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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt2071475 | Hitman: Absolution | Set after the events of Hitman: Blood Money, the game begins with Agent 47 detailing his relationship with his handler Diana Burnwood whom he had trusted until she, without explanation, betrayed the International Contract Agency (ICA) by sabotaging their funding and database, using the subsequent confusion to vanish. After the ICA is reformed, 47 is tasked by his new handler, Benjamin Travis, a high level official within the ICA, to kill Diana for her betrayal and retrieve an important Agency asset; a teenaged girl named Victoria from her mansion in Chicago, Illinois. 47 sneaks into her mansion and shoots Diana. Rather than finishing her off, 47 comforts his dying friend and asks her why she betrayed the ICA. Diana discovered Victoria was genetically-engineered to become an assassin for the ICA. Not wishing to see Victoria suffer the same fate as 47, she betrayed the ICA and escaped with her. As Diana's final request, 47 agrees to protect Victoria, for which Travis brands him a traitor.
After 47 drops Victoria off at the Rosewood Orphanage to hide, he contacts his informant, Birdie, for information about Victoria and the ICA, which Birdie agrees to provide once 47 has assassinated a crime boss in Chinatown for him. After cutting the barcode tattoo out of his head and giving his Silverballers to Birdie, 47 is informed by Birdie about a man named Blake Dexter, head of Dexter Industries, a home defense system company, who is staying at the Terminus Hotel. 47 sneaks into the hotel and learns from a conversation between Dexter and his secretary Layla Stockton in his penthouse that Dexter is planning to kidnap Victoria and sell her to the highest bidder. However, 47 is knocked out by Dexter's bodyguard Sanchez. Dexter, realizing who 47 is, kills a hotel maid, frames 47 and leaves him to die after setting his penthouse on fire. 47 manages to escape the hotel, and is then hunted by the Chicago PD. After escaping the police, Birdie sends 47 to kill Dexter's informant Dom Osmand. After Dom is killed, Birdie calls 47 for help as Dexter has hired thugs led by a criminal named Edward Wade to find him in order to discover Victoria's location. 47 heads to Chinatown and kills the thugs searching for Birdie only to discover Birdie has already been captured, and immediately heads to the orphanage, learning that Birdie has betrayed him by revealing Victoria's location to Wade so that his life may be spared.
47 manages to arrive at the orphanage just as Wade and his men attack. 47 mortally wounds Wade but Victoria is kidnapped and taken hostage by Lenny, Dexter's son. Learning where to find Dexter from a matchbox found on Wade, 47 heads to the town of Hope, South Dakota, where Dexter rules the town due to his PMC's and the corrupt town sheriff, Clive Skurky, who is under his pay. Retrieving his Silverballers, 47 takes out Lenny's gang, the "Hope Cougars", who were planning to kidnap Victoria from Dexter and sell her to a rival weapons company. After interrogating Lenny over where Victoria is, 47 can either kill Lenny or leave him to die in the desert. Arriving at Dexter Industries HQ, 47 sneaks into the company's laboratory, kills the scientists who examined Victoria and destroys their research data on her. After killing Sanchez in an underground cage fight, 47 recuperates at a hotel but the hotel is attacked by an ICA strike team led by "The Saints". 47 eliminates The Saints including their leader, Lasandra Dixon. Angered over this failure, Travis heads to Hope with a large group of ICA operatives to kill 47 and find Victoria.
47 manages to find Victoria under the Hope Courthouse jails but is subdued by Sheriff Skurky. As Dexter tortures 47, demanding to know where his son is, he is informed that Travis wants Victoria back in exchange for $10 million and leaves. 47 manages to escape into the streets of Hope, just as the ICA takes over the town. 47 chases Skurky to a church where the sheriff tells 47 that Dexter is heading to Blackwater Park in Chicago, before 47 kills him. In Chicago, Dexter and Travis attempt an exchange for Victoria for $10 million but the deal turns sour when Travis refuses his part of the deal and Dexter takes the money anyway. After reaching the top of Blackwater Park, 47 kills Layla and finally Dexter himself, after the latter had tried to escape with Victoria on a helicopter. In Dexter's dying words he offers an apology to his son and his money, leading a disgusted Victoria to throw the $10 million on his body before leaving with 47.
A few months later, Travis and his assistant Jade Nguyen arrive at a cemetery in England with an ICA crew to find Diana's grave as he has suspicions that Diana might not be dead. 47 is there as well as he recounts the letter Diana gave to him. In the letter, Diana reveals Victoria was created by Travis's funding without the knowledge and approval of the ICA higher ups and tasks him to eliminate Travis. After eliminating Jade and Travis's elite bodyguards, 47 confronts Travis himself after injuring him in an explosion. As Travis rants at 47 for wasting Victoria's potential for the ICA, he asks 47 if he really did kill Diana to which 47 responds "You will never know" and kills Travis.
It is later revealed that Diana survived and Victoria is with her at her mansion where 47 watches them from his scope thus revealing that only he knew all along he hit Diana with a shot that would not be fatal. The game ends with a message from Diana to 47 welcoming him back to the ICA and thanking him for his help. This also reveals that the story from the end of Blood Money to Absolution was all one daring hit contract on individuals within the Agency by Diana and executed by 47 to protect Victoria and terminate the assassin cloning project. In the epilogue, Detective Cosmo Faulkner of the Chicago PD, who has been tracking 47 since the Terminus Hotel fire, is having trouble discovering 47's identity until Birdie offers to help him for a price. | violence | train | wikipedia | As a longtime Hit-man fan, I was eager to play the follow-up to 2006's "Blood Money," but as the years ticked by, I began to think it wasn't going to happen.
Either that, or the programmers would take too long and we'd end up with a product like "Duke Nukem Forever." Luckily, the time spent making this latest installment of the Hit-man franchise was well worth it!
The storyline might be more in-depth than previous Hit-man games (which some critics have scoffed at, strangely), but it just engrosses the gamer even more into this dark, awesome world.Without giving too much away, the gameplay is basically the same as "Blood Money," but with a new focus option that allows you to see through walls and focus in on the patterns of the AI around you (think of it like Batman's sonar vision from "The Dark Knight" - it's basically the exact same thing).
There's also an option to "point shoot," which is identical to the "Dead Eye" target-shooting from "Red Dead Redemption." Hey, if another game made it cool, why not put it in Hit-man?
I'm not a huge fan of stealth games, nor have I played the other Hit-man games, being a guns blazing kind of gamer.
Regarding the other aspects, I loved the atmospheric environments, the interesting conversations you can eavesdrop on and the dozens of ways the game presents you with for eliminating your targets and eluding everyone else, including the guns blazing way.
The fifth run in baldie's franchise, Absolution packs new features and even a competitive leaderboard mode.As in previous installments, you play the scary man with the lustrous head.
Being the sequel that it is, if you've never played at least one of the other games in the series before, you're probably going to miss out on a lot of references, but the narrative is still entertaining enough by itself that you don't *have* to.The thing that stands out the most is how the general presentation and vibe have changed.
It's true that this compromised the freedom that, say, Blood Money gave the player, but it also helps in not getting overwhelmed in huge maps if exploration is not your thing.There are also quite a number of mechanics that have been introduced to 47's repertoire, most notably, the Instinct feature and upgrades tied to your mission performance.
While I can appreciate the effort to add some online competition to the game and the idea behind a reverse whodunit is certainly great, it would've been nice to have some more variety when setting up your own contracts.The core and substance of the game are basically left untouched: you sneak around, kill stuff in whatever way you so choose and walk away.Of course, there are some faults.
Yet, there are aspects to design, like baddies spotting you in disguise from a mile away, certain missions sort of pushing a balls-to-the-wall, guns-blazing approach while at the same time penalizing you in rating for not being stealthy enough or the constant crutch on the new Instinct feature, that detract from the overall enjoyment.
While the general direction seems to build upon the good stuff from the previous games, some sections could've been fine-tuned better.Summing up, Absolution is a more accessible and linear mix of what worked in its predecessors plus some decent new features, a much cleaner design and pretty visuals to boot.
I knew the premise, Agency creates genetic experiment to be the perfect assassin and he kills people and that it was a stealth game but I never really branched into playing it until I played this.
I played it first because the only other way I can play Hit-man games is to buy 2, 3 and 4 on a much higher price and I wasn't sure if I was a fan yet.Okay the story, Agent 47 assassinates someone he works with at The Agency and her dying wish is that 47 protects this teen-aged girl who was experimented on, just as he was.
With a change of heart towards the Agency, 47 does all he can to stop the people who want her for financial gain (or in some cases - otherwise) and give her the opportunity he never seemed to have.The story is actually really good.
I do find Agent 47 interesting although it might be because I have never played another Hit-man game but that's it - He's interesting.
The levels can be re-selected so you can play them again and boy can that be fun in the way of you trying to beat the score you made last time.
The score system is if you kill your target - you get 50,000 points, If anyone gets in the way or if you go guns a blazing then the game punishes you for it by taking away points.I'd also say the disguise system is really good but one thing KILLS it.
If you walk around other people whilst maintaining this disguise you'll hear "Where have I seen you before?" or "Hey is that the new guy!" as if every single person who threatens you completing the mission has a photographic memory.
I mean this is nitpicking - I know but when you're playing 20 missions, each having dozens of guards asking if you're new or thinking it's suspicious that they don't have a photographic memory of who you are - yes it does get annoying.So will I play the other Hit-man games?
If you want to play it I'd say if you can rent the game then that would make things much better on yourself but aside from it's length I'd consider this being almost as good as other European games like Mafia: City Of Lost Heaven..
Compared to previous entries in the Hit-man game franchise, this one trades a semi-open world game play mechanic with being, not required, but strongly encouraged to sneak around from place to place.
However, it still has the core elements of a traditional Hit-man game in it.
With things like being able to change disguises, specific targets to kill, and being able to use the environment to your advantage (accident kills can be some of the most satisfying in the game.).
Set after the events of 2006's Hit-man: Blood Money, 47 is given a task that will force him to turn on the only person he's ever cared for: Diana Penelope Burnwood.
Before passing on from a grave bullet wound inflicted by 47, Diana uses her final, dying breaths, to ask 47 to look after one thing: a young girl that she stole from "the doctors." 47 chooses to fulfill his only friend's dying wish, setting up the remainder of the game for a cat and mouse chase as The Agency attempts to retrieve both 47 and the girl.
Gameplay features a new "scoring system," which either rewards the player points for playing stealthily, or punishes him/her for making mistakes.
So, overall Hit-man: Absolution is a very good game, it's just the repetitive challenges and the forced upgrade system that bring it down.
A good story with some great characters and humour, but gameplay is a bit mixed - rigid stealth mechanics with an arcade/consolitis feel.
The gameplay does offer good replayability though, if you want to improve your score for each level and beat the scores of your friends.Levels are on the small side and too linear, but many have nice detail and feel very alive with huge crowds of AI.
Even worse, if you reload a checkpoint, some enemies are alive that you killed before reaching that checkpoint.So, gameplay is arguably not quite as good as in Blood Money, but I did find the story in Absolution much more entertaining.
Worst of the Hit-man series.The game is made to look good with pretty graphics and this is emphasized the first time you walk through the gates of Chinatown when some fire jumps out of a frying pan.
Most missions consist of you trying to sneak from point A to point B.If you are a fan of the Hit-man series, you will hate this game as it does not resemble any of the other games.
The engine has been totally reworked to the point where it feels like a different game entirely.If you are not a fan of the Hit-man series, you may enjoy Absolution, but you will soon find there is no replay value and the game is just a drag from start to finish.Buy any other Hit-man game..
Nevertheless i'd rate all Hit-man games as 10/10 simply cuz they are Great in their own ways.
could whine a lot for this...) 2.The Level are mostly too small and linear (i need more freedom!) 3.sucks that story-levels cannot be re-played whit gear ofchoice anymore :S (tho in contracts mode it's partially possible) 4.the game itself is quite Short...(nothing compared to Skyrim etc.)I play the game on PC, thru Steam.~Agent M3554NJ4H.
I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys stealth (not going rambo) as this is a really entertaining, I want to play more of game..
That saying, I can't see any reason why any Hit-man fans of this game series are angry of the new Hit-man game, Hit-man Absolution.In my opinion, Hit-man Absolution is a mixture of both Hit-man: Silent Assassin and Hit-man: Blood Money.
In Hit-man: Silent Assassin, there are several missions where you are supposed to reach point A to point B without killing any targets.
Well, to that I say it's nonsense, as in Hit-man: Silent Assassin, there are already such missions.
Furthermore, Hit-man Absolution brought back the classic game-play element of Hit-man: Blood Money which is accidental kill, freedom/numerous choices to kill your target and open-ended game-play.
So, for what reason are Hit-man fans upset over Hit-man Absolution?Not to mention, the combat game-play such as the using firearms, melee weopens and hand-to-hand combat have improve tremendously.
And this is one core element of the Hit-man games, replaybility.
They will search for you and their conversation to one another such as fear, anger and arrogance makes it far much more exciting.Also, the story campaign for Hit-man Absolution is far much more engaging and interesting.
Even before I play the game, I have already predicted that Victoria could have been another super human like 47 which turns out to be true.
He was able to bring out the personality of 47 when he was angry and still able to maintain that calm and cold calculating voice of 47.But to me, the best thing of Hit-man Absolution is that there is a challenge.
When I got Hit-man Blood Money the first time, I immediately got 10 levels with the 'Silent Assassin' rating, that's excluding the first and the last level.
The only level I didn't get Silent Assassin rating on my first play-through was the mission 'Flatline'.
Whereas for Hit-man Absolution, getting the rating is not as easy as Blood Money as apart form understanding NPC movements, you have to keep your distance from them as wearing a disguise doesn't mean you are invisible like Blood Money.
Hit-man fans who are too use to the invisible while wearing a costume find this tedious instead and game critics rated the game lower as they say in harder difficulties, remaining undetected is harder.
To be honest, most of the critics who criticise this game actually gave a lot of false and inaccurate information on the game.However, there is one major shortcoming of Hit-man Absolution which I didn't like a lot.
I would have prefer if they make one level as one whole thing as it is more fitting for a Hit-man game.
In fact, this one of the major reason why Hit-man fans and critics dislike this game which I won't disagree as I too didn't like it.
Using this reason about the levels broken down into different parts making the game more linear and removing the open-ended gameplay is again nonsense.
All in short, Hit-man Absolution is a worthy title of a Hit-man game and is definitely worth your money and time especially if you are hardcore Hit-man fan who wants a real challenge unlike the previous Hit-man Blood Money which is far much more linear and easier.
Do not be dishearten to buy the game because of critics reviews and Hit-man fans.
To me, most Hit-man fans hated this game only because they are too comfortable with the old Hit-man Blood Money playstyle.
A disappointing, irritating game that is undeserving of the name hit-man title..
If you took away the title, Hit-man, and replaced the game with any other name, this would honestly be a game that would be forgotten in 3 months down the track.My first complaint is that many of the features that made the franchise so worthwhile seem to be missing here.
Its a disheartening far cry from the massive, open world the original Hit-man games had that used to allow you to play the game however you wanted, and let you assassinate your targets in whatever fashion you wanted.Not only that, you are now incapable of upgrading your weapons or choosing what weapons you'd like before the each mission commences.
The stealth game play isn't much better.
The disguise system, which was all too effective in hit-man: blood money is practically useless here.
The game forces you to rely on instinct mode, which is not only useless on the harder options but it depletes really quickly, and the only way you can replenish it is from killing people.
Not only that, for a hit-man game, you literally don't get to do any killing here at all.
A lot of the most basic features of the previous hit-man games seem to be missing too, like for instance you can't even look through keyholes or even poison food or drinks to incapacitate or kill enemies.You can't even enter first person mode anymore.
This just simply feel like a hybrid between splinter cell and batman, rather than a legitimate hit-man game.
I'll start this off by saying that I'm a die-hard Hit-man fan.
I anxiously waited 6 damn years for the new Hit-man game.
In previous Hit-man games, it followed a simple but effective formula.
Why does the game make you play like this?
In previous Hit-man games, the story was set aside in favor of random assassination missions.
Hit-man Absolution focuses on telling a story, instead of random assassinations.
One level has you sneaking your way up to a hotel room to kill your target.
This is completely unacceptable for a Hit-man game.
The wide open, richly detailed levels of other Hit-man games are gone in favor of scripted, linear stealth missions where you sneak from point A to point B.
Overall, Hit-man Absolution is a generic stealth game that completely abandons every element that made the other games great.
The game is good and I liked it a lot.
A good thing in the game play is that you can choose to go full Commando with a shotgun or do it the sneaky way.
" and play the game the fun way.
If you think that the game is too easy that way you can turn the instinct off.
You can point shoot like in Red Dead Redemption and The Order 1886 which also makes the game easy but you can just not use it.
The first thing i want to say here is this game is not as good as the rating.
before going any further i want to tell that I'm a huge fan of Hit-man series and have been waiting 8 years for this to come out and I'm not someone whose going to bash any game that I've never played before.
Disguise doesn't seem to be part of the game plan anymore because you're more likely to be discovered every 10 seconds.
The second thing that really disappointing is the level based game play.
Most of the time, you'll be figuring out how to get from point A to point B, it's not Hit-man anymore, it's more like Splinter Cell.
Blood Money offered more possible ways to kill your target than this garbage.
If it's come out as a new title, than it's OK but to call this Hit-man, maybe NOT!.
Oh Hit-man, my poor hit-man what have they done to you I loved hit-man 1, was blown away by 2, thought 3 wasn't much of an improvement and Blood Money (4) is still one of my favourite games to date.
The marketing is for idiots but the game will be good, just like with blood money I said.The hit-man formula evolved and was perfected (for it's time) at blood money.
You have the run of the entire opera house and use your guns, sneaking, poison, fibre wire, rifle, bomb, disguises and whatever you find on site to find a way to complete the assassination in a very creative and balanced level.
This type of bad guy can be done well, see max payne 1One of the plot devices of the story is agent 47 being framed for murder....his a Hit-man...??!!?!The poor excuse for a story also allows for short A to B sub-level missions..where your mission isn't to assassinate anyone but to make it between 2 points avoiding cops/guards.
This isn't hit-man this is splinter cell, MGS, and deus ex:hr...and these games do it better and with a story worth following.
The A to B missions are linear..having the choice of 2 obvious linear paths just makes it ever so slightly less linear.So after 2 A to B sub-level missions and loading screens that pretend everything before never happened (sometimes reseting all your guns, items and clothes?!?!)the game finally gets you to your assassination stage.
The assassination sub level is 1/3 of the size of previous hit-man games, it is a simpler less creative environment to decipher or explore.
The best I have experienced if I ignore everything else about the game.However they over compensated for their linear, shorter, less complex levels by making it very easy for your disguise to be seen through. |
tt0039320 | Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome | Just out of jail, Gruesome (Boris Karloff) goes to the Hangman's Knot saloon, where his old crime crony, Melody (Tony Barrett), is now playing piano. Gruesome takes him to a plastics manufacturer, where X-Ray (Skelton Knaggs) and a mysterious mastermind are in possession of a secret formula and hatching a sinister plot.
Ignoring a warning not to touch anything, Gruesome sniffs a mysterious test tube that paralyzes him. He appears to be dead and is taken to the city morgue.
Dick Tracy (Ralph Byrd) is at headquarters speaking with college professor Dr. A. Tomic (Milton Parsons), a scientist who suspects someone has been following him. At the morgue, Tracy's sidekick Pat (Lyle Latell) has his back turned when Gruesome wakes up and knocks him out. Pat describes him to Tracy as looking a lot like the actor Boris Karloff (a gag cribbed from Arsenic and Old Lace).
At a bank where Tess Trueheart (Anne Gwynne) happens to be, Gruesome and Melody use nerve gas to incapacitate the customers and the security guard. They rob the place of more than $100,000 and shoot a cop on the sidewalk before Tracy and his men arrive. Gruesome demands half of the loot from X-Ray .... or else.
Tracy tries to learn the secret of the formula from Dr. Tomic's top assistant, Professor Learned (June Clayworth), before going after Gruesome and his gang. It all ends in a shootout, with Gruesome shot by Tracy and then back at headquarters, where Tracy ends up frozen by nerve gas just as he's about to kiss Tess. | cult, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | While none of the four Dick Tracy films made by RKO in the 1940's are particularly extraordinary they're fun, the actors are charming, and the atmosphere of the films is nice and seedy.
M. Learned) in with the bargain basement film noir that manages to set the films somewhat apart from other crime-themed B-films of the time.The final film in the series, Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome, is probably the best of the four, mostly due to the absolutely wonderful cast.
Everyone is great.The story, concerning Karloff using a gas that puts people into temporary suspended animation to rob a bank, moves at a gallop and is delivered with humor and style.
But it is Boris Karloff, in the role of "Gruesome", who lifts the movie above the norm for its genre.
He makes his character come vividly to life, and makes him into a believable and formidable foe for Tracy.The story is enjoyable, if a bit on the wacky side, with a gang of criminals taking advantage of a gas that is supposed to cause temporary paralysis in anyone who breathes it.
Tess and Pat also get their moments as they help Tracy track down the gang.Karloff was an impressive and unusual talent, using his appearance, voice, and mannerisms in all kinds of ways, generally relying on the little things and on understated actions to create his character.
Gruesome, played by Boris Karloff, looks as if he just stepped out of the Chester Gould strip (without the lavish makeup of the 1990s version) and several supporting characters also have the grotesque look that made the comic popular.
While they're in suspended animation, the baddies can rob the bank (the perfect plan huh?) Anyway, it's up to Dick Tracy (Ralph Byrd) to solve the mystery and put an end to Gruesome's crime spree.
It's all good fun with more plot than you'd expect and a solid amount of screen time to Karloff.
Boris Karloff Elevates This Dick Tracy Film.
This is a good little film and the first one that I saw Skelton Knaggs listed in the credits--he is a hoot to watch as X-Ray!!
Something about this late actor is funny to watch, I don't know if it is his voice or his looks or what, but he is something else in this film.But I found this film to be very enjoyable and fun to watch--in fact, all of the Dick Tracy films from the 1940's are good ones.
Good character names all around--Lee Thal, A.Tomic-- wonder if they came from the comic strip or the screenwriters?
Meanwhile Gruesome gets away.The chatty bank guard is good.Boris Karloff wanted to be gruesomer than usual so he decided to copy Moe's hairstyle from the Three Stooges.
"Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome" was the last of the Dick Tracy films, but the series ends on a high note, with Boris Karloff as Gruesome, and he's true to his name.
Gruesome is the head honcho, but he's not going to be easy to catch.The characters in the film all have the grotesque look of the comic strip characters and the same crazy names, I.M. Learned, A.
I think that characterization of Tess as good-looking and sharp works better for the character than a sweet girl next door type.This Dick Tracy was more expensive the others and stars the preferred Tracy, Ralph Byrd, who also did the Dick Tracy TV series.Enjoyable..
Dick Tracy vs Boris Karloff.
Horror great Boris Karloff plays the villain Gruesome.
Skelton Knaggs is also in this as Gruesome's cohort in crime, X-Ray. More characters with fun names like a piano player named Melody and several doctors (Dr. L.E. Thal, Dr. A.
It has held up very well, except for the bank robbery scene, which really does get annoying on repeated viewings.The very effective opening sequence introduces us to the menacing Gruesome (Karloff), his partner in crime Melody, and creepy new associate X-Ray (Skelton Knaggs).
There's a deft mixture of suspense and comedy in this scene, capped by Patton's line to Tracy, "If I didn't know better I'd swear we were doing business with Boris Karloff!" By contrast, the bank robbery looks like a 50s sitcom, as the release of paralyzing gas causes everybody on the premises to freeze-frame in a cartoony manner.
"Like the fingers on my hand", Gruesome replies, making a trigger-finger gesture.Strong cast, brisk pace, and nice visual style lift this movie a cut above the average programmer..
Boris Karloff as Gruesome adds a genuine feeling of menace to this addition of Dick Tracy potboilers.
A superb example of twisted criminal logic!Once again, the character of Dick Tracy is dull and goes through the motions but gets his man in the end anyway.
This puzzling incident attracts the interest of Dick Tracy, and when the criminals later use the gas to rob a bank, Tracy realizes that he must devote his entire attention to stopping them.
Never saw a Dick Tracy movie before and wow.This one with Boris Karloff is just amazing.Very tight and well directed.But it's Karloff who makes the film.
Playing Gruesome, he's like no other Karloff you've seen in movies..
Paralysis Gas. Dick Tracy and his exploits step into the world of science fiction Ralph Byrd as animation's favorite square jawed police detective gets involved with none other than Boris Karloff as Gruesome in Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome.Usually Boris Karloff is the mad scientist concocting such things as a paralysis nerve gas which leaves folks paralyzed so that others think they could be dead.
When he gets up and walks out of the morgue making Latell the victim of a horse laugh that's only the beginning.Karloff realizes the possibilities as does the inventor of the paralysis gas for criminal enterprise and he uses it in several bank jobs.
Tess played by B movie queen Anne Gwynne.Byrd is put in some real harm's way in the final confrontation with Karloff.
Gruesome is pretty ruthless in eliminating witnesses and Byrd is almost caught in the trap he set for him.Boris Karloff as Gruesome lifts Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome a notch over a lot of B films..
Yes, this was a B picture in the late 40's and actors still had to make a living and (Boris Karloff) as Gruesome was the best selection by director John Rawlins.
Realizing the great criminal opportunities of the strange gas, Gruesome, an ex-convict, enlists Thal's aid in a bank robbery.
"Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome" is a thriller-diller only because Boris Karloff is the star performer.
The other entries in the Dick Tracy series are cartoonish and juvenile, but this one has a plot, good production values and better than competent acting.
Hiring Boris Karloff was inspired casting as he adds immeasurable status to the film with his vivid portrayal of Gruesome.The most striking aspect of the production was the unusually absorbing screenplay of the type not often seen in a programmer - just swallow a bit and go with it, and it works.
I'm fantasizing what I could do with the stop-action chemical compound that the bank robbers use in this film, the best of the Tracy's.
Ralph Byrd does his good old dependable Dick Tracy, which is a darn sight better than the Warren Beatty version, and Anne Gywnne is a sexy and spunky Tess Trueheart, but the villains are the real show.
The guy playing X-ray is really creepy and looks like a true degenerate, and Boris Karloff does an expert turn playing a sociopath.
This villain is a little more subtle than your typical Karloff character, and if you watch him, you really can see what a pro the guy was, how deftly he could go from mood to mood, making it look easy.The strange names of the characters and the freezing gas are the tribute this film pays to its comic strip origins, but there is also a strong noir influence, which makes perfect sense, being as this flick was made at the height of the film noir period.
The Karloff character, Gruesome, is a classic film noir sociopath.
Too bad Karloff didn't more gangster roles; it might have been a second career for him.An interesting note: the villains' plot involves paralyzing bank employees and customers while they loot the joint.
"Gruesome" doesn't work as well as some of the other Tracy's, I think the very presence of Karloff means that at times it gets reduced to semi-comic camp melodrama.
OK in Walter Mitty et al but not really desirable in a 65 minute formulaic B film of this kind.However, getting into the ambiance I warmed to the premise of body-clock-stopping bank robbers, the freeze frames generally working on both dramatic and comic levels.
Good Dick Tracy Movie.
This time Dick Tracy find a new nemesis called Gruesome!
Gruesome gets a hold of this chemical gas and uses it in a major bank robbery!
Gruesome gets away just in time and Tracy along with his sidekick Pat are out to solve the strange case.Another good Dick Tracy movie - fun to watch!
And Boris Karloff as Gruesome added even more fun to the film!!
But the Characters personified are more of that specialized Tracy Comic-Strip charm.Boris Karloff is decidedly "Gruesome", carries the show and steals every Scene He appears.
This is the best of the Dick Tracey movies I have seen, where he meets the great Boris Karloff.In this one, Tracey is assigned to investigate a series of robberies where the robbers use a nerve gas to "freeze" everybody while they pinch the stuff.
Tracy's investigation leads him to the gang leader, Gruesome (Karloff) and the lab where the gas is made.Joing Boris in the cast are Ralph Bryd as Dick Tracy and Anne Gwynne as his wife.Watch this one if you get the chance, worth seeing just for Boris alone.Rating: 3 stars out of 5..
Gruesome gives him a run for his money, outwitting Tracy's detectives, using the amazing freeze gas, and just killing whoever gets in his way.
Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome is worthy final series entry.
It involves a gas that paralyzes people for several minutes that makes it easy for Karloff and his cohorts to come in an rob a bank.
Also in the bank is Tess Truehart (Anne Gwynne) who happens to be in a phone booth when the gas goes off so she isn't affected and calls boyfriend Tracy as the robbery takes place.
Boris Karloff as the character Gruesome has the perfect face "sourpuss" for the role.
This film had too many elements of a comic strip such as the plot and the names like "X-ray, A.
Sporting one of the greatest faces in the history of cinema (not to mention one of the most distinctive and recognizable voices), William Pratt ("Boris Karloff") might very well have stepped full-blown from one of the Chester Gould DICK TRACY strips.
Unlike the lousy (not to mention oh-so-expensive) Big Screen fiasco with Warren Beatty in the title role, DICK TRACY MEET GRUESOME is at least watchable- and Boris himself is the reason; had they thrown in the likes of, say, Rondo Hatten and/or Peter Lorre to further the Gould visual style, and had they gotten an actor of at least marginal charisma to play the lead, this one could've been one for the ages: it's not badly directed and the cinematography is appropriately low key.
Originated by Chester Gould's syndicated comic strip, Dick Tracy has been a durable cinematic character with appearances ranging from 1930s serials to an over-hyped 1990 blockbuster-style motion picture starring Warren Beatty and Madonna--but the character's film appearances are perhaps most fondly recalled from the 1940s RKO Pictures series.
Written with stacco dialogue and seldom running more than an hour, they were welcome "B" movies at almost every matinée.The 1947 DICK TRACY MEETS GRUESOME is very typical of the series in terms of style, plot, and Ralph Byrd, who frequently played the character; it is atypical in the sense that it also features a major star, none other than Boris Karloff, who appears as Gruesome.
The last of the RKO series starring RALPH BYRD, it has him hunting down Gruesome (BORIS KARLOFF) after a bank robbery in which a gas freezes the bank's customers and clerks in mid-position while the robbery takes place.
It's a novel idea and nicely staged, as ANNE GWYNNE (who plays Tess Trueheart) enters an enclosed telephone booth and sees the action take place while she eludes the gas herself.Too bad the rest of the story doesn't match this early scene for a hint of originality.
I got a great kick out of the line Dick Tracy's detective assistant Pat Patton (Lyle Latell) used referencing the star of the film.
It's the second time I know of when Boris Karloff or one of his characters is called by name in a movie.
In "Charlie Chan At The Opera", a stage manager responds to a ruckus in the theater by proclaiming - "This opera is going on tonight even if Frankenstein walks in!""Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome" is a wonderful take on the comic strip of the 1940's and '50's as I remember them.
Tomic and his aide I.M. Learned, while Boris Karloff as Gruesome takes up with a gangster named Lee Thal.
It's too bad audiences of today are too sophisticated to find the fun in this kind of punditry.At the center of the story is a newly discovered gas formula that renders it's victims motionless, and comes in handy for Gruesome in pulling off a bank job.
For his part, Ralph Byrd as Dick Tracy reminded me a little bit of actor Pat O'Brien.
Tracy's girlfriend Tess Trueheart was played fetchingly by Anne Gwynne, and rounding out the bad guy cast were Skelton Knaggs as X-Ray and Tony Barrett as piano player Melody.This is the first Dick Tracy film I've seen, and it had enough of the Chester Gould comic strip fun to suggest looking up some of the other titles.
**SPOILERS** Having escaped from the joint Gruesome, Boris Karloff, meets his contact outside of prison Melody Fiske, Tony Barrett, at the seedy Hangman's Knot Bar to reactivate his criminal career that a stint in jail put on hold.It's almost by accident that Gruesome found out about Melody's partner in crime Dr. Lee Thal's, Edward Ashley, secret formula in freezing in place people for as much as 15 minutes.
This has Tracy put his life on the line in working against the clock to apprehend Gruesome before he pulls off his next bank robbery using his mind as well as body numbing freeze bomb.
Not to mention the dangerous Gruesome himself who would like nothing better then to put Tracy out of action and out of his hair forever.
We have in the movie's cast of characters Tracy's bumbling assistant plainclothesman Pat Patton, Lyle Latell, who's anything like his "Blood & Guts" namesake-Gen George Patton-in getting the job done.
There's also in the cast nuclear physicist Dr. A.Tomic, Milton Parsons, whom we can assume the A-Bomb was named after together with Dr. Lee Thal skeletal-like skin and bones assistant X-Ray played by the apply named actor Skelton Knaggs!
The last of the Dick Tracy movie series staring Ralph Byrd who three years later returned to play the famous comic-strip detective on TV only to die from a sudden heart-attack at age 43 on August 18, 1952 before the start of the series third season..
Boris Karloff robs a bank and steal the show.
When released the gas freezes everybody where they stand; the only witness is Dick Tracy's girlfriend who was in a phone box at the time.
As the gang flee Melody shoots a policeman and soon Dick Tracy and the homicide squad are on their trail.This story is was rather fun if more than a little preposterous; not only does the gas instantly freeze people it also seems to negate the laws of physics concerning the conservation of momentum
moving people do not fall over and when they wake they move as if nothing has happened.
Ralph Byrd does a solid job as Dick Tracy but it is Boris Karloff who steals the show with his performance as Gruesome; playing the role straight rather than overplaying the part.
unless Tracy comes through in a few hours.But the idea is sweet.The bad guy here is played by Boris Karloff.
The formula causes people to freeze (while banks are robbed) , allowing for an inexpensive cinematic effect.The bad guy's sidekick is x-ray.
Ralph Byrd takes a back seat in this entry to the top billed Boris Karloff who gets top billing.
A badly scarred man reacts to Karloff's name of Gruesome as rather appropriate, and other characters have the typical odd quirks that you could only expect in a Dick Tracy comic strip/feature film.
Ralph Byrd returns to the role of the titular detective hero, this time battling against a creepy-looking villain who uses nerve gas to commit bank robberies.
Tomic's assistant, a wonderful scene at the taxidermist, and a refreshing sidelining of the reporter.Tracy was a physical role, as generic as it gets, the generic copper, and the leading actor was serviceable.This series deserves being legendary..
Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome.
Here in "Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome", Karloff returns to the kind of heavies notable during his Warner Bros.
Enter Dick Tracy (Ralph Byrd), on the case to help the police catch Gruesome and his gang, during his investigation the detective is led to a scientist named Dr. A.
The main problem with both these films were the moronic writing--they just didn't make any attempt to fix plot holes or make the movies make any sense--even within the oddly surreal Dick Tracy world.
CUEBALL) were much better films as the writing was very good.The biggest plus of this film is having Boris Karloff as the title character and villain.
The overall plot of the sleeping gas is exactly like the sort of plot you might find in an old Dick Tracy cartoon. |
tt2095568 | All Things to All Men | After a stakeout, Parker, a dirty cop, arrests the son of mob boss Joseph Corso. Parker uses the arrest as leverage against Corso and forces him to recruit Riley, a thief that Parker wants to entrap. After Corso threatens him, Riley reluctantly agrees to perform a burglary for Corso, unaware that he is being manipulated by Parker. Parker's target, however, turns out to be more secure than expected, and Corso is unable to procure access codes. Riley balks at Corso's suggestion that they torture a worker for the codes, so Parker retrieves the codes from Scotland Yard's security system. However, Dixon, Parker's protege, becomes increasingly suspicious that there's more to Parker's machinations than he lets on. Dixon takes his concerns to Sands, Parker's long-time partner, who threatens to block Dixon's promotion if he continues to ask questions.
During the burglary, Riley and Corso's lieutenant, Cutter, are surprised to find much more money than planned. Riley questions how they could have lucked into such a major heist, but Cutter dismisses his concerns. Cutter later makes an attempt on Riley's life and tries to escape with the loot, which results in a high-speed chase through London. Cutter dies when his car crashes, and Riley takes the money. Meanwhile, Dixon convinces Sands to go straight, and Sands confronts Parker. Unwilling to give up his schemes, Parker kills Sands and attempts to frame Corso for the murder. Parker's plans go awry when Dixon survives an assassination attempt, and Parker becomes increasingly desperate to raise money to pay off his debts to powerful mobsters. Parker steals from several of his associates and plans his escape from London once he can retrieve the money stolen by Riley.
Riley sets up a meeting with Corso, and Parker uses his contacts to find the location. Corso, Riley, Parker, and Dixon converge on the meeting spot, and Parker kills Corso. Dixon arrives just as Parker is about to murder Riley and take the money. Disgusted, Dixon kills Parker and lets Riley escape. In the aftermath, Dixon meets with his superiors, who want him to keep silent about the details of the case. Dixon cynically compares Parker's actions to that of a mobster, and his superior agree, though they had been aware of much of Parker's actions. In return for his silence, they offer him a promotion, and Dixon agrees, reasoning that the resulting scandal would be disastrous for the police force. | mystery | train | wikipedia | Good performances, weak script, unoriginal plot..
It is a very complicated movie and I soon lost my way.
My main criticism is that I was always aware that I was watching a movie.
Either he wasn't watching it at all or his interpretation was somewhat misguided.I found this to be a good movie typical of the type of English crime drama i have come to expect over the years.I thought the plot was well thought out and the twists and turns quite fascinating.Yes one does have to keep focused on whats going on but that is the whole idea.It kept me glued to the screen wondering who was going to do what next.The ending for me was an ending i believe was appropriate.
3/4 of the way through i had a feeling it would end that way.I was left feeling this was not a waste of my time and, unlike Nick Stone, i would recommend it..
One slick British Crime Drama not to be missed.
I also disagree with Nick Stones review.Slow to start - definitely not.
I was glued to the screen from the moment the film began.This was a slick British crime drama that I've come to expect from the Brits.
No one writes mystery and crime drama like they do.And you could not have asked for better actors to play their respective roles; from Rufus Sewell, Gabriel Byrne, to Toby Stephens they all provided excellent performances.The one thing I love about British crime drama is that many writers fail purposely or not to explain everything, they leave the audience to figure out various parts of the plot line, which I personally like and approve.
And this movie had a lot of plot twists and unexpected results that will have your jaw dropping.I recommend this movie to anyone who appreciates British crime drama..
Plodding and predictable, but worth a watch for the marvelous character actors..
