.
Who knew George Carlin could act?James Garner is genuine, and authentic, as he always is.The story is full of great characters - who fall away until the principles are left to resolve, or not resolve their conflicts.The score is haunting, the cinematography is especially beautiful, the story is timeless, which is what one expects from Larry McMurtry.Enjoy!.
If you haven't seen any of the other "Lonesome Dove" movies, "Streets of Laredo" is a strong drama with an excellent cast.
"Lonesome Dove" was set in 1877, a year after "Custer's Last Stand." Gus, Woodrow and Pea Eye were "old men" about 50 years old who'd been together for 30 years.
And Woodrow and Pea Eye have STILL known each other only 30 years.We wonder why Woodrow is in Laredo instead of at his thriving ranch in Montana.
We wonder how and where Lorena and Pea Eye got together, given she went to San Francisco while Pea Eye stayed at the Montana ranch.The novel doubtless fills in lots of these gaps, but the movie shouldn't require reading the novel.
Perhaps McMurtry, a true American literary treasure, just threw this screenplay together.But even those of us who know and love "Lonesome Dove," still one of the three best things ever made for television (with "Gettysburg" and "Band of Brothers"), can detach "Streets of Laredo" from the other three, ignore its many flaws, and just watch it on its own.
A truly great western, revolving around the stunning performance of James Garner.
Rather, this film has much more in common with the real old west, to a greater degree even than series like "Deadwood".
Garner plays him the way he should be, and is even more impressive than Tommy Lee Jones in "Lonesome Dove", the series which preceded this one.
Indeed, despite the rabid fanbase of "Lonesome Dove" (of which I very nearly belong), this series is undoubtedly superior.
That series was pure trash, horribly acted and directed despite the great actors involved.There are many great performances beside Garner.
There's no overblown dialogue or direction to be found in "Streets of Laredo", something that the original "Lonesome Dove" series sometimes slipped into.
A must see for any true film fan - narrow-minded western fans looking for a 'Hollywood' west need not apply.RATING: 8.5 out of 10.
One of the first things I do after watching a movie I really like, is checking reviews of others...professionals and amateurs, as listed here.
It deserves more than comparisons with the equally superb mini-series Lonesome Dove and its fabulous other sequels.
James Garner's Woodrow Call was terrific, so was Tommy Lee Jones' but is it fair to compare them?
Cissy Spacek's Lorena was just as good as Diane Lane's as were Sam Shephard's and Tim Scott's Pea Eye interpretations.
To wrap it up, Streets of Laredo is a superb film with great acting, directing, cinematography, and a stirring musical score and more.
So was Lonesome Dove, Return to Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, Comanche Moon and the TV series.
Aging ex-Captain Woodrow Call (James Garner) from Texas Rangers , is hired by a railroad chief (Charles Martin Smith) to hunt a ruthless murderer called Joey Garza (Alexis Cruz) , only a boy , who kills mercilessly .
He joins forces with an Indian scout (Wes Studi) and Pea Eye (Sam Shepard) , whose wife (Sissy Spacek) , a school teacher and ex-whore , is reluctant his husband to follow Woodrow .
Later on , Pea Eye's wife (Sissy Spacek) leaves her farm and children and sets out in looking for her husband with unexpected results .
Including appearance of famous historical characters , such as Judge Roy Bean/Nead Beatty ¨Justice of the Peace , Law West of the Pecos¨ and the notorious gunslinger : John Wesley Hardin : Randy Quaid .
Classic Western saga with outstanding and wonderful performances in which a long ride to south Texas and the Mexican side of the border takes place .
As James Garner gives a very good acting as Woodrow Call , an ex-captain , now retired from the Rangers, and actually working as a bounty hunter .
He is hired by an Eastern rail baron and being joined by his old compadre Pea Eye marvelously performed by Sam Shepard .
And a great support cast who sometimes steal the show : Sissy Spacek , Wes Studi , Charles Martin Smith , Vanessa Martinez , George Carlin , James Gammon , Kevin Conway , Ned Beatty , Randy Quaid , among others .
Based on Pulitzer prize-winner Larry McMurtry's novel , whose books about Woodrow Call have been well adapted in ¨Lonesome Dove¨ 1989 by Simon Wincer with Robert Duvall, Tommy Lee Jones , Angelica Huston , Danny Glover , Diane Lane , Robert Urich .
Followed by ¨Return to Lonesome Dove¨ 1993 that picks up after the burial of Gus by his friend Call , now played by John Voight , and with William H Petersen , Barbara Hershey, Edward James Olmos , Keith Carradine , Rick Schroeder , Oliver Reed , Nia Peeples , Luis Gosset Jr , being directed by Mike Robe .
And a prequel : ¨Larry McMurtry's Dead man's walk¨ 1996 which focuses on the teenaged Gus , David Arquette , and Woodrow , Johnny Lee Miller , along with Harry Dean Stanton , Brian Dennehy , Jennifer Garner , Joaquin De Almeida , F Murray Abraham .
An Tv series 1995-96 : 22 episodes with Scott Bairstow as Call , Eric McCormack , Paul Lee Mat , Tracy Scoggins , Paul Johansson , Molly Parker and several others .This nail-biting and heart-pounding Western was compellingly directed by Joseph Sargent , without a doubt one of the best miniseries of the 90s .
A good western mini-series.
First, when it comes to the books I think most people think Lonesome Dove is a better book.
Second, the first mini-series was so one of a kind that it really left an impression with people.
By the time this came out people didn't find a western mini-series as groundbreaking.
Streets of Laredo is just as compelling as the original the only difference is that James Garner now holds the reins as Captain Woodrow Call,One of the most legendary Texas Rangers ever.
he is rivaled by George Carlin in a dramatic role a first for Carlin This movie shows us how the tale Ends but to me it still leaves a lot out maybe to lead to another story in the Lonesome Dove universe about the Final Years of Woodrow Call.
Superb acting and a strong script make this a highly recommended movie which is official Canon unlike the sequel Return to Lonesome Dove which wasn't.
Streets of Laredo can stand along side Lonesome Dove as one of the very best wild west stories ever told..
I watched Lonesome Dove, too, and didn't really have any expectations for this movie, but I'd have to say it wasn't about the thread between movies or characters; how much Garner was like Jones, etc.
And, the movie did not really take place on The Street of Laredo..
Streets of Laredo is a fine western.
It's just that Lonesome Dove set too high a standard to compare any other western with.
Maybe the problem lies with the story itself....can anyone who saw LD imagine Lorena marrying Pea Eye and having a passel of kids????
Recall that Lorena wouldn't have anything to do with Lippy and yet she marries Pea Eye. Diane Lane and Tim Scott, together!?!
Streets of Laredo simply inverts the visuals embedded in our brains from LD: now Pea Eye(Sam Shepherd) is actually better looking than Lorena(Sissy Spacek).
Newt, who was the actual "lonesome dove" in LD, is never mentioned.
I also don't like the introduction of historical figures Roy Bean and John Wesley Hardin who are used as stage props to prove how fearsome Joey Garza is.
I bought first the lonesome dove DVD and then the collection of Return to Lonesome Dove, Streets of Laredo and Dead man Walking I think it was.I have seen all but the last now.Streets of Laredo this is the worst of the three.
It's like watching aliens.Really don't like the Joey Garza character.
The best of the "Lonesome Dove" series.
Shown in two parts, "Streets of Laredo" is the best of the "Lonesome Dove" series.
Also, dropping the names of real people such as Charles Goodnight and John Wesley Hardin and the names of characters from other movies such as R.J. Poteet from Centennial was kind of lame..
Well,i didnt have high expectations for this one.It turned out to be better than i expected.It includes a fine cast led by James Garner and supported by Sissy Spacek,Sam Shepard and Sonia Braga,among others.Garner did a fine performance,same with the three others.But who i didnt like much here was Charles Martin Smith and Alexis Cruz who played Joey Garza,the main villain of the show.Smith was unconvincing and way too hillarious to be taken seriously.And Cruz is just ridiculous.I dont know why anybody would hire him.He just cant play.This show features some beautiful landscape and the story will keep you in your seat until the end.Too bad they couldnt get DiCaprio to play Joey Garza(ridiculous name by the way).
As the story plot and characters in this series have been explained and dissected by others in detail, this post is mostly commentary about its intent and result.Precisely how the dedicated director and writer interpreted the story on film made all the difference in its quality.
As the actors were not the same as in earlier versions and stories in the Lonesome Dove series, a consistency in story intention and attitude had to be maintained for it to be successful through all the varied incarnations using different actors and tech people.
And that is precisely what made this version work so well, as it was a serious, deadly and harsh story true to its original essence, and it had to be told that very same and true way and not devolve into what TV does so often with sequels....and that is to try to make it funny, different, "family entertainment", and as a result, vastly inferior.
The director and the actors stuck closely to that serious intent and execution, and that is primarily what made this story version work so well, and it was a worthy successor to the original in all ways.This was a quality TV production, in many ways the equal of most big studio films of the genre, and in many ways far superior(most especially in the great musical score).
Streets of Laredo is different than the others but it's a ride full with twists and you grow to love the new characters.
The road from beginning to end was good though, the characters we met and character development which made us like them helped from the decent villains.
The ending is amazing, couldn't be better.Dead Man's Walk to Streets of Laredo are four mini series and novels written by Larry McMurtry, the characters and story are all pure perfection.
How the author and creator have thought the whole Lonesome Dove world out is simply stunning, full of immersion and likeable characters.
I have to buy the novels and read them, just watching these mini series have inspired me to write my own western.
Cissy Spacek is a good actress, but has very strange looks, not the beauty Lorena is supposed to be, and was in Lonesome Dove.
I saw this after Dead Man's Walk and before Lonesome Dove.
I am not sure why such an inaccuracy as Judge Bean dying "not according to history" was allowed.For the record, this movie is second to Dead Man's Walk and a tad above Lonesome Dove.
I especially liked his role in the movie even though he was a train robber and killed nearly everyone he met.
The sequel they expected was probably Return to Lonesome Dove.
But Return to Lonesome Dove was in many ways just a rehash.
The other supporting characters don't really need to some back, as they were ranch hands, not major characters Given that, I wasn't disappointed not to see Newt or many other characters return when I saw the sequel or read the book.
And it makes sense that McMurtry, who is from Texas, would want to maintain a connection to Texas rather than move the entire story up to Montana.The deaths of Gus, Jake and Deets leaves only two Rangers alive: Call and Pea-Eye. The two of them are very similar in a way.
It's also a good way to show a contrast between them, which is why Lorena returns.
Pea-Eye, on the other hand, pursues that relationship and starts a family.Though it is a sequel to Lonesome Dove, viewers should brace themselves for what is, in all other respects, a completely different movie.
Were it not for the history that Call and the Parkers have, this could have been a story completely separate from the Lonesome Dove series.
This, like the prequels, is a story were the work of a Texas Ranger takes center stage.
Unlike Lonesome Dove, which had a romantic sense of adventure, this film shows the harm that their work sometimes causes.
As Woodrow and Pea Eye show, however, they still have work to do, and do it well.
It's not quite the film that Lonesome Dove was, which had a great mixture of romance, darkness, adventure and excitement--it's a much darker film--but still worth a look.Oh, and to correct one of the other reviews.
Tommy Lee Jones played Call, who is played here by James Garner.
And there are two other constants: Lorena; played in Lonesome Dove by Diane Lane and here by Sissy Spacek; and Pea Eye Parker; played in Lonesome Dove by Tim Scott, and here by Sam Shepard.
But her mention of Blue Duck and her whoring life is enough to connect the dots, and Sam Shepard actually plays Pea Eye as a man with some intelligence though not much formal education, rather than the simpleton that we got from Tim Scott.
It's also a shame that Tommy Lee Jones never returned to the role of Woodrow Call, though maybe at the age Call is in this story, it wouldn't have made sense.
I found this to be a decent follow-up to the excellent Lonesome Dove TV miniseries.
Although a different cast and a different story, it does the original story justice and follows that if you liked Lonesome Dove, then you'll like this, too.
However, in my opinion, Lonesome Dove was decidedly superior and holds up better in multiple viewings.
I liked this a lot the first time I saw it; not so much the second time.There is just one constant in the two stories: the character of Capt.
Woodrow Call, played by Tommy Lee Jones in the first series and by James Garner in this sequel.
You can't go wrong with either actor.On my second look at this long story (227 minutes), I didn't enjoy it as much the first time because I found the last hour just too bleak and depressing.
I've attempted to watch some of the other "Lonesome Dove" sequels, but had to give up after a few minutes.
I assumed the problem was the absence of most or all of the original actors -- but maybe the presence of McMurtry himself as screenwriter made all the difference.Yes, it would have been great to have Tommy Lee Jones back as Woodrow Call, but James Garner does a fine job.
Larry McMurtry's Streets of Laredo is a non sensical sequel....
There appears to be little connection between this movie and the original other then several similar character names.
Why is pea eye in Texas and why is Lorena married to him?
James Garner is a great actor but he is not good as Capt Call.
I thought that Return to Lonesome Dove was the real sequel, not this poor attempt.This would have been a good free standing movie if it was not advertised as a Lonesome Dove sequel and the characters would have had non-Lonesome Dove names..
By Far The WORST Lonesome Dove Movie Ever .....Young Mexican Is Killing People.
I gave this 3 stars only because I love a good western .
But in comparison to the 'Lonesome Dove ' series this was just awful !!
'Return to Lonesome Dove' had much more flavor and even though was not written by Larry McMurtry - was still how I would of liked the series to end .
Much better way to end the series ..
I have read enough books and talked to people who had grampas or great uncles who lived in the days of the "old west" to know this movie is closer to reality then most.
This movie can stand on its own even though it is a follow up to Lonesome Dove. |
tt0061576 | Dio perdona... Io no! | Bill San Antonio accuses his old friend and partner Cat of cheating at cards. Bill orders the others out and tells his henchman Bud to set fire to the house. Then they have a stand-up duel and Bill falls. When Cat emerges from the house the gang follows Bill’s orders – Cat is allowed to leave. After the funeral the men find that the loot of the gang is missing and Bud says that Cat must have stolen it. On several occasions Cat is attacked by gang members and kills them, while Bud disappears.
This is told in flashbacks during the film, that starts when a train is robbed and its passengers massacred, but one survivor identifies Bill San Antonio. Cat is told this by Hutch, an old acquaintance who is now an insurance agent. Cat remembers that the gun he used in the duel was handed to him by Bud. He sneaks away at night with Hutch’s horse and leaves it further on. Cat searches – followed at a distance by Hutch – and eventually finds the hideout of Bill’s new gang. When sneaking into the house Cat is caught, but saved by Earp. Using Hutch’s considerable strength, they remove the box with the gold taken from the train, and hide it down in the ground by some cliffs. Then the two fall out, because Cat wants more than the percentage offered by the insurance company. As shots may draw the attention of the gang, they fight it out without weapons. Cat swings in a tree and kicks Hutch several times until Hutch finally knocks Cat out cold. Still dizzy, Hutch looks up to find that Bill and his men have arrived.
The two are tortured by what Bill knows that they can’t stand, Cat by water and Hutch by fire, but they won’t tell where the gold is. When Bill and most of the gang temporarily leaves (to meet his secret partner), Cat suggests to Bud (who has been recently whipped by Bill for being too conspicuous in the nearby village and also blamed for the surviving witness at the train massacre) that he can lead him to the gold. After Cat digs up the box of gold Bud is about to shoot him, but Cat throws a knife lying by the box and kills Bud.
When Bill returns he sends his gang to search for Cat. Bill and two bandits find Cat in a cantina in the nearby Mexican village. After his two companions have been shot by Cat, Bill – held at gunpoint – suggests that they share the money, and forget Earp. At Bill’s lair three men left there try to get the information from Hutch, but his guard Tago refuses to open the door. While Tago is occupied Earp breaks the wooden beam that he is bound to and beats him down. Then he shoots the men when they break in through the door.
At the place of the gold Cat intends to reproduce his first duel with Bill, but with dynamite instead of fire. While the fuse burns away they move into position to draw, but are interrupted by Hutch, who is holding a rifle and tells them to drop their guns. He asks about the gold, and when Cat says that the box is there but the content may not be the same, he tries to open the box while keeping an eye on the two. The fuse keeps on burning, and Bill draws a hidden derringer and shoots Hutch, but a hidden knife thrown by Cat wounds his hand. The two pick up their revolvers and shoot. Cat wounds Bill’s other hand (that he drew with) and also shoots both his knees. While Bill crawls towards the kegs of dynamite and tries to bite off the fuse with his teeth Cat carries the unconscious Hutch to cover. Then there is a big explosion.
In the concluding scene Hutch comes to lying on the wagon with the bags of gold. Cat says that he has to have a bullet taken out of his head and that they will discuss the fate of the gold when Hutch is strong enough to hold a gun. | western, revenge, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | Unusual, But Great Spencer/Hill Spaghetti Western.
I Don't!" is not only the first film with both Bud Spencer and Terence Hill in the leading parts, it is also one of their best movies.
I Don't!" is not one of the usual Spencer/Hill comedies, but a pretty brutal and rather serious Spaghetti Western.The movie starts with a train rolling into a town.
Two gunslingers, Cat Stevens (Hill), and Hutch Bessy (Spencer) realize that the whole coup looks like the work of Outlaw Bill San Antonio.
The mysterious thing about it is, however, that Cat killed San Antonio in a duel several months ago.
On their search for the gold, the two get several clues that Bill San Antonio only staged his own death."God Forgives..
I Don't!" is definitely the most serious and brutal of the Spencer/Hill collaborations.
Anyway, the movie also has many of the typical Spencer/Hill movie ingredients, like the numerous fistfights in which Spencer's character uses his typical hammering one punch technique.
Spencer and Hill show that they are not only great as a team in comedies, but also in a serious Spaghetti Western.
Another Highlight of this movie is the great performance of Spaghetti Western Star Frank Wolff as the evil Bill San Antonio.
I also liked the score a lot, especially the part with the somehow aggressive, dynamic, classical choir.In Germany and Austria, this movie was released under three different titles.
Terence Hill's character is also referred to as 'Django' in the uncut German version, and his dubbed voice is different to his dubbed voice in his later comedies.All told, "God Forgives...
I Don't" is a great Spaghetti Western, not like the usual Spencer/Hill movies, but a pretty brutal and serious movie, and definitely one of their best collaborations.
First violent entry of the Giuseppe Colizzi trilogy with Hill and Spencer.
Again Hill as Cat Stevens and Spencer as Hutch Bessy team up against a baddie named Bill well played by Frank Wolff .
Exciting western deals with a gunfighter robber hijacks a payroll train , kills everyone aboard and then stashes his loot .
This violent Spaghetti Western oater goes on when Cat Stevens (Terence Hill or Mario Girotti) trying to save himself from a pursuit by nasties .
Then meets Hutch (Bud Spencer or Carlo Pedersoli) who proposes him to discover the train robbing , allegedly committed by Bill St Antonio , and the two guys mess with Western baddies .
Nevertheless , the heinous villain is alive and seeks revenge , he is a ruthless outlaw and supported by heinous henchmen .The movie contains gunplay, action Western, bloody spectacle and fist-fights .
Terence Hill as a tough gunslinger and Spencer as a bouncing hunk are good but still not personified the Trinity hero characters .
At the picture appears usual Spaghetti secondaries who played ordinary characters as villains in numerous Spanish/Italian Western as Jose Luis Martin , Frank Braña , Jose Canalejas , Tito Garcia , Francisco Sanz and Luis Barboo , among others .
The film belongs the Giuseppe Colizzi trilogy starred by Hill and Spencer as Cat Stevens and Hutch Bessy .
The movie is finely photographed by Alfio Contini, and of course is shot in Almeria , Spain, location where were filmed hundreds Western in the 60s and 70s .
This motion picture also titled ¨God forgives¨ will appeal to Hill and Spencer fans and S.W. aficionados..
Among all the spaghetti-westerns I have seen(maybe 50) this one belongs to the better ones.
Terence Hill showed his talents and the "chemistry" with Bud Spencer worked so well that it wasn't their last pairing, to say the least.
Even though it stars Terence Hill and Bud Spencer don´t expect this to be a light-hearted comedy flick like the Trinity westerns.
Okay spaghetti western.
I'm not sure why American-International chose to theatrically release in the U.S. this particular spaghetti western over dozens of others.
Although this does the job for spaghetti western addicts (like myself), and it's never boring, it is not spectacular in any department - scenery, story, action, violence, etc.The main attraction this movie has today is the early pairing up (before the TRINITY films) of Hill and Spencer.
Spencer acts like his usual ornery self, though we do get the chance to see hill play a determined, more brutal western hero.
The first big time' collaboration of Spencer/Hill.
This film is one the first collaboration between Spencer and Hill, in which they both play a big part (and it is their first film together with their FAMOUS screen names).
The main difference between this film and most other Spencer and/or Hill films, is that it has a more serious nature and is a lot more brutal than their usual comedy-style films.
What might have made it a notch worse for me, is that Spencer and Hill did not have their standard German voices, but I cannot really say, because
well it's obvious isn't it!?!
If you're more interested in comedy-western try a Trinity film.
The "Cat Stevens" The "Hutch Bessy" and The "Bill San Antonio".
Very good quality spaghetti western!Without exploration in genre but strong professional work on all levels.Not bad scenario (rude variation on THE GOOOD THE BAD THE UGLY scheme).Without inventions in plot and dialog but successful inside fighting and especially torture (rope,water(pit),fire) scenes.Red hair Bill San Antonio not demonic power character but sly fox.Terence Hill as Cat Stevens is equal parts of Franko Nero's (Django) and Clint Eastwood's (in "dollars trilogy") "good" guys performances.Bud Spencer's Hutch Bessy is pretty with limit (relatively for latest Spencer's characters) physical power.
Generally: for all spaghetti western fans!.
not bad for a Hill/Spencer flick.
I've never really appreciated the whole Terence Hill and Bud Spencer phenomenon the way that some people apparently do.
I don't think they are any better as a duo than any other two random actors that could have been thrown together at that time, and as far as comedy goes, let's just say they are no Laurel and Hardy.
In fact, I think they've done better work when they haven't been together, especially in the case of Hill.One saving grace for this film is that it is not one of their irritating attempts at comedy.
And it's told in good spaghetti western fashion.
This film keeps the viewer intrigued from beginning to end, and it is accompanied by an interesting music score from Angel Oliver Pina.The highlight of this movie is the performance of Frank Wolff, as Bill San Antonio.
Wolff has appeared in a lot of spaghetti westerns playing all sorts of characters, and is one of the finest supporting actors of the genre.
San Antonio is one of those funny, over-the-top characters that make these movies so much fun to watch.
Frank Wolff is so great in this role that he steals the show completely, and makes this movie way more enjoyable than it would have been otherwise.Overall, this is a pretty decent spaghetti western that is worth watching for fans of the genre..
Their first official movie Spencer and Hill stared in together, a classic spaghetti western.
Ironically it was Hill who started out as the harsher character while Bud played the more amicable guy.
It was an entertaining enough movie, but if you're looking for the humourous slapstick comedy we have come to expect from these guys, you won't get it.
Unlike "They call me Trinity", it's a very serious Western with little in the way of humour, although I do find the shoot outs amusing as the guns seem to fire off more like cap guns than real guns.
Bud was dubbed by the man who was to do his voice in most of his movies; Glauco Onorato.
Hill usually did his own English voice dubbing, but in this one he has someone else doing his voice, a much colder and harsher voice to match his character.
I guess it's not surprising that they needed to do that, otherwise his character, Cat would just not have the same menacing aura to him.
I always love Hill-Spencer's movies since 1976 when l'd watched the first one,since then every movie from both l watched in fullness...on "Dio perdona...lo no!" is an unusual situation between the star in this case they are complete antagonists,Hill is a gambler who was trapped by the chief band's robbers and Spencer work to insurance company where he has to recover the US$ 300.000 in gold that was stolen on a train robbery...this movie is more serious from the couple...the result is good...the partner was so long is cinema's history...sadly Bud Spencer let us forever!!!.
(1967) ** (out of 4) Incoherent but violent Spaghetti Western has a train pulling up to a station but everyone on board has been shot and killed and there's also $100,000 in gold missing.
Soon Terence Hill and Bud Spencer (their first film together) are trying to track down the gold, which has been buried somewhere in the west.
Apparently there are at least two versions of this film out there and the one I watched was the AIP version, which got a theatrical release here in the States back in the day.
As for the film, outside it not making too much sense, it really isn't as bad as some of the reviews that I've read.
This is the only film I've seen from the Hill/Spencer team, although I've got more sitting here to watch.
I think the two make for an interesting duo but I've read the majority of their films together are more comedy than anything else.
The opening sequence on the train is wonderfully done as is the following scene where Hill is playing poker against three cheaters.
The violence really keeps the film moving even when the story doesn't make too much sense.
This isn't the best spaghetti I've seen but I'm sure there are worse out there..
This film is one of many films with Terence Hill and Bud Spencer that I can see over and over again without getting bored.
It has a dark attitude and the acting is more serious than the Trinity films but have a light comic touch over it anyway.
As all English version of a "Spagetti Western" the voices are dubbed afterwards, with or without the original actors voices.
I first saw this film for the first time in the 70's and didn't pay so much attention of the dubbed voices then.When I saw it again for maybe the third time in the late 80's on my VCR, I suddenly realized that it wasn't Terence's voice at all, but a voice of an other actor I've heard many time over the years.Of course it is just a qualified guess from a movie freak, but I'm pretty shure that Terence's voice is replaced by the voice of the English actor Roger Moore.It is the sharp S'es and other characteristics in the voices that is giving him away.There is also some poor attempts to hide the English accent with a vage tone of American-Western dialect.I haven't seen any information yet that says that it is Roger Moore's voice but then again, I haven't seen any information that says that it isn't.If you have "God forgives, I don't" on video cassette or DVD, see it again, close your eyes and picture Roger Moore face/acting instead.What do you think now ?.
Saturday morning and time for a western - a spaghetti western with Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, who have appeared together a couple of dozen times.Hill can be found in some of the most popular movies today, like Wanted and Get Smart.
It is the first film where Bud Spencer, previously Carlo Pedersoli, appears under that name.Lots of shoot-em-up action.
Head and Shoulders Above the Average Spaghetti Western!.
Before he became a film director, Giuseppe Colizzi served as Federico Fellini's production manager on "The Swindlers." The short-lived Colizzi helmed four of his six films with Terence Hill and Bud Spencer.
The first entry in an overlooked and underrated spaghetti western trilogy, Colizzi's "God Forgives, But I Don't" boasts the numerical distinction of pairing Hill and Spencer together for the first time after a foot injury forced lead actor Peter Martell off the picture.
"Ace High" and "Boot Hill" followed.
Hill and Spencer went on to achieve greater fame in Enzo Barboni's two "Trinity" features.
Before Hill capitalized on comedy westerns and later modern day adventures, he proved himself as gunslinger Cat Stevens, a pistolero who found it just as easy to cross the line between good and evil as fire up a cheroot.
Bronzed like a tawny Greek god with a deep masculine voice dubbed in by another actor and displaying admirable restraint in the stoic tradition of Clint Eastwood, Hill proved equally adept at portraying sober dramatic protagonists as well as lightweight, comic leads.
Hill and Spencer are evenly matched by seasoned Spaghetti western villain Frank Wolff who resembles Harpo Max with mutton chops."God Forgives, But I Don't" seizes your attention from the start.
Eventually, we learn that the murderous outlaw chieftain Bill San Antonio (Frank Wolff of "A Stranger in Town") and his gang of despicable bandits held up the train and stole $100-thousand in gold.Colizzi shifts the action to a poker game.
Cat Stevens (Terence Hill of "The Leopard") looks as cool as ice as he gambles with a quartet of hardcases.
Later, Cat's friend Hutch Bessy (Bud Spencer of "The 5-Man Army") finds him at a remote waterhole and tells him about the MK&T train robbery.
Hutch found the sole survivor of the train massacre.
Before the passenger perished, he told Hutch about Bill San Antonio's role in the robbery.
After they robbed the train, they killed everybody on board and sent the train onto Canyon City.Initially, Cat refuses to believe Bill could have planned and participated in the hold-up.
Colizzi flashbacks to a scene in a shack where Bill and Cat squared off against each other in a showdown after Bill's henchman Bud (José Manuel Martín of "The Savage Guns") sets the building ablaze.
He wants Cat to team up with him so they can locate the loot.
Not only did Bill San Antonio not die in the fire but he also robbed the train.
Hutch intervenes and they steal the $100-thousand dollars in gold.Neither Cat nor Hutch has an easy time holding onto the gold while surviving Bill and his gang.
Colizzi models loquacious Bill San Antonio after Eli Wallach's Mexican bandit Calvera from "The Magnificent Seven." Bill feels responsible for his cronies and wants to take care of them.
Good dialogue, rugged laconic heroes, grimy trigger-happy hooligans, atmospheric settings, Alfio Contini's impressive widescreen photography, and the scenic sun-drenched plains of Spain make "God Forgives, I Don't" a solid, satisfying saga, head and shoulders above the average spaghetti western..
This film begins with a train carrying a dignitary to a small town in the wilderness.
However, once it pulls into the station it comes to a sudden halt and it's then that the residents of the town realize that all but one man on the train have been shot and killed.
It is then disclosed that a man by the name of "Bill San Antonio" (Frank Wolff) was behind the train robbery and an insurance agent by the name of "Hutch " (Bud Spencer) wants to recover the stolen money.
It's at this point that he meets up with a stranger named "Cat" (Terence Hill) and asks him if he will help him out.
Even so, Hutch is not dissuaded so easily and subsequently follows Cat in the belief that he will lead him straight to Bill and the stolen gold.
Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a decent "Spaghetti Western" with the added benefit of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer performing together for the very first time.
This is only my second viewing of a Terrence Hill/Bud Spencer collaboration, the other being 1972's "La Collina Degli Stivali" or "Boot Hill", the title I saw it under.
I've yet to see a Trinity film, so maybe my opinion will change, but I don't see a whole lot to be enthused about regarding their output.
I Don't!" was better than "Boot Hill", an almost unintelligible affair made more complicated by a dark and muddy appearance that contributed to it's being hard to follow.
What's more, I don't recall either Hill or Spencer mentioned by their credited characters' names, that of Cat Stevens and Hutch Bessey.
Maybe they were, but the story didn't make it clear enough for me, and mentally I had to keep referencing them as Pretty Face and the 'fat guy'.
On the other hand, outlaw Bill San Antonio (Frank Wolff) stood out nicely villainous in contrast.
He might be the best reason for tuning in.The other troubling issue with the film version I saw today on the Encore Western Channel had to do with some clumsy editing.
The best example I can think of was right at the finale when San Antonio was about to face a showdown with Pretty Face and Bessey.
Not too suspenseful and definitely not too satisfying.I don't know, maybe back in the heyday of spaghetti Westerns, this might have been something new and different, but there are still enough better ones around, particularly Eastwood's trilogy.
In fact, now that I think about it, that's kind of how Terence Hill's character strikes me, sort of a poor man's Clint Eastwood, who's own take as the Stranger leaves just a little something to be desired..
I Don't!" (USA) is just a standard Spaghetti Western that doesn't really interest the viewer that much.
It has the team of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer and very little plot.
It was fun as a kid, but now it's average.Filmed in Spain.The film is the first in a trilogy followed by Ace High (1968) and Boot Hill (1969).Also recommended:They Call Me Trinity (1970)Trinity Is Still My Name (1971)My Name Is Nobody (1973)Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) |
tt0435653 | The Gravedancers | An unidentified young woman, alone in a room, is attacked by an invisible assailant, who hangs her in the stairway of her house. As she dies, she drops an ornate black envelope.
A year later, former college friends Sid (Marcus Thomas), Kira (Josie Maran), and Harris (Dominic Purcell) go out drinking after a funeral. They break into the Crescent View Cemetery to say their final goodbyes to the departed. Continuing their revelries, they get quite drunk. Sid finds a black envelope tucked behind a garland of flowers at the grave. It contains a poem urging those present to be joyful and to dance upon the graves. In their drunken state, the three regard this as a celebration of life, and they dance.
Afterwards, mysterious things happen. Harris and his wife Allison (Clare Kramer) are frightened by unexpected visions and odd sounds. Then Kira is attacked by a demonic force. She is severely bitten and sexually assaulted, and her house is ransacked. Sid is plagued by unexpected fires. They enlist a pair of paranormal investigators, Vincent Cochet (Tchéky Karyo) and Frances Culpepper (Megahn Perry), who determine that the three friends inadvertently invoked a powerful curse by dancing on the graves. They are now being haunted by three wayward spirits—a passionate axe murderer, a child pyromaniac, and a serial killer and rapist—who will kill them at the next full moon.
As the full moon approaches, they return to the cemetery to disinter the remains of their tormenters, hoping to bury them anew and put the curse to rest. Not all of the critical parts make it back into the ground, however, and on the final night the three friends experience renewed attacks, more powerful and furious than any previously. They are trapped together with the investigators by the malevolent spirits. Sid is incinerated by his firebug ghost, and Kira is murdered and her body is possessed by the axe murderer who is pursuing Harris.
Under duress, Culpepper admits that she foiled the burial plan by hiding the skulls of the corpses, the better to gather hard evidence of ghostly activity. Harris takes the axe murderer's skull and tries to return it to its body to break the curse. He helps Allison escape the house through an attic window.
The spiritual force in the house coalesces into the form of a demonic head. Smashing through the walls and out of the house, it pursues the characters' fleeing vehicle. Barely eluding the head, Allison and Harris return the skull to its corpse, and the raging spirits disappear.
Later, Allison and Harris walk through the cemetery after the funerals of their friends. As they leave, the groundskeeper carefully places an ornate black envelope on one of the tombstones. | paranormal, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | "The Gravedancers", one of the 8 Films To Die For at the After Dark Horrorfest, is a surprisingly original little supernatural horror movie.
Definitely one of the better films to be part of the After Dark Horror Fest, "The Gravedancers" is a pretty original movie that captures the style of '70s and '80s supernatural horror films.
There are a few typical scare moments in the movie though (and there are some clichés that abound), but for the most part I thought this film at least tried to avoid most of the clichéd horror set-ups, which was a real benefit here.
The director took good advantage of those "things that go bump in the night" kind of scares, and they are effectively used and really creepy.As far as the acting goes, it isn't bad.
And the CGI blowout during the last ten minutes of the film was a little overdone I felt, but I'm not going to complain too much, I'd rather just take this movie for what it is.Overall, "The Gravedancers" is a horror movie that is worth watching.
In some respects it's a bit corny (mostly with it's special effects usage), but the film is done in a style that is reminiscent of past horror films, so these things are forgivable considering that it's a throwback-type of movie.
This movie reminds me of why I am not the biggest fan of the horror genre
because I always end up with my muscles tensed up for two hours and I sit on the edge of my seat and am left feeling completely exhausted.
Anyway, the story is pretty interesting
a group of college friends reunite after a few years and accidentally call upon some spirits of the dead that end up haunting them after a fateful night in the cemetery.
I saw the DVD cover, normally when there a good DVD cover the movie is not that good, so I didn't think this movie will be any good or scary.The story two men and Girl go to a graveyard at night after there friends funeral and they start to drinking and dancing on graves.Then not long after, strange things start to happen as the Doors are opening and shutting and piano is playing while no in the room They soon find out that each one of them are being haunted by ghost because they were dancing on there grave but worse is that they have danced on grave of Insane people.This is really good movie, It's the best movie to watch by your self in the Dark, the movie did make me Jump which was Great and did like how the movie start of when we could not see the ghost, it was more creepy as we don't when it will attack, also did like the ghost in movie were really scary looking too.A really good scary ghost story movie with great acting too but the ending did the let the whole movie down.I give this movie 8/10.
It all boils down to a silly ending and overall, while I really did like the special effects, this is a disappointing horror film and I do not recommend it..
Yeah some of the CG is cheesy, and some of the acting is ham, but nearly every movie you watch these days is.This film has an excellent script, with characters that, well I did, you like.
I recommend this film to anyone looking for a good horror type film that doesn't have to have blood coming from all angles to make you feel a little spooked..
I don't know how they're planning to market the DVDs, but anything less than a box set would not do all the awesome entries to this great event justice, plus I'm sure a lot of us didn't get the chance to see all of them at our local theaters.And please keep supporting R-RATED HORROR MOVIES with your patronage!
Hee Hee.After doing the drunken deeds, our heroes: Dominic Purcell (Primeval, Equilibrium), Josie Maran (Van Helsing) and Marcus Thomas (Edmond), are getting their reward - crazed spirits after them.This spooky film has it all: creaky sound, apparitions, super special effects, blood and gore, and perversion in what i would call a traditional horror film.
May it be that it is a matter of taste whether you like or dislike this movie, but i read an awful lot of comments here about this movie that i think really treated it way to good.You can say as positive aspects that considering the obviously low budget of the movie the cinematography and some visual effects are quite OK, but this couldn't save the rest for me...I can just say; you are not missing anything not watching this flick!.
They have to break the curse or survive for an entire cycle of the full moon when the curse would finish, while the ghosts are getting stronger and stronger.Yesterday I saw "The Gravedancers" on cable and I really liked this horror movie.
First of all, I'm one of those people who go into horror movies and ending up laughing at every little thing in it.
My chief complaint with the movie is the way it devolved toward the end and payed good homage to the the original Evil Dead film (it's one of my favorite classics, but goes a bit overboard toward the end).
"Gravedancers" is a unique take on the rather stale "haunting" formula, and is full of self-aware characters in a well rounded script that doesn't send stupid people into stupid situations.I was shocked at how great the film looked, if you held this film up next to any of those crappy bloated multiplex horror flicks starring some blonde ditz from a forgettable UPN/WB show, I think you'd have a hard time figuring out which cost more.
This movie is by no means not the best horror film ever made, BUT its light hearted sarcasm make a nice comedy touch, whilst the scary moments are quite chilling, and the effects made me jump.
It has great special effects and all of the scare elements that make a horror film what it is supposed to be.
...till I'm sure that you're dead!(B.Dylan) Profanations have become frequent nowadays and it is a burning subject which deserved a responsible writer and a reliable director.The movie fails twice: mediocre story,poor acting,awful directing relying on horrible (and non-scary) special effects.The movie hits rock bottom when they hire ghost busters (from a famous university of course),one of them is the unfortunate Tcheky Karyo in what is perhaps the worst part of his career;he is abetted by a bubble head assistant (collaborator,she says)."The night of the living dead" has still no contenders in this field..
Well the movie begins as a promising, serious scary experience, but as the plot unfolds it unravels into sheer comedy and makes fun of itself, which was kind of amusing to me, but may be not so for other people, specially if one is looking for a scared-the-s**t-out-of-me movie and this is why I rated it 5/10.
The impression one gets by watching this movie is that either the director did not know where he was heading while the scenes were being shot or that the editors really tried hard to assemble their own version of the story, considering the discrepancy of how the movie begins and the way it ends, since it goes from aural depiction of the ominous into Ghostbusters-like cgi effects..
Dominic 'Prison Break' Purcell gets drunk with two of his friends and they all dance on graves which doesn't sit well while the insane dead people who's graves they're dancing on and the ghosts decide to haunt these fools.
It borrows so much from other films it's almost like watching a 'straight' version of one of the "Scary Movie" comedies.But Gravedancers commits the worse crime of all.
Clearly an influential film, everything that the other 8 films to die for failed to be; namely, scary, credible, and well acted.I am not going to go into all the controversy surrounding this movie, rather let me tell you what I felt during the film.Grave Dancers is a good scary picture which will not only entertain you, but will make you wonder what originally occupied the land where you will be is buried .
Out of all of the films, I felt this one had the greatest potential, and here I am.The story felt OK at first, decent opening story, and an eerie sense about it that might make the viewer think that this movie could be slightly different than your average horror flick.
Great if you're going through a bad time and need some cheering up.My main reasoning behind this opinion: - Bad acting - Low budget looks like it was all spent in the beginning, leaving the CGI to get worse and worse as the movie goes on - Terrible execution of story line, so many plot holes and weird quirks - Another forced addition to the horror genre that gives it a bad nameBut again, they managed to make the movie entertainingly bad, instead of annoyingly bad.
Im not sure what to think having sat through this.It starts quite seriously and could have been a top notch modern horror and it has moments very reminiscent of house on haunted hill, but somewhere along the line the acting and plot line goes evil dead.
This is another bad movie, which surprised me as Tchéky Karyo is a good actor and I really like his body of work.
Aside from some cheesy dialogue (mostly from Marcus Thomas' character Sid) and a few questionable effects (the ghost floating down beside the stairs in the final act, especially - but hey, you can only do so much on a tight budget) the film was quite good.Two of the more outstanding scenes for me were the hospital attack scene and the change in perspective when Josie Maran's character, Kira, was attacked in the mansion.
Both were very good - and very effective - scenes.For anyone expecting this to be on par with a high-budget horror flick may be disappointed, but those of us who are simply looking for a fun time and a few jumps and shrieks along the way will be quite happy.
I expected another dumb Horror flick, like all these movies where a group of people are really dumb & drunk and end up dead because they did something stupid, but what I got was as great as the (japanese) The Grudge, Amityville Horror and all those other really great movies that made me look away mostly all the time!
So, if you have some spear time and want to watch a real good old' horror flick, then go and rent or buy this movie.
Why I am still giving eight stars is because this is a old-school horror movie, with scary looking ghosts (except the final scene which is kinda over-the-top) and nice special effects.
A simple plot (being haunted by ghosts) with some quality casting and decent visual effects.Dominic Purcell (from TV's "Prison Break") stars as Harris McKay, and really carries the film well.
The Grave Dancers was great horror movie, great special effects and very entertaining.
Don't skip this one i really recommended to people who love horror movies just like me is not the best horror movie ever but it work, it is worth watching , well for this bore fest i think is great..
this isn't your normal run of the mill stupid-teenagers-get-drunk-and-pissoff-a-ghost horror flick first reason being that we're talking bout well educated adults in this movie which I personally enjoyed since its a nice change and I'm impressed they managed to pull it off since lets face it ..
its way easier to make a story work with stupid drunk teens raising hell then lawyers and such also this movie has excellent pacing starts out nice and easy giving you the plot and lets the story build up and ends with you glued to the seat wishing you had never started watching this infernal movieand the demon/ghost/evil things are just great..
But don't be fooled, this film actually has some good scares.The plot is somewhat original where a trio of friends dance on a few graves after a night of drinking and become haunted by the ghosts of those in the graves they danced on.
The trio decide to do just that, but of all of the plots in the cemetery, they opt to cut the rug on the graves of three rather particularly wicked souls, a child pyromaniac, an axe murderer, and a sadomasochistic rapist, all of whom take serious offence at the desecration of their final resting places.The Gravedancers starts out in routine ghost-story fashion, with its scary supernatural occurrences taking the predictable form of creaking doors, strange noises, and the occasional, briefly-glimpsed spectral apparition; 'Ho-hum', I thought to myself, 'here we go again'.
But as the film developed, it took a delightfully unexpected turn, taking an approach that I can only describe as 'Scooby Doo' for adults, with its well realised spooks and the introduction of a pair of 'ghostbusters' (Tchéky Karyo as paranormal investigator Vincent, and Megahn Perry as his sexy Velma-alike colleague Frances).From here-on in, the film is loads of fun, with a hugely entertaining scene in the cemetery where the friends attempt to exhume the ghosts' corpses (during which Kira is trapped inside a coffin and slowly dragged into the ground), a really creepy bit where the friends are drawn into the killers' virtual worlds (the rapists lair being particularly spooky), and an exciting showdown against the spirits in an old mansion.
"The Gravedancers," one of the "8 Films to Die For" in the 2006 AfterDark HorrorFest, contains some spooky and freaky moments, but it is by no means an unqualified success.After the funeral of one of their college friends, Harris (Dominic Purcell), Sid (Marcus Thomas) and Kyra (Josie Maran) find a note amongst the flowers with a poem telling the to "celebrate life." To that end, they dance on some graves (all three of them are completely wasted at this point).
Much credit to the director, Mike Mendez, who manages to create suspense - a rare achievement nowadays - and good special effects for the spooks and scares despite a probably-low budget.It really makes one think: if the ghosts could look so good on a low budget, why aren't they as such in other B horrors?
Three friends who are saluting a dead friend dance in a cemetery and across the grave of three people who's spirits come to haunt them...and try to kill them.It takes a while for things to get going but once the monsters show up this movie suddenly starts to fire on all cylinders thanks to some really good effects work.
Seriously, all the atrocious marketing BS and even worse movies (Dark Ride, here's looking at you) are officially forgiven in light of "The Gravedancers." The movie is that good.It's hard to make an effective and scary ghost story.
Of course, this being a horror film, they were dancing in the section of the cemetery reserved for "undesirables." The characters in "The Gravedancers" are all well drawn and filled out by the actors and the ghosts are each iconic with unique back stories.
Sid contacts paranormal investigator Vincent Cochet (Tchéky Karyo) who quickly realises that they are dealing with a bad case of burial desecration, with the vengeful spirits of an arsonist, a axe murderer & a rapist trying to kill them Harris, Sid & Kirra must lay the ghost's to rest before it's too late...Directed by Mike Mendez this was one of the so-called Films to Die For at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest or whatever it's called along with the likes of Wicked Little Things (2006), Unrest (2006) & Penny Dreadful (2006) & isn't the worst of the bunch but The Gravedancers isn't the best either, as a straight supernatural horror film it's watchable enough but it's by means any sort of masterpiece.
Apparently the actor's didn't meet each other until two days before filming, while it's not great I have seen worse acting I suppose.The Gravedancers is an alright supernatural haunted house horror that has obvious influences, the whole story is silly yet it takes itself very seriously which gives it an odd vibe.
The name "The Gravedancers" sounds way too much like something coming out from the 80s low budget b-movie horror era.
Such was the case during the screening of Mike Mendez's The Gravedancers at the 2006 edition of Montreal's Fantasia Film Festival.Starring Prison Break's Dominic Purcell and Clare Kramer (Buffy The Vampire Slayer) the story revolves around the couple whose lives, along with those of their friends, are invaded by a trio of hostile ghosts after they engage in a drunken bout of gravedancing during a wake for an old chum.The movie is chalk full of horror delights which, while blatant clichés, work wonderfully under Director Mendez's remarkably talented hand.Drawing on influences such as The Entity, The Haunting of Hell House, and Poltergeist, The Gravedancers hits the pavement running with a gripping opening scene.
However, I was surprised that THE GRAVEDANCERS does climb a few notches above that, thanks to some nifty special effects, better than your average low-budget horror indie.The story reaches back into the past to dig up a few good scares, culling from such classics as 13 GHOSTS and THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, then going a bit further with scenes that are very similar to parts of THE ENTITY, THE CHANGELING, THE EXORCIST and the EVIL DEAD movies.
I certainly find that commendable, at a time when flayed skin and shredded body parts are what's passing for plotting in most horror films these days.Mike Mendez certainly does know his scary movies, because I could see some of the more "obvious" scares coming from a mile off.
For an indie horror film the effects were impossibly good.. |
tt2628316 | Green Street 3: Never Back Down | Danny Harvey was once the leader of the Green Street Elite, a group of hooligans supporting their beloved West Ham United. However, grown tired of the lifestyle, he leaves home and sets up shop as a mixed martial arts gym owner in Northern Ireland. After being confronted by some Irish goons for some protection money, Danny beats the goons up and tells them if their boss ever sends them again, he will find him and handle it. Danny's new life is shattered when he learns his younger brother Joey has been killed in a hooligan match.
Returning home, Danny meets up with Victor, an old friend who has since become a policeman. Victor tells Danny not to get involved and that he will handle the manner of Joey's death. When Danny goes to the Abbey, the local pub the Green Street Elite hang out at, he finds himself infatuated with barkeep Molly and meets up with GSE members Gilly and Big John. Danny wants answers as to who killed Joey. When they tell him that Joey had become somewhat of a rebel hooligan and challenged the wrong team out of spite, he was killed. Danny decides to rejoin the GSE much to the chagrin on Victor. However, Victor and Danny make a deal to cooperate with each other to find out who killed Joey, but they keep it on the down low.
Danny soon learns that the rules of hooliganism has changed. He learns the hard way when he arrives with the GSE at a game between West Ham and Tottenham. He breaks a bottle over a Tottenham hooligan's head and is arrested, only to be let go a few miles from the arena. When Gilly informs Danny of the new rules, a fight breaks out outside the Abbey between the GSE and Tottenham hooligans. Danny learns that there are now organized fights between hooligans, in teams of five. Danny decides to use his knowledge of mixed martial arts to train the members of the GSE for the organized fights. Meanwhile, as Victor continues his investigation of Joey's death, he is constantly finding himself being harassed by his superior.
Danny and the GSE one day sees the Millwall team, led by the towering Mason. As Millwall easily destroys their opponents, Mason taunts Danny about Joey on numerous occasions. With a tournament between the teams happening, Danny continues to train the GSE and soon, the GSE begin to take out the competition. As they rise in the rankings, Mason begins to see the GSE as a potential threat. Meanwhile, when Molly catches Danny talking with Victor, she confronts him. Danny tells Molly that Victor is trying to help him find Joey's murderer. Molly, still feeling betrayed, breaks up with Danny. When Danny leaves, Mason tells him to get in. Mason tells Danny that Gilly is the one who killed Joey because of his reckless behavior. When Danny beats up Gilly, it is revealed that Gilly knows who killed Joey. Gilly tells Danny that it was Mason who killed him.
When Victor is forced to meet with his boss, it is revealed that his boss is in fact Mason, who relieves Victor of his duties. The finals in the tournament pits the GSE against Millwall. Hours before the fight, Danny sees a drunk Victor, who tells Danny of him losing his job. Danny tells Victor that he knows who killed Joey and will need his help in taking Millwall on. That night, in a caged arena in the middle of a soccer field, Victor is stunned to learn that his boss is the leader of Millwall and the one who killed Joey. Danny, Victor, and the GSE do their best to take out Millwall with the only ones left being Danny and Mason. Mason's overpowering Danny but Danny gets a second wind and eventually Danny does a flying drop kick sending Mason outside of the cage. The police arrive and arrest Mason while back at the Abbey, the GSE celebrate their victory as the number one hooligan team in the city. | revenge, flashback | train | wikipedia | The truth is that this part of the trilogy Green Street is not like the previous movies.
This film doesn't care about the violence between the football fans and its bad consequences.
The movie is just showing us some people, who are training to compete in an underground fighting tournament.
Of course the leading actor is looking for revenge about his brother's murder, but the viewer doesn't really care about it.I enjoyed a lot Scott Adkins in the movie.
I prefer him with tattoos, beards and more wild style (I'm talking about Yuri Boyka in Undisputed 2, 3) but he was enough good here too.
I like his style of fighting and the way he trains his team in this movie.
Definitely, there is a lot of fighting scenes and that's why this is not a dull movie.If you are looking for an action movie with people kicking some asses all the time, this film is a good choice, without thinking.
But if you want to see a drama like Green Street Hooligans 1, you won't be satisfied..
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday MorningDanny (Scott Adkins) turned his back on football violence long ago, and now devotes his life to mixed martial arts fighting, until he learns of the death of his little brother.
But along the way, he finds everything is not as it seems.More 'repellent, brain-numbing bilge' then...obviously the first, direct to DVD sequel to 2005's Green Street did well enough that some bright spark decided a second instalment was needed, with martial arts star Scott Adkins in the lead role.
Directed by James Nunn, who previously helmed the infinitesimally superior Tower Block, there is at least a little more meat on the bones and less of a boorish hooliganism love in here, but it still can't help but feel like a meaningless, decidedly odd way to spend film making money.As others have noted, it seems to have moved away from the original street corner/back alley street fighting and seems to focus more on professional looking fighting (which may explain Adkins in the lead role), with constant references to 'how it's all a lot more organized and sophisticated' now, which further shows how far from the original source material it's strayed.
It's filled, as well, with plenty of laughable slow motion, opera drenched 'men marching in to battle' moments and Rocky wannabe training montages.
Scott Adkins has to be more picky in his choice of movies.
First of all, I have to say that I haven't seen the first two movies, and I don't know if I have missed anything.
I don't think I can even this review as containing a spoiler, because this kind of story has been known and predictable since the good old days of Bruce Lee.But there are many plot holes.
We don't know what's the point of the fight at the beginning of the movie.
and some other "we don't know"s.Scott Adkins' acting is acceptable, though not an Al Pacino.
The saucy girl who is done by Scott wasn't bad either, she was, however, casted for something else as you know, not for her acting.Regarding the fight scenes, we have almost none of them till the middle of the movie (except for the short meaningless fight at the beginning of the film).
The final fight is surely the best one in the whole movie.All in all, it's quite an average flick, but Scott can be very higher than that.
I hope he gets more picky in his choice of movies and makes better ones in the future with all the talent we know of him.
There are more cut scenes of them training than talking about football and fighting.
I had a felling i was watching rocky origins or something like that.
If you would like to watch rocky 4 or 5 with worst acting and less interesting scenes then watch this movie if not don't waste your time.
You cant even compere it to first green street movie its like you are watching something else.
I don't get why didn't they stick with that kind of thing and now when they saw that they did it wrong (talking about 2nd part) they tried to get back on feet, but failed miserably (this movie) so sad.
I enjoyed the film, a lot more than i thought i would.
BUT they could have done this film with no connection to the Green Street name.
I would have respected it a lot more, but none the less it was a fun film.
It had good acting (i was surprised by this, i always expect a load of rubbish with these types of films) The story was solid and got me engaged in the story.
The choreography of the fights were good, not great but it still looked and felt like a fight even with all the spinney tricks that you would not expect in a film about British football hooligans were there main HQ is a pub, My rating would be a 6 because i know many films that are better that i have rated 8's and 9's but 6 seems low so for this i rate a 7.
I think it has earned that extra star for surprising me after i went in to it expecting another rubbish money grab film..
Part 1 was the best but part 2 failed big time now we got a sequel in name only but a worthy reboot in any sense.
the fights were plenty and if u are in to films like "undisputed" franchise and "never back down" movies then this is for you especially if u love scot.
scot is more known for his supporting roles in van damme and stallone films but he has a bunch solo decent films of his own like this one and the undisputed films and "close range" get also to see his latest gem "the accident man" which is one of his best..
When it is being considered about the movie i can clearly point out the fact that this is not totally a bad movie.
But when it is being considered about the actor ( Scott Adkins) I would state the fact that it is some certain waste of talents.
Actually he is one of the best martial artists that i have ever seen in my life who performed mind blowing action in Movies like Undisputed.
Within this movie it does not have that much of action.
When it is being considered about the movie i feel that it is better if the director is has paid some serious attention about the dialog & action sequence of the movies.
The original Green St didn't need a sequel but we got one all the same and to be fair STAND YOUR GROUND was watchable down to the fact it was unintentionally funny .
There's no reason what so ever for the words " Green " " Street " or 3 to prefix NEVER BACK DOWN and in reality could easily be a star vehicle for Jean Claude Van Damme since it revolves around martial arts rather than unsophisticated fists and boots The need to showcase martial arts is what the film concentrates on and as other people have pointed out explanation and exposition is sacrificed to show the protagonists fighting skill .
From the outset we get a dialogue free sequence that ends with a couple of heavies getting a good slapping .
In short it's a film of style over substance that won't appeal to anyone who is after a dramatic movie.
I actually liked this a lot better then the second movie......
as this felt more like a REAL sequel to first movie.
(There are still not connections to first or sequel, it just another stand alone movie in the series)This movie about old firm lead who decided come back to his old ways after he get called that younger brother as been killed in one of the fights.
I liked fact the show flashback of him and brother talking in black and white, I thought that good idea and add some thing to movie.There were sometimes, I felt like I was watching bits rocky at times, with all training scenes, which kind of make movie a bit more slower pace in some places.Adkins who back to his firm and get there Firm back on top, as battles everyone which each firm.very weekend.
There some okay fighting, here and there but there were lot high kick and kung fu going on in this movie.
And there were some normal fights, which was decent, some fight don't that long at time and some fights feel end in a blink of a eye.There one or two turns in story that liked, which I thought, it didn't really add much to the rest of the plot/movie5/10.
Scott Adkins brother gets killed by some tasty football hooligan, so he comes home, says bye to him, gives his mum a hug, has a cup of tea, and then enlists some minor British actors to join his firm, and maybe catch the beggars who killed his brother.These Football hooligan films are now being released every week, and even though you shouldn't watch them, you can't help but carry on turning them on, laughing at the poor dialogue and the silly use of swearing.My favourite part of these types of movie is having the old school bloke from a firm ages ago, wearing the brown coat, having the short grey hair, and saying 'tasty' a lot, very realistic.But to be honest, if Adkins wasn't in this, I wouldn't have bothered.
If your not a true action movie fan from the eighties and nineties, you may have recognised him from The Legend Of Hercules, or the on who gets killed by Statham in Expendables 2.To every one else, he's a phenomenal action star, holding his own against Van Damme, and resurrecting the direct to Blu Ray action movie with Ninja.But sadly, it's just another silly football movie badly hiding the fact that it's copying everything from Rocky IV, bar the 'change' speech at the end.The fight scenes are unrealistic, the score is way too jolly, and even Adkins is tolerable, he cannot save this film.A huge disappointment.
This movie rocks, plus it has...get ready for this - SIX training montages!.
Searching for answers about his brother's murder, Danny (Adkins) returns to Green Street and his old Firm (apparently a collection of soccer hooligans who support a certain team) after some time away.
If it's one thing the GSE, or Green Street Elite, like to do, it's brawl.
So he takes second in command, Gilly (Doolan), and whips him and the Firm into shape with a comprehensive training regimen.
Meanwhile, Danny and DCI Jones (Ansah) are at odds with how to deal with murder and hooliganism in the Firm (s).
In order to get close to the truth, Danny has to now fight in brutal, no-holds-barred group Punchfighting free-for-alls with various other UK Firms.
We loved Green Street 3, and we're happy that the franchise was re-purposed from an Elijah Wood drama to a Scott Adkins Punchfighter in two easy steps.
Anyway, GS3 is everything this kind of movie should be, and perhaps just a bit more.
That's just one reason why GS3 delivers the goods in spades.Notably, GS3 would totally work as a drama if all the fighting was taken out.
It has that gray-skies, "kitchen sink"-style drama the British are so good at - what we call Brit Grit - it just so happens that they added Punchfighting and brawling to the mix, to excellent effect.
Fan favorite Scott Adkins is in his element and in top form, and the rest of the cast is top-notch as well.
The movie even ends on a freeze-frame.
We haven't seen this many training montages since Rocky IV (1985).
We love a good training montage, and we give the movie a lot of credit for having the guts to do this and not caring what anybody thinks.
If the music wasn't good and we weren't invested in the story and Scott Adkins wasn't involved, it might not have worked, but it totally does.
Only in the UK, we guess.So wipe away your depression, grab a few pints, and enter the Punch-brawling (yet another new term?) world of Green Street 3.
Scott Adkins the movie?.
This was even worse than Green Street 2 and that was pretty bad.
I did however enjoy Scott Adkins in this movie.
I did prefer him as Yuri Boyka (The most complete fighter in the world) and this was nowhere near that performance however a few nifty moves but him at-least a little watchable in the movie.The football is just a tiny background on this movie which was what Green Street was all about.
They should of left Green Street out of this movie and just made one of those low budget fighting movies we see every year..
The astonishing performance of Scott Adkins in Undisputed 3 (2010) solidly established him as the most charismatic of the current group of Seagal/Van Damme wannabees, and "the" one to watch.
Well, there is an exception to every rule, and Green Street 3 is that exception.
Before the credits roll, two thugs walk into a gym and pick a fight with the owner, Adkins, reasons unknown.
The resulting martial arts action lasts about 30 seconds and ends with both hoods on the floor.
It is also the very last time in the entire film the viewer will feel as though anything worthwhile is taking place on screen.
Perhaps the big giveaway was that even die-hard fans of Green Street 1 (actually a very solid movie) were unaware there was ever a "Green Street 2." So, the arrival of GS3, even with the aforementioned Adkins (whose career, we verily believe, will survive this film) was clearly Hubris on the part of the producers, dragging the corpse of an already-dead franchise right onto the outskirts of zombie-town.
Adkin's character learns that his brother died, under mysterious circumstances, in one such fight and sets about finding justice by inserting himself directly into the action.
Even the final fight scene, where Adkins gets to go nuclear on the guy who actually killed his brother, is shot as though the director was still debating whether the film was meant to be action or social satire.
Adkins' Manchester accent is acceptable, but if he had used his wonderful Russian growl (Boyko in Undisputed) the film would have been that much more interesting.
Green Street 3: Never Back Down.
Was there need for a third film in this dreary franchise?
the bigger question is how on earth they got Scott Adkins in it?!
I guess if you like violent rumbles between large groups of moronic football 'fans' then you might get a kick outta this.
Of course I use the word fans in a very loose sense as we all know its about footie hooligans.The plot is merely a replay of the first two films, more excuses for cockney battles in the street.
its actually about one young hooligan getting killed and his brother comes back to London to sort it out.
When I say sort it out...I mean find the culprits and beat the hell outta them with his hooligan buddies (his firm), so yes actually it is the same.So as Adkins is the main character here you may have already guessed that martial arts will be involved...and you'd be right.
Although its not a full on martial arts fest as you'd expect from Adkins, its still mainly a large old school ruck but with the added extra of the odd martial arts moves.
Clearly they have tried to incorporate both styles and alter the plot, we find out that the world of hoodlum fighting has become more organised and turned into an underground tournament with no rules.
It appears the thugs have upgraded their skills with more precision squabbling, actually turning away from booze and becoming lean fit fighting machines.This is all well and good but it kinda removes the whole gritty footie fan battling aspect that made the very first film reasonably fun to watch (aside from seeing Wood getting his head kicked in).
Now you simply have yet another fight tournament flick with semi muscular blokes doing martial arts, the perfect vehicle for Adkins and obviously tailored around him.
Its good they have tried to come up with a fresh idea here but firstly...it ruins the premise of the franchise and secondly, why make a third film anyway only to change it completely?I still can't quite fathom out why Adkins agreed to make this when its clear to see its a low budget go nowhere flick.
The main problem with the film aside from poor acting and hokey cockney accents is the fact the fights aren't even that good, too obvious basically, you can see the punches and kicks aren't connecting.
Had the fights actually looked good then you could forgive all the rest as fighting is the name of the game bottom line.
Unfortunately its all pretty bad truth be told, a football hooligan film without any actual footie hooliganism, not that I'm condoning footie hooliganism of course but that's what you expect here, dagnabbit.3/10.
It shouldn't be called "Green Street Hooligans?.
Not even close to "Green Street Hooligans".
It doesn't show the life of real casuals and firms like second and especially first part.
It's good action movie but it's not the real "Green Street Hooligans" movie.
They all train some kind of martial arts and they have fights similar to this.
But "Green Street" is about UK casuals and their way of life which is not even close like this.
I like the cast and the fighting scenes which are well done.
So my grade is 8 (9 for the movie and 7 because it's not "Green Street") |
tt0033152 | The Thief of Bagdad | Ahmed (Douglas Fairbanks) robs as he pleases in the city of Baghdad. Wandering into a mosque, he tells the holy man (Charles Belcher) he disdains his religion; his philosophy is, "What I want, I take."
That night, he sneaks into the palace of the caliph (Brandon Hurst) using a magic rope he stole during ritual prayers. All thoughts of plunder are forgotten when he sees the sleeping princess (Julanne Johnston), the caliph's daughter. The princess's Mongol slave (Anna May Wong) discovers him and alerts the guards, but he gets away.
When his associate (Snitz Edwards) reminds the disconsolate Ahmed that a bygone thief once stole another princess during the reign of Haroun al-Rashid, Ahmed sets out to do the same. The next day is the princess's birthday. Three princes arrive, seeking her hand in marriage (and the future inheritance of the city). Another of the princess's slaves foretells that she will marry he who first touches a rose-tree in her garden. The princess watches anxiously as first the glowering Prince of the Indies (Noble Johnson), then the obese Prince of Persia (an uncredited Mathilde Comont), and finally the Prince of the Mongols (Sojin Kamiyama) pass by the rose-tree. The mere sight of the Mongol fills the princess with fear, but when Ahmed appears (disguised in stolen garments as a suitor), she is delighted. The Mongol slave tells her countryman of the prophecy, but before he can touch the rose-tree, Ahmed's startled horse tosses its rider into it.
That night, following ancient custom, the princess chooses Ahmed for her husband. Out of love, Ahmed gives up his plan to abduct her and confesses all to her in private. The Mongol prince learns from his spy, the princess's Mongol slave, that Ahmed is a common thief and informs the caliph. Ahmed is lashed mercilessly, and the caliph orders he be torn apart by a giant ape, but the princess has the guards bribed to let him go.
When the caliph insists she select another husband, her loyal slave advises her to delay. She asks that the princes each bring her a gift after "seven moons"; she will marry the one who brings her the rarest. In despair, Ahmed turns to the holy man. He tells the thief to become a prince, revealing to him the peril-fraught path to a great treasure.
The Prince of the Indies obtains a magic crystal ball from the eye of a giant idol, which shows whatever he wants to see, while the Persian prince buys a flying carpet. The Mongol prince leaves behind his henchman, telling him to organize the soldiers he will send to Bagdad disguised as porters. (The potentate has sought all along to take the city; the beautiful princess is only an added incentive.) After he lays his hands on a magic apple which has the power to cure anything, even death, he sends word to the Mongol slave to poison the princess. After many adventures, Ahmed gains a cloak of invisibility and a small chest of magic powder which turns into whatever he wishes when he sprinkles it. He races back to the city.
The three princes meet as agreed at a caravansary before returning to Bagdad. The Mongol asks the Indian to check whether the princess has waited for them. They discover that she is near death, and ride the flying carpet to reach her. Then the Mongol uses the apple to cure her. The suitors argue over which gift is rarest, but the princess points out that without any one gift, the remaining two would have been useless in saving her life. Her loyal slave shows her Ahmed in the crystal ball, so the princess convinces her father to deliberate carefully on his future son-in-law. The Mongol prince chooses not to wait, unleashing his secret army that night and capturing Bagdad.
Ahmed arrives at the city gate, shut and manned by Mongols. When he conjures up a large army with his powder, the Mongol soldiers flee. The Mongol prince is about to have one of his men kill him when the Mongol slave suggests he escape with the princess on the flying carpet. Ahmed liberates the city and rescues the princess, using his cloak of invisibility to get through the Mongols guarding their prince. In gratitude, the caliph gives his daughter to him in marriage. | fantasy, murder | train | wikipedia | This is an exception: A genuinely magical film, one of the best fantasy films ever made.A beautiful film made in the most glowing of technicolors, it tells the simple story of a boy thief (Sabu) meeting a dethroned prince (the gorgeous John Justin), and helping him defeat the wonderfully evil usurper Conrad Veidt.
The malignant vizier Jaffar (magnificently played by Conrad Veidt)with powerful magic faculties imprisons the prince Ahamad of Bagdad(attractive John Justin)who loses his throne, then he escapes thanks a little thief named Abu(sympathetic Sabu).
The story accumulates several fantastic ingredients such as transformation of the starring, a flying mechanic horse, magic bow, flying carpet and of course the colossal genie(overacting performed by Rex Ingram) who gives three wishes to Sabu , the magic eye, the figure of goddess Kali with several hands, among others.This remarkable picture ranks as one of the finest fantastic films of all time.
The WWII outbreak caused the paralyzing shooting, then the three Korda brothers and collaborators traveled USA continuing there the filming in especial on Grand Cannon Colorado.The splendid visual and glimmer Technicolor cinematography , setting and FX provoked the achieving three Oscars : Production design by William Cameron Menzies and Vincent Korda ,Cinematography by George Perinal and Special effects by Osmond Borradaile though today are dated and is urgent a necessary remastering because the colors are worn-out.
Those effects still work their charm.No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt.
Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W.
It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them."Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases.
He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful...
The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, "The Thief of Bagdad" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...
"The Thief of Bagdad" had everything that you could want from a fantasy films: An exciting, unpredictable story, charming and likable characters, and an incredible, beautiful atmosphere and incredible visuals (That still look pretty good)I wish there were more movies like this.
Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!" In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects.
By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne.
The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later.
He is the perfect embodiment of a fairytale villain and gives the film the extra punch it needs.June Duprez has never been more beautifully photographed as the princess and John Justin and Sabu do well as the prince and thief (respectively) who have to settle a score with Conrad Veidt.
Few movies appeal to both adults and children.This one does .Although there are three directors,it is most likely Michael Powell who's the brains here,his later work proves it in a definite way.There are already the incredible color search and the fabulous settings which will emerge again in such works as "a matter of life or death"(1946).Magic is everywhere and there are plenty of visual strokes of inspiration :every picture is magic itself.The script writers adapt stories from the Thousand and one Nights but make them their own .The special effects ,although absolutely extraordinary for 1940,remain tasteful ,which is not often the case today when they mainly serve to hide the weakness of the screenplays.Conrad Veidt is a delightful villain,who might have inspired Walt Disney for "Aladdin" .June Deprez,whose talent is essentially decorative ,will play the part of Vera Claythorne in "and then there were none" (René Clair,1945).Sabu is certainly one of the best young actors of the era.
Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects.
Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights.
It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar.
In 2016, "The Thief of Bagdad" is still delightful with impressive special effects for a 1940 film with magic flying carpet, jinn, flying horse and fantastic journeys.
I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film.
Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie.
One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail.
John Austin is the very likable hero known as Ahmad, and Sabu gives a spirited performance as Abu. I will also say the length didn't bother me at all, this is a truly fantastic film in every way, no matter how old it is, and is easily the definitive version of the 1001 Arabian Nights tale it is based on.
Alexander Korda's "The Thief of Bagdad" is one of the most beautiful looking films from the 1940s; and, like good art, time does not diminish its appeal.
A line from the film sums it up perfectly: "Everything is possible when seen through the eyes of youth." ********** The Thief of Bagdad (12/5/40) Alexander Korda ~ John Justin, Sabu, Conrad Veidt, Rex Ingram.
It's as simple as that.Every thing you could want in a fantasy, The Thief Of Bagdad has.Sabu is perfectly cast as the boy thief.John Justin who plays Ahmad the King is brilliant and let's not forget villain Conrad Veidt and genie Rex Ingram in standout performances.Many might complain about the special effects but you must remember that this is 1940,long before Industrial Light and magic came out.Another standout is the beautiful musical score by the great Miklos Rozsa.A true masterpiece.
"Thief of Bagdad" is an Arabian Nights romance, interspersed with light comic moments and spiced up with a flying mechanical horse, a magic carpet, a scary 60-foot tall genie (played with magnificent aplomb by Rex Ingram), a Sultan with a childish fascination for lifelike toys (Miles Malleson, who also wrote the script), and a demonic Grand Vizier named Jaffar.Conrad Veidt makes this last character particularly nasty.
While there Jaffar had Ahmed arrested as a mad man and planned to kill him, while he Jaffar mounted the throne.But in prison Ahmed met a resourceful thief named Abu and together they broke out of jail.On their getaway, Ahmed got to meet and fall in love with a beautiful princess that Jaffar had eyes for and so Jaffar did all that he could to get Ahmed out of the way, and Ahmed with the help of Abu did all that they could to save the princess, which include meeting a Genie, getting a magic carpet and a crystal that can show you anything you want.This British classic made use of the best of the best in effects in the 40s it won the Academy Awards for Cinematography, Art Direction and Special Effects.
The Thief of Bagdad marks the first major use of bluescreening in the film industry, all due to Larry Butler who introduced and pioneered it.This movie has greatly influenced many other movies after it's time especially those released about The Book of One Thousand and One Nights tales, let's not forget Disney's Aladdin and its franchise and The Prince of Persia video game franchise.
My children's book comes to life spectacularly in this terrific Alexander Korda production and while director's duties are shared in the title, I suspect the bulk of the work was done by the marvellous Michael Powell, just before he hitched up with Emrich Pressburger for that wonderful series of "The Archers" productions, which turned out some of the greatest films ever to grace the cinema ("A Matter Of Life And Death", "Black Narcissus", "The Red Shoes" and many more).Don't look for characterisation - all you need to know is that the little thief Abu (Sabu) is mischievous, Prince Ahmad (John Justin) is good, the Princess (June Duprez) is beautiful and the usurper Jaffar (Conrad Veight) is evil, then mix them all together in a wonderfully episodic story which throws in almost every Arabian Night tale you can remember.
This is a film you can grow up with and never get bored with no matter how many times you watch it - it has everything, fun, music, romance, special effects (not bad for a film nearly sixty years old, either), great Technicolor and a cast who are just on the perfect side of overacting ...
Populated by fine actors, most notably the exuberant Sabu and deliciously sinister Conrad Veidt, this is a fantasy classic which has stood the test of time in the ways that matter.Sure the special effects, cutting age in 1940, are dated now; but that is inevitable, even with our modern blockbusters and all their CG action.
Sabu, playing Abu the young thief, and Rex Ingram, playing the djinni, are outstanding.But the real star, which shocked me for a 1940 film, is the special effects.
Co-directed by Ludwig Berger, Michael Powell and Tim Whelen (along with three uncredited co-workers, Alexander Korda, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies), this lavish fantasy-adventure tells the tale of blind beggar Ahmad (John Justin), who spins a yarn about his life as king before the evil current king Jafar (Conrad Veidt), usurped his place and left him desolate.
The first half of the film's outdoor shots were filmed on location in Morocco, but was interrupted in the middle of production by World War Two. The second half of the film uses Hollywood soundstages and locations in the United States (the scene were Sabu is reunited with John Justin after capturing the All-Seeing Eye was filmed at the Grand Canyon).Special effects were cutting-edge at the time the film was made and are still passable by today's standards (though come off a bit cheesy).
It's been a while since I was so thoroughly entertained and thrilled as when I just watched Alexander Korda's 1940 masterpiece of adventure hokum.Achmad, Prince of Bagdad, is manipulated out of office by his evil grand vizier, and takes refuge amongst his subjects with his new best buddy, an irrepressible teenage thief, Abu. He worships the Princess of Basra, also coveted by the vizier, and he and Abu summon all powers natural and supernatural to win the day.Korda's film is infinitely superior to the famous Douglas Fairbanks version from 1924.
From the very beginning of the film with the trumpets-and-brass choir, the human choir singing the exotic wordless parallel portamento chords and the striking songs with the totally pedestrian words ("I want to be a sailor, sailing out to sea, No plow-boy, tinker, tailor's any fun to be..." And it gets even worse!), Miklos Rosza's score sweeps you along into this hokey but rather wonderful Arabian Nights adventure and, in its memorable images, it still has never been equaled.In few other films has the heroine (June Duprez) been so beautiful, (I don't know why she should be expected to act as well but she gets the job done well enough.) the villain (Conrad Veidt) so hissable, the hero (John Justin) so dreamily handsome and the real hero Sabu so exotically lovable (And he can sing too!).
Yet the final result is pretty much as close to tight knit seaming as you could hope to see.This Arabian knight heavy leaned story sees bulging eyed nasty vizier Jaffar tricking Prince Ahmad (the rightful heir to the throne of Bagdad) out of his crown, but after a meeting in prison with young urchin thief Abu, their respective destinies are about to encompass magic in all its wonderful forms.If this wasn't made in 1940 one could view it now and shout out at the screen that it's a collage of genre staples, but this is 1940!
The clarity and color of this version have only enhanced the value of this singular film that dates from the Golden Age of Filmdom.Conrad Veidt -- that incomparable film villain, Princess (June Duprez) more beautiful here, I am convinced, than Elizabeth Taylor ever was; genie Rex Ingram and of course the little "Thief" Sabu, only a short time before tending the elephants of the Sultan of Mysore, along with the rest of the cast, do a splendid job.
It has it all, the beautiful princess (June Duprez) the eager prince (John Justin) and the most sinister villain (Conrad Veidt)one can imagine...and of course, the young thief (Sabu).
And he was totally obsessed with keeping this fantasy-extravaganza film under a tight budget and remaining in full control of its simpering story-line.This, of course, placed Korda in repeated conflict with each subsequent film-maker who took over the direction and, in turn, who Korda promptly fired for non-compliance.Anyway - With "The Thief Of Bagdad" now being 77 years old - I really did try to cut it some slack (even though its visuals didn't even come close to those of 1939's "The Wizard of Oz") - But - The truth is - This picture really did stink, big-time.*Note* - I'd say that the absolute, most hilarious highlight of this picture was the totally cheesy "monster spider" scene..
This glorious fantasy piece, filmed in a Technicolor which has never looked so good, is a movie which is effectively the ultimate Arabian adventure.
Evil viziers, deposed kings, genies in bottles, flying horses and carpets, huge palaces, swordfighting and much more besides – THE THIEF OF BAGDAD sets the template for many a fantasy film to come with special effects which even hold up today.Even though the film's now over seventy years old, it remains hard to fault.
A colorful and downright trippy version of the Arabian nights tale about a street urchin who stumbles upon a magic lamp and is granted three wishes by an all-powerful genie.Actually, that's only part of the story as presented here, but it's the part of the film that provides the craziest and most spectacular special effects.
The color photography is splendid, but then everything else is as well -- wardrobe, makeup, production design, special effects, and the magical mystery score by Miklos Rozsa.It's got just about everything in it that we associate with Arabian legends -- the genie in the bottle, the flying carpet, the jewel in the idol's eye, the luscious and exotic princess (June Duprez), the handsome blind hero whose sight is returned (John Justice), the black-clad bearded villain (Conrad Veidt), the giant spider, the laughing little thief (Sabu). |
tt0026191 | Ceiling Zero | Old pals Jake Lee (Pat O'Brien), Tex Clarke (Stuart Erwin) and Dizzy Davis (James Cagney) flew together in the Army during World War I. Almost 20 years later, Jake is the manager of the Newark, New Jersey branch of Federal Airlines, a New York-based airline company. Tex works as an airmail pilot and Dizzy, also still flying aircraft, is seeking employment with his friends. Prior to his hot-shot arrival (Dizzy does a few tricks in the air before landing), a New York associate warns Jake about Dizzy, calling him unreliable and troublesome. Insulted, Jake replies that Dizzy is one of the best pilots in the country, telling a few stories about his fearlessness and bravery.
Jake hires Dizzy as an airmail pilot. Dizzy is immediately attracted to "Tommy" Thomas (June Travis), a 19-year-old girl also working there, who has just learned to fly solo. In order to go on a date with her, Dizzy, scheduled for a flight to Cincinnati in the evening, pretends he is suddenly sick and gets Tex to replace him. Tex makes it to Ohio, but on the way back to New Jersey, finds himself in a cold and heavy fog. Though there is zero visibility and he is having radio problems, he attempts to land in Newark. He crashes into one of the airport hangars and the aircraft catches on fire. Tex is taken to the hospital where he later dies.
Tex's wife Lou (Isabel Jewell), who was never very fond of Dizzy, blames him for her husband's death. She calls him selfish and irresponsible and says that he hurts everything he touches. Dizzy, overwhelmed with guilt, returns to the airport. Meanwhile, the weather has gotten even worse and Jake has canceled all other flights. In addition, the aviation authorities have revoked Dizzy's pilot license, for extraneous reasons. Jake consoles Dizzy on account of both losses and then goes home for the night, leaving him temporarily in charge. Another pilot, unaware of the cancellation, comes into the operations building, ready for his normally scheduled flight.
Chagrined and burdened with his culpability, Dizzy demands the man explain how the newly acquired and, as yet, untested aircraft de-icers function, then knocks the man unconscious and irrationally takes his aircraft. Jake and the others are devastated when they find out. Dizzy radios information over to them about the de-icers. They work to a degree, but the system is flawed. He reports by radio on the problems of the system and his recommendations for modifications, knowing that he will watch progressive icing until he dies. He does not make it through the snow storm. | depressing | train | wikipedia | The Flawed Aviator.
Mail pilot Dizzy Davis (James Cagney) is a daredevil and a womanizer like a textbook example.
After he dropped a scheduled flight because of a rendezvous, his friend and colleague Texas Clarke (Stuart Erwin) stands in for him.
Due to bad sight, the plane meets with an accident while landing, and Texas dies.
Dizzy puts the blame on himself.
To fix up that fatal error, he starts a bad weather kamikaze flight.Hawks' preliminary study to "Only Angels Have Wings" is an absorbing aviator film which does not surprise very much though.
A troup of airmen, intrepidly looking in death's eye, between the flight sequences, it's a drama of interiors.
Duty and honor, lust and loyalty of professionals, a question of fast-paced flow of words and swifter movements.
Hawks' (typical) flawed hero, played by the master of nimble gestures, James Cagney, is small and every handling an expression of his being.
Although he flirts with June Travis and tries to impose his room keys on her, his love applies to his understanding chief and friend, the plagued Pat O'Brien.Unfortunately, all this comes along as pretty conventional (particularly for a Hawks film), but is entertaining nonetheless with a great James Cagney in the lead..
Not vintage, but still Hawks!.
'Ceiling Zero' fits quite neatly into the central part of his 'oeuvre'.
The classical Hawks' hero is honourable and heroic, but flawed.
'Dizzy' Davis fits firmly and squarely into this archetype.
His womanising and recklessness precedes him, and is the cause on one of the film's twin tragedies.
But this is offset by daring and bravery that is 'de rigeur' for mail pilots of the era.
It is very rarely in films of this era that the 'hero' could still be the villain with just a few minutes to go, but that is effectively the case here.
As in many of Hawks' finest films, the opening sequence serves as a contrasting miniature morality play that sets the ensuing drama into focus.
Here it is a cowardly pilot who, lost in poor visibility, bails out of his plane without thought for the financial consequences for his employers.
It is no accident that the company at the heart of the film is 'Federal Airlines'.
Many of Hawks' films make exquisite political allegories, and this is no exception.
Read the 'fog' as the Great Depression, Dizzy as the reckless aspect of the American entrepreneurial spirit and Jake as The President
But there is more
psychologically it works a treat too.
Jake and Dizzy share the same heroic wartime background.
It emerges that they share the same taste in women too.
To some extent, they represent two aspects of the same character it is significant that during the climactic moments of Texas' final approach to the airfield, they keep switching roles, with first one then the other taking charge of the situation.
Both of them also show the same moral flexibility Dizzy by exchanging places with Tommy's boyfriend, Jake by being willing to distort his professional judgement to save Dizzy's flying career.
In spite of all of this, 'Ceiling Zero' cannot really be placed at the same level as the truly great Hawks masterpieces El Dorado, To Have & Have Not, Bringing Up Baby and, significantly, Only Angels Have Wings.
At the end of the film, one doesn't feel that one has really known the characters.
But, considering its vintage, it is an entirely worthy work that gives us clear indications of the wonders to come.It should be absolutely essential viewing for anyone wishing to acquaint themselves with the an important work of one of America's greatest artists, in any discipline, of the twentieth century.
Another interesting parallel is Ford's 'Air Mail'which has a similar story also originating in Frank Wead..
For a screenwriter, too stagey.
Ceiling Zero is a story about airmail pilots back when flying was itself an occupational hazard.
It was written by Frank W.
Wead, better known as Spig Wead whose life was later brought to the screen by John Ford in Wings of Eagles.For those who've seen Wings of Eagles, they know that Spig Wead was a navy pilot who set all kinds of aviation records before becoming paralyzed with a broken neck due to a fall down some stairs in his home.
After that Wead turned to writing and published all kinds of articles, stories, and screenplays mostly relating to aviation.Ceiling Zero was Wead's one attempt at a Broadway play.
It ran for three months on Broadway in 1935 with John Litel and Osgood Perkins in the roles played by James Cagney and Pat O'Brien respectively.
It got good critical acclaim, but a short Broadway run as did a lot of plays during the Depression.
O'Brien is the operations manager of an airline and Cagney is an old friend who is an irresponsible but talented flyer.
Superficially those seem like parts tailor made for Cagney and O'Brien, but this is in fact a serious drama so their usual hijinks are not present in this film as well they shouldn't have been.Cagney and O'Brien had done another film about aviation, Devil Dogs of the Air which is far more lighthearted, but which Warner Brothers invested far more production values.
For the most part, Ceiling Zero is a photographed stage play with some scenes that are clearly done on the backlot.
I'm surprised that Wead who did in fact write more for the screen didn't push for a bigger budget and some location shooting for his play.
On the plus side Director Howard Hawks handles his cast real well and you can see some influences for the later and better Only Angels Have Wings..
Tension level high, altitude zero through most of this film.
This film stays mainly on the ground rather than in the air, probably because it was originally a stage play.
The action focuses on the Newark, New Jersey branch of fictitious Federal Airlines and its employees, who are exclusively involved in delivering the mail.Pat O'Brien plays Jake Lee, the fast talking hard-nosed operations manager of the Newark branch.
The industry is one in transition as the WWI flying aces and barnstormers that once dominated as air mail pilots are being slowly replaced with "college men" - engineers.
Enter James Cagney as Dizzy Davis who is one of those old aces - if you can possibly imagine the energetic James Cagney as somebody who's on the verge of being all washed up at anything in 1935.
Jake, Dizzy's old WWI flying buddy, has gotten him a job at the Newark office as Dizzy is on the verge of losing his pilot's license as he has a bad ticker and a bad attitude when it comes to following all of the new rules that did not exist when he first started out in the business.There are romantic complications too.
Touchiest of these is the fact that Jake's wife of two years, Mary, was serious about Dizzy right before she met Jake.
This is information Dizzy and Mary desperately want to keep from Jake in order to spare his feelings.
There's also a new female pilot at the Newark branch, Tommy, all of 19, who catches Dizzy's eye.
Tommy has a steady boyfriend, but she's fascinated by this older experienced WWI ace and his exciting stories and lifestyle.Dizzy is a fellow on the move with him chasing Tommy and age and the odds chasing him, and then there's Mike, an old ace Dizzy's age who cracked up in a wreck.
His bones healed but his mind didn't, and Dizzy is horrified to see his old mirror image turned simpleton and janitor.
It's unspoken, but you just know that Dizzy sees his own possible future when he looks at the guy.The film is a real edge-of-your-seat experience, even though almost all of the action is on the ground as pilots fly in "ceiling zero" weather, and some make it back alive and some don't.
It's an exciting little movie with a look at the state of flight technology in 1935.
Highly recommended..
Cardboard Hawks..
Howard Hawks is undoubtedly one of the great Hollywood directors, but unfortunately not even his track record is 100%.
Ceiling Zero is not a bad film, it just isn't a good one either.
Apart from a brilliant performance from Jimmy Cagney there is nothing much to remember: the script is a cliche, supporting cast are "hammy" and worst of all the set decoration is awful.
The airport control room looks like something out of an Ed Wood movie.
Watch this if you do not have anything better to do but do not invest any money! |
tt1712170 | Alex Cross | Dr. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) is a psychologist and police lieutenant who lives in Detroit with his wife Maria (Carmen Ejogo) and their children. After learning Maria is pregnant, Cross considers accepting a job as an FBI profiler. Meanwhile, a man (Matthew Fox) participates in an underground fighting match and seduces businesswoman Fan Yau (Stephanie Jacobsen). The man is invited to Yau's house, where he kills her.
At the crime scene, Cross finds a charcoal sketch left behind by the killer in the style of the artist Picasso, leading to the murderer being nicknamed after him. While examining the sketch, Cross deduces that Picasso's next target is German businessman Erich Nunemarcher (Werner Daehn). Picasso attempts to kill Nunemarcher but is foiled by Cross, and escapes after being shot by Cross's partner Tommy Kane (Edward Burns). Cross deduces that Picasso also plans to target billionaire CEO Giles Mercier (Jean Reno).
As revenge for foiling his attack on Nunemarcher, Picasso attacks Cross and Kane's colleague, Monica Ashe (Rachel Nichols), torturing her to death. Picasso then tracks down Cross, who is on a date with Maria, and kills her with a sniper rifle.
Picasso targets Nunemarcher and Mercier at a conference, killing Nunemarcher and seemingly Mercier. Cross and Kane track Picasso to the abandoned Michigan Theater. As Cross and Picasso fight, they fall through the crumbling theater ceiling. Picasso falls to his death, but Kane helps pull Cross to safety.
Cross deduces Picasso's employer was Mercier himself. Having embezzled money from his clients, Mercier asked for Yau and Nunemarcher's help to fake his death and flee to Bali, then hired Picasso to eliminate them and a double pretending to be the real Mercier. After Cross frames Mercier for drug smuggling, Mercier is arrested in Indonesia, where he will be condemned to death by firing squad. Having avenged Maria's murder, Cross decides to accept the job offer from the FBI and move to Washington with his family. | violence, revenge, murder, sadist, flashback | train | wikipedia | Skeptics may think Tyler Perry was a bad choice to fill in a young Morgan Freeman's shoes but he was absolutely fine in the role.
It's just impossible to be drawn to the character, and you'd think with a title like Alex Cross that we'd get a deep look into the mind of the title character, but instead they spoon-feed us this cheesy soapy dialogue and the occasional battle-of-wits with the villain that isn't the least bit intriguing.
The trailer was a slice of many of the best scenes but, unfortunately the real film falls so sadly short of good storyline due to poor dialog and some jerky acting that the viewer struggles to make sense of the various actors.If this film had been prescreened (proof read) any average movie-goer would have pointed out just how poorly made it was.
Matthew Fox, who clearly dropped his body fat to zero for this film, will one day look back and regret all those months he went without a decent meal, because a) the movie is terrible, and b) his portrayal of a psychotic killer is ultimately a study in cliché.
Perry's not a complete dud yet is easily out-acted by Matthew Fox, whose psychotic serial killer – replete with twitches, tics and crazy eyes – is fun to watch and elevates this from total boredom to mediocre entertainment..
The movie had decent action scenes, which is totally out of the norm for Tyler Perry, that kept me entertained.
The acting in this movie was pretty good and Tyler Perry himself did do a pretty good job with his part especially being that this is his first action roll.
I think people are judging Tyler Perry by his other film and plays versus by the movie that is actually being reviewed.
Tyler Perry steps in the big shoes of Morgan Freeman, who played Cross in the previous two installments of the series, Kiss the girls and Along Came a Spider and does a terrible job.
Also I have only seen parts of Tyler Perry's other movies and that was enough to let me know I didn't want to watch any more.
But choosing such an unworthy and a "bad choice' for the title role of the character that the movie is named after....is catastrophic !My choice would have been...."Idris Elba", then get better writers and a better director and "Cross" fans would have been a lot happier.
ALEX CROSS has all the ingredients we expect in a film of its sort: an engaging plot-line, a criminal we love to hate and want to see "get his," harrowing chase scenes, a couple of real surprises, etc.
It also has several of the corninesses and unlikelihoods that are usually found in a film of this genre, but oh well.Tyler Perry plays the role of the lead character, a combination psychologist-profiler-homicide detective, very naturally, and the character he plays is better developed than those in many thrillers.
Most of the supporting cast play their roles quite believably: There are some truly interesting characters in this film, e.g., Cicely Tyson as "Nana Mama." Notably, ALEX CROSS succeeds in being rivetingly disturbing without a lot of gore, ultra-violence, or any serious sex/nudity to spice the cake (hence, the PG-13 rating)..
The Movie is based on cop "Alex Cross" which is a character from series of books written by acclaimed author "James Patterson".
Tyler Perry (Dr. Alex Cross) steps out of his usual comedic role to take a stab at the action genre.
I think I was curious to see Matthew Fox of "Lost" try his hardest too shake off the "nice guy" image he has, by playing a toughened up psychotic killer.Ever since I saw the trailer and got closer and closer too seeing it, "Alex Cross" has gradually gotten worse.
I just finished watching the Alex Cross movie, which I was looking forward to but missed seeing in the theater.
The acting in this movie was atrocious, I was actually somewhat excited to see Matthew Fox in something after lost and playing a completely different type of role.
As the story progresses it becomes clear that this bad guy will stop at nothing to complete his job, which leads to a handful of mildly memorable moments including a great twist thrown in that you won't expect or indeed see coming.A shame, then, that the execution is so muddled, with Rob Cohen once again proving a poor choice as director.
Tyler Perry was equally hard to buy as Alex Cross though he was better than Fox. The storyline included way too much unnecessary distraction that could only have been left in as filler.
This movie is a great one.I understand some people may not like it as it's not "Hollywood classic style".It's still very enjoyable to watch though.Watch it if you like action films with lot of suspense.It's a very nice story, with ups and downs, an epic manhunt with a psychopath...
From director Rob Cohen, a guy whom has been known for making a string of mediocre action movies, "Alex Cross" is the third film appearance of, you guessed it, Alex Cross, who is known as the main character in James Patterson's series of crime novels.
Although Tyler Perry is really trying his best to make something good out of this tired material, he sadly fails to bring a lot of charm to a character that was once portrayed by Morgan Freeman, and he sadly felt miscast-ed.
But, if I had to correct anything to make this a good movie, I would have casted Idris Elba as Alex Cross, have very talented writers known for making very good cop movies, and a director who takes these films very seriously.
I grew up watching all the old action movies with Chuck Norris, Charles Bronson, etc..Seems if you're into the Alex Cross series people don't like this movie, frankly I never heard of it before this one.
Once its back on track, excitement is there, and keeps getting stronger by the middle of it.Serial killer role is played well and convincing by Fox, story is strong, Tyler Perry's role is miscast or poorly written, minus that weakness, movie is worth watching.
Murder detective / psychologist Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) to investigate the case by the cruel and sadistic serial killer (Matthew Fox) who tortured and murdered female victim slowly.
Alex Cross (2012) is like watching a movie with elements from both "Shaft" and "Dredd." One of my most favorite this year.
If you don't mind Tyler Perry taking over the role of Alex Cross, go see the movie for yourself.
Tyler Perry did just as good as Morgan Freeman starring as Detective Cross.
Perry played more of a younger version of Alex Cross and the movie was much more intense.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing Tyler Perry do more Alex Cross movies!
I was really looking forward to this movie after having read many of the books written by Patterson and I must say my eagerness to watch it as soon as it was released maybe makes my review a little more negative than it would have been if i did not know and understand the character Alex cross, one can never compare a book to the movie, but the basic building blocks of a story must remain intact for it to be at least partially successful.I can not see any of the Patterson magic in this movie, to be honest it is one of those movies that will go down in history as being overrated and misunderstood by both actors and the director.
Unfortunately, Tyler Perry looks uncomfortable playing his first action-oriented role in ALEX CROSS -- a loose prequel to 1997's KISS THE GIRLS and 2001's ALONG CAME A SPIDER (both starred Morgan Freeman).
Shame about the movie as well, which is nothing more than a clunky and haphazard thriller.Long before we get to know the older Alex Cross (Morgan Freeman) as a brilliant FBI agent in KISS THE GIRLS and ALONG CAME A SPIDER, we are introduced to a younger version (Tyler Perry), who first working as a Detroit-based police detective.
Too bad his character is given little room for development.ALEX CROSS is actually meant to jump-start a new franchise based on James Patterson's crime novels, but this prequel itself is already a failure.
Tyler Perry fits the Alex Cross character description as given by James Patterson in the books more than Morgan Freeman did in the earlier movies (a resemblance to a 40 year old Mohammad Ali and Freeman sure is not that).
If I had paid to see this movie I would have asked for my money backI feel bad that I have to write 10 lines of text to have a review of a very bad movie published on IMDb, I am sure the producers and directors wanted to have a better finished product than this movie and I hope James Patterson got a lot of money for his part but they will need to change the main actors if there is going to be another Alex Cross movie.
In a world where EON productions are gearing up for their 24th James Bond movie, there is no reason there couldn't be a string of decent Alex Cross movies; looks like that isn't going to happen anytime soon though.The Alex Cross character previously appeared on screen in KISS THE GIRLS and ALONG CAME A SPIDER, where the character was played by Morgan Freeman.
Alex CrossThe difficult part to being a psychologist/police officer is deciding if you should bill your client for time spent beating them with a phone book.Sadly, the shielded shrink in this crime-thriller does not expound on his invoicing practices.Detroit police lieutenant Dr. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) and his partner Tommy (Edward Burns) are called to a crime scene where a businesswoman (Stephanie Jacobsen) was brutally murdered.Following a clue left by the artistic assassin dubbed Picasso (Matthew Fox), Cross sets a trap at his next hit.After Picasso eludes capture, Cross deduces that his true target is a billionaire (Jean Reno).Angered by the detective's constant meddling, Picasso focuses his crosshairs on Cross' wife.Full of retributive violence but low on tangible mystery, this adaptation of the popular literary character lacks a suspenseful script and a believable lead.Besides, psychologist cops blame every murder on the killer's mother.
He was pretty much the only thing I liked.I love Jean Reno, and try to watch everything with him, but he was wasted on this movie, This role could have been filled with a nobody and it wouldn't have changed anything.We know the actors can act, and the director can direct, so why are we left with a movie with bland acting and characters we care little about.
Adapted from the acclaimed James Patterson novels, the film adaptation of 'Alex Cross' is a mixed bag, worth watching for several notable features which can do nothing but fail to salvage the whole affair.A painfully miscast Tyler Perry receives top billing as a rogue detective facing off against a threatening antagonist played excellently by 'LOST' alum Matthew Fox, who brings an unsettling edge to his character, exploring his motivations where the bland screenplay dares not.
All those people giving it bad reviews are way out of order,I was expecting a crap movie Tyler Perry etc,but I was nicely surprised that this was entertaining and well acted.I do hate Madea type rubbish but credit where it is due,this was well worth a watch even if it is only to make my own mind up.
Big name star (in America at least) Tyler Perry is decent here as he's clearly trying his best with the lame material he has been given, while bad guy Matthew Fox is much better that the one-note character he's been lumbered with.
I thought the actors were all good and worked well together and Matthew Fox was actually more believable, and impressive, in his role than in anything else I've seen him in.
Let me start by confessing that I never considered Tyler Perry to be the right match to play the legendary doctor-detective Alex cross on the big screen.The only reason I was drawn toward this film was Matthew Fox. I felt this movie watching this movie would be the only way I could appreciate his dedication and hard work, clearly evident by the effort he put into chiseling his body to suit the appearance of a psycho-sadist serial killer.I was however pleasantly surprised by Perry's performance, contrary to my opinion he pulls of this role quite appreciably, although I still believe Idris Alba would've been a better choice.
Starting from the Chief of police to Tyler's partner Thomas Kane everyone looks misplaced, Kane struggles to reproduce even the most basic of emotions on screen.The next obvious flaw about this film is the script, in one particular scene of the movie, Alex cross talks to his wife about getting a job with the FBI because it has a better pay & 'dental' that should probably sum it up for you.Apart from the reasonably good performances by Perry and Fox the only other appreciable points of this movie are probably the score and a couple of well filmed action scenes.
and ending fight scene that looked like it was shoot on a smart phone camera that made everybody in the cinema feel dizzy :)))it's a shame really...i hope we get to see Matthew fox again soon but under a better director.not of a cinema movie anyway as too lack of action or 3d special effects i guess it will go out to your nearest blockbuster soon if nothing else is available...take it :).
James Patterson's fictional creation, the forensic psychologist Alex Cross, is no stranger to the world of movies, after having graced the big screen in films like Kiss the Girls, and Along Came a Spider, both of which were productions more than a decade ago, with the leading character played by Morgan Freeman.
And it'll be interesting to know if director Rob Cohen have had his wings clipped somewhat through the lack of a reasonably sized budget to deal with the action sequences he had in mind, because they were at best, rudimentary, with heavy use of poorly rendered CG to try and convince audiences that things really got blown up.Drama isn't Cohen's forte, but Alex Cross is steeped in it, making the film seemed quite half- assed especially in pacing, with dramatic scenes inserted quite haphazardly that it makes the pace erratic.
What Tyler Perry and Edward Burns managed to do, is to only read their lines one at a time, totally blowing any acting awards out of the water.Perhaps it was left to Matthew Fox to save the day.
I'm sorry did u see his name on the cast list or him in the trailer?U can't go in expecting him to compare to Freeman, but I was impressed.I'm not a Tyler Perry fan at all and I think his movies or lame but by the end of the movie he made me believe he was a beast, something I thought I would never say about perry.Yes a lot of things could have been better but still worth watching.
Sure there are a lot of better films to watch but if you want to see some good action and you don't have nothing greet to do tonight then this movie is for you.
In 'Alex Cross' Tyler Perry steps up to try and fill the shoes of Morgan Freeman, who played the titular character in both Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider.
Perry is a big man, therefore a big gun suits him and he comes across more like he's ready to star in an action movie.However, the lead role aside, the film chugs along quite nicely.
I have never seen the Madea films so this is the first time I have seen Tyler Perry in action.As Alex Cross he is stepping into the shoes of Morgan Freeman in this reboot.
Well Freeman is a hard act to follow although I am unsure as to who Perry's version of Alex Cross is by the end of the film.The main star of the film is actually Matthew Fox as the hired killer Picasso.
While at the same time his intended victims just arriving somewhere else.How he has planned all this when he is busy going after Perry and co makes the mind boggle.Also Jean Reno the guy who played the treacherous agent in the first Mission Impossible movie turns up for a few minutes as the main chief executive of a corporation whose employees are being targeted by the assassin.I wonder who the actual mastermind could be?It is all daftly entertaining but it is a different Alex Cross as portrayed by Morgan Freeman.We are told Cross is clever and he has his 'Sherlock Holmes' moment at the beginning but very little as to how he arrived with his conclusions.It is a mash up of an action film and something cerebral but it did not lead to a successful reboot of the franchise..
Sadly Tyler Perry is an inferior lead.This time Alex Cross is confronting an assassin played by Matthew Fox who is taking on a rich and powerful business.
Alex Cross, an action movie aiming to entertain..
Detroit Detective Dr. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) goes up against Picasso (Matthew Fox) an accomplished Hit-man who specializes in torture and pain for his victims.
This isn't the first time the title character, spawned from numerous novels by acclaimed author James Patterson (none of which read by me), has made his appearance on film, with Morgan Freeman last inhabiting the role in Along Came a Spider in 2001, which was a sequel to Kiss the Girls in 1997.Now, in 2012, the filmmakers of Alex Cross clearly want two things to happen.
"I'm just looking for a bad guy." Homicide detective Alex Cross (Perry) is on the trail of a vicious serial killer (Fox). |
tt0118492 | Timecop | By the year 1994, time travel has been developed and is used for illicit purposes. The Time Enforcement Commission (TEC) has been established to police the use of time travel, with Senator Aaron McComb overseeing operations and financing. Police officer Max Walker has been offered a position with the TEC but is unsure whether or not to accept. While at home with his wife Melissa, he is attacked by unknown assailants and witnesses the house explode, killing her.
Ten years later, Walker is a veteran of the TEC working under Commissioner Eugene Matuzak, who sends him back to October 1929 to prevent his former partner, Lyle Atwood, from using knowledge of the future to financially benefit from the U.S. stock market crash. When confronted, Atwood admits to be working for Senator McComb, who needs the funds for his upcoming presidential campaign. Fearing that McComb will erase him from history, Atwood attempts to jump to his death, but Walker catches him mid-leap and returns to 2004. Refusing to testify, Atwood is sentenced to execution and is returned to 1929 where he resumes falling to his death.
Walker is assigned a new partner, TEC rookie Sarah Fielding, and together they are sent back to 1994 to investigate McComb. They witness a meeting between young McComb and his business partner Jack Parker, where McComb wishes to withdraw over a disagreement about a new computer chip. They are interrupted by the older McComb, who arrives from 2004 to stop the exchange claiming the chip will become highly profitable. Older McComb specifically tells his younger self not to touch him as the same matter cannot occupy the same space, and then kills Parker. Fielding turns on Walker, revealing that she works for McComb, and after a shootout with McComb's henchmen, Fielding is wounded and Walker escapes back to 2004.
Walker returns to the TEC to find the future altered. McComb is now sole owner of the computer company and is a presidential front runner while the TEC is being shut down due to budget cuts. Walker appeals to Matuzak, who has no knowledge of the alternate present. Matuzak sends Walker back to the past in a prototype time machine, sacrificing himself in the process.
Back in 1994, Walker finds Fielding in the hospital and after interrogation she agrees to testify against McComb, though she is murdered in her room shortly thereafter. While at the hospital, Walker finds a record of a recent visit by his wife Melissa, discovering that she was pregnant. Realizing that she would be killed later that night, he tracks her down and reveals himself to be from the future.
That night, the younger Walker returns home and is attacked just as before, with the assailants revealed to be in McComb's employ, but is unknowingly aided by his older self who has been lying in wait. With the assailants defeated, the older McComb steps in and takes Melissa hostage, confronting the older Walker with the bomb. McComb reveals that he sent the assassins back to kill the younger Walker, and even though he will die in the ensuing explosion, his younger self will survive and become President with Walker gone. Walker, however, reveals that he had previously lured the younger McComb to the house, who enters the room. After McComb wounds Melissa, Walker pushes the two McCombs together and, as the same matter cannot occupy the same space, they merge into a liquefied mass before disappearing from existence forever. Walker escapes with Melissa before the bomb explodes and lays her down beside his unconscious younger self before returning to the future.
Back in 2004, Walker finds the timeline has changed for the better. Matuzak and Fielding are alive and active in the TEC, whereas McComb no longer exists. Walker returns home to find Melissa alive and waiting for him with their young son. | alternate reality | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1625856 | Badrinath | Bheeshma Narayan (Prakash Raj) is a religious guru who prepares an army for the protection of all the ancient Hindu temples from terrorists. Of all the valiant and talented warriors in this elite army, Badrinath (Allu Arjun) is one who is groomed by Bheeshma Narayan and wishes to make Badri his successor. Once, a group of terrorists attacked Amarnath Temple and killed some devotees, Badri fought and killed those criminals, saving both the temple and the devotees.
Meanwhile, Alakananda (Tamanna), who is a staunch agnostic due to certain circumstances, along with her family is visiting Badrinath Temple, to which Badri is appointed as the protector. Her grandfather explains to Badri that she is in danger as Sarkar (Kelly Dorjee), a dreaded don, is trying to force her marriage with his son. On the request of her grandfather, Badri helps Alaknanda to gradually believe in God's existence.
Eventually Alakananda falls deeply in love with Badri, unbeknownst to him, and is not willing to lose him at any cost. Sarkar and his men follow Alaknanda to Badrinath, and try to kidnap her. Although Badri manages to save her, he is heavily injured and goes under medication. Meanwhile, Bheeshma Narayan is shocked upon seeing Alakananda's affectionate behaviour towards Badri when he lay injured. As it is a strict rule that only an unmarried man must be the next guru who would lead the elite warriors, Bheeshma Narayan becomes highly suspicious that Badri is in love with Alakananda, which is not the real situation. Badri promises Alakananda that he would bring her back to Badrinath Temple for success in her love, unaware that he is the object of her love in the first place.
As per the promise, Badri goes to Bellary to free Alakananda from the clutches of Sarkar, who is planning to fix the marriage, and escort Alaknanda back to the holy shrine. He fights with all the goons and escorts her to Badrinath. Sarkar vows revenge on Badri as Sarkar's son is severely hurt in the process by Badri. Subsequently, Sarkar leads his goons to Badrinath and destroys Bheeshma Narayan's ashram.
Feeling that Badri is the real traitor and loves Alakananda, Bheeshma Narayan orders Badri to vacate Badrinath Temple. Meanwhile, Alakananda is being taken away by Sarkar's men, and Alakananda proposes to Badri to which he rejects as he has dedicated his life to his guru. After seeing Alakananda's pure love for Badri, Bheeshma Narayan is moved and orders Badri to bring her back and marry her. Following his guru's orders, Badri saves Alakananda and finally marries her. In the end, Bheeshma Narayan asks them to hand over one of their children so that he can make him his successor to which they agree happily. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1972591 | King Arthur: Legend of the Sword | Mordred, an iron fisted warlock, and his armies lay siege to Camelot, seeking to establish the dominance of magic-wielding mages over humankind. Uther Pendragon, king of the Britons, infiltrates Mordred's lair and beheads him, destroying his forces and saving Camelot. Later that evening, Uther's treacherous brother Vortigern, who covets the throne, orchestrates a coup and sacrifices his wife Elsa to sea witches in order to summon a demon knight, who kills Uther's wife and slays him in combat. The only survivor is Uther's son, who drifts away in a boat and eventually winds up in Londinium, where he is found and raised by prostitutes, who name him Arthur.
Arthur grows into a skilled fighter and man of the streets, alongside his friends Tristan and Backlack. The three confront a group of Vikings headed by Kjartan, who had mistreated one of the prostitutes, forcing them to pay her a year's wages for their behavior. Afterwards, the brothel is raided by the Blacklegs, Vortigern's minions, and Arthur learns that the Vikings were guests of the king and attacking them, therefore, constitutes a crime against him personally. Arthur tries to escape the city, but is caught and put on a ship with hundreds of other men. He learns that a mysterious, magic sword has appeared near Vortigern's castle, and the Blacklegs have been forcing all men of Arthur's age to try and pull it from the surrounding stone. When Arthur tries, he pulls the sword out and quickly faints from the vast power it contains. Vortigern meets with him in the dungeon, revealing his true lineage. Meanwhile, a woman, identifying herself as an acolyte of Merlin, meets with Uther's former general, Sir Bedivere.
At Arthur's execution, the mage uses her magic to stage a diversion while Percival and Rubio, two of Bedivere's men, rescue Arthur. Taken to his hideout, Arthur initially refuses to help them, but soon collapses again when he tries to wield the sword. Suspecting that he lacks the willpower to control it, the mage persuades Bedivere to take Arthur to the "Blacklands", the realm where, years earlier, Merlin destroyed Mordred's tower in defiance of his darkness. It is revealed that Vortigern was responsible for persuading Mordred to rebel against humanity, having grown jealous of Uther's power. Arthur, having restored the sword's magic, returns determined to destroy Vortigen for his crimes.
Together with his friends and Bedivere's men, Arthur stages a series of ambushes and attacks to force Vortigern out of hiding. Aware that his maid is a spy for Bedivere, Vortigen announces plans to meet with his barons in Londonium, sending a body double in his place. The rebels quickly realize the deception, but attack anyway which was all part of his plan. In the process, Rubio is captured while Backlack is severely wounded and left behind. The others take refuge in a fighters' school, run by Arthur's mentor George, where they are quickly overrun by the Blacklegs. Seeing the mage being held at knifepoint, Arthur is overcome by his rage and unleashes Excalibur's potential, single-handly killing all of the enemy soldiers. As night falls and riots break out all over Londonium, the rebels take shelter in a safe house, where they are soon joined by Backlack and his son Blue.
Knowing that he is mortally wounded, Backlack urges the others to go on and promises that he will be coming after them soon. Unbeknownst to them, the Blacklegs' commander, Mischief John, has been following the wounded Backlack, and he and Vortigern interrogate him for information. Blue sneaks back and, when caught, tries to bluff them that he is simply a worker coming to do his shift. But he can't maintain the masquerade when his father is threatened. Arthur comes back and manages to save Blue, but not before Blue watches his father die.
Afterwards, Arthur, ashamed of his failures, throws the sword into a lake and runs into the forest. When he stops at a small marsh, the Lady of the Lake pulls him into her realm and shows him a vision of the future, where England has been ruined by Vortigern's rule and the people are left to suffer in misery. Recognizing that only he can put an end to his uncle's reign, Arthur reunites with Bedivere, George, and Percival. When they return to the rebel hideout, however, they discover all of their allies dead, Vortigern having found them thanks to information provided by Rubio. They encounter the captain, who delivers a message from the king: If Arthur does not surrender himself by nightfall, both the mage and Blue will die. Bedivere is able to get the former released in exchange for Arthur surrendering both himself and the sword.
Just as Vortigern is about to kill his nephew, a giant snake controlled by the mage attacks and devours the captain and his men, while the others free Vortigern's prisoners and lead them in a revolt against the Blacklegs. A desperate Vortigern sacrifices his only daughter and is transformed into the demon knight, confronting Arthur in a separate dimension. Despite his fighting skill, Arthur is quickly beaten. Just as he is about to submit, he witnesses a flashback of the moment when his father was struck down, having turned his own body to stone to prevent Vortigern from seizing the sword. Arthur snatches the sword before it impales Uther, who gives him the right to wield it. Arthur then destroys Vortigern's weapon and kills him violently.
In the aftermath, Arthur, George, and Percival begin building the round table, where Arthur and his knights will meet. Arthur also dissolves Vortigern's pact with the Vikings, declaring that they must respect England's power if they wish to avoid war. Blue and the prostitutes arrive with the crown of Uther, which Arthur accepts. King Arthur then addresses his new subjects, holding the sword aloft in the air. | historical fiction | train | wikipedia | If you actually want a movie where you know everything already starting from the story, characters and twists then I'd call you the stupidest ever.
Yes this isn't your typical king Arthur movie, and that adds even more to the awesomeness of it.amnt saying the movie is flawless, no movie is, but it was great starting from acting, animation, story, music tracks, everything.
well, there are lots of elephants in the room; let's be honest.Before I expound further, let me say this: if you like the movie's trailers, like a fair bit of action but don't particularly care about how every bit of it fits into a story, don't particularly care about the traditional legend(s) of King Arthur, like a bunch of fantasy mixed in, and plenty of (now run-of-the-mill) CGI, you might like this movie.
The other, proverbial, elephants in the room are how far the movie strays from the legendary King Arthur story.Now, in fairness, legends (King Arthur, in this case) being what they are, it is difficult to know where reality ends and fantasy begins.
Nonetheless, even though the legend has changed somewhat over the years (as legends are wont to do), this movie bears little resemblance to the story that moviegoers familiar with Arthur will expect.Merlin?
I get the same sense of lack of respect for traditional tales of King Arthur.I could go on and on, picking the film apart, but all of it boils down to the simple appearance that Ritchie is simply capitalizing on the popularity of someone else' story -- King Arthur and the legend of Excalibur -- by using the name in the title, then remaking the entire story to suit a flight of his fancy.Ritchie might as well have just left the sword out of the story and dropped the name of Arthur from the story -- and title.
Then, too, moviegoers would know better than to expect a movie simply about the King Arthur legend, which the current title implies..
And, the movie also had some brief parts which were fun to see, like the scene when Arthur was telling the story about the Vikings.
Out of the whole fighting scenes, the one that I enjoyed most was in the middle which I felt was rather breathtaking and having an ultimate amazing ending.Apart from the cool action sequences, the movie also had some dramatic moments and surprises.
I did feel some similarities with other movies that he directed like the 2009 Sherlock Holmes movie and its sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in 2011, especially in the part of using pieces of flash backs to explain something.I think the special effects to the movie was very good, which should not be a surprise considering it has a USD 175 million budget.
My only worry is with such hefty budget, it may not be having a large profit since the movie itself might not appeal to some hardline fans of the folklore of King Arthur, Excalibur, mages and so on, due to the rather unusual way of story telling.
Let's see if you noticed him.So for those who want to enjoy a nice action adventure film in the medieval period with some sword and sorcery plus the background of King Arthur with the knights of the round table, then you would definitely enjoy this one (especially if you are a fan of Guy Ritchie's works).
Sadly the critics only want to give a movie a great rating when there's an oppressed group wronged, and this movie is not that.Here's to hoping there's a King Arthur II - Knights of the Round Table.
Saw this at a Promo Screening last night and have been shocked by the harsh reviews from the critics.I went in expecting to see a by-the-numbers generic fantasy like the ones Disney churns out regularly.
But instead I was surprised to find that Guy Ritchie has applied to King Arthur the same style and technique that made his Sherlock Holmes films so beloved.In this film is the witty dialogue and creative editing we've (at least some of us) have come to love from Guy Ritchie.
The action is good, the effects are good, but it is the manner of delivery of it all that brings this to greatness.The acting is solid, some characters are less developed than others but I did not feel that this hurt the movie at all.
Perhaps this movie means more to people who have some kind of attachment or attraction to the King Arthur legend already.
However, there was one disturbing moment - a genre, which I thought (my mistake) wasn't a good fit for his style and a well-known plot.In fact, even knowing what will be the ending (we all know the good old story of King Arthur), I enjoyed the film from the beginning to the very last phrase.A quick turn of events did not give me a chance to be bored.
Little details through the movie constantly reminding you that you are watching a Guy Ritchie's work.
Few months ago when I watched the trailer and considering the fact that Guy Ritchie is directing this I knew one thing for sure - this movie will NOT BE a King Arthur story.
What happens here is that Ritchie took the concept of the King Arthur and Excalibur's myths and made a movie out of them in a way only he can (reference - Sherlock Holmes).So what you should expect and what you will get from this movie is: - Charlie Hunnam (excellent actor with huge potential) - Jude Law (no need of comment here, this movie won't be the same without him).
Hunnam and Law were one of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie - Hell of a good soundtrack - Excellent overall atmosphere and FX - 100% Guy Ritchie movie - FunWhat you should NOT expect from this movie is regular King Arthur story - quite the same if you had expected a regular WWII story from Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards.
And the only thing I felt missing to get a 100% fun from the new Ritchie's movie was Vinnie Jones :)I hope you'll enjoy it as I did on my Friday's cinema evening!!!.
People going into this movie shouldn't be expecting something similar to the King Arthur films they're accustomed to.
Guy Ritchie took the King Arthur character that everyone knows and turned him into someone like-able.
This is the definitive King Arthur movie for a couple of reasons.The story isn't dense and boring.
I thought to go be entertained for a time, and King Arthur looked to fit the bill.I was stunned.
Nice work to the casting director, good job!In no way do I mean to take away from any of the other actors, all nailed their parts, every single one!Guy Ritchie outdid himself.
The problem being, as he is the only believable character in the film - you can't help but root for him.The rest of the performances were paint by numbers, collecting a pay check and if this was the best Guy Ritchie could get from them - perhaps he isn't fit for being a director?
One film where you can get suckered in with the stories the characters are telling and the other, you're wishing your life away watching rubbish CGI, limp acting and a muddled mess of a fight sequence.
King Arthur: Legend of the SwordI am not a cynical person and I tend to see the good in something, most of the time cynical people will feel the need to crucify an artifact if it disrupts their sensibilities.
It can be noted that the film has the lovable rogue trope down to a T.If not paying attention and fully immersing yourself within this film its artistry could be overlooked or the denouement may be an 'ok' or 'I got entertained just as I expected to be' and may be seen as just another big blockbuster film, the fact that it came out one week after GotG would not help this case.The FX are incredible and well put together in a cohesive manner, you will see the famous Guy Ritchie slow-mo action sequences.
All to communicate to the viewer exactly what is going on and where.I understand there are a thousand different contributing factors that make someone like or dislike a film.I am in a good place within my life and I am a great lover of fantasy, this story captivated me and made me feel empathy toward the characters.
I like films about King Arthur and have done ever since being a child many, many years ago.
I find it interesting to see different takes on a classic legend from my part of the world.However, this movie is the ONLY one I have seen where I have cringed from beginning to end.It is big - has lots of CGI - and that is about the only thing I can say about it.The story is ridiculous and the acting is worse than imagining Daffy Duck perform Shakespeare (although that would be far more entertaining).Then there is the awful, dreadful, dire, and ridiculous appearance by David Beckham.
The rotten tomatoes are pure rubbish on this one.King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had at the theater in a long time.
I've watched several others works of film and TV about King Arthur and Excalibur so didn't expect much.
Don't listen to the critics, and who wants another serious King Arthur movie anyway?
Very enjoyable, looking forward to more movies from him and the King Arthur world in the future..
It showed a lot of content but believe me the movie has exceptionally good content.Kudos to the writers and @guyRitchie if you ever get a chance to read this review amazing work.The hero introduction is awesome, the way the story unfolds is brilliant, everything seems in place and in order.
Amazing dialogues (people who understand sarcasm well will enjoy the benefit).There have been a lot of mixed reviews between the critics and the users and I did read a couple of them before watching this and it did lower my expectations but after watching it it was just 'WOW' People who like this genre would watch it again and again people who aren't big fans of this will enjoy it if they do watch it.One of the best movies of 2017 so far..
The BBC series made 15-20-years ago is worth watching on the King Arthur/Merlin story.