Movie is plodding and predictable.
I only found it because I am indulging a Rufus Sewell swoon, saw the title listed in his IMDb credits and located it on Netflix.
The Bad: The "plot" is a pastiche of so many (better) movies from the past 20-30 years.
Actually from the beginning of movie-making (smile).The Good: So many terrific character actors with arresting faces (another reason I love Rufus).
Linking the faces to other movies and TV series.Over the past 2 years, I have binge-watched so many Brit and Aussie TV series and movies especially.
So while I respect the reviewers who say this movie doesn't present the London they know, the exterior shots sure look inviting to me here in Pennsylvania.
A story involving crooked cops and a London gangster, a mysterious thief with a heart of gold caught in their game, and (a try at) a twist.
A mix between the old film noir and more modern UK gangster/heist films; just from the film's start it seemed quite good and promising.Yet, it does not work.
The script is very weak and unoriginal, without a single great moment; a mere 'copy and paste' of film noir's more usual situations/clichés and character stereotypes (like the crooked cop that is just 'following the system' or the mysterious, often quiet and sometimes cynical main character).
The plot gets overly muddled by the middle of the film to the point that the viewer can easily get confused; by the ending, things get resolved in such a ridiculously predictable way that the film becomes overly simplistic in hindsight.It does not help that the film feels silly.
There is not a credible tension like in most heist/gangster films, which is further enhanced by the extreme predictability of it all.
There is also no memorable moments at all, nothing that could make this film worthy remembering (for the good or for the bad).The cast is interesting.
Gabriel Byrne and Rufus Sewell stand out and make the most out of their characters; Toby Stephens does feel like a noir protagonist, though the emotionless-ness of his character is overdone; and Terence Maynard and Leo Gregory also do a nice work despite their overly flawed characters.Overall, while not necessarily a bad movie, 'All Things to All Men'/'The Deadly Game' ends up as a forgettable, overly predictable and silly mess that does not work despite its fine cast..
Very difficult to follow plot.
This film is a poor mans British version of LA Confidential.
Too bad because these are talented actors.
The chase scenes in automobiles and on foot are the highlight of the film.
Completely nonsensical with clandestine meetings and corrupt cops expected to go undetected in the city that has more closed-circuit cameras than any place on the planet.
A serious movie should take into account that follow-up investigations made by law enforcement will look at cell phone records and bank account histories.
The director and writer of this film apparently forgot these obvious facts.
Cannot recommend this film..
Nothing to Any Men - A Confused and Empty Gangster Film....
Now and then you find a film with a great cast and wonder why you've never heard of it before.
Here we have Gabriel Byrne, Julian Sands, Toby Stephens and Rufus Sewell in a London gangster thriller.Oh no, not another one!But wait, this is a well produced, well shot film with a pretty good (if somewhat generic) score.
And this is only 81 minutes long, so even if it's bad it'll be mercifully short, right?Wrong.I'd been watching 21 minutes when I checked the time, because I thought I must be half way through by now.
Which means you feel like you've missed something all the way through, namely, the story.
See, the main problem is that we don't know any of the characters in the film, so we don't care about them.
And I like grey characters who aren't really good or bad, but you need a general focus or main character in a film, and this film just doesn't have one.So you keep watching these characters you don't care about in a story you can't really figure out, especially as they keep referring to things you don't see but that appear to be germane to the plot, and pretty soon you are just willing it to all end.
That's not the way thrillers are supposed to make you feel.
Phew!I need to watch a great thriller.
It is very difficult to write a review about a film one does not like.This is that type of film.I told myself that I will review every film I see, so I have to torture myself and yourself.What a boring film!
Plot is poor!
Shots of London are nice, but so they were last night on celebration of New Years 2014.Fireworks last night in London were more exciting then this film.You can freely skip it.If you have nothing better to do, just watch pictures of London.Nothing else!To add!.
poor film.
Well I've been a fan of IMDb for some time but i have never contributed and even if id preferred to make a nice statement for a first timer i couldn't watch this dud and let it get away with it first of all DO not pay too watch this film everything about it is terrible plot ,actors camera-work even the twists are terrible and as a londoner (london being the place the film takes place in ) believe me you don't feel one breath of the city ..
its sad too see good actors like gabriel byrne who was brilliant in usual suspects which is too some extent everything this film isn't i kid you not he seems to decay throughout the plot as if he understand what hes getting into ..
everything feels bad and nobody is at his place and you just don't get whats happening and especially why ?
the storyline seems too have been written by a ten year old at the best terrible too see people make films this bad ..
I only managed to watch half this film because by that point I had got sick of the inaccuracies.
Also, the police in the UK are not allowed to operate like this.
I don't know why the director/writer decided to waste the talents of some excellent actors like this when an authentic British take on the storyline would probably have been much more interesting.
Really excellent but clearly embarrassed caste with a really awful script.
When a movie I see on TV starts with the logo for popcornflix.com, I know that I likely can't count on too much appearing on IMDb, so I watch these movies more carefully to provide IMDb with as much information as I can.
There were cops in London, some of whom were apparently corrupt, and a rich man who wanted to get his drug dealing son out of trouble.
There was a car chase which was pretty good.
London was interesting to look at, if that was where the movie was set.
The Thames?I saw what looked like that scene from "Mission: Impossible", but if you enjoyed that scene, there's really nothing here.
I remember one really good acting performance from Terence Maynard, who ended up being tougher than he looked at first.Do I have any more to say?
"All Things to All Men" is a 2013 British crime film.Gabriel Byrne plays London crime boss Joseph Corso.
His son, Mark (Pierre Mascolo), is a drug runner, and Corso also has an associate.On the case are Parker (Rufus Sewell), Dixon (Leo Gregory), and Sands (George Cutter) from New Scotland Yard/Metro Police.By using Mark and getting him on drug charges, the cops are able to get Corso into trapping Riley (Toby Stephens) who moves stolen diamonds.Corso insists on seeing his son and also wants him released; Parker wants Riley in prison.
Joseph goes to Riley with one more job, a robbery where they have to move quickly.
Joseph tells his son that he is planning to retire, but Mark won't be succeeding him due to his record.
It all goes awry, along with this bare-bones film that moves fast and says not much.
It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad, and I guess that's the point, as they cops acted like criminals.The acting was good, especially from Byrne, Sewell, and Stephens, but I was not involved in the plot or with any of the actors.
Normally I can follow a complicated plot - in fact, I like them - but when they're not well written, they are hard to follow, as this one was.
More like, "Not much to pretty much anyone".
When I came across the DVD for this movie at my local library, I hadn't even heard of it before.
Without looking it up at the IMDb, I decided to give it a chance since it promised to be a crime movie filled with twists and turns.
Even before getting to the end of the movie, I was regretting that I hadn't looked up the movie at the IMDb before deciding to watch it.
I agree with most of the previous posters here that the movie simply isn't very good.
The main problem with the movie is that it is VERY confusing - even though I read the plot description off the back of the DVD case before watching the movie, it didn't take me long to get utterly mystified as to who was who and what was exactly going on.
I guess the acting is competent, and the British backdrop does give the movie a different look and feel from Hollywood product.
And the movie's production values are okay for what had to have been a small budget.
But those things don't save the movie from being an utterly confusing bore..
Why did such a group of brilliant British actors agree to do this film in the first place?
They all turn in excellent performances in a film missing so much detail and a clunky script.
Perhaps the director is aiming for film noir but the strong silent types were all a little overdone.
The best part of the film was London.
There is a good film lurking around the skeleton of this film but it is very difficult to understand quite what is happening.
I had to watch it in 3 parts as I was so bored but didn't mind watching Rufus Sewell and Toby Stephens.
In the end the stand out actor was Leo Gregory..
I'd like to take credit for that summary line, but it wasn't entirely my idea.
Actually it was all done by someone else, who "translates" movie titles into the German language.
In this instance as with other movies too, an English title gets replaced with another English title.
maybe that is.But back to the movie, that has some really good actors in it (check the casting here on IMDb), and all of them do deliver.
Not things that you haven't seen before (you could call the movie predictable), but still things that make it fun to watch.
Endless betrayals mark this dark anti-procedural crime film..
Set in modern day London, UK.
Joseph Corso is a crime boss, the 'Merchant' of London; Cutter is his henchman.
Mark Corso (Joseph's son) seems to be running drugs, and doing them as well.
Parker, Dixon, and Sands are on the New Scotland Yard/Metropolitan Police side of the issues.By squeezing Mark on cocaine possession, Parker and friends leverage his father Joseph into trapping Riley, who has been skirting Joseph's rules of order.
Joseph wants his son safe, well-treated, and preferably free; Parker wants Riley in jail and off the streets.
At least that is the first story.Joseph sets up Riley to do 'one more job' that is a complicated heist that has to be done lightning fast.
Parker gets Mark back to Joseph.
Joseph tells Mark that he is retiring as the Merchant, but that succession is unlikely since Mark is a known addict.
Will the cops keep faith with Joseph on the deal?
Will Joseph help Riley just enough to get him caught?
Where does the difference start between normal police procedure and straight up corruption?
Focus and framing and the like were just fine.Sound: 8/10 The tension building from the background music was good, and the actors seemed to be miked OK.Acting: 6/10 Normally I like Byrne, Sewell, and Sands.
I like Toby Stephens as a comedian in television (Vexed) and film (Severance), but not so much as a dramatic actor.
Terence Maynard was rather good, and I liked Leo Gregory's performance.Screenplay: 5/10 How does Riley get shot in the abdomen then can keep going with high-stress muscular maneuvers for a good continuous 20 minutes afterward?
The ending (and much of the plot) reminded me of LA Confidential.
This worked in the year in which LA Confidential was set, but not so much in 2013.
Perhaps worst of all, the 84 minute play time felt like 130..
British crime story pulls it off.
"All things to all men", a British film about the underworld and the involvement of corrupt police in it.
In the end, almost everyone is dead, both the good and the bad, except one novice policeman who captures the sense of the movie.
The closing scene brings a rather disjointed and difficult to follow story together with several notable quotes: "There's no right or wrong, only winners and losers." And the closing dialogue: Police Commissioner: "Can you be trusted?" Attorney General: "He means, 'Are you loyal to the system?'" Dickson: "what I don't understand, if a cop doesn't commit perjury, you'll never get a conviction.
Even now, it feels like I'm lying even when I'm telling the truth." Attorney General: "Something like that." Police Commissioner: (with a smile, acknowledging Dickson's desired promotion) "Detective".
The British accent made the dialogue extremely difficult to follow at times.
The story slowly builds a plot that comes to a satisfying climax with the final denouement..
IT FEELS LIKE I'M LYING, EVEN WHEN I AM TELLING THE TRUTH..
The film opens with a diamond heist then switches quickly to a cocaine bust.
The cocaine bust was just a way for to coerce The Merchant (Gabriel Byrne) to hire the diamond thief (Toby Stephens) by rogue members of Scotland Yard who want to use him for a robbery....I think.The film consists of a confused mess that is hard to follow.
I don't mind watching a film I have trouble keeping up with, but the film has to have some entertaining scenes along the way.
This was filled with a long series of boring scenes of people talking, while robberies, killings, and chase scenes are abbreviated.There are far better British "thrillers" out there.Original Title "All Things to All Men."Parental Guide: F-bomb.
Middling film with a good cast.
THE DEADLY GAME is a middling addition to the current wave of British crime thrillers.
The main thing it has going for it is an excellent cast of well-chosen actors.
Toby Stephens plays a hitman with cold-faced relish.
Rufus Sewell is a corrupt cop but nonetheless full of charisma throughout.
Gabriel Byrne plays an imposing crime boss and there are more minor roles for James Frain, the underrated Julian Sands, Ralph Brown and Neil Maskell..
This film has an 84 minute playing time, but it feels more like like I lost at least two solid hours of my life here for no reason at all.
By all appearances, even the actors lose interest as this derivative corrupt cop story progresses to it's predictable finish.
The movie really doesn't start out that badly, kind of like a decent BBC TV production, but that's the highpoint, and it's only steadily downhill from there all the way to the end.
If you are waiting, as I was, for this film to redeem itself in some way, well, that moment never comes.
Simply put, this film is really quite bad.
Gabriel Byrne and Julian Sands must be way past their "sell by" dates and desperately in need of paychecks. |
tt0255819 | Baby Boy | A 20-year-old man named Joseph "Jody" Summers (Tyrese Gibson) lives with his 36-year-old mother Juanita (Adrienne-Joi Johnson), in South Central Los Angeles. He spends most of his time with his unemployed best friend Sweetpea (Omar Gooding), and does not seem interested in becoming a responsible adult. However, he is forced to mature as a result of an ex-con named Melvin (Ving Rhames), who moves into their home. Another factor is his children—a son Joseph "JoJo" Summers Jr. with his girlfriend of five years, Yvette (Taraji P. Henson) and a daughter named "Sweetness" with another girl that he cheated on Yvette named Peanut (Tamara LaSeon Bass) who also lives with her mother.
At the beginning of the movie, Jody visits Yvette at the clinic to find out that she is pregnant. Yvette constantly asks Jody if he will ever come live with her and their son so they could be like a family, but Jody avoids the subject and comes and goes as he pleases. Jody also continues seeing and having sex with other women, including Peanut. Jody also nearly has sex with 23-year-old Pandora (Tawny Dahl), Yvette's colleague and co-worker, but manages to rebuff her advances. This becomes an issue between him and Yvette as well, especially since Yvette and Peanut do not get along and Yvette is not getting along with Pandora. When she discovers his cheating, they get in a heated argument which results in Yvette punching Jody in the face and Jody slapping Yvette in the face. After this, Yvette changes the locks on the door. This infuriates Jody and they get into an argument, which JoJo witnesses. Eventually, Yvette's gangster ex-boyfriend Rodney (Snoop Dogg) is released from San Quentin State Prison and returns to the neighborhood to move in with Yvette, much to her dismay. Rodney doesn't care for Yvette and JoJo and wants to impregnate Yvette himself. Rodney attempts to rape Yvette in front of her son, but reconsiders after being guilted by Yvette and JoJo. Despite their previous differences, Yvette begins to realize she is still in love with Jody. For the next couple of days, Yvette lives in fear and disgust of Rodney being there. Juanita finds marijuana in her garden and blames Jody for planting it. Jody becomes angry at his mom and blames Melvin for the marijuana. Melvin comes home and admits to Juanita that he planted it. Jody and Melvin get into a heated argument, which results in Melvin punching him in the face and breaking the table. Jody leaves the house to see Sweetpea. After this, Yvette kicks Rodney and his friends out of her apartment. Eventually, after some more bickering, Yvette and Jody reconcile at Sweetpea's house, and Yvette tells Jody that Rodney attempted to rape her in front of JoJo. Rodney steals the money and keys from her wallet and takes off in her car to go and find Jody. Rodney tries to kill Jody in a drive-by shooting; however, he is unsuccessful. Later that night, Jody and Sweetpea confront Rodney, and as he attempts to escape, Jody shoots him in the back of the legs. Sweetpea urges Jody to kill Rodney, but he refuses, at which point Sweetpea shoots Rodney to death. Feeling guilty for Rodney's death, Jody prepares to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head, but Melvin catches him and takes the gun. After reflecting on the death of Rodney and how he put Yvette and his son in danger by not being around consistently, Jody finally moves out of his mom's house and in with Yvette.
Jody has now become a mature man, realizing that Juanita's relationship with Melvin is a stable one and that he has a family of his own that he needs to protect and take care of. Afterward, Jody and Yvette get married and look forward to the birth of their unborn child. Sweetpea decides to turn over a new leaf and gets baptized, putting his old life as a thug behind him. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1270850 | The Waiting City | Fiona (Radha Mitchell) and Ben (Joel Edgerton) are a couple from Australia—she is a successful, self-starting lawyer while he is a relaxed, easy-going musician. Fiona and Ben, who want to adopt a child, travel to India for what they imagine will be a quick and simple process. However, once they arrive in Calcutta (now Kolkata) they learn that little happens quickly in India, and for all the promises that have been made, they begin to doubt whether they will be able to complete the final stages of the adoption process.
While Fiona stays in touch with her clients at home via the internet and deals with the legal red tape slowing down the adoption, Ben finds himself wandering the streets of Calcutta and adjusting to the rhythms of the city. The stress of the waiting period seems to reinforce the differences between Fiona and Ben, and tension begins to grow into anger and resentment; adding to Ben's dissatisfaction is his budding friendship with Scarlett (Isabel Lucas), an attractive fellow visitor who seems more compatible with his attitudes than his wife.
Fiona, who is an atheist finds herself at odds with the Indian people who are driven by religious tradition. As her stay in India progresses, the various unfamiliar sights evoke spiritual feelings in her. When Ben and Fiona finally go to the orphanage to meet their would-be daughter Lakshmi, they discover that she is chronically ill and likely unable to survive a flight to Sydney. Fiona and Ben are devastated when Lakshmi dies a few days later. Having lost all that they meant to find in India, the lovers decide once again that they need each other and engage in reconciliation. | romantic | train | wikipedia | I saw this film recently at the Sydney Film Festival and I still can't stop thinking about it.
I don't think I've ever been taken so far away and felt so close to home.I can't recommend this film enough and without giving too much away have to say this is one of the most stand out films I have seen in a very long time.
The actors are superb, their chemistry is completely spot on, the way India is filmed made me feel like I was there and in so many moments made me question everything I've ever thought about.
I have never seen the lead actors Joel Edgerton and Radha Mitchell look so good or be so likable and I've seen quite few of their movies.The director spoke at the Q&A after wards and mentioned that she spent a lot of time working in India in the slums of Calcutta and also made a documentary film about her younger sister in India.
She has clearly put the time in, done the research and knows the world of this story.
Her message in the film is also very moving.
She has a balanced view of all the things the film covers in the story.
The film does deal with some complex things like stresses between long term relationships, expectations between couples, family and cultural differences and a range of other things but somehow I managed to have quite a lot of laughs all the way through.A really good balance between the drama and the funnier side.
Very grown up film-making and a pleasure to watch.It is has been a very long time that any film, in particular an Australian film has made me feel even close to what this film has.
I cannot recommend THE WAITING CITY enough..
This is one of those films that prove movies can be more than mere entertainment - this was a deeply moving personal experience for me.I'm an adoptee myself, and being immersed in this world from the side of the prospective parents, well I guess I never really stopped to consider that very much.
Now I do.Set the popcorn aside and watch this film, and then think about family and relationships and the impact the arrival and anticipation of a child can have, especially if that child arrives by 'other means'.Congrats Claire, and thanks for making me THINK of the thing that most people take for granted - family..
The Waiting City is a fantastic film.
The story, the imagery, the music, the subtlety and depth of culture that is presented is great to see and really enjoyable.
Given the films topic, it was good to see it kept a light-hearted feel and did not get too bogged down in heavy drama that most Aussie films seem too.It has left me with a good feeling, and I would recommend to people who want to see something a bit different from the norm.
A lovely film.5 stars.
"You must act out of love, not desperation or need."I've yet to see a movie set in India that wasn't a visual treat to watch, and The Waiting City definitely earns it's place on that list.
The story, about an Australian couple come to Kolkata to adopt a child in the hopes that it will fix their strained relationship, is also interesting, even though I thought it stumbled into predictable, melodramatic territory at times.
This is sort of an emotional coming of age story for the two main characters, both as individuals and a couple.
The transition from who they are at the beginning to who they are at the end isn't exactly handled in the most organic way, but it is mostly believable.
The movie dabbles in ideas about faith and spirituality, as well, but in a very unfocused way.
I recommend The Waiting City to those interested in India, fans of Radha Mitchell or Joel Edgerton, and movie fans comfortable with subdued, personal storytelling that takes its time to get where it's going..
Faith-Love-Culture-Sacrifice All Together..
This post is about the movie The Waiting City, I just finished watching.
It is a story of a mystic- love that how an Australian couple come to an unknown land to search for a baby to adopt and finally the couple discovered how much they love each other.
I am surprised to see the acting of Radha Mitchell,and Joel Edgerton, they did very well.
I see Indo-English corroborated films by Mira Nair,Deepa Mehta, Daisy von Scherler Mayer, Vic Sarin, Wes Anderson and so many directors but Claire McCarthy, she really did a good work.
No Indian film maker can think such movie to their point of view of Indian travelers.
The cinematography of the movie is not satisfactory in the sense of motion picture.
It seems like the film is made for television short screen.
But overall the film scored very well.
I see Samrat Chakrabarti in his other films but in The Waiting City he did very well as a porter.
The same story and the same film could be more breath taking by working on the cogitate.
A good try from up an coming director..
I saw this movie last night in Sydney as part of the Sydney Film Festival.
I didn't know what I was seeing or anything about the movie.
Overall unfortunately I have to say that while the best intentions were there the film just didn't work.The main problem for me was that I don't think the director really knew what kind of statement she was trying to make with the film.
I was waiting for the presentation of what the film was trying to say but it never came.
The director stated at the end of the film in the Q+A that she wasn't making the film primarily about the adoption of children from other countries.
But this aspect of the story was way more compelling than watching two boring main characters have lukewarm interaction.
I feel the Director should have taken a stronger stance with how she felt about the subject matter she was trying to display.
And my God if you are shooting a film in India just get right in there and soak it into the frames !
While a few moments were interesting to watch it just didn't make it in the end.I thought the Joel Edgerton character was not realized well enough.
Weather this is through the fault of the director or Joels direction he took the character in.
Because the 2 main characters are on the screen so much of the time I really wanted to see more chemistry between them but it just wasn't there.
Also the film being shot with the RED digital camera system I would have expected a bit more depth and vitality to the shot choices.Having said all of this the creators of the film were very charming during the Q+A and I think Claire will go onto make some better material.
Australian couple Fiona (Radha Mitchell) and Ben Simmons (Joel Edgerton) arrive in Calcutta to adopt and pick up Indian orphan Lakshmi.
Fiona is frustrated by the waiting and the bureaucracy.
The couple fights about their different view points and the adoption.
They decide to go find Lakshmi at the orphanage while they immerse themselves in the spirituality of India.The couple starts out as being unappealing and they never recover from that.
The movie confronts that idea quickly.
The only thing saving Fiona is that she is obviously going to find enlightenment and salvation in the end.
I don't like this couple and I stop caring about them..
A couple seeking to adopt a child encounters the enchantment of India.
This is an unusual movie which combines the plight of an Australian couple trying to adopt a child with the enchantment of India.
Fiona (Radha Mitchell) is a high powered attorney who comes to India with her husband Ben ( Joel Edgerton ) a low powered musician who usually has his guitar nearby.
They have come to Calcutta to pick up their adopted daughter and initially have to wait several days to make contact with her.
These are the ingredients, that pulls the viewer into a spiritual experience which goes beyond the plot of the story.
The characters appeared to have learned some important things about themselves and the viewers have had an insight into the marital relationship of this couple, the meaning of international adoption and the multifaceted nature of India.
Screenwriter and director Claire McCarthy was drawn to India by her own travels there.
The film that she has created is authentic, beautifully photographed with muted lighting in soft colors but penetrates below the skin of the country and the people in the story..
It is because of the authenticity of the film's visuals that a palpable atmosphere surrounds India's lower classes here.
Ben Simmons (Joel Edgerton) and his wife Fiona (Radha Mitchell) are a married Australian couple travelling together through India.
It is revealed that they are looking to adopt a child there since Fiona cannot have children of her own.
Fiona though is regularly devoted to her work with her firm back home and seems less interested by the colourful surroundings, which frustrates Ben. Where she is far more city orientated, he seems to have a greater sense of the locations and the people.
Their different attitudes come into conflict, particularly when a Ben meets Scarlett (Isabel Lucas), a girl he used to work with when he was still making music.
These issues put a strain on Ben's marriage as he and his wife wait in their room for the agency to contact them.This is the fourth film written and directed by Australian filmmaker Claire McCarthy and it's a picture that vividly photographs India as a vibrant and deeply mystical place.
The film was shot on location in India, mostly in Calcutta, and there is a commendable degree of verisimilitude in the way that the streets have been chaotically filmed by McCarthy and her cinematographer Denson Baker.
The lanes that Joel and Fiona explore are trampled by hundreds of people at a time.
Others are just working adults, like the merchants that regularly try to coax Ben and Fiona into buying goods.
There are strange abnormalities too, suggestive of the sense of mythology that has been etched into the city, like when Fiona is disorientated and thinks she is seeing a woman with many arms, only for a child being carried on her back to be revealed.
It is because of the authenticity of the film's visuals that a palpable atmosphere surrounds the India's lower classes here.There are less impressive elements relating to the script though.
The pacing of the narrative stammers into its second hour too slowly, mainly because of the film's tendency to move in tangents.
The subplot involving Isabel Lucas's character Scarlett is a primary example.
It raises speculation about Joel's commitment to his wife and there are some weighty tensions between them but it feels unresolved because the character Scarlett moves in and out of the picture.
The film also has a weak grasp on the ideas of spirituality.
At one point Fiona admits that she can feel the spirit of her deceased mother in the city.
In another scene Fiona does not take part in a ritual and it might have been more interesting if the dialogue made reflections on this after the film's rather tragic climax.
In spite of these deficiencies there are two solid and likable performances here through Edgerton and Mitchell.
Lucas's part seems to be underwritten and her character is a mild distraction to the story.The Waiting City is a minor Australian picture that is rich in its atmosphere and sense of culture.
It wades through the tangents of the first act, towards a second half where the characters fail to reflect on what has really transformed their lives.
In such a deeply spiritual place the film never seems quite as profound as it should be because both the characters and the audience remain as outsiders.
There are questions over the relationship too, but both leads at least make them likable tourists, who only just skim on the surface of India..
Australians and India collide.
Diane and I watched this moving, intelligent and subtle film this afternoon in Fremantle and both of us had nearly the same feelings about what we had just seen.
I believe Waiting City was one of the few, if not the only, film made completely out of Australia; the visuals of the city of Kolcata (Calcutta) are stunning and are a significant aspect of the movie that we saw.
Without going into details of the script, I thought that an important part of the film was the subtle breaks in information given the viewer through the progression of the film; as viewers we are not fed every bit of information about the plot of the film.
This is not to say that, at least for me, this aspect of the filming is disturbing or somehow negative, it is just curious and for me adds to the subtle mysteriousness of the film.India plays a central role in the film; its population and crowding are almost suffocating and the obvious run-down vision of the city where the action takes place is striking for someone living in a Western city where everything is quickly repaired as soon as paint fades or tiles crack.On the political side of the film, it can be no accident that the central drama of the movie revolves around the city of Bhopal where the world's worst industrial accident occurred in 1984 in a plant owned and operated by the American company Union Carbide.
As the script develops, the viewer will see the logic of the inclusion of that tragic city in the film.
At first I was dubious about watching this movie, the trailer made it seem worthwhile but there was a lingering fear that the film would be just another add up of clichés as I have often seen in recent Australian films (not to name any specifically).After the first ten minutes I knew I was going to be transported.
What ensued was a truly original and profound exploration of human relationships in a foreign land and culture; both the conflicting expectations and quite naturally, the disappointments and disillusionments that follow.In "The Waiting City", these themes are explored carefully with the depth and maturity they deserve.
In the end, there are no answers provided to questions asked on the spiritual, or the morally right.
The two main character grow, as does the audience, thanks to the amazing performances of Radha Mitchell and Joel Edgerton.
Radha Mitchell was absolutely captivating as Fiona Simmons, a young lawyer who carries the many flaws of her husband and their suffering relationship upon herself.
Joel Edgerton naturally embodies all the warmth and enthusiasm of Ben Simmons, a musician / song writer who is still unsure of what he wants to do with his life, submitting himself to his wife's tendency to control and be the "adult".
Ben rises and grasps opportunities to prove himself, Fiona in her turn learns to accept and let go.Both are waiting to bring their adopted daughter home...
both will learn to open their minds and find solace in ways they never expected.One of the best movies I have seen world wide this year!
An absolute must see!As someone who was raised in different countries my whole life, I must say that this was a truly original and fair perspective from writer director Claire McCarthy on the experience of traveling and being transformed, in turn, by the unpredictability of the many worlds within our world.
I wanted to enjoy this film.
Australian couple looking to adopt a young girl from India and their trials and tribulations in Calcutta as they wait for the final bureaucracy to clear.But sadly, it did not quite gel.
At almost 2 hours, the pace, which hardly frantic, dragged at times.
And even though very different (she a lawyer, he a once-successful muso), their relationship wasn't wholly convincing - a crucial aspect of the film considering they are on screen together for much of the film..
A wonderful movie, uplifting and an inspiring human journey.
Great photography lovely scenery and some not so lovely views of India.
A story of a couple looking to adopt a child from India and trying to find themselves.
Joel Edgerton is wonderful as the person with "history" trying to fix up himself and his marriage with a child and he is hoping his wife will change once there is three of them.
Radha is wonderful as the person on the edge of everything.
Just my kind of movie.
I love a love story.
I also liked Japanese Story, The Way Way Back, Secret Men's Business, and Walkabout.
I hated No Country for Old Men (Senseless violence) and Burn before Reading (LSD dreams as a movie complete with paranoia)..
Excellent Film Shouldn't Be Missed.
This is one of those films I found in Netflix and watched knowing nothing about it.
What a surprise: this is a great film.
The way that the personal story of this couple is woven in with the affect on them of Calcutta is awesome.
It's about a couple from Australia who go to India to receive the baby girl they've been waiting two years to adopt.
So there they are in Calcutta with time to kill.
The visuals of Calcutta as Fiona and her husband experience the city and its people are incredible: vivid, graphic and real.
I got such a sense of the culture; it was fascinating to watch the impact it had, especially on Fiona, who, as a Type A atheist lawyer, despite her beliefs, or lack thereof, winds up receiving the spiritual energy of the city and country.
The acting is also excellent, which, as always, intensifies the experience of the film.
I highly recommend The Waiting City for anyone who wants to watch something different, original,visually stunning, and emotionally gripping. |
tt0187819 | Doug's 1st Movie | Doug Funnie (Tom McHugh) and Skeeter Valentine (Fred Newman) discover a monster (Frank Welker) that lives in Lucky Duck Lake. Believing the monster is evil, they are scared of him at first, but later on, they find him to be nice. Despite this, however, the monster is proof that their friend Beebe Bluff's wealthy father, Bill Bluff (Doug Preis), owner of Bluffco Industries, is polluting the lake, which was what created this monster. The monster almost eats the book Moby Dick, but Skeeter stops him and says, "Stop! You almost ate Herman Melville! You don't eat books, that is a NO!" and the monster returns it to them as an apology, so they name him Herman Melville after the author of the book, and the monster takes a liking to the name. Unfortunately, all of this commotion with the monster makes Doug forget that he was supposed to meet Patti (Constance Shulman) at Mr. Swirly's (Bruce Bayley Johnson), the owner of the local ice cream factory. When he remembers this at the last minute, he runs to Swirly's as fast as he can using the quickest shortcuts that he knows. Once he gets there, Patti is nowhere to be seen. He asks Mr. Swirly if he's seen her, and he says the she was here for a while and looked very upset, and then left with a guy who kept talking about his big plans for a dance. When Doug heard this, he knew that this guy was no one else but Guy Graham (Guy Hadley), a snobby upper class man who wants Patti. Meanwhile, Roger (Chris Phillips) and the AV nerds are building a robot (Eddie Korbich) to kidnap Herman, but when they build the robot it acts like a babysitter to Roger, much to the latter's dismay and annoyance.
Doug then rushes to the Funky Town night club, where Guy and Patti are working on the dance. He apologizes to Patti there and she accepts his apology, but Guy cuts in and says that Doug is "just a stupid little kid." Doug, very angry now, says that he has proof that Mr. Bluff is evil and is polluting the lake. Guy then calls Doug a liar. Doug then invites them both to the report that is being held in front of his next-door neighbor Bud Dink's (also played by Newman) house about Herman and the pollution. Doug then leaves, but the picture of the monster falls out of his pocket without him knowing. Guy picks up the picture and realizes that Doug was telling the truth; however, he calls Mr. Bluff, whom he has connections to. At the reporting, Doug sees that a news reporters camera is inflatable. He then realizes that the news company is a fake, that it is supporting Mr. Bluff, and trying to capture the monster. Doug then has to tell everyone that there has been a mistake, Patti gets mad at him, thinks that he is a liar and walks away with Guy.
That night, Mr. Bluff finds the boys with Herman and kidnaps the monster. The next morning, Doug knows that this is his last chance to save Herman. He goes to the school newspaper room, hoping to find Guy who can lead him to Mr. Bluff. Guy isn't in the room, but Doug sees a newspaper article that says that Mr. Bluff and his men blew a monster to smithereens at a school dance. Doug is at first sad and believes that Herman has died, but he then realizes that the school dance isn't until tonight and that this is what is being planned, so Doug and Skeeter call the Sleech twins Al and Moo (also voiced by Korbich) to help.
At the school dance, Doug has to make the biggest choice of his life: going after Patti or saving Herman. When he does the latter, Mr. Bluff catches Doug and Skeeter in front of Lucky Duck Lake after Herman escapes into it and plans to enslave them, but is stopped by Beebe and Mrs. Dink (Doris Belack). Beebe forces her father off of the scene to defend her friends, while Mrs. Dink hints at Mr. Bluff facing the wrath of the federal government if he does not clean up Lucky Duck Lake. Doug then finds Patti in front of the woods and Doug tries to tell her he is in love with her, but is interrupted by Herman. With the return of Herman and a copy of the newspaper, Patti sees that Doug had been telling her the truth all along and dumps Guy. Also, Skeeter gives Herman the Moby Dick book for something to eat in the lake and Herman also gives Doug a flower to give to Porkchop (also played by Newman) to which Porkchop comes running out of the woods into Herman's arms (earlier in the film, Porkchop was opposed to Herman, but softened up when the Monster gave the dog a gift). The kids say goodbye to Herman; after Herman jumps back into the lake, Doug tells Patti he likes her and Roger almost becomes friends with Doug, but is interrupted by the robot. Doug starts dancing with Patti and Skeeter dances with Beebe as the music continues in the background, ending the film. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | I looked up this movie on Wikipedia a few weeks ago to see what it was about.
When I read the plot summary, I honestly thought that somebody had trolled the page and typed in the weirdest s*** they could think of.
Then, after checking IMDb's plot summary, I realized that it was ACTUALLY ABOUT A FRIENDLY MONSTER NAMED HERMAN MELVILLE.
And the funny thing about this: I actually DID see this in theaters when it came out (back in '99, which made me 9 years old at the time), but I literally had NO memory of this movie.
I remember everything else I've ever seen in theaters, to some degree, but not this one.The fact that this movie was SO ridiculous, yet SOOOOO forgettable is a testament to its quality.
I was a fan of the show too (when it was on Nickelodeon, I hated what Disney did to it).
Btw, "Doug's FIRST Movie"?
Disney ruined Doug for good..
I saw this movie when I was a kid.
I grew up watching the Nickeleon Doug but didn't see much of the Disney Doug.At first I seemed to enjoyed it from the first time seeing it.But years later I didn't felt like watching it again.Getting the VHS was a waist of money if I didn't bother in watching it again.This has to do with Doug and Skeeter trying to solve there monster in the Lucky Duck Lake mystery.
They encounter the monster who's more friendly than it seems.
Mr. Bluff over hears about it and has sent out agents to locate the creature, blah blah blah.I thought it be great bu it stank.
Disney ruined Doug for the last time.Those who only like the Nickeleon Doug keep away from this movie if you dislike the Disney Doug.
This movie is awesome!
It's really a great movie for all die-hard Doug fans (like me).
Doug fans (as well as kids and adults, not to mention teenagers) will really like it.
The movie answers all questions that Doug fans have like, is there really a monster in the lake?
And will Doug and Patti get together?
The animation is a step higher than the TV show which is great!
Lots of fun to watch!.
Personally, I think "Doug's 1st Movie" was boring and a waste of time.
I think when the Doug TV Series was on Nick was good, then Disney came in.
Probably kids from the ages of 4-9 will be able to sit through this movie, and maybe their parents, but nobody else.
It was okay though I guess, I'm sure the younger kids probably liked it and it still has problems that everyone can relate to.
And by the way, why was Disney's "Doug" TV series canceled that same year?
And why the heck was the movie PG?
This is one of those kids' films that adults can't sit down and watch as well.
Okay, it's got nice morals, but pleeeeease, no DOUG'S 2ND MOVIE !!!!!
Boring attempt to stretch a tiny DOUG episode into a feature-length production...didn't work.
Hugely entertaining for real Doug fans like me.
This is an interesting movie.
I really enjoyed it and was perfect for the kids and also a great film for the young at heart aswell.
The plot is gripping with the Lucky Duck lake monster and the fact that his secret love for Patti is almost over in just over 1hr and 30mins which is just perfect for the kids who want to go to bed soon.
But over all a fine film and I will watch time and time again.
Hopefully there will be Dougs Second Movie, now that would be great.
finally...an intelligent children's cartoon.
Children's Cartoons have long been showcases for slapstick silliness and poorly written humor.
Doug stands out in stark contrast to the rest.This movie is sharply written, humorous with a message that is not laid on in a schmaltzy manner.
The creative script is intelligent enough to keep the attention of adults while still entertaining children.Doug himself is a likeable protagonist.
He isn't really one dimensional, the kid has feelings.
Its fun to watch him deal with the pressures of dating, (albeit at the ripe young age of 12...) he and Patti actually have a sort of chemistry (as far as cartoon characters are concerned.) I was actually able to watch this movie without feeling silly for being there....its dark elements are nicely balanced out with some traditional cartoon absurdities.
I personally was looking forward to "Doug's 2nd Movie.".
Despite having watched the cartoon series "Doug" almost religiously as a child, it took until adulthood for me to get around to viewing the feature-length movie adaptation spun off of that wonderfully rich, beguiling television classic.
I myself am surprised not only for that reason, but also because if I loved it so much as an adult, I surely would have loved it so much as a kid as well.
Along with pictures such as "A Boy Named Charlie Brown," this is one of those animated gems I wish I had seen earlier in my life."Doug" was originally on Nickelodeon, and then later appeared on Disney's network.
The film, "Doug's 1st Movie," is akin to the Disney version.
You know, Mayor White is now principal, Patti Mayonnaise has shorter hair, Connie is thinner, there's an obnoxious upperclassman competing with Doug for Patti's attention...there goes my inner-child!
In the film, we finally get a load of the infamous Lucky Duck Lake Monster, which Doug Funnie and Skeeter Valentine have been soulfully searching for over the years.