A movie that don't have the right timing of the scenes, and most of all, a film that don't have the ability to make you care about any of the characters.
But i was so very wrong, key characters missing and a very bad story line spoiled the well acted parts from Jude law, Charlie Hunnam who really did play the roles well.
to date the only version of this legendary tale to get a good story line and show it as should be is the old time Disney cartoon lol perhaps they should do a live action version of that am sure will be far better than this film..
The story line is garbage, the characters and acting are woeful (except maybe Jude Law as others have mentioned), the action is poorly shot and the CGI is some of the worst ever committed to film.
The biggest problem with #KingArthur #LegendOfTheSword is that it puts more emphasis on trying to be a Guy Ritchie superhero film than it is about King Arthur.
Another problem is that instead of watching a movie, some of the time it feels more like you're watching "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" video game walkthrough.Charlie Hunnam stars as the born king, Arthur whose father is murdered as Arthur's uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law) seizes the crown.
And if you're a die hard Guy Ritchie fan, this too carries his usual brute montage style that often explains a subplot in a very quick, very humorous manner, so in that sense, it is a more dynamic film than any of the other versions of King Arthur you've seen on the screen.Charlie Hunnam essentially plays a reluctant hero who's having difficulties coming to terms with his destiny but after a while, his continued reluctance becomes frustrating and downright annoying.
Overall, I'm not saying that "King Arthur: Legend of The Sword" is not an entertaining film if you're a style-over-substance kind of an audience, but just be aware that you'll be viewing Arthur through Guy Ritchie's filters..
For those in the biz, if you want to make an excellent movie about King Arthur, I recommend you read Jack Whyte's Camulod series and make something along those lines.
I have seen all the older King Arthur movies of the same but they don't wow me like this..
Most of the time I agree with them, once in a while we disagree, but never has there been a movie which I absolutely love getting this much hate from reviewers (21% rotten as of this writing).All manners of movies have been made regarding the legendary King Arthur.
I went to the cinema with no expectations, but it surprised me in a very positive way.If you like the old traditional way of telling this story, I would not recommend this movie.
Guy Richie's version gives this story a edgy version with great street fights and battles and a villian to hate in Jude Law's protrayal of an evil King driven by desire of power.
It had moments of greatness and it just fell short of being a great movie, but this beginning story is enjoyable to watch and sets the stage for possible adventures for King Arthur and this Knights..
I really love how it wasn't another boring King Arthur story like we got with Richard Gere and Clive Owen.
King Arthur movie in millennial time.
Dear readers, yesterday I have watched King Arthur movie, directed by Guy Ritchie.
The movie is really focused on the story of the sword from the beginning of the scene, but we can see the process of life or Arthur of being "a king".
Secondly I want to review about the role of King Arthur himself as the role-center in this movie.
But lastly, like other Guy Ritchie's movies, the backward-forward scenes, high musics, and proper actors/actress could entertain all millennial generations to see the handsome and muscles King Arthur and his legend of sword.
I'm a huge fan of Guy Ritchie direction style but was very skeptical about this movie after the reviews came out.
OK, I love Guy Ritchie movies, I really do, and still I wasn't giving movie a chance, but I decided to accept it and just watch it for what it was, a movie about King Arthur and Excalibur.
It's Guy Ritchie's version of King Arthur and Excalibur.
If you like Guy Ritchie movies, you will love this one!
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword delivers an action-packed, fun, and original adaptation of a classic story.
Unfortunately, the critics wanted something copied and pasted from King Arthur movies of the past.
4.) The action sequences are a lot of fun.5.) The soundtrack is awesome.King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is my third favorite movies of 2017.
Knowing that this was a Guy Ritchie movie, I had low expectations.
The legend of King Arthur and Excalibur has been been told many times by the cinema and television.
Do not listen to critics and do not compare to other stories about King Arthur just go and watch and you will not be disappointed.
Charlie Hunnam was bland, uncharismatic, and dull as Arthur and Jude Law was especially awful as the king basically auditioning for an Uwe Boll film that will never get made.I am honestly surprised, because I've liked Sherlock Holmes and definitely liked The Man From Uncle from Guy Ritchie, but this managed to make Sherlock Holmes 2 look good and I don't know how that is even possible, but I would rather watch that since that at least felt like a Guy Ritchie movie, this only felt like one of his films in 2 scenes and that's it.Overall, Skip this film it is not worth your time watch Excalibur, The Sword and the Stone, First Knight, and hell even the Antoine Fuqua one.
I have to admit I enjoyed King Arthur: Legend of the Sword pretty much, mainly due to the post-modern sensibility employed by director Guy Ritchie.
I have to repeat it: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is VERY different to any other epic film; it doesn't look like anything I have seen before...
The only movie I could partially compare it to is Sherlock Holmes (also directed by Ritchie), but King Arthur: Legend of the Sword feels more irreverent...
"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" has great potentials but a bit so good execution!
All in all one of the best action/fantasy movies I have seen for a very long time..
I tend to like most of Guy Ritchie's movies and one of the biggest reasons is that his characters have tons of camaraderie.
It was generally solid and I laughed throughout the movie.Guy Ritchie has been at this long enough that he's developed his own way doing action.
The action is mixed, the acting is mixed and the story takes some pretty big liberties from the King Arthur legend and the historical period.
i just saw the movie and it was great, a 10+ - the screen, the actors, the costumes, the effects and the story.
Im just here to say that King Arthur is a great movie!
The acting is solid, the story, the art direction, the action, I really liked it, can't imagine why it the critics where so harsh on it, it is a great summer movie.
The same style as all Guy Ritchie movies.
Otherwise if you enjoyed Guy Ritchie's take on Sherlock Holmes and like fantasy this movie is great. |
tt0113271 | The Haunting of Helen Walker | An unnamed narrator listens to Douglas, a friend, read a manuscript written by a former governess whom Douglas claims to have known and who is now dead. The manuscript tells the story of how the young governess is hired by a man who has become responsible for his young nephew and niece after the deaths of their parents. He lives mainly in London and is uninterested in raising the children.
The boy, Miles, is attending a boarding school, while his younger sister, Flora, is living at a summer country house in Essex. She is currently being cared for by Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper. Miles and Flora's uncle, the governess' new employer, gives her full charge of the children and explicitly states that she is not to bother him with communications of any sort. The governess travels to her new employer's country house, Bly, and begins her duties.
Miles soon returns from school for the summer just after a letter arrives from the headmaster stating that he has been expelled. Miles never speaks of the matter, and the governess is hesitant to raise the issue. She fears there is some horrible secret behind the expulsion but is too charmed by the adorable young boy to want to press the issue. Soon thereafter, around the grounds of the estate, the governess begins to see the figures of a man and woman whom she does not recognize. These figures come and go at will without ever being seen or challenged by other members of the household, and they seem to the governess to be supernatural. She learns from Mrs. Grose that her predecessor, Miss Jessel, and another employee, Peter Quint, had a sexual relationship. Before their deaths, Jessel and Quint spent much of their time with Flora and Miles, and this fact has grim significance for the governess when she becomes convinced that the two children are secretly aware of the ghosts' presence.
Later, without permission, Flora leaves the house while Miles is playing music for the governess. The governess notices Flora's absence and goes with Mrs. Grose in search of her. They find her in a clearing in the wood, and the governess is convinced that Flora has been talking to the ghost of Miss Jessel. When the governess finally confronts Flora, the girl denies seeing Miss Jessel and demands never to see the governess again. At the governess' suggestion, Mrs. Grose takes Flora away to her uncle, leaving the governess with Miles, who that night at last talks to her about his expulsion; the ghost of Quint appears to the governess at the window. The governess shields Miles, who attempts to see the ghost. The governess tells Miles he is no longer controlled by the ghost and then finds that Miles has died in her arms, and the ghost has gone. | paranormal, haunting | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1372686 | Coriolanus | The play opens in Rome shortly after the expulsion of the Tarquin kings. There are riots in progress, after stores of grain were withheld from ordinary citizens. The rioters are particularly angry at Caius Marcius, a brilliant Roman general whom they blame for the grain being taken away. The rioters encounter a patrician named Menenius Agrippa, as well as Caius Marcius himself. Menenius tries to calm the rioters, while Marcius is openly contemptuous, and says that the plebeians were not worthy of the grain because of their lack of military service. Two of the tribunes of Rome, Brutus and Sicinius, privately denounce Marcius. He leaves Rome after news arrives that a Volscian army is in the field.
The commander of the Volscian army, Tullus Aufidius, has fought Marcius on several occasions and considers him a blood enemy. The Roman army is commanded by Cominius, with Marcius as his deputy. While Cominius takes his soldiers to meet Aufidius' army, Marcius leads a rally against the Volscian city of Corioli. The siege of Corioli is initially unsuccessful, but Marcius is able to force open the gates of the city, and the Romans conquer it. Even though he is exhausted from the fighting, Marcius marches quickly to join Cominius and fight the other Volscian force. Marcius and Aufidius meet in single combat, which only ends when Aufidius' own soldiers drag him away from the battle.
In recognition of his great courage, Cominius gives Caius Marcius the agnomen, or "official nickname", of Coriolanus. When they return to Rome, Coriolanus's mother Volumnia encourages her son to run for consul. Coriolanus is hesitant to do this, but he bows to his mother's wishes. He effortlessly wins the support of the Roman Senate, and seems at first to have won over the commoners as well. However, Brutus and Sicinius scheme to undo Coriolanus and whip up another riot in opposition to his becoming consul. Faced with this opposition, Coriolanus flies into a rage and rails against the concept of popular rule. He compares allowing plebeians to have power over the patricians to allowing "crows to peck the eagles". The two tribunes condemn Coriolanus as a traitor for his words, and order him to be banished. Coriolanus retorts that it is he who banishes Rome from his presence.
After being exiled from Rome, Coriolanus seeks out Aufidius in the Volscian capital of Antium, and offers to let Aufidius kill him in order to spite the country that banished him. Moved by his plight and honoured to fight alongside the great general, Aufidius and his superiors embrace Coriolanus, and allow him to lead a new assault on Rome.
Rome, in its panic, tries desperately to persuade Coriolanus to halt his crusade for vengeance, but both Cominius and Menenius fail. Finally, Volumnia is sent to meet her son, along with Coriolanus's wife Virgilia and child, and a chaste gentlewoman Valeria. Volumnia succeeds in dissuading her son from destroying Rome, and Coriolanus instead concludes a peace treaty between the Volscians and the Romans. When Coriolanus returns to the Volscian capital, conspirators, organised by Aufidius, kill him for his betrayal. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | Ralph Fiennes captured the timeless concepts that Shakespeare expressed in his play brilliantly - so much so that I feel there will be strong/visceral audience reaction to the film's depiction of themes that reflect in today's front page stories.
This film ranks with Kenneth Brannagh's "Henry V" and Baz Luhrmann's "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" for making a film in Shakespearean English accessible by 21st Century Man. I've always believed that some folks in the U.S. malign William Shakespeare's writings today, because they were forced to read his plays in a cold classroom setting in their youth.
Coriolanus has the right ingredients for a good movie, great story(can you top Shakespeare?) and a strong cast.Only thing that was unknown so far is the director.IMO Mr. Fiennes did very well in his debut, his camera moves around at eyes height and often lingers close up to actors faces(it keeps the film from being stagy and lets you see all the nuances they convey).Locations are interesting and there are couple of nice fight scenes.The language is Shakespirian but i had no problems understanding it( not my native lang.), musical score is kinda tribal and quite appropriate for the theme of the film.
The action, the direction and some powerful performances – most notably from Ralph Fiennes and Vanessa Redgrave – carry the film and more than compensate for the language barriers.
There are a couple of truly violent moments in the film which blast the cobwebs off the old play and hook the modern, desensitized audience into the story.Coriolanus is a tense and violent political wartime thriller which makes Shakespeare not only accessible but utterly captivating.
Using story-telling techniques combining CNN, CSI, and YouTube along with images of street demonstrations, riots, and urban warfare, Fiennes gives us a Coriolanus befitting our times, clarifying how the titular hero can fall from national hero to banishment in a matter of minutes on the whims of a fickle populous easily swayed by political spin-masters.
Which is why i'm glad to say I was pleasantly surprised by this film.For a first time director Ralph Fiennes really did a great job making a modern adaptation of one of the lesser known Shakespeare works.
I'm not a huge Shakespeare fan, but I have to say that the use of the his dialogue here actually worked in the context in the film even with the modern setting.
I enjoyed ever minute of this film and if you are a fan of good story telling, Shakespeare or war movies, you will enjoy Coriolanus..
A modern-day spin on one of Shakespeare's lesser known plays, Coriolanus is an ambitious and lyrical Greek tragedy that has everything you'd expect from the mind of the Bard; betrayal, revenge, pride, conflict, monologues, dilemmas, death- it's all in there.
Set in a city on the verge of collapse that resembles Tripoli but calls itself Rome, the film charts the rise and fall of general Coriolanus (Fiennes); a fiery soldier of war-torn Rome who earns his stripes in a bloody battle against an insurgent army lead by Turrus (Gerard Butler).
His contemporary vision of a 300+ year old morality play is one awash with thought, feeling, values, complexities, politics and emotion- pure, unadulterated Shakespeare.Coriolanus is far from the vision of just one man, though.
Who says Shakespeare isn't relevant?Set in Rome (though the film was shot in Belgrade with a distinctly Eastern European look to it) Ralph Fiennes' directorial debut tells the story of Caius Martius Coriolanus (Ralph Fiennes), Rome's most prominent general, whose army is fighting fiercely in a war with neighboring state Volsces.
The cast's delivery of the script is, on the whole, superb: Butler has never been better as the fearless Gladiator-esque Aufidius, Ralph Fiennes impresses both behind the camera as well as in front as the hot-tempered, maniacal Coriolanus (a role he has played previously on the stage), and both Jessica Chastain, as the ever concerned wife Virgila, and Brian Cox as the effusive political adviser Menenius, make an impact in smaller roles.
If the director and script writers truly wanted to pay homage to Shakespeare, they would've adapted the script to modern, powerful dialogue befitting the contemporary environment.Thou shalt not watch this movie without subtitles.
Though drastically pared down--a twelve line speech often reduced to one--it is Shakespeare as the Bard wrote it.The themes of the play are universal, transcending time: the fickleness of the mob, the jealousy and treachery of politicians, the mutual respect of men in the profession of arms even when they are adversaries, the conflicting pull of family loyalty.There isn't a bad performance anywhere.
I love the modern takes on Shakespearean plays , but this was really hard work , i'm sorry the original dialogue just doesn't fit, it's far to wordy for modern audiences , Should have been a very relevant film for the recent financial troubles in Europe and great powerful performances from Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler, along with superb action sequences and cameos from various actors did make me want to stay till the end , but i couldn't and for only the second time in my life walked out an hour in , along with others at the same showing , I have no doubt some that know the story will love this .
"If Greece has taught us that marble bleeds, Rome shows us that dust flowers." Cecil Roberts.Shakespeare's tragedy, Coriolanus, directed by Ralph Fiennes, has been successfully translated to the screen, just as Richard III (1995) was by Richard Loncraine.
Both productions shift the scene to modern times, and despite my prejudice about tinkering with the Bard, I liked both, in part because Fiennes is a fine Coriolanus and Ian McKellen a better than fine Richard.It's modern Rome, besieged by angry citizens whose leader is Gerard Butler's Aufidius, longtime enemy of Coriolanus.
To see the four leads on the screen, along with the reliable Brian Cox as Menenius, is to witness the best of cinema acting, although Redgrave dominates as she pleads, cajoles, and finesses her son to speak gently to the commoners and to compromise the siege.There is something static about the filming, perhaps because Fiennes sees it in its Shakespearean form and himself as a theatrical performer.
"Static" even though Fiennes relies on MTV-like quick cuts to enhance the action and perhaps mitigate the elegant prose for regular film goers.The contemporary thematic parallels with the play are obvious: the puzzle that still is the Balkans, or Iraq and Iran for that matter, with families pitted against each other, the citizenry versus the military, and power another deal away.But the play's the thing, and no matter how much gifted director and adapter play with the original, Shakespeare is always there with stunning dialogue, deep characterization, and humanity still crazy after all these years..
People who complain about this play being set in modern times are missing a vital fact about Shakespeare himself: he set Julius Cesar in Roman times, but yet his soldiers yell "fire" in battle, the actors often wore Elisabethan battledress, not togas, and they speak of the "clock striking"...long before Rome had striking clocks.
Shakespeare has always been "iffy" for me, but I think this film may have made me a solid fan.Everything is translated into the modern setting perfectly, and the Shakespearean-English only added to the atmosphere.
I enjoyed the comparative "Romeo + Juliet" but undoubtedly due to my familiarity with the story.It's probably a good tale with clever twists and turns but I couldn't follow it and I expect most people whom haven't studied it, or speak like Yoda, will also have a hard time, which makes for some tough viewing."The tongues o' the common mouth: I do despise them;"I'm not going to rate it because for some this film will be great, the production is very good but for the likes of me and I'm sure more than are willing to admit, you may as well watch it on mute..
Coriolanus (2011) Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Vanessa Redgrave, Brian Cox. I downloaded this as soon as it came on Pay-Per-View and watched it last week two times.
The overall direction of the movie can be picked up on but so much is lost in translation too.I think if you knew the story of Coriolanus before you watched this film you'd find it much more satisfying.
Being more familiar with theatre would also benefit you but if you're going into this film with no knowledge of the language or the story, your experience would probably match mine.Having said that the acting of Ralph Fiennes carries so much power and emotion and some of the scenes are incredible.
The trailer is extremely misleading, it makes you think you are going to watch an action movie, while it is more like a political drama.The acting might be good, I don't know because I could not understand the dialogue.
it doesn't make sense being in the 20's century like how traitors control audiences and people and the way the council win the people votes..to be honest this movie could have entered the top 250 movies of all time if it was done right but in almost every aspect it was done wrong and without enough innovation to begin with, showing the traits of Coriolanus and his enemy wasn't as good at it should have been and their relation too also the scene where he died and the sound tracks were weak.
It's a device we've seen before with Romeo and Juliet (1996) and Hamlet (2000), and while it would seem appropriate to place the first Coriolanus film in its own time, the story translates to an age of media and modern warfare relatively well.
While this film may not prove Coriolanus is the best of Shakespeare's plays, it nevertheless reflects that the neglected play is brilliant.Fiennes' film has a strong look and helps the viewer feel some of the intense conflict, though it's not a great film.
The 2011 Ralph Fiennes-directed film of William Shakespeare's Coriolanus is updated from its ancient Roman origins to a modern day battlefield that could easily be Iran or Afghanistan.
well i can summarize this film easily its CRAP.these past 2 or 3 years it looks like the Us has tried to take a different angle on movies and its in my eyes not been successful, i think there are coming less good movies now and a lot more crap, but as long as people are paying to watching i guess they feel all is OK..
Perhaps ill attempt to read the play and then go back and re-watch the film to get a better understanding of why this story is so revered.+Fiennes +Ambitious directing...-...But the time line just doesn't fit with the dialogue -Drags -The rest of the cast didn't really stand out 5.2/10.
As a first-time director, Ralph Fiennes gives a good account of himself in a challenging production, but is under-served by two sources from whom one expects better: Fiennes the actor and William Shakespeare the scenarist.Caius Martius (Fiennes) is a proud Roman, rather overmuch in the minds of many of his compatriots.
Despite counsel of his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) and patrician friend Menenius (Brian Cox), Martius' knack for blowing up at the wrong time proves his Achilles heel."Coriolanus" is one of Shakespeare's more interesting problem plays, articulating an elitist attitude that seems designed to annoy inhabitants of future democracies.
If you know what is happening, and Fiennes the director does a good job making it clear, you can glom onto what the various characters are saying easily enough, and enjoy the way they play with their deliveries.
Based on William Shakespeare's play about a Roman general spurned by those he serves, Coriolanus is a surprisingly well-crafted directorial debut for lead actor Ralph Fiennes.
If anything, too much of Shakespeare's writing was cut out in order to make the movie shorter, and some scenes and characters suffer because of it.Second, it is transported to a modern setting despite the language, in order to demonstrate its universal themes.
The modern settings with news-rooms, tanks and trucks work very well, but the war-action scenes sometimes feel shoe-horned in just to try to make Shakespeare more thrilling and pander to audiences, and a key plot element that involves the Roman practice of a hero showing the people his physical wounds in order to gain their trust, doesn't work anymore.The acting is generally good, although the wide range of accents are too distracting, and Azabal chews the scenery and ruins her scenes.
Now,i think the movie was good,seriously good,but it could have been much much better had they not used archaic.Well Ralph,i am extremely sorry to say that your Directorial Debut wont be a "fan raiser".This film was directly enacted from william Shakespeare's 'Coriolanus'(well may be too much)and hence it enjoyed some appeal and originality.However i would like to point out that 'ARCHAIC IS NOT MADE FOR MODERN CINEMA'.The use of archaic in the movie was merely disappointing and annoying throughout and it began to wear out the spark that the movie could have had.Archaic is good for books,where u have ample time to read and enjoy every sentence.However in A movie it just seems like a blur,as if they are trying to challenge your brains and ears in thinking & hearing faster beyond human capacity.Regarding acting,i would like to point out the fact that Ralph still has 'Voldemort' hangover.Many of his scenes (especially angry ones)reminded me of voldemort and not at all of coriolanus.Hopefully he will come out of it sometime.Vanessa was the crowning glory of the film,putting aside everyone else (including gerard,whose weird accent mixed with archaic seemed like he was mocking us for wasting bucks on his movie,sad move gerard).Overall,i am big fan of Shakespeare's works,but this one does not entirely justify it.Archaic in the backdrop of modern rome??
The most powerful performance, however, comes from Vanessa Redgrave as Coriolanus' mother.Good support from Brian Cox. Jessica Chastain seems a bit out of her element in a Shakespeare play.Hard to dislike Shakespeare, so this is a rarity..
You perhaps wouldn't really expect Gerard Butler to see in a Shakespeare movie but he is simply a good actor, that plays his role well.
Well, I'm a sucker for a good cast and that of Coriolanus is right up there: Ralph Fiennes (who also directs), Brian Cox, Jessica Chastain, Vanessa Redgrave and, with a heavy heart, Gerard Butler.
Fiennes is powerful, absorbing and a very fine Coriolanus in Nev's book and this marks an impressive directorial debut.For those who know, understand and love the works of Shakespeare, this apparently ranks a little below Olivier's Henry V.
Once I was able to understand then I started to admire Shakespeare's least appreciated novel and Ralph Fiennes violent adaptation of Coriolanus.
Also the modern acting tendency towards naturalism can make the Shakespeare's words, so dense in meaning, unintelligible.Neither of these traps are completely avoided in Fiennes production of Coriolanus which nevertheless may be considered one of the more successful Shakespearean adaptations.
This is less of an issue in Coriolanus than in other Shakespearean play since the hero himself is a man of few words (by Shakespeare's standards).The language is sometimes at variance with the on-screen action.
But no such a thing is possible in "Coriolanus".No play from Shakespeare is more fit for adaptation to modern times.
This is a movie adaptation of the William Shakespeare play Coriolanus.
Ralph Fiennes played his role very well, especially when his character becomes angry.All in all, this is good movie adaptation.
I started reading about Coriolanus after listening to the Coriolan Overture of Beethoven when I bumped into the Shakespeare's play and finally into this film.What I expected was a silly adaptation of Shakespeare with smug characters and obsolete dialogues that was probably going to put me to sleep half into the movie.
It was done with expert skill and Fiennes employs respected British newsreader Jon Snow (not the Game of Thrones character), which surprisingly works.Like with any Shakespeare play and adaptation there are plenty of themes in Coriolanus that everyone from movie fans to academics can sink their teeth into.
English movies has a special taste it's fine sort of art, melody, texture, and mysterious harmony.in this film I saw Vanessa Redgrave playing with camera not act front of it, or perform her own opera years gave this lady more than we can handle with such performance like that, Brian Cox in one word "MAGNIFICENT" even when he finish his life, Jessica Chastain if a rose can act then we call about Jessica's style "Rose Acting", Gerard Butler a powerful voice can left any meaning any feeling to anybody even he can't speak English, at last the mid-eastern talents Ashraf Barhoum & Lubna Aazbal good choice for the creative director they were rebels souls with tiger sounds.Ralf Fiennes excellent director brilliant actor make me reconsider with Shakespeare again, Fiennes succeeded to turn a classic play to modern cinematic vision with every benefit screenplay, customs, sounds, actors, camera, editing, locations and well directing.Thanks to you for enlightening me.
As much as I like Jessica Chastain, I feel like she is not needed in this film.Overall, this is a good adaptation of Shakespeare and I love how it is set in modern times.
This is not a war movie or an action film, any more than "Macbeth" would be.This is an adaptation of Shakespeare's play.
This movie is Ralph Fiennes trying to interpret and portray a Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" in a modernized form.
A bleak piece, and less well known than Shakespeare's other darker plays, the modern setting suits it: if anything, it makes the archaisms in the dialogue more accessible.Fiennes' direction is gritty, and all the performances are excellent, though Fiennes himself and Vanessa Redgrave stand out.This film works well as both a contemporary action drama, and also culture!. |
tt0345074 | Connie and Carla | Connie (Nia Vardalos) and Carla (Toni Collette) are two performers whose lifelong friendship and co-obsession with musical theater have brought nothing but career dead ends. Despite this they continue their optimism, hosting a variety act at an airport lounge. After accidentally witnessing a mafia hit in Chicago, they go on the run, landing in Los Angeles. After being fired from a beauty salon, they pose as drag queens and audition to host a drag revue at a gay club called "The Handlebar."
Because they sing their own songs (a rarity for queens), they are hired, and their variety show (at first titled What a Drag (Pun Intended!) then later re-titled Connie and Carla and the Belles of the Balls after they add a few friends to the act) becomes a hit. Things are going smoothly but the two make a pact not to let men interfere with their life. This causes conflict when Connie falls for Jeff (David Duchovny), the straight brother of Robert (Stephen Spinella), one of their drag queen friends. As the show gets bigger, the two convince the club owner, Stanley (Ian Gomez), to convert it into a full dinner theater, and eventually their popularity threatens to expose them.
On the official opening night of the dinner theater, the mob killers catch up with them. But with the help of their drag queen friends, and to great applause from the audience (who think it is part of their act), Connie and Carla take them down. They ultimately confess their real identities to the audience and are accepted for who they are. Connie reveals herself to Jeff, who arrives after the chaos. He accepts her and becomes her boyfriend.
=== Musicals referenced or featured ===
The following is a list of musicals referenced or featured in the film (in the order of which they are presented in the film): Barbra Streisand and Debbie Reynolds were mentioned several times before Reynolds herself appeared and performed with Connie and Carla.
Oklahoma! – Connie and Carla perform "Oklahoma!" as young girls in their school lunchroom and in the airport lounge and "I Cain't Say No" during their audition at "The Handlebar," the gay club where they eventually become successful.
Jesus Christ Superstar – Connie and Carla perform "Superstar" in the airport lounge and "Everything's Alright" during their first performance at The Handlebar.
Yentl – Connie and Carla perform "Papa, Can You Hear Me?" in the airport lounge.
Cats – Connie and Carla perform "Memory" in the airport lounge.
The Rocky Horror Show – Peaches 'n' Creme perform "The Time Warp" at The Handlebar.
Cabaret – Connie and Carla perform "Maybe This Time" at their audition at The Handlebar.
Evita – Connie and Carla perform "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" at their audition at The Handlebar.
Mame – Interludes during the picture with the character Tibor seeing several performances of Mame at different venues across New York City.
South Pacific – "I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outa My Hair", is part of Connie and Carla's performance in What a Drag (Pun Intended!) at The Handlebar. They also sing "There Is Nothing Like a Dame" at the end of the film with the rest of the main cast.
Funny Girl – Connie and Carla sing "Don't Rain on My Parade", part of their performance in What a Drag (Pun Intended!) at The Handlebar.
Thoroughly Modern Millie, The Producers, Say Goodnight, Gracie, Never Gonna Dance, Gypsy, Chicago, Mamma Mia!, Long Days Journey into Night, "Master Harold"...and the Boys, Avenue Q, Man of La Mancha, and Hairspray – Billboards for these shows are shown.
Gypsy, Rent, and Hairspray – At this point in the film, these are mentioned by Tibor, Hairspray, of which, he got a matinée ticket, though no songs from the shows are sung. The theater productions of Rent, Hairspray, and Mamma Mia! became semi-successful movie musicals shortly after this film.
Gypsy – "Let Me Entertain You" is performed by Connie, Carla, and the Belles of the Balls.
Hair – Connie says the guys should enter from the back of the house on "Good Morning, Starshine".
The Music Man – Debbie Reynolds says they should enter from the back of the house on "Seventy-Six Trombones".
Grease – Debbie Reynolds, Connie, Carla, and the Belles of the Balls sing "There Are Worse Things I Could Do".
A Chorus Line – Connie and Carla sing "What I Did for Love".
Guys and Dolls – Connie mentions "the Guys and Dolls tribute." | murder | train | wikipedia | Her silly and girlish character is a winner....especially after opening an unknown package in the car.Nia Vardalos will never win an acting award, but still has fun developing her own roles that she clearly writes for herself.
You'll be hardpressed to find better on screen chemistry between any two people that will be beat Collette and Vardalos in Connie and Carla.David Duchovney and Stephan Spinella are also highly effective in the role as anguished brothers, ultimately proving the well known theory about blood and water.
There are many funny scenes, and the movie itself could be called a musical, as there are plenty of renditions of broadway songs with the ladies dressed in drag.
"Connie and Carla" is about two dinner theater performers (Vardalos & Collette) who, on the lam from the mob, bring their musical show to L.A. where they pose as drag queens while one falls for a guy.
The premise, of course, isn't original, I knew that going in, but I really like Toni Collette and I was hoping perhaps Nia Vardalos would do something creative with the idea, but no such luck.
Instead, Vardalos makes the proceedings even MORE insulting to any viewer with half a brain by adding 'sensitive' little subplots - like one of the cross-dressers trying to rejuvenate his relationship with his straight brother, played by David Duchovny, who is also - of course - Vardalos' love interest.
Connie (Nia Vardalos) and Carla (Toni Collette) have been putting on musical shows since their school days.
Throw in a little romance, a hilarious assassin, an ailing Drag club, brotherly love, good laughs and great songs and you have a mix that will draw you in with it's warmth and goodwill.
Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette play Connie and Carla, struggling dinner theater performers in Chicago who are on the run after witnessing a mob hit.
Connie (Nia Vardalos) and best friend Carla (Toni Collette) are show-tune performers who get themselves mixed up with the Chicago mob-scene when they witness their boss get shot by mob-boss Rudy (Robert John Burke).
The storyline drags (pun intended!) on for way too long, with a running time of 98 minutes in which watching Vardalos and Collette uglyfying themselves becomes almost excruciating.David Duchovny plays Jeff, estranged brother to one of the girls drag-queen friends, Robert (Stephen Spinella) and love interest to Vardalos.
Two performers are wasted: Duchovny is a natural, easy-going, nice-looking actor who deserves better (and seems embarrassed) and the mega-talented Collette, shunted to the sidelines and whose character ends up with the same white-trashy guy from Chicago.
All I could think of through this whole messy film was: It takes some feat of directing to make Toni Collette look as bad as she does in Connie and Carla.
The only relief comes from David Duchovny (in the tentative Marilyn Monroe role) as the straight brother of a drag queen who reluctantly starts to enjoy hanging out with Nia Vardalos (as a man).
Ms. Vardalos' debut film, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" - despite its labored humor and clichéd characters - had a couple of charming moments.
You're much better off renting "Some Like it Hot." It's cheaper and it's a film you'll want to see over and over again.The sad thing is that there are no doubt some terrific scripts languishing in Hollywood because clunkers like "Connie and Carla" get made.If Ms. Vardalos decides her next original screenplay will be about, say, a rich, reclusive matriarch who dies clutching a snow globe while uttering the mysterious last words, "Rose petal," and an intrepid young reporter tries to find out what those words meant, we can only hope she will make sure to credit Welles (and Mankiewicz) for the idea..
It's made by people who have obviously never seen a drag show.It perpetuates stereotypes and even has a character listed as"Extremely Fey Guy." Nia Vardolos, the success of whose last film was a fluke, shouldbe ashamed of herself.
Vardalos and Collette are two atrociously tacky, but good-natured nightclub entertainers who treat the guests of a Chicago airport lounge to their brand of showbiz (which includes warbling show tunes in harmony while changing costumes in mid-song.) When their boss is killed during a drug deal gone bad, the ladies skip town for fear they'll be next and hide out in an L.A. gay bar posing as tacky, but good-natured drag queens!
Facially, Collette is perfect for her role and though Vardalos is much more feminine-looking, there ARE drag queens out there that come awfully close to looking like the real deal.
A couple of years ago, when "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was such a smash hit (a movie that I had, at best, lukewarm feelings towards), I had a suspicion that Nia Vardalos wasn't quite so amazing a writer as everyone thought she was.
I was actually looking forward to this movie, because it has a potentially very funny story, and I was totally open to giving Vardalos a chance to impress me this time.
Connie (Vardalos) and Carla (Toni Collette) are best friends and a singing act who perform showtunes for dinner theater.
Settling in the predominately gay West Hollywood area, they go to what turns out to be a drag club, and get the fantastic idea of how to hide out and still be able to do what they love (sing on stage): pose as drag queens.A potentially funny story.
There's something of worth there, and Duchovney gives the film's best performance, but that's pretty much where the movie's good qualities end.
Connie (Nia Vardalos) and Carla (Toni Collette) are life long friends who're following lives in show business no matter how pathetic.
I feel this is the only way to watch this movie, Nia Vardalos is a very talented woman it is a shame that people criticised this movie because it wasn't up to par with Greek Wedding.
When they witness a murder they rush off and disguise themselves as drag queens (yes drag queens, men dressing up as woman) or as Connie put it Women dressing up as men dressing up as women.That is the basic storyline.Vardalos really gives it her all in the script department, whilst some parts are a bit sloppy overall it has been cleverly written with some very witty dialogue in between.The acting is absolutely brilliant, Nia Vardalos is perfect as Connie and Toni Collette is absolutely amazing as Carla, she really shows America how brilliant and versatile some Australian actors are.Overall I give Connie & Carla 8.5/10A great movie for everyone to enjoy.
Today I watched "Connie and Carla" a movie that quietly worked its way up my Netflix queue and arrived with few expectations and little fanfare.
There are some similarities to Some Like It Hot in the fact that they are in drag, but it breaks away from the mold by Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette's wonderful musical numbers.
This is where Victor/Victoria and Sister Act come in.True Connie and Carla is a combination of several films, including Some Like it Hot but I found it quite entertaining nevertheless.To be honest I started watching with trepidation as I am a red blooded heterosexual and I thought that a film about cross dressers would not be much to my liking.
For the most part I thought the script was tastefully written by Nia Vardalos (Connie), equally tastefully directed (Michael Lembeck) and acted by all concerned.The soundtrack, although quite reasonable was not so good that it will be remembered but was catchy and enjoyable.
But in Connie and Carla, the latest film from My Big Fat Greek Wedding scriptwriter/actress Nia Vardalos, half the cast are queens.
And there's a cameo from Debbie Reynolds.Dorky duo Connie (Vardalos) and Carla (an underused Toni Collette) are dinner theatre performers who waitress between show tunes as they perform to bored patrons.
Ironically they find their audience, until Connie falls for Jeff (David Duchovny), the estranged brother of her drag pal Peaches (Steven Spinella, who recently won a Tony for Angels in America).Directed by comic actor Michael Lembeck, Connie and Carla is a cornball, feel-good date flick.
Campy, silly, and corny it is just plain enjoyable (if you enjoy light drag-queen humor however - I suppose those who find men dressing badly as women non-entertaining would not enjoy this movie).
I wasn't aware of her singing ability, although it's doubtful she will ever be considered the next Streisand (she and Toni Colette do a passable version of "Don't Rain On My Parade") she can certainly belt out a tune when necessary.While "Connie and Carla" is not brain-food it definitely does a good job of keeping you smiling and laughing, all the while making a positive statement about drag-culture and the gay community.
In my opinion, she and Toni Colette, a great actress in her own right, sang and vamped better than Catherine and Renee in "Chicago." I have seen this movie 3 times now, and I am going to purchase it for my home library to share with friends and family..
My friend and I were in stitches at the costume changes in the opening adult Connie and Carla number, and I have to say, we continued laughing throughout.Sadly, though most people won't have noticed, the film was slightly politically incorrect, because if is had been PC, Jeff would have fallen in love with Connie even when she was in drag.
You realize they are pretty good singing talents, and they looked like they had a lot of fun making this movie.
I think if they had gotten a more versatile actor, this character could've been much funnier in the movie, as much of the supporting cast does a good job in adding to the laughs.
In other words, there are very few moments in which there isn't something active going on.Overall, however, I'd say that if you liked Nia Vardalos's previous movie (aside from the Greek stereotypes), and it is likely that a big portion of those fans are female, then you'd probably enjoy this light-hearted comedy.
Instead of Whoopi as a nun in an earlier Some Like it Hot rip off, we've got Nia and Toni as mock drag queens trying to hide out by starting up a dinner theater revue, doing covers of Camp 101 standards like "Papa, Can You Hear Me." I was hoping I'd at least see Toni do an ABBA cover worthy of her "Muriel's Wedding;" no such luck.While the movie's cutest during the musical numbers, there's really not much to them, and it doesn't help the movie recover from the overall hyperbolic directing style - complete with that awful comedy music they're always playing over every scene in mainstream comedies - because, evidently, otherwise we wouldn't know the movie's funny.
Only Madonna in "Shanghai Surprise" brings less life to a role than he does.Nia brings back the same stereotypes she used in 'Greek Wedding' - to the flamboyant drag queens and the provincial WASPS that persecute them.Anyhow, a few cute moments can't save this mess.
And as for me, and as for me - I made my mind up back in Chelsea, when I go, I'm going like Elsie...Sleep and I shall soothe you, calm you and anoint you...And, let's not forget: I always say come on, let's go - just when I ought to say Don't cry for me Argentina - the truth is I never left you...Which drives my husband nuts - but the kids love it, so, y'know, what you gain at the hot dog stand, you lose on the roller-coaster...Watch this, sing along, dance a bit, and remember - worship that body, it's the only one you're getting!
It's supposed to be the selling point, and it ends up being detrimental to "Connie and Carla."Yes, the portrayal of gay men in the film is one-dimensional, stereotypical and worst of all boring.
Nia Vardalos as Connie and Toni Collette as Carla are remarkable having to portray women being men being women.
Suddenly you're hooked on a whirlwind adventure into world of drag queens and comedy, with surprising stars like David Duchovny stepping outside their normal roles for a little fun.Full of the best show tunes, outrageous costumes, drag-city make up and an appearance by Debbie Reynolds, a more charming, funny movie I couldn't have asked for.
He could not have chosen a better cast for Connie and Carla as Nia Vardalos (born around the same time in Winnipeg, Manitoba as my oldest son) and Toni Collette.
The only area this movie succeeds in is making Nia Vardolos and Toni Collette look like men...which really is just a factor of genetics.
If Nia Vardalos does a sequel to Connie and Carla, she should use the same original actors and of course, Toni Collette, who did a fabulous job in performing.
I would be interested to know what would happen after they finished their performance at the end of the movie, does Nia Vardalos (Connie) wind up with Jeff (David Duchovny).
One of the most delightful movies I seen this year, Connie and Carla is a delightful comedy with an excellent talent-filled cast.
The entire cast gives this movie their all with convincing, down-to-earth performances that never miss a beat.Packed full of show tunes and hilarious moments, Connie and Carla is wonderfully entertaining.
If you liked "Too Wong Fu...," "Pricilla, Queen of the Desert," "Victor Victoria," and "In & Out," you will enjoy this movie!Bring out the popcorn, plop down on your couch, sit back and let the fun begin!.
I was therefore pleasantly surprised at how entertaining and enjoyable this movie was and the high quality acting of both the main characters and the supporting cast.Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette are excellent in their roles as Connie and Carla.
Although the previews I saw of "Connie and Carla" looked good, when the reviews came out -- many of which were negative -- I suckered myself into believing the critics and avoided the film.
I was less thrilled than most with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", so I didn't expect too much from another Nia Vardalos movie.
Connie and Carla is pretty much a rip-off of Some Like it Hot, with a little bit of Victor/Victoria thrown in there for good measure.
Forget the critics views or you will miss a very entertaining and funny film.It offers a good time with lots of laughs.
Then, in 1998's VELVET GOLDMINE, a leering COLLETTE portrays a LIZA MINNELLI-like character with such tantalizing, lip-licking verve she became known -- among those who know -- as TONI with a "Z." In CONNIE & CARLA's outrageous musical numbers, COLLETTE fills out that zesty caricature, kicking and gesticulating all the way to the bank, THE BETTY FORD CLINIC, and beyond.With DAVID DUCHOVNY, who acts, DEBBIE REYNOLDS (special effects), and a gaggle of stock drag queens proffering repetitively unoriginal gender issues as too-much-infotainment.
Don't be fooled by the first scenes of the adult Connie and Carla fool you; it's a well acted film with lots of heart, lots of camp, and delightful all the way.There are moments that only people in touch with their feminine side will get, and those that you'll enjoy more if you're either into theatre or involved with the gay community.
I also think Nia Vardalos is pretty cool, and finding out she was Canadian was all the motivation, coupled with being a Duchovny fan, I needed to go see the movie.Apparently it's somewhat of a remake of an old Jack Lemmon/Marylin Monroe film, Some Like it Hot, and while I've heard of it, I've never seen it.
She's just a little too over the top at times, even in the atmosphere that the movie creates.I liked the subplot about Duchovny's character reuniting with his estranged brother, who is a drag queen.
While those don't do too well critically either, most doofus movie goers enjoy them.Many are saying that Connie and Carla is same-old-same-old, but because it isn't like most of those other comedies, I don't think it is.
Nia Vardalos did not quite get up the the laughs in GREEK WEDDING, but she and Toni Collette had nice voices and the picture was entertaining.
this movie isn't for me,but i could see how people would like it.it has two very likable leads in Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette.both are great actresses and work well off each other very well here.they both have great comedic timing.and their are some great witty moments here.but for me,there's just too many musicals,and i'm not really a musical fan.plus,i kinda found the film quite slow.i'm not really into the drag queen scene in movies either.i knew what the movie was about before watching it but i still thought id' give it a shot.if you're a musical fan and you have a bit of patience,this movie might work for,and you might really enjoy it.
The premise was good, the acting talent was outstanding--what the movie lacked was a script, and so the actors could basically go nowhere.The film tended to sneer at dinner theatre, yet this script would probably be a big hit on the dinner theatre circuit, since it seems to present a dinner-theatre notion of drag queens..
Like a broken bookcase, "Connie and Carla" doesn't work on so many levels.To sum up the dumbed down "Victor/Victoria"-esque plot, Connie (Nia Valdaros, of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding Fame"--dangerously close to becoming a screen version of the one hit wonder) and Carla (Toni Collette--how on earth did she get mixed up in this nightmare?) are two Chicago girls that love performing showtunes in Cabaret, but, witness a mob murder, so go into hiding in LA--resurfacing in a Drag Club Cabaret bar as the hottest drag queens in town.If that summary seemed a little brief, you're welcome.
I really wanted to love this movie as a family flick, but the drag queen situations are a little beyond my 5 year old's comprehension.
But, other than writing a great script, Nia Vardalos(Connie) and Toni Colette(Carla) did a fantastic job of acting their corny, cute characters.
Connie and Carla is a wonderful movie, about two girls that want to be famous.
*may contain spoilers*Connie and Carla is an enjoyable movie to watch. |
tt0054469 | Where the Boys Are | The main focus of Where the Boys Are is the "coming of age" of four girl students at a midwestern university during spring vacation. As the film opens, Merritt Andrews (Dolores Hart), the smart and assertive leader of the quartet, expresses the opinion in class that premarital sex might be something young women should experience. Her speech eventually inspires the insecure Melanie Tolman (Yvette Mimieux) to lose her virginity soon after the young women arrive in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Tuggle Carpenter (Paula Prentiss), on the other hand, seeks to be a "baby-making machine," lacking only the man to join her in marriage. Angie (Connie Francis) rounds out the group as an athletic girl who is clueless when it comes to romance.
The girls find their beliefs challenged throughout the film. Merritt, a freshman, meets the suave rich-boy Ivy Leaguer Ryder Smith (George Hamilton), a senior at Brown, and realizes she's not ready for sex. Melanie discovers that Franklin (Rory Harrity), a boy from Yale who she thought loved her was only using her for sex. Tuggle quickly fixes her attention on the goofy "TV" Thompson (Jim Hutton), a junior at Michigan State, but becomes disillusioned when he becomes enamored of the older woman Lola Fandango (Barbara Nichols), who works as a "mermaid" swimmer/dancer in a local bar. Angie stumbles into love with the eccentric jazz musician Basil (Frank Gorshin).
Merritt, Tuggle, and Angie's post-adolescent relationship angst quickly evaporates when they discover Melanie is in distress after going to meet Franklin at a motel and instead finding there another of the "Yalies", Dill, who rapes her. Franklin had moved on to another girl, but told Dill that Melanie was "easy" and set up the ambush. Melanie ends up walking into the nearby road looking distraught, her dress torn. Just as her friends arrive, she is hit by a car and ends up in the hospital.
Ultimately, it seems the group has learned the potentially serious consequences of their actions and resolve to act in a more responsible, mature manner. The film ends on a melancholy note, with Melanie recovering in the hospital while Merritt looks after her, and with Merritt's promises to Ryder to continue a long-distance relationship. He then offers to drive them back to their college. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Whether it was meant to be or not, this film is one of decisions, learning, and friendships that are strengthened due to the experiences four college girls share during Spring Break in Ft. Lauderdale.
It's a testament to how well this film has held up for the past forty-three years, not an easy task considering it's subject matter.The basic premise is this: Four college girls escape the freezing north during spring break and head to Ft. Lauderdale because as the title says, that's where the boys are.
What Where The Boys Are does have going for it is a witty ahead of it's time script by screenwriter George Wells (based on a novel by Glendon Swarthout), a cast of attractive relatively new stars assembled by producer Joe Pasternak and some nice Florida Scenery.The cast is headed by Dolores Hart as Merritt Andrews.
Pay close attention to her performance as Merritt as I did and you'll understand what we may have missed.Paula Prentiss makes her big screen debut as Tuggle and immediately shows a fine screen persona with a flair for comedy.
Jim Hutton plays TV Thompson, a hitchhiker who has a thing about hats, that the girls pick up on their way to Fort Lauderdale.
Also on hand are a delightful Barbra Nichols as the sea nymph and Chill Wills in a couple of brief but funny scenes as a police captain.Where this film excels is in the performances and chemistry of it's young cast.
Enjoy the witty dialog, the on screen chemistry of the stars, the Florida scenery, and listen to Connie Francis belt out Where The Boys Are a few times.
Like many others who have commented previously on Where the Boys Are (WTBA), I was initially rather shocked at the film's frank discussion of sex.
I was born 11 years after this film was released and watching movies like this gives me a unique insight into history that goes well beyond the broad brushes of most sixties reviews and textbooks.
Clearly both boys and girls of the time were struggling with the implications of sexuality in relationships - not a whole lot different than today.What is different about WTBA than the films for young people of today or of my youth (e.g., The Breakfast Club) is the explicit discussion of marriage.
None of the movies for youth that I have seen recently even touch the subject of marriage except maybe to joke about it.While many would argue that no one gets married at 19 anymore, that ultimate end of any relationship still looms out there for young people like a giant prize (or punishment) at the end of dating.
5) And of course the boys actually came out and asked for sex, although couched in the "decent" terms of the fifties/sixties.People (mostly "liberated" women) complain that this movie was about oppression of women (they didnt feel "complete" without a man), but this was women's liberation (women were horny and honest about it)The marvelous casting and dialogue made this film one of the great american classics of its genre that still holds up today.definitely a 10!.
Forty-five years have elapsed since its original release, but it is amazing how this 1960 film introduced a particular genre that continues to be produced today granted in a far more explicit manner - the spring-break, beach-party movie where attractive teens go through a sun-drenched mating ritual and somehow love triumphs over carnal knowledge.
Back then, the concept didn't seem quite as jaded as it does now, and consequently there is an entertaining naiveté about the timeworn story of four co-eds from a snowy Midwestern college who journey to Ft. Lauderdale for spring break to meet boys.The plot is based on the then-accepted notion that girls in college are only marking time waiting for husbands to come along, but the journey to that goal depends on the girl.
The four in question are Merritt, a smart blonde who is not living up to her academic potential as she questions the moral code around premarital sex; Melanie, so deeply insecure she mistakes sex for love with a less-than-honorable Ivy Leaguer; Tuggle, a tall brunette who zeroes in on an even taller, eccentric hitchhiker; and Angie, the supposedly plain one who gets used to being ignored by men.Directed in a perfunctory fashion by Henry Levin, this is not the type of movie where you are terribly impressed with the performances, but I have to say the acting is certainly miles above subsequent beach-party movies.
As the most troubled of the girls, Yvette Mimieux (always loved her name) accurately captures the constantly forlorn, little-girl-lost state of Melanie, a teen-aged Blanche du Bois in the making.So pert and charming as Angie, Connie Francis actually seems miscast as a plain-Jane, especially when she sings "Turn on the Sunshine" with a stage polish completely out of character.
She is an under-appreciated comedienne with a loopy charm and vibrantly twangy voice all her own - it's a shame her career never really took off the way it deserved to.I think the film does make a valid, sometimes even perceptive attempt to address the confusion that Eisenhower-era girls had over sex and love.
At the same time, the film is filled with predictable comic scenes, including a contrived mêlée in an underwater tank with the zaftig and nasal Barbara Nichols as Esther Williams-wannabe Lola Fandango.Prentiss offers her services and remembrances to the alternate audio commentary track on the DVD, which also comes with a looking-back featurette which includes interviews with Prentiss and Francis.
Delores Hart, Yvettte Mimeux, Paula Prentiss, and Connie Francis are "Where the Boys Are," a 1960 film about spring break in Fort Lauderdale.
The boys are Jim Hutton, George Hamilton, and Frank Gorshin.The four young women drive down to Fort Lauderdale for spring break, with an agenda of having fun and meeting men.
With the exception of Angie (Connie Francis), the gals meet guys immediately - Tuggle (Prentiss) meets TV (Hutton), who hitches a ride to Lauderdale with them; Merritt meets the wealthy Ryder (George Hamilton), and frail, pretty Melanie (Mimieux) meets Dill (John Brennan).
Despite Merritt's free-thinking, she and Tuggle intend to stay pure; Angie doesn't have a choice; and Merritt -- Merritt is in for some tough realizations.All in all, a fun movie and a great look at the '50s mores and the power of the Hays code, which was still punishing girls who had sex before marriage.The best things about Where the Boys Are is seeing all these stars as young and fresh, with their movie careers just beginning, and another chance to hear Connie Francis sing the title song and "Turn on the Sunshine." She was terrific.
Already a huge singing star by 1960, Francis, of course, is still singing after a miserable life that includes the death of her brother, rape, and a bipolar disorder.Spring breaks today still have plenty of booze and suntans but also plenty of everything else (including young women disappearing) - enjoy this film about a much more innocent time..
WHERE THE BOYS ARE is very much worth seeing, although extremely dated and a movie that would probably make today's 18 year-old laugh out loud at the innocent boy-meets-girl shenanigans of kids in an era before string bikinis and drunken riots in Fort Lauderdale.Delores Hart is the crown jewel in this, the very first, "beach movie" that launched a whole summertime surf-romance culture of sand and two- piece swimsuits that, just a few years later, spawned Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon in their BEACH BLANKET money-makers.Hart is the embodiment of the girl next door with a face that could melt granite as she, Connie Francis, Yvette Mimeaux, and Paula Prentiss drive down to Fort Lauderdale during spring break in search of boys.
They hook up with Frank Gorshin, Jim Hutton, and rich boy George Hamilton.
Of course, the movie's theme song, WHERE THE BOYS ARE, would become Connie Francis'signature piece in years to come.WHERE THE BOYS ARE is certainly dated, but its depiction of a benign teen culture shows us the world of summertime youth before mores,language, and music took a radical turn toward sex, drugs, and rock and roll.TRIVIA: Anyone who doubts the existence of real, religious vocation should study the life of Delores Hart.
But her spirits were high and she spoke easily of the old Hollywood days, hiding nothing, even describing Presley as sensitive and a great guy...Yvette Mimeaux would marry MGM dance choreography Stanley Donan in the 1970's...Paula Prentiss would marry actor Richard Benjamin (GOODBYE COLUMBUS)...And Connie Francis?
In this production, the approach to sex is direct but lighthearted and it all seems like great fun, until the final act when Jim Hutton lusts after Barbara Nichols, leaving Paula Prentiss behind, and most of all when Yvette Mimieux is abused.
Nevertheless, it's fun to watch (Sister) Dolores Hart discussing petting with a teacher who sends her straight to the principal's office, Paula Prentiss defining herself as a baby factory, Yvette Mimieux blaming herself for being too lovely and Connie Francis just singing and being the comic relief although Prentiss, Hutton, Nichols, Frank Gorshin and Chill Wills also provide a chuckle here and there..
It may look like another boys & girls on the beach movie, but there's a bit more happening here than in your average Frankie & Annette beach frolic.
The vastly underrated Paula Prentiss, Yvette Mimieux, Connie Francis and especially Dolores Hart are all accomplished actresses.
The story revolves around 4 college girls on their way to Ft. Lauderdale for Spring Break.
George Hamilton, Jim Hutton, & Frank Gorshin portray the "boys".
Films revolving around three-girls-about-town are sure bets for campy dialogue, wild costumes, and overblown theme songs: "Three Coins in the Fountain." "Come Fly with Me." "The Pleasure Seekers." "Valley of the Dolls." 1960's "Where the Boys Are" cleverly disguises itself as a harmless beach-blanket romp (and tosses in a fourth girl, Connie Francis, so she can belt out that overblown theme song), but fear not: the theme of this "kids" picture is the same as those aforementioned trash classics: Sex. As is de rigeur for films of this ilk, each character represents a singular, one-dimensional purpose: Good Girl (Dolores Hart), Bad Girl (Yvette Mimieux) and Goofy Girl (Paula Prentiss).
Given its time period, the film actually fires off a few eyebrow-raising salvos on pre-marital sex and a woman's desire for it; but, of course, the Good Girl still waits, and the Bad Girl pays for her wanton ways.
In the end, "Where the Boys Are" isn't quite as enjoyable as, say, "The Pleasure Seekers" because it simply isn't trashy enough, but it IS a fun, fluffy look at sex and the single girl, circa 1960.
I was in high school at the time (soph) and I could probably have taken 40 different girls to see that film when it first came out...everyone was talking about it as the top date movie.
The gals, Connie Francis, Delores Hart, Paula Prentiss and Yvette Mimieux got their careers started and advanced with their appearance in this film, although Hart had appeared in a couple of Elvis films before WTBA.
To be honest, the movie began as a typical- and not so great, teenage comedy flick, in which a couple of youngsters are going on a spring break holiday.
Paula Prentiss really impressed me, also with her beauty and the movie further more features George Hamilton and Frank Gorshin in some early roles.
It's Connie Francis, Dolores Hart, Yvette Mimieux, and Paula Prentiss who want to know Where The Boys Are in this MGM film which gave the studio a chance to display some of its young starlets.
The answer is course Fort Lauderdale where the girls are on spring break.So are the boys and they consist of George Hamilton, Frank Gorshin, and Jim Hutton.
The film has the girls as innocents looking for love and the boys as looking to score.
Prentiss reminded me a great deal of her performance in Man's Favorite Sport which I think is one of the funniest films of the Sixties.One of the girls has an unfortunate encounter with a kid who was looking to score.
The others just have a good time.Connie Francis got one of those "and introducing" billings and she got a big hit record with the title song back in the day.
It's the perfect cast for a Spring Break Beach movie.This isn't necessarily an award winning worthy film, but if they gave awards for Popcorn and Powder Puff Pieces, then this would be in the top 10.
So relax, enjoy, and be prepared to be entertained two times over by the great Connie Francis who acts and sings the famous title song.
MGM cast several of its contract stars such as George Hamilton and Dolores Hart in this fun filled picture set in Fort Lauderdale and made two of its players Paula Prentiss and Jim Hutton a comedic team and International Movie Stars.
Fun times at the beach and romantic adventures are what four Midwestern college girls hope for when they journey to Florida for a week of Spring Break.
The two main "boys" are played by George Hamilton and Jim Hutton, both in their twenties when cast.
Comedy begins OK, but quickly degenerates as the kids start matching up (of all the couples, Connie Francis and Frank Gorshin, playing a nearly-blind jazz musician, are certainly the oddest).
Obviously dated as "Spring Break" today isn't anything like it was depicted in this movie.
Four co-eds (yes, that's what female college students were called back in 1960) goes on spring break because that's where the boys are (hum Connie Francis).
And, it was this movie that started the whole spring break trek anyway - a bacchanalia rite of passage that is better left undone if one does not want to lose more than what they can live with when looking back on their college days.
Warming up in class, random dating and premarital sex are college lecture topics of the day as Ms. Hart advises her teacher she intends to "play house before marriage." With copulating on their minds, Hart and three girlfriends decide to spend spring break in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Joining Hart are extra tall Paula Prentiss (as Tuggle Carpenter), softly sexy Yvette Mimieux (as Melanie Tolman) and sweetly singing Connie Francis (as Angie).
They pick up hitchhiker Jim Hutton (as "TV" Thompson) and find tanned George Hamilton (as Ryder Smith) on the beach...Like many thinly-produced 1960s films aimed at young audiences, this starts out mildly fun and slows to a sluggish pace.
The men have little to do, with Mr. Hutton doing it best.**** Where the Boys Are (12/28/60) Henry Levin ~ Dolores Hart, Yvette Mimieux, Paula Prentiss, Connie Francis.
Where the Boys Are Considering the annual antics of spring break, there's a good reason why the state of Florida is shaped like a penis.Thusly, female college students, like the ones in this drama, flock to Fort Lauderdale every year.Students from an uptight Midwest university (Connie Francis, Dolores Hart, Yvette Mimieux, Paula Prentiss) head down south on their spring break in hopes of engaging in the premarital sex that their school forbids.When they arrive, the girls quickly pair off with their male counterparts (George Hamilton, Frank Gorshin, Jim Hutton, Rory Harrity) and harmless heartbreaks ensue.While the experienced girls discover they have more to learn about sex, the inexperienced ones are broken by the darker side of the holiday.Not only does it depict the sun-seeking pilgrimage bluntly but Where the Boys Are also boasts a memorable soundtrack.Now if only Ft. Lauderdale could find the economic benefit to used condoms Green Light vidiotreviews.blogspot.com.
A bunch of college girls (Delores Hart, Yvette Mimieux, Paula Prentiss, Connie Francis) spend Easter vacation in Ft. Lauderdale.
There they meet some handsome young men (among them are George Hamilton, Jim Hutton and Frank Gorshin) and love, sex and drama occur.For its time this was pretty shocking.
Yes, the kids are having a good time singing, dancing, drinking and frolicking in the pool in beautifully warm Florida during their annual break, but there is a rape scene here and it is well acted by a troubled Yvette Mimieux who turns in a genuinely fine performance as one of the girls out for a good time, but certainly gets more than she has expected.Dolores Hart, or should I call her by her current name, Sister Dolores Hart, is really amazing as the girl in trouble with her studies and that family living professor, who goes to Florida to unwind but instead finds true bliss with the wealthy playboy, played by the always debonair George Hamilton.In her first film, Connie Francis plays the spunky Angie along for the ride.
This movie is first and foremost a somewhat dippy teen film that you might enjoy for the antics of Spring Break 50+ years ago (and oh how times have changed!).
The most poignant and serious moments come from the character played by Yvette Mimieux, who has been having sex with a guy, thinking he loves her.
This movie begins with 4 female college students who live in the Midwest and decide to drive to Fort Lauderdale, Florida for Spring Break.
Even so, I liked the singing of Connie Francis (as "Angie") and I thought the scene where "Basil" (Frank Gorshin) fell into the fish bowl was quite hilarious.
"Where the Boys Are" tells the story of four girl students, Merritt, Melanie, Angela and Tuggle, who leave their university in the snowbound Midwest for a spring break in Fort Lauderdale with love and romance on their minds.
The film then traces the ways in which the girls' attitudes and expectations change during their stay in Fort Lauderdale.
The adventures of Merritt, Tuggle and Angela would fit firmly within the normal "beach party movie" tradition of rather silly romantic comedy with lots of fun, music and attractive youngsters of both sexes. |
tt0434179 | Marebito | Masuoka (Shinya Tsukamoto) carries a camera everywhere he goes. He becomes obsessed with the idea of fear when he sees a frightened man shove a knife in his eye to commit suicide. Wishing to understand the fear that the man must have felt before his death, Masuoka descends into a labyrinthine underground area beneath the city, where he sees human-like creatures that walk on their hands and knees and whimper like dogs. While searching the series of tunnels and passages, Masuoka encounters a homeless inhabitant who warns him about the Deros. He then meets the ghost of Kuroki, the man who killed himself, and learns more about the underworld. After hours of searching, Masuoka discovers a mountain range with a village built by the underground dwellers. He finds a naked girl (Tomomi Miyashita) chained to a wall. He takes her back to his apartment and notices she doesn't eat, drink, or speak.
The girl, whom Masuoka dubs 'F', appears to be something other than human, and Masuoka becomes obsessed with understanding her. He sets up cameras that enable him to observe her from his cell phone when he leaves the apartment, and checks on her regularly. On a trip to the shopping mall, he sees F speaking to someone off camera, and a menacing man in black appears behind him. When he returns to the apartment, a woman in a yellow jacket is hiding in the stairway outside his door. Inside, he finds F convulsing, and unsuccessfully attempts to feed her. He discovers that twelve seconds of camera footage is missing, and receives a mysterious phone call from a pay phone call warning him that he is in serious trouble.
After being beaten with his camera by a stranger whom he filmed, Masuoka cuts his finger on the broken lens and returns home. He discovers that F survives on blood when she licks his finger, and cuts himself to feed her further. Masuoka begins to care for her by providing animal carcasses, deciding to treat F more as a pet than a human. The woman in yellow confronts him in the street, saying the girl is his daughter Fuyumi and asking where she is. Masuoka denies having a daughter and runs away, returning to the apartment to find it has been broken into and F missing. He wanders the streets searching for F and encounters the man in black, who expresses his disappointment in Masuoka's handling of her, speaking to him telepathically in the same voice as in the phone call. When Masuoka gets back to the apartment, he finds that F has returned and sees her hands are bloody.
When Masuoka leaves his apartment, the woman in yellow follows and demands that he speak to her. He walks to an alley without speaking, and turns his camera on. The woman says she wants to see her girl, at which point Masuoka stabs her to death. Later, he murders a young girl whom he met under the pretense of filming pornography. He drains their blood into bottles and feeds it to F. Masuoka calls the pay phone and speaks to the stranger, who agrees that Masuoka is taking better care of F now. While filming for a news crew at the scene of the second murder, Masuoka sees a woman he filmed in her apartment previously. He takes F out of the apartment, and leaves her in a karaoke room to travel on his own for a period. Sitting on a dock, Masuoka discusses his interest in fear with Kuroki.
Masuoka becomes homeless and sleeps in the park where he killed the young girl. He briefly admits to himself that he murdered his wife and a stranger and treated his daughter like an animal, before seeing a pair of Deros and finding a cell phone that leads him back to his apartment to find F. His wife's ghost appears behind Masuoka in the elevator, and he enters the apartment to find F weak on the floor. She speaks to him for the first time, and he cuts his mouth at the corner to feed her. At the end of the film, F leads Masuoka back down into the underworld, and films him as it appears he has finally discovered the same fear that initially intrigued him. | murder | train | wikipedia | Thanks to his series of ghost stories, "Ju-on", Japanese director Takashi Shimizu has become one of the most recognized names of the New Wave of Asian horror cinema, the movement of young Asian directors that since the late 90s has produced some of the best and most original horror movies of the last years.
The enormous success of his "Ju-on" series took Shimizu to the U.S., in order to direct a remake of the third installment of the series ("Ju-on: The Grudge"), named simply as "The Grudge"; but right before working on the remake, Shimizu took some days with fellow director Shinya Tsukamoto and a small crew to make a very low-budget horror movie, pretty much on the style he used to make when "Ju-on" was a straight to video release, but this time with a very different kind of story.
Masuoka (Shinya Tsukamoto) is a freelance cameraman almost completely detached from the world and entirely focused on his preference for videotaping and doing camera-work.
The strange characteristics of this event, makes Masuoka to be obsessed with the idea of a fear so powerful that only death can erase, so in an attempt to understand Furoki's fear he descends into the underground tunnels of Tokio, discovering the entrance to a bizarre cavern that seems like a passage to the underworld.
He unchains her and takes her to his apartment, but soon he discovers that this girl (whom he names "F") is not a normal person, and that her presence in his world will make a darker side of him to come out."Marebito" was written by Chiaki Konaka (better known as the writer of the famous anime, "Serial Experiments Lain"), and like most of his works, it is a dark psychological story with a slight cometary on the relationship between humans and the technology they produce.
His relationship with the strange girl "F", and his attempts to establish communication with her become the focal point of the plot of "Marebito", although like in other works by Konaka, reality is not always what it seems.It seems that this "return to roots" was really beneficial for Takashi Shimizu, as the work he offers in "Marebito" is once again a very fresh and original horror movie that proves that there is more in this young director than the "Ju-on" series.
By working again on a shoestring budget, Shimizu is able to capture the simple and monotone life of Masuoka, and with the use of digital video he mimics the world as his main character sees it: a world through the camera lens.
However, a trait kept from "Ju-on", is Shimizu's skill to create ominous haunting atmospheres with common everyday objects, this time, the video screens and what's on them is the focus of the film.Shinya Tsukamoto is better known as the director of the remarkable and influential films like "Tetsuo" (1989) and "Tokyo Fist" (1995), but here he offers his talents as an actor in a film where he plays the main character.
Kazuhiro Nakahara, Miho Ninagawa and Shun Sugata appear in supporting roles, but their appearances are limited, as the movie focuses entirely on Masuoka and the consequences of his relationship with "F"."Marebito" is an excellent example of how imagination and a good plot can make a film work even with the most limited resources.
The use of digital camera may be annoying to those expecting a good looking film, but instead of being a flaw, its use in the film gives the story a realistic tone, as if we were really watching a person's descent into madness.
Some people have criticized the convoluted plot of Konaka's story, filled with many details and references that often make no sense or have twisted meanings in the movie; however, I find the storyline captivating because of that unpredictability, and the fact that Shimizu moves away from the ghost stories that have become typical of Asian horror is really refreshing.With his "Ju-on" ghost stories, Takashi Shimizu became known worldwide as a major horror director, but personally I think that "Marebito" is the movie that truly reveals him as a horror author.
It's not a movie destined to be a hit, but it's one that shows a different take on horror and while maybe "The Grudge" is the movie that most people relate to Shimizu, but personally, I think that "Marebito" is a much better and more satisfying movie.
The main character is a freelance videographer who makes a living filming the horrible things that people do to each other (and themselves) in the crowded yet isolated world of the big city.
The fact that she has no recognizable emotion or attachment, and lives only to feed on the blood of people is a projection of what he is so ashamed of.This film really gets into the feel of alienation (much the way "Clean, Shaven" and Cronenberg's "Spider" did) and makes you feel the way the populace who views his videos do.
It offers a bunch of pretty disturbing scenes, but one has to watch it at least twice, in order to fully comprehend it's twisted metaphoric.If you find this movie weird, just stop and think about how weirder is the whole mankind.
A strange film by Grudge writer/director Takashi Shimizu.Shinya Tsukamoto (Ichi the Killer) is consumed with finding out the source of terror that caused a man to stab himself in the eye.
He wants to experience the same terror - terror so horrible that it would cause you to want to kill yourself.He goes underground looking for the beings that inhabit the tunnels under Tokyo and finds a naked girl, who he brings home to live with him.
He even tries to escape, but resumes the search until he finally succumbs to the terror.Despite the shaky camera work, which some like, but which distracts me, it was a fascinating look at terror and certainly a film that contains much more than available at first glance.
When he shots with his camera a man stabbing himself in the eye in the access to the subway, he seeks what the suicidal might have seen to experiment the same sense of horror the man felt when he died.
Masuika becomes a serial killer draining the blood of his victims to nurse F."Marebito" is a very weird low-budget movie that discloses the madness process of the lead character through his journey to hell in the underground of Tokyo.
An average effort by the director of Ju-On. Marebito starts out with an interesting premise, but somewhere along the way the movie falls apart.A camera man captures a man in the subway committing suicide by stabbing himself in the eye.
I appreciate what it is, which is a genuinely creepy movie shot in 8 days on consumer-grade digital video by one of the masters of Japanese horror.
'Marebito' is certainly better than your average US slasher flick, but don't expect much more than that.At the start, with the emphasis on voyeurism, recorded death and vicarious experience, it teeters on becoming something impressive and somehow relevant to the omniscience, nihilism and anonymity of the digital age.But the 'horror' aspects of this film completely ruin it.
Both the 'discovery' of a fantasy underworld, and then the clumsy Frankenstein narrative, are irredeemably hackneyed story lines that the director attempts to conceal behind portentous dialogue, edgy security-camera footage and a naked young woman.Like a lot of style-over-substance J-Horror films, the plot eventually comes to rely upon inexplicable twists and mysterious appearances that may excite some people's interest but in reality are the signs of bad writing and a half-baked story that can be modified with ease because nothing significant is taking place anyway.As for the 'hollow world' philosophy - it begs belief how pretentiously the film takes this, as if it has hit upon an entirely new idea.
Relentlessly making footage with an unearthly obsessiveness Masuoka (Shinya Tsukamoto) happens across a peculiar subway suicide, where an man named Furoki (Kazuhiro Nakahara) pokes out his eye, as if to stop himself from seeing something terrifying.
He soon descends into the vast underground system beneath the city of Tokyo, finally wandering into an otherworldly place, where he finds a naked chained female (Tomomi Miyashita)...After the success of "The Grudge" Takashi Shimuzu ventures into unusual horror territory with this independent low-key outing.
Cut off from the rapidly ageing J-horror ghost craze Shimuzu manages to come out with an obscure, but simultaneously edgy and vastly brilliant journey in the madness of the long forgotten Shaver mystery and his theories of the Hidden World - a world situated beneath the surface, an underground metropolis infested with blood-hungry creatures called 'deros' (or 'detrimental robots').
Man takes a movie camera to the subway of Tokyo in search of unspeakable horrors and comes up with some to take back to his apartment.
I love movies that take a peripatetic approach, that take us on walkabouts through weird/elaborate architecture, from The Shining to Last Year at Marienbad, and I hoped this would be one of the greats.I like these films to be shot in DV, lights are harsh and cold and space attains an immediacy that appeals to me.
The epiphany to go looking in the subway for that ultimate terror gleaming in the victim's eyes moments before his death comes seemingly after a quick mashup of superimposed images of video screens, white noise, and reaction shots of the character looking dazed - a visual slapdash chaos that seems like the director's way of saying "something clicked in his mind" and nothing more.I like that Shimizu simply took a camera to the streets of Tokyo to make Marebito, we really don't see enough films of that kind by people who know how to make them, and I wish he would've used Hollow Earth as a springboard of ideas instead of making direct allusions to it.
this movie sucked in every way, thin plot, no character development, flimsy acting, pretentious themes, clumsy production, super-low budget.nothing at all redemptive except maybe the hot girl and a decent beginning.
Its like a watching a mediocre student film that got way too much attention.This movie is generally so bad one does not know where to begin...If you watch the director/actor/producer interviews on the DVD you will find out that they shot it over 8 days on break while the director was making ju-on, this makes sense as they spent no time developing this movie and one has to wonder why they bothered at all.
Also known as 'The Stranger from Afar', this Japanese horror film focuses on a freelance photographer who rescues a naked woman chained to a rock in a subway tunnel; he takes her home, only to discover that she is more animalistic than human with a taste for blood.
Some of the symbolism hits home quite well too with the protagonist viewing himself as a vampire, feeding off filming the misery and pain of others (sort of like Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Nightcrawler', but with a moral compass here).
I thought it was supposed to be a horror movie, but it is more like a sterile view of something that could be scary just because of the subject matter, but doesn't come off that way.I had a pretty hard time watching the whole thing just because it was so boring.
Oh and one last thing if you feel the urge to watch a Japanese horror flick but don't want the normal crazy mess with your mind effect then this is the movie for you.
If you're looking for a unique Japanese horror film that will give you a major case of the creeps, check this out, but be prepared to be a little bored at times..
The dark footage, the minimalist dialogues and the atmospheric and frightening music create an intense and uneasy atmosphere like in a morbid horror movie plus the Lynchian weirdness and Japanese originality as well as a shot of intellectual or philosophical content.
I really suggest you to watch this flick if my description already made you curious.This is a dark tale of an isolated and frosty man that wants to discover such an intense emotion as deadly gripping fear after he has accidentally filmed the suicide of an unemployed in a metro station.
As the main actor then gets strange and menacing calls and is observed and followed by a hysterical lady that says that the strange girl was her daughter, the camera man realizes that a strange secret surrounds this wicked girl: she needs blood to live and forces her saviour to look for new carcasses if he doesn't want to fail his strange mission and get menaced by the strange calls..
He's obsessed with recapturing the terror he's seen on faces he's filmed, a feeling he says he's lost and can no longer experience.He wanders Tokyo with a camera attached to his face and becomes an observer so tightly connected to his lens that at times he appears to forget that people can see him.
It moved very, very slowly, which may have been an attempt to convey the main character's experience and quality of life.To me, this is almost like two separate films, akin to From Dusk Till Dawn, where the first half is sort of sick and violent and depressing, and the second half is a weird and eerie trip into a monster-movie.But this movie deliberately refuses to become exciting and remains subdued while interesting things are happening, which left me bored and wanting the movie to end already.I probably didn't "get" this movie, but even if I did, I can't say that the experience would have been much better.
Thank god for a film like Marebito, then.The film follow protagonist Masuoka, a cameraman who becomes obsessed with fear after capturing on tape the grisly suicide of a man, forced to take his own life after seeing something too disturbing to comprehend.
Throughout the film, Masuoka attempts to recapture the same sense of fear that man felt the day he died.You'd never think such an obscene and adventurous film could stem from Takashi Shimizu, after his countless Grudge remakes i began to wonder how much of a film-making soul the guy even had - But now it is obvious that when constrained to a week of shooting with a very limited budget, the man can work wonders.
at first i was expecting less from this film comparing to what i saw i just went to the movies in a lonely day..just the poster that caught my attention it read from the director of The Grudge..
i remember some characters called deros which made really feel fear like back then when i was child and a "girl" that drove him fall in terrible acts to keep her alive.....not just some evil acts you can stand, seriously one the best horror movies you will find..
The most obvious and important thing to keep in mind while watching Marebito is that the audience experiences everything from the main character's point of view.
On one level, which isn't revealed until nearly the end, you can interpret Marebito as a relatively simple film about a man, Masuoka (Shinya Tsukamoto), who has had a psychotic break and commits an outrageous, though relatively contained, series of crimes.
In addition to the psychotic madman stuff, at various times the film has elements of, or can be read as, a meditation on obsession, technological (especially video) fetishism, or voyeurism; a skeptical exploration of the attraction of horror and horror as entertainment (the protagonist can't quite grasp the attraction, but sees it in others, and wants to understand and experience it); a Dantean descent into Hell; a ghost story; a vampire story (both literal and psychological); and even a kind of love story with an extremely deviant eroticism.
The way a viewer contextualizes Marebito will likely continually change all the way to the end of the film, but the shifts are all as slight and smooth, and have all of the mind-bending illusory qualities as well as the interlocking aspects of the typical kinds of M.C. Escher prints.Shimizu is able to very quickly instantiate a palpable, atmospheric creepiness.
At the same time, Shimizu doesn't ever completely abandon the more fantastical material, and to the end, he leaves the film fairly open to a number of alternate interpretations.Not only for fans of Japanese horror films, Marebito is a "must see" film for anyone who can stomach the disturbing and who is not easily offended.
I just got back from seeing this at the Nuart in LA, and I gotta say, this is perhaps one of the weirdest horror films I've seen in quite a while.The plot revolves around a free-lance camera man who is apparently obsessed with fear- he tapes a man as he commits suicide, people arguing, and what creates fear.
And second, once you've figured out that what you're seeing are the viewpoint character's hallucinations, all bets are off, anything can happen, and suspense goes out the window.Marebito, however, is saved from also-ran status by the masterful direction of Takashi Shimizu and an excellent performance by Shinya Tsukamoto as Masuoka.
He takes her home, tries to get her to adapt to his world, and finds she only likes blood.OK well you know this film is very creepy.
I know it's a horror film but that's why I don't like it.
After filming a man committing suicide in a Tokyo subway, "Masuoka" (Shin'ya Tsukamoto) becomes obsessed in his quest to understand what real fear feels like.
The film follows Masuoka (played by Tetsuo helmer, Shinya Tsukamoto) as he quits taking his Prozac and heads below the city of Tokyo to try and terrify himself.
This gives the picture a very cheap, grainy and constantly mobile quality, which, when edited together alongside the actual footage of Tsukamoto's camera-man character, helps to further blur the lines between fantasy and reality.Like I said, it's a fascinating film on both a creative and intellectual level; but if you're looking for a great HORROR film, then this isn't it. |
tt0023685 | The Wet Parade | In the early 20th Century, with the Prohibition Era approaching, two families come undone over the evils of alcohol.
The drinking of Roger Chilcote costs him everything, including all his family's money after gambling it away, after his daughter Maggie May's repeated attempts to persuade him to quit. Chilcote commits suicide. Roger Jr. is a writer who is befriended by Jerry Tyler, a newspaper reporter in New York City.
Jerry leaves for France to fight in the war. Meanwhile, the Tarleton family is at odds over the coming presidential election. A hotel is owned by Pow Tarleton and his wife, but Pow's drinking binges are becoming worse, particularly after Woodrow Wilson's election as president. Kip believes in abstinence and in the passage of the 18th Amendment, opposed by Wilson. One day when Maggie May turns up, Kip mistakes her at first for a working girl, then develops a strong romantic attraction to her.
Pow accidentally drinks bootleg liquor that is contaminated. He beats his wife fatally and ends up convicted of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment. Kip sells the family hotel and joins the U.S. Treasury department, coming under the wing of Abe Schilling, a wise, older agent for the bureau. Both receive threats from gangsters who trade in outlawed liquor.
Roger Jr.'s alcoholism has tragic results when he consumes wood alcohol and goes blind, costing him everything, including the love of Eileen Pinchon, who runs a speakeasy. Kip, meanwhile, is now with Maggie, who is pregnant. Kip is kidnapped by gangsters, then saved by Abe, who dies while rescuing him, advising Kip that taking care of his family comes first. | insanity, murder | train | wikipedia | It's difficult to find old movies that I haven't already seen, so it was with great anticipation that I watched The Wet Parade, 1932, for the first time.
The best part is that this intensely dramatic flick was made a full year before prohibition ended, so the full flavor of the alcohol-soaked theme really hits home.
The evils of liquor before and during prohibition is nicely dramatized..
One of my favorite movies mostly because I'm a Jimmy Durante fan and he plays, of all things, a treasury agent during prohibition!
There is also some fine ensemble acting from the large cast as we see some of the evils of liquor both before and during prohibition.
And there's a great scene showing bootleggers making phony whiskey using wood alcohol and printing labels saying it was pre-prohibition liquor or from Canada.I noticed two onscreen credit errors: Frederick Burton is listed as playing Major Randolph, and Reginald Barlow is listed as playing Judge Brandon.
But while it shares that film's exaggerated (insert hysteria here) style, it is a much higher budget production and ultimately delivers a balanced and well- reasoned message.It also has an all-star cast, although many of them are very early in their careers.
The story centers around an old southern family, the Chilcotes; Lewis Stone, Dorothy Jordan, and Neil Hamilton (Commissioner Gordon on television's "Batman" series).
Other name actors included Walter Huston, Robert Young, and Myrna Loy, Wallace Ford, and Jimmy Durante.The film is almost an epic as it covers a 15-year span from 1916 to 1931.
This leads to the ill-advised Volsted Act and the 18th Amendment outlawing liquor (insert nationwide "Prohibition").
The intention of the film is not to promote drinking but to illustrate a bigger evil, the unintended consequences of the government's ill-advised attempt to prohibit the activity.
The effectiveness of the "The Wet Parade" message no doubt contributed to the passage of the 21st Amendment the following year (1933), which repealed nationwide prohibition.
If I had one piece of advice for people wanting to try out films of the 1930s, it would be to check out any movie with Walter Huston in it.
Here we have a film about the dangers of alcohol, made a year before prohibition ended.
The film seems to be both anti-alcohol and anti-prohibition, which makes for some fascinating think-work about what the movie is really trying to advocate.The film starts with Lewis Stone's Colonel Sanders-looking Southern patriarch, whose daughter (Dorothy Jordan) is trying to get him to quit drinking.
After a short while we move North to a fresh-faced Robert Young and his lush of a father Walter Huston.
Prohibition passes which leads to a tragedy for Young, who decides to become a treasury agent and is partnered with Jimmy Durante (!).
From here the movie hits a bit of a lull as we get a fairly typical T-man story until the final minutes, which are exciting.The film offers some great moments such as the haunting image of Lewis Stone's final fate or the powerful scene where Walter Huston's wife confronts him about his bootleg liquor.
Wet Parade (1932)A heavy social message movie but really well made, with some touching, in fact moving scenes.
One of the reasons for voting for Prohibitions is shown as economic—50 million bushels of wheat and rye were going to making drink, and in war time this was wrong.Remember that the movie was made in 1932 just as Prohibition was being repealed.
As the plot moves toward its dramatic mobster climax, it feels more about pure crime than a moral issue, which got lost along the way.But that's perhaps what happened to the country, too, back in the long dry years of the 1920s.
In so many ways, this film is a carryover from the early silent anti-drinking melodramas of the first decade of the twentieth century--complete with ridiculously one-dimensional characters and a very heavy-handed message.
In fact, the message is so heavy-handed that I seriously doubt if the anti-alcohol message had much effect on audiences--other than to elicit laughter!
This was pretty apparent with Lewis Stone's character, but compared to the ridiculous guy played by Walter Huston, he was downright subtle.
The co-dependent family members and enabling friends were excellent touches--but still weren't enough to make up for the awful characters played by Stone and Huston.Other than these silly drunks, the film also chronicled the history of the prohibition movement--and this was mildly interesting from a historical point of view.
What I learned from the movie is that what really helped this anti-liquor crusade was WWI and moves to stop the production of intoxicants in order to feed our troops and starving Europeans.
An interesting tidbit amongst the "sledgehammer symbolism" throughout this entire film.If anyone knows of a movie to SERIOUSLY address alcoholism from this era, let me know--as for THE WET PARADE, it's practically cartoon-like in its generalizations and bad characterizations.
It's good for a laugh and maybe a brief history lesson buried within, but that's about all.FYI--The director of this film, Victor Fleming, was himself an extremely heavy drinker according to several biographies I've read (including CLARA BOW: RUNNING WILD).
Produced at a time when America was having second thoughts about the 18th Amednment, this is an interesting period piece that shows the effects of alcohol on two families as well as the unintended consequences of Prohibition.
Unfortunately, the movie runs too long as the plot tries to develop the eventual interconnection of the two families.
Neil Hamilton has the best roll as the upright son of the Southern family who descends into alcoholism, despite having seen the effects of booze on his father.
Robert Young, who has the corresponding position in the city family, remains "dry", but comes across as somewhat of a prude.
The Wet Parade has a very powerful message, and at a full two hours, it's one of the longest movies to ever come out of the 1930s.
The film chronicles the use of alcohol in the United States before Prohibition, and the effects of the law in its early years.Starting out in the South, the film shows how alcoholism can devastate a family and ruin lives.
With an unhappy end to that part of the story, we the see the attitudes of Lewis's children, Dorothy and Neil Hamilton.
Up in the North, Neil is living in a hotel run by Robert Young and his parents, Walter Huston and Clara Blandick.
Robert, Clara, and Dorothy are ecstatic at the prospect of no one being able to drink alcohol anymore, but it doesn't occur to them that people will break the law and continue to drink.This movie is such a heavy drama, I must caution you before you rent it.
If you think alcohol is the root of all evil, or if you think it's the men who abuse it who are the villains, or if you think Prohibition was a terrible mistake-there's a message in this movie for everyone.
Robert Young isn't even in the start of the film, but he ends up being the lead of the story.
This Hollywood production takes a staunch (if peculiar) anti-alcohol, pro-Prohibition stance.
The film was released while Prohibition was still law, and it preached its Dry message directly at the 1932 audience.In a sense, THE WET PARADE (1932) does for alcohol what TELL YOUR CHILDREN (1936) does for marijuana.
What sets this film apart is its compelling story and excellent cast.The film chronicles the rise of Prohibition out of World War I and the effects of its enforcement.
It's an interesting take on the subject, showing the political and moral motivations behind the Dry movement, the last-minute hoarding of booze before the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect, the rise of speakeasies and bootlegging, and the government crackdown on liquor.
Saving the public from themselves.The movie even touches upon some of the negative consequences of Prohibition (poisonous bootleg liquor, organized crime, etc.), placing the blame not on the law, but the insatiable appetite for alcohol among deviant Americans.The cast assembled for this Prohibition epic is impressive.
The leads are second-rate (Robert Young and Dorothy Jordan), but they are joined by some A-list supporting actors like Lewis Stone, Walter Huston, Wallace Ford, Jimmy Durante, John Miljan, Neil Hamilton, and even Myrna Loy.In hindsight, decades after the repeal of Prohibition in the U.S., it seems the filmmakers may have been a bit misguided in their didacticism, although, to be fair, the movie is based on a book.
And the film was only discouraging activities which were illegal at the time.Still, the movie's crusading stance goes a little over-the-top.
There's one scene near the end where John Miljan speaks right into the camera, directing his anti-booze rant at the viewers in the theatre.
As Maltin notes in his yearbook: this film manages to be both anti-liquor and anti-prohibition.
There are some really good performances: both Lewis Stone and Walter Huston are superb in their respective halves of the film: Stone as a too-convivial Southern gentlemen, and Huston as the proprietor of a run-down hotel who cadges drinks or even steals to support his habit.
Then, having persuaded us of the evils of alcohol and shown us the arguments for government control, we see how prohibition, with its bootleggers,speakeasies and phony liquor made America's drinking habit worse; which is probably true.
All the performances are good, especially Neil Hamilton as the southern son following in his father's footsteps.
This is an oddity but it says volumes about the evils of both drink and prohibition.
Packed with stars for all movie buffs to spot including Myrna Loy. And all MST3K fans will recognize John Miljan from episode #507 "I Accuse My Parents".
Myrna Loy (in a pretty thankless role), Joan Marsh, Wallace Ford and Neil Hamilton rounded out the cast and they were ably helped by two stage and screen veterans - Lewis Stone and Walter Huston.
The story tells of two families, the Chilicotes from the South and the Tarletons from the North and how their lives are affected by drink.Sweet "Persimmon" Chilicote (Dorothy Jordan) is determined to keep her distinguished father (Lewis Stone) away from the booze that is turning him into the town laughing stock.
When, in a fit of the D.Ts., he leaps to his death Persimmon makes an impassioned speech to her father's "friends" that she would love to see the day when alcohol is poured into the gutters (shades of Prohibition).Little does she realise that her brother, budding playwright Roger (Neil Hamilton) is following in their father's footsteps.
He is staying up North at a friend Kip Tarleton's (Robert Young) hotel.
Kip is in the same boat as Persimmon, his father's alcoholism is tearing the family apart.
(a madly overacting Walter Huston) is a political campaigner for the Democrats, who believes Wilson will not only keep them out of the War but also vote against Prohibition as well.
He is wrong on both counts as America goes to War and the Pure Food Act is signed, signalling the start of Prohibition.
From the time the poisonous menthol is poured into bottles, to the phoney Canadian bags that are doused in water, then rubbed in sand to make them look authentic, it is a real eyeopener!!!Kip sees his father kill his mother (Clara Blandick) while under the influence of bootleg liquor and is inspired to become a Federal Agent - he has already met Persimmon and she encourages him in his determination.
Neil Hamilton is also a cut above his part as he espouses "War has no right side" and cynical remarks about prohibition.
Every alcoholic cliché is thrown in, including the one about drinking bad whiskey will make you go blind - that happens to Roger and sends callous Eileen (Myrna Loy) running from the building.
There are movies which were made a long time ago and which seemed today as relevant as they were then;"the wet parade" is not one of them: it oddly blends melodrama with social comment and a touch of film noir thrown in.The first part is a muddled one,very confuse ,and the characters are not really interesting.Its purpose is to make us understand the heroine's daddy died because of the booze :she becomes hysterical as she screams -when his friends are drinking to her late father's memory- that whiskey and other liquors should be thrown in a cesspool ,no less.Second part involves a love affair between her and Robert Young,who also lost his father because...
(well you get the picture)and a second one between her brother and Myrna loy who keeps a speakeasy during the prohibition.In parallel,Young and his pal Durante - who provides the film with the comic relief it did need - become some kind of Eliott Nesses.Durante is the stand-out of the movie.The movie ends with a long moral speech about the generation to come:God help 'em and preserve 'em from the devil's liquor..
The Wet Parade is unusually long for a pre-code film at 2 hours resulting in a real mini-epic and an informative history lesson on the topic of the prohibition of alcohol in The United States by people who had just lived through it.
Whereas most films on the topic focus on the criminal side of prohibition, The Wet Parade focuses on how it affected regular law abiding people.The first act of The Wet Parade takes places in the American south and this portion of the film does meander a bit (also what is up with that cut made 19 minutes into the movie?
None the less it's worth patient wait for the shocking, pre-code melodramatics this act has to offer as Lewis Stone in the role of a southern gentleman succumbs to the bottle in the most over the top fashion.
- More on this later.The remainder of The Wet Parade takes place in New York City in which Maggie is introduced to the hotel owning Tarleton family and their son Kip (Robert Young).
Walter Houston as the father of the family couldn't ham it up more if he tried in the role of Pow Tarleton with his manly, Victorian demeanor.
- Huston himself would go on to portray a fictional POTUS himself the following year in Gabriel Over the White House.Films dealing with politics in Hollywood's golden age rarely would mention actual political parties and by extension not identify characters as being associated with actual real-life parties (at most they would imply party connections).
The Wet Parade is an exception to this as various characters are identified as being either Republican or Democrat.
There is no clear political alliance The Wet Parade sides with yet it is an interesting observation that all the identified Democrats in the film are rowdy men's men and heavy drinkers ("I never knew a Republican that could hold more than a pint") while the two identified Republicans are pretty boys who don't drink.The Wet Parade provides an overview of the events which eventually leads to prohibition being enacted.
With the US involved in the Great War we see the food control act introduced which Pow refers to as "the hick towns of the Bible belt are behind this, a snide blue-nosed trick to force the county into prohibition".
There is a historical analogy in this as long-time leader of the Anti-Saloon League Wayne Wheeler was himself was motivated by his disdain for alcohol due to a childhood incident in which an intoxicated hired hand accidentally stabbed Wheeler with a hayfork.The Wet Parade showcases the negative effect alcohol can have on people's lives but more importantly demonstrates how prohibition caused more problems than it solves, removing the tool rather than going to the root of the problem.
The film even goes as far as acknowledging the government was behind the poisoning alcohol which made drinkers lose their sight.
In one scene Kip and Maggie are given a good talking down by a friend (Neil Hamilton) in a line which best sums up the moral crusade which was prohibition; "People have been drinking for thousands of years, you can't keep liquor away from people that want it.
The minute you tell them they can't have it more of them are going to stop drinking and get drunk instead."Rounding out the large cast of The Wet Parade is Myrna Loy during her bad girl phase.
The movie does not let down in its Loy factor and she has a satisfying amount of screen time even if it takes an hour until she first appears.The Wet Parade is directed by Victor Fleming, most famous for directing The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind both in the same year.
I think The Wet Parade may be the most interesting film he's done outside of that.
Outside of the film's opening act in the American south, the remainder of the picture moves at a very brisk pace and features a large number of long takes.
The Wet Parade is one of the most informative films on this period of American history and makes for a great double feature with the James Cagney prohibition spanning gangster picture The Roaring Twenties..
In Victor Fleming's "The Wet Parade"), Joan Marsh manages to steal a scene from the shimmering, well-gowned Myrna Loy, who looks great, but is wasted in a nothing role.
One of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's few "message pictures", The Wet Parade was obviously made to re-enforce the then current debate for the repeal of Prohibition.
Thus, the film ends somewhat abruptly, but it does have some great dramatic scenes mixed in with the message and the dull speechifying.
He talks and talks, but he has a scene that is one of the most horrifying ever presented in a Hollywood movie.Dorothy Jordan, alas, makes a weak heroine, although she starts off effectively, while Jimmy Durante makes both a late entrance and a surprising exit.
Victor Fleming's direction is at its best in the action episodes, the semi-documentary bits such as the elaborate manufacturing of the hooch, and montage scenes like that in which Lewis Stone succumbs to the siren call of the saloon. |
tt0203247 | Avengers | The Asgardian Loki encounters the Other, the leader of an extraterrestrial race known as the Chitauri. In exchange for retrieving the Tesseract,2 a powerful energy source of unknown potential, the Other promises Loki an army with which he can subjugate Earth. Nick Fury, director of the espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D., and his lieutenant Agent Maria Hill arrive at a remote research facility during an evacuation, where physicist Dr. Erik Selvig is leading a research team experimenting on the Tesseract. Agent Phil Coulson explains that the object has begun radiating an unusual form of energy. The Tesseract suddenly activates and opens a wormhole, allowing Loki to reach Earth. Loki takes the Tesseract and uses his scepter to enslave Selvig and a couple of other agents, including Clint Barton, to aid him in his getaway.
In response to the attack, Fury reactivates the "Avengers Initiative". Agent Natasha Romanoff is sent to Calcutta to recruit Dr. Bruce Banner to trace the Tesseract through its gamma radiation emissions. Coulson visits Tony Stark to have him review Selvig's research, and Fury approaches Steve Rogers with an assignment to retrieve the Tesseract.
In Stuttgart, Barton steals iridium needed to stabilize the Tesseract's power while Loki causes a distraction, leading to a brief confrontation with Rogers, Stark, and Romanoff that ends with Loki's surrender. While Loki is being escorted to S.H.I.E.L.D., Thor, his adoptive brother, arrives and frees him, hoping to convince him to abandon his plan and return to Asgard. After a confrontation with Stark and Rogers, Thor agrees to take Loki to S.H.I.E.L.D.'s flying aircraft carrier, the Helicarrier. Upon arrival, Loki is imprisoned while Banner and Stark attempt to locate the Tesseract.
The Avengers become divided, both over how to approach Loki and the revelation that S.H.I.E.L.D. plans to harness the Tesseract to develop weapons as a deterrent against hostile extraterrestrials. As the group argues, Barton and Loki's other possessed agents attack the Helicarrier, disabling its engines in flight and causing Banner to transform into the Hulk. Stark and Rogers work to restart the damaged engine, and Thor attempts to stop the Hulk's rampage. Romanoff fights Barton, and knocks him unconscious, breaking Loki's mind control. Loki escapes after killing Coulson and ejecting Thor from the airship, while the Hulk falls to the ground after attacking a S.H.I.E.L.D. fighter jet. Fury uses Coulson's death to motivate the Avengers into working as a team. Stark and Rogers realize that for Loki, simply defeating them will not be enough; he needs to overpower them publicly to validate himself as ruler of Earth. Loki uses the Tesseract, in conjunction with a device Selvig built, to open a wormhole above Stark Tower to the Chitauri fleet in space, launching his invasion.
Rogers, Stark, Romanoff, Barton, and Thor rally in defense of New York City, the wormhole's location. Banner arrives and transforms into the Hulk, and together the Avengers battle the Chitauri while evacuating civilians. The Hulk finds Loki and beats him into submission. Romanoff makes her way to the wormhole generator, where Selvig, freed from Loki's mind control, reveals that Loki's scepter can be used to shut down the generator. Meanwhile, Fury's superiors attempt to end the invasion by launching a nuclear missile at Midtown Manhattan. Stark intercepts the missile and takes it through the wormhole toward the Chitauri fleet. The missile detonates, destroying the Chitauri mothership and disabling their forces on Earth. Stark's suit runs out of power, and he falls back through the wormhole just as Romanoff closes it. Stark goes into freefall, but the Hulk saves him from crashing into the ground. In the aftermath, Thor returns Loki and the Tesseract to Asgard, while Fury expresses confidence that the Avengers will return if and when they are needed.
In a mid-credits scene, the Other confers with his master3 about the failed attack on Earth. In a post-credits scene, the Avengers eat in silence at a shawarma restaurant. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | Insults the comics.
This really bad series insults the classic comics at every turn.
Everything that was great about the comics is twisted and ripped apart here.
The stories are bad, but the characters are even worse, most of all Hawkeye.
If anyone from the show reads this I suggest you do the following.
1) Bring back Captain America, Iron Man and Thor on a permanent basis, no cheap guest appearances.
2)Get rid of Hawkeye.
In the comics he's cool, but on this show, you hope he gets shot so he'll shut up.
3) Get rid of that stupid armor or whatever it is.
It's just stupid and makes most of the characters look that way.
Either do all that or see the show cancelled.
Your choice..
Sad....
Sad that this cartoon series which could have been a great launching pad for taking the Avengers to a much bigger audience outside of comic book readers is so bad.
The choice of feature characters was not too bad itself, but the way in which they were drawn, written and pretty much changed all around is a terrible step backwards for Avengers.
With so much history and mega epics to draw from, the makers of this series decided it was best to go the cheap and cheesy way, and make a cartoon for little children in the hopes of maybe selling a few action figures.
This series has no punch.
The Avengers deserve better than this, and hopefully they will have their moment soon enough!Avoid this series at all cost!.
Bad, pretty bad.
It doesn't bother me to break with tradition, if the replacement is as good or better.
But this is clearly not the case.
First, it looks like most of the time they will be fighting robots with lasers as opposed to people, a transparent effort to get a Y rating.
Then there's the costumes.
ugh.
Ugly.
Hawkeye's is worst of all.
Only Wonderman, Vision, and Falcon's look any good at all.
Next there's the characters.
My main complaints on this front are pretty much just Hawkeye and Ultron.
Hawkeye is this blown up tough guy, who I guess is supposed to be the Avengers' Wolverine but is really bad at it.
Ultron is an insane robot who, in the series, is given a completely blown up body with lots of stupid looking external parts.
His character doesn't seem to be very intelligent at allThe overall look isn't to impressive either.
Like I said, it's setting in the future is an excuse to use lasers instead of guns and robots instead of people.
Mark my words, you will not see anyone die (at least permanently) in it's whole run because of it's tameness..
Terrible adaption.
That series is really terrible.It has the worst elements from the comics of the 90's:armor instead of super-hero suits,deformed-looking characters (Wonder Man muscles are twice or three times his head) and simplistic plots.Although the comic in which is based,West Coast Avengers,was good,sometimes even better than the main series,they completely ignore it and make a mix between super-heroes and power rangers,with Ant Man and the Wasp using combat armors and even including the usual ridiculous suit change sequence.The amazing thing about this series is not that it only lasted 13 episodes,but that they didn't cancel it sooner,probably because the didn't have any replacement yet..
Best Avengers animated series to date!
Animation quality notwithstanding; it's rather obv than Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes pales in comparison to this one.
Once and if you're willing to gave it a more objective look, of course.
For instance, I didn't like how they handle the Wonder Man or Vision characters in the newer series.
And I didn't mind the perceived lack of appearance of the major others in this one.
As a matter of fact; I wouldn't have noticed if not explicitly pointed out later on.
And in a way, I'm glad that they didn't appear.
They're boring, overpowered and overrated egotripping asses anyhow.
In particular the Hulk; he can go smash himself in the head all he wants, and make himself even more dumber, for all I care.
He even comes more unlikable and unbearable that Hawkeye; in any incarnation.
I also felt that the older one was closer to the comics; albeit the West Coast branch; and had more originality and distinct personality on itself.
Also, I thought it was a clever spin of the same old; and at least a way above average offering.
It was also way more interesting, since it was set in a slightly alternate future.
The explanation for their powers made even more sense here than in the comics, and was more than adequate; even the secondary ones.
They feel more like a real team too.
It's a pity that it was so abruptly cancelled; and didn't get a decent run.
It'd been nice to see it further developed; since the story and plot were really good.
Eg, I'm certain they'd make more use of the suits; but sadly never got the chance.
Even the arcs were more freshly engaging that AEMH too.
Animation was not bad; but it wasn't great either.
It was good for the time, though.
And it's still decent to this day; IMHO.
So all-in-all, I don't understand how some people can call themselves true (hardcore) fans, and not like this (WTF?!) Simply because it didn't fit in their little minds' preconceived ideas of what it supposedly should've been.
Jack Kirby and Stan Lee were credited as writers and creators.
Even Stan Lee and Avi Arad were further involved, and are listed as executive producers, for gawd sakes!
What else does it take for menial dogmatic stubborn pompous asses to just get it?!
And I don't understand their toy line argument either; since every media franchise, since I have memory, has attempted to further capitalize in that way.
In any case, I remember this airing during the 90s; which was when I first saw it.
So to me this will always be the definitive and original (animated) Avengers!
A step forward in the whole Avengers universe anyhow ever since (a kid's series' better than none:) Anyway; lots of action, and although obv geared for little kids; it also equally offers lots of twists and drama for adults.
So do yourself a favor and watch this underrated gem, but with an open mind.:).
An Optimistic Reappraisal of 'Avengers; United They Stand'..
The Avengers, as beloved and popular with childhood audiences as ever, were given a substantial revamp for this particular series; changes which didn't necessarily please the adult members of the audience.
Back in the late 1990s when this series was produced, not many American animation houses had yet adopted the myriad Japanese cartoon tropes that we are so used to seeing today.
Nowadays, anime-style transformation/power-up/costume-change sequences are second nature, as are superheroes with 'super deformed' musculature and gaudy uniforms, but at the time, adult viewers found these new additions quite jarring.However, having seen my young nephews clearly enjoying this cartoon, I have 'taken a leaf from their book' and reflected upon the show, focusing on the more positive and child-friendly aspects of the series.POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD.Although set in New York, this cartoon is loosely based on the Marvel comic entitled 'Avengers West Coast'.
The team roster includes founding Avengers Ant-Man and the Wasp alongside long-term members Scarlet Witch and the Vision, newer members Tigra and Falcon, plus best friends Wonder Man and Hawkeye, the latter seen in the recent film 'Avengers Assemble'.
Fellow film characters and founding members Captain America and Iron Man make guest-appearances in one episode each, as does Sub-Mariner himself, Prince Namor.Although the costume changes weren't popular with everyone, we really enjoyed team-leader Ant-Man's new suit which featured a miniature rocket-ship worn as a backpack; when Ant-Man shrunk, he could go aboard the backpack and fly it on missions!
It too could shrink and be flown around the body, much like the vessel in the film 'Fantastic Voyage', seen during my own childhood.The music on the series is quite stirring, I feel.
The credits say it was composed by 'Suki' Levy, but considering its powerful feel, I think that maybe it was successful musician Shuki Levy who wrote it, 'Suki' being a spelling mistake I suppose.The stories, as you'd expect, are very child-friendly, but the relationships between the characters are subtle enough for adults to enjoy.
In this series, Ant-Man and the Wasp's marriage is portrayed as a very strong one with lots of teamwork, there's a bit of a love triangle between Wonder Man, Scarlet Witch, and the Vision, and when Captain America shows up, there's a bit of friction between he and the team's leader, Ant-Man.All in all, I feel it's a shame that the loose ends concerning Wonder Man's ailments, and the evil alien gang, the Zodiac, were never resolved before the series was cancelled.
I know it's a long-shot, but perhaps these loose threads will resurface in the new cartoon, 'The Avengers; Earth's Mightiest Heroes', or maybe in one of the forthcoming Avengers films..
I decided to watch an episode of this badly animated show today and guess what horrible just horrible.
This, Spiderman Unlimited, Iron Man 1994 and Silver Surfer are the worst Marvel have to offer during 1990's.
I watched an episode where Captain America for some reason is not apart of the team but he returned to team up with the Avengers but Ant-Man is the leader instead.As I said before the animation is horrible, the voice actors sound like if they are getting choked and why does Ant-Man wear armor.
Overall don't waste your time just watch The Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes and Avengers Assemble instead which I will review soon.
But trust me you will be glad you never watched this..
Juvenile Avengers.
Avengers: United They Stand was an attempt by Fox Kids to create a kid-friendly version of The Avengers.
While not great, it wasn't as bad as some have made it out to be.The lineup here is almost strictly West Coast with Wonder Man (here called "Wonderman"), Scarlet Witch, Vision and Tigra.
Hawkeye, Wasp, Falcon and Ant-Man are included as links to the original team.
Though Iron Man and Captain America each get a guest appearance in the series, neither Thor nor the Incredible Hulk show up.
(Apparently, there was a copyright battle between Marvel and Fox over rights to the more famous Avengers).That said, this cartoon finds Ant-Man, of all people, in charge of the Avengers in a setting a few years into the future.
The group is government-funded, forcing them to have to listen to the rantings of a government liaison named Sikorsky.
Sikorsky is so two-dimensional that even the young adult audience the show is geared toward must have wanted to knock out his teeth.The main villain is Ultron, though there are also appearances by the Swordsman, the Masters of Evil and Kang the Conqueror.As the show skewed younger, adult viewers may find it tough to follow, especially those who have seen the later series like "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes." The animation pales in comparison to later shows and often looks like the G.I. Joe and Transformer cartoons of the 1980's.
The show also copied the Japanese anime of the time, with every transformation of the heroes shown.
The heroes also sport cool-looking armor, though Hawkeye's looks ridiculous.In the surest sign that the show is kid-friendly, the main foes are robots and lasers have replaced bullets.The plot lines are easy to follow, but continuity is a problem.
For example, in the pilot episode "Avengers Assemble, Part 1," Wonder Man absorbs a laser blast meant to incinerate Ant-Man. The injury leaves the hero in a coma, leading to the comic plot where his memories are placed into the Vision.
Yet, Vision hits several of the other Avengers with the same lasers and they are barely fazed.
If Wonder Man fell, how do Janet Pym or Tigra walk away unscathed?
In the same episode, Tigra is hit in her knee and further injures it when she hits a tree and the ground.
She is incapacitated enough to be unable to defend herself, whereupon Falcon makes his entrance to save her.
Seconds later, she thanks him and then gets back into the action, without so much as a limp.As it is a Fox Kids show, character development is given short shrift.
Even Hawkeye's hotheadedness sounds forced.
This must be taken into account for those who think they're getting one of the later series (the presence of Tigra should dispel that since she was never a major player in the comics).Another problem lies with the voice-overs.
None of the actors providing the voices gives much life to their characters.
This would be corrected in the later series but hampers this one.
There isn't a memorable one in the bunch.Overall, for the audience it aimed for, it mostly hits the mark.
As far as its place in the Avengers line, it's a weak placeholder.
If you view this, don't compare it to the more adult-oriented versions. |
tt0072812 | Conduct Unbecoming | Around 1880, two young British officers arrive to join a regiment in India. One, Lieutenant Drake (Michael York), from a middle-class background, is extremely eager to make the right impression while the other, Lieutenant Millington (James Faulkner), the son of a General, is keen to get out as soon as possible and deliberately antagonises his fellow-officers. The two newcomers learn the traditions of the regiment, one of which is a mess game in which they chase a wooden pig on wheels, attempting to pierce its anus with their swords.
Mrs Scarlett (Susannah York), the young and attractive widow of a captain who was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross, is a constant presence in the regiment. She does not behave in the manner expected of a hero's widow, flirting openly with soldiers she finds attractive. One night at a mess dance Millington gets drunk and in the garden tries to seduce Mrs Scarlett. She repels him, but moments later runs back into the mess wounded and in shock, claiming the culprit was Millington. An informal court martial is convened in secret, with Drake ordered to be Millington's defending officer. Millington sees the proceedings as a convenient charade, allowing him to be sent home quietly. Drake is torn between putting on the best defence he can and advancing his own career by abiding with the wishes of the regiment's commanders to quickly and quietly have Millington found guilty.
Ultimately, instead of the immediate guilty plea which is expected of him, Drake begins to challenge the evidence and to confront witnesses, including Mrs Scarlett. Despite repeated browbeating and threats from his superiors, he probes into the exact nature of the attack on her and its resulting injuries. It becomes increasingly clear that somebody else had attacked Mrs Scarlett with a sword, in the same manner in which the pig on wheels is attacked in the mess game, after she had repulsed the unarmed Millington.
However, to clear Millington completely the real assailant must be found. Drake learns from an Indian servant that another widow suffered a similar attack with a sword six months earlier, before he and Millington joined. Mrs Scarlett, who to date has not told the truth, admits to the enquiry that her harrowing experience was very like that of the other widow. But she still will not say who is to blame. One officer knows who the culprit is and, hiding Drake in the shadows so he may witness what is to take place, confronts the guilty man privately. After confessing his crimes and their motivation, the guilty man shoots himself. Millington, now indisputably proved innocent, is welcomed back by his brother officers; but Drake, who has antagonised everybody and is disgusted by the truth he uncovered, resigns. | suspenseful, prank, storytelling, flashback | train | wikipedia | Definitely Underrated Film.
"Conduct Unbecoming" is a sort of thriller settled in a British regiment in colonial India.
The widow of a heroic officer is assaulted by an unrevealed comrade in arms and an investigation takes place.In my opinion, though not a classic and not even perhaps a great movie, this film is a most interesting product for those of us who enjoy "who did it?" movies.
It takes place in a most original environment and its substance increases with subjects like military honor, loyalty, camaraderie and cowardice.The cast is perfect and another highlight in the film with very convincing performances from Trevor Howard (as usual), Cristopher Plummer, Richard Attenborough, Michael York, Susanah York and always reliable James Donald in a minor role.I'm sure that with a more imaginative and strong director than Michael Anderson (Stanley Kubrick, John Frankenheimer just to name a couple), this could have been a great film, nearly a classic).But nonetheless, "Conduct Unbecoming" stands as a fine piece of entertainment in its genre and surely is worth a watch..
Very worthwhile!.
Certainly excellent acting by an excellent cast.
Its only boring if you don't understand the time, place and principles.
This is hard to do in the 21st century.
Honor, loyalty and comradeship are rare commodities today, not really highly valued or understood.
That makes this film all the more worth watching and pondering.
To be a common man in a position of such infallibility is beyond imagination today, but such were the colonial British in the Victorian era.
I find this story absolutely fascinating and Stacy Keatch's performance as the only American in the film one of his best.
Acting, writing, directing and beautiful color, I loved it.
I'm grateful its finally on DVD..
What my family would call 'a real it's-him'.
If you're familiar with Fametracker and its 'Hey!
It's that guy!' feature, you'll understand what I mean by an 'it's-him'.
It's when you watch a film and all the way through you're pointing at second banana actors going 'Oh look, it's him'.
One of the pleasures of this film is trying to work out exactly why so-and-so's face is familiar and then realising it's Prior Robert from TVs Cadfael, or something similar.I read the play Conduct Unbecoming at school, and while this film does not go quite as deeply into the themes it throws up, ie moral bankruptcy in the British Raj/army and macho values in general, it remains a well-made, well acted period drama redolent of the distinctive spirit of the period.Then again, I could be biased because I find Milington so dishy (he played Herod Agrippa in I, Claudius, in case you're stumped!).
Great Acting Gone to Waste.
What do you call a tedious courtroom drama with a shallow bottom but filled with fine acting?
"Conduct Unbecoming".
A stilted and wordy play stuffed full of fine actors, who do their stuff really well.
If you like things "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", this movie's for you..
Pompous asses on display .....................
Despite a high power cast that includes Michael York, Stacy Keach, Richard Atenborough, and Christopher Plummer, "Conduct Unbecoming" never really rises above mediocrity.
All decisions seem to be governed by a false sense of honor and everyone is so pompous, there are few likable characters.
The story is totally unbelievable, losing credibility with each scene.
The conclusion especially comes out of nowhere.
Despite the widescreen treatment, most scenes are claustrophobic interior shots, with men in red uniforms sitting around tables.
There really is little to like here, other than the stellar cast, which is badly wasted because of the weak script.
- MERK.
A forgotten film..
I saw this film when I was 12 years old, I was besotted with Michael York (still am) and an elderly aunt took me to the cinema.
We both enjoyed it although, she admitted she was not sure how much of it I could understand regarding what happened to Mrs Scarlett.
It has never, in the near 40 years since it's release it has, to my knowledge, never been on British TV.
It is much better than many films they do show, especially from that era of British films in the 1970's and it was only by buying the DVD I was able to see it again after such a long time.
I was not disappointed either, yes, it is basically a stage play that has been filmed, but, the performances are excellent all around.
Stacy Keach pulls off one of the best British accents by an American actor.
It drew me in and held my attention throughout, sadly, the very end is done weakly, but, that is a small complaint.
Time for it to be shown on TV methinks |
tt0107554 | Menace II Society | Caine Lawson and his best friend Kevin Anderson (O-Dog) enter a local store to buy malt liquor, but are suspiciously watched and goaded by a Korean storekeeper and his wife to hurriedly pay and leave. As they leave, the storekeeper makes a remark to O-Dog about his mother, angering O-Dog. An argument begins, but soon turns deadly as O-Dog shoots and kills the Korean couple. He then takes the store video surveillance tape and empties the cash register. In a flashback, it is revealed that Caine’s father was a drug dealer who was killed in a drug deal when Caine was 10, and his mother was a heroin addict who later died of a drug overdose, as a result he went to go live with his grandparents. Later, Caine and his cousin Harold are carjacked and Harold is killed, with Caine shot. O-Dog tells Caine he's discovered who and where the carjackers are. To avenge for Harold, O-Dog and Caine find and kill the assailants.
Caine and O-Dog are hired by a local hood Chauncey, for a car insurance scheme but are caught in the process and arrested by police. A detective attempts to link Caine to the store killings by matching fingerprints, but is unsuccessful and Caine is released. During the film, Caine's grandfather and Mr. Butler (Sharif's father and a school teacher) tell Caine to change his ways or he'll end up either in prison or dead. Stacy and Sharif also try to keep Caine away from further trouble by convincing Caine to leave with them to Kansas, but Caine is dismissive towards everyone's advice. Caine begins his hustler lifestyle by buying a new car from a chop shop and robbing a local for his Dayton wheels. Caine then purchases a large quantity of cocaine to cook into crack cocaine in order to sell. Caine also meets a local girl named Ilena while with his crew at a BBQ. Caine and Sharif are driving 1 night until the police stop and pull them over. The police take them to the wrong neighborhood and engage police brutality on Caine and Sharif. While in the hospital Caine's friend Ronnie tells him that she has found a job in Atlanta and invites him to come with her. Caine is hesitant at first, but later agrees to go to Atlanta with Ronnie. During a prison visit, Pernell encourages Caine to leave with Ronnie to Atlanta. At a party, a drunken Chauncey makes moves towards Ronnie, angering Caine. As a result, Caine lunges at and starts pistol-whipping Chauncey. Stacy and Sharif intervene and restrain Caine. Chauncey, in turn, sends a copy of the videotape to the police.
Before leaving for Atlanta, Caine gets a visit at his house from Ilena's cousin. They have a small exchange with Ilena's cousin berating Caine for the way he's treated Ilena. During the altercation, Caine beats Ilena's cousin. Shortly after, Caine's grandparents kick him out of their house. Moments later, it is shown that Ilena's cousin is seeking revenge on Caine.
Just as Caine is packing up the car to move to Atlanta, Georgia, Ilena's cousin and a gang of gunmen execute a drive by on the house during which Sharif is killed and Caine is fatally wounded. As Caine slowly dies in Stacy's arms, he sees flashbacks of the events that led to this final moment, and recalls his grandfather asking him 1 if he cares whether he lives or dies; he realizes he does, but now it's too late. O Dog is last seen getting arrested by the police, presumably for the convenience store robbery/murder. | comedy, suspenseful, neo noir, murder, bleak, cult, revenge, violence, flashback, romantic, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0050933 | Sayonara | Major Lloyd "Ace" Gruver (Marlon Brando), the son of a U.S. Army general, is stationed at Itami Air Force Base near Kobe, Japan. He falls in love with a Japanese entertainer, Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka), who is a performer for a Takarazuka-like theater company, whom he meets through his enlisted crew chief, Airman Joe Kelly (Red Buttons).
Joe is about to wed a Japanese woman, Katsumi (Miyoshi Umeki), in spite of the disapproval of the United States military, which will not recognize the marriage. The Air Force, including Ace, is against the marriage. Ace and Joe have an argument during which Ace uses a racial slur to describe Katsumi. Ace eventually apologizes, then agrees to be Joe's best man at the wedding.
Joe suffers further prejudice at the hands of a particularly nasty colonel, pulling extra duty and all the less attractive assignments. When he and many others who are married to Japanese are ordered back to the States, Joe realizes that he will not be able to take Katsumi, who is now pregnant.
Finding no other way to be together, Joe and Katsumi commit double suicide. This strengthens Ace's resolve to marry Hana-ogi. When a Stars and Stripes reporter asks him what will he say to the "big brass" as well as to the Japanese, neither of which will be particularly happy, Ace says, "Tell 'em we said, 'Sayonara.'" | romantic, melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0038854 | The Postman Always Rings Twice | Frank Chambers (John Garfield) is a hobo who stops at a rural diner for a meal and ends up working there. The diner is operated by a beautiful young woman, Cora Smith (Lana Turner), and her much older husband, Nick (Cecil Kellaway).
Frank and Cora start to have an affair soon after they meet. Cora is tired of her situation, married to a man she does not love and working at a diner that she wishes to own. She and Frank scheme to murder Nick in order to start a new life together without her losing the diner. Their first attempt at the murder is a failure, but they eventually succeed.
The local prosecutor, Kyle Sackett (Leon Ames), has deduced what really occurred but does not have enough evidence to prove it. As a tactic intended to get Cora and Frank to turn on each other, he files murder charges against only Cora. Although they turn against each other, a clever ploy from Cora's lawyer (Hume Cronyn) prevents Cora's full confession from coming into the hands of the prosecutor. With the tactic having failed to generate any new evidence for the prosecution, Cora benefits from a plea bargain in which she pleads guilty to manslaughter and receives probation.
Frank and Cora eventually patch together their relationship and plan for a future together, but as they seem to be prepared to live "happily ever after", Cora dies in a car crash while Frank is driving. Although it was truly an accident, the circumstances seem suspicious enough that Frank is accused of having staged the crash. He is convicted of murdering Cora and is sentenced to death.
When informed that his last chance at a reprieve from his death sentence has been denied and thus his execution is now at hand, Frank is at first incredulous that he will be put to death for a crime of which he is innocent. However, when informed that authorities have recently discovered irrefutable evidence of his guilt in the murder of Nick, Frank decides that his impending death is actually his overdue punishment for that crime. Frank contemplates that when a person is expecting to receive a letter, it is of no concern if at first he does not hear the postman ring the doorbell because the postman will always ring a second time, and the second ring will invariably be heard. After they escaped legal punishment for Nick's murder but with Cora now dead and Frank on his way to the death chamber, he notes that the postman has indeed rung a second time for each of them. | cult, murder | train | wikipedia | Based on Cain's sexual novel this underplays the explicit references but turns the subtle stuff way up - the film opens with a `Man Wanted' sign, while Cora is so well played that there's no doubt what she's offering.
Cain (author of "Double Indemnity") was a gritty unsentimental story of a low-class drifter and bum, Frank, who is taken in by a German immigrant, Nick, who owns a roadside café and his beautiful wife, Cora, who turns out to be much darker on the inside than the facade of her pure white skin.