Except "Doug's 1st Movie" takes things in a different direction...as it should, since it is in the same tradition and mood as its source material.
The plot, the characters, the drawing style is all played for heart and for laughs.
Furthermore, just like the show, the film allows itself to balance between the two media so the gags do not overpower the more gentle, touching moments.
And the film's occasional message toward real-world issues (pollution, for one) are not pretentious.Fans of the show will also be delighted in how well the film captures the memorable personalities of the characters.
Doug is truly one of the better animated protagonists of recent years: whimsical, goodhearted, has soft spots.
But the character does not wallow in his slightly silly manner and thereby render himself insufferable.
Doug's fantasy moments, most of them depicting his romantic affections for Patti--a likable character--are oddball, but in the slightly bogus way everybody not only appreciates, but can recall from their own lives.
Those secure enough to admit to it, anyway."Doug's 1st Movie" is also a fine aesthetic accomplishment.
That is partially because many of the characters do have purple, green, or blue tint to their skin.
There's a lot of detail; Doug and his co-stars do not merely stand against flat walls.
That comes to show just how much children have lost now that the show, as far as I know, has virtually vanished from television.
True, it's now on DVD (the show, not the movie, unfortunately) but with so much poorly drawn and abysmally dull junk populating the children's programming guides, it really does beg Disney to reconsider their plans.I adored "Doug's 1st Movie" for a great many reasons, but the primary one was the way it recalled what it was like to be a child without making me feel as though I were sinking into immaturity.
I have no guilty feelings in proclaiming that I liked this movie very much and am hoping to see a restored DVD release of it someday.
And the song that plays over the credits is truly beautiful, something I cannot say of most songs I hear over animated films today.I personally was looking forward to "Doug's 2nd Movie.".
Questions about Doug answered at long last!.
This animated film answered all my questions about Doug.
The 8 and 6 year olds that I watched it with thought it was Awesome!
This is a good animated film.
It has a moral lesson about doing the right thing even if it doesn't make you look cool.
It's a film for kids that isn't so lame that it'll make adults want to run and hide.
In reality we all should be able to relate to some of that Jr. angst that Doug and Skeeter experience.
There's a really neat question and answer session with Doug's creator after the cartoon is over.
For all the hype in the 6 through 10 set about this movie it was actually enjoyable which came as a pleasant surprise to this viewer.
As a foot note I'd like to mention that Herman Melville is really an endearing character..
Good movie, but where was the "real" Doug?.
I'm not sure why, but it was the first thing I noticed and it annoyed me through the whole movie that the "real" Doug had been replaced..
Harmless animated feature.
I don't process much working knowledge about Doug and his adventures.
The story and animation are average.
Patti Mayonnaise reminded me of a cartoon version of Sandy Duncan.
I'll admit it, I'm a guilty fan of the TV show.
Doug is a geniunely likable character, and the movie is entertaining.
Its not going to win any awards, but for a good babysitting movie, or ever something to do when you're bored, you really can't mess this one up..
Doug's First & Hopefully Last Movie..
Doug's 1st Movie (1999): Dir: Maurice Joyce / Voices: Thomas McHugh, Fred Newman, Chris Phillips, Frank Welker, Alice Playten: Every bit as flat in its animation as The Rugrats Movie, with a story that is every bit as stupid.
Doug is a smart kid who shares a secret with his friend Skeeter (and no, it doesn't include a secret stash of pornography).
They manage to snapshot a monster that is dwelling in the lake.
The creature is friendly and only shown to the Mayor but they take him home when the lake is threatened with pollution.
Doug must protect it from exploitation while explaining things to a potential girlfriend.
Yes, the dating subplot might be beyond the audience this film is directed at but in all fairness any child should be smarter than the intelligence presented here.
Predictable and stupid in every manner but director Maurice Joyce knows the cartoon well.
A character like Doug should be in a story better than this.
His friend Skeeter is a moron.
The Mayor is either drunk or on heavy cocaine if he accepts these things at face value.
The villain should study the Bond films so that he can pick a bigger target, like the world.
The animation will not impress adults but perhaps children will not care.
It is Doug's first embarrassing act on film.
I bought this for my little brother, and thought he'd enjoy it.
I also vaguely remember seeing Doug as a kid on TV before I stopped getting satellite/cable reception.
That's a little kid (intended audience) and adult both saying this!
I bought him a new movie, because this one was okay, even kinda funny and entertaining, until it got to the businessman Mr. Bluff (now that's not biased at all!) trying to keep the protagonists from reporting him for polluting the lake.
It's bad enough I see all this crud all over the place about recycling and green living and anti-pollution these days, now it's showing up in films for children?
Well, I like pollution, and I couldn't care less if I went right out to the nearest lake and dumped chemicals in it!
And this "villain" Mr. Bluff, if this film were real I'd be shaking his hand for a job well done, pollution is wonderful.
Now, that's an opinion from an adult who watched it for nostalgic value, so here's an opinion from a kid.
My brother thought it was about hippies, he also didn't like the soundtrack.
He quickly got bored of it and said it was like Captain Planet, Toxic Crusaders and The Waterhorse all shoved into one.
I took him shopping later that day and we bought Goosebumps: Welcome to Dead House on VHS instead.
If you're one of those parents who wants to teach your kid (or kids) all that "go green" hippie junk, this movie is right up your alley.
If you're smart though, and want an entertaining movie that doesn't shove its environmental messages right in your face, a movie with great acting/voices, soundtrack and an original plot, try something else..
Doug's 1st Movie.
This was one of those Nickelodeon cartoons that ran during the early 90's which I used to watch religiously.
Along with 'Rugrats' and 'Hey Arnold!' the toons of that time were really decent and quite fresh in terms of originality and artistic style.
'Doug' being the most simplistic to look at compared to the others, yet I still can't recall how or why I actually got into this.The movie has the same age old issue, can it work when stretched out to a films length?
Its purely 100% for kids and not meant to be anything more, hence its extremely errr...childish, simple and unoriginal.I thought everything here worked really well to be honest, all the characters seem to be voiced by the regular people, give or take.
Everything visually is recognisable from the daytime cartoon, its been spruced up of course but it still looks like Doug and there hasn't been any CGI tomfoolery.
That fact I like, the fact they kept it pure like the original material and didn't use CGI, that's good (at least I don't think they used CGI).The only thing I didn't really like here was the plot believe it or not.
Now I know this will sound stupid but the plot was unrealistic, let me explain.
I'm reasonably sure that in all the 'Doug' cartoons the plot has always been relatable, in other words about problems kids face in school, at home, growing up, daily life we all can understand etc...It has never ventured into the realms of complete fantasy, I don't think.
So this movie to have the plot based around a dinosaur lake monster running amok is kinda crappy frankly, just seems totally lame and as if they couldn't think of anything else.
'Ah lets just stick a monster in their and they make friends with it blah blah blah', a cartoon version of 'Splash' or 'Free Willy'.If you know this franchise then you'll know what to expect, good morals, good-natured harmless silliness and plenty of sickly kiddie romance.
Although it doesn't seem as witty with Doug's regular daydream interventions which he had in the daily cartoon.
There does seem to be a clear difference between the early Nickelodeon Doug and this Disney Doug, early Doug did seem cheaper with those corny tacky homemade sound effects and sketchy animation, but that was its charm.
I never saw the later Disney Doug episodes but I've heard bad things.This big screen adventure does lack that charm but it still manages to do what it set out to do.
The film is enjoyable and still looks nice but admittedly isn't as rich or pretty as other animations.
You really have gotta be a fan to enjoy this, otherwise I can fully understand if you think it looks terrible.
I think time has passed for this franchise and film now, the moment has gone and it doesn't really stand the test of time, plus no Billy West!
I LOVED This Movie.
*Contains Spoilers*"Doug's 1st Movie" was one of the best Disney movies I've seen in a long time.
I saw the movie the day it came out in the movies and remember waiting on line for a long time to get tickets for it.
The movie takes place after the series with Doug and his friends looking for the "Lucky Duck Lake monster".
They find the monster at Skeeter's house (I love that scene) and help the monster adapt to human civilization by helping her wear clothes and go to school.
But alongside this part Doug is getting ready for Valentine's day and trying to prepare for the Valentine's day dance with Patti.One thing that I was unhappy about was that Doug and Patti didn't kiss at the end of the movie.
But at least the movie revealed the truth about the "Lucky Duck Lake Monster".Overall I loved this movie (10/10 stars) and watch it whenever I get a chance to..
Do You like That Herman Melville?.
Back when I was born in 1998 I never really grew up watching the show Doug but when reruns came on TV I was pretty entertained by it.
But when I was 6 years old my mom found out that I liked Doug she bought me the movie on VHS.
I watched this movie all the time for the next year.
Recently now in the year 2011 I came across a box of VHS Tapes and found this movie.
I sat down and watched it and now I can happily say that I sold it and never want to see it again.The films plot, if you want to call it that, is about Doug and his friend Skeeter find a monster in Lucky Duck Lake and name it Herman Melville the author of Moby Dick.
They go through every cliché in the book in order to hide the monster but soon the villain Mr. Bluff wants to kill the monster and keep the 2 boys quiet about him polluting in the lake.This movie is just a downright mess.
The story, again if you want to call it that be my guest, is so clichéd and tired that I get sick of looking at it, The animation looks like a six year old colored his coloring book at 4 in the morning, and the voice acting is just annoying and terrible which is a first of me saying that because usually in an animated film I praise the voice acting.
The only redeeming factor this movie has is that it is under an hour and a half. |
tt4836846 | Midnight Sun | The Earth's orbit has been perturbed, causing Earth to slowly fall into the sun.
A prolific artist, Norma, and her landlady, Mrs. Bronson, are the last people in their New York apartment building. All their neighbors have either moved North, where it is cooler, or perished from the extremely high temperatures. At twenty minutes to midnight, it is 110 °F (43 °C) and sunny as high noon. Norma and Mrs. Bronson try to support each other as they watch life as they know it erode around them. The streets are deserted, water usage is limited to an hour a day, and their electricity is gradually being turned off. Food and water are scarce. A radio reporter announces that the police have been moved out of the city, and that citizens must defend themselves against looters, then angrily goes off script, joking that you can "fry eggs on your sidewalk and heat up soup in the oceans". The reporter is forcibly taken off air.
As the temperature rises to 120 °F (49 °C), the two women grow weaker. Norma burns her hand on a windowsill. Mrs. Bronson becomes psychologically unstable, beseeching Norma to paint a picture of a cool subject, rather than Norma's usual paintings of the sun and burning cities, screaming, "Don't paint the sun anymore!". A looter enters the building through the roof access door, which Mrs. Bronson neglected to lock. They hide in Norma's apartment. The looter calls from outside, demanding entry. Norma threatens him with a cocked revolver, and they hear him walk away. Against Norma's pleas, Mrs. Bronson unlocks the door, and the stranger forces his way in, pulls the revolver from Norma and drinks their water. He calms down after seeing their distress and begs for their forgiveness, claiming that he is an honest man driven insane by the heat. He throws away the revolver and describes the recent death of his wife and newborn child from overheating and complications during labor. He insistently begs for forgiveness until Norma acknowledges him with a nod, then leaves the apartment building.
In an attempt to console Mrs. Bronson, Norma shows her an oil painting of a waterfall cascading into a lush pond. Mrs. Bronson deliriously claims that she can feel the coolness and delightfully splashes in the imaginary waters before collapsing to the floor. Norma sits in shock as the thermometer surges past 120 °F (49 °C) and shatters. The paint on Norma's oil paintings begin to melt before her eyes, and she screams and collapses to the ground.
The scene cuts to the apartment at night with heavy snow outside the windows. The thermometer reads −10 °F (−23 °C). Norma is bedridden with a high fever and is tended to by Mrs. Bronson and a doctor. The Earth moving closer to the sun is revealed to be only a fever dream. In reality, the Earth is moving away from the sun, and the world is freezing to death. Norma tells Mrs. Bronson about her nightmare, adding, "Isn't it wonderful to have darkness, and coolness?" Mrs. Bronson face stiffens in dread, and she replies, "Yes, my dear, it's... wonderful." | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0051009 | The Steel Bayonet | Tunisia 1943
As the end of the North African Campaign draws to a close, and the German and Italian forces are being pushed back on Tunis. A company of British Infantry are tasked with holding a small Arab farm against an expected last-ditch counter-attack; the farm's water tower will be used as an observation point by a few Royal Artillery spotters. To defend the farm British Lt. Colonel Derry picks a company led by Major Alan Gerrard; these men have been in the thick of the fighting around Tunis and are greatly reduced in number (described by the narrator as down to barely two platoons). So Gerrard's company set out on foot for the farm; on the way they are joined by Captain Dickie Mead and his signaller, Ames. Arriving at the farm, Gerrard's men chase out the occupants and dig slit trenches out in front of the farm. With the water tower and its ladder in clear view, Mead decides to wait until just before dawn to climb the tower while it is still dark. The next day Mead uses the his position to target the artillery onto the German forces, all is going well until the Germans send out a reconnaissance patrol to pin point the observation post, which Gerrard's men dispose of. With the Germans sure of their position, it becomes a test of nerve for Gerrard's men, seasoned troops and new boys alike. All of them stick it out until they are finally ordered to retreat with their job done. Mead decides to stay behind and cover their escape with artillery fire, leading to the death of Sergeant Major Gill and Private Middleditch. And when Mead finally succumbs to German fire, only the wounded Gerrard is left. With the Germans in the farm and his surviving men well on their way to safety, the mortally wounded Gerrard radios for the artillery to totally destroy the farm, killing Gerrard and the Germans' last chance at the same time. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0098219 | Romero | During the 1977 El Salvadoran presidential election, public unrest is at an all-time high over fears of election fraud. In the midst of a guerrilla uprising, the military regime sends death squads to detain, torture and kill anyone who speaks out against its terrible human rights record. The military also prevents average citizens from getting to the polls; soldiers are shown blocking a bus bringing people to town on election day. When the people decide to walk, the military shoots up their vans so that they have no transportation for the return journey. The Vatican elevates conservative yet reserved Oscar Arnulfo Romero (Raul Julia) to the position of Archbishop of San Salvador, hoping that with he will not get involved in the military dispute. Although apolitical, Romero is afraid of the government's increasing hostility. He initially refrains from stirring anti-government sentiments, but progressively, as he spends more time in his post, he sees evidence of deception, oppression, and systemic murder, after which he cannot support the government in good conscience and speaks out. After the assassination of Father Rutilio Grande (Richard Jordan), an outspoken Jesuit advocate for the poor and close friend of Father Romero's, Romero begins to take a stand against the government's policies, prompting the death squads to begin targeting priests.
After failing to rescue a pro-government hostage of the guerrillas in a botched ransom, Romero discovers that his friend Father Osuna (Alejandro Bracho), a militant critic of the ruling regime, has been captured and tortured. After securing his release, Romero instigates a boycott of the president-elect's inauguration, defying him by taking Mass in a church the military has taken over as a barracks. He later attempts to secure the release of a soldier taken hostage by Osuna and the guerrillas, but is arrested in the process. Osuna is subsequently tortured to death. Undeterred, Romero rejects the violent methods of the guerrillas, but is nonetheless assassinated while saying Mass, specifically while consecrating the Eucharist. In the last scene it freezes to take a moment to state Archbishop Romero was murdered on March 24, 1980. "He had spoken the disturbing truth. Many chose not to listen. As a result, between 1980 and 1989 more than 60,000 Salvadorians were killed. But the struggle for peace and freedom, justice and dignity goes on." | avant garde, cruelty, murder, violence, christian film, tragedy, suspenseful, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0114057 | Othello | === Act I ===
Roderigo, a poor and dissolute gentleman, complains to his friend Iago, an ensign, that Iago has not told him about the secret marriage between Desdemona, the daughter of a Senator named Brabantio, and Othello, a Moorish general in the Venetian army. Roderigo is upset because he loves Desdemona and had asked her father for her hand in marriage.
Iago hates Othello for promoting a younger man named Cassio above him, whom Iago considers less capable a soldier than himself, and tells Roderigo that he plans to use Othello for his own advantage. Iago convinces Roderigo to wake Brabantio and tell him about his daughter's elopement. Meanwhile, Iago sneaks away to find Othello and warns him that Brabantio is coming for him.
Brabantio, provoked by Roderigo, is enraged and will not rest until he has beheaded Othello, but he finds Othello's residence full of the Duke of Venice's guards, who prevent violence. News has arrived in Venice that the Turks are going to attack Cyprus; therefore Othello is summoned to advise the senators. Brabantio has no option but to accompany Othello to the Duke's residence, where he accuses Othello of seducing Desdemona by witchcraft.
Othello defends himself before the Duke of Venice, Brabantio's kinsmen Lodovico and Gratiano, and various senators. Othello explains that Desdemona became enamoured of him for the sad and compelling stories he told of his life before Venice, not because of any witchcraft. The senate is satisfied, once Desdemona confirms that she loves Othello, but Brabantio leaves saying that Desdemona will betray Othello: "Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see:/She has deceived her father, and may thee." Iago, still in the room, takes note of Brabantio's remark. By order of the Duke, Othello leaves Venice to command the Venetian armies against invading Turks on the island of Cyprus, accompanied by his new wife, his new lieutenant Cassio, his ensign Iago, and Iago's wife, Emilia, as Desdemona's attendant.
=== Act II ===
The party arrives in Cyprus to find that a storm has destroyed the Turkish fleet. Othello orders a general celebration and leaves to consummate his marriage with Desdemona. In his absence, Iago gets Cassio drunk, and then persuades Roderigo to draw Cassio into a fight. Montano tries to calm an angry and drunk Cassio down, but end up fighting one another. Montano is injured in the fight. Othello reenters and questions the men as to what happened. Othello blames Cassio for the disturbance and strips him of his rank. Cassio is distraught. Iago persuades Cassio to importune Desdemona to convince her husband to reinstate Cassio.
=== Act III ===
Iago now persuades Othello to be suspicious of Cassio and Desdemona. When Desdemona drops a handkerchief (the first gift given to her by Othello), Emilia finds it, and gives it to her husband Iago, at his request, unaware of what he plans to do with it. Othello reenters and vows with Iago for the death of Desdemona and Cassio, after which he makes Iago his lieutenant. Act III, scene iii, is considered to be the turning point of the play as it is the scene in which Iago successfully sows the seeds of doubt in Othello's mind, inevitably sealing Othello's fate.
=== Act IV ===
Iago plants the handkerchief in Cassio's lodgings, then tells Othello to watch Cassio's reactions while Iago questions him. Iago goads Cassio on to talk about his affair with Bianca, a local courtesan, but whispers her name so quietly that Othello believes the two men are talking about Desdemona. Later, Bianca accuses Cassio of giving her a second-hand gift which he had received from another lover. Othello sees this, and Iago convinces him that Cassio received the handkerchief from Desdemona.
Enraged and hurt, Othello resolves to kill his wife and asks Iago to kill Cassio. Othello proceeds to make Desdemona's life miserable, hitting her in front of visiting Venetian nobles. Meanwhile, Roderigo complains that he has received no results from Iago in return for his money and efforts to win Desdemona, but Iago convinces him to kill Cassio.
=== Act V ===
Roderigo attacks Cassio in the street after Cassio leaves Bianca's lodgings. Cassio wounds Roderigo. During the scuffle, Iago comes from behind Cassio and badly cuts his leg. In the darkness, Iago manages to hide his identity, and when Lodovico and Gratiano hear Cassio's cries for help, Iago joins them. When Cassio identifies Roderigo as one of his attackers, Iago secretly stabs Roderigo to stop him revealing the plot. Iago then accuses Bianca of the failed conspiracy to kill Cassio.
Othello confronts Desdemona, and then strangles her to death in their bed. When Emilia arrives, Othello accuses Desdemona of adultery. Emilia calls for help. The former governor Montano arrives, with Gratiano and Iago. When Othello mentions the handkerchief as proof, Emilia realizes what her husband Iago has done, and she exposes him, whereupon he kills her. Othello, belatedly realising Desdemona's innocence, stabs Iago but not fatally, saying that he would rather have Iago live the rest of his life in pain.
Iago refuses to explain his motives, vowing to remain silent from that moment on. Lodovico apprehends both Iago and Othello for the murders of Roderigo and Emilia, but Othello commits suicide. Lodovico appoints Gratiano Othello's successor and exhorts Cassio to punish Iago justly. | tragedy, revenge, intrigue, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | I rented this film mainly to see Kenneth Branagh once again, but was totally surprised by the entire cast, especially Laurence Fishbourne who portrayed Othello brilliantly.
Branagh brought a depth to Iago that I hadn't seen before, especially during the scene on the beach when he and Othello hug.
Director Oliver Parker wanted to make Othello a more "pacy" story, so he omitted quite a lot of the original text when writing this version for the screen.
One of Othello's soldiers, Iago (Kenneth Branagh) fails to get a promotion of rank which he feels he deserves, and to gain revenge he engineers a series of lies and incidents designed to convince Othello that his wife is being disloyal to him by fornicating with another man.
Film buffs might go for the Welles version, with its moody b&w lighting and a now-classic murder scene, not to mention the fact that the production history itself is as fascinating as the story.
I've always enjoyed Kenneth Branagh's versions of the Shakespeare classics, as he always does a very good job, but in this movie, the one who lifts the whole movie, is none other than "the-always-great-actor" Laurence Fishburne.
Surely he has made some poor choices in films, even though he's a wonderful actor, but in this one we're truly given the real Othello: the passion, the intensity of jealousy as it grows stronger alongside with Fishburne's well portrayed paranoia and, furthermore, we're finally given a black Othello!I don't think they could have chosen a better Othello.
Branagh is good as always, but not at his peak, Iréne Jacob's Desdemona is fairly good but a bit bleak, whilst Laurence Fishburne truly lifts it and makes it a very interesting and enjoyable movie.
As my Shakespeare Professor had mentioned, the part of Othello is highly challenging, which is why many don't perfect it or intend to play it.
He provided us an astonishing portrayal of how even a noble, righteous and even intelligent man, can succumb to "the green eyed monster." The calculatingly evil Iago was FLAWLESSLY portrayed by veteran Shakespearian actor Kenneth Branagh, who occasionally stared into the eyes of the camera itself, explaining his dark plans and expectations..
For me, the Lawrence Fishbourne version of "Othello" is the best ever put on film.
Olivier's "Othello" was essentially a film of the stage production, and for me the Orson Welles version was a failure, despite Welles' star performance, because most of the other actors were almost devoid of charisma.
Likewise, Othello's readiness to believe the worst of Desdemona, and the ease with which Iago leads him on to murder, makes the title character look quite pathetic, almost simple-minded.In this film, the cutting of the text to the absolute minimum helps to hide the play's inherent faults and tighten the action, and Fishbourne's wordless suffering speaks volumes that more than make up for the loss of Shakespeare's lines.
Here Brannagh's Iago is almost as good as Fishbourne's Othello, and he makes the most of the lines he has.To sum up, ten out of ten.
To my surprise Othello was great!Iago's character was played so well by the Kenneth fellow!
even thoough Iago is really evil and despicable, the character was played so well that it does what shakespeare intended for the charater to be, a pleasure for the audience to hate.
i have to say that fishburne's performance here was really good as well.i recommend this for shakespeare scholars and lazy students (who refuse to read the book) alike..
While maintaining the location and time period of the original play, this film gives us a much clearer insight into Othello as a character and as a story than many of the supposedly more important versions.
Lawerance and Kenneth just capture the story so well and understood it's darkness.Othello is the big time soldier in his city, he is loved by everyone, including the king.
Othello is driven insane and doesn't have pleasant plans for Desdemona or Cassio and Iago is more than happy to help him out.Othello is an incredible story, I highly recommend that you read it.
Othello the movie is also great and once again I recommend it, it captured the story perfectly and has a big tearjerker type of feel, or you could just be in utter shock of what happens between Othello and Desdemona, how quickly he believes that his true love would betray him.
This is a terrific movie, great acting, good sets, and good direction, this is what Shakespeare meant when he wrote the story.10/10.
You do not get more dark or tragic than "Othello" and this movie captures the play fairly well, with outstanding performances by Lawrence Fishburne and Irene Jacob.
Fishburne's expresses to the viewer Othello's torment as he falls prey to Iago's lies very convincingly, even providing a realistic epileptic episode.
I have not checked the movie against the play to see how many lines were cut out, but I know that Shakespeare tends to develop his characters, even the seemingly unimportant ones, very well.If I had any criticism of the movie it would be that the story unfolds too quickly, and that the relationships between some of the characters are not laid out more.
The relationship between Cassio and Othello and that between Emilia and Desdemona need to be further developed earlier in the film.
However I do like the cut versions (Richard III, Romeo & Juliet etc), yes they are for the short of attention MTV generation, but is that a bad thing?It's good to get a new generation into these plays.
In this version Brannagh gives an effortless performance (he can do shakespeare in his sleep) and Fishburne is great as the main character tortured by the betrayal and lack of honour of those around him.(although at times i was listening for the "Shaft" theme song - he did play it a bit street-tuff at time!).A cut version yes, but it looks beautiful and is more accesible than other versions..
First of all, I would like to say that Laurence Fishburne's performance as Othello did not impress me.
Although he is good, I think he maintains a bit too much dignity at the end of the film, making his tragedy less tragic.
Then, at the end, we lose him and Oliver Parker makes the great ending of the play way too long and we quickly get bored and annoyed at the melodrama of the last scene.
This is because both Parker and Redford adapt Shakespeare, not to make auteur films, like Orson Welles did, but to make them as Shakespeare would have were he alive at the time of cinema.
But this version by Oliver Parker seems to pull it off.Being a touch put off by the fact that he had cast Laurence Fishburne as the moor, I watched it for the mere fact that Brannagh was playing Iago.
If I didn't already know the story I may have though he was telling the truth half of the time.Fishburne himself actually gives in a good if somewhat restrained performance and Irene Jacob as Desdemona is convincing, but it is the boy from Belfast, Brannagh, who steals the show.There are many excellent minor performances in the movie also, Michael Maloney as Rodrigo and Anna Patrick as Emilia to name but two.Parker's direction of the piece is also very good, especially visually, the love scenes with the black/white skin are a bit obvious, but still a nice touch.The bottom line for me, would be if you enjoy Shakespeare and Othello isn't on at your local Theatre - rent the video, or go to the cinema to see this version - you won't be disappointed.
I was especially delighted that in this movie Othello himself was dark-skinned and Desdemona didn't have fair hair like almost always.
Price's 1995 version of Shakespeare's 'Othello' keeps the viewer's interest while staying true to the story.
Branagh and Fishburne deliver excellent performances in this version of the Shakespeare classic.
Branagh plays Iago better than I've seen the character played in film or on stage.
Fishburne, the first black Othello in film history ironically, delivers a powerful performance.
Fishburne has always been a good actor, but this performance as the Moor of Venice may be one of his best.
One of the worst cuts made by Branagh in this film, was the subtraction of a conversation between Iago and Desdemona at the beginning of the second act.
However, if you have not read the play, or seen a film version of Othello before, I recommend this movie.
If some important scenes had been added, and Desdemona's character been prioritized a bit further, this would be a great movie.
Fishburne is a good actor but illicits no sympathy for his Othello and Irene Jacob is a total waste as Desdemona she did not even seem to know what she was saying!) Oliver Parker redeemed himself with IDEAL HUSBAND but Othello is a take it or leave it adaptation..
I just watched the full length version of the play, televised by BBC in 1981 with Anthony Hopkins in the title role of Othello and Bob Hoskins playing Iago.
It made me realize just how much the Fishburne/Branagh version from 1995 suffers by being cut to ribbons to fit in a much shorter time slot.
Laurence Fishburne is good in the title role but not incredible, and again, he is missing some of his best lines due to editing.
or was Honest Iago actually smirking at the end, as he died?Loved how the Bard's iambic pentameter just rolled of Fishburne's tongue, with excellent clarity and emotion.And how Branagh made Honest Iago seem to celebrate his own evilness...This is a wonderful film.I have often thought that Shakespeare is inherently not film-friendly: He uses words to create pictures in our minds, which creates a perennial battle with the camera, which only knows to show us what we need to think and feel.
Instead of chewing the scenery in the approved fashion for such high-powered roles, Fishburne's portrayal is focused more on Othello's love for his wife, and on his profound sadness at her supposed betrayal, than on violence and vengeance.
Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh.
I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths.
Fishburne was wonderful as Othello - played him as a military man par excellence, and with great credibility.
-about a month ago i made a lukewarm commitment to finish all movies that i start watchingNow that you know where i am coming from, I will tell you that I am very pleased with this film,with the story that shakespear tells us, and with the adaptation.
Oliver Parker directed the 1995 version of William Shakespeare's Othello starring Laurence Fishburne in the titular role.
Presenting the danger of isolation as a master manipulator takes advantage of another man, Othello plays out a cautionary tale of power and struggle.Iago (Kenneth Branagh) is furious that his loyalty and civility has been overshadowed by another, and he instantly begins devising an elaborate plot to seek revenge against Othello and bring about his downfall.
Becoming obsessed with his master plot, Iago develops a narcissistic addiction to bringing about Othello's downfall.The highlight of this film is the acting of Kenneth Branagh's Iago.
Fishburne plays this distinction well and the film prospers from his lead role.Days ago after my initial viewing of this film, I thought it was wonderful; after taking some time to process it, however, I think it was pretty forgettable.
As good as Branagh's Iago was, it was played differently than I imagined from the Shakespeare original.
All of the elements of Shakespeare's classic tragedy are here, but they add up to only a rather tepid melodrama thanks to a bland leading lady, a flat supporting cast and the ham-fisted and uninspired direction of Oliver Parker.Thankfully, there's Lawrence Fishburne and Kenneth Branagh.
This may not be the best version of 'Othello' put on film, but it's worth watching thanks to the performances of its two leads..
And I was very impressed; I am not sure whether I can add much to the other wonderful reviews here but I'll try.Some people may find this is not their most ideal Othello, some may despair at the cuts and the short length, but on its own and as a introduction to Shakespeare films it is very impressive.
Michael Maloney, Nicholas Farrell, Nathaniel Parker and especially Anna Patrick are excellent in support, but the standouts were Laurence Fishburne's brilliant and very powerful yet restrained Othello and Kenneth Branagh in a literally seething albeit sometimes human account of the evil-incarnate character of Iago.
Irene Jacob wasn't quite as good, Desdemona is a very delicate and poignant character, and while Jacob does what she can looking suitably delicate and beautiful her performance was a little on the dull side for me.I also have to agree on a side note that those into opera should see or hear Verdi's Otello, the music is phenomenal and Iago's Credo is living proof in my opinion that the original source material can be improved upon as you see much more of Iago's villainy.
Shakespeare's text is strongly truncated and the film contains material which earned it an "R" rating.I have several reasons for using this production: First, I had not seen a depiction of the Moor that actually made me sympathetic to Othello until I saw Fishburne play him.
Fishburne's depiction is therefore classically tragic.Second, Fishburne is the first black actor to play Othello in a film.
Female actors bring a special quality to female roles on the Shakespearian stage because they understand best what Shakespeare's genius was trying to present.
^^), the actors, especially Branagh, are superb and I even was surprised by Laurence Fishburne's performance...
Well everything's good, I think (although I don't like Othello saying 'Amen' like 'Hey men' instead of 'aaah men', and the place where Desdemona is in Venice is not the rights place, but those are details...) So, it's a very good film you Shakespearians should know.
I applaud Oliver Parker's (first film?) adaptation of "Othello" for being clear and imaginative with the story and text; not an easy task.
Fishburne is a good actor, and I found his Othello very moving, though missing a touch of the stuff myths are made of.
Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form..
First I love Kenneth BRanagh as Iago, he was perfectly complicated and worked very well in this adaptation.
Lawrence Fishburne shows that American actors can play Shakespeare just as well as British actors can do.
I like the idea that this was the first movie by Oliver Parker and that mister Fishburne was the first Black man to play Othello.
This one is just a very good quality film and a good way for an introduction to the world of W.S. Brannagh is solid too, but I think the excellent Irene Jacob could have a little more place, like Suzanne Cloutier did in the Welles version..
A missed opportunity which is regrettable because it is nice to see the Moor played by a real black, and Fishbourne and Branagh are quite good..
It is needed that a great actor should be Iago, but here in this perfect performance from Kenneth Branagh, we are abused.
Either a genius or a lunatic, you decide.Translating Shakespeare into the context of film (a good 300 years apart) takes a degree of Beethoven acting itself.
I am tough on Shakespeare versions for this very reason, if the producers have the guts to make one, it better be great.Othello is an interesting combination of teen ideas set in the adult world.
It's too bad that Oliver Parker hasn't done anything similar because he understands the film and context better than Olivier or Branagh.Laurence Fishburne is particularly interesting as Othello, I find it insulting that he degraded himself with Matrix Reloaded.
After watching Welles and Olivier in their performances as a black-faced Moor, Fishburne is a breath of fresh air, and comes across as the first actor who has ever portrayed Othello's truth on-screen.
The only downside to this wonderful film is the casting of Kenneth Branagh in the role of Iago.
However, if you want to consider Iago as an effeminate and baby-faced schemer who has major issues about his masculinity, then Branagh is your man.An erotic and dark rendering of one of Shakespeare's most famous works, Oliver Parker's OTHELLO is definitely worth the time for its direction, its unique interpretation, and Laurence Fishburne, who makes Othello into one of the most dangerous and masculine sexual presences on film..
This movie is a videoclip, nothing to do with the great version by Orson Welles, nothing to do with Shakespeare..
The language is some of Shakespeare's most complex, yet when understood, also some of the most eloquent and beautiful ever written.The film had a lot to live up to.(This may contain plot spoilers.)In my opinion, Fishburne was an excellent Othello - brooding, jealous, suspicious, in anguish - everything I expected.
A wonderfully chilling performance, which left me convinced that Iago was possibly the most evil villain I have come across in any of Shakespeare's works.
There are two time frames, it seems, in the play, which is hard to put across in a film, but which I think worked well enough that I wasn't bothered by it.
:)Overall, a very good film adaptation of a wonderfully moving and disturbing play.
It wasn't actually my choice to watch this film based on the story by William Shakespeare, it was part of a study in Secondary School.
It wasn't directed by him, but I really like Kenneth Branagh in this film. |
tt0045680 | The Desert Song | French General Birabeau has been sent to Morocco to root out and destroy the Riffs, a band of Arab rebels, who threaten the safety of the French outpost in the Moroccan desert. Their dashing, daredevil leader is the mysterious "Red Shadow". Margot Bonvalet, a lovely, sassy French girl, is soon to be married at the fort to Birabeau's right-hand man, Captain Fontaine. Birabeau's son Pierre, in reality the Red Shadow, loves Margot, but pretends to be a milksop to preserve his secret identity. Margot tells Pierre that she secretly yearns to be swept into the arms of some bold, dashing sheik, perhaps even the Red Shadow himself. Pierre, as the Red Shadow, kidnaps Margot and declares his love for her.
To her surprise, Margot's mysterious abductor treats her with every Western consideration. When the Red Shadow comes face to face with General Birabeau, the old man challenges the rebel leader to a duel. Of course Pierre will not kill his own father, so he refuses to fight, losing the respect of the Riffs. Azuri, the sinuous and secretive native dancing girl, might be persuaded to answer some of these riddles if only she can be persuaded by Captain Fontaine. Meanwhile, two other characters, Benny (a reporter) and Susan provide comic relief. Eventually, the Red Shadow's identity is discovered, a deal is struck with the Riffs, and Pierre and Margot live happily ever after.
=== Pre-Code Sequences ===
After 1935, the original 1929 version became impossible to exhibit in the United States due to its pre-Production Code era content, which included sexual innuendo, lewd suggestive humor and open discussion of themes such as homosexuality (e.g. Johnny Arthur plays a character who is obviously gay). Consequently, a cleaned-up remake was released in 1943, with a third version following in 1953. | violence | train | wikipedia | I like music as long as it has a melody and there's nothing more melodious than an operetta.
The Desert Song is filled with wonderful melodies and Gordon MacRae and Kathryn Grayson sing them to perfection in this third film adaption of the Romberg-Harbach-Hammerstein operetta.The real surprise for most people is that the Riffs are quite real.
A hardy fighting group they were led in the teens and twenties of the last century by a romantic hero very much like the Red Shadow(El Khobar)named Abdel-Krim.
During the post World War I years American correspondents reporting from those wars were pretty much on the side of the Riffs who were seeking independence from France and Spain.
A guy named Francisco Franco got his first military combat in the Riff Wars.Eventually the French entered the war in a big way and Abdel-Krim became a prisoner.
The guy most responsible for his capture was Marshal Phillippe Petain who led the French army, his most notable activity between both world wars.No doubt in my mind that Abdel-Krim was the model of our hero.
Of course since this is the west doing the story we make the hero a Frenchman named Paul Bonnard who by day is a mild-mannered archaeologist from a French University by day and the fearsome lion of the desert by night.
Gordon MacRae even dons glasses in his Paul Bonnard mode, just like Clark Kent.And the leading lady is Margot, daughter of the French commandant and a typical 1920s flirt.
But it's the wonderful romantic music that Sigmund Romberg wrote that will make the Desert Song last forever.
The main songs, The Desert Song One Alone, the Riff Song and Margot's soliloquy Romance are done in fine style by the leads.
I wish more of the score got into this version.Doing operetta, of necessity a lot of it is tongue in cheek.
Kathryn Grayson got to do a lot of classic operetta and opera while she was at MGM.
Gordon MacRae had a terrific baritone voice and sad to say in his case, he didn't come along in the 1930s or he could have done a lot of the operetta that was being filmed then.One more thing about Abdel Krim.
MacRae and Grayson are in fine voice for this well-worn operetta....
This is the third screen version of the operetta and, as far as the singing goes, probably the best.
Gordon MacRae is in splendidly robust baritone voice as the mild-mannered anthropologist who is asked to tutor the General's daughter (Kathryn Grayson), all the while being the leader of the Riffs being sought by her French legionnaire boyfriend (Steve Cochran).
The well-worn plot rambles on interspersed with some action scenes, silly comedy and exotic dances--all in keeping with the spirit of the desert adventure.
The two leads are charming in their roles and Raymond Massey is on hand as an evil sheik.
Good color photography and location filming make it a pleasant film to watch--but it's the music by Sigmund Romberg that makes it all worthwhile.