That said, the movie still holds its own as a noir tale of betrayal and murder, but doesn't quite have the edge of Billy Wilder's adaption of "Double Indemnity".Still, the movie works very well under its own terms, particularly because of the outstanding chemistry between the leads John Garfield and Lana Turner.
Although lacking the enigmatic complexity of Cora, Frank is equally ambiguous and ambivalent to his life choices, and Garfield well conveys the multi-sidedness of Frank.The story concerns a young man looking for work, finds a roadside café up a few hours north of Los Angeles, probably up the 101 freeway, and becomes the hired help.
And when the hired help Frank falls for her, she realizes he is the perfect means to get both of them out of their hellish existence.A fine example of 1940's film noir with many of the stylistic considerations, such as the camera panning from feet-to-face when we first meet the woman Cora, the many unexpected twists and turns, and of course the dark desires of the leads.
But you'd do just about anything to possess this one, even murder.John Garfield was two films away from ending his long term Warner Brothers contract and certainly they gave him a good role to go out on.
Cain originally submitted the story to Alfred Knopf with the title "BBQ" (which makes sense in context) and was asked to change it; he considered "Black Puma" and "The Devil's Checkbook" before settling on the mystifying title by which the novel and both adaptations are well known.Anyway, I like the film and think it's a great straight adaptation of the book, though the dialogue in the beginning seems a bit hurried (for the sake of the quick establishment of character and story) - the book does a better job of painting the hobo/gypsy lifestyle Frank embraces, and I think it's pretty central to the eventual conflict between him and Cora, so it's a shame it wasn't better depicted in the film.Lana Turner is good, but probably just a bit mis-cast - she's a little too "glamorous" for Cora, which is also established immediately in the famous opening shot of her legs and lipstick (in contrast to the book, where she was introduced in an apron, working hard for the business like she always says she wants to.) One note for femme-fatale buffs: Cora and Nick in the film are surnamed "Smith," which in the book was Cora's maiden name.
I have to say though, the movie had some very good irony and employed a load of classic film noir tricks (the final outcome must have influenced the Coen Brothers with "The Man Who Wasn't There"), but I can't help believing the book must have been a lot better.
John Garfield's character Frank Chambers is a strong supporting role and I really liked his sense of humor and the way he portrayed his infatuation with Cora, I felt the passion between those two after that infamous lip lock.
Lighting throughout the film also helped to make the mood suspicious (in the way of her careless husband Nick) yet captivating and sensual (Cora's form fitting outfits and intense kissing scene) I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and enjoyed it all to myself this time too!.
Lana Turner and John Garfield are great in this classic tale of deception and murder and its hard to imagine that another actress, save Barbara Stanwyck or Joan Crawford, could have played the role of the wayward wife as well as did Turner.
"The Postman Always Ring Twice" made an impact on the way movies looked at the time, when the censure of the Hays Code dominated what could be shown on the screen for general consumption.James M.
The great camera work of Sidney Wagner made this movie a classic for its sensual look it focused on its female star.Nick, the older owner of the roadside diner, has married Cora, a woman much too young for him.
Leon Ames, Hume Cronyn are seen in small roles."The Postman Always Ring Twice" is a classic of this genre thanks to Ty Garnett's direction and a brilliant appearance by an inspired Lana Turner..
The good atmosphere and Lana Turner's memorable role make this a film-noir classic worth seeing.
The story starts out to be relatively simple, allowing the cast and the atmosphere to carry it, and then heads through a series of twists and turns, picking up the pace as it goes along.John Garfield and the supporting cast are solid, but it is Turner who really stands out and grabs the attention anytime she is on-screen.
Turner's character and performance, in particular (aided by good camera work), demonstrate that the suggestive can be quite a bit more effective and memorable than the explicit."The Postman Always Rings Twice" has just about everything you could ask for in a film-noir.
I think how he is naive character, actually know that he is in love, and vice versa.Lana Turner as Cora Smith It is quite good as frustrated beautiful woman who wants out of life to do something.
Finally, however, I, too,I found it interesting all the way through.Hume Cronyn, not the stars of the film John Garfield and Lana Turner, sparked my interest.
Cecil Kellaway also is good as Tuner's husband, and I enjoyed Leon Ames as the district attorney.The film almost makes the two low-life leads into sympathetic characters, which is just plain wrong and probably also why twisted critics all like this.
John Garfield (Frank) drifts into a small town and gets work at a café/diner run by an unlikely husband and wife team, Cecil Kellaway (Nick) and Lana Turner (Cora).
I didn't have any expectations, seeing as I barely knew what it was about - I just figured it would be good."The Postman Always Rings Twice" is never boring, but it's too long by half an hour, if not more, and it's hard to believe that Frank and Cora would risk so much for each other when their relationship is based purely on physical attraction.
And although the Nick Smith character (played by Cecil Kellaway) provides us with some well-needed comic relief while Lana Turner is able keep the viewer's interest with her intense performance, the film still lacks rational thought or a believable portrayal of the couple's supposed burning passion for each other.
Basically just watched this for history's sake.I have heard better dialogue in other "classic" films, also I did not feel magnetism between Garfield and Turner...more a gradual entwining of chains about them.The pace picked up in the second half, but I couldn't throw away hundreds of more recent films I've seen...nor suspend my belief through some just plain bad decisions.Ah bad decisions, I feel like there's only so many I will allow in any film...one of the more interesting moments in this, takes place as Lana basically admits to loving money more than Garfield...now that seemed honest...and a little dangerous to explore, more so than a car being tipped off a cliff.Really I'm sorry, I wanted to enjoy this more...now I worry what my grandchildren will think of "Body Heat".
Cain pulp novel/turned literature is Lana Turner as Cora, but not for her acting, which was ordinary, but because she looked so good.
(People on the set may have needed to wear shades.) After she returns from her mother's funeral, Garnett has her in the blackest black from a black hat to her black shoes--heels, I should emphasize, since she was almost always in heels in the movie, even returning from the beach or crawling up a canyon in the Santa Monica Mountains, she was in heels.John Garfield, who plays Frank Chambers as though wandering through the role (which is not entirely inappropriate), is sympathetic and has the kind of raw animal appeal that we would expect to see in Cain's depression-era antihero.
Cecil Kellaway, who plays Nick (in this case a "Nick Smith," not the Greek immigrant Nick Papadakis from the novel) does the best acting job as he brings a bit of the delusive psychology of an older man with a beautiful young wife to life when he announces that he selling the café and moving to the backwoods of Canada so Cora can take care of him and his invalid sister!
"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is a superb adaptation of Cain's novel and its story of sexual attraction, adultery, murder, and betrayal still resonates beautifully today.I'd like to answer the previous posting asking for an explanation of the title but to do so would give away the exquisite twist ending of the film.
Not to be overlooked is the terrific legal strategizing by the defense attorney near the end of the film.To quote Cain, "Postman" is about "a couple of jerks who discover that a murder, though dreadful enough morally, can be a love story too, but then wake up to discover that once they've pulled the thing off, no two people can share this terrible scret and live on the same earth." Leff & Simmons, p.
A young hunky drifter named Frank (John Garfield) comes across a restaurant/gas station run by old Nick (Cecil Kellaway) and his young wife Cora (Lana Turner).
Frank and Cora fall in love and plan to run away together...but things don't turn out as planned.It's overlong and very convoluted at the end but this is a classic of film noir.
This film noir has Lana Turner as Cora, the naive wife of a much older roadside café owner, clashing with Frank, a drifter, played by John Garfield, who rolls into town and gets a job at the diner.
The two begin a flaming romance and eventually plot the murder of Cora's husband, with insurmountable ramifications.Although not perhaps the most realistic or gritty noir, "The Postman Always Rings Twice" is memorable for two reasons: first, because it was perhaps the first instance in which MGM sweater girl Lana Turner was truly able to cut her teeth; and second, its atmosphere is explosively provocative and quietly dazzling.Shadowy and slow burning, the film moves between worlds as Cora and Frank become a singular threat to Nick, and their fate unravels and splinters into a dramatic finale.
Classic film noir with a star-making performance from Lana Turner.
In the movie, a drifter (John Garfield) takes a job at a roadside restaurant and falls for the proprietor's young wife (Lana Turner).
Lana Turner and John Garfield may be the perfect film noir couple--she's got the 40's hair and that come hither look.
He even takes Frank in and treats him like a pseudo-son, so the decision to do away with him make Frank and Cora all the more evil, and the crime more senseless than those in most films of that era."The Postman Always Rings Twice" is definitely a must-see for anyone who appreciates the art of film noir, and remains a classic, spawning a 1981 remake starring Jessica Lange and Jack Nicholson.
Cain's bristling novel of love, betrayal, and murder.Garfield plays Frank Chambers (a role he was born to play), a drifter, whose "feet are just achin to go places," he spots a sign at a cafe that says "Man Wanted," and that's where the fun begins.He meets Cora Smith, a beautiful blonde, silhouetted in the doorway, bathed in white.
One of the most exciting and provocative film noir of the 1940's (and of one of the most simplest also) "The Postman Always Rings Twice" brings the bittersweet love story between a drifter and a married woman that turns out into a plot of murder, tragedies and deceptions.
John Garfield plays Frank Chambers, the mysterious man who entered in a almost abandoned restaurant conduced by Nick (Cecil Kellaway) and his wife Cora (Lana Turner), who is the main factor of why he takes a job in the place just to be near her.
Cain (who also wrote "Double Indemnity", story very similar as this one), "TPART" follows the book at parts, changes some of the names (Nick's Greek last name in the book was translated as Smith in the film, Hollywood had those xenophobic feelings sometimes) and situations (Lana's Cora is way more aggressive/controlling/smart than the one of the novel while Frank is quite well-mannered opposed to the dirty one of Cain's book), improving other suitable for a story considered scandalous in its time but the basis of the book is present here and is brilliantly presented.
The relationship between Frank and Cora is precisely well made, delivering lots of sensuality by showing less than we want to see and this whole thing made the film a perfect stage for Turner and Garfield to show their acting abilities.
As Lana Turner pointed out her task was more difficult given what she and Garfield had to work, and the way they built their relation in the film without showing sex and body parts was more effective than the one of the remake, which was quite gratuitous at times (but I like both versions).
But the film is not just a love story, it's also a noir and Tay Garnett directed a wonderful film noir, wise in setting the musical score in a good way (musics were excessive in films those days played all the time) creating tension not only between the attempts of murdering Nick but also during the heated discussions between Frank and Cora, when one turned against the other when things didn't happened the way they planned.
The explanation worked as a morality device for the film, things very common in that era (thankfully, the remake avoided this).Great performances by the cast which also includes Hume Cronyn playing Frank and Cora's lawyer, who always keeps repeating to them "I'll handle it" referring about the case; great plot and a great film, this is a really must see for film noir fans out there.
******* The Postman Always Rings Twice (5/2/46) Tay Garnett ~ John Garfield, Lana Turner, Cecil Kellaway, Hume Cronyn.
This rightly famous film stands as one of the best of the whole noir genre, perhaps jostling with that other great James M Cain adaptation, Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity" for the crown itself.Yes, the story and situations are unbelievable but placed in believable settings and peopled by believable characters, the film roars to life from the second Lana Turner's lip-stick rolls John Garfield's way in one of the best character introduction scenes ever.The first half of the film explores the explosive and obviously intensely physical relationship between Turner's downtrodden trophy wife Cora Smith, and Garfield's streetwise can't believe-his-luck drifter, who quickly go on to cuckold her older, simple but still domineering souse of a husband Nick, played beautifully by Cecil Kelloway.
Despite lapses in the legalities of our judicial system, we have a pretty good 1946 film here.Lana Turner goes from a churlish young lady to a nasty woman plotting the murder of her simple alcoholic hash slinging husband, played nicely by Cecil Kellaway.
Cain adaptation, Billy Wilder's superior "Double Indemnity" before taking a more convoluted, courtroom based ending.Lana Turner and John Garfield have heaps of chemistry together, and the first two thirds of the film are highly entertaining, regardless of how many times the plot has been recycled since.
Case in point, "The Postman Always Rings Twice" with absolute knockout performances by John Garfield and Lana Turner.
A drifter, Frank (John Garfield) stops at a remote restaurant/gas station owned by Nick and his beautiful younger wife Cora (Lana Turner).
Just about the finest noir you will ever experience.Lana Turner is superb and gives her finest performance as the frustrated wife of an older husband who falls in love with the hired hand played by John Garfield.A well-scripted,well-directed and superbly-acted tale of deceit, adultery,lying and murder which must surely rank as one of the best 100 U.S. films ever made.Not to be missed or ommited from any film library..
Postman stars Lana Turner, John Garfield, Cecil Kellaway, Leon Ames, and Hume Cronyn.
Cain's best-selling novel, this film-noir classic features Lana Turner in one of her best roles as a beautiful and sexy little tart who convinces her lover(John Garfield) to help off her dull old husband(Cecil Kellaway) so they can be together.
Animal lovers beware of this.Now to the excellent cast: Lana Turner, John Garfield, Cecil Kellaway, Audrey Totter and Hume Cronyn.
A decent enough classic film noir and Lana Turner is stunning, but it lacks a hard edge.Part of the problem with 'The Postman Always Rings Twice' is that John Garfield is a little soft in the role of Frank the drifter, and I didn't feel real heat between him and Lana Turner.
Cain novel that stars John Garfield as drifter Frank Chambers, who is given a lift by the local District Attorney, who lets him off at a roadside gas station café run by Nick & Cora Smith(played by Cecil Kellaway & Lana Turner).
This film was the pinnacle of John Garfield's career, and Lana Turner NEVER looked more beautiful.
John Garfield And Lana Turner As The Two Main Characters Deliver Brilliantly Acted And Strong Performances, And The Direction Of Filmmaker Tay Garnett Who Beautifully Made "The Postman Always Rings Twice" With Ballance Mix Of a Love Story And Combined it Also With a Little Bit Of Film Noir And Suspense To it. |
tt4190530 | Anthropoid | It is the height of Nazi occupation in Europe.
In December 1941, two agents from the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, Jozef Gabčík (Cillian Murphy) and Jan Kubiš (Jamie Dornan) are parachuted into their occupied homeland. Jozef is injured when he crashes through a tree upon landing, but both men set out to find their contact in Czechoslovakia. They are discovered shortly after by two resistance fighters who turn out to be traitors; one is shot by Jozef but the other man escapes. Stealing their truck, the agents head for Prague.
When they seek out their contact, they are directed to Dr. Eduard (Sean Mahon), who stitches Jozef's foot, and arranges for the agents to meet other members of the resistance, led by "Uncle" Jan Zelenka-Hajský (Toby Jones). The agents reveal that they are to execute "Operation Anthropoid," the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich (Detlef Bothe), the main architect of the Final Solution, and the head of Nazi forces in German–occupied Czechoslovakia.
With limited intelligence and little equipment in a city under lock-down, Jozef and Jan must find a way to assassinate Heydrich, an operation that, they hope, will change the face of Europe. With the help of two young women, Marie Kovárníková (Charlotte Le Bon) and Lenka Fafková (Anna Geislerová) along with other plotters, the agents plan to ambush Heydrich as he arrives at his headquarters by car. When the agents learn that Heydrich is about to be transferred, the plan goes into effect with the duo bolstered by the addition of other agents who have been parachuted into Czechoslovakia and the remaining resistance fighters in Prague.
On 27 May 1942, the attack is carried out but nearly botched when Jozef's Sten submachine gun jams, but Heydrich is severely wounded when Jan throws a bomb that shatters his limousine, followed by Jozef's fusillade of gunfire. Immediately after, the assassins go on the run, and Nazi forces round up thousands of Czech citizens and carry out a terrible reprisal. When Heydrich dies, the combined group of seven parachutists are pursued to their refuge at the Orthodox Cathedral of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Prague. Resistance fighter Karel Čurda (Jiří Šimek) turns on the agents and reveals where they are hiding. The family who Jozef and Jan stay with are punished, their house attacked by numerous officers. The mother commits suicide by taking a cyanide tablet in the bathroom. The son is brutally tortured, which leads him to give in to the Nazis' demands. He tells them where Jozef and Jan are hiding, in the cathedral. Hundreds of Nazi troops storm the cathedral and all the agents are killed in a fierce battle.
Reprisals continue with the village of Lidice destroyed with all the males 16 years old and older shot, children gassed to death and women sent to camps. Another Czech village, Ležáky, is also destroyed and its inhabitants are murdered because a radio transmitter is found there. Ultimately, a total of 15,000 Czechs were killed in the aftermath of the "Heydrich Terror". The assassination of SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich was the only successful government-organised assassination of a top-ranking Nazi in the Second World War. | revenge, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | "Anthropoid" opens with two resistance fighers, Jan Kubis a Czech (Jamie Dornan) and Jozef Gabcik, a Slovak (Cillian Murphy), being parachuted into Czechoslovakia after their training in England.
On 27 May 1942, at a tight street corner in Prague, two resistance parachutists - the Czech Jan Kubi and the Slovak Jozef Gabčík stopped an open top car carrying the Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich with the intention of carrying out the most high profile assassination of the Second World War. The consequences - both personal and political - were enormous.
My strong interest in the assassination is because it took place at the height of the wartime exploits of my Czech night fighter pilot father-in-law, so that I included a couple of paragraphs about it in my biography of him, and the church in which the assassins Kubi and Gabčík died is literally at the end of the street in which my closest Czech friends live, so that I have visited it several times.The year after the assassination which made massive world news, Hollywood rushed out two films - "Hangmen Also Die" and "Hitler's Madman" - which gave highly fictionalised accounts of the event and its aftermath.
So "Anthropoid" (2016) - the code name for the operation - is the fifth work to bring these events to the big screen and again this is a British-inspired work shot on location (in what is now the democratic Czech Republic).Britain's Sean Ellis is director and cinematographer as well as co-writer and he has produced an accomplished work which is even more faithful to the facts and makes even more use of original locations than "Operation: Daybreak".
Another change is that the parachutists are shown as more human, given to bouts of doubt and fear.The 1975 and 2016 films follow a very similar narrative arc, beginning with the jump by Kubi and Gabčík and ending with their death, so that the actual assassination attempt is the hinge for the two very different segments tonally: the tense preparation and the ferocious aftermath.
His latest, written and directed by himself, is the true story during WWII in 1942, Operation Anthropoid, the assassination of SS General Reinhard Heydrich, Hilter's third in command and main architect of the Final Solution, better know as the Butcher of Prague, or the Blonde Beast and the Hangman.
We see the emotional struggle between the two comrades and fellow resistance, as priorities and understanding of what is to come, changes.Toby Jones, who happens to get into everything recently, plays supportive uncle Hajskŷ and I recognise Charlotte Le Bon from this year's Bastille Day. And I think the only native to act here is Czech model Anna Geislerová who looks a little like Joan Allen and Amber Valletta.
After months of slogging through big-budget, special effects studio films that were just "fine" all summer, I've finally encountered a hidden gem that is well worth watching.ANTHROPOID is a World War II film starring Cillian Murphy that tells the true tale of a group of Czech resistance fighters on a mission (Codenamed ANTHROPOID) to assassinate Nazi SS General Reinhard Heydrich, the "Butcher of Prague".
Ellis creates a group of real people (the drama part of the film) with real relationships operating undercover in a very dangerous situation (the thriller part) in order to carry out orders to assassinate the #3 in command of the German hierarchy (the action part).Some will find the first hour of the movie a bit slow as Ellis builds up his characters and their relationships.
This turns out to be an important slow burn build-up and really pays off as the action starts heating up the screen and you are really invested in what happens to these people.The acting is top-notch starting with Murphy, who I looked at in this movie and wondered why he isn't a bigger star.
It's a beautifully filmed, but gut-wrenching scene
think of the last stand at The Alamo.An extended shootout (6 hours in real time) may not seem like a fun day at the movies, but this story goes to the bravery and desperation of those who refused to give in to the relentless savagery of the Germans.
Having seen all three other post-war film verisons covering this remarkable true story (Atentat, Operation Daybreak and Man With the Iron Heart), Anthropoid is without any doubt the best of them.
"Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once." Shakespeare's Julius Caesar If you delight in the fantasy violence of summer blockbusters, you will lose any romantic notions about it when you see the real deal in Anthropoid, a based-on-actual-events biography about seven WWII resistance fighters who parachute into Nazi-held Czechoslovakia.
Their job: assassinate the third highest ranking officer of the Reich, Reinhard Heydrich (Detlef Bothe), the Butcher of Prague.As in all dictatorships, never a safe moment exists, and writer-director Sean Ellis, along with writer Anthony Frewin, emphasizes both the bravery of the fighters and the brutality of the Nazis in a quagmire of deceit and fear.
Anthropoid makes Planet of the Apes look like The Sound of Music.After Army of Shadows, Anthropoid ranks as one of the best resistance stories in film history."Satan understands the power of men and women united in righteousness." Sheri L.
This movie intends to change that with a crash course on history engulfed around a thrilling main plot to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, the architect behind the Final Solution.Jan Kubis (Jamie Dornan) and Josef Gabcík (Cillian Murphy) are sent by the Czech government-in-exile to assassinate Nazi Germany 3rd-in- command SS Officer Reinhard Heydrich, which is code named Operation Anthropoid.
But I was pleasantly surprised how much detail they actually included - the location, the characters, the events - they are really accurate.I never saw 50 Shades of Grey, but I must say I might watch other Dornan's movies, because he was brilliant as Jan Kubi, he made a person out of a martyr's name in my history notes.
I also appreciated the Czech words and signs and songs and generally, creating a Prague of 1940's that actually feels like Prague.The only thing I did not really like was how they incorporated love stories into the movie - not only it was NOT historically accurate (Gabčík had a girlfriend whose name was Anna Malinová)but it was also a little too forced.
The direction has a modern feel but keeps a steady pace and the script is good but as is most the case in modern day movies ....The Acting is really poor Murphy and Dornan are truly unconvincing with dreadful accents, what a shame it really it could have been a great remake of a very good attempt back in the 70's,I would suggest to go and see this and make your own mind up, but also watch the 1970's movie Operation: Daybreak (1975) too..
Adding to the feeling of authenticity is the location filming in the streets of Prague, as well as the costuming and background music of 40's standards.The cast is a good one and the only change I would like to have seen is a different star in the leading role.
And the film's final 45 minutes present one of the most intense shootouts that I've ever seen.Written by Sean Ellis and Anthony Frewin and directed by Ellis, I actually came into the screening fresh, meaning I genuinely had no idea what to expect because as much a history buff as I am, this specific section where there was actually a mission to assassinate SS officer Reinhard Heydrich, was one that I may have somehow missed out on from the textbooks.
With limited intelligence and little equipment in a city under lock down, they must find a way to assassinate the architect behind the Final Solution.This film spends a lot of time humanizing the two leads, the two soldiers, by slapping the story on with some romance, which to me could backfire, because it could mean the difference between Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor" and Bryan Singer's "Valkyrie" for example.
An apt film to watch, as it happens, on Remembrance Sunday here in the UK, retelling the Czech Resistance plot to kill the third highest ranking Nazi in their hierarchy at the time and enforcer-in-chief of the heinous Final Solution against the Jewish race, Reinhard Heydrich, an act of courage and heroism only matched by the manner in which the two young perpetrators of the deed and their back-up team of supporters and fellow-fighters met their inevitable dooms in the face of overwhelming odds as the Germans flushed them all out with tactics of bribery and torture.
The argument is made about the wisdom of assassinating just one man provoking the inevitably brutal response from the SS (over 5000 innocent civilians slaughtered as reprisals for the deed), but I think the film correctly comes down in favour of the group's valour in standing up for their country against a brutal, occupying oppressor.The direction goes a long way, as you'd expect, to making us see that the Czech defenders are only human, as we see them betray their own fears, argue over planning, mishandle their weapons and in the almost botched commission of the attack, as opposed to the ruthless efficiency of the Nazi machine.
In the end you're so rooting for the freedom-fighters that you will each of them to successfully commit suicide rather than be killed or worse, if captured by the SS.Interestingly, the Heydrich character makes no appearance at all in the film before the scene where he's attacked, I think the director here assumes a certain degree of historical knowledge on the audience's part as we don't need to see any overt on-screen demonstration of evil on Heydrich's character to understand that he was a legitimate target for killing by the resistance.
Perhaps the film took a little while to hit its stride, as it sought to build up the background of the lead characters, the explosive siege scene at the church where the fighters made their last stand had a slightly exaggerated feel about it too, while the ghostly after-life appearance of a slain girl-friend at the moment of one of the Czech hero's death was, in my opinion, a misguided cinematic insertion at odds with a film striving for everyday realism, likewise the quotation lines from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" seemed more like a grafted on screenwriter's device than what really happened.Nevertheless, this is a sombre, but ultimately uplifting and inspiring tale of everyday heroism, a testament to the spirit of the Czech people and made me think on this day of all days of who would stand up and be counted today under similar circumstances.Lest we forget..
Anthropoid takes its name from the real-life Operation Anthropoid, which was the attempt by Czech resistance fighters in 1942 to assassinate Nazi General Reinhard Heydrich, the "Butcher of Prague." This film is exceptionally realistic and stays very close to the actual historical events.
"Anthropoid" (2016 release from Czech Republic; 120 min.) brings the story, "based on true events" we are reminded at the beginning of the movie, of the attempt by Czech resistance fighters to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, the No. 3 guy in the Nazi hierarchy (behind Hitler and Himmler) and better known as the "Butcher of Prague".
'Anthropoid' tells the tale of a group of soldiers sent to Czechoslovakia to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, also known as 'The Butcher Of Prague', during World War II.
Have we really seen the last of the glory days of good movies with real actors like Charlton Heston , Chalres Bronson, Yul Brynner to be replaced by Dicaprios and Afflecks - oh dear?This was a turgid step by step remake with non of the suspense and realism of the original and most of the acting was wooden and somehow disconnected from the actual story however factual it might be - that is when you can actually understand what the actors are mumbling at and what is with no subtitles for the German voices?To add insult to injury they didn't even pay respect to the people who were involved in the operation and who risked their lives as they did at the end of the original film - Poor very shabby remake - why bother if you are not going to try something new or at least polish the story but i guess in this case you definitely cannot polish a turd!.
Anthropoid, while initially plodding and unexciting, redeems itself with a final act that truly had my heart thumping - but without either proper exploration of the characters or discussion of the moral issues at stake, this film is a straightforward action/thriller which should have been kept to 90 mins.The film depicts the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - a nasty piece of work and a high-ranking one too, although no-one I discussed this film with knew anything about him beforehand.
There then follows an extensive action scene, in which the Nazis attempt to capture or kill the remaining Czech resistance members, and the tension did not let up until the end of the movie.
I don't usually think depictions of brutality and torture are necessary in films, but the brief scene in this works perfectly: firstly it raises your pulse at the beginning of a final act which doesn't let it subside, and secondly it makes the audience absolutely desperate for the Czech resistance members not to be taken alive during the subsequent action.
I have always been interested in this Operation.I have seen the memorial plaque in the UK.I also saw an exhibition in Prague which commemorated the assassination and the deaths of all those who died as a result.I have to say that I did not like the camera-work where the camera was constantly moving.I think that Operation Daybreak is a better film as it showed a bit of Heydrichs time as Reichsprotector,and the attempts to save him.In fact the film only really gets going one the assassination is begun.The film does score heavily by showing the sheer dread of everyone not just at the repercussions but even knowing about the plot.It is interesting to note that Heydrichs was the only top ranking Nazi to be assassinated by the Allies.They did not seriously contemplate doing this again.Heydrichs was a monster who deserved his fate,but was the price worth it?.
i was always a fan of these types of 'History Channel' documentary like films(also liked the TV series VIKINGS);& was hit by 2 surprises in this movie;in addition to the director(same guy who made Metro Manila!!!);the first shooting took me aback(first 5 minutes of movie);sometimes, a trick question by the gestapo( German dressed up to look like ordinary Czech farmer(?)>>'...you can sleep in the barn;you are welcome to stay,'; Cillian Murphy soon finds out how dangerous it is to land in his mother land,now annexed by the Germans; also the scene where the actual assassination takes place, after casing out the target for several months, & after meticulous planning; the day finally comes; as the German military officer's car rounds the corner,Cillian(Josef gabcik)springs into action: the popular French Resistance weapon,a British Sten gun, which never malfunctions,'malfunctions'!; the hand grenade goes off,but only destroys the vehicle!; the occupants get out & return fire; & the resistance fighters flee for their lives,thinking the plot had completely backfired; Hundreds of SS troops surround the hospital where Heydrich was taken; so he must have survived; but later succumbs to his wounds; 5,000 Czech citizens are rounded up & executed in retaliation...
We follow Jozef and Jan as they make their way to Prague, searching cautiously for their contacts within the Czech Resistance, before stationing themselves into position in order to plan the assassination.Director Sean Ellis delivers a hugely accomplished effort here, in what is essentially a film of two halves.
It's a really interesting true story, so much so that I was eager to see another filmed telling about the plot to assassinate Nazi commander Reinhard Heydrich.
Movie Review: "Anthropoid" (2016)A hauntingly-surprising World-War-II action thriller with historical sophistication directed by Sean Ellis, who also stops denying to operate a fast-rhythmic-passing Super 16mm film camera by Arri Munich Rentals accompanied with superb-looking Hawk V-lite 16 lenses, when editor Richard Mettler puts an engaging cast surrounding freedom fighters Jan Kubis and Josef Gabcik, here match-making from the very first parachute-descends into push-play atmospheric snowy forest actor Jamie Dornan, known for "Fifty Shades of Grey" performing to utmost anxiety-denying beats of war action, when spy agent partner Cillian Murphy, acknowledged for leading Danny Boyle's horror-thriller "28 Days Later" to international successes, as "Anthropoid" continues with a relentless assassination plot in ultra-focused on trafficking Prague daytime streets action scenes to rebounds with fantastic range-playing actor Toby Jones as needed suspense-adding support into a fully-immersive final rebel-stand-off from bullet-storming hallways of city's center church to floated basement confronting inevitable conclusions of Officer-avenging Nazi-oppressors that puts the 20 minute showdown into the major league of being able to compete with any Hollywood comparable.
I am just going to be honest here, don't get mad at me, and I know they were speaking Czech but you could barely understand what they were saying, even if it was English.Anyways the story if you're not familiar with and to be honest I didn't really care about these two guys who plans to assassinate Hitler right-hand man SS General Reinhard Heydrich.If this film wasn't free I wouldn't have even bothered.
ANTHROPOID is based on the true story of 'Operation Anthropoid,' the code name for the Czechoslovakian operatives' mission to assassinate SS officer Reinhard Heydrich, the main architect behind the Final Solution who was the Reich's third in command behind Hitler and Himmler and the leader of Nazi forces in Czechoslovakia.
For those who haven't seen the 1973 film Operation Daybreak, which covers the same story (As will the film Hhhh, also coming out soon) Anthropoid tells the story of the plot to assassinate Hitlers 3rd command, Reinhard Heydrich of the SS, whose job it was to hunt down and kill the remaining few resistance of Czechoslovakia in Prague. |
tt0160910 | Star Wars: Jedi Knight - Dark Forces II | The game is set one year after the events of Return of the Jedi. The player controls Kyle Katarn, who made his first appearance as a mercenary in Dark Forces. On Nar Shaddaa, Katarn meets with an information broker droid named 8t88 who tells Katarn that his father, Morgan Katarn, was killed by a Dark Jedi named Jerec, who also intends to rebuild the Empire under his rule. After a lengthy firefight, Kyle retrieves a disk from 8t88 that can only be read by WeeGee, the Katarn's family droid. The disk's message, coupled with WeeGee giving Kyle a lightsaber, compel Kyle to undertake a journey to confront his father's murderers and discover his own latent Force abilities. While on this journey, Kyle learns that seven Dark Jedi are intent on finding the "Valley of the Jedi", a focal point for the Force and sacred ground for the Jedi. Guided by Qu Rahn, a Jedi Master who survived Order 66 long enough to fight alongside the Rebel Alliance, but was recently cut down by Jerec, who also managed to live on as a force spirit, Kyle must defeat Jerec's Seven Dark Jedi in order to stop Jerec from gaining infinite power.
Katarn retrieves the Valley's location and travels with Rebel Alliance agent and close friend Jan Ors to Ruusan, the planet on which the Valley is located. Jerec captures Ors and offers Katarn the choice to execute her or die. The decision Katarn makes here depends on the player's actions within the game up to this point. If Katarn has remained true to the light path he spares Ors, but if he has fallen to the dark side he kills her. With both paths, Katarn has a final confrontation with Jerec in the Valley of the Jedi's core. If the player chose the light side, the game concludes with Katarn being reunited with Ors and carving a monument to Rahn and his dead father; if the player chose the dark path, the game ends with Katarn becoming the new Emperor. | revenge, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0207485 | Fainaru fantajî II | === Characters ===
Final Fantasy II features four playable characters as well as several secondary characters who are only briefly controlled by the player. Primary characters include Firion (フリオニール, Furionīru, "Frioniel" in the Japanese release and English NES prototype), a resident of the country of Fynn and the main protagonist; Maria (マリア), a soft-spoken archer and dedicated enemy of the Empire; Guy (ガイ, Gai, "Gus" in the remake for the PlayStation), a simple monk who communicates with animals; and Leon (レオンハルト, Reonharuto, "Leonhart" in the Japanese release and English NES prototype), a conflicted dark knight who is missing for most of the game. Five playable characters temporarily join the party to assist Firion, Maria, and Guy in their missions for the rebellion. These are Gordon (ゴードン, Gōdon), the prince of Kas'ion and a member of the rebellion; Josef (ヨーゼフ, Yōzefu), a villager in the town of Salamand; Leila (レイラ, Reira, "Reila" in the Japanese release and English NES prototype), a pirate; Minwu (ミンウ, Min'u, "Mindu" in the PlayStation remake and "Ming-Wu" in the Japanese release and English NES prototype), who is a White Mage with the rebellion, and Ricard Highwind (リチャード・ハイウインド, Richādo Haiuindo, "Gareth" in the PlayStation remake, Edward in the English NES prototype and "Richard" in the Japanese release), who is the first dragoon to appear in the series.
Firion and the Emperor of Palamecia (パラメキア皇帝, Paramekia Kōtei) (named Mateus (マティウス, Matiusu) in Kenji Terada's novelization of the game) are the respective hero and villain representing Final Fantasy II in Dissidia Final Fantasy and Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy, fighting games featuring characters from across the series. Firion is voiced by Hikaru Midorikawa in the Japanese versions and by Johnny Yong Bosch in the English versions; Mateus is voiced by Kenyu Horiuchi in the Japanese versions and Christopher Corey Smith in the English versions. In the PlayStation's opening FMV of Final Fantasy II, Firion is also voiced by Yukimasa Obi, while Maria is played by Noriko Shitaya, Guy by Kenta Miyake, and Leon by Takayuki Yamaguchi.
=== Story ===
Final Fantasy II begins as Firion, Maria, Guy and Leon are attacked by Palamecian Black Knight soldiers and left for dead. Firion, Maria, and Guy are rescued by Princess Hilda, who has established a rebel base in the town of Altair after her kingdom of Fynn was invaded by the Emperor. Hilda denies their request to join the rebel army because they are too young and inexperienced. The three set off for Fynn in search of Leon; there they find a dying Prince Scott of Kashuan, Hilda's fiancé, who informs them that a former knight of Fynn, Borghen, betrayed the rebellion and became a General in the Imperial army. The party returns to Altair to inform Hilda. She allows the group to join the rebellion and asks them to journey north to find mythril, a metal which could be used to create powerful weapons. The party makes its way north to the occupied village of Salamand, saves the villagers forced to work in the nearby mines, and retrieves the mythril.
For their next mission, the party is sent to the city of Bafsk to prevent the construction of a large airship known as the Dreadnought; however, it takes off just as they arrive. After retrieving the Sunfire, a weapon which can blow up the Dreadnought, they watch helplessly as an airship with Hilda on board is captured by the Dreadnought. When the Dreadnought lands to stock up on supplies, the party rescues Hilda and throws the Sunfire into the airship's engine. Before escaping from the explosion, the party encounters a dark knight whom Maria thinks she recognizes as Leon.
On his deathbed, the King of Fynn tasks the party to seek the help of the seemingly extinct dragoons of Deist. In Deist, the party finds only a mother with her son, learning that all but one of the Dragoons are dead, partly as a result of Imperial poison. After placing an egg of the last wyvern in a cavern, the party returns to Altair and rescues Hilda from the Empire a second time, before successfully reclaiming Fynn from the Imperial forces. They then travel west in search of a powerful magic item, joining forces with the last surviving dragoon on the way. The party returns to Fynn and sees that many towns have been destroyed by a cyclone summoned by the Emperor. The party calls upon the newly born last wyvern to take them to a castle inside the cyclone, where they confront and kill the Emperor. Back at Fynn, everyone celebrates the Empire's defeat, but a mortally wounded Fynn soldier arrives and reveals that Leon has taken the throne and plans to destroy the Rebels with the Imperial army.
The party enters the castle of Palamecia and confronts Leon. However, the Emperor reappears in the throne room in a new demonic form, revealing he has returned from Hell with the intention of destroying the entire world. The party and Leon escape Palamecia Castle with the wyvern, as the castle is replaced with the palace of Hell, Pandaemonium. Leon agrees to help the group seal the Emperor away. The party travels to the Jade Passage, an underground passage to the underworld, and finds the portal to Pandaemonium, where they finally defeat the Emperor.
The Dawn of Souls remake of the game for the Game Boy Advance includes an additional mission that takes place after the game, called "Soul of Rebirth". The story of the bonus mission follows several characters who died during the story of the game as they travel through alternate versions of several locations in the game and defeat another version of the Emperor. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | Brilliant.
Final Fantasy II was a game I arrived upon during a mad rush to play every Final Fantasy game that ever was.
I had played 1, 6, 7 and most of 5 when I found it for the NES emulator, completely translated, and it blew me away.
The music is downright haunting, and the plotline, although odd, is totally gripping.
It moves fairly fast, and a few characters die, but it is certainly one of the best games I've ever played..
A very rare and unique gem for Final Fantasy fans!!!.
This review is for Final Fantasy II, the original version.
This is not a review for the American Super Nintendo release, which truly is Final Fantasy IV.For the longest time you could only find Final Fantasy II on the internet through emulators.
The few Americans who got a chance to play it were in for a real treat.
This game was the beginning of the Chocobos and the beginning of the Cid era.
This game is where Final Fantasy began to have some swagger to it.Unlike the first Final Fantasy, or any Final Fantasy game for that matter, this game rid itself of the standard leveling system.
Players don't level up from experience, their skills level up instead.
So if you have a character who you constantly use for physical attacks, that character's physical attacks will level up.
If you constantly use a character for magic attacks, that character's individual spells will level up.
All of your characters can also use magic.
While it is basically impossible to make a good hybrid character, the option is definitely appreciated.
This type of leveling really opens up your strategy options.The story is less rigid than the first Final Fantasy.
There are also more twists and dramatic points.
The characters are much less watered down than the first Final Fantasy installment.
The game also isn't as vague as the first Final Fantasy.
Unlike it's predecessor, Final Fantasy II does a decent job leading you to your next mission or item.
Instead of having to travel the globe speaking to every single character or guessing where you have to go next, this sequel does a nice job guiding you around the game.Final Fantasy II is not without shortcomings.
The game still had the average graphics of its predecessor.
The music was forgettable, but still decent.
The game was also stretched out longer than it probably needed to be.
You still weren't allowed to save in the dungeons, which would have been a nice improvement.This game is definitely an improvement over the first Final Fantasy game.
It's not for everybody, but definitely worth playing if you want to see origins of many Final Fantasy influences.
It might also be beneficial to play the Final Fantasy Origins version of Final Fantasy II.
This Playstation version upgraded the music, graphics, game play, and added a game saving feature to help out in the dungeons..
Clumsiest of Them All. Final Fantasy is one of the game series started in the 80's that suffers from so called Curse of the Second Installment where the second game of the series is weaker than others (other examples from these game series are Super Mario and Legend of Zelda).
It's usually because developers try something new after their best-seller.Story in Final Fantasy II is anything but new.
Rebellion's fight against evil empire of Paramekia (or Palamecia, who knows) feels too much taken from Star Wars.
There is Luke Skywalker-clone, Darth Vader-clone, Emperor-clone, even Deathstar-clone.
Characters are not personalities, bad guys has no clear motives.
It's also annoys that too many characters are so eager to sacrifice themselves.The new part in the game is an unique system where is no experience points or levels.
All skills are developed how often they are used, for example magics become more powerful.
There is a good reason why this system has stayed unique.
Developing any other than attack power is very slow so most of the magics won't receive their fullest potential before the game is over unless players develop their characters day and night.
It's not a problem because dungeons are once again too large and of course, without save points.Game's atmosphere is the reason why there are more than two Final Fantasies.
Nobuo Uematsu's music is good, specially world map music is beautiful and makes forget for short time that's it's only 8-bit voice.
Also monsters are mostly own design and they are mostly not ripped from Greek mythology or AD&D universe.
Only die-hard fans and nostalgics should try this, for others it's not worth of it because of it's clumsiness..
The actual Final Fantasy II video game.
I played the original Final Fantasy on the NES and thought it was an okay game, but nothing I was overly thrilled with and then a few years later I played Final Fantasy II on the SNES and really enjoyed it as it made me a FF fan!
Then years later I find out that the Final Fantasy I played was actually part IV and that there were two FF games I had not played.
Well, three, as Final Fantasy V was also not released in the United States initially either.
So, I got this game on the PSP system and I have finally played through it and have to say I enjoyed it more than I did the first game in the series and I am a bit perplexed as to why it was not released here.
A lot of the earlier role playing games were so vague as to what you were supposed to do.
Look at Hylide, Mother and a host of others, heck, even the original Legend of Zelda was a bit vague at times.
Even on the Sega Master system and Genesis the Fantasy Star series was incredibly vague.
This one actually points you in the right direction, develops a story and you never feel lost.
It also does a better job than its predecessor of creating its characters as they have personality.
Of course, this is just a preference as I had a friend who loved the original game because you could build your team however you wished and he did not like the fourth game while I wasn't wild about the first, but as I've stated loved the fourth game.The story has a group of four youths being taken down as they try to flee their hometown of Flynn.
An evil emperor is trying to take over the world and his soldiers overrun the land.
Three of the four youths find themselves in the rebel hideout where their wounds have been tended to and they are soon begging for the chance to work with the rebels to not only retake Flynn, but stop the emperor and his devious plans which include building a giant flying fortress to rain terror upon the land.
Every time they thwart one of his plans, he devises something new to terrorize the denizens of the world.
Hell itself cannot seem to hold back this fiendish man in his plans to rule the world!
The game play is a bit different than other Final Fantasy games as far as the leveling system goes.
Other than that, it plays out much like any other Final Fantasy game of the era as you go from town to town buying equipment, learning clues and then proceeding through dungeons and caves to try and get what you need to progress.
The leveling though is very different as in this game it is not done on a point system, but rather, if you get hit and lose so many of your hit points your HP at the end of the fight will increase at the end of the battle.
Same with MP and nearly all attributes.
You get targeted by a spell, your magic defense increases and if you use a weapon or spell and their level goes up as well.
It is different, but it is a bit strange too.
By the end of the game the most effective way to increase HP and MP is to literally attack your own players and cast Osmose on them!
So, this FF game was rather good and I am surprised it was never released in the United States when it first came out.
I had to play it on the PSP hand-held system, so that is what my review stems from.
However, I can say that I am pretty sure the graphics and other things were upped in this version of the game as it looks more like an SNES game than a NES game.
Still, I would think the story and stuff are all the same, so I don't believe it to be too vastly different.
Things that appear here that would later return and become series regulars include Cid and Chocobos.
Though the Chocobo does not really factor too much into this one, you could go the entire game without riding it and you don't really miss anything by not using it.
So I enjoyed this game, more story and more reminiscent of the fourth game so it was a nice diversion..
Final Fantasy: A New Hope.
Yes, this plot line is a blatant Star Wars spin off (I'd say rip off...
but it only captures the essence of the world and doesn't use copies of the characters seen in the movie) but the game is solid.
It was fun to play and it was interesting to watch somewhat...
(I loved having one of my main characters as a villain at one part) but great this game is not.
Unless you have an extreme amount of patience or a lot of free time you will spend a long, long, gruelingly long time just leveling up your characters to adequacy.
The idea of a more realistic battle system for use in turn based combat was an excellently cool and fun idea in appearance...
but actual application left me board after the first few battles.
Look, if I wanted to train my hands to be able to hit something harder I'll do it in a gym and not in a video game I play for fun and relaxation.
Yes, this game rocked...
but it wasn't infallibly rocking. |
tt0028203 | Romeo and Juliet | 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, revenge, action, murder | train | wikipedia | ROMEO AND JULIET, the scions of old Verona's two most powerful families, become the playthings of fate & the fools of fortune.This was a Very Big Film for MGM in 1936.
Several choice roles were available for MGM's brightest stars and the part of Juliet would be the desire of every young actress on the lot.Almost predictably the role went to Norma Shearer, who, as Irving Thalberg's wife, could almost pick & choose what she (or Irving) wanted.
A bit giddy at first with puppy love, he quickly matures into a tender lover & vengeful killer, finally willing, like Shearer, to forego all of his Catholic teaching and commit self-murder, thus dooming himself to Perdition.Although decades too old for their roles (Juliet was 12, Miss Shearer 34; Romeo about 16, Mr. Howard was 43) they understand and speak their lines much more beautifully & proficiently than any teenager.
Nor were they the only members of the cast whose ages were rather past the prime.In his only feature length Shakespearean film, John Barrymore amply displays his celebrated talent in a bravura performance as an aging, sottish Mercutio.
Aubrey Smith & Violet Kemble Cooper are colorful as Juliet's parents.At first blush, Andy Devine seems an odd choice for a Shakespearean production, but he is very competent as the Nurse's simpleminded servant.Somewhat lost in this excellent cast is English actor Ralph Forbes in the rather thankless role of the County Paris.
He would have made a great Romeo.Movie mavens will spot Katherine DeMille as the fair Rosaline (her cousin Agnes de Mille was the film's choreographer) and Ian Wolfe as the impoverished apothecary, both uncredited.The film has wonderful production values - the sets, costumes and background score (borrowing themes from Tchaikovsky) all of the highest quality.
For years, I put off watching this version of Shakespeare's classic love story, knowing that all the main players were about thirty years too old for their roles.
Finally, when the film came on late on night, I decided to take a look, because I do admire the work of so many of the players.Provided you can put aside the problems of the ages of the actors, the result is a very pleasant surprise.
The biggest surprise for me was the performance of Norma Shearer - I've always liked her work, but considered her rather lightweight for Shakespeare.
Her age became irrelevant; this was a young girl new to love, completely swept off her feet and ready to surrender all - for the first time.Leslie Howard was also comfortable with the Shakespearean dialogue, if slightly lacking the boyish passion we rightly expect to see.
His lovely voice delivered the lines with ease and fluency.John Barrymore's Mercutio was much more the ageing playboy than the dashing young blade, but his sure touch with the dialogue showed clearly why he was considered the preeminent Shakespearean actor of his day in America.
His body was way too old, but his spirit lacked nothing.Flora Robson came near to stealing most of her scenes, as she so often did, and Basil Rathbone was fully at home in the role of Tybalt; fine performances from these two, as we would expect from their backgrounds.It was, to my mind, rather over-produced, with the actors in danger of being lost in the expansive sets, but remembering that had these actors been performing on stage, we wouldn't bat an eyelid at their ages, they provide us with an engrossing experience and deliver a play that even the experts couldn't fault..
Despite the fact we have a 47 year old Romeo, a 36 year old Juliet, and a 54 year old Mercutio; George Cukor's production for MGM of Romeo and Juliet manages to entertain and well.Of course these protagonists are all teenagers, but these players have all played romantic parts in an age when romance was not something to be cynical about and they do fit their roles well.
No Romeo was ever more dashing than Leslie Howard or a Juliet as passionate as Norma Shearer.John Barrymore as Mercutio is a bit of an exception.
That would be Falstaff in Henry IV in both parts and if you think of Barrymore's Mercutio in that way, his interpretation makes a lot of sense.My favorite in this film has always been Tybalt and Basil Rathbone plays him with fire and passion.
It's a lesson people and nations could learn.Norma Shearer got an Oscar nomination for playing Juliet, but lost to Luise Rainer in The Great Ziegfeld as Best Actress.
George Cukor and the film itself also were up, but lost for best director and best picture.Andy Devine plays the small part of Peter, a Capulet servant and I'm sure you're wondering what Andy Devine was doing in Shakespeare.
The fine cast and production make this adaptation of "Romeo & Juliet" a satisfying one, both as a movie and as a realization of Shakespeare's play.
Most of the cast is matched up very well with their characters, and the lavish settings provide a good backdrop for the drama.Although it's soon clear that Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer are quite a bit older than the original characters were, in other respects they are well cast.
Shearer's eager innocence and Howard's refinement fit together well, and although they are clearly not the teenage characters of the original, their romance is believable and convincing in itself.The other roles include some nice casting.
Reginald Denny as the loyal Benvolio, Basil Rathbone as the hard-hearted Tybalt, and Edna May Oliver as Juliet's bustling nurse are all enjoyable to watch.
But the highlight of the cast is John Barrymore, who steals every scene as the fun-loving, ill-fated Mercutio, a character who is well-suited to Barrymore's strengths.
It's a blessing that at least one of Barrymore's numerous Shakespearean roles was captured in a film for posterity.The script abridges many of the scenes for cinematic purposes, and it does well in fleshing out the basic story with the duels, festivities, and other events, at times also dramatizing developments that in the original text are only mentioned by the characters.
The lavish treatment given to this by MGM and Irving Thalberg (his final production showcasing his wife Norma Shearer as Juliet) does work, as do the mature lovers and their supporting cast (Leslie Howard fitting the part of Romeo perfectly, John Barrymore and Basil Rathbone out-swashing each other as Mercutio and Tybalt), Edna May Oliver as the Nurse, typically loud, and Ralph Forbes as a bizarre Paris (no, I can't see why Juliet would want to marry him either, despite her parents' wishes).
The Best of Cinema's ROMEO AND JULIETs. This is quite simply the best version of Shakespeare's beloved tragic drama that has ever hit the screen.
By casting Norma Shearer (around 36) and Leslie Howard (over 40) as the two, M-G-M lost the supreme youth, but gained a near-perfect asset of understanding of the characters.
As Tybalt, a role cut down from the original length but nonetheless impressive, Basil Rathbone is astonishing; he earned a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his work here.
Far superior to Zeferelli's version, and any other one I've seen, George Cukor's Romeo and Juliet is another masterpiece from one of the all-time great directors, who helmed such classic, well-regarded productions as Dinner at Eight, David Copperfield, The Philadelphia Story, and Adam's Rib..
While I was looking for new materials to help teach "Romeo and Juliet," I found the 1936 version of the play and naturally I was intrigued.
I'm assuming that most people know the basic plot and have seen other versions of the film, if this is not the case you may want to stop reading and keep the surprise for viewing.This version is faithful if not to the exact order of all the dialogue then to the acts and scenes written by Shakespeare.
However, the death of Lady Montague is omitted.The movie leaves a little to be desired by modern audiences and the typical class of high school freshman many need some heavy prep work to get them ready to view "black and white" and "old" as something other than "lame." But, I think that segments of the film would be well worth showing to the class and viewed as a treat and not a torture when it's not the whole product being shoved down in one lump.I recommend checking it out as an additional resource to add a balanced movie perspective to the characters Shakespeare created.
Sumptuous sets and costumes, good swordplay and only Shakespeare's words make this movie a pleasure for those who know the play..
Thalberg, who was showcasing his wife, Norma Shearer, playing Juliet: two years of research, a crew sent to Verona to photograph parts of the city; reconstruction of Verona's Church of San Zeno on the back-lot; thousands of extras; beautiful costumes and sets, etc.
(On the other hand, I studied Hamlet and Macbeth in school and relish watching movie versions of those plays.) Still, I enjoyed this film, since I knew the general story, and there were sections that didn't tax my knowledge of Shakespearean English.
The title characters were supposed to be teenagers, so that both Leslie Howard (at 54) and Norma Shearer (at 31) were a bit old for their parts, but that was a minor point.
This version of Shakespeare's ROMEO AND JULIET was very famous in its day, and a number of critics that I greatly admire continue to praise it even now.
On the stage, Shakespeare's star-crossed lovers are usually played by mature actors in full command of both Shakespearean language and their own art, and the physical distance between the stage and the audience allows the cast to create the illusion of youth.
But the camera is merciless, particularly in close up, and this film production presents us with the middle-aged Leslie Howard, Norma Shearer, John Barrymore, and Basil Rathbone in roles that would be better served on the screen by much younger players.To give the cast its due, several of the stars fought tooth and nail against making the film--most notably Leslie Howard, who even went so far as give press interviews stating that he was much too old to play Romeo in a screen production.
All of this might be forgiven if the stars actually generated any sense of passion, but they do not--and it is really here that their ages tell, for instead of the white-hot passions of youth that lead to disaster we have instead a gentle love story with an unhappy ending.Still, the film really is pretty to look at--it has an engraved quality in its glossy black and white--and if you close your eyes, you can enjoy the 'grand manner' readings, which is a great deal more than one can say for most cinematic Shakespearean interpretations.
There is also Edna May Oliver's performance, and she is excellent in the role of Juliet's babbling nurse.Fans of this film's stars will no doubt wish to add it to their library, and those interested in seeing how Hollywood approached Shakespeare in the 1930s will enjoy seeing it at least once--but I would hesitate to recommend this film to any one outside that circle.
In her opening scene, she gushily keeps herself wide-eyed and smiling--all the time acting innocent, while Olivia Hussey and other screen Juliets don't have to act innocent: they are innocent.That said, this film has much to offer, despite its lacking the passion of other more recent versions.
However, don't believe producer Thalberg's ballyhoo that every word spoken in this film is from Shakespeare's play: it isn't, although it's close..
And I imagine that, even with Shakespeare, there would have been some complaints about showing a 14-year-old girl having sex with a 16-year-old-boy back then, and theaters might have been raided if they used actors of that age to play the roles.
Yes, the stage lends distance to our acceptance of such characters' ages, and if you think Barrymore at 54 was old for Mercutio, please be advised that in 2016, that character was played on the London stage by Derek Jacobi, 78 at the time!
As for those two, I've always loved Howard but feel that this is one of the least impressive film performances he ever gave, whereas I think Juliet may be Shearer's best film performance - and I think she looks a lot younger than her 34 years here anyway.
Barrymore, who was past his 40th birthday when he first did his famous Hamlet on the stage, is properly hammy here, but I couldn't understand much of him in his set speeches (like the Queen Mab one), and I always love Edna May Oliver, but also couldn't understand much of her dialogue.
There isn't any real new opinion I can share with regards to George Cukor's version of "Romeo and Juliet".
This is a story of transcendent, evanescent love, and having it be slow and anemic doesn't do it justice IMO.In short, the 1936 version may be the most literal, but the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann films both are more faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet"..
Norma Shearer gives the strength to Juliet that Leslie Howard Lacks in Romeo.Barrymore was by the time of this movie considered to be washed up in Hollywood.
Aside from that, if you can get past the studio-built sets and the fact that this film offers a forty year old Romeo and a fifty-four(!) year-old Mercutio with a slight paunch, the acting is excellent, though not nearly as passionate as the acting in the 1968 Zeffirelli version--these "teen-agers" seem rather formal and polite.
Why did they cast people who were old enough to be Romeo and Juliet's parents?
Next time, watch the 1968 version where Romeo and Juliet are actually played by teenagers.
This can and does work in some pictures (for example Anne Bancroft only being a little older than Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate), but for Romeo and Juliet it essential that we get that impression of flighty, passionate young lovers whose eventual demise is a tragic waste of life.But there is worse yet than Shearer and Howard.
Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard play Shakespeare's star-crossed young lovers Juliet Capulet and Romeo Montague.
As this version of "Romeo and Juliet" is a relatively faithful adaptation of Shakespeare's original play, the ages of the characters are relevant; thus, Ms. Shearer, Mr. Howard, and others are, obviously, too old for the parts.
******* Romeo and Juliet (8/20/36) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, John Barrymore, Basil Rathbone.
Some very fine actors - John Barrymore may have been drunk much of the time, but he still gives a memorable performance as Mercutio.
This movie is often impressive, but, for me, it was never magical.Some will criticize the casting of Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer as Romeo and Juliet.
She very much overdoes Juliet, to my eyes, though I could see a teen-age girl acting just the same way.If you like the play, or even if you don't, watch this movie once.
An enjoyably lavish version of the classic play, it is gloriously shot in simple black and white, and good locations, sets and costumes provide a great feel for both the time and setting.
The production and direction were both wonderful but there are some things that didn't click with the movie.The casting was poor and the actors in the film were well over the ages of 14 and 15, especially Leslie Howard (Romeo), Norma Shearer (Juliet), and John Barrymore (Mercutio).
The acting wasn't poor but is somewhat mediocre except for John Barrymore's portrayal of Mercutio, one of Romeo's friends.This is a great movie but if you want a much better adaptation of Shakespeare's romantic tragedy, rent Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version of it with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey instead..
Romeo and Juliet (1936) *** (out of 4) Perhaps the greatest story known, MGM didn't spare any money in this lavish production of William Shakespeare's play and they were rewarded with a major hit and four Oscar-nominations.
Norma Shearer, 35-years-old at the time, and Leslie Howard, 42-years-old, were cast as teenage lovers Romeo and Juliet and one would have a laughing fit seeing how old they were for their roles but that really doesn't matter because the two are so great in the roles that you can overlook their age.
The main reason to watch this film are the wonderful performances by the all-star cast.
Shearer and Howard are way, way, way too old for their roles and the first time you see them it will somewhat catch you off guard because these are suppose to be teenagers after all.
NOTES: Romeo and Juliet was nominated for the following prestigious Hollywood awards (actual winners in brackets): Best Picture (The Great Ziegfeld); Norma Shearer, Best Actress (Luise Rainer in The Great Ziegfeld); Basil Rathbone, Best Supporting Actor (Walter Brennan in Come and Get It); Gibbons, Hope and Willis (only!), Best Art Direction (Richard Day for Dodsworth).
Shakespeare would have thought Howard was the right age for the part (even though Romeo is supposed to be a teenage youth) but found his impersonation too under-stated, lacking passion, fire and color.
Brilliantly directed by George Cukor, this Romeo and Juliet is easily the finest Shakespeare on film.
Could they not find any octogenarian actors to play the teenage roles of Romeo and Juliet?
Aubrey Smith, Reginald Denny, and Edna May Oliver, whose old-fashioned New England is easily transposed into Elizabethan English via fair Verona.The two leads -- Leslie Howard as Romeo and Norma Shearer as Juliet -- are problematic.
And she's less convincing than Leslie Howard, but that may be only because British accents seem so much more fitting.John Barrymore as Mercutio is WAY too old for the part but is nevertheless in a class by himself.
Not a great success commercially or critically at the time of its release, even now this version seems hated upon by many, mainly because the leads are much too old to be playing teenagers and the film is so covered in MGM gloss that it occasionally seems almost vulgar. |
tt0289800 | O Clone | In the early 1980s, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Jade (Giovanna Antonelli), a young Muslim girl is orphaned when her mother dies and has to go to Morocco where her uncle Alí lives. The problem is that Jade was living in a country with a culture very different from that of an Islamic country. Thus, once she arrives in Morocco, she must learn all concomitant new traditions and customs, adjust to her new way of living, and face all the punishments she will be exposed to because of her conflicting personality and actions that go against her religion.
Back in Rio, a well-off family, the Ferraz, go to vacation in Morocco. Twin brothers Lucas and Diogo Ferraz (Murilo Benício), along with Leônidas (Reginaldo Faria), their father, and doctor Augusto Albieri (Juca de Oliveira), friend of the family and genetic scientist, visit Alí, a friend of Albieri's. There, Lucas and Jade meet for the first time, and they fall in love at first sight. Jade, knowing it's haraam (a sin) to love Lucas, decides to forgo her religious mandates for the sake of love, which prohibit her from marrying a non-religious person. In desperation, Jade and Lucas resolve to run away to Brazil.
Meanwhile, in Rio, Diogo tragically dies in a helicopter crash. Both Lucas and Leônidas are devastated by the news and Lucas' plans of running away with Jade are subsequently ruined. Albieri, his godparent, is shattered and becomes deeply despondent. He never recovered fully from the death of his fiancée, and Diogo's death reinvigorates his distress.
In an effort to change the natural course of events, Albieri in his despair resolves to utilize Lucas' cell in order to make the first human clone. Deusa (Adriana Lessa), a low-middle class woman who has not been able to get pregnant, is subsequently inseminated with Lucas' cell, and as a result gives birth to a baby, not knowing that it is a clone. Léo is born without complications, but Albieri wants to stay close to Léo and watch him grow up. Léo gradually becomes attached to Albieri, thus making Deusa uneasy.
Several years have passed since Léo was born. Now, Jade is married to Saíd (Dalton Vigh) and she's a mother of a little child, Khadija (Carla Diaz). She lives happily with her new family and is even starting to love Saíd. However, due to Said's insecurities a new encounter with Lucas is forced upon her to test Jade's love for him, with this encounter the old passion revives, but they're not the young lovers they once were and now they have new lives and new responsibilities. Lucas, who also is married, to Maysa (Daniela Escobar) and with a daughter, Mel (Débora Falabella) doesn't know he had been cloned 20 years before. Albieri had kept this a secret from everybody's knowledge and is trying to make it so that Léo and Lucas never meet and thus find out the truth. The last thing Albieri knew from Léo is that he and Deusa went to the north of Brazil, but with the return of both, Léo has become a young, handsome man, and the living image of the young Lucas whom Jade met in Morocco. The appearance of Leo in Brazil and his later travels to Morocco will change the life of all the characters forever. | romantic | train | wikipedia | The best soap opera of the beginning of 21st century.
Topics like drugs, two similar religions, forbidden love and ethics are mixed by Gloria Perez very well..
What do you get when you mix the story of two young lovers and the making of a human clone?
You get an interesting story by way of a Brazilian telenovela (soap opera) called O CLONE (The Clone).Known for incorporating social issues into her stories, Glória Perez includes the following topics in her latest telenovela: Drug addiction, Middle Eastern culture (Muslim lifestyle), and science fiction (human cloning).
Given the current news headlines of cloning and the Middle East, the telenovela becomes even more important and gives cause for discussion after viewing each episode.O CLONE takes the viewer to two striking locations - modern-day Brazil and Morocco.
The two main characters are introduced - Jade, a headstrong Muslim girl from Morocco and Lucas, a docile, daydreamer from Brazil with a Catholic religious background.
In addition to their story, a scientist creates a human clone after a loved one prematurely dies.
This clone later becomes an important part of the lives of Jade and Lucas.The viewer gets a chance to see a Muslim household and what goes on there.
Despite the differences between the cultures - Christian and Muslim, it becomes clear that there are many similarities such as one's love of family and the desire to find happiness.Veteran novela director, Jayme Monjardim and his team have produced an outstanding product with O CLONE.
His handiwork shows beautiful close-ups of the actors and enchanting shots of the land and cityscape of Morocco and Brazil.
He skillfully captures both places.The lead actress, Giovanna Antonelli (Jade), gives a believable presentation as the Muslim girl, torn between following her true heart's desire and the dictates of her family to marry the man chosen for her.
Lead actor, Murilo Benício (Lucas) also gives a winning performance as the young man who has fallen in love with a girl from a different society who his family will not accept.
Benício plays three different roles - twins and the clone.
Each character is different and convincing.The rest of the cast also gives strong performances.
Actually the cast list goes on I'm sure you get the idea.
All the actors are good.O CLONE captured the attention of over 18 million viewers in Brazil.
For the first time in the history of telenovelas shown in the U.S., English sub-titles (closed caption) have been included.
Now, non-Spanish speakers have a chance to enjoy the story as well.In addition to an arresting and sometimes controversial storyline, the telenovela has a fun music soundtrack full of Brazilian and Middle Eastern music.
Thanks to musical director, Marcus Viana, the music adds to the success of the novela as a whole.O CLONE is one of those telenovelas that doesn't waste your time.
I highly recommend this Brazilian soap opera for your viewing pleasure..
I normally don't watch things that are dubbed into another language: It annoys me to not know whether the dubbing actor's voice matches that of the one on screen, and it also bothers me that emotional nuances of the original actors' performances could be lost in translation.
I made an exception for El Clon (as it was called in the US) and I'm glad I did.We don't normally get a look at Muslim family values in the US, and many who have not watched this excellent novela will never know the fascinating things to be learned from it.
The misogyny that infects people in the fundamentalist countries is absent from the Muslim characters, who rejoice at the birth of healthy daughters and love them as much as their sons.
Other issues are touched upon including the practice of FGM (not in the Qur'an and condemned by Tio Ali as an antiquated barbaric tribal practice), veiling, arranged marriages, divorce and child custody issues, the actual Muslim viewpoint on marital sex (very good news here), and inter cultural relations.
Tio Ali is one of the most endearing characters in the story as the philosophical uncle of the impulsive and headstrong Jade.
He does not take advantage of what Tio Ali tells us in a late episode is the greatest gift to man: the right to think.
For that reason, he sometimes rails at the ideas of others in a most annoying manner.Related issues are presented in contrast in the larger Brazilian community as the Brazilian characters court, marry, commit adultery, move up or down socially, deal with substance abuse, and attempt to endure the slings and arrows of their own outrageous fortune.
In the end we are asking ourselves whether a social structure is worth bowing to when the personal human cost is as high as the price paid by Lucas, Jade, Maysa, Said, and the people affected by their fates.The comic relief in this series is brilliant and is sometimes expressed in small, unexpected moments.
A good example is the scene in Rio where Mohamed suddenly gets hungry while seeing a man eating a sandwich on the street during Ramadan, a sight he realizes he would never see back home in Morocco.
The one story fault here is that there is no adequate explanation for her unmarried state in a culture where most people are married off in their late teens and early twenties, unless we conclude that Tio Abdul knew that she would make any husband's life miserable in the long term.The social and ethical issues about human cloning are well-presented although not dealt with on the human level until late in the story: Does a clone have parents and who are they?
What of the person whose cells were used to make the clone, especially if he did not consent to the procedure?
She is in deep denial about the fact that there is something incredibly wrong when she gives birth to an infant who is so racially different from herself, but loves that child intensely, protecting him like a lioness with a cub.
He is one of the most intriguing minor characters as the Egyptian-born Muslim who straddles both cultures socially while emotionally probably belonging more to the non-Muslim world than he thinks he does.
He is the emotional flip side of Jade in addition to being the most sexually charismatic of the male characters in this story.The entire production is visually stunning, with big-screen style images both of Brazil and Morocco, and a music soundtrack worthy of an epic film.
Did every belly dancer in Rio and Fez get a chance to appear in this series?While Mexican novelas manipulate you emotionally, this Brazilian production makes you think.
I have also seen this soap opera twice, I just love the settings, the views, the locations, the story and the people in it!
In the beginning I got hooked up by the scenery, the story was just too sweet and plain, then it started to change, I learned about muslims and the way they live, and how everything made sense.
20 years later, the characters slightly changed, and a new neighborhood added new dimension to the story development.
I hated Lucas; because of him, his relationship with Jade never took off.
something good about, as told by a soap-opera's anti-fan.
I have always hated south-american soap-operas, but this show is better than Dallas.
It has an interesting subject, good actors, absolutely gorgeous scenes, and the music...
It' also nice to see Islamic people presented as human, and not as "terrorist beasts".The only thing that bothers me is that the show has so many episodes, and I foresee that many more will follow (at his date - Dec '02 - we are watching the episodes where Xande is falsely accused by Maysa of steeling her necklace).
In experts' hands this original plot might have made an extremely good soap opera..
The idea of producing a cloned human being, watch this creature grow up to become a twenty-year-old man, and eventually see him meet his genetic `twin brother' is an original plot in itself.
Having a few romantic and adult sub-plots added, and a great deal of the whole story taking place in the context of Muslim religious and cultural background in Brazil and in Morocco, can certainly complicate a director's task.
Gloria Perez's `O Clone' is certainly well above most soap operas shown on TV.
The actors and actresses give good performances, the main plot is original, and the Muslim background adds a curious atmosphere, at least to a non-Muslim audience.
At a certain point, however, Miss Perez seems to have lost grip of the situation, getting lost in the midst of so many intricate and intertwined sub-plots which, one would think, she doesn't know how to end..
The best Brazilian series of all time.
I love this series, is best for television that has been done in latinomarica, simple as that.
The performances are perfect, credible, too real, especially highlighting the actors Murilo Benicio (Lucas / Leo / Diogo), Giovanna Antonelli (Jade) and Débora Falabella (Mel), among others.The music is perfect, the songs in Spanish and Arabic very well selected, the scenery is spectacular, the shots are majestic, the issues it addresses as the clash of cultures and drug problems were well tackled.In conclusion, it was worth seeing the 250 chapters, indeed, when repeated on television here in Chile saw her again complete.My vote: 10 star..
the great virtue is the mix between science and Oriental flavors.the second - love stories.
and, sure, soap - opera tools.
a seductive series who impresses for its courage to use so many different ingredients.
a large fresco with nice performances - the work of Murilo Benicio is admirable -, good options of team for interesting themes and a lovely story who has the force to be more than a part of a long South American soap operas list..
This soap opera is about to end here in Prishtina, but even though it has not finished yet I can wright a short summary based on what I saw and what I thought is worth saying.
The thing I find most useful is the damage caused by drugs in social/health life and the horrible consequences that a person has to take after starting to use drugs and the suffering he/she causes to the family, him/herself and the entire society.
The other thing worth mentioning is the human cloning, though the idea of cloning sounds fascinating at first, the consequences are not the ones the mankind would like to have.
Or actually the father of the person who's cell has been used to make the human clone..?
I guess I would feel very bad in that case (being a human clone) and the idea of seeing myself younger/older would make me proper sick.
Otherwise the fate/love stories are just fairy tales to make the audience (women most) to watch the soap operas though the audience can learn a lot of things from "O Clone".
As usual, actors gave us the best performance, that's why I try to watch as most Brazilian novels as I can.
They have really good actors, even the youngest.
But from all in this novel, Murillo Benicio performed the very best three actor's personalities.
I visited Morocco and this touched me the most, to review their lives and musics.
That's why I do need your help as I'd like to know the name of the Arabian dance/music heard during Said's marriage scene (I think the second marriage) sung by a woman dancing and followed up by another dancers.
O clone, the best ever!.
I am watching O clone, now, on one of our channels, and I am in love with it.
It is the most beautiful soap operas I have ever seen.
Great story, beautiful make up, interesting plots, good actors, a lot of mystery, and deep looks.
But I watched it a couple of years ago, and I do not remember who Zein is, why on earth Jade marries him, and what impact does it have on Lucas's life?
I also love the marrocan lifestyle, their clothing, their houses, even if in this story they showed the house of one of the best families from there.
Atypical soap opera.
I watched it as a kid and skipped through some episodes now and I maintain my opinion that this isn't your typical South American soap opera.
The main theme, the leitmotif of this story is "morality" and the different approaches of it.
There are multiple conflicts going on and, as the fight is a spiritual and mental one, we could devide it into ethos, logos and pathos, meaning, in this case, the authority of the Muslim religion (Ali - who's the father figure), science and facts (Albieri) and passion (Jade and Lucas).
A thing that is kind of overlooked is Xande's love for Mel. Maybe the most selfless and sincere of all..
A very good soap opera..
So I watched "The Clone" at least three times.
I watched the first time it was broadcast in Portugal, around 1998, and on two other occasions, in which the soap opera was reprized.
I can say that it is one of the best soap operas ever made by Brazilians.The story takes place in Morocco and essentially portrays two stories that intersect.
The first concerns the impossible love between Jade, a Muslim girl, and Lucas, a Westerner.
The second story concerns Dr. Albieri, a reputed geneticist who is obsessed with human cloning and who, against all the ethical rules of his profession, creates the first human clone and implants it in the belly of one of his patients, the young Deusa, who wanted only to be a mother through artificial insemination.The soap opera has good and bad moments.
There are more improbable scenes but the good construction of the story makes us ignore that.
Much of it was filmed in Brazil but there are many scenes that were actually filmed in Morocco.
There is still an extension of the soap opera where drugs and addiction subject is introduced, in a somewhat abrupt and uninteresting way.
Several Brazilian good actors were in this work but I would emphasize, for their good performance, Murilo Benício, Vera Fischer, Reginaldo Faria, Letícia Sabatella and Stênio Garcia..
the exoticism does the great difference between The Clone and the other soap operas.
not the last, the clash between civilizations, mixture of tradition and Brazilian life style, the old themes - love, jealousy, romanticism, science against life, joy to discover the sounds and colors and flavors of a land who seems be part of myths, all is beautiful, seductive and impressive.
a series about truth and appearances, using good actors and interesting script, it is a sort of fairy tale who could define in other manner the soap opera genre..
This soap opera is the best I have ever seen, and believe me I have seen many.
It is romantic but it also informs people about other cultures of the world that were previously ignored.
I would say that this soap opera is soooo good that it doesn't need the so called stars rating because this soap is on a totally different level..
I have to say I am Mexican and therefore I am used to the same storyline for a novela but O Clone captured me with only the previews, before it even started I already wanted to watch it.
I always admired Brazil for their soccer team, beautiful paradise, and now for their work.
This novela leaves you wanting more and wishing that it would keep going not just a restricted time at night, you want to see the whole entire thing all at once.
But my respects to the director, Giovanna Antonelli, Murilo Benicio, the rest of the cast and crew for the great work.
Nothing but the best from Brazil.
Brazilian TV is never going to be the same after "O Clone".
A fascinating and exotic story, that mix things like human cloning, the muslim culture and drug/alcohol addiction problems.
O Clone/El Clon has reached its end here in Brazil last Friday.
Obviously, I'm not gonna tell what happened, but I'd like to add that regarding Leo (El Clon) it was a fair ending, considering no one could really tell what would've happened to a real clon!
This could be explained because it came in the perfect moment, not only because the human cloning is a recent issue, but also because it premiered 1 month after the attacks of September 11th, when the curiosity about the Muslim culture reached the highest levels.
The campaign of author Gloria Perez against the drug and alcohol addiction, featuring 2 teenage characters, Mel and Nando, also was a great success and is helping to show people about all the bad things that come along with the pleasure that drugs bring.
I'm watching El Clon, and its the best novela there is today.
Its the most romantic and passionate novela I have ever seen in television.
The passion in the actors is so amazing.
Great work to all who where involved in EL Clon.
'O Clone' is an amazing soap.
It's one of very few soaps which can make you thinking.
I love the Portuguese language, the actors are amazing and the whole soap is great.
250 episodes is maybe too much but actually i wish that it never ended.
and Giovanna Antonelli *Jade* has been in Sarajevo (: One of the things i really like about the soap, is that it's not only about Brazilians and Muslims, but also about many other things like: drugs, love etc.
For example there is some times when there's happening some weird things which is not realistic.
And there is also some things i don't like in the soap.
And personally i don't like the idea about that Edna thinks that Albieri and Amalia have something together.
i think that the soap is fantastic, and it made me begin learning Portuguese. |
tt0068278 | Die bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant | Petra von Kant (Carstersen) is a prominent fashion designer based in Bremen. The film is almost totally restricted to her apartment's bedroom, decorated by a huge reproduction of Poussin's Midas and Bacchus (c.1630), which depicts naked and partially clothed men. The room also contains numerous life-size mannequins for her work, though only her assistant Marlene (Hermann) is shown using them.
Petra's marriages have ended in death or divorce. Her first husband Pierre was a great love, who died in a car accident while Petra was pregnant; the second began the same way, but ended in disgust. Petra lives with Marlene, another designer, whom she treats as a slave, and this relationship reveals Petra's sadistic, codependent tendencies.
Von Kant is shown being awoken by Marlene. She begins her day and gets dressed while her assistant attends to her. Von Kant makes a phone call to her mother, makes demands of Marlene (including slow-dancing), and dons a brown wig just before she receives a visitor.
Petra talks to Sidonie (Schaake), her cousin, about her male relationships. Meanwhile, Marlene does the work and acts as hostess. Karin Thimm (Schygulla), Sidonie's friend, joins the women. Karin, newly returned to Germany after residing in Sydney for five years, is a desirable 23-year-old woman. Petra, immediately attracted to Karin at this first meeting, suggests Karin becomes a model. Karin agrees to return the following day.
Petra quickly falls madly in love with Karin. The next day, with Marlene showing clearer signs of frustration, but still typing, Petra, now wearing a larger and dark wig, offers to support Karin while she trains to be a model. Karin's husband has remained in Sydney, though Petra is only momentarily put off by this revelation. The women soon show their incompatibility. Petra had a happy childhood and came from a home where the good things in life were always stressed. Karin's father was a toolmaker, and she always felt neglected by her parents. Petra loved mathematics and algebra at school, but Karin could never understand arithmetic and the point of substituting letters for numbers. Petra has a daughter, whom she rarely sees, but reassures herself that her daughter is at the best possible boarding school.
Karin's parents are now both dead. She says people reject her when they find out about her history, but Petra now admits to a great affection for her, even stronger after having heard her family history. Petra orders Marlene to get a bottle of Sekt. Karin goes into more detail about her parents' death. Her father was laid off because of his age. In a drunken stupor, he killed Karin's mother and then hanged himself. Karin feels she has drifted in her life; her husband in Sydney treated her as a slave and offered no reprieve from her past, but Petra insists this is about to change. Marlene returns with the bottle of Sekt in a tumbler, silently returns to her typing, and the other two women toast each other. Petra promises to make Karin a great model. Marlene, previously hidden by a curtain, stops typing and glares at Petra. While listening to a record, Petra says life is predestined, people are brutal and hard, and everyone is replaceable. Petra, discovering the expense of Karin's hotel, suggests she move in with her. Marlene resumes her typing, but after Karin agrees to move in with Petra, she is ordered to bring more Sekt. While Petra admits to being in love with Karin, Karin herself can only say she likes Petra. Six months or so pass.
Petra, resplendent in a red wig, is getting dressed, while Karin is in bed reading a colour magazine. Petra cancels a flight to Madrid over the telephone, a habit which Karin thinks is pointless, and Petra orders Marlene to find her shoes. Karin thinks Marlene is strange, but Petra reassures her that Marlene loves her. Karin still cannot say she loves Petra. Karin's own capacity for cruelty emerges while the two drink gin and tonic together. The previous night, Karin had been out until 6am, and admits to having slept with a man, though she keeps changing her precise story. Petra is jealous and shouts at Marlene. Freddy, Karin's husband, telephones from Zurich. It emerges they have been in contact by letter, and Karin is no longer planning on gaining a divorce, and she is rejoining her husband. Petra calls her a "rotten little whore", and Karin responds that being with Petra is less strenuous than walking the streets. She asks Petra to book a flight to Frankfurt, where she is to meet her husband, and asks for 500DM from Petra, though Petra freely gives her twice that. Marlene drives Karin to the airport; Petra is now too drunk to drive.
On Petra's birthday, the bedroom is almost empty. Petra, lying on the floor and now wearing a blond wig, is drinking heavily while assuming that Karin, her object of love and hate, will phone. Her daughter Gaby (Eva Mattes) arrives. Petra tells her little; Gaby admits to being in love with a young man, though so far it is unrequited. Sidonie appears with a birthday present: a doll with a blond hair like Karin's. She admits to knowing Karin is in Bremen that day. Petra's mother Valerie (Gisela Fackeldey) is subjected to abuse in her turn. Petra accuses her of being a whore who never worked and lived off her husband. Petra tramples on the china tea service Marlene had brought in; she insists on smashing anything she has bought. She insists she is not crazy about Karin, but loved her. She claims Karin's little finger is worth all of them put together. Her mother, previously unaware of Karin, is shocked at the thought of her daughter being in love with another woman. Petra rejects Sidonie and hopes not to see her again, but Sidonie stays.
Later, Petra lies in bed without a wig, her natural auburn hair on display. She is apologetic to her mother, and realizes she wanted to possess Karin rather than love her. Karin rings from Paris, offering the chance that they will perhaps meet again. Petra turns to Marlene after her mother has left, and admits she has to apologize to her for many things. It will be different from now on, Petra promises, adding that she will share her life with Marlene. But Marlene, who has satisfied her personal masochistic desire in submitting to Petra, packs her small suitcase, leaves and takes the doll with her. | violence, murder, sadist, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0083909 | The Executioner's Song | The movie is about the final nine months of the life of Gary Gilmore, beginning with his release from prison at the age of 35 after serving 12 years for robbery in Indiana. He is allowed to fly to Utah to live with Brenda Nicol, a distant cousin who was close to him and agrees to sponsor him. She tries to help him get back to normal life, which he finds extremely difficult after being in prison for so long. He soon moves to live with his uncle Vern, with whom he works in shoe repair, and his wife. Gilmore moves on to another job, at an insulation factory, where he performs well at first, but starts to have erratic hours and contentious relations with co-workers.
Gilmore meets and becomes romantically involved with Nicole Baker, a 19-year-old separated woman with two young children. Despite his efforts to reform himself, Gilmore begins to fight, steal items from stores, and abuse alcohol and drugs. The people who care for him are distressed to see these patterns re-emerge.
Nicole breaks up with him after he hits her and goes into hiding with her children. Gilmore soon murders two men in two separate robberies over two days. His cousin Brenda tells police she suspects he is involved, and he is taken into custody. He is convicted of one of the murders and sentenced to death under a state law designed to accommodate the US Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, which found most state laws on capital punishment to constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," prohibited under the Constitution. States worked to revise their laws.
While his attorneys, the ACLU and his family try to persuade Gilmore to pursue more appeals, he argues to have the sentence carried out and becomes a national media sensation. Publishers and reporters vie to buy his story and film rights. The night before his death, family, friends and lawyers join him for a party on death row. On January 17, 1977, Gilmore is executed by firing squad, as he chose. He was the first person to be judicially executed in the United States after the execution of Luis Monge in Colorado on June 2, 1967. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0374271 | Tere Naam | Radhe Mohan (Salman Khan) is a college rowdy who uses violence as the only way to deal with people. He lives with his brother, a Magistrate (Sachin Khedekar), and his sister-in-law (Savita Prabhune), who is the only person who seems to understand him properly, and their little daughter Binti.
Radhe wins the elections to the college's Students Union, which is followed by celebrations and on-campus fighting between the rival candidates.
Radhe has many sycophants surrounding him. He comes across a timid girl, Nirjara (Bhumika Chawla), who is the daughter of a poor temple priest, falls crazily in love with her due to her simplicity and innocence, and starts to woo her. Radhe expresses his feelings for her, but she initially rejects him, which leaves Radhe heartbroken. One day, Nirjara's fiance Rameshwar (Ravi Kishan) tells Nirjara that Radhe seems rude from outside but is golden-hearted from inside, and he truly loves her. Nirjara feels warm for Radhe, but then Radhe kidnaps her, expresses his deep and passionate feelings for her and forces her to fall in love with him.
After Nirjara falls in love with him, Radhe is attacked by brothel goons, who take revenge on him after he interferes with their business. Radhe suffers brain damage and ends up in a mental institution (Ashram). With no memory of his past and having developed unusual behaviour, he starts to remember things. At one point, he returns to normal and tries to escape by climbing over the gates, but falls and ends up with serious injuries.
Nirjara visits Radhe while he is asleep and healing from his injuries. She leaves with this woeful memory of him. As she is about to leave the institution, Radhe wakes up and realises that she had come to see him. He calls out for Nirjara, but she does not hear him.
Insistent upon seeing her again, he makes another attempt to leave the institution and this time is successful. When he arrives at her house, he learns that Nirjara committed suicide during her wedding to another man, as she loses a hope of re-uniting with Radhe.
Distraught after what he saw, he just walks out, and his previous friends and his family try to help him regain his memory. Despite being aware of what is happening, Radhe pretends to be unconscious. At that point, wardens from the mental institution come to take him back. Radhe leaves with them as he has nothing to live for after his true love's death. Years later, Radhe, now old and still in the ashram, has surrendered his whole life in the name of his true love. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0113097 | Forget Paris | At a restaurant in New York City, Andy prepares to introduce his friends to his fiancée, Liz. As the couple waits for the rest of the party to arrive, Andy tells Liz the story of how his friends Mickey and Ellen came to fall in love. As each of Andy's friends arrive, more of the story is unfolded.
Mickey Gordon is a National Basketball Association referee who honors his recently-deceased father's wishes by burying him at the resting site of his World War II Army platoon in France, of which he was the sole survivor, but the plans are delayed after the airline misplaces the casket.
Ellen Andrews, an airline employee from Wichita working in Paris, assists Mickey in locating and retrieving the casket. She surprises Mickey by attending the burial so he won't be alone. Mickey rides back to Paris with Ellen, and the two get to know each other along the way. Mickey decides to delay his return trip to the United States to spend time with Ellen. The two fall in love, but Mickey is forced to return for the beginning of the NBA season.
Mickey's loneliness leads him to lose his temper during a nationally-televised game. Mickey is suspended by the NBA for a week. During the suspension, he returns to Paris to see Ellen. Mickey learns Ellen is married but separated, and is unsure if she and her husband will get back together. While Mickey is in Charlotte to referee a game, Ellen arrives to meet him and reveals that she has gotten a divorce. Having quit her job in France, Ellen marries Mickey. After a honeymoon period spent on the road during the NBA season, the couple settles in the San Fernando Valley outside Mickey's hometown of Los Angeles.
When the next basketball season begins, Ellen takes an entry-level customer service job with American Airlines, while Mickey travels with the NBA. Hating her new job and only seeing Mickey a few days each month, Ellen becomes lonely and depressed. She asks Mickey to quit his job; he compromises by taking a one-year leave of absence and briefly working as a car salesman. Ellen gets promoted and climbs the corporate ladder, leaving Mickey at home to tend to her father, Arthur.
Mickey, unhappy at home with Arthur, decides to return early to the NBA. He comes home from a road trip to find Ellen gone. Before he can read her note, she arrives and explains that she had simply returned to Kansas to deliver Arthur to her siblings so she and Mickey can be alone and repair their marriage.
Ellen approaches Mickey and says she has been offered a transfer to Dallas. Mickey refuses to move away from California, so Ellen takes the airline's other offer of a transfer to Paris. Now separated, the two are seemingly content in their original arrangements: Mickey traveling with the NBA, and Ellen working for an airline in Paris. It is obvious to all of their friends that they miss each other's company.
At the restaurant, Andy's friends have caught Liz up to date, with the latest development coming four months prior. A basketball fan enters the restaurant and informs the group of an odd occurrence during the traditional singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" prior to that night's New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden. Mickey decides to go AWOL from his job and immediately return to Paris to find Ellen. Before he can make it across the basketball court, he spots Ellen in the arena. The two meet and reconcile at mid-court, and as the arena lights come on after the anthem, the entire crowd sees the two kissing. Mickey and Ellen arrive at the restaurant together and re-tell Liz the story of their relationship. | boring, flashback | train | wikipedia | Forget Paris is admittedly a film carried almost entirely by Billy Crystal, but with such witty delivery, he's perfect.
Rose-tinted views of Paris, alongside near slapstick sketches in the States, makes for a fast-paced tale that you can just sit back and enjoy.Mickey (Crystal) travels to France to bury his father, only to find that the airline has accidentally sent the body to the wrong airport.
But with lives on different sides of the Atlantic, there are going to be a lot sacrifices...And if the movie ever begins to feel as though it might be getting bogged down in the romance, it steps out to the "present day" restaurant scene where friends are sharing the story, each telling a different part and eager to find out what happened in the end.An entertaining, funny and above all, charming story..
FORGET Paris is a sweet romantic comedy which Billy Crystal made after his best romantic comedy, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY.
And there are more serious problems about infertility, including a funny routine when Crystal is repeatedly delayed running to a fertility clinic.The story of their love affair and marriage is related by Joe Mantegna, Richard Masur, Julie Kavner, and John Spencer, at a dinner party in an Italian restaurant.
This movie is interesting and unique, in the sense that it focuses on love AFTER marriage, and not before.Billy Crystal plays a basketball referee who travels to Paris in order to bury his recently-deceased father.
However alone the way the casket is lost and he's stuck in Paris, where he meets another single woman (Debra Winger) who's under similarly unfortunate circumstances.They go out, have a fun time, and then resume their normal lives.
Crystal goes back to basketball in the US but soon finds he can't concentrate and keeps thinking about his relationship.Eventually they reunite and get married but it's an uphill struggle.The movie kind of reminded me of "GoodFellas" (!) due to its structure and how it focused on the downfall of the marriage.
Some very funny moments like this, as well as good chemistry between the stars and an interesting narrative structure, make it a worthwhile - if not particularly memorable - romantic comedy, better than many others in its genre.
Mickey Gordon, played by Crystal is a referee (When Harry met Sally, The Princess Bride) who has to go to Paris because his father wanted to be buried in France.
Just look at the names: Joe Mantegna (Up Close & Personal) is Andy; Cynthia Stevenson is Liz, Richard Masur (none other than the director of SAG himself) is Craig; Julie Kavner (Jake's Women, This is my Life) is Lucy who is on diet; William Hickey (I) is Arthur; Robert Costanzo, is the witty waiter his very funny lines; John Spencer (I) is Jack; Tom Wright (I) is Tommy; Cathy Moriarty is Lois; Johnny Williams (I) is Lou. Then there are all the athletes one can come up with.
Funny lines: " you asked for it, you got it Toyota!".My favorite scenes: them driving around Paris; the bird glued to her face; when she shows up at the game and at the restaurant.
Sadly lackluster romantic comedy, co-written, directed and starring Billy Crystal, is told in deadly flashbacks.
French locations and a bright cast do help a little bit, but the screenplay isn't very funny, instead becoming weighed down with cheap, lousy sentiment that doesn't play (and has more than a whiff of "When Harry Met Sally..." besides!).
Narrated by several of the characters in the film, it has a special quality one can never forget.From beginning to end, the narrators tell the love story of how the two leads meet, fall in love, and have troubles.
It's comedically written, but then, Crystal is the genius behind that, and it was well executed acting and directing wise.Anyone who enjoys beautiful cinematography and great lines in a film, you'll enjoy Billy Crystal's "Forget Paris"..
Billy Crystal was his normal funny self, evoking a number of laughs in here BUT, lest you think this is a comedy, it's more of a drama....much more.
Things don't work out between Crystal's "Mickey Gordon-" and Debra Winger's "Ellen" and many of the scenes with them arguing are not fun to watch.
I'm not a fan of Winger's low and raspy voice, nor seeing marriages crumble.Thus, my favorite parts of this film were all in the beginning, especially when "Mickey" was an NBA referee.
Crystal is a big sports fan so I'm sure enjoyed that segment of the movie.Also commendable are the nice shots of Paris.
Even the guy who plays the waiter is great!Billy's Referee character goes to Paris where his father is to be buried.
They are attracted to each other and a relationship is born.The story of their relationship is told through Joe Montegna, who's character is engaged to Cynthia Stevenson, as all the old friends gather together at an engagement dinner.This is a warm, funny, engaging comedy and shouldn't be missed..
He seems intent on doing a retread of "When Harry Met Sally" but this time following a seemingly incompatible couple through marital discord.Crystal plays Mickey Gordon, an NBA referee who tries to abide by his estranged father's wishes to be buried in France.
A solid supporting cast has been assembled as the friends - Joe Mantegna, Julie Kavner (particularly funny), Richard Masur, Cathy Moriarty, John Spencer, Cynthia Stevenson - though they act more like a chorus to the proceedings.
"Forget Paris" is a feel-good romantic comedy about the on again off again relationship between Mickey (Billy Crystal, who also directed, produced and was one of the writers), an NBA referee, and Ellen (Debra Winger), a customer relations trouble shooter for an airline.Friends of sports writer Andy (Joe Mantegna) are gathering at a restaurant to be introduced to Liz (Cynthia Stevenson) before their wedding.
Let me just say that one of my favorite bits starts with the focus on an organist going through the motions of preparing to play serious music.Billy Crystal is known to be a serious basketball fan and in part the film is like a documentary about refereeing NBA games, with a huge number of basketball stars playing themselves.
Not hardly in this film.I should mention that Cynthia Stevenson's hysterically tearful performance as Liz listening to Mickey's and Ellen's highs and lows was great.I also loved the sound track.
Ella Fitzgerald singing "April in Paris" is so great; also, Billy Holiday doing the opening "Our Love Is Here To Stay." David Sanborn's saxophone version of the "Star Spangled Banner" is also particularly great.My one quibble is that I found Debra Winger's voice very sexy in 1982's "Officer and a Gentleman" and she didn't sound the same in 1995's "Forget Paris." I probably don't sound the same as I did 13 years ago either..
Part of the emotion comes from the honesty of this, that it isn't your usual romantic comedy of "boy who looks like a male model meets female lead who appears to have stepped right off the train from Glamourville", and so on and so forth.
Hilarious romantic comedy with Crystal (one of my favourites) as a NBA ref who meets cute with Winger in Paris, and their assorted romantic travails.
Crystal, having already ripped off 'Annie Hall' with the vastly overrated 'When Harry Met Sally' now rips off the lesser 'Broadway Danny Rose'.And, on date 13 March 2002, IMDb user "Movie-Robot" from New York agreed:>The guy here who called Crystal "The poor, stupid man's Woody Allen" has a point.On the other hand, on date 2 March 2002, "The Movie Buff" from Nyc had written:>This movie holds the record of earliest advanced screening before being released of all-time, 18 years.
The film was shown at an advanced screening back in 77 when it was under the working title ANNIE HALL!!!Does it mean that Woody Allen, when directing "Broadway Danny Rose", ripped off "Annie Hall"!?Ok, I apologize to these users, whose comments I found anyway very interesting, and suggested me a point of view I had not taken.
I was not able to see any unforgivable pillage from Allen's movies.I think Billy Crystal did not want to Explain The Mystery Of Love neither to portrait New Characters Of Modern Times.
This is mostly Allen's trade.Forget Paris is essentially a light comedy, and Billy Crystal is a brilliant guy.
During the meal Liz is told the story of another of their friends, Mickey and Ellen who met when Mickey had flown to Paris to bury his father.
After a romance in Paris they marry, the story follows their ups and their downs.Billy Crystal is effortlessly funny when he has good material and a good vehicle.
Here the plot is interesting it strays away from a normal romantic film by following Mickey and Ellen through the bad times and good times in their relationship.
The couple meet in Paris when Ellen, an airline official, helps Mickey, a basketball referee, sort out the airline's error in sending his father's body to the wrong destination.
Billy Crystal is okay here, though I prefer When Harry Met Sally (not my favorite romantic comedy either).
As a rule, I really like Debra Winger, but this simply isn't her best role.The movie has some laughs certainly (Mickey's veal ordering rut, for example) and a few good points, such as the father-in-law issue and the fact that the pair do honestly attempt to compromise and make it work, with Mickey for a time sacrificing his travels as referee to be at home with his wife.
They just don't make them like they used to.At least the film does make the point that marriage isn't just about romance (hence the phrase, forget Paris) but about sacrifice and commitment.
If I leave someone out, it's just because I am mentioning those who stood out the most.Billy Crystal does a wonderful job in movies like these.
That means he was very good and quite funny.I was surprised to see this compared to 'Annie Hall' because I didn't care for that movie, but I enjoyed this one so much.If the comedy wasn't enough, the music was great too.
Why???I highly recommend this movie, especially if you liked 'When Harry Met Sally'..
Also, using a cast of storytellers really helps keep it fresh throughout.Debra Winger does a great job, and Billy Crystal was his usual charming and funny self, and there really wasn't a weak link in the entire movie.
Kudos to the late William Hickey (who was also a famous acting coach) for his funny portrayal of Winger's feeble-minded dad and also Cynthia Stevenson who played the woman that's being told the story.
From beginning to end, I found Forget Paris to be a sweet movie, filled with romance, humor and heartbreak.
I frequently recommend this movie to people I know, and I have never had someone come back and tell me that they didn't like it.It's a great date film, goofy and silly and romantic -- with believable characters that you want to beat the odds..
I love "Forget Paris" I think Billy Crystal is hilarious as Mickey the referee.
Produced, Directed, Co-Written by and Starring Billy Crystal, 'Forget Paris' shows the comedic legend at his most confident.
Of the supporting cast, Joe Mantegna is excellent as Crystal's best friend & The Late/Great William Hickey is funny as Debra's dad.
Agatha Christie would be proud.Where this movie falls slightly short, and the reason why I'm docking it a few stars, is the chemistry between Billy Crystal and Debra Winger.
Though both fine actors, I never found them convincing as a couple, not the way we saw with Billy Crystal & Meg Ryan a few years earlier in "When Harry Met Sally".
Billy Crystal does his usual schtick as he romances Debra Winger, though the structure is pure Woody Allen - the whole film told by a group of friends at a party - and the foreign funeral set-up half-inched somewhat obviously from Billy Wilder's underrated Avanti!.
For me, the best definition for "Love" is when you can forget yourself, and for that instance, Crystal is very deficient and it appears like a totally different person he was in Paris: he doesn't want to quit his job, he doesn't speak to her father
At the same time, Winger shows a lot of compassion and faces great pain for her femininity!
there should be more movies like "forget Paris".
WOW everyone of those movies were blockbusters I started thinking about Debra Winger when I was watching Forget Paris and I was saying to myself...Wow..she turns down "Fatal Attraction" but Foret Paris is OK....well...the bottom line is...there should be more movies like "forget Paris" The Scene where Billy Crystal throws Kareem out of his farewell game and then Isiah...I'm laughing my ass off...the fact about "forget Paris" is this movie is fun and frivolous and you don't'need to pay that close attention....The cameo's with the NBA all stars is just my cup of Tea...
I like Billy Crystal...I like Debra Winger...
It is also reflecting life in a positive way: it is difficult, entertaining, funny at the right and at the wrong place.Just realized how many funny Billy Crystal punchlines are in the movie.
Finally Billy Crystal and Debra winger are playing it perfect: emotional and touching, but not overly dramatic.Keeps being one of my favorites..
Billy Crystal is the nice and funny person i like him to play.
And we all know, Billy Crystal can't help it to be very, very, very romantic (just remember "When Harry Met Sally...").
And in the end he has a film for people who like to cry during movies and for those who usually laugh at them.
I'm the second type and I found this was one of the most original and funny movies from/with Billy Crystal, much better than "Memories of Me"..
Billy Crystal should be commended for his writing in this movie.
Good romantic comedy; great casting.
Like most typical romantic comedies, the ending is predictable, but then most movies are.
1st watched 1/6/1996 - (Dir-Billy Crystal): Very funny movie !!
Billy Crystal surprised me with a movie full of humor, romance, etc..
Julie Kavner, John Spencer, and Cynthia Stevenson are particularly good in their roles as friends of the struggling couple played by Winger and Crystal.
It has some great comic scenes, however, I would never call this movie a Romantic Comedy.
Always been a big Billy Crystal fan as well as Debra Winger.
Billy Crystal is Mickey Gordon, NBA basketball referee, traveling to Paris to bury his suddenly deceased father.
The airline loses, then finds the body, in the process of complaining Mickey meets pretty American Ellen Andrews (Debra Winger) who works for the airline.The movie actually takes place over a couple of hours in present time at a restaurant, friends of Mickey are at a table waiting for him to arrive after the Knicks game is over, and in turn the friends tell the story of Mickey and Ellen.
One of them indicates that both Mickey and Ellen were expected, but others thought they were not together anymore.Billy Crystal is perfect, Debra Winger is good, but the story itself is pretty simple -- can these two professionals with widely different interests make it together?
For starters, who casts Billy Crystal as a leading man in a romantic love story?
This movie can't quite make up its mind as to what it wants to be, romantic comedy, light drama, slapstick, story of a modern marriage.Couple 'meet cute' in Paris.
Debra Winger (Ellen) and Billy Crystal (Mickey) seem like a natural fit.
It seems like Billy Crystal wanted to make the perfect sequel to When Harry Met Sally (1989), a movie he starred earlier with Meg Ryan, where they portrayed 2 persons who fall in love.
Now, in Forget Paris, we follow 2 similar persons who fall in love THEN get marry (You won't deny how Debra Winger looks like Meg Ryan in some moments).
However, while jazz itself is a creative hint that marriage has no known system, and is based on the best improvisation you could ever do—the movie dwelled on that jazzy mood, enjoying a series of mostly uninteresting sketches, leading to common, so laconic, climax which didn't live up to Casablanca or When Harry Met Sally endings.Forget Paris is a rom-com that wanted to be different, and it did, but lost being fast enough, and comic enough in the way.
Billy Crystal is, like Allen, a diminutive New Yorker who started as a stand-up comic before moving into acting, and his character in this film, Mickey Gordon, has something in common with Woody's self-deprecating creations.
The title, "Forget Paris", a phrase used a number of times in the course of their marriage, therefore becomes shorthand for "We've got to put the courtship phase of our relationship behind us and move on to dealing with the problems of married life together".And Mickey and Ellen have plenty of problems.
Of course, it would have been quite possible to turn the story of Mickey and Ellen into a serious study of a failing marriage, but "Forget Paris" was never intended to be a film of that sort.
He was, of course, the star of "When Harry Met Sally", one of the best romantic comedies of the eighties.
I never cared for that lugubrious romantic tragedy "Terms of Endearment", but the fact that Winger won a "Best Actress" Oscar suggests that a lot of other people liked it.The point of casting two such dissimilar actors may have been to emphasise the contrast in character between Mickey and Ellen, a contrast that would have been lessened if Ellen had been played by an experienced romantic comedy actress such as Meg Ryan, Crystal's co-star in "When Harry Met Sally".
Crystal is very funny in this film, and most of the best lines go to him, although there are also some good contributions from the assembled diners. |
tt0029440 | The Prince and the Pauper | Tom Canty, youngest son of a poor family living in Offal Court, London, has always aspired to a better life, encouraged by the local priest (who has taught him to read and write). Loitering around the palace gates one day, he sees a prince (the Prince of Wales – Edward VI). Coming too close in his intense excitement, Tom is nearly caught and beaten by the Royal Guards; however, Edward stops them and invites Tom into his palace chamber. There the two boys get to know one another, fascinated by each other's life and their uncanny resemblance; they were born on the same day. They decide to switch clothes "temporarily". The Prince momentarily goes outside, quickly hiding an article of national importance (which the reader later learns is the Great Seal of England), but dressed as he is in Tom's rags, he is not recognized by the guards, who drive him from the palace, and he eventually finds his way through the streets to the Canty home. There he is subjected to the brutality of Tom's abusive father, from whom he manages to escape, and meets one Miles Hendon, a soldier and nobleman returning from war. Although Miles does not believe Edward's claims to royalty, he humors him and becomes his protector. Meanwhile, news reaches them that King Henry VIII has died and Edward is now the king.
Tom, posing as the prince, tries to cope with court customs and manners. His fellow nobles and palace staff think "the prince" has an illness which has caused memory loss and fear he will go mad. They repeatedly ask him about the missing "Great Seal", but he knows nothing about it; however, when Tom is asked to sit in on judgments, his common-sense observations reassure them his mind is sound.
As Edward experiences the brutish life of a pauper firsthand, he becomes aware of the stark class inequality in England. In particular, he sees the harsh, punitive nature of the English judicial system where people are burned at the stake, pilloried, and flogged. He realizes that the accused are convicted on flimsy evidence (and branded – or hanged – for petty offenses), and vows to reign with mercy when he regains his rightful place. When Edward unwisely declares to a gang of thieves that he is the king and will put an end to unjust laws, they assume he is insane and hold a mock coronation.
After a series of adventures (including a stint in prison), Edward interrupts the coronation as Tom is about to celebrate it as King Edward VI. Tom is eager to give up the throne; however, the nobles refuse to believe that the beggarly child Edward appears to be is the rightful king until he produces the Great Seal that he hid before leaving the palace. Tom declares that if anyone had bothered to describe the seal he could have produced it at once since he had found it inside a decorative suit of armor (where Edward had hidden it) and had been using it to crack nuts.
Edward and Tom switch back to their original places and Miles is rewarded with the rank of earl and the family right to sit in the presence of the king. In gratitude for supporting the new king's claim to the throne, Edward names Tom the "king's ward" (a privileged position he holds for the rest of his life). | violence, action | train | wikipedia | Twain Classic, with Flynn in Support of the Mauch Twins!.
In 1937, the WB, capitalizing on Errol Flynn's spectacular performances in CAPTAIN BLOOD and THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE, cast him in four films, with varying degrees of success.
The best, by far, was William Keighley and William Dieterle's production of the Mark Twain classic, THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER, where he supported new WB 'discoveries' Billy and Bobby Mauch, portraying London urchin Tom Canty and his look-alike, Prince Edward Tudor.
The twins were gifted, young (12 at the time of the filming) actors, with a Freddie Bartholomew-like quality of engaging innocence, and they gave this version of the oft-filmed tale a sense of reality that split-screen performances by a single actor could never achieve.The story is an engaging one, as young Canty, inspired by his mother and a local priest to dream of a finer life than his father, an ill-tempered beggar (Barton MacLane) could provide, sneaks onto the grounds of Buckingham Palace.
There, he meets young Prince Edward, who is thrilled to meet a boy his own age...and, after cleaning him up a bit, is astonished to discover that the pair could pass as twins.
Edward decides this is a golden opportunity to see what life outside the Palace is really like, so, against Canty's misgivings, the two exchange clothing, and the Prince leaves...creating far more of an uproar than either boy could ever imagine!Canty is soon considered 'mad', as he insists he is not Edward, and the Prince, abused and ridiculed by Tom's father, is unceremoniously thrown off the Palace grounds when he attempts to return, by a disbelieving Captain of the Guards (Alan Hale, in the first of 11 films he'd make with his friend, Errol Flynn).
The ambitious Earl of Hertford (the always brilliant Claude Rains) investigates Canty's claim, and realizes, after interviewing the Captain, that the boy is telling the truth, giving him a golden opportunity to seize power.
Ordering the Captain to find and kill the Prince, the Earl then threatens to kill Canty if he doesn't obey his commands.Things grow desperate for the young Prince, as he attempts to evade his murderous 'father' on the streets, until Miles Hendon (Flynn), a roguish but good-natured 'soldier-for-hire' comes to his aid.
Offering his protection to the lad, Hendon thinks him a bit balmy, as well...until events (the child's obvious despair over the death of Henry VIII, the Palace search party, and a sword duel with the Captain, where Flynn KILLS Alan Hale!!!) convince him otherwise.
Then it becomes a race against time to smuggle the real King into the Coronation, before Canty is crowned, and the Earl assumes "the Power behind the Throne".Blessed with a gifted cast, including wonderful character actor Montagu Love as the dying Henry VIII, the film offers a truly exceptional film score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold (who would eventually expand the theme into a symphonic work).
Audiences have always been surprised that Errol Flynn's role is not larger, but as a faithful Twain adaptation, the focus had to be on the two boys, and not on the impoverished soldier.
Flynn had fun playing Hendon, and the Mauch twins were nothing less than superb as the leads.With THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD less than a year away, and Errol Flynn's star continuing to ascend, the WB had every reason to celebrate, and THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER is a pleasure to watch, to this day!.
The Prince and the Pauper is a charming and witty film.
Errol Flynn, although appearing a little late in the film, gives a great performance as an adventurer who protects what he believes is a delusional boy.
The Mauch twins, Billy and Bobby, are perfect foils for Flynn, who's interaction with the Prince of England is touching, warm and comedic.
As usual with Flynn's films Erich Wolfgang Korngold's music is brilliant, weaving a childlike main theme with an undercurrent of adventure.
it is a good hour before he makes his appearance as Miles Hendon.The novel by Mark Twain looked at what might have happened if the future Edward VI was swapped for a beggar boy who looked identical, and what that might mean for the (simplified) political situation on the death of his father, Henry VIII.As Edward and the beggar, Tom Canty, identical twins Billy and Bobby Mauch are charming.
They were both good little actors as well, which helps in this story.Claude Rains excels as the villain of the piece, while Alan Hale, Eric Portman, and others make up the cast.
Flynn himself is fun as Hendon, swashbuckling with the best.After 70 years this film has not dated one jot - highly enjoyable..
"The Prince and the Pauper" is based on Mark Twain's novel of the same name.
The story is a hypothetical situation where Edward VI exchanges places with a beggar that resembles him as he is about to become King of England.The Mauch twins, Bobby and Billy, skillfully play the roles of Edward VI and the beggar Tom Canty.
Errol Flynn is well-cast as the dashing hero Miles Hendon, who comes to protect Edward when he's taken for a beggar.
Also notable are Alan Hale as the captain of the guard, Barton MacLane as Tom Canty's despicable father and Montagu Love as the counseling Henry VIII.The story is not meant as history, but rather an examination of social disparities.
Bobby Mauch and Billy Mauch are "The Prince and the Pauper," a 1937 film based on the Mark Twain story.
The film also stars Errol Flynn and Claude Rains.
When Tom, the pauper, is caught by the guards, the young Prince sees a playmate in him and invites him in.
They change clothes so that the Prince can go and get his dog from the kennel for their next game, but he's caught by the cruel guards who think he's the pauper.
He has a protector forced upon him, the Earl of Hertford (Rains), who does not have the best interests of the English people in mind.While he's in Tom's world, Prince Edward gets a good look at the horrible way the English people are forced to live because of bad laws.
Eventually he meets Miles Hendon (Flynn) who saves him from Tom's wretched father.
This is a wonderfully fun movie, filled with the meanest of the mean in Alan Hale as a palace guard, Barton MacLane as Tom's father, and the diabolical, unfeeling Earl.
Mark Twain's classic tale of a pair of look-alike boys in 16th century England is given the glossy Hollywood treatment in this very entertaining effort.
Billy and Bobby Mauch, 12 year old twin brothers, star, one as the heir to the throne of England and the other as a street urchin.
By accident, each is mistaken for the other and when the king dies, the pauper may be crowned instead of the rightful prince.
Errol Flynn may be billed as the star, but he does not appear until halfway through the film.
Flynn is good as always in this fun filled film..
This version of The Prince and the Pauper had all the ingredients to be good, and it was, great even.
Korngold's score is superb, very sweeping and bombastic, I would go as far to say that it is almost as good as his score for The Adventures of Robin Hood which I have long considered one of the all-time greats in that regard.
Billy and Bobby Mauch are very endearing as the twins and although he doesn't appear until halfway through Errol Flynn is a gallant charismatic presence.
Montagnu Love is a characterful and moving King Henry, but faring best are Claude Rains, doing urbane in a way not many other actors could do, and Alan Hale as a suitably villainous Captain.
All in all, a great film, worth noting for Korngold's score, the production values and Rains.
The reign of Edward VI of England would be little remembered if it not were for the writing of this story by an American of all people, Mark Twain.
In point of fact Edward Tudor ascended the English throne in 1547, the son of Henry VIII and died six years later, not even reaching his maturity.
That story can be seen in the films Young Bess and also in Lady Jane.
There was no happily ever after endings for young Tudor.At first glance it wouldn't seem possible that Samuel Langhorne Clemens of Hannibal, Missouri could write a classic tale about medieval England.
But thinking about it, is the poverty and young Tom Canty's dealing with it in Offal Court all that different from Huckleberry Finn?
Is his father, a coarse and brutal man beautifully played by Barton MacLane, all that different from Huck Finn's pap?Twain knew his characters well and it he had any trouble with getting the idiom just right he need only have looked to Charles Dickens who was writing about just such people a generation before.The story is simply that Tom Canty, a beggar boy from Offal Court in London gets into the palace of the king and meets up with young Prince Edward.
They look alike enough to be twins and in fact they are played by twin brothers Billy and Bobby Mauch.
They exchange places and the switch works only too well.Top billed in the film is Errol Flynn who plays the fictional Miles Hendon, soldier of fortune just returned from the continent.
Flynn was the biggest name in the cast, but the film is half over before he makes his appearance.
It's Flynn's third appearance with sword in hand for Warner Brothers after Captain Blood and Charge of the Light Brigade.
This film also marks Flynn's first film with Alan Hale who appeared in eleven films with Errol.
Jack Warner kept both those guys real busy.Also in the film are Henry Stephenson and Claude Rains who play competing nobles vying to be top man in their minority monarch's reign.
As I said unfortunately that marked Edward VI's entire time on England's throne.But we have Mark Twain in his classic story and the brothers Warner to thank for bringing Edward VI's story to life for generations to come.
I wonder if during his short life, young Edward might really have wished to escape what he had, even if it meant a place like Offal Court..
Great Fun. Excellent adaptation of Mark Twain's story about a young prince and a lookalike beggar boy who trade places.
The duo are played by real-life twins Billy and Bobby Mauch.
Despite receiving top billing, it's nearly an hour in before Errol Flynn shows up.
Claude Rains is great as the villainous Earl of Hertford.
Fine WB supporting cast includes Alan Hale, Barton MacLane, Henry Stephenson, and Halliwell Hobbes.
In one of his early sketches he tells an inquisitive reporter that the tragedy of his life was the strange death of his twin - the boy had one only one mark on his body that differs him from his brother - Twain shows it to the reporter on his own person, and says that was the boy who supposedly died mysteriously and was buried.
The reporter leaves after that tidbit.Of course the novel (which became the subject of this film and several others) is the one that people think of as Twain's "twins switching" story.
Twins pop up too in "Tom Sawyer Detective" - which was based on an old 17th Century Danish murder case involving twins.But it's "The Prince And The Pauper" (1876) that is recalled as Twain's "twin story".
Here it is central to Twain's looking at an appalling, inequitable social system in Tudor England.Henry VIII is dying and his son Edward, Prince of Wales is aware that he is going to soon lose his wise father and take over the reins of government.
In the film wise old Henry Stephenson is Norfolk and crafty, power-seeking Claude Rains is Hertford.
Edward, in Twain's story, while waiting for the sad news, meets Tom Canty, a boy who looks almost exactly like him (here played - for a change - by the Mauch Twins).
But Edward is soon helped by a young squire, Miles Herndon (Errol Flynn) who is trying to return to his ancestral home to regain his possessions from a greedy brother.The twisty plot did show much of the underside of English Tudor living that many of the other early Tudor history films barely touched on (except to show the intrigues at court).
It also had plenty of humor - look at the business about the usefulness of "the Great Seal of England", which is typical Twain humor.
I feel this version of the story is quite good - possibly the best of the different versions of the novel that have reached the screen..
In the slums of 16th century London, young Billy Mauch (as "Pauper" Tom Canty) makes the most of his life as a beggar; though, he is beaten by his father, and thrown in the mud.
Meanwhile, royal Bobby Mauch (as "Prince" Edward VI) lives a life of luxury; soon, he will replace father King Henry VIII on the throne.
Prince Mauch invites Pauper Mauch over to the palace, where the two become intrigued by their different lifestyles, and identical appearance.
When nobody believes their stories, the boys are forced to assume each other's identities.This is a well-produced version of the Mark Twain classic.
The "Mauch Twins" and Claude Rains (as the Earl of Hertford) are especially strong in their portrayals; and, Erich Wolfgang Korngold's soundtrack should be noted.
Don't expect to see top-billed Errol Flynn (as Miles Hendon) until later in the film, as a supporting player.
Alan Hale, Barton MacLane, Henry Stephenson, and Montagu Love are also worth noting; but, the film's main strengths are Mr. Rains, Mr. Korngold, and the "Mauch Twins".
******* The Prince and the Pauper (5/5/37) William Keighley ~ Billy Mauch, Bobby Mauch, Errol Flynn, Claude Rains.
For all my life I loved the film 'The Adventures of Robin Hood'.
I always liked Errol Flynn and his men fight the bad guys.
Yesterday I saw The Prince and the Pauper on TV for the first time.
A lot of music that won the Oscar in Robin Hood appears here in this film (2 years earlier !!).
Look out for Little John in the role of the captain of the King's guards.
I've always thought of Mark Twain (nee, Samuel Clemens) as America's Charles Dickens.
Twain's first book, "The Innocents Abroad," was published in 1869 – the year before Dickens died.
Because I think Dickens would have enjoyed thoroughly Twain's "The Prince and the Pauper." The two men wrote with obviously different references – cultures, times, people.
Twain's Prince and Pauper was published in 1882.
And that brings me now to this first sound production of "The Prince and the Pauper." It's a wonderful rendition of this classic tale that I think has become a classic in itself.
It has a stellar cast for the period in Errol Flynn, Claude Rains, Henry Stephenson, Barton MacLane, Alan Hale and Eric Portman.
And the twin brothers, Billy and Robert Mauch give top performances as the prince and the pauper.
This is a delightful fictional story with just a little bit of an historical look at the times and place.
I love "The Prince and the Pauper" and Billy and Bobby Mauch.
And, although Errol Flynn gets top billing, Bobby Mauch as both the prince and the commoner gets the lion's share of the time on screen.
A poor boy in the 16th century turns out to be the spitting image of the young prince.
That's where heroic Errol Flynn comes into the film.
The movie is a well made and well acted costumer--employing all that is best about Warner Brothers films of the era.
Errol = cute; Mauch Twins= Not so much.
I thought that they brought Mark Twain's story to life pretty well.I enjoyed Errol's 2:1 sword fight and his eventual duel with Alan Hale.
This may be the only film in which Errol and Alan are adversaries rather than allies.
The twins are well cast even though they are from illinois and Errol Flynn is always entertaining as the swashbuckling hero.
Classic Mark Twain Story.
Everyone knows the story of the spoiled prince who is bored with his life.
This is a really fun Mark Twain story that boys would have loved to read, and this an adequate,though not outstanding, version..
I love this wonderful story that was penned by the absolute genius Mark Twain aka Samuel Clemmons.This movie made in 1937 is a delight for the senses.Errol Flynn and the twins that play the prince and the pauper are just wonderful actors.To me they look like child Dennis Morgans.He was a wonderful actor and Irish tenor of the same time era in movies.And who could top the amazing Claude Raines.Black and white is as usual the best for these old movies and I put this to DVD from an airing on Turner Classic Movies.I put a lot of movies to DVD especially from Turner Classic Movies.Then I can watch them anytime that I want to.If you want to see a wonderful adventure then this is for you.!!.
This movie reflects Mark Twain's Nostradamus-like prophecy .
Twain was a big fan of the Tudors, contending that Henry VIII was more devious than Machiavelli in THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER.
But Twain knew that ever since the Saxons had jumped onto the Anglos' backs, Britain was prone to being led astray by conniving Prussians, such as Lord Hertford (Claude Rains) in PAUPER.
This happens at the end of PAUPER, just as it came to pass in Real Life during the 1930s (long after the book's release and Twain's death).
Errol Flynn may be absent from the first hour--as well as the final ten minutes--of PAUPER, but Hitler's Hous of Hanover Henchpeople were very much present to film audiences of the 1930s. |
tt0107912 | Quick | Seoul, 2004. A group of bikers are joy-riding through the streets and while their leader the teenage Han Ki-su (Lee Min-ki) is tearfully berated by girlfriend Chun-shim (Kang Ye-won) for scorning her. The biker Kim Myung-shik (Kim In-kwon) is attracted to Chun-shim watches dolefully. Following some heavy traffic, Ki-su executes a perfect bike jump over it.
Six years later Ki-su is working as a bike messenger. After delivering a package to an office, the building blows up just after he leaves. Ki-su doesn't think his package was connected to the blast. Ki-su is later asked to drive Ah-rom, the lead vocalist of girl group OK Girls, to a televised stadium concert that she is late for. To his surprise, he finds that she is actually Chun-shim who is still angry at how she was treated years earlier. He offers her his helmet, unaware that it's been switched for an identical one rigged with an explosive. Ki-su receives a phone call and is told to deliver three packages already stowed in his bike, with a 30-minute delivery time for each package. If they exceed the time limit or if Chun-shim tries to take off the helmet then it will explode. Meanwhile, the police, led by Detective Seo (Ko Chang-seok) and NPCC team leader Kim (Ju Jin-mo) examine the CCTV tape in the building that exploded and believe that Ki-su is potentially the bomber. Ki-su delivers Chun-shim to the concert just in time where she performs in the helmet. The two of them start to make the deliveries, while being hunted by the police and trying to figure out who is responsible for the bombings while driving between Seoul and Incheon. | cult, murder | train | wikipedia | Formula flick with clever twist.
The plot has a clever little twist, the titled assassin to a woman!
Teri Polo is excellent, and veteran character actor Jeff Fahey plays his role with a somewhat sadistic cheerfulness.
Tia Carrera, fresh off from Wayne's World, expands herself as Fahey's police partner.
Martin Donovan is another fine bit of casting, as the somewhat nerdish, and weak will accountant who Quick was assigned to kill.
The film benefits from another character actor in Robert Davi, who has to be one of the most busy men in Hollywood history, as somehow, he always manages to appear in at least 2 or 3 films a year.
While some of the twist may appear a little tired, somehow, everything seems fresh and the cast is very energetic.
One of the amazing things about the film is that manages to stray away from falling into the Thelma & Louise genre by not forcing Polo's Quick character to have an overtly feminist mannerisms.
This was another one of those action flicks that HBO used to show as part of the long ago Action Thursday!
series they used to have years ago.
Alas, gone are those days.
Now were stuck with recent movies ad nuesuem.
Without a doubt, this movie is a plus for any action fan..
On the road again..
A female assassin known as Quick lives for her sleazily shady boyfriend police agent Muncie.
Crime kingpin Matthew Davenport wants to get his hands on his double crossing accounted Herschel Brewer, who's under witness protection.
For one last job, Quick is hired by Davenport to bring Brewer back alive, and Muncie gives her the details of the whereabouts.
After the job, she learns Davenport had other things on his mind about her outcome, but she takes off with Brewer and heads to L.A. to pick up the three million dollars he secretly stole from Davenport, so she and Muncie could take off together.
What an entertainingly good slice of systematically sleek and bravura thrills, which in tone feels like something out of the 70s drive-in crime features.
This neatly etched cheapjack b-grade road movie is purely pulp at heart with a mixture of elements involving assassins, law-abiding and corrupt cops, drug bigheads and hidden doe set on the road.
Pretty much reminded me off "True Romance".
A frigidly hardboiled script is basic fodder with underling wry humour, but there are some vague moments and strained possibilities creeping into the generic plot.
These are however balanced out by some fine touches of cleverness and manipulative intrigue.
There's nothing spectacular here, and the budget goes on to assure that, but the performances is what lifted this for me.
The alluring Teri Polo is sensationally potent in her cheerily feisty role as Quick (though she does get depress after knocking someone off at the beginning) and an energetic Jeff Fahey is magnificently cast as the insidiously seamy Muncie.
He chews up the scenery.
Martin Donovan is an exceptional choose as gawky accountant Brewer and Tia Carrere brings a lean viewpoint to her cop/partner to Muncie.
A reliably relaxed looking Robert Davi must feel at home in the part, because he's doing it pretty easy as drug lord Davenport.
Michael McGrady, Miguel Sandoval and Kevin Cooney also appear.
Director Rick King does an mechanically raw job, but it's broken up by few twists, fetish make-outs and a healthy dose of scorching shootouts and compelling standoffs.
He paces it all extremely well.
Sturdy photography gives it a bit of grit and the persistent musical score sits more in the background, but is silkily arranged to fit in.
This little unknown crime/thriller film was an enjoyable surprise and works largely due to the committed (a radiant Polo and flamboyant Fahey) performances and Rick King's no-bull style.
Nothing great, but likable..
Much better than expected.
Not so bad at all.
I expected very little from this movie, but it turned out this was an average, decently written and produced film which manages to involve the viewer for the duration.
It is never boring or predictable.
A real surprise!The story is rather original, the characters are believable (even though they are voluntarily somewhat cartoon-like) and the whole plot somehow makes sense.
And then there is Teri Polo...
She is awesome!
She alone is worth the price of admission.
I am surprised her career didn't go much better than it actually did because this girl should be a box office magnet!All in all, a movie which was a pleasant surprise where none was expected..
a good little film.
Teri Polo stars as an assassin who latest job is a mob accountant.
Soon she realizes she has been set up and takes off to settle the score..Also with Tia Carrere, this movie is fast paced and easy to watch but don't expect alot of skin.
On a scale of one to ten..a 5.
Monumental miscast.
Teri Polo has to be the least convincing assassin that I have ever seen in a movie.
Her performance was beyond terrible.
Stick to comedies Teri, action isn't your calling.Teri portrays Hollywood's favorite cliché, the assassin with a heart of gold, and finds herself fleeing for her life with a nerdy accountant who is smitten with her.
The rest of the cast, vets like Robert Davi, Miguel Sandoval and Tia Carrere, just took up scenery and their characters had little substance.As far as acting goes, Jeff Fahey does the best job here.
I would urge you to avoid it, unless you just have to see Teri Polo naked. |
tt0400690 | Jûbei ninpûchô: Ryuhogyoku-hen | In Edo period-Japan, the Yamashiro clan mines gold in secret, and sends a shipment to the Toyotomi Shogun of the Dark as payment for his protection. The Shogun of the Dark intends to use the gold to buy advanced Spanish weaponry and overthrow the current government, the Tokugawa Shogunate. The ship runs aground onto Mochizuki territory in a storm, and the Eight Devils of Kimon, a ninja team with supernatural powers in the employ of the Yamashiro, kill the people of the nearby village of Shimoda to keep the gold shipment a secret.
While investigating the deaths, a Mochizuki Koga ninja team is massacred by the Devils. The sole survivor, Kagero, is captured by a Devil, Tessai, who molests her. She is rescued by Jubei Kibagami, a mercenary ex-Yamashiro ninja, who fights and eventually kills Tessai. Dakuan, a Tokugawa spy, blackmails Jubei into helping him kill the remaining Devils. To ensure his compliance, Dakuan stabs Jubei with a poisoned shuriken, and promises to give him an antidote once the mission is complete. Jubei learns from Dakuan that the leader of the Devils is Genma Himuro, the former Yamashiro ninja leader, who had ordered his team’s members to kill each other to cover up the location of the goldmine five years earlier. Jubei, who had been forced to kill his comrades to survive, decapitated Genma in revenge; Genma survived due to his immortality. Jubei is attacked by another Devil, Benisato, but he is saved by Kagero; before she can be questioned, Benisato is killed from afar by Yumimaru, Genma’s right-hand man, for failing her mission. Kagero agrees to work alongside Jubei and Dakuan, who informs Jubei that her body is infused with such deadly toxins that anyone who kisses or sleeps with her dies, which was why Jubei could kill Tessai.
The trio arrive in Shimoda, where they discover that the villagers died due to their water supply being poisoned, making it appear that they were killed by a plague. Jubei and Kagero fend attacks from three of the Devils – Mushizo, Zakuro and Mujuro Utsutsu; Jubei succeeds in killing Mushizo and Utsutsu. After finding the beached ship, Kagero deduces that the gold has been taken to Kashima Harbour, where it will be transported to the Shogun of the Dark in another ship.
Jubei, Kagero and Dakuan arrive at Kashima, which has been evacuated due to the townspeople’s fear of the plague. While Jubei battles another Devil, Shijima, Kagero sends a message to Hyobu Sakaki, the Mochizuki chamberlain, to bring his army to the harbour. She also learns from Dakuan that Jubei’s poisoning will only be cured if he copulates with her – the poisons in her body will counteract his. Kagero is captured by Shijima, and Jubei kills him, rescuing her once more. Kagero asks Jubei to sleep with her to cure himself. He considers doing so, but upon the arrival of the Shogun of the Dark's envoy in a ship, he leaves to prevent the gold reaching its destination.
Kagero arrives to meet Sakaki, but he stabs her, revealing himself to be Genma in disguise. Enraged, Jubei fights through waves of ninjas, but is nearly killed by Yumimaru. A gunpowder-rigged rat, left as a trap by Zakuro for Yumimaru for rejecting her advances, kills him, allowing Jubei to escape. He finds Kagero; mortally wounded, she admits her love for him and they kiss, curing Jubei’s poisoning. Before dying, Kagero gives Jubei her headband.
Jubei and Dakuan board the departing ship. On-board, Genma reveals his true intentions to the Shogun of the Dark’s envoy (who he kills) – he intends to use the gold to raise a ninja army to terrorize Japan, rather than serve as an ally to the Toyotomi. During an altercation with Zakuro, Jubei and Dakuan set the ship ablaze. As Jubei and Genma engage in a brutal fight, the gold becomes molten and engulfs Genma, who sinks to the bottom of the sea. Afterwards, Dakuan thanks Jubei, and expresses admiration for his and Kagero’s humanity. Deducing Dakuan’s intentions to kill him, the disgusted Jubei resumes his vagabond lifestyle, with Kagero’s headband tied around his sword’s hilt. | psychedelic, comedy, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0044157 | The Two Mouseketeers | Jerry and Nibbles are two mouseketeers who decide to help themselves to a lavish royal banquet. Tom has been ordered to guard the spread from the King's Mouseketeers with his life, under threat of execution by beheading from the guillotine. Jerry and Nibbles enter the castle hall through a stained-glass window. Jerry releases the rear-end cover on a suit of armor, making a small drawbridge to the windowsill; they sneak into the armor, emerge from the helmet's faceguard, and then parachute onto the table. They unwittingly catch Tom's attention by showering him with champagne.
After hiding from Tom by wearing white paper decorations from the standing rib roast to look like two ribs, Jerry runs off, but the little mouseketeer Nibbles begins making a ham sandwich while singing "Alouette" to himself. Tom emerges behind him and pokes him with his sword, and Nibbles yells in protest. The little angry mouse says "He, attention-la! Vous pourez faire mal a quelqu'un, Monsieur Pussycat!...Pussycat?! Au secours! Au secours! Le pussycat! Le pussycat!" (Hey! Watch it! You could hurt someone like that, Mister Pussycat. Pussy Cat!? Help! Help! The pussycat! The pussycat!). But before he can get away, Tom captures him by putting his rapier through Nibbles' cape. Jerry manages to stab Tom in the rear-end to rescue Nibbles, and throws a custard in Tom's face for good measure. This launches a swashbuckling fencing display against Tom, ending in Tom catching Jerry. Nibbles tips a long-handled axe toward Tom and it shaves the tabard and all the fur off Tom's back from head to hind end, (and revealing ruffled white underwear), while Nibbles hides in some fruit.
Nibbles runs away, but is sent flying by Tom into a full wine glass – but Jerry saves him by hurling a tomato at Tom, followed by multiple vegetables. After impaling each of the vegetables on his rapier, Tom then heats and eats them like a shish kebab. Nibbles climbs out of the glass, now drunk. He pokes Tom in the rear-end, making him yowl and jump up, as Nibbles waves his sword, saying, "Touché, pussycat!" But as he runs away, Tom catches him. Jerry makes the save by hitting Tom on the head with a mace so hard that Tom falls through the table, which leads into Tom and Jerry resuming their sword fighting. While this goes on, Nibbles brings along a cannon and stuffs it with everything on the banquet table. He lights the cannon and it violently explodes.
As the smoke disappears, Jerry and Nibbles are seen walking triumphantly down the street with stolen banquet food. Suddenly, they see in the distance a guillotine, and with a drumroll the blade comes down, strongly suggesting that Tom was executed (although off-screen in order to comply with the Hays Code). Both mice gulp, and then Nibbles sighs "Pauvre, pauvre pussycat!" ("Poor, poor pussycat!"). Then he shrugs, saying "C'est la guerre!" ("Such is war!"). With that, the two Mouseketeers continue their victory march off into the night. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0040397 | Gorilla My Dreams | "Sweet Dreams, Sweetheart" plays briefly under the title card, and the cartoon opens with a trail of carrot tops floating on the seas. Bugs is stranded in a barrel in the middle of the ocean, but he doesn't seem to mind - he's reading Esquire magazine (considered an "adults only" magazine at that time) and singing the song "Down Where the Trade Winds Play" (a song made popular by Bing Crosby).
On the island of 'Bingzi-Bangzi - Land of the Ferocious Apes', the population is made up of gorillas that act like humans - they read the newspaper and read books such as "The Apes of Wrath", have families and live in huts - and speak American English. (In the underscore, one of Stalling's orchestrations of Raymond Scott's jungle themes is heard, its official title being "Dinner Music for a Pack of Hungry Cannibals"). One of the apes, Mrs. Gruesome Gorilla, is sad that she doesn't have any children, whereas her husband (voiced by Mel Blanc) couldn't care less. Mrs. Gruesome (also voiced by Blanc, using a falsetto) walks toward the water and starts to say, "I'm going to..." (suggesting despondency), but then spots Bugs floating in his barrel. Her mood instantly changes, and she takes him back to her treetop (at one point, yielding the right-of-way to a Tarzan look-alike). (Bugs finishes "Trade Winds" just as Mrs. Gruesome picks up the barrel, and segués into a full verse of "Someone's Rocking My Dreamboat", which he finishes just as he discovers himself in the clutches of the ape.) Mrs. Gruesome wants Bugs to be her 'baby'. At first, Bugs doesn't want to, but when she starts crying, he gives in ("That's my soft spot - dames crying.")
Mrs. Gruesome then presents Bugs to Mr. Gruesome - who is none too happy about having a baby in the house. Bugs tries to fit in, playing like a 'monkey'. Mr. Gruesome takes Bugs out for 'play', but Bugs soon realizes that he's in for a beating if he sticks around. A long chase ensues (including a frenetic version of Stalling's jungle theme), and Bugs finds himself trapped against the edge of a cliff. Bugs gives up and allows Gruesome to catch him. However, Gruesome quickly tires out and drops from exhaustion, with Bugs knocking him over with a mere puff of breathe. Emerging as the 'victor', Bugs jumps up and catches a hanging branch, again playing 'monkey' (another short clip of the jungle theme is heard in the underscore, along with the time-honored "jungle" sound of a kookaburra) at iris-out. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Artwork, Puns Best Part Of This 'Toon.
Bugs, floating in a barrel in the ocean but unperturbed by it all, washes ashore on "Bingzi- Bangzi - Land of the Ferocious Apes." After some beautiful artwork showing the jungle, we come across some apes lying around reading books with titles such as "Apes Of Wrath" and "Our Vines Have Tender Apes." That's one feature I love with these Looney Tunes cartoons: the writers loved puns, as I do.Like Moses in the brush, Bugs is picked up by a woman (in this case, gorilla) who is thrilled at the prospect of caring for a new "baby."This cartoon, which is part of the Golden Collection Volume Two, shows Bugs' "soft spot," as he puts it: dames crying, so if the female thinks he's hers, well, to keep her from crying any more, Bugs "goes along with the gag." What ensues is mostly funny, from the sight gags - Bugs in a pink baby outfit, and then pretending to be an ape - to his battles with the father ape "Gruesome." The only lame part was the ending.
Actually, I enjoyed the fabulous artwork in here with amazing jungle drawings, best of all, along with the puns in the beginning..
in the jungle, the rabbit jungle....
A female gorilla is depressed that she and her husband, Gruesome, haven't had a child.
When Gruesome growls at her, she runs away crying and...you guessed it!
She finds Bugs Bunny.
When she takes him home, Gruesome decides to take Bugs for a walk, but then it turns out that the big guy wants to torment him.
Naturally, Bugs has his own plans.I think that my favorite scene was when Bugs shakes a coconut out of a tree, and it falls on Gruesome like a football helmet.
No matter what, you can always count on that "scwewy wabbit" to do something great.
Maybe it was Mel Blanc's voices or maybe it was something else (I would assume that it was the former), but those old Looney Tunes cartoons were always the best..
Nicer to look at than it is to listen to.
The best thing about Robert McKimson's 'Gorilla My Dreams' are the sumptuous jungle backgrounds against which the action is set.
It's a lovely setting for a so-so cartoon.
Bugs Bunny is washed ashore on a tropical island and immediately adopted against his will by a broody, childless mother gorilla.
Her husband, Gruesome, is less than pleased by this development and sets out to render himself childless.
It is from hereon in that the cartoon starts to falter with some clumsily timed sequences (the dance with the coconut tree being the prime example) and a less than satisfactory ending.
It's a shame the script is so off during the main body of the cartoon because much of the animation is extremely nice, such as the beautiful chase sequence which culminates in a striking layout which charts the lengthiness of the pursuit by showing Bugs and Gruesome's silhouetted figures in several different places at once.
Despite being serenaded by Bugs with several hit songs of the day, I still always think of 'Gorilla My Dreams' as a far nicer cartoon to look at than it is to listen to..
"Cut it out, Gargantua.
I'm not an ape.
I'm a rabbit.
Long ears...fluffy tail...technically known as a rodentus rabbitus".
While not the best of the Looney Tunes canon, Gorilla My Dreams is still a very entertaining cartoon I think.
I agree the ending is rather abrupt and lame, and I cannot say I was a fan of the female gorilla, she doesn't do that much that is interesting.However, the animation is solid and colourful, I especially loved how the jungle was animated.
The music is lovely and has a lot of energy, Bugs's song at the beginning as he is sitting eating a carrot and reading a book in the boat is very amusing, especially for the lyrics.
The dialogue is witty and funny, Bugs of course gets the best lines and does a lot with them, while the sight gags are good.
Bugs of course is great fun, while the male gorilla was a decent foil, gruff he was but I think he was meant to be.
Mel Blanc does a wonderful job yet again with the voices.Overall, an entertaining cartoon while not the best.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Another fine mess he's gotten into.
Bugs Bunny has found home with his parents both being gorillas.
Crazy, isn't it?
Despite being crazy, this is a classic short.
Once again, Bugs has to face a villain, the Gorilla Gruesome who would rather not have Bugs around and decided to 'play' rough.
What are the odds he is going to regret it in the end?
Very good..
Fun Bugs.
Gorilla My Dreams (1948) *** (out of 4) A mama gorilla is ashamed of being the only one not to have a baby but when a shipwrecked Bugs Bunny shows up she decides to take him as her own.
This doesn't sit too well with her cranky husband who wants to get rid of Bugs.
This is a good entry in the series, although it's certainly not one of the best.
The biggest problem I had with the movie is that it ends rather abruptly and the ending, while trying to be clever, doesn't really pull off the punch it was going for.
There are still some nice moments between the mama and Bugs and the action between Bugs and the dad is fast and violent..
Not great but still fun.
Bugs Bunny is adrift in a barrel, content to be sailing and reading until being rescued.
He drifts onto an island where a childless gorilla with a time bomb of a biological clock finds him and takes him in as her child.
Bugs plays along to placate her but finds that her husband is less keen on this new arrival.The short here opens well with some nice wit, Bugs reading and relaxing in his barrel, the apes reading such classics as `apes of wrath' however the actual plot is a little off and sees Bugs just aping it up with his mother.
After this we have a chase between \the father and Bugs which, while amusing, isn't the funniest thing you'll see.Bugs is as good as he always is and he holds the short up well.
The mother ape isn't great and the father is just too gruff and ignorant to be a good foil for Bugs he reminded me of Taz and we all know how poor the Bugs/Taz cartoons were at times.Overall, not a great short but has enough going for it to be worth watching..
Deja vu?.
Bugs is adrift at sea in a barrel, reading a book and singing a song as though he hasn't got a care in the world.
Unfortunately, he doesn't realise he's near an island in the ocean populated by ferocious gorillas, and when one of the childless female apes sees him floating by, she takes an instant shine to him being her baby..
despite the fact he has long ears and fluffy tale.
How will her hubby cope with the news that he has a rabbit as a heir (ho ho)?
You'll have to watch to find out.This short has almost exactly the same plot as another BB cartoon (the name escapes me for now) but the execution is far weaker.
Aside from a couple of pratfalls involving a coconut tree and a shovel there are hardly any jokes here at all, just a few aimless chases and a several uninspiring background gags (Like Tarzan crossing at the traffic lights).
The question: If you're going to rework earlier material, why bother if you're just going to strip out the good stuff and replace it with dead air?
I don't have a clue.
But what I am sure of is, when this appears on my Looney Tunes DVD in the future..
my finger will be firmly be rested on the SKIP button.
McKimson should have just stuck with Foghorn Leghorn, cause he was the bane of Bugs Bunny's existence.
Bugs bunny is willing to play along when a female gorilla desperately wants to have a baby.
But the husband of the gorilla, Mr. Gruesome hates Bugs and wants him out of the picture.
This is YET another Robert McKimson directed short that fails when compared to the Bugs Bunny cartoons of other MUCH more competent directors.
His name almost makes one weep when a TRUE Looney Tunes fan sees it in the credits.
This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.
It also features an optional commentary by Jerry Beck that needless to say is more interesting than the actual short.My Grade: C.
If gorillas lived in a patriarchal society .
. which seems to be the basic premise of GORILLA MY DREAMS, then it would be the father's responsibility to kill off all of his sons until he was too old and feeble to prevent the last of them from returning the favor and inheriting his harem (comprised mostly of his sisters and aunts, of course).
This is the theme of the Warner Bros.
animated short, GORILLA MY DREAMS, based on the prevailing Red States Life Style of the 1940s (still pretty much in vogue there Today).
Though Naturalists such as Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey have proved that gorillas actually are MATRIARCHAL since DREAMS first hit the screen, the other side of Warner's analogy still rings true Today.
As BIG LOVE recently documented, harem-based living has spread to most of the Red States now.
While Blue State Billionaires usually mate for life, those in the so-called "Bible Belt" often boast three to eight wives (though those who cross state lines frequently, such as John Wayne or the Honorary Dixie Darling Donald Trump, make out like they're practicing Serial Marriage).
Whether Gruesome Gorilla is a Serial Killer we'll never know for sure, though it's implied that he's disposed of any previous sons prior to Bugs Bunny's "adoption" by Mrs. Gruesome in "Bingzi Bangzi.".
Anarchistic bunnies and maternal gorillas?
The looney toon shorts have always struck me as various sketches/ideas/caricatures which would often vary on whether they would cater to one's tastes or entertainment value.
Like the Marx Brothers, Saturday Night Live, Steven Spielberg animated shows ("Animaniacs"/"Freakazoid"/"Tiny Toons"/"Pinky and the Brain") or any non-Disney animated Theatrical short, the Looney Toons do what they think is funny, when they think it is funny and how they feel it should be carried out.
This short struck me as an intermission between two other shorts, or even as part of a feature length film tracking Bugs Bunny's adventures.
It is simple: Bugs Bunny is in a barrel in the sea, and he is picked up by a motherless gorilla who wishes to have a child of her own.
Deciding to play along and indulge her, Bugs goes home and is greeted with hostility by papa gorilla.
The short ends with Bugs Bunny besting the Papa Gorilla in a "battle of wits".
Honestly, nothing special goes on in here.
They both bang each other on the head and chase each other around, but its not very funny; its just plain boring.
The opportunities one could have with such a setup are limitless, and it just seems like there was lazy planning and a lack of potential gags and setups.
This is one short I will only recommend you watch once, unless of course you are a die-hard Looney Toon fan..
Contemporary reference.
The ending of "Gorilla My Dreams" has special meaning for me because it is one of those Bugs Bunny vignettes with allusions to the real world that took me a several years to decipher.
The ones with allusions to celebrities and classic movies are fun, and this one has a twist.
At the end of the cartoon Mrs Gruesome makes a plaintive telephone call, after receiving the irrevocable filial rejection from Bugs and says, "Mr Anthony
I have a problem." My mother was once walking through the room while I watched this episode (after multiple times) in the 1970s and laughed at that line, which had never made sense to me.
When I asked her why she laughed she said that "Mr. Anthony was a radio adviser, an Agony Uncle, from the 1950s" and she found that it was funny that a gorilla in a cartoon would make such a call.
This concept was possibly loosely copied in a Simpson's episode: After Homer suspects that the alien Kodos is the father of Maggie, the family makes an appearance on the Jerry Springer Show.
During the course of trying to reconcile a possibly cuckolded Homer, Kang and Kodos appear in the studio, which they proceed to destroy, including Jerry Springer.
The Simpsons family are spared, but there is no resolution to the dilemma.
As they walk outside of the destroyed studio, Marge says that she is really disappointed because even Jerry Springer was not able to solve their problem.
In 50 years it is likely that Jerry Springer will be as remembered as Mister Anthony was 50 years after his appearance, but the joke remains..
"Daddy!".
Directed by Robert McKimson, "Gorilla My Dreams" is a wonderful Bugs Bunny cartoon in which the wascawwy wabbit is forced to pose as a baby gorilla for the big, burly, brutal Gruesome Gorilla and his wife.
Mel Blanc supplies the voices of all three characters, and he is especially hilarious as the mother gorilla.Highlights: When Bugs' barrel (in which he set sail) is snatched by the mama gorilla, Bugs sings "Someone's Rocking My Dreamboat".
Bugs and Gruesome dance to a conga beat while Bugs repeatedly kicks a coconut palm tree.
Aided by Carl Stalling's music score, Bugs does his best monkey imitation when he is first introduced to Gruesome."Gorilla My Dreams" is a pretty good cartoon for a laugh or two.
Catch it on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2 Disc 1, with an optional commentary by animation historian Jerry Beck. |
tt0788026 | Beau Brummell: This Charming Man | Brummell shares an intimate moment with Prince George while advising him on his wedding outfit (which is incorrectly shown in the film as a ceremonial dress) and, invites him to dinner along with his friends. He is appointed as royal sartorial advisor by the newly dandified Prince and all debts of his are dropped as word of his new position is spread. He and the Prince become close friends drinking and gambling in the clubs of London straining his finances and relations with others.
Brummel’s relationship with the Prince is strained as his fame begins to spread. He becomes enamoured with the dangerous Lord Byron against the warnings of the Prince further straining their relationship. He ignores a summons from the Prince to enjoy the favours of Miss Julia along with Byron. His manservant Robinson is forced to intervene when the Prince and Byron go head-to-head.
Brummell’s loss of royal favour leaves him outcast and indebted as the bailiffs begin to turn violent. He takes out a large loan with some close associates and even steals from Robinson but quickly gambles it all away. A disgraced and equally destitute Byron returns to London but the two fall out. Unable to pay back the loan he is expelled from his club, abandoned by Robinson, and forced to flee to France. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0057254 | The List of Adrian Messenger | A writer named Adrian Messenger (John Merivale) believes a series of apparently unrelated "accidental" deaths are actually linked murders. He asks his friend Anthony Gethryn (George C. Scott), recently retired from MI5, to help clear up the mystery. However, Messenger's plane is bombed while he is en route to collect evidence to confirm his suspicions and, with his dying breath, he tries to tell a fellow passenger the key to the mystery.
The passenger survives and turns out to be Raoul Le Borg (Jacques Roux), Gethryn's old World War II counterpart in the French Resistance. They join forces to investigate Messenger's list of names, and decode Messenger's final cryptic words. They establish that all on the list were together in a prisoner of war camp in Burma, where a Canadian sergeant, George Brougham, betrayed his fellow prisoners, foiling their escape attempt. Each has a reason to kill Brougham. It evolves that Brougham is their killer, but why? They deduce that he is about to come into prominence and cannot risk being recognised. Gethryn and Le Borg establish that he stands in line to an inheritance of the Bruttenholm family, landed gentry who are friends of Gethryn and the late Messenger, and who avidly engage in fox hunting.
Having disposed of all possible witnesses to his wartime treachery, Brougham (Kirk Douglas) appears at a Bruttenholm estate fox hunt and introduces himself as a member of the family (he has previously been seen only in disguise). It then becomes clear to the visiting Gethryn and Le Borg that Brougham's next victim is to be the young heir, Derek. In an attempt to divert Brougham, Gethryn makes known his investigation of Messenger’s list, calculating to set himself up as the next victim.
That night, Brougham sabotages the next morning’s hunt by laying a drag with a fox in a sack over the fields. He especially marks a blind spot behind a high wall, and moves a large hay tedder behind, intending for Gethryn (who has been given the honour of leading the hunt) to be impaled upon its lethal tines. Unbeknownst to Brougham, his plan goes awry when a farmer repositions the tedder early the next morning. The hunt commences but comes to a halt at the specified spot. Gethryn reveals to the gathered crowd that he discovered and removed the hay-tedder booby trap earlier that morning and, with the help of the lead fox hound, will detect the scent of the culprit amongst a group of hunt saboteurs. Brougham, once again disguised, is identified and runs off, mounting Derek's horse. When Derek shouts a command to the horse, the animal stops short, throwing Brougham and impaling him on the very same machine he intended for Gethryn. | murder | train | wikipedia | John Huston displays an indiscreet lack of subtlety, taxing our tolerance with a somewhat modern English whodunit with an extra publicity stunt: Numerous major Hollywood actors are announced to appear in the film, but are all thickly concealed in John Chambers' make-up design: Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, Tony Curtis as an organ-grinder, Burt Lancaster as an old woman, Frank Sinatra as a gypsy horse-trader.
Because of that gimmick with Curtis, Mitchum, Sinatra and Lancaster people seem to regard this film as a sort of spot-the-star contest.
Excellent acting (especially Douglas in what must be his best role since Paths of Glory), superb music (Jerry Goldsmith) and brilliant direction of John Huston more than make up for occasional lapses in the story.The story is quite simple, but the less said the better.
Very good support cast such Robert Mitchum , Tony Curtis , Frank Sinatra , Herbert Marshall , Gladys Cooper , Marcel Dalio , Bernard Fox , being the fourth of seven films that Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster made together and final film of Clive Brook .
Since the filmmakers knew they couldn't find a way to make a full head latex "invisible" to the audience, (and presumably didn't want to go with a completely other actor) they went the Purloined Letter route and threw in a bunch of such "spottable" characters to keep the audience from guessing which one was the killer.Much like the movie The Spanish Prisoner - where every person seems somehow fakey UNTIL you watch from the viewpoint of "spot the scam" and realize the EVERYONE sounds fake (i.e., like they're scamming someone) so you CAN'T spot the con artists.Brilliant, really.
La Borg who took down, in his photographic mind, the dying mans last words that reveal, if deciphered, the truth about his list and the person who's not only responsible for his impending death but the deaths of all the persons, some who at the time were still alive, on it!Despite its novelty of guessing just who are the actors, Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra and Tony Curtis etc.
It's only Kirk Douglas as George Brougham, together with some half dozen other disguises, and Robert Mitchum as James Slattery who had any real role in the movies plot line.
Instead of just showing up in the end and, when the film was finally over, taking off their disguise revealing to the startled viewers just who they were playing.Gethryn and Borg who both worked together in WWII against the Nazis team up to get to the bottom of what the late Adrian Messenger meant in his list of names and as the two check out the names one at a time.It turns out that all of them, with he exception of James Slattery, died mysteriously over the last five years.
Which in the end, with Gethryn & Borg giving up on him, lead to his death when the killer pushed him, wheelchair and all, off the docks and into the bay where he drowned.The killer***SPOILERS***finally reveals himself at a fox-hunt at the estate of the Marquis of Gleneyre, Clive Brook, as his long dead brothers son George Brougham.
A starry cast -- Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Tony Curtis, Frank Sinatra -- wanders around under false-faces for, with one exception, no discernible reason (they all end up looking like late Sean Connery).
A "master of disguise" (who always looks exactly like the famous star portraying him no matter how much makeup he's under) is killing persons whose names appear on a secret list.
In an attempt to lure audiences to this artificial, parlor-game excrement, the film-makers included the gimmick of having 4 other famous stars appear in cameos under heavy makeup and daring the viewer to identify them.
When the whole mess has come to a merciful end, the stars rip off their bad latex Halloween mask makeup and wink at the camera as if to say, "Wasn't that clever?" If you're still awake, your answer will be, "No."When you take into account the enormous amount of talent involved on both sides of the camera, this is surely one of the most inexcusably bad films of all time..
Entertaining...that's what this film is - the reason you go to the movies in the first place.If you like mysteries, this is among the best.
Cameos (in disguises) are by Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum and Frank Sinatra.It's supposed to be an English film but Scott hardly fits in with his American accent.
The story line of this film,George C Scott,retired MI-5 agent is requested by Adrian Messenger to check into the wherebouts of a groups of individuals,related to a wealthy family.
kirk Douglas,Dana Wynter and George C Scott are the main actors.Highly recommended..
The List of Adrian Messenger is a John Huston film from 1963.It's a movie filled with fantastic stars.Some of them are hard to recognize because they have disguised themselves.Your job is to guess which is which.You can discover Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum and Frank Sinatra.Your job is not easy for some of them are pretty unrecognizable.The brilliant Kirk Douglas is among the stars you can recognize, even though he is seen in many masks.It's always great to see this now 90 year old actor in a movie.The fine actor George C.
Scott plays Anthony Gethryn.Dana Wynter is Lady Jocelyn Bruttenholm while director's son Tony Huston plays the role of Derek Bruttenholm.The outstanding Jerry Goldsmith is behind the music.This film is fascinating, most fascinating..
the mark of John Huston is basis for a dark film who remains memorable for the status of game with masks, for the ambiguity and for the great job of Kirk Douglas ..
Released in 1963, "The List of Adrian Messenger" was marketed with a gimmick; the cast included five top box office stars, who were disguised with heavy makeup, and the audience was challenged to guess who was who.
Although the gimmick has faded in the half century since release, the tight, well-directed mystery at the film's core survives.An aristocratic writer named Adrian Messenger gives a typed list of 10 names to his friend, George C.
When Messenger soon perishes in a mysterious plane crash, Scott pursues the investigation and discovers that six of the men on the list have already died accidentally.
While not among John Huston's most famous films, "The List of Adrian Messenger" is a well directed work, enhanced by an appropriately eerie score by Jerry Goldsmith.
The five now-legendary stars under the false noses, hair pieces, and rubber faces are Tony Curtis, Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, and Frank Sinatra; a couple are easy to identify behind the make-up, while others more difficult.
Scott, however, is the film's star and central character, and he is ably supported by the elegant Dana Wynter, as well as Clive Brook, Gladys Cooper, and Herbert Marshall.Marketing ploys come and go; some fail, others succeed.
While "The List of Adrian Messenger" is a quality film that could stand on its own merits, the producers at the time felt the movie needed a boost to stand out at the box-office.
The wealthy host of an English country estate named Adrian Messenger (John Merivale) presents his friend, Anthony Gethryn (George C.
It's filled with cameos from major stars, and it's fun to figure out just who is who.The whole mystery is directed with tongue deeply in cheek by John Huston.
The List of Adrian Messenger :This is one of director John Huston's important films..
American director John Huston had a long as well as illustrious career as an intelligent filmmaker.If film critics were to draft a list of his important films then nobody would doubt that 'The List of Adrian Messenger' would easily find a place on that list.Although it boasts of some important names of Hollywood,The list of Adrian Messenger is able to surprise us all with its focus on suspense.This is one reason why this film's suspense elements appear to be more enjoyable than mere presence of big stars such as Burt Lancaster,Kirk Douglas,Robert Mitchum and Frank Sinatra.For a film which flirts effortlessly between different genres namely suspense and thriller,The list of Adrian Messenger throws its biggest surprise when it embraces comedy with natural ease.The pace of the film is fast with no scope for any type of dull moments.The end result is an important film which would be an inspiration for other thrillers..
which is utterly counter-productive (and it is the very reason why Hitchcock, who rejected whodunits, ended up making his cameo very early in his movies).The worst in my opinion are the deceptive credits who clearly bill Tony Curtis, Robert Mitchum and Frank Sinatra alongside the actors playing the main characters while they barely are disguised cameos.
John Huston directs an enjoyable piece of escapism in which we have a creaky, old-style murder mystery complete with rambling country house, dimly lit streets, black cabs, canes, MI5, fox-hunting, death lists and heavily disguised actors.Best not to give too much away; Kirk Douglas excels and the cameos are fun too.6/10.
When John is killed in an airplane bombing, George recruits Jacques Roux and Dana Wynter to help in solving the mystery.
I won't spoil anything because it's fun to guess, but be on the lookout for Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, Frank Sinatra, and Robert Mitchum..
It shows the difference between right and wrong behavior.It's only flaw is using superstars in small roles: Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, and Frank Sinatra.
The actors:Dana Wynter, Jacques, Herbert Marshall, and Clive Brook were probably given one of their last good roles in a movie.
Disguises Aside I Liked This One. This film is most remembered by the cameo appearances of several stars under heavy make up which proposes a little game in trying to identify them (Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra and Kirk Douglas).
However, and that aside, "The List of Adrian Messenger" stands as an entertaining thriller for those of us who enjoy the genre.The story goes with a series of apparently unrelated accidental deaths, until someone -the guy in the title- suspects they are somehow linked and starts to investigate the case; when he perishes in an airplane crash his work is taken over by a friend of his a retired police inspector.The plot is interesting and, aided by an excellent black and white photography, director John Huston creates a sordid and most appropriate atmosphere and sustains tension and interest all along.George C.
Intriguing mystery from John Huston with celebrity cameo roles.
Scott are the leading actors but other stars were brought in to play small cameo roles hidden under heavy disguises!
Part of the mystery (and enjoyment of the film) was to guess where and when these stars appeared.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion that a trick was played on the unsuspecting audience and that other (unknown) actors stood in for both Frank Sinatra and Burt Lancaster during the actual film and that these two stars only put in an appearance at the very end of the film when disguises were taken off to reveal who was who!
Kirk Douglas wore the most disguises during the film and seemed to be having a good time in his various roles.
"The List of Adrian Messenger" could best be described as an old fashioned mystery thriller and is none the less enjoyable for that.
A good, old-fashioned mystery thriller, The List of Adrian Messenger offers a rare chance to see director John Huston serving up an atypically light-hearted style of film.
But The List of Adrian Messenger is more of a playful suspense story - similar to the kind of thing Hitchcock might have made at that time - and it comes across as a likable and occasionally exciting film.Retired British Intelligence agent Anthony Gethryn (miscast George C.
Scott, struggling with his inconsistent English accent) investigates the murder of Adrian Messenger, killed in the bombing of a plane.
Gethryn realises that Brougham is only two killings away from claiming his prize, and sets about ensnaring the villain before his sinister scheme is complete.The gimmick in the film is that four major stars have brief guest roles beneath heavy make-up.
Tony Curtis, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra and Burt Lancaster are the stars - they're quite hard to spot (Mitchum is probably the easiest, but the others are very well disguised).
If you forget the gimmick and watch The List of Adrian Messenger purely as a suspense thriller, it holds up pretty well, with clever twists and turns and a very memorable final sequence in which Brougham plans an elaborate killing during a fox hunt.
Gradually he realizes that the list of names are of men who were prisoners of war with Messenger, and that they and others were betrayed by another man who will kill anyone who is in his way to claim a large estate.The gimmick of this film (which makes it a guessing game, but also ruins the mystery to some extent) was to guess who were the celebrities in cameo roles in this film.
The five celebrities were Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra, and Tony Curtis.
One of his disguises, by the way, looks like Dr. Hawley Crippen.Despite the gimmick taking one's attention away from the actual mystery, the film is a good one, well directed by John Huston (who has a cameo here as well, as does his son), and has some nice countryside photography - particularly of the final fox hunt.
Kirk Douglas has a more substantial supporting role as the head heavy, and Robert Mitchum is on screen several times as a drunken scoundrel.The director, John Huston, had an estate in Ireland at the time and rode in exaltation to the hounds in fox hunts.
But I think a lot of suspected something when the stars in makeup at the end didn't look much like the same character seen in the rest of the film..
The first name I wrote was Kirk Douglas playing George C.Scott's role.
Adrian Messenger as played by John Merivale asks a friend George C.
That list becomes the key to finding his murderers as Scott and plane crash survivor Jacques Roux go on the hunt.The List of Adrian Messenger is a nice murder mystery of the type that the British do so well.
Had it not been for the gimmick of the heavily make-up laden stars playing bit roles except in two cases the film might well have stood on its own merits of well executed plot and good acting.
Scott, like Gregory Peck in The Paradine Case he drifts in and out of an affected English accent.Three of the stars, Frank Sinatra, Tony Curtis, and Burt Lancaster have small walk-on parts.
Robert Mitchum has a small role as one of the names on The List of Adrian Messenger.
He's got a very well thought out plan and he comes close to completing it.I agree with everyone else who has said that John Huston took this particular film assignment so he good indulge in fox hunting and get paid for it.
All look quite comfortable in their roles.The List of Adrian Messenger is a short film for an A feature.
It's almost a pity that The List of Adrian Messenger is a good film.
But under the direction of the legendary John Huston, this old style English whodunit is a fun murder mystery.
He asks his friend, a recently retired member from MI5, to help clear up the mystery.Spoilers ahead: The real fun of The List of Adrian Messenger and what makes this film still unique is that then famous movie stars play cameos in disguise.
Frank Sinatra, Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis and Robert Mitchum all appear in heavy makeup.
He is the only one we can be sure of, because there have been claims that some of these stars just appeared in the revealing epilogue and that their scenes in the film were done by stand ins.The other actor we can also be sure of is Kirk Douglass who takes on different disguises.
The director John Huston himself makes a cameo at the end, although not in disguise..
THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER is an incredibly inventive murder mystery/thriller, made by John Huston and shot on his estate in Ireland.
Despite the outstanding cast, Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, Frank Sinatra, Dana Wynter, and George C.
It still manages to entertain, but not nearly as much as it could have.The List of Adrian Messenger, 1963, Starring: George C.
Scott, Kirk Douglas and Dana Wynter, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie.
Having made it clear quite early in the movie that the elevator killer, the vicar and the genial neighbor are all impersonated by Kirk Douglas (coldly, intelligently effective as the mass murderer), the film then cunningly obscures the trail by disguising its remaining four guest stars as characters who could as well turn out to be the ubiquitously protean Mr. Douglas as, say Burt Lancaster or Frank Sinatra.
John Huston's "The List of Adrian Messenger" has a quirky charm and an interesting story, but is derailed by a badly executed gimmick.
This film is as light as a soufflé in comparison; "The List of Adrian Messenger" is Huston on holidays.Top-billed Kirk Douglas plays George Brougham, distant heir to the Bruttenholme estate in England who eliminates a list of people who know a secret that would prevent him claiming his inheritance.
Although Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum and Tony Curtis play cameos, it is Kirk Douglas who occupies a large amount of screen time in a number of disguises.
John Huston lived on a country estate in Ireland when he made this movie, and his love for fox hunting inspired the final scenes of the film with the countryside of Ireland beautifully photographed. |
tt0025410 | Little Miss Marker | The film tells the story of "Marky" (Shirley Temple), whose father gives her to a gangster-run gambling operation as a "marker" (collateral) for a bet. When he loses his bet and commits suicide, the gangsters are left with her on their hands. They decide to keep her temporarily and use her to help pull off one of their fixed races, naming her the owner of the horse to be used in the race.
Marky is sent to live with bookie Sorrowful Jones (Adolphe Menjou). Initially upset about being forced to look after her, he eventually begins to develop a father-daughter relationship with her. His fellow gangsters become fond of her and begin to fill the roles of her extended family. Bangles (Dorothy Dell) - girlfriend of gang kingpin Big Steve (Charles Bickford), who has gone to Chicago to place bets on the horse - also begins to care for Marky, and to fall in love with Sorrowful, whose own concern for Marky shows he has a warm heart beneath his hard-man persona. Sorrowful, encouraged by Bangles and Marky, gets a bigger apartment, buys Marky new clothes and himself a better cut of suit, reads her bedtime stories, and shows her how to pray.
However, being around the gang has a somewhat bad influence on Marky, and she begins to develop a cynical nature and a wide vocabulary of gambling terminology and slang. Bangles and Sorrowful, worried that her acquired bad-girl attitude means she won't get adopted by a "good family," put on a party with gangsters dressed up as knights-of-the-round-table, to rekindle her former sweetness. She is unimpressed until they bring in the horse and parade her around on its back. Big Steve, returning to New York, frightens the horse, which throws her, and she is taken to the hospital. Big Steve goes there to pay back Sorrowful for trying to steal Bangles but is roped into giving Marky the direct blood transfusion she needs for her life-saving operation. Sorrowful, praying for her survival, destroys the drug which, administered to the horse, would have helped it win the race but killed it soon after. Big Steve, told he has "good blood" and pleased to have given life for a change, forgives Bangles and Sorrowful. They plan to marry and adopt Marky. | revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0067983 | Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? | Mrs. Forrest, in the eyes of the staff and children at an orphanage, is a sweet, kind-mannered and children-loving widow, who throws a lavish annual Christmas party at her mansion, Forrest Grange (known to the orphans as the "Gingerbread House") for ten of the best-mannered children at the orphanage. But secretly, she is a demented, sad and miserable woman who keeps the mummified remains of her daughter Katharine in a nursery room in the attic, singing lullabies to her and trying to contact her spirit with the assistance of (phony) psychic Mr. Benton. He fools Forrest into believing that the voice of Clarine, one of the servants, during the fake séances is that of Katharine.
Christopher and Katy Coombs are orphaned brother and sister. Christopher has a wild imagination, telling stories about dragons and witches that frighten the other orphans. When he and his sister are not included in the list of ten orphans for the Christmas party at Auntie Roo's mansion, he and Katy sneak into the car of Inspector Willoughby, who transfers the orphans to Forrest Grange, and are warmly welcomed by Auntie Roo. Auntie Roo is surprised to see the resemblance of her daughter Katharine to Katy, and becomes more and more focused on her. Katy is missing as the party ends and the other orphans leave. Auntie Roo promises to find her and send her back. Christopher realizes that Katy is not just missing, but was kidnapped by Auntie Roo. Meanwhile, Albie, the young, sadistic butler, discovers that Auntie Roo has Katy locked in the nursery room. He blackmails her into giving him £2,000 by threatening to reveal her secret to the police unless she pays to keep him quiet. After this, he and Clarine depart from the mansion and leave her alone with Katy.
When no one believes Christopher about seeing Auntie Roo singing lullabies to mummified Katharine, or that Katy has really been abducted, he runs away to the mansion but ends up trapped inside too. Auntie Roo wants to replace Katy for Katharine, but in Christopher's mind, he thinks Auntie Roo is really a witch wanting to devour him and his sister. Auntie Roo prepares a dinner for the New Year's coming, while Christopher assists her. He steals the key to the nursery room.
After Christopher frees Katy, Auntie Roo chases them to the kitchen where Christopher tries to protect them with a knife. Knocking it from his hand with a piece of wood, Auntie Roo corners them in the pantry and locks the door. Auntie Roo hears in her mind her daughter shouting for her and runs to her coffin in the attic. When she tries to touch the corpse's face, it disintegrates to dust. Auntie Roo returns to the kitchen in a highly agitated state yelling "I have nothing, I have nothing." She turns the hour glass over to time her cooking and starts chopping potatoes with a large cleaver. She then hears the children from the pantry calling to her to let them out, but she resists listening to them. Katy then says "Please, mommy", touching the heart of Auntie Roo. Completely lost in her delusions she opens the door to embrace Katy ("Katharine"). Christopher knocks things from the high shelf causing Auntie Roo to fall. The children lock the door but Auntie Roo begins hacking at it with a cleaver.
Christopher and Katy place the fire-wood he had been fetching at the door and set it on fire with paraffin (kerosene). Smashing through parts of the door with the cleaver Auntie Roo sees the fire and it comes into the pantry surrounding her. Auntie Roo, deep in her psychosis, falls in a corner. The children emerge from the smoked-filled building, carrying the almost forgotten teddy bear that belonged to Katharine (in which Katy and Christopher have placed all of Auntie Roo's jewelry), while Mrs. Forrest, surrounded by fire, shouts at Katy to come back to her.
Outside, the orphans meet Auntie Roo's butcher, Mr. Harrison, who is delivering a whole piglet by horse-cart. He sees the smoke inside and drives off to call the fire brigade. Katy realizes she was to cook the pig, but Christopher says they were to be eaten after it. When he leaves, Christopher quips, "Bloody good fire", while inside, the whole cellar goes up in flames. The fire brigade arrives and puts out the fire but are unable to rescue Mrs. Forrest. Inspector Willoughby will take the children back to the orphanage. Still outside, the orphanage doctor, Dr. Mason, comments "Poor little devils. They'll probably have nightmares till the day they die". Christopher and Katy smile at each other, departing from the burned mansion, with Christopher ending the tale by saying "Hansel and Gretel knew that the wicked witch could not harm anyone else and they were happy. They also knew that with the wicked witch's treasure they would not be hungry again. So they lived happily ever after." | insanity | train | wikipedia | Who Slew Auntie Roo is still one of the most cleverly constructed films of the 70s.An interesting and fascinating take on the Hansel and Gretel story.
He died leaving her his fortune and creepy mansion called "Forrest Grange" Their little 7 year old daughter Katherine died after falling off a banister that she was sliding down.The film opens with Auntie Roo as she is called by the orphans singing a lullabye to what appears to be a child in a cradle.
Of course her psychic is in cahoots with the servants who stage the seances.It is now time for Aunt Roo's annual Christmas Party where 10 lucky children from the local orphanage are selected to attend an overnight holiday party at Forrest Grange.
Auntie Roo sees a resemblance in Katy to her dead daughter Katherine...and of course the movie takes off from here.
The children see Auntie Roo as the witch in Hansel and Gretel...and Forrest Grange is the Gingerbread House.
I won't give away any more of the plot, but the psychological games between the children and Auntie Roo as their terror mounts makes for an extremely entertaining film.Aside from Shelley Winter's bravura performance, there are also strong contributions from Sir Ralph Richardson as her psychic; Rosemary Crutchley as the director of the orphanage, Mark Lester (of Oliver fame) as Christopher.
Probably Shelley Winters' greatest Movie - though I suspect many would disagree.Many viewers delight in name-calling 'Aunt Roo' as 'nuts' 'crazy' 'evil' etc., but many fail to see the sad and pathetic side to this unfortunate character.Aunt Roo (played marvellously by the wonderful Shelley Winters) is clearly traumatised by the tragic death of her only child.
If the roles of this film were reversed, everyone's sympathy would still lie with the children...Shelley Winters' performance still brings tears to my eyes when she cries and yearns for her dead child, only to find out she's been made a fool of - enough to drive anyone insane!A fabulous Movie, and a fabulous story.
A broad take-off on the old "Hansel and Gretel" fairytale, this movie is pure 70's.If you like your horror films without a lot of gore and with a lot of suspense, see "Who Slew Auntie Roo?" It's worth your time..
This is a well-acted, but thinly plotted addition to the BABY JANE/CHARLOTTE cycle, with Shelley Winters giving an appropriately over-the-top performance as the lonely, crazed woman who lures unsuspecting young children into her creepy old house.
Made by horror practitioner Curtis Harrington in England after directing Winters earlier that year in the superb Gothic thriller WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN?, this film is a bit of a letdown in comparison.
Though Shelley's campy performance in the title role is the film's main attraction, the movie boasts an equally impressive supporting cast that includes Ralph Richardson as a phony psychic, Hugh Griffith as an eccentric butcher, and Mark Lester and Chloe Franks as the terrorized young children..
Some of the scares are cheesy, a few of the child actors are awful (the lead girl looks and acts like she was sniffing glue during the entire production!), and it is a bit disconcerting to sit through yet another movie where Shelley Winters sings and dances like a freak.
I love Shelley Winters in this film as the demented Auntie Roo, the widow of a British magician.
You feel sorry for her but despise what she's doing to Katy and Christopher, young British orphans, who end up being Hansel and Gretel in this story.
Well, Lester is a growing teen rebelling, Winters decays into some form of madness, a cast of stalwart British character actors such as Sir Ralph Richardson, Hugh Griffith, and Lionel Jeffries ably aid the story, and that story degenerates/diffuses into some sinister tale not unlike Hansel and Gretel.
Former stage star Auntie Roo (Shelley Winters) is the love of orphans in town come Christmas time as she invites ten lucky kids to come spend the night at her countryside estate on Christmas Eve. Two kids, Chris (Mark Lester) and Katy (Chloe Franks) Combs, who didn't make the cut sneak along to the mansion and soon their host is infatuated with Katy because she reminds her of her own missing daughter, who she has been trying to contact through séances.
The first part is as delightful as the cakes,the sweets ,the lollipops and the gingerbread men which the good lady serves to the orphans she welcomes for her Christmas party in her Gothic desirable mansion.This mysterious woman,with a racy past ,was married to a magician (remarkable scene when the two children venture into the old house full of magic props where once more,we are told that children are not necessarily devoid of cruelty.After a seance in the dark with a charlatan medium,Roo (Winters)is quite sure that one of the orphans is her late daughter ,who rose from the dead.
She wants to keep her in her house but her brother (Mark "Oliver" Lester ) is not prepared to accept it.He tells his sister about Grimm's sinister fairytale "Hansel und Gretel" in the gingerbread house.The first hour is brilliant:the Christmas atmosphere is perfectly captured.The crepuscular quality of the film is tangible .Few other films of the seventies offer so many associations of guarded privacy and locked rooms,in such dreamlike darkness.Shelley Winters is outstanding particularly in that short scene when she goes from tears to a good laugh.The film obviously loses steam in the last thirty minutes.Winters begins to overact to make up for the poor third of the script which is at once repetitive ,dull and predictable.We do not need Lester's voice over to understand that the children are Hansel and Gretel in the witch's den..As Freud and Bruno Bettelheim showed,fairy tales have an hidden meaning which the children unconsciously comprehend but the demonstration is pretty low brow.Watch it anyway:its incredible several moments make it all worthwhile.Like this?Try these...."Les amants criminels" François Ozon 1996"The night of the hunter" Charles Laughton 1955"The nanny" Holt 1965"Bunny Lake is missing" Otto Preminger 1965.
Well, the title sounds intriguing, and "Hansel and Gretel" has always been one of my very favorite fairy tales, but this is a slow-moving, lackluster thriller, with only a few suspenseful scenes (one of those, however, with a kid trying to reach a key before Shelley Winters returns to the room, is perfectly executed).
"Auntie Roo", she provides a nice place for orphaned children to spend their Christmas holidays.
But incorrigible child Christopher Coombs (Mark Lester) is convinced that she's like the witch in the "Hansel and Gretel" story, and kidnaps kids in order to fatten them up and eat them.While clearly Mrs. Forrest has gone off the deep end, you do feel sympathy for her.
Some viewers are sure to be suspicious of the bratty Christopher, and doubt the possibility of Mrs. Forrest being an actual "witch".Overall, the movie is a fun, if not exemplary, effort for Curtis Harrington, who'd also collaborated with Winters on "What's the Matter with Helen?".
It establishes a tone right away with its pre-credits sequence, where Mrs. Forrest sings a lullaby to a corpse.Lester and adorable Chloe Franks are good as the brother and sister targeted by our unbalanced protagonist, with Gothard, Richardson, lovely Judy Cornwell, Lionel Jeffries, Hugh Griffith, and Rosalie Crutchley providing excellent support.The opening credits sequence comes complete with over the top music by Kenneth V.
(1971) *** (out of 4)Every year at Christmas time, rich widow Mrs. Forrest (Shelley Winters) invites ten kids from the local orphanage up for a good time.
Christopher (Mark Lester) and his sister Katy (Chloe Franks) eventually catch the key of Mrs. Forrest and especially the sister since she reminds the woman of her dead daughter.
Before you know it the kids are staying with Mrs. Forrest but before long Christopher begins to think that she's a witch with plans to eat them.Curtis Harrington's WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO?
The film isn't the greatest movie ever made but it's certainly an effective one and one that is very much worth watching.There are a lot of things to like about the picture including the atmosphere that director Harrington builds.
Shelley Winters stars as widower Mrs. Forrest, who, having lost her daughter Katherine in an accident, now enjoys the company of children from the local orphanage, throwing a party for the best behaved kids at her house each Christmas.
When Christopher Coombs (Mark Lester) and his younger sister Katy (Chloe Franks) crash the party, Mrs. Forrest takes a particular liking to the little girl, who reminds her of her own dear departed daughter.
Her feelings towards Katy quickly become an obsession and she schemes to keep the girl as her own, although Christopher, convinced that the woman is a witch, is determined to rescue his sibling no matter what.Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?
is quite the oddity, drawing inspiration from the fairy tale Hansel and Gretel, with Mrs. Forrest tempting the kids with sugary treats to fatten them up, and preparing a roaring oven in the kitchen, which Christopher believes is intended for both he and his sister.
These gentlemen have brought the Hammer touch to AIP, making this film both British (in a good way), but still that same cult AIP style we love.And even better is the "Hansel and Gretel" idea.
Curtis Harrington had just directed Shelley Winters in the sinister "What's the Matter with Helen?", and so he brought her back for the equally sinister "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?".
Instead it goes straight for the jugular, riffing on Hansel and Gretel with Winters in the role of the witch (who in this case is simply a disturbed woman keeping her late daughter's skeleton preserved).
One Resourceful Kid. No doubt that Shelley Winters assumed the title role in Whoever Slew Auntie Roo for a chance to really chew the scenery.
That's what's great about films like Whoever Slew Auntie Roo, you can overact to the max and no one will criticize you.By all appearances Shelley is a kindly old widow, an American transplanted to the United Kingdom of the Roaring Twenties and she opens her house once a year to a select group of children from a nearby school.
She lost her own daughter in a tragic accident and tries to communicate with her through a medium played deliciously by Ralph Richardson.Mark Lester and Chloe Franks are a pair of misbehaving kids from the school who are brother and sister.
She kidnaps Chloe and Lester takes it upon himself to rescue her.The story is a loosely told tongue and cheek version of the Grimm brothers Hansel And Gretel so if you remember the tale from your childhood, you've got some approximate idea of what happens to Winters.
Shelley Winters stars in this combination of modern, macabre film making, along with fairytale interpretation, Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?
focuses on the seemingly giving widow, Mrs Forrest (Winters), who offers food, shelter and presents to local orphans at Christmas time.
(1969) musical - and Chloe Franks), secretly enter the mansion, and a relationship between the girl and Mrs Forrest ensues that develops into a strange obsession, that leads to Winters connecting Katy with her dead daughter.
The film does also boast some good, but small performances from the great Ralph Richardson and Lionel Jeffries, but as with Oliver!, I still have great inability to believe that Mark Lester would ever have been orphaned or poor - he is just too well-spoken.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com.
Extremely mild British thriller from AIP has Shelley Winters camping it up as loony woman mourning her dead daughter, convinced a little orphan girl is her deceased child come back to life.
Whoever Slew Auntie Roo is a seventies horror take on the classic Hansel and Gretel story.
She was surrounded by accomplished cast members (Ralph Richardson, Lionel Jeffries, Hugh Griffith, Rosalie Crutchley, Michael Gothard and child actors Mark Lester and Chloe Franks) and the behind-the-camera crew was equally imposing (Jimmy Sangster and Gavin Lambert among the screenwriters and cinematographer Desmond Dickinson).Incidentally, just as Hammer's STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING (1972) took its inspiration from "Peter Pan", this was based on the popular fairy-tale by the Brothers Grimm "Hansel & Gretel" - with Lester and Franks as the siblings at the mercy of 'witch' Winters!
Ironically, however, the first half of the film works rather better than the heavy-handed fairy-tale scenario: the story has been updated and reset to pre-WWI England (where it was also shot) and necessitates quite a bit of exposition (including a subplot involving Richardson and Gothard fleecing the rich widow by holding fake séances, in which she tries to contact her own daughter about whose death she is guilt-ridden and whose decaying corpse she still conserves!).
This, then, would seem to suggest that the supporting cast is wasted; with respect to Jeffries and Griffith, that may perhaps be true, but Richardsoin does get to demonstrate his incomparable thespian skills in a couple of extended scenes (still, his role isn't quite as large or central to the plot as one would expect from his above-the-title billing!).Harrington's wonderful period atmosphere is admirably sustained, however, and the scenes in which Winters lullabies her long-dead daughter have a definite creepiness to them (ditto the sequence in which the children insinuate themselves into the room belonging to Winters' late conjurer husband, play around with a still-active guillotine and are scared by a costumed Gothard)..
It seemed like an extremely slow moving film but I liked a few of the performances (Winters and Richards), great set pieces and it's something that has stayed with me for a long time even though haven't seen this movie since the early80s.
Mischievous Christopher (the terrific Mark Lester of "Oliver!" and "Eyewitness" fame) and his sweet little sister Katy (adorable blonde sprite Chloe Franks, who played the daughters of Christopher Lee in "The House That Dripped Blood" and Joan Collins in "Tales from the Crypt") are a couple of orphans living in Great Britian in the 1920's.
Christopher convinces Katy that loopy recluse Rosie "Auntie Roo" Forrest (Shelley Winters chewing the scenery with her trademark four-sheets-to-the-wind hambone panache), a former music hall singer who once a year invites a bunch of kids to her huge, crumbling mansion for Christmas diner, is really a witch who plans to fatten Katy up and eat her.
Director Curtis Harrington, adapting a fiendishly clever script co-written by veteran Hammer horror film scribe Jimmy ("The Curse of Frankenstein," "The Horror of Dracula") Sangster, whips up a delightfully twisted and darkly amusing Gothic black comedy version of "Hansel and Gretel." The first-rate cast have a ball with their juicy parts: Ralph Richardson as an eccentric charlatan medium, Michael Gothard (the crazed killer in "Scream and Scream Again") as a mean butler, Lionel Jeffries as a friendly, hearty police inspector, Hugh Griffiths as a jolly butcher, and Marianne Stone as a strict orphanage supervisor.
One of the children at the party, a little girl, reminds Rue of her daughter and the woman believes the child is the reincarnation of her.
Both are on a single DVD and are a lot of kitschy fun.The film starts with Winters telling her daughter a bedtime story and the scene is quite charming...until the camera pulls back and you see that the child is dead and has been there for a very, very long time!
You soon see that Winters is indeed daffy and a psychic (Ralph Richardson) comes to the house and they have a séance--Winters is desperately trying to dead daughter.A bit later, a group of orphans are invited to this weird lady's home.
The oldest (Mark Lester--who STILL looks like he needs a haircut following his role in "Oliver!") is quite inquisitive and searches throughout the house finding all kinds of creepy props from Winters' deceased husband (a magician) as well as a secret room--Winters' dead daughter's room (though fortunately the corpse is now hidden).
As for the little girl, she has the same name as the dead daughter and reminds Winters of her lost child.
So, in a move that Lester thinks is akin to the witch in "Hansel & Gretel", Winters steals the little girl and hides her in the hidden room.
Shelley Winters plays the heartbroken and distraught widow Mrs. Forrest (Auntie Roo to all the kiddies), who also lost her daughter in an unfortunate accident.
I haven't watched very many of her films, but so far this is my favorite and she plays the role of Auntie Roo very well.
And reminiscent of Hansel and Gretel, Auntie Roo seems to also have an appetite for children, which turns out to be very bad for an orphaned brother and sister.
Rosie Forrest(Shelley Winters), as the film presents in the opening singing to her daughter who is a rotted corpse, is pretty mad you could say.
That time may've arrived in the luggage cart for Christopher believes Rosie is a witch and that he and Katy are to be stuffed in an oven and eaten when she's gets a chance(Christopher compares their situation to the dark fairy tale, Hansel and Gretel..an aspect the film tries in every way to exploit throughout even using Christopher's narration parlaying excerpts from the story).
Here we have Shelley Winters playing a batty old lady with a large mansion, who likes to invite children across for parties to ease her loneliness.
Shelley Winters does a good job of acting here, but sadly the two children (Mark Lester and Chloe Franks) do not.
"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" is decent enough but still watchable in the right mind-set.**SPOILERS**Shortly after her daughter's death, Mrs. Forrest, (Shelly Winters) becomes insane and tries to reconnect with her anyway she can.
After hosting a Christmas party for the local orphans, Winters kidnaps little Chloe Franks as a replacement daughter.
When a dozen of orphans arrive at Auntie Roo's mansion to celebrate Christmas, she sees in beautiful Katy the reincarnation of her own deceased daughter.
"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" is by no means a great horror film, but it's fun enough to watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon or during a theme-night with friends.. |
tt0490134 | Ghostboat | HMS Scorpion, a British submarine that had gone missing in the Baltic Sea during the Second World War, surfaces in the path of a Russian freighter in 1981. The vessel is returned to British custody. Naval Intelligence is interested in the case because it seems that, for the first time, a ship has returned from "the Devil's Triangle of the North". The submarine opens its own hatch to let the investigating team in, where they find the vessel in a state of perfect preservation, but find no sign of the crew.
Jack Hardy is the only surviving member of the original crew, having been found floating and rescued in 1943 by members of Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine; but he has no memory of the last days of the 1943 mission. He and Alan Cassidy, one of the vessel's designers, join a Royal Navy crew on a mission to retrace Scorpion's last days before it went missing. Commander Travis, a naval intelligence officer, is in charge of the mission while Captain Byrnes captains the submarine. The mission will take the submarine into Soviet waters, and a surface ship, HMS Oakland escorts the boat. Once in the Baltic, the current crew begins to take on the personalities and identities of the dead crew, and the boat takes a degree of control over itself. Contact with Oakland is soon lost.
A "Soviet submarine" is detected and through communication error the crew fires upon it and destroys it. Scorpion surfaces to search for survivors, but, impossibly, no debris is found. Hardy realises that the "Soviet submarine" was destroyed at the exact same place and time where the Scorpion sank a German U-boat in 1943, and speculates that "the past is breaking through". Cassidy, who had supervised the fitting of the Scorpion with practice torpedoes, finds that they have become live weapons. Captain Byrnes tries to abort the mission, but Cdr Travis convinces him to continue. Hardy learns that the real mission is to discover and exploit the power that preserved and delivered the Scorpion.
Soon, three aircraft are detected on radar whilst the Scorpion is surfaced. The aircraft are Second World War Luftwaffe fighters; Captain Byrnes says in stunned disbelief "This can't be real". Travis pulls out a gun and orders Byrnes below. The fighters then strafe the boat with gunfire. The captain is killed, and Travis takes command. Cassidy and Hardy find no bullet damage on the deck or tower from the strafing attack, and conclude that Travis may have shot the captain to preserve the mission.
Travis apparently becomes possessed by the former captain himself. The original submarine captain's intent had been to torpedo ships in a German fleet in the then German city of Königsberg, which is now the Soviet city of Kaliningrad. Modern Soviet officers detect the incoming hostile vessel, and begin preparations for a nuclear war. Hardy manages to get the crew off the boat before it can attack the Soviet fleet, but Travis and the submarine, essentially as one entity, continue the attack. Hardy rewires the torpedo control system, causing the torpedoes to explode in the torpedo tubes killing Travis, and causing the vessel to sink but is shot in the process. Hardy dies on his bunk clutching a picture of his wife as the water engulfs him.
Six months later, the Soviets find the sunken Scorpion; it looks like it has been decaying for forty years. Neither Hardy's nor Travis' bodies are found. The Soviets close their investigation of the incident. British intelligence intercepts the Soviet report, leading British military authorities to also close their files on the case. The British Admiral says "There was no Kaliningrad incident; it never happened. The Scorpion sank in 1943". | haunting | train | wikipedia | Quite a lot of CGI in this piece of ITV telly, but not to the extent that it takes away from the acting or the story.
In this age where people want more and more 'instant classics', this will probably not impress some people who will see it as a predictable story with an equally predictable ending.
David Jason can easily take-on a role such as this and make is watchable.
It lends itself to the subtle chills that the stories of M.R. James deliver, and although it may not be groundbreaking it is certainly a change from the usual stock of 'Drama' that ITV dish up (i.e. detective shows, or pseudo-reality TV.) All-in-all, it was easy viewing and has a satisfying ending.
A derivative but nonetheless intriguing set up; a ship (in this case a submarine) is found many years after it sank, with no sign of the crew, or what happened to them.
Despite that the set up hooked me, I love these kind of vaguely supernatural / time travel plot lines, however familiar they are.To be honest I was disappointed by what was delivered.
David Jason is a fine actor but his character in this came over as terse, sullen and not especially interesting.
As he is the lead, and therefore your focal point throughout the story, this was a big failing.
He just wasn't interesting or unusual enough, you learned almost nothing about his character despite him being on screen for most of the 180 minutes.The plot itself seemed to peter out rather than deliver a climax, for a thriller (or at least a war time drama) I felt there was too little tension.
The actual operation of the submarine and the technical side all felt very authentic but this did not compensate for the lack of plot, or genuinely interesting characters.
The officers were all a little stiff, the crew were similarly generic, all of them have been seen many times before.Towards the end I felt the plot simply ran out of ideas and some of what happened bordered on silly.
I never felt this story got going, I appreciate it was television but there was far too much chatter.
It was slow in places where it needed pace, or another twist and this was, for me at least, the other major failing; ultimately the story lacked imagination.
There was no moment when I thought 'now that is interesting, I never saw that coming'.Despite these misgivings I thought it was not bad for a TV two parter.
I don't tend to watch a lot of television (preferring to stick to DVDs) so something has really got to interest me to get me to firstly remember the programme's on and secondly to actually watch.The thing that immediately attracted me to the programme was, of course, fabulous actor David Jason.
And yet again he excels himself in this wonderful thriller.The story is based on a book also called 'Ghostboat' and is about a submarine called the Scorpion that surfaces in 1981-but which hasn't been seen since the second world war where it was presumed to have sunk.
When it sank only one survivor was found, Jack Hardy (David Jason) who can't remember anything due to amnesia) When the sub resurfaces, Hardy is invited to go on a journey on the sub, with another crew and retrace the path the Scorpion took to find out what happened to it.When they first go onto the sub to check out the damage and pull out the bodies of the dead, they find something astonishing.
There are no bodies, everything is as the crew left it 40 years ago, nothing has changed.And so the journey begins.
Hardy can hear voices, things are happening in the same way they did 40 years ago-and the crew are beginning to change.
As Hardy says 'The past is breaking through' The CGI effects in the film are very, very good, although not perfect, the storyline is gripping, the acting and cast are stellar.The perfect thing for the family to gather in front of the telly to watch-10/10!.
Very average, and predictable.Some good moments though, but was let down by cheap and nasty CGI FX.This was, however a decent TV short drama which can was good to watch once.
Doesn't quite have the longevity to persuade me to purchase the DVD to build my collection.This certainly won't be one of David Jason's more memorable roles as it doesn't have the charm and complexity of shows such as Open All Hours and Only Fools and Horses.As usual with ITV Dramas, the constant interruption of commercial breaks added to my disappointment of this programme.
I just finished watching this ITV production, and all I can say is that I liked what I saw, but will note that there was room for much improvement.How so?
Well, for one, the main vessel around which the movie focuses was a World War 2 British diesel submarine.
Big deal, you say, ah, but one of the major story points is that the sub seems to operate like a modern nuclear sub, or one of the modern Nordic or Germanic subs which are quieter than either the US, UK or Soviet subs.
Simply put WW2 subs stayed on the surface, and only went underwater when needed, but you'd never know that by watching this movie.The other thing is that there's a little bit of creep factor in this film, but it's not accentuated enough.
We understand what's happening to the crew, but the made for TV production values seem to limit both SFX and other production values to really ram home the message to the audience.I imagine the biggest mis step taken in this film is that even though the boat as a "life of its own" so to speak, a late 20th century crew, a crew that is not trained in diesel sub operations some how manages to bring this vessel out into open ocean, and operate her like a modern nuclear powered SSN.Huh.You know, if you can get by that, and the cinematography which is a little uninspired, then you can probably enjoy watching this film, but the story of a haunted ship and her affect on the crew takes precedence over operational details and plot points.It's not a great film, but it is a mild diversion for a couple of hours.
Good entertainment and different role for David Jason.
A story like this will not appeal to everyone but I thought it was very original and well put together overall.
A good change from the usual period dramas that come from British productions.
Some story points are a bit too subtle and easy to miss so might need a second viewing to fully appreciate how it all fits together.
David Jason is brilliant.
Sadly a good actor cannot salvage an obvious story line (which owes a lot to other works, such as the similarly named Ghostship) which meant it all became a little predictable, and towards the end just plain silly.Characters behave inconsistently and illogically as the story lurches towards the less than surprising end.The special effects themselves were also erratic - obviously a lot of money was spent on the set of the sub, but the cgi shots ranged from the okay to dreadful.Okay if you are bored, but not the great work I was expecting..
David Jason was magnificent in this movie.
This was a very watchable movie , being in two parts , I made a point of watching the second part ( what further proof do you need , none for me - my wife watched all of it as well!) .
I think that anything that was 'incorrect' (as pointed out by the previous poster from Blacpool) during the first episode will be cleared up tonight and anything that isn't shouldn't really draw it away from being a brilliant programme.
Sir David Jason's acting is, as always, absolutely amazing and the other cast members also do this TV programme much justice.
Yet another brilliant bit of acting by Sir David Jason.
As a lover of all this spooky and a fan of Jason I found myself glued to the screen.Ghostboat kept me riveted, the plot was good and the acting too.
Commander Travis becoming "possessed" by the previous captain was good.However, i found the ending somewhat disappointing, a great build-up to an anti-climax.All told a great program, which should most definitely be shown again in a few years time..
As the character Cassidy enters he hears a comment about increasing the battery charging rate and advises against it as this will cause chlorine gas to be generated and kill the crew by poisoning.
Every submariner knows that chlorine gas will only be generated if salt water gets into the battery and reacts with the battery acid.
This was always the fear of submariners when the boat was damaged and sea water was coming in.
The full two-hour production was broadcast on PBS, Watertown, N.Y. on 2007 March 25 without commercials.Intriguing plot.
What was not made clearly enough in the movie is that the submarine went through a time-warp...
Time-warp explains the attack by WW II vintage Me 109 aircraft mid-way through the movie and the sudden re-emergence of the sub back to 1981 for the final attack on the, by then, Soviet naval base.
It also explains why the sub could sink enemy (German) vessels, including another submarine, without triggering WW III.I'm not sure about British subs but US subs certainly had radar later in WW II.
Unfortunately, the movie sub lacked a radar antennae.
(The last German sub to be sunk in WW II was by HMCS New Glascow, a frigate, which was unaware of the sub and accidentally rammed it whilst the latter was partly submerged and trying to sneak to its home port.)Incongruities:As pointed out by others, chlorine gas is produced by sea water entering batteries, not by shorting them out.
Shorting out the batteries would have caused failure of the electric propulsion and the sub could not have run under water.
Okay, maybe only some of the batteries were shorted out.WW II torpedoes had safety devices to prevent them becoming armed or the torpedo engine starting whilst they were still in the torpedo tube.How was it that the captain and the professor could continue inside the sub without gas masks after the crew had been forced to abandon it because of chlorine gas?Worse, at one point, after all the crew except the captain has abandoned the sub, the professor re-enters the submarine via the conning tower, whilst the sub is submerging, in order to fire the scuttling charges (explosive charges intended to deliberately sink the submarine in order to avoid capture by the enemy).
All he had to do to sink the sub was to leave the conning tower hatch open as the submarine submerged.With a little thought and expert advice the producers could have avoided or glossed over these incongruities.
Ghostboat was a nice idea, partly saved only by the always watchable icon that is David Jason.However, this was a tired, plodding effort that sadly went nowhere, and sadly sank into the murky depths of drama lite.The CGI was mostly deplorable,I assume as most of the budget was spent on the actual set which was on the whole quite good.However, what spoilt this for me, and I would guess anyone with any connection with submarines (I have no connection but am an avid Sub sim player) or anyone who has watched Das Boot, was the total lack of realism.Warning- here there be spoilers!
This could have been a taut one hour ghost story.
an excellent 2 parter the 1981S crew slow change into the 1943 crew was brilliant however the idea that the commander could control what was going on was stupid because he was the most possessed it also makes you think how close we did come to world war 3 during the cold war if stuff like that is classified.
however several questions were left unanswered such as if the 'ghost' of scorpion was made real and could be seen why weren't the bodies of the crew also if it was 1981 outside and 1943 inside how come there were the 3 planes which attacked.
although i was not very impressed with the graphics apparently they cost £1000 a second over all i think it was a good supernatural thriller.
With David Jason as the lead and also one of the producers, I expected a lot more than I got when watching this.
The first half was pretty good and promised an intriguing finale, but the second part descended into a confused and unconvincing mess where the crew weren't the only ones to wonder what was going on.
There were glaring anomalies in the story line and the original theory of how the sub had reappeared after being missing for forty-odd years was completely ignored at the end (apart from a brief display of mysterious lightning)..
A submarine lost in WW2 re-appears in 1981 and David Jason's character Hardy (The only survivor of it's last voyage) is asked to go back with a crew and retrace the steps of the Submarines's last journey (why?
and so it got a little confusing.I wouldn't attack the plot too much because after all it is called 'Ghostboat' and so you expect it to be a little far fetched/supernatural so that's fine BUT...
at the end when the Navy and the Russian Navy (or whatever they're called in Russia) closed the case on the strange goings on, there was no mention of and never any mention of, all the other boats they blew up along the way...and as for the hostile German aircrafts...well I can only assume that they were imagined?
Now I know there were some grey areas as to which was going on in the past and which was in the present but Hardy did state that it was only 1943 inside of the sub and still very much 1981 outside...
hence the reason why the Russians of 1981 were getting a little anxious at the sight of the sub on its radar...
But...if I did get too confused by all the submarine jargon...and completely missed something due to this fact...and anyone knows any different...please tell me?
David Jason, a 'family favourite' plays a character in the exact same style as he does in A Touch Of Frost, in this ridiculous and predictable thriller.In this 2-parter, David Jason plays the character of a old WWII seaman who is called in by the Navy when his submarine re-emerges after disappearing in the war.
Only David Jason's 'Jack Hardy' survives from the original crew but he suffers from memory loss, and has to piece together his movements from a series of flashbacks when taken back inside the ship.The story then becomes laughable when the Navy decide, for some reason, to re-enact the last voyage of the Submarine by piecing together the movements from the Captain's Log. After accidentally sinking a Russian Submarine they come under attack from German WWII aircraft and Jack Hardy realises that someone is filling in the incomplete Captain's Log...Good for a one-off if you don't want to do much thinking but easily forgotten..
Not too bad, but a bit predictable.
This isn't actually a bad attempt at a naval ghost story.
It was much better than I expected, although it did look like degenerating into the expected "haunted house" style story, it just about kept its head above water until the end where the rather predictable "Captain talks to ghost operators appeared".
The "posession" of crew members was well executed and was introduced well with little slips of the tongue like referring to the enemies as "gerries" instead of Russkies.
Some parts were just downright confusing, such as the Bf109s overflying the boat, with little explanation of whether they were just imagined or whether the crew were seeing Russian ASW aircraft as German fighters.
If this is the case though then the final engagement at Kaliningrad is a huge continuity error, with the captain's eye view of the shipyard showing Russian "typhoon" class SSBNs, rather than German U boats.The CGI was awful.
While it wasn't bad enough to ruin the movie, it REALLY irritated me.
With just a bit more effort it could have looked sharper and cleaner than it actually was.Despite the historical inaccuracies it proved to be enjoyable enough, but not enough to make me buy the DVD.
Nice try Mr Jason, not bad..
I'm not sure if this story was true because the war on at the time ended not long after, and there was mention of bodies never recovered in the wreck of the boat, but personally, who cares.
This is a very interesting and near creepy story of one man's survival on a boat, and then somehow, the same events happen again on what seems to be the same boat.
Sir David Jason as Jack Hardy is the man who survived a terrible storm on a large boat/ submarine.
Unfortunately, the events that previously happened to him happen again, and the members of the new boat he is on seem to "sink" into the spell of past history.
Jack is now trying everyone he can to stop the events that happened to him and the boat 40 years ago.
I watched GhostBoat with my mum, and I do like this sort of thing and it did intrigue med with a submarine appearing out of nowhere from 40 years missing.
It also had David Jason which I thought was a good choice.Travis was very good as the mutinous first mate, probably taken from Pirates of the Caribbean 1, or that could be just a wild guess.
I do like a good madman especially when there is no escape, the Shining anyone?
It did get a bit weird towards the end when the ghosts were operating Travis and all the ships compartments.
I do recommend if you like a good horror story! |
tt0902290 | I Sell the Dead | While awaiting his execution for murder and grave robbery, Arthur Blake (Dominic Monaghan) is visited by Father Duffy (Ron Perlman), who wishes to obtain a statement from the condemned to be used as a cautionary tale. Arthur denies that he is a murderer, a crime for which his former partner, Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden), has already been executed by guillotine. However, Blake freely admits to being a grave robber, and begins to recount his career with Willie.
Arthur became Willie's apprentice following the death of Blake's father, forcing the young man to find a job to support his family. Willie quickly taught him the skills necessary to steal corpses, both from graves as well as more risky locations, such as wakes. The job proved profitable on its face, but both Arthur and Willie's ability to make money was severely hampered by the interference of Doctor Quint (Angus Scrimm), who frequently blackmailed the two into obtaining corpses for free under threat of notifying the police of their activities. This blackmail continued for numerous years.
Willie and Arthur's career changed abruptly when procuring another corpse for Quint. Digging up a corpse buried at a cross-roads, the two were confused when they found a garlic wreath around the body's neck and a wooden stake in its chest. Arthur dismissed these things as superstition, and removed them against Willie's protests. Moments later, while the two were clearing their cart, the dead woman rose and walked away. Willie and Arthur attempted to flee, but came across the undead woman, who attacked Arthur. Willie was able to fend her off briefly with a shovel, and when she attacked him he managed to plunge the stake back into her chest, causing her to go immediately limp. Willie and Arthur delivered the staked body to Doctor Quint and departed quickly. The doctor removed the stake, awakening the undead woman, who killed him.
Freed of their blackmailer and now aware of a new market for their skills, Arthur and Willie shifted their career towards the supernatural side of grave robbing. During one such job (retrieving a body resembling a Grey alien) they were stopped by Cornelius Murphy, main spokesperson for the House Murphy, an infamous and vicious band of grave robbers led by Cornelius' unseen father, Samuel. Cornelius demanded the body at knifepoint; though Willie advised him to cooperate, Arthur refused, and the three scuffled over the body until it vanished in a burst of light.
At this point in Arthur's narrative, Father Duffy asks him if he had any further encounters with the House Murphy. Arthur is reluctant to speak of the matter, but finally relents, discussing the next—and last—time he encountered the Murphys.
Drinking at a local pub with their new apprentice (and Arthur's girlfriend) Fanny, Arthur and Willie received word from pub owner Ronnie about a possible job: a local mortuary had been reported as receiving crated shipments of the undead. However, their most recent shipment was incomplete, two of the crates lost in a shipwreck and believed to be located on a nearby island. The catch was that the mortuary had already hired someone to retrieve the missing undead: House Murphy. Willie and Arthur initially turned down the job, not wishing to cross paths with the Murphys, but at Fanny's insistence the two reluctantly agreed.
On the island the crates, are guarded by Bulger, House Murphy's enforcer. Fanny slit his throat (to Arthur and Willie's surprise), then the three rounded up one of the undead, Willie suffering a bite during the effort. Before they could get to the second, Fanny was killed by a knife thrown by Cornelius, who then tied the remaining two to the cage containing the captured undead. The two were only saved from death when the captured undead tore free of its cage and attacked Valentine, House Murphy's disfigured female assassin. Cornelius attempted to save Valentine, only to be attacked by the second undead. Willie and Arthur freed themselves, then escaped in the confusion. Afterward, the two argued bitterly over the botched job, resulting in the end of their partnership, and friendship. A week later, the two were arrested.
At the conclusion of the tale, Father Duffy asks whether it was Arthur or Willie who murdered Cornelius, but Arthur reiterates that the two simply left him to his fate. When Father Duffy expresses a surprising amount of anger at this, as well as the sentiment that Willie was "lucky" to have been killed before Duffy could meet him, Arthur realizes the priest's true identity: Samuel Murphy. The elder Murphy then attempts to kill Arthur with a mace, but, before he can, he is struck down by an unseen rescuer. When he is able to look up, Arthur is surprised to discover his rescuer is Willie—more accurately, the decapitated body of Willie. Holding his head in one hand, Willie explains that the bite he suffered on the island seems to have rendered him undead following his execution. As the two make their way out of the prison cell, Willie remarks that being undead is the best thing that ever happened to him, and even suggests that Arthur himself get bitten. When Arthur rejects the idea, Willie claims he's starting to feel "ravenous", and jokingly chases after Arthur as they leave the prison.
Unknown to them, Cornelius rises from his underwater grave. | comedy, gothic, murder, flashback, revenge, storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3684500 | Downhill | At an expensive English boarding school for boys, Roddy Berwick (Ivor Novello) is School Captain and star rugby player. He and his best friend Tim Wakely (Robin Irvine) start seeing a waitress Mabel (Annette Benson). Out of pique, she tells the headmaster that she is pregnant and that Roddy is the father. In fact it was Tim, who cannot afford to be expelled because he needs to win a scholarship to attend Oxford University. Promising Tim that he will never reveal the truth, Roddy accepts expulsion.
Returning to his parents’ home, he finds that his father Sir Thomas Berwick (Norman McKinnel) believes him guilty of the false accusation.
Leaving home, Roddy finds work as an actor in a theatre. He marries the leading actress Julia Fotheringale (Isabel Jeans) after inheriting £30,000 from a relation. The unfaithful Julia secretly continues an affair with her leading man Archie (Ian Hunter) and discards Roddy after his inheritance is exhausted. He becomes a gigolo in a Paris music hall but soon quits over self-loathing at romancing older women for money.
Roddy ends up alone and delirious in a shabby room in Marseilles. Some sailors take pity on him and ship him back home, possibly hoping for reward. Roddy's father has learned the truth about the waitress's false accusation during his son's absence and joyfully welcomes him back. Roddy resumes his previous life. | violence | train | wikipedia | Bad trip.
Yes pun intended.
Although if you're looking for humor, you shouldn't stop and watch this.
Unless you like laughing at how bad some things are.
Like the dialog, or the "acting".
The story in general and some of the special effects too.
Is there any saving grace?
One of the accidental fun of course - and I guess if you like watching beautiful people, than there is something here for the eye too.But as far as horror movies are concerned, this is very weak.
I reckon if you haven't seen many, you might be mildly entertained.
But mostly for the wrong reasons as mentioned above.
I did watch it at a festival and it's always hard facing those who made this and put a lot of effort into this.
Learning by doing though and maybe someday the result will be better.
Downhill: Why does Natalie Burn always pick the worst roles?.
Let me start by saying this was filmed in 13 days, and it shows.
Oh boy, does it show.
Starring the underrated and potentially great action heroine Natalie Burn this Cabin Fever (2002) inspired mess truly has no idea what it wants to be.It's one of those horrors which makes its rules up as it goes along, gets more than a little weird then forgets to bother explaining itself.I walked away from the film scratching my head about what I'd just watched and more importantly why I had watched it in the first place.If horror has taught me anything its that woods are bad places, simply don't go there or you'll meet monsters, rednecks or lots of screaming folk and shaky camera work.The stories about the teddy bears picnic were lies, lies I tell you!
Downhill does exactly that, downhill from the start and before the credits roll succeeds in mowing face first into a tree, backflipping three times and landing in that pile of dung from Jurassic Park (1993).
weird horror.
Ha, let me say this is a nasty one to review.
It isn't going to be your downhill ride into a normal horror.
The opening scene was already confusing by seeing something in the style of a witch and some creature being put in a girl's throat.Then you are off for indeed a BMX ride down a hill filmed in GoPro style.
All nice but not exactly what I thought would become a weird horror.
It takes a while before this flick turns instantly into a strange story.
Once the party is over and the BMX ride starts again suddenly a crash is noticed by the bikers and off they go to help the one person sitting wounded in the car.
From then on this flick turns in some kind of science - fiction horror which reminded me of The Thing (1982) in some ways.
But it goes one step further which makes this little stinker a love or hate flick.
For me what started as a simple flick just on the edge of boredom becomes a flick that keep you watch it until the end.
In fact, it's got it all, witchcraft, satanism, creatures, and a bit of found footage.
I liked it.Gore 1/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 2,5/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5.
A fun movie with an amazing ending.
Some people are being overly critical..
The movie is a typical popcorn horror flick that isn't really doing anything new.
Everything about it is average, from the acting to the special effects, but it all culminates into a highly entertaining film that shouldn't be dissected or over analyzed like some people reviewing it have been doing.
It's a simple premise with a simple script, a b & C grade cast, and some competent special effects.
But to act like this is such a horrible film is hyperbole at best and an indication that not everyone should be reviewing movies.
Stop treating these movies as if they are supposed to be life altering experiences, and enjoy them for what they are; teh equivalent of reality TV, just condensed to an hour and a half.With all that being said, the ending was SPECTACULAR.
It's endings like that that make me glad to be a fan of the horror genre.
To me, it more than made up for anything I found average in the film as a whole.Go in expecting Shakespeare and you will be disappointed.
Set your expectations accordingly, for the genre, and just have a good time.
It's really that simple..
Trip to lack of sense.
Just for the record, it was very clear from the outset that 'Downhill' was in no way intended to be high art or a film one does try to judge it overly seriously.
Actually did watch it accordingly and really tried to take it for what it was aiming to be, which is always the case with everything watched and reviewed.
Have never watched a film with stereotypical views of what a film should do and with the mindset that there should be rules in what a film should be (i.e. not expecting every film to be "entertaining", because quite a number of films are not that type of film).Despite judging it fairly and with the aim of being encouraging rather than giving off the sense of being difficult to please (mostly am pretty generous), 'Downhill' didn't work for me sad and sorry to say.
The idea was not a bad one and it was for that reason as to why the film was seen in the first place, as well as it randomly appearing in my recommended for you section.
It was the execution of it that was badly off.The best thing about 'Downhill' was the make-up which did have an eeriness and professionalism, never being goofy.Actually, the production values in general were the film's least bad asset.
While not incredible-looking, for the budget and concept it really did not look bad, there are far cheaper looking films around.Unfortunately, that is where the praise ends.
The acting is poor all round, with a mix of not being comfortable and being robotic instead and also a jarring over-the-top-ness.
They do have to work with characters that are neither interesting, with very sketchy development, or with anything worth investing in, every one of them are either bland, annoying or both with vague motivations and frustrating decision making.
The dialogue always sounds improvisatory-sounding that it affects the flow and the cheesiness makes one cringe.It's the story that's the biggest problem with it being bad enough to pretty much single-handedly bringing down the film.
'Downhill' is not even a film that starts off well, even at the beginning it felt very confused.
Things get even more downhill from there, with sluggish pacing, no tension, suspense or creepiness at all, too many far-fetched moments and with so many unanswered questions and implausibilites the whole thing fails to make sense.
Especially in the last half hour, which is an overcooked, incoherent jumble of areas that don't gel.Summarising, very bad film.
2/10 Bethany Cox. Incredible!.
Downhill has a heartbeat that a lot of smaller productions can't relate to.
It feels like a spectacle with a mind of its own, and that adds a strange charm, but it also amplifies the loose design of the screenplay itself.
This is a flick that will be remembered long and it will frighten many , and it will do some very positive things for a large portion of the crew involved..
oh dear.
A poor story that puts self-survival over helping a mortally wounded, infected stranger being chased by a random collection of goat worshippers or aliens or whoever - we never get to find out.
In fact there are so many unanswered questions throughout the movie.Still the makeup/prosthetics are really good..
Apt title.
I have just typed up a review of this trash and my internet connection crashed and in all honesty can not be bothered typing another.
I would be surprised to ever watch a worse film ever again.
Acting awful, story a mishmash of other films ideas, no horror, no suspense no plot, awful dialogue.
The last half hour of this film you sense the makers knew they had a massive turkey and simply throw the kitchen sink at it hoping something works, sadly for us nothing works.Near the end when all the other characters are dead they through another couple in with maybe, maybe we can get Downhill 2, avoid this film or go and buy some paint slosh it on your wall and spend an hour and a half watching it dry..
You should be honored to be blessed.
Joe Lamb (Bryce Draper ) is a mountain bicycle racer as is his girlfriend Stephanie (Natalie Burn) who oozes with sexuality.
They go to Chile to race and end up getting hunted with an odd twist.The film opens with a teaser plot spoiler with Stephanie being tired down to a table and not in a fun way.
Some scenes worked better than others.
I liked the "please pull my hair" line, but our bikers did a whole lot of annoying whining and sniveling.
I am not sure how many mountain bicyclists who wear a helmet, actually die in a small crash., but I didn't buy the scene.Guide: F-word, sex, nudity.
Lovecraft on a Bad Day. I went into this film with very high expectations, especially as it seems influenced by H.P. Lovecraft of which I am a huge fan.
The BMX concept feels original and for the first 20 minutes I was very engaged in what was going on.
When the leads find a guy infected with a mysterious virus I thought it was going to go into Zombie territory but I was pleasantly surprised to find a twisted Lovecraftian tale of tentacles and worms along with a mix of the occult.
Ultimately the film seems to fit into the folk horror category and with the BMX and lovecraft themes in there it makes for quite a unique film.
The cast do a commendable job with what is a bonkers script and there are some great horror moments in there but it kind of falls short of greatness just when you think it's getting really good.
If there were more body horror in there it would have gone far to help improve things.
Unfortunately the last 15 minutes didn't live up to the rest of the film but I would still say it's worth a watch for horror fans. |
tt0117260 | Original Gangstas | The movie opens to a narration detailing the poor economic state of a gang-ridden Gary. The narrator explains to the audience of how the city came into such a state. After the opening narrative, the scene switches to the base of operations for the Rebels, a local street gang, and a one-on-one basketball game between a Rebel gang member and a local boy named Kenny Thompson. Kenny humiliates the Rebel by winning and taking the gambled winnings for his own. After he leaves, Spyro, the current co-leader of the Rebels (opposite Damien) is under the impression that Kenny's skills are something more than "something he picked up." He instructs his lieutenant, Kayo, to exact retribution on Kenny for being hustled.
While Kenny and his friend Marcus are relaxing at a diner, Kenny decides to call his girlfriend. He enters a phone booth to make the call, but is subsequently shot by Kayo in a drive-by shooting; his mother, Laurie Thompson, alarmed by the gunshots, steps outside her home to discover her son murdered. The owners of the grocery store, Marvin Bookman and Gracie Bookman, two well-respected members of the community by both the Rebels and local citizens, feels that justice should be brought to Kenny's murderer and discloses the license plate number of the shooter's vehicle. When the Rebels discover this, Spyro orders Kayo to dispose of the vehicle. Kayo and the Rebels then proceed to confront Marvin about his assistance to the investigators of Kenny's death; Marvin argues that Kenny was a good person and did not deserve to be shot. The co-leaders of the Rebels describe how they respected the Bookmans' store and, while others around it were robbed and ransacked, their store was left alone; the fact that Marvin would "sell them out" expresses a high amount of disrespect to the Rebels, who then immediately seek revenge on Marvin. Eventually, Kayo and Bobby, with a group of fellow Rebels, attacks the grocery store, resulting in the near-fatal shooting of Marvin by Bobby.
The attack on Marvin's life prompts his son, pro football coach and ex-Rebel John Bookman, to return to the impoverished Gary neighborhood to find Bobby the shooter. After seeing his father, John goes to save his father's shop and kicked all the Rebels fellows out of there. Then he goes to a local barbershop, where Kayo eventually turns up; trouble immediately brews, and John and the gang members fight. John has the upper hand, but is overpowered. Jake Trevor, another original Rebel, enters the fray and saves John. After the fight, the two converse, and it is revealed that Jake is here to bury his illegitimate son, Kenny Thompson. Jake goes to visit "Slick",who reveals to Jake that his son was killed because he hustled the Rebels; Jake is astounded and enraged that his son was killed over money.
The next day, John and Jake attend Kenny's funeral, where a distraught Laurie Thompson is reunited with her ex-husband. While talking, Laurie implores Jake to reconsider seeking vengeance upon his son's murderers, expressing her disdain by stating that he always wishes to resolve such issues by fighting, which "only makes things worse". John tells Jake that he has a meeting with the Rebels at the church that makes Jake and Laurie disappointed at him. Jake confronts Spyro at the basketball court about Kenny Thompson.
After failed treaty negotiations at the church and the rising of neighborhood gang violence, the other gangs, The Diablos and The Rangers, have a meeting with Spyro, Damien and The Rebels about Kenny Thompson. At the Rebels party, John and Jake drove Spyro and Damien's car into The Diablo's territory and shoot at them to set The Rebels up to break the truce. The Rebels set the community houses on fire as retaliation with molotov cocktails. All of the original Rebels - John Bookman, Laurie, Jake, Slick and Bubba - with the help of Kenny's friend Marcus, decide to take justice into their own hands and attack the Rebels. They devise a plan to "lose" a trunk of weapons to the Rebels; when the Rebels tried to use said weapons, the guns malfunctioned and "exploded" in their faces, stunning many Rebels. In another area, Rebels are attempting to escape the battle, but are stopped by a group of community members, armed with bats and other improvised weapons. Eventually, Spyro and Damien fear they may lose the fight, and escape to the old steel mill; Jake and John follow.
After an intense hand-to-hand fight between Jake and Spyro, Spyro is killed. After Spyro is taken down by Jake, the leader of a rival gang The Diablos, Blood, along with a few cohorts, shoots a battered Damien; the leadership of the Rebels is destroyed. | violence, revenge, murder, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0093148 | Harry and the Hendersons | George Henderson (John Lithgow) is returning to his Seattle home with his family from a camping trip in the nearby Cascade mountains when they hit something with the family station wagon. George investigates, and discovers to his horror and awe, that they have hit a Sasquatch. Thinking they have killed it, they decide to take the creature home, strapping it to the roof of their car. Meanwhile, a mysterious hunter has been tracking the creature and discovers the Hendersons' license plate, which fell off when they hit the creature.
Later that night, George goes out to the garage to examine the creature and discovers that it is not dead, and has escaped. He hears noises from his kitchen and sees the creature, which has knocked over the fridge looking for food. The family realizes that the creature is friendly and kind. George has a change of heart; at first he wished to make money from the creature, but now decides to take him back to the wild. Naming the creature "Harry," George tries to lure him into the station wagon, but Harry believes that the Hendersons mean him harm and instead he disappears.
Saddened, the family resume their normal lives, but sightings of Harry become more frequent and the media fervor heightens. George tries to find Harry in order to keep him safe. George visits the "North American Museum of Anthropology" to speak with Dr. Wallace Wrightwood, an expert on Bigfoot, but is disheartened when he realizes its ramshackle state. Giving his number to the clerk (Don Ameche) inside the Museum, George resumes his search for Harry. The hunter from the woods is Jacques LaFleur (David Suchet), a legendary hunter who became obsessed with Bigfoot and has hunted for one ever since becoming a laughingstock. LaFleur tracks down the Hendersons and is closer to finding Harry.
After a Harry sighting, George goes into the city to search for him. Meanwhile, the police are dealing with the "Bigfoot Mania" by apprehending several local enthusiasts that are hunting Bigfoot, in case the Bigfoot in question is someone dressed in a costume. Following a car chase, George is able to save Harry from LaFleur, and LaFleur is arrested by police officers. When George brings Harry home, he and the Hendersons bury the hunting trophies and pay their respects to the dead animals that were converted into hunting trophies.
The next morning, the neighbors notice hair in the Hendersons pool, and Harry is seen being dried off while watching The Addams Family. In jail, LaFleur calls someone and tells him to secure his immediate release because he has a lead on Bigfoot. George calls Dr. Wrightwood from the museum and invites him to dinner to speak about Bigfoot. At dinner, the museum clerk is revealed to be Dr. Wrightwood, having also become a laughingstock. Dr. Wrightwood tells George and the family to give up on Bigfoot, as it has destroyed his life and will destroy theirs, but then he meets Harry, and instantly agrees to take him to safety, away from the city. By this time, LaFleur has been bailed of jail and heads to the Henderson house. George and Harry escape the house with Dr. Wrightwood in his old truck. LaFleur gives chase and eventually catches up with the Henderson family.
Fleeing back to the mountains, George tries to make Harry leave, going so far as to hit Harry. Confused and upset, Harry does not leave. LaFleur catches up to them and attacks the Hendersons dog. Harry attacks LaFleur, but George intervenes. Through George's faith and Harry's kindness, LaFleur changes his mind and decides that Harry deserves to live peacefully. As the family says goodbye, George thanks Harry for all he has done for the family and tells him to take care of himself to which Harry replies "OK" (his first spoken words). As Harry leaves, several other Sasquatches appear from their hiding places and also disappear into the wilderness with him, to the amazement of the Hendersons. When Dr. Wrightwood asks LaFleur what he's going to do next, LaFleur quotes "I don't know. There's always Loch Ness." As the two of them laugh at that comment, the Hendersons keep waving goodbye to Harry.
During the credits, there is rotoscoping of different scenes of the movie. | comedy | train | wikipedia | In fact, it touched me so much to see how something that is often portrayed as scary was so gentle and caring.From the introduction when Harry is first discovered (in a rather unfortunate way) to the end of the movie, the Hendersons learn that Harry is more human than they ever thought, and that he has a bigger heart than the human race combined.Throughout the film, the effect that Harry has on people's lives is always seen.
Their original feelings of the "Beast" all quashed swiftly to realize that inside of it lay a big heart.Harry's compassion, love for other beings and respect for life made this film an absolute delight to watch.
I whole heartedly recommend this for anybody looking for a family film that not only warms the heart, but also teaches a lesson of who is really the monster on Earth..
You will fall in love with Harry and wish that Bigfoot / Sasquatch was real.
If you have kids and want to watch a movie everyone will like this is a definite buy.
Harry and the Hendersons is one of the first films I remember seeing in the cinema as a kid.
But it makes my original memory of this film so much more nostalgic.The Hendersons consist of wannabe artist/gun salesman dad George (that always brilliant John Lithgow), loving mum Melinda Dillon, a bratty daughter and a hyperactive son.
But the bear has man-like hands and George suddenly asks his family 'What if it's...HIM'.Bigfoot!
So he sneaks down to the garage with a measuring tape only to find that he's no longer strapped to the roof of the car, but poking around in the kitchen fridge.The Hendersons stand back as bigfoot (or Harry as he is later renamed) stomps around the house and garden investigating all their strange belongings.
Freaking out, George tries to snipe Harry from through the bedroom window, but has a change of heart when he realises that Harry is just big, harmless oaf.The best scenes of the film involve Harry making himself at home in the Henderson house.
He constantly looks a bit nervous and uncomfortable but is always ready to grab you for a big hug.Rick Baker deservedly took home an Academy Award for Best Make-Up Effects back in 1988 for this movie.
I so want my own Bigfoot.Even now as an adult I think this movie is still great.
As a kid I remember feeling the panic and excitement when Harry got lost in Seattle and the half-crazed Bigfoot hunter Jacques LaFleur (David Suchet) doing lots of sleaziness in order to have him shot, gutted and sold to science.
Forgive the repeated comparison, but to me it was more involving and fun than the man with the keys in E.T.You just don't get family movies like this anymore.
Back in the 80's Steven Spielberg's Amblin production company made loads of great family movies like Gremlins, Goonies, the Back to the Future Trilogy, Young Sherlock Holmes and Innerspace.
Like the Patterson/Gimlin film that inspired it, Harry and the Hendersons is one movie that will be timeless forever..
The conclusion is both heartbreaking and heartwarming — not your typical family-film ending, but too perfect to be rewritten.
A true "Family Movie", John Lithgow & Harry are a great combo!.
"Harry" a bigfoot, unintentionally becomes part of the Henderson family as they try to figure out what to do with a 500 lb.
And, by the end of the movie, you'll just plain cry as the family struggles with the tough choice between keeping Harry safe from his hunters and the world-at-large, and sending him back into the wild..
The All Time Best Family Movie.
It's hard to find a good "all around" family movie.
Harry and the Hendersons is one of the few family movies that the entire family enjoys!
Except for hearing the word sh*t two or three times, the rest of the movie is clean for the whole family to enjoy..
This is a great film for the entire family to view together.
Can be enjoyed by all ages, top notch family film, John Lithgow is terrific, as usual.
A great feel good family movie!.
WE happened to catch this movie again on the PAX channel and start getting completely captivated once again by its funny scenes, and Harrys reaction to everything he encounters, from the family to the things in the house and its eventual feel good conclusion!
I think one of the most touching scenes is when he encounters a deer head mounted on the wall and knocks out a hole in the wall to look for the hind part of the deer.......makes one wonder why people like to hunt in the first place, especially seeing it from Harry's perspective.......well, sit back and enjoy the movie, you will be glad you did, and have a kid or two with you..........OK?
harry and the hendersons is a great movie for people of all ages.
it tells the story of a family who's life turns upside down when they hit something on the way home from a camping trip.
Family film about a Seattle family that runs over Bigfoot, then bring him home.
Great movie for the whole family!.
It's sweet & good hearted which makes it a great movie for the whole family to watch together.
The late Kevin Peter Hall is totally warm & cuddly as Harry the Bigfoot.
When an family by the name of the Hendersons (John Lithgow, Melinda Dillon, Margaret Langrick and Joshua Rudoy) are leaving from their camping trip.
It is actually a Sasquatch "Bigfoot", they hit on their family vehicle.
The "Bigfoot" (Played by the late:Kevin Peter Hall) is actually creating havoc in their home and the city.
But when a big name hunter (David Suchet), who believes in the myth is actually tracking down the Bigfoot.Directed by William Dear (If Looks Could Kill, Simon Says, Wild America) made an sharp entertaining family film, which it could be enjoyed for all ages.
Kevin Peter Hall brings a warm, funny performance as the Bigfoot "Harry".
Harry and the Henderson is an adventurous movie about A big foot like monster.This movie is non-stop fun and misadventure.
Harry and the Hendersons was a childhood favorite that's still fun to watch today.
John Lithgow is very good in this, and it's not very often you see him in a family comedy-adventure film.
But this movie is a great family gem.
Then accidentally hit a Bigfoot with their car while camping then, thinking he's dead, tie him to the roof of their station wagon and take him home, but he wakes up.
All in all a good family movie..
The first time, he apologizes and his father responds, "It's okay; it's close to what you meant, anyway." In other words, profanity from your little son is okay, according to th script writers.Otherwise, it's a fun movie with a humorous gorilla "Bigfoot," a fast-moving story and you even get some nice Oregon woods scenery.
I laugh at the people who call this "good family fare." I haven't seen one movie yet with John Lithgow in it, that wasn't sleazy..
If I were to choose just one, single word to best describe this "shaggy" comedy called Harry and the Hendersons (that's HATH, for short), that word would definitely have to be - "Cute".Yeah.
"Cute" pretty much sums up HATH to a "T".It's plainly obvious that the audience which HATH is aimed at is, of course, children - But, what the heck - Can't a big kid at heart, like Dalbert Pringle here, enjoy being entertained by this thing, too?
a great movie for the family and kids.
In their attempts to keep Harry a secret, the Henderson's have to hide him from the authorities and a man, who has made it his goal in life, to catch a "Bigfoot" You will like this movie it is such a great movie..
It comes as little surprise that HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS is a crushing work of sentimental tripe, given that it's been produced by Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment.
Unlike the genuinely good family films of the 1980s, like THE GOONIES and THE MONSTER SQUAD, this reduces the cast to a screaming mess, a bunch of actors holed up in a house who spend the movie shouting and overacting for all their worth.The subject of their consternation is the hulking bigfoot who ends up living with them for a time.
While the bigfoot suit is admittedly impressive - as is the sheer size of the guy who plays it, the late Kevin Peter Hall, who also essayed the role of the Predator - the way he's turned into a bumbling, friendly giant is frankly embarrassing for this viewer.I get that a lot of reviewers on here saw this as a kid so have a special place for it in their hearts; I'm the same with certain films despite their flaws.
But coming into it as a cold-hearted adult, I'm afraid this is one for kids and kids alone; even the normally reliable likes of John Lithgow and David Suchet embarrass themselves in the overacting stakes.
Harry and the Hendersons is one of the movies that almost everyone vaguely remembers for having a creepy looking lovable Sasquatch in it...but that's about it.
Released in 1987 and directed by William Dear, "Harry and the Hendersons" is a family comedy about a family in Washington who unwittingly brings Sasquatch to their home and they start to develop a relationship with him.
The 7'2.5" Kevin Peter Hall appears as "Harry." Lithgow is a great semi-comedic protagonist and Langrick is cute & effective; she should've been more prominent.
The F/X team and Hall did a great job making Harry a distinctive character, particularly considering the film was made in the mid-80s.
Although there are some weak parts, this is a solid family comedy/fantasy with just enough good in it to make it worthwhile.The movie runs 110 minutes and was shot in Western Washington.GRADE: Borderline B/ B- (6.5/10 Stars).
Anyone that grew up in the late 80s or early 90s should remember this film, as it brings back nostalgic memories when watching it now.I especially loved the performance of John Lithgow, who later became most famous for 3rd Rock from the Sun. He is the most memorable actor from the film.The film is very lighthearted and fun, and one a whole new generation should enjoy.
A genuine family film.Not the greatest special effects, but like I said, it's geeky and quirky.
The Henderson family adopt a friendly Sasquatch after accidentally running him over on a hunting trip, but have a hard time trying to keep him away from the authorities and an eccentric hunter who's determined to catch "Bigfoot".What makes this film good really comes down to two things: nostalgia and the impressive work of Rick Baker.
"Harry and the Hendersons" is a family movie in which we watch a family which while it is returning from a hunting trip in the forest its car hits an animal in the road.
Thus, they take the body because they think that is dead but it is not and after that big foot becomes a friendly giant.I liked this movie because it is an amusing movie and if you watch it I am sure that you will have a really great time.
I also liked this movie because of the simply hilarious interpretation of Kevin Peter Hall who played as Harry.
Another good interpretation made by John Lithgow who played as George Henderson and he was very good at it.Lastly I want to tell you that "Harry and the Hendersons" is a funny movie with which you will have a great time and I am sure that if you have children then this movie you just have to watch..
My favorite is Harry learning to sit and the prisoners getting away from the stinking villain.It was great to see John Lithgow ("Terms of endearment" ) in a non-villain role .It's also nice to have Don Ameche ("Trading places") in a movie and I was delighted to see David Suchet (TV series "Poirot") as a French hunter.
The real star however here is Kevin Peter Hall ("Predator") who manages to give a charming performance under that suit.I've never thought I say it about a family movie , but the ending was AWESOME.
If I have kids in the future , I will make sure they would watch this movie.
I first saw "Harry and the Hendersons" between kindergarten and first grade; I'm not sure that I would recommend it for children that young.
I don't think I'd seen the film since the late 1980s.It was released in 1987 and I don't recall seeing it in the theater, but I digress.Harry is a hairy behemoth of the Sasquatch genus.
Mr. Henderson had almost run him (it?) over in the road, brought him home, and cared for the big guy.All good things must come to an end, and the Hendersons eventually must choose if Harry remains with their family or if he should be driven back to the wild.Watch the movie for mindless entertainment and you won't be disappointed!!.
Ever since I was a kid, I've loved this movie!
While on a hunting trip, the Hendersons run into a Bigfoot.
Harry and the Hendersons A beautiful family film that depicts the caring of a family that accidentally hits an animal with their car and at the end releases it back into it's natural habitat.
Harry and the Hendersons is a very sensitive, funny and touching film.
It's one of my favorite "Great Choice" movies for kids.
It's a great family film.
Harry and the Hendersons is My favorite Bigfoot movies and I think its also one of the best.
He is also great as Harry the Bigfoot!
If you like John Lithgow Melinda Dillon, David Suchet, Don Ameche, M.
Emmet Walsh, Kevin Peter Hall, and believe in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology then I strongly recommend that you see this film today!.
Played by Kevin Peter Hall, the Bigfoot is your typical cute, cuddly little TV character, only considerably taller than usual.All in all, "Harry and the Hendersons" is a daft little film.
Some circumstances are a little unbelievable, and there are a few plot holes, but the movie comes through with lots of amusing sequences involving Harry inadvertently destroying the Henderson's house.
However, once the Hendersons get Harry back, the movie picks up again for the final heartwarming forest sequence.Still one of my favorite movies..
George Henderson (John Lithgow) and his family are heading back from a trip to the Cascade mountains -- the first trip where he hasn't bagged an animal.
Here, he plays Dr. Wallace Wrightwood, a man whose life was ruined by his search for Bigfoot.Rick Baker did an amazing job on the FX here, placing Predator actor Kevin Peter Hall into a complex costume that makes him look exactly as we imagine a Sasquatch to look like.
I love the sequence at the end where Harry's real family reveals themselves in the forest, including a child!
I can still remember the first time I saw Harry...the movie was hilarious just about all the way through.
Harry's costume was so realistic that it actually made the movie sorta believable, heh heh...and his antics were so funny, without being strained...I would have thought it would have gotten a better rating, but what the heck...I simply loved it for what it was, high comedy.**Update**Yaaaaayyyyyyy, they are showing it on netflix!!!!!!!.
It was a great movie obviously meant for families and or children.
The story involves a family (with John Lithgow playing the father) going out into the woods for some family fun but then while driving back dad accidentally hits a big beast with his station wagon.
Professional Bigfoot hunters become involved and the family has to decide whether to keep Harry or sell him or help him get back to freedom..
Returning from a hunting trip in the forest, the Henderson family's car hits an animal in the road.
Returning from a hunting trip in the forest, the Henderson family's car hits an animal in the road.
In their attempts to keep Harry a secret, the Henderson's have to hide him from the authorities and a man, who has made it his goal in life, to catch a Bigfoot.....During the late eighties, there were a spate of these types of movies, something out of the ordinary that invades a normal family or persons life.
The bad guy turning good at the end, George feeling bad and sticking up for hardy, and the worst troupe of all, which still gets me is the one where George starts being nasty to Harry to make him leave, AKA tough love to protect him.All in allies a typical fun eighties film, that doesn't hold up as well as I'd thought, but its fun nevertheless..
This is a good comedy, mostly family and kids fare.
John Lithgow was good as the patriarch of the Henderson family.
The Henderson family is camping in the Pacific Northwest wilderness when they literally run into Bigfoot and take him into their home.
If you like light hearted family movies, this is a good one for you.*** out of ****.
There are no big laughs here, but the film is amusing in its own quirky way, and having John Lithgow as the centerpiece of Harry's struggle to fit in a world far too small for him certainly helps with this.Many things about the film don't work, but I suppose that's to be expected.
I'm not sure what William Dear was setting out to make, but he apparently did his best with what he had, and the result is a family film that has enough winning qualities to make the fantastical premise work.
Not a bad selling point, that.Though the ending sets things up for the inevitable Harrys And The Hendersons, it's probably a good thing this film wasn't successful enough to spawn a franchise. |
tt0051850 | The Legend of Sleepy Hollow | From the listless repose of the place, and the peculiar character of its inhabitants, who are descendants from the original Dutch settlers, this sequestered glen has long been known by name of Sleepy Hollow ... A drowsy, dreamy influence seems to hang over the land, and to pervade the very atmosphere.
The story is set in 1790 in the countryside around the Dutch settlement of Tarry Town (historical Tarrytown, New York), in a secluded glen called Sleepy Hollow. Sleepy Hollow is renowned for its ghosts and the haunting atmosphere that pervades the imaginations of its inhabitants and visitors. Some residents say this town was bewitched during the early days of the Dutch settlement. Other residents say an old Native American chief, the wizard of his tribe, held his powwows here before the country was discovered by Master Hendrick Hudson. The most infamous spectre in the Hollow is the Headless Horseman, said to be the ghost of a Hessian trooper that had his head shot off by a stray cannonball during "some nameless battle" of the American Revolutionary War, and who "rides forth to the scene of battle in nightly quest of his head".
The "Legend" relates the tale of Ichabod Crane, a lean, lanky and extremely superstitious schoolmaster from Connecticut, who competes with Abraham "Brom Bones" Van Brunt, the town rowdy, for the hand of 18-year-old Katrina Van Tassel, the daughter and sole child of a wealthy farmer, Baltus Van Tassel. Crane, a Yankee and an outsider, sees marriage to Katrina as a means of procuring Van Tassel's extravagant wealth. Bones, the local hero, vies with Ichabod for Katrina's hand, playing a series of pranks on the jittery schoolmaster, and the fate of Sleepy Hollow's fortune weighs in the balance for some time. The tension between the three is soon brought to a head. On a placid autumn night, the ambitious Crane attends a harvest party at the Van Tassels' homestead. He dances, partakes in the feast, and listens to ghostly legends told by Brom and the locals, but his true aim is to propose to Katrina after the guests leave. His intentions, however, are ill-fated.
After having failed to secure Katrina's hand, Ichabod rides home "heavy-hearted and crestfallen" through the woods between Van Tassel's farmstead and the Sleepy Hollow settlement. As he passes several purportedly haunted spots, his active imagination is engorged by the ghost stories told at Baltus' harvest party. After nervously passing under a lightning-stricken tulip tree purportedly haunted by the ghost of British spy Major André, Ichabod encounters a cloaked rider at an intersection in a menacing swamp. Unsettled by his fellow traveler's eerie size and silence, the teacher is horrified to discover that his companion's head is not on his shoulders, but on his saddle. In a frenzied race to the bridge adjacent to the Old Dutch Burying Ground, where the Hessian is said to "vanish, according to rule, in a flash of fire and brimstone" upon crossing it, Ichabod rides for his life, desperately goading his temperamental plow horse down the Hollow. However, to Crane's horror, the ghoul clambers over the bridge, rears his horse, and hurls his severed head into Ichabod's terrified face.
The next morning, Ichabod has mysteriously disappeared from town, leaving Katrina to marry Brom Bones, who was said "to look exceedingly knowing whenever the story of Ichabod was related." Indeed, the only relics of the schoolmaster's flight are his wandering horse, trampled saddle, discarded hat, and a mysterious shattered pumpkin. Although the nature of the Headless Horseman is left open to interpretation, the story implies that the ghost was really Brom (an agile stunt rider) in disguise. Irving's narrator concludes, however, by stating that the old Dutch wives continue to promote the belief that Ichabod was "spirited away by supernatural means," and a legend develops around his disappearance and sightings of his melancholy spirit. | psychedelic, horror, storytelling, romantic | train | wikipedia | I love this animated short!
The music is great, and Bing Crosby does a wonderful job as the narrator.
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is a truly wonderful gem, that I personally think is underrated.
Bing Crosby, a great actor and singer, narrates and sings, and I thought he was sublime, so effective and expressive.
Of course it is quite short, but it goes by so quickly, that it passes the time perfectly.
The animation is lovely, very dark at times, but for telling a very dark story, that style of animation was necessary.
The famous story tells of a schoolmaster called Inchabod Crane, a character who doesn't say much, but is immediately likable when you see him, who is in love with the beautiful Katrina.
However, in a plot we have kind of seen before, he is rivalled by Brom Bones, a handsome tower of strength, who wastes no time in telling anybody a story that disturbs Crane greatly.
Soon after, Crane meets the landmark character of the short, the Headless Horseman, a character so scary that very young kids will be terrified.
Yet, because he was scary, as the legend says that he is and much worse, the Headless Horseman was very effective, and a villain that has been imitated in things like Scooby Doo, but never as well, as the very look of him had my hairs standing up on my neck.
The short concludes with a suspenseful ending, that leaves us wondering what did happen to Inchabod Crane?
A Walt Disney Cartoon Short Subject.THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW - about the Headless Hessian who rides at night seeking his lost head - is about to terrify another victim on Halloween Night.Washington Irving's classic story comes alive in this wonderful little film, originally the second half of THE ADVENTURES OF ICHABOD AND MR.
Bing Crosby's singing narration and the excellent animation tell a tale of humor and genuine fright.
Ichabod Crane, the pedantic pedagogue, is a triumph of the animators' art, while the film's climax - the ride through the Hollow & the appearance of the hideous Hessian - is a celebration of pacing and stylistic understatement.Walt Disney (1901-1966) was always intrigued by pictures & drawings.
Back in Kansas City, along with artist Ub Iwerks, Walt developed a primitive animation studio that provided animated commercials and tiny cartoons for the local movie theaters.
When a mildly successful series with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit was snatched away by the distributor, the character of Mickey Mouse sprung into Walt's imagination, ensuring Disney's immortality.
The SILLY SYMPHONIES soon appeared, and Walt's growing crew of marvelously talented animators were quickly conquering new territory with full color, illusions of depth and radical advancements in personality development, an arena in which Walt's genius was unbeatable.