Grayson is especially good when she renders "Gay Parisienne" before an army of soldier admirers and gives her most flirtatious and colorful performance since 'Kiss Me Kate'.
Gordon MacRae firmly established himself as singer and actor, revealing a sense of humor along with his splendid singing voice.
El Khobar (The Red Shadow) was not based on Abd-el-Kader but instead on the exploits of one known as El Hadj Aleman, who gave the French Foreign Legion fits during the Riff War in the 1920's.
El Hadj Aleman was in fact a Legion deserter (Otto Klems) of German nationality.
Surrendering, he was sentenced to death by the French, but he had become a romantic hero in the U.S. due to dispatches by American reporters (witness Romberg's operetta, The Desert Song, as a result).
Though it seems many criticize this in comparison with the stage play, I have always been in love with this movie version.
The characters are fun (especially Benjy), the music is heavenly (I could sing it all day!), and the plot is nonstop action.
I look at the play and this movie almost as two different shows completely, since there are, admittedly, many differences.
Here, Margot is the general's daughter (as opposed to his child being the Red Shadow/El Khobar).
The finest film version of a great operetta by Sigmund Romberg and Oscar Hammerstein.
Spritely, joyous, full of heroics, romance and beautiful music, beautifully performed by Gordon McCrae and Katherine Grayson, a truly lovely actress, "The Desert Song" is simply one of the finest musicals of the first half of the twentieth century, and this 1953 version, the third filming by this studio, is by far the best.
From the "Drum, drum, drum of Hobart's in the sand," as the Riffs ride across the vast trackless desert at the beginning of the film, the music seems almost continuous.
On of the few disappointments of the film is the haunting "Azuri's Song" from the original musical, but the quality of acting, with Ray Collins, Raymond Massey, Frank De Cordova and William Conrad, assure that the action never becomes dull.
This is the way musicals should be filmed and the direction J.
Bruce Humberstone, who cut his teeth on the first Charlie Chan movies of the thirties makes it all come together in a real treat.
Released during the Silver Age of the comic book action hero genre with which this movie's plot bears similarities..
Gordon Macrae does look a lot like Superman and Clark Kent and in this film, he has a secret identity as a mild mannered professor as contrasted with his hero persona, El Khobar.I must admit I was a collector of Batman, Superman, The Flash, Green Lantern and Silent Knight comics when I first saw this movie as a boy in knee pants.
I simply can't let go of the melodies of The Desert Song and One Alone.On Gordon MacRae, what can I say?
Spoiler: Even my little sons who had no clue about Broadway musicals were in stitches when he pulled that stunt with the ethnic musical instrument that sounded like a cross between the bleating of an ass and a sheep.Kathryn Grayson who strikes me as prim and proper with a seriously classical singing voice gamely plays the role of a flirt.
Kathryn Grayson, and Gordon McCrae sang beautifully.
I haven't seen the movie since I saw it in the Music Circus, and the Theatre, but I will never forget the red in the costume that Gordon McCrae wore, and the white of the desert sands.
You would have never guessed that this man wearing glasses was the one who would come to the rescue of Kathryn Grayson.
Following John Boles in 1929 and Dennis Morgan in 1943, Gordon MacRae gives this outdated hokum his best shot in the silly role of Paul Bonnard, sometimes a timid academic, sometimes an adventurer.
He does get to sing some lovely songs though - it may be one of the most improbable musical plots, but 'The Desert Song' has one of the best scores of any musical.Kathryn Grayson is on hand with her trademark soprano trill as female lead, while Steve Cochran and Raymond Massey enjoy themselves in the supporting cast.
Recommended for musical fans who like to suspend belief and for those who have a long-term devotion to the lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein II..
I grew up listening to Gordon MacRae sing The Desert Song on an album that also featured him in the musical Roberta.
So it was with great interest that I watched "The Desert Song."Having myself appeared in "The New Moon," I can tell you that on stage, these operettas only work if done tongue in cheek.
If one were filming them for today's audiences, I suspect they would have to be done that way as well.However, for beautiful music, "The Desert Song" is operetta at its best.
Shiek Yousseff (Raymond Massey) secretly plots to overthrow the French, all the while pretending to be their friend.
El Khobar is in reality Professor Paul Bonnard who is making a study of the desert.
General Birabeau (Ray Collins) of the French Foreign Legion arrives to investigate, and his daughter Margot (Kathryn Grayson) accompanies him.
This is different from the actual operetta, in which Birabeau has a son, not a daughter; his son, Pierre, is actually the Riff leader The Red Shadow.
In the operetta, Margot is engaged to Claud Fontaine, but the Red Shadow is in love with her.
Gordon MacRae and Kathryn Grayson lend their beautiful voices to songs such as "The Desert Song," "One Alone," and "Romance." Grayson is not quite bubbly enough as the flirty Margot.
In the operetta he has a girlfriend, Susan.This is the kind of movie where you enjoy the music and the singing.
While not perfect, The Desert Song has a lot to like about it.
Gordon McRae is immensely charming and shows that he is natural in comedy, his voice, one of the beautiful on film, is as ever splendid.
It is the same with Kathryn Grayson, who brings personal charm and sass to her role, who is energetic in Gay Parisienne and really goes for it in One Alone that it is easy to feel the emotion.
Raymond Massey is a perfect villain and for me he was the best and juiciest performance in the film.
To conclude, The Desert Song is not quite glorious but it's well performed, handsomely made and makes for good entertainment.
8/10 Bethany Cox. THE DESERT SONG (H.
The third (and most popular) film version of the Oscar Hammerstein II-Sigmund Romberg operetta features an eclectic assembly of handsome singing stars (Gordon MacRae and Kathryn Grayson) and reliable character actors (Raymond Massey, Steve Cochran, Ray Collins and William Conrad).
While I cannot say that the song score was particularly memorable in itself, the film is made tolerable enough by its straight "Arabian Nights" trappings: a mysterious avenger (MacRae, of course, posing by day as a mild-mannered anthropologist) takes on the might of a tyrannical Sheik (Massey) and the French Foreign Legion (commandeered by Cochran and Collins) while romancing the latter's rebellious daughter (Grayson).
Also on hand to round up the colorful cast of characters are Dick Wesson as an indomitable reporter successfully providing the expected comic relief, Allyn Ann McLerie as the requisite dancer-temptress with a proverbial heart of gold and Frank DeKova as a typically hot-headed (and ultimately duplicitous) desert rebel..
Beautiful Music In Old-Fashioned Operetta.
This is an example of an extinct musical sub-genre, the operetta.
THE DESERT SONG has all these, plus, what I feel is one of the loveliest of all operetta scores, in this case, composed by Sigmund Romberg.
The story flows along with Kathryn Grayson and Gordon MacRae bursting into song in true operetta fashion.
It is stunning on the Warner Archive dvd, and the glorious voices of Grayson and MacRae are perfectly recorded.
Indeed, this was one of the last operettas filmed in the early '50s.
If you want to escape to another world, far far away from the problems of today, immerse yourself in the soothing melodies of THE DESERT SONG..
Good looking Sunday morning background movie!.
Glaring Technicolor, 'exotic' sets and costumes, and of course the trilling song stylings of Ms. Grayson and the rumbling song stylings of Mr. McRae. Look up at the TV and there's Kathryn Grayson in the desert, wearing a corseted lavendar gown, with what looks like a score of Foreign Legionaires at her feet (for all the world looking like a score of boy dancers ready to lift her over their heads and twirl her around).
If you like operetta, even more fun!.
The Technicolor photography is striking, the desert scenes very good, the secondary characters are good, the lead actors are good, but in spite of that it is rather disappointing.
Kathyrn Grayson's singing reminds of that of Snow White in the classic Disney animated movie from the 1930s: too sweet, too many trills and "ah-ah-ah"s.
Speaking of animation, the plot and feel of the movie remind me of a comic book.
Another poster here wrote of the Silver Age of comics, and that this movie seems to fit right in.
We have a "super hero" (Gordon MacRae) who wears a disguise and has an alter ego.
With his glasses, he looks remarkably like Clark Kent.
Grayson looks a lot like Lois Lane.
Too bad Perry White doesn't show up (but there is Ray Collins, soon to join the Perry Mason TV series).All in all, it has some good features but really seems too much like a B-western, in spite of the A- cast.-henry.
I like operetta, but this is a really corny movie.
How could anyone have made this with a straight face?Gordon MacCrea has a great voice and sings wonderfully.
Grayson and her voice are less annoying than usual, and she's got a great figure in this movie.Other than that, this is pure hokum from start to end.
If u want to listen to the music, some of which is very good, find a recording.
Grayson And MacRae In Good Voice But Weak Film.
In this film, the highlights are the singing performances of Kathryn Grayson and Gordon MacRae. Unfortunately, the songs they sing are not really memorable.
To make matters worse, these musical oases are separated by vast distances of desert-like story that are uninspiring.The tale that surrounds the music is about a tribal conflict in the Sahara and the political tensions between the locals and the French.
MacRae plays the good-guy-in-disguise Paul Bonnard, who moonlights as El Khobar--the mysterious opposition to Massey's plans.Comic relief is handled by Dick Wesson, but his performance is not very comic and it only intrudes on the real story.There is little to recommend this film, but fans of Grayson and MacRae will probably want to catch their performances..
Romance, Song and Conflict in the Desert.
It's beyond me why reviews of the major film roles of Kathryn Grayson and Gordon MacRae invariable ignore this unique operetta.
Kathryn was nearing the end of her Hollywood career, starring in the much better known "Kiss Me Kate", filmed the same year.
She had it all: classic beauty, a great operatic voice and very flirty looks at the men, yet prim and proper.
Gordon does a great job playing starchy, if handsome, French anthropologist Paul Bonnard, who doubles as El Khobar, the dashing leader of a band Riff Berbers in their fight against the French legionnaires and an evil sheik, played by veteran character actor Raymond Massey.
True, it does strain credulity that Gordon, as a rather thinly disguised El Khobar, could have avoided recognition by Kathryn and others as being the professor.
Steve Cochran makes a dashing-looking Captain Fontaine whom Kathryn, as the newly arrived daughter of General Birabeau, immediately falls for.
Both Kathryn and Gordon sing quite a few solo numbers as well as several duets.
Allyn Ann McLeries is fine in her supporting role as Azuri, a sensuous blue-eyed Riff dancing girl, presently employed in the evil sheik's palace, but in love with El Khobar, who inexplicably rebuffs her advances.
Having recently seen her in the supporting role in "Calamity Jane", filmed the same year, I was surprised how well she could be made to look and dance like a real knockout Berber temptress.
The Spanish were unable to defeat the Riff, but when the French entered the conflict, they brought overwhelming forces and technology that eventually defeated them.According to another reviewer, the character El Khobar is very loosely based on the life of the German Josef Klems, who joined the French army and spent some years fighting the tribesmen in Morocco.
A review said it is a good film, but not presently available..
Desert Song-It's Not Lawrence of Arabia With Music ***.
What saves this movie is the wonderful singing done by Gordon MacRae and Kathryn Grayson.
They actually played in a film that involved intrigue.Usual evil player, Steve Cochran, is given little to do in the role of a nice guy, most unusual for him.
Even in the Virginia Mayo-Danny Kaye films, Cochran got better parts as gangsters.Raymond Massey, who by this time had fallen into supporting roles, is evil as ever as the Arab to watch.
His game of blaming other Arab factions in the movie worked only for a while.Grayson and MacRae sing the title song with great beauty.Note an interesting part by Robert Conrad and the guy who played Edward G.
Americanized Arabs challenge this oft-filmed operetta..
With gorgeous music by Sigmund Romberg, lyrics by a variety of writers and its exotic setting, this fourth version of the 1926 operetta holds a special place in my heart simply because of how well it is sung.
With gorgeous soprano Kathryn Grayson and baritone Gordon MacRae in the leads, the music is superbly recorded even if MacRae is miscast as a supposed Arab hero.
However, it is the last version of the film which has made it out onto home video, and it is definitely worth viewing simply for the lushness of its score, if not some of the uninspired casting.Other than his appearance in drag in "Calamity Jane", I never found anything amusing about Dick Wesson, and as MacRae's sidekick (once again), I found him extremely trying as he tries to be funny and just can't even get a grin out of me.
William Conrad (as the main villain), Ray Collins, Raymond Massey, Steve Cochran and Allyn Ann McLearie fare better, but it really comes down to my love of the Sigmund Romberg score, particularly the title tune, "The Riff Song" and "One Alone", a gorgeous duet between MacRae and Grayson that is worth putting up with everything else.
It's ironic that the same year, MGM's Howard Keel (Grayson's partner in 3 musicals) came over to co-star opposite Doris Day (MacRae's partner in half a dozen films) in "Calamity Jane", scoring quite nicely. |
tt0180037 | Paperback Hero | The film follows the adventures of a truck driver, Jack Willis, from rural Australia after he writes a bestselling novel. Being embarrassed by its romantic content, he uses the name of his female friend as a pen name. When a publisher decides to take the author "Ruby Vale" on, he is suddenly faced with a problem. He tells his friend that he has used her name, and initially, she wants to tell the publisher the truth. However, Jack and the publisher convince her by telling her that they will organise her wedding, (she is marrying Jack's best friend, Hamish) and so, Ruby is convinced.
Ruby and Jack then go to Sydney together, so that she can gain the book some more publicity. On the way, Ruby reads his book and finds that the lead female character is herself, and the main male character, Brian, is Jack. She is significantly touched by his book, even crying when she reads of Brian's death. The next few days go smoothly, although Ruby often voices her opinion that Jack should get the credit for writing such a story.
Things turn sour however, when the publisher finds out that Jack is indeed the author, but tells Jack not to let Ruby know. He doesn't, and that night the couple kiss after another publicity event. Hamish comes to Sydney, as he knows that Jack is the author, and tells Ruby, just before she is about to go on a satellite feed through to London, that he will stay for as long as it takes him to have a drink. That, coupled with the eventual knowledge that he knows who the real author is, sends Ruby back to Hamish and back to her rural hometown.
Jack does not follow her, instead staying and eventually making up his mind on what to do. While watching the T.V. in the local cafe, she hears Jack's voice on it. She finds that he has let the world know that he is the real author of the novel.
Soon after this, Hamish breaks up with her, knowing that she really loves Jack. As Ruby is wiping away the tears and driving home, she sees a plane flying overhead, spelling the words, "I love you". She stops her car, and the plane lands in front of her. Jack hops out, and after some gentle sparring of words, they kiss and the story ends. | romantic | train | wikipedia | The film "Paperback Hero" is the latest Australian film to make it's way overseas.
Starring Claudia Karvan and Hugh Jackman, "Paperback Hero" will delight anyone who enjoys a good romantic comedy.Karvan and Jackman are well known in Australia, Karvan as a film actress and Jackman as a musical theatre actor.
Both are well cast in their roles as a brash, independent pilot (Karvan) and a novel writing truck driver (Jackman).The storyline is simple but entertaining.
Ruby Vale (Karvan) and Jack Willis (Jackman) live in a small outback Australian town.
Jack writes romance novels while working as a truck driver.
It becomes very complicated when the novel is accepted for publication and Jack must convince Ruby to help him.The film is very Australian, but will not in any way alienate overseas viewers.
The movie was mainly filmed in rural Queensland and makes the most of the outback landscape.
The Australian accent is not exaggerated (a pet hate of mine).Give this film a go if you are a fan of romantic comedies.
The Australian film industry is producing quality work and "Paperback Hero" is an example of this..
I love this movie and how could you not when Hugh Jackman stars in it!!!Whilst the storyline is predictable, it provides a humourous look at friendship which blossoms into love, something we've all dreamed about.This is definately one movie us Aussies can be proud to show the world, it displays some of this nations best talent with Claudia Karvan and Hugh Jackman.A movie everyone should see for a laugh and some heartwarming!I give it 9.5 out of 10.
The acronym K.I.S.S., meaning Keep It Simple Stupid came to my challenged mind while I watched Paperback Hero, the latest Aussie film on show.And this isn't a criticism of the film.
Paperback Hero is simple.
It's a pleasurable comedy romance which stars Aussie would be pin up Hugh Jackman and the always loveable Claudia Karvan.
It is kept simple, especially the style of acting, and that's its charm.The plot isn't complicated by anything much more complicated than a smiling dog.
Paperback Hero is sweet and unaffected just as films should be, every now and then.Jack in Paperback Hero has written a women's novel but being a tough truckie doesn't want to put his name to the book.
He uses his old mate Ruby Vales name (Claudia Karvan) but doesn't tell her.Australian bush comedies often end up being somewhat embarrassing lampoonings of our precious heritage.
Paperback Hero has stock bush pub characters but somehow manages to avoid making them seem ridiculous even if the film is a comedy.A lightness of touch from new director Antony Bowman allows Paperback Hero to exhibit our more strident rural identities without causing a cringe.
He apparently wrote the novel upon which the film is based.The language is often colourful but is uttered in the natural way we know is correct.
Well, finally I have had the pleasure of watching "Paperback Hero", and I like this movie a lot.
At first some of the characters may seem a little superficial and stereotypical, but soon you'll learn that there is a lot more to all of them than what first meets the eye, and the actors are all doing a great job in making the complexity of their individual personalities shine through.
The story is cute over all, and the movie holds some great laughs as well.
Paperback Hero is one of your typical romantic comedies, but it leaves you with a warm, happy feeling inside!I have rated this movie 9 of 10..
Paperback Hero was repeated last night on TV and having watched it last night after seeing it at the cinema years ago when it was first released my wife and I found ourselves enjoying it even more than we did the first time around.I found Bowman's direction to be particularly compatible with the script he had written: the way in which he composed the camera shots, the pace in which the film unrolled as well as the composition of each scene which left this viewer lingering over each segment rather than mindlessly being rushed through as so often happens with Hollywood fare.Other commentators have written that they found Bowman's script ragged in spots and I'm sure this is a very valid comment but I was carried along to such an extent by the movie's visuals and by the totality of what was happening on the screen that I didn't notice whether or not the script was seamlessly unrolling.If you haven't seen this film you owe it to yourself to do so-if you have seen it you owe it to yourself to see it again..
This is a great, sweet movie.
Hugh Jackman and Claudia Karvan are wonderful in this lighthearted, funny, romantic film.
I loved the fact that the two main characters in this movie do not follow the stereotypes for their genders and yet both characters still seem real.
The friendship between Jack and Ruby is wonderful and I think it's great to see characters who are friends before they become romantically involved.A simple but very entertaining film that I will watch again and again..
Awesom Movie of the Aussie Outback!!.
This is a fantastic movie and is very special to me and lot of my friends as the pub used in the movie is the "Nindi Gully" Pub, in outback Queensland, where we spend New Years Eve most years, the place comes alive with the roaring utes and New Year spirits!
I think this movie is a great romantic comedy- the actors did a superb performance and it wasn't like all those other Australian movies which make us look bad, sound bad and have no tact.
I recommend this movie to anyone who wants a good laugh.
A great movie and a credit to Australia..
(And, if I dare speak the heresy, it seems to me that even with that august work, for those of us who are not English Lit graduates the enjoyment would be enhanced if 'twere rendered into more accessible English, without losing the rhythm).Finally, an Australian filmmaker has (largely) resisted the temptation to portray rural Australians as cardboard Bruces and Sheilas that say 'fair dinkum' and call each other 'cobber' with thick, fabricated accents, a too-common tendency that has held the otherwise sophisticated local film industry back for years.This is a simple enough romantic tale of boy/girl finding each other - after the catalyst of being thrown together through circumstance lets them break through the barrier of friendship - and it is a movie that is hard not to like.
The 'downunder' folks have done a fine job on this 'old' theme that makes it well worth watching.
Inspite of the 'jaded' reviews of certain folks, after watching movies and thinking about them for nearly 60 years, I'd say that this is one well worth a 2nd or even third watch.
Paperback Hero has become one of my favorite movies.
Of course having Hugh Jackman play Jack sure doesn't hurt.
Claudia Karvan is perfect as Ruby.
The characters are real but best of all it is about truth and love.
A wonderful romantic comedy movie, full of satire and unresolved emotions.
If you've ever spent a decent amount of time in the outback of Australia where the bull dust covers everything and the road trains take 5 blocks to park, then you'll understand the humour in this movie.
If you've never even seen Australia then you'll probably have a hard time keeping up, and you may not find it humorous at all, as most of the humour is very outback Aussie (as opposed to city Aussie - there's a difference, ya know) - although British viewers may enjoy the humour as well.Hugh Jackman plays a believable (and gorgeous) truckie in Outback Oz somewhere out the back of Woop Woop.
Claudia Karvan as Ruby is a believable sheila who happens to fly planes, as well as own the name Hugh's character put on his book.If you really want to see what the Aussie Outback is like, make sure you take note of all the story background including the characters.
Lots of fun for Romantic Aussies :)))).
Charming duo make this movie worth a look but it lacks punch..
An early romantic comedy starring a younger but incredible charming Hugh Jackman.
Then there is the beautiful Claudia Karvan who is equally charming and comedic as well.
The story of a truck driver writing romantic trash novels but who is afraid of coming out with this activity seems strong in potential.
The focus is on how the character of Hugh Jackman and Claudia Karvan interact with each other and how they supposedly can't be with each other.
I really wanted to like this movie - it was a cute little aussie yarn about a truck driver (Jackman) who writes trashy romance novels under his friend's (Karvan) name, who have to travel to Sydney to promote his first book, where they fall in love.
Hugh Jackman and Claudia Karvan was very good together, but they fit together so well they seemed more like brother and sister than friends falling in love.
Sometimes it's good to watch a film that tells a simple story well, has characters who are all decent human beings, has actors who play those characters straightforwardly and sympathetically, and doesn't take itself too seriously.
Australia has only a small film industry by world standards, and it suffers from the fact that when anyone of real talent emerges, he or she is invariably whisked off to the dollars of Hollywood very rapidly, so that most of our best people, not only actors but directors and all the others who work to make a film, don't make films in Australia.
It's therefore a welcome surprise when an Australian film turns out to be good.
The idea of a truck driver writing Mills and Boon romances is interesting in itself; the enlisting of a local girl to "front" for the real author is a predictable but acceptable nest step: and the romance that slowly but surely emerges out of the background to take over towards the end is also predictable but very nicely and gently done.The film didn't make much of a public stir when it was released, in fact I don't recall it in cinemas at all.
It was in this film that I discovered Hugh Jackman.
I saw "Paperback Hero" at a film festival in Los Angeles and promptly fell in love.
While he hasn't reached that stature, he's done some good films and made his mark on Broadway in "The Boy from Oz," which I'm pleased to say I saw.
He is an awesome performer.Hugh's great charisma and sexiness helps this light story of a macho male who has been writing romance novels under a pseudonym and convinces a woman friend to impersonate him.
The film was done in Australia so it's quite interesting as far as the setting and the other actors.I'm not sure if this film received widespread distribution here in the states, but it is delightful..
Jack is a trucker in the Australian outback who makes regular stops in the outback café where Ruby Vale hangs out.
Ruby is engaged to Jack's best mate.
Things get complicated when a publisher comes to the outback café to see the author and Jack has to explain that he has written a romantic novel and used to name to hide his identity.
However the time together puts Ruby's engagement under threat.I watched this mostly because Hugh Jackman's new found status as a star brought it to my attention.
The plot is quite good and has a reasonable amount of potential but the film doesn't really manage to do very much with it.
It lacks a spark in the film as a whole to really get it going.Jackman is part of the spark and has a certain amount of charisma but he isn't enough to bring the film to life.
The concealment of the truth in the first half is quite good but the romance and more serious tone in the second half is a lot heavier and doesn't totally work.
Karvan is quite feisty and does well but her and Jackman don't have the necessary type of chemistry they hit it off as a knockabout pair but not in the romantic sense.The film has a certain charm to it but it didn't really do anything for me other than pass the time.
It's hard to define but it seemed lacking in some humour, some genuine romance and a relationship that I really wanted to get behind.
I absolutely love this movie!
This was the film time I saw Hugh Jackman, and I've been hooked since then...on this movie AND on Hugh Jackman!
This remains one of my favorite Hugh Jackman films and also one of my favorite movies.
A very Australian film full of beautiful scenery and a equally beautiful plot with a twist that keeps you guessing whats next and on the edge of your seat.
You forget its a film and feel your there in the dusty sands of Australia, wanting to stick your hand out and help the plot along, or maybe even alter it and rewrite this film of love passion and the battle of stereotypes; but before you do be patient.
Hugh Jackman gives the performance of his career yet, full of charisma and obviously at home in the role, in this feel good factor film that will have you finishing the film feeling on top of the world and a thousand feet taller.
This is yet again another great Australian film that you will never forget or cease to watch..
Some of the best qualities of Australian film-making are demonstrated in this great film.
Watching this film I get happy and emotionally moved at the same time.
I have enjoyed Claudia Karvan in other films and in her TV work but I had no idea of how great an actress she really is.
I saw this movie about half a year ago on the television.
I'll admit, the reason I saw this was of course the gorgeous Hugh Jackman - and he did not disappoint!
I was on exchange in Sydney, Australia, at that time, and found the portrayal of rural town life very entertaining.
It's by no means a grand film, but it's definitely a way to spend an evening when in need of some romance.
The on-screen connection between Karvan and Jackman works very well.The story revolves around friends Ruby and Jack who lives in the Outback.
Ruby works at a local café and Jack's a road train driver.
They've been best friends for years, and now Ruby is set to marry a sheep farmer.
Amidst all of this, Jack has been carrying a secret - he's written a couple of lovely-dovey romance novels, which have become impressively popular in Sydney.
Of course, it's bound to go wrong.There is some humour which makes you laugh, namely the transformation the main characters have to go through in order to accustom themselves to city life.Overall, it's a cute and fun flick with a somewhat lacking storyline, but a hot & sweaty Jackman certainly makes up for that!.
I have decided to work my way through the filmography of Hugh Jackman, Starting with Paperback Hero (1999)Plot in a Paragraph: Aussie truck driver Jack Willis (Hugh Jackman) has secretly written a romance novel.
Through fear of being ridiculed (as it's not the sort of thing an Australian man's, man does) he used his female best friends name Ruby (Claudia Karvan) things get complicated when a big publisher arrives in town, went Ruby to go to Sydney for a promotional tour.
He is just a lovely bloke.In his first movie, Jackman is surprisingly very solid and Karvan impressed me too.
If anything she is the star of the movie.A pleasant watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon..
Paperback Hero is a very underrated Austrailian film starring a very young Hugh Jackman.
Before Hugh Jackman became the Hollywood Superstar that he is today and became known to Comic Book fans as Wolverine from the X-Men franchise,he starred in this Australian Romantic Comedy where he plays a handsome truck driver named Jack who has a secret.
He loves writing romantic novels and since no one wants to hear of a man writing a romantic novel he used his best friend's name Ruby Vale to keep up his fascade.
But later in the film we meet a woman named Ziggy who wants Ruby to go to Sydney to talk about the book that she was suppose to write unaware its really Jack that wrote it,so Jack and Ruby decide to go to Sydney to promote the book but when they spend some time together Jack falls for his best friend Ruby.But how long will this fascade last for and does Ziggy smell a rat and has a thing for Jack and will Jack admit that he loves Ruby despite the fact she is getting married to someone else?Now the only Australian film I seen Jackman in was Australia with Nicole Kidman and seeing him use his own accent in this film was a delight.
I enjoyed this movie as its incredibly underrated and we get to hear Jackman sing Crying with his female co-star.
Bottom line if you never heard of Jackman and you are new to him,well be my guest and check him out in his film debut from his hometown before he starred in big budget films in Hollywood and became one of Hollywood's attractive leading men and a versatile actor.
I became a fan of Hugh Jackman since Kate & Leopold and the original X-Men movies not to mention his my favorite celeb crush too as his a very handsome man.My advice just find the movie Paperback Hero and check it out.
It reminded me of that film Hugh Jackman starred in next to Ashley Judd Someone Like You only a male version of that film.7/10 |
tt1543024 | Left 4 Dead 2 | Like its predecessor, Left 4 Dead 2 is set in the aftermath of a worldwide pandemic of an infectious disease known as the "Green Flu", which rapidly transforms humans into zombie-like creatures and mutated forms that demonstrate extreme aggression towards non-infected (much like the infected in 28 Days Later). Few humans are immune to the disease, still carrying the infection but showing no symptoms. The Civil Emergency and Defense Agency (CEDA) and the U.S. military create safe zones to attempt to evacuate as many American survivors as possible. Left 4 Dead 2 introduces four new Survivors—Coach, Ellis, Nick, and Rochelle, who are immune to the disease and have individual back stories that are provided through character dialogue. While the game is intended as a continuation of the original, occurring one week after the first game begins, Valve decided to create a new group of Survivors due to the change in location. Like the first game, the five campaigns in Left 4 Dead 2 are set across a story arc, set in the Southern United States, which starts in Savannah, Georgia, and ends in New Orleans, Louisiana. The four Survivors have to fight their way through hordes of Infected, using safehouses along the way to rest and recuperate in order to reach extraction points.
=== Characters ===
Left 4 Dead 2 features a new cast of human Survivors, which include: Coach (voiced by Chad Coleman), a portly high-school football coach with a bad knee (although it does not affect gameplay); Nick (voiced by Hugh Dillon), a cold and sarcastic gambler and con artist; Rochelle (voiced by Rochelle Aytes), a low-level production assistant reporting on the evacuation for a local television station; and Ellis (voiced by Eric Ladin), a friendly (and rather talkative) mechanic who often talks about his friend Keith and their many misadventures. In addition to the four playable characters, Left 4 Dead 2 also features a supporting character in the form of Virgil (voiced by Randall Newsome), a Cajun boat captain, who appears (voice only) in the game's final three campaigns.
=== Story ===
The Sacrifice DLC campaign takes place before the main events of Left 4 Dead 2; and after the events of The Sacrifice comic. The original survivors of Left 4 Dead—Bill, Francis, Louis, and Zoey—arrive at the portside town of Rayford, in order to search for a boat that can take them to the Florida Keys. After finding an adequate sailboat, the Survivors have to manually start up generators in order to lift a bridge for their boat to pass through. One Survivor (canonically Bill) sacrifices himself in order to kick-start a generator once it gives out, so that the others may reach safety. This is the end of Bill's story in the Left 4 Dead video game series.
Left 4 Dead 2 opens in Dead Center (set in Savannah, Georgia), where the four Survivors find themselves abandoned on a hotel roof by rescue helicopters. They decide to head for the local mall, where a second CEDA evacuation point is located. After a brief encounter with a gun store owner, Whitaker (voiced by Dayton Callie), the Survivors discover that the mall is overrun, with all CEDA agents having become either dead or infected as well. Ellis helps the group use a stock car to bust out of the mall and travel towards New Orleans, rumored to be the last standing city in America.
The Passing DLC campaign takes place between Dead Center and Dark Carnival, and after the events of The Sacrifice campaign. The Survivors of L4D2 arrive at the bridge in Rayford, where they meet Francis, Louis, and Zoey. As they need to cross the bridge to proceed, the Survivors need to find another way across to refill the generator with gas. After fighting their way through a wedding reception (complete with a Witch bride), the streets, and a historic under-the-river tour, they meet up again with the original Survivors, who help by covering for the group while they fill the generator and lowering the bridge once it's full.
At the start of the Dark Carnival campaign, the four Survivors find the highway ahead completely blocked by ditched vehicles, and are forced to travel on foot through an abandoned (but still-operating) amusement park. After navigating their way to the park stadium, Coach devises a plan to use a large-scale light show used by a rock band, The Midnight Riders, in order to signal a helicopter pilot for rescue.
After being rescued, they later discover that their pilot has been Infected. When the pilot starts attacking them, Nick is forced to kill him (echoing a similar situation in Left 4 Dead), causing the chopper to crash into a bayou, the setting for Swamp Fever. Working their way through the swamps, the group comes across a crashed airplane, dead military paratroopers, and isolated swamp villages which had held out against the Infected but were eventually overrun. After spending the morning fighting through the swamp, the group arrives at a plantation mansion and make radio contact with Virgil, a Cajun boat captain who can assist them; however, his boat begins to run low on diesel fuel on the way to New Orleans. As a tumultuous rainstorm approaches (the titular Hard Rain of the subsequent campaign), the Survivors go ashore at Ducatel, Mississippi; make their way through an abandoned (and Witch-infested) sugarcane mill to a gas station to get diesel fuel, and return to signal Virgil with an improvised "flare".
In the final campaign, The Parish, Virgil drops the group off at New Orleans, where the military appears to be evacuating civilians across a bridge. On the way there, the four discover the city overrun with Infected, and that the military is actually leaving the city before it is destroyed by an air strike. The group manages to reach the bridge, where they make contact with the military. Judging from their dialogue, the military pilots suspect the Survivors to be "carriers", similar to the original Survivors of Left 4 Dead. After securing their rescue helicopter, the Survivors lower and cross the bridge, escaping on the helicopter just as the bridge is destroyed. While the Survivors' fate is left unclear after this point, Chet Faliszek, the game's writer, back in 2009 said that the military is taking survivors to cruise ships in the Caribbean in an attempt to escape the infection. | violence | train | wikipedia | In it, four strangers named Nick (a gambler and conman), Rochelle (A news producer), Coach (A health teacher and coach), and Ellis (a mechanic) team up to survive an outbreak of the "Green Flu" which causes people to behave like zombies (the Infected).
The Smoker- An Infected with a long tongue that can snatch survivors from a distance and constrict them.2.
The Hunter- A hooded Infected that leaps long and high to pounce survivors and claw them to death.4.
The Tank- The biggest and baddest of the Infected that simply attacks with its strength and throws debris at the survivors.5.
The Spitter- This Infected spits and acid-goo that rules out the possibility of corner camping during crescendo events and if you stand in it too long it will kill you.6.
The Jockey- This Infected jumps on a survivor's head an steers them into danger.7.
The Charger- Another large Infected that charges at a survivor and pummels them into the ground.8.
The Witch- A crying Infected that if startled, will attack the Survivors.9.
For example: the Clowns on Dark Carnival attract hordes with their squeaky shoes.The game is very fun with large improvements over the previous title.
The game now has melee weapons to kill the Infected and a lot more guns.
The variety of the maps is interesting and they are all connected, unlike the original Left 4 Dead.The game is also more challenging.
The bots aren't as good as they were in the first game is my only problem.
But overall the game is better than the first (which was my favorite game until I bought this one).The multi-player is good.
Coop- Just you and a friend teaming up with two bots to survive a campaign.2.
Versus- A team of survivors trying to make it to rescue while a team of player controlled Infected tries to stop them.3.
Scavenge- The Survivor team tries to collect gas tanks to fuel up the rescue vehicle while the Infected team tries to kill them all before they can or cause as many gas drops as possible.4.
Realism- This mode is the same as campaigns except that you can't see the Survivor Halos (this causes you to have to stay together), the Witch can kill you instantly and the common/uncommon Infected take less damage to the body and cause you to have to shoot them in the head.The only game types I've played are coop, Realism, Versus and the normal campaign.
Very challenging and causes you to work together more to survive, it makes the game feel less like 28 Days Later and more like the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead.The game is great.
Three or four weeks after the outbreak began(depending on the source you go by), the optimistic rescue attempt(the government's response increases over the course of this) leaves some standing on the rooftop, looking at the helicopters flying away, and realize they have to take things into their own hands.
Nick(a gambler and small-time hustler), Ellis(chatty and upbeat young mechanic), Rochelle(low-level employee of local TV station) and Coach(overweight African-American who trains high school football) will have to make their way from Savannah, Georgia to New Orleans(this really captures the flavor of The South, in aforementioned characters who have personality without being obnoxious, the fast-paced if lighter score, the areas, etc.) in search of a safe place to stay.They will move through a carnival(clowns!
sure, they don't unearth themselves, still), a huge cornfield(look above to spot a sign on a building to see if you're even going the right way!), small towns, and, where the FX enhance the atmosphere, with the slight increase in continuity and/or story not locking it in place(the AI Director 2.0 will keep you guessing, changing things like weather, objects and paths depending on what you are or aren't doing, it still feels alive and is endlessly replayable), rather making it have an impact - Hard Rain is a *journey*, as you make your way from a vehicle, to gather gas, and all the way back, as the downpour grows terrifyingly, hampering visibility and even making it difficult to hear if danger is near.
I don't know why not all 20 Survival(and that can now be played with a team controlling the Smoker, Hunter, etc.!
The one new mode has 16 total, 9 for this and 7 from the '07 ones(not just the same): Scavenge.
The aforementioned is also present in regular play, as one of the two new crescendo event types - refuel something or otherwise transport one or more items from one place to another before you can proceed, with the final one being the Gauntlet, where you have to get from points A to B - and you'd better be ready, because it's a relatively tight corridor, it's far, and you have to keep moving(once you get there, it has either the end, or the button to turn off an alarm that keeps luring foes in).
These make it vital to take an active part in these climax-like portions, and one that, like when making your way forward in general, may be unique; how many will transport the important thing(which prevents whoever is carrying one from attacking...
And if you're almost there, should you turn back to help if needed, or come back after securing victory?Further keeping you on your feet when taking on the role of one of the humans are the three new Special Infected, all of them filling niches and mending holes in their side's tactics.
like one of the many, and no longer always stationary, Witches.While the arsenal is made up mostly of the same kinds, each now has at least two within that(all useful, yet with different stats), and you're more likely to find a replacement gun than additional ammo.
You can replace your pistol with a mêlée weapon(like a chainsaw!), with instant-kills in an arc in front of you.There is constant detailed, bloody, disturbing gore and violent content in this.
The game's many additions such as new weapons, new infected types, daylight campaigns and more varied scenery really spice up the format of Left 4 Dead.
To me, the original now seems fairly bland and boring with its exclusively night-time maps and only a very small number of weapons.I feel the two best campaigns in the game are Dark Carnival and Hard Rain.
You'll be running from infected hordes through a Tunnel-of-Love and along a roller-coaster track.
There's also an achievement for carrying a garden gnome through the entire campaign and the finale is fantastic.Hard Rain sees the survivors' boat run out of fuel, forcing them to disembark and head to a gas station for a fill-up.
They then have to make a return journey, which means that if the players use up all the safe room health packs on the way, they won't have any left on the way back.Hard Rain gets its namesake from the dynamic weather effects it features.
At any moment, a storm could roll in, reducing visibility significantly and making the survivors sitting ducks for special infected attacks.
It also means that, on the return journey, much of the route will be flooded, slowing the survivors down and making them use alternate paths.The other campaigns are excellent as well, and there is a running story arc throughout them, unlike in the original game.