All this was in preparation for Walt's grandest dream - feature length animated films.
Disney made a wondefull masterpiece that is pitch-perfect to complete your Halloween season.
The story stays faithful to the Washington Irving short story and also adds a beautiful touch by having Bing Crosby's soothing voice-over to serenade this classic animated film which show lush touches of autumn colors in the cool, quiet mountain areas of Sleepy Hollow county, New York, in the 1700's.
The animation is great and has a real Walt Disney family feel to it.
That makes the movie even cooler as it is largely similar to the book and just like the book, the only dialogue comes from the narrator.
Brilliant film, gives you a Halloween feeling, I sure enjoyed it and I hope I speak for everyone else..
as anyone who's seen this little gem what a fun and scary (in a little persons way) short little movie this is,with Mr crosby shining all the way!!my little girl love it and always watches on a dull rainy day!!!now our little lad can have some fun with it as well,all colors and music to sooth on on a rainy bedtime!!just get nice and snuggly with the light down low and watch as yourself and kiddies whoop with delight!!!!if only someone could do the story justice these days!!i loved the Tim Burton one and it deserves a place as a well done movie done Burton style!!!go on go buy a copy and make sure you get a nice big pumpkin to boot!!!!!.
Wonderful Halloween Tale From Disney's Golden Age. Over the years, there have been several movie versions made of Washington Irving's classic tale "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow".
While many of these were quite good, the best of them all may be Disney's 1949 animated classic.
Originally shown on TV, it presents what is probably the most faithful rendition of Irving's story using classic animation, catchy songs, and narration by the voice of the late, great, Bing Crosby.
The old school animation is simply breathtaking, with its many vibrant color schemes and ever amazing ability to captivate us.
Sure, Pixar type animation may be cool, but there's something about the old school cartoons that still makes them magical.
As for the execution of the story, it's equally wonderful, managing to be both spooky and comedic at the same time for the kids.
And then there is the brilliant, soothing sound of Bing Crosby, who narrates the tale beautifully as well as providing the small amount of dialogue with his baritone voice and wit that made him famous.
All in all, if you're looking for a perfect Halloween family film, you can't go wrong with this version.
Since it doesn't seem to be shown on TV anymore, you could either find it on DVD I believe or catch it on you tube.P.S. If you find yourself walking in Sleepy Hollow one night, cross that bridge as fast as you can and Happy Halloween!.
One of the most entertaining interpretations of the classic Washington Irving tale, and perhaps the most faithful, this cartoon is a classic in its own right.
No Disney did not invent Ichabod Crane, apologies to the uneducated, the tale was taken from a series of sketches by Irving which colorfully illustrate life in colonial New York.
Bing Crosby as the narrator is wonderful and like all vintage Disney, it somehow frightens viewers without horrifying them.
This may be one of the oldest Disney's cartoons but it is certainly one of the bests.
This time the real story (Sleepy Hollow) by Washington Irving is taken seriously and the characters' design couldn't be more ideal.
The main character, Ichabod Crane, is a teacher going on his way to Sleepy Hollow and he is exactly like the book tells us, a really strange person, big ears and nose almost looking like a scarecrow.
This guy falls in love by Katrina Van Tassel, a very beautiful and apparently innocent girl, who is the only heiress to her father fortune.
Then there's Brom, a very strong man who is decided to win Katrina's heart at all cost.
There will be really fun moments due to Ichabod's character and when Ichabod and Brom are both trying to win Katrina.
Then in the Halloween night there's a party in the Van Tassel's mansion where Brom will scare the superstitious teacher by telling the legend of the Headless Horseman.
After the party, Ichabod will have to ride home alone and now the question is: Will the Headless Horseman ride again to cut a head off?.
As a halloween treat for young viewers this is a classic.
The animation is the usual Disney standard - excellent.
The story has its scarier moments, but there is plenty of comedy laced throughout the movie to soften the scare.
This version of the Washington Irving tale gives parents a great opportunity to laugh with the kids and also introduces them literature.
Bing Crosby's narration and singing crosses a lot of generation barriers as well.
I've found that most of my generation X friends refer to this version of the story as THE Legend of Sleepy Hollow..
Your creepy Disney cartoon classic!.
This is your creepy Disney cartoon classic, retelling the legendary tale of the Headless Horseman, where Ichabod is in a romantic rivalry with a tough local, trying to woo a beautiful but shallow school-teacher.
Soon, Ichabod ends up in a horrific chase scene with the diabolical horseman - sure to send chills down kids' spines.It's made with much suspense and chills, with great animation, some goofy scenes, and a spooky atmosphere.
A pretty good movie short for Halloween time.Grade B.
Originally part of the movie The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, this adaptation of Washington's Irving's famous story contains some of the scariest imagery from any Disney cartoon.
The story, for those who somehow have never read or heard of it, takes place in 1790 New York.
In the village of Sleepy Hollow, a lanky new schoolmaster named Ichabod Crane arrives and becomes smitten with a beautiful young woman named Katrina.
Brom tells superstitious Ichabod the legend of the Headless Horseman, a ghost that haunts the village each year on Halloween, searching for a head to replace the one he lost.
As Ichabod travels home alone at night, he discovers the legend is true.The first half is heavy on comedy, much to the frustration of many viewers who only watch for the scary parts they've heard about or remember from their childhood.
I enjoy the lighter parts but admit what makes this a true classic is the scene where the Horseman chases Ichabod.
Katrina is one of the most underrated animated beauties from the classic Disney era.
As Crosby's narration states, "She was a blooming lass, plump as a partridge, ripe, melting and rosy-cheeked..." The Headless Horseman is also brilliantly realized.
Sublime voice work from Bing Crosby, who also lends his voice to some songs.
It's one of the classic Disney cartoons that I remember most from my childhood.
A nice Disney short.
I know that this animated short was initially one of the shorts from "The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad" (the 11th animated Disney classic).
So I decided to write this review only for "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" because I'm familiar with this one.It is a simple but okay cartoon.
It is one of those simple, underrated and forgotten Disney shorts from the 40's (in this case, 1949).
The characters are interesting.Ichabod Crane is probably the most original character ever created by Disney.
His bizarre figure, the fact of being extremely thin and also his simplicity, charm and pacific personality are what really makes the difference.Brom Bones is a good example of pure strength.
But even his though guy posture doesn't stop him from getting into trouble with Ichabod Crane.
I mean, Ichabod has some "battles" with Brom Bones, but he doesn't even notice that!
Even when Ichabod is dancing with Katrina, Brom Bones still has plans in his mind.
That's when another hilarious sequence comes: a very short and fat woman dances with Brom Bones in a very energetic way, something which embarrasses him a lot.
On that Halloween night, after the party, Brom Bones tells terrifying stories about ghosts and the Headless Horseman.
He knows that Ichabod believes in those stories.
Needless to say that those stories scare Ichabod very much.
When Ichabod and his horse leave, tension and suspense are present.
But when the Headless Horseman appears...
It makes me wonder what really happened to Ichabod Crane.
Did we go to another city, village or country?Just to finish, let me say that Bing Crosby does a nice job as the voice of the narrator, Brom Bones and Ichabod Crane..
The animation is great.
It the story of Icabod Crane and how he ends up in a hunted woods one night and runs into The headless horseman a very scary ghost.
This classic family film is a must see.
One of the best family movies of all time.
One of the best animated film of all time.
This is a very fun movie to watch at Halloween.
Bing Crosby was a great actor.
The only life of the party was a brash young gentleman named Brom Bones, who although fancied himself to be a bruiser and a troublemaker, he was still seen as a gentleman and a town hero.
That is, until one fateful day there came a new man in town: an awkward, lanky man with a misshapen head and long, pointy nose in a book, simply known as Ichabod Crane.
Ichabod is the new schoolteacher, and he runs a tight ship.
As for Ichabod, he spends days on end, fantasizing about Katrina, and about her rich daddy's farm.
Is Ichabod a gold-digger, or is he genuinely interested in the prettiest and most sought-after maiden in town?
Ha ha.However, someone else was interested in the fair Katrina: ol' Brom Bones, who seems to go from town hero to bully in this scene, chasing off those other desperate men to have Katrina to himself, but he has a formidable adversary to contend with in Ichabod Crane.
Back and forth, he and Brom perform acts of chivalry, trying to outdo each other, but only end up embarrassing themselves.
After all, Brom could've just been a man and let Ichabod win this round, but all's fair in love and war, I guess.
After that, the plucky new schoolteacher finds himself invited to old man Van Tassell's annual Halloween night ball, where he delights in the free food, kissing up to Mr. V.T., and dancing with Katrina, while Brom Bones just sits around and sulks, as his only alternative was dancing with a fat chick.
However, fortune may soon work in his favor, as he notices another little quirk about Ichabod: he's superstitious.
Knowing he'd believe a ghost story hook, line and sinker, Brom tells, or rather, sings about a mysterious and nefarious Headless Horseman: a cursed demonic presence who wanders the wood one night a year, looking to get head...
He tells the only solace is to make it across the bridge, as the Headless Horseman can't cross it for some reason.
Well, I dunno, maybe ol' Brom Bones is full of hooey and probably just sang that catchy song for kicks.
Either way, Ichabod's ride home through the dark, spooky woods was very unsettling.
Suddenly, his horse comes to an unexpected stop, but Ichabod still hears the sound of hoof beats.
It's the Headless Horseman!
With a terrifying cackle, he raises his razor sharp sword and takes a swipe at Ichabod's head, so he and the horse haul ass out of there.
But as Ichabod and his horse cross the bridge, the Headless Horseman tosses them a parting gift: a flaming pumpkin.
So in the end, Brom Bones got the girl, and as far as Ichabod, some think he got away, settled down and started a family, but everyone else knows the truth, that he was "spirited away" by the Headless Horseman.There have been many incarnations of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, most notably Tim Burton's, but most people are familiar with the Disney version.
The Headless Horseman has been hailed one of the scariest villains ever to appear in a Disney film.
Personally, I buy into the theory that Brom Bones was the Horseman, trying to either kill Ichabod or run him out of town.
The narrator says he was a practical joker, and we all saw how jealous he was of Ichabod, and how he'd been made a fool of in front of everybody in town.
If this is the case, then he's a Disney villain who not only got away with his evil deeds, but also gets the girl in the end.
All that aside, this was a fantastic short film, narrated and performed brilliantly by Bing Crosby.
Rich with detail and the splendor that Disney's animation never fails to deliver and perfect to watch around Halloween, I definitely recommend The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.
And remember, kids, it's only a cartoon...
"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is the 65-year-old Disney approach to the famous tale, which was obviously done long before Tim Burton got his hands on the material.
First of all, the animation is nice and it is a half-hour cartoon which is truly atmospheric.
Secondly, Bing Crosby's narration worked from start to finish adding the right mixture of drama and comedy to the scenes we see.
Now, he is a pretty memorable character and it almost makes me sad to see that the other guy got the girl in the end because I felt that the one who wins was so colorless and forgettable really.
Some time later this half hour was picked, mixed together with another relative long short film and so they had a feature film out of this.
It even won a Golden Globe and that makes up for the short film from 1949 running empty on the awards front.
I had a good time watching this and I recommend it.
50 years and it's still the best interpretation of Washington Irvin's classic short story.
While I give credit to Tim Burton for his re-imagination of the tale(putting Ichabod Crane as a detective rather then a school teacher, plus other gazillion changes), this remains to date the best version of the classic tale.
The short movie offers a well-balanced dose of comedy and horror(still scary even by today's standards) with some musical segments courtesy of the narrator, good old Bing Crosby with his deep singing voice.
The animation, while obviously dated, is a solid reminder of Disney's good old days.
The soundtrack is simple and enjoyable in the funny sections and the movie and intense in the final part, Bing Crosby's singing segment will have you whistling them hours later after seeing this movie.
Recommended for Disney fans and it's perfect for Halloween..
The mood Disney created scared the pants off of me when I was little, but I still had to watch.
Bing Crosby's voice is almost hypnotic in this cartoon!
The music is superb, like in many Disney films. |
tt0047366 | Princess of the Nile | Egypt, 1249: The father of Princess Shalimar has fallen under the spell of the sinister Shaman, who drugs him and tries to keep daughter Shalimar a prisoner. She knows a secret passage, however, and slips away at night to entertain the oppressed villagers of Hanwan by disguising herself as Taura, a popular dancer in the Tambourine Tavern.
Prince Haidi, the son of the caliph of Bagdad, rides into town accompanied by Captain Hussein, his close friend. At the same time, the menacing Rama Khan and his powerful army arrive. Rama Khan is conspiring with the Shaman to overthrow the Hanwan rulers.
Hussein is killed by Khan, and in the confusion, Taura the dancing girl stabs Prince Haidi with a dagger, unaware he is a potential ally. Haidi's wounds are not fatal. As he consults Princess Shalimar's father about how to conquer the invading horde, he inquires about the dancer Taura who stabbed him, unaware she and Shalimar are one and the same.
Rama Khan wants the princess for himself. He threatens to kill villagers unless she gives herself to him. A battle ensues, in which Haidi, who now realizes her true identity, overcomes Khan, while the Shaman also endures a well-deserved death. | intrigue | train | wikipedia | She plays a sultry-innocent 13th-century princess who rouses her people to save Egypt from the ambitions of a powerful Beduin (Michael Rennie) and joins her forces with the son of the Caliph of Baghdad (Jeffrey Hunter) to save her trembling throne...
She also finds time to fulfill a great deal of exotic dancing...
Her luscious legs make her hard to forget!The emphasis is not on the plot, but on the visual pleasure of a great number of beautiful girls in sensual Technicolored costumes....
For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past.
The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her "purple harem" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion.
Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.One problem with the movie is the closed setting.
Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.What does work is Debra Paget as a princess.
This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy.
Debra Paget and Jeffery Hunter: Just Beautiful!.
Two of the best looking stars in Hollywood, Debra Paget and Jeffrey Hunter burn up the screen in "Princess of the Nile." It's not much of a movie, but if you love looking at God's most gorgeous, feast your eyes on these two!
She appeared in some landmark films like "The Ten Commandments," "Love Me Tender," "White Feather," "Demetrius and the Gladiators," etc.
Her ultra lewd dance in "Princess...Nile" is the most erotic in the history of films!
To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city/state and others.
The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once).
She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine.
Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern.
Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one "B" film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here.
One way of assessing a film is, "If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?" Since my answer is a resounding "yes" in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work.
Ravishing Debra Paget shakes and shimmies and brings the house (not to mention the pyramids) down..
Even the Maria Montez/Jon Hall technicolored baubles of the '40s are eclipsed by "Princess of the Nile," Fox's entry in Hollywood's mid-'50s obsession with things Egyptian (see "Land of the Pharoahs," "Valley of the Kings," etc.) Pure, unadulterated, mindless hokum, lavishly produced (low-budgeted, actually, but using sets and costumes left over from "The Robe," this Technicolored spectacle looks like it cost millions).
71 minutes of eye-candy (the plot, having something to do with nefarious derrings-do in ancient Egypt, is beside the point) offers the cinematographer and audiences the delectable sight of Debra Paget wearing an assortment of see-thru veils, most of which hit the ground when she shakes and shimmies thru a slave-girl production number unparalleled in film history.
Female moviegoers were not shortchanged: Fox's handsomest young contract player, Jeffrey Hunter, is as photogenic as Ms. Paget, while Michael Rennie lurks around in the background, stirring up evil doings in the land of the pyramids.
For those who might think Paget & Hunter can't act and were only hired for their physical attributes, check out their subtle, overlooked, heartbreaking work together a few years later in "White Feather" (another Fox production that has sadly vanished into the realm of "lost films").
"Princess of the Nile" still stands in a class by itself as a cheerfully mindless, breathlessly fast-paced, dazzling testament to the glories of 3-strip Technicolor--and the seductive charms of Ms. Paget (all of 20 at the time).
A pretty film with lead actors so beautiful, it almost hurts to look at them.
Young Jeffrey Hunter and Debra Paget dazzle in this fun faux- Egyptian adventure/romance.
Whether you are straight or gay, male or female, you should appreciate looking at them both.This would be a great date movie (and I wish I could return to this time for just an evening to have a date to see it during its first run)- -it has adventure, romance, a quick-moving plot, and some comic relief.
What's not to like?As another reviewer said, one of the problems with the the movie is the over-reliance on sets; it'd look even better with more outdoor scenes.
In this way, it is of its time, and one of the few ways movies have improved is in use of outdoor and international settings.Recommended.
I adored it -- it had theincomparable Debra Paget doing herpatented hip-wiggling Exotic Maiden role,evil villains, secret passages, secretidentities, 50's-style exotic scenery andcostumes -- the works.
I watched Princess of the Nile for the first time when I was about 10 years old.
I have searched the internet trying to buy the movie, but have not been able to locate it.
It makes me wonder if this is one of the lost movies in Hollywood.
I loved Debra Padget and Jeffrey Hunter together.
I vaguely remember a scene by the Nile with Debra Padget a bunch of other women.I have always wanted to see it again.
I never thought of it as an escape movie back then, but I can see now where that was probably the case.
It was a wonderful movie..
This wonderful Oriental adventure deals with the princess Shamar, Debra Paget , the flame that ignited Egypt .
And well starred by those sensational new stars , Debra Paget and Jeffrey Hunter .
It is set 1249 Egyt, where the son of the caliph of Baghdad , Jeffrey Hunter, arrives in order to keep peace and order, along the way he helps the beautiful princess to rid the Bedouin invaders led by Michael Rennie .Meanwhile , Shamar takes a double identity , both as a wealthy princess and disguising as an expert dancer, dancing at market place.
This is a typical oriental movie produced by 20th Century Fox with intrigue , fights , sword-crosses and colorful scenarios, though mostly shot in studios .
Debra Paget is marvelous as the gorgeous princess striving to gain her aims, to rid the Bedouin conquerors, as she practices her intriguing skills, both at the slums and at the royal court .
Paget starred a lot of adventure movies for 20th Century Fox , outstanding her exotic beauty and dancing skills, such as : Bird of paradise, Anne of the Indians, Prince Valiant, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Omar Khayyam and the exceptional dyptic : Tiger of Snapur and The Indian tomb by Fritz Lang .
While her partenaire Jeffrey Hunter as a brave hero is fine, but inferior to Paget.
Support is frankly well , such as Michael Rennie, Jack Elam , Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier as Shaman, Dona Drake and uncredited Lee Van Cleef.It packs a colorful and brilliant cinematography in Technicolor by Lloyd Ahern Sr.
The flick will appeal to Debra Paget and Jeffrey Hunter fans.
Debra Paget an entrancing beauty.
The 20th Century Fox studio have finally bowed to public demand & released "Princess Of The Nile" on DVD.
Nobody can, hand on heart, pretend that it is a great movie but it is a triumph for the innovation of glorious technicolor.
Playing the title role Debra Paget, then aged just 20, was just about as beautiful as any young lady can possibly be.
Dressed in an array of diaphanous costumes she looks utterly fabulous &, even if she was not that much of an actress, her erotic dancing is as breathtaking as her looks.
For the ladies, Fox studio have co-starred the handsomest of their leading young actors Jeffrey Hunter as Prince Haidi.
Nobody is going to include POTN in their list of top ten movies but, crikey, I never saw a vision of loveliness the equal of young Debra Paget in this movie.
Jack Elam!) enlivens this utterly preposterous yarn which passes off an Egyptian Hareem that's straight out of Minsky's (down to a few blondes and red heads).Paget is both lovely and acrobatic, handling action sequences charmingly.
And who knew Michael Rennie fenced left handed?This film has recently been seen in criculation on AMC, and it's worth catching.
But the appaling acting, ham-fisted dialog and cardboard sets only enhance the film's charm..
algernon4's comment that Ms Paget's "ultra lewd dance in (this film) is the most erotic in the history of films" is certainly one doozy of an exaggeration.
It isn't even Debra Paget's most erotic dance.
As for being the most erotic in the history of dance.
I love the sequence and have included it in my "Cheesecake Dance" series on Youtube.
I just think that making a claim like "most erotic in the history of film" is really going out on a very fragile limb..
Princess Of The Nile is set in the 13th century AD and I always thought that the religion of ancient Egypt had died out by that time.
But what we have here is that the city that Debra Paget is princess of on the Nile is still worshiping Isis while their Moslem conquerors are behaving pretty much as conquerors do.The city's salvation just might be Jeffrey Hunter son of the Caliph of Bagdad making an inspection tour of the empire.
The real rulers of the city are vizier Michael Rennie and shaman Edgar Barrier with a gang of assorted hooligans enjoying the spoils of conquest.
You have a few players here like Rennie and Barrier who have classical backgrounds.What they must have thought..
PRINCESS OF THE NILE (Harmon Jones, 1954) **1/2.
Given the title, one would have thought the narrative would be dealing with Cleopatra (whose unhistorical off-spring the leading lady here, Debra Paget, actually played in the Italian peplum CLEOPATRA'S DAUGHTER {1960}!) or Nefertiti (which, apart from the more famous THE TEN COMMANDMENTS {1956; also featuring Paget}, Jeanne Crain – herself a former Fox star – tackled in another low-brow Italian production, QUEEN OF THE NILE {1961}, that I recently acquired and may very well check out either now or next month, when I intend to give tribute to another actor from that film, i.e. the great Vincent Price, on the 100th anniversary of his birth)!
However, here we have Egypt in the throes of war with the Arab country of Bagdad(!), whose citizens include heir to the throne Jeffrey Hunter and rebel leader Michael Rennie – in this respect, the mish-mash of costumes is almost as incongruous as that in Universal's own YANKEE PASHA (yet another film emanating from this same year)!
Even so, due to time constraints, I have had to discard all the other unwatched Arabian Nights romps at my disposal and concentrate on more historically or thematically relevant fare.Anyway, the compact result (running just 71 minutes!) is colorful (though the muddy print I acquired left much to be desired!) light entertainment bordering on camp, what with Paget's Princess Shalimar doubling as a sultry dancer at a cabaret (years before Luis Bunuel dealt, altogether more subtly, with a similar if not identical ruse in BELLE DE JOUR {1967}!) – conveniently, the river Nile connects this haunt to the Palace itself!
– though her intention is actually to gauge the people's opinion of her father's reign and uncover any possible conspiracies being hatched (yet Rennie does not recognize her immediately, while he and Hunter fall out over her 'earthy' charms)!
– is fomenting trouble between the two countries (even if the killing of Hunter's aide is actually witnessed by Paget!), then offering himself as the Princess' suitor in order to bring them back together again!
She and Hunter eventually fall in love (after the heroine has stabbed him in their first scene together!); the whole culminates in a clash between the two factions within the Palace walls, in which Rennie gets his come-uppance by being effectively impaled (in silhouette) inside a tent on a lance he had himself previously thrown to get at the hidden Paget!
The supporting cast features gullible potentates, giggling handmaidens, comic relief acolytes
and Jack Elam as an Egyptian outlaw (by the way, the IMDb also lists Lee Van Cleef putting in an appearance here but I failed to recognize him!)..
Exciting adventure highlighted by the amazing Debra Paget.
This is the movie that made Debra Paget a superstar, and rarely has an actress dominated a film so completely as Ms. Paget does this one.
From the moment she is first revealed--practicing an exotic dance, no less--to the the last scene of the film, Paget remains the apple of the camera's eye.
Whether dancing seductively before spellbound soldiers, bargaining with duplicitous courtiers, or swinging a scimitar in defense of her people, Paget brings the film's eponymous character to life with a cinematic charisma that is never less than spellbinding.But while the film is generally remembered as a showcase for Paget's incredible charms, it is in fact a fine all-round action/adventure movie.
The script and direction are fine and the several action scenes are exciting, with quite a bit of effective humor thrown in for good measure.
Jeffrey Hunter and Michael Rennie are effective as the story's hero and villain, respectively, and their rivalry builds to a suitable conclusion.
An excellent adventure from the days of classic Hollywood, Princess of the Nile is as enchanting as it is exciting and a colorful showcase for the wonderful talents of Debra Paget..
Basic plot: Set in 13th Century Egypt, Princess Shalimar (Debra Paget) wishes to see the band of Bedouin conquerors, led by the ruthless Rama Kahn (Michael Rennie), ousted from her city.
While disguised as dancing girl Taura, Shalimar sees an opportunity when Prince Haidi (Jeffrey Hunter), son of the Caliph of Bagdad, pays a visit.
Shalimar, Haidi, and a band of thieves form an alliance to fight back against the tyranny of Rama Kahn.Princess of the Nile is 100% Grade-A Saturday matinée popcorn fun.
Instead, you'll find sword fights, secret passages, dancing girls, intrigue, a young Jack Elam, a young Lee Van Cleef, and a lot of other hokum that all add up to a good time.
At 71 minutes, the movie is quick-paced and never drags.
And to top it all off, Princess of the Nile is in glorious Technicolor.
Hunter is equally good as Prince Haidi.
Paired with Paget, there's not a more beautiful couple.
And, then there's Debra Paget.
WOW!Overall, Princess of the Nile is a winner with me.
Please don't ask me to watch it again.......although the sets (from earlier movies) were supposed to give the intention it was a high-budget film, the studio just used some folk they had doing nothing to produce this hilariously stupid film.
Harmen Jones most likely kicked himself in the rear-end every day after filming was finished, or laughed all the way to the bank - IF he were paid !
Writers Drayson and Adams surely had to be two sissies trying to out-do one another with their plots, and most likely had to stuff towels in their mouths to keep from laughing out loud.Ms. Paget ("Shalimar," what an original name !) was lovely and danced her wigglies with mucho aplomb, looking good.
Double-handsome Jeffrey Hunter ("Prince Haidi") should have taken a good look in the mirror to see that his hair-cut was terribly modern and did not budge at any point, no matter how active he was.The cinematography was wonderfully colorful - I just hooted every time the "handmaidens" stood-around in their contemporary wigs and makeup....
That was the best laugh (for me) through the whole movie.
TCM should have warned us they were about to present a saga-turned-comedy.I tried very hard to believe Michael Rennie ("Rama Kahn") really was a sinister beduoin lusting after the cold-natured Paget........maybe he should have tried for Hunter.
Those Beduoins are versatile......"The Princess of the Nile" should give you a good boost, if you're down.
You'd have to research this film before viewing to realize that this isn't a film about a Pharaoh's daughter set in ancient Egypt, but some 2000 after the great kings ruled the greatest civilization of biblical times.
Starring Debra Paget, this then is 2000 years after her "Ten Commandments" slave girl caught the attention of master builder Vincent Price.
By 1200, the approximate year this is set in, there really was no Egypt like we know it from ancient times or the re-established country that exists today.
Nevertheless, Paget is a princess of a small Nile country whose homeland is threatened by barbaric invaders and with the help of a handsome prince from Bagdad (Jeffrey Hunter) strives to fight off her enemies.At just over 70 minutes, this is perhaps the shortest film of this genre, produced in lush Technicolor, overloaded with native girl dances and sword fights, and a pretty memorable villain (Michael Rennie).
Unfortunately, it's still rather second rate, rushed out with not much thought to story or substance, and thus simply just another standard sword and sandal adventure that audiences expected to get from Universal, not the Cinemascope inventing 20th Century Fox which produced "The Egyptian" and a few other classic biblical era epics the same year as this. |
tt0072267 | The Terminal Man | Harry Benson, an extremely intelligent (IQ 144) computer programmer in his 30s, suffers from epilepsy. He often has seizures which induce a blackout, after which he awakens to unfamiliar surroundings with indications of unpredictably violent behavior on his part. He also suffers from delusions that computers will rise up against humans.
Benson suffers from Acute Disinhibitory Lesion (ADL) syndrome, and is a prime candidate for a psychosurgical procedure known as "Stage Three". Stage Three requires surgeons to implant electrodes in his brain, which will detect the onset of a seizure and then use an electrical impulse to stop it. The surgery initially appears to be a success.
Benson's psychiatrist, Janet Ross, is concerned that once the operation is complete, Benson will suffer further psychosis as a result of his person merging with that of a computer, something he has come to distrust and disdain. Two days after the operation, it becomes apparent that his brain is now addicted to the electrical impulses. The seizures are initiating at increasingly short intervals. When they become continuous, Benson will be in a permanent blackout, with the violent behavior that goes with it.
Just before Ross realizes what is happening, Benson escapes from the hospital. He does become unpredictably violent, but his intact intelligence allows him to evade the police for a considerable time, at one point confronting Ross in her home. | murder, cult, violence, insanity, tragedy, suspenseful, sadist | train | wikipedia | The only one who thinks with heart as well as head is the Joan Hackett character, and the clash between her and the good 'ol boys of science is both profound and heartbreaking.I urge anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size to ignore the negative comments and give this film a chance.
It's the kind of film we could use more of, and the fact it's considered boring by today's audiences is very sad proof of the dumbing-down effect of Hollywood clap-trap.
Although this movie is weak as a 'thriller', its real power is its evocative sense of place and the emotional texture of science as it was seen in the 1970s -- sombre and dystopian, yet strangely attractive.
The plot centres on a group of scientists and doctors who are pushing the frontiers of neuroscience by implanting a computerized chip in the brain of a man (George Segal) afflicted with terrible seizures.
Only when the the chip malfunctions, and the patient breaks out of the hospital and starts killing people, does the veneer of omnipotence and professionalism fall away, revealing in the scientists ambition, uncertainty, and humanity.
Segal does a good job of portraying the wildly changing emotions of a man who's mind is under the control of a computer.
The most interesting moments of the movie are the early ones, where the patient interacts with his dispassionate doctors in the sterile, streamlined chromium world of the hospital.
The messy humanity of the patient, demonstrated through humour, fear, weakness and anger, stands in contrast to his surroundings, and it is not surprising to the audience when he disappears from his hospital room.Scenes of the doctors in tuxedos and evening gowns at a dinner party while a shiny computer console monitors their ailing patient lend the robotic professionals a strange, formal humanity, at the same moment in the movie when their own fallibility begins to be revealed.
Once the patient leaves the hospital, the movie shifts to a more conventional 'crazed murderer' theme, and things become less interesting.
The movie closes with a disappointing, clichéd 'Big Brother' riff on mind control and the future.
The technological landscape is presented with a glistening newness that evokes movies like The Anderson Tapes, Coma, Westworld, and The Andromeda Strain (the last three of which, like Terminal Man, were written by Michael Crichton).
Like Andromeda Strain, Coma and the Anderson Tapes, Terminal Man is less a thriller and more a cultural time capsule.
I found the 'slow' pacing quite beautiful, and I loved the way that the colour within each scene slowly built as the movie progressed.
Replace the "wires in the brain" with today's over-prescribed Ritalin, SSRI's, and other similar drugs, and you will see the point.This is an excellent movie which deserves to be on DVD, with commentary by Crichton, Hodges and/or Segal.
"The Terminal Man" is written for the screen, produced, and directed by Mike Hodges ("Get Carter", "Flash Gordon", "Croupier"), based upon the Michael Crichton novel, and tells an intriguing story, the likes of which Crichton always excelled at, that combined science and thrills.The likable George Segal stars as Harry Benson, a computer scientist who, since a car accident, has suffered from blackouts & seizures that made him dangerously violent.
Now a team of surgeons is performing ground breaking surgery on him: attaching electrodes to 40 of his brain terminals that will hopefully counteract his violent impulses.
However, as the viewer certainly suspects will happen, this doesn't work, and his brain ends up craving the shocks / stimuli that it receives, and Harry loses control once again.I can certainly understand the problems that some people may have with this production, as it's really not the typical thriller at all.
Even after Harry has made the expected escape from the hospital, he doesn't spend that much time running amok, and certainly does not kill very many people.But this movie *is* noticeably intelligent and thoughtful and does offer rewards for patient viewers.
And, like other movies of this kind, there is a certain wariness (voiced by Harry) on the part of mankind regarding the computer age and what it could mean for us all.Another wonderful element to "The Terminal Man" is its incredible cast of both stars and rock solid character actors.
Segal is effectively low key in the lead, and is nicely supported by Joan Hackett, Jill Clayburgh (in a small but welcome appearance), Richard Dysart, Donald Moffat, Matt Clark, Michael C.
All in all, "The Terminal Man" is a good movie that does deserve to be discovered or rediscovered.Seven out of 10..
"The Terminal Man" is a classic Michael Crichton story.
The main story line still comes across well, and the viewer experiences the emotions and dilemmas of the patient.The irony here is that a science has now proven the film's premise correct.
"The Terminal Man" is an example if fiction becoming fact, and film previewing our future.If one likes science and science fiction, it is a good film to pick.
George Segal is Harry Benson A brilliant computer scientist, as a result of a head injury, he begins to experience violent seizures.
Directed by Mike Hodges, Michael Crichton The Terminal Man, is undeniably a lost classic it is nothing short of brilliant.
George Segal proves that he can be more than comedic, he is joined by other great actors such as Richard Dysart, the late Jill Clayburgh, It is now available through Warner Brother's made to order 'burning' archive it's a shame that they've not subjected it to a proper special edition title..
I been a fan of Mike Hodges film right from the first time I watched Get Carter.
I have watched most of his films: some brilliant Pulp, Black Rainbow, Croupier, some misunderstood, Flash Gordon, some could of been better, Morons From Outer space, A Prayer For The Dying and some underestimated I'll Sleep When I'm Dead and The Terminal Man.The Terminal Man is one of coldest brilliant movies of 70's which I can understand why many people would not like this film.
OK its not a chick flick or A Vin Diesel material, but hey wasn't going to be.It is well directed by Hodges and acted by George Segal and I would to see this classic getting a DVD released.
Based on the Michael Crichton novel, this adaptation(directed by "Get Carter" Mike Hodges) tells the story of computer programmer Harry Benson, who, in an attempt to cure his brain seizures, agrees to an experiment where he has micro-computers implanted in his brain, in order to correct the faulty brain chemistry.
Things don't go as planned when his new mind starts to get pleasure from the violent impulses he now feels, and so escapes from the hospital, starting a desperate manhunt to prevent him from murdering anyone, and of course to cover-up the scientific failure.George Segal is believable as Harry, and the rest of the cast is fine, and though Mike Hodges tries, this film is simply too dreary and downbeat to succeed, and by the end, there doesn't seem to have been any discernible point to it all..
computer brain implants), but spoilt by a lamentably SLOOOOW plot development, which also moves into cringingly sub-standard thriller/stalker territory, (penultimate scene where George Segal breaks into the female doctor's house, (who, inevitably, is alone AND in the shower!)), as the film has nowhere else to go..
Brilliant computer scientist (George Segal) has been involved in an auto accident which left "a pressing" on his brain; uncontrollably angry and violent, he has nearly killed two people.
Intentionally clinical and cold, this adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel has been directed by Mike Hodges with barely a trace of personality, stray levity, energy or irony.
Just watched a pretty interesting sci-fi thriller from 1974, Mike Hodges' "The Terminal Man," starring George Segal, Joan Hackett, Jill Clayburgh, Richard Dysart and Ian Wolfe.
Based on a Michael Crichton novel, this one tells the story of a computer programmer (Segal) who lives in fear that the machines of the world will soon be taking over the humans.
The film is very slow moving in its first half, and indeed, the operation that is performed on Segal takes up a very long part of the film's running time.
Even though his finest stories like "The Andromeda Strain", "Westworld", "The Terminal Man" and even "Jurassic Park" are seemingly very differing tales, they basically do share the same basic concept, namely artificial technology and/or science that develops and turns into a giant menace to the same human that created it.
Crichton referred to "The Terminal Man" as the worst adaptation of his work, but maybe that has to do with personal resentment because he was initially set to adapt his own novel and direct, but got fired by the directors.
"The Terminal Man" is everything but a bad film, although it's fairly easy to see why many people dislike it.
The brief plot description promises an exciting concept of a man suffering from psychosis who agrees to participate in a scientific/medical experiment in which a tiny computer is implanted in his brain that will keep his violent impulses under control.
Although seemingly successful at first, the man's brain somehow becomes addicted to the little shocks that the electrodes are sending out, resulting in the triggering of even more violent impulses.
If you read it like this, "The Terminal Man" sounds like a tense, exciting and action-packed thriller, but instead it's actually a slow-brooding, atmospheric and integer drama.
It all is a bit misleading perhaps
The premise speaks of "A man suffering from a mental condition that often causes him to become homicidal", but we are only introduced to Harry Benson when he obediently awaits the operation and remains very calm and docile at all times.
Director Mike Hodges ("Get Carter", "Pulp") literally turns the film into a work of art, with stunning cinematography and exquisite use of classical music.
I honestly wished for "The Terminal Man" to benefice from a faster pacing, a bit more background to Harry Benson's character, a bit less medical mambo-jumbo and a few more brutish murders..
Writer and sometimes Movie Director Michael Crichton's Clinical, Sterile Style is one of His Strengths and one of His Weaknesses.
When it Works, "Westworld" it can be Intricate and Impressive in a Genre (Sci-Fi) that is Frequently Neither.In this Film, based on the Crichton Novel but Directed by Mike Hodges, it is Technologically Stunning and Visually "Still Life" Calculatingly Smart and Sharp.Reminding of Stanley Kubrick's Still, Lingering, Symmetrical Approach, the Story was and is Topical and the Machines or (A.I.) Takeover and Dehumanization results in the Slowest of Burn Rendition of Scientific and Medical Hubris gone Bonkers.George Segal and the rest of the Cast, especially Joan Hackett, try and Inject some Humanity into the Project but the Framing of the Film is so Overpoweringly Oppressive and Overwhelming that People are Present only in the Abstract.The Movie is Beautiful, but Brain-Numbing Boring, especially in the First Half and requires of the Viewer to be in a Beta-State to Endure the Pacing.
All the other characters lacked motivation, and the stark art direction only served to underline the complete lack of emotion in this film.If you get the chance to see this movie....
Slow, sure...but the real crime here is a zombie-like George Segal (in a bad wig most of the film) but NO amiable banjo-playing!
Darn!PLENTY of these semi-plodding scenes could've been livened up with a wry wink and some Shakey's-pizzeria-style banjo noodling from Johnny Carson's 5,756th favorite guest...Oh well -- at least stabbing Jill Clayburgh to death on a waterbed sets a good tone for the rest of the '70s (only Karen Black -- or maybe Susan Anspach -- as the victim would've been more aptly emblematic)...C'mon -- would it have killed the auteur to end the sterile, over-wide-screened mise-en-scene with Segal playing a banjo in that open grave...THEN a blissfully anticipated hail of bullets silencing "Oh, Susannah" (or whatever).
George Segal delivers a brilliant performance as the mentally tortured Benson and also conveys the menace of man on the edge.
A lot of the reviews say that the film is "boring" but in reality if you appreciate a slow but nevertheless gripping and fascinating film, watch this classic science fiction film and you won't be disappointed.
The Terminal Man is set in Los Angeles where a man named Harry Benson (George Segal) is set to undergo a revolutionary operation, after being involved in a car accident & suffering a brain injury he has had black-outs during which he becomes incredibly violent.
Harry escapes from hospital & goes on a violent rampage through Los Angeles as he eventually targets the (young, good looking female) doctor he believes is responsible for his condition...Written, produced & directed by Mike Hodges not long after his success with the classic Michael Caine thriller Get Carter (1971) this futuristic sci-fi thriller was based on a novel by Michael Crichton (who was apparently fired from writing the screenplay for this film adaptation because it did not follow his original novel closely enough & he was originally set to direct as well) & is an obvious & sometimes striking warning about science.
I suppose the films big scene takes place just after the operation & Harry is questioned as various technicians in another room electrically induce all sorts of feelings & sensations which I guess is supposed to imply that science & scientists regard humanity & our thoughts & feelings & who we are as nothing more than electrical impulses.
Also at almost 110 minutes not that much happens, the pace is slow to say the least but the story is good & fairly engaging if you can get into it although it definitely does require patience.The film has a very stark sterile clean look with very little personality, the hospital itself is whiter than white & Hodges films in a very matter of fact way as the camera barely moves & a lot of shots are nicely composed & almost seem symmetrical.
The acting like the story & setting is quite emotionless & George Segal is the only one who shows a little humanity & personality as the big bad scientists even take that way from him in the end.The Terminal Man is a film that makes a point & it takes quite a while to do so, the story & film-making is good here but the pace will put many off & while some may say the slow pace doesn't matter I think it does.
"The Terminal Man" is another under-appreciated film from the 1970's.It's a science fiction tale that is both austere and elegant.A cautionary tale of medical science and it's "we can cure anything or f#%k you up trying" mentality .Directer Mike Hodge does a wonderful job setting the tone and keeping it flowing in at a deliberate pace.Much like the film's beautiful classical based score.The actors are superb.The vastly underrated George Segal took a role way out of the "comfort zone" of the top actors of that era.(and he was one).He's very subdued, intelligent and very good.Joan Hackett is equally fine as a empathetic psychiatrist.
Ambiguous and fun to watch.There are many rewarding subtleties and nuances throughout this film for the viewer with the willingness and patience.The plot revolves around a new experimental,innovative surgical procedure being utilized to stop Segal's character from having violence filled black-outs/seizures.Needless to say ,things go awry and the patient finds himself caught between a sudden addiction of his body to have these seizures so that it can receive the soothing "high" from the micro computer implanted in his brain.(Oh, I didn't mention the "patient" has a intense phobia of machines).There is a great scene where Segal (now pretty much berserk) breaks into the lab where he used to work(on robots no less) and he proceeds to bash them up and does great damage to them.They're still functioning in this damaged capacity and Segal's on his knees, in the middle of them,moving in rhythm as they move, to-fro, up-down.
Segal plays a man who has had an accident and suffered some sort of cranial injury (I'm sorry Micheal Crichton, It really isn't explained well enough in my opinion).
So basically the entire idea for the plot is scuppered right away before the movie even really gets a chance to start.The film pursues the idea anyway, and Segal has a micro implant into his brain to control impulses that cause him want to kill.Yep, of course it fails and the implant starts giving him the impulses.
Segal escapes the hospital after his operation (how is he even able to do anything after major surgery on his brain?) he starts having attacks and kills his girlfriend and runs off on a frenetic killing frenzy.
Warner's prognosticators use TERMINAL MAN to issue a dire warning about the known status and direction of the KGB human mind control experiments in the 1970s.
Tried Hard to Like It, I Tell Ya. I love Michael Crichton movies - Coma, Looker, Westworld, The Andromeda Strain, etc.
It's implied."The Terminal Man" is far from being the worst movie I've seen, but it is certainly in the running for the most boring.
"The Terminal Man" by contrast there's nothing to it, it's just people talking to each other.
It is an engaging, if cold hearted 1974 science-fiction movie penned by Michael Crichton, the doctor-turned-author responsible for such successes as THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, WESTWORLD and COMA.George Segal stars as an computer scientist who has an electronic pacemaker inserted in his brain to prevent him from having epileptic fits.
THE TERMINAL MAN postulates push-button brain surgery of a type I've personally glimpsed already (electroshock therapy, for instance, is still very much in use).
Well, that's about all I have to say just now; but take my advice and check out THE TERMINAL MAN: it's an underrated Fright Film no True Fan should miss.. |
tt0116790 | Kolja | The film begins in 1988 as the Soviet bloc is beginning to disintegrate. František Louka, a middle-aged Czech man dedicated to bachelorhood and the pursuit of women, is a concert cellist struggling to eke out a living by playing funerals at the Prague crematorium. He has lost his previous job at the Czech Philharmonic, having been half-accidentally blacklisted as "politically unreliable" by the authorities. A friend offers him a chance to earn a great deal of money through a sham marriage to a Russian woman to enable her to stay in Czechoslovakia. The woman then uses her new citizenship to emigrate to West Germany, where her boyfriend lives.
Due to a concurrence of circumstances, she has to leave behind her 5-year-old son, Kolya, for the disgruntled Czech musician to look after. At first Louka and Kolya have communication difficulties, as they don't speak each other's languages and the many false friend words that exist in Czech and Russian add to the confusion. Gradually, though, a bond forms between Louka and Kolya. The child suffers from suspected meningitis and has to be placed on a course of carefully monitored antibiotics. Louka is threatened with imprisonment for his suspect marriage and the child may be placed in a Russian children's home. The Velvet Revolution intervenes though, and Kolya is reunited with his mother. Louka and Kolya say their goodbyes.
Bachelor Louka ends up fathering a child with his girlfriend - perhaps a replacement for lost Kolya - and regains his position as a virtuoso with the philharmonic orchestra. | romantic, historical, storytelling | train | wikipedia | Take the old formula of two mismatched people being forced to live together, and rejuvenate it by losing the cliches and adding excellent script and direction, and utterly superb acting by all the cast, especially the two leads (the grouch and the boy).
Set in the twilight of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, we find Louka, a 55-year old confirmed bachelor, blacklisted concert cellist, and womanizer, struggling to make ends meet.
She promptly flees to the West, leaving Louka with her 5 year old, Russian-speaking son, Kolya.
Czech people used to learn Russian language at schools so they can appreciate it.I am so sorry that there is no way that you could enjoy even these parts of the movie.
Kolya works as a film on several levels at once -- political, artistic, personal, etc.
The performances are magical and the entire film is encased by music of very great beauty and humanity by Dvorak and other great Czech composers.
The vintage film footage of Kubelik conducting Smetana's Ma Vlast at a concert at the end of the Russian occupation is a wonderful touch.
Although I'm sure many other Czech films deserve Oscars, I am glad Kolya was recognized.
Seeing this makes me understand how Czechoslovakia could have a fairly booming film industry.This movie came on on cable network IFC and it first grabbed my attention because I didn't recognize what language the characters were speaking.
Indeed I was late to work and really wanted to get going, but I was unable to tear myself away.Beyond the great writing, acting, and directing, this film has some truly amazing cinematography.
I really didn't know where the movie would end up, and in fact it was portrayed so subtly that I had to rewind the final scene to be sure what had happened, and then go back and re-watch a prior scene that contained a seemingly throwaway line that bears on the ending..
Louka, played by Zdenek Sverak who also wrote the screenplay, is a onetime philharmonic cellist who has lost his orchestra job because the Soviet era Czech communist powers-that-be deem him unreliable.
This ultimately results in Louka becoming solely responsible for the woman's five year old boy -- who only speaks Russian.
(it is very similar to the film Ponnette) But what I considered to be the best part of this movie was the little boy's performance.
After all there are still good movies made about underdog sports teams prevailing, and even the exact same material (thinking Shakespeare here) can be made fresh through different productions.The man in question here is Frantisek Louka, the place is the Czech Republic, and the time is 1988 (just prior to the "Velvet Revolution").
This leaves Louka to care for the child "Kolya." One thing that makes this movie stand out is the quality of the acting by all involved.
A lot of little scenes exemplify the underlying tensions, such as Louka's being expected to display both the Czech and Russian flags in his window, Louka's mother refusing to let some Russian soldiers in to wash their hands by lying about her having no water, and Louka's purposeful refusal to learn the Russian language.
How the political situation drives the action makes for a singularly interesting story.The musical score that contains works by the Czech composers Dvořák, Suk, Fibich, and Smetana adds a special quality.Don't be turned away from seeing this because it touches on familiar themes; it is a quality film with unique characteristics..
A good Czech film--but there are better ones.
While "Kolya" is refreshing compared to American standards, it lacks the maturity of say Kadar's "Lies my father told me" (Golden Globe winner for best foreign film in 1976) made in Canadaa film in English with a Czech heart and soul or Forman's "Loves of a blonde" (also about music and musicians).Czech cinema gives a lot of importance to classical Western music.
There have been better Czech films unknown to American and West European audiences..
The effort to make the movie more understandable for foreign audiences might have upset some film critics here, maybe even make some jealous with all the awards and positive responses it got.I personally am in love with all work of Sverak.
I think that performances of all actors in this movie are great and camera work and music is just enchanting.So 10 points coming from Czech Republic..
In this case Louka (Zdenek Sverák), a confirmed bachelor, marries a Russian woman to get her Czech papers and to get him some money to buy a car and fix his house and pay some debts.As soon as they marry, she heads to Germany.
her son, Kolja (Andrei Chalimon), a little five-year-old, ends up with Louka, who soon finds that he is bonding with the boy.It is a beautifully touching story with some outstanding performances by the two leads and Libuse Safránková as Klara.It is fascinating that star and writer of the screenplay is also the father of the director.
From another user comment, I gather that this film is packed with humor and references that will only be apparent to those familiar with Czech language and history.Despite that, to me it was an eminently satisfying film.There are three inter-related, connecting narratives, all intensely interesting, that propel the film and our attention.One is that this largely captures the time just before the revolution against Soviet occupation.
And a little of what it was like in the transition to greater freedom.Another narrative deals with the life and times of a bachelor professional musician, a cellist, who long ago had to decide between having a family OR being a serious professional musician.
Due to a realistic but complex series of events, Kolja cannot accompany her.The film deals with trying to accomplish that and its aftermaths and consequences.I thought "Kolja" did a good job of showing SOME of the pain that a child -- separated from biological father, biological mother, biological grandmother, etc.
The characters didn't over play, the little boy was excellent, specially the scene where he talks in the bathtub to his his grandma over the phone was heart pounding.
The music in the film is good, and i like the way the comedy was placed through the movie.
I really kicked my self for not knowing more language to feel certain films like this..
Watched the movie with Subtitles and I wish I knew Russian or Czech to understand the language barrier between the characters.
It is a heart warming story which focuses on relation between a 55 year old man - Louka - a lady's man, who is dedicated to bachelorhood and a concert cellist struggling to make a living and a 5 year old Russian speaking boy - Kolya forced to look-after due to circumstances post a fake marriage in exchange of money.
The photography is a pleasure; the story line, well, a bit predictable in places, but not jarringly so; the acting from all principals, including the little boy, utterly convincing; and the background is the Czech countryside (masking its pollution with beauty, as shown in a strange scene in the otter-less Otter Creek), the incomparable Prague, and picturesque villages.
An especially good scene in the film is at the beginning, when you see Kolya looking out the plane window.
Kolya is a great film which was filmed in 1996 by Jan Sverák, the son of the actor, director and screenwriter Zdenek Sverák who played the main character in this film.
Despite the fact that even american consultants were involved in the film in order to make Kolya understandable even for the Americans, I do not think that Americans could understand it in as properly as we Czechs do.
Czech and Russian, which makes the film very difficult for the Americans to understand.
Louka (Zdenek Sverak), a 55-year-old, self-centred, womanizing, bachelor Cellist enters a fake marriage-of-convenience and ends up alone with a 5-year-old boy, Kolya (Andrej Chalimon), to look after.
This film is an absolute mastership of movie making.
The plot might seem simple to some - older man taking care of a child, but the epicness of this drama lies in the historic setting of this story which is amplified by the absolute mastery of displaying the scenes both through the eyes of a 6 yrs old as well as as the portrayed every-day struggles of a grown individual in the "normalizing" era of Czechoslovakia.
The film will captivate you from it's beginning to the end, throughout the whole story in it's heartbreaking moments as well as by the easy set scenes.
Pictures how a child can change a crazy man into an excellent father, pictures how love overcomes the nasty feelings toward a particular nation due to occupation, and outlines the real life situation during the last breaths of communism in an iron curtain country.
Kolya, a 1996 Czechoslovakian movie by Jan Sverak makes this point very beautifully.
In desperate need of money (to buy a car), he marries a Russian girl half his age and with a young son, Kolya, to get some money in lieu of helping the young lady secure the Czech citizenship.
The parting is tragic but Louka seems to have found some direction - he is again playing at the Philharmonic and his companion is now pregnant with their child.This is a very well made movie that brings out the subtlety of relationships with great ease and humor.
"Kolya", an award winning Czech film set in Prague, is a sweet and sentimental story about a boy (the title character) and a male cellist who, through circumstance, becomes his guardian.
The general plot of this movie is certainly not new--a confirmed bachelor having a small child dumped into his lap and the subsequent growth of this individual as a result of raising a kid.
Plus, although this COULD have been a "do it by the numbers film", it diverged into unusual directions (particularly setting the movie in the waning days of communist Czechoslovakia) and the ending was NOT so predictable as well.The acting, pacing and direction were excellent and I had no complaints about this.
The only real complaint I have is that although this type of film is usually intended as family fare, KOLYA is DEFINITELY not--as it has a very brief nude scene.
This is a lovely movie about a cute little boy.
There are so many wonderful, moving scenes there, see Louka's large hand holding Kolya's tiny little hand, this can be a token picture of showing the main theme of this movie.
Luckily, they are not the only virtues of the film - smooth and logical script (still with pleasant turns and realistic ending), talented performances (particularly Andrey Khalimon as Kolya and Zdeněk Svěrák as Louka), and depiction of nonsense of communist times (in fact, totalitarian and miserable when people had to wriggle and invent various options to survive and enhance quality of life as little as possible) compose an integral enjoyment, where comic and tragic elements are in place and balanced.
I was discussing movies with an acquaintance of mine when he handed me a video of a film I had never heard of before, "Kolya".
I was also struck by how beautiful the cinematography was; even Louka's apartment seemed to take on a rich texture of its own.Even if you're not into foreign films, I would recommend giving "Kolya" a try.
Kolya, one of the first movies where I could empathize with a man three times my age..
I don't know much about that part of the world, and I am glad I got to learn a little bit about Czechoslovakia- even if it is through a movie.
Zdenek Sverak is one of best Czech directors and his movies belong to classical movies of Czech film archive and lots of his movies are connected to people brains and hearts very much.
Is that once the Wall is down, the people stop thinking?Right, it got the best foreign movie from Academy.
But then his life changes after he has to take a five-year-old boy under his wing.The cinematography, character development, and historical context all combine to make this one fine movie.
In fact, Zdenek Sverák, the actor who plays Louka, actually resembles slightly the Hollywood actor.All kidding aside, Kolya is actually pleasant viewing, the kind of sentimental middle-of-the-road, life-affirming fare that Hollywood seems to embrace when it comes time to pick out the Best Foreign Language Film nominees (See France's The Choir and Joyeux Noel as examples).
This is not to denigrate its modest virtues, but really, this is the kind of film your grandmother would love.Kolya is about a 55-year old confirmed bachelor who despite his age, can still score hot chicks half his age that look like they came from the pages of Playboy Czech Republic edition (probably not surprising since Sverák also wrote the screenplay of the movie).
But the deal goes wrong when the "wife" defects to West Germany, leaving him in charge of little Kolya (played by cute but not too cute Andrei Chalimon), a kid he can't even talk to since he's not conversant in Russian.One of the most notable things about this film is its subtlety.
But the filmmakers also allow for a happy ending for Louka, in a brief shot that you may miss if you blink.My irreverence toward Kolya does not mean that I didn't like the film.
Kolya was an amazing little film.
Having lost his place in the state orchestra, he must make ends meet by playing at funerals and painting tombstones.Although I am by no means well-versed in Czech film, I have seen a few of the New Wave pieces and have been impressed.
Setting the film in this time creates an interesting dynamic, because Czechoslovakia has a nice distinction of being between the Western world and the Russian world (yes, Russia is part of Europe, but only in the most literal sense)..
This Oscar winner for Best Foreign Film is a sweetly gentle movie that mainly focuses on the budding relationship between the 50-something man and the five-year-old boy.
'Kolya' is not bad and I cried at certain moments both times I saw this movie.
Not only in my view, another movie written by Zdenek Sverák deserved Oscar: I mean 'Vesnicko má stredisková' directed by Jirí Menzel, a film with much better actors than Kolya, less stupid plot, but not less human and touching.
Yeah, it was probably cute, heartwarming, tearjerking, funny, happy, what have you not, but it lacks any technical achievement or story originality to deserve a Foreign Film Oscar.
Sverak seized his opportunity and used the historical fact that people in the west may be interested in a story like this at that time.
This is a Hollywood style made movie that is apparently created by a Czech for non-Czechs and as can be seen from the previous contributions - it found its viewers - people who call it Czechoslovakian - although it is purely Czech, people who believe it describes life in USSR - we were never part of the USSR, and even people who believe it was political and helped us to fight the Russian oppression - the movie was made in 1996, long after the revolution.....after all it shows the communist reality so unrealistic - so sweet....full of romantic pictures....so that the stupid Americans who need to see the world black and white can understand it....it is a well packed sweet product from a far away easteuropan country which explains in pictures how it all was.....I absolutely hate this film and think that there are hundreds of better Czech movies, especially from the 60's, but I am not sure that the people in the West, especially in the US would ever get them - they are too realistic and it takes time and requires some intellectual curiosity which most of them are missing.....The worst thing is that once, years from now, people will look at it, none of them will have a direct experience with communism and they will cry over this story and think of how bad, but actually "interesting" times they were!....I can literally see the annoying tourists coming to Prague these days and bearing in mind this movie with its cute pictures, music, universal story and a "very interesting period called Communism"....I am going to stop now - this movie make me angry even now!.
Well, *eh*, like a Czech citizen I couldn't say, that this film is bad.
It's a well-done work of the "young" Sverak, but every time I read comments like "wonderful", "best movie" or something like that, it makes me sick.
Or -if you prefer art movies- watch the magically amazing black and white pictures from the New Wave {O slavnosti a hostech - for example}, including Forman's Czech films /of course/.
"I didn't look back," the old man says: "So, for me, they'll be beautiful forever." In his dealings with the boy, KOLYA, he learns to look beyond the superficial- and, in the end, can't help but look back..
I just watched this film for the sixth or seventh time and I ended, as always with tears running down my cheeks.
Most of the comments from Americans here in IMDb are very naive and quite hollow, especially when it comes to these Oscar-winning, real life political movies.
And to you, I think you were a Brit, that thought the movie was too sentimental, and that the scene where Kolya tries to ring his Babushka in the bathtub, was ridiculous; I just wonder, where is your heart?
This is a Czech film, The awards it won & was nominated for were all very well deserved.It is about the true meaning of family.Coincidentally the lead actor ZDenak Sverak also wrote the wonderful screenplay & his son Jan Sverak skillfully directed.KOLYA (the title character is a 5 year old Russian lad Andrei Challman, this was the first appearance by this very bright boy, who is now appearing in a Russian TV series,He is now of course a teen stealing teen age girls hearts like he stole ours in the film.The time period is 1988 & the end of Communism,Thankfully there is very little political stuff in the film.The little boy is adrift & is helped by those around him mainly this middle aged lonely man.There is much humour,some sadness & most of all a true sense of what family means.The film is superbly acted & made. |
tt0461642 | 7 Zwerge - Der Wald ist nicht genug | Hansel and Gretel are lost in the forest. Gretel thinks to see a dwarf in the bushes but it is a disgusting humanlike creature. It scares Hansel and Gretel who run further into the woods. Bubi appears not much later and he asks the creature his name. The creature only reveals to be "The Evil One" and nobody else knows his real name. Bubi sneakily follows the creature and witnesses how it dances around a fire singing a song in which he mentions his real name.
The story moves to the castle where Snow White lives. She became a mother. Her husband, the jester, left a year ago to buy some cigarettes in a nearby shop. Snow White wonders why this takes so long. The Evil One suddenly enters the castle and claims the child. The day before Spliss, one of Snow White guards, rescued The Evil One from a trap. The Evil One wanted to thank Spliss by giving him a wish. Spliss wished to have a beautiful haircut which he got. However, Spliss did not like the color and wanted to have it blond. The Evil One agreed on condition Spliss signs a contract so Snow White's child will become his property. Snow White asks The Evil One if the contract can be undone. The Evil One agrees nor or less: if someone can reveal his real name within 48 hours, Snow White can keep the child.
Snow White seeks for the dwarves, but is surprised only Bubi still lives in the cabin. Bubi explains this is Snow White her own fault. Some time ago she visited the dwarves telling them her husband is missing. She wanted to find a new man and this could be even a dwarf. There was one main condition: the man must have a successful career. Not much later all dwarves left except Bubi. Snow White is a bit surprised she can't remember her visit. Snow White asks Bubi to reunite the dwarves and to find the name of The Evil One.
The six other dwarves work in a nearby town. Cookie, Cloudy and Sunny have their own inn. Speedy is chief of the fire department. Ralfie works at the brewer. Tschakko exterminates vermin. Bubi finds them all to convince them to help Snow White. According to them, there is only one man who can help them: The Wise Grey. The dwarves can't find him. According his diary, he left for "The Fishing Palace" in another world. The dwarves find the magical mirror which once belonged to the former queen. They jump into the mirror and end up in the other world: modern Germany.
In the meantime, The Evil One arrives at the candy house of the witch, who is actually the former queen. The Evil One follows a therapy. The queen says she cannot remember three things: names, faces and a third other thing she does not know anymore. As the witch always forgets the real name of The Evil One, last one writes it down on a paper: Rumpelstiltskin. He puts the paper in an envelope and hides it in the witch her conjuring book. The Evil One tells Snow White her baby will soon be his although he is afraid someone is in search for his real name. The witch uses her crystal ball and discovers the dwarves set up a mission. As she is still mad on the dwarves and Snow White she sends The Evil One to the other world to boycott the dwarves. The Evil One is gifted: he is a shape shifter.
The dwarves find The Wise Grey in some sort of fish and chips-stand. He does know The Evil One but never heard his real name. He does know the dwarves should look for it in the witches' candy house. The dwarves return to their own world by using a magic mirror in the railway station. In meantime, The Evil One tried unsuccessfully to stop the dwarves.
The dwarves head to the candy house where the witch tried to make her invisible. The Evil One is also present. The dwarves use a tricky way to obtain the envelope with The Evil One's real name. They all go to Snow White. However, The Evil One gave the dwarves an envelope with another name so the dwarves think his real name is Mother Hulda. They realize it was not Snow White who visited them to tell she is in search for a new man, but The Evil One. Eventually, Bubi says the real name is Rumpelstiltskin. He knew this the whole time and tried to tell but nobody let him speak. The dwarves also meet their former head dwarf Brummboss who became a king at the end of Männer allein im Wald. The king asks if he can become a dwarf again. This is rejected by the others as there are already seven dwarves. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | Simply awful and unwatchable.
A really bad sequel.
Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters.
It's quite easy to identify with him...The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent.
The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately.
The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play.
Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director?.
Argh.....
There are a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now.
None of them are associated with this "movie".Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this?
You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage!
It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny.
What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying "You're supposed to laugh now!".
It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie.
I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...Pain!.
Complete Waste of Time.
I agree with most of the other guys.
A waste of photons and valuable time.Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on.
The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio.
("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht.
It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing".
Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much....
As dumb as most of German TV-broadcasts - ban this from cinemas.
I've seen the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it.
There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with.
Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain.
You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb "jokes" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage.
There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance.
I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about.
I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway.
This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free.
I'm sure you will recognize some "laugthers" I saw last night in cinema..
I liked it.
Yes, this movie IS nonsense.
I saw it yesterday.
But I have to say that I don't know many movies which made me smile like that.
I found it much funnier than the first one, although the plot was not very meaningful.
There are MANY well-known German celebrities who make a short appearance (Udo Lindenberg, Oliver Pocher, Dirk Bielefeldt, or, having already appeared in the first movie, Christian Tramitz, Atze Schröder, Helge Schneider, and Heinz Hoenig), but I don't think that they overload it, they are just sidekicks to everything that German audience is interested in ;)) All I had wished had been some more scenes for Heinz Hoenig, who is a really great actor ;)In fact, I really recommend this movie if you just want to have some nice and harmless fun and want to feel better after watching.
The most unnecessary piece of utter celluloid crap you'll ever see!.
WARNING!
Don't even consider watching this film in any form.
It's not even worth downloading from the internet.
Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid.
The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film.
They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives.
It's an insult to any human being.
If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the "Jr." being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch a good film..
Silly Sally Solly Lolly Molly Knolly Olli Scholli Dolly Holly.
So I do like the part 2 of "7 dwarfs/Zwerge" better than part 1 cos it is more "silly" and without any sense.We also do need these kind of movies.
It's hot.Nina Hagen as the bad witch seems like she took some acting-lessons from "Katharina Thalbach" ("Die Blechtrommel").
I studied Theatres, Movies, Cinemas, Plays, Discotheques and Partys for ages in Berlin, so I know what I'm talking about.Cosma Shiva Hagen plays like an Brainless Barbie.
I seen this acting in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, when I was on the set of the "Momo"-Theatre.
There was an brainless Barbie, too.I think, i will watch every part of this Nonsense but mainly because of Nina Hagen it's always funny how she acts or what clothes she wears what face she painted.Check it out, if your bored, it's Entertaining..
Not the best - not a worthy sucessor to the pretty good first part.
Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it.
How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair.
In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay.
Yes, there are some good jokes.
Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD.
Believe me.
The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors.
That's why I gave the move 3/10.
Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly..
they don't do anything funny while being here.
Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life.
Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money.
I even regret renting the movie..
Poor - poor German comedy.
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny.
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny.
-Great comedians - but a very poor movie!
-Great comedians - but a very poor movie!
The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??.
The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??.
It's Meant to be Ridiculous.
I watched this film with friends and we all enjoyed it.
I am wondering if the negative comments have at all to do with an English translation version - I have only seen it in German.
I would suppose that the people who hate this film would also not understand or enjoy vaudeville or other, absurd comedy like Laurel & Hardy, The Three Stooges, Jerry Lewis & Dean Martin, etc.
Monty Python?
Doubtful.
It seems that contemporary comedy has to be slick and profane and people have simply forgotten how to laugh at people being purposely silly.
Although they were a bit political and off-color, I think the Not Ready For Primetime Players (remember them?
They were the group generally considered wildly talented who started Saturday Night Live)were all pretty silly - and hilarious.
DO NOT ignore this film on the not-at-all-objective reviews given here..
An Awesomely funny and enjoyable comedy with Nina Hagen and her daughter Cosma.
This is a German comedic twist on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in German language.
There are a myriad of famous German actors cast as Dwarfs and support characters as well as an awesome portrayal of the evil queen superbly played by Nina Hagen in contrast to her beautiful and talented real-life daughter Cosma Shiva Hagen who plays Snow White.
There are opportunities for Cosma to show that she has much of her mother's exceptional talent in singing and theatrics.
It is a delightfully lighthearted and enjoyable fable brought to life by exceptional actors.
If you like the storyline or Nina Hagen and you speak German you will enjoy this rendition..
Dwarfs go to town.
"7 Zwerge" was a massive success in terms of box office here in Germany, so no surprise the second movie came out 2 years later.
It's once again 90 minutes long.
The center of it is Otto Waalkes once again and he brought basically the entire comedy elite from Germany in here.
The director is Sven Unterwaldt again and he wrote the script with Waalkes and Bernd Eilert, who already worked with Otto back in the 70s.
Not too long ago, a third entirely-animated movie came out, but it did not come even close to the commercial success of the first two.
the second did not make as much money as the first, only about half, but still a whole lot, so it was the no°7 in box office 2006 in Germany.The dwarfs are played by the same actors as in the first film, with one exception.
Wöhler played Majowski's part.
Nina Hagen plays the main antagonist again and her daughter Cosma Shiva is also back to reprise her role.
Many of the actors, also in smaller roles, like Hoffmann return here and they also got some new names, including Lindenber, Stein, Barth, Pocher (not a great fan of these four, especially the last two) and Olli Dittrich ("Dittsche") as Pinocchio in a hilarious performance.
But I'm a great fan of him anyway.
The cast is top-notch and as good as it gets for a German comedy movie.
Katy Karrenbauer, Jürgen Tarrach and Karoline Schuch are also in this films, all 3 more dramatic actors really.
Just like the first, this movie has references about all kinds of fairy tales, not only about Snow White.
I mentioned Pinocchio before, but there is also Rumpelstiltskin and Hansel&Gretel.
The film's title is obviously a reference to James Bond.
The (00)7 fits also nicely in terms of the amount of dwarfs, but I don't know if they thought about that.One of my favorite scenes was Maddin Schneider's turn as a fireman, obviously the perfect profession for someone with so quick reactions like his.
What I did not like, however, was that they somehow gave every comedian his moment to shine.
I like Ralf Schmitz, but his pantomime number felt almost more out of a comedy program than out of this movie.
Nina Hagen did not do really much for me either and I have to say I lost a bit interest here as the film went on.
The first half was possibly better than the second.
The "Pet Shop Boys" cover at the end was nice though.
All in all, I would say this film is slightly inferior to the first, both pretty decent movies though and worth a watch..
Sophomore jinx be damned!.
The Zwerge are back!
But, sophomore jinx be damned!, they left all their good bits in the first movie.
The comic balloon has a leak, and completely pops when the dwarfs take a side trip to the real world (ala "Les visiteurs").
This opportunity to take some fairytale shots at the modern world is completely lost.
Flat.
A waste.
The dwarfs move about modern Berlin unnoticed, as though, having broken the fourth wall, they no longer have a point.
And neither does this movie.The only good part was, again, Nina Hagen.
Sadly her part is greatly reduced - less GaGa and more what Tim Burton's Mrs. Lovett should have been.
Just fantasy-casting here, but can you imagine what "Sweeney Todd" would have been like if a professional singer/actress had been cast?!
Someone with a long reputation of dark, theatrical performance?!
(sigh) but one can only dream now... |
tt0095188 | Funny Farm | Andy Farmer (Chase) is a New York City sports writer who moves with his wife, Elizabeth (Smith) to the seemingly charming town of Redbud, Vermont, so he can write a novel. They do not get along well with the residents, and other quirks arise such as being given exorbitant funeral bills for a long-dead man buried on their land years before they acquired the house. Marital troubles soon arise from the quirkiness of Redbud as well as the fact that Elizabeth was critical of Andy's manuscript, while secretly getting her ideas for children's books published. They soon decide to divorce and sell their home. To expedite the sale, the Farmers offer the town's residents a $15,000 donation to Redbud, and $50 cash each if they help make a good impression on their prospective home buyers. To that end, the citizens remake Redbud into a perfect Norman Rockwell-style town. Their charade dazzles a pair of prospective buyers, who make the Farmers an offer on the house; however, Andy declines to sell, realizing that he genuinely enjoys small-town living. He and Elizabeth decide to stay together in Redbud, much to the chagrin of the locals, who are now angry that they lost their promised money. Though the mayor does not hold the Farmers liable for the $15,000, as the sale of their house did not occur, Andy decides to pay everyone in Redbud their $50, which helps improve his standing among the townspeople. The film ends with Andy taking a job as a sports writer for the Redbud newspaper, and Elizabeth, now pregnant with their first child, having written multiple children's stories. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0086251 | The Scarlet and the Black | In 1943, the Nazi military occupies Rome. Pope Pius XII (John Gielgud) is approached by General Max Helm and SS Head of Police for Rome Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Kappler (Christopher Plummer). The Colonel expresses concern that escaped Allied prisoners may attempt to seek refuge in the Vatican, and requests permission to paint a white line across St. Peter's Square in order to mark the extent of Vatican sovereignty. The Pope grants his permission, but when the SS officers leave, he sees out of the window that the white line had already begun to be painted.
Kappler's main antagonist is Monsignor O'Flaherty (Gregory Peck), an Irish-born Vatican priest who runs an underground organization which provides safe haven and escape to escaped POWs, Jews, and refugees in Rome. O'Flaherty is assisted in this enterprise by others, including locals, clergy and the diplomatic corps. The Nazis attempt to destroy the group, but Kappler is frustrated by O'Flaherty's successes, due to his cleverness, disguises, and stressing the limits of the Vatican's neutrality.
Met with continuous failure, Kappler begins to develop a personal vendetta against O'Flaherty. Despite O'Flaherty's efforts, Kappler manages to recapture many escaped POWs, deport many Jews to death camps, and exploit and oppress the general population; a number of O'Flaherty's friends are also arrested or killed. O'Flaherty is himself the target of an assassination attempt instigated by Kappler, which however fails due to the monsignor's boxing skills. The rescue organization continues operating, and succeeds in saving many lives.
As the war progresses, the Allies succeed in landing in Italy and begin to overcome German resistance, eventually breaking through and heading towards Rome itself. Colonel Kappler worries for his family's safety from vengeful partisans, and, in a one-to-one meeting with O'Flaherty, asks him to save his family, appealing to the same values that motivated O'Flaherty to save so many others. The Monsignor, however, refuses, refusing to believe that, after all the Colonel has done and all the atrocities he is responsible for, he would expect mercy and forgiveness automatically, simply because he asks for it, and departs in disgust.
As the Allies enter Rome in June, 1944, Monsignor O'Flaherty joins in the celebration of the liberation, and somberly toasts those who did not live to see it. Kappler is captured in 1945 and interrogated by the Allies. In the course of his interrogation, he is informed that his wife and children were smuggled out of Italy and escaped unharmed into Switzerland. Upon being asked who helped them, Kappler realizes who it must have been, but responds simply that he does not know.
The film epilogue states that O'Flaherty was decorated by several Allied governments after the war. Kappler was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was frequently visited in prison by O'Flaherty, his only regular visitor. Eventually, the former SS officer converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and was baptized by the Monsignor in 1959. | suspenseful | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0116488 | Hard Core Logo | The movie is about a documentary team that follows the reunion of Hard Core Logo. Joe Dick gets the band back together ostensibly for an anti-gun benefit after hearing Canadian punk rock legend Bucky Haight, and personal mentor, is shot. They begin the tour in Vancouver and travel to Edmonton, via Winnipeg. On the way the band's dark secrets are revealed. John Oxenberger loses his schizophrenia medication and slowly loses his sanity. Billy Tallent finds out that by going on tour he loses his position in mainstream rock band Jenifur and with that his one shot at stardom. The band stops by Bucky Haight's reclusive estate only to find he was never shot and that Joe Dick fabricated the lie in order to get the band together. The band and documentary crew drop acid and experience hallucinations. Bucky admonishes Joe Dick for using him to get the band together. At Edmonton, Billy Tallent finds out he has another opportunity to permanently join Jenifur. Joe Dick finds out from the film crew and later attacks Billy on stage. Joe Dick destroys Billy Tallent's Fender Stratocaster, which was a gift from Bucky Haight, and the band parts ways. In the final scene Joe Dick drinks with the documentary crew members and shoots himself in the head. | comedy, violence, satire, romantic, storytelling, home movie | train | wikipedia | This is a more ambitious movie, and its mood is much darker -- while it has its comic moments, it's not a film to watch when you're feeling down.This particular American viewer had no trouble with the Canadian references -- yes, we can tell Canadian cities apart and know exactly which Quebeckers the bassist was talking about.
Bands in the States lose musicians to L.A., too.At its core, this is a movie about friendship and betrayal, and in the end, betrayal wins.
It's a hard, honest movie, not easy watching but worth the effort.(Parents, this one isn't for the kiddies -- lots of obscenity and some violence, though none of it is gratuitous to the story.).
Yes it is a mockumentary, yes it is follows around a rock band(rockumentary) but for every other reason this really should not becompared to Spinal Tap. It really isn't a comedy, although it has some great moments in it.
It's also not about a band "struggling with fame" which is whatEVERY OTHER rock movie is about (Almost Famous, That ThingYou Do, Spinal Tap, The Doors, you name it).
I always knew Hugh Dillon was really the lead singer for theHeadstones, so I realized it wasn't really a documentary butthought Hard Core Logo the band might still have existed and thiswas a tribute.
Really interesting film for anyone familiar with the hardcore music scene that deals with the problems and moral dilemmas of a reunited band.
Also, this movie has much more of a human heart than a film like spinal tap or fear of a black hat (another movie that got lumped into the "mockumentary" genre).
Let's get it over with right from the beginning: the only thing that "This Is Spinal Tap!" and "Hard Core Logo" have in common is the documentary set up.
While Spinal Tap was a comedy that - as the name of the genre "mockumentary" suggests - mocked the heavy metal scene, "Hard Core Logo" is a character study that takes an honest look at a band and life on the road.
Actually, the whole framework is rather unnecessary in this movie as it serves no real purpose and characters didn't act like they were in front of a camera (unlike say "The Office", where people behaved as if they were aware of being filmed).
The movie gives us a quite real impression of being in a punk band, caught between different agendas, personalities, power struggles and the sheer need to survive.
This is why, apart from a few moments that will make you chuckle, "Hard Core Logo" isn't really trying to be funny, either.
The acting is great and the soundtrack is accurate, two very important things to make a movie about punk rock work.
Apart from maybe the drummer the band members aren't over-subscribed and you can really see guys like Joe Dick or Billy Talent playing in actual bands (guess what, Hugh Dillon actually was the singer of his own band, The Headstones).
Cheers to all those involved: to Hugh, Callum, John, Bernie, and Julian, whose performances are all top-notch; to Noel and Michael, whose writing exemplify true Canadian talent and spirit; and to Bruce, who brought it all together beautifully.
To try and comment on this film without mentioning Spinal Tap would be hard considering not only all the comments that have gone before but also the synopsis provided on this site.
Hard Core Logo, is not, however, Spinal Tap......and it's none the worse for it.Hard Core Logo is an intelligent drama (with the occasional comic moment) about the intense love between two friends and their mutually destructive force on each other when their paths once again entwine together years after the dissolution of their band.The copy I watched was pretty pore so I can't really comment on the cinematography but I can imagine, from the fuzzy version I did see, that its strikingly beautiful in it's own slightly decrepit way.
The plot line is almost non-existent leaving the main focus on the four members of the band, mainly founding members Joe Dick and Billy Talent.So without good actors this film would sink.
Dillon's energy and screen presence is quite extraordinary.Billy on the other hand is trying to get out, not just for money reasons but because he sees it as a way of salvaging his life from his group of self destructing band mates.
Billy talks crap but his face never lies.well, at least that was my take on this film...and that really is where Hard Core Logo comes into it's own.
With so much of what the characters actually mean not being said (they chose, instead, to spout the generally expected views of a rock band) it really does depend on the viewer what film they watch.
I love "Hard Core Logo", a fine black comedy.
Hugh Dillon, Callum Keith Rennie, John Pyper-Ferguson, Bernie Coulson, and Julian Richings as Bucky Haight all did a great job portraying an aging band that never lived up to it's own ambitions.
Frankly, I am so tired of "This is Spinal Tap", a film I liked the first two times I saw it.
Also, from a Canadian point of view, I liked it because it was a straight up story and a straight up film.
Hard Core Logo, much like every other Canadian movie, is a purely original movie.
It takes a look at Vancouver's favourite bad boys of punk, Hard Core Logo.
Bruce McDonald's direction is simply amazing and Callum Rennie and Hugh Dillon are brilliant as Billy Tallent and Joe Dick.
Hard Core Logo has been compared to This is Spinal Tap. Although there are similarities, HCL's furious, biting, raunchy humor, wit and believability crushes Spinal Tap and leaves it flapping in the wind like yesterday's news..
One of the best movies about a fictitious rock 'n' roll band ever made.
This Is Spinal Tap (1984) is generally regarded as the quintessential rock 'n' roll mockumentarya hilarious look at the inept trials and tribulations of a heavy metal band.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Hard Core Logo (1996), a no frills balls-to-wall look at a fictitious punk rock band.
Where Tap is a funny satire, Logo has a much darker undercurrent that gives it an unpredictable edge.Retired for some years, legendary Canadian punk rock band, Hard Core Logo reunites for a one-off benefit concert for their mentor, Bucky Haight who supposedly had both legs amputated after being shot by a crazy fan.
The gig goes so well that the band's charismatic lead singer, Joe Dick convinces everyone to go on a mini-tour across Western Canada with a documentary crew tagging along for the ride.
As the tour progresses, the friction between the band members becomes more palpable until it achieves a critical mass.Hard Core Logo is the third film in Bruce McDonald's informal rock 'n' roll road movie trilogy that started with Roadkill and Highway 61.
Not a professional actor but rather lead singer of the Canadian blues punk bank, The Headstones, Dillon's lack of formal training gives his performance a certain unpredictability that is perfect for his character.
Callum Keith Rennie plays the gifted, low key guitarist who has clearly surpassed his bandmates, Bernie Coulson is the crazy drummer who seems clueless but knows what to do when it counts, and finally John Pyper-Ferguson is the terminally burnt out bass player whose road diary provides the film's voice-over narration.
The way these guys joke and argue with each otherlike adults who refuse to grow-upis so good that it feels like they've really been in a band together for many years.Filmmaker Bruce McDonald keeps this all together with his solid direction.
He has an excellent sense of pacingthe movie never gets boringand he instinctively knows that the essence of any good rock 'n' roll movie is, as he puts it, "extremely loud music and cool shots." Cinematographer Danny Nowak uses the shaky, hand-held camera-work that documentaries are known for and he also shoots the band in cool slow motion shots that emphasizes their iconic status.Along with the aforementioned Spinal Tap and Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous, Hard Core Logo is one of the best fictitious rock 'n' roll movies ever made.
Like Spinal Tap, McDonald's film isn't afraid to make fun of these conventions and like Almost Famous, there is an authenticity to how the band is portrayed and the music they make.
I do feel that it has been incorrectly marketed as a punk Spinal Tap, which may disappoint first time viewers expecting something different.
'Hard Core Logo', while it has plenty of laughs, has much more ambition, and is ultimately a much more serious movie.
The unexpected ending, which I won't spoil, takes it to a much different level.So leave your preconceptions at the door, sit back and experience this superbly acted rock'n'roll morality tale(?) One of the best music related movies in YEARS!.
The quality of this film is so high on every level...What more can I say...See Hard Core Logo again and again and again..
I was in Vancouver in the early 80s at the time that Hard Core Logo would have been breaking out it they had been a real band -- spent lots of time at the Smilin' Buddha watching Pointed Sticks and DOA and whoever-the-hell was on stage.Re this movie, watch it and enjoy it, but DO NOT MISS the book "Hard Core Logo" if you can help it.
It lives up to the spirit of the movie and the 80s Vancouver punk scene, but it is also touching and very funny.
Okay I've never really been into the punk scene, but I loved this movie.
A small-budget but still very impressive film like Hard Core Logo makes one wonder what could be coming out of Canada if Canadians would actually support their own film industry, instead of running out to spend their hard-earned cash on mass-market pulp like "Armageddon.".
Director Bruce McDonald has crafted, well
crafted is too decent of a word, he has actually jumbled together a mess of a film that attempts to give us that raw, cutting edge, emotion that demonstrates that corporations don't own the music we listen to.
We have seen the punk band film recreated in Hollywood over and over, and this takes no new punches.
While McDonald may be attempting to make the point that punk rockers hate the publicity and media hype, it seems as if the members of "Hard Core Logo" want nothing more than to be ever-present on the camera.
When I watch a film I expect to see an actor bring something new to the table with their character, or better yet, at least bring their character to the table, but in Hard Core Logo, nobody did.
I kept seeing actors playing the part of the punk rock band members.
Thanks to the poor direction of Bruce McDonald (and the complete lack of meaty characters), nothing felt honest, real, or even emotional about these guys.Finally, another issue with this film is that it feels dated.
There are better films out there that depict the punk rock era than Hard Core Logo.
The director was poor, the production was generic, and the full disrespect to the genre of punk rock was hitting me so hard in the face I nearly wanted to get angry at this film.
(The best is Going Down the Road.) Here is why Hard Core Logo ranks so high: 1.
enjoyable punk rock fake documentary, but *not* like Spinal Tap. I don't know if this movie is meant to be a mockumentary in the sense of satirizing punk bands or punk music documentaries.
I've also seen this director's Highway 61, which was a lot of fun.I wouldn't say it's like Spinal Tap, which while I enjoyed it, was more silly than funny.
I liked Fear of a Black Hat more than Spinal Tap, perhaps because I was more familiar with the music it was poking fun at.
Spinal Tap and Fear of a Black Hat have more in common than with Hard Core Logo.
HCL has some funny moments, but no more so than one would expect from a documentary of a real band.
The songs are not goofy either: there's no "Big Bottom" (Spinal Tap) or "Booty Juice" (Fear of a Black Hat) here.I'm not sure what some have identified as "Canadian" about this film, apart from the locations.
This Is Definitely Not Spinal Tap. I've seen most of director Bruce McDonald's films.
He's pretty well-known in Canada, and almost all of his films are "road movies" in one sense or another.
In this film, he follows Hard Core Logo, a Vancouver punk band reunited for one last tour across western Canada.
Though there are lots of laughs, This Is Definitely Not Spinal Tap. Even though his characters look like typical rocker louts, there is so much going on under the surface that it breaks your heart.
A funny but heartfelt exploration of perpetual adolescence, male bonding, ambition and desperation, Hard Core Logo is even more enjoyable for anyone who's ever been (or wanted to be) in a band.
So, in a way, they were a real band.All I see in this movie is that 12 YEARS LATER, someone decided to try to jump on what was hardly a bandwagon; the success of "This Is Spinal Tap" hardly created a new genre.This is what I expected when I first rented the film, as I love Punk music, among many other genres.
Didn't know what to expect from this film, but it was recommended by a friend who I spent lots of time with in the Melbourne punk scene, so I thought it would be worth a shot.
However, this film really manages to capture the punk rock scene to a T!
The relationship between the two main characters, (singer and lead-guitarist - a relationship that is often tense in most bands) gives this film something more than if it had just relied on the 'road-movie' genre to keep it moving.
If you listen to punk rock, especially if you listen to early 80's punk rock and are perhaps a fan of the Canadian punk band D.O.A you'll probably enjoy this movie a heck of a lot.
If you are not into that punk rock scene, you will still enjoy the drama, the pathos and the fun, it is a well made movie with believable characters and a logical plot.I won't put a spoiler in this review but it is a fine plot that is taken from the real life of small bands who face the struggle of remaining true to their indy roots and the inevitable changes that life forces all of us to deal with.We cannot stay the same, friendships change and sometimes it is for the better but most of the time it doesn't feel that way, we yearn for simpler times.....
Much better than Spinal Tap. Hard Core Logo is a mockumentary about an aging rock band struggling through a tour.
Having said that, it is nothing at all like This Is Spinal Tap. It is a million times better.
Or maybe that's just great acting.The four main characters, members of the has-been rock band Hard Core Logo, are each fantastic to watch, and could not be more different from each other.
While the mentally unbalanced John Oxenburger and the flat-out stupid Pipefitter are both well-played, they stay in the background, giving excellent support to the unfolding dynamic between the two main characters.While Hard Core Logo is shot in documentary style, McDonald frequently strays from this for dramatic effect, for example, the acid trip scene.
Such a stylistic choice would be hard to fit into a conventional film, but can be excused in the context of a documentary.Although this film, and all other rock-and-roll mockumentaries, will always beg comparison to the high standard, This is Spinal Tap, there really is no comparing them.
Where Spinal Tap is slapstick and goofy, Hard Core Logo is smartly funny and primarily dramatic.
Where Spinal Tap is over-the-top, Hard Core is small and real.
Most importantly, where Spinal Tap is boring and unfunny, Hard Core is a fantastically well-written and acted look at strained friendships and dreams that will never come true..
Hard Core Logo is one of the better Canadian independent films made.
I liked Hard Core Logo and I do not like indie style films which says a lot.
Hugh Dillon, who is the lead singer of the headstones, added many real life experiences in the movie.
When Hard Core Logo plays, there is an real life performance.
While I was watching my ultra rare, bootlegged, wide-screen edition of "Hard Core Logo", ( that I actually came into possession of just one week after the film's theatrical release in October of 1996) a couple of punk songs kept running through my mind.
That the film is about an aging Canadian punk band trying to make a comeback, makes my mention of the songs all the more appropriate.
The film is a bleakly cynical look at the state of Canadian music.
When at the end of the movie, band frontman Joe Dick (played by real life Canadian punk rocker Hugh Dillon, of "The Headstones") cleans his head out with a bullet, it is not only symbolic of the death of the golden age of early eighties Canadian punk, but also Canadian music's selling out to The States.
The film's director, Bruce MacDonald's next film was also about a rock band, but it was the superficially stylish TV movie "Platinum".
"Hard Core Logo" is not only too Canadian for most Americans to take, it is also too good, too honest, to strong and too smart for most of them to understand..
What can you say about a movie like Hard Core Logo?
I've seen almost everything he has been in and Hard Core Logo really breaks the bank. |
tt0092494 | *batteries not included | Frank and Faye Riley (Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy), an elderly couple who run an apartment building and café in the run-down East Village neighborhood, come under threat by a nearby property development. The development manager, Lacey, sends a hoodlum named Carlos and his gang of thugs to bribe the couple and their tenants to move out. When the tenants resist, Carlos and his thugs punch through artist Mason Baylor's (Dennis Boutsikaris) door, intimidate pregnant single mother Marisa Esteval (Elizabeth Peña) and break retired boxer Harry Noble's (Frank McRae) jar of tiles. After Frank Riley refuses to move, Carlos vandalizes the café.
This assault convinces three of the tenants to move out. Mason's girlfriend, Pamela is tired of living in an old, depressing building with a guy whose art career is going nowhere. She dumps Mason, packs up and before leaving, advises Mason to quit being an artist and get a steady job. The Rileys' friends, Muriel and Sid Hogensin take Lacey's bribe and decide to move to a nice retirement home in New Jersey. Frank feels a little betrayed by the Hogensins for taking Lacey's bribe but they explain that the building and the area it's in just doesn't feel like home anymore. They advise Frank that maybe he and Faye should do the same and come live with them at the retirement home. With the assault and Faye's dementia growing, Frank contemplates giving in.
Things look bleak until the appearance of a pair of small living space ships descend into the Rileys' apartment that evening, repairing many of the items that were broken. They have the ability to repair anything that's broken in a matter of seconds and even making it look brand new. Apparently, when they repair something, they don't repair just recent damage, but "all" of the damage. They even repair the vandalized cafe, putting Frank and Faye back in business. The two extraterrestrials take up residence in the shed at the top of the apartment building, and are dubbed "The Fix-Its" by the residents of the building. Carlos comes back to threaten the tenants once again, but the Fix-Its lure him to the top of the building and into the shed where they scare him away.
Faye and Marisa learn that the "female" Fix-It is pregnant. After consuming plenty of metal and electrical objects, it gives birth to three baby Fix-Its, although one of them is stillborn. Faye buries the stillborn in a flowerpot the next day, but then Harry digs it up, takes it back to his apartment, and succeeds in reviving it by taking apart his precious television set. Frank and Faye see a boost of business in the café from the demolition crew, while the Fix-Its help in the kitchen.
Mason and Marisa grow closer. Marisa finds Mason's paintings very nice, which makes Mason feel better about his artwork and not to give up on it. Marisa's baby is due in 2 or 3 months. Her boyfriend, Hector who is a traveling musician and also the father of her baby comes over. Mason leaves Marisa and Hector alone but when Mason returns, Hector is gone. Marisa explains that Hector and his band have found a steady gig in Chicago with good pay. Mason wonders why Hector would leave without her. Marisa confesses that she told Hector to go without her because their relationship just wasn't working out. But it also appears she has developed feelings for Mason. Mason has developed feelings for her as well.
With Carlos unable to prove the existence of the Fix-Its that had been foiling their plans, Lacey, the development manager, is furious with the delays in evicting the tenants and moves to replace him. Desperate to see the job done and growing more unstable, Carlos breaks into the building's basement to sabotage the building's pipework and electricity, and badly damages the "father" machine in the process. After Harry throws him out, the tenants discover the Fix-It children are missing and go searching for them in the city while Faye stays behind with the "mother" machine as it fixes the "father". When the "father" machine is repaired, the now-wary Fix-It parents leave to seek out their offspring. After finding them with Harry, the machine family departs from the planet.
Tired of the delays, Lacey's subordinate Kovacs, who is also an arsonist, attempts to burn down the building in a staged "accidental fire". Carlos discovers the plan and in a rage sabotages the arson to make the entire building explode, only to then discover that Faye is still in the building. While Kovacs flees, Carlos unsuccessfully attempts to pose as her late son Bobby to get her to leave, but succeeds in rescuing her as the fire spreads. The tenants then return to find the blazing apartment block collapsing, and Faye being loaded into an ambulance.
By the next morning, the apartment block has been reduced to a smoldering wreck. To Kovacs' fury, construction is still unable to continue as Harry, sitting dejected on the steps, refuses to leave. Harry is then greeted by the mechanical family later that night, who have recruited countless other Fix-Its for repairs. By the next morning the entire building has been seamlessly restored to brand new condition, forever ending Lacey's demolition plans and resulting in his termination of Kovacs. Mason and Marisa settle into a relationship, while Carlos ironically tries to start a friendship with the Rileys, with Faye finally having come to accept her real son's passing. The story then rolls on to an undisclosed period some years later in the future, revealing that skyscraper developments have eventually been built, but this time flanking either side of the tiny apartment building, with Frank's café now doing a roaring trade as a result of the new employment brought into the area. | cute | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0358273 | Walk the Line | In 1968, as an audience of inmates at Folsom State Prison cheer for Johnny Cash's band, he waits backstage near a table saw, reminding him of his early life.
In 1944, Johnny, then known as J.R., grows up the son of a sharecropper on a cotton farm in Dyess, Arkansas. He is known for his singing of hymns, while his brother Jack is training himself to become a pastor. While Jack is sawing wood for a neighbor with a table saw, J.R. goes fishing until his brother finishes. But Jack has an accident with the saw and dies of his injuries. Cash's strained relationship with his father Ray becomes much more difficult after Jack's death. In 1950, J.R. enlists in the Air Force as Johnny Cash, and is stationed in West Germany. He purchases a guitar and in 1952, finds solace in writing songs, one of which he develops as "Folsom Prison Blues".
After his discharge, Cash returns to the United States and marries his girlfriend Vivian Liberto. The couple moves to Memphis, Tennessee, where Cash works as a door-to-door salesman to support his growing family. He walks past a recording studio, which inspires him to organize a band to play gospel music. Cash's band auditions for Sam Phillips, the owner of Sun Records. After they play "Folsom Prison Blues", the band receives a contract, and launch to stardom at the beginning of the rock and roll craze.
The band begins touring as Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Two. On tour he meets singer June Carter, with whom he falls in love. Cash begins spending more time with June, who divorces her first husband Carl Smith. After his attempt to woo June fails, Cash starts abusing drugs and alcohol. After his behavior reaches a bottom during a performance with June, they separate.
Later, over Vivian's objections, Johnny persuades June to come out of semi-retirement and tour with him. The tour is a success, but backstage, Vivian becomes critical of June's influence. After one performance in Las Vegas, Johnny and June sleep together. The next morning, she notices Johnny taking pills and doubts her choices. At that evening's concert, Johnny, upset by June's apparent rejection, behaves erratically and eventually passes out on stage. June disposes of Johnny's drugs and begins to write "Ring of Fire", describing her feelings for him and her pain at watching him descend into addiction.
Returning to California, Cash travels to Mexico to purchase more drugs and is arrested. Cash's marriage to Vivian crumbles; the pair divorce and Cash moves to Nashville in 1966. Trying to reconcile with June, he buys a large house near a lake in Hendersonville. His parents and the extended Carter family arrive for Thanksgiving, at which time Ray dismisses his son's achievements and behavior. After the meal, June's mother encourages her daughter to help Cash. He goes into detox and wakes with June; she says they have been given a second chance. Though not married, the two begin spending most of their time with each other.
Cash discovers that most of his fan mail is from prisoners, who are impressed with his outlaw image. He proposes to Columbia Records that he record an album live inside Folsom Prison. Despite Columbia's doubts, Cash says that he will perform, and his label can use the tapes if they wish. At the Folsom Prison concert, Cash says that he has been sympathetic to prisoners, explaining that his arrest for drug possession helped him to relate to them. With this success, Cash embarks on a tour with June and his band. On the bus, he stops to talk with June and proposes to her, but she turns him down. At the next concert, June says she will only speak with him on stage. Cash later performs "Ring of Fire" on stage. After the song, Cash invites June to a duet and stops in the middle, saying he cannot sing "Jackson" any more unless June agrees to marry him. June accepts and they share a passionate embrace on stage. | romantic, humor, boring, sentimental | train | wikipedia | Short of a computer generated Cash walking around in his own bio-pic like one of those John Wayne beer commercials this is the definitive representation.And yet Phoenix may not give the best performance in the film.Reese Witherspoon more than holds up her end in a role that easily could have been reduced to a clichéd bumpkin.
WALK THE LINE, Mangold's story of the relationship between Johnny Cash and June Carter, is deliriously romantic, exhiliratingly entertaining (as a musical it invites and earns comparison with the best of Vincente Minelli), and profoundly moving--all set to a spectacular soundtrack.
Forget North Country, Walk the Line directed by James Mangold (Girl Interrupted) and written by Mangold and Gill Dennis is the better 2005 Oscar contender.This romantic tragedy, which is based on the autobiographies of Johnny Cash The Man in Black and Cash: the Autobiography was actually written and perfected alongside the famous duo Cash and June Carter Cash before their deaths in 2003.The movie begins with a young, music obsessed "J.R." Cash growing up in a poor cotton farming family in Arkansas.
Shortly afterwards, a family tragedy changes his life forever.Cash (Joaquin Phoenix) leaves for the air force, where he is stationed in Germany, buys an old guitar and proceeds to write one of the most recorded songs in history along with many others.Upon returning, Cash's obsession leads him to a recording studio and into the spotlight with June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) as well as Elvis Presley (Tyler Hilton) and the comical Jerry Lee Lewis (Waylon Payne.) The next emotional hour and 45 minutes is filled with great music, drug dependency, infidelity, and most of all love.Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, who sang every song themselves, completely shined in this movie.
Phoenix and Witherspoon had such great chemistry, by the end of the movie you actually think they might really be in love.However, if you tend to get restless in longer movies, the running time of 136 minutes can start to seem a little long towards the end, but it's well worth it.Overall Walk the Line receives nine out of ten stars.
Joaquin Phoenix IS Johnny Cash in this biopic, but Reese as June Carter Cash sets this film on fire.
As it turned out, Johnny gets the film he deserves, and, what's more, Walk the Line got me extremely interested in the work of his wife, June Carter Cash.Covering 20 years of his life, including Cash's rise into fame and delve into near-self-destruction, James Mangold concentrates on the key things in his life his music, the drugs, and his all-consuming, untameable love for the very special June Carter Cash.
In real life, Johnny and June didn't get together until 20 years since their first meeting, and that they could wait that long for each other, is quite poignant.Holding the film together are the Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning figures of Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, and their chemistry pretty much carries the film.
(Yes, that is Joaquin Phoenix's own voice in the movie!) However, I think that, at times, Mr. Phoenix comes up just a little bit short when it comes to his ability to project his voice firmly, but his performance, in general, was so masterful, that this point is quite easily overlooked.What really drives WALK, what gives it its soul and keeps it focused and centered is the repressed romance between Cash and the love of his life, June Carter (Reese Witherspoon - Legally Blonde, Cruel Intentions) Joaquin Phoenix, despite shining in the title role, is overshadowed by Witherspoon's overwhelming screen presence in the scenes where they appear together.
Yes, his life and career are notable - the emergence of a legendary Country Western singer out of the elements of a warped childhood peaked by the accidental death of his older brother whom the father clearly preferred, and the torture of self doubt that haunted a man through an unsuccessful marriage and a thwarted love for fellow Country Western singer June Carter, his descent into alcohol and drugs, and his final victory over his demons - but isn't this the same story we see almost annually about famous stars whose backgrounds seem templates from this same mold?
And perhaps that is the reason the writers and director elected to spend most of the screen time on the singing and concerts of Cash and Carter - leaving very little of the story of Cash's life except to outline form between songs.But if you condensed the actual acting time on the screen it falls into the overly familiar family clashes, drunken bouts, weaning off drugs, spats and eventual public displays of feelings that seem to be the formula for this genre of biopic.
"Walk the Line" is a good movie, but what makes it well worth going out of your way for, even if you are not a country music or Johnny Cash fan, is Joaquin Phoenix's raw, mesmerizing performance of masculine power and vulnerability.
Both were biographies of singers of a similar era, the main difference between the color of their skin, Ray being Ray Charles, of course, and this movie about Johnny Cash.Both singers (and films): 1 - had a brother who died early on in their lives which affected them for years and years; 2 - were made to feel guilty about those deaths even though there was no reason for that guilt; 3 - had adulterous affairs as their singing careers began to take off; 4 - became addicted to drugs and beat that addiction; 5 - made bold decisions regarding their careers that went against prevailing thought but turned out to be the right decisions; 6 - movies featured outstanding music and slick photography; 7 - movies were fast-moving and interesting to view all the way through despite being over two hours long; 8 - featured wonderful acting performances.In Walk The Line, Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Cash, goes one up on Jamie Foxx, who played Charles, because Phoenix did his own singing....and he was very good.
The filmmakers took the tried-and-true road of a romance story instead, which makes sense business-wise.With all the goods and bads, the film succeeds on being a great piece of entertainment with fantastic music, acting, visuals and a guarantee to please a lot of people, almost as many as Cash did in his eventful life.
As portrayed in "Walk the Line", the biographic picture created by its director, James Mangold, and his collaborator, Gill Dennis, they present us an aspect of the man as he was starting in the music business as he goes from poverty and tragedy, early in life, to become one of the most influential exponents of the music that came out of Memphis in the fifties.The film showcases Johnny Cash and his involvement with June Carter, a figure that was legendary in her own right, and through her family which was involved in music.
On the other hand, June didn't want to get involved with a married man and was battling her own demons.The best excuse for seeing the film is the terrific performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, who, as Johnny and June, make this film come alive and make the viewer enter their world.
Reese Witherspoon makes a splash playing and singing songs that Ms. Carter made famous, although she was eclipsed by the stronger personality of Mr. Cash.The film will not disappoint thanks to the great treatment James Mangold gave the film..
This might seem more like a family reminiscence on my part but humor me for just one more minute.My father was pretty conservative: he paid his taxes on time without question, was a Marine, believed in the death penalty, enjoyed any kind of sports, and coached in a Pop-Warner football league.Fast forward to this movie, Walk The Line, and I have to wonder why my father felt so strongly for this man's music.
If you'd told me, oh, a year ago that there would be this big-budget movie about Johnny Cash, and it would star Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, there's no way I would have been looking forward to seeing it.
Both Phoenix and Witherspoon so completely immerse themselves in the well-known characters of Johnny and June that one would almost expect some caricature, but there's nary a dishonest, insincere beat to their incredible work here.Director James Mangold, who previously directed Girl, Interrupted, hits no false notes here, where even the slightest misstep might have had rabid Cash fans clamoring for his head on a spike.
With a record under his belt Cash begins touring with many other rising rock and country stars as he begins a successful but storming personal and professional life.Without a great love for country music or for that matter biopics, Walk The Line took me some time to get round to seeing but when I did I was glad that I had because it is just simple a good film that rises above the genre.
Hard to avoid the comparison with Ray. Walk the Line is a good film, presenting some of the highlights of the life of the great Johnny Cash and the love of his life June Carter Cash.
I have been a Johnny Cash fan for about 25 years, but from my perspective, Walk the Line was simply not as powerfully done as Ray.The Parallels between the two men's lives are bizarre, and though I know it really isn't fair to compare two whole lifetimes, I can't help thinking that some of the choices made in the selection of lifetime thresholds for WTL may have been influenced by what worked in Ray.Mangold's direction creates a very polished though somewhat Hollywood film, and the editing, script and pace of the film are all very strong.Nevertheless, this is a solidly entertaining and well made film, worth seeing for Witherspoon's amazing and lovable performance and the music alone.
The story of country legend Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix) is told through his ongoing romance with fellow singer June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) and how they get through tough times, from Cash's pill popping addiction to Carter's own marital troubles until finally agreeing to marry Cash.Walk the Line is an excellent look into Johnny Cash's life.
I like when Reese Whiterspoon and Joaquin Phoenix sang by themselves so I can feel that they really sang that song, it is uncommon since the actor and the actress in many documentary movie usually sing by lip sync, you know that.
In this regard, "Walk the Line" is nothing special but as a love story, it is wonderful from the first time young Johnny Cash and June Carter met during the show and she got strapped in his guitar until his proposal many years later on the stage (the only place she allowed him to talk to her).
Joaquin Pheonix and Reese Witherspoon (though they don't really look their parts) do a phenomenal job as Johnny Cash and June Carter.
It's a film featuring superb performances and some nice crooning.As I've said, "Walk the Line" is the story of Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix).
It follows his childhood days in rural Arkansas, through his early music career, through his obsession with future wife June Carter (Reese Witherspoon), and through his inevitable downfall.Of course, the thing with biopics is that if you've seen enough of the genre you'll presume you'll know how the story will unfold up until the credits and then you can figure out the theme of life-affirmation.
"Walk the Line" is every bit as compelling and well made as last year's "Ray." Like that film it avoids the typical biopic trappings with straightforward direction and a lead player, in this case Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, who totally immerses himself in the role to give a truly authentic and moving performance.
All I'd heard about Walk the Line were seemingly wonderful things, like "the acting is wonderful" and "The music is superb and great to listen to", so I went to the cinema expecting a fantastic movie.I should've gone to see King Kong again.Now I'm not a fan of Johnny Cash (I do love 3 or 4 songs though), but my god, what a dull, dull movie about a dull, drunk man.
Before "Walk the Line" came out, some people thought that Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon would be miscast as Johnny Cash and June Carter.
But for me, that's just not enough.This is a movie about the life of a legendary musician, Johnny Cash, played not-so-brilliantly by Joaquin Phoenix.
This is enough to describe the remainder of the movie.Now I don't know much about Johnny Cash and his music, but I can't claim I learned any more after watching Walk the Line.
I have always loved Johnny Cash's music and I think that Juaquin Pheonix and Reese Witherspoon did a phenomenal job of portraying John and June in the movie.
Besides the Love Story rendering between Cash and Carter, and the moment where Johnny sings his "Folsom Prison" tune to the agent, there is nothing remarkable within the film."Walk the Line" failed to satisfy me.
Ginnifer Goodwin and Robert Patrick also lend their presence as Cash's wife and father.This film also includes other famous music stars of Cash's time such as Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis Presley.Definitely check this out if you are a fan of Johnny Cash or June Carter, or just great movies..
Johnny Cash's whole life had movie material written all over it.From his time as a dirt poor sharecropper's son to his rise to become the greatest country music artist of all time Johhny Cash's life was just waiting to be made into a film.And this movie is a fitting tribute to Johnny Cash.Phoenix is simply perfect has Cash.No he doesn't sound like Cash,no one could,nor does he have the 6 foot 2 inch frame Cash had but he becomes Cash so much so that you have to remind yourself that is isn't Johnny Cash on the screen.Witherspoon is also good as June.With this role she will be seen as a serious actress and hopefully leave some of the sillier stuff she had been doing behind.The movie covers the period from Cash's childhood up until he and June marry.Its a great ride all the way.Cash is shown with all his faults---his addictions and his mood swings and his womanizing.But it also shows what made Cash the man he was and the things that shaped his music,such as his brother Jack's death,which seemed not only to shape his music but his whole life,and it also shows his enormous talents as he begins his recording career at Sun Records and touring with Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis back in the early 1950's.One last note, Phoenix and Witherspoon do their own singing for this film and they are very good at that also.They are as good or better than most of the junk that is called country music today.Don't just rent this DVD,buy it,because you will want to watch it over and over..
The film's great saving grace is the performances of Juaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, who provide highly watchable impersonations of their country-western counterparts (although their relationship frequently borders on being more obsessive than romantic, especially as Cash's descent into drug addiction worsens).But the story itself offers no surprises as a formulaic presentation of a troubled artist saved by the love of a good woman.
First, Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon did their own singing playing Johnny Cash and June Carter while Jamie Foxx lip-synced Ray Charles' sound track.
Even more impressive, she did a stellar, professional job of covering all of June Carter's songs (she also had to learn to play the auto-harp), including her very surprising on screen chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix, who played the film's main character, Johnny Cash.
I still remember how I saw this film for the first time!...I went to the cinema with my parents having a bad taste in my mouth because of this film's plot...But instead, I was very excited abut the film and when my parents bought the DVD, I watched it again for three times...The actors are great especially Reese Witherspoon in the role of June Carter...She's an excellent actress and the film shows this 100% and it seems that the Academy saw this too and gave her the long-awaiting Oscar...Joaquin Phoenix is also excellent in the role of Johnny Cash, a legend for the country music...The music is superb and it's burning inside our hearts even after the film's ending....James Mangold, the director of the film, creates a world of music, love, downfall and finally resurrection, with a sharp sense of humour...What excited me most about this film was the musical duet of the two actors....They are very convincing in their roles and they make the audience feel like they are right there beside them...The love story is very subtle and a little strange and this is one more thing that makes this film a small gem...Per total, this is an excellent film worth seeing more than once...Take my word for it!.
I felt this way again when it came to Walk the Line, a story about Johnny Cash and June Carter.
Before I watched this movie, I didn't really know a lot about this time period, or about Johnny Cash and his life.
The two main actors in this movie are Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Johnny Cash and Reese Witherspoon, who plays June Carter.
"Walk the Line" is a good biopic of the early years in the life of singer, songwriter, musician and actor Johnny Cash.
And Reese Witherspoon IMO didn't deserve the Oscar as much as Joaquin but she did an outstanding job as well.The film tells the life story of the man in black himself, Johnny cash.
As his music changed the world, Cash's own world was rocked by the woman who became the love of his life: June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). |
tt0857376 | Gabriel | Since the beginning of time, Heaven and Hell have fought over Purgatory and the souls trapped inside it. Each side has sent seven warriors: archangels (Arcs) from Heaven, fallen angels (Fallen) from Hell. They must assume human form to enter purgatory. Hell has attained control, transforming purgatory into a dark, seedy city. The last of the seven archangels, Gabriel (Andy Whitfield), endeavors to discover what has become of his comrades and to restore the Light.
Upon Gabriel entering Purgatory, four of the seven Fallen—Sammael (Dwaine Stevenson), Asmodeus (Michael Piccirilli), Balan (Brendan Clearkin), and Baliel—gather and Sammael kills an insubordinate Baliel, so reducing the Fallen's number from seven to six. Meanwhile, Gabriel visits the archangel Michael's apartment, finding it abandoned. He finds a note from Michael in the apartment, saying how hard it is to stay pure in purgatory. While walking through the city, Gabriel receives a vision about the whereabouts of his comrade Uriel (Harry Pavlidis). However, the leader of the Fallen, Sammael, senses Gabriel’s presence and sends the Fallen Molloch (Goran D. Kleut) to kill him. Gabriel fights and kills Molloch, then proceeds to the city's outskirts. He finds a dishevelled and alcoholic Uriel hiding in a rundown bus. He explains that the Archangels all assumed human form and became subject to human desires and feelings which weakened them. Cut off from their power, the Archangels were eventually worn down and fell prey to the Fallen who thrived and became stronger the longer they stayed in Purgatory. He reveals to Gabriel that this is what eventually led to the downfall of the Arcs sent before him. Uriel warns Gabriel that if they die in Purgatory, their own souls will die too, they completely vanish. To encourage and remind Uriel of his identity, Gabriel mortally wounds Uriel, convincing Uriel to heal himself. Though surely aware of Gabriel's presence, Sammael commands the Fallen to wait before taking any action against Gabriel, even though they could defeat Gabriel; Sammael threatens the Fallen if they do anything to Gabriel. Uriel then explains to Gabriel that the Fallen can sense Archangels when they use their powers, and teaches Gabriel to conceal his bright blue angel eyes. Uriel also explains that due to the nature of the evil and darkness that controls purgatory that Gabriel will be cut off from the "source". He also reluctantly tells Gabriel what happened to some of the other five Archangels: Remiel was killed before Uriel arrived; the whereabouts of Ithuriel (Matt Hylton Todd), Raphael (Jack Campbell), and Michael are uncertain, but Raphael is most likely hiding in the East Side of the city and it is thought that Sammael has killed Michael; and Amitiel (Samantha Noble), who now calls herself Jade, was defeated by Sammael, stripped of her wings, and forced to work as a prostitute. Hearing this, Gabriel goes off into the city to search for Amitiel.
Gabriel travels back to the city, and finds the brothel where Amitiel works. He also encounters Asmodeus, the Fallen who runs the brothel. Gabriel rescues Amitiel and kills the Fallen Balan who tries to rape her. He then heals her of the drugs she has been taking to dull the pain of her job. As Gabriel's use of power makes his presence known in Purgatory, the Fallen grow weary and impatient of waiting. Amitiel takes Gabriel to the soup kitchen where the Archangel Ithuriel hides. Initially angry at Ithuriel for abandoning his mission of seeking out and destroying the Fallen, Gabriel eventually shows him compassion and understanding. Ithuriel takes Gabriel to the abandoned tunnels beneath the soup kitchen where the gravely wounded Raphael dwells. Gabriel heals Raphael, expending much of his strength. After rebuking Gabriel, Raphael explains that Sammael draws his immense power from the other Fallen. Gabriel proposes to take out the remaining Fallen one by one, before finally facing Sammael. Raphael is unconvinced, as Sammael has already killed the stronger angel Michael.
Gabriel fights and kills the Fallen Ahriman (Kevin Copeland), then returns to Michael's apartment where he sketches a picture of Amitiel. At the same time Gabriel begins his campaign against the Fallen, the Fallen Lilith (Erika Heynatz) kills Uriel, Asmodeus kills Ithuriel, and Sammael kills Raphael. Driven mad by anger, Gabriel’s eyes turn bright brown, the colour of the Fallen. He returns to the brothel seeking revenge against Asmodeus, randomly killing anyone he finds behind a hotel room door. He eventually finds Asmodeus and discovers that he's using his nigh unconscious female sex slave, whom of which he's been consistently and forcibly giving plastic surgery to in an effort to make her facially identical to himself so as to satisfy his narcissism, as a hostage. Asmodeus takes Gabriel's shock and sympathy toward the girl to his advantage, discards her and begins assaulting Gabriel. Gabriel gains the advantage in the fight, viciously scars Asmodeus thus enraging him and then kills him. Gabriel halts his own imminent fall when he heals and restores the young woman held captive by Asmodeus to return her to her original appearance and depleting the anesthetics given to her. Shocked by his near fall, Gabriel returns to Amitiel. Amitiel comforts Gabriel and they strip naked before copulating. Gabriel then travels to a nightclub and kills Lilith, injecting her with several full vials of Ahriman's drugs. Gabriel chases Sammael to the nightclub’s rooftop.
Sammael refuses to fight Gabriel, instead asking him to listen to what he has to say. He explains how he despises being an angel, a being created entirely to serve others. He sees purgatory as a chance to take control of his own destiny and lets Gabriel know that it was him all along keeping Gabriel protected and alive in a city amongst all the Fallen, and asks Gabriel to join him. Refusing his offer, Gabriel unwittingly realizes that "Sammael" is actually the Archangel Michael, his closest friend (who had actually killed the real Sammael and assumed his identity). The two Archangels fight, but because Gabriel has used up so much of his strength helping the other Archangels, Michael has the advantage. Michael ultimately impales Gabriel’s chest with a metal pipe. Gabriel admits that during his time as a human he has felt rage and anger, but he has also experienced things that Michael hasn’t. An impaled Gabriel embraces Michael, which drives the metal pipe through Michael’s chest also, and tells Michael that he forgives him. Both Archangels collapse. Michael uses the last of his strength to heal Gabriel’s wound, then dies. Light returns to purgatory.
Kneeling in front of Michael's dead body, Gabriel shouts up at God asking "Is It This That You Wanted?, Is It This You Wanted?". The healed Gabriel moves to the edge of the rooftop, and muses that he needs to understand why all this happened. He outstretches his arms, and lets himself fall. His final words are, "Forgive me... I hope I see you again..." A post-credits scene shows Gabriel, (wearing different clothing, minus angel wing tattoo and with brown eyes), joining Amitiel and smiling. (The DVD version of the film does not contain the post-credit scene.) | good versus evil, paranormal, gothic | train | wikipedia | Their is action in this film, but it is depicted a lot more realistically than most people probably would have liked.At the end of the day, this is not the horrible movie that the first reviewer is making it out to be.
Oh sure, it has a Jesus-like story arc much like the Matrix and a good vs bad that pretty much every fantasy film has.What I liked about this one was that the story didn't follow the usual formulaic storyline that you can almost time down to the minute.
I found it to be a story of great substance, and bears watching a second time in order to fully appreciate it, much like films such as Donnie Darko.I liked that the cast was filled with people I didn't know, it gave it a freshness and allowed one to view it without the context of the actors cluttering the story.
It is a look typical of many Australian films, such as Wolf Creek, but the comic-book look of the film gives it a sense of fantasy which suits the story perfectly.One thing I particularly liked was the way the fight scenes were realised - a fresh approach to supernatural battles which, I think, works well.I found the effects a little over-done at times, and some of the visuals could have used a bit more polish, but considering the film's budget (or lack thereof), I think it's very impressive.Sure, it's no Hollywood blockbuster, but that's kind of the point..
The unknown actors give universally fine performances, and in the case of bad guy Sammael (Dwaine Stevenson) a deeply charismatic and disturbing one.I was a bit worried by the wordlessness and flat grey look of the earliest scenes, but as soon as we hit the first dialogue two-hander, I got pulled into the characters' situation.
But to adopt the mortal form is to become vulnerable to human weakness, and that's what Gabriel has to struggle with as he tries to rally his angel pals who've failed before him for one last battle.Freakin' good film!.
Consider all these when you watch the movie and you might forgive its short comings.Sure a lot of idiots complain that there are better movies with lower budget, yes, well ask how many of them are effects driven action movies with such a large scope like GABRIEL.
However having said that the film looks great (especially considering the very low budget), the action is okay, and the acting is competent.
To be honest, I wasn't expecting much of this film, but I am happy to say that I was completely blown away by it.The lead actors Andy Whitfield (Gabriel) and Dwaine Stevenson (Samael) were amazing, I couldn't believe that neither of them had done much work before, in my opinion, these are two men who have the potential to go far.
Not that the supporting cast wasn't brilliant, Harry Pavlidis (Uriel) stole his scenes completely and Michael Piccirilli (Asmodeus) portrayed his character so well, he made my skin crawl.When I read that the film was made on a ridiculously low budget, I was shocked, it didn't get in the way of the film whatsoever.The plot and premise it very original and is carried out in an interesting and often spell-binding way.
I didn't particularly like the writing or most of the acting, but I really like the look of the film (reminiscent of Sin City in a lot of ways) and some of the camera work was great.
It's an interesting concept but I felt the execution of it was a bit lacking, for me it doesn't even fall into the category of guilty pleasure kind of bad.The film felt like it was trying too hard to be cool with it's stylization and it came off very, very poorly.It drowned in the stiff and unnatural dialogue and the intrusive musical score was more irritating than rousing.
one thing that may have deterred most is the seeming 'off' quality that a lot of the camera work has, but this personally did not detract from my experience.In retrospect, I feel that this movie shares similarities with 'The Crow', in regards to many stylistic choices, and in some aspects of character development.Either way, decide for yourself..
To go on about the major plot flaws, a plot twist you see coming a mile off, characters so clichéd as to be almost offensive and all the other aspects of the film that make this film so unwatchable would be to miss a perfect opportunity to go on about the painful accents that most of the cast put on, where there seems a real attempt to sound legitimately American, but it's like watching someone try to lick their elbow.
It runs the gamut of bad movie ideas done bad.The premise is that in Purgatory, a city that is envisioned as a rundown dilapidated city where every occupant is homeless or destitute in some way, a battle is being fought between 7 Angels and 7 Fallen of which the fate of the universe lies.Sammael, one of the fallen, has found a way of harnessing the powers of those he has bested among the Angels, and all but one is left, Gabriel, who is obstinate and eager to take on these bastions of evil.The premise isn't new, and a Gothic metropolis being a battle ground of individuals who look like extras in a Nine Inch Nails video may be tempting as a concept to some, its execution is agonizingly bad.The pacing of the film is lax to begin with, and never does the film step up from it's first gear of painfully drawn out and wooden-eared dialogue, and even when action takes place, it is painfully short and garish rather than stylised.
A particular action sequence with machine gun fire in a strobing effect should come with a surgeon-general's warning because those with epileptic tendencies might fit from the visuals.The characters are stereotypical and flat and from the number of people leaving the movie halfway, it should not be under-emphasized why you should not pay to have such celluloid agony imposed on your poor selves.This review aims to warn those unsuspecting but those with a penchant for very bad film may take a liking to it out of morbid curiosity.Lowest score possible..