The only problem with this is that, due to Left 4 Dead's multiplayer format, there is no real ending sound-off to the story, although the last finale of the game is by far the hardest.Left 4 Dead 2 takes Left 4 Dead's award-winning format and improves on it tenfold.
Anyone who liked Left 4 Dead, or likes shooters in general, should definitely give this one a go..
For a game which the levels consist of "run through environment, shoot up zombies, get to safe house with teammates" the sequel has some areas to improve on.
You could give it more of a story or get more awesome weapons or you could make the obstacles more interesting by getting more Special infected.
This game seems to do all of those things.So the plot is that Nick, Rochelle, Ellis and Coach are all survivors who banded together during the infection.
So they fight their way through a swamp and into a boat and then fight their way for fuel and back in the heavy rain and finally we have them dropped off running to the final escape helicopter.So there is not that much of a plot.
I think what could have improved this game dramatically is cut-scenes to establish the characters a bit more.
We have them communication before the usual zombie shoot-up but I barely know these characters.The game-play isn't that different from the first game...
except you have katana's, chainsaws, grenade launchers, machetes and other awesome weapons to use against the zombies.
So in terms of game-play it is more fun than the first game when you pick a new weapon up because it always makes the game even cooler.So that really is all I can say for a game that basically has a similar level structure to Doom.
I mean, if you liked the first game because of the game-play then this one would have you really enjoying it.
Left 4 Dead 2 is a game that most people have at least heard of in their life time.
Released back in 2009, this game still remains highly popular, eight years later, and is still one of the most loved zombie apocalypse games on the market.
After playing a few games, it's not hard to see why.After being new to this game on PC, having played it on Xbox for quite some years, it was a different experience coming onto it and having to relearn controls.
But with L4D2, there's something about it that stops people feeling brand new, and you learn quickly.
Even playing with my friends who are basically pros at the game, having put thousands of hours each into it, felt like I was just another guy with tons of hours.
It's user friendly, and not hard to get used to.There's so many different game modes in this that allows you to go through and do pretty much whatever you want in the game, there's a mode for almost anything.
Of course, I wouldn't recommend playing multiplayer as a new player, with no friends.
The online community are absolutely horrendous when it comes to new players, and are definitely the kind of people who kick others just for being new.
The game itself is amazing, with brilliant graphics, an awesome soundtrack and really good movement and controls.
Left 4 Dead 2 is a very fun adventure game in which you team up with 3 others and kill countless zombies as you fight for your survival.
It has a good story line as well, making the characters who need to survive quite interesting as they have to interact with each other.
Another downside is that you should really play it with others, as with bots it is really bad because they act like they have no brain.
There are a good range of modes however, even ones when you get to control zombies!However,nothing beats the first time sitting down and playing with your family and friends, where you'd hear screams because somebody got attacked by a Hunter (L.O.L) Not to mention, this is probably one of the few zombie games that lets you play as the zombies.
Example: Did you just use your pistol on a regular infected to save ammo?
These people are the worst.But sadly, Valve is STILL trying too sell the 1st Left 4 Dead on Steam.Left 4 Dead 1 is a great game, but there's no reason to buy it since all the maps, weapons, characters are in Left 4 Dead 2 along with NEW content including the ability to mod using steam workshop.
Take all of zombie films and take the good old FPS action element and you got this game.
Now, this game is pretty, compared to the movies, pretty colorful, it has nice graphics, interesting AI and tense action.
They are not special in their own way, that's too bad, I expected that each of them have something special, some special move, or combo, something like that, but no, they are just based upon some usual characters from the zombie movies that joins together to fight their way through the zombie filled terrain.
The only thing different is
weapons
UZIs, shotguns, handguns, melee weapons, now these are cool, you have katana, or chainsaw for example.
You just pick your character and go shoot some zombies.
Now, the zombies are pretty good here, they are attacking in packs, of course, but, they are not slow, oh no.
Not just that, but you also have special zombies that have special abilities, for example you have Charger, a large, mutated zombie that runs like nuts and crushing everything in their path, you also have Smokers, Spiters, Jockeys, Hunters, Boomers, pretty much pain in the neck all of them, and two more very, very specials the Tank, a very large mutated zombie, more stronger than Charger and a Witch
now that's an unusual character, but she is the most dangerous, when she jumps, she will claw you to the ground.
Now
the gameplay is pretty simple on moments, but on some occasions, it can be pain in the neck, especially with these special zombies, but overall, it's fun.
The levels are good, a pre-apocalyptic ambient of deserted villages, small towns, hotels, malls
If you 're watching "Walking Dead" for example, and you enjoy it, well
you'll enjoy this too..
This game is pretty good.
This game is pretty good.
Not so great if you don't play online, like me.
Yes, i have played online a bunch of times, but if it's not with my friends, I hate it.
People are jerks online and ruin the fun.I like how they kept the same weapons as in the first one, but all the new weapons are pretty much the same as the old ones.
The grenade launcher really isn't as great as people say it is- but fun nonetheless.
I like the Boomer bile, but that's the only new thing you can pick up and throw in the game.
the same stuff as in the first one.A major problem I have with the game are the glitches and crashes.
A few times a night the game will lose the connection with steam.
Also, there are a bunch of glitches- like on the rooftop in the finale of "Hard Rain," where parts of the roof are missing, so it looks like pipe bombs, etc.
Again, another issue people are facing with this game- at least for the PC.I am not a huge fan of the characters.
I liked the characters in the first one much better.A few of the campaigns were boring.
"Swamp fever" was the same thing every time you left the safe room.
Hard rain is kind of half a campaign.
But, like in the Carnival for example, they could have added so much more cool stuff- I mean, you're in a carnival and you can play 2 games and walk on a roller coaster.
the tunnel of love was horrible because it just went on forever and it was all the same thing.You can definitely tell Valve rushed this game- they even admitted it.
They say that they are working on fixing the problems with the first game, but they have been saying that for almost 3 months now.I am a huge fan of melee weapons.
The only one I don't like is the cricket bat.But all in all, it's still a really fun game, but I definitely would not give it 10 stars- I think 10 stars is just foolish because it doesn't deserve 10 stars.
I guess that's the reason why Valve usually does take a long time to release a game.I give it an 8 because it's a good game, but because L4D1 exists, i can't give it more than an 8.
L4D1 gets a 9 from me because it's just a better game.
Left 4 Dead 2 Review.
Left 4 dead is based upon a zombie apocalypse that basically keeps the whole earth under quarantine.
4 brave survivors takes the adventure seeking through zombie filled lands until they reach a safe room.
You can take the side of the zombies in the versus mode and you can endure the fun of attacking the humans!Overall the graphics is outstanding and very realistic.
The thing that impressed me the most was the military procedure and the actual procedure that health authority's will take in a zombie apocalypse.
The characters are extremely realistic as well as the general objects/obstacles.I would recommend his game to anyone with a mature mind.
If you had told me that I would enjoy a Zombie kill fest game where you simply run -shoot-save team mates (in the single player mode)I would have said you are quite mad but surprisingly I did enjoy this game and it is pretty much exactly as I just described.
It seems that your mission is to start inside a 'Safe' house run through maps killing everything that wants to eat your brains in order to get to the next 'Safe' house.
There are objectives which help alleviate the tedium of run-shoot-kill such as when you are in a shopping centre (mall if you are American) and the only way out is to drive a car that is on display for a prize - the only problem is that it has no petrol (or Gas - again American) So you must scavenge enough fuel cans to have the car filled enough to make your getaway.
This is the sort of game that you must play at least once and forget it for at least a year then come back and enjoy it all over again - Bwains!!
If you would like a game reviewed for its 3D readiness please email me at ratcat17@hotmail.com |
tt0024679 | Tomorrow at Seven | A man unveils a valuable painting he picked up for $50,000 and is killed. A card with a large black ace (of spades) is put on his chest. Another “Black Ace” victim. The killer sends his victims a Black Ace card, warning them they are to die and then kills them, his way of taunting the police. Neil Broderick, an author, intends writing a book about him and is on his way to see Thornton Drake to get more information about him. Austin Winters is his secretary and Neil met his daughter Martha on the train, on the way to Chicago.
Drake has just received a Black Ace, with the words: “At seven tomorrow night”, the time he is to be killed. Two plainclothes cops arrive from police headquarters, having had a call, Clancy and Dugan (both incompetents). Martha suggests that they leave for Drake’s Louisiana plantation tomorrow morning and be far away from there at seven tomorrow night. Drake agrees and suggests they all go. On the flight, the lights go off for some seconds and when they come on again, Austin Winters is dead without a mark on him.
At the plantation, Clancy ineptly questions the suspects till Neil points out that they are now in another state, so out of their jurisdiction. Neil goes to another room and makes a phone call, then signals to someone outside. After he finishes his call, the line is cut. Meanwhile one of the pilots has taken off in the plane, leaving the other pilot, Henderson, behind who claims he does not know anything though he was out of the cockpit when Winters was killed.
The coroner finds a letter on the dead man which is to be read if Winters dies. It will reveal the identity of the Black Ace. Clancy starts reading it aloud and unsurprisingly the lights go off and the letter has vanished when the lights are turned on again. People locked in their rooms that night and Neil has a hidden car outside signal to him.
Later that night, the coroner turns up, the real one. Neil goes to Martha’s room and asks her what she did with the letter, guessing that she had taken it because was afraid her father might implicate himself with the Black Ace. The letter is gone from where she hid it and all there is, is two sheets of plain paper and a Black Ace card. Clancy and Dugan appear and blame Neil. Clancy and Neil at gunpoint go to Drake’s room and while Clancy is hurling accusations, there is a groan from next door and they find a dead man there (Henderson). A search of Neil reveals he has a skeleton key so might have been able to enter the dead man’s room.
Downstairs, Dugan has been talking to Martha with his back to her, turns and sees she has gone (a mysterious hand reached out for her only moments before). The housekeeper (Mrs Quincy) is seen leading the fake coroner (Jerry Simons) who is carrying Martha. Drake left with Neil threatens him with a gun, demanding Winters’ confession but Neil has signalled Simons (of the Bureau of Criminal Investigations) who disarms Drake who has Winters’ confession implicating him. However, the gardener (Pompey) comes into the room with a gun in his hand and now the villains have the upper hand till there is a knock at just the right moment. Two fights ensue. In trying to kill Simons, Pompey kills Drake with the hidden spike in the walking stick. Pompey is subdued and the two cops arrive to take the credit. | suspenseful, murder | train | wikipedia | The Black Ace warns his victims ahead when the time will come for them to die.
Interwoven into this basic premise is a young Chester Morris going to a Mr. Thorton Drake because he knows all there is to be known about the Black Ace. Morris is writing a book, meets a cute secretary that can introduce him, and all the main characters from that point on - including two cops included for protection - board a small plane to go to a huge mansion in Louisiana.
All this to escape the ominous note saying Mr. Drake, played indelibly by Henry Stephenson, would die "tomorrow at seven." The old Southern home is reminiscent of the home used in the 1939 version of The Cat and the Canary(also taking place in Loiusiana).
Ralph Spence penned the typically high-quality script - it's impossible to guess the killer.What really makes the film is the comic relief in the form of incompetent detectives played by Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins.
With a roomful of suspects listening tensely, police detective Frank McHugh reads aloud a letter that may identify the killer known as the Black Ace. Suddenly the lights go out.
–No, it's not the most original plot ever, but good humor and engaging performances still make this a fun little picture.Chester Morris is a crime writer researching a book on the Black Ace, the elusive criminal who always leaves a black ace warning his victims they are soon to die.
These three stars give solid, efficient performances.The real central figures of the picture, however, are dubiously capable detectives Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins.
The plot, though unoriginal, is nevertheless well managed; even Morris's character, the presumed hero, is a potential suspect, as is everyone else in the story.Funniest bit: McHugh and Jenkins telling the story of their earlier encounter with the Black Ace, rich in impenetrable slang ("So I'm crowdin' him with the heater, but he don't belch
") and including McHugh's hilarious admonition to Jenkins—"How many times have I gotta tell ya?
The Ace leaves a calling card with the time of his victims death on it.
Chester Morris plays a mystery writer putting together a book on the killer.
Not long after that Winters receives a death threat and while in the middle of an air plane flight the flights flicker for a moment and he is killed.This is an okay film that is ruined by two bumbling cops Dugan and Clancy who push a witty and clever mystery into the realm of silly.
Normally I like the work of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins but here they just come off as being bumbling fools.
There is no real reason for them to exist except to kill time.If you can divorce them from the rest of the movie this is a good little mystery, something not easy to do.Worth seeing if you run across it.
Great 1930's character actors Frank McHugh and Alan Jenkins provide some laughs as two bumbling, cowardly cops.
A killer taunts his victims and the police by sending them the Ace of Spades as a sign that they're going to be murdered the following night at 7 P.M..
Most good murder mysteries give us at least four or five to consider.Still, a mixture of light humor together with a few moments of danger makes this film quite pleasant..
'Tomorrow at Seven' is one of those wildly implausible movies from Hollywood's studio era which still manage to be hugely enjoyable on the strength of sheer audacity and some colourful performances.
Here we have that old chestnut: the serial murderer who announces his crimes in advance, in a highly theatrical manner, yet repeatedly kills his victims without getting caught.
We also have that even mouldier chestnut: the amateur sleuth who is able to outwit the cops and nab the baddie.In this case, the murderer proclaims his intentions in advance by delivering to each victim an ace of spades (the death card), with a neatly-written message announcing the hour at which he intends to do the deed.
As the killer neglects to leave his name in the guest-book, he is cried the Ace of Spades.He murders wealthy art dealer Asa Marsden, and here we get another old-movie cliché: the murder shown from the killer's viewpoint.
We see the victim goggling into the camera as the killer carks him, but the murderer is unseen.Next, the Ace of Spades announces his intention to murder wealthy Thornton Drake 'tomorrow at seven'.
Afterwards, the pilot claims to know nothing.The official detectives in this movie are played by two of my favourite character actors: Frank McHugh and the superb Allen Jenkins.
Unfortunately, both actors perform their sleuth roles as comedy relief, which I found regrettable: the murders in this movie are played straight, so the seriousness of the homicides is undercut by the intentional comedy of the detectives trying to catch the killer.
Screenwriter Ralph Spence often combined straightforward chills and broad comedy in his scripts -- notably in his play 'The Gorilla' -- but here the mixture isn't as smooth as usual.The hero of this film is played by Chester Morris, so it's obvious who will solve the crime.
Here, Morris plays a mystery novelist (oh, boy) who is researching the criminal career of the Ace of Spades as material for his next book.
Morris decides that it might make a nice finish for his book if he actually catches the murderer.Along with this film's other merits, there's the Batman factor.
A good cast enlivens this rather routine closed circle of suspects murder done by RKO.
Chester Morris over from MGM stars in this film, as a rather cocky crime novelist out to solve some real crimes.
Over at Warner Brothers James Cagney would have fit this part better than O.J. Simpson fit that glove.Morris is on the trail of a killer known as 'the Black Ace' who leaves an ace of spades at each of his crime scenes daring the police to catch him.
Morris is following a lead concerning millionaire Henry Stephenson and on the way he meets up with Vivienne Osborne who is the daughter of Stephenson's private secretary Grant Mitchell.When Stephenson gets a calling card they all decide to fly to his bayou plantation including a couple of Chicago cops played by Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins.
Political influence wasn't exactly unknown in Chicago.This probably would have been done with more style at Warner Brothers, still this is an entertaining mystery with more laughs than usual thanks to McHugh and Jenkins..
Tomorrow at Seven (Ray Enright, 1933) is like a Monogram Chan before the fact: a creaky, archaic mystery with a none-too-surprising culprit - but fun just the same.
Chester Morris (later Boston Blackie in Columbia's exceptional B movie series) is a novelist investigating the inspiration for his latest book, a killer known as The Black Ace. He travels to see wealthy Henry Stephenson, who's also researching said homicidal maniac, and before you can say "when you finish that jigsaw, it's going to contain a threat from the killer", Stephenson's secretary finishes a jigsaw, and finds it contains a threat from the killer.
This is a slow-moving production that recalls movies made in the early days of sound cinema, but the name cast keeps the questionable narrative afloat and it's a delight to see legendary character actors Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins as a pair of thick cops.
Despite a good cast, the writing and direction are pretty awful at times..
I, however, am a masochist and watched the entire DVD."Tomorrow at Seven" is a murder whodunnit about an unknown killer who refers to himself as 'The Black Ace'.
To help investigate the murders is Chester Morris (who is good as usual) and two half-witted jerks (Alan Jenkins and Frank McHugh) who pretty much ruin the film.
Their stupid detective routines runs VERY thin after a while and even for a 1930s murder film, they are incredibly stupid and 100% unbelievable.
It's sad, as Charles Middleton, Henry Stephenson, Grant Mitchell, Chester Morris, Frank McHugh and Allan Jenkins make up would should be a very good cast--the director should have been able to put these folks to better use..
Or maybe it's mystery writer Chester Morris who could be researching the plot of his next blood-curdling thriller.
This is held up by some decent performances from the lead actors, but overall it comes across as a rather lifeless murder mystery.
A killer called "The Black Ace" is on the loose.
He announces his intentions to kill in advance by sending an ace of spades to his next victim.
The movie opens with one of the killings and then shifts to the victim's best friend, Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) who is the next announced victim when an ace of spades shows up along with a letter announcing that he'll be killed "tomorrow at seven." To avoid his fate, he bundles those around him on a plane and travels to his plantation in New Orleans, but on the way the plane's lights go off and there's another murder on board in the dark, with an obviously limited number of suspects.
In New Orleans, the search continues.Stephenson was good in his role, and Chester Morris (as crime novelist Neil Broderick) was decent enough as well.
Particularly disappointing were the attempts to inject a degree of comedy into the story, revolving around the futile attempts of a couple of keystone cop type of characters to identify and catch the murderer.
Tomorrow at Seven (1933) ** (out of 4)Forgotten mystery/horror film has a town being stalked by a mysterious killer known as the "Black Ace".
The Black Ace lets his victims know that he's going to kill them so a novel writer (Chester Morris) and a couple detectives (Frank McHugh, Allen Jenkins) try and catch him before the next victim, which is set to die at seven.
This is yet another in the never-ending run of "old dark house" films that were incredibly popular during this period of time.
The screenplay writes the two detective characters are idiots, which is okay in my book as this genre always had comedy running throughout it but the writing isn't strong enough to get any real laughs.
McHugh and Jenkins were terrific character actors at Warner so they certainly can hold their own against anyone but they get very few shots at delivering any laughs.
Chester Morris is writing a book on a psychopathic murderer who warns his victims with an Ace of Spades, and murders them mysteriously at an appointed hour.
All the suspects get off in Louisiana, and it turns into an Old Dark House mystery, complete with a skeletal hands reaching around the drapes and a couple of dumb cops, played with no timing by Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins.With a promising cast that includes Henry Stephenson, Grant Mitchell and Virginia Howell as the inevitable mute housekeeper, it's surprisingly dull.
Dynamic Chester Morris leads a high grade cast in this excellent who-done-it from Jefferson Pictures Corp.
Unusual for poverty row films, the comedy actually enhances the film with Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins (both from Warners, as was the director, Frank Enright) both giving hilarious performances as a pair of bumbling detectives.When crime writer Neil Broderick (Chester Morris) meets pretty Martha Winters (Vivienne Osbourne) on a train, he confesses he is basing his new book on a real killer - "The Black Ace", who is on a murderous rampage in a small town.
He always leaves a calling card - a black ace - and always warns his victims of their death beforehand.
Neil is on his way to meet Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson), an expert on The Black Ace, hoping he will be able to help him with his research.
They are then joined by two bumbling detectives - Clancy and Dugan, who come to get the "real dope" on the phantom killer.
Together, they all decide to fly down to Drake's plantation in Louisiana, where they hope to escape the killer but things go wrong, however, when Winters is murdered mid flight.Once they arrive at the plantation the movie becomes part of the "old dark house" genre.
Neil phones the coroner but secretly signals someone hiding outside, when the pilot tries to phone his office, the wires are mysteriously cut, a letter is found in Winter's pocket revealing the identity of the Black Ace but after a black out the letter disappears.
Charles Middleton makes his ominous presence felt as a "creepy" coroner.Identity of the killer is kept just out of reach as each person who arouses suspicion is usually the next person killed - although there is a small clue when Neil arrives at Drake's house.
A surprisingly enjoyable Depression-era murder mystery, 'Tomorrow At Seven' has many conventional themes that we have seen over and over and over again repeatedly in the murder mystery: the old dark house, the two bumbling detectives who play a major part of this entire tripe, and the large cast of whodunnits.
Allen Jenkins and Frank McHugh's characters are both pretty enjoyable, and characters like theirs were probably the highlight of the feature to Depression-era audiences who managed to get away and retreat to see a motion picture.The acting isn't great by any means, and the plot can be conceived as quite silly by today's standards, but keeping in mind the year in which this film was brought to us, it still plays out as an entertaining and watchable film.
Mystery novelist Neil Broderick, played by the ever engaging Chester Morris, plans to base his next book on the real life serial murderer known as The Black Ace. The killer always lets his victim know before hand that he plans to kill them by leaving a black ace.
When Broderick is on his way to meet an expert in the Black Ace, Thornton Drake, he has a humorous encounter with Martha Winters, who is the daughter of Thornton's secretary.
Soon after Broderick meets Thornton, a representation of a black ace is found.
Two cops, Dugan and Clancy (Allen Jenkins and Frank McHugh) come to investigate.
Dugan is relating how they almost caught the Black Ace after nabbing his girlfriend: "She's a snowbird and I gives her some gold dust and she opens up." His entire account is hilarious.
In an effort to escape the Black Ace, the entire group decides to fly to Thornton's plantation in Louisiana.
64 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A serial killer, known as "The Black Ace", is stalking wealthy collectors.NOTES: Hard to believe this film originated in Poverty Row!COMMENT: Superbly photographed, smoothly directed, but somewhat disjointedly scripted thriller comedy.
The problem is that the comedy — which is often very funny indeed, Jenkins has a couple of really hilarious lines — doesn't jell at all with a mystery thriller that is often nerve-wracking and suspenseful.
The reason for this failure, I suspect, is that Jenkins and McHugh play regular Chicago cops.
Vivienne Osborne makes a wonderfully vulnerable heroine, Chester Morris is ideal as the tough, yet personable hero, whilst Henry Stephenson has one of the most memorable roles of his career as the Black Ace's next victim.
"Tomorrow At Seven" begins with a cracking idea: a killer so arrogant and sure of himself, he warns his intended victims beforehand via his calling card, an ace of spades.
The script on the whole is quite unpredictable, with even the hero a suspect until the very end, and even if you guess who the "Black Ace" is, you probably won't guess his weapon.
But the movie is actually more of a comedy than a mystery, since two inept policemen who at first appear to be used only as comic relief take center stage for large sections of the film.
It has an interesting premise, a killer leaves an Ace of Spades calling card at the scene of his crimes, while alerting the victim in advance.
The execution falls flat however, and to say that the movie has it's share of plot holes would be to imply that there actually is a plot.Chester Morris portrays mystery writer Neil Broderick, weaving elements of actual murders by the Ace of Spades killer into his latest novel.
That line unceremoniously endears him to the "nut's" daughter Martha (Vivienne Osborne), who offers to make the introductions.Broderick meets Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) just as the latter is about to complete a jigsaw puzzle delivered by a courier that morning.
The only remaining pieces, as we learn in the following scene, form the bold, black shape of the Ace of Spades containing the words "At Seven Tomorrow Night".
Initially I was intrigued by the appearance of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins in their roles as a pair of police detectives summoned to the Drake residence.
McHugh's Clancy in particular winds up shouting objections to inane comments made by his partner Dugan, and both usually head in the opposite direction when real trouble might turn up.Now here's a question - in light of the identity of the Ace killer, why would he have invited a novelist and a pair of cops that he just met, on a flight to his Louisiana plantation?
The early suspicion falls on pilot Henderson (Cornelius Keefe) following a lights out scene, but Henderson still hasn't reported the murder to his supervisor until well after he arrives at Drake's plantation with everyone else.
In a second dark out scene, a letter from the murder victim Austin Winters is about to be read.
There's really only one humorous moment worth repeating; while aboard the plane, the detectives have this exchange: Dugan - "Hey Clancy, how often do these things fall?" Clancy - "Once!" Except for McHugh and Jenkins, I can't say I've seen any of the other players in films of the era, though I'm a fan of most "B" grade mystery movies from the '30's through the '50's.
The best I can offer about "Tomorrow at Seven" is a quote from Martha Winters about midway though this turkey - "This is just a silly waste of time". |
tt0058534 | Roustabout | Musician Charlie Rogers (Elvis Presley) is fired from a gig at a teahouse run by Lou (Jack Albertson) after brawling with several college students in the parking lot. After a night in jail, Charlie hits the road on his Honda 305 Superhawk motorcycle. He spots Cathy Lean (Joan Freeman) driving with her father Joe (Leif Erickson) and their employer, Maggie Morgan (Barbara Stanwyck). When Charlie tries to become friendly with Cathy, Joe forces him off the road and the bike is wrecked after crashing into a wooden fence.
Maggie offers him a place to stay and a job with her struggling traveling carnival while the bike is being repaired. Charlie becomes a "carnie", a roustabout. Maggie recognizes his musical talents and promotes him to feature attraction. His act soon draws large crowds. Off stage, Charlie romances Cathy, which creates animosity with Joe. After the two men repeatedly clash and Charlie is accused of holding back a customer's lost wallet that Joe was accused of stealing, Charlie leaves to star in the much better financed show of rival carnival producer Harry Carver (Pat Buttram).
Once again, he is a great success. However, when Charlie learns that Maggie is facing bankruptcy, he returns to her carnival. In the musical finale, he is happily reunited with Cathy. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Elvis has one of his better roles since Flaming Star, as he plays a angry young man named Charlie Rogers, who is not that likable at all.
Maggie offers him a job as a roustabout in her carnival until his bike is repaired.Elvis sheds the family friendly 60s image for this role.
Barbara Stanwyck shines as Maggie, who lives and breathes the carnival life (She also keeps this film from being just average).
Joan Freeman is great as Cathy, a love interest that plays much harder to get than any other Elvis movie femme fatale.
Once again, this is an above-average Elvis Presley star vehicle but which, at the end of the day, offers nothing really new; still, I feel that the star’s own performance here is near the best that I’ve seen him give as he is well up to the challenge of playing a relatively complex character: alternately selfish, cocky, rebellious but, eventually, compassionate and even shrewd.Presley, however, is let down by the plot which, as I said, is not only formulaic and, therefore, entirely predictable but rather sentimental as well, what with Barbara Stanwyck’s carny show forever on the brink of foreclosure; one other definite thorn in the film’s side is the one-dimensional nature of Leif Erickon’s grumpy characterization.
On the other hand, Stanwyck’s participation adds undeniable distinction to the film (her role had previously been offered to Mae West!) and lovely Joan Freeman projects the right mix of independence and vulnerability as the heroine.At least, the vivid carnival setting does provide plenty of opportunity for color, action, thrills, romance, comedy (courtesy of Sue Ane Langdon as a flirtatious fortune-teller) and, of course, songs which are not too bad – “Poison Ivy League”, “One Track Heart” and, especially, the Jerry Leiber-Mike Stoller penned “Little Egypt” – though, again, Elvis has certainly sung better ones in his Fifties heyday.For the record, an uncredited Raquel Welch can be glimpsed among the college kids in the film’s very first sequence and, unless they didn’t hit it off here, it seems rather strange now that they were never paired together when she became a star in her own right a couple of years later!.
Most people don't think too much of this Elvis romp compared to any other, but for me it stands out as one of the better "formula" movies the man made in the '60s.
As club singer Charlie Rogers, Elvis is a little different from his usual stock characters from this period because the young man has a chip on his shoulder.
After getting fired from a gig one day, he and his motorcycle are smacked up by a threesome of small-time carnival owners driving in their car, so they invite him to stick around their modest fairgrounds and work as a "roustabout" for a little cash while waiting for his bike to get back from the repair shop.
Rogers is able to boost business with his singing to lure customers to the Fair.Barbara Stanwyck plays the strong-willed carnival chief who breathes the carny lifestyle, but she's saddled with a crotchety and hard-headed partner (Leif Erickson) who once caused a tragedy to a customer by not safely securing one of the rides at the fair, and who tries to keep Charlie away from his daughter Cathy (Joan Freeman).
Raquel Welch can be spotted in the beginning of the film as one of a group of young folks going to see Charlie Rogers perform at the club.
He makes a living as a traveling singer.Early on in the film he is fired for getting into a fight with a group of college toughs.
Elvis falls quickly for her lovely daughter Cathy, (Joan Freeman).
"Little Egypt", "Roustabout", and "Big Love, Big Heartache" are great examples.
However Elvis also recorded another song for the film called "I'm a Roustabout".
The motorcycle Elvis rides throughout the movie is a Honda 305 Superhawk..
Hot-headed singer who's prone to getting into fights gets a hankering for the daughter of a woman who runs a traveling carnival, eventually finds himself with a guitar working the run-ways.
Roustabout provided him with his meatiest sixties role, a leatherclad itinerant musician who falls in with Barbara Stanwyck's travelling carnival.
During the years of entertainment history there have been a plethora of stars who have left a trail of distinction in this world with their inimitable prowess in the arts, but nobody has ever reached the legendary status that Elvis Presley attained.In 1964, Elvis Presley was cast in the role of Charlie Rogers in Roustabout, a film which starred him alongside acting veteran Barbara Stanwyck in her second last motion picture.Roustabout was directed by John Rich and produced by Hal Wallis with the screenplay by Anthony Lawrence and Allan Weiss.The film follows the story of Charlie Rogers ( Elvis Presley ) a notorious biker who has just spent a night in prison after being involved in a brawl outside the tea house where he performed his last gig.
The next morning he unexpectedly secures a job as a roustabout at the traveling carnival owned by Maggie Morgan ( Barbara Stanwyck ) after being slightly injured in a motor cycle accident caused by Maggie's irate employee Joe Lean ( Leif Erikson ).By the time Roustabout was made, Barbara Stanwyck's motion picture career was in decline.
That same year she starred in The Night Walker alongside her ex husband Robert Taylor, which served as her final film role.Raquel Welch makes an early appearance as one of the college kids at the Tea House.
Elvis Presley performed his own stunts in the movie.With a plausible plot and musical numbers that epitomizes the incomparable talents of Elvis, Roustabout is the true definition of a perennial classic from the 1960's..
Elvis' character sings a few songs and starts bringing crowds to the traveling show again.
The soundtrack features "One Track Heart" "Big Love, Big Heartache" and "Little Egypt", plus several very short songs.
Screen legend Barbara Stanwyck became probably the biggest name ever to appear in an Elvis Presley movie in Roustabout.
Barbara plays the owner of a carnival who takes in Presley after the King has been fired from a gig at a club.
Of course she owes him after her right hand man Leif Erickson runs Elvis off the road and damages his motorcycle and guitar.After a while what's keeping him around is pretty young Joan Freeman who is Erickson's daughter.
That is if rival carnival owner Pat Buttram doesn't lure him away or fortune teller Sue Ane Langdon doesn't lure him with her own special lure.I think Roustabout ranks as one of Presley's best feature films.
But as the young man with a chip on his shoulder who becomes a Roustabout at the Stanwyck carnival Elvis is at his very best.For Stanwyck she saw this as a way of getting her name across to younger movie audiences.
But after one more film she would abandon the big screen for the small one and did all her remaining work on television.The title song and a song called Poison Ivy are the best for Elvis in the 11 numbers from the score.
I didn't know Elvis went in for satire but the song is a really acid number against privileged college frat boys, I really loved it.
This movie is light and easy going and contains enough songs to please Elvis' fans, though others may enjoy it too.
A curious Hal Wallis produced musical in which Elvis, clad in black leather for much of the film, seems to be flirting with his more rebellious past while still looking like the bland "Hollywoodized" ideal first promoted in "G.I. Blues" (short hair, short sideburns).
There are a couple of decent tunes ("Little Egypt," "Big Love, Big Heartache") and the usual smattering of forgettable ones, but what makes "Roustabout" a cut above most of his other films from the era is a strong cast (Barbra Stanwyck and Leif Ericson, two veterans of Wallis' 1948 "Sorry, Wrong Number") and a stronger than usual role for Elvis himself.
Released the same year as Viva Las Vegas, Roustabout is often viewed as one of the lesser lights in Elvis' 1960s movie output.
Which is a shame given that it has vitality in abundance, sees the King playing a two dimensional character, features the professional workings of Barbara Stanwyck and Leif Erickson and is beautifully staged and photographed (Lucien Ballard) amongst a Carnival backdrop.Plot sees Presley as night club singer Charlie Rogers who has a big chip on his shoulder, getting into yet another fight he gets fired and via a motorcycle run in with Maggie Morgan (Stanwyck) and Joe Lean (Erickson), ends up working at Maggie's carnival operation while he waits for his bike to be fixed.
The clutch of songs are not the best, though the beautiful tenderness of "Big Love, Big Heartache" and the interesting take on "Little Egypt" are reason enough to be pleased with the musical contributions.
It also opens up a game for spotters of future "names", see if you can spot Raquel Welch, Teri Garr and Richard Kiel in teeny tiny roles.A lovely enjoyable Elvis film, foot tapping and smiles guaranteed, and the King, quite frankly, rocks in this one.
Solid Presley film with good songs and a decent enough story.
Good songs, a solid performance from Elvis and a decent story in a unique setting is about what you take away from "Roustabout".It's one of the King's later (and less ambitious) flicks but they varied in quality and "Roustabout" comes off well.
Elvis is good as a restless (and quite temperamental) average Joe who lends a hand in a traveling carnival while his motorcycle is in the shops.
Despite himself he starts caring for the married couple who run the place (a very charming Barbara Stanwyck the better half) and falls for their daughter.The film looks nice, Elvis sings quality songs like the title track, "Little Egypt" and "One Track Heart" among others, he's in fine acting form and gets solid support from old pro Stanwyck and the story ain't too shabby either.All in all; a solid Presley film..
In fact, it's a 305 Super Hawk, which may well be the bike that saved the motorcycle industry.Yeah, I was just a kid in the 1960s, and not much of an Elvis fan -- but I loved motorcycles, and that scene of the Elvis' character's "night ride," rounding a curve on a two-lane road on that nifty bike has stuck with me all these years.Back in those days, American industry had brought us Cushman scooters and Harley Davidsons.
No surprise today that Americans who used to fight over whether Fords or Chevys were best today drive Hondas, the embodiment of the world standard for quality.It'd be very interesting to know who chose the bike Elvis rode in the movie instead of a big, bad Harley.
roustabout is one of the best Elvis films i've seen!
the songs make the film just so much better.i loved the way the film was done and i really liked Elvis' role as roustabout Charlie Rogers.
But Charlie Rodgers is watered down compared to Vince Everett in "Jailhouse Rock".It has a good cast with some big legends like Barbara Stanwyck, Leif Erickson & Steve Brodie & they elevate the movie with some memorable performances.
Leif Erickson as Joe hates Elvis's character for most of the movie until Elvis redeems himself by the end.There's also Pat Buttram from "Green Acres" as a big shot carnival master who gives Elvis a better offer after Elvis burns his bridges with Joe & Maggie.
The songs are OK but nothing to write home about.It's not one of Elvis's best movies but it's not one of his worst either.
If you want to see Elvis in quality musicals this one & "Kid Galahad" & "Follow That Dream" are good choices because these films are more realistic & tell a story unlike the rest of the trash he was doing during most of the 1960's.Regardless if you're an Elvis fan or not stay away from most of his '60's cliché musicals they're a waste of time.
It has Victoria Barkley (Barbara Stanwyck) from The Big Valley, Big John Cannon (Leif Erickson) from The High Chaparral, Wilbur Jonas (Dabbs Greer), the general store owner from Gunsmoke, Pat Buttram who was Gene Autry's sidekick from his western TV series, and Joan Freeman who played Cathy Lean did a guest role on Gunsmoke as a kidnapped girl named Annie Shields.
Elvis of course was quite a western actor himself in such movies as "Love Me Tender", "Flaming Star" and "Charro".
In this movie, Elvis plays Charlie Rogers who has a really bad attitude.
I know Elvis Presley made better films after this (at least in my mind) but this must have been the beginning of the end of his movie career.
But the writing is so bad, and Elvis is made to sing a bunch of ridiculous songs (except Little Egypt.) This movie makes me hate Colonel Parker more than I already hate him.
There is a story here about a young man who ends up working in a carnival and falling for a girl (basis for all EP movies.) But with a supporting cast such as this, it should have been better.
He embarked on a film career consisting of 33 films from 1956 to 1969, films that did well at the box-office but mostly panned critically (especially his later films) and while he was a highly charismatic performer he was never considered a great actor.'Roustabout' is not one of Elvis' better overall films, not being as good as the likes of 'King Creole', 'Flaming Star', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas' and 'Loving You'.
This said as far as his mid- 60s onwards efforts go, 'Roustabout' generally is one of his better faring ones.Very rarely were the script and story strong suits in Elvis' films, quite often being weak links even.
The former due to too much immature silliness and not enough grit, which one kind of expected when you have the rebellious sort of character that Elvis played in the 50s in films that did have tension and grit, and the latter due to the chemistry not being there and Joan Freeman being somewhat bland.The songs generally are less than stellar and mostly very forgettable.
The script has its fun and good-natured moments, as well as its tragic ones, but over-silliness and corn run all over it as well.However, 'Roustabout' is a good-looking film, it's beautifully shot with a great atmosphere and the rural scenery is colourful and evocative.
The choreography has a good deal of energy, the carnival atmosphere is just magical and the Wall of Death scene hits hard.A good cast helps and 'Roustabout' has that (Freeman excepted), John Rich also directing more than capably.
Vagabond singer Elvis Presley (as Charlie Rogers) gets a job working at a carnival owned by strong-willed Barbara Stanwyck (as Maggie Morgan).
There, after years "playing the field," Mr. Presley gets the urge to settle down with one woman, pretty Joan Freeman (as Cathy Lean).
"It's a Wonderful World" received some "Best Song" Oscar buzz.*** Roustabout (11/11/64) John Rich ~ Elvis Presley, Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Freeman, Leif Erickson.
a Classic remake of a semi-hit for the COASTERS, called LITTLE Egypt) and too many embarrassing moments from a script just one draft short of "done".we must believe that Elvis, as itinerant odd-jobber, riding his Honda (in lieu of a Harley?
Paramount, how could ya?), geetah strapped on back (his best gig is rockin' wherever there's an opening) gave his role some thought as the great Barbara Stanwyck took the challenge to play Owner of struggling Carny.yes, the Big El swaggers in, reluctantly to...save the day and fall in....NO SPOILER!.
Elvis sings a song with full orchestration while riding his little bike around.
Elvis gets into a fight [whips ass, of course], E sings another song [no!
really?], E meets a babe [this film is just full of surprises], E gets in another fight, E meets another babe causing jealousy in the first, E sings a song, and on and on.
Again, one of Elvis' best films - I'd place 'Roustabout' in the Top 6 Elvis movies.
Elvis plays Charlie Rogers, a moody, arrogant nightclub singer who after getting fired for being involved in a brawl after a show, is ran off the road the next day by an even moodier father who takes grievance in the motorbike riding Rogers eyeing up his daughter Cathy - played by Joan Freeman, one of the most average looking of the "Elvis Girls".
Stanwyck plays Maggie Morgan, Joe's romantic partner as well as owner of a nearby travelling carnival.
After being driven off the road by Joe and having his bike put into the garage, "gypsy" (effectively) Elvis is forced to spend the next week with the family at the carnival and help out with the day to day running.
The movie itself strays away from the stereotypical Elvis "formula" that critics became so obsessed with, and song wise apart from the obvious two "Carny Town" and "It's Carnival Time" which are both less than a minute anyway, it's a strong soundtrack.
He plays a singing motorcycle rider with a big chip on his shoulder towards college kids and people in general.
Elvis leaves and signs with a big time carnival run by Mr. Haney from Green Acres.
Elvis decides to go back to the first carnival and saves it for Barbara and, oh yeah, gets the girl naturally..
Elvis and love interest Joan Freeman never generate sparks in their on-screen relationship and this shortage of chemistry isn't good for the action.
Barbara Stanwyck seems to be in charge of the carnival that she runs.
He sticks around with Stanwyck and helps out as a roustabout for her carnival until she can have both his bike and guitar repaired.
Of course, the girl wins in the end after Elvis has proved that he can draw big crowds at the carnival. |
tt0250469 | Killjoy | The film begins with a boy named Michael, a kid who has a crush on a beautiful girl named Jada but is always rejected because Jada is stuck with a gangster, Lorenzo (Johnson). When Michael comes close to her, he is beat up by Lorenzo and his homeboys, T-Bone and Baby Boy. But Michael is secretly involved in black magic, and tries to bring a doll that he calls Killjoy to life. After he is abducted by the gangsters and brought into the woods, Michael is accidentally shot and killed by Lorenzo.
A year later, Jada is now going out with a guy named Jamal who is similar to Michael. Lorenzo is going out with a girl named Kahara, who is just like Jada. When Lorenzo leaves to have sex with her, T-Bone and Baby Boy go get ice-cream. The ice-cream man, who's dressed up like a clown really sells drugs. Baby Boy and T-Bone hop in the truck but end up in an abandoned building. They split up to find a way out. Baby Boy gets rammed into the wall by the ice-cream truck, killing him. T-Bone starts smoking pot when suddenly, it starts to burn him, and his body vanishes. His corpse ends up back to his hide-out, along with Baby Boy's. Meanwhile, Lorenzo, after having sex with Kahara, hears something outside her apartment building, and goes outside to check. He finds the ice-cream truck and opens the door, and the ice-cream man pulls him in, and ends up at the abandoned building. After finding the ice-cream man, he confronts him and shows him the (living) corpses of T-Bone and Baby Boy; after they fade away, he shoots the ice-cream man dozens of times, but the ice-cream man sucks up the bullets (a spoof of The Mask) and shoots the bullets out of his mouth, killing Lorenzo.
Meanwhile, one of Jada's friends, Monique (Austin), calls Jada, telling her that some guy (Burghardt) came in to her room and needs them to come over. The homeless man tells them that Lorenzo killed Michael a year ago, and explains that Michael was brought back to life by the Ice Cream Man, whose real name's Killjoy, the doll Michael has, and tells them that Killjoy just killed Lorenzo, Baby Boy, and T-Bone. Then he tells them that Killjoy/Michael can be killed by Jada, because the love of a young woman can destroy the evil in the heart. Before leaving, he tells them that they have to kill the doll the spirit of the ice cream man came from, and the ice cream truck is outside.
Still not believing what the homeless man said, they go inside the ice-cream truck to check it out, and they end up in the abandoned building, where they're confronted by T-Bone, Baby Boy, and Lorenzo, who souls' are under Killjoy's control and are now his accomplices. The trio start fighting the accomplices until all three are killed. Then Killjoy comes out and knocks Jamal and Monique out. He asks Jada for a kiss, upon which Jada agrees to do so, under one condition: that he will leave her world and never come back. But instead of disappearing, Killjoy transforms into Michael. Michael tells Jada that he did it all for her. Jada, who desperately wants to stop Michael/Killjoy from killing, stabs Michael to death, and Michael fades away.
Jamal, Jada, and Monique are about to leave when Killjoy, Lorenzo, T-Bone, and Baby Boy appear behind them. Jada then remembers from the Homeless man that they have to kill the doll. The trio frantically run back into the ice-cream truck, where they end up in Michael's house, where the doll lies on the floor. The doll turns into Michael, who constantly begs her for forgiveness, but Jada continues to stab it. The earth starts to shake, and while Jada, Jamal, and Monique try to stay still within the circle of candles without breaking it, Baby Boy, T-Bone, and Lorenzo's souls are sucked into a portal. The trio then watch as Killjoy finishes off Michael (via vaporization), and the trio are sent back to Jada's room, where the homeless man thanks them, and vanishes, meaning he's an angel from heaven.
The trio decides to go out and eat, when they are confronted by Ray Jackson (Washington), and Tamara (Rochelle), who are both in Jada's English class. Ray says that he gained access into the club free because his brother owns the place, and his name is......Killjoy! The trio then see that Ray turns into Killjoy, and Tamara turns into Lorenzo. Killjoy starts laughing maniacally at the trio, with Jada screaming "NO!", until Jada wakes up in bed, along with Jamal, indicating that the entire experience was all a dream. Jamal tries to calm Jada down by going under the covers to perform oral sex on her, but then rises from the covers as Killjoy. The film ends with a shot of Jada screaming and Killjoy stating, "That was some good pussay!!!", followed by evil laughter. | revenge | train | wikipedia | And what Little plot there was, was revealed to us in the last 10 (maybe even 5) minutes of the movie.I can without doubt tell you that the sequel (released in 2001) is 10X better than Killjoy 1 by far...
There are a lot of different flavors of bad, and Killjoy is a veritable cornucopia of them.I guess this is supposed to one of them there "urban hip hop" horror flicks, featuring an all African American cast.
Little bid I know that later that same night i would behold the tragedy known as Ax'Em. Anyway, whoever thought this was a good idea for a movie is floating lifelessly at the shallowest end of the gene pull.
The acting is awful, there's barely a plot (but we are reminded in the middle of the movie by the black version of Crazy Ralph from Friday the 13th that there is a back story...the whole plot is summed up in about 5 minutes), the sound effects were no doubt courtesy of a Yahoo search for stock sound effects, and the special effects...not the worst I've seen; and since the movie is from 2000, with a low budget to boot, I'll let that part slide.Yet, at the same time, you'll find yourself laughing at everything.
Other distressing factors that contribute to its soul-sucking terribleness: the fact that it is a horror movie and the villain is just annoying (call it "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" syndrome), the deaths are lame, the plot twists don't make any sense, there is a bunch of unnecessary sexual content, and the film WILL NOT END.
Certainly a stylish and a somewhat seminal work in the Evil Clown genre, this film has influenced many other horror productions with good reason.
which was a big surprise judging by the trailer i saw and a lot of the negative comments here on IMDb. this movie has to be commended for it's revamping of the evil clown genre in a new age blaxploitation style of cinematic vignettes.the make up team for killjoy deserve a lot of credit, i haven't seen a clown that menacing since the TV adaptation of Steven King's IT!
the same show of respect goes to the colour co-ordination in the scenery, backgrounds and character clothing.sure it's not a Hollywood cgi gore-fest, but it has everything the average horror fan needs: black comedy, cartoon like protagonists, a charming villain, creative story lines with just enough predictability to make the viewing experience worthwhile and bringing the psychological aspect of fear into play rather than relying on low budget techniques for scare tactics.
I popped into Poundland the other day to get another low budget horror film and I came across 'Killjoy'...why not?
However, if you put all these reasons together you get a film that is so bad it's good - a cliché but no other term could describe this film - it's definitely worth watching for a laugh if not for the actual quality of the film.
When I rented it, all I wanted was to laugh at how horrible the movie was made, and how poor the acting was.
But it's one of those movies that's so bad that it's hilarious.The movie is set up to be good, clowns are scary as hell and the clown in this movie, killjoy, is made up to look pretty scary, but the plot, acting, directing, everything else you can imagine, takes it downhill, like I said it's still funny though.It's a great idea to watch it if you are drunk or stoned.
If ur high when you watch this you will not stop laughing.Killjoy is one of the funniest movies I've seen, I actually recommend renting it.
If you enjoy crappy movies like this that make you life rent terror toons and the ice cream man too..
I thought that the atmosphere and scenery of Killjoy's world (or warehouse) was really great and just right for the movie.The charactors though, should have been to acting school.
Through the whole film I was hoping that Killjoy would have been killed by a single person in a certain creepy way but instead (like I should have thought)the ending was gangsterish.
I give this a 7 out of 10 only because of the not so good acting except from the Clown and the writer who makes a cameo in the film..
"Killjoy" features average horror direction, and, like most Full Moon releases, wrings the most out of its low budget as it can, but still lacks slightly because of it.
The most enjoyable character, of course, is Killjoy, who has the most definite presence in the film, particularly when he brings us to his "world" (located in an ice cream truck?!) and shoots off one-liners a la Freddy Kruger; the only bad thing about him is that he is rarely given a good shot from the camera (most shots of him are from the back), which is too bad, because, as mentioned above, the make-up job is spectacular.
Okay so I'm late on checking out this particular urban horror film but I didn't even know it existed until I ran across it in the horror section, simply to look for an old horror movie to check out for old times sake.
It's like funny horror that will probably scare anyone under 10,but it's way better than XX which holds title for me as "worst movie".
I got this movie thinking it was the movie It,(which I just saw,and it is also terrible)which i had heard was pretty good.Now, I said IT was bad, but Killjoy is just terrible.
Killjoy has to be the most annoying character I've EVER seen in a movie.
The only thing that matters is that this is the only movie I've seen that was so bad I couldn't even laugh about it.
The problem with this movie is mainly the acting, the clown itself the weak chemistry that the characters have with each other.The acting was terrible lets put it that way.
The movie is about a boy who summons a killer clown named Killjoy(big surprise there) to kill some guys that did him wrong.
So, if you feel like torturing your friends, or if you need to repay someone for all the evil they've done to you, I highly recommend renting this movie and inviting your victim of choice over one night.
I thought he was basically John Leguizamo's Violator after Jenny Craig.I thought some of the acting was ok (nerd guy, Killjoy, and one or two others) but there was something about the movie's timing or simply, quality that just didn't work for me.
A few good lines (that don't really work within the movie but WILL be funny about a week from now to think back on.) Make-up on Killjoy is pretty good..
Let me say now that this was the WORST i mean WORST movie i have EVER seen and the only thing i can say now is how in the heck did anyone in their right mind pay money to get this horrible peice of trash produced.
Every aspect of this movie, along with its unredeeming sequel, was absolute crap....from the acting to the dialogue to the special effects to the plot and directing.
And then u watch the Making of the Movie part on the DVD and u hear all the actors saying how they were so happy to be a part of this peice of garbage seriosuly this was the funniest thing ive ever seen and so i kind of have to say go out and rent this not because its good but because it is the funniest movie u will ever see....and unintentionally too.
It consists of low budget horribly corny films like Killjoy 1 and 2.
Killjoy is just plain bad, I have never seen a worse movie in my life.
Killjoy is the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire short life.The plot was stupid.
The acting is incredibly pathetic and the special effects suck!(Check out the so called "blood" when the one guy gets shot.Also, Killjoy is the most irritating killer of all time.HE NEVER SHUTS UP AND HE'S JUST NOT FUNNY HE'S NOT FUN.
When you look at the cover, you might actually think Killjoy may be scary in the movie.
I saw this film about a month ago, when i went down to my local video shop, to try and rent a really pants movie just to laugh at.
all i can say was ""IT" in the big city." KILLJOY: New Urban Chaos was a sweet deal for 7.99 at Best Buy. I reccomend this movie to people who like to watch really crappy rip-off movies.
The only reason why I actually rented this movie was because I was with three other friends and we all wanted a good laugh.
Even though we got a good laugh, the actual movie and acting was just pathetic.
The only time I would ever recommend "Killjoy" is when somebody just wants to laugh at a really pathetic film.
Anyway - Michael gets shot dead by accident which unleashes Killjoy (one year later, for some reason, who then goes on to lure people into his ice cream truck and kill them in a rather non-gory way.
I was scanning the D.V.D's and was looking at all of the extremely lame and fake horror films they produced until my eyes cast upon "Killjoy." Having nothing else to do that night and going on holiday the next day, I just bought this movie just for the banter and to see what the films Poundland produced were really like.
The acting was terrible with little/no character development, the plot, was just like "A Nightmare On Elm Street" gone Clown, in which a "villianous" character comes in and kills off one-by-one.
There is a scene where there is a fight with all different punching sound effects happening and all of the sound effects are out of synch with the movement of the "actors." One thing I have to say that is quite positive about the story is that the make-up used on Angel Vargas as the Clown, KILLJOY was good for a film of this standard but that's about all?
Watching Killjoy pounce around like a gay person on crack killing bad actors screaming like the people in The Sims and bad special effects is rather enjoyable.This is the best Killer Clown in the Ghetto movie ever.
That being said, Killjoy is the second worst horror movie I have ever seen.
But, a few days ago, I watched it again, and realized that it was one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen.
Second, this movie has the absolute worst acting I have ever seen in a movie, none of the actors give any of the crappy characters any life, and the unbelievably terrible script makes everything even worse.
At the end of the movie, they see Killjoy again, after they thought that they killed him, and the character says, "I thought we killed him." That, is a crap script.
This film is broken on every level, the acting is horrible and cringe inducing, the visual effects look like a 2006 YouTube video, the story is nonsensical and, the whole movie works more as a comedy than a horror movie.
The acting is horrible, the dialogue is cringe inducing, the story....did a six year old write it?You'd hope that at least the movie would make up for it's lack of everything else by making the monster...Killjoy...interesting.
Never heard of this film beforehand but seen it as a 4 movie set for £5 and thought can't really go wrong paying £1.25 per film.Finally got round to watching this the other day and i didn't quite expect it to be as bad as it was.
From the cover, Killyjoy looks like a terrifying clown who could easily create bloodshed amongst the protagonists...but this movie is anything but scary, or funny.
With laughable dialogue, bad acting, horrible special effects and a stupid plot line; this movie takes the cake.
His revenge comes in the form of Killjoy, a maniac clown with magical powers who proceeds to transport his victims to his evil domain before killing them in various gratuitous and incredibly silly ways.It's amateur night all round here, with some of the most stilted acting you'll have seen in a while, although I admit seeing some of those lousy effects of characters burning up or disintegrating did give me a chuckle or two.
Thus KILLJOY isn't the worst horror film after all, just a very poor one..
Well, I finally bagged a copy of the film for a mere 10p, and let me tell you, it was worth every penny (truth be told, I would have paid double that had I realised it wasn't quite as atrocious as I had at first believed).A very cheap and cheerful supernatural urban slasher with an entirely non-white cast (meaning that the black guy most definitely dies first!), the film stars Ángel Vargas as Killjoy, an evil wisecracking clown with very silly hair brought to life by occult-practising teenager Michael (Jamal Grimes) to wreak vengeance on the thugs who have been making his life a misery.Incredibly corny with a logic-free script, crappy sets, lousy special effects, weak performances, and virtually no gore, Killjoy is bound to disappoint anyone looking for a genuinely experience, whereas fans of hokey low-budget nonsense might just find that the trashy nature of the flick (which includes some gratuitous female nudity for good measure) makes for just about passable entertainment..
Killjoy the clown is incessantly annoying and more gay than scary.The only scene I liked in this whole mess of a movie was the scene where a woman's breasts are seen and the shower scene.
Her response was something like, "Better to play a maid than to be one."The urban horror film "Killjoy" seems to have been written and produced specifically in that mindset.
An inner-city take on the traditional supernatural stalker movie in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" vein, "Killjoy" concerns a demonic clown who exacts revenge for the violent murder of a young man who dared to talk to the girlfriend of a sadistic gang member.Almost every negative urban minority and female stereotype is present here.
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen, in fact probably the worst.How I stayed awake through this film I never know, the acting is non-existence, the quality of the camera work sucks its like watching a home movie that you make on a family holiday and the effects are just pathetic.Although this film is so bad its unbelievable, the DVD has a trailer for the film which i can guarantee will have you in stitches for weeks.I would advise everyone who hasn't seen this film to stay well clear of it..
the story was pathetic, a 5 year old could come up with better, the acting was an insult, the whole idea of a killer clown is so over done and this is a poor attempt at it, the camera work was lame, and the effects were probably bought in a joke shop.
In this abysmal horror movie a young man who is being picked upon by a local gang uses a voodoo spell to bring to life his only friend, a clown toy named Killjoy.
Killjoy was just entirely terrible, the special effects, the actors, the plot, all the people involved in this movie should have been executed after it's release.
Please don't waste your time, this movie isn't even worth it for the laughs cause it is so bad it's not funny..
Keep in mind I'm writing this as probably one of thew devoted fans of Killjoy-a horror movie that ends up being one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen.I have such fond memories of watching this movie and laughing my ass off.
Something everyone!There is a scene with Killjoy giving oral sex to a girl and saying "That's some good puss-aaay".Don't see this expecting a horror movie.
Utter nonesense, ridiculous script, horrible dialouge...oh, and i could just go on...the acting: if you can call it that--not even passable by b-movie standards.And a sequel is in the works...Shutter to think...A boy who is picked on, with the help of black magic, had his little clown doll come to life and kill the people that made fun of him.
is it just me, when people all gang up on a flick saying "its the worst movie ever", the first thing you think is,"they havent even seen EVERY movie ever made....."killer clown fights gang-bangers, plain and simple.
To describe this in words the characters in the movie would understand, if you feel like watching Killjoy, even on a whim, you better chickedy check yo'self befo' you wrickedy wreck yo'self.
This movie was a really funny journey through the story of the dark clown known as Killjoy and his adventures to kill the evil guys who killed a nerd named mcahiel?
~SPOILERS~Killjoy is at the same time the greatest and worst film ever made.
I thought we killed him" "a motherf**king clown?!" But it is the standard of the acting which makes it even funnier, which is literally the worst I ever seen - on screen or otherwise, these people are not actors.
The filming was bad, the acting was horrible, and the dialog was just a nightmare.
Another reason why killjoy is terrible is that they make a sequel to the worst movie ever made.
Don't go looking for this movie,if your desperate to see a killer clown rent It instead.
Ok I first saw the movie Killjoy I was at a friend's house and we were watching other bad movie's like Chopping Mall.
Howe better to end such a flick?I also love the way they keep trying to slip in as much gangstaspeak as possible.People who like funny/bad horror movies: this is definitely for you!. |
tt0093980 | Sister, Sister | The story starts out with Caroline Lovejoy (Carroll) singing in the church choir at the local church. It is later revealed that she is having an intense affair with the church's reverend. She later comes home to find her younger sister, Sissy (Cara), with her boyfriend, Johnny. It is expressed that Sissy is an aspiring ice skater, but Caroline wants her to follow in her footsteps and become a schoolteacher.
Their battle goes on throughout the movie. Later their estranged sister, Frieda (Cash) shows up with her 12-year-old son, Danny (Kristoff St. John). They decide to stay for a while because Danny has had some trouble with the law and Frieda wants to give him a fresh start in a new environment. While there, the sisters' lives turn up-side down. Frieda emerges as the troubled black sheep, while Caroline is knocked off her martyr pedestal when the minister succumbs to Frieda's seduction. Sissy learns that their father never wanted another daughter, but had hoped she would be the son that eluded him. Their mother tried to abort her. | gothic, murder | train | wikipedia | A Perfect Suspense Thriller.
Not to be confused with the TV show of the same name, Sister Sister the movie is a Suspense Thriller!
If you are expecting a comedy about twins separated at birth make sure you read the DVD box and go pick something else.Set on the beautiful and mysterious bayou's of Louisiana.
It follows the relationship between two sisters who have to keep a awful secret from childhood and what lengths they will go to, to keep that secret under wraps.Judith Ivy's performance as the older protective sister is stellar and that goes the same for, screen chemistry between Eric Stolz and Jennifer Jason Leigh.Be prepared for twists and turns in this one.
And a Paranormal touch too.If you watch it for anything watch it for the mystery and the stunning dream sequences..
Sisters are doing it for each other..
Two repressed sisters run a bed and breakfast in old mansion-like motel in the Louisiana swamps for passer-byes.
A young man, Matt Rutledge comes to stay, for a break from the fast city-life and at first glance catches the eye of the younger sister, Lucy.
Though soon, Matt realises that Lucy and her older sister, Charlotte are hiding some sort of secret from their past and this is the reason for Charlotte being so overprotective towards Lucy.
Oh, my beloved sister
what have you done?
Now why has this film gone by terribly unnoticed?
Hmm, it's hard actually to pinpoint.
There's just something highly enticing about this effectively minor southern Gothic shocker.
Shocker, might be too strong of a word, but chiller fits snugly I guess.
Honestly, I wasn't expecting anything of quality or uniqueness.
But it delivered.
No doubts that the film's premise, developments and actual surprises aren't anything we haven't seen before, but because it's very well crafted by director Bill Condon.
He professionally constructs an unsettling air from the beautifully damp backdrop and cooks up some stunning imagery.You can't help but be drawn into this well-devised (if slow-grinding) mystery that leads you along with its stylishly taut direction and steamily uneasy scenery.
I found it to get more and more involving upon every occurrence that resulted in this psychological drama-packed tale.
Streaming through it is an erotic tone with tension boiling underneath the lavish-looking surface, as people play each other off in a complicated web of deceit and jealousy.
Even a sprinkle of the hazy supernatural makes its way in, but honestly the surprise twist to close up shop puts a real spanner into the mix.
It doesn't sit that well with what has gone before it and actually dumb-down the whole build up.
Shaping up the classiness of the production is a bell-ringer of a melancholy score by Richard Einhorn that was intoxicatedly lyrical in its cues and Stephen M.
Katz's wonderfully poignant camera-work gave it a delicate touch.
The cast were exceptional in their parts and had a huge impact on the success.
Eric Stoltz, Judy Ivey, Denis Lipscomb and the breathtakingly ravishing Jennifer Jason Leigh definitely lead the way with blindingly precise performances.A fascinating, haunting little thriller that from the outset will just eat you up..
delectable southern Gothic horror fantasy.
"Sister, Sister" is Bill Condon's first feature and possibly one of his best.
This delicious Southern Gothic fantasy involves two sisters running a bed and breakfast in their Louisiana mansion.
Terrible things start happening when a group of new guests arrive and the sisters' dark secrets start to come out.
This reminds me of the types of horror films Bette Davis/Joan Crawford/Olivia DeHavilland would have starred-in in the 60s.
I loved every minute of it.
Jennifer Jason Leigh and especially Judith Ivey are perfect in the lead roles.
I have no idea why this film is so underrated, but it's one of my favorite horror movies from the decade of excess..
A nice piece of Southern gothic.
The director of this film, Bill Condon, later won a measure of acclaim for directing Gods and Monsters.
His talent is already evident in this work which takes a familiar story and makes it work through wonderful gothic atmosphere and wonderful performances from Jennifer Jason Leigh, Judith Ivey, and especially Eric Stoltz.
A nice combination of B-movie conventions with A-movie talent..
Top rate Southern Gothic..
This is a great Southern Gothic film, a genre we don't see enough examples of, especially of this caliber.
To the one who didn't like its brutality, all I have to say is, A) it's fairly subtle compared to many horror films, and B) What were you expecting?
A Merchant Ivory Production.
Plus, I think Bill Condon, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Judith Ivey all did wonderful jobs - elevating what could have been a by the numbers exploitation film into something that's haunted me for years..
brief favorable/descriptive review.
Gothic bayou horror story about murder, revenge and the voyeuristic/overprotective relationship of two sisters.
Excellent quality for a TV movie.
Contains one somewhat steamy love scene which is unusually revealing for television..
southern goth ~!.
This early Joel Cohen, sans Ethan, effort is passable.
It features a good southern goth feel and some fine performances from Judith Ivey and Jennifer Jason Leight.
It does rely too heavily on shock, rather than fleshing out its plot, but still its pretty convincing stuff!
There is the requisite nudity and violence but at least this seems intune with the settings and people, unlike some deliberately sleazy thrillers.
The repressed younger sister is understandably attracted to ahandsome "stranger", and her older sis is of course jealous.
this makes sense and sets up a good twist with some nice nuances.
Recommended especially for fans of Leigh..
Southern Gothic.
Two sisters (Judith Ivey and Jennifer Jason Leigh) turn their family mansion in Louisiana into a guest house.
One of their guests (a young Eric Stoltz) is an aide to a congressman, and turns their lives inside out.
Director Bill Condon is interesting -- this was his debut film, but it seems his career really blossomed in the 2000s with a string of hits: "Kinsey" (2004), "Dreamgirls" (2006), "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1" (2011) and "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2" (2012).
Humble beginnings?I actually did not find this to be all that great of a film.
The cast helped it (Jennifer Leigh can do no wrong).
But really, just not a film I am eager to see again and that is all I have to say..
beware of chills, thrills, and chills!!!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!.
this highly suspenseful tour DE force will grab you by the nape of your neck, throw you against the wall, break the mirror, and NEVER LET YOU GO!
a tour DE force performance by Gennifer Jason Leigh, and also a highly suspenseful performance by Brain DE palma.
the eerie setting of the bayou sets a most provocative and eerie mis en scene.
MIS EN SCENE ABOUNDS!
did i mention this was a tour DE force?
Gennifer Jason Leigh is a HOTTIE TOTTIE!
walk, but don't trottie.
JENNIFER JASON LEIGH XXL!
Brain DE palma and Susan saran-don have some REAL chemistry.
WOOOOOO!
gohsts!
and zombiess the swamp too.
a tour DE force abounds!
i give it an 8 for plot, though a few scenes struck me as a bit over the top and self-indulgent.
THRILLS AND CHILLS AWAIT YOU!!!!!
also plot twists a-go-go.
walk, but don't run to the movie store, to rent the VHS, of, SISTER SISTER.
What are you waiting for?!?!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..
If you love your sister, don't watch it !.
My sister told me that there was a movie called "Sister, Sister" and I knew nothing about it, but I wanted to see it because the title sounded great to me.
I thought it would be a lovely film, but it wasn't.
It's just brutal and primitive, although a relationship between sisters is always special and they have always a secret to share.
Bill Condon did a rather bad job and the actresses, especially Jennifer Jason Leigh, are even worse !
The story has nothing to do with reality..
A real sleeper.
Willful and dominating Charlotte (a splendid portrayal by Judith Ivey) and her more fragile and passive younger sister Lucy (a terrific performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh) reside in a dreary mansion that they have converted into a guest house in the Louisiana swamps.
The arrival of the handsome and enigmatic Matt Rutledge (a sound and engaging Eric Stoltz) forces them to confront a dark secret from their unfortunate past.
Director Bill Condon, who also co-wrote the engrossing script with Joel Cohen, relates the absorbing story at a leisurely, yet hypnotic pace, does an expert job of crafting an exquisitely brooding gloom-doom Southern Gothic atmosphere that seethes with pent-up repression and thwarted passion, vividly evokes a dreamy feeling of the remote bayou region, and tosses in a startling, but effective supernatural element at the surprising conclusion.
The uniformly excellent acting from a bang-up cast holds everything together: Ivey, Stoltz, and especially Leigh all do sterling work in their roles, with sturdy support from Dennis Lipscomb as the suspicious Sheriff Cleve Doucet and Benjamin Mouton as the smitten and possessive Etienne LeViolette.
As a sweet extra plus, the lovely Ms. Leigh bares her yummy body in a couple of sizzling and sensuous soft-core sex scenes as well as takes a steamy bath.
Stephen M.
Katz's striking'n'stylish golden-hued cinematography and Richard Einhorn's beautifully lush'n'lilting orchestral score both further enhance the overall fine quality of this unjustly neglected little dilly..
Somewhat uneven supernatural thriller set in South Louisiana swamp land..
I recently was watching "Bad News Bears" with Vic Morrow, and realized how much his daughter, Jennifer Jason Leigh, is now resembling him as she approaches the age he was when he died.
So I looked up one of her older movies, just for fun viewing, and found this one on Netflix streaming movies.
It is set and filmed in an area I know well, the areas near swamps in South Louisiana, including a couple of old plantation homes.
One of the actors, Ben Mouton, is even from Lafayette and attended USL, the same college I attended a few years earlier.The two Bonnard sisters live in an operate a B&B in the old plantation home.
There has always been rumors that ghosts live in the swamps and people have disappeared with no trace.The older sister, probably early 30s, is Judith Ivey as the overprotective Charlotte Bonnard.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is her sister, perhaps 10 years younger, Lucy Bonnard.
Lucy has apparently had some emotional issues growing up and is still on medication.
Charlotte treats her more as a child than a sister.One day a stranger, Eric Stoltz as Washington businessman Matt Rutledge, shows up for his reservation to stay there a few days.
It isn't clear what he is doing there, and seems more than a bit suspicious, especially when he begins to make moves towards Lucy.This doesn't sit well, especially in the eyes of family friend and handyman, Benjamin Mouton as Etienne LeViolette.
(As an aside, being from Lafayette, he is the only character that sounds like he is actually from Louisiana, all the other accents are generic "southern" accents that seem out of place.) A few strange things happen, the pet family dog turns up dead, before the mystery is sorted out.
This is an uneven movie at best, even though the core story has a lot of possibilities.
The script, the acting and the direction are mostly bland, often ringing untrue, but Stoltz and Leigh do fine in their roles.
I enjoyed it mainly for the novelty of a movie set in my home area, Southern Louisiana.SPOILERS: When Charlotte was in high school her date was too aggressive and tried to force himself onto her.
When little sister Lucy witnessed what was going on she found a rock and hit the guy on the head, who then tried to rape Lucy.
But Charlotte picked up a knife, stabbing him to death.
Afraid the two girls dragged the body to the edge of the swamp and dumped him in, never to be found.
A boy witnessed it, in the nighttime shadows they thought it was their friend Etienne, but it in fact was the guy's brother, now returning for revenge as Matt Rutledge. |
tt2312262 | Dick Figures: The Movie | A meteor speeds towards Earth while characters of the series are dropped off a bus for elementary school. After Blue accidentally walks onto the 5th graders' playground, Broseph, the leader of the 5th Graders, has them beat up Blue. They are interrupted by the arrival of the meteor which crashes into Broseph, killing him. In the crater, Red emerges and beats off all the fifth graders. A grateful Blue promises to be Red's best friend no matter what happens. The movie goes through a montage of Red and Blue's time through school until the two graduate from university; Blue tries to be a conscientious student while Red lives a largely hedonistic, irresponsible lifestyle.
In the present day, Red and Blue are living together as roommates in their apartment, Blue is in a relationship with Pink. Red still has his crude behavior. When Pink's birthday is approaching, Blue lies to Pink about getting her the best birthday gift ever, but he hasn't gotten her anything. Red suggests that they go see the Raccoon (Papa-san) at his pawn shop for a gift to get Pink.
Meeting with the Raccoon, he tells them a story of when he lived in ancient Japan. His village fell under attack by Lord Takagami and his demon army. Raccoon, armed with The Sword of Destiny, singlehandedly fights the army, but falls into rage when he sees his wife get swallowed by Ocho Muerte, a large octopus. In his anger, he slaughtered the army and as he was about to deliver the death blow, Lord Takagami cursed him and split the Sword into three pieces. After the battle, Papa-san realized that he destroyed all of Japan while in a rage; for this he was banished by his kinsmen, never to return. If Blue finds the Sword and returns it to him, he will give Blue the perfect gift for Pink. Blue reluctantly accepts the quest after being called a 'pussy' by Red and the Raccoon.
Hitching a ride on a booze cruise, Red and Blue arrive in Japan, meeting with the Raccoon's son, Son-san. After Blue lies to him that they are not getting the Sword for Papa-san, they are directed towards a mountain, only to discover the hilt of the Sword and a large map with the locations of the other pieces (the blade and a jewel). Their retrieval of the hilt awakens Takagami and his ninjas, who give chase. The duo escapes out to sea on a rowboat, and they eventually end up in the middle of nowhere during an approaching storm. Red questions Blue's reason for doing the quest for Pink who explains to Red that he loves Pink. Red reveals that the reason for beating up the 5th graders back when they first met was to impress Pink and the girls, inadvertently admitting that he's never thought of Blue as his friend. Betrayed by this revelation, Blue fights with him, angrily stating that their friendship is over. Lightning strikes their boat and a large wave sweeps them away. Meanwhile, Pink becomes increasingly worried about Blue's disappearance after calling him several times (his phone having been lost in the ocean).
Blue wakes up to discover that he and Red have washed ashore on a paradise island, which Red sets fire to while trying to tan. They are rescued in a plane by alcoholic British pilot Captain Crookygrin, who was an old friend of their landlord Mr. Dingleberry back in World War II, and has been sent to stop them from finding the Sword of Destiny. Luckily, Crookygrin has alcohol blindness, and cannot recognize them from pictures. They fly to Paris, France, but are suddenly attacked by Takagami's ninjas in jetpacks. Blue fends them off with the plane's machine gun, however they crash, with Crookygrin being mortally injured. They are told to find the blade of the Sword at 'Le Tour Eiffel' (the Eiffel Tower), and head into a restaurant where they find their friend Lord Tourettes playing accordion to the diners. Outside, Mr. Dingleberry directs the French police to follow them, and it is revealed that he is taking orders from Takagami, who promised a reward for his help; he kills Dingleberry. The French police discover the three friends inside the restaurant and chase them to the Eiffel Tower, where Blue unites the hilt with the blade while Lord Tourettes distracts the police with a lullaby. Red and Blue return to their hometown in America to find the jewel that goes with the blade, according to a letter given to them by Crookygrin.
Pink's birthday party has started, and Red abandons Blue to go partying, much to Blue's frustration. Blue decides to finish the quest alone, only to be captured by Takagami and taken to a nearby mountain/volcano where the jewel rests. Takagami reunites the jewel with the Sword, and has Blue thrown into the lava. Red and Raccoon arrive in the knick of time to save Blue and seize the Sword; a battle ensues with Red and Blue fighting the ninjas while the Raccoon fights Takagami with the Sword of Destiny. Cutting off his mask, Raccoon discovers that Takagami is really his father, Father-san. When asked by his son why he became evil and started killing people, Father-san replies that it was to avenge every person that ever died. The Raccoon points out the obvious that just by killing more people, there are more people to avenge, to which Father-san says he could continue killing for eternity as a result. Raccoon beheads him, and his remains fall into the lava, but his head emerges, morphing into Ocho Muerte, who heads off to attack their town.
Blue, Red, and Raccoon arrive at Pink's party before Ocho Muerte can hurt Pink. Ocho Muerte devours the Raccoon and is about to eat Pink too, but not before Blue rescues her with the Sword. Blue hangs over a ledge with Red holding him and the Sword, and after some deliberation Red pulls Blue up to safety. The Sword falls into Ocho Muerte's mouth, which kills him in an explosion of light.
As the dust settles, Red apologizes to Blue for being a bad friend, as he has never had a real friend before, and promises to change (if only a little). They find Raccoon alive, as well as his wife Mama-san. He reveals that he sent Blue and Red on the quest ultimately to rescue his wife, but as a result of the experience Red and Blue have reaffirmed their friendship. In return for Blue's bravery, Mama-san gives Blue and Pink the lotus flower that Papa-san once gave to her, blessing their love for each other. Now closer friends than ever, Red and Blue celebrate their adventure with a high-five, closing the movie. | allegory, flashback | train | wikipedia | Before this movie is watched it's important to remember what it is, namely a film geared at people familiar with the franchise.By producing the film independently it contains the same humour, animation and production quality as the web series, but in a refreshingly new form.
There's some notably well put-together scenes and the film as a whole was generally enjoyable to watch.Turning a short web cartoon into a film could almost only go wrong but they have managed to pull it off.It would be great to see where the series goes next for the pair, but let's see how this film rides out for them..
For those who have seen every single episode of the web series at least twice and have grown to really enjoy the series, will love this film adaptation.
It has some really well animated and written scenes.
The second time through watching I found myself pausing the movie and reading things in the background or on the walls; I found there were many throwbacks to old movies, video games and pop culture.
The plot was a little jumpy from place to place, but this was blended in by the writing that is often found it the web series shorts.
The action is great, the laughs are awesome, and the story is fun.
This film adaptation is a great work and it will be interesting to see what happens to Red and Blue in the future..
"Dick Figures: The Movie" is a hilarious epic story about two friends named Red and Blue and their quest to recover the legendary Sword of Destiny.
This movie has action, drama, and of course a hefty dose of raunchy humor.
I recommend this for anyone who likes movies such as "Pineapple Express", "Ted", "Dumb and Dumber", "Shaun of the Dead", or others like that.
It has some stoner humor like Pineapple Express, a cute talking animal like Ted, a hilarious epic road trip like Dumb and Dumber, and tons of action and one-liners like Shaun of the Dead.
Some of the humor is related to the original web-series, so you'll get more out of it if you watch some Dick Figures episodes first.
They are all free on YouTube.Bottom line: if you haven't seen it, check it out!.
This film must be watched a lot of times.
Dick Figures: The Movie is way better than the TV show of the same..
Well, this was a very funny animated science fantasy action film, because most of the fight scenes in this film were funny.
Awesome fight scenes.
Honestly, it's worth it to watch for all the fight scenes alone.
Good movie but should be free.
I myself am more than a little angry that they took our money to make the movie and then decided to charge us to watch it.