Unfortunately, those elements aren't terribly original and have been given better treatment in other films, like PRIEST (which still wasn't good), BLADE RUNNER and DARK CITY.
I don't normally write reviews but people need to be warned about this movie after friends dragged me into seeing it last week.Apart from the shallow storyline, dodgy acting and image quality, I have to say the terribly poor special effects never convince you the actors aren't in front of a blue screen during the entire film.Some movies can be made on a low budget, but sci-fi movies never should.If you want to see it I would recommend waiting for it to screen on SBS late at night, which I'm sure won't be far away..
It's got a nice poster.Everything nice about the movie ends there.You can tell the movie was bad the moment it started.The movie was more shot like an afternoon program for a TV holiday Special, watching something like Dark Angel would have made me happier.The fight sequence was unnatural, the actors look stiff and choreographed.
Firstly, I was actually surprised that this film was Australian considering the virtually unknown cast bar one recognisable name.The film itself is spectacular to watch in terms of effects and visuals that could stand up to any Hollywood blockbuster, and on only needs to compare that budget aspect of this film to Night Watch to know that it stands some chance at success overseas.Just seeing the trailer, one assumes a film in the manner of The Matrix meets Underworld.
Most of the actors I see for the first time and as far as I checked for some of the leading actors this was also the very first or the second movie (no hard feelings here).Basically the idea is good I liked it but the performance suffered serious lack of acting skills.
Appalling, direction, sound, writing, and acting.And, if that wasn't bad enough, the trailer, did in fact appear interesting.I have never been so board by such a film, that is truly without any merit.Whilst the Matrix trilogy, and Underworld had PLOT, as everyone knows, this clearly doesn't and self destructs faster than a "Falling Angel." Obviously the film-makers failed Hollywood 101, here quite convincingly.Anything else...yes the cinema was overflowing with people...including myself there were...wait for it, only three others in the cinema.Currently this is tied with Death Proof as the Worst film of 2007..
Gabriel had no plot, poor dialogue and what storyline there was lacked depth - I'd like to blame the actors but that wouldn't be fair because it appears that they really had nothing to work with in the first place.Special effects on their own cannot make a movie hit, they will always be a supporting product that can only be used to bolster a good plot.
In the case of Gabriel any plot at all may well have helped remarkably.Loved the swearing - if there was an award for gratuitous swearing this film would certainly have won it; the 'F' word really helped to disguise a lot of very poor dialogue.Summing up; I believe that a primary motivator here was a sort of "build it an they will come" philosophy with regard to some outstanding special effects.
For me it felt like they tried to put all the cool moments from other great movies into one film, but ruining them.I give 1 point for the fact that the movie was realized with that little budget and one for the special effects, that were after all not too bad sometimes.The moment I realized it was a low budget film I accepted it and tried to give it a fair chance, but the pathetic dialogs that were way too long and the bad plot (too often I sat there and asked myself "why did he do this?
why didn't he do that...", although the story itself had much potential as I like the stuff about good vs bad angels) made me sick after a while.As I said: impressive work for that little budget, but anyway not entertaining at all..
The lead actor came across as very wooden, sex scene absolutely pointless, action scenes and special effects amateurish & the plot just kept spiraling downwards into nothing-ness as time went on.If its any consolation we were laughing so hard throughout the whole film, probably harder than any comedy I've ever seen, but only because of how hopeless the entire thing was.
a totally waste of time as there is lack of direction in the movie and no sign of any kind of story in this movie...never understand from where he comes and what he wanna do...director shows the enemy is too much powerful ...but at last when he fights with the hero..it looks like a normal man fighting with a simple man...
The film is where Goth is at in 2007, post The Crow, post-Matrix, post-many vampire movies including Queen Of The Damn and Underworld, and affordable digital independent film making.It's the story of Gabriel, arriving to this dark, rainy city, to meet back with the six other archangels who have been fighting, and loosing, against a fallen angel, Sammael.The film avoids actually referencing hell and heaven, or a specific religion.
Although it is never clear in these films how such extreme world can function, effort have been made in the writing to show the fallen believably enjoying their dark side and giving as well as receiving pain.Unfortunately, once released from the wonderful atmosphere of the film, we realize that there wasn't that much actually going on here.While the film utilizes archangels for its characters, it turns out that they fight the fallen angels with fists, guns, and knives.
The Actors must have choked getting some of the dialogue out with a straight face.As far as character development is concerned the audience is considered to have a high degree of prescience (and liberal use of colored contact lenses has been added to shortcut/assist realization of who is a main player and who is not insults the intelligence)Gabriel would have benefited from a bit more skill script-wise and this may have given a better base from which to edit final product.If I had known it was made on a limited budget I would have viewed the film less cynically - I should watch it again now but can't be bothered - I understand ...
I knew nothing walking in, not that it was made in Australia(like me), or that it was a low budget film, but it didn't take too long guess this.The filming and acting of the main hero is quite beautiful, dark, and real, as were the fights, and some of the other actors were great too.
Better to let the audience adjust to one sound, or justify the differences.By the end of the movie I had correctly guessed this was a low budget film made in Australia, and I really wish I hadn't, and perhaps- that's the challenge for independent film-makers here.This was shot beautifully, it sounds great, it has brilliant locations and sets.
With a scene stealing performance by the excellent Micheal Piccirrilli as Asmodeus (a real sleazy treat) and a couple of hot S&M style femme fatales in Samantha Noble and Eryka Heynatz, Gabriel is a well rounded horror pic in the same vein as Night Watch, Matrix and Blade.Not dissimilar in ambition from MUFF hits Narcosys and Reign in Darkness, Gabriel succeeds extremely well in its ambition to become a cult horror flick.This film looks like it cost around 10 to 20 million bucks to make and from what I've heard had a cash budget of around 200 thousand.
They have to remember that a lot of movie goers are not grade A media students so lighting and sound quality does not make a lot of difference to how we enjoy the movie.I would say that if you are looking for a good action film filled with heart and hope and some fantastic actors and action sequences, then watch this.
give this a 10-15 million American budget...some more recognizable actors...tighten up the story...add some more...change the ending a little bit...make earth purgatory (los angeles)...add the 7 deadly sins and virtues per angel...you could really have something...get the right director and producing team together...imagine what a ridley scott or doug limon could do with a better script and bigger budget...i hope an maerican company or at least writer thinks about making an American version in the future...really not bad for the small budget...actually impressed they even finished it...not cheap putting any movie together...gives these guys all the credit for sticking it out and having their dream come together....
Being a low budget movie, I didn't have high expectations but ended up really liking it.The story is quite interesting, good fight scenes and the end is thought provoking.I am not into religion but have done some study in the past in regards angels and demons therefore could understand certain things and appreciate the movie better.It is worth watching for entertainment, contains some coarse language and violence but with a story to support it.The acting is OK, nothing terrible, nothing amazing..
OK let's get the bad stuff out of the way first, it's a low budget film, the actors aren't great and generally quite bad a times but that is easily forgiven.To me there is a lot of truth within this film and the story is good which is ultimately what makes this film good and it's a great example that you don't need millions to make a decent film as well as the artistic feel (at times) it's just let down by some terrible acting, corny moments because this could have been a masterpiece if they worked on those things.They are actually working on a sequel and I for one am very exited, hopefully they'll work on the aforementioned negatives and make a brilliant next movie..
First of: If you don't feel like reading all the review, at least read the Bottom line at the end, it will tell you all you need to know.I was surprise to see this movie has just 5 stars accumulative in IMDb. Usually IMDb is a great place to get good references for movies, but this time, don't pay too much attention to bad reviews.I can understand if people didn't like the movie, but the comments from people who rated the movie low just doesn't make sense.The acting is good, specially coming from unknown actors...
But most other characters did a very good job as well.The setting was portrayed adequately, and the effects, I believe, for the most part where good, not over-done or exaggerated.Truth is, I would change a few things from the movie, but that is also true for most movies I see, possible exceptions include Training Day and The Matrix...If you are looking to compare this movie, you need look no further than Constantine, but it is in no way a copy, it just resembles in how it feels for the viewer.I personally think that a low budget didn't hurt this movie that much, and the people involved did a far better job than with bigger, higher-budget blockbusters.Bottom line is: If you think the premise of the movie seems interesting, you will probably like it.
It's like the had a checklist as they went: Good vs Bad: Check Love interest: Check Facing past friend as foe: Check Drugs are bad, mmkay: Check Make your own choices: Check Save a friend: Check Token black guy: Check Use of film effects/filter (regardless of need): Check Stupid shot of guy/girl in front of window in rain in dark: Check Face your inner conscience: Check Moral battle: Check Everything else people expect from a high budget 'student film': CheckActually, I must admit the end 'twist' and some of the shots were cool, (so I gave the film 2 instead of 1) but really awful still, people were walking out in masses (including 5 people I was with, only one stayed with me to the end) by the halfway mark.
So, on the whole, I'd call the acting forgettable.Effects: pretty good for a low-budget film. |
tt0398533 | Onegai Twins | Please Twins! is a story about three high-school students: Maiku Kamishiro, Karen Onodera, and Miina Miyafuji. The three were drawn together by a photograph of their childhood home which later makes all of them seek out the house in the picture. However, the picture shows only two children, a boy and a girl. The three conclude from this that only one of the girls, either Karen or Miina, can be related to Maiku. The other must be a nonrelative. The only other identifying feature of the pair in the picture is that the boy and the girl have eyes of the same unusual color, a feature that furthers the ambiguity as all three of them share the same eye color.
The main concern of the male lead, Maiku, is that, although he eventually comes to care for both of the girls, he does not know which of them is his sister. In addition, the two girls develop feelings for Maiku, forming a love triangle that cannot be resolved until the truth of their relationship is known. All three main characters are in the predicament of wanting to discover their past versus the risk of losing a romantic relationship.
The events of the story are set the year after Please Teacher! and characters from that series appear in supporting roles throughout Please Twins!. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Spin off with a lighthearted mood. Onegai Teacher is my favorite anime, bar none. The first thing that I noticed about Onegai Twins was that it was more sexual Then Onegai Teacher, and far less Sci-fi, doing away with the starships and the Galaxy Federation, although on a few occasions you do see Transfers used. The story really has more of an upbeat feel to it then teacher did aswell. This story is a very light hearted, sweet love story about a guy named Miaku who lives alone, wanting to find out if he has any relatives. Two girls (Miina and Karen) suddenly pop into his life claiming they are his twin sister, but can't really prove it. The love story is more complex then teacher in the fact that it involves not only feelings of passionate love but also feelings of family love, sibling love (They may be Reletives...they may be strangers...) with "Love Aliances" and "Triangles", a confusion of feelings and just all round cute characters I found this anime to be very enjoyable but Its not exactly what I would call a true sequel, more of a spin off. I would have liked to have seen more of the old characters back, but, I found that it didn't hinder the story here in anyway with most of the old cast missing.. Skip Onegai Teacher and go straight to this spin-off. It took a load of convincing for me to watch Onegai Twins, being it the spin-off of one of my most loathed anime shows, Onegai Teacher. But to my surprise and pleasure Twins has almost nothing to do with the original, and was a refreshing experience.Twins is a balanced mix of romance and comedy. Most often there will be too much of one or the other - especially romance - and the sappiness will ruin the show. But in this case I was very pleased with the way it was presented.You won't find the usual action/peril overkill that reside in most series, this one is for those times when you're not thirsting for violence and want to see something a little bit more sensible. I'm glad I put aside my presumptions about Twins and gave it a try. 8/10. Annoying. Onegai Teacher was one of the most gripping series I've ever seen for an anime with a neo-escapist sci-fi tone. I watched episode 1 out of pure curiosity and was hooked through all 12 episodes. The series employed some pretty good character development for the main cast and it's depth of suspenseful romance completely engulfed me for an anime. Definitely not intended for the shallow or unimaginative to see.Onegai Twins, like all desperate sequels (that passes off as one that not is) to a good movie was just a plain nuisance to see. Definitely a product of a limited imagination cow-tailing to the desperate fantasies of a society that "has seen it all". Sexual relations (or at least the innuendo) with a member of the same family is a let down. Such a shame considering that the culture behind the anime genre, IMHO, have a limitless well of imagination to draw from. Even their worst however, is far better than western (American/Euro) developed animation. Hence my rating.. Not on par with OT. Onegai Teacher! When I saw it, I was hooked and addicted to it. It just had me finished the whole season in just one day. It made me watch all the episodes one after one and without any break. I felt really nostalgic when it was over, for many days.And then I watched onegai twins. Though it was spin-off, it didn't really felt like it, except for the places and characters. Even the characters' characters were changed. E.g. Ichigo Morino. She was seeming a completely different person. The quality was not maintained at all. The echhi portion had taken over. If only the creators had maintained the same quality, the show could have become much better.If there happens to be any remake, I would like to have it a clean version. |
tt0080641 | The Dogs of War | Having escaped from Central America, mercenaries James Shannon, Drew, Derek, Michel, Terry and Richard, get an offer from a British businessman, Roy Endean. He is interested in "certain resources" in the small African nation of Zangaro, which is run by the brutal dictator, General Kimba.
Shannon goes on a reconnaissance mission to Zangaro's capital of Clarence and meets a British documentary filmmaker named North. However, Shannon’s activities arouse the suspicions of the police and he is arrested, severely beaten and imprisioned. His wounds are treated by Dr. Okoye, a physician who was formerly a moderate political leader. North agitates for Shannon’s release and he is deported after two days of torture.
When Shannon tells Endean that there is no chance of an internal coup, Endean offers him $100,000 to overthrow Kimba by invading Zangaro with a mercenary army. Endean intends to install a puppet government led by Colonel Bobi, Kimba's greedy former ally. This would allow Endean to exploit the country's newly discovered platinum resources, an agreement guaranteed by Colonel Bobi. Shannon refuses the offer and instead proposes to his estranged wife that they start a new life in America. When she turns him down, he accepts Endean's offer on condition that he will have complete control of the operation.
Provided with a million dollars for expenses, Shannon contacts some of his associates from Central America and they meet up to plan the coup. The group illegally procures a supply of Uzi submachine guns, ammunition, rocket launchers, mines and other weapons from arms dealers. North encounters Shannon by chance and suspects him of being a CIA agent. Shannon asks Drew to scare North away without hurting him but instead North is killed by someone hired by Endean to follow Shannon and his crew. A furious Shannon kills the assassin in turn and leaves his body at Endean's house during a dinner party held for Colonel Bobi.
To transport the team to the coast of Zangaro, Shannon hires a small freighter and crew. At sea, the team is joined by a group of Zangaron exiles trained as soldiers by a former mercenary colleague. Once ashore, the mercenaries use their array of weapons to attack the military garrison where Kimba lives. Drew enters a shack in the barracks' courtyard and is killed by a young woman with a baby who shoots him in the back with a pistol. After the mercenaries storm the burning, bullet-scarred ruins of the garrison, Shannon blasts his way into Kimba's mansion. There he finds the dictator stuffing bricks of bills into a briefcase and kills him.
Endean arrives by helicopter with Colonel Bobi and they enter the presidential residence, where they find Shannon and Dr. Okoye awaiting their overdue arrival. Shannon introduces Dr. Okoye as Zangaro's new president and silences Endean by shooting Bobi when he protests.
Shannon, Derek and Michel load the body of Drew onto a Landrover in line with the toast they drank on planning the operation, "Everyone Comes Home". The scene finishes with the mercenaries driving through the deserted streets of Clarence. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | It concerns a military coup in an African country and stars Christopher Walken and Tom Berenger , though he has said in interviews that around half of his role was omitted from the final release print .
It deals with mercenary James Shannon (Christopher Walken) , on a reconnaissance job to the African nation of Zangaro, is tortured and deported .
As various soldiers of fortune (Tom Berenger , Paul Freeman , among others) , used to be the best of friends give a toast : ¨Long live death, long live war, long live the cursed mercenary" (this is an adaptation of the original Foreign legion toast) and all of them battle side by side in hellhole Africa .This war film packs adventures , large-scale blow-up , thrilling plot , and lots of action for the most part , but also contains too much dialogue .
Fine support cast who realize professionally competent interpretations , some of them with no more than a line or two to say such as Colin Blakely , Paul Freeman , and brief interventions from JoBeth Williams , Robert Urquhart , Ed O'Neill , Jim Broadbent , Jean Pierre Kalfon , Victoria Tennant , Pedro Armendariz Jr and first cinema film of David Schofield.Good cinematography by Jack Cardiff , who also shot a movie about mercenaries in Africa titled ¨The mercenaries¨, it was filmed on location , as African and Central America sequences were filmed in Belize City, Belize in Central America .
Shannon (Christopher Walken) is a mercenary war who accepted for the sum of 15,000 dollars to fly to a fictional country in West Africa on a survey mission to procure military information concerning the stability of a dictator's regime, his position strength, and if there is any chance for a coup?
Posing as an American naturalistespecially in native birdsShannon landed in Zangaro and gathered all the facts he needed but after suffering a brutal beating from the guards for taking pictures of one of the mistresses of the dictator's in front of his compound
When he's offered a large amount of money to gather a well-equipped mercenary force and go back to Zangaro and lead a military takeover, he reluctantly assents
The assault has authority, power and unexpected...
The problem with this though is that the info tend to hold up the narrative which makes a Forsyth novel difficult to successfully translate to screen and to be honest the original THE DOGS OF WAR novel isn't really a book that will appeal to a cinema goer who's into no brain action shoot them ups .
I can just imagine a disappointed Arnie/Bruce/Sly fan slagging the movie off for having only two battle scenes , one at the start of the movie and one at the end , so let me point out that if you're expecting to see DIE HARD IN AFRICA it's maybe not you're kind of movie If there's a problem with the movie it's mainly down to the structure of the novel with much of the running time taken up with planning the coup , getting the equipment , hiring the boat etc .
Lean, pared down to action, efficiently told story of a mercenary band with a code of honor worthy of Hemingway's life maxim "grace under pressure." Walken's performance is truly riveting, simply acting the truth without embellishment, this is professional soldier whose purpose --- loyalty to his fellow soldiers and dedication to his task --- is clean and spare: get in, win, get out, come home has been rarely topped in movies.
Christopher Walken fans will love this one as he occupies the camera for about 98% of the film and does an admirable job playing ringleader to a small band of mercenaries hired by London's Enron branch to take down some dude with a Gucci sword named Kimba, the benevolent ruler of Okka Bokka Boo. The pace is a little slow for my tastes but they threw in my favorite girl next door, JoBeth Williams, as Walkens ex-wife just to keep me occupied while the guns were being shipped in from Switzerland or somewhere.
Sent to checkout the political situation in the Africian nation of Zangaro, Shannon (Christopher Walken in a solid performance), a tireless and money-hungry American mercenary, get caught spying by the president's secret police and nearly beaten to death before sent back to the States.
John Irvin directed this film, starring Christopher Walken as war veteran mercenary who gets a job by government to travel to Africa and inform the situation that is pretty hot in there.
He does it, and sees the violence that takes place there, and when he returns to US and tells about the evil dictator that dominates there, the new job for him is to travel there again and wipe out the incarnation of evil..This film isn't any action film as many seem to have expected - me included - but this is pretty sophisticated, but still also little slow moving (dir.
So I recommend the director's cut of the film as it is the directors original version.Dogs of War is pretty intelligent and interesting depiction of power and dictatorship, and also very nostalgic in its atmosphere and scenery.
One point in the film in order to make money Walkens character Shannon takes a contract to do a "Recon" mission on a country.
Many recall his work in ' The Deer Hunter.' In this story Christopher Walken is James Shannon an experienced soldier of fortune and Mercenary for hire.
This film tells the story of a group of greedy but traitorous wealthy financiers who hope to stage a Coup d'etat to overthrow president Kimba (Illario Bisi Pedro) of Zangora and replace him with Col Bobi (George Harris) an equally despicable character.
A Great Adventure of War and Moral Code of a Man. Paul Shannon (Christopher Walken) is a veteran soldier and presently a mercenary, invited by a former contact to visit the fictitious African country of Zangora, which is rich in platinum, and check its political situation.
Nice to see this movie has it's fans, especially as it seems to get such a rough ride from the critics, it's in MY top ten of films I never get tired of watching, even more so when I discovered some ten years ago on VHS tape the longer version with scenes cut from the original release.
It boasts one of Walken's best performances, an emergent Berenger gets a significant part, and Blakely is dead on as the British journalist trying to learn more about what he suspects will be a coup in West Africa's imaginary country Zangaro.Cardiff's photography is very competent, within the above-mentioned obvious budget limitations, direction very effective, screenplay also very to the point and insightful about the ripples caused by a dictator solely intent on staying in power.
The sequence at the airport, when Shannon arrives in Zangaro, is also exceptional dark comedy, because it is so close to the reality of many African countries in the 1980s.It shows how much corruption can erode society, leaving it with no values - apart from survival at any cost.The way that the mercenaries go about obtaining weapons, and those weapons' capacity for destruction, reveals the ruthlessness of men with a mission.
I guess the Wild Geese (1978) is the best comparison because it is a movie of the same era with a somewhat similar story - "good" mercenaries fighting a cruel dictator in some poor African country.
However, when the Wild Geese is filled with stars, here we have only one - but he happens to be Christopher Walken.Not only Christopher's but most of the actors' performance is good, the plot is rather realistic, the movie does not feel like a cheap copy made during the mercenary/vigilante movie boom, and the length is optimal, less than two hours.
This one stands out because it has an actual plot to it leading up to the big action scene at the end, and that alone makes it more original than 99% of the guys-on-a-mission type films that came out in the 1980s.Christopher Walken, twitchy and solemn, stands out in this early role as the hard-ass mercenary who's seen plenty of conflict over the years.
His trip to the made-up African nation of Zangora is fraught with peril and tension, and yet seems real throughout in the same way that a film like BLOOD DIAMOND had the ring of authenticity to it.The violence that follows is expected yet none the less shocking for it, and even the character building exposition scenes back in the West are handled in such a way that you never lose interest in the proceedings.
The Dogs of War was a techs and specs special ops novel by Frederick Forsyth before it was adapted into this film starring Christopher Walken.The adapting screenwriters made an interesting choice to depart from the book in one central way.
When Walken's Shannon finally assembles his multi-national strike force, a group action romp in the tradition of The Great Escape or Force 10 From Navarrone begins to build, but again, the director and producer leave all too little time for what the viewer expects will be the film's main course.
The minor paucities in the overall sweep of the movie aside, Walken creates the character of mercenary Jamie Shannon in a way that Forsyth's book never gets around to doing--so busy is it with measuring ship cargo space and counting grenade pins..
It all begins when Shannon gets an offer to do a re con mission from a mysterious representative of British mining interests in the small, fictional, African country of Zangaro.
Christopher Walken plays the role of the mercenary very well as does the other cast members, such as Tom Berenger as his long time brother in arms.
I could never believe that Walken was a hardbitten mercenary anymore than I could believe that a tinhat dictator would be so easily overthrown, or so given to fits of cowardice.And the battle scenes all seemed to be exactly what a movie version of war would look like.
I really wanted to like this film, and it had a lot going for it with a strong cast (Christopher Walken, Tom Berenger, Paul Freeman, JoBeth Williams, and a young Ed O'Neill) and a solid premise from a Frederick Forsyth novel about mercenaries overthrowing an African dictator for a British executive wanting a more friendly of government for his business interests there.
In the film's favor, it was shot by ace cinematographer Jack Cardiff, who's shot everything from "The African Queen" to "The Red Shoes" to "Rambo," and director John Irvin certainly knows his way around an action scene.
Christopher Walken plays ruthless mercenary Jamie Shannon, who is hired by a British mining company to lead a revolution in an African nation to overthrow the dictator, so that they can install their own leader, who is friendly to their interests.
Things go wrong and Shannon is captured and beaten, though manages to escape, and vows to return, seeking vengeance, though again this doesn't go as planned either...Based on a novel By Frederick Forsyth, this adaptation falls short of his other two films("The Day Of The Jackal" & "The Odessa File").
It has a simple yet interesting plot with something of a twist to the ending that isn't contrived or relied upon to validate or prop up the rest of the film like some other movies.The plot revolves around a group of mercenaries recruited, organising, preparing and carrying out the overthrow of an African despot dictator.
This is something undoubtedly attributable to the writer of the book Frederick Forysth and in keeping with the earlier film adaptation of another of his works 'Day of the Jackal'.Rambo this isn't and as stated by no shortage of people it isn't wall to wall action and may move a bit more slowly than many might expect, an acquired taste perhaps and possibly something of a letdown for some given the very title of the film.Walken isn't outstanding in the film but he is very adequate all the same and the film certainly doesn't hinge on the dramatics.When I can't decide what I want to watch, this is one of the films I fall back on and one of the reasons I've seen it quite a few times.
It's not a nice movie.Christopher Walken stars as Jamie Shannon, whose otherwise empty life sitting in a Manhattan apartment watching John Roland and the Channel 5 newsteam on a snowy television screen is relieved only by the occasional assignment to gather up some equally dissolute comrades and blast their way through some far-away trouble spot for a few thousand bucks.
With nothing much to live for, Shannon agrees.Walken is the central reason to watch "Dogs Of War".
There's also a visit Shannon pays to his ex-wife, which features some nice acting from Walken and JoBeth Williams but establishes nothing other than the emptiness of Shannon's life, about which we already know.Joining action and character is the hallmark of any good war movie, and this "Dogs Of War" fails to do.
After get respect from Deer Hunter Waken surfing in new project as mercenary leader on a Forsyth's novel adaptation,however the picture take a ride from Wild Geese's formula,it's measure how is short the vision of those producers in that time,even so could be better in little details which they didn't noticed,but a sharp eye realize,souless the movie ain't certanly,have good fresh moments.a few actually,but as entertainment works spent along the picture,some clichés were unnecessary as is former wife Jobeth Williams,but it's a old formula,the action is good,and the final is very predicable!!!Resume:First watch: 1999 / How many: 2 / Cable TV-DVD / Rating: 7.
Jamie Shannon (Christopher Walken) and his men including Drew Blakeley (Tom Berenger) and Terry (Ed O'Neill) are soldiers of fortune.
Walken plays the perfectly stoic aging mercenary who's beginning to wrestle with the moral aspects of his profession, and in the end decides to do the "right" thing instead of just what he's been paid to do............Well worth watching.
The violence is matter of fact, only stylised in one particular brief scene of torture with a shard of glass that this viewer found to be one of the most painful from any film.The ending is certainly worth the wait as Walken's small fish turns the coup at the heart of the overall plot into a coup of his very own.
A huge step forwards for a man who when not paid to kill perfect strangers spends his time watching mundane television and playing computer chess (a great performance from Christopher Walken, a man seemingly dead inside but who actually defies our expectations by doing the right thing).
Unspectacular, but tough and lean slow pot-boiler anti-war feature sees a stoic Christopher Walken on reconnaissance, before leading a group of mercenaries to push out the tyrant dictator of the African nation Zangora.
They make movies like this all the time.A mega corporation wants the mineral rights in an African country ruled by a ruthless dictator.
The Dogs of War, based on the novel by Frederick Forsyth, is an entertaining film that takes its time to get to the action.
SPOILERS: The film follows mercenary Jamie Shannon from his defeat in Central America to the execution of a contract to stage a coup in West Africa.
**SPOILERS** Action and intrigue on four continents, North and South American Africa & Europe, with mercenary leader Jamie Shannon, Christopher Walken, getting together a group of fellow soldiers of fortune.
Kimba's brutal regime.Wall to wall combat fills the movie "Dogs of War" final fifteen minutes with Shannon and his men taking on the entire Zangorien military as they fight their way into Pres.
The Dogs of War is a familiar but rock-solid early take on the international mercenary-led political coup before it became bastardized by a generation of pulpier Rambo knock-offs (including Christopher Walken's own McBain in 1991).
The setting was different, the characters' back stories were different but then the movie started chopping down everything, skipping on incredibly important elements of the story - the entire thread of the discovery of precious metal reserves worth over $10 billion, leading to corporate interests in overthrowing President Kimba of fictitious country Zangaro in West Africa, was reduced to a 10 second telephonic conversation.The sub-plot with the ex-wife was an unnecessary deviation as well and it was probably done to give a more 'human' face to mercenary Jamie Shannon.
James Shannon is an American mercenary hired by a mining concern to perform a reconnaissance mission in the fictional West African nation of Zangaro; his task is to determine whether or not it would be possible to depose its current president, a psychotic megalomaniac called General Kimba.
Combine that with the top notch planning and execution of the coup by Shannon and his men, and you have a thriller worthy of Forsythe.Despite this, the movie tells the mercenaries' side of the story very well, showing the tension and problems involved in organizing a coup in West Africa.
The view we get of the country during Shannon's reconnaissance visit really shows how it has degenerated since "independance" and being taken over by the dictator.Christopher Walken is perfect in the role of Shannon, he's an incredibly talented actor.I just wish that the movie had been an hour longer, and had included some of the corporate side of things.
Recap: Jamie Shannon, a mercenary, is hired by a company to go on a information gathering mission to Zangora, an African country ruled by a unstable dictator.
Plot: A team of mercenaries are hired to overthrow an African dictator.Adapted from the Frederick Forsyth novel (or 'how to' guide depending on your tastes in fiction), this is a superior thriller from that wonderful moment in the 1970s (well, 1980 in this case) when low-key realism and humanity were so important. |
tt0057608 | Twice-Told Tales | Each of the three sequences is introduced by Vincent Price (in a voice-over). Price also stars in all three narratives.
=== "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" ===
Two elderly friends, Carl Heidegger (Sebastian Cabot) and Alex (Price), meet to celebrate Heidegger's 79th birthday. They discover that Heidegger's fiancée from 38 years before, Sylvia, is perfectly preserved in her coffin. Heidegger believes that the water dripping into the coffin has the power to preserve. He tries it on a withered rose and it comes back into full bloom.
Carl and Alex drink it and become young again. Carl injects the liquid into Sylvia and she comes back to life. Sylvia reveals that she and Alex were secretly lovers. Carl attacks Alex, but Alex kills him in the struggle. The effects of the water wear off. Sylvia is reduced to a desiccated skeleton, Carl's body returns to its original age. Alex returns to the crypt to find more of the water, but it no longer flows.
=== "Rappaccini's Daughter" ===
In Padua, Giacomo Rappaccini (Price) keeps his daughter Beatrice in a garden. A university student next door, Giovanni, sees her and falls in love. One of Giovanni's professors says that he used to teach with Rappaccini. Many years ago, Rappaccini abruptly quit academia and became a recluse after his wife ran away with a lover. Rappaccini has treated Beatrice with an exotic plant extract that makes her touch deadly; he does this to keep her safe from unwanted suitors, but it makes her a prisoner in her own home.
When Giacomo sees the attraction between Giovanni and Beatrice, he surreptitiously treats Giovanni with the extract so they can be together. Giovanni is aghast, and obtains an experimental antidote from his professor. He consumes the antidote in front of Beatrice, but it kills him. Beatrice drinks it also, killing herself. Giacomo grabs the exotic plant with both hands and its touch kills him.
=== "House of the Seven Gables" ===
Gerald Pyncheon (Price) returns to his family house after an absence of 17 years, bringing with him his wife Alice. His sister Hannah, who had been living in the house, tells Alice about the curse put upon Pyncheon men by Matthew Moll(Maulle), who used to own the house but lost it in a shady deal to the Pyncheon family. Jonathan Maulle, a descendant of Matthew, arrives, but he refuses Gerald's offer to give him the house in exchange for the location of a vault where valuable property deeds are stored. Alice becomes haunted by the curse on the house, which eventually leads her to the cellar.
Gerald finds her there and discovers the map to the vault. He kills Hannah to keep her share of the inheritance. Gerald traps Alice in the basement grave of Mathew Maulle, then goes to the study to find the vault. He opens it, and a skeletal hand inside the vault kills him. Jonathan arrives and takes Alice out of the house, just as it shakes and collapses. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | This is a compilation of three short films based on Nathaniel Hawthorne works--Heidegger's Experiment, Rappaccini's Daughter and The House of Seven Gables.
But if you're not acclimated to the style, it takes some getting used to.It's definitely worth getting used to, because these three short films by director Sidney Salkow are atmospheric, captivating stories, full of horror if you are able to slow yourself down and be absorbed by them.
The film's fine technical elements--the sets, costumes, cinematography, lighting, music and so on--help draw one in to the proceedings.As with most Hawthorne, the stories have strong moral subtexts, often hinging on just deserts for questionable ethical decisions, which are often themselves made with an aim of protecting ethical "purity" in some way.
Speaking of Rappaccini's Daughter, it's interesting to note that this could easily count as an early sci-fi tale from Hawthorne.For horror fans, the most important aspect of the film is that Twice-Told Tales' scenarios are macabre and frequently terrifying.
Only the House of Seven Gables offers a slight glimpse of hope at the end.Twice-Told Tales isn't the first compilation film or even the first horror compilation film, but it is one of the earlier, better and influential examples.
Salkow's impact on horror wasn't to end here, as he went on to co-direct the excellent Price vehicle The Last Man on Earth in 1964, which was a big influence on subsequent films such as 28 Days Later (2002).
Twice-Told Tales is a trio of horror stories based on the writings of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Each story stars horror maestro Vincent Price, and this allows the man to show his range in a series of different roles throughout the film.
The second tale is a fairytale horror story of love, protection and madness and follows the tale of an overbearing father that takes steps to ensure that his daughter doesn't sin like her mother did.
I still love it, each time when I see it again, because of the three intelligent stories (one about an elixir of life and a tragic love triangle, one about a poison which separates two lovers, and one about a haunted house), which of course in view of the movie's age don't contain splatter elements but unfold a subtle horror and especially because of the atmosphere with the wonderful kitschy set and colors, which gives the movie, beside of the dated special effects, the typical and irresistible charm of old trash....
"Twice-Told Tales" is a movie composed of three timeless shorts based on horror tales by Nathaniel Hawthorne with Vincent Price.(1) "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment": In 1859, Alex Medbourne (Vincent Price) and Dr. Carl Heidigger (Sebastian Cabot) have been best friends for decades.
The first story is "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment," about two elderly friends, Dr. Carl Heidegger (Sebastian Cabot) and Alex Medbourne (Vincent Price) who discover magical water that they use to become young again.
The second story is "Rappaccini's Daughter." Giovanni Guasconti (Brett Halsey) falls in love with beautiful Beatrice Rappaccini (Joyce Taylor) at first sight.
Beatrice is the daughter of scientist Giacomo Rappaccini (Vincent Price) and, much to Giovanni's horror, her father has injected her with plant toxins that make her deadly to touch.
The third, and most famous, story is "The House of the Seven Gables." Gerald Pyncheon (Vincent Price) returns to his ancestral home with his new bride (Beverly Garland).
If you watch this movie, do not bother viewing the third one, which is a shortened version of "The House of Seven Gables" with Vincent Price in the villain role [he was the hero in the much superior 1940 version].Other good things about this movie are the music and the sets [especially in the first tale]..
The photography, some good effects and the acting, especially from Price, make the segment worth the watch at least, but it felt dull to me and tries to cram far too much in, which undermined the story-telling severely.
I wholly concur with the general consensus that the second segment Rappacinni's Daughter is the best one of the three, it is creepy and atmospheric, the most lush in look, is the most emotionally complex and has a really well-told story(it is also the most faithful to Hawthorne's writing).
This overlooked Vincent Price movie, supposedly based on the works of Nathaniel Hawthorne, appears to be the inspiration for "Creepshow," complete with a skeleton hand turning the pages between stories.
A skeletal hand turns the pages of a book, revealing three tales of the macabre loosely based on the works of 19th century author Nathaniel Hawthorne, all starring horror legend Vincent Price, who plays a different character in each.In the first story, "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment", Price plays Alex, who meets with his old friend Carl Heidegger (Sebastian Cabot), who is celebrating his 79th birthday.
After studying the water that has been dripping onto Sylvia's coffin, Heidegger believes that the liquid not only has the power to preserve, but also to reverse the ageing process, and even bring his beloved back to life.The second tale, "Rappaccini's Daughter", sees Price as reclusive Dr. Giacomo Rappaccini, whose wife ran off with another man, leaving him to raise his daughter Beatrice (Joyce Taylor).
However, after she threatens to take her own life, Giacomo conducts a procedure that means the couple can finally be together, but his actions have tragic consequences.The closing chapter is "The House of the Seven Gables", in which Price stars as Gerald Pyncheon, who, accompanied by his young wife Alice (Beverly Garland), moves into his ancestral home, which is also occupied by his sister Hannah (Jacqueline deWit).
Gerald is convinced that the house holds a hidden vault containing his ancestor's fortune, but a centuries old curse and a malevolent ghost ensure that his search for the treasure results in madness, death and the destruction of the Pyncheon home.They might be called Twice-Told Tales, but I'll wager that most horror fans will be satisfied to see these stories unfold just the once, Hawthorne's 'dark romanticism' resulting in a trilogy that is heavy on Gothic atmosphere, melodrama and Shakespearean tragedy (Hawthorne borrowed the title 'Twice-told Tales' from a play by the bard), but extremely light on terror.
Price puts in three commendable performances, but even with the star on fine form, Twice Told Tales is a rather dismal and depressing addition to the horror anthology sub-genre..
This also benefits from some decent special effects and capable direction by Sidney Salkow (who also guided star Vincent Price in "The Last Man on Earth").In "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment", Price stars with Sebastian Cabot as they play elderly friends Alex Medbourne and Dr. Carl Heidegger.
(23 years earlier, he'd played the hero in a feature length adaptation of this story.) Gerald and his younger wife Alice (Beverly Garland) arrive at the family home so he can search for the treasures hidden on the premises.
Garland is very appealing, and Price has fun just as he always did with his villainous roles.Fans of old school horror, anthologies, and the actors involved will likely have a good time with "Twice-Told Tales".
Vincent Price heads up a B-cast in this middle-drawer trilogy of not-so-terrifying tales from writer Nathaniel Hawthorne's dark side.
The opener, "Dr. Heidigger's Experiment", is probably the best of the lot, with Price and Sebastian Cabot acting wonderfully persnickety as a couple of old codgers living together like sisters; they discover a "virgin spring" in the mausoleum of Cabot's deceased sweetheart and use it to bring back their youth...and re-animate the corpse!
The second episode, "Rappaccini's Daughter", has Price playing a great scientist/hermit who has replaced his beautiful's daughter's blood with the acidic juice from a Chinese plant, causing her to be untouchable without the proper gloves; the story doesn't bear close scrutiny, but the set design here is interesting.
Director Sidney Salkow, apparently saving the 'best' for last, lets loose with "The House of the Seven Gables" (previously filmed as a feature in 1940, co-starring Vincent Price!), a haunted house meller with bleeding walls and a skeleton's arm in the secret vault; it is unintentionally hilarious, leaden-paced, woodenly acted, and enjoyably ridiculous all at the same time.
Three tales from Nathaniel Hawthorne are shown each starring Vincent Price.
"Twice-Told Tales" is a trio of Gothic horror stories written by Nathaniel Hawthorne (who is considered a classic American writer), all starring Vincent Price.
And the third story, "The House of the Seven Gables" is about a family curse placed upon the Pyncheon family, and the curse makes itself known late one night when the remaining family gathers on the property to discuss inheritance.Sometimes funny, sometimes ridiculous, but always entertaining is the way I'd describe this movie.
It was as if they took the basic idea of a curse and an old house, and fused them together with some common elements of old-time horror films, and came up with this story that is light years different than the actual novel.
Everything looks very fake, but again, for it's time, it probably wasn't considered bad - I'm going to take it easy on this film.Overall, "Twice-Told Tales" is a movie that will probably gain no respect by the majority of today's audiences.
Three stories based on Nathaniel Hawthorne's Twice-Told Tales - all three a excellent!
Surprisingly, this works well, despite Hawthorne not being known for his horror material.Vincent Price serves as the narrator, but also appears as the characters Alex Medbourne, Professor Giacomo Rappaccini, and Gerald Pyncheon."Dr. Heidegger's Tale": A doctor's wife is found in her tomb after 38 years, and never aged or decomposed a day.
All three of the tales here are based on the writings of Nathaniel Hawthorne (best known for his dramatic novel THE SCARLET LETTER) and provide horror spins on everything from the fountain of youth to the touch of the death to the centuries-old family curse.
Unfortunately, thanks to leaden pacing and flavorless, almost anonymous direction from Sidney Salkow (Corman would have handled all this much better), this project never seems to fulfill its full potential.Story #1 is "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment," which doesn't following the source story very closely and stars Vincent Price and Sebastian Cabot as elderly best friends who get a second chance at life.
Dr. Heidegger, along with his heavy-drinking best friend Alex Medbourne (Vincent Price), accidentally knock over Sylvia's coffin and find that her corpse has been perfectly preserved.
A very intriguing little tale (which actually does stick close to the original story), this is well-done, interesting and comes with a nicely tragic ending, though there's not even the slightest attempt to make this feel like it's set in Italy and, once again, Price is relegated to more of a less-colorful supporting role.Finally we have "The House of the Seven Gables," which had already been filmed several times at feature length, including once in 1940 with Vincent Price playing a completely different role.
This tries to cram way too much plot into 40 minutes and becomes both dull and ponderous, though it does pick up a bit at the end with a surprising pick-axe to the head murder, a silly reanimated skeleton hand and a model of the home crumbling to the ground.It's worth a look to fans, but there are much better examples of the anthology format out there, as well as much better usage of horror legend Price in dozens of other films..
However, like so many Vincent Price films of the 60s that are based on classic American tales (mostly those of Poe), the stories diverge a lot from the original source material by Hawthorn.
The final story, The House of Seven Gables, is particularly odd because this story AND the 1940 film THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES both starred Vincent Price and both strayed dramatically from the original stories--so much so that you'd scarcely recognize them.Of the three tales, Dr. Heidigger's Experiment is the most enjoyable.
Despite fun performances by Vincent Price in all three stories, the film just limped along after the first segment and by the time it ended, I was more than ready to watch something else.
This film features the writing of a very famous author, Nathaniel Hawthorne who will hold your interest in which Vincent Price plays all three main actors in all the tales which involves very strange behavior of a father to wants to protect his daughter from the sins of the world and has given her a secret power which destroys everything she touches.
Sidney Salkow directed these three adaptations of Nathanial Hawthorne stories starring Vincent Price & Sebastian Cabot: "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" - A rejuvenation formula has unforeseen consequences in this nicely produced but routine story, with Price & Cabot in good form at least."Rappaccini's Daughter" - A man with an elaborate garden poisons his daughter so that she will never leave it, though it doesn't go according to plan...
Bound together in one package, three stories from writer Nathaniel Hawthorne are presented in one collection.The Good Stor(ies): Dr. Heidegger's Experiment-Dining together, two friends start in on his long-deceased wife and his desire to see her again.
Each of the three tales told here are magnificent, albeit slightly suffering from their shortage and I'll definitely continue to look for the long-feature film version of "The House of Seven Gables", as I know it's available somewhere.
Price this time stars as the tormented scientist Rappaccini, who pumped his poor daughter Beatrice so full of poison that she absorbs the color and life out of everything she touches.
The third and final tale in this marvelous horror anthology is called "The House of Seven Gables" and revolves on a feud between two families that still lives on after several generations.
Three-part horror anthology: in the first story, Sebastian Cabot finds what appears to be the elixir of youth, and re-animates his long-dead wife-to-be to boot; some good (for the time) "morphing" effects, and the payoff is both amusing and grim.
In the third tale, Vincent Price returns to his (cursed!) ancestral house, determined to find a hidden vault, while his young wife (Beverly Garland, with her exquisite cheekbones) gets weird premonitions, as if someone is trying to communicate with her - from beyond the grave!
Vincent Price stars in three effectively eerie and engrossing tales of terror based on the short stories of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Second and most original segment, "Rappaccini's Daughter" - The strikingly comely Joyce Taylor is enchanting as Beatrice, a lovely young lass with a lethal poisonous touch.
Third and most horrific episode, "The House of the Seven Gables" - Price hams it up nicely as a wicked wealthy swine who returns to a creepy crumbling family mansion that has a 150 year old curse on it to find a buried hidden fortune.
Price and Sebastian Cabot portray long time friends who eventually find themselves at odds over Heidegger's fiancé (Mari Blanchard), who died thirty eight years earlier.
The toxic plant business is a bit of a stretch too, making Dr. Rappaccini (Price) it's final victim in this story of unrequited love and it's tragic aftermath.The third part of the trilogy is a much condensed version of Hawthorne's 'House of the Seven Gables', and mysterious enough to recommend that I get the source material to check it out in novel form.
A trio of tales, all starring Vincent Price, has a virgin spring that returns youth, a scientific experiment which causes an acidic touch, and a hidden vault long sought after somewhere in an old manor deemed cursed.
The first tale has Vincent Price as Alex Medbourne, sharing a whiskey with long time friend, Dr. Carl Heidigger (Sebastian Cabot), as the two talk about old times while a thunderstorm stirs outside.
The second tale has Vincent Price as an embittered father, Dr. Giacomo Rappaccini, whose wife left him for another man, inflicting his daughter, Beatrice (Joyce Taylor) with an affliction where her touch is acidic, killing anyone or thing instantly.
Another triple play of Poe/Price, like Tales of Terror, but without Corman, and not quite as good.
The tales are Heidegger's Experiment, Rappaccini's Daughter and The House of Seven Gables, and the stories are really the stars.
One year after Roger Corman's "Tales Of Terror", the incomparable Vincent Price starred in another ghoulish and great Horror anthology, namely Sidney Salkow's "Twice-Told Tales" of 1963.
The film is divided into three Gothic tales, all three starring Price, all three based on the writings of the magnificent Nathaniel Hawthorne, all three compelling, atmospheric and wonderfully eerie.The first segment, "Dr Heidegger's experiment" is about the classic topic of resurrection and eternal youth.
Dr. Carl Heidegger (Sebastian Cabot) and Alex Medbourne (Vincent Price) have been best friends for all their life.
It gives Price the opportunity to appear at his maddest, and yet his character is not necessarily purely villainous, but merely a tormented man whose pain has driven him into insanity.When the second segment is the most macabre, the third tale, "The House of the Seven is the one with the most uncanny Gothic atmosphere.
150 years later, Gerald Pyncheon (Price) returns to the 'House of the Seven Gables' , well-aware that all of his male ancestors have died horrible deaths there, but even more keen on finding a lost family treasure...All three stories are atmospheric and gloomy, and while the first one, "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" is slightly lesser to the others, it makes a great first segment in the anthology.
All things considered, "Twice-Told Tales" is great Gothic Horror cinema that should not be missed by any lover of Horror, and especially a must-see to all my fellow Vincent Price fans!
A classic gruesome threesome that focuses on three short stories by Nathaniel Hawthorne, all starring the fabulous Vincent Price.
The second segment has a beautifully colorful set but a strange and convoluted tale of a young man (Brett Halsey) obsessed with the creepy beauty (Joyce Taylor) next door.
It's ironic to see Price have a second involvement in a tale loosely based on "The House of the Seven Gables", this one quite distinctive with a totally different story than the 1940 Universal classic. |
tt0062365 | Thunder Alley | A race car driver, Tommy Callahan, retires after a blackout causes the death of another driver on the motorway. After the accident, he begins working at a Pete Madsen's "Thrill Circus" as a stunt driver. There he meets the proprietor's daughter, Francie, who also drives there, and her boyfriend Eddie Sands.
Bored by his new job, Tommy begins training Eddie to be a professional. Eddie picks it up quickly, winning his first race. This leads to Tommy's gold-digging ex-girlfriend Annie Blaine scheming to steal the hot young driver away from Francie.
Despite their quarreling, plus Francie's concern over his previous blackouts, she and Tommy are paired up during a 500-mile race. On the track, Tommy feels another blackout coming on, but manages to hang on. He comes to realize that the fainting spells are a psychological reaction to a childhood trauma.
Francie goads ex-fiance Eddie into reckless maneuvers on the track, causing him to crash. Tommy wins the race, and her as well. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Funicello's swan song at AIP.
Thunder Alley was the last film Annette Funicello made for American International Pictures, and to some extent the reasons become clear during a viewing.1967 was a transitional period at AIP.
The Beach Party movies (1963-1966) had run out of steam, but the studio had not yet moved into the hippie/biker material (The Wild Angels, Wild in the Streets, etc.) that would characterize its late 60s production.
In that context, the somewhat schizophrenic feel of Thunder Alley (Beach-party-ish romantic themes combined with comparatively risque orgies, drinking, etc.) isn't surprising.
The producers knew that edgier trends were emerging, but were still working with stars (Fabian, Funicello) from the late 50s/early 60s greaser/beach era.While Fabian comes across as hopelessly stuck in the past (his stiff, two-note approach to acting is high school drama club material, his range consists of pouting or getting angry), Funicello is clearly trying to evolve - it's almost as if she realizes that her "Dee-Dee at the beach" period is over, and that to survive she must grow into a more Nancy-Sinatra-ish, "groovy chick" mode.Problem ws, Annette was far too much the lady to pull that off, so she seems almost blatantly out of place in this movie -- a decent, ladylike but straight talking woman surrounded by drunks, loudmouths, bimbos and opportunists.
After this film (and to a large degree as a result of her "decency"), AIP had no more use for her, which was unfortunate: like Vincent Price, stars who had "slummed" at AIP were basically stuck there, so Funicello pretty much disappeared from the big screen after this film (save for one, small and somewhat self-depreciating cameo in the Monkee film "Head" a year later and her canned "nostalgia" appearance in 1987's "Back to the Beach."One more note: several others who have commented on this film mentioned Annette perfoming the song "What's A Girl To Do" in the film.
I have the MGM "Midnight Movie" video release of Thunder Alley and the original 1967 Sidewalk soundtrack album.
While the LP contains "What's A Girl To Do," the version of the film on the video doesn't.
Also, the "official" Annette collector web sites also comment that song -- while on the soundtrack album -- doesn't appear in the film.) Is it possible different versions of this film (perhaps a "longer" broadcast version containing the song, maybe the video realease is edited) are floating around?.
Not embarrassing at all.
For someone who never had any technical training as an actress, it never ceases to amaze me how natural Annette Funicello is on screen.
She's completely at ease in front of the camera, whether being feisty telling off her dad (Jan Murray), trading barbs with a surly blonde (Diane McBain), getting her face muddy, getting ripped on booze, or being funny and sexy with her leading guy (Fabian), Annette is never stiff or embarrassing.
In fact, doing a little warm-up song number with a party band in her living room, she's a very sensual woman.
The plot of this B-flick is strictly by-the-numbers, but the stock car racing scenes are better than the ones for Elvis Presley's "Speedway", released a year later.
Credit future "Stunt Man" director Richard Rush with the tight pacing.
The party-orgy looks like an outtake from a "Beach Party" flick gone awry, but it's a transition picture for the A.I.P. studios--and not a bad one.
Rises to the Level of Mediocrity.
Sure, the story is trite and Warren Berlinger is embarrassingly bad, but "Thunder Alley" manages to be a fairly decent flick.
Credit Richard Rush ("The Stunt Man") for getting pretty good performances from Annette Funicello and Fabian.
Diane McBain is always good, as is Jan Murray.
Maureen Arthur gives the movie a poignant edge as the bubbleheaded "Babe," who can't really grasp the tragedy which has just taken place around her.The stock racing scenes are pretty good, but never really integrate into the story, due to AIP's unwillingness to match the color and resolution.Annette does a surprisingly good version of "What's a Girl to Do." Couldn't believe she could really sing.
Annette also demonstrate some comedic skills which, sadly, neither AIP or Disney ever really put to full use.This is one of AIP's better efforts.
I saw it on FLIX, which, apparently has the extended version which includes Annette's song..
Whats A Girl To Do?.
Annette tried to break away from her beach party films in this Drive- In flick!
A good performance by Diane McBain and some good racing scenes help to make this period piece fun to watch!
The dancing is also "COOL"!
Annettes song ""Whats A Girl To Do?" is the real show stopper!
Catch this on cable!.
AIP racing drama would have made a perfect Elvis movie.
THUNDER ALLEY is a 1967 stock car racing drama set in the south and starring onetime teen idols Fabian and Annette Funicello along with Warren Berlinger and Diane McBain.
What struck me as I watched it is how similar it is to an Elvis Presley movie.
In fact, two of the cast, Berlinger and McBain, had appeared with Elvis a year earlier in SPINOUT, which also had a racing theme.
If you put Deborah Walley (also from SPINOUT) in Annette's role of stunt driver (a role better suited to the spunkier Walley anyway) and put Elvis in Fabian's role and gave the character a few songs, you would have had a near perfect Elvis vehicle.
And if they'd allowed THUNDER ALLEY's Richard Rush to direct it (instead of one of the old studio workhorses like Norman Taurog who pounded out nine Elvis vehicles in the 1960s) and kept the edge to it, including a hot bedroom scene Fabian has with a very sexy Diane McBain, it might possibly have taken Elvis in a new direction away from all the SPEEDWAY, TICKLE ME and DOUBLE TROUBLE-type films he was doing at the time.
Oh well, we can dream, can't we?
(Not that an Elvis-Annette pairing would have been a bad thing either, mind you.).
Stock Cars And Babes.
Thunder Alley finds Fabian banned from NASCAR tracks after causing the death of another driver.
Stanley Adams might want to put him on his team of racers, but the other drivers aren't for having him around.Desperate for employment Fabian hooks up with an auto stunt show owner Jan Murray who's paying him peanuts and trying to capitalize on Fabian's bad rep.
He's got to take it, but Annette Funicello who's Murray's daughter provides another reason to stick around.The rest of the film is Fabian's struggle to get back to the NASCAR circuit while at the same time juggling both Annette and his current girl friend Diane McBain.
Personally, I would have taken McBain, she has it all over Annette.Thunder Alley is helped by location shooting at the southern NASCAR tracks and good film footage of NASCAR racing.
Not helped by a rather silly story which delves into the real reason for Fabian's problems and his rather unrealistic recovery from same.Still fans of NASCAR might go for this..
So Bad That's it's Fun!.
Thunder Alley.
Crash!
Bam!
Pow!
What else can you ask for?
Wipe-outs, crashes, brawls, drama, romance, soap opera suds, kissing, funky sixties dances.
It just too groovy and far-out man!The story is lame.
"Bad Boy" racing stud Fabien meets "Good Girl" Annette, loses girl, she meets another "Badder Boy", finds true love at the end and everyone lives happily ever after.In between the love-making and break-ups, you have some really "exciting" race car drama.
Lots of stock-film of drag races.
Lots of crowd shots, lots of wipe-outs and crashes, some between racer conflicts, some shapely girls doing the go-go.What else do you need.
So, sit back, open-up a six pack (of soda!), munch on some pop-corn, chips, dip, and enjoy....Thunder Alley!.
Richard Rush makes a tough, gritty genre exercise look slick.
What impresses me about this picture is just how slick it is.
The auto racing genre is a tough, gritty one.
And American International Pictures was a small, scuffling outfit.
Yet "Thunder Alley" looks slick.
It isn't quite up to major studio production standards, but "Alley" give the impression of being machine tooled junk.
Well, not exactly junk.
It's a machine-tooled, formulaic genre exercise, with most of the grit and idiosyncrasy removed.
Arkoff, Nicholson, Topper, and Rush apparently had this genre down to a science, so here they are content to present a "safe" genre exercise and leave it at that.
Annette Funicello is good.
(She really was an underrated actress, and it's a shame she didn't have a longer and more active career.) A Funicello-Avalon pairing would have been more fun, but Fabian Forte is effective as the male lead.
(He had genuine talent as an actor, perhaps more talent than he had as a singer.) Monroe Askins' cinematography is professional, yet, as indicated earlier, not quite up to major studio standards.
(This actually works in the film's favor, since the photography gives it a bit of the grit that it so sorely needs.) And Daniel Haller's art direction does give the film a bit of flare.
All in all, "Alley" is an entertaining action flick.
But if you're looking for grit, you'll have to settle for slickness instead..
Hokey but not sickening.
Sure there were parts of this movie - almost all of it, the more I think of it, that made you laugh at it and not with it.
The stock stock-car scenes fromDaytona and Darlington were real.
The acting was bad and the plot wassophomoric.
If Fabian was really having those blackouts all of the time, then he should have been locked up for continuing to drive while having them.
But maybe I'm putting too much thought into this.
As someone who has covered NASCAR for newspapers, the off-the-track plot stuff was more than lame.
Annette did a good job; I got a kick out of the announcer; and Diane McBain is always easy on the eyes, even if she doesn't take it easy on the eye shadow..
Awful.
Considering this film contains several Nascar real races you may think a priori it is an enterrtaining movie - at least for a car race fan.
But no: it is one of the most boring, dull and badly made car race films I have ever watched.
Even Elvis' Spinout was much better, more enterrtaining and did include much better songs.
Funicello's only song is bad and at any point interest takes off.
Car races should had made it but neither they do it: they are announced, prepared and...
suddenly they have already began without noticing; then a few boring laps and...suddenly race is over (you only notice it because you hear Race is over!) without any emotion, no thrilling no nothing.
All an all a really boring film not only because of the performances but mainly because of the terrible edition: did best cuts end on the montage room floor?
We will never know but I am afraid they did not..
Smash-Up at American International.
Racing enthusiast Fabian (as Tommy Callahan) smokes, drinks, and suffers blackouts while juggling feelings for alluring brunette Annette Funicello (as Francie Madsen) and blonde mainstay Diane McBain (as Annie Blaine).
Complicating matters are Ms. Funicello's boozy race car boyfriend Warren Berlinger (as Eddie Sands), and her father Jan Murray (as Pete Madsen), who encourages the reckless drivers.
Funicello's cow-eyed performance is sometimes enjoyable; however, her drunken driving scene is unnerving.
"Thunder Alley" provides marginally more NASCAR excitement than its predecessor, "Fireball 500" (1966) *; be warned, it isn't much.
A wild party scene, featuring some mild strip tease, is the film's low highlight..
A really fun 60's AIP stock car racing drive-in item.
Terminally blah 50's pop singer teen scream Fabian gives a thoroughly bland and stiff performance as Tommy Callahan, a proud, earnest, virtuous ace stock car driver whose unfortunate tendency to black out whenever he gets boxed in causes a massive lethal pile-up that leaves two drivers dead.
Tommy gets suspended indefinitely from the pro racing circuit by hard-nosed NASCAR bigwig Stanley Adams.
Tommy, disgraced and desperate for work, humbly accepts a degrading gig as a stunt daredevil driver in a two-bit thrill circus outfit owned by shameless skinflint opportunistic con man hustler Pete (a hearty turn by stand-up comic Jan Murray).
Naturally, Tommy shows cocky eager beaver protégé Eddie (amiable Warren Berlinger) the ropes and falls in love with Pete's feisty, hot-tempered daughter (a surprisingly lively and hence more tolerable than usual Annnette Funicello).
Of course, this latter development doesn't go over well with Tommy's current main squeeze, the extremely jealous and possessive racetrack groupie hottie Annie (the always enticing, attractively slender blonde spitfire Diane McBain, who heats up the screen with her customary fiery aplomb).Director Richard Rush, whose other 60's exploitation feature credits include the terrific hippie dope acidhead treat "Psych-Out" and the killer biker pictures "Hell's Angels on Wheels" and "The Savage Seven," jazzes up the standard-issue story by keeping the pace galloping along at a brisk clip and offering up a lot of snazzy visual flourishes.
Monroe Askins' funky cinematography pulls out the wondrously garish psychedelic 60's stylistic stops: solarization, super-impositions, wipes, shaky hand-held camera-work, and dizzying segueways all shot in gloriously bright and vibrant Pathecolor.
Kudos also to the groovy score, which has sinewy drums laying down a primordial pounding beat while fuzzed-out guitars rip-riff up a crackling sonic storm.
Sy Salkowitz's predictable, but compact and serviceable script scrupulously covers all the necessary audience pleasing bases: bang-up peel out and crash'em demolition derby-style racetrack action (the authentically grainy racetrack newsreel footage especially smokes), fiercely going at each other's throats bitter rivalries, good-lookin' well-endowed girls in tight sweaters, crazy swingin' kids frenetically frugging away at regular intervals, a rowdy barroom brawl, and, in the movie's roll-over-wacky hedonistic highlight, a wild, delightfully raucous and unruly let it all hang out somethin' nutty sex'n'booze'n'dancing'n'stripping all-night rockin' party sequence.
Only Fabian's underwhelming stale whitebread square presence and Annette briefly belting out this hideously saccharine slushy mush love ballad detract a little from the otherwise solid and on the money fun. |
tt0117247 | One Fine Day | Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer) is an architect and divorced single mother to son, Sammy (Alex D. Linz). Her day gets off to a bad start when she is late to drop him off at school, due to the forgetfulness of fellow single parent Jack Taylor (George Clooney), a New York Daily News reporter whose daughter, Maggie (Mae Whitman), is thrust into his care that morning by his ex-wife. The children arrive just a moment too late to go on a school field trip (a Circle Line boat cruise). Their parents are forced to accept that, on top of hectically busy schedules, they must work together that day to supervise each other's child. In their confusion of sharing a taxi, they accidentally switch cellphones, causing each of them, all morning, to receive calls intended for the other one, which they then have to relay to the right person.
Melanie must make an architectural design presentation to an important client. Jack has to find a source for a scoop on the New York mayor's mob connections. Sammy causes havoc at Melanie's office with toy cars, causing her to trip and break her scale model display. In frustration, Melanie takes Sammy to a daycare center (which is having a "Superhero Day"), where she coincidentally comes across Jack trying to convince Maggie to stay and behave herself. They create impromptu costumes for the children, utilizing his imagination and her resourcefulness. She takes her model to a shop to get quickly repaired. Having left for a meeting, Melanie panics when she receives a phone call from Sammy about another child having a psychedelic drug. She phones Jack in desperation and asks him to pick up both kids. He agrees, on the condition that she take over their care at 3:15 while he chases down a potential news source.
While in Melanie's care, Maggie goes missing from a store, and wanders some distance down a crowded midtown sidewalk. Melanie breaks down in despair at the police station, files a missing child report, and then goes to a mayoral press conference to find Jack. He is notified by the police that Maggie has been found, and makes it to the press conference just barely in time to confront the mayor with his scoop about corruption. He had earlier tracked down its source, just as she was leaving a beauty salon in a limousine. Although they have been antagonistic, Melanie and Jack work together to get both Sammy and Maggie, by taxi, to a soccer game. She insists that she will have time first to do her presentation to the new clients, despite him protesting that it will make them late for the game. She begins her pitch over drinks at the 21 Club lounge, but upon seeing Sammy in high spirits, she realizes that she cares more about him than her job. Bravely insisting that she must leave immediately to be with him, she fully expects to be fired, yet the clients are impressed.
At the game, Melanie meets her ex-husband, Eddie, who admits that he lied to Sammy and that he will be going on tour as a drummer with Bruce Springsteen. That evening, Jack wants a reason to visit Melanie's apartment, so he takes Maggie to buy goldfish to replace the ones that were eaten earlier in the day by a cat. At Melanie's apartment, the children watch TV while she and Jack share an awkward first kiss. She goes to the bathroom to freshen up; when she returns, an exhausted Jack is asleep on the sofa. She joins him and they fall asleep together, with the children happily observing. | romantic, comedy, fantasy | train | wikipedia | In "One Fine Day" Jack Taylor (George Clooney) and Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer) meet when their children miss a school field trip, and after much bickering they finally agree to take shifts in watching their kids.
Yes, you may think its cheesy that Jack's a famed newspaper columnist bringing down a mob member and the mayor, and Melanie's an architect working on what we imagine is a multi-million dollar deal with big businessmen, but the way it's presented is not that it makes sense, it's that you don't care.
And that's not the focus of the film either, the movie would rather be about the minglings of the two leads.And I have to say, Clooney and Pfeiffer have great, perfect chemistry.
Just like many others, I expect romantic comedies to be all the same - usually terribly unrealistic (talk about suspension of disbelief!) as in the Pretty Woman, and the humor to be 3rd grade.But, One Fine Day, surprised me in many ways!
Also it is surprisingly relevant for today's world, and not targeted at teeny boppers.One Fine Day is a film with a very smart script, funny dialogues, beautiful acting, directing, and it all gels well together.
It is time we step back, and enjoy some of the subtleties of life and people, and laugh at ourselves, when it's all presented in a believable and funny way.The film takes us through "one fine day" of a single mother and her son, and a single father and his daughter.
In a single day they both go through so many humbling episodes that the relationship develops from "I already have an opinion about you..." and "So do I..." to "I'll help you out if you say: 'Be my knight in shining armor...'"The control freak named Melanie and played wonderfully by Michelle Pfeiffer, manages to stay likable even though she "beats every miserable bastard that comes her way to pulp".
One particularly admires the fact that, at its conclusion, the film's romantic clincher - when the tired-out couple have to settle for just falling asleep together, despite their by now clearly desparate need for each other, - insists upon the importance of exactly this: Love, rather than merely lust, as the basis for an adult relationship.Just occasionally, Hollywood still lets us have a grown-up entertainment.
Maybe I was just at that age when I was starting to appreciate romance when I saw it in the cinema (3 times) but I still feel this is one of the best romantic comedies I've ever seen and would definately recommend it to anyone.
Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney did a very good job playing two people who are divorced, with a child, afraid to commit to someone else and with a hectic life.
(this is a romantic comedy, I don't have to explain everything I hope).Even though some parts aren't excellent, the entire movie is actually quite good and enjoyable.
I can think of no better way to spend my one day off a week with my husband than including a movie like this into our plans..
This movie, on the other hand, may be trying to capture that "old-fashioned" feeling, but the values it's after are the values of craftsmanship and intelligence, two things rarely seen in comedies these days.
This requires 2 main things: 1.) Two great actors with wonderful chemistry 2.) An original and funny script We have seen this in so many movies like 6 Days 7 Nights with Anne Heche and Harrison Ford or You've Got Mail with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan or recently in The Runaway Bride with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.
George Clooney ( who proves that he can be a very funny guy) and Michelle Pfeiffer ( who gives a great performance in this movie) have very good chemistry and the script is very funny and romantic with some really great one-liners.
Pleasant romantic comedy stars Pfeiffer and Clooney as two divorced, overworked parents whose children are bickering classmates.
Rather recalls Neil Simon, and if you enjoy movies like Seems Like Old Times, you'll enjoy this one.Film buffs will note a few appearances here by actors who would join Clooney later in O Brother, Where Art Thou..
, in same measure, the clever way to tell the story, the chemistry between George Clooney - remembering, in few scenes , Cary Grant good performances - and Michele Pfeiffer , the feeling to be one of stories from every day but in right clothes are virtues of a film who gives a realistic, seductive and smart message about duties, love, second chance and freedom, family and fight against yourself.
One Fine Day is a beautiful story, because the characters are similar in details like: Melanie Parker and Jack Taylor have a child each one, careers for saving, angry bosses, and others.
The old theatrical advice not to work with children is proven false, since the cute kids in this movie, while central to the plot, do not steal the show.At times hilariously funny.
George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer are perfect as two busy single parents with young children.
George Clooney has the unique looks to play both normal man like Jack Taylor in this film and others like Daniel Ocean in "Ocean's Eleven", Ulysses McGill Everett ("O, Brother, Where Art Thou?"), Billy Tyne ("The Perfect Stor"), Thomas Devoe ("The Peacemaker") and so on.
It's supposed to be a sweet romantic comedy with George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer but the film just falls short.
If you don't happen to be from that segment of the population like its producer Lynda Obst who finds misbehaving children who ruin their clueless parents lives cute, this movie is like finger nails on the blackboard.The plot has more cliff hangers than the entire TCM DVD collection of film noir...
It's very romantic and great chemistry between Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney, with perfect romantic songs especially "have i told you lately i love you" by van morrison.
Pfeiffer plays the working woman having to fight tooth and nail in this 'mans' world to keep up and Clooney (journalist) doing his part in trying to clean up the corruption going on and both able to give each other a helping hand by looking after the kids, sometimes not very well, but these parts are secondary to the main story of the two of them and a growing relationship born out of a necessity to keep a working life going while looking after the kids.I would have no problem sitting down to watch it again and gave it a 7/10 which I feel is quite a big deal, if you feel the need to keep your better half happy on a film night you could do a lot worse :).
If you ask me, the way that Jack (George Clooney) and Melanie (Michelle Pfeiffer) fell in love was absolutely romantic.
Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this sweet, charming, and excellent romantic comedy about two divorcées whose feelings gradually surface for each other over the course of one hectic day.
On a particularly hectic work day, no-nonsense architect Michelle Pfeiffer (also in 'Batman Returns') and charming newspaper columnist George Clooney (TV's "ER") each take care of each other's children to meet the demands of their busy schedules.
In many ways the film is not about the romance between Clooney and Pfeiffer but is about being parents and the trials and tribulations of bringing one children in today's world.
One Fine Day is a lightweight easy-to-swallow romantic comedy filled with fun and humor, yet at the same time it has the power to be emotional and uplifting.
There is technically no romantic relationship between the characters as they have just met for the first time in the beginning of the story and as the title suggests, the movie only takes us through their first day of having known each other, and this is a very intelligent film for knowing that the early stages are really the most exciting part of romance.
Clooney and Pfieffer's younger counterparts, Mae Whittman and Alex Lunz as the two kids, pull off the two big requirements of their role: being loveable and cute but at the same time highly annoying as one likes to stick things up his nose and the other one likes to wander off.
George Clooney (playing someone rather like though not identical to his ER character) and Michelle Pfeiffer play a pair of lonely single parents, both afraid to get close to someone and be hurt again.
Jack Taylor (George Clooney), and Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer), are two divorced parents about to have the worst day of their lives.Melanie, an architect, is the mother of five year old Sammy (Alex D.
Linz) who has both a school field trip, and a soccer game on the day his mother has to give the most important presentation of her career which could mean a promotion...or the loss of her job.Jack, a newspaper columnist, is having some career troubles himself.On the morning of the day he has to focus all his energy on getting a story confirmed, or getting fired, his ex-wife drops by, telling him he has to watch their five year old daughter Maggie (Mae Whitman) since she's going on her honeymoon with her new husband, and can't find anyone else to care for the child.Maggie is Sammy's classmate, and -like him- is anxious to get to the field trip.Which is how Jack and Melanie meet...Arriving late for a field trip their children cannot attend, having missed the boat by a very few minutes (which Melanie blames on Jack, and counters with an upset involving the class goldfish).This is the first of a series of disasters which make us wonder how the quartet make it through the day alive.As for Melanie, and Jack, they hate each other, but begrudgingly grow to depend on each other as their phones get accidentally switched, and no one is willing to care for the children during the hours that could make, or break their careers.Add to that, the rain.
In "One Fine Day" George Clooney is at his charismatic best and Michelle Pfeiffer is on top form too.
Plot In A Paragraph: Jack Taylor (Clooney) and Melanie Parker (Pfeiffer) are two divorced strangers, who are forced to rely on each other, during one crazy day, when both of their kids miss a school trip and both are face losing their respective jobs.
I really enjoyed this movie, Michelle Pfeiffer pulls off both distressed single-parent and love interest to Clooney roles well, and how in the world, had I missed what a fine pair of leg she has.
Whilst Mae Whittman was fine as Clooney's daughter Maggie (OK her penchant for wondering off after cats was a worry) Alex D Linz is one of the most annoying children I have ever watched on screen, that's actually harsh on the actor as he did as he was told, and performed well enough, it's his character that annoyed the living hell out of me!!
The story is about two single parents, played by the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer and the ever charming George Clooney.
Their on screen chemistry is just fabulous to watch and the entire movie progresses on how caring about little things in life amidst all the chaos can lead to the perfect partner in the most unexpected of ways.
It's a really nice film, the story is simple and funny(similar to a screwball comedy),the lines are clever and the two stars ,Pfeiffer and Clooney,are very good at their roles.
More precisely,they both play two single parents who are forced,due to the fact that their kids miss the school trip,to cooperate and spend almost an entire day together in order to compromise their demanding schedule at work and the care of their children.
Jack(Clooney)is a cool,charming newspaper reporter and Melanie(Pfeiffer) is a clever,dynamic and slightly neurotic architect.Of course the attraction between them is obvious from the very first moment but since they don't admit the truth to each other, they spend the entire day flirting and creating a romantic and funny battle of the sexes.
The man is Jack Taylor, a high-flying reporter (George Clooney), and the woman is Melanie Parker, an equally ambitious architect (Michelle Pfeiffer).
We can see the result coming a mile off.This predictable movie certainly isn't the finest day of either Clooney or Pfeiffer.
Long gone are the days when I considered myself a romantic but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying this charming romantic comedy to a degree, even though it is a genre of film that I used to like better when I was younger.
It is romantic without being too lame or mushy stuff, although it still is cheesy at times.George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer have perfect chemistry.
So have the two kids, as good in their respective roles as the adults are on theirs.Despite all the fast pace and daily rush subject this films deals with, it still has room for classic humor, romance and a certain nostalgic/classic feeling to it thanks to oldie songs and the excellent scenario of New York city, making that city look perhaps better than it really is, especially now after the horrifying events of 11th September 2001.George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer would make a good couple in real life, just like Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner would.
Pleasant romantic comedy, charming Clooney and Pfeiffer.
'One fine Day' is a breezy romantic comedy with winning performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney.
I thought that Clooney was good for the part because we watch ER all the time and he was very believable as Jack Taylor.
This movie falls flat from the get-go by matching a well known hunk, George Clooney, with Michelle Pfeiffer.
Single parents Melanie Parker and Jack Taylor both miss the school trip and find themselves stuck with their kids on a busy work day.
Even though Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney have some chemistry and turn in pretty good performances as the harried single parents, it's not enough to overcome the sappy, gooey storyline and dialogue and save the movie.
One Fine Day. No chemistry in this romantic-comedy with the poorly mismatched Clooney and Pfieffer as two single folks who find each other in their own way at the end of the picture.
Melanie has an important job interview at 2:00 p.m., so she makes a deal with Jack: He watches both children until 3:00, and she'll watch them for the rest of the day (since he has to get a column for the newspaper written which supposedly takes an hour).Why do romantic films always make the leading man have a hard-pressing job, usually as a reporter, and the leading woman have an even harder-pressing job?
the film stars George clooney as a divorced journalist who never likes to take any responsibilities....Michelle pfeiffer plays Melanie Parker, a divorced mother.
Both pfeiffer and clooney have a busy day and they have no one but each other to look after the kids.
Starring Michelle Pfeiffer, as Melanie, and George Clooney, as Jack, "One Fine Day" has the usual clichés of the genre, but manages to make a slight difference with the amazing performances of Alex D.
One Fine Day came out in 1996 and starred Michelle Phieffer and George Clooney and tells the tale of two single parents both whom were divorced by their partners team up after both kids end up losing their trip with the school kids.
So will Jack and Melanie fall for each other?Bottom line I always loved this film not because of the story but I always loved George Clooney and Michelle Phieffer and I thought their chemistry was very good.
One Fine Day (1996): Dir: Michael Hoffman / Cast: George Clooney, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mae Whitman, Alex D.
One Fine Day is a lovely Romantic Comedy that avoids many of the clichés usually associated with the genre.Most RomComs stick with the formula whereby the two leads meet, argue, fall in love, part when a truth or lie is discovered, and yet they kiss and make up at the end and live happily ever after.One Fine Day breaks with that tradition somewhat, as the romance builds more realistically over the course of the movie with nothing really said or done about their feelings till the very end and the Comedy aspect is subtle and is derived mainly from the interaction of the characters rather than excessively witty dialogue or situations.Clooney and Pfeiffer have great on screen chemistry which adds to the films overall charm as they play busy working single parents who, due to missing the school bus and field trip are unexpectedly left holding their respective babies despite both having life changing business commitments throughout the day.The two meet, and due to his childlike immaturity and her control freak attitude, immediately rub each other up the wrong way, but when they are forced to rely on each other to do the babysitter routine whilst they each attend their meetings and satisfy their employers, they grow closer and closer so that by days end, their animosity has turned to friendship, to attraction and finally love.Its a shame the film contains quite a few expletives as on the whole this film would have been suitable for the whole family, a universal comedy suitable for all in the old style, like a film from the 40's or 50's.
Is it over yet was the frequent comment.Making a film as a romantic comedy is no excuse for not having a story line, or having a story that is so predictable as this one.A shame for George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer that they got involved in a project like this.We did enjoy Dracula though..
Linz), Jack Taylor (George Clooney) is a New York Daily News columnist and single father to daughter Maggie (Independence Day's Mae Whitman), both of them are divorced.
For this theme of film, this actually works not just for the reasonable laughs and alright enough love story, but it is also a convincing portrait of the life of single parents, I will admit it could have had a more layered script, but it is an interesting enough romantic comedy. |
tt0372172 | Gun Survivor 4: Biohazard - Heroes Never Die | Underneath Raccoon City exists a genetic research facility called the Hive, owned by the Umbrella Corporation. A thief steals the genetically engineered T-virus and contaminates the Hive with it. In response, the facility's artificial intelligence, the Red Queen, seals the Hive and kills everyone inside.
Alice awakens naked in the bathroom of a deserted mansion with amnesia. She dresses, checks the mansion, and is subdued by an unknown person. A group of Sanitation Team commandos led by James Shade breaks into the mansion and arrests Matt Addison, who just transferred as a cop in Raccoon P.D. The group travels to the underground train under the mansion that leads to the Hive, where they find Spence. The commandos explain that everyone in the group except Matt is an employee of the Umbrella Corporation, and Alice and her partner Spence are security guards for a Hive entrance under the disguise of a couple living in the mansion. Five hours prior, the Red Queen had shut down the entire facility and released a gas which killed everyone inside, flooded the labs, and destroyed the elevators, also causing Spence and Alice's amnesia.
At the Queen's chamber, a laser defense system kills Shade and three more commandos. Despite the Red Queen's urgent pleas for the group to leave, Kaplan disables the Red Queen systems, and the power fails, opening all of the doors in the Hive. This releases the zombified staff and containment units containing Lickers. When everyone regroups, they are ambushed by a horde of zombies and a gunfight ensues. J.D. perishes as the group becomes overwhelmed. A bitten Rain retreats with Kaplan and Spence; Matt becomes separated from Alice, who starts regaining her memories.
Matt looks for information about his sister Lisa and finds her zombified. Alice saves him, and Matt explains he and Lisa were environmental activists, and Lisa infiltrated Umbrella to smuggle out the evidence of illegal experiments. Alice remembers she was Lisa's contact in the Hive but does not tell Matt. The survivors reunite at the Queen's chamber, and the commandos explain they have one hour before the Hive traps them inside automatically. Alice and Kaplan activate the Red Queen to find an exit. To force her cooperation, they rig a remote shutdown. As they escape through maintenance tunnels, zombies ambush them, and a reanimated J.D. bites Rain before getting killed. The group reaches safety, but Kaplan is bitten and separated.
Alice remembers that an anti-virus is in the lab, but they find it missing. Spence remembers he stole and released the virus. He hid the T-virus and anti-virus on the train. Spence is bitten by a zombie, which he kills before trapping the survivors in the lab. He retrieves the anti-virus, but is ambushed and killed by a Licker. The Red Queen offers to spare Alice and Matt if they kill Rain, whose health is fading and who has been infected too long for the anti-virus to work reliably. As the Licker attempts to reach them, a power outage occurs. The lab door opens to reveal Kaplan forced the Red Queen to open the door. The group heads to the train, where Alice retrieves the T-virus and kills a reanimated Spence before escaping with the others.
On the train, they inject Rain and Kaplan with the anti-virus. However, the Licker is hiding on the train and attacks them, clawing Matt and killing Kaplan. In the ensuing battle, Alice subdues the Licker before Matt is attacked by a now-zombified Rain. He shoots Rain dead, causing her head to hit a trapdoor button, opening it and dropping the Licker under the train which ultimately kills it for good. At the mansion, Matt's wound begins mutating. Before Alice can give him the anti-virus, the mansion doors burst open and a group of Umbrella scientists seizes them. They subdue Alice and take Matt away, revealing he is to be put into the Nemesis Program.
Some time later, Alice awakens at the Raccoon City Hospital strapped to an examination table, with no memory of what happened since her capture. After escaping, she goes outside to find Raccoon City abandoned and ruined. Alice arms herself with a shotgun from an abandoned police car as the camera pans out. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0068612 | Fritz the Cat | In a New York City park, hippies have gathered with guitars to sing protest songs. Fritz and his buddies show up in an attempt to meet girls. When a trio of attractive females walk by, Fritz and his friends exhaust themselves trying to get their attention, but find that the girls are more interested in the crow standing a few feet away. The girls attempt to flirt with the crow, making unintentionally condescending remarks about blacks, while Fritz looks on in annoyance. Suddenly, the crow rebukes the girls with a snide remark and walks away. Fritz invites the girls to "seek the truth", bringing them up to his friend's apartment, where a wild party is taking place. Since the other rooms are crowded, Fritz drags the girls into the bathroom and the four of them have group sex in the bathtub. Meanwhile, the police (portrayed as pigs) arrive to raid the party. As the two officers walk up the stairs, one of the party-goers finds Fritz and the girls in the bath tub. Several others jump in, pushing Fritz to the side where he takes solace in marijuana. The two officers break into the apartment, but find that it is empty because everyone has moved into the bathroom. Fritz takes refuge in the toilet when one of the pigs enters the bathroom and begins to beat up the partygoers. As the pig becomes exhausted, a very stoned Fritz jumps out, grabs the pig's gun, and shoots the toilet, causing the water main to break and flooding everybody out of the apartment. The pigs chase Fritz down the street into a synagogue. Fritz manages to escape when the congregation gets up to celebrate the United States' decision to send more weapons into Israel.
Fritz makes it back to his dormitory, where his roommates ignore him. He decides to ditch his bore of a life and sets all of his notes and books on fire. The fire spreads throughout the dorm, finally setting the entire building ablaze. In a bar in Harlem, Fritz meets Duke the Crow at a billiard table. After narrowly avoiding getting into a fight with the bartender, Duke invites Fritz to "bug out", and they steal a car, which Fritz drives off a bridge, leading Duke to save his life by grabbing onto a railing. The two arrive at the apartment of a drug dealer named Bertha, whose cannabis joints increase Fritz's libido. While having sex with Bertha, he comes to a realization that he "must tell the people about the revolution!" He runs off into the city street and incites a riot, during which Duke is shot and killed.
Fritz hides in an alley where his older fox girlfriend, Winston Schwartz, finds him and drags him on a road trip to San Francisco. When the car runs out of gas in the middle of the desert, he decides to abandon her. He later meets up with Blue, a heroin-addicted rabbit biker. Along with Blue's horse girlfriend, Harriet, they take a ride to an underground hide-out where several other revolutionaries tell Fritz of their plan to blow up a power station. When Harriet tries to get Blue to leave with her to go to a restaurant, he hits her several times and ties her down with a chain. When Fritz objects to their treatment of her, he is hit in the face with a candle by a member of the group. Blue and the other revolutionaries then gang-rape her. After setting the dynamite at the power plant, Fritz suddenly has a change of heart, and unsuccessfully attempts to remove it before being caught in the explosion. At a Los Angeles hospital, Harriet (disguised as a nun) and the girls from the New York park come to comfort him in what they believe to be his last moments. Fritz, after reciting the speech he used to pick up the girls from New York, becomes revitalized and has sex with the trio of girls while Harriet watches in astonishment. | pornographic, avant garde, adult comedy, cult, violence, psychedelic, humor, satire, philosophical | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0124501 | Evil Come Evil Go | "Sister" Sarah Jane Butler, a hymn-humming religious fanatic who believes God has chosen her to cleanse the world of those who have sex for pleasure, seduces a bar patron, and guts him after the two leave together. Sarah then drives to Los Angeles, and lures another man to his death, scrawling "God is Love, not Sex" on a mirror afterward. While busking and preaching on the street, Sarah befriends Penelope von Prut, a naive lesbian who is being supported by her wealthy and ashamed parents. Sarah moves in with Penny, who she takes on as a disciple, and inducts into "Sister Sarah's Sacred Order of the Sisters of Complete Subjugation" by tying her to a bed, stripping her, and teasing her with a knife as they sing "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah".
Sarah and Penny sing in the streets, make plans to create a television series that Sarah will use as a platform for her views, and intimidate Penny's tenants. Sarah has Penny lure a man home, and as he and Penny have sex, Sarah stabs him to death. Penny is horrified by the murder, but continues to obey Sarah. As Sarah and Penny prepare to dispose of the man's body, Penny's ex-girlfriend Junie visits, and becomes another victim when Sarah garrotes her with a scarf as she is having sex with Penny. Sarah and Penny dump their victims in the woods, where they spot a couple having sex. After the woman leaves, the man approaches Sarah and Penny, and after chatting with them, leaves with the duo, who will presumably kill him as well. A guitarist who had appeared throughout the film follows the group from afar, and sings "Evil Come, Evil Go" as the credits roll. | pornographic, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Weird mix of religious fanaticism, sex, gore.
This film, a weird cross-breed of horror and soft-core porn, is one of the more original low budget flicks from the 70s.
Apparently intended for the grindhouse crowd(and coming near the end of that era), this movie mixes sex with religious fanaticism and gore.
Sister Sarah Jane drifts cross-country, preaching against the evils of pleasurable sex and men.
By hooking up with men, having sex with them, then stabbing them to death!
Sister Sarah takes her message to the streets of downtown Hollywood, where she finds a disciple in naive Penny, a wealthy lesbian who swears to renounce her tendencies and follow Sarah.
Together, they conspire to enact Sarah's master plan: Penny lures the men to her house and has sex with them and Sarah kills them.
Actress Cleo O'Hara handles her role as Sarah Jane skillfully, going from bible-thumping harpie to slutty pyscho believably.
If you're looking for a sick time, check this one out..
jaw-dropping heap of steaming 70s trash.
Sister Sarah is a Bible-thumping evangelist nutcase who dresses like Baby Jane Hudson.She travels from one rural American ragdump to the next, vociferating the evils of recreational sex.
Between her holy-rolling streetcorner castigations, she pacifies crowds with her mellifluous hymns(not only is she the Lord's golden-throated songbird, she also plays the accordion).
By night, Sarah frequents bars, intent on luring "sinful" men to their bloody deaths.
By-and-by, she takes on a wealthy, brick-ugly lesbian minion...together, these goose-stepping Christian crusaders become a holy force to be reckoned with.
EVIL COME EVIL GO is neither fish nor fowl...while nothing about it is exactly praiseworthy, it's generally more rounded than the centroid of its kindred contemporaries.
And while the film's underpinnings may be of an erotic nature, it certainly won't serve to enhance xerotripsis for most fellows.4/10.
If You're Looking For A Bizarre Movie....
Evil Come, Evil Go is definitely not for the mainstream moviegoer.
However, if you are like me, and love movies that are as strange as they can be, you should really enjoy this one.
Of course the acting is pretty bad, with the exception of Sara Jane, who actually plays the role pretty well!
If you like this one, be sure to check out director Walt Davis' other film, Sex Psycho.
It is a LOT stronger than this one, including hardcore mixed with blood and gore.
I have also written a review here on the IMDB for this film as well.
Sister Sara Jane can convert me any time!.
Street preacher Sara Jane (Cleo O'Hara) believes God has put her on this Earth to rid the world of pleasurable sex.
She receives shelter from Penny (Sandra Henderson), a lesbian who Sara Jane promises to turn to God. How does she do this?
By having Penny help her in killing anything that humps.
This is certainly one of the more bizarre horror morality tales out there.
Dolled up like Baby Jane and sporting a southern accent the would fit in perfect in COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER (the first half, that is), she is a hoot as she sings Bible hymns while killing (and dreaming of having her own evangelical show).
Pretty good gore-sex piece.
It is a schlocky, early exploitation piece with sex, murder and religion..
I'm amazed that no one has made note that the Robert Chinn in the credits became the "Famous" Bob Chinn once he hooked up with John Holmes and began directing the "Johnny Wadd" series.
The next film featuring some of the same workers was "The Demon in Miss Jones"..
aka Sex Psycho..
which featured an early appearance by John Holmes..
therefore making that film the first time Chinn/Holmes worked together.This film is more gore-centric where Sex Psycho is more sex centered.
a pretty good waste of time..
Occasionally creeky exploitation does deliver the goods..
Evil Come, Evil Go has the strongest opening 20 minutes of an exploitation film I've seen for quite some time, with the main character singing a hymn on the way to pick up her first lucky/unlucky victim.
When they're laying in bed together the rotten sleazebag berates her for continuing to sing hymns whilst he's "tryin' to give head" to her.
Amusingly this ultra prude allows him to go all the way before sticking a knife in his back, ending his reign of wanton lust.Unfortunately the pace does eventually let up, the numerous fateful sex scenes becoming increasingly dull.
Sarah Jane's meeting with a lesbian named Penny does liven things up somewhat, she meekly agrees to assist her puritan rampage which yields several rather tasty murder scenes.
The ending is a bit of a let down, but overall I had a fun time with this one and if the premise appeals to you then I imagine you will too.
The running time is appropriate given the lack of variety within and prevents things from getting too stagnant.
2 years earlier Walt Davis directed the utterly perverted Sex Psycho, which is a real treat for lovers of cinematic depravity and must have surely been one of the most outrageous films to ever grace a grindhouse at the time..
Unusual, sex/slasher/comedy, with evangelical theme.
In truth the sex is fairly well done, let down only by the low lighting (and frequency), the bloody scenes are also not bad and it really is amusing now and again.
Sister Sara is a self styled 'anti- pleasurable sex' evangelist who enlists another to help lure men and then do them in, because they are so evil.
This is all made watchable though by decent use of original music and hymn singing(!) sometimes accompanied by tambourine thumping.
It is particularly impressive at the start and we see the girls on the street but it looses it's way a little two thirds in when we reckon it's all over but it then steps up a gear and finishes with a flourish.
If you think this review is a bit muddled, you should see the film.
Makes Thelma and Louise look like girl scouts.
Obviously one of those sleazy films of the 1970's that always read better in a synopsis better than they play out in front of the eyes, "Evil Come, Evil Go" however does stay in the mind for a while after viewing.
It's sure not the uninteresting sex scenes full of pasty, unshaven, unattractive people doing their best to try and act out something passionate that does it, or the lackluster "Hold the cue card closer, I can't read my lines off of it!" acting style.
The film comes across as more of a pseudo-documentary, simply following the Preacherwoman through her motions as she acts the hypocrite, snorting fire and brimstone on those stupid young lovers, then picking up guys in bars and butchering them in a hotel room.
Badly shot, badly acted, but yet plays out in a way that keeps one's attention.
I was just thinking the other day that there aren't nearly enough gory Sexplotation, Christian-feminist flicks.
And come to think of it, there most certainly are.
Evil Come Evil go; the story of the extremely southern-sounding, traveling preacher-killer.
The Foul-mouthed Sister Sarah Jane.
I don't mean she kills preachers.
I mean this chick is a preacher, or she at least thinks she's one.
Plus she lures unsuspecting men with the high hopes of sex, and all they ever get is gory death.
Sister Sarah really, really hates men.
When Sister Sarah hooks up with Penny the naive lesbian, promising her salvation, or something similar.Tthey quickly become partners-in-crime.
Not a lot of story to tell.
More "love scenes" than anything.
Looking for a good double feature?
Try pairing this one up with John Waters' Desperate Living.
And if You're a chick who happens to despise men, all the better.
Actually, come to think of it, Evil Come Evil Go can be found on a Triple-feature DVD, from Something Weird Video, which is awesome, but something so entertaining definitely deserves a stand-alone release.
Honestly, I would recommend quite a few other trash epics before this one.
However, Evil Come Evil Go tops a whole lot of others I've seen.
So, if humorous, vintage Sexploitation gore, with plenty of rewatch value is what you're looking for, well, then I guess there's nothing more to say.
A religious fanatic teams up with a lesbian and they go on a killing spree offing people who have sex.
This is a really terrible film.
Every single scene plays out at a glacial pace.
The one highlight is somebody's cat that enters a scene clearly unexpectedly and commands the frame for a few minutes.
Give the cat an Oscar and chuck this flick in the trash..
Trash.
Evil Come Evil Go (1972) * (out of 4) Insane sexploitation film has a God-loving woman calling herself Sister Sarah Jane (Cleo O'Hara) and she goes across the country teaching people that sex is evil.
This Sister thinks the best way to teach people this lesson is by picking men up in bars, taking them to a motel and then cutting them up.
This is an extremely strange little film that features a lot of sex and nudity but very little plot.
The idea of a religious nut going around killing people who have sex is something funny but not for a feature film.
The plot here is enough for a short film but this here runs 72-minutes, which is just way too long as the film grows old very quickly.
The low-budget nature of the film doesn't leave for many pretty technical things but then again if you're watching something from Something Weird then you know this already.
Another problem I had is that the lead actresses just aren't cute enough to carry this type of sexploitation film.
If you're a fan of weird films then this here is certainly a must see but keep the remote handy..
Whatever Happened to Sara Jane?
(or Walt Davis for that matter.).
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Not many films that combine gore and sex open with a biblical quote- namely "Beware of false prophets,which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening vultures"- then again Evil Come,Evil Go isn't just any film.
It's the story of diminutive Southern belle Sister Sara Jane Butler (Cleo O'Hara).
Part evangelist, part talentless country and western singer, and all round basket case Sara Jane preaches on the streets against "pleasurable sex" especially with them there "love generation men".
Her motto is 'God is love, not sex' something she hopes to prove by luring randy men back to cheap hotel rooms then butchering them in the name of the Lord.
Should we forget about Sara Jane's murderous tenancies there's also a folk song on the soundtrack to remind us that "Sara Jane, Sara Jane,Sister Sara, you're insane".
Her opening pick-up/victim, a truck driver, rates as one of the vilest characters ever to appear in film and their 'moment' together is hardly the stuff of great romance.
Spewing misogynistic dialogue he blows his top when Sara Jane starts singing hymns during sex, and bragging about bedding 4 or 5 women a week, having lots of illegitimate kids and not paying child support proves his final undoing.
Sara Jane produces a knife from under the bed and offs the lowlife, Basic Instinct style.Arriving in LA, Sara Jane wastes no time in whipping her accordion out for a religious sing song, in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater no less.
Her sole convert Penny runs an apartment block in which Sara Jane soon sets about forming "the secret order of the sisters of subjugation" (total members:2).
Penny's family actually pays for her to keep away from them because of her sexual orientation, which doesn't exactly go down well with Sara Jane either.
"I am a lesbian" admits Penny "but I'll stop it".
With that sorted the deadly duo go about luring male swingers back to her flat, with Penny seducing the men (suffering the horrors of heterosexuality in turn) and Sara Jane hacking them to death.
Not that much appears to be known about director/actor Walt Davis outside of the films.
He directed his first feature Substitution-a soft core sexploiter-in 1969 and worked regularly as a writer and director in the sex industry till the mid-70s,mostly for producer Manuel Conde.
The blueprint for Evil Come,Evil Go was clearly Davis' earlier hardcore film Widow Blue-now more commonly known as Sex Psycho-which far from being your average early porno added in a cocktail of violent mayhem and a scene of gay sex (with Davis as one of the participants) and subsequently was deemed unreleasable only belatedly turning up on video in 1995 (its now been withdrawn).
Davis retains a handful of ideas from the earlier film (chiefly a couples attempt to dispose of a corpse being thwarted by the arrival of a nosey third party) but keeps the sex scenes a shade away from hardcore this time.
Still its all highly sleazy stuff and even the most casual viewing will tip you off it came from a pornographic collective making a stab at straightforward exploitation film-making.
The film was in fact produced by Bob Chinn who had initiated John Holmes' 'Johnny Wadd' series,Holmes even has a cameo in Evil Come,Evil Go and the majority of the male actors are moonlighting porn stars like bodybuilder Rick Cassidy and Gerard Broulard who had been in Sacrilege and here turns up for the film's curious -to say the least- non-ending.
On the basis of the gruesome twosome that is Sex Psycho and Evil Come,Evil Go it seems fair to say Walt Davis liked sex, blood flying in all directions and perverse black comedy.
Its a little too early (made 1972) to have been influenced by John Waters but with its rough home movie look and semi-improvised feel to the dialogue comparisons are there.
The two leads would certainly be at home in a Waters movie, particularly Cleo O'Hara with her Warhol Superstar like stage name.
You're never quite sure if you're watching acting or slightly disturbed people given a film to run riot in.
Some of Evil Come,Evil Go is actually very, very funny, especially when Sara Jane and Penny discover to their horror a couple having sex in their backyard and attempt to cool the ardour by circling the couple whilst playing the tambourine "how dare you beget in front of me" and then there's Sara Jane's occasional unchristian 'lapses'- when her attempts to blag a free hotdog from a fast food joint goes sour she mouths behind the manager's back
well something that can't be repeated here.
Yet tongue in cheek as the film is, and exaggerated as the acting gets, at the same time there is something frighteningly believable about the dumb well-moneyed Penny who is so easily lead that her lesbian girlfriend addresses her in the manner you would a dim child who goes off with strangers at the mall, and Sara Jane with her impromptu accordion playing, Baby Jane get-up and ambition to have her own TV show could be a guest on Jerry Springer.
Targeted towards the H.G. Lewis drive-in crowd and pushing down on all the sex and horror buttons to endear itself to that audience, Evil Come,Evil Go is certainly a film you won't forget in a hurry and just to make sure of it there are no shortage of baffling moments to ponder over after the credits roll.
Such as who let a pet cat wander into two crucial scenes, why one character played by Davis himself is listed in said credits as an 'Arizona Pig Farmer' an unusual occupation not even referenced in the film itself, and should we read any deeper significance into the presence of a long haired, vaguely messianic character who discreetly follows Sara Jane around strumming his guitar and singing that song to remind us that Sara Jane is indeed insane.
I dare say only Walt himself could tell us what it all means..
Beware of the sins of pleasurable sex.
Totally bonkers traveling evangelist Sister Sarah Jane (robustly overplayed with lip-smacking relish by Clara O'Hara) embarks on a deranged holy mission to rid the world of sex-obsessed men.
After befriending naive, but wealthy lesbian Penny (a winningly sincere performance by pretty and busty brunette Sandra Henderson), the pair decide to embark on a crazed killing spree in Hollywood, California.
Writer/director Walt Davis illustrates in the most gloriously lurid manner imaginable how religious fervor can directly lead to homicidal dementia by piling on plenty of grotty gore and seamy quasi-pornographic soft-core sex.
The grungy locations, off-kilter story, and overall pervasively loopy sensibility further enhance the bizarre charm of this singular 70's exploitation oddity.
Moreover, O'Hara has an absolute field day with her juicy role; she's a total hoot to behold as she sounds off on the wickedness of engaging in pleasurable sex and sings gospel songs with infectious go-for-it gusto.
Legendary porn stud John Holmes makes a fleeting appearance as a pool player in a low-rent bar.
Manuel Conde's rough unpolished cinematography provides an appropriately scroungy look.
Good trashy grindhouse fun..
I was shocked in the first place that this film was any good.
I was beginning to lose hope in Something Weird's oddities, mainly the pure sex romps bereft of plot.
Here you have an unwanted dose of ant-sexual religious fervor, laid upon the plate of Grindhouse hippie storefront cinema.
As uncomfortable as the players seem, the sex scenes come across with mild realism.
Sara Jane's first victim, presumably picked up in a Cafeteria (?) boasts about his love 'em and leave 'em ethos, and considering his sexual choices, it's a good strategy.
She laughs as she complies with his perfunctory sexual demands, before she wastes him.Later, we have a classic triangle when the lesbian friend shows up and convincingly rescues her girlfriend from Sara Jane's clutches.
But very well played, and nice boobs on the blonde, BTW.How can I explain the ending?
Are the girls converted back to a free love ideology?
So easy to kill in the privacy of a hotel room. |
tt0024756 | We're in the Money | Ginger Stewart (Joan Blondell) and Dixie Tilton (Glenda Farrell) are offered $1000 by ditsy lawyer Homer Bronson (Hugh Herbert) to serve subpoenas on reluctant witnesses for a breach of promise lawsuit brought by Claire LeClaire against wealthy C. Richard Courtney (Ross Alexander). They have a deadline, as a new state law will take effect in a few weeks banning such suits. Unbeknownst to Ginger, she already knows the defendant; she and Courtney, masquerading as a chauffeur named Carter, have fallen in love. Courtney himself does not know that Ginger is a process server.
Through trickery, Ginger and Dixie manage to serve papers on three of their wary targets: nightclub singer Phil Logan (Phil Regan), gangster 'Butch' Gonzola, and professional wrestler Man Mountain Dean, the last in the middle of a bout with Chief Pontiac. Courtney, on the advice of his lawyer, Stephen Dinsmore (Henry O'Neill), prepares to sail away to safety on his yacht. However, Ginger jumps out of a motorboat piloted by the erratic Bronson and pretends to be in distress. She is rescued by Courtney's crewmen. She and Courtney finally learn each other's true identity, but eventually admit they love each other and decide to get married. Ginger sends a message to Dixie, asking her to bring a few things she will need for the honeymoon. However, Dixie assumes her partner is merely luring Courtney in, and when the couple set foot on the dock, Dixie serves the last subpoena. Courtney also assumes Ginger was merely acting and angrily breaks up with her.
At the trial, Bronson produces a photograph showing LeClaire cosily nestled in Courtney's lap. Courtney agrees to marry LeClaire. Later, however, Bronson confides to Ginger and Dixie that he faked the picture by combining two others. Ginger rushes over and stops the wedding ceremony just in time. She and Courtney then reconcile. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | early instance of inanimate objects coming to life.
There were a few instances during the 1930-35 Warner Bros.
cartoons when inanimate objects came to life, but the Termite Terrace perfected the genre in the late '30s.
"We're in the Money" has a gaggle of toys dancing to the title song in a department store.
Frank Tashlin's cartoons "Speaking of the Weather" (about magazines), "Have You Got Any Castles?" (about books) and "You're an Education" (about travel brochures) were the first really clever cartoons in which azoic things animate themselves.
Later there was Bob Clampett's "Goofy Groceries" (about various objects in a supermarket), and finally, the crowning achievement, Clampett's "Book Revue" (books again).
I saw the latter several times when I was a little boy and naively laughed at it, but didn't really understand it until I saw it when I was twenty-two.Anyway, this one is good as a historical reference..
Gold digging fun.
Love animation, it was a big part of my life as a child, particularly Disney, Looney Tunes, Hanna Barbera, Studio Ghibli and Tom and Jerry, and still love it whether it's film, television or cartoons.
With significantly broader knowledge of different directors, animation styles and studios, actually appreciate and love it even more now.As has been said a few times already, 'We're in the Money' is fairly typical of Rudolf Ising (not an enormous favourite of mine but understand his importance in animation history), leaning towards the cute kind of cartoon with a lot of sentiment in alternative to the laugh a minute and hilarious kind, the latter being the one that a lot seem to prefer (understandably, though am hardly biased against the former).
This approach has varied with Ising.
In some instances it has been very sweet and charming, in others it can be cloying and too cutesy.
Generally 'We're in the Money' belongs in the former category, despite the danger of falling into the latter with the premise.
'We're in the Money' has a lot to like although not a great cartoon, not one to completely overlook if not a cartoon to watch repeatedly.
It is a familiar and has been executed better but it is done well here, it's fun to watch and it's charming.Yes it gets a bit too saccharine in places and it is best perhaps to not talk about the story because there really isn't much of one.
What 'We're in the Money' does so well however eclipses these problems.
The animation is rich in detail for design and backgrounds, vibrant and crisp.
There is a lush and atmospheric music score, with lots of clever orchestration and an arrangement of the song that keeps one uplifted.
The vocals are melodious and well-balanced and the antics/choreography are nostalgic.It is hard not to fall in love with the characters, even if they are not especially distinctive, and it has enough likeability and personality to not be dull.
'We're in the Money' is rich in natural sweet charm and some very imaginative ideas and visuals in its recreation of the authentic setting.
There is nothing hilarious and the cartoon's hardly laugh a minute, but a good deal of it does charm and touch.
There are many fun moments and some inventive ones too.
The pace avoids being too draggy, with it being full of energy throughout when things got going.Summarising, nice and pleasant to watch if not a must watch.
Other cartoons have done this premise better with more imagination and wit.
7/10 Bethany Cox. I liked this early Merrie Melodie cartoon, We're in the Money.
This is one of three Merrie Melodies cartoons based on songs from Gold Diggers of 1933 that was included on that movie's DVD.
This was a Harmon-Ising production and it has toys coming to life singing and playing the title song to amusing life though I laughed heartily when the carbon heads of Laurel & Hardy did some nonsense gibberish.
The movements were pretty good especially when one of those human toys was playing on the xylophone with his feet.
Oh, and the coins in the cash register with the presidential heads were also amusing when they were singing.
Really, I was just charmed by the whole thing so on that note, We're in the Money is worth a look for anyone interested in these early talkie cartoons..
early Merrie Melodie, more singing toys.
The first few Merrie Melodies were not particularly original or inventive - the best years were yet to come - but this Harman/Ising production based around the Dubin/Warren tune from 'Gold Diggers of 1933' is OK.The basic premise surrounds a group of toys who start to walk, talk, sing and play instruments when the shop owner has gone to bed.
In a blatant plug for the song (which Warners owned), toys, hats, and the like join together in chorus.The trouble is there were quite a few cartoons with the same plot, all using a song as a centre, and this is nothing new.
As a historical document though, it has its interest..
Now is the time for EVERY Millennial to view .
. WE'RE IN THE MONEY, and listen to that haunting lyric, "We've never seen a headline about a breadline--Today." (To recap, that means we DID see a soup line yesterday, and expect to line up in the queue for drinking water tomorrow, but we found enough pennies in the sidewalk cracks to SKIP the breadline--and the breadline headlines--Today.) "What's a breadline?" those from totally sheltered backgrounds may be asking.
It's America's Once and Future Fate.
As Warner Bros.' live action feature HEROES FOR SALE documented the same decade that they released WE'RE IN THE MONEY, America's War Veterans got a tiny taste of breadlines--in which the Fat Cat One Per Centers scrape a few of the many crumbs off their plates for the starving American Majority when their Greed has made the whole nation as Bankrupt as Trump--in the 1930s.
The Coming Deluge will make breadlines the norm, with Life as we Knew It ending.
With the Fox "News" contingent of the U.S. Military set to cram Trump into the White House Win, Lose, or Withdraw, and the Presidential "Tie"-breaking American Supreme Court fiendishly sabotaged, the entire U.S. power\banking\water\sewage grid will collapse within a month of Trumpenstein Day. So you'd better memorize the lyrics to WE'RE IN THE MONEY now while you still have access to Electricity and Communication, and pray that the Trumpsters will have the Decency to revive Breadlines!.
Acceptable for its time.
Legendary animator Rudolf Ising's "We're in the Money" is a 7-minute cartoon from 1933, so this one will have its 85th anniversary next year already.
It is a Schlesinger production distributed by Warner Bros and this black-and-white animated short film is still from a time that may have counted already as the Golden Age of Animation, but not at its peak yet.
It is a work we have here that is acceptable because these mediocre cartoons were needed to carve the path for the greatness about to come.
It's Toy Story from soon a century ago.
Toy stores and the toys coming to life was a premise they did on more occasions back then in animation.
This one is not at all about fun really, but the focus is on experimenting with animation and even more so with sound really as the film's title is also a song used in this little movie.
The fact that the term "in the money" is not really common today anymore also shows you how old this one is.
It's really only worth seeing for the very biggest lovers of old cartoons.
Everybody else can skip it without missing much.
I give it a thumbs-down.
Not recommended. |
tt0047714 | House Party | In their high-school cafeteria, Peter, also known as "Play" (Christopher "Play" Martin) announces to his friends Christopher aka "Kid" (Reid) and Bilal (Martin Lawrence) that he will be having a party at his house that night, as his parents are on vacation. The reluctant Bilal is to be the DJ. Kid is then involved in an altercation with school bully Stab (Paul Anthony) and his two brothers Pee-Wee and Zilla (Bowlegged Lou and B-Fine). When Kid comes home, he tries to convince his father, "Pop" (Robin Harris) to let him go to the party. Pop relents at first, but when a note from school informs him of the fight, he grounds him. Rather than miss the party of the year, Kid sneaks out while Pop is sleeping in front of Dolemite - but the door closing behind Kid awakens Pop. On his way to the party Kid runs into Stab and his brothers, jumps over a fence, and is shot at by the homeowner. The punks are also shot at and Kid ducks into a nearby Alpha Delta Sigma reunion to escape them. Crashing the reunion, Kid has the DJ (George Clinton) scratch and mix a few of his old doo wop records so that he can liven the party with a rap, until Stab and the others arrive. Trying to escape from Stab, Kid accidentally knocks down an older man. Kid and the bullies are caught by the neighborhood police, who humiliate the four teenagers before letting them go.
The party is in full swing when Kid finally arrives. Kid and Play soon get into a dance contest with attractive girls Sydney (Campbell) and Sharane (Johnson), then have a quick freestyle battle. Stab and his friends attempt to break up the party, but are arrested a second time by the policemen, who take delight in the prospect of beating them up. Kid's father eventually makes his way to the party, demanding to know where Kid is (upstairs helping Sharane get her coat) and, not finding him, Pop vows to wait for him at home. Play stops the party because his bathroom toilet was broken by party members. Although Kid and Sydney have eyes for each other, Sharane decides to flirt with Kid openly, much to Sydney's disgust. The three soon leave the party, but when Kid tries to make advances on Sharane, she rebuffs him. Kid then walks Sydney back home, and after some argument the pair finally calm down and talk quietly.
Sydney allows Kid to sneak into her house, and the two are about to have sex in Sydney's room when she stops him, wanting to know if she is simply his second choice. Kid admits that Sydney was his first choice all along, but they do not do anything when they see that the only condom Kid has is too old to be used. When Sydney's parents come home - now revealed as one of the couples at the high-school reunion, including the man Kid ran into - Sydney hastily helps Kid sneak out of the house. He manages to get out of yet another scrape with Stab and his brothers, and they all end up in a jail cell. The men tell Kid what they're in jail for and Kid entertains the rest of the men in the cell by rapping, distracting them long enough for Play, Sharane, Bilal, and Sydney to arrive with enough cash to bail him out. Later, the five friends say their goodnights. Kid and Sydney share a long passionate kiss goodnight. After Play and Bilal drops him off, Kid sneaks in the house and gets undressed. As he is about to get into bed, he looks up to find Pop holding a belt, as the credits roll, we can hear Pop whacking Kid (Kid yelping with each hit) during the credits. | non fiction | train | wikipedia | The best and longest running daytime variety show.. Art Linkletter's House Party ran from 1952-1969 due totally to the easy going style of Art Linkletter himself. It was a half hour format airing at 11:30AM on the West Coast that featured a variety of special guests, games,and popular interviews with young school children at the end of each show.Linkletter would eventually write a best selling book about his conversations with the kids called, Kids Say The Darndest Things.. great memories. The show aired on radio for years then went to BOTH radio and TV before it ran exclusively on TV.Opening Line; COME ON IN, IT'S TIME FOR ART LINKLETTR'S HOUSE PARTY. The opening shot was a rectangular sign that said ART LINKLETTER'S HOUSE PARTY with "traveling" lights around the perimeter.Music was provided by MUZZY MARCELLINO - a small music group. Muzzy was the guy that WHISTLED in the hit record, "THE HIGH & THE MIGHTY." Art often went into the audience and interviewed people.Art's program featured the winners of the Pillsbuy Bake-off (Pillsbury was a big sponsor).The announcer for the program was JACK SLATTERY.The last 5 minutes of the program featured 5 primary school kids, whom Art asked questions, usually designed to embarrass their parents. This segment led to a series of books "Kids Say the Darndest Things.". Middle America's Voice. From the Forties right through to the Seventies, on radio and then on television, middle America or what we would now call Red State America had its own articulate voice in Art Linkletter and his House Party show.Now retired and into his middle nineties, Linkletter was quite an institution back in the day. I well remember coming home from school and seeing House Party on television. My grandmother who lived with us was a devoted viewer. She also watched his night time show, People Are Funny.Linkletter's easygoing manner and strong conservative politics made him an institution in those Republican leaning states. He even had quite a few fans in the decadent east. For the America which liked Ike, they loved Art.Two things that stand out for me personally. Occasionally he would showcase young talent and I still remember a young comedian named Don Adams doing a stand up routine on one of his shows. This was years before he starred in Get Smart.When the fabled Hollywood gossip columnists began losing their clout due to television, Art Linkletter provided a venue for Hedda Hopper. She must have made a dozen or more appearances a year on House Party, dispensing the latest Hollywood gossip. Her right wing politics and his meshed very well together. I remember her being on his show days before she died.Another show I remember was Dale Evans as guest. Art Linkletter was the adopted son of a minister and Dale Evans and her husband Roy Rogers were well known as born agains. I still remember a show where Dale chided Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor for their Roman escapades on the set of Cleopatra. Dale, Roy, and Art certainly came from a whole different life experience than Liz and Dick had. Of course what we remember the most about the show were the grade school kids. Some lucky school every day got to send four little urchins on the show, they were never more than 10 years old. Art was very good at this segment because he interviewed those kids like Edward R. Murrow would interview a celebrity. Most of the time he kept an absolutely straight face, but sometime a child who had not learned to be discreet and guarded in their answers came up with a beauty. Then Art lost it along with the rest of the audiences. Kids really did say the darndest things on that show.House Party reflected the warmth and innate decency of its creator and host. Politics aside, I wish it was around now.. A Show For All Ages. I remember this show from when I was a preteen. I enjoyed watching the children that were my own age that he would have on as guests; it was what kept me watching what was otherwise an adult show. He would have several kids sitting in chairs and would ask them various questions. It was very interesting to me at that age to hear what kids from other parts of the country had to say.Art Linkletter had a talent as a TV host that appealed to people of all ages. House Party aired on TV and was also broadcast on the radio during its history. This show is a reminder of how television has evolved over the past 50-60 years and how it will never be the same again. Somehow, life seemed much simpler back then, as was television in those days. |
tt0246500 | Who Is Cletis Tout? | The film is told primarily in flashback, as the film first follows a hitman, Critical Jim (Tim Allen), who follows and holds at gunpoint a man he believes is Cletis Tout - but who actually is Finch (Christian Slater). Because Critical Jim is so fond of film noir and other classic films (such as Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's), he's willing to listen to Finch as he tells his story, imagining it as a film in progress. Finch obliges, explaining how he got to be mistaken for Cletis Tout.
Finch happened to be in the same jail with Micah (Richard Dreyfuss), who stole diamonds more than 20 years before, then hid the diamonds and soon landed in prison. With Finch's help, Micah manages to break out, and the two get new identities for themselves, courtesy of a coroner (Billy Connolly) who owes Finch a favor.
The problem is that Finch's new identity is that of Cletis Tout, a photojournalist who managed to get a mafia figure's son strangling a woman on film. The head of the mafia gets his men to kill Tout (which is how the coroner got the identity for Finch), but when Finch goes to Cletis' apartment to look for his passport, a neighbor calls the police, who inform the mafia head that Cletis Tout is still alive.
After Micah meets up with his now grown-up daughter, Tess (Portia de Rossi), he's accidentally shot by the men sent to kill Cletis. Just before dying, Micah gets Finch to promise to watch after his daughter, and thus Tess and Finch begin an uneasy relationship as they look for the diamonds.
Meanwhile, the mafia head decides to bring in a professional, and subsequently calls in Critical Jim to finish the job. However, Critical Jim is more interested in where Finch's story will end - specifically, if he'll be able to reconcile with Tess in the end, giving the story a perfect Hollywood ending. | bleak, boring | train | wikipedia | I have avoided this movie since the day it came out, firstly it had Tim Allen in it, second that poster looked hideous and thirdly it was an ensemble piece.
It just looked stupid, I had heard it was good, but the name, the poster and the Tim Allen thing all made me walk past this movie over and over again in the video store.
So finally I get it out, and from the two mafia guys talking about deliverance right through till the end I love this movie.This is a movie about movie clichés, but it tells the story in such a way that you could watch even more clichés and still enjoy it.
Slater was good, not true romance good, but good, Connolly is great, but the man who steals the shop is Allen who is the funniest hit-man since Grosse Point Blank (Aykroyd or Cusack).
And not only is Allen funny, but he holds the movie together in what is by far the toughest role.I cannot believe more people have not seen this movie.
I don't know why the director isn't getting work after this (other than its failure to make any money), but I urge any future directors to look this man up and give him some cash.If you're reading this review, ignore this movie no further..
*I'll skip the plot outline part and go right ahead to the comments.This movie reminded me a bit "The Usual Suspects".
Not that the movie has the same plot or it tries to copy "The Usual Suspects", but it had a similar vibe - how the story unwraps itself and goes together.
If you can manage to take them out from their usual roles i.e Portia de Rossi as an Sub-Zero Nell in Ally McBeal and Tim Allen as Santa Claus etc, then you might even have a pleasant surprise.
Supporting cast is believable, even the bad guys.This movie is not for people who love bloody action, laughing your head off or deep plots.
The best way is to watch this movie without and special expectations or prejudices.
It starts out slow, but it's actually a very good story, which should have been allowed to run its course *au naturel*, without the over-analytical commentary by Critical Jim. This, for me, is the main reason why this movie fails to garner more than a 6 out of 10.Another reason is, as I said, it starts out too slow.
For half the movie, the only thing that makes you want to spend your time on it is Portia de Rossi's prettiness.
To be a really good movie, it needed to have had a number of more attractive elements, be they pretty women or interesting plot turns..
Even though I loved "Fiction" (and hated "Gump") I can still appreciate the cheekiness of stealing the diffuse plot structure, toning down the bloodletting and bad words, and injecting two very refreshing elements....a nice sense of humanity and an obviously genuine affection for the art of cinema...anyone who is open to either of those qualities should find much to enjoy in this nice little film..
Obviously the flashback driven structure is a bit predictable and cheesy, but I have seen way dumber films this year.
Overall this could have been much worse,, ( imagine Ms. J Roberts as the love interest.) The plot was fine if a little contrived, and the constant movie references wore a bit thin presented as they were.
After seeing last falls "Happy Accidents" many times, I doubted if I would ever see another movie that made me feel the same way.
Tim Allen (who is cast against type here) is a movie loving hit man who takes both old movies, and his profession extremely seriously, but alas does have a heart, as we see at the end.
The real gem here is the plot, and Tim Allen's handling of his part, WOW...I hope this guy takes more roles of this type..He shine's.
I had never heard of it but after reading the description thought it worthy of a look, and plus I love Tim Allen.I was pleasantly surprised by the film and would recommend it!
Good cast, including Tim Allen whom I feel is underrated at best.
We get to see TIm Allen playing against type, Christian Slater doing his eyebrow thing), Richard Dreyfuss as a wizened mentor (sort of a criminal Yoda), and Portia DeRossi looking gorgeous.The story is mostly told in flashback form, as a bound Christian Slater relates his tale to hitman Allen.
Best line, from Allen to Slater: "Has anyone ever told you you sound EXACTLY like Jack Nicholson?".
This is just the kind of movie I like, comedic capers with quirky characters.
It is a B rated film in my opinion which stars Christian Slater.
Tim Allen plays a different character, a hitman of some sort, but yet still finds many times to insert his brand of humor in the flick.
Slater plays about the same kind of average role in this one that he always seems to play in most movies, meaning he doesn't hurt the film, but yet he doesn't oooh and ahhhh us either.
Then there is the girl, you know, the girl that the escapee falls for, the girl that at first is too good for him, but who then later begins to warm up to him.All in all, if you rent this expecting it to be just a B rated type of movie, meaning, not that good but not too horribly bad, you won't be disappointed.
I normally wouldn't even write about a movie I didn't like, but this missed the boat in so many respects, leaving me feeling so disappointed, that I feel compelled to share my thoughts.
What began as a potentially funny hook (the hit man/movie buff) became a crutch used to artificially move the story along.