Who charges the viewers to watch a movie that the viewers payed to have created?
That being said the movie is great.
Better than most of the animated films this year..
Despicable Me 2- 3/4 Monsters University- on its own it's a great film, which is why I give it a 4/4.
That being said, it's not as memorable as other Pixar films.
Cloudy 2- 2/4 Epic- 2.5/4 Escape from planet earth- awful in every aspect, 1/4 Dick figures: the movie?
Great film that should be released in the theaters everywhere.
a youtube movie.That may be changed when Frozen comes out though.
A very memorable and heartfelt adventure, even if it's short and a little campy at times.
were illegal this flick would get a life sentence in solitary confinement.This ridiculous nonsense of a movie (or whatever they are calling it - the title says Movie) is a real nerve rattling rehash of a suspense/ science fiction/folklore/adventure/fantasy told with stick figures as the main characters - Red & Blue - are the names.
And then a raccoon!The producers lost the purpose of this nut-ball bore of a movie by forgetting it's suppose to be "stick figures" - a movie with stick figures for everything.
And then the voice overs are like a chalk squeak across a blackboard!This must be a flick for the stoned tween set - boobs & drinking figure prominently throughout!.
It has taken some time till I was able to watch the movie.
It took me a lot longer than the 73:50 min to watch the film and not only to get more b00ze, but also to constantly pause the movie.
Just for example the stuff (Books, Movies, Games) Blue has in his rack in the beginning of the movie: Fang Angels (Twigay), A Melody Of Myth & Magic, War Soldiers, Companion Cube, The Pretty Good Gatsby, Arry Potuh & The Banger In Yo Mouf, Duke Of Fancy, Adventures Of Bloser - just to name what I can gather in short time.
A lot of references to pop culture and to fans of the series.I had a lot more fun watching this movie than in tons of high grossing Hollywood flicks.
There are so many awesome and original things in this movie that I will gladly watch it numerous times.
I sincerely hope that this movie will be a good example and will bring creativity back to my movie "lunch".
'Cause Hollywood cannot satisfy my hunger with the twentieth installation of basically the same movie.If you want some examples of the humour, take these.
v=Ly3OTtXdJEg If you are a fan of Star Trek and Arnold Schwarzenegger (i.e. Terminator, Kindergarten Cop) http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=nJZXcsVvjUIJust goes to show, that Ed Skudder and Zack Keller have lots in store for everyone.
I can't wait for more from the both and the team.On a sidenote: Alex and Lindsay Small-Butera are credited as "Character Animators".
If you enjoy Dick Figures, you might also enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvZ04KKhFY.
Well to be completely honest, Dick Figures The Movie was not the knee-slapper I expected it to be.
The plot line and all of the action in the movie still made it one of the best Movies I've ever seen!
I love how much Ed and Zach put into this movie and they did a fantastic job!
I loved how some of the stuff in the movie comes from things that were said in the show.
For Example in the episode where they play poker and tell manly stories, the Raccoon tells of how he slaughtered thousands of warriors with the great sword of destiny and how the sword was lost, which pretty much sets up the whole plot line of the movie!
This movie was not as funny as I had expected unfortunately, but it was still one of the best movies I've ever seen and I really wish it had gone on the big screen.
I really did get my money's worth from the $30 i donated to help make the movie!.
This is the best movie ever made!.
Two friends will risk it all to find the greatest treasure of all time." I have been eagerly awaiting this movies premier since it was first announced.
This movie was made for the fans, (funded) by the fans, and they didn't disappoint.
I've been a big fan of the series since I discovered it halfway through season 1.While some movie adaptations stray from the series on which they are based, Dick Figures: The Movie keeps what made the series so great, then turns things like the animation and action up to 11.
I think a big part of this is that they went with crowd sourcing, raised the movie, and produced all in house with complete creative control, rather than being at the mercy of some big Hollywood studio.There was some great action sequences, lots of laughs including some gut busting hilarity in the Paris restaurant scenes.
At the same time, Ed and Zack have taken the opportunity to not only bump up the animation, action, comedy, and explosions but also give more depth to the characters.
We get to learn more about Raccoon, and we see a softer side of Pink that literally confirms that she loves Blue.
We also learn how Red and Blue's friendship came to be, the strain that gets put on it, and ultimately the greater appreciation they have for it.
Red (eventually) shows that he really does care, and Blue finally has his day.
After watching it the first time or three, it's worth watching it again and pausing to check out all of the neat pop culture references and references to the series as a whole.
For example, have a good look in Blue's room, especially the bookshelf.This was such an awesome movie, and does the fans proud.
If you're a fan of the series you owe it to yourself to buy or rent it.
If you're not familiar with the series but enjoy action, explosions, and wacky, colorful characters, check it out..
Great as a web series, but not so much as a film.
Zack Keller and Ed Skudder have, after setting up a Kickstarter campaign, and lots of hard work, finally released the long awaited "Dick Figures:The Movie" for fans of the web series.
Compared the the Mondo web series "dick figures" on Youtube, it has an improved animation style.
The fight scenes in this film are excellently animated, and fans will definitely not be disappointed by these.The film however does have some shortcomings.
The writing style is reminiscent of the web series, and while the type of humor works well for short animations on Youtube, it is less suited for an animation with a 72 minute running time.
However, it did have its fair share of funny moments, and some might even make you laugh.The main characters of the web series, namely Red and Blue, do have some more depth to them, as compared to the web series.
Blue in particular grows as an individual throughout the events of the movie.
The conflict between the two also makes their relationship seem more dynamic, as opposed to static, as it is in the web series.
While a static relationship is more suited for a short web series, a dynamic one is much better suited for a film, and this is one of the areas where it really shines.To conclude, the film has its ups and downs.
The fighting scenes (the car chase scene in Paris in particular) have been animated very well, and are very entertaining.
The conflict between Red and Blue adds some much needed depth.
However, it still has the feel of a web series, due to slapstick humor, flat background characters, and it being slightly too random at times.
At times, it feels like they bit off more than they could chew..
Well, it's better than the Smosh movie, at least.
Dick Figures was something I enjoyed watching at first.
While the show did go downhill for me around the third season, I did remain cautiously optimistic about the feature film, especially since the making-of videos did seem to imply that they were putting a lot of work into making it.
Besides, I think Ed Skudder is a good artist and animator, so I was curious to see how it would turn out.While I think it's far from Skudder's best, I thought it was okay.
If you're a fan of Dick Figures, you'll definitely get a kick out of it.
If, like me, you're not the biggest fan but you don't mind it, then it might be worth your time.
The story is fairly simple, just two guys going on a big road trip adventure and there's some jokes along the way.
It's basically the same story as the Smosh movie, complete with the same tropes; they bicker, they argue, they have a big fight and separate before making up and saving the day, it's about as predictable as you can get.As for the jokes, there's the occasional clever moment, but it's hardly laugh-out-loud hilarious.
It's like Superbad or something along those lines; pretty childish, but sometimes it's charming.
I'm just giving credit where it's due and saying that those moments are there.For me, the big selling point was the animation.
I wasn't expecting it to be amazing, since it was animated in Flash and the characters are stick figures, but I actually found it really nice to look at.
The backgrounds, while simple, are nicely done, and the character animation is very smooth and expressive.
I got the impression that the animators working on this film were conscious of the fact that the designs were incredibly simplistic, so they did their best to make up for it with some really expressive animation, and, like I said, it does look nice.
Given how limited the show's animation is, this is an impressive upgrade.Dick Figures: The Movie is a straightforward movie that, at times, is downright predictable, but it has enough charm in the animation and look to at least recommend a shot.
As an animator, I got a kick out of the visuals, and as a film fan I got a kick out of the characters (sometimes) and Nick Keller's score, though I'm not sure if those good points were quite enough to make up for the predictable story and stupid jokes.
Alright, I'll admit I was a tad bit skeptical when I first heard about DF, but after I watched it, I found it so hilarious that I decided to see the movie.
It is a very enjoyable film, a 9/10 stars if I may say so myself.
One of the things I really enjoyed about this film was the plot.
It never felt like Red or Blue ever used an utterly stupid solution to their problems, and many of the conflicts they face were beyond incredible.
Most films based on a series forgets the point of the series, but this one looks like it could've been an episode.
The thing that really got me was the lesson of the film.
Seriously, it really moved me how Red finally started to see how much trouble he was causing Blue by being such a jerk, when Blue literally devoted his life to taking care of him.
This is a must-see for fans of the series, or just someone that needs a fun movie with action, romance, comedy, and drama!.
The best animated action film I've ever seen.
I really loved this film.
The reason why I love this movie is because, at the beginning of this film, when it says "This is a story about stick figures...", the opening sequence in space is a parody of the beginning of Toy Story 2, the Japan sequence is a parody of The Wolverine, the Eiffel Tower sequence is a parody of Rush Hour 3 and the ending scene is nearly a parody of King Kong..
Dick Figures: The Movie Movie Review By Andrew Brauer.
BY THE WAY THE SPOILERS ARE AT THE END.This was a film I have never even heard of, but thanks to the schmoesknow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5rQHclHdqI I found out more about this film.
Dick Figures The Movie is based off of the insanely popular Dick Figures animated comedy series, in fact so popular, that all the funds where part of a kickstarter campaign.
This film follows Red (Ed Skudder) and Blue (Zack Keller) who are two twenty something friends (where almost every person is a stick figure, just to make it clear) and Blue wants to get his girlfriend Pink (Shea Logsdon) a truly memorable gift, stumped with ideas, he and Red visit The Raccoon (playing off a racist Japanese accent voiced by Ed Skudder) and he tells the two of a story about the great sword of destiny, the two head on a globe trotting trip from Japan to France and then back to America, with much twists and turns waiting to happen.
If that sounds predictable and familiar, it will at first, but once you get past the vulgarity, Dick Figures proves to be one of the best surprises of 2013.
What works really well is the self awareness it brings to the table, the creators know that it won't be up to Hollywood standards when it comes to animation or casting, this film embraces it and knows how to even have some surprises, a particular scene around the end shocked me at how surprised it just happened.
The animation (though cheap) works really well, there's a car chase that's too good to spoil.
The voice acting is also terrific, particularly Keller as Blue, who is surprisingly relatable to any usual person and also has a few standout moments, but the real star is Eric Bauza as Lord Takagami, where every time his character appeared he killed it and had the most laughs, but right behind Bauza is Ben Tuller as the cheeky Lord Tourette's who doesn't have a big role, but his introduction (which is his appearance as an adult)is very memorable.
Skudder was also good, but he played so many voices (a total of 13) that it's hard to figure out what his best character is.
Problems are that it gets a little too silly and predictable at times.
But overall, Dick Figures The Movie is without a doubt one of the best surprises this year, and maybe one of the best of this year.SPOILERS SECTIONThe particular scene around the end is when Blue almost falls to his death into Ocho Muerte's mouth but Red ends up grabbing both him and the sword at the same time, at first it sounds predictable, but when he first let's go of Blue my jaw dropped at how surprising it was, but what was more surprising was that it happened again three more times as it was all imagining.
That scene is just Brilliant where it makes fun of a cliché we've all seen many times before, a few more times this film makes fun of clichés in movies, which also include the character story of the Raccoon and the traps in the temple in Japan.Check out my video review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RiqE73TyzQ |
tt0081595 | A Tale of Two Cities | === Book the First: Recalled to Life ===
Dickens's famous opening sentence introduces the universal approach of the book, the French Revolution, and the drama depicted within:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
In 1775, a man flags down the nightly mail-coach on its route from London to Dover. The man is Jerry Cruncher, an employee of Tellson's Bank in London; he carries a message for Jarvis Lorry, a passenger and one of the bank's managers. Mr. Lorry sends Jerry back to deliver a cryptic response to the bank: "Recalled to Life." The message refers to Alexandre Manette, a French physician who has been released from the Bastille after an 18-year imprisonment. Once Mr. Lorry arrives in Dover, he meets with Dr. Manette's daughter Lucie and her governess, Miss Pross. Lucie has believed her father to be dead, and faints at the news that he is alive; Mr. Lorry takes her to France to reunite with him.
In the Paris neighborhood of Saint Antoine, Dr. Manette has been given lodgings by his former servant Ernest Defarge and his wife Therese, owners of a wine shop. Mr. Lorry and Lucie find him in a small garret, where he spends much of his time making shoes—a skill he learned in prison, which he uses to distract himself from his thoughts, and which has become an obsession for him. He does not recognize Lucie at first but does eventually see the resemblance to her mother through her blue eyes and long golden hair, a strand of which he found on his sleeve when he was imprisoned. Mr. Lorry and Lucie take him back to England.
=== Book the Second: The Golden Thread ===
In 1780, French émigré Charles Darnay is on trial for treason against the British Crown. The key witnesses against him are two British spies, John Barsad and Roger Cly, who claim that Darnay gave information about British troops in North America to the French. Barsad states that he would recognize Darnay anywhere, at which point Darnay's defense counsel, Stryver, directs attention to Sydney Carton, a barrister present in the courtroom who looks almost identical to him. With Barsad's eyewitness testimony now discredited, Darnay is acquitted.
In Paris, the hated and abusive Marquis St. Evrémonde orders his carriage driven recklessly fast through the crowded streets, hitting and killing the child of a peasant, Gaspard. The Marquis throws a coin to Gaspard to compensate him for his loss, and Defarge comforts the distraught father, having observed the incident. As the Marquis's coach drives off, the coin is flung back into his coach by an unknown hand, enraging the Marquis.
Arriving at his country château, the marquis meets with his nephew and heir, Darnay. Out of disgust with his aristocratic family, Darnay has shed his real surname and adopted an anglicized version of his mother's maiden name, D'Aulnais. The following passage records the Marquis' principles of aristocratic superiority:
"Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend," observed the Marquis, "will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof," looking up to it, "shuts out the sky."
That night, Gaspard, who followed the Marquis to his château by riding on the underside of the carriage, stabs and kills him in his sleep. Gaspard leaves a note on the knife saying, "Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from JACQUES." After nearly a year on the run, he is caught and hanged above the village well.
In London, Darnay gets Dr. Manette's permission to wed Lucie; but Carton confesses his love to Lucie as well. Knowing she will not love him in return, Carton promises to "embrace any sacrifice for you and for those dear to you". Stryver, the barrister who defended Darnay and with whom Carton has a working relationship, considers proposing marriage to Lucie, but Mr. Lorry talks him out of the idea.
On the morning of the marriage, Darnay reveals his real name and family lineage to Dr. Manette, a detail he had been asked to withhold until that day. In consequence, Dr. Manette reverts to his obsessive shoemaking after the couple leave for their honeymoon. He returns to sanity before their return, and the whole incident is kept secret from Lucie. Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross destroy the shoemaking bench and tools, which Dr. Manette had brought with him from Paris.
As time passes in England, Lucie and Charles begin to raise a family, a son (who dies in childhood) and a daughter, little Lucie. Mr. Lorry finds a second home and a sort of family with the Darnays. Stryver marries a rich widow with three children and becomes even more insufferable as his ambitions begin to be realized. Carton, even though he seldom visits, is accepted as a close friend of the family and becomes a special favourite of little Lucie.
In July 1789, the Defarges help to lead the storming of the Bastille, a symbol of royal tyranny. Defarge enters Dr. Manette's former cell, "One Hundred and Five, North Tower," and searches it thoroughly. Throughout the countryside, local officials and other representatives of the aristocracy are dragged from their homes to be killed, and the St. Evrémonde château is burned to the ground.
In 1792, Mr. Lorry decides to travel to Paris to collect important documents from the Tellson's branch in that city and bring them to London for safekeeping against the chaos of the French Revolution. Darnay intercepts a letter written by Gabelle, one of his uncle's servants who has been imprisoned by the revolutionaries, pleading for the Marquis to help secure his release. Without telling his family or revealing his position as the new Marquis, Darnay sets out for Paris.
=== Book the Third: The Track of a Storm ===
Shortly after Darnay arrives in Paris, he is denounced for being an emigrated aristocrat from France and jailed in La Force Prison. Dr. Manette, Lucie, little Lucie, Jerry, and Miss Pross travel to Paris and meet Mr. Lorry to try to free Darnay. A year and three months pass, and Darnay is finally tried.
Dr. Manette, viewed as a hero for his imprisonment in the Bastille, testifies on Darnay's behalf at his trial. Darnay is released, only to be arrested again later that day. A new trial begins on the following day, under new charges brought by the Defarges and a third individual who is soon revealed as Dr. Manette. He had written an account of his imprisonment at the hands of Darnay's father and hidden it in his cell; Defarge found it while searching the cell during the storming of the Bastille.
While running errands with Jerry, Miss Pross is amazed to see her long-lost brother Solomon, but he does not want to be recognized in public. Carton suddenly steps forward from the shadows and identifies Solomon as Barsad, one of the spies who tried to frame Darnay for treason at his trial in 1780. Jerry remembers that he has seen Solomon with Cly, the other key witness at the trial and that Cly had faked his death to escape England. By threatening to denounce Solomon to the revolutionary tribunal as a Briton, Carton blackmails him into helping with a plan.
At the tribunal, Defarge identifies Darnay as the nephew of the dead Marquis St. Evrémonde and reads Dr. Manette's letter. Defarge had learned Darnay's lineage from Solomon during the latter's visit to the wine shop several years earlier. The letter describes Dr. Manette's imprisonment at the hands of Darnay's father and uncle for trying to report their crimes against a peasant family. Darnay's uncle had become infatuated with a girl, whom he had kidnapped and raped; despite Dr. Manette's attempt to save her, she died. The uncle killed her husband by working him to death, and her father died from a heart attack on being informed of what had happened. Before he died defending the family honour, the brother of the raped peasant had hidden the last member of the family, his younger sister. The Evrémonde brothers imprisoned Dr. Manette after he refused their offer of a bribe to keep quiet. He concludes his letter by condemning the Evrémondes, "them and their descendants, to the last of their race." Dr. Manette is horrified, but he is not allowed to retract his statement. Darnay is sent to the Conciergerie and sentenced to be guillotined the next day.
Carton wanders into the Defarges' wine shop, where he overhears Madame Defarge talking about her plans to have both Lucie and little Lucie condemned. Carton discovers that Madame Defarge was the surviving sister of the peasant family savaged by the Evrémondes. At night, when Dr. Manette returns, shattered after spending the day in many failed attempts to save Darnay's life, he falls into an obsessive search for his shoemaking implements. Carton urges Lorry to flee Paris with Lucie, her father, and Little Lucie, asking them to leave as soon as he joins them in the coach.
Shortly before the executions are to begin, Solomon sneaks Carton into the prison for a visit with Darnay. The two men trade clothes, and Carton drugs Darnay and has Solomon carry him out. Carton has decided to be executed in his place and has given his own identification papers to Mr. Lorry to present on Darnay's behalf. Following Carton's earlier instructions, the family and Mr. Lorry flee to England with the unconscious Darnay, but not before receiving a note from Carton which allows them to pass the France border.
Meanwhile, Madame Defarge, armed with a dagger and pistol, goes to the Manette residence, hoping to apprehend Lucie and little Lucie and bring them in for execution. However, the family is already gone and Miss Pross stays behind to confront and delay Madame Defarge. As the two women struggle, Madame Defarge's pistol discharges, killing her and causing Miss Pross to go permanently deaf from noise and shock.
The novel concludes with the guillotining of Carton. As he is waiting to board the tumbril, he is approached by a seamstress, also condemned to death, who mistakes him for Darnay (with whom she had been imprisoned earlier) but realizes the truth once she sees him at close range. Awed by his unselfish courage and sacrifice, she asks to stay close to him and he agrees. Upon their arrival at the guillotine, Carton comforts her, telling her that their ends will be quick but that there is no Time or Trouble "in the better land where ... [they] will be mercifully sheltered", and she is able to meet her death in peace. Carton's unspoken last thoughts are prophetic:
I see Barsad, and Cly, Defarge, The Vengeance [a lieutenant of Madame Defarge], the Juryman, the Judge, long ranks of the new oppressors who have risen on the destruction of the old, perishing by this retributive instrument, before it shall cease out of its present use. I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.
I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy, in that England which I shall see no more. I see Her with a child upon her bosom, who bears my name. I see her father, aged and bent, but otherwise restored, and faithful to all men in his healing office, and at peace. I see the good old man [Mr. Lorry], so long their friend, in ten years' time enriching them with all he has, and passing tranquilly to his reward.
I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. I see her, an old woman, weeping for me on the anniversary of this day. I see her and her husband, their course done, lying side by side in their last earthly bed, and I know that each was not more honoured and held sacred in the other's soul, than I was in the souls of both.
I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. I see the blots I threw upon it, faded away. I see him, fore-most of just judges and honoured men, bringing a boy of my name, with a forehead that I know and golden hair, to this place—then fair to look upon, with not a trace of this day's disfigurement—and I hear him tell the child my story, with a tender and a faltering voice.
It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Wonderful movie, full of emotion.
I thought this was an incredible movie, especially for being an '80's movie.
Most movies from the '80's hardly impress me, but this was an undoubtable exception.
We watched this in my history class and I was honestly shocked at the emotion and feeling put into every part and the realism represented by the film-makers.
Very historically correct, which especially impressed me.
It was a very good representation of Dickens' wonderful book, which I read last summer and plan on reading again as a result.
I was literally in tears, and in front of my history class, too!
It was very moving and aroused a feeling of sympathy in my heart.
The theme of absolute love was shown well and made a great impact.
Wonderful movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed it and was surprised just how closely it followed the book and history as well..
Convincing and very enjoyable historical fiction.
First things first: I have to say I have never read Charles Dicken's book, but after seeing this movie, I'll be stopping by the state library to pick it up.
This is a GREAT movie - enjoyable, moving, and historically convincing.
(My history teacher made us watch it to see what the French Revolution (especially the Reign of Terror) was like.)
After reuniting with her father, Dr. Manette (they had been separated from each other for many years), Lucie Manette goes back to England, where she meets a handsome stranger, Charles Darnay.
Darnay is really Charles Evremonde, a French aristocrat who disdains his vain and arrogant uncle and who runs away from France.
They fall in love and marry.
But there is an English lawyer, Sydney Carton, who also loves Lucie.
When Darnay returns to France to save his servant, he is thrown into prison and besieged by all the foolishness and speculation of the French Revolution.
I won't divulge any more of the story to you.but I have to say the ending is really, really great.
It's so moving that I can't watch it without crying at least a little.
(Yeah, I cried when we were watching it at school, and hopefully no one saw me.)For others who know the story, I can't tell you if the movie lives up to the book, but I do think the movie is a very convincing depiction of what happened during the French Revolution.
Madame DeFarge, one of the `revolutionaries' (ha!), embodies the spirit of the common people during the Revolution.
She felt it was absolutely necessary to kill a lot of nobles, even if they were innocent and had done nothing wrong.
In the court scenes, we see how unfair the French tribunals are; defendants are barely given the chance to speak and they are convicted on little evidence and a lot of speculation.
(The film compares the French court to the English court, which is infinitely more just.) We see the so-called anti-Revolutionaries being marched to the guillotine.it's a very moving moment.
The film works very well because it doesn't lose any part of the story or the historical background.
They work very nicely together.To single out someone for acting, I have to commend the talented Chris Sarandon, who played Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay.
That must have been really hard to do, especially since Darnay gets everything he wants and Carton doesn't.
It's great acting.
However, Sarandon manages to stay on course and the results are wonderful.
He manages to combine jealousy, love, and strength all in the same gaze.
A WONDERFUL film.it gets your anger going, pulls on your heartstrings, and keeps you perfectly enraptured through the entire running time.
I loved this movie.
A very decent version.
A Tale of Two Cities is a wonderful book, ranking Dickens' works it's to me towards the top.
It is wordy with a very complicated story, but it is also very compelling and the characters especially Sydney Carton and Madame Dufarge are memorable.
This 1980 version is not the best(the 1935 film) or worst(the animated Burbank Films Australia version) of the book, but adaptation-wise and on its own it's very decent.
It is hampered by Chris Sarandon's stiff and emotionally cold Charles Darnay, a rather cheap, under-populated and lacking-in-suspense-and-urgency storming of Bastille scene and the on-the-saccharine-side romantic theme in the music score.
The adaptation could also have done a better job at differentiating between Charles and Sydney, visually especially with the hair they are never quite distinctive enough.
But the production values are generally quite decent, it does at least make an effort to be true to Dickens and the historical period it's based in and they have good colour and atmosphere if lacking somewhat in refinement.
The music serves the adaptation well, while the script is intelligently adapted and does nobly with conveying Sydney's sardonic humour, the heartfelt tragedy at the end and the dark, foreboding humanity.
The story is faithful in spirit to the book, though there are things inevitably missed out, and doesn't feel too confused.
It's solidly paced too.
With individual scenes the standout has to be the ending which is extraordinarily moving, though the final forty minutes generally is very suspenseful.
The acting is fine on the whole.
While Sarandon disappoints(to me at least) as Charles he is outstanding as Sydney- that Sydney is a far more interesting character helps-, he is humorous and sardonic while also poignant and dignified.
Alice Krige is an emotive and beautiful Lucie, Flora Robson's Miss Pross is regal and loyal and Barry Morse is rightfully hissable as Evremonde.
Billie Whitelaw is fine as a very snake-like Madame DuFarge, David Suchet characterises the conflicted character of Basard brilliantly and beautifully, Peter Cushing is perfect as Dr Manette and Kenneth More is more than competent too.
George Innes does a very good job too as Cruncher, very sly and funny, but the character could have been more prominent.
In conclusion, decent version, worth watching but for the best adaptation look to the 1935 film.
7/10 Bethany Cox. A Reasonable Adaptation.
Seeing as how this was made for television,we need to judge this particular production and the standards required for that medium.For the most part,the cast is very competent.Indeed,Peter Cushing does better as the doctor than ANYONE else that I've seen.Carton,Darnay,Lucy,and the supporting parts are all quite capable.And Kenneth More does a fine job as Mr. Lorry.(Has anyone ever commented on the fact that he's starting to sound and look like Basil Sydney?)Robson is a worthy successor to Oliver.I had trouble recognizing Suchet as Barsad.The actor playing Defarge come across as depressed and somber,and this isn't quite right.Defrage is a hulking,wounded,inarticulate animal,caught between love and loyalty to his former master,and devotion to his cause.And Madame Defarge is a fat,flabby,clumsy,nasty snake,lacking the fire of Blanche Yurka.Her scenes at the fight and fall of the Bastille were totally unconvincing.And why did they trim down the role of Jerry Cruncher?That sly, funny rogue is perfect for the talents of that splendid character actor George Innes.Still,it's a worthy effort,and a nice way to see a new slant on the story..
I thought the level of emotion was fine.
I saw it as part of his characterization that Chris Serandon didn't show very much emotion as Carton in the end.
It came across, at least to me, as trying to be strong for the sake of the other characters in the movie.
I also thought that that was a great amount of emotion displayed in Darnay's supposed final meeting with Lucie after he is condemned.
That aside though, I think I've decided I like the movie better than the book because Charlie is just a little bit too wordy for my taste.
That's what we get for paying him by the minute....
My thoughts on A Tale of Two Cities.
A Tale of Two Cities is my all time favorite book.
However, it was quite abstruse and difficult to understand some parts, but this movie clearly explained everything.
It was very romantic around the end and sad at the same time.
My favorite passage from the book is when Sydney Carton says,"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." This movie really showed the true love between Carton and the seamstress, Carton and Lucie, and Darnay and Lucie.
The director has done a tremendous job at this movie and I thank him greatly for this wonderful move that hie has made from the wonderful book that I do adore.
I do not understand why anyone wouldn't like this movie or book.
Of course the book was quite wordy, but it should be, it was written in 1859.
Duh...
Just kidding but it is a very beautiful book and presentation of the book..
A solid TV adaptation.
I wouldn't call it the definitive version nor would I, for every conceivable criticism you could give this film, vote it low for not showing them cutting everyone's hair before beheading them as a previous reviewer did.
As far as Dickens adaptations go, this is alright if you need a visualization of the novel.
The actors all do good jobs, especially Peter Cushing as Doctor Mannette, Billie Whitelaw as Madame Defarge, and especially Alice Krige as Lucie Mannette, who makes the character feel a little more real than she was in the original novel.
In the dual role of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, Chris Sarandon does alright.
Obviously he has more to work with playing Carton, but I would not call either performance brilliant.The sets and costumes are good; obviously the production values are not sky high, seeing as this is a TV movie.
The lighting is flat and dull, as was per usual in many TV productions during the 1970s and 1980s.
The music is passable, but not memorable.Still, even at over two and a half hours, this film feels rushed.
We never as close to the characters as we should be and Sydney's "last dream of my soul" line and most of his final speech being cut are criminal.
I think the whole production could have benefited from an extra thirty minutes.Nothing special, but a nice way to illustrate the novel for an English class or for your own enjoyment.
Just don't expect the definitive A Tale of Two Cities adaptation..
wanting to show the 1980 version in history class.
I really enjoyed this movie back in 1980.
It was a required movie to watch for my history class.
I see there are several others who enjoyed the mini-series also.
I don't remember the name of the main character.
All I really remember is that it was a Dickens' novel and that I did enjoy it.
Actually seeing the movie made me realize what the French Revolution was about and why it is such an important part of our history.
Now a teacher is wanting to show it to her world history class at school.
They are beginning to study the French Revolution.
This teacher would love to show it in class.
Does anyone know how we can get hold of a copy of the 1980 version?
Or if there's not a copy of it do you know how to have it put on TV again as mini series?
I don't really know how or where to get a copy of this so any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thank you for your help.
Characters Need MORE Emotion!.
The actor for Carton and Darnay needed more emotion, in the movie you could notice his fake and really poor English accent.
Carton towards the end should have more emotion.
He is the protagonist in the movie.
Other than that the other charecters do a good job especially the actors and actresses who play Lorry, Dr. Manette, Miss Pross, Lucie, and Mdme.
Defarge.
Also Mr. Defarge and the Marquis are too English.
Mdme Defarge played by a Englishwomen acts in the character's rude French way.
Pretty Good movie, does actually bring a tear or two..
Unconvincing Guillotine Sequence.
Yes,I know this is a TV version and therefore impressionable children may be watching, (even after the British 9pm watershed) but the final guillotine sequence was wholly unconvincing.I went with my late parents in 1965 to the Conciergerie on the Ile de Paris where they imprisoned the condemned, before their final ride in the tumbrils.There they had a room where they severely cut off the hair of the condemned because otherwise the blade would not cut through the neck cleanly.Yet again producers do not do enough technical research regarding being dispatched by "The National Razor".The 1935 version with Ronald Coleman was farcical in this respect.As he came up the stairs he had his high collar up before issuing forth with, "It is a far far better thing...." speech.In the subject 1980 TV version, you have Chris Sarandon as Sydney Carton mounting the scaffold stairs with shoulder length hair!
There are many other films which inaccurately portray the methods used in capital punishment and it was not until I saw Timothy Spall in "Pierrepoint" that we saw an accurate rendition.I know this is a bit ghoulish but I would rate the overall production as just about "adequate" and I awarded it a rating of 6/10.It was good to see Kenneth More in one of his last roles as Jarvis Laurie..
A good interpretation of the Dickens classic..
A reasonably good interpretation of the Dickens classic, which sticks to the book quite well.Some of the acting was excellent, in particular Chris Sarandon who was perfectly cast as Sydney Carton / Charles Darnay.
His portrayal of the complex Carton in particular was very clever and convincing.
Cushing also was well cast as Manette and played it perfectly, while Kenneth Moore delivered his role competently was one would expect.Unfortunately the film is marred by poor, low budget 1970s television production and art direction values.
It is mostly unconvincing in its portrayal of the revolution, especially the action scenes.
One of the problems with early television adaptations, especially those by the BBC from the 1960s and 70s, is that they think "dramatising" means simply adding pictures to text.
They assumed that if you were faithful to the events and dialog, and dressed people up in period costume, then you've done a good job.
The storming of Bastille seems like a routine amateur theatrical depiction, where the extras clearly had a minimum of choreography and direction.
There just weren't enough revolutionaries to create a convincing atmosphere of chaos and terror.
These problems were further exacerbated by the stereotyping and poorly acted roles of the key revolutionaries Monsieur and Madame Defarge.The ending has one notable and moving scene - the meeting and very brief love encounter between Carton and Seamstess before the guillotine, again made possible by the Sarandon's excellent portrayal of Carton.At the time of writing the film is currently available in a boxed set of three DVDs in the "Best British Classics" series in Sweden.
The the series is designed for Swedish audiences but the films are in English with the option of subtitles.
A quick search on the Internet on Google.se for "Best British Classics" should give you some hits. |
tt0070935 | Yaadon Ki Baaraat | The film uses the familiar Bollywood theme of siblings separated by fate. Gangland killers assassinate an honest man who defied them, killing his wife as well. The couple's three sons flee the massacre and lose contact with each other. They grow up in entirely different circumstances and are re-united only when one of the sons, sings the song that their mother taught them at their father's birthday at the hotel.
Shankar (Dharmendra), Vijay (Vijay Arora), and Ratan (Tariq Khan) are three brothers. On their father's birthday, their mother taught them a song titled Yaadon Ki Baaraat which they held dearly to their hearts. As fate may have it, one day, the boys' father witnessed a robbery by Shakaal and his henchmen. To protect their identity, Shakaal decided to kill the boys' father before he could go to the police. So one night, he and his men storm into the boys' father's room and kill both their mother and father. Shankar and Vijay witness the act and flee. They make their way to a passing train, where Shankar is separated from Vijay.
Several years pass by and the boys have grown up. Shankar is haunted by the memory of his parents' murder and is now joined by his friend Usman on a crime spree around the city. Vijay was adopted by the groundskeeper to a wealthy man, and he falls in love with the rich man's daughter Sunita (Zeenat Aman), and Ratan, was raised by the boys' maid, and changed his name to Monto. With his new identity, Monto started a band and does gigs at hotels for a living and is also in love with a co-singer (Neetu Singh).
The brothers meet several times, yet do not recognize each other. However, when they finally do, they cannot contact each other. Shankar gets caught by his boss, who is the real murderer of his parents. As the movie progresses, Shankar finds out the truth and leaves Shakal to die, while his foot gets caught in the changing lines of railway tracks. Shaakal is killed by the coming train and the brothers unite. | revenge, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | Fantastic 70's action packed flick.....
Dodgy fashions, wacky sets and simply one of the greatest Hindi film soundtracks ever.
The film is an acquired taste for some.
This isn't your average happy family love flick with everyone dancing around huge larger than life sets.
This is more of a gritty dark painful film full of anger and betrayal.
This original lost and found formula features some of RD burmans finest work ever as a music director.
from the title track to "churalia hai tumnein" and the fiery "lekhar hum diwana dil".
all the tracks work brilliantly with the story.
The villain in story is just the biggest baddest larger than life villain you just can wait get.
Dharmedra plays the role of vengeful man brilliantly.
the other two lesser know hero's do a rather fantastic job.
Vijay Aurora the dashing young man after sizzling Zeenat Amaan's heart and Tariq the bad ass nightclub singer with the massive 70's shades and shiny flares.
Neetu Singh though brilliant in the song "lekhar hum diwana dil" does not have much of a role in the film.
the heroines in this film are just the hero's love interests and don't do much else.
All in all this film is very entertaining and the scene where the brothers re-unite at the night club is enough to bring anyone to tears.
The dialogues are fantastic and witty something which is quite lacking in todays films.
The Best Bollywood Movie I Ever Seen.
Let us start, in accordance with Indian priorities, with the music.
RD Burman's soundtrack is terribly good, not only in itself but also because it seems to interact wonderfully with the script and the general ambiance intended by the director: psychedelic rock'n'roll coupled with lovely ballads set the tone to a movie which is, first of all, about society, education and their influence on the individual (a very common theme in Indian cinema).
The music is also, in a very literal sense, the driving force of the movie.
The first scene presents us with an idyllic family reunion in which all members sing a delightful song (Yaadon Ki Bharat) which is but a prelude to the massacre that follows.
The three brothers see their parents being killed, run away and part; they grow up in very distinct social contexts and will be reunited only at the end of the movie, in a very emotional scene, when one of them sings the tune and thus discloses his origin.
In the meantime, the fact that this same character sings and plays at a fancy hotel allows for the introduction of some of the best guitar-driven and experimental music Bollywood has ever heard.
The movie focuses on the two other brothers.
One of them is a thief and a bitter drunkard (with a good heart, of course, and a heroic nature), while the other one is some sort of a happy-go-lucky boy who just wants to get the best out of life.
He falls in love with a beautiful, high-class Bombay girl, in a relationship that unsurprisingly raises some issues on class difference.
Everything ends up in a happy tone, of course, leaving you with the desire to listen to those songs over and over again..
An Awesome Movie!.
It's a Typical Bollywood movie with a Beautiful Storyline and The BEST Soundtrack Ever!
RD Burman is at his Musical Best with songs such as "Chura Liya Hai Tumne" and "Yaadon Ki Baaraat".
Nasir Hussain's Films are known for their Beautiful Storyline and music.
This is also Aamir Khan's Debut Film where he plays the young Ratan.
- Fun factThe Story is about a typical Indian Family with a tragic twist.
The three brothers whose parents get killed in their childhood grow up separately in different circumstances without knowing anything about each others whereabouts.
Shankar turns into a thief and sets out to find who his parents' killer was.
Vijay was adopted by a rich man's care-keeper and Ratan starts a band and becomes a singer in a hotel.
Much of the film revolves around Shankar's quest to find the guy who killed his parents and get revenge and Vijay trying to woo Sunita, played by the Beautiful Zeenat Aman.
Zeenat Aman (My Favorite Actress) plays the daughter of the rich man, who is being wooed by Vijay, the middle brother and later eventually falls for him.
Vijay (a total happy-go-lucky boy) at his Handsome best is a total prankster, trying to get the sympathy of Sunita by making her believe he has cancer :D, puncturing tires, and stealing food of two fat men.
Vijay's Flirting with Sunita is to be mentioned.The music is the main driving force of the movie.
The first scene is family reunion in which all members sing a family song - Yaadon Ki Baarat
which is kept close to the brothers' hearts but all this is just a prelude to the real element of the story, the murder of the parents.Shakaal, The Parents' murderer is at his villainous best.
He's very haughty and stylish and cares a lot about being fashionable, as he does about stealing and selling the stolen goods to foreigners.
He later appoints Shankar as a thief for various petty thefts; later on both of them recognize the other.
Well, after all this, it would be really bad not to describe the dashing and groovy song "Chura Liya".
The song picturised on Zeenat Aman(Sunita) and Vijay Arora(Vijay) won the hearts of millions, it is beautifully picturised on her strumming a guitar trying to woo Vijay.
The other Song "Meri Soni Meri Tamanna" is a song in which Vijay Apologizes to Sunita for all the petty pranks.In all, Yaadon Ki Baaraat is a fun-filled film.
It has all the things you'd expect from a Typical 70s film.
OUTSTANDING music, Romance, Action, comedy, Crazy and Wacky dance moves and especially its funky costumes.
It really lives up to mark of a cult-classic film, and has a little something for everyone.
The dialogues are impressive and witty.
A fantastic entertainer for everyone to watch.
A fantastic entertainer for everyone to watch.
For Everything else, you Guys have to Watch the movie!.
Mediocre film with funky 70's fashion and a superb soundtrack..
This is a film you see for the soundtrack.
I know I did.
Okay, I also like Dharmendra a lot but this is not his best role ever so don't expect any miracles.The story is that of three brothers whose parents get killed in their childhood.
The brothers then part ways due to circumstances and grow up separately without knowing anything about each other's whereabouts.You know the story and its ending after watching the film for 20 minutes so I suppose it's useless to mention what happens later.
The good things about this film is of course the amazing R.
Burman soundtrack, an appearance by Aamir Khan as a child artiste and its funky 70's fashion in clothes and overall style.
The romantic subplot is quite silly and unnecessary, though it gives the unforgettable song Chura Liya.With a worse soundtrack I'd give it 6/10, now it's a 7/10.
General advice: buy the soundtrack, not the DVD!.
Good songs ...
shame about the film!.
All I can say is that I recommend everyone buys the soundtrack.
It's a 70's classic.Cant say much for the film though - lets say it's an acquired taste!.
King of villain Ajit in "yaadon Ki Baraat" super Hit Movie of the 70's.
This is Ajit at his thespian peak - the handsome hero of the 50's, the wicked thief of the 60's, the massage-acquiring smuggler of the 70's, the lost memory of the 80's, the caricature of the perverse 90's - save for his stunning turn as the geriatric rapist beholden to Man-Friday Joginder - in Dev Anand's 90's shocker "Gangster" - but that is another review.All this is hunky dory but where does this leave Shahkaal?
This is not a "dhamki", just a "waarning"Direction is good Music by RD Burman is nice Aap Ki Kamre by Kishore, Asha, Rafi is nice there is an interlude of Dumb Maaro Dumb too featured on Zeenat), Lekar Hum Deewana Dil sung by Kishore,Asha pictured on Tariq and Neetu Singh is good too, Meri Soni and Chura Liya are good songs while the title song both versions are Fabulous.Ajit one of the great stylish villain in the 70's.
He was a real king of villain.what an actor Ajit specialty as a villain in 70's.
Really a Mega star villain in Bollywood.Missing him..Great Blockbuster film "1973" very very Nice Movie :).
Shahkaal says - RD is the King!.
Yaadon ki Baraat is one of the best formula Hindi films of the 1970s in which director Nasir Hussain perfected his formula - Lost brothers meet up and destroy the smuggler who killed their father - a formula that was copied by many imitators thru the 70s and 80s.
It is graced by some great acting, dialog and killer soundtrack by RD Burman inspired by Santana and Afro-pop.
Additionally, it has a swimsuit clad young Zeenat Aman featured in the film and on the album cover which is also a major plus.
The film has many memorable scenes - the juxtaposition of running train jump by Dharam cut to from the separation of the brothers by another running train - an elaborate and innocent mise en scene.
Tariq (a young Aamir Khan look alike), Vijay Arora, chubby Neetu Singh, smashing Zeenat Aman all dance and romance to RD's spectacular music.
Dharam flares his nostrils at the wicked and dominant Ajit - who steals the show as the wicked villain - Shahkaal.
This is Ajit at his thespian peak - the handsome hero of the 50's, the wicked dacoit of the 60's, the massage-acquiring smuggler of the 70's, the lost memory of the 80's, the caricature of the perverse 90's - save for his stunning turn as the geriatric rapist beholden to Man-Friday Joginder - in Dev Anand's 90's shocker "Gangster" - but that is another review.All this is hunky dory but where does this leave Shahkaal?
The people want the truth - how does the Shahkaal of this film fit in with the one in Shaan?
The people want the truth - how does the Shahkaal of this film fit in with the one in Shaan?
At long last, the truth can now be told...So who really was Shahkaal - 70's gold smuggler or 80's super villain bent on world domination, shoe size issue or nervous tics, woolen suit or white tights with epaulets, Octon style antiseptic island citadel or smoky smuggler's den, train track victim or island explosion victim - will the real Shahkaal please stand up?
At long last, the truth can now be told...So who really was Shahkaal - 70's gold smuggler or 80's super villain bent on world domination, shoe size issue or nervous tics, woolen suit or white tights with epaulets, Octon style antiseptic island citadel or smoky smuggler's den, train track victim or island explosion victim - will the real Shahkaal please stand up?
Maybe it is time to confess that the suave and scheming, bewigged Shahkaal and the bald and sniveling Shahkaal of Shaan are one and the same - fictionalized depictions of the exploits of the real Shahkaal.
Maybe it is time to confess that the suave and scheming, bewigged Shahkaal and the bald and sniveling Shahkaal of Shaan are one and the same - fictionalized depictions of the exploits of the real Shahkaal.
As the lost sequel to Shaan - "Shahkaal vs Gabbar" explains - Shahkaal escaped the oncoming goods train with some judicious and last minute use of a handy shoe horn in YKB and lived to pursue world domination in Shaan.
As the lost sequel to Shaan - "Shahkaal vs Gabbar" explains - Shahkaal escaped the oncoming goods train with some judicious and last minute use of a handy shoe horn in YKB and lived to pursue world domination in Shaan.
He merely dropped the blond wig and went in for the trendy bald look - very 80's.
He merely dropped the blond wig and went in for the trendy bald look - very 80's.
Shahkaal is now in retirement in Navi Mumbai with Mona and her sisters - just another harmless pensioner...
Shahkaal is now in retirement in Navi Mumbai with Mona and her sisters - just another harmless pensioner...
or so he would like you to believe.
or so he would like you to believe.
There's more about him in his review of Shaan.
There's more about him in his review of Shaan.
Until next time, don't be silly.
Until next time, don't be silly.
This is not a "dhamki", just a "waarning" .....
The charming tale.
I have seen twice this movie: when I was perhaps 10, and then when I was 26, and I enjoyed it very much both times, and would see it again.
It ranks as the best Bollywood melodrama that I know of, and it is, on a par with 'Ashoka' (I believe it was 'Ashoka'; a fairly musical epic about a legendary Indian warrior and king, or prince), my favorite Indian outing.
The best thing is has is, of course, that song, heartwarming and heartrending.
It is a family tale, about three brothers, separated then reunited.
It has sweep.There are other Indias in cinema: that of Ray, that of Renoir, etc..Don't judge people as people by the things they enjoy as entertainment, especially if they're not critics or connoisseurs, but living people who happen to really enjoy something.
Good taste tends to be merciless, ruthless and contemptuous, dismissive.
Kindness in people has absolutely no relation with artistic taste and knowledge—none at all..
Lost and found.
Nasir Hussain was no great filmmaker but made entertaining films with hit music.
Yaadon Ki Baraat released in 1973 and was a big blockbuster, it's soundtrack is still popular especially Chura Liya, Meri Soni The film has the old lost and found theme, it starts off with murder of the parents and separation of all 3.
Young Aamir too makes an appearance playing child artist to his oen cousin Tariq.
This part is quite similar to Zanjeer which released in the same year.
Many years later Dharmendra(one of the kids) becomes a thief, while VIjay Arora and Tariq are oblivious that there are brothers, the first half focuses more on the romance of Vijay and Zeenat, while the main story does take a backseat, however Dharmendra- Ajit scenes are good, The pre-climax when all brothers meet through the title song is fab while the end is clichéd yet good for it's timeDirection is good Music by RD Burman is fab, Aap ki Kamre by Kishore, Asha, Rafi is fab(there is an interlude of Dumb Maaro Dumb too featured on Zeenat), Lekar Hum Deewana Dil sung by Kishore,Asha picturised on Tariq and Neetu Singh(guest)is good too, Meri Soni and Chura Liya are fab songs while the title song both versions are fabDharmendra with a horrendous wig does however a good job though looking overweight, Vijay Arora is charming(he was famous those days) while Tariq is decent Zeenat Aman is quite good, Ajit plays his part with style only he can, Satyen Kapoo is decent, rest are okay. |
tt2866360 | Coherence | The film involves eight people at a dinner party. During their dinner, there is a comet that is passing over them. This causes their house and the occupants to intertwine with multiple such houses and occupants from other realities. There is a dark zone in between the realities. When someone passes through the dark zone, they leave their reality and enter another reality at random. The one person which the movie constantly follows is Emily (referred as Emily Prime here after).
A powercut occurs initially and this marks the start of the intertwined realities. At a distance, outside, they see a house with lights on. They don’t know it’s the same house from another reality. At first, two of the guys exit the house to go make a phone call from the “other house” and cross over into another reality. Their doubles come in from another reality. No one realizes this switch. As the story unfolds, they begin to realize that the other house is actually another version of theirs. But the group initially assumes that there are only two houses (from two realities). Later they realize that there are multiple realities and that once the comet passes, each reality will be stuck permanently with whoever stays in it.
As time passes, different groups of people leave the house and cross over the dark zone. This results in everyone getting jumbled across different realities. Due to past events between people in the group, there are various fights that break out. Emily Prime is frustrated and leaves on her own. She wanders from one reality to another. Each of the realities have gotten into fights of their own. In each reality, people have gotten mixed up from different realities and there is chaos. Finally, she stumbles upon one reality where no one is fighting. In this reality, they have never had a powercut(the event that kick-starts the happenings of the Prime Reality).The group is intact and hence are having a normal evening.
Emily Prime wants to replace the Emily from this reality and take on her life and be happy. Emily Prime sneaks up on her double and drugs her. First, she throws her in the trunk and later attacks her in the bathroom and puts her in the bathtub. Emily Prime then heads to the living room and faints. She wakes up the next morning on the sofa and does not see her double anywhere around. Emily Prime leaves the house and meets Kevin outside. His phone rings and he looks at his cell phone and states the call is from Emily. Upon answering the call, he gives a suspicious look towards Emily Prime and she stares back with guilt. The reality that Emily Prime is in now permanently has 2 Emilys in it. | mystery, dramatic, alternate reality, psychological | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0942896 | Mosaic | Aspiring young actress Maggie Nelson (Anna Paquin) gains chameleon-like powers after she is exposed to an electrical storm and a magic rune which her father, an Interpol agent, had brought home to study after it was found at the scene of a murder at a New York City museum. Her powers are from a secret and ancient race known as the Chameliel, who are able to hide in plain sight of the public due to their shape shifting abilities, and she is told all about the Chameliel after meeting a young Chameliel named Mosaic (Kirby Morrow). The murder victim at the museum was a Chameliel who was killed by another Chameliel named Maniken, who is intent on gaining the alchemical powers of his dead wife Facade, and ruling the world. After Maniken kidnaps her father, Maggie becomes determined to help Mosaic to fight Maniken.
They go from New York City, to the catacombs of Rome, to a large radio dish at the magnetic North Pole, trying to stop Maniken from stealing some of the many powerful Chameleon stones that are hidden around the world and sacrificing Maggie's father to use them in a ceremony that will grant Maniken the powers of his wife and rule Earth like a god. During the battle, Maggie uses her acting skills and shape-shifting abilities to fool Maniken into believing she is his dead wife come back to life, to distract him from noticing that Mosaic is planting explosives on the radio dish and getting her father to safety. Also while in battle, it is revealed that Mosaic is Maniken and Facade's son who volunteered to the rest of the Chameliel to go after his father and stop him. They both tumble into an icy gorge, never to rise again. Maggie then sneaks aboard the Interpol copter her father is on, overhearing him vowing to destroy all Chameliel. Upon returning home, she plans to continue acting and agrees to her father's request to continue her studies, but at the same time, she vows to search for the remaining Chameleon stones and use their power for good, and honor Mosaic and the rest of the Chameliel by becoming the new Mosaic. | good versus evil, psychedelic, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | With Stan Lee's name practically being synonymous with half of the major comic book titles, one only has to add his name to the title in order to sell a new product to certain audiences.
Thanks to the wonders of DVD-Video and the collector's market, however, we can enjoy this effort at creating a new franchise, as well as the reasons it did not take off, at our leisure.The problem that probably killed Mosaic at the marketplace is that it is clearly intended for the Saturday morning cartoon circuit, a market that appears to be very much on its last legs.
The irony here is that in the mere two minutes that Mosaic touches upon the last subject in the list I have just outlined, it does so in a far more intelligent and insightful manner than the entire hundred minutes of the third X-Men film, which fans around the world have disowned in droves.
Perhaps a series was not picked up because Fox could not stand to invite the comparison.As I previously mentioned, Anna Paquin could read the phone book for a couple of hours and have me mesmerised.
It also helps that the character she is voicing, Maggie, is clearly modelled after her.
Her character gets the vast majority of the screen time, and it is a credit to her that she sounds so sincere when delivering dialogue that occasionally devolves into the childish.
However, for all intents and purposes, this is really Anna's show, and I submit that you have not lived until you hear her voice coming out of the mouth of a blonde cartoon woman.
Looking somewhat like the Japanese animation that flooded the market in the mid-1980s, Mosaic is very pleasant to look at.
But the story is fortunately enough to distract viewers from such questions.The character of Maggie is at once the strength and the weakness of this pilot.
Being a Stan Lee character, as much as possible is made of her attempts to understand and come to terms with her newfound powers.
It does sound a lot like a stripped-down version of X-Men, but Mosaic is one of the few entrants in the market that actually benefits from this approach.
Cast overcrowding in a two-hour feature is a very difficult thing to avoid, but Mosaic gets the balance right by allocating almost all of its seventy-two minutes to a single character.
We spend so much time learning of Maggie's world, both inside and out, that at the end when the plot takes on a threatening new direction (presumably for future episodes), it has that much more impact.
Unlike the third X-Men film, which left the most rabid fans of its predecessors wanting to erase it from existence, Mosaic leaves the viewer wanting more.
I would have liked a deeper, more inventive plot, but what was delivered certainly kept my attention all the way through.
stan lee has a penchant for taking a ridiculous idea and turning it into something fairly entertaining.
mosaic will never get there; stan is way past his prime, but it is entertaining none the less.
the main character is likable, but not as much as stan wants you to like her.
sure, maggie would have been a stupid name for a superhero movie, but surely they could have done better than a secondary character for the title.it's more entertaining than some of the big budget comic book movies, worth the the hour and fifteen minutes or so required to watch it..
Daughter of an Interpol agent gets tangled up with mysterious ancient relic, which then gives her comic book hero powers.
A bit like the current warner brothers cartoons, except with a higher budget and more detailed animation.Its kid friendly with no swearing and only has some violence (neck snap of one security guard).If you are lacking good Saturday Morning Cartoons and need a fix, this will do.
yet she had a good run (7 seasons).Stan lee is obviously trying out different new characters in a one off setting similar to the action pack setting that brought us Kevin Sorbo as Hercules and the dreadful Cleopatra 2525.the art is similar to the old sat morning cartoons.
no bloodless fistfights here.as for Crispy's complaints about the "over-sexualization", I would point to several other cartoon such as batman the animated series and justice league and their depiction of super heroine garb..
The beginning credits for this animated Stan Lee production contains scenes of superhero ripoffs of other popular characters like Batman, Captain America and the Hulk.
Not a good omen, I thought, of an original superhero film by Stan Lee. Imagine my surprise when I found that this film had a freshness and joy to it I found contagious.
None of the powers Maggie (Anna Paquin) gain are original.
Somehow, this combination of powers with the character of a high-school female drama student seemed original to me.
Yes, we've seen teenage heroes before but I really found myself taken with how Maggie's reactions to her abilities seemed more real than scripted.
There are very, very few original female superheroes (Wonder Woman and the Invisible Girl are all that come to mind right now) and a majority of them are thinly-veiled excuses to have chesty woman in tight, revealing clothes.
The character of Maggie is never used in an overtly sexy way (though when she turns invisible her outline looks rather naked and she has a dream of being in her underwear) and she is written with more depth than would be expected from a direct-to-DVD animated feature.Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn't support its main character.
It would be nice to see someone put more effort and money into animating these direct-to-DVD films (Ultimate Avengers I and II) beyond the level of..well..direct-to-DVD animated fare.The tone of the movie tries to go beyond Saturday morning fare with some mild swearing and scenes of violence but Batman: The Animated Series routinely found ways of being far more sophisticated without cursing or on-screen bloodletting.So, why do I give this an 8 out of 10?
Is the main character that good?
Stan Lee struggled for a while after Marvel with characters that never found the glory of his original run at Marvel.
Mosaic is the first project that I feel touches that magic everyone felt in the 60s when Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Hulk, and the X-Men first hit the shelves.
Stan Lee's new animated direct-to-DVD movie, 'Mosaic' is nothing new or amazing, despite the Hype-Master's -- er -- hype.
The plot concerns a high-school drama gal, Maggie, who gains strange chameleon powers from an artifact her father finds on a case at a museum ( he's with Interpol ).
Anna Pacquin voices Maggie, and does as well as she can with some contrived dialogue.
The animation, script and concept are 1990's Saturday morning cartoon quality.
"Mosaic" has some good ideas but the story is a mess and any discriminating audience will find it banal.
this animated film tells an original story by Stan Lee, a brand new superhero from the man himself!
When Maggie Nelson (voiced by Anna Paquin) gains chameleon-like super powers, she decides to investigate a mysterious murder at a New York City museum.
While piecing together the clues, she uncovers a plot to take over the world.The film really feels like a television pilot, with animation that isn't terrible but never really warrants any special mentions, a plot that is predictable and filled with clichés and a lot of confusion on the script level.
There is a reveal about a young man named Mosaic (voiced by Kirby Morrow) and his relationship the big bad guy that is totally predictable for Instance.
Although it appears to be clear that "Maggie" inherits her powers from a magical artifact, there are constant hints that her pet chameleon is also involved, despite numerous references to a prophecy explaining exactly what is going on.
Characters only show hints of a personality (which once again gives the impression that their traits would have been developed over time) and a lot of stilted dialog that is not only badly written but makes no sense (a scene where healing abilities are described as "shapeshifting" comes to mind).I am tempted to say that if there had been a sequel, this could have been the start of an interesting female series.
The more I think about it though, the more this feels more like a dated concept, or a knockoff of a classic superhero story than anything else.
There's no doubt that with time this character could have become a classic, but that's because this story Is written as if there are no other superhero comics in existence.
As is, "Mosaic" is only good entertainment for pre-teens.
The latter is personified by the ancient Chamelia race who are so grounded in their overconfidence about their own natural superhuman abilities).It is ironic that in a show revolving around the themes of "change" and adaptability, the creative team shows none of those traits.Stan Lee manages to bring some very human and very well fleshed out characters, akin to his classic work on Spiderman in the 60s.
THe problem is that although the characters were interesting and easy to relate to, Stan Lee's characterization of them are straight out of 1960s comics.
Mosaic is littered with some of the most unoriginal concepts that seem plucked from a variety of sources.( THe shape changing powers, girl next door protagonist, ancient race of super-humans, and magical artifacts etc).
But For an "original creation" by Stan Lee, it is possibly one of the most unoriginal combination of concepts there is in existence today.Scott Lobdell, the writer, brings some entertaining dialog and fun, witty lines to this show.
His script is laden with unnecessary exposition in the dialog and even some campy monologues(like when Maggie talks to herself, out loud, about her new powers)that would not seem out of place in a 1980s children's comic book.
I accept that some exposition is required in comics since a writer only has 22 to 30+ pages each month to tell a continuing over-arching story, but this is a single animated movie, not a bunch of 30 page comic issues.
Not to mention that most of the dialog comes across as being rather juvenile.So we have Unoriginal concepts, juvenile story and writing that seem to be stuck in the days of care bears and cotton candy.
This looks like a lost cartoon series pilot movie from the era of Captain Planet that Film Roman dug up, added some digital effects and colors and passed it off as a new product.
The animation is only mediocre compared to today's TV series standards which is seriously dismal when compared to other Direct-to-DVD animated features like Ultimate Avengers and Superman:Doomsday.Mosaic had a great premise but could have been so much more if it had been left in the hands of a better creative team who can adapt to the changing times and deliver a product that people would want to watch.
I'd like to think that even *they* would appreciate a well-written story that's smart and engaging.
Mosaic was boring.The main character comes across as, well, a dumb 12 year old girl trapped in the body of a fully grown woman.
She acts like a childish simpleton, with little-girly mannerisms, a vapid smile, and a terrible, superficial "what a fun sleepover!" vocal delivery, even during serious situations - the voice actress, Anna Paquin, SUCKS.
Her tone is too fluffy and clueless and it sounds like she isn't paying attention to the meaning of the dialogue/scene, or really interacting with the other actors in a convincing way.
I know in animation the actors are usually recorded separately, but *good* voice actors can overcome that disadvantage.
Too bad they went for a Celebrity Name instead.It's more than a little disconcerting to see a character who behaves/sounds so young/immature, drawn with the body of a playboy model.
Well, good luck trying to make a movie for both little girls AND big boys.
That makes for a squicky experience I like to call The Britney Spears Effect.The previous reviewer who said the main character wasn't overly sexualized, must've missed the scene where Maggie walks straight towards the "camera" until her chest completely fills the frame.
I'd like to see more female superheroes starring in movies, etc.
Sure she has some heroic moments where she saves a few people, but it feels contrived, not triumphant.She has the ability to shapeshift and turn invisible, but persists in changing back to her normal form constantly, EVEN WHEN SHE KNOWS PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR HER AND EVEN WHEN SHE'S SPYING ON THE BAD GUYS (who, of course, catch her).
It would be so easy to hide from them, but then I suppose the producers/animators wanted us to look at the purty girl as much as possible.
Plus, if I remember correctly (bored as I was), it's the Mosaic character who comes up with the plan to utilize her abilities at the film's climax.
(Oh yeah, did I mention that - unlike every other movie about a superhero/ine - "Mosaic" is not even named after the main character?
If you need more proof that she's useless...)And how about that whiplash at the end of the movie, when we're supposed to believe Maggie's mourning the death of someone she "loved", (would you believe they actually used the cheesy clichéd "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" scream?) and the next second she's all smiles again, perky and joking around, and reciting Shakespeare (badly) for her audition.
Consequently the viewer can't get emotionally invested.Bad writing, superficial characterization, clichéd scenarios, and really basic unimpressive animation.
And I have no problem with the way women are portrayed in Batman The Animated Series.
I wouldn't compare that smartly written, stylishly animated series to "Mosaic" at all.
As for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, maybe she acted a bit "ditsy" in the first season but the character was created to subvert the horror cliché of the dumb, helpless blonde.
You can't take Buffy's most superficial characteristics, omitting the *reason* for them, give them to another character for *no* good reason, and then try to justify it by saying, "well, Buffy did it.".
I'm just an average teenage girl who is a fan of comic books.
A lot of people say that there are a lot of ripoffs like the powers, effects, and images.
A kick-ass teenage drama student who has the powers of a chameleon, with a best friend who is in love with her, a guy who is pretty much from a different planet teams up with her to save the world from an Alchemist crazy chameleon dude.
A interesting new superhero movie.
This is pretty much based off of a comic in how the style of animation is done and the script.
Stan Lee wrote the script.
It starts out with a typical way of a murder happening and someone who gets their hands on something they have no clue how to use.Maggie is pretty beautiful and seems well put together in what she wants to be and who she is.
Sometimes she acts like a teenager though she has the body of an adult.
There are a lot of things that seem like a copy of Spiderman and they do make fun of it once in a while.
The person that explains all that has happened to her and what the Chameliel world is like.
He knows much and yet seems to always be surprised when she one ups him.The artwork is actually very beautiful and detailed, much again like a comic book.
I fell in love with the art style in this for it was also very colorful and bright even in the darker parts.The voices seem odd, almost like they are disconnected from their bodies.
Another thing that seems interesting is that they explain a lot and they tried hard not to have cuss words.The only problem is that it doesn't have an ending.
So-So. Stan Lee, once one of the most innovative & imaginative driving forces in the comic book industry (he gave us the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, The Mighty Thor, Iron Man, the X-Men, Dr. Strange, etc.
- with help from such gifted artists like Jack Kirby), now offers us this passable if unspectacular DVD feature about Maggie Nelson (voiced by Anna Pacquin).
Maggie Nelson, who looks a lot like Susan Storm/The Invisible Woman from the Fantastic Four, is a young woman in her late teens who aspires to be an actress who is sucked out of her ordinary life into a world of adventure when she gets jacked up with the powers of a chameleon, among a few other nifty gifts (such as super strength, wall crawling like Spider-Man and the ability to become invisible, much like the aforementioned Invisible Woman, whom she resembles quite strongly), and then must help the mysterious man known only as Mosaic (voiced by Kirby Morrow) thwart an evil race of man-chameleons.Definitely not on par with Stan's best work or even better DTV's like Ultimate Avengers 1 (though the animation quality is about the same) or Justice League: The New Frontier.
It obviously tries to put a hip new spin/twist on the concept of the teenager becoming a superhero storyline, but never quite rises above it.
It has a few inspired moments, just not enough.Maggie is likable enough, but not as fleshed out as we would like (though the pervert in all men should relish the nightmare scene where she runs through the streets in her underwear and the fact that her invisibility powers make her appear nude even though she really isn't), and she's certainly not as interesting as Mosaic himself.
Anna Pacquin (the miscast Rogue of the X-Men films) throws out a decent vocal performance for Maggie, and is supported by career voice actors like Kirby Morrow (well cast as the title character), Cam Clarke, Scott McNeil, Gary Chalk, Kathleen Barr and Nicole Oliver (all of them veterans of the 2002 He-man series, interesting enough). |
tt0088485 | Bleak House | Sir Leicester Dedlock and his wife Lady Honoria live on his estate at Chesney Wold. Unknown to Sir Leicester, Lady Dedlock had a lover, Captain Hawdon, before she married and had a daughter by him. Lady Dedlock believes her daughter is dead.
The daughter, Esther, is in fact alive and being raised by Miss Barbary, Lady Dedlock's sister. Esther does not know Miss Barbary is her aunt. After Miss Barbary dies, John Jarndyce becomes Esther's guardian and assigns the Chancery lawyer "Conversation" Kenge to take charge of her future. After attending school for six years, Esther moves in with him at Bleak House.
Jarndyce simultaneously assumes custody of two other wards, Richard Carstone and Ada Clare (who are both his and one another's distant cousins). They are beneficiaries in one of the wills at issue in Jarndyce and Jarndyce; their guardian is a beneficiary under another will, and the two wills conflict. Richard and Ada soon fall in love, but though Mr Jarndyce does not oppose the match, he stipulates that Richard must first choose a profession. Richard first tries a career in medicine, and Esther meets Allan Woodcourt, a physician, at the house of Richard's tutor. When Richard mentions the prospect of gaining from the resolution of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, John Jarndyce beseeches him never to put faith in what he calls "the family curse".
Meanwhile, Lady Dedlock is also a beneficiary under one of the wills. Early in the book, while listening to the reading of an affidavit by the family solicitor, Mr Tulkinghorn, she recognises the handwriting on the copy. The sight affects her so much she almost faints, which Tulkinghorn notices and investigates. He traces the copyist, a pauper known only as "Nemo," in London. Nemo has recently died, and the only person to identify him is a street-sweeper, a poor homeless boy named Jo, who lives in a particularly grim and poverty-stricken part of the city known as Tom-All-Alone's.
Lady Dedlock is also investigating, disguised as her maid, Mademoiselle Hortense. Lady Dedlock pays Jo to take her to Nemo's grave. Meanwhile, Tulkinghorn is concerned Lady Dedlock's secret could threaten the interests of Sir Leicester and watches her constantly, even enlisting her maid to spy on her. He also enlists Inspector Bucket to run Jo out of town, to eliminate any loose ends that might connect Nemo to the Dedlocks.
Esther sees Lady Dedlock at church and talks with her later at Chesney Wold – though neither woman recognises their connection. Later, Lady Dedlock does discover that Esther is her child. However, Esther has become sick (possibly with smallpox, since it permanently disfigures her) after nursing the homeless boy Jo. Lady Dedlock waits until Esther has recovered before telling her the truth. Though Esther and Lady Dedlock are happy to be reunited, Lady Dedlock tells Esther they must never acknowledge their connection again.
Upon her recovery, Esther finds that Richard, having failed at several professions, has disobeyed his guardian and is trying to push Jarndyce and Jarndyce to conclusion in his and Ada's favour. In the process, Richard loses all his money and declines in health. He and Ada have secretly married, and Ada is pregnant. Esther has her own romance when Mr Woodcourt returns to England, having survived a shipwreck, and continues to seek her company despite her disfigurement. Unfortunately, Esther has already agreed to marry her guardian, John Jarndyce.
Hortense and Tulkinghorn discover the truth about Lady Dedlock's past. After a confrontation with Tulkinghorn, Lady Dedlock flees her home, leaving a note apologising for her conduct. Tulkinghorn dismisses Hortense, who is no longer of any use to him. Feeling abandoned and betrayed, Hortense kills Tulkinghorn and seeks to frame Lady Dedlock for his murder. Sir Leicester, discovering his lawyer's death and his wife's flight, suffers a catastrophic stroke, but he manages to communicate that he forgives his wife and wants her to return.
Inspector Bucket, who has previously investigated several matters related to Jarndyce and Jarndyce, accepts Sir Leicester's commission to find Lady Dedlock. At first he suspects Lady Dedlock of the murder but is able to clear her of suspicion after discovering Hortense's guilt, and he requests Esther's help to find her. Lady Dedlock has no way to know of her husband's forgiveness or that she has been cleared of suspicion, and she wanders the country in cold weather before dying at the cemetery of her former lover, Captain Hawdon (Nemo). Esther and Bucket find her there.
Progress in Jarndyce and Jarndyce seems to take a turn for the better when a later will is found, which revokes all previous wills and leaves the bulk of the estate to Richard and Ada. Meanwhile, John Jarndyce cancels his engagement to Esther, who becomes engaged to Mr Woodcourt. They go to Chancery to find Richard. On their arrival, they learn that the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce is finally over, but the costs of litigation have entirely consumed the estate. Richard collapses, and Mr Woodcourt diagnoses him as being in the last stages of tuberculosis. Richard apologises to John Jarndyce and dies. Jarndyce takes in Ada and her child, a boy whom she names Richard. Esther and Woodcourt marry and live in a Yorkshire house which Jarndyce gives to them. The couple later raise two daughters.
Many of the novel's subplots focus on minor characters. One such subplot is the hard life and happy, though difficult, marriage of Caddy Jellyby and Prince Turveydrop. Another plot focuses on George Rouncewell's rediscovery of his family, and his reunion with his mother and brother. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | "Bleak House" is hands down the finest adaptation of a Charles Dickens Novel ever put on screen.
The late, great Denholm Elliot was perfectly cast as the noble John Jardyce and Diana Rigg was sheer perfection as the doomed Ladty Dedlock.
The film captures the essence of Dickens era and is extremely faithful to the book,oly making minor plot cuts that do not effect the story.
For example, the character in the book who is most central to the story is NOT Lady Dedlock, but Esther Summerson -- in the novel, much of the story is told by her in the first person, and it is her goodness, her wisdom, and her selflessness that set up the needed perspective to the victim vs.
But really, the problem is that the book is on such a vast scale, that watching either version is like listening to a 15-minute version of a Bruckner symphony.
Best adaptation of a classic novel.
This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me.
The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers.
What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years?
Don't miss the BBC's version of Bleak House.
"Bleak House" (1985) is a wonderful BBC adaptation of the novel by Charles Dickens.
It's long (8 episodes in 6 1/2 hours), but even that much screen time isn't enough for this novel, which is filled with plots and sub-plots, and many, many characters.As would be expected from the BBC, the acting is outstanding, right down to the smallest cameo roles.
Denholm Elliott is excellent as John Jahndyce, and Suzanne Burden is superb as Esther Summerson.
Even though Esther is the real protagonist of the novel, for me the most interesting character is Lady Honoria Dedlock.
Lady Dedlock is played by Diana Rigg.
(Lady Honoria was married to an older man, but she probably was 34 or 35 in the context of the novel.) Gillian Anderson, at age 35, played the role in the 2005 Bleak House.
So, in my mind, that's what Lady Honoria looks like, and Riggs just can't reach that level.
However, my point is that you don't feel this when you're watching the film.)David Copperfield has a basically simple plot, and is readily adapted to the screen.
Bleak House has an extraordinarily complex plot, and adapting it must be an extraordinarily difficult challenge.
However, we have the good fortune to have two great versions to view.
Watching this series reminded me of how strongly Dickens has influenced us.
Bleak House doesn't have the fame of Great Expectations, Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, but some of the characters and scenes have entered our consciousness forever.
The camera-work is up to the challenge of bringing the verbose story to life, just see the scene of Tulkinghorn's murder with the Roman soldier painted on the ceiling pointing down at the proceedings.The BBC assembles its casts carefully.
Denholm Elliott as Jarndyce and Diana Rigg as Lady Dedlock are excellent, Peter Vaughan is a fine Tulkinghorn, Charlie Drake repulsive as Smallweed, and T.
There will always be inevitable comparisons to which adaptation of Bleak House people prefer, this or 2005.
From a personal point of view, there is no real preference as both adaptations are outstanding in their own way.
It is a mammoth book, and one of Dickens' least accessible(from first-time personal experience, the law stuff took its time to get completely).
Both are well-made, tell the story extremely well indeed and brilliantly written and acted, the 2005 adaptation's characterisation is a little richer but this adaptation is a little more atmospheric.Not everybody will find the 70s-80s Dickens serial adaptation their cup of tea.
And that is the case with this Bleak House exactly.
The costumes and sets look beautiful and very detailed, succeeding also in capturing the bleak nature of the book.
The music is a pleasing mix of haunting overtones and delicate chamber-music-like, and fit with each scene excellently(if occasionally a little overdone in the final episode, some may prefer the more understated nature of the 2005 adaptation).Bleak House(1985) scores very highly in the writing stakes too.
Throughout the dialogue is intelligently adapted, there are scenes with a lot of talk but they weren't that tedious to me.
The heartfelt tragedy, poignancy, sharp observations and nobility of Dickens' writing comes through loud and clear- some of Dickens' other books were also whimsical and had some nice comic scenes, The Old Curiosity Shop springs to mind- and the writing in the adaptation is distinctively Dickenesian in style.
Bleak House(1985) is highly successful in how it tells this great story, characters are splendidly drawn and crucial scenes have their impact.The adaptation is long, nearly seven hours, but there's a lot of characterisation and plotting going on so interest is always maintained.
The book is also huge and has so much to tell, the long length was necessary and so was the pacing.
Adaptation-wise, even with the omissions of a few minor characters, it is faithful in spirit to the book and to Dickens.
Diana Rigg's Lady Dedlock is haunting and aristocratic as well as haughty and anguished.
Denholm Elliot is a noble, gentle and moving Mr Jarndyce.
Coindentally, those characters were also performed the best in the 2005 adaptation as well.Suzanne Burden plays Esther with backbone instead of being insipid or too meek, if not as warm as Anna Maxwell Martin.
All the characters are beautifully performed, much pleasure can be seen in those of the Smallweeds, Mrs Flite, Inspector Bucket, Sir Leicester Dedlock, Krook, Harold Skimpole and Jo too.
This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid.
No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down).
The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson.
Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her.
Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn).
We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v.
Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction.
Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law.
He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE.
Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution).
Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version.
It's odd to find myself criticizing a production that stars Diana Rigg and Denholm Elliott, but I have no choice.
Not only is this miniseries often dull and slow-moving, but it's very hard to follow the story.
After watching episode one, I was so confused that I set it aside, and waited until I'd watched the much superior 2005 production with Gillian Anderson.
I haven't read the novel yet, so this production may be more faithful, but it's certainly not very good television.
Diana Rigg is a splendid actress, but she has very few scenes in this production, and as she plays the role with any icy hauteur, betraying almost no hint of her vulnerability, it's hard to empathize with her.
It's slow and hard to follow.If you're not familiar with the plot, I recommend the 2005 series with Gillian Anderson as the one to start with.
Bleak House - Diana Rigg.
I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby.
I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy.
I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock...
It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring.
Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical.
Insipid Bleak House.
This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book.
Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock.
For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book.
The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment.
If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes.
Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters..
Great Dickens adaptation.
I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music.
(Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's.
Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel.
The best Dickens adaptation yet.....
The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first?
I think it is quite appalling to see reviews critical of the series which have clearly been written by people who haven't a clue about the story - did you actually SEE the series or did you just bag a BBC production because Gillian Anderson was in the newer version?The series captures the mood, pace, characters and plot-drivers (cutting out the Dickensian flourishes which aren't needed and detract from a film treatment like the Turveydrop story, the Smallweed family dynamic and the extra lawyers - Tangle, Vholes etc are very truncated).
I can see that would have practically canonized Woodcourt and he's kept a little more human for not having that scene but really I think Jo's death is one of the most poignant points of the book and I missed it even though it always makes me cry.Has theowinthrop actually seen the series?
HOW did he think that Esther was raised by her aunt and UNCLE??
I suppose someone who could mistake the name of DENHOLM Eliott for Desmond isn't really an appreciator of English art (film or literature).I also think he mistakes the treatment of the law.
YES the law is drawn VERY badly in Bleak House.
Though not kind to social status-climbers Dickens clearly would have preferred that they weren't bound to being stuck in the station to which they were born (contrast Jo and the brickmakers' families to the climbing out of poverty by Charley Neckett).
Also, the law, while misused by Tulkinghorn and the Chancery vultures, is actually the source of security for the wards of the Court Ada and Richard, and for Esther who is simply Jarndyce's ward.
Their security was ensured by the law which delivers them to Jarndyce.I can't see how anyone could have trouble following the story - remember you aren't supposed to realize Esther is Lady Dedlock's daughter right at the beginning.
Instant gratification just doesn't happen in Dickens.As for "seeing clearly" through the fog - gosh the Gillian Anderson had such scatty editing that I found IT impossible to follow and I knew the plot