Though I'm not a big fan of either Christian Slater or Richard Dreyfus, I have to say that they did their jobs and were just fine...which didn't matter because there was no real movie for them to act in.Worst moments: the fairly direct rip-off of Pulp Fiction by wrapping back around from beginning to end with two somewhat comical criminals having a discussion in a diner, and Tim Allen trying to play the part of the producer listening to a pitch while having no timing for such dialog.Too bad, I was hoping for at least something that would have me leaving the theatre chuckling..
First off for everyone who praised this movie in comments I would like to say good for you.
If my brother/sister/mother were involved with any aspect of a movie, I too would go to bat for the film regardless of whether it was good or not.
Christian Slater plays a con who gets mistaken for a man wanted by the mob, and Tim Allen is a hitman who needs a reality check.
Bad Title, Good Movie.
A movie-buff friend of mine recommended it, so I put it on my Netflix list and finally popped it into the player.Cletis Tout turned out to be great fun.
I enjoyed the interwoven flashbacks and the comments made by Critical Jim (played by Tim Allen).
Christian Slater plays a take-off on his usual slimy lying characters by playing a crook who tells the truth.It helps to have seen some of the movies that Critical Jim riffs on as Finch's story unfolds, but that's not completely necessary.
Even for someone who loves old movies as much as Tim Allen's character, the oh-so-not-threatening hit man Critical Jim, I have to emphatically pan this movie.
Obviously trying to mimic the classics in film style / plot formation (Critical Jim actually breaks it down for you every 15 minute, in case you forget), the main difference between the painfully predictable plot of ...Cletis Tout and, say, Breakfast At Tiffany's is that at least in Breakfast..., the acting is decent, costumes are memorable, and you actually care what happens to the characters.
I loved the way he integrated so many plot lines within the movie.
Although Tim Allen was cast against type, he romanced old movies quite nicely while portraying an effective hit-man with a heart.
Christian Slater was also pretty good and funny.
In a penitentiary, the forger Trevor Allen Finch (Christin Slater) organizes the escape of his friend and former magician Micah Donnelly (Richard Dreyfuss).
The Mafia believes Cletis is alive and hires Critical Jim (Tim Allen), a hitman who loves old movies, to kill Cletis.
With many citations of important movies, and funny and nice characters, it is impossible not to like this story, which is a kind of popcorn Pulp Fiction without explicit violence.
But at the same time, it can have some really good elements; adding the bad elements, it is a regular movie.
The number 6 means regular movie, but doesn't necessarily means some good and bad elements.For example, this is a comedy and it doesn't generate much laughs.
The interesting thing is that he is a murderer, but loves old movies; classics.
Another disappointment is that the premise is based on Critical Jim's character and his love for movies.
But the movie betrays Critical Jim, betrays its story, and it ultimately betrays itself.
Tim Allen plays Critical Jim, in a delightful and surprising performance at the same time.
He plays Critical Jim like you've never seen him, totally distanced from his usual roles.
RuPaul is in the cover, but...why?Finch tells the story to Critical Jim because the critic likes old movies, and wants to make a movie of the story.
Tim Allen plays a hit-man who loves movies and kills time before killing Slater by listening to Slater tell his story.
The catch, although I doubt Slater believes it, is that if Allen enjoys the story enough, he might let Slater go.This is a fun, light-hearted crime movie.
Not the greatest movie of all time, I can easily think of many films worse that the critics loved.
WHOOT!!I agree it looks like THE USUAL SUSPECT idea of film making, but hey!!...
"Who Is Cletis Tout?" is a strange, mildly confusing, but fairly entertaining movie about mistaken identities, as told by a young woman (Portia de Rossi), a hit-man (Tim Allen) and some other people.
I just really liked Allen's movie-centric mnemonics, and it's good to see him doing a more serious role.So, this movie's OK as simple entertainment; don't expect any kind of religious experience.
With Richard Dreyfous, Christian Slater (in a better than usual performance) and Portia De Rossi this crime/comedy is both under-rated and little known.
"Who is Cletis Tout" is a noirish little crime comedy romp which tells of a movie quoting film fan and hitman (Allen) who holds an excon and flimflam man (Slater) at gun point while the latter recounts why he isn't who the former thinks he is via flashbacks until the flashbacks catch up with present time and the film runs out from there.
While watching this movie on Showtime OnDemand, I was continually comparing this film to Pulp Fiction.
Nearing the end of the movie, I discovered it wasn't only similar to Pulp, but also True Romance, Snatch, and The Usual Suspects.
(What was the last movie John Travolta did before Pulp Fiction?) I haven't seen Slater act this well since '93 in True Romance.
I love Allen's sitcom, and I watch reruns everyday on the Superstation, but his movie career hasn't always been so solid.
gives me more respect for Allen.The way this film gives you little details at a time reminds me of The Usual Suspects.
The ending isn't even near Usual's, but the rest was enjoyable.I loved this movie, and I give it 8/10..
Classic movie referencesthroughout the movie added to the fun...The line where Allen asks Slater, "Anybody ever tell you that you have a Jack Nicholson quality about you"?
It is so nice to "find" a little movie that has a small budget and modest production that scores big on story, acting, direction and intelligence.
And makes it comfortable unpredictable.The film is written and directed by Chris Ver Wiel, it seems it is his story, his piece, that he wrote and directed, I am a fan of that sort of novelty.Nice for an entertaining, easy-going, story movie.
However not all of what we want, we could get !!But still the best thing about it is of course the character of the old movies' maniac, the sentimental elegant and the hit-man also !
It's a fact that (Tim Allen) stole the lights from everybody to himself but I think the lights originally were owned by his character earlier in the script.I would like to read him as the lonely only one who loves cinema, understands it, finds himself in a world of totally different people and there is no one like him.
Watching a movie like "Who is Cletis Tout" is rather like drinking diet cola.
For an old time film buff like myself it was a fun challenge.
"Who is Cletis Tout" is certainly a movie worth watching.
I disagree with a previous comment that you shouldn't expect much of this film - the storyline is engaging, funny, and very well acted - yes, even Slater.
I thought Christian Slater's character was very well acted - and Tim Allen did a great job with a novel role.
Christian Slater was likeable and smart, Tim Allen was his smartallikey self and Portia was just beautiful.
a movie you want to rent when nothing good is released....
Casting in lower budget films always has more intrigue (consider Tim Allen as a hitman).
The real beauty in this film is its writing of characters that are straight out of a Elmore Leonard book.I would classify this as a video-store "find": one you can rent for your friends, have them make fun of you, then admit later that they really enjoyed it..
The point of view changes back and forth between a great unexpected Tim Allen, playing the hitman Critical Jim, and an always great Christian Slater playing his 'mark' Trevor Allen Finch, a forger by profession.At the start we set of in a Pulp Fiction kind of way end see (a part) of the ending at the beginning, thus making the viewer more anxious to see the "real" ending.
The story turns out to be great and Critical Jim does honor to his name and shaves a few rough edges to make this story to the great movie it is.The sappy ending of Finch getting the girl and the bad guys what they deserve is a bit of an anti climax but all in all this is a flick that will keep you of the street and put a smile on your face..
Since we're all just a little too well-versed in the post-modern book of ironic cliches, you probably figured out this is a hitman.Jim's after Cletis Tout, but the guy he's got (Christian Slater) insists he's Trevor Finch.
The story involves some stolen jewels, a jailbreak, mistaken identity, and even a love story (a great excuse to enjoy the lovely Portia de Rossi)At first CLETIS TOUT seems destined to be That Movie.
may be one of the worst film titles ever but don't let it put you off from seeing the movie!
Winning performances from Christian Slater, Richard Dreyfuss, Tim Allen, Portia de Rossi, RuPaul and Billy Connelly..
Throw in Portia De Rossi as Dreyfuss's daughter (and the 'I hate him for no apparent reason, no wait, now I love him for no apparent reason' relationship with Slater - and I use the term 'relationship' lightly; Tom Cruise had more chemistry with the fish in 'Jerry Maguire'), a painful cameo by RuPaul, a moderately funny though sadly underused Billy Connolly, a mob boss with all the menacing screen presence of American Pie's Chris Klein, two mob button men more cut out for a Home Alone sequel and a soundtrack that sounds like background music from a computer game, then have almost the entire movie played out as a series of flashbacks that Slater is telling mob hitman Critical Jim (played by Tim Allen, who is constantly quoting classic movies a la Remington Steele) and have the audience needlessly wonder at how much of what Slater is saying is true, if anything, and what kind of plot twist might be in store (needlessly wonder because *Spoiler* it's all true and there is no plot twist), and end it all with a cliched train station finish...Well, what can I say.
I must say i didn't even want to watch it,but it must been faith who maid me to..and i started to watch it and with every scene i was more and more excited.I don't even need to mentions that this movies has it all,and i mean everything that a great movies should have...besides comedy,this movie have a real story,a romance,even have a little bit of action,and that's the things which viewers want to watch,not the new movies without the real feelings...and this is coming from a 16 year old boy.And I recommend this movie for all to watch it..
Tim Allen was good, interesting character.
I'm referring to Tim Allen's CRITICAL JIM character.
As a big Christian Slater fan, I'm thinking to myself : He needs a great movie to make a good comeback.
The story is good, very nice twists, the right amount of humor and quotes and ...last but not least...a great tribute to an endless number of classic films.
And by that it's proven again...knowing a lot about movies can save your life...Christian Slater gives a flawless performance.
*** Spoiler alert *** The majority of the story is being revealed to Tim Allen's character by Christian Slater's character, by way of flashbacks ...
This is also novel and appreciated.'Cletis Tout' makes two films Tim Allen has made that hardly anybody has seen and I don't know why.
I just want Tim to keep making films like 'Who is Cletis Tout' and 'Big Trouble'. |
tt0063293 | Il mercenario | On the northern side of the Mexico–United States border, Sergei "Polack" Kowalski, a well-groomed, greedy mercenary, attends a circus performance where he recognizes the show's lead rodeo clown as Paco Roman. During the performance, Kowalski reminisces on how he and Paco fought together as revolutionaries against the Mexican Government.
Prior to the start of their partnership, Paco, a peon working in a silver mine owned by Elias Garcia, rebels against his boss and humiliates him and his two brothers, including Colonel Alfonso Garcia. He is soon captured, but saved from execution by his friends. Meanwhile, Kowalski makes a deal with Elias and his brother to take their silver safely across the border. Curly, Kowalski's flamboyant American rival, sees the three men talking and tracks down the brothers to find out what they hired Kowalski for, after which Curly kills the two.
When Kowalski arrives at the mine to meet the Garcias, he meets Paco and his revolutionaries instead. Colonel Garcia's troops arrive to attack them, and Kowalski agrees to help Paco fight them for money. With the help of Kowalski and his Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun, the revolutionaries drive Colonel Garcia's forces away. Kowalski then leaves, but he is soon ambushed by Curly. Paco's group arrives and kills Curly's men. Although Curly swears revenge, they let him go after stripping him of his clothes. Paco then hires Kowalski to teach him how to lead a revolution.
The revolutionaries travel from town to town robbing money, guns and horses from the army. They also release a prisoner named Columba, who joins the group. Columba at first resents Paco's violent methods and his over-reliance on Kowalski, but both soon begin to respect each other. After Paco stays in one town to protect the people, despite Kowalski telling him that they can not match the army sent to capture them, Kowalski leaves the group again. Paco's group admits defeat and returns to Kowalski. Kowalski doubles his fee, but he and Paco make another deal. After the revolutionaries take over a town by defeating a whole regiment, Paco, realizing the unfairness of the financial burden Kowalski has placed on him and Columba, imprisons Kowalski, confiscates his money, and marries Columba. When Colonel Garcia's army, along with Curly, attack them, Paco realizes he can not manage the situation on his own and decides to set Kowalski free, but finds himself locked up while Kowalski escapes. Columba frees Paco, and the two escape before Curly can find them.
In the present, Kowalski notes that it has been six months since Paco betrayed him. After the performance ends, Curly and his men capture Paco. Kowalski shoots Curly's men and gives him and Paco both a rifle and a bullet, so that the two can have a fair duel. After Paco kills Curly, Kowalski takes him prisoner and heads to the headquarters of the 51st Regiment to collect the reward offered for his head. Columba, witnessing Kowalski's capture of her husband, rides to the 51st's headquarters with two members of Paco's troupe and meets with Colonel Garcia, pretending to betray Paco by telling him where the two are.
When the army troops find the pair, Kowalski also finds himself arrested as there is now an even bigger reward for his head. The two are then sentenced to death by firing squad. However, Columba executes her plan, and holds Garcia at gunpoint while the circus performers create a diversion. Using two machine guns, Paco and Kowalski kill most of Garcia's troops, and they escape with Columba and the performers. The group splits up; Columba and the performers leave to spread the word of Paco's return to Mexico, Paco prepares to lie low before reuniting with Columba, and Kowalski, who has been given a share of his own reward money, prepares to leave Mexico. Kowalski suggests to Paco that they should team up as a mercenary pair, but Paco assures him that his "dream" is in Mexico. As the two friends part ways, Colonel Garcia and four soldiers prepare to ambush and kill Paco. Kowalski cuts them all down with his rifle from a nearby hillside. Before leaving, he yells, "Good luck, Paco! Keep dreaming, but with your eyes open!" | western, avant garde, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034902 | Invisible Agent | The grandson of Dr. Jack Griffin, the original Invisible Man, has emigrated to the United States and now runs a print shop in Manhattan under the assumed name of Frank Raymond (Jon Hall). In his shop he is confronted by four armed men who reveal that they know his true identity. One of the men, Conrad Stauffer (Cedric Hardwicke), is a lieutenant general of the S.S., while a second, Baron Ikito (Peter Lorre), is Japanese. They offer to pay for the invisibility formula and threaten amputation if it is not revealed. Griffin manages to escape with the formula in his hands.
Griffin is reluctant to release the formula to the U.S. government officials and only agrees to limited cooperation following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. (The condition is that the formula can only be used on himself). Later, while in-flight to be parachuted behind German lines on a secret mission, he injects himself with the invisibility serum. Griffin strips out of his clothing as he parachutes down, much to the shock of German troops tracking his descent.
After landing, Griffin evades German troops and makes contact with an old coffin-maker named Arnold Schmidt (Albert Basserman), who reveals the next step of Griffin's mission. Griffin is to obtain a list of German and Japanese spies within the U.S. The list was in the possession of Stauffer. Griffin is aided in his task by Maria Sorenson (Ilona Massey), a German espionage agent and the love interest of both Stauffer and Stauffer's well-connected second-in-command, Gestapo Standartenführer Karl Heiser (J. Edward Bromberg).
According to their plan, Sorenson attempts to gain information from Heiser during a private dinner, with Griffin as witness. Inexplicably, Griffin uses his invisibility to play tricks on Heiser instead. Finally enraged when the dinner table mysteriously tips and soils his uniform, Heiser places Sorenson under house-arrest. Later, an apologetic Griffin demonstrates his existence to Sorenson by putting on a robe and smearing facial cream on his features. The two are attracted to each other.
Conrad Stauffer returns from his efforts in the United States and tries to manage his shifting alliances with Karl Heiser, Maria Sorenson, and Baron Ikito. When he learns of Heiser's disastrous romantic dinner with Sorenson, Stauffer has Karl Heiser arrested and baits a trap for Griffin, whom he comes to suspect has made contact with Maria. Despite walking into Stauffer's trap, Griffin manages to obtain the list of agents, and start a fire to cover his escape. Griffin takes the list of agents to Arnold Schmidt for transmission to England.
Conrad Stauffer tries to hide the loss of the agent list from the prying Baron Ikito. Baron Ikito has been staying at the local Japanese Embassy. When Stauffer refuses to answer Ikito's questions, the two confess to each other that German and Japanese cooperation is not one of trust. Without revealing their plans to each other, both men start separate hunts for the Invisible Agent.
The plot thickens as Griffin steals into a German prison to obtain information from Karl Heiser about a planned German attack on New York city. In exchange for additional information, Griffin helps Heiser escape his imminent execution. Griffin returns with Heiser to Schmidt, who in the meantime has been arrested and tortured by Stauffer. At the shop, Griffin confronts Maria Sorenson, whom he suspects has betrayed Schmidt, and is captured with a net trap by Ikito's men.
Heiser escapes detection and attempts to save his life and career by phoning in Ikito's activities to Stauffer. Griffin and Sorensen are taken to the Japanese embassy, but manage to escape during the mayhem that ensues when Stauffer's men arrive. For their joint failure to safeguard the list of Axis agents, Ikito kills Stauffer and then commits seppuku, ritual suicide, as Heiser watches from the shadows.
Assuming command, Heiser arrives too late to the local air base to stop Griffin and Sorenson from escaping. The couple acquires one of the bombers slated for the New York attack, and destroy other German planes on the ground as they fly to England. Stauffer's loyal men catch up with Karl Heiser and he is shot.
Griffin succumbs to his injuries before he can radio ahead. England's air defense shoots down their craft, but not before Sorenson parachutes them to safety. Later, in a hospital, Griffin has recovered and is wearing facial cream so that he can be visible again. Sorenson appears with Griffin's American handler, who vouches for Sorenson that she has been an Allied double-agent all along. Sorenson is left alone with Griffin. Griffin reveals that he is actually visible under the facial cream, and they kiss. Sorenson happily accepts the challenge of discovering how Griffin regained his visibility. | sadist | train | wikipedia | I actually didn't even know about this film, let alone not knowing its ties to the Universal Studios' Invisible Man series.
Anyhow, the grandson gets offered a fortune to sell his grandfather's secret formula to the Nazis, but refuses and goes undercover as a spy for the United States using the formula to spy on the Nazis to find out their plan of attack on the U.S. Very good plot.With some good special effects and some great, the technical aspects of this film were at least just as good as the previous films.
Of the "Invisible Man" series made by Universal, I was only familiar with the first two (both of which I'll rewatch again presently) - the James Whale original being one of my all-time favorites.Ever since it was released as part of the "Legacy" set, I had mostly read negative opinions about this film - and even Leonard Maltin gives it a pretty low rating.
True, the leads are rather bland (why on earth is Ilona Massey credited before Jon Hall?!) but, then, INVISIBLE AGENT has a formidable trio of villains - Peter Lorre, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and J.
Besides, I must say that I'm a sucker for both WWII and espionage movies, so that's a big plus as well...which, I guess, means that it isn't really a horror film and that The Invisible Man is the hero!
Fulton's still-impressive special effects (exposed a bit here by the extra clarity of the DVD transfer) deliver the goods and, all in all, the film made me keen to get to the remaining titles in the series..
Frank Raymond (Jon Hall), grandson of the original Invisible Man, still has the old family formula but won't allow anyone to use it, even though World War II is looming on the horizon.
After an unfriendly visit by Axis agents (Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Peter Lorre) and the attack on Pearl Harbor Raymond comes to his senses.
Instead, Raymond spends time wooing the beautiful German double agent he's assigned to work with (Ilona Massey) and playing puerile pranks on an overweight Nazi with an undersized brain.
Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Peter Lorre steal the movie as a Gestapo official and Japanese spymaster, respectively.
Marin, is Universal's attempt in keeping H.G. Wells' "Invisible Man" stories in circulation by bringing them up to date, this time through the use of an original screenplay by Curtis Siodmak.
Though not exactly in the same league as its predecessors, especially the original 1933 classic starring Claude Rains, it's more of a propaganda film than horror, in the tradition of earlier outings as ESPIONAGE AGENT (1939) and Alfred Hitchcock's FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (1940), both starring Joel McCrea.The story opens in New York where foreign agents, Conrad Stauffer (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), a Nazi leader, and Baron Ikito (Peter Lorre), a Japanese, break into a printing shop run by Frank Raymond (Jon Hall), who's secretly the grandson of scientist Frank Griffin, inventor of an invisibility formula.
When asked to relay the formula to the government, he refuses, but gives in after the bombing of Pearl Harbor that leads America into war, on the condition that he act as an invisible agent for America by spying on the Germans instead of their trained agents.
After finding himself trapped inside a fishing net full of hooks that leaves him helpless, Griffin accuses Maria, whom he now loves, to be his betrayer, and must somehow break free in order to acquire the secret plans revealing the Adolph Hitler's attack on New York.Although related to the previous Invisible Man sequels, INVISIBLE AGENT is often treated as an outsider mainly because it's more of a spy vs.
Regardless of a fine supporting cast consisting of Hardwicke as the central villain and Lorre, even more menacing, coming close to resembling the Oriental sleuth, Mr. Moto, a character he portrayed in eight film mysteries during the late 1930s, through the use of his thick glasses, the somewhat unbalanced script appears to be geared more for the juvenile audiences out to cheer for their unseen hero.
Her key scenes include her encounter with the invisible agent and placing cold cream on him to see his face; and her attempt in having dinner with Nazi Heiser with the unseen Griffin having the time of his life disturbing them by moving things around and driving Heisler to the point of distraction.
It makes no excuses for it's blatant propaganda messages and obvious opinions of the German or Japanese ("I can't tell you people apart", to quote one of Hall's lines), nor does it even attempt to understand their cultures (Hari Kari, for example, is grossly misunderstood and misrepresented in this film).
He's supposed to be on a serious mission to thwart an air raid on New York city (I consider that pretty serious), yet the minute he touches ground on German soil he takes great risks in exposing himself by opting to make his presence known by playing pranks rather than staying low and "out of sight".
This is a very entertaining film, but I like it so much because Peter Lorre plays a Japanese character.
Cedric Hardwicke is also very good as the Nazi ring leader.I avoided this film for years, because I thought it was strictly a war movie with some Sci Fi overtones.
The grandson of Jack Griffin, the Invisible Man, has been living peacefully somewhere in the United States until some German agents find, corner, and try to "persuade" him to give up the family formula so Germany can have this new weapon.
Jon Hall plays the relative of the biggest disappearing act ever, and he manages to escape the German clutches and offer the use of the formula to the United States with the proviso that only he will use the possibly fatal formula.
There is a very serious side as well and Edward Hardwicke and Peter Lorre mix wit with menace as an intelligent German Gestapo head and a Japanese diplomat looking out for the interests of Japan.
Jon Hall plays Frank Raymond, the grandson of the Invisible Man, who has changed his name from Griffin to Raymond and runs a print shop in hopes of avoiding people looking for his grandfather's formula for invisibility.
When Axis agents led by the nefarious duo of Stauffer (Cedric Hardwicke) and Ikito (Peter Lorre) show up and threaten Raymond, he decides to become the Invisible Man and spy for the Allies.The least of Universal's Invisible Man films but still enjoyable.
Anyway, it's probably best to assume Frank Griffin took credit for his brother's discovery...or, you know, don't bother explaining it at all because it's really not that important.Hall is fine but his character can be irritating at times.
Ilona Massey looks great but her character seems to exist just to fall for Hall, even though he treats her pretty crappy.
The climax of the movie plays like an action serial with the Nazis pursuing Hall and Massey as they try to escape by plane.
What happens next I won't spoil but it's unintentionally silly.Two characters that actually do work are the evil Stauffer and Ikito, played by Cedric Hardwicke and Peter Lorre.
Frank Raymond is the grandson of the original Invisible Man Jack Griffin.
World War breaks out and the German agents are wanting the information for invisibility.
A few fun things happen when the Invisible Agent shows up.The opening scene is great - I wish they would have kept the rest of the film this eerie but I still enjoyed the fun of the movie.Worth watching if you like the older war films and/or the Universal Horror Invisible Man series.8/10.
Enjoyed this great 1942 comedy starring Jon Hall, (Frank Raymond) and Peter Lorre, (Baron Ikto) and Cedric Hardwiche, (Conrad Staffer).
Frank uses his grandfather's secret formula which can make a person become invisible in order to find out secret information from Nazi Germany.
(Conrad Stauffer) plays the role as a Nazi officer who wants to catch the Invisible Agent and obtain his secrets.
Fran k Griffin (Jon Hall) is the grandson of the original invisible man and still has the formula under lock and key.
He also gets involved with German and Japanese spies (Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Peter Lorre) and a beautiful British spy (Ilona Massey).This is an OK war melodrama with touches of invisibility as a gimmick.
Hall barely escapes from the agents who include Cedric Hardwicke for the Nazis and Peter Lorre as a visiting ally from Japan.Right after Pearl Harbor like Wonder Woman, Hall decides his talents are best put to use in the Allied Cause.
His condition is that he alone will be given the invisibility drug, mindful of the bad side effects it has including causing the madness that killed Claude Rains back in the day.Hall finds out some vital information, like the day the Axis is going to invade the USA and who their agents are in America.
He has the help of the beautiful Ilona Massey, but he's not quite sure what side of the fence she's playing.The Nazis are stupid, even more stupid than usual in these films, but they've also got a lot of intrigues going among each other, between Cedric Hardwicke and J.
To be fare to Hardwicke, Lorre, and Bromberg, it's not easy dealing with an invisible man.
"Invisible Agent" was one of the few Universal "series" horror films I hadn't seen until now.
It's basically a good concept for a film turning the Invisible Man loose on the Axis and a formidable set of German and Japanese villains including Sir Cedric Hardwicke (just as despicable here as he was in "The Invisible Man Returns"), Peter Lorre (who just about steals the entire show) and Keye Luke.
Why is Jon Hall's character depicted as the grandson, not the son or nephew, of the original Invisible Man?
One could readily imagine the Nazis trying to recruit the Invisible Agent to their side as the drug took hold of him and he started sounding like them!
Still, it's a fun movie and Ilona Massey's character is appropriately morally ambiguous -- though she must have wondered about the direction of her career: she'd been brought over to the U.S. by MGM in 1939 to replace Jeanette MacDonald as Nelson Eddy's co-star in the elaborate operetta film "Balalaika," but just three years later here she was at Universal making movies like this and "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.".
After all, I adore the Universal horror films of the 30s and 40s and the Invisible Man series is among the best.
Also, having Peter Lorre (whose heritage in reality was German) playing a Japanese man was ridiculous.
Now I understand that Lorre played the lead in the Mr. Moto films (where he was supposed to be Japanese), but here he didn't even try to look or sound Asian.
Finally, throw in an unimportant and ridiculous love story that comes out of no where and you have the ingredients for a truly awful film.Exceptionally poor writing, indifferent direction and actors who couldn't have possibly made this material work and you have INVISIBLE AGENT in a nut shell.
Fortunately, the next film in the series (THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE) is quite a bit better..
It's bad enough that it adulterates "The Invisible Man" story into rah-rah propaganda, but it's also incredibly stupid about it, to the point of having contradictory effects.
Sure, Karl Heiser seems like he's auditioning a generation too early for Sergeant Schultz in the "Hogan's Heroes" TV series, and the Nazi minions are pushed around by the Invisible Agent like they're the Keystone Kops.
Worse is that the hero, the Invisible Agent, is arguably more boorish, incompetent and racist than the buffoonish Nazis in the picture.Frank Raymond, the descendant of Jack Griffin, the original Invisible Man of the book and the 1933 film of the same name, agrees to become invisible to aid the Allies cause in WWII.
Again, he's extraordinarily lucky that not one of the dumbfounded Nazis fires upon him as he carries the seemingly-flying Maria to the plane they confiscate and, again, is fortunate that they receive cloud cover as they're fired upon by anti-aircraft weapons.Besides being incredibly reckless and stupid, Frank also displays his racism from a relatively mild crack about the German way of thinking to the textbook racist comment, "I can't tell you Japs apart." Which is especially ludicrous given that the Austro-Hungarian-born Peter Lorre, seemingly preparing for his future Mr. Moto role, plays the main Japanese antagonist.
"Invisible Agent" probably would've worked better had he stuck to the procedural elements and detective plots that were effective in his other Universal horror films such as the "The Invisible Man Returns" (1940) and "The Wolf Man" (1941).The one thing this and most transparent man films have going for them are the visual effects.
Fulton received an Oscar nomination for his traveling matte work on one of Universal's invisibility films, and he surely would've received another had the category existed at the time of the original "The Invisible Man" (1933).
Jon Hall plays Frank Raymond, the title character, who claims to be the grandson of the original Invisible Man(though I'm not sure how!) He still has the invisibility formula, which is desired by two Axis spies(played by Cedric Hardwicke & Peter Lorre).
After Pearl Harbor is attacked, Frank agrees to enlist, and uses the serum on himself(no nasty side effects anymore...) to go behind Nazi lines to track down those two Axis agents, and thwart Hitler's war effort.
Jon Hall plays Frank Raymond, the grandson of the scientist from the original James Whale film, who is asked by the American government to use his invisible potion to sneak behind German lines and spy on the enemy.
Invisible Agent has had a pretty low reputation for years amongst horror fans, but that is probably to do with the type of story on display here rather than the quality of the film itself.
This is a welcome change of pace from the usual formula.Jon Hall plays Frank Griffin, Grandson of Claude Raines' original Invisible Man (and like Lon Chaney Jr in The Wolfman about a foot taller than his progenitor!) Guardian of the secret formula for invisibility he's approached first by the Nazis and then the Allies for aid in the war effort.
In a quite startling opening sequence the head Nazi, played by Sir Cedric Hardwicke in his usual phoned-in style, prepares to use torture to get what he wants, ably aided by Peter Lorre's sinister Japanese Baron, who wants to rid Griffin of several of his fingers...Escaping and later Parachuting into Germany, Griffin, now invisible himself, stumbles on a plot to invade America.
It goes on much too long and isn't funny at all.That aside, this is a rewarding and entertaining sci-fi spy thriller, which builds to a rousing climax and is graced by John P Fulton's engaging special effects and the ever brilliant Lorre, possibly the only Hungarian who could convincingly play Japanese.
Once again this is not a horror film more like a spy/like comedy in my opinion) The effects are top notch again with a great choice of casting as well.
Jon Hall plays Frank Raymond, the grandson of the original invisible man, who volunteers his service to Axis and uses a strong formula that makes him invisible.
Frank manages assistance in his task from the lovely Maria Sorenson (Iiona Massey), a German espionage agent, who is involved with two well-connected German officers.There are elements of humor as the American spy is invisible and antagonizing Nazi officers and troops.
Frank Raymond (likeable Jon Hall), who's the grandson of the invisible man, uses his grandfather's invisibility formula so he can sneak into Germany as an undercover spy in order to thwart the Nazis and romance beautiful female double agent Maria Sorenson (the charming and elegant Ilona Massey).Although director Edward L.
Fortunately, there's a trio of excellent villains who ensure that this movie remains watchable: Peter Lorre as oily Japanese weasel Baron Ikito, Cedric Hardwicke as the smoothly sinister Conrad Stauffer, and J.
Sure, there are little gaffes (they get original Invisible Man Jack Griffin's name wrong, and Jon Hall's teeth show up when only his skin is supposed to be visible with cold cream) and there's a regrettable, dated crack about how "Japs all look alike" (especially ironic since Hungarian Peter Lorre looks nothing like Keye Luke (who was Chinese) nor any Japanese you ever met) but in the main, it's one of Universal's best wartime efforts, with some terrific John P.
It makes hero Frank Raymond (née Griffin) both manic and reckless, as well as extremely suspicious of Ilona Massey, an irresistible Mata Hari-type in that negligee...!Siodmak pulls out all the stops for the remarkably violent climax, with a prison break, a nasty fish-hook trap, a Nazi-Japanese brawl, all the villains getting machine-gunned or stabbed or self-disemboweled, a car chase, an air field set ablaze and then bombed, and that parachute escape from the crashing plane...man, wartime audiences must have cheered this thing!.
That is all to find the secret formula for making people invisible that Jon Hall has, unwilling to sell it even to his own country.
But Hall managed to escape the enemy, changes his mind of selling it to the allies, and makes it to Germany where he dive-bombs out of a crashing plane, strips naked and invisible, and locates another agent (the seductive Ilona Massey) who is using portly dumb Nazi J.
The hero is dumb (what a pitiful spy!), but this can be related to the original movie (the first Invisible man became insane because of the drug, this one becomes stupid and suspicious - kind of a "war symptom" for America
or France!).
An enjoyable movie, representative of the Universal's evolution at that time, when the studio capitalized on the "addition principle" (pardon me for my poor English): since we are in war and since Frankenstein can meet the werewolf, why couldn't the Invisible man fight the Gestapo? |
tt1233301 | Ironclad | A prologue describes how the barons of England, aided by the Knights Templar, fought against tyrannical King John in a war that lasted more than three years. It ended with the King signing the Magna Carta, a document granting rights to all English freemen.
King John regrets succumbing to the pressure of the barons to sign the Magna Carta. Soon after, he hires an army of pagan Danish mercenaries under the leadership of a warlord, Captain Tiberius, to restore John's absolute authority over the kingdom, under the presumption that the Pope has agreed to keep Christian missionaries out of their lands in Denmark.
The Abbot Marcus leads three Templar knights (who have taken vows of silence) on a pilgrimage to Canterbury and they take shelter from the rain at Darnay Castle. One of the knights, Thomas Marshall, is assured by the abbot that Marshall's release from the Templar Order will be sought at Canterbury. By morning, King John arrives at the castle with his army and mercenaries. Baron Darnay signed the Magna Carta and in retribution John orders him hanged. The Abbot attempts to intervene and the King orders that the abbot's tongue be cut off. Marshall and the two other knights fight the Danes, during which Marshall escapes the castle on horseback carrying the abbot; the two knights left behind are slain. The abbot dies before night of his wound, and Marshall breaks his vow of silence to swear that his sacrifice will not be in vain.
Once he has reached Canterbury, Marshall meets with Archbishop Langton, the author of the Magna Carta, and Baron William d'Aubigny, a former soldier turned wool merchant. Langton reveals that the Pope has sided with King John and that he himself is to be excommunicated for writing the Magna Carta. The three men agree that John must be stopped, and that the place to do so is Rochester Castle, the seat of Baron Cornhill and a strategic stronghold that controls southern England and allows access to London and the rest of the country.
Aubigny persuades three of his men to join him, including his squire, Guy, and a petty criminal named Jedediah, but a fourth turns down the baron's call to arms. A party of seven finally leaves for Rochester where, on arriving, they discover several Danish mercenaries have already claimed the castle; the fourth man had betrayed them to the king. Aubigny's party fights and kills the Danes, and then claim Rochester Castle in the name of the rebellion, much to the displeasure of Cornhill. When John's army finally arrives and lays siege to Rochester, the garrison holds fast and manages to beat the initial Danish assault. In the aftermath, Aubigny offers his men leave if they wish; none accept.
A second assault sees the Danes' siege tower destroyed by a trebuchet crafted by the defenders from within the castle. John's forces then attempt to starve out the defenders. The Archbishop is informed that Prince Louis is biding his time in France and negotiating with John, and sets off in haste to expedite affairs. As the season turns to winter, the hunger of the castle's occupants continue; Marshall leaves the castle under cover of night and then returns ahead of his pursuers with food stolen from the Danish camp. The castle morale is bolstered by Marshall's act and he gives in to the advances of Cornhill's young wife Isabel, breaking his Templar vows.
The Danish leader, Tiberius, threatened by John to take the castle or risk the King reneging on their bargain, adopts a different approach in his next attack and manages to sneak a small force of men over the walls before dawn to open the castle gates from within. Guy discovers the infiltrators and sounds the alarm, but it is too late. Tiberius leads the charge into the castle grounds while his Danes slaughter the garrison. During the chaos, d'Aubigny is wounded and left behind in the chaos of the retreat. Marshall recovers in time to don his knight's battle armour and charge the Danes on his war-horse, buying time for the survivors to pull back to the keep.
Aubigny is dragged before the King and forced to watch as the hands of two prisoners are chopped off. After a defiant verbal exchange with John, he is subjected to the same fate and then hurled by the castle trebuchet into a keep wall. Cornhill tries to surrender but is stopped; he goes instead upstairs to his bedroom and hangs himself. John's engineers have been preparing a mine under the keep's foundation, and they have a herd of pigs brought and put in the mine which is then stoked, set afire and the animal fat used to damage the keep's foundation, causing it to collapse; as the keep's walls come down, the final assault begins.
The last defenders are killed except Guy, Isabel and Marshall, the latter knocked unconscious by falling rubble. Guy goes out to die fighting where he encounters Tiberius and is almost killed, until a recovered Marshall intervenes. Tiberius challenges Marshall to single combat, and Marshall triumphs after a long and savage duel. Horns are heard in the distance as the combined English rebel and French army arrives at last, and John and the remaining Danes disperse in panic. Marshall meets Prince Louis and Archbishop Langton at the castle gates; the latter tells him that he is now free of the Templar Order. Acknowledging England's new king with a nod, Marshall rides off with Isabel, while Guy tells his dead baron that "We held".
The epilogue describes King John's death during his retreat and the reconstruction of Rochester Castle, and how it, like the Magna Carta, still stands today. | violence, action, cruelty, sadist | train | wikipedia | Once again, the "Michael Bay Effect" has ruined a film that would have otherwise looked excellent, and wasted the work of an obviously talented action choreographer.Despite its flaws, fans of mud'n'blood, hack'n'slash mini-epics will find plenty to like in 'Ironclad'.
Real history does not generally run smoothly nor is it engaging enough to fit conveniently into a 2 hour movie, so I refuse to nick-pick a screen writer for adding a little poetic license into a script or for the costume designer who doesn't have the time or resources to get the actors "just right".With this in mind, I found the story enjoyable and it ran more or less historically and at a good pace, I was certainly never given enough pause to consider boredom.
The fight scenes were very good and I agree with other criticisms on the reviews about the shaking camera making it extremely hard to concentrate on what was happening.There was plenty of blood, limbs and sliced heads to appeal to the gore fest/action fans but it seemed to accurately reflect the face of medieval warfare with its close and gruesome nature.The cast were a list of well known and respected actors, all of whom put in a good display with what they were given with Paul Giamatti's rant about the divinity of Kings being especially engaging.Overall its not a classic nor will it win awards, but for a couple of hours action based escapism it is certainly worth the effort of watching and is far superior to a number of bigger budget Hollywood contemporaries..
As John lays bloody waste to the South of England, a small band of rebels led by William d'Aubigny (Cox), plot to defend the Southern stronghold of Rochester Castle in the hope they can delay John long enough for the French army to arrive from the sea to depose him.The history, as is often the case in movies of this ilk, is sketchy and exaggerated, we are in true cinematic granted licence here as Rochester Castle is defended by less then 20 men and a couple of gals (in truth there was a considerable army defending Rochester).
The movie is basically about a Templar and a small group of soldiers who are attempting to hold Rochester Castle, the key to southern England, against the siege of John's superior army and Danish mercenaries.
(One English king and whining Danes who run at the first sight of blood among their ranks.Bad guys need castle so badly because it's on the strategic spot on the English map and if King who regrets signing Magna Carta wants to rule autocratically once again, he must take it at all costs.Here you will need all your suspend of disbelief to not raise the questions such as: why the rebels have sent only 7 men with questionable reputation to hold such an important spot...Overall, like I said in the beginning of this review, the movie is watchable.
This hack and slash classy English historical movie set in the year 1215, tells the mostly true story of the vile King John,played with wonderful abandon by the great actor Paul Giamatti with a perfect English accent,who for reasons to many for this review lays siege to Rochester Castle in Kent.The castle looks the real deal, but it was built for the film in the beautiful countryside of Wales.The budget was small in USA terms,£20 million, but the film looks fantastic and belies it's low budget.The main theme music by Paul Brady is beautiful.The cast is the cream of British actors, the likes of James Purefoy,Brian Cox,Derek Jacobi,Charles Dance and Jason Fleming.Mackenzie Crook and new young actor Aneurin Barnard shine in supporting roles along with female lead Kate Mara.It is a very gory movie with proper stunt work rather than reliance on CGI.Here in UK it got a 15 cert.If you like this sort of film, think a smaller version of El Cid, then your in for a treat.For reasons i don't understand this cracking good film sat on a shelf for over a year to get a release.In my view, a must see..
I don't know what people are talking about here ...This was a great movie, lots of action, and over the top blood and gore.Sure, some of the acting was a bit off, and it was all mud and blood but that's what the mid-evil times was , mud and dirt and lots of crap.The lead actor was excellent for being a lost soul and the wife of the keep keeper was beautiful and what you'd expect from being locked up alone with and old man.Over all I really liked it.
Bloody version based on historical events with overwhelming battles and great production values with James Purefoy as the fictional Templar knight Thomas Marshall , leader of a motley crew of tough , battle-hardened warriors/underdogs who try to defend a castle besieged by the army of the blood-crazed King John .
As a small group of Knights (Brian Cox , Jason Flemyng , Jamie Foreman , Mackenzie Crook) commanded by Marshal (James Purefoy) fight to defend Rochester Castle against the nasty King John .
Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle whose owner was the Baron Cornhill (Derek Jacobi married to Kate Mara) , a place that would turn the symbol of the rebel's momentous fight for honor and freedom .The movie has great action sequences well staged with stylish and vitality , thrills , a little bit of romance and is pretty entertaining .
In production a sequel also directed by Jonathan English (Minotaur) and Steven McDool who penned the story which will center on one of the few survivors of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle who is now fighting to protect his family's estate from fierce Celtic raiders .The picture deals with historical facts about John Lackland who was king of England from 1199 to 1216.
Take a rather large bit of liberty with English medieval history, throw in some rather garbled declamations about the Magna Carta (yes, it led to more democracy, but no, it had nothing to do with liberating peasants, just giving the aristocracy more powers of their own versus the king's power) and take a huge bunch of medieval war-story battle clichés, and you have "Ironclad." You see, wicked King John (Paul Giamatti, not attempting an English accent), after having been forced to sign the document, then completely ignores its contents and instead goes after the noble signers and kills them one by one.
In order to stop King John from continuing his tyrannous ways, they decide to take and hold the castle at Rochester, from whence the entire South of England can be held; to do so, they must take the current occupant, Lord Cornhill (the magnificent Derek Jacobi), and his young rebellious wife Isabel (Kate Mara) hostage.
The others include the historical leader of the defense, Baron William d'Aubigny (Brian Cox), a squire (Aneurin Barnard), and various characters played by Jason Flemyng, Jamie Foreman, Rhys Parry Jones, amongst others.I won't tell you what happens in the film, but in real life King John takes the castle and the nobles were either imprisoned or exiled.
Unfortunately, not enough is done with the women.Although not as good as "King Arthur," "Tristan + Isolde" and "Black Death," my three favorite medieval movies, "Ironclad" plays better IMHO than (the overrated) "Braveheart." I'd put it on par with 2010's "Robin Hood," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight." The film runs 121 minutes and was shot entirely on location in Wales, UK.GRADE: Borderline B or B+.
I haven't read all of the reviews, but I am baffled that those I did read didn't mention the biggest and most glaring problem with this movie: the laughably extreme shaky-cam action scenes.I gave it a 2 out of 10 because of the good production values and a good recreation of how those times looked like, but the action is pretty much unwatchable and the writing is just bad, but I wouldn't have minded that if I would have gotten good action scenes.It is just an disorientating flurry of shaking images and quick cuts and often I couldn't even tell what was happening.
Even small action scenes without gore effects, like a short fist fight between two of the "heroes" are filmed as if the DP would have had an epileptic seizure and as if the stunt men would have been so shitty that the editor decided to hide what they were doing as much as possible.I'd like to ask the other reviewers: Who cares about the historical inaccuracies when I can't even see the movie I'm watching?
So I was surprised how this movie made me actually care for and even like everyone fighting to protect the keep.That said, I am afraid the poor camera man was suffering from Epilepsy since every action scene involves camera shaking around and not staying at a character for more than 0.5 seconds.
Even though historically inaccurate, I found this movie appealing, due to its gloomy atmosphere, raw characters and great fighting performances.Filmed with low budget, the story focuses on a specific event, therein lacking certain depth and dynamics.
I especially liked how James Purefoy expressed the dark of his character.The fighting scenes are realistic, brutal and very convincing, and it is a real drawback that the chaotic camera movement spoiled that which is best in this movie.If you like raw medieval action, violence and gore, then this is the movie for you..
A group of seven men, led by a Knight Templar (James Purefoy) go to Rochester Castle to defend it against King John who his hellbent on retaking lands that he lost after signing the Magna Carta.
Ironclad is the story of a group of Knights Templars who try to defend Rochester Castle from the forces of King John after he decided to ignore the terms of the Magna Carta that he has only just signed.Although Ironclad isn't totally historically correct , it is still an entertaining enough film and despite it being two hours long i found it an easy watch.This is not a film for the squeamish as it features lots and lots of fighting scenes that include decapitation and lopping off limbs and there are also some scenes involving King John that might well make you wince .Paul Giamatti is as mad as a box of frogs and is perfect as King John and the rest of the cast do a fair enough job but what i really like about this film is that it really does show you why these castles were built and how difficult it was to penetrate them.
Don't waste your time.I can give 2 points for the set dressers for not making everyone pretty and shiny.I am required to write 10 lines in order to make a review but it's nearly impossible.The script is bad.The acting is not very good.It appears to have been written by a torture fetishist.The story arc is clichéd.The scene where King John tell how mean his Daddy was to him is laughable and meant to make us feel sorry for him and understand his violence.
OK, it's not a Rom Com, not a comic book, and it's not doing issues or social realism, but I enjoyed this loosely-historical actioner, and if you like the genre, I think you won't be disappointed.Set in England in 1215 during the Baron's War against King John, the film has a strong narrative line founded on the siege of the strategically-important Rochester castle in Kent.
Seizing Rochester Castle before the King (Paul Giamatti) can occupy it, the bulk of the story tracks the grim cat-and-mouse game, interspersed by brutal hand to hand fighting, characteristic of medieval siege warfare.The film delivers suitably gory and violent combat, mostly very effectively.
It makes up for that by at least taking a moment to consider how exhausted and disgusted these fighting men are by what they do.In the film's quieter moments, Marshal is depicted as a Templar with a conscience, who has returned from crusade spiritually scarred by the contradiction of being a soldier for God. His mentoring of d'Albany's young Squire Guy (Aneurin Barnard) and his temptation by Lady of the castle Isabel (Kate Mara) form the emotional heart of the story.
It can be hard for actors to pull this off without caricature, but he inhabits the screen like an old-fashioned leading man, and you can only lament that there aren't enough British films or roles for this kind of actor.It's also refreshing to see Charles Dance and Brian Cox playing "good guys" for a change, and the always compelling Paul Giamatti (doing a creditable English accent) has some stand out moments and a gloriously enraged barnstorming speech as a man born, but not fit, to be King.All in all, this is good, well-crafted old-fashioned story-telling.
He mounts a mercenary army and attempts to take the stronghold of Rochester castle, gaining the power of Baron De Cornhill (Derek Jakobi) and his feisty young bride (Kate Mara makes a stunning medieval princess.) Standing in his way are a ragtag band of swords for hire who believe in an England free from this tyrant, led by strong jawed Thomas Marshal (the very underrated James Purefoy who needs to be in lead roles more often).
Pros:Interesting situation in which few goodies resist lots of baddies utilising the available resources in a strategic situation;Realism in the action scenes with versatility of weapons and tactics;Believable behind-the-scenes politics and general context supporting the action.Cons:Rather unrealistic odds being successfully faced by the goodies, while the baddies seem to collectively lack any imagination and tactical skill other than a couple of attempts that incrementally increase the siege pressure;Tedious unoriginal romantic tension between horny princess and peudo-pious templar knight;Tantalising half-done development of the other main characters.Neutrals, depending on your taste:A lot of graphic gore, mutilation, cruelty; all well done but in your face.Loose connections with historical facts and philosophical underpinnings, which you might find good enough if you're looking for a reasonable backstory or completely unacceptable if you're watching this instead of the historical channel.Presents favourable the salvatory value of horses against the destructive value of pigs, which you might find unfair if you prefer pigs, though you might be consoled that in this movie they are eaten less..
Assembling 100 (the film mentions a dozen) men at arms including many Templar Knights led by Lord Marshal (James Purefoy) under the command of William D'Augibny/Baron Albany (Brian Cox), they take and hold Rochester Castle.
It is hard to make out what is going on, but judging from the flying gore, it isn't pretty.Paul Giamatti, miscast as King John, must take Rochester Castle before he can complete his revenge on the barons who forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
Where this movie takes place is shortly after the signing of the Magna Carta, and King John (Paul Giamatti) decides to take back England under his sovereign rule by the support of the Pope, and the help of a thousand Danish mercenaries.Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and Marshal (James Purefoy) decides to take up the fight against the king and gathers up a ragtag group of men to hold Rochester Castle against him for as long as it takes the French to reinforce them.
I do feel often that this movie is not telling me enough, despite its two hour running time, because there are often mention of other events, past and present, that makes you wonder why they are never developed or mentioned again.Like with the Danish Mercanaries, which is mentioned that are fighting for King John so that he can convince the Pope to leave them alone and pull back Christan soldiers of their lands.Denmark has been a Christian country a long time before this event, so it does make me wonder where these people really comes from and what their troubles are.What's also never really explained is the relations of the Barons followers, who seems to have previous handle with him, but is never told in what fashion they have been in his aid before.
One baron collects together four oddball Old Comrades, his naive young squire, and a Templar Knight with a 5 ½-foot two-hand sword (yes, just like Braveheart, never mind that those won't exist for 100 years at least) who has lost his faith on Crusade; and the seven of them ride off to hold Rochester against John's army.When they get there, they find that the elderly castellan, in spite of there being a civil war on, has only got six soldiers to man it (and a hot young wife, naturally).And (because "Flemish mercenaries" and "John's French vassals" doesn't sound evil enough) John's army consists of pagan Danes (never mind that in 1215 Denmark had been Christian for centuries) who prepare themselves for battle by painting themselves blue (yes, just like Braveheart again; never mind that Danes never did that).Historically, John ordered forty pigs slaughtered and their fat rendered down to create a blaze in the undermine that collapsed one of the towers of the castle.
He is an actor I usually like: here he is demonstrating the I Shout A Lot With An English Accent School of Acting.Brian Cox is Quirky Baron With Anachronistic Turn Of Phrase Who Utters Pithy Defiance While Having Limbs Hacked Off.Derek Jacobi plays Dignified Aged Castle Owner With Trophy Wife Who Resents Being Put In This Position Then Commits Suicide For No Apparent Reason.James Purefoy is Miseryguts But Valiant Knight Templar Who Allows Himself To Be Seduced By Trophy Wife But Then The Film Doesn't Make Anything Of It.Kate Mara plays Trophy Wife Who Remains Incredibly Clean While Everyone Else Is Covered In Filth.
Ironclad is the story of the Rochester Castle siege, set during medieval times as King John is forced to sign the Magna Carta by the barons.
The prospect of seeing a great story like King John's made me want to see this movie, despite Paul Giamatti, which I really cannot understand how is really considered to be a a major name. |
tt0234354 | Novocaine | Generally, the film is a dark and quirky "tragicomedy". The "everyman" protagonist, Dr. Frank Sangster (Steve Martin), is a dentist with a fairly pleasant but rather innocuous, ordinary and uneventful life. But all of this gets derailed, and Frank's life descends into an increasingly complex mess, from the minute a beautiful and seductive new patient named Susan Ivey (Helena Bonham Carter) comes to him, seeking a root canal and a little pain relief...
On Susan's initial office visit, Frank schedules her for a root canal the very next day, and offers her some Ibuprofen to address her pain in the meanwhile. Claiming that she is allergic to the offered medication, Susan requests a prescription for the addictive pain-killer Demerol. Frank provides the prescription, but only for five tablets. However, Susan changes the dosage from five tablets to fifty when she collects the medication from her pharmacist.
Susan arrives for her appointment twelve hours late, having mistaken the time. She seduces Frank, talking him into getting drunk and having sex with her. During the night, Susan steals all of Frank's narcotics. The next day, there is a DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) agent at Frank's office demanding to see the dentist's narcotics supply, because an 18-year-old has driven a car off a cliff under the influence of cocaine hydrochloride from a bottle registered to the dentist. Knowing that Susan has stolen his entire drug supply, Frank puts the agent off, saying he dispensed it all to patients. The agent leaves with the promise that if Frank fails to produce the empty containers in two days, the DEA will place him under arrest.
That night Frank goes to Susan's hotel room to demand the empty containers, threatening that he'll call the police if she doesn't provide them. Once again, she overrides his initial intentions and seduces him - with the result that they have sex and he spends the night with her.
The next day at his office, Frank is confronted by Susan's brother, Duane Ivey (Scott Caan) having a violent scene, saying: "Stay the hell away from my sister" and "I don't appreciate your threats". Duane ends the conversation with, "I don't ever want to see you again, because if I do, goddamn it, I'm gonna hurt you."
That night, Frank returns to Susan's hotel room and, assuming that Susan is the form he sees the bed, starts talking to her. The person under the blanket turns out to be not Susan but brother Duane, who leaps up and attacks Frank, attempting to strangle him. Frank takes scissors from a nearby desk and stabs Duane in the hand, impaling him and embedding the scissors. Frank flees, stopping off at a bar to calm down. On arriving at home, just minutes ahead of his girlfriend Jean (Laura Dern), he finds Duane dead on the floor.
Police arrive on the scene to question Frank. Comically adding to Frank's distress and anxiety is actor Lance Phelps (Kevin Bacon), a hack actor doing research for a role, and permitted by the police to question Frank at aggressive levels that cause Frank heightened discomfort. After the police arrive and depart, Frank tells Jean about the whole ordeal.
A while later, Frank is arrested for the murder of Duane Ivey based on finding Frank's teeth marks on the body - that someone else put there after killing Duane. After Frank breaks free, all of Chicago is on the look out for him. He goes to his office in the night, only to find his brother Harlan lying dead.
At this point, it is revealed that Frank's girlfriend Jean is behind all of the killing. She killed Duane with a shotgun and created dentures of Frank's teeth using his dental equipment and bit Duane's corpse with them. She was also in cahoots with Harlan, with whom she was having an affair. Unfortunately for Harlan, her plan was to eventually kill him as well with the shotgun to tie up all loose ends and make it appear that Frank killed him after Duane.
Realizing he'll never be free without starting over, Frank pulls out all of his dead brother's teeth, as well as all of his own. Frank uses his dental skills to place his own teeth into his dead brother's skull, and then sets fire to the dental office with Harlan's corpse, replete with replaced teeth, left inside. Frank and Susan, now lovers, escape to France, where they live happily ever after in a little cottage on the countryside.
Meanwhile, Jean's attempts to frame Frank fall apart. Unbeknownst to her, Harlan was playing with a medical video camera while he was shot and the recovered footage shows Jean firing the shotgun at the camera holder but fails to show it was Harlan who was shot. Therefore, the police wrongly assume that Jean shot Frank and arrest her. | suspenseful, comedy, murder, claustrophobic | train | wikipedia | And there couldn't have been a more thrilling cast to watch on screen.Novocaine is a suspense thriller, as well as an extremely funny movie.
Steve Martin is believable as a dentist who sees his life spiraling out of control after a series of cascading lies sets him up as a murder suspect.
If you want to see a pretty good Steve Martin performance and can overlook Novocaine's many flaws, it is definitely watchable.
And if that doesn't tickle your fear, then maybe the fact that the dentist is Steve Martin will.Film noirs are a tricky thing to make correctly.
Steve Martin in a film noir about a funny dentist?
Fortunately, I instantly realized I had made a mistake.Our tale begins with Dr. Frank Sangster, a mild-mannered dentist (isn't that how it always is in film noirs?) with a fiancé/co-worker, Jean (Laura Dern), and a generally nice, peaceful little world.
Steve Martin is about the last person you'd expect to see in a film like this, but my favorite comedian pulls it off.
I watched the featurette on the DVD and director David Atkins explained that he wanted to throw a curve ball at the audience by having Steve Martin play the main character in a dark comedy--since audiences are probably expecting something much broader.
It seemed as though the director wanted to do a straight suspense film, and Steve Martin wanted to do a screwball comedy, and in the end, it's neither one.
If you are expecting a typical Steve Martin comedy, then don't see this movie.
However, if you are looking for a dark comedy with many twists and turns, and with great acting, then this movie is for you.
I liken it to The Spanish Prisoner, another fantastic Steve Martin movie that contained many unexpected plot twists.
And all this picture does is suggest that some of the people who control feature films are a bunch of selfish, perverse and greedy egotists.Apart from 'Royal Tenenbaums' which for me is one of the unfunniest movies of all time, "Novacaine" comes very close to out-ranking it.The plot: Dentist has a female drug addict patient whom he fancies, leading to a whole series of bizarre and ridiculous events, mainly because of her addiction.Not only is the female lead totally mis-cast,most sane people would not, nor could not, in the context of the way this film is made, find anything remotely funny about drug addiction, quite apart from the nonsensical killings and unnecessary violence in this picture.I got the impression that whoever wrote and directed this film has no idea whether to create a comedy or a drama, as from my perspective it was neither........
I always love to be able to use the term "hidden gem" in my reviews, since those are the kind of movies I seek out most, and this Steve Martin vehicle totally qualifies.
I don't dislike Steve Martin, but this is the most I've ever liked him in a movie, since he usually can't seem to stop his "acting" from going too far over-the-top.
It *seemed* like it should be good, but in the end (as a political pundit once said) there was just no "there" there.If you get the DVD, watch the "making of" segment for Steve Martin's remark on why he signed on to the film.
I think a lot of people don't mind seeing Steve Martin again playing a dentist after his role in the 1986 version of "Little Shop of Horrors", although of course his role in this movie is quite different."Novocaine" is a movie that is using all of the classic film-noir ingredients but above all the movie is a comedy.
The movie has some nice twists but never forgets to also entertain.Steve Martin shows why he is still a much asked actor for comedies, even though his best roles are long since behind him, he still knows how to handle the genre and time things in his performances, without ever going over-the-top with anything.
Helena Bonham Carter is a great femme fatale for this movie and Laura Dern also plays a surprising role.
Kevin Bacon also makes a totally fun cameo as an actor who is doing research for a cop role.The great and typically wacky musical main titles for the movie were composed by Danny Elfman, which set the tone for the movie really.
It's good quality entertainment to watch and better than your average film-noir/comedy crossover attempt, which is mainly thanks to the great cast of the movie and the solid written story.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
Steve Martin is a great comedian but,usually,he does not choose his projects well.But,sometimes,Martin leaves the mediocre comedy and he participates on something serious and way better like The Spanish prisoner,Shopgirl or Novocaine,the movie I'll talk about on this commentary.This is a fun black comedy which is combined with a thriller story.I have to say it's really a pleasure to see Martin on a serious role like this one.He should participate on more movies like this one.The best thing about this movie is that there are so much unexpected things that anything can happen and it kept me in mystery.The cast is very well:I explained Martin is great,Helena Bonham Carter is a great actress and her performance is at her level,Keith David has a short but hilarious performance,Laura Dern is great but the great Kevin Bacon steals the show.He does not appear too much but he's brilliant and hilarious.The plot has original things,too.Novocaine is not a great movie but I have to say it kept me very fun..
I just finished watching this movie for the first time and all I can say is "Wow." This was not the Steve Martin that I am used to.
It was a great movie, where Steve Martin actually uses his acting ability and does so with triumphant impact.
And all the tense bits gets played down, too, by the odd insouciance of every character--especially our hero--as if the director was afraid to get the comedy too dark.I have to think that 'Novocaine' is either a perfect Steve Martin vehicle, or that somehow Steve Martin lends a peculiar flavor to all the movies he appears in--a sort of overpowering blandness that makes all the comedy seem somehow flaccid, and all the romance seem flat.Better than a root canal
but not as good as a hit of nitrous oxide..
All in all, it's a film for people who like to watch good movies.
And it was actually a quite nice change of pace for Steve Martin.The movie is about Frank Sangster, a dentist whose life is rosy red and dandy.
Director David Atkins actually managed to put together a very entertaining movie.One of the things that really lifted up this movie was the impressive cast, which included Steve Martin, Laura Dern, Elias Koteas and of course Helena Bonham Carter.
Dr. Frank Sangster (Steve Martin) is a straight-laced dentist engaged to his assistant Jean Noble (Laura Dern).
Overall, this movie is well acted, headlined by Steve Martin and Helena Bonham Carter.
Steve Martin is a dentist whose life seems to be perfect - granted, he's getting sick & tired of dealing with his screw-up brother Harlan (Elias Koteas) but otherwise, his life's great.
He has a beautiful fiancee (Laura Dern, who is super), a successful dental practice and then...In walks Susan Ivey (Helena Bonham Carter) and the good doctor's life is turned completely upside down.
Steve Martin was at one time considered to play the lead role in Eyes Wide Shut because Kubrick loved the way he acted.
Set aside your expectations for a Steve Martin comedy, and I think you'll enjoy this one too..
I like most of Steve Martin's work, and I also liked this movie, but I was not impressed.Novocaine has it's moments where it is really funny, but there are also some periods where not much is happening.
Everything starts to unravel for the doctor after a new patient, Susan Ivey (Helena Bonham Carter) sits in his chair and starts a chain of events that lead inevitably towards disaster.It's the most familiar of film noir plots - innocent and law-abiding man meets a girl that's a far cry from his perfect ideal.
The best part was to see Steve Martin in a little bit different light then his usual comedy roles.
Some weird effects like X-ray or dental related views are intersected between scenes for the sake of being there, not really adding anything.Although some of the movie's twists were predictable, the final whodunnit was a surprise to me, along with what our dentist's solution.All in all, a watchable film, but nothing to go out of the way to see..
Plus definite on-edge acting from Steve Martin makes this a movie worth seeing if you can suspend your disbelief enough to enjoy it.
Do not rent Novocaine if you are hoping to enjoy a typical Steve Martin comedy.
thank goodness for the cast in this directorial mishmosh that only seems to work because of Laura Dern and Steve Martin giving it their all and a great little turn by Kevin Bacon.
I fear this will be the one for Steve Martin, Laura Dern & Helena Bonham Carter.
This is definitely not a movie to eat popcorn by and, in spite of the satisfying ending, everyone at my screening left the theater feeling sickened and extremely disappointed in Steve Martin..
I liked all the actors in "Novocaine" but disliked all the characters not in a good way like a good black comedy should offer but in a bad way that a lousy script offers.I like Steve Martin .
I should say that I was amused by the movie enough before I saw it: Helena Bonham Carter as the vampy mystery woman, and Steve Martin as the lead, a Dentist who is caught up in said mystery?
Yet, this film is too problematic and unconvincing to amount to much of anything.First there is the script, which, despite being completely random and aimless at times with dead-end narrative points including incest and unexplained motivations, could have been salvaged into something more than a high-grade B-movie by some inventive production and decent performances.
The one exception is the surprise presence of Kevin Bacon, who has only a bit role, but manages to be genuinely funnier just acting off-the-cuff for a few minutes than anybody else in the film.To sum, the "twist" ending isn't one (complete cheez-wiz), the plot developments are mired in cliche, and the performances are alternatingly forced or transparent.
I would have thought that the best thing this movie had going for it would be the simple presence of the usually competent and funny Steve Martin.
This one has bite; an odd, eccentric black comedy with Steve Martin as a bourgeois dentist framed for murder..
He shouldn't be playing stud roles, and while his comedy timing is usually flawless, this movie has him playing a stud-muffin dim-witted dentist who would write an illegal prescription for 5 not five tablets of demerol and not expect it to be bumped to 50, not report it to the police when he found out and subsequently have sex with the flaky broad in his dentist chair and all the other stupid things he does in the first 15 minutes of the film and not expect bad things to happen.
For being a first-time director, David Atkins handles this film like a pro and provides one of the funniest dark comedies in recent years.
With the addition of Scott Caan (son of James) as a psychotic brother to Carter and Kevin Bacon as a clueless actor doing a character study, the cast is solid and well rounded.There are a few unanswered questions at the end, but that is most likely intentional to make the audience think a little.
It has great thrills, great suspense moments and of course black humor which is something I liked a lot and I believe Novocaine wouldn't have been the same movie without it.
even an average movie is good for Steve Martin nowadays.
Steve Martin plays Frank Sangster, a boring dentist whose life begins to unravel after he prescribes some drugs to Susan (the stunning Helena Carter), who outright seduces him later.
The DVD cover shows Steve Martin just as he was in the "Little Shop of Horrors" but there is nothing funny or original in this movie.
Steve Martin does a good job taking on a different kind of comedic role, less broad, and with a darker edge, but the movie doesn't support him.
In particular, Steve Martin's character's actions early on are not behaviors I can really believe, but once it's done, the plot is underway, and you have no choice but to accept it or immediately take the movie out of the machine and return it to the video store.Scott Caan fans will also appreciate his presence.
The rest of the film did sort of frustrate me because it seemed like Steve Martin's problems were just so preventable, and he kept doing things to make the situation worse.
Besides, Helena Bonham Carter's miscasting throws the whole film off balance; for the plot to work we have to be willing to believe that an affluent dentist would be willing to give up his entire life (which he himself describes as "perfect") just to be with this one woman, but Carter isn't seductive or appealing enough in the role.
Some nice scenes especially between Martin and Dern, but Helena Bonham-Carter seems to walk through her role ...
Helena Bonham Carter is all at sea as a drug addict/seductress/thief for whom Steve Martin falls, and her brother Duane is a ludicrously over the top thug.
However, Helena Bonham Carter on the loose to bilk dentists like Steve Martin of their drugs is the best fear generator of the film.
This film is definitely worth seeing, if not for Steve Martin's unusual, yet entertaining portrayal of a dentist caught up in sex, drugs, murder and being annoyingly questioned by a hippied Kevin Bacon!!!
In "Novocaine", a lukewarm cross-genre flick which isn't dark comedy but which does have a tan, Martin plays a dentist who finds his successful but bland lifestyle somewhat like pulling teeth and murder follows.
Steve Martin needs to stick to comedy,and Helena Bonham Carter should get back in her corset, we've seen enough of her.
NOVOCAINE (2001) **1/2 Steve Martin, Helena Bonham Carter, Laura Dern, Elias Koteas, Scott Caan, Kevin Bacon, Keith David, Lynne Thigpen.
Now that Steve Martin is no longer funny I can understand him wanting to branch out in other directions, but Helena Bonham Carter and Laura Dern have no such excuse.
Rarely does the title of a film say as much about it as this one does; because by the time you get to the end, there's a good chance you're going to feel quite numb, as if you've been given a body-size shot of novocaine.
Frank Sangster (Steve Martin) is a dentist with a successful practice, a beautiful finance, Jean (Laura Dern), and a future that promises more of the same.
Steve Martin turns in what is arguably the most convincing performance of the film, but it is far from his best work.
Laura Dern has also done better work-- though, as Jean, she looks good, and certainly brings a lot of energy to the film.
This one, alas, is riddled with holes.It also shares another fatal flaw with earlier second-raters like The Getaway (Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger) and The Silent Partner (Elliott Gould, Susannah York): even the characters we're expected to sympathize with have the moral sense of garden slugs, and no real virtues beyond the fact that they're good-looking.Steve Martin, a dentist, has a gorgeous, charming, loving fiancée and assistant in Laura Dern, yet somehow he instantly and implausibly falls for rude, bratty, drug-addicted Helena Bonham Carter.
Steve Martin's character kept making SUCH bad decisions that it was painful to watch and you could easily see where it was going.But I'm glad I stuck with it.
With a friend mentioning to me that she was interested in watching a Comedy movie,I decided to pay a visit to a local DVD shop.Getting near the end of a shelf,I was happy to spot a Steve Martin title that I remember seeing lots of ads for when it came out,which led to me getting ready to pay the dentist a visit.The plot:Living a care-free life,dentist Frank Sangster finds himself being taken out of his comfort zone by new patient Susan.
I rented Novocaine because I like Steve Martin and Helena Bonham Carter and also because I knew nothing about the movie.
What I got was 'try hard' wit and ridiculous implausibility.Now this really p****s me off because I love Steve Martin, I love Laura Dern, I love Helena Bonham Carter and I love Kevin Bacon.
At the film's beginning, Steve Martin's engaged to Laura Dern (what more could an average Joe want?), he's got a good job, he's got a very nice home, he's portrayed as a stable, even tempered middle aged dude.
The film doesn't really come off like a comedy, although Laura Dern acts a bit over-the-top most of the time.
Novocaine (2001): Dir: David Atkins / Cast: Steve Martin, Helena Bonham Carter, Elias Koteas, Laura Dern, Scott Caan: Very disturbing and sometimes unpleasant black comedy about dentistry with an underlining theme of numbing pain associated with the job and symbolic with the screenplay.
Steve Martin plays a dentist engaged to his hygienist until Helena Bonham Carter plunks down in his chair.
*Minor Spoilers* NOVOCAINE starts off slow, opening into the world of Dr. Frank Sangster (Steve Martin).
For God's sake, when a thriller involves a dentist, does it HAVE to have the same tooth-swapping ending (a la 'Whole Nine Yards').Characters: Steve Martin, although a decent lead in other films, is woefully miscast.
Steve Martin has been the best thing in many films.
Frank Sangster (Steve Martin) is a successful dentist who is engaged to his hygienist Jean (Laura Dern), a seemingly All-American blonde. |
tt2063008 | The Road | A father and his young son journey across post-apocalyptic America some years after an extinction event. Their names are never revealed in the story. The land is covered with ash and devoid of life. The boy's mother, pregnant with him at the time of the disaster, committed suicide shortly after giving birth.
Realizing they cannot survive the winter, the man takes the boy south along empty roads towards the sea, carrying their meager possessions in their knapsacks and a supermarket cart. The man is suffering from a serious cough and knows he is dying. He assures his son that they are "good guys" who are "carrying the fire". The pair have a revolver, but only two rounds. The father has taught the boy to use the gun on himself if necessary, to avoid falling into the hands of cannibals.
The father uses one of the rounds to kill a marauder who discovers them, disturbing the boy. They flee the marauder's companions, abandoning most of their possessions. When they search a house for supplies, they discover a locked cellar containing captives whom cannibal gangs have been eating limb by limb, and flee into the woods.
As they are near starvation, the pair discover a concealed bunker filled with food, clothes, and other supplies. They stay there for several days, regaining their strength, and then move on, taking lots of supplies from the bunker with them. They encounter an elderly man with whom the boy insists they share food. Further along the road, they evade a group whose members include a pregnant woman, and soon after they discover a newborn infant roasted on a spit. They come to a house where they find more food and a wheelbarrow they use to carry their supplies, but the man's condition is worsening.
The pair reaches the beach, where they see a boat drifting out at sea. The man swims to it and recovers supplies, including a flare gun, which he demonstrates to the boy. After their wheelbarrow is stolen, they desperately look for it and those who took it. After finding a single man with the wheelbarrow, the father forces him to strip naked. After this distresses the boy, he leaves the clothes on the road with a can of food, in hopes the man will find it.
In a town inland, the man is shot in the leg with an arrow by a husband and wife. After the man kills the husband with the flare gun, the pair move further south along the beach. The man loses a lot of blood and, after several days, realizes he will soon die. He tells the boy he can talk to him in prayer after he is gone, and that he must continue without him. After he dies, the boy stays with his body for three days. He is finally approached by a man carrying a shotgun, who has a wife and two children, a boy and a girl. He convinces the boy he is one of the "good guys", and after helping the boy bury his father on the beach, takes him under his protection. | murder | train | wikipedia | It starts in 2008 when three youngsters were terrorized by a driver-less red car one night when they happened to pick this particular road on which to practice driving.
The story shifts to 1998, when two sisters (one of them Rhian Ramos) whose red car overheated on that same road, only to fall victims to a quiet but mentally-disturbed teenage boy (Alden Richards) who had unspeakable violent tendencies.
But I say, do not think too much, let the eerie atmosphere envelop you as director Yam Laranas tells you his stories with his well-placed camera angles and effects, as well at the amazing lighting of scenes.
While the more senior actors like Carmina Villaroel, Marvin Agustin, TJ Trinidad and Rhian Ramos expectedly did well in their respective roles, I was most impressed with the talent of Renz Valerio, the child actor who played the boy in the third part.
"The Road" is a definite must-watch for horror movie fans!.
The Road is very satisfying and I highly recommend it if you like the slow burn and creepy movies.
This is my first to see movie where genre is somewhat crossing-over from horror to thriller to suspense to drama.
I wished I've seen this in the big screen though.When suddenly you think the story is predictable, the director brings you to unexpected "turns" and "detours".
It's amazing how some story points and questions are answered by each chapter of the movie.
Finally it connects the lose strands left by the two previous episodes by showing us what happened in 1988.Good things first: the sonic ambiance, the score if you like, is great.
The uneasy avoidance of graphic violence while actually implying its existence, leads to ridiculous scenes - like a girl bleeding from a head wound apparently because she fell on a mattress.There is no special twist.
It is a well used recipe in filmmaking to divide a movie in several chapters that intertwine and all get connected in the end.
An off-beat and gripping Filipino ghost tale.It is essentially a sort of Pinoy Norman Bates story told in retrospective spanning two decades, with heavy amount of supernatural and sufficiently creepy elements thrown in for a good reason.The yarn is simply structured and easy to follow.
Overall, in my opinion, the film has balanced mix of mystery, horror, drama ...
However, after the first segment, the film gets noticeably less exciting as we're given more backstory and information to solve the whole mystery surrounding the story.
Still, there is a satisfying payoff by the end as everything falls into place as well as unexpected emotional pathos rarely seen in horror films.
And with films from ASEAN from The Raid to The Collector gaining prominence everywhere, it's only time to add Philippine Cinema to the list.It's true that indie or art-house films from the Philippines do make it to film festivals here, but for the mass market audience, The Road is perhaps one of the earliest to hit commercial cinemas here in a long while, as far as my memory serves.
And what better way than for a horror film to try and open up the doors, one that features an ensemble cast of stars with idol looks to spark an interest, besides providing Filipinos here with something from home.
But as with most horror films around the region, it's usually touch and go basis, and The Road, boasted for getting itself a US distribution, it's somewhat of a roller coaster ride with its fair share of creepy moments, ultimately done in via a runtime that artificially sustained a thin plot.Written and directed by Yam Laranas, The Road is actually made up of three story arcs each set in a different time line separated by a decade each, and linking them is the titular road along which something strange and macabre even that had happened in a dilapidated house found along it, together with an abandoned car.
The opening shot, pardon the pun, set the stage for an epic mystery to be unravelled, with the stage set for a hot shot cop Luis (TJ Trinidad), decorated with a medal for his string of successful case closures, to prove himself in the series of events that follow.In the first arc, three friends go out for an illegal joyride, making a detour into The Road to avoid a police roadblock, and in what would be a case of bad luck, encounter ghouls that seem to be stuck in groundhog day fashion, repetitive hauntings of the trio.
This arc was more teenage drama before the effects and make up crew shifted gears and made it their own toward the end.The second arc tried to become a mini outing along the torture porn genre, but unfortunately with the more violent offering in practically every film in the genre, this arc turned out to be rather tame, with a man inexplicably hammering his victims, two sisters, away without remorse or reason, making it a battle for survival against complete madness.
We know who's alive and who's not from the earlier arc, and the narrative really took its time to get there.But thankfully, the redeeming factor came from the third act.
While it didn't offer anything we don't know about nor new in the narrative sense with similar themes being explored before in other films, and tosses up some more questions than answers, it is the actors here delivering better performances from the rest, and a story that's set against a dysfunctional family, that showed of Laranas' strength in storytelling.
By now you'd realize that Laranas rarely dips into the oft used box of the same old techniques used to scare audiences with quick jump cuts and edits, preferring to let the camera take its time in revealing presence that's spot on in creating both suspense, and eerie atmosphere.The Road plays on the gimmick of having a horror film told from three expanded story arcs with common characters linking them all together, and in essence scores in its effort.
However, horror film fans with a penchant for the same old boo scare tactics dished out by filmmakers may find this a little bit sterile.
This film by Yam Laranas ("The Echo") is divided into three segments.
The first story concerns three young teenagers who drive down a desolate road at night, not knowing that it is haunted.
The next two stories are flashbacks that show the historical acts of violence that are connected to the hauntings.
The style here feels like a modern French horror film.
In a day and age where crap like "The House of the Devil" (2009) and "Insidious" (2010) are praised and hyped as new genre classics, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when a genuinely strong horror film like "The Road" (2011) is derided and criticized for being "too slow." Perhaps a few dozen cheap jump scares or some graphic violence would have sufficed to keep our attention deficient audiences awake.
"The Road" is an odd mix of crime, horror and drama, with an end result that is actually worth watching.
The movie is fairly average, but it does have some pretty interesting moments here and there.What I enjoyed about the movie was that the movie backtracked, taking us backward in time to the things leading up to the things that happened in the beginning of the movie.
That was a pretty good move on director Yam Laranas behalf - sort of like the way the Korean movie "Peppermint Candy" was built up, and it worked out quite nicely for the overall flow of the movie.As for being a Tagalog (Philippine) horror movie, well then I must say that I didn't find the movie overly scary, but then again I am not really familiar with Tagalog movies, so I don't really have anything to compare this with.
However, compared to the many Korean and Japanese horror movies, this was like a picnic in the park."The Road" does have some interesting moments, as I mentioned above.
Aside from not being scary, the movie does a great job at building up some suspense and an even better job at taking us back in time and showing us the things that lead up to the events in the start of the movie.
Plus it was initially the foundation of the previous segments of the movie.For a Westerner, then this movie didn't really offer much in the scare department, but the movie is worth watching because of the interesting story and the approach that the director had taken with it.
It is more creepy thriller than scary horror.
If you're like me and enjoy a good movie, no matter what the language, then you should check out this Filipino gem.What this film gives the audience is a story in three very different acts.The first act is the present day where three friends "borrow" a car to go joy riding.
The director Yam Laranas does a fantastic job of creating an eerie atmosphere, using shadows and light to their fullest.
you need to turn the volume down before all the glass in your house explodes...The second act starts to tell of the events that have led up to the present day events.
Adding to the creepiness of the earlier act the story now adds a dark and ominous feel as things become dangerous and deadly for the sisters.The third act goes back twelve years to the very beginning and shows the psychological effects that a dysfunctional family in turmoil can experience, especially if one of the family is mentally unstable.
This is one of the strongest sections of the film as it resolves the mysterious parts of the story.
Add the great acting of Carmina Villaroel who plays Carmela, a strong controlling independent woman caught in a loveless marriage due to having a child, a woman who runs hot and cold at the flick of a switch.All of this makes the story much more interesting.
The writers, Aloy Adlawan and Yam Laranas, easily blend the styles and intricacies into a strong and believable story that spread through the horror, thriller, psychological, and crime genres.I would recommend this to all horror lovers and even to fans of thrillers, who wouldn't usually watch a horror movie.
THE ROAD was somewhat great in a mediocre way.The story was beyond compelling and interesting.
Every question of the movie was answered in the end.It was scary though, for filipinos like me, because mostly everyday, these things happen to us (people get lost, get killed, they turn to ghost and stuff) because in Philippines, we do believe in this stuff and there are big chances for these things to happen to us because Philippines is one big ball of mischief and horror.
the script and the acting were both mediocre and a little bit lousy, Overall, the movie was great, the story was well build, the cinematography was beyond amazing and the movie itself was in a powerful premise which was powerful enough to compel foreign viewers.I give this movie a decent 7 out of 10.
In FF you'll miss no story because the dialog is built into the open-captions, you'll not miss the easily forgettable laboriously long-drawn-out score and much of the film will return to normal speed.
If you're stuck with a thin script of kiddie-pool-shallow characters which is stretched several minutes between lines by vacuously empty repetitive images, don't liberally sprinkle your all-filler/no-killer film with over-crank and slow-motion to substitute for genuine tension or thrilling excitement.
That's what most Filipino movies are most of the time.
They tend to show stylish trailers which tend to leave audience curious, "Wow!", "Uh-ah..", " Will the whole film be as good as that?"I decided to watched it not because of all the hype but because I like Yam Laranas' previous work, "Sigaw" .
Very typical on a Filipino horror film when teenage actors/actress are being cast.
It was not mentioned whether he was adopted or raised by a relative.In the 1998 story arc, Luis is depicted as a lonesome teenager who massacred Lara (played by Rhian Ramos) and Joy (played by Louise delos Reyes).
Being a suspense movie, you should leave the audience guessing until the end.
Maybe the 3 story arcs are not meant to surprise the audience in the end.
How many films do that?But if you are looking for a deeper storyline, this movie is not for your.
It's actually a very sad tale for all concerned and isn't the kind of horror movie you can just watch for the "fun of it" and dismiss afterwards as just another horror flick.
For a minute there I was afraid he was going to turn the whole movie into one of those unbearable "trendy" flicks where it's all shaky hand-held camera work and half the time the actors are barely on screen and you end up feeling violently ill from motion-sickness.
The movie's score was perfect and the settings used were excellent and put to good effect.
Don't watch it if you can only enjoy a horror flick if it's a screaming pointless gore-fest with no real story to it (or if you can't stand subtitles!!
It has very great shots, that I was not able to witness in other horror movies.
What makes The Road recommendable to watch is the story per se.I loved how the film flowed, it's narrated through flashback and with that, you should start the movie from the beginning, do not go into the movie house if it already begun.
The Road is a psychological thriller, that will give you the eerie feeling upon leaving the theater.
If you able to loved "The Echo" which was directed by the same director, You'd be able to love The Road 100 times more.
This is a movie that will scare you not because of gore, of disturbing scenes, not because of a lot of scenes that will shock you, but because of the story itself.
RedIf Sigaw and Echo were about a haunted apartment, what is The Road all about?Laranas explores the idea of terror in this sleek horror-thriller.
No, there are no supernatural creatures that terrorize the other characters in the story, there is just a crime that for many years has not been solved, and the perpetrator is still on the loose.The police is baffled.
She is with Derrick Monasterio and Lexie Fernandez who spirited the car without permission for a good time.When Derrick and Lexie die in terror, the action shifts to Rhian Ramos and Louise de los Reyes in car that breaks down in the middle of the road.
This is in a different era and Laranas wants us to take a closer look as this can provide us a clue on what happened to Monasterio, Fernandez, and Forteza.The sisters see a man walking and ask him if he could help them with their car.
Richards seem to be a docile man, but inwardly he is sick and wanted to inflict pain on his victims.Again, this baffles us because there seems to be no direct connection to the previous scenes with the three younger actors.Yet, we suspect something, this could be the ghosts that haunt the road, but why?Laranas takes us to an even earlier time, at home, with a strange family.
Forteza finally finds herself again, and the police wonder how she was able to be in the place,Oh, there's one character we failed to mention, that of TJ Trinidad, a policeman helping in the investigation of the crime.
No, Laranas isn't interested in a police story, he is interested in how people behave in terror.The Road is perhaps the first local movie I've seen in years that I didn't feel the urge to go out of the theater after the first 15 minutes.
But Fernandez and Monasterio have died, so it leaves Forteza to tell the story, but can she?Forteza surprises us with an honest performance.
She reminds us of Dakota Fanning in her younger years starring in terrifying thriller Hide and Seek with Robert DeNiro.While the role is not lengthy enough to show more of what Forteza can do, I think it's enough that directors like Laranas is able to see beyond the 'tween stars sweet-young girl image.Alden Richards is in my opinion the biggest revelation in the movie.
With nary a dialogue, he is able to imprint his character on the audience's memory bits as the disturbed murderous teen who tortures to death Rhian Ramos and Louise de los Reyes.Richards, in creating this character, makes a prototype for other actors who are dreaming of portraying a significantly different character.Yet, the actor that makes a big mark for us is the young boy played by Renz Valerio.
And he delivers exactly the kind of performance that I like in movies.
With no frills but more substance, Trinidad's menacing character is hooded by his good looks and we are left with no inkling of what he is really made of and what he can do until the last minutes of the film.Laranas, apparently has picked up many things about filmmaking while making The Echo.
He is now able to tell a story without too much bending to the whims of producers who want movies to be really so damn sophomoric you'd want to puke at th end.
I wish "The Road" was a better movie.
Unfortunately, the film is undone by dumb dialog, clunky editing, an underdeveloped script, laughably thin characters, and bad acting.The neat idea?
And so, in the film's final third, we jump back in time yet another decade, and discover how the young man of part 2 was driven to violent madness by an abusive mother and an ineffectual father.The recursive nature of this tale provokes some thought.
Fortunately, those things count for a lot, and they made the movie watchable.Where the film falls down the most is in the script.
It becomes unintentionally funny.There's also, I think, a big problem with the young man who was cast to play the killer in the film's second section. |
tt3506492 | Lolita from Interstellar Space | Lolita (Anna Morna), a young woman from a far off planet, hands in an essay on Earth culture which she receives a poor grade. Her professor Zarron (Mick Manning) sends her down to Earth to study the culture. Lolita arrives on Earth and meets 3 college roommates Sara (Christine Nguyen), Brandy (Karlie Montana), and Joe (Seth Gamble) that agree to let Lolita move in with them.
While Sara and Brandy are at work Joe teaches Lolita about sex at the pool. Afterward she teleports back to her home planet and found it easier to show her professor what she had learned rather than explain it verbally. He instructs her to watch how humans have sex and then teleports her back to Earth.
When Lolita returns she goes with Brandy to shadow her at her job as a candy striper at the nearby hospital where they encounter Mr. Reynolds (Alec Knight), a patient that is interested in Brandy. Lolita uses her special power of suggestion to get Brandy to break hospital rules and have sex with Reynolds.
After they return home Lolita goes to the local pub where Sara and Joe work and meets Sara's boyfriend, Greg (Chad White), and decides to have sex with him. After they are done she agrees to find out if Sara loves him or is only interested in his money. The next day Lolita and Sara are sunning by the pool and Lolita finds out that Sara does love him and tells Greg that night at the pub. After telling him, Greg convinces Lolita to steal the money from the cash register and give it to him.
The next day Greg gives Sara a necklace and she is so happy she has sex with him. When they are done everybody comes to the house where Lolita tells everyone she is an alien and that she stole the money that bought the necklace. With her special powers, Lolita returns the necklace and stolen money and Sara makes Greg leave. To thank Lolita, Sara has sex with her so she can experience lesbianism.
After the are done Lolita wipes her memory from everyone's brain and returns home where her professor gives her an 'A' on her report. | pornographic | train | wikipedia | Unexpectedly Expected. Somehow I thought this wasn't porn, only to find that it was in fact the most awkward fap I've had with friends.. Worth Watching For Anna Morna & Karlie Montana. Lolita from interstellar space 2014 is just another parody of science fiction films with a touch of Lolita character i have seen a lot of soft core flicks but this one is below average and quite a disappointment as the sex scenes are not that good here they are dull and not exiting enough i mean who would watch this type of movie for some story but i will tell it anyway.this is a film about Lolita a alien girl who lives far away in space she is sent to earth to find out more about humans upon her arrival soon she starts having sex with people and this is the whole movie guys nothing more the aliens are so dumb here all they think about is Human Sexuality secrets.if anyone remembers Femalien 1 & 2 from 90s era this film just copied that concept Femalien films are much more fun then this any day and includes a lot of hot sex.coming back to this erotic flick its got nothing to see besides two hot actresses Anna Morna & Karlie Montana they are extremely sexy.the soft-core genre is fading away its was amazing in 90s & early 2000s in those days erotic films used to have some good plot too & decently shot sexual scenes.Lolita From Interstellar Space 2014 is one boring film but its worth checking out for some sexy chicks that's it.my rating is 4/10. |
tt1264115 | The Trial | On his thirtieth birthday, the chief cashier of a bank, Josef K., is unexpectedly arrested by two unidentified agents from an unspecified agency for an unspecified crime. The agents' boss later arrives and holds a mini-tribunal in the room of K.'s neighbor, Fräulein Bürstner. K. is not taken away, however, but left "free" and told to await instructions from the Committee of Affairs. He goes to work, and that night apologizes to Fräulein Bürstner for the intrusion into her room. At the end of the conversation he suddenly kisses her.
K. receives a phone call summoning him to court, and the coming Sunday is arranged as the date. No time is set, but the address is given to him. The address turns out to be a huge tenement building. K. has to explore to find the court, which turns out to be in the attic. The room is airless, shabby and crowded, and although he has no idea what he is charged with, or what authorizes the process, K. makes a long speech denigrating the whole process, including the agents who arrested him; during this speech an attendant's wife and a man engage in sexual activities. K. then returns home.
K. later goes to visit the court again, although he has not been summoned, and finds that it is not in session. He instead talks with the attendant's wife, who attempts to seduce him into taking her away, and who gives him more information about the process and offers to help him. K. later goes with the attendant to a higher level of the attic where the shabby and airless offices of the court are housed.
K. returns home to find Fräulein Montag, a lodger from another room, moving in with Fräulein Bürstner. He suspects that this is to prevent him from pursuing his affair with the latter woman. Yet another lodger, Captain Lanz, appears to be in league with Montag.
Later, in a store room at his own bank, K. discovers the two agents who arrested him being whipped by a flogger for asking K. for bribes and as a result of complaints K. made at court. K. tries to argue with the flogger, saying that the men need not be whipped, but the flogger cannot be swayed. The next day he returns to the store room and is shocked to find everything as he had found it the day before, including the whipper and the two agents.
K. is visited by his uncle, who was K.'s guardian. The uncle seems distressed by K.'s predicament. At first sympathetic, he becomes concerned that K. is underestimating the seriousness of the case. The uncle introduces K. to a lawyer, who is attended by Leni, a nurse, whom K.'s uncle suspects is the advocate's mistress. During the discussion it becomes clear how different this process is from regular legal proceedings: guilt is assumed, the bureaucracy running it is vast with many levels, and everything is secret, from the charge, to the rules of the court, to the authority behind the courts – even the identity of the judges at the higher levels. The attorney tells him that he can prepare a brief for K., but since the charge is unknown and the rules are unknown, it is difficult work. It also never may be read, but is still very important. The lawyer says that his most important task is to deal with powerful court officials behind the scenes. As they talk, the lawyer reveals that the Chief Clerk of the Court has been sitting hidden in the darkness of a corner. The Chief Clerk emerges to join the conversation, but K. is called away by Leni, who takes him to the next room, where she offers to help him and seduces him. They have a sexual encounter. Afterwards K. meets his uncle outside, who is angry, claiming that K.'s lack of respect has hurt K.'s case.
K. visits the lawyer several times. The lawyer tells him incessantly how dire his situation is and tells many stories of other hopeless clients and of his behind-the-scenes efforts on behalf of these clients, and brags about his many connections. The brief is never complete. K.'s work at the bank deteriorates as he is consumed with worry about his case.
K. is surprised by one of his bank clients, who tells K. that he is aware that K. is dealing with a trial. The client learned of K.'s case from Titorelli, a painter, who has dealings with the court and told the client about K.'s case. The client advises K. to go to Titorelli for advice. Titorelli lives in the attic of a tenement in a suburb on the opposite side of town from the court that K. visited. Three teenage girls taunt K. on the steps and tease him sexually. Titorelli turns out to be an official painter of portraits for the court (an inherited position), and has a deep understanding of the process. K. learns that, to Titorelli's knowledge, not a single defendant has ever been acquitted. He sets out K.'s options and offers to help K. with either. The options are: obtain a provisional verdict of innocence from the lower court, which can be overturned at any time by higher levels of the court, which would lead to re-initiation of the process; or curry favor with the lower judges to keep the process moving at a glacial pace. Titorelli has K. leave through a small back door, as the girls are blocking the door through which K. entered. To K.'s shock, the door opens into another warren of the court's offices – again shabby and airless.
K. decides to take control of matters himself and visits his lawyer with the intention of dismissing him. At the lawyer's office he meets a downtrodden individual, Block, a client who offers K. some insight from a client's perspective. Block's case has continued for five years and he has gone from being a successful businessman to being almost bankrupt and is virtually enslaved by his dependence on the lawyer and Leni, with whom he appears to be sexually involved. The lawyer mocks Block in front of K. for his dog-like subservience. This experience further poisons K.'s opinion of his lawyer. (This chapter was left unfinished by the author.)
K. is asked by the bank to show an Italian client around local places of cultural interest, but the Italian client, short of time, asks K. to take him only to the cathedral, setting a time to meet there. When the client does not show up, K. explores the cathedral, which is empty except for an old woman and a church official. K. notices a priest who seems to be preparing to give a sermon from a small second pulpit, and K. begins to leave, lest it begin and K. be compelled to stay for its entirety. Instead of giving a sermon, the priest calls out K.'s name. K. approaches the pulpit and the priest berates him for his attitude toward the trial and for seeking help, especially from women. K. asks him to come down and the two men walk inside the cathedral. The priest works for the court as a chaplain and tells K. a fable (which was published earlier as "Before the Law") that is meant to explain his situation. K. and the priest discuss the parable. The priest tells K. that the parable is an ancient text of the court, and many generations of court officials have interpreted it differently.
On the eve of K.'s thirty-first birthday, two men arrive at his apartment. He has been waiting for them, and he offers little resistance – indeed the two men take direction from K. as they walk through town. K. leads them to a quarry where the two men place K's head on a discarded block. One of the men produces a double-edged butcher knife, and as the two men pass it back and forth between them, the narrator tells us that "K. knew then precisely, that it would have been his duty to take the knife... and thrust it into himself." He does not take the knife. One of the men holds his shoulder and pulls him up and the other man stabs him in the heart and twists the knife twice. K.'s last words are: "Like a dog!". | murder | train | wikipedia | If you see it stars Matthew Modine than make sure you catch it.The film opens with Modine who has been unable to come to grips with the death of his wife and children ready to blow the top of his head off with a revolver.
As he's ready to do the deed, a phone call comes.It's from Judge Rance Howard who wants to get Modine back in the among the living and in the practice of his profession.
He appoints him the defense attorney of young Randy Wayne who is accused of the murder of his sweetheart, the daughter of a prominent family in the area.
When he came down he finds himself with her dead body and no memory of the crime at all.He gets all his courtroom skills back, it's like riding a bicycle, once learned it all comes back.
But this is a tough case and he needs the assistance of psychologist Claire Carey, research assistant Nikki Deloach and most of all Robert Forster his late wife's brother for some heavy muscle and a bit of detective work.
The answer is quite a bit more involved than a case of 'roofies' gone bad.Modine who also produced this gives a carefully delineated performance of a lawyer being brought back to life in his profession and every day living.
In the end he has reason to thank the Deity for being spared in the tragedy that overtook his family.The Trial has the look and feel of a television pilot and I'm sure Matthew Modine is trying to sell it to one of the networks.
Surprisingly good movie with Mat Modine.Some people said it's a religious movie but it's not as much others I've seen lately.
Except for some dialogs between Mac and the psychiatrist, there's no more of that.The plot is kind of predictable but much better than several of the current courtroom dramas we see in the theaters or TV.The movie has very good acting with some exceptions but those don't compromise the movie itself.
I am always looking for good films to watch with my family.
Last night, we sat down with our kids (13 and 15) and watched THE TRIAL.It was refreshing to see a movie that had a simple message and for once not have that message rammed down our throats.
Matthew Modine has always been a favorite and this seemed like one of the few recent films he's done that really challenged him.
I think it helped that they let actors like Robert Forster just be himself instead of putting on a fake accent.All in all, we liked it and recommend it..
I love a good "easy watch" film but this was just boring.
I feel the storyline was weak, not knowing whether to follow the tales of woe about the lawyer or the trial of the boy with neither being strong enough to carry the film.
The only good thing I can say was that the cast were well suited to the film (although that's like being told you were a good swimmer when everyone else round you are doing the Doggy Paddle) and it made me crave a cheese sandwich.
I went into this movie without knowing much about it besides it being about a criminal case that involves capital punishment.
My expectations weren't really that high, I just wanted to be entertained for an hour and a half, unfortunately this movie did not cut it.
If you've watched any other movie or TV show involving criminal cases or jury trials you can pretty much predict everything that is going to happen within the first 10 minutes of the movie and the cornier you guess the better.
If you think about going to see it I recommend you rent yourself a copy of any John Grisham movie or watch Law and Order Trial by Jury..
The problem with these kind of films is "how do you wrap it up", and The Trial doesn't escape from the same lame ending as many more films before it.interesting up to a point, the first half of the film qualifies as a "very good, for-TV show", but thats about it.
the current 5.8 IMDb vote pretty much sums it up, add the fact that the film itself is not really interesting, and you know you can do better with 90 minutes of your time.A retiring lawyer whose son just died takes on the defense of a very unlikely young ex-marine, who is obviously being framed for the murder of his fiancée.
The only two actors worth mentioning, the two lawyers, go trough the case until the verdict; Then, a rapid - and very unwelcome - change of pace leads to the fast and amateurish end of the film.The Trial is the very essence of a film that can be missed - it has no redeeming qualities, and although not horrible per se, there is absolutely nothing to keep you interested.
Not the kind of rubbish that makes you change the channel, but certainly not something you might want to rent or buy.4/10decent but uninvolved acting, recycled script with no conclusion, boring music, and so-so production.
Retired lawyer Mac (Modine) receives a telephone call from a judge who wants him to defend Pete Thompson (Wayne) who was arrested for killing Angela, his girl friend, and he has no memory of what happened that fateful night.
Hmmm
.The clues were good, but there was no suspense or tension, and for a courtroom drama that hurts big time.
You know, the more I think about it, maybe this wasn't good enough to be a made-for-TV movie.
This movie should come with a label warning the viewer that the only people who will enjoy it will also enjoy sitting through a two hour church service with no singing and no suspense, while they listen to their pastor summarize his previous 20 sermons.What has happened to Matthew Modine?
This is not the same actor I saw in Full Metal Jacket or Vision Quest.There should also be a warning that nothing in the movie will have anything in common with a real trial.
THE TRIAL, adapted from Robert Whitlow's novel of the same name by director Gary Wheeler and Mark Freiburger, is in many ways a reminder of what movies used to be - movies that centered on trials of innocent victims or trials that, like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, surfaced other issues to ponder.
The film is set in the beauty of Georgia countryside, complete with mists and fields and rivers where we first see attorney Mac MacClain (Matthew Modine), pensive after the accidental death of his wife and two children nine years ago.
His practice has fallen, his mental sate has fallen below the flatline state, and he is contemplating suicide when a telephone call from the wise old town judge (Rance Howard) summons him to take on a case of the murder of one Angela Hightower, the young and beautiful daughter of the wealthiest man in the little town, the corrupt Hightower family being part of Mac's sad past encounters.
Mac feels a sense of responsibility to the boy and agrees to take on the case, hiring back his assistant Mindy (Nikki Deloach) and his investigator Ray (Robert Forster).
As they uncover facts Mac seeks advice from psychologist Dr. Anna Wilkes (Clare Carey) who in addition to testing Pete finds time to share her Grieving Group Sessions with Mac. The evidence is gathered and the trial begins after a plea bargain is denied by Pete.
Matthew Modine defends a man accused of murder.
Slow and not particularly well acted, "The Trial" stars Matthew Modine in what was possibly a TV pilot.Modine, one of the producers of this drama, plays Mac, an attorney who has been unable to cope with the horrible deaths of his wife and sons in a car accident.
He has not been practicing law and in fact, is about to blow his brains out when a call comes in from a judge (Rance Howard) who wants him to take a case.
A young man has been accused of giving a woman drugs and then killing her.Mac reluctantly takes this on, coming up against a prosecutor (Bob Gunton) who asks for the death penalty.
Mac hires an investigator (Robert Forster) and a psychiatrist (Clare Carey) to see what they can find out about what happened and about the psychological makeup of the man himself.Nothing original about this film or the story.
Modine gives a nice performance, as does Forster, one of my favorite actors.
There isn't 1 redeeming feature within the 95 minutes of this film which is actually hugely disappointing and has little to do with Christianity.
This may appeal to some Christians looking for affirmation of their own faith.However, as a movie it is very weak, with an embarrassingly bad court case (you could drive a truck through the prosecution case), which is really just a vehicle for the defence lawyer to rediscover God.There are so many flaws in the way the investigation, prosecution and defence are conducted.
Acting wooden.Cringeworthy.There is really no good reason to watch this tosh..
I like courtroom dramas, complete with clever attorneys, plot twists, and surprises.
and it's every bit as boring as that sounds.Matthew Modine mailed it in, and the rest of the cast were mostly wannabes who will never be based on their appearance in this movie.
Robert Forster was the only decent actor in this, and his part was cliché and predictable.The trial was horribly amateur.
Anyone who has watched Law and Order for the past 20 years could point out many courtroom errors and ask valid questions that were never brought out..
A young man is accused of murdering his girlfriend but he has a loss of memory and can't provide any evidence to the contrary.
Mathew Modine plays his defence lawyer but he has a few obstacles in his way due to the death of his wife and sons which brings him to the brink of suicide.
I'm a Matthew Modine fan now, as imo he carried the film.
About the only fault I can think of is that the motive of the bad guy was perhaps not made entirely clear.All in all an excellent legal drama movie and well worth watching!.
The plot is classic Southern courtroom drama, and appropriately, a little drawn out and deliberative.
Several plots intertwine in this film (don't they always?), and so the film's title is really a double meaning: There is a courtroom "trial", and at the same time, the lead actor (Modine) is undergoing trials on the personal and professional level.
Watch it for the personal trial, not the courtroom trial, and you'll catch the intended meaning.
Good acting, but VERY thin plot line..
"The Trial" felt more like a movie-of-the-week than a theater release.
Although the acting was relatively strong, it was as good as could be expected due to the incredibly weak script and plot.
A very predictable story-line: the main character is framed for a murder he didn't commit, only to be defended by a lawyer with depressive issues.
After sitting through almost two hours of it, hoping for the movie to get better, it just didn't ~ and finally!!!
I'm not giving anything away - if you decide to slog through this movie, you'll see what I mean.Initially watching this movie because the great Matthew Modine was in it, I had much higher expectations of what the film would offer.
great family, couple, and teenage and older movie to watch.
I think this movie is really good and that the main character, the lawyer, did a great job.
After watching this movie, you may not be inclined to talk about it, but I feel you will want to talk about the various topics presented.
Great movie to watch in a high school or college classroom, bereavement or church group, or setting for at risk teens..
This review contains spoilers.You have read the warning twice and believe me there is nothing I can say that can spoil the movie anymore..
There is/was no evidence for the conviction/non-conviction of the accused and yet the jury comes up with a verdict.There are a lot of unanswered questions in the movie and vice versa.
Movie about a murder Trial in a small Georgia town.
Matthew Modine (Mac) is very believable as a retired Attorney who because of personal circumstances has reached the end of his rope and sees no options.
During his preparation for trial on the Defendants behalf his old legal team help him to see life in a different perspective.
This was a entertaining film with a message of hope for those who are grief stricken in life..
But having been a trial attorney myself, as with every film featuring a criminal trial, I'm interested in whatever nuances the writers will bring not only to the climactic jury delivery (there were, to be sure, some insightful words in that respect), but also to the attorneys' stress, preparation, investigation, planning, questioning, etc.
And that is where for me the movie fails, in that in its subtle eagerness to put across its god-centered message, it ignores the gaping insufficiencies in the substance of the trial itself.
No defense attorney with a conscience and a capable intellect would ever come to a murder trial as ill-prepared as Modine's character.
If you are skeptical that this film's central message is advocacy for a theistically-centered life, be mindful near the end of the credits which inform you that for more information about the 'themes' in the movie, visit www.refuge.net.
A few of the reviews above here almost make the movie worth knowing about, like the 20 sermon summary one.
In this case, the viewer desperately wants the court scenes to end to get back to the main crime investigation.Matthew Modine is the down-on-his-luck attorney, who was closed to suicide after the tragic death of his wife and children in an auto accident.
The legal case serves as his "comeback" from depression, as he seeks an innocent verdict for a fine, young man who has been falsely accused of killing his girlfriend.As the trial winds down, the viewer begins to recognize that the subtext of the film is retailing a Christian message that has to do with the theme of "life." The trial drags on with the closing arguments, then deliberations of the jury for a sentencing.
The film's big "payoff" scene comes after the trial has concluded and we finally learn who is the real villain.
By this point, the film has lapsed into comedy.The best thing to say about the trial is that it appears on Amazon Prime for FREE!.
The acting and story line in this film were just awful!
The Trial is a 2010 drama film starring Matthew Modine together with Randy Wayne,Bob Gunton and Robert Forster.
It is based on the novel of the same title by Robert Whitlow.The screenplay was written by Mark Freiburger,Gary Wheeler and Robert Whitlow.Also,it was produced and directed by Gary Wheeler.Aging, small town attorney Mac McClain is defending a young man accused of murdering the daughter of an influential local.After his two sons and wife die in a horrific car crash, suicide seems to be the only escape for small town attorney for McClain until he's assigned a capital punishment case involving the murder of the daughter of a powerful business man, in which the victim was drugged.
At the end of the movie, a private investigator discovers that it was someone else who committed the murder and McClain's client is exonerated.This is a formulaic and predictable movie from beginning to end.But nevertheless,the movie works due to the fact that is combines the best features of courtroom drama, murder mystery and character story.Also,it is a powerful which shows the power of healing and hope.That in itself makes it a 10/10 rating..
This is a faith-based movie designed for young Christian audiences.
This review contains some early plot points, but seriously, nothing can spoil this film.
Mac is a lawyer who lost his wife and two sons on Christmas Eve. So he does what all men do when that happens.
He is ordered by a judge to take a murder case in a small Georgia town that has 3 black people and 4 people with mixed southern accents.
Mac has the accused murderer meet with a female shrink, who also runs a clinic to help people cope with the grief of a loved one through God. Why?
Her 10 year old son shows Mac that you can go on with life as they play catch.
First, based upon the real lack of evidence, the case should have never had gone to trial.
The evidence presented by the first witness should not had been allowed and even though the defense had a witness list, his testimony was a complete surprise!Watching this film was like watching a train wreak.
You just knew the defendant just had to be innocent: a blond and blue eyed young man looking like the boy next door.
I was struck by the contrast between the narrow squinty eyes of Matthew Modine as a world weary attorney and the young actor who played the defendant with eyes startlingly large and blue.
Surely such casting was not accidental.I also liked the appearance of Robert Forster.
A fairly good story...about a young man facing the death penalty for a murder he says he didn't commit."You have NO memory, NO alibi, and NO explanation..." says his defense lawyer.The defense lawyer (Matthew Modine) lost his wife and two sons in a car accident a few years before...Movie opens on him...in his empty home...he's ready to pull the trigger and kill himself.
Till the phone rings...and he's assigned this murder case.The prosecutor is an older, experienced man who has previously beaten the defense lawyer...Prosecutor rigorously pursues the death penalty. |
tt2300975 | Jessabelle | The pregnant Jessabelle "Jessie" Laurent (Sarah Snook) is about to move to her fiancé, Mark's (Brian Hallisay) house when their car is hit by a truck, killing Mark and causing Jessie's miscarriage. Two months afterward, the wheelchair-bound Jessie moves in with her estranged father, Leon (David Andrews) in St. Francis, Louisiana. She resides in her mother's former bedroom; her mother having died due to brain tumor shortly after she was born.
One day, Jessie finds a box containing three videotapes shot by her mother. Kate (Joelle Carter), who addressed Jessie by her full name, congratulated her for her 18th birthday and gives a tarot reading about Death, which told about transition, taught to her by Moses, a man whom she met at a local church. Kate warned that an unwanted presence is haunting Jessie, a reading that turns out to be true, as Jessie feels that a black-haired woman (Amber Stevens) is haunting her ever since she moved in. Jessie also has a dream where she is strapped to a bed by her mother and sees a voodoo ritual being conducted, where a black man chokes her. Leon, who has repeatedly tried to dissuade Jessie from watching the tapes by breaking them and throwing Jessie's wheelchair, attempts to burn all of the tapes, but a force burns him alive inside the house's shed. During his funeral, Jessie reunites with her high school friend, Preston Sanders (Mark Webber), but collapses after she sees a severely burned black man (Vaughan Wilson).
After Preston leaves from tending to Jessie, Jessie discovers a fourth tape that she opts not to watch. The next day, Jessie and Preston head across a nearby bayou, which Jessie has suspected ever since she saw glittering light and flames appearing there. The two discover voodoo icons and effects, as well as a grave of "Jessabelle" with a baby's skeleton, dated on Jessie's birthday, whom they give to Sheriff Pruitt (Chris Ellis) for DNA testing. Jessie and Preston then visit the house of Mrs. Davis (Fran Bennett), the mother of one of their friends, who speaks about Moses. Thinking that Moses is involved, the two head to Moses' voodoo shrine, but is attacked by a group of men who force them to leave. The two return to Jessie's home where Preston confesses that, despite being married, he is still in love with Jessie. Just before he leaves, the mysterious woman attacks and knocks him unconscious.
Left alone, Jessie watches the fourth tape, showing Kate shouting "Jessabelle, you're dead!" before it cuts off. Conducting a ritual to summon the woman, Jessie is informed by Pruitt that the baby is Kate's daughter, but not Leon's. The tape plays out again and shows Kate committing suicide, tearfully saying that Moses is dead. Jessie is confronted by Kate's spirit and realizes the truth: Jessabelle was the biracial daughter of Kate and Moses who was killed, alongside her father, by Leon; Jessie is the unwanted presence, being a child adopted to cover up the crimes. Swearing revenge, Kate and Moses planned to transfer Jessabelle's spirit to Jessie. Jessie is pushed by Kate and Moses towards the bayou, where Jessabelle swims up and takes her bracelet, resurfacing back in the form of Jessie, who kisses Preston after he saves her. When Pruitt asks "Jessie" if she is all right, she replies "It's Jessabelle". | haunting | train | wikipedia | As a devout Horror fan with a declared preference towards ghost stories and hauntings, I had looked forward to seeing another usual film of the genre, mediocre yet frightening and fun to watch.While Jessabelle is light-years away from competing with the sub- genres best like The Grudge or Dead Silence, it completes the task it unofficially took upon itself, as it obviously had no intentions of being profound or in any way great.
Even though her character is stuck in a wheel-chair, the empathy towards its desperation and helplessness is greatly created by Snook's acting skills.As for the story, it suffers from one of the known banes of Horror - a mediocre plot twist leading to an anticlimactic ending, after a finely made build-up.
At least there is a plot twist, true, as Horror films are highly upgraded by these in my opinion, but the one in Jessabelle simply feels unfulfilled.
After recent horror releases like the dismal Oujia (a movie I personally despise), Jessabelle is a welcome change of pace.
Sometimes when watching a supernatural thriller/horror you have to ask yourself 'should I really be scared by what I'm seeing, considering it's completely unrealistic and impossible to ever happen in the real world?' Or the other question that sometimes enters the equation is 'should I really be scared by what I'm seeing or is it all just in the character's mind anyway?' 'Jessabelle' doesn't completely avoid these questions being asked, but it does a great job of disguising the fact that they're there lurking in the background.It's a tense, atmospheric ride from the opening scene right through to the closing credits.
Returning to her childhood home in Louisiana to recuperate from a horrific car accident (which left her unborn child and fiancé dead) Jessabelle(Sarah Snook)comes face to face with a long-tormented spirit that has been seeking her return—and has no intention of letting her escape.The action of "Jessabelle" takes place in backwoods bayou of Louisiana.The film was directed by Kevin Greutert of "Saw VI" and "Saw 3D" fame.The storyline is quite interesting and captivating and the voodoo imagery is quite spooky.Unfortunately long black haired female spirits in the vein of "Ringu" are too routine to be seriously scary.I must say that I quite enjoyed final twist,though.6 bayou ghosts out of 10..
Jessabelle is a movie that, unfortunately, relies too much on it's jump/scare moments & atmosphere to entertain rather than the plot or story.
Don't get me wrong...the plot of the movie isn't that bad and the story is filmed out decently enough.
It's just that it has a wee bit of a tendency to go a bit slow in places and at 90 minutes (which is average for a film these days) it could have been beefed out a bit better I think to make it not feel AS slow.Another aspect of the story is that, while it's not overly complicated or confusing, you do need to pay attention to what is happening because if you don't then the ending will make no sense whatsoever.
In saying that however, even when paying attention, one part of the story still didn't make sense, but I won't say anything for very obvious reasons.Some of the scare scenes in the movie were actually quite good (especially considering that this film is only a PG-13) even if they were the good old fashioned jump/scare's.
I know it's a given that atmosphere usually works well with creepy moments, but here it is nicely done throughout the movie.The cast do a pretty solid job too and the film is well acted.
I mean there are no stand out performances that are Oscar worthy (no offense to the cast), but they all do a fine job with the script that they are working with.Given all of that, it does go a bit slow in places like I say, and I think that's really the only thing stopping me from giving it a slightly higher rating than what I have.Overall, Jessabelle is a decent, well acted out supernatural horror with some nice creepy moments that is just a bit slow.
Returning to her childhood home to recuperate from a horrific car accident, Jessabelle after finding some VHS tapes made by her deceased mother comes face to face with a mysterious spirit seeking vengeance.
That didn't ruin Jessabelle by any means, but the ending was so familiar that I won't mention the name of the other movie that I'm thinking of because anyone who has seen it will instantly have a fairly accurate idea of how Jessabelle concludes.I recommend Jessabelle to anyone with an affinity for this type of horror - where atmosphere, mystery, and story take the lead over lots of action and mayhem..
Even if you can see things coming (no pun intended), especially if you read reviews who give away certain things or you just have seen enough horror movies to know some things, you'll still be entertained by this.And I did like where it went at the end (literally and metaphorically speaking).
The initial reaction here to finding the tapes left behind in secret and the way he flips out after finding her with them makes for a nice start here, and with the rather chilling house at play where this just simply screams to be filled with the residual effects of a haunting makes for a great time here with the beginnings of the supernatural torments against her.
These here are quite fun, with the pounding footsteps running throughout the house and seeming to sound like they're about ready to run into her only to have the revelation of being left along the entire time but being understandably uncomfortable with the situation, while the supernatural attack on the father to ensure the legacy is still around by preventing him from burning the evidence left behind makes for a truly chilling and cruel sequence that comes off nicely.
As well, the creepy revelations that come from this one are really enjoyable which make for quite a fun time here with the whole mystery over whether she's a twin or not and how her mother's deteriorating health made it possible to solve what's going on here as this one is far better than expected with the haunting storyline which is where this gets a lot right.
The movie attempts to produce some sort of sense of insecurity by going with this theme back and forth, but without any direction, or logic for that matter, the plot becomes more baffling.Jessabelle herself (Sarah Snook) acts contradictorily.
Jessabelle(Sarah Snook) after suffering an accident will live in a old house with her dad and she pass very problems with ugly and very angry ghosts, the end of the movie was the best, it was so surprising.
I recommend for all people who like the genre horror supernatural, the movie is a little different and for me there aren't clichés.
Written by Robert Ben Garant and directed by Kevin Greutert, Jessabelle (2014) keeps you guessing until the end, but an engaging mystery and attractive lead isn't enough to save this mediocre horror film from Blumhouse Productions.Tragedy strikes pregnant Jessabelle "Jessie" Laurent (Sarah Snook) when her fiancé Mark is killed in a car accident, which also causes her to miscarry and become paralyzed from the waist down.
I won't spoil the ending, but it's a crazy plot twist that might have been interesting if it was developed a bit more.Sarah Snook is an Australian actress mostly known for appearing nude in the infamous film Sleeping Beauty (2011).
I'll give her character credit for not taking whatever inheritance her dad left and getting on the first bus out of town after watching him inexplicably burn to death in a shed.There aren't many films set in the Louisiana bayou and even less featuring voodoo.
But Jessabelle's fast pace doesn't give the characters, or the audience, much time for reflection.The film grabs you and races toward its conclusion, not giving you time to stop and ask questions like: why wouldn't Jessie's dad get rid of his wife's clothes and personal belongings after 18 years?
Why does Jessie take a bath fully clothed?Okay, the PG-13 rating answers that question.Critics and audiences panned Jessabelle (25% and 31% on Rotten Tomatoes), but I didn't think it was nearly as bad as more recent horror films like The Hatred (2017) and Annabelle: Creation (2017).
It starts fast then slows down as the plot kicks in, this is a great thriller but the only way this comes under the genre of a horror is the way of the story,way its filmed and put together puts your brain on alert as there may be one or two jumpy bits but overall the scare factor is your brain falling into the story.
I had not known her work before the syfy time travel movie in that film she did a good job with a so so story ms.snook will be one of the new BIG names Many supernatural horror films that pop up here and there in the modern horror community usually consist of heavy, annoying loud noises and jump scares.
This movie is different."Jessabelle" is a great horror film, to be honest, I didn't know what to expect.
And honestly, it's probably one of the most well thought out stories in a horror film I've seen this year, next to "The Babadook" And "As Above, So Below" Finally, it's a good movie.
"The Dead are Back for Life" claims to be the tagline for Jessabelle, I think "God damn voodoo sh*t" might be more appropriate.Sarah Snook stars as the titular Jessabelle, a woman who is forced to return to her father's house in Louisana after being stricken to a wheelchair after a terrible and tragic car accident.
Jessabelle is in fact a combination haunting/voodoo film that is most reminiscent of The Skeleton Key.The film's horror is poorly paced, starting with a significant scare then regressing to nuanced mood changes and repeating the cycle a handful of times.
Jessabelle is quite a competent horror film, whose screenplay begins on a conventional way in order to later get more interesting and complicated with unexpected twists and ingenious tangents soaked of the "voodoo" folklore associated to the marshes of Louisiana, in which the story is set.
In conclusion, Jessabelle isn't a great film, but I liked it pretty much, and I think it deserves a recommendation.
My other few I watch over and over are:- Annabelle, Fury, Dracula Untold, The Purge-Anarchy, The Conjuring, Zombie Apocalypse, It's not that good but hey whatever 😁 13 Eerie and Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators, that movie is just hilarious very entertaining.I think Sarah Snook also looks like Leann Rimes.
This film tells the story of Jessabelle, or Jessie, a girl who went to live with an aunt as a child after her mother's death.
The end is based on a very nice and surprising twist plot, cutting the predictability that is felt throughout history.Sarah Snook did a good job in the lead role, and the supporting cast does a competent job as well.
A little slow here and there especially in the beginning but overall kept my attention fairly well and didn't rely too much on cheap scares but actually told a fairly good story with a twist ending that I actually enjoyed quite a bit cause it did make a bit of sense (many twists doesn't) So yeah nothing amazing but worth seeing for sure And I didn't know Mark Webber was in it until he actually showed up so that was a nice surprise cause I think he's one of the more underrated and underused actors in HollywoodSort of reminiscent of Skeleton Key, I think I prefer this movie though it's more down to earth and plot doesn't feel forced.
the main character plays like always very good, the story is good, why the movie is so bad reviewed, it is a mystery to me.therefore ....
I feel it is one of the better PG-13 Horror films I've seen (IF you like a good Ghost Story...) Blu-ray: Very Good V:9 A:9.
So, right up front some people who are used to and prefer more 'Modern' or intense Horror films will almost invariably NOT like this movie or will find it 'Slow' or 'Boring' as some have mentioned in their Review Summaries here.BUT...
The film is indeed VERY well made, expertly put together, and most entertaining, *** IF *** you are the kind of person who likes this kind of Horror movie.
And, I really got the impression that although they both have done MUCH bigger projects, they still really put their hearts and a lot of work into making this one.Usually, the performances in these low budget Horror films can be quite insulting and excruciatingly bad at times (please see my review of the recent 'HONEYMOON' - GEEZ, the acting in that one was truly AWFUl compared to this one) But here, I feel that all the actors and actresses in this one are quite good, and more importantly, BELIEVABLE, which is usually what I find sorely missing in most Horror films today.But, I should make a very important point for any who may be interested in checking this film out.
Needless to say, I am such an impressionable Wussy, that this one definitely drew me in and smacked me around a little...So, IF you are the kind of person who cannot EASILY suspend disbelief and get sucked into a good Ghost Story or Voodoo based film, then you may likely just find this one to be kind of 'Slow' and 'Boring' like some others here have said.
So, if you like this type of a slow-burn, atmospheric, moody Ghost Story with some Voodoo overtones, I think that there is a good chance that you might really enjoy it....
Overall, Jessabelle is still a FUN haunted house film to watch with friends at night but because it doesn't take itself seriously and that's why it's probably brings more unintentional laughs than the actual scares here.>>C<<.
Stumbled onto this by accident on cable and was delighted with the find.I like horror films, I have seen a lot, and it is no easy feat to catch my attention, but for the first 99% of this movie (more below), I was having a heck of a time...First, Sarah Snook.
That's acting.And Mark Webber as the "ex" who seems to be trying to help Snook out of compassion -- against the protests of his confused wife -- also nails his character dead on.Lots of spooky bits, more than a fair share of scenes that would make you regret watching it by yourself.In other words -- and I want to be clear on this -- going into the ninth inning we were way ahead on points and this film looked like a gem.And then you have the "twist reverse" ending, and a lot of the air suddenly seeps from the fun balloon.My job as a reviewer is to call 'em as I see 'em.
Keep in mind, though, these may be targeting two different groups of horror fans: "Jessabelle" is a much slower burn than the "Saw" films, and relies much less on the use of shock and gore.Sarah Snook is relatively new on the scene, her acting career really getting launched in 2009.
I love horror movies so when I watch a horror film I expect nothing but the best.
And thence to the crux of this watery goop of a film, the creepy family home is inhabited by some sort of spirit which wants Jessie to watch, get this, a whole library of VHS tapes each with only 2-3 mins of recording on it of her deceased mother reading out tarot cards predicting her daughters fate.
Producer Jason Blum of Paranormal Activity came up with another horror film about a woman who tries to face both her internal and external ghosts while trying to recuperate from an accident at her hometown in Louisiana in Jessabelle.It stars Sarah Snook in the title role.
This film written by Ben Garant and directed by Kevin Greutert provides us a horror film wherein a woman tries to come face to face with spirits that have been tormenting her and would want to have absolute control of her as well as a resolution about unresolved issues and traumatic experiences they have both have had with each other.While the film has an interesting premise and had great potential,too bad that it ended up far from interesting and compelling.Also,it just ended up with very limited horrific scenes that would scare the audience and it accidentally ended up gross that it became funny and hard to watch.Added to that,it also lacked tension required for a horror movie and the story became far from original and refreshing especially for horror movie fans.Despite the good portrayal of Sandra Snook and the presence of the gorgeous Mexican actress Ana de la Reguera,it ended up as a disappointment..
The film is quite good, and the story isn't too bad it seems to have more depth than other horror films and gives you something to think about.
It takes you a good five minutes to put the pieces together to actually work it out....The ending is also ridiculously abrupt, it goes from literally middle of story, end of story and end of film in what feels like a time frame of ten minutes.Overall it isn't a bad watch, would I watch it again?
Jessabelle is a movie that all horror fans should check out, I don't understand the bad reviews.
All in all, however, I would give this a thumbs up, definitely better than a lot of the horror movies produced these days, plus: it actually has 'jumping scare' moments.
The cinematography is quite good and the acting is effective.Final verdict: Jessabelle is nothing groundbreaking but one of the better horror flicks in recent years. |
tt0091982 | Le solitaire | The policeman Stan Jalard and his colleague Simon Lecache are rather fed up with police work. They are toying with the idea to quit police service in order to run a hotel on the Antilles. Single father Lecache has already asked his son Christian about it. But at the very evening when Lecache tells Jalard that his son approves of their plan, Lecache is murdered by the professional killer Charly Schneider.
Jalard changes his mind. He dedicates his life all the more to police work. After two more years he has been promoted but he had no chance to get Schneider yet because Schneider disappeared. Eventually Schneider returns to France and commits crimes. Moreover he threatens Jalard on the phone and later devastates his flat. He even sends somebody to shoot Jalard and his godson Christian in the street.
Jalard identifies Schneider's new accomplices and puts them under pressure. Step by step he closes in on him until he can confront him in his hide-out. Schneider refuses to show any regret, eludes and steals a car. He tries to run over Jalard who arrests him anyway. Now that Jalard has brought the murderer of Christian's father to justice, he allows Christian to call him “Dad”. He, who has put his godson away into boarding schools all the time and lived only for his police work, now demonstrates a shift in priorities. When they drive home, Jalard puts a police siren on top of his car and drives wiggly lines just because that obviously amuses little Christian a lot. | revenge | train | wikipedia | Belmondo takes the lion's share.. Jacques Deray,who recently died, made several commendable works ,even if he never made a masterpiece:"la piscine" "un papillon sur l'épaule" or in his latter days "un crime".But "le solitaire" has nothing going for it:here Deray is Belmondo's drudge,trying to direct a star who overplays and who single-handedly gets rid of the villains and even the treacherous cops.They added a child's character (Belmondo's godson whom he takes in after his father's death )to sweeten the violence ;the brat is subject to some gaffes concerning Godfather's love affairs.This is supposed to provide the poor screenplay with a comic relief.The film wasn't even a commercial success in France which had begun to have enough of these cops and robbers flicks. Doesn't get much worse.... This film is really bad even for 80s Belmondo standards. Story? None. Belmondo is looking for his friends' killer and chases cars, beats up and kills people in the process. At one stage or other the director seemed to have noticed that this wouldn't fill 90 minutes and added the character of a child. So all in all it seems like a tough and nasty version of a 60s Eddie Constantine film. It is interesting though that if you watch the film closely you'll notice that props and cast also feature in some other 80s Belmondo movies. The overall impression is that nothing really seems to fit story wise as well. The whole film seems to be made up of odds and ends. In Germany the film was called The Professional 2- a bit pointless given the fact that the original professional actually dies in the first part.. Le Solitaire's the only game in town. Jean Paul Belmondo takes his "Dirty Harry" persona deep into the heart of eighties fashion, putting off a planned early retirement to the Carribean in order to track down the man who killed his partner.
Only in France could a Police Superintendant get away with wearing the bright yellow sports jacket Belmondo wears here (or could he?) and his detective team are even worse, looking like sartorial escapees from a bad episode of Miami Vice.
Outside the office Belmondo still favours the black leather jacket though, and the action is still pretty gritty, but backs off a bit from the dizzy heights of Le Marginal.
And this time Belmondo does it by the book in the end, bringing the murderer to justice and resisting the urge to blow him away, despite being presented with the opportunity (excuse?) of favourable circumstances in which to do so with a clear concience.
Perhaps the attitude was toned down to avoid further criticism from the liberal press of his vigilante stance in that earlier movie, rather like when the original "Harry" made some adjustments in his second outing in order demonstrate that he wasn't a complete red neck?
However a Pug is no substitute for an armour plated Mustang!. great belmondo!. this is one of the very best of belmondo! see, how the "old bebel" is hunting for the killer of his cop-partner. one of my favourites... i am looking for all belmondo movies. since early 50s he was getting more marvelous and a "strong hero". belmondo is the greatest actor in europe! |
tt0026095 | La bandera | Curfew bells are ringing at night in Paris, while a man and his drunken girlfriend Jacqueline walk down the street. Pierre Gilieth comes out of house #25 looking very frightened, both Pierre Gilieth and Jacqueline accidentally collide while consumed in their distraction. Pierre Gilieth decides to walk away but leaves a streak of blood on Jacqueline's dress. Immediately, she realizes her dress is stained with blood and gasps. The film cuts to his peering through Venetian blinds in Barcelona. A detective follows him around town, while Pierre Gilieth meets with fellow Frenchmen in a bar, who pick his pocket to give his identifications away to the detective. When Pierre Gilieth finds out he tries to fight the thieves, but then refuses to have the police investigate the matter.
Now at the end of his resources, having been rejected as a sailor on a merchant ship, he decides join the Spanish Foreign Legion on seeing a placard. The story is just before the Spanish Civil War, as the top of the placard reads "Spanish Republic" and "Law of 17 July 1934". Many of his fellow legionnaires have joined from destitution (and their pay will be five Pesetas), but the Frenchman Fernando Lucas, played by Robert Le Vigan, has money not only for cigarettes but for barhopping. The other legionnaires are on the impression that the money is being sent by his mother and that the reason for his joining the legion was his desertion from the French Army. When Lucas drops his identification card which he quickly hides, Gilieth becomes wary that Lucas is hiding something. Gilieth follows the advice from his best friend Mulot (Milo in the Spanish issue), played by Raymond Aimos, to pick Lucas pocket in the night to read it; but fails.
Thus Gilieth feeds a newspaper clipping that he had been carrying around, announcing a 50,000 Franc reward for the capture of the culprit of the "Crime of Rue St-Vincent", to the swine in the base pen; hoping to get rid of the dark memories it brings. Lucas shows up and invites him to get a drink, but soon in the bar Lucas manages to anger Gilieth to the point of a fist fight. Shortly after, his unit of legionnaires the bandera is ready to move south, Gilieth is able to convince his captain, played by Pierre Renoir, to have Lucas transferred to another location on account of violation of personal space. Indeed, once the bandera departs, the detective from Barcelona comes and talks to Lucas.
Mulot tries to cheer Gilieth up by bringing him to a local establishment with dancing girls. There he meets Aisha la Slaoui, a native who is portrayed by Annabella with marks on her forehead and chin; and immediately falls in love with her. He proposes to her as soon as he finds it appropriate, and their gypsy wedding ceremony involves their mutually making a cut in their mate's forearms and licking blood from it.
Wishing to get away from Lucas, Gilieth plans to escape with her to her people in the south at Rabat, to become one of them; but still he needs to deal with Lucas. Until that time, he commands her to lie about her love for him and to entertain Lucas, even doing whatever he asks until he tells her who he really is. Lucas tries to get Aisha to leave Gilieth and be his woman. Gilieth confronts them together and tells Aisha to spit Lucas' in the eye; which she does. Then he tells Lucas to come with him outside to settle the matter like men. Aisha gives Lucas a coin, one of her jewelry pieces, to remember her by in case something happens to him.
Lucas and Gilieth have a heated confrontation, where Lucas pulls out a knife and Gilieth is able to grasp Lucas' knife, but spares his life. There he admits that he killed a man, and says that he has given up his notion of escape with Aisha. Lucas tells Gilieth that he will surely be sleeping in jail that very night. Gilieth then shows two cartridges, telling him that he will first shoot Lucas and then himself during combat which will take place soon.
As the men finish their talk, they hear the horn from their crew to take places. An unexpected uprising needs to be put down, for which task both Gilieth's and Lucas' banderas will be required. No legionnaire wants to volunteer to be one of the twenty-four who are to hold a small outpost in advance of the main force, until the captain says that he will command it himself. Immediately they all step forward, except Lucas, who pauses a moment. The sergeant then picks the first twelve on the left and on the right, which includes the main cast.
The scene which follows has many of the stereotypes of this genre, of which the most important is that no Moroccan combatant is ever depicted; they are presented as supremely concealed snipers. Plot elements involve poisoned water and men who try to get to a safe supply but who only get shot for their valor. A fighter plane appears and several of the unit get shot either by "friendly fire" or, as the legionnaires surmise, by an enemy pilot. Captain Weller, sensing he only has a few minutes to live, tells Gilieth to take over. At this point Lucas informs Captain Weller, that he is a police spy as shown on his identification card. The captain is furious, and tells him to leave the men alone, and that as he is not a real legionnaire; he should depart if he should survive. Shortly after, the captain dies of heat stroke and exhaustion. The only two who remain are Gilieth and Lucas, as the main force charges up the hill, their machine guns blazing to sweep the enemy from their positions.
Yet at this moment of victory, Gilieth gets shot by a sniper, leaving Lucas to answer the roll call of the twenty-four with "Killed in action" for all except for Gilieth, who was "Promoted on the battlefield to corporal and killed in action". He himself is "Present". Returning to Aisha, he gives her back her coin, saying that Gilieth died thinking about her. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | Riffraff Beau Geste..
"La bandera" is one of Julien Duvivier's most famous movies,but it seems a bit dated now.People who saw a version of "Beau Geste" cannot help but be struck by the similarities between the two stories:the "legion etrangere" ,as a way out when the police is hot on your heels.But whereas Beau Geste characters are noble,distinguished and chivalrous,Duvivier's hero and his mates are riffraff .The main character,played by Gabin ,is a good guy who committed an unpremeditated murder.The best part of the movie ,in my opinion,is the description of the fort,the barrack-rooms,the brothel .Here,the hero falls in love with a morrocan girl.There's the rub:she's played by Annabella (who was Tyrone Power's wife) who does not look like a North African,not at all,hence the necessity to make her up outrageously ,with ugly results.Like in "Beau Geste",the Arabs are the baddies,period.The courageous legionnaires always call them "les salopards" (the bastards).Duvivier achieves a real tour de force here:we never see the enemy when they attack the little fort!The poisoned water is a good dramatic idea and the final echoes Edith Piaf's song "le fanion de la légion".However,"la bandera",with its military stereotypes, does not equal Duvivier's other pre-war works "la fin du jour" ,"carnet de bal" , "la belle équipe" or "pépé le moko" ,the latter taking place in North Africa too..
Birth of the Great Gabin.
If you like your meat salty and undercooked and have already tasted the treat that is Jean Gabin on film, this is about as early as you can step back in his career and still get a satisfying meal.
He is marching toward his roguish best in this foreign legion romance, and the locations and decor are alluring, even in the faded print I have on DVD.
I'm guessing this might be the first film in which he performs his slow burn to explosion, and MAN is this scene -- in close-up -- great!
I don't know much about the beginnings of the poetic realist movement in French cinema, but Duvivier was one of its main practitioners, and this is a precursor to his great PEPE LE MOKO, where the powerful, rash man is driven to destruction by love.
Though not as accomplished as the later Gabin romances PORT OF SHADOWS, THE HUMAN BEAST, or LE JOUR SE LEVE, LA BANDERA has its charms.
In addition to a great role and performance by Gabin, there is a strong supporting cast including Raymond Aimos, Pierre Renoir, and the indispensable Gaston Modot.
Recommended!.
The Birth of a Myth....
Directed halfway through the thirties, "La Bandera" was the pivotal movie of Gabin's career.
It wasn't the first film with Julien Duvivier, not even the second, they made one about Canadian lumberjacks and then a 'swords-and-sandals' film called "Golgotha" where his performance as Pontius Pilate was as well-received as John Wayne playing a centurion in "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
But Gabin and Duvivier had one thing in common, they liked to play with the same team and their friendship was sealed already.So Jean Gabin, after a streak of relatively forgettable movies in the early 30's, knew that the time of doing films to make ends meet was over, he started to pick those that met his expectations.
He and Duvivier bought the rights of "La Bandera", Pierre Mac Olan's novel about a criminal hiding in Spanish Foreign legion with the Moroccan Riff War as the backdrop.
The director had trouble finding money but the SNC (French Cinema National Society) never regretted its choice to fund "La Bandera", an instant classic that immediately launched Gabin's career and consolidated his status as THE leading man and the persona that would define the first of his four-decade spanning career.And as Pierre Gilieth, Gabin makes two myth converge: the charismatic legionary figure whose handsome and tall physique and "smell of hot sand" was praised by Edith Piaf in one of her most famous songs and became a popular expression, and there is the myth of Gabin, as the character who desperately tries to escape from his past or his condition: a loner, a deserter, here the most extreme case: a criminal.
The film opens "Rue St Vincent", with a dying man leaving blood stains on a woman he crosses, this is one of the boldest openings of any French film and the symbolism of the blood stain doesn't call for deep analysis.
Someone must carry more indelible marks in his soul.Then, a fantastic ellipse takes us immediately to Barcelona where Gilieth meets a group of French countrymen who steal his wallet, that he can't call the Police leaves no doubt about his link to the opening crime.
The man was a fugitive, now he's broke, and in Spain, he's driven to the inevitable corner of the legion, not without a few fights and a heart-pounding chase in the middle of the streets that looks like a foretaste of the cat-and-mouse game with the Police in "Pepe Le Moko" (also directed by Duvivier).
But before the Kasbah, the legion, a no less spectacular and fascinating portmanteau of colorful characters, played the part of the necessary hiding place.Indeed, there is a commonly known notion that the guys who went to the legion weren't all idealistic young men, some were mercenaries and others had a past they tried to get rid of in order to start a new life, no matter how brief it would be, a new exciting, anonymous short life was better than a miserable one with the burden of an identity.
Gilieth chose a life that would equal prison, he's like leading his own quest for redemption for an act he doesn't regret but admits there has to be a price to pay for it.
But even an exile in the legion would be too easy, two French guys join him, one is Aimos as Mulot, the jovial street-smart partner, and Robert Le Vigan as Fernando Lucas, the man who starts as a very friendly fellow, but whose smile becomes more suspicious.Gilieth discovers later that he's an undercover cop assigned to find the St Vincent killer in exchange of 50 000 francs, a fortune.
It's very revealing when the most troubled and ambiguous personality is a law enforcer, more of a bounty hunter actually, and Le Vigan gave an extraordinary depth as the nemesis of Gilieth, the actor had a face chiseled for playing traitors and sneaky characters (he actually was 'Jesus' in "Golgotha") so it's quite ironic that his career was cut abruptly because of his support to the Petain government, one of cinema's collateral losses to the war, along with Mireille Balin.
His role embodies the same ethical ambiguity, in a place where men get a second break; the representative of the law becomes the undesirable one.To this glorious cast, Pierre Renoir (brother of director Jean) deserves a mention, he who plays the Captain of the fort, protective, tough but fair and Annabella who represents a more or less credible Berber prostitute named Aicha la Slaoui, and contributes to the romantic subplot.
Annabella was the star of the 30's so despite her limited screen-time, she gets the top-billing, like Ida Lupino in "High Sierra" where Bogart was obviously the star, but this is Gabin's "High Sierra" and while the romance doesn't hurt the film, we're no fools, we know it's a man's world where everything will be paid or redeemed on the obligatory battlefield, because legion isn't just about fighting a war but getting rid of demons, and sometimes, it takes one fight to make the ultimate one.Now, should we root for these men or Gilieth?
There is a scene that gives a hint.
The Captain gives a legionary four weeks of punishment, two for having promised to kill him and two others for not having done it when he could.
As wrong as it was, he should have kept his word.
This scene sums up the ethical dilemma of the film, we all make mistakes, and it's not about acting but acting enough to deserve a break.
Even the film was dedicated to General Franco for his involvement in the making, needless to say the banner was removed after the events of the Civil War, it's like the film embraced its own poetry about past mistakes..
ragged glory.
I read La Bandera a year or two ago and finally hunted down the DVD.
It's pretty faithful to Mac Orlan's text (Dumarchais?
IMDb must be putting on airs).
This adventure yarn is better than a lot of his pirate stories, but still doesn't rise much above an adolescent's fantasy of the Spanish Foreign Legion.
I especially liked Gabin - young, athletic, dumb and out of control.
The love story with Annabella seems tacked on and out of the blue, but it's true to the text it's taken from.The random stupidity of racing through the desert on Model A flatbeds after phantom snipers and gun-runners rings truest.
This film is not on a humanist/moralist level with La Grand Illusion or Paths of Glory.
It's an existential image of war-as-it-happens.
The settings are stark, bright and always exposed.
Sudden death is intertwined with the boredom of the barracks..
Les Miserables meets Beau Geste.
I grabbed La Bandara because it reunited Jean Gabin and Julien Duvivier, whose Pepe le Moko is a noir masterpiece.
I'll give it a few points because Gabin is in it, but the clumsy plot, cheap sets and the ludicrous Annabella making like an Arab princess put the film on my `to sell' shelf.
If you watch it, you'll find yourself asking, why didn't the idiots build the fort *around* the well, instead of a deadly few yards away from it.
And why use tin roofs in the middle of the desert?
But by then the sheer perversity of contrivance that makes up the script should numb you to any further contemplation..
Legionnaire's Disease.
Duvivier, Gabin, what's to be bad, right.
W - e - e - ll, I have to say right off that this could have been better; Gabin had already appeared in an earlier Duvivier entry, Maria Chapledaine and within a couple of years he would score really heavily in Duvivier's Le Belle equipe and Pepe Le Moko - in fact you could argue that this is something of a dress rehearsal for Pepe given that in both films Gabin winds up in North Africa escaping a criminal past in France.
Most of the faults are in the script.
After a brief opening sequence in Paris - which anticipates Le Jour se leve with Gabin starting the film by ending a life - we switch abruptly - and for no satisfactory reason - to Barcelona where Gabin has his pocket picked with nothing more made of it.
Then he enlists in the Spanish Foreign Legion and this is where the story really starts - again there is a foretaste of Pepe Le Moko in that a relentless cop, Robert Le Vigan, clearly mistaking Gabin for Jean Valjean, hounds him as he would be hounded in the Casbah.
Top-billed Annabella doesn't really convince as an Arab dancing girl anymore than the instant attraction and marriage between her and Gabin.
Another poster has pointed out the ludicrousness of having a well OUTSIDE the fort which makes it that much easier for the enemy to pick off the Legionnaires as they venture outside lest they dehydrate.
On the other hand this IS a Duvivier film and Duvivier WAS a genius so there are moments to savour and as I've said before even an off-form Duvivier is light years better than Godard on the best day he ever had..
Good but perhaps making the character a bit more likable would have made the movie even better..
A few observations before I discuss the film in detail.
First, the English captioning of this DVD is rather poor.
While the body of the text seemed okay, the grammar wasn't and a few times sentences just didn't make much sense.
Second, Annabella is billed first.
However, she's not even in the film until it's half complete and even then, it's clearly a Jean Gabin starring film.
She was a bigger star at the time and later married Tyrone Power, incidentally.
Third, the film is about the Spanish Foreign Legion--a group started in 1920.
Despite three Frenchmen and an American in the regiment, apparently there were actually very few foreigners in its ranks.
And, those who did serve were mostly Hispanics from the Americas--especially Cuba.The film begins with Pierre (Gabin) in Spain--having run away from a murder he committed back home in Paris.
He's broke, hungry and homeless.
In desperation, he enlists in the Spanish Foreign Legion.
However, there is an odd man who also enlists, Fernando (Robert Le Vigan)--an odd man who begins bating Pierre.
Perhaps Fernando knows about Pierre's past.
Regardless, Pierre goes to the commanding officer to request that the two be put in separate units--which is done.
However, a bit later, Fernando is back--and a showdown is certain between them.This film, superficially, looks like "Beau Geste".
However, in style it's quite different.
"Beau Gest" is quite sentimental and the important part of the film is the back story.
You also really like the characters--they are noble and decent.
However, "La Bandera" is more existential--perhaps like a novel by Camus.
Yes, there is a past--but the film really is set in the present and there is very little sentiment.
Plus, Pierre is NOT a good guy--and the film is a much more amoral or non-judgmental sort of picture.
This makes "La Bandera" seem a bit more realistic but also a lot less satisfying.
It's just hard to really care about the guy.
This, by the way, is true in several of Gabin's films of the era, such as "La Bête Humaine".
Well worth seeing but I think I prefer the sentiment and style of the American film..
An orientalist, colonialist misadventure, with one or two small redeeming features.
A loose and baggy French orientalist romance, in which tough guy Pierre Gillieth (Jean Gabin) flees Paris after killing a man in the midst of a violent disagreement, winds up in Barcelona, where he decides to join Spain's Foreign Legion.
He and a bunch of other colourful guys do so, and wind up somewhere in North Africa, wearing the tasseled caps of Spanish soldiers and hanging out in an exotic bar where the beautiful dancer Aisha (Annabella) and Gillieth fall in love instantaneously and they marry.
She's sparky and irrepressible and he's solid and happy, until the scarily jolly bad guy, actually a cop, shows up and disturbs the escape plan.
Fortunately, the Legion needs 24 volunteers to hold off an uprising, and nobody is expected to survive, and of course both Gillieth and the cop go, and everybody dies except the two of them, and just as the relief arrives, Gillieth takes the last bullet, leaving the cop, who has relented, to declare his friend's heroism and deliver the bad news to Aisha, who has a close-up in which her huge eyes fill with tears and her lips tremble and she turns away.
The film is mostly awful, a nasty piece of European colonialism, complete with a merciless and faceless enemy.
The scenery is interesting, the dialogue mostly tepid, Gabin predictable, leaving only Annabella to stand out, with her exotic dances and her filmy gowns and her enchanting smile for Gabin and the curious henna markings on her forehead and chin..
Full of life, but works from a limited concept of honor.
It made me nostalgic for a time and place I never experienced: the mid 1930 in Barcelona, Paris and North Africa.
The range of everyday objects is so radically different from my time and space that it makes those olden times simpler, thus more meaningful.
This is before TVs, commercial airplanes, computers.
It made it easier to concentrate on the scenery, the people themselves, the story and morals behind it, there was less distraction.
The protagonist, played by 31 year old Jean Gabin, kills someone in Paris, flees to Barcelona, runs out of money joins the foreign legion, but a cop follows him there too.
I won't give away the end of the action though.
Despite being a(n accidental) murderer, Gabin plays an honorable man.
The movie's focus is about honor as the title (meaning Flag) suggests too.
But looking from today the concept of honor is limited: women and Arabs are excluded by default.
The former group is clearly subservient and in best case are good looking prostitutes.
The latter group is not even shown (with one short exception) despite that the second half of the movie is about the heroic European soldiers who fight them, the inferior "bastards".
So maybe, thinking about my 21st century social sensitivity I should not think so nostalgically of that era.
I loved the overhead shots on the street of Barcelona's markets.
They were so full of life. |
tt0039883 | Take My Life | Nicholas "Nicky" Talbot attends the London debut of his wife, opera singer Philippa Shelley, at Covent Garden. After her successful performance, Nicky runs into former girlfriend Elizabeth Rusman backstage, a musician in the orchestra, who asks for his help. She gives him her address before Philippa appears (and keeps his personalised pencil). At home, Nicky and a jealous Philippa quarrel over Elizabeth. When Philippa throws an object that strikes her husband in the forehead, he leaves in a huff.
The scene then shifts to a courtroom, where the prosecuting counsel reveals that Nicky is on trial for the strangulation of Elizabeth that night. A flashback shows the murderer setting fire to the body. When the killer leaves the flat, he conceals his face from a man using a handkerchief pressed to his forehead, leading the police to assume he has been injured there. Also, the pencil is found at the scene of the crime. The police take Nicky into custody.
Philippa goes to see Elizabeth's mother in Holland, then to an employment agency and Elizabeth's acquaintances, without any progress. Inspector Archer does, however, let her examine the dead woman's possessions and copy a bit of music. When Philippa plays it at home, she discovers that her nephew is already familiar with it.
She sets out for a school in Scotland, having ascertained that one of the masters may be the composer. Mr. Flemming, the headmaster, is disturbed to recognise her from her photograph in the newspaper. He takes her on a tour of the school. She notices that the school group photograph for the previous year is missing. When she plays the tune on the chapel organ, she sees in a mirror that he is perturbed. Philippa obtains a copy of the photograph the next morning and sees Elizabeth in it. Flemming becomes aware of this and follows her aboard the train. He confronts her in her compartment. They are interrupted when a man enters, but when the newcomer reveals that he is deaf, Flemming confesses to the crime, though it was unpremeditated. Elizabeth had threatened to divorce him for cruelty, which would have ruined him. After the deaf man leaves, Flemming destroys the incriminating photograph and tries to throw Philippa from the train. Fortunately, the deaf man returns just in time. Flemming then jumps to his death.
When Philippa goes to see Inspector Archer (still without proof), he introduces her to Detective Sergeant Hawkins, the "deaf" man who is not deaf at all and therefore heard Flemming's confession. | murder | train | wikipedia | "Take My life" is one of the better films of its era in British film making.
A Rank Film that catched the attention of Hollywood and brought its leading actress Greta Gynt to the film capitol of the world.
The merits of "Take My Life" is in its fast paced and skillfully directed hands of Ronald Neame.
The feeling of suspense is carefully distributed throughout the film via a dramatic developement that never leavs you unexcited or bored.
And The Rank Studioes gathered their best talents to make the film a minor classic of British film-noire style.
"Take my Life" was widly distributed all over the world and is remembered as Greta Gynts best liked film, both by her and her fans.
So take a risk with this film if you want to spend an evening (or day) of cinemagic style and suspense.
An opera diva gets mixed up with her husband in a murder mystery of extreme cruelty.
Brilliant thriller with a musical touch to it, the key to the solution being a tiny melody putting the primadonna Greta Gynt on the track.
This to me unknown actress dominates the film with a vengeance, never giving up on her lonely and heroic quest to clear her husband, wrongly accused of murder because of unfortunate circumstances speaking against him.
Francis Sullivan is domineering as usual as the prosecutor and as perfectly objective as the lawyer Jaggers in "Great Expectations" the previous year, but the most interesting part is Marius Goring.
It was Ronald Neame's debut as a director, and it matches more than well any sustained thriller by Hitchcock or Anthony Asquith.
Staring Hugh Williams and Greats Gynt this British 40's thriller is well worth a look..
Nicholas Talbot is the husband and manager of wealthy opera singer Phillipa Shelley.
On trial for murder he looks to be heading for certain imprisonment but Phillipa starts following her own clues in an attempt to uncover the truth.I didn't have a clue what this was about until I watched it so I had no preconceptions about it.
However it quickly became dull and only really got better when the wife started looking for clues herself.
I say layabout but he's actually the manager of his talented operatic singer wife Greta Gynt (Phillipa).
Cue sharp-witted Greta to go out and prove his innocence.This film travels along at a good pace and is basically a thriller.
The mystery element is taken away near the beginning of the film as the killer is revealed.
This doesn't matter and takes nothing away from the enjoyment of the film as Gynt goes after the truth and puts herself in danger.
The film starts with an interesting voice-over from lawyer Frances L.
First-rate British Noir Murder Drama.
This is a superb example of a high-calibre British postwar murder mystery.
It was the first film ever directed by Ronnie Neame, who is mostly famous for his classics 'Tunes of Glory' (1960) and 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie' (1969).
Neame really shows what a brilliant director he was, not only coaxing excellent performances out of his actors, but keeping the pace and the tension despite the fact that the identity of the murderer is revealed very early.
Sullivan is, as usual, hair-raising as the prosecuting counsel, although his role should have been more prominent if the film had not been so short at only 76 minutes.
(One suspects things were cut out before release, as the buildup of Sullivan really does fizzle out without explanation.) The scenes towards the end of the film really do become incredibly menacing and powerful, as Marius Goring, who plays the murderer in an eerie and intense style, can be seen calculating what he must do next, and sets about it with the methodical determination of a man who now has nothing to lose.
Hugh Williams is excellent as the rather formal husband of Greta Gynt, an equally formal wife who is an opera star.
It is difficult for such people to cope with real situations of danger, as their behaviour is so mannered, even in their most private moments, that quick thinking and quick action are impossibilities for them, what with all the thawing out they have to do first, not to mention the necessity of changing for dinner, straightening the black tie, and making sure every hair is in place.
In this film, the doomed victim is Rosalie Crutchley, who really was a fascinating wench at that early age, in fact, someone to whom you can imagine almost anything could happen, and it does..
"The Walking Stick" starred David Hemmings and Samantha Eggar and was a romantic thriller."Take My Life" was the first Winston Graham book to be filmed.
Additional dialogue was by Winston Graham and Margaret Kennedy (who wrote "The Constant Nymph") so it is a very stylish film.Greta Gynt, Britain's resident sex symbol of the 40s (even though she was Norwegian) plays a rare sympathetic role.
She plays Phillipa, an opera singer giving her first performance in England.
She has a volatile marriage to Nicholas (Hugh Williams).
During the performance Nicholas sees a girl (Rosalie Crutchley) that he has known in former times and she begs to see him after the show.By morning the girl has been murdered and by an unfortunate co- incidence, Nicholas has been charged with murder.
(He has a quarrel with his wife - they throw things at each other and Nicholas leaves the flat with a gash over his eye.
The murderer also has a cut over his eye, where the girl hit him with a lamp when she was being strangled.)The murderer is revealed early on and there is a game of cat and mouse as Phillipa goes to Scotland, hot on his trail.
British films had their own brand of "film noir" and this is a great example..
As I scrolled down a list of Ronald Neame's movie credits prior to compiling this little review, I was struck again by the unbridled excellence of his filmography.
Ebullient successes such as 'Major Barbara' and 'Blithe Spirit' were photographed by him, and he would go on to direct such involving and memorable movies as 'The Man Who Never Was' and 'Gambit'.
Having honed his skills behind the camera while working with the cream of British movie-making talent, Neame made the transition to the director's chair in 1947 with 'Take My Life'.And what a brilliant first-up effort it proves to be!
This fast-paced and deftly-directed thriller sees Greta Gynt travelling to Scotland in an attempt to clear her husband, Hugh Williams, of the murder of an old flame of his.
With Neame directing and Guy Green photographing the movie, it is a real triumph pictorially.
The movie is further elevated, however, by a stylish and imaginative script and uniformly excellent performances.
Gynt and Williams offer refreshing sparkle on-screen and imbue their characters with admirable depth.
Some of the later suspense-filled scenes in the school call to mind Neame's background in cinematography.
Several wonderfully expressionistic scenes are realised as Gynt searches for evidence of the dead girl, and engages in a game of cat-and-mouse with Goring amongst the deserted corridors and rooms of the empty school and then on the train back to England.
The sense of moody desperation evoked in the last reel deserves special praise.This confident and consistently exciting thriller shows what a fantastic film-maker Ronald Neame was.
He demonstrates a smooth narrative style and expertly ramps up a thrilling level of suspense, despite the fact that the murderer is known to the audience from an early stage.
'Take My Life' is a movie that I wholeheartedly recommend..
Successful opera singer Greta Gynt and her husband Hugh Williams have a marital quarrel over an ex of Williams.
Gynt accidentally hurts Williams on his forehead, and he walks out to cool down.
At the same time, his ex is strangled by another man, but not before she hits him over the head with a vase, also leaving him with a scar on his forehead.
Gynt has to try and find the real killer before Williams is convicted in a seemingly clear case.In some ways this movie is nothing special, the story (based on a play) is good but not too surprising.
The acting is also solid throughout with the gorgeous Gyn ('Dear Murderer') standing out with a nuanced and great performance.
First time director, and former cinematographer, Ronald Neame ('The Poseidon Adventure') plays with the narrative structure by using prosecutor Francis L.
Sullivan ('Night And The City') to tell the story in voice over, as he presents his case to the court.
As Sullivan reconstructs the murder, using Williams as the killer, the murder is shown, but with the real killer who does resemble Williams, disorienting the viewer.
It's a small but clever trick that works, and even brings Hitchcock to mind (as do other scenes, especially in the way tension and suspense is created).
He is also helped tremendously by the excellent cinematography of Guy Green ('Great Expectations', future director of 'Portrait Of Alison', another great Britnoir).
Neame and Green manage to turn a good movie into a great and stylish Britnoir/thriller, I was highly impressed by the visual and narrative language they used.
Enjoyable 1940s British Suspense.
I love this period of British films where everyone is relentlessly middle class, even the children who say expressions such as "super" & "wizard" and the women all speak with Celia Johnson like cut glass accents.Indeed I read today (Daily Mail 9/10/14) that this is the accent that the British most trust.Well to this 1947 film.For me Marius Goring was the stand out actor playing the headmaster Sidney Fleming.Another of his menacing roles was in "Highly Dangerous"(1950) as a Balkan police inspector with Margaret Lockwood.Francis L.
Sullivan was in his element yet again playing a criminal prosecuting barrister (see him in "Great Expectations" (1946).Sharp eyed viewers may have noticed the uncredited performances of Maurice Denham playing defending counsel and a newsboy at York station played by the future Billy Bunter- (Gerald Campion) on children's 1950s BBC TV.In 1947 all middle class people dressed up to visit the opera/concert/theatre with women in long evening gowns/jewels and the men smartly dressed in dinner suits with bow ties.One of the audience members actually used that theatrical cliché " Darling you were fabulous!" after listening to Greta Gynt (Philippa Shelley) miming to an operatic aria dubbed on by a professional singer.I will say though as an artist that this actress had lovely cheekbones.Huw Williams (father of Simon Williams) in the male lead as the innocent man charged with the strangulation, I always find just adequate.Sorry to damn him with faint praise.Ronald Adam, who often pops up in 1940s films, such as "Green for Danger", played the supposedly deaf detective who became the vital witness Philippa Shelley needed to save her husband.It certainly kept my interest to the end being well scripted and I rated it 7/10..
Made in that wartime and post-war black and white era when British movies at least looked good, employed fine character actors and dressed the cast glamorously.
Greta Gynt may not be the world's greatest actress but she makes the most of her deadpan, slightly skewed beauty and nasal, refined voice.
(Was English her first language?)She convinces least as the star of a ghastly modern opera (music by William Alwyn) in this tale of a man wrongly accused of murder.There's not much suspense.
Neame's camera work found fresh ways to do clichéd scenes.
I don't find Neame's work here a ripoff of Hitch's genre, but rather an homage to the great director.Like Sir Alfred, Neame has the wrong man accused of murder.
In fact, male lead Hugh Williams is quite ineffectual at any sort of defense, since the movie opens with him on trial for murder and quickly found guilty.
That the fine British character actor Francis L.
Sullivan is given such a short role as prosecuting attorney is fine with me.
He is cleverly used to state his case against the defendant, leading into flashbacks of the drama as it really happened.This leaves the lovely Greta Gynt to portray opera star and first class detective.
It's up to Ms. Gynt to sort out the clues that lead to the real killer.The train sequences definitely reminded me of Hitchcock's 'The Lady Vanishes', and there is a plot twist near the end which is quite delicious.I suggest that previous reviewers who found nothing interesting in this movie must have been half asleep during their viewing.
I was riveted by Neame's work with the camera, and it's definitely a movie worth a second look.
Williams as the male lead is fairly useless, a handsome man who could easily be taken as a ne'er do well living off his wife's successful operatic career.
So it is up to the strong performance of Gynt's character to drive the story to its compelling end.This movie has been described as 'film noir', but I see it as more of a 'thriller'.
And like the best of Hitchcock's suspense films, this one delivers..
If you are watching a mystery or suspense film, the most important element is the finale--the portion where you learn the truth.
Unfortunately, the picture falls apart a bit there...just a bit.When the film begins, a man's old girlfriend shows up years later.
Later, at home, the wife continues to pester him about the lady...good-naturedly at first.
But his troubles have only just begun, however, as the woman he was talking to at the beginning of the film is dead.
So, it's up to the wife to track down some leads...perhaps she can shed light on what really happened.
Unfortunately, she might also find the real murderer...and then what's she to do?!The film was very good and taut.
My only problem is that during the big confrontation scene on the train at the end, the woman NEVER yelled for help and knew her life was in danger.
Still, a snappy little film and one worth seeing.
****SPOILERS**** Based on the forgettable Winston Graham novel by the same name the movie has to do with the murder of violinist Elizabeth Rusman, Rosalie Cuuchley, who's body was found burned to a crisp to conceal her identity from the police by her murdered.
The man arrested for Rusman's murder just happened to be the husband of the opera singer Philippa Shelly, Greta Gynt, who was back up ,in playing the violin, in the Oprah that she was playing in Nick Talbot, Hugh Williams.
After Philippa accused Nick of making eyes at Rusman they later had a spat where she hit him over the head with a hair brush causing a deep gash in his skull.
Not being or willing to explain the injury to the police to avoid embarrassment and being in the present with Rusman just before she was found murdered Nick is arrested and made to stand trial for her death.We have Nick's wife Philippa now checking out all the clues to Rusman's murder that leads her to the private music school in the boondocks that it's suspected Rushman spend the year before as a music teacher.
With the principle of the school Sidney Flemming, Marius Goring, not that cooperative Philippa finds the missing photo-Of Rusman- of the year before graduation class that he hid from her.
That turned out the piece of evidence that can connect him not only with Rusman as man and wife but the reason behind her murder.***MAJOR SPOILERS**** With Rusman's killer's identity, as her husband Sidney Felmming, exposed he attempts to throw Philippa off a speeding train, on her way back to London, but he's interrupted briefly by this deft man looking for the bathroom or "John" to relive himself who "herd" his confession to Philippa about doing his unfaithful wife Rusman in.
It turns out that Flemming now seeing the writing on the wall jumped off the train to his death before the police could arrest him.
But it also had Philippa who was with him at the time of him jumping or being pushed off the speeding train in hot water by being arrested for his murder.
I agree with most of the other reviewers on how stylishly this film is acted and directed.
Near the opening, Hugh Williams' wife, Greta Gynt, in a fit of jealousy, throws an item from her dressing table at him and it glances off his forehead.
I stopped when I realized what the scene would look like to an outsider: A man in an apron hurling tin cups at someone in a tiger outfit wearing an immutable Mickey Mouse grin.
If I hadn't been disabled by laughter I would have tried strangling her, as Hugh Williams strangles the next woman, an ex lover, he has an encounter with.At least that's what he's accused of by Francis X.
All except one, which reveals the murderer to be a man we've never met.
Sullivan's hypothetical scenario is interrupted from time to time to show us the rounds of the real killer.
He has evidently been told never to blink.The victim, by the way, William's ex lover, is Rosalie Crutchley whose features and dark eyes are both striking and attractive.
She was the arid housekeeper in "The Haunting." Williams' wife, Greta Gynt, is horribly upset that her husband is in the Crowbar Hotel and they're dusting off the gallows for him.
She helps by following every possible link, and one of them improbably leads her to the murderer.
Near the beginning, when Crutchley writes a note to Williams, it's used as evidence against him in court.
it is known To be a lovely and a fearful thing." The trouble begins with Lord Byron, then, but it also ends with Williams and Gynt together again, as if they'd never been apart.
"I have great hopes that we shall love each other all our lives as much as if we had never married at all." A snappy and suspenseful thriller. |
tt0126478 | My Tale Is Hot | Ben-Hur Ova (played by Little), who has a loving and devoted wife, Miassis (played by Reddy), is voted the "World's Most Faithful Husband" by Ladies House Companion magazine.
Lucifer U. Devil (played by Gardens) is upset because there have not been enough new souls in Hell. The last "major" arrival was Adolf Hitler. Lucifer is challenged by the claim that no earthly temptation can lure Ben away from Miassis. He bets his wife, Saturna (played by Ghoul), who has been badgering him to get back on duty, that he can get Ben to forsake his faithfulness. "I’ll have him cheating on his wife within two shakes of a sinner’s tail," he vows.
He visits the couple in order to tempt Ben with a succession of buxom, naked young women. There is a scene in a backyard swimming pool with a sexy bathing beauty; another scene in the same pool has two beauties; and there is a peek at the new maid. None of his ploys work, however.
Lucifer then escorts Ben for a night out on the town, treating him to cocktails, barmaids, a burlesque show, a Turkish bath, a hotel room, and a special TV commercial during Ben's favorite program, The Wonderful World of Disney.
As it turns out, Ben-Hur Ova is actually a visiting Arabian sheik with a large harem of wives and Lucifer's efforts to tempt him with beautiful, sexy women is to no avail. | humor | train | wikipedia | There is a short version of this film out there. I recently got the DVD "Satanis/Sinthia" from Netflix--a particularly cheesy and not especially good collection of super-low budget films about the Devil. One is a documentary about the Church of Satan and the other is a sex film that I skipped--it just wasn't interesting and its theme of incest was just creepy. Well, along with these full-length films, they included a few shorts--all of dubious quality.This particular film is NOT the same as the one reviewed by others--it is a shortened version that only used one of the stripper segments and was basically an abbreviated version. It consists of a goofy looking guy sitting down to watch the "Walt Disley Show" but instead, the Devil shows up and puts a stripper on TV. The woman is extremely buxom and wiggles amazingly, but this also goes on too long. And, in the end, the guy is mad because Satan had the nerve to preempt "Walt Disley". It's mildly funny and mildly pornographic and pretty forgettable--hence it was a extra.. Fun Nudie Picture. My Tale Is Hot (1964)** 1/2 (out of 4)Strange but entertaining nudie cutie has Lucifer (Max Gardens) noticing that Ben-Hur Over (Jack Little) is a faithful man. He refuses to cheat on his wife so Lucifer pays him a visit with a wide range of beautiful women to try and make him crack.MY TALE IS HOT was released by Something Weird Video who were of course the perfect company for this type of film. If you're looking for some hard-hitting drama that touches upon deep and haunting social issues then you'll want to stay away from this film. If you're looking for a cheap and fun way to kill a hour then this is certainly a good place to start.I'm really not a big fan of the nudie cutie genre because outside the nudity they rarely offer anything. There aren't any plots or anything else that makes them worth viewing today but that's not really the case here. There are a lot of small little stories wrapped around the relationship between this man and Lucifer. There's a lot of back-and-forth dialogue between the two and I must admit that I thought it was quite funny. The look of Lucifer was cheap to say the least as were the sets but that just adds to the charm.Both Gardens and Little were good in their parts and there's no question that the film offers up a large number of cute and naked ladies. MY TALE IS HOT isn't a masterpiece but it's certainly entertaining for the genre.. A Devil Of A "Pun" Time!. I wasn't really sure what to expect from this outing, because you never know what you are going to get when you watch one of these skin-flicks from the 60's, as the quality of them tends to run all over the place. But "My Tale Is Hot" is, if not a solid effort, at least stays on the right side of entertaining.There's really not much to this film, as it's basically a string of burlesque-type shots of fairly attractive babes, which has a bookended plot about a super-faithful husband (played by Jack Little, under the name "Little Jack Little") being tempted by the devil (played by Max Gardens, under the name "Manny Goodtimes") to stray. That's about it.Deeply involving this is not, but it is a good bit of fun and never really takes itself very seriously. As noted, the women are remarkably pretty attractive for the most part and have little problem peeling for the camera, while Little and Gardens provide somewhat humorous double entendre commentary during it. There's even a clever "little twist" (no pun intended) in the end, when the devil learns just why he can't tempt this most faithful husband to cheat. The dialogue is totally cornball throughout, with puns-a-plenty, some of it funny and some of it cringe-worthy.Really, though, the film is pretty much centered on the buxom figures of the ladies, which is only to be expected. There is a nice go-go dancing scene about midway through, featuring the talents of Ms. Candy Barr which is very nice. At just under an hour long, the film doesn't tend to overstay it's welcome, even if a couple of the burlesque scenes do seem to.In the end, it's just a fun and campy nudie-cutie romp, which is pretty indicative of this brand of film. It is certainly far from the worst effort this kind of film-making has created. If you are a fan of the genre, you might get a few chuckles of mileage out of this one. |
tt0109836 | Mary Shelley's Frankenstein | In 1794 Captain Walton leads a troubled expedition to reach the North Pole. While their ship is trapped in the ice of the Arctic Sea, the crew discovers a man, Victor Frankenstein, traveling across the Arctic on his own. Victor proceeds to tell Walton and the crew his life story.
Victor grows up in Geneva with his adopted sister, Elizabeth Lavenza, who will become the love of his life. Before he leaves for the university at Ingolstadt, Victor's mother dies giving birth to his brother William. Victor vows on his mother's grave that he will find a way to conquer death.
At university, Victor's interest in the works of alchemists make him unpopular with professors. He finds a friend in Henry Clerval and a mentor in Professor Waldman. Victor comes to believe that the only way to cheat death is to create life. Professor Waldman warns Victor not to follow through with his theory; he tested it once, but ended his experiments because they resulted in an "abomination."
While performing vaccinations, Waldman is murdered by a patient, who is later hanged in the village square. Victor breaks into Waldman's laboratory, takes his notes, and begins to work on a creation. Victor gives his creature dead body parts from various sources, including the body of Waldman's murderer and Waldman's own brain. He is so obsessed with his work that not even a cholera outbreak tears him from it. Victor finally gives his creation life, but he recoils from it in horror and renounces his experiments.
The creature escapes, running off to the wilderness with Victor's coat which contains Victor's journal. He spends months living in a family's barn without their knowledge, gradually learning to read and speak. He attempts to earn the family's trust by anonymously helping them with their failing farm, and eventually converses with the patriarch, an elderly blind man, after aiding him and his granddaughter against violent debt collectors. But when the blind man's family returns, they mistakenly think the creature committed the assaults against the patriarch and granddaughter, and chase the creature away and abandon the cottage. The creature reads Victor's journal, learning of the circumstances of his creation. He vows revenge on his creator.
Victor, who believes the creature has died of cholera, returns to Geneva to marry Elizabeth. He finds his younger brother William has been murdered. Justine, a servant of the Frankenstein household, is framed for the crime by the creature and hanged by a lynch mob.
Victor is approached by his creation demanding that Victor make a companion for him, promising that if Victor does, he will disappear with his mate. Victor begins gathering the tools he used to create life, but when the creature insists he use Justine's body to make the companion, Victor breaks his promise and the creature vows revenge.
Victor and Elizabeth are married. Shortly after, unknown to them, the creature silently kills Baron Frankenstein in his own bedroom. Victor takes every precaution to defend his wife on their honeymoon, but the creature gains access to their bedroom and tears out Elizabeth's heart, killing her.
Maddened with grief beyond measure, Victor races home to bring Elizabeth back to life. He stitches Elizabeth's head onto Justine's fully intact body, and she awakes as a re-animated creature. The two are briefly and happily reunited until the creature appears. Victor and the monster fight for Elizabeth's affections, but Elizabeth, horrified by what she has become, commits suicide by setting herself on fire, burning the mansion to the ground.
The story returns to the Arctic Circle. Victor tells Walton that he has been pursuing his creation for months to kill him. Soon after relating his story, Victor dies from pneumonia. Walton discovers the creature weeping over Victor's body. The crew prepares a funeral pyre for Victor, but the ceremony is interrupted when the ice around the ship cracks. Walton invites the creature to stay with the ship, but the creature insists on remaining with the pyre. He takes the torch and burns himself alive with Victor's body. Walton, having seen the consequences of Victor's obsession, puts his own obsession aside and orders the ship to return home. | revenge, gothic, murder, violence, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | (I think Christopher Lee hated this movie and equally class-dripping Bram Stoker's Dracula because he felt that they were competing in the same area.) There's the classic monsters (Robert DeNiro!), the period sets, the lovely heroines in the lovely period costumes, the beautiful and suitably turbulent score...
I have not read Mary Shelley's book, but if it has half the emotional effect of this movie, I'll consider it time well spent!What really surprised me though, was that this wasn't a horror film in the traditional sense of the word - it wasn't so that the monster would jump out and the audience would scream.
It was more about how the audience would slowly writhe as they realize the tortured motivations of the creature and what he's willing to do as consequence.Kenneth Branagh brought this movie together wonderfully, with both his directing and powerful, memorable acting as the tormented Dr. Victor Frankenstein.
I think De Niro deserved an Oscar, or at least a nomination for this role.The supporting cast is also very good, with Helena Bonham Carter doing a wonderful and chilling job as Frankenstein's wife (another one who I think should have gotten an Oscar nod), and John Cleese (in probably the only downright serious role in his career) being very creepy as Frankenstein's mentor, who realized before that the moral implications of his kind of work cannot be lived with.
This isn't really a problem for the film as a whole: Holm played a relatively minor character, but I have a lot of respect for his acting skills, and I would have liked to see more of them in this movie.This is probably one of the most powerful and draining movies I've ever seen in my life; I was so impressed by it that I had to run out and buy the DVD right away.
It's true that there were some disgusting parts (I won't go into specifics, but you can probably get the idea), but they seemed to merely add to the mood of the movie, and increase your revulsion that Victor Frankenstein would have thought of creating such a monstrosity.
When dealing with a classic, oft-filmed work, he must choose a new slant, and exploit themes that have not been emphasized before (at least, in quite that way), if his work is to be at all original.Branagh's breezy response was something on the order of, "I didn't really have a theme in mind, I just wanted to tell a good story."This is precisely why Branagh's version fails: is an unanchored, misguided mess.
Realising what he has done, Frankenstein leaves his monster to die but the creature learns fast and wants revenge for his creation.I have seen far too many monster movies that all blur together and share the same focus on effects and gore than story or character.
Quinn is a good cameo but the majority of the cast seem to have bought into the whole `worthy' thing and are dulled as a result.Overall the film is worth watching because it is a good telling of the classic tale and De Niro does a good job of showing us the basic human behind the combined dead body parts.
He introduces himself as Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) and he tells to the captain the story of his life since he was a little boy in Geneva.
as i watched the trailer of the movie on TV, i thought it'll be another horror movie with the same old clichés, full of blood and disgusting scenes...However,when i saw the movie i was moved by the dramatic melancholic and tragic way in which branagh directed it...it wasn't at all such a trivial horror movie..on the contrary..it was another philosophical deep way of reviving Shelley's novel..it was another masterpiece of branagh's...he adopted the novel in such a delicate dramatic romantic way..and dipped into the moral that Shelley meant by her story..Branagh made of Victor Frankenstein another Odesseus whose vanity and arrogance makes him think that he could imitate God and defy Him..he made him a tragic hero haunted by the death of his mother which has created in him the urging desire of fighting death and creating an alternative life...Branagh's choice of the actors was more than perfect, De Niro made a sympathetic touching creature despite his violence and thick hands ,the creature in this movie managed to escape being another scary pale dead monster walking the earth as it was in the old Frankenstein movies,the genius De Niro made us feel and believe that this creature bears great equal amounts of love and rage and that if he cannot satisfy one ,he'll indulge the other (as he says to frankenstein), Helena Bonham Carter was splendid as Elizabeth,she was like the refreshing breeze in the movie which could decrease the intensity of the bloody scenes, Tom Hulce in the role of Henry was in his friendship to Victor as intimate as the friendship of Horatio to Hamlet, Ian Holm as the baron Frankenstein was very good ,but his part was too small that he couldn't show all his talents, Richard Briers was great in the role of the tender grandfather, and of course Kenneth Branagh himself as Frankenstein was perfect,he could make us pity for Frankenstein rather than hating him.
All the elements for a brilliant film were in place: a perfect cast (especially De Niro as the monster), breathtaking locations, and for once, complete faithfulness to the real story.
With nary a bolt or piece of green skin in sight, Mary Shelley's classic tale of anti-science terror has never looked so great.It's just such a pity that it cannot make its mind up whether it wants to be a pure emotional drama or a straight-for-the-throat horror story.
Hearing the "son" tell the "father" how the latter gave the former these major impulses and bursts of violent strength without teaching the poor creature how to deal with them rings so true for me that I still show this scene to the health professionals I try to educate from time to time.If I could sum up my comments on this film in a single phrase, it would be that while we have a long way to go in realising the true horror element of this story, Kenneth Branagh's effort stands head and shoulders above the pack.
Like Bram Stokers Dracula and The Mummy, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a classic horror film.
DeNiro playing Frankenstein's monster was great idea, and the performance feels true to the character in the book.
You've got to wonder what people are thinking sometimes when making a horror film - did Branagh, or whoever had final cut of this thing, get chills up their spine at any point?
This movie is a lot of things, mostly a really good lesson in really bad film-making, but it is not scary, nor does it carry any of the message or subtext of Shelly's book.
One would like to think that Branagh approached this as an assignment with a big paycheck, which could cut him off from some of the blame, but from his blustery, overstuffed interviews at the time, he took it, and himself, very, very, very, very seriously, and I'm sure he thought he was adding something profound to the great cannon of the Frankenstein legend.
If Boris Karloff were still alive today and watched this version of the classic novel, he would probably die of a heart attack or have nightmares for weeks!After playing gangsters and police officers in so many of his movies, it's nice to see Robert DeNiro stretching as an actor by playing the sad, neglected creation of Dr. Frankenstein.
(And Boris Karloff played the monster, not Lon Chaney).2) Although this film is truer to the original novel, it is not faithful and makes considerable changes that alter the overall intent of the story.
There is no love triangle in the book, Victor Frankenstein is a medical student of about 18-19 years of age (Branagh is well past the sell-by date for that), and he creates the monster entirely by accident.
He is a whole new kind of Frankenstein.Kenneth Branagh's film does not fully honor Mary Shelley's classic masterpiece, but it feels engaging and fresh, and it shines new light on one of the most memorable literary creations of the 19th century..
This interpretation of the story "Frankenstein", with personalities like Kenneth Brannagh,Ian Holmes,Helena-Bonham Carter and John Cleese amongst others is so incredible in its execution and dramatic flare.
Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) makes a scientific breakthrough by which he can create a living creature from the pieces of the dead.
In this version, Frankenstein abandons his creation, thinking it dead, but it lives and follows him to seek its revenge for his uncaring treatment of it.All of the many good film treatments of the Frankenstein story depend on evoking the audience's sympathy for the Creature.
DeNiro's Creature is not Karloff's child-in-a-man's-body, but more an adolescent with an adolescent's need for compassion and with an adolescent's rage at being rejected for his appearance.But the strength of the movie is not so much the characters as the energy and pacing as, slowly at first, then faster and faster, everything in Frankenstein's life falls to pieces, with his horror slowly growing as he realizes that it has all been his own fault.
Kenneth Branagh is very good in the lead, although sometimes theatrical and unnatural; Tom Hulce was mediocre in the role of Clerval because his character was very mistreated by the writer; Ian Holm and Helena Bonham Carter were OK; John Cleese, Robert Hardy and Trevyn McDowell fulfilled but didn't delight us; Robert De Niro did the most striking work in a melodramatic, intense, powerful and psychological portrait of a character who, in other films, was merely an instrument of horror.Despite these merits, the film has a big flaw: it's too melodramatic, full of presumption, self-importance and aspirations of greatness.
A happy Victor Frankenstein(Kenneth Branagh)enamored his half-sister(Helena Bonham Carter) goes to the University where learns signatures of professors(John Cleese and Robert Hardy).He decides to drop out and continue his studies alone.Then Frankenstein attempting to create an artificial monster(Robert DeNiro) of his own.But he's creating a man made being but inadvertently giving him a criminal instinct.Victor rejects him and the monster flees and after he swears vengeance.The monster terrorizing the countryside and everything gets worse.Then he's coerced by the evil monster into creating a mate for him but he begins a killing spree.The bloodthirsty monster asks to Victor trying to alive recently executed for give him a lover.The prowl starts from monster birth ,continuing his revenge against Frankenstein and back again, until the end in the freeze Arctic where find a captain of galleon(Aidan Quinn).This is a stylish,brilliant and faithful adaptation of immortal,durable novel.It's a well designed recounting of Mary Shelley's horror tale.Spooky images creates impact of numerous key sequences as in the monster creation .This is a good entry of the several adapted times has many ghoulish scenes alongside with some touches of romance.Although creaky at times, but it's still breathtaking for its impressive images.Terrific acting by Robert DeNiro in his portrayal of the monster with a sinister and weird performance.It's an entertaining movie if you catch it in the right frame in the mind.Spectacular images by cameraman Roger Pratt make this picture a real treat.Sensational,evocative score by Patrick Doyle, usual in the movies directed by Kenneth Branagh.The film was nominated for ten Oscars but didn't achieve none.Highly recommended despite it was a flop in the box office..
He eventually manages to create a being by piecing together parts from various human corpses and to bring it to life by means of electricity.Branagh not only directed but also starred as Victor, one of two remarkable performances in this film.
Mary Shelley does not perhaps rank as highly in the modern pantheon of English literature as her husband Percy, but she does at least have the distinction of having created in "Frankenstein" one of the great myths of modern times, a story which is known to millions who have never read her original novel.
I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for A Level English and we watched the film around the same time for Media Studies.
While I give Branagh props for having directed the most accurate Frankenstein movie to date, I believe that it it not right to call this movie "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." This movie falls short of capturing the essence of the novel "Frankenstein" written by Mary Shelleey through the loss and/or alteration of character details, and the complete disregard of the Gothic elements which characterize the novel.The passion and drive of Victor Frankenstein are lost in the movie's attempts to give reason to his madness.The feminist ideas that are presented in the novel are dashed by a washed out version of Elizabeth.Also, because of the period the book was written in, there was a lot of focus on the natural v.
Although based on one of the all time greatest 'releasing the inner human monster' and 'pay for your affronts to God' stories, the movie was merely an expensive costume drama like those being produced by the dozen at BBC's studios.
I don't think we're even told what De Niro's character's name in "Frankenstein" was before he was executed?Like Tavis Bickle in "Taxi Driver" the Creature considers himself "God's lonely Man" and yearns for a mate, Cybill Shepherd's Besty from the movie Taxi Driver?, to fill his idle time as well as give him a normal life.
Francis Ford Coppola and Kenneth Branagh make a very brave effort in retelling Mary Shelly's story, especially in a time when all anyone recalls is that the monster's name is Frankenstein, and that he had a flat head.
Instead, it comes across vividly in bits and pieces, stitched together much the way the monster itself was created by Victor Frankenstein.There are genuinely frightful moments with creepiness made more effective by Patrick Doyle's score, but there are equally moments that serve no purpose in the story and are there simply for shock effect, such as the mother's death during childbirth.ROBERT DiNIRO has to suffer beneath extravagantly scarred make-up but does a creditable job as the creature.
Despite the realistic make-up, he's never as scary as Boris Karloff in the original Universal film nor does he ever overact the role the way Branagh does with Victor Frankenstein.HELENA BONHAM CARTER is fine as Elizabeth and has some shocking moments toward the film's climax.
As is the case with most films made in recent years based on classic novels, Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein does not live up to the original book.
The worst part about it all was that DeNiro's makeup and version of the Monster was promising, but cut short behind a muddle of boredom and sped up story, if only to put a beautiful book into two hours of over dramaticized slaughtering that only came to an end when the fast forward button or skip scene button would be pressed, just to get me out of the anger I felt towards specific scenes.See the original Frankenstein.
Everything is overwrought and frenzied and, frankly, unpleasant to watch.You would think an actor with the talent of Kenneth Branagh would direct with some restraint but damned if he doesn't approach the film like he's setting fire to curtains in a theater and laughing while the people run for their lives.
The only interesting parts of the movie are when Robert DeNiro's monster is around, particularly the few times he's interacting with Branagh.
This one is no exception : a near-hysterical version of the classic Frankenstein tale.Apparently the movie follows quite closely the original book by Mary Shelley (hence the title) but instead of a classic horror movie you get a version that most likely seems to be directed by Michael Bay. The swirling camera, the super fast editing, actors who do not talk but but shout the whole time as if they're on a stage, it all results in a head pain-inducing out-of-control carousel of flashy images and sounds.Francis Coppola, who was the producer, wasn't at all pleased with the finished product and even demanded to edit out the first half hour.
This film gets the same standpoint like all the other Frankenstein-movies and the novel: A human being should not play God. Wow!But if Mary Shelley or Kenneth Branagh make such commandments, don't they play God?Thanks.
Best line: "Don't bother to scream."Add one full ratings point for Kenneth Branagh's earnest effort to avoid giving this movie a feel-good ending.
The settings and costumes are deeply impressive, as is the whole new make-up job on the Frankenstein monster (Robert De Niro's mutilated face is likely to shock and repulse the more squeamish viewers amongst us), but the film overall fails in the department of substance.
Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of the original "Frankenstein" novel was undoubtedly a new approach compared to all others.
Despite the fact that Kenneth Branagh set out to present a more accurate representation of the Mary Shelley book, he fails to do so in this film, and gives us a compromised 'hollywood' story.
This movie takes a dump on everything fantastic about the original story, with the magnum opus of the act being naming it "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." It makes changes that make the character motivations and logic feel strange and stupid, as well as gut the philosophical impact of the book.
After re-reading Mary Shelley's story, I've sought out a bunch of Frankenstein films--something I previously did with Bram Stoker's book.
Kenneth Branagh performs and plays the role of Dr. Victor Frankenstein; Robert De Niro has charisma as the Monster and Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth, the bride of Frankenstein - I never thought I'd say it - is very beautiful in this film.
The film, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a big budget snoozefest that is a boring watch and a really poorly made movie.
In addition to dropping the ball with the direction of the film, Kenneth Branagh stunk it up big time with his lousy performance as lead Victor Frankenstein. |
tt0075683 | L'animal | Michel Gauché (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is a professional film stuntman who works with his fiancée Jane Gardner (Raquel Welch). However minutes after their long planned marriage they are called to perform a car stunt for a movie but it goes wrong, as a brake problem causes their car to fall and they end up in a hospital with bruises and broken legs. Exasperated by the behavior of her fiancé, Jane decides to leave. After his recovery Michel is no longer able to find work in the movie business and is forced to simulate mental retardation and to invent a family to receive Social Security benefits. One day his stuntman friend Santos asks him to replace him from time to time at his job which involves dressing up as a gorilla for advertising pasta at a supermarket.
Michel's luck begins to improve as he gets offered a high salary to do the stunts of an effeminate movie star Bruno Ferrari (Jean-Paul Belmondo) whom he proves to be a dead ringer to. Ferrari while filming an action movie suffers from vertigo and finds himself unable to perform dangerous sequences. Michel does not hesitate to get rid of his new stunt partner in order to replace her with Jane, who is enamored with the Count of Saint-Prix (Raymond Gérôme). Having heard the news Michael goes to the Count while impersonating a server in order to propose the offer to Jane. When he hears that the Count has asked to marry Jane he manically sabotages the dinner and makes Jane promise to do the film.
Desperate to regain Jane, Michel impersonates Ferrari who turns out to be gay, to seduce her. However the young woman is not fooled. Michel must perform a dangerous stunt on the wing of an airplane to an audience of journalists who think they are seeing Ferrari, where his life is saved from the accident by Jane, who is to marry the Count very soon. Meanwhile, the press discovers that Ferrari is not doing his own stunts.
While the wedding ceremony takes place at the castle of the Count, Michel arrives disguised as a gorilla, scaring guests with animals from the property, and takes Jane, who refuses to marry Count of Saint-Prix, preferring to live her life with Michel. | comedy, action | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0271320 | TV Funhouse | Every episode had a different theme to it (e.g., "Hawaiian Day" or "Astronaut Day") and saw the Anipals usually getting into some sort of trouble, not wanting to do whatever their happy-go-lucky host had in mind for the day. The Comedy Central version of TV Funhouse premiered in December 2000 and was not picked up for a second season. Interviews with Smigel indicate that Comedy Central believed in the show but was disappointed in how it went over budget every episode. Smigel has also expressed how difficult the show was and how tedious the puppet-live animal segments were to shoot. The show was released on DVD July 22, 2008 under the title Comedy Central's TV Funhouse.
=== Recurring skits ===
The Baby, the Immigrant, and the Guy on Mushrooms—Artemis the Cat watches over a baby, an immigrant, and a guy on mushrooms while the female homeowner, voiced by Sarah Thyre, is away. Artemis works to keep the clueless trio out of any danger.
Wonderman—A parody of Max Fleischer's Superman cartoons that stars Wonderman, voiced by Robert Smigel, who fights a constant crusade to stop crime and get his alias of Henry Moore laid.
=== Episodes ===
"Western Day" (December 6, 2000)—Doug must wrangle up his own fun when the Anipals ditch him to head for high times south of the border in Tijuana.
"Hawaiian Day" (December 13, 2000)—Doug and Rocky the Fish have a luau all by themselves while the Anipals help Chickie rescue his 95th son, Jason, from a cult.
"Christmas Day" (December 20, 2000)—The Anipals tap Doug's spine to extract his Christmas cheer. After one of Chickie's sons helps to turn the cheer into powder, the Anipals snort it and get addicted to powdered Christmas cheer.
"Mexican Day" (December 27, 2000)—The Anipals appear on the Sally Jessy Raphael show to help an endangered lizard get laid, leaving Doug to celebrate Mexican Day with a tequila worm and a Puerto Rican Mexican-food deliverer.
"Caveman Day" (January 3, 2001)—The Anipals compare New Year's resolutions: Hojo wants to learn to play the saxophone, Chickie hangs out with his brother with Tourette syndrome, and Fogey must resist eating his own poop. Meanwhile, Doug builds a dinosaur skeleton out of baby back ribs, and Rocky the Fish takes a group of kids to visit a cookie factory.
"Safari Day" (January 10, 2001) Part 1 of 2—The Anipals travel to Atlantic City to visit Fogey's old friend, Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, where Chickie falls in love with a chimp-stitute.
"Astronaut Day" (January 17, 2001) Part 2 of 2—Still in Atlantic City, the Anipals attempt to "unstick" Triumph before his big show. Meanwhile, Doug tries to achieve weightlessness.
"Chinese New Year's Day" (January 24, 2001)—The Anipals ditch the Funhouse to enter the lucrative, glamorous world of lab animals, as Doug celebrates Chinese New Year's Day and makes fireworks with a panda. This being the final episode, the set was struck by detonating a puppet panda (full of innards for realism) on the set, splattering everywhere. Staged as a satirical accident, Doug replied after with resignation: "Cut."
=== Cast ===
Doug Dale - Doug
==== Anipal Voices ====
Tommy Blacha—Hank
Doug Dale—Jeffery
Matt Davis
Jon Glaser—Hojo
Jonathan Groff
Jackie Hoffman
David Juskow—Larry
Susan Krause
Frank Simms
Robert Smigel—Fogey, Xabu, Rocky, Terrence
Brian Stack—Mr. Whiskers (first episode)
Dino Stamatopoulos—Chickie, Mr. Whiskers
==== Cartoon Voices ====
Brad Abelle—Various
Darren Baker—Various
Daniel Barrios—Various
Doug Dale—Various
Andrew Daly—Various
Tyrone Finch—Various
Daniel Fitzgerald—Various
Ana Gasteyer—Various
Jen Jiles—Various
Joe Letrullio—Various
Tim Meadows—Stedman Graham ("Stedman")
Tracy Morgan—Globetrotter Geese ("The Harlem Globetrotters' First Christmas")
Chris Parnell—James Brolin ("Stedman")
Maya Rudolph—Oprah Winfrey ("Stedman")
Robert Smigel—Various
Deanna Storey—Various
Sarah Thyre—Mom ("The Baby, The Immigrant and The Guy On Mushrooms")
Nancy Walsh—Various | comedy, insanity, psychedelic, absurd, humor, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3390572 | Haider | In 1995, during the insurgency in Kashmir, Hilaal Meer (Narendra Jha), a doctor, agrees to perform an appendectomy on the leader of a pro-separatist militant group. To avoid detection, he performs the surgery at his house, much to the chagrin of his wife Ghazala (Tabu), who questions his allegiance. The following day, during a military raid, Hilaal is accused of harbouring terrorists. A shootout ensues at his home, during which the leader of the separatist group is killed and Hilaal is taken away for questioning. The doctor's house is bombed subsequently to kill any other militant hiding inside. Several days later, Hilaal and Ghazala's son, Haider (Shahid Kapoor), returns from his Aligarh Muslim University to seek answers about his father's disappearance. Upon arrival, he is shocked to find his mother singing and laughing along with her brother-in-law, Khurram (Kay Kay Menon). Unable to understand his mother's behaviour, he begins searching for his father in various police stations and detention camps with the help of his childhood sweetheart Arshi (Shraddha Kapoor), a journalist.
Saddened by the growing closeness between Ghazala and Khurram, and unable to find any leads, Haider begins to lose hope. However, Arshi encounters a stranger, Roohdar, who asks her to inform Haider that he will be able to provide information about Hilaal. Haider contacts Roohdar (Irrfan), who turns out to be part of a separatist group. Roohdar then narrates the story of how he met Hilaal in one of the detention centers, where they both were tortured. Hilaal attributes his imprisonment to his brother, Khurram. Roohdaar then tells the story of how Haider's father was brutally murdered by Khurram's made up terrorist group and how he survived after being shot and thrown into the river, which stopped his bleeding and allowed him to escape. Roohdaar then tells Haider that he simply wanted to pass on his father's message to him: revenge for Khurram's betrayal. Thereafter, angry and swearing to avenge the injustice done to his father, Haider breaks down at his father's gravesite and becomes mentally and emotionally shattered. He starts to suffer from the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, shaving his head and behaving strangely. Khurram, after learning of the meeting between Haider and Roohdar, tells him that Roohdar was the one who killed his father. Haider is now confused as to whom to believe despite knowing the truth himself, and discloses his dilemma to Arshi, adding that Roohdar gave him a gun to kill his uncle. Arshi confides this to her father who informs Khurram about the gun. Khurram immediately orders his men to send Haider to a mental institution.
The following morning, Haider is all set to kill his uncle but cannot accomplish it because his uncle is offering prayers and his morals prevent it. Haider is captured by Arshia's father who orders him to be executed, but Haider manages to escape, although not before mercilessly killing his captors. He contacts Roohdar, who suggests getting trained in Pakistan to avenge his father's death, and Haider agrees. He calls his mother and informs her about it to which she asks him to meet her once before going to the other side of border. During the meeting, Ghazala discloses that she had told Khurram about the terrorists hiding in their house not knowing that he was an informer of the Indian army. Arshi's father traces them and is about to shoot Haider when Haider shoots him dead and escapes.
Tormented by her father's death at the hands of Haider, Arshia is emotionally traumatized and commits suicide. Meanwhile, Ghazala finds Roohdar's contact number from Arshia's diary and calls him. Haider goes to his pickup point, the graveyard where his father was buried. At the graveyard, Haider contemplates about the universal nature of mortality. On seeing Arshia's brother Liyaqat in the graveyard, he realises that the corpse is of Arshia. He runs towards her body where her brother sees him and informs Khurram. A fight ensues between Haider and Arshi's brother, resulting in the latter's death. Khurram arrives with full force and a gunfight ensues; meanwhile Roohdar drops Ghazala at the graveyard. A fierce exchange of bullets and bombs leaves only Haider and few men on Khurram's side alive. Just when Khurram is about to kill Haider, Ghazala pleads for a chance to convince Haider to surrender. She confronts her son who says that he cannot die before avenging his father's death. Ghazala tells him that revenge only results in revenge and there is no end to this cycle, but Haider, who is bent on revenge, does not understand. Ghazala kisses Haider goodbye and steps outside, only to reveal that she is wearing a suicide vest (given to her by Roohdar). Khurram and Haider rush towards her but she pulls the pins of the hand grenade resulting in a big explosion, killing herself along with the rest of Khurram's men and gravely injuring Khurram himself, while Haider is only slightly thrown back from the force of the explosion. Haider goes to his mother's remains, weeps by her side and goes to kill Khurram, whose legs have been severed from his body.
He is reminded of his mother's words that "revenge only results in revenge" and thus decides to let Khurram live. Khurram begs Haider to kill him to free him from the burden of guilt and to avenge his father's death, but Haider doesn't oblige Khurram, instead ignores him and leaves. | tragedy, insanity, revenge, neo noir, murder | train | wikipedia | Be it that of Shahid Kapoor (Haider/Hamlet) who performs a complex role with the kind of award worthy chutzpah that should silence all his detractors once and for all.
The setting is one of the reasons Haider, Vishal Bhardwaj's adaptation of Hamlet, works.
Compared to Bhardwaj's earlier two Shakespeare adaptations, Maqbool (Macbeth) and Omkara (Othello), both of which depended heavily on language and dialogues and used Shakespeare's stories rather conveniently to propel the plot, Haider is a quieter yet richer spectacle and a convincing standalone piece.
And too much of everything..The psychic-eccentric character of Haider in so many ways resembles Prithvi Bana (Gulaal) and has deeper connotation to the character's get-up & dialogs, some which can stay with us for long and make us get deeper into it every time we check it again!The '3 old men firing snipers' is the best western scene I've seen in Indian Cinema.
I haven't experienced it in a better way...Super metaphorical mimicry on 'AFSPA' & 'Chutspa'Music that would just perfectly blend & leave deep impression!Power-packed performances make this movie an epitome of talent showcase
I guess we get such output when the director doesn't compromise at all and expects nothing less than perfection in each aspect, in each sense
And he eats, sleeps, drinks, thinks, trips just this movie for a very long time in life
But however he does it, VB delivers something par excellence
Has to be a super ambitious work!Mile stones in Hindi Cinema: 1.
Bhardwaj's film also leaves a strong message not only for people of Kashmir but for all humanity that nothing can be gained through revenge and in the absence of trust.Adapting a work of Shakespeare is no kid's play.
In Haider, Vishal Bharadwaj and Shahid Kapoor try their best to grapple with the endless contradictions that define Hamlet's multidimensional character.
Shahid Kapoor's performance in Haider is not perfect but is easily the best of his career, and it comes as no big surprise as Bhardwaj has a reputation to get the best out of his actors.
The movie has several memorable sequences but the ones that stand out are: Shahid Kapoor's monologue, the sequence in which Haider brutally kills his captors, and the final graveyard sequence which may prove to be a real trendsetter as far as Hindi cinema is concerned.
The dark Kashmir of 90's =>What's Bad:-1.Very few scenes where your mind may be diverted or you may feel bored....but can be ignored easily as hardly one or two scenes for couple of minutes each.=>Final Words:- "A very well directed movie with brilliant performances by all the star cast.....its a different genre movie,not for the masses....if any one is looking for a masala or typical Bollywood movie its no fun for them to watch.....as this one is slow which builds on the go and has its own charm and class"..
Haider on of the finest movie after a long run, a must watch for all true cinema lovers and an exceptional acting by Shahid Kapoor,showing his true potential and acting skills,though some of his past releases were not favorable but this time he nailed it and showed what he is capable of.And as for now,till date this would be the movie for which he will be remembered of.And a real appreciation for Vishal Bhardwaj for an outstanding exceptional direction for which he has never been doubted about.And not to forget Tabu,Kay Kay Menon and Irfan Khan for their specific characters,after watching the movie cant even imagine who else would have been a better option.
Tabu as everybody knows best actress in industry and Sahid Kapoor is one the best actor This movie start well and take time for making story line but after the interval its beyond the imagination .
And around the same time, our own country-men create a film like "Haider" that paints Indian Army a villain.On one hand, flags of ISIS are waved in Kashmir, and at same time, "critics" laud anti-nationalism of Haider as marvel of art.Such co-incidences give ample evidence that somehow our enemies and certain elements from within our country consistently orchestrate great timing and coordination among each other that it is hard to believe that it was just a mere coincidence.Army silently sacrifice Themselves for nation.
Haider inspired me as an aspiring filmmaker, not just inspired, but made me question myself: "If this is filmmaking, do I really have the potential to create something like Haider?" Hamlet is Shakespeare's longest play with over 4,000 lines and it's one of the toughest ones to adapt, but the way Bhardwaj has done justice to it, it deserves a standing ovation.
From the Salman-Salman to Arshia's English accent to the scene where Roohdar fools a random man who wasn't going inside his house to even the graveyard sequences, where we see a beautiful version of 'Aao-Na.' And the last scene, after the blast-when we see those destroyed human bodies and the cut off hands-RESPECT.And for the people who feel Haider is 'copied' from Hamlet: It's an adaptation of a play, which is a part of literature.
So yes, Vishal Bhardwaj is an artist, a gem and Haider is one of the best films I've seen till date.
Haider is a story of love, hate, revenge, insanity, possession, belonging, and not belonging.With its grim haunting scenes, its depiction of a dark brooding Kashmir, its sharp dialogue, its frighteningly complex interpersonal relationships, and above all, the breathtaking performances by Shahid Kapoor, Tabu, KK Menon, Irrfan Khan, Shraddha, this is a film that would remain with me for a long time!!!Hats of, Vishal!.
" Rarely do you see a movie that depresses you,make you want to shout your lungs out,you cry your heart out,i was so engulfed in the movie i would not care if i was even on fire,this emotional vengeance drama made me want to jump of Eiffel tower,i felt i was invincible,i cared for Haider,i wanted him to succeed,it made me angry and vicious,Vishal Bhardwaj is one of the greatest film maker and he proved it once again,not that he needs too,Shahid as Haider is amazing,Tabu and Kay Kay are,i don't think.
Need to tell anything,their names are enough "the fire it gives you,you want to get up and do something,how ever odd it may seem,it makes you weep,you feel that craziness in yourself,your nostrils are hard,you feel what Haider does,the soundtrack is as good as something god would take years to make,it basically makes you shiver with excitement,Vishal Bhardwaj has created one which you would except to listen when the apocalypse is on its way bringing destruction and death and probably a bit of hope too,you sir has evolved more rapidly than our specie,i don't have any other explanation.
Let's get straight to the point,Haider is NOT your daily dose of bollywood meal.It's something unique,it's something that touches your soul and keeps your mind occupied well after you have left the cinema.Being an adaption of William Shakespeare's Hamlet,Haider is set in Kashmir in 90's.It's by far the best political drama ever in bollywood.The cinematography is breathtaking,the dialogues are outstanding.And the music is well suited to the theme of the film,haunting and touching.Shahid Kapoor plays the lead role and he has outdone himself as an actor.Tabu,kk Menon,Shraddha have given splendid performances.Director Vishal Bhardwaj has delivers a cult classic.Watch Haider if you want to experience true cinematic brilliance..I will give it 9.5 out of 10.
i am a big Shahid Kapoor fan but i am afraid that it won't do well because Indian audience don't like these type of movies and then they blame producers and filmmakers for making some $h!t
but one thing for sure this movie will win the hearts of true cinema lovers
hats off to Shahid, Tabu and Vishal sir for giving us this gem.
The movie "Haider" proves that Bollywood has evolved and that India has now some bold filmmakers like Vishal Bharadwaj.
While the movie clearly shows things as seen with the eyes of terrorists or budding terrorists (Roohdar and Haider) and makes a case for these people to dislike Indian Army, it fails to explain why the Army has to resort to the measures that it does.
The only thing to the movie's credit in this matter is the message of peace borne by the protagonist Ghazala - yes, Ghazala, and not Haider, is the true protagonist of the movie because she plays the upper hand in all events including the climax - Bharadwaj has shifted the center of gravity of Shakespeare's play from Hamlet's dilemmas to Gertrude's mind.Screenplay is mostly perfect but slips at a few places.
Shahid Kapoor, as Haider, is exceptionally good in the second half of the movie, but not so convincing in the first half.
The only weak link in the cast is Shraddha Kapoor and clearly stands out as an under- performing novice among veterans - fortunately, she has pulled off her last scene well - which is where her character really matters.All in all, "Haider" is a must-see Bollywood affair.
Well I have not read Hamlet but I know that this adaptation of novel from Vishal Bhardwaj is the best flick I have seen till this date.Good dialogs, good direction, nice storyline and the best part- it showcases Kashmir very well.
Shahid Kapoor as Haider/ Hamlet is simply not good enough to bring focus back from Kashmir and its bleakness.
As a subtle philosophical tinge that cinema is a powerful tool for political mobilization and mass persuasion, Slavoj Zizek notes beautifully that, "It doesn't give you what you desire, it tells you how to desire." Haider is the adaptation of Shakespeare's famous Tragedy Hamlet; and the latest Bollywood movie about Kashmir.
There are two reasons why Haider had generated some curiosity among Kashmiri movie lovers: One, it was the adaptation of a play, the story and plot of which was already known to many literature lovers and Shakespeare fanes.
It is a finest attempt with this huge star cast and great written script by Shakespeare....It is a must watch movie by all by remember you need more patience....A young man returns to Kashmir after his father's disappearance to confront uncle - the man who had a role in his father's fate.Director: Vishal Bhardwaj Writers: William Shakespeare (based on the play "Hamlet" by), Basharat Peer (screenplay), 2 more credits » Stars: Shahid Kapoor, Tabu, Shraddha Kapoor | See full cast and crew ».
Shahid is at his best, a speechless portrayal of the art of acting by him also Kay Kay Menon, Irrfan Khan and Tabu form the strong pillars of the supporting cast by their splendid performances.
And in his third installment, he raises the bar and delivers on brilliant intense but depressing film.Haider, based on Hamlet is the story of young Haider who comes back home to a war torn Kashmir in search of his missing father.
When the truth is revealed to him, Haider loses his mind and goes for revenge.Firstly, I loved the way Vishal has written the story and the characters.
Tabu is class apart and you feel for her character Ghazala.Finally, Haider is not for weak hearted and not for those who want a film that relaxes or entertains them.
Highly recommended movie with the best performance of Shahid Kapoor so far and the likes of amazing acting of Tabu and Shraddha Kapoor..
Vishal Bhardwaj does an excellent job to convert Hamlet into a Bollywood movie , it's got everything revenge love anger !!!
His adoptions include Haider from Hamlet, Omkara from Othello and last but not the least Maqbool from Macbeth.Tone, Script & Story: See storyline from IMDb. It's nice to know that tension in Kashmir has reduced and the tourism has been fruitfully increased.Direction, Screenplay, Cinematography: As mentioned earlier they are of optimum quality.
Shahid Kapoor is fantastic as the young son hell bent on revenge and every actor from Tabu to Narendra Jha gives this film their absolute best.
As per me every inch of the movie is the outcome of perfection.great performances by actors, thanks to Shahid,Tabu,Irfan,Kay Kay Menon.Music is very close to heart and background score is again give complement to screens.
Director Vishal Bahradwaj's 'Haider', the talented filmmaker's third brilliant Shakespeare adaptation, sets the story of 'Hamlet' in 1995's war-torn Kashmir (Northern India).
The Salman Khan and 90's songs references may not be understood by people who don't follow Hindi cinema.It's mainly a political drama, and has an interesting opinion on revenge, and among all this, it was interesting to see how Bharadwaj created these Shakespearean moments at crucial points in the story.Ultimately, it's not Bharadwaj's best film, but it's certainly one of the best adaptations of 'Hamlet'..
And a film which brings back the beautiful Tabu on the silver screen after a long gap who truly is one of the finest actors of our times without any slightest of doubt.No doubt HAIDER scores much above the director's recent attempts in comparison and breaks several grounds in visualizing a difficult subject on the screen like never before.
Vishal Bhardwaj makes excellent use of this setting to give a powerful story.Shahid Kapoor gives one of his finest performances as Haider.
Still overall the films like a masterpiece in recent few years in Bollywood.At the end you need to have the right mindset before watching Haider.
This time he adapts Hamlet in "Haider." All the three films undoubtedly are very artistic representations of Shakespearean plays set in Indian milieu.
An intense family revenge drama, Haider is truly a masterpiece set in Kashmir caught in political turmoil and what that makes it a brilliant film is beyond doubt the performances from Shahid Kapoor and Tabu.
As said earlier, performances, writing, direction and presence of Kashmir on the visual side is what that makes this film a must watch for ardent lovers of class films.It seems Shahid Kapoor had reserved his best for this movie and comes up with a performance that will surprise everyone.
Songs were really nice with visuals and good background score matching each moment provided the needed feel lifted the film's technical side.On the whole, a dark but remarkable and haunting piece of work is this latest movie of Vishal Bharadwaj.
Haider being adapted from Hamlet is set in Kashmir During the war tension and it's quiet Convincing.Vishal Bharadwaj carries the film in his own way and that might be the problem that the viewer is left confused.Whenever the film builds,Bhardwaj takes away the moment and that brings down every character.The only glue to the film is the Haider himself.Shahid Kapur will never let his character loose even for a second.From a naive boy to a crazy revenge seeking maniac he is the main reason the film seems possible.The other good things about the movie are the locations,poetry,background score and Tabu's performance Well Haider will leave you either happy or unconvinced,but not disappointed.
The movie haider is adapted from william Shakespeare hamlet as we all know , the movie has something special in it which makes it different from so repeated bollywood movies ,the movies which come now in theatres have just their old masala as always ,the old action , the old love story etc etc..
but this is something new and classic , i am not going to tell you about the story of the film , because you have to feel the story by yourself by watching it ,and i recommend you to watch it in theatres instead on watching it on your computer , because you can enjoy the pleasure of the taste of this movie best in cinemas , the movie will take you in it deeply and deeply with slow pace,you will feel like you have immersed in the movie ,and no one other is there , in fact when i was watching it there was no whiistling or sound because everyone just got immersed in the beauty of it ,the roles played by each of the actor are awesome and special ,especially by tabbu and shahid ,this was their best performance so far in a movie , irfaan khan as always was a class in this movie and shraddha kapoor just gave a finish to this masterpiecea must watch of 2014, if you have got bored with the every time nonsense and copied bollywood movies ,then you should try this , and you will say "this is what a movie is ".
Vishal Bhardwaj adapted and India-nized Shakespeare's Hamlet in a very rational way.Superior Cinematography showcases the real beauty of Kashmir .
Lyrics of the songs takes sometimes to understand but goes perfectly with the movie, and the more you listen the more you get hooked to it.Superior performances from Shahid Kapoor, Tabu, Irfan Khan & Kay Kay Menon.
Shahid Kapoor as Haider is one of his best performances till date and you can feel the pain and anguish.
Tabu as Haider's mother Gazala is the best performance of the movie; she is brilliant and does justice to Vishal's writing and vision of Queen Gertrude.
shahid kapoor's, tabu's, irrfan khan's, menon's performance 2.
Only Bhardwaj could have thought of giving Hamlet the tinge of poetry and yet ironically set it in a troubled Kashmir.If u want to see something different, something brilliant from direction to performance to dialogue it's for you.Shahid Kapoor, dealing with one of Shakespeare's most challenging heroes, does so with impressive sincerity.
Screen play, story line and the way director carries the movie with fine developments in get up of Shahid Kapoor is another brilliant thing to notice.
Haider is Vishal Bhardwaj and Shahid Kapoor's best..!!.
This is the best adaptation of Hamlet in a Bollywood movie.
Same feeling, with much more love, was felted by me during watching Vishal Bhardwaj's Haider, an adoption of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
So, this film is strictly for Vishal Bhardwaj's fan who have patience while watching the movie.
Haider which is played by Shahid Kapoor, may definitely be won best actor award this year. |
tt0338133 | Dandelion | In a small town of rolling fields and endless skies, isolated 16-year-old Mason Mullich lives in a world where families exist in fragmented silence and love seems to have gone missing. Mason lives with his mother, father and mentally ill uncle. Mason's father is a local politician running for office and is stern, and somewhat abusive towards his family, while his mother is submissive and dutiful, albeit unstable.
While resting in the grass one day Mason is approached by Danny, a sensitive and troubled girl. They strike up a tender friendship and begin to spend more time together. This bond is torn apart when Mason's father kills a man whilst driving and Mason is blamed for the crime. He is sent to prison for two years and upon getting out sees that Danny is now in a relationship. While they are both still attracted to each other, threats from Danny's possessive boyfriend and Danny's own perception of what she deserves pose a conflict.
Through time, they are able to overcome these conflicts and begin some semblance of a relationship. Though Mason's home life is even more unstable and unhappy than before, he find solace in Danny. Eventually on one of their walks they become intimate, solidifying their relationship. Later Mason, Danny and a friend go in a field to drink and have fun. Mason's friend brings narcotics and Danny decides to get high. Later that night she goes into the pond and kills herself. Mason, devastated is framed for supplying the drugs. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | I was at a film festival securing my seat for the movie that followed Dandelion, and so in turn had to watch it.
When I read the write-up for it in the program all I could think was, "Jeez, I have to sit through this really bad and boring movie to watch the movie I want to see" *sigh*.
For all of those who have yet to see this, the movie opens with a very teary Vincent Kartheiser placing a .357 in his mouth and pulling the trigger.
I like action, explosions, nudity, horror and just plain disgusting things in movies.
What this movie does have though is amazing sense of compassion and real life circumstances that draw the viewer (this viewer at least) into this hypnotic trance where you just can't take your eyes off of the screen.It makes me think of other movies that I was blown away by, American History X, The War Zone (Tim Roth's) and Niagara Niagara.
Dandelion included, I am amazed by how films can touch a part of you and make you realize certain things about yourself that relate so well to the characters in the film.Let me also say that every character in this film is played fully and believably by the actors portraying them.
The scenery from upper Washington and Idaho where it was shot adds so much to the film itself that I find it impossible to imagine this film being as believable and prolific if it were set anywhere else.We had a Q&A session after the film with producer, Molly and actor, Vincent.Two of the coolest people whom I have heard from in quite a while.
As they both should be.If you have any time or any ability to see this film either at a festival or in a theater or at home on DVD, please do yourself a favor and watch it.
Form the beautiful shots of Idaho fields to the perfectly understated acting, Dandelion is its own greatest compliment.
As well, for a movie of its length and bare bones story it is amazing that the film never feels boring.
Most directors would have felt like making Dandelion a short, but in its full length one can see its true colors.
Anyone who watches independent film will not be surprised by the plot, but the beauty with which Dandelion executes the simple story is a testament to artistic film making..
"Dandelion" is a hauntingly beautiful contemporary spin on "Splendor in the Grass," with pervasive forebodings of how the endless horizons of the American Western prairie can lead to claustrophobic traps.Debut director/co-writer Mark Milgard masterfully makes the long hot summer of the lovely Idaho and Washington landscapes redolent with both the magic of young love and the dread of violence in a very "Days of Heaven" fashion.
We certainly had no trouble thinking he was from another dimension in TV's "Angel," and here his emotive face and saucer eyes are Garbo-like to the camera.
No wonder Taryn Manning's "Danny" finds the scrawny sensitive kid irresistible even when a more conventionally hunky bad boy Shawn Reaves (of TV's "Tru Calling") is a rival (though the triangle plays out in an atypical fashion).
She sensitively exudes toughness and vulnerability, in a different way than she did in "Hustle & Flow," as she blossoms into what "Mason" sees in her.The parents are also atypically not inconsequential and the excellent acting by the adults ratchets up tensions (though a post traumatic stressed syndrome Viet vet uncle and a grief-stricken mime out of Springsteen's "Reason to Believe" are a bit too much).
Arliss Howard well captures a nice guy who nevertheless commits terrible emotional abuse on his wife and son.
Mare Winningham starts out as the usual tippling oblivious homemaker, but brings real feeling to the last part of the film, in both an explosion of frustration and of an almost pieta scene of sympathetically stroking her inconsolable son's hair.
The film well shows how the adults start to perceive their kids' feelings and how that powerful life-affirmation affects them.Even though what was obviously a minuscule budget necessitated no changes in hair styles or aging make-up etc.
to back-up the interstitial "two years later," the weather beaten buildings and exquisite settings of meadows, creek, endless road and railroad tracks and big sky of bright clouds and overpowering rain are an essential component of the story, though I'm pretty sure the title image only appears once.
While co-writer Robb Williamson's score captures the ominous mood and the indie rock song selections are illustrative, especially Sparklehorse ironically singing of a "wonderful life" and Cat Power covering Lou Reed, the visuals reminded me of a country song: "You know the world must be flat/'Cos when people leave town, they never come back." (from "Small Town Saturday Night" by Alger and DeVito, popularized by Hal Ketchum).There have been some other films lately dealing seriously with teens and parents amidst death and first love, including the suburban "Winter Solstice" and "Imaginary Heroes," but I was the most moved by "Dandelion." This is the most poignant, mature portrait of young people in rural America since "Tully" and "All the Real Girls.".
I actually cried a little during this film, and that's saying something, because I never cry during movies.
The Mullich parents, I think, had the best acting, especially Arliss Howard (Luke), since his character was very deep and complex.
Taryn Manning and Vincent Kartheiser acted their characters incredibly well, the realism of it all just blew me away.
"Dandelion" is one of those films that seems like a good idea, mostly because of other films it reminds you of.
In this case, the films it brings to mind are "Donnie Darko", "American Beauty", and particularly David Gordon Green's brilliant "All the Real Girls".
While director Mark Milgard, along with his two (!) other screenwriters, obviously had their hearts in the right place, the end results leave a lot to be desired.Cinematographer Tim Orr (who works on all of David Gordon Green's films), does a typically great job at capturing beautiful, Malick-like landscapes, but Milgard blatantly lacks the poetic touch needed to find an emotionally resonant story within the picturesque environment.
This is particularly sad in the case of the lead Vincent Kartheiser, who did good work in Larry Clark's "Another Day in Paradise", and seemed able to deliver here too if he had been allowed to not play up to his morose stereotype of a character.
In it's best moments, it recalled the great classic coming-of-age film "Over the Edge", as well as David Gordon Green's work.
But it is actually that last comparison which ultimately proves what a flawed film "Dandelion" truly is.
Where David Gordon Green's films always seem to unfold naturally, with no forced plot, "Dandelion" was full of contrived, obvious events.
Whereas David Gordon Green's films hit brilliant, unforced, emotional moments, "Dandelion" seemed intent on forcing you what to feel in the most obvious, unsubtle way.
This contrivance ultimately amounted to the film more closely resembling achingly self-aware trendfests like "Garden State" rather than the Green or Terrence Malick it seemed to be attempting.
In this respect, the dialogue was often particularly problematic as well.All and all, "Dandelion" is the kind of film I desperately want to root for, that I want to see succeed, yet it stubbornly insists on shooting itself in the foot at every opportunity it gets..
to me, there's few films that expose the emotional impact of words as detailed as this movie.
A different American movie about sad people.
It was a stormy dark day, a kind of weather which is also predominant in Dandelion.The Director was present and after the movie he told us a little bit about why he made the movie.
He wanted to show in what circumstances the teenagers in the Midwest grow-up, how sad there existence can be.I didn't fully agree with him, because I think you can also extract positive things from Dandelion, for instance that teenagers can be happy with each other, even when there parents are very unhappy.
So, to encourage Directors of these kinds of movies to go on like this, I gave a 9, instead of an 8..
This movie caught me off guard at the Sundance Film Festival.
This is an emotionally charged story that really lets you feel the emotion the characters are going through.
The cinematography is breath taking and is simply put one of the best films shown at the festival.
Wow, I just watched this movie for the first time and actually never heard of it before yesterday.
This is a beautiful but very sad movie, a hard thing to accomplish with this depth of emotion.
All the lead actors are at the top of their game, and the last 10 minutes of the film are an emotional roller-coaster.
My new favourite movie, "Dandelion" is a mind-blowing film from the genius first-time director and all-around fantastic person, Mark Milgard.
The movie is rich with symbolism so subtle that it manages not to slap you in the face with obvious, cheesy links between each character and/or event, all while still pulling everything together, leaving no annoying loose ends to tie up in the end.
"Dandelion" has already won awards from many of the festivals it has appeared in, and it's on its way to receive more awards all around the world..
The Film:is a melancholic love story about a young men living in a field with his parents, the love part starts when Mason Mullich (Vincent Kartheiser),is led down on the ground and a new girl, Danny Voss (Taryn Manning)move out to the field.
When everything goes great for Mason and Danny, Mason's father, Luke Mullich (Arliss Howard) hit a man on the road and kill him, when he realize what he has done, comeback to his home and take some things to buried the body, Mason ask him what is going on and if he wanted help, Luke try to tell him that everything is alright, that he just got stuck in the wheat dust because of the rain, but mason knows that he is lying so he decides to go with him and help him.In the place when the crash occur, Mason digs the wheel up whereas his father is in the car and when he falls down because of the mud he see a men covert with mud and try to make sure if he stills alive or dead, the he turns back and see his dad scare an he runs away with the car and mason is left alone there.
He never stop to think about Danny, but when he went out to jail and comeback to town, he found out that Danny was moved on and she was dating whit another guy.To end with the story, Manson comes back with Manson and when Danny's mom,(Michelle Forbes) notice that her daughter is falling in love, she decides that it is time to go to another place.
To end with the film, Manson kills him self in the same way of Danny.I think that is a marvelous film, there's nothing wrong about this movie, the music, the locations, the actors, the producers, the director, everything gets together to create this excellent love story with such a great twists.Definitely one of the best independent films that i have ever seeing and it worth to spend 93 minutes of your life to see it and analyze it..
A film about teen coming of age crap with a nowhere plot and boring characters.
Mainly, the scenes in this film are stale and loaded with stupid dialogue that has no comprehensible purpose to telling any kind of tale that is remotely interesting.
The movie attempts to be edgy by continually dancing around the visual of this kid putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger.
It seemed like the exact kind of movie I would LOVE.
Boy, was I disappointed.The movie was slow moving.
For one I didn't like the character and her acting just stunk!But I did enjoy the plot and the other actors were great.
I really can't understand why people keep making films that have basically been done before.
I'm not saying that this kind of cookie-cutter quality is enough to entirely ruin a film all by itself, but Dandelion's problem is that it has little to make it interesting.
The writing is almost pure cornball- characters wax about love and life in short, uninteresting conversations.
The performances given by the parents are by far the best parts of them film, in particular the stressful father with regrets, the only character in the film with much ambiguity about him.
By far the best aspect of the film is its cinematography.
Tim Orr, who you may also know from his work on the similarly rural (the unsimilarly fantastic) films of David Gordan Green, is good at shooting grass, air, and water and making it look great, though the nature shots appear too often for my tastes, seemingly between every scene.
At one point early on, on his first real meeting with the love interest, the main character says "I think love is something people make up to make themselves feel better." This is just about the most poignant or deep thing the kid, or any character, can think to say.
If you think this observation is the pinnacle of brilliance, you'll probably love the film.
It will also help if you really really like to watch wheat fields blow in the wind.Want a good 'troubled precocious loner' movie?
This was an absolutely, as someone else before said, textbook angsty coming of age movie.
The thing is I usually really like a good independent coming of age movie.
In fact, half-way through the movie, I had to stop, go to scene selections, and pick the last chapter of the movie to browse it to see if the movie got interesting.
It looked like it did although was pretty sure they were going to find a way to make it underwhelming anyway, which they did.
Another problem is that the person playing the girl looked too old for the character.
She is playing a 16/18 year old girl but her face looks like late 20's perhaps even early 30's.
Even Virginia Woolf had to weigh herself down with rocks so she could drown herself.Another bothersome event in the film was the fact that they just skipped the kid's 2 years in jail.
I mean they just completely ignored a great opportunity to build on the depth of his character, his relationship with his parents, and development of anything with Danny.
So in the end he is stupid and depressed which makes for a very uncompelling character.
The only thing I find no fault with in this movie is the setting.
I knew I was in trouble when the picture comes up and there's Vincent Kartheiser (better known as Connor from the Angel TV show); I knew I was in more trouble when, as he lay against an unending field of amber grain, he puts a revolver into his mouth and blows his head off.Dandelion is a long, boring, depressing film about boring, depressed kids stuck in the middle of the heartland somewhere (though blessed with the ability to walk for miles and miles in seemingly no time at all).
Kartheiser plays the mopey lead Mason, whose father (Arliss Howard) is perpetually angry and whose mother (Mare Winningham) drinks to cope.
The first forty-five minutes or so concerns itself with Mason covering for an accidental hit-and-run his dad commits (and no reason is ever given for the sullen boy's unspoken act of heroism.
He just does it, for no reason); and the second half of the film covers Mason's relationship with Danny (Taryn Manning), a girl almost as depressed as he because her mom (a bloated, blonde Michelle Forbes) moves around so much she has no roots and no sense of self.
Naturally these two bring some spark of happiness to one another; his parents almost seem glad, but her mother decides to move again, sparking, gasp, a conflict.I was surprised to see that this film ran only 93 minutes.
The pacing is so slow and the characters so lethargic and apathetic that it's hard to feel anything during the course of the film.
There's some gorgeous Midwestern scenery, but I think the filmmakers were going for bleak isolation rather than bountiful plenty.Not that most of you have even heard of this film (no accident there), but now that you have, avoid it.
You must by default have some better way to kill 90 minutes than to watch this film.
I absolutely loved this movie, but i understand why others did not.
Vincent Kartheiser and Taryn Manning are adorable and it is now my officially my new favorite movie.
The actors did a fantastic job of telling the story of these characters.
I guess I'm glad I did, even if the film really fails at getting beyond some rather simplistic coming-of-age poignancy.
but they have to add up to something."Dandelion" fails because the script really isn't meaty enough to warrant any in-depth resonance to these characters.
The cast does remarkably well with precious little, particularly Vincent Kartheiser in the lead role and Arliss Howard as his father.
Part of what I want to know is how these characters got here.
When the dad tells Mason he loves him in the graveyard, it's supposed to be a powerful moment, but comes off as pretty sophomoric.
what a cheap shot by the writers).Best scene: Mason, Danny and the dying bird.
But it doesn't really connect in any coherent way with their love and the rest of the film.The pace and cinematography are just fine.
There's great use of the landscape and pretty camera work, but I'm not sure it really adds much to have endless fields of waving grain.Ah, such beautiful emptiness.
The main character Mason has very little self worth, he goes to jail for a crime he didn't commit twice and eventually kills himself.
Still the film retains an ethereal quality like every sad story does. |
tt1251757 | Middle Men | In 2004 Houston, Jack Harris drives with several million dollars in a duffel bag to deliver to Russian mobsters, worried about the safety of his wife Diana and their children. In 1997 Los Angeles, Jack helps a sick friend co-managing a nightclub. Wayne Beering and Buck Dolby are best friends renting together. The drug-addicted friends are watching porn when Wayne asks why there is no porn on the internet. Buck, a former NASA scientist, takes 15 minutes to create a program to allow online credit card transactions to charge people for looking at porn on their website. They earn thousands of dollars in a matter of days. Needing more porn they approach Nikita Sokoloff, a Russian mob boss who owns a local strip club, who agrees to 25% of their business in return for letting them photograph and film his strippers.
Buck and Wayne's website is successful and they party in Las Vegas while neglecting to make payments to Sokoloff. Jack has made the LA nightclub a success and attracts the attention of Jerry Haggerty, a crooked lawyer hired by Wayne and Buck to sort out their problem with Sokoloff. Jack meets the friends and becomes a partner in the business, paying Haggerty $200,000 to get out, knowing Haggerty is under federal indictment and a threat to the business.
Sokoloff's nephew comes to collect his $400,000 profit, but when he threatens to kill Jack's family, one of Jack's body guards punches his head so hard that he falls dead. Jack and his partners dump the body in the ocean and fabricate a story that Sokoloff's nephew took the money and ran. Sokoloff is skeptical, but agrees to let it pass in return for an increase to 50% of the partnership.
Jack expands the business by dropping their porn site and focusing on the online credit card billing services. They create a billing company called "24/7 billing.com", becoming the titular Middle Men for other internet-based porn providers. The billing business is making hundreds of millions of dollars within a year. Jack becomes addicted to the money, sex and power of his new lifestyle, spends little time with his Houston family and starts a relationship with porn star Audrey Dawns.
Haggerty, bitter that Jack cut him out of what has become a multimillion-dollar partnership, schemes to take over the company. He manipulates the foolish Wayne and Buck to work with Denny Z, providing billing services for Denny's numerous child pornography websites.
Audrey's live stream porn site is watched by an international web of terrorists, which the US government uses to track and arrest or kill the terrorists. The FBI asks for Jack and Audrey's help to expand their terrorist hunt, but Wayne and Buck fear that Jack is meeting with the FBI to turn them in for the murder of Sokoloff's nephew and the child porn. The two confide in Haggerty about killing Sokoloff's nephew, which Haggerty uses to incite Sokoloff to make a move on Jack.
When Jack finds out that his partners are helping facilitate Denny Z's child porn, he confronts Denny Z at a house party. Jack sees Audrey having sex with two men at the party and realizes how much he misses his family, leading him to break up with Audrey.
An FBI agent, appreciative of the help Jack has given the government, warns him that 24/7billing.com is about to be indicted for supporting child porn. Jack's life is further complicated when Sokoloff's men kidnap his maid's son, who they believe is Jack's son. Jack gathers up several million dollars and goes to meet Sokoloff, as seen at the start of the film.
Jack is told that the boy will be released if he signs a contract giving his partnership share to Wayne, Buck, Sokoloff, and Haggerty. Jack signs the agreement but backdates it to before Denny Z's child porn business was added. Sokoloff kills Haggerty, but lets Jack go as thanks for all the money he has made him.
The movie ends with Jack's FBI friend charging Sokoloff, Wayne and Buck with providing billing services for child porn. Jack and the maid's son return home, where Diane welcomes Jack back. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | As a viewer I have no idea which is really true and which is fiction but one thing true is that it's never boring.Buck and Wayne are two genius guys who actually don't know that they are about to become millionaires by creating world's first porn site which requires a membership payment to access.
This is where Jack Harris comes in who is a legit business man and a problem solver who turns the already million dollar porn business in to new heights by creating a middle party online billing concept.
Except Jack who does a very smart move by creating an opportunity of out a grave danger.A good load of entertainment and some background info on how internet porn and billing has come to light from 80s.
Middle Men is a film that many should watch and understand how the possibility of purchasing products online was created.
This film offered an extremely entertaining perspective on Internet porn and offered a thrilling ride of crime fighting and hustling.
Luke Wilson who plays a level headed character finds himself in all sorts of messes and throughout this film can you really understand how a normal guy could get caught up in a crazy world.
I found myself watching this film laughing, feeling exhilarated, and intrigued to learn about another world I had no idea about (Internet Porn).
Especially, when their family is on the line.I would highly recommend this film to anyone looking to watch a tantalizing and action packed crime movie.
Middle Men is not your typical Luke Wilson comedy, It's much rather a cross between a Guy Ritchie and Martin Scorsese movie.
Whether it's Wayne & Buck arguing back and forth, or Jack's ability or lack thereof,of balancing his family life and business.The cast is pretty impressive with James Caan and Kevin Pollack also lending their talents.
Overall I loved this film for what it was, a dark comedy centred around the internet porn industry.
It should be said that "Middle Men" is very underrated, and I would recommend it to fan's of dark humour and pornography, which after watching this movie, is every male living on the planet.
True story about the men who got rich off internet porn.
A true story about the men who came up with the idea to sell adult entertainment off the internet.
After two slackers (Ribisi & Gabriel Macht) make over a million dollars in two months by coming up with a program to make money off of internet porn the Russian mob wants their cut.
Performance is great from Luke Wilson and the story goes seamless.One little, probably needless, piece of action that I didn't quite understand why it was there, is the confusion at the end with Russian mafia taking the wrong "thing", but it's probably just me and it's not that bad anyway.Definitely deserves more than the actual 6.7 it's got.
With an interesting enough story about the beginnings of internet commerce, the film probably gets enough facts right to be able to say, "based on a true story".Giovanni Ribisi and Gabriel Macht humorously play two drugged out "geniuses" with lots of ideas but no sense.
When they create internet commerce and apply it to pornography they need straight man Jack Harris (Wilson) to turn it into a legit business.
It loses some of its structure as we meet Russian mobsters, beautiful women and more money than you can even keep track of."Middle Men" is particularly well acted and interesting enough especially about a recent historical story that isn't very well known, that it can mostly be forgiven for its poor structure and confusion of genres.
I didn't really know what I was getting into when I decided to watch Middle Men. It turned out it was a bittersweet experience of a story that could've really been better, with a leading man that portrays a mesmerizing central figure and holds this loose tale together.This crime/drama/comedy deals with the beginnings of the internet porn business, a subject of some interest as are most things innovative.
Luke Wilson portrays the honorable "middle man" Jack Harris, whose inner conflict is really the main attraction here.
It may not be something fundamentally new, this rift between morality and anything morally debatable like porn, nor the character type, but in a world that has lost all balance, Jack Harris is the sober rock that it revolves around.
Yet, the glamor is not being denied, the things that drive you one way or the other, and thanks to Luke Wilson's performance it gives you something to hold on to.Unfortunately, the film is mostly flimsy otherwise, despite the considerable (and generally underused) talents of Giovanni Ribisi being added to familiar faces such as James Caan, Kevin Pollack, Terry Crews and Rade Serbedzija.
Somehow it reminded me of Herzog's remake of The Bad Lieutenant, in the sense that that film went overboard in ludicrous ways, but knowing its condition helped it attain a consistent degree of entertainment.So I come to conclude that Middle Men does not quite know what it wants to be and that's a drawback.
However, there are still some good moments in the film that complement Luke Wilson's performance, even beyond the subject at hand.
There actually is not a lot of nudity or sex in the movie, except for a fair bit of amusing talk and suggestive scenes about male masturbation, which is there to poke fun at the porn industry..
I ordered Middle Men because I like Luke Wilson.
It was the best decision I have made in years.Middle Men is just another example of a great movie I had never heard of because it wasn't showing in the theaters or on cable but one I should have known about.
Really liked the somewhat true story of two idiots who stumble on an early Internet cash cow through online porn payment processing.
Luke Wilson does a great job as a man who tries to hold onto his moral code while working in adult entertainment.
However, they are welcome Screen Sleaze, Criminals, Low-Lifes, Pornographers, and the best of the lot, a delusional "Middle Man" Fixer type that fancies Himself some sort of Hands-Off, Masturbatory outlet.Internet Ticket Taker/Porn Provider is what He becomes, all the while telling Himself, and the Viewer in an ongoing Voice-over, that He is an innocent Family Man of the Norman Rockwell persuasion.
Starting out as a Whacked Comedy it slowly moves to Neo-Noir territory and is better for it.The Crime Story mixed with Dark Comedy works the best and the Wild Slapstick and over Acting from the two Central Figures gets unwelcome every time they show up and show off.
I really felt the film was well cast.Script and story are excellent, based on true events (which highlights the .com bubble from a different and interesting perspective).
Just goes to show that big budget and marketing with a studio really behind a film, makes the difference not the story, acting or direction.Should be in your must watch list..
It's our bill of rights to see movies that have an enticing premise like "Middle Men".
Director George Gallo's movie is based on real life incidents of a businessman who joins up with a pair of rambunctious entrepreneurs to make millions from the internet pornography boom of the early 90's.
As the film title discloses, the leading characters here are not pornography filmmakers who post videos/shows on the internet, but rather are the ones who run the billing companies which delivers services in a more anonymous form to its consumers and producers.
Luke Wilson stars as Jack Harris, the aforementioned businessman who lives the "white picket fence" life in Houston with a beautiful wife and two children; but through a series of opportunistic events, he is porn to be alive in millions.
Since the movie's primary theme is the underbelly of the internet porn industry, you could imagine how many testosterone-driven shady characters are in "Middle Men"; including a Russian Mafia mob boss, an unscrupulous lawyer, and a hypocritical governor; just to name a few.
I was taken back by the first hour of "Middle Men" in Director George Gallo's flawless depiction of the era of the internet where successful internet entrepreneurship was booming due to lack of competition, and even a (pardon the expression) jerk-off could make millions with a simplistic idea to make money online.
However, Gallo's second hand I mean second half of "Middle Men" seemed more like an action-fare "Bad Boys" than an authentic portrayal of an internet-based company flourishing & surviving in the next era of the world wide web.
"Middle Men" is a movie that is not for everyone, and those who came to expect another "Boogie Nights" will be disappointed; but those who came for a narrative on those who drove the business of internet porn during its early years, will be mostly satisfied with the service that "Middle Men" provides.
I mention this in part since comparing Scorsese to beer is fun, but also because of the critics who have compared Middle Men, George Gallo's latest, to those films (Boogie Nights also comes up due to the porn connection, but Scorsese, who influenced Gallo to become a director with Mean Streets, is a better one to note for some reasons).
Middle Men is Coors Light.It's the tale of the start of porn on the internet, the knuckleheads who got together and made it happen just by proxy of wanting to get naked women on-line and get paid for it, and the 'normal' guy, the average Joe, who made it happen as a legitimate enterprise.
It so desperately tries, and what Gallo does is take what is a very interesting idea for a story, of the business side of porn on the internet, and only makes it intermittently interesting in the way it's about it.
For example, more than halfway into the film we see the FBI is following Luke Wilson's character, and he gets panicked, until he finds out why they're following him: his porn-star "girlfriend", Audrey Dawns, is a HUGE star with the terrorists overseas, and she becomes an asset to them.
When Luke Wilson is given something good to do in a scene, he can really go with it, and I liked seeing him in a lead role again...
Wilson's Jack Harris keeps talking not in a voice that reveals something about his character or attitude, no, he just keeps going around talking about what will happen or how he feels, simple s*** that would get him nailed to wall, eviscerated, in a freshman screen writing class much less a Hollywood movie.
This movie sort of reminded me of the film "The Social Network" except with porn and not as a polished, sharp and well written script and dialogue.
But on the bright side this film has many elements that young adults like watching in movies.
The plot is based on a true story about the pioneers of internet commerce so that people would pay with their credit card to watch porn on the internet.
The movie has it's entertaining moments but it tries to be something it's not and felt like it's copying other gangster films.
I thought this movie might have potential since it's about something that maybe more interesting to watch than about the social network, but it just isn't crafted all that well.
A Goodfella's for the internet porn generation but here the incessant narration becomes irritating.Jack Harris (Luke Wilson) is a fixer and a family man.
When others want to cap knees, he looks for better non violent solutions.In the late 1990s, Jack goes to LA and comes across two porn crazed but clever drug addicts who are making inroads in paid internet porn.Wayne Beering (Giovanni Ribisi) and Buck Dolby (Gabriel Macht) have brains but bizarrely dumb with it.
Business is a lot like Sex. There are but a few fact-based films that are both funny, intriguing and intense and George Gallo's 'Middle Men' is one of them.
I only came across this movie by chance and hadn't heard of it before which had me wondering why this movie, which had quite a noticeable cast, received little attention while trash like 'Hall Pass' and all those abysmal Jonah Hill and Seth Rogan films get thrown at our faces.I was quite put off when I saw 'Middle Men' being described as 'Goodfellas' meets 'Boogie Nights'.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Morning *** Friday Night ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning A fictionalized account of Jack Harris (Luke Wilson), a businessman in the 90s who spots the potential for internet porn and falls in with two loose cannon entrepreneurs (Giovanni Ribisi and Gabriel Macht) launching a pioneer porn site that attracts viewers from around the world.
Always with his neck out for this, Jack gets caught up in a whirlwind of success over the next few years that sees him caught up with a high profile young porn star (Laura Ramsay) and threatens to destroy everything he holds dear.The middle is seen as the best place to be for quite a few people in life.
The "Inspired By True Events" telling how how one man became filthy rich off transactions between distributors and customers of the porn industry, via the internet.
I don't know how true the story is since the man the film is based on is also the producer, I would embellish a few points as well to make my life seem more interesting.
Luke Wilson plays the lead character, a guy who people go to when they need some help with a business problem.
Gabriel Macht and Giovanni Ribisi play two idiots who come up with the brilliant idea of charging people for looking at porn on the internet, apparently one of these guys is the one responsible for writing the code that allows internet companies like Amazon and Ebay, as well as online banks, take your credit card number and bill it.
So Wilson is brought into play to help get the business back on track, he is the one who comes up with the idea to be the middle man.
Of course they can't make all this money and live a happy life, where is the excitement in that?So there happens to be an accidental death, the two guys who came up with the idea get more and more paranoid and accidentally end up involved in a child porn site, Wilson helps the government assassinate terrorists and James Caan shows up as a slimy lawyer...are there any other kind though?
If you're into internet pornography, drugs, crime-films with lots of intrigue and some sex, the this is the movie for you.Otherwise pass it up.Me, couldn't stand the things..
If 'inspired by a true story' is taking one fact and making heaps of shtuff up around it then this review is 'inspired by a true story', in as much as I watched a film called Middle Men a few days ago and felt inspired enough to write about it.True story.Two alcoholic, drug abusing, going nowhere porn-addicts have a moment of clarity and decide the time has come that people
OK guys
need to pay for their online porn.
For some reason they shelved the film for a while, no idea why but perhaps it was because they realised that it just isn't that good.Oh and as far as the concept of Luke Wilson as a master negotiating business tactician?
Director George Gallo takes this rich material and makes a middling movie..
All the important technicalities add up nicely, including the acting by the three bigger names of Luke Wilson, James Caan and especially Giovanni Ribisi.
The characters are solid, convincing, story is great, gives you a good idea on the inner workings of deals made and ideas created inside the Internet porn industry at it's conception.
It is also pretty entertaining in the way of comedy, drama, nudity, it's got it all, a great compelling story to boot.
This movie was perfect for him to really show his skills as an actor.It's about a family man who's got a gift of getting himself/people out of trouble or rather out of difficult situations.Chronicles Jack Harris, one of the pioneers of internet commerce, as he wrestles with his morals and struggles not to drown in a sea of conmen, mobsters, drug addicts, and porn stars.Well it's highly entertaining and keep's it's pace throughout the movie,in the last 30 minutes things really heat up.So watch it & enjoy.Shab-Bakher (Good Night)..
Luke Wilson is Jack Harris, a level-headed family man who is good at any kind of business enterprise.
In fact, it is his ability in this regard that gets him involved with a couple of real dandies, the epitome of anti-business guys.Giovanni Ribisi as Wayne Beering and Gabriel Macht as Buck Dolby one day just happen upon the idea.
Two genius drug user live together (Giovanni Ribisi plays an excellent paranoid on coke) and can't get any decent porn on the Internet so they decide to create their own web site and invent a program that allows people to pay on line with a credit card.
Luke Wilson plays a businessman and family man whose narration frequents the movie.
Don't get me wrong, Caan played a good part, it was just boring when he was on screen as compared to the action/comedy/drama going on during the rest of the film..
There is also one hilarious sub-plot involving the FBI wanting them to produce "porn" that terrorists like so they can track them more efficiently :)).Apparently the story is loosely based on the experiences of the creators experience in the internet during the 1990s, now if even a small part of this story is true you can understand that why it would have made a fictionalised account.
Well more of an inspiration from a true life person who invented a way of people being able to watch porn on-line. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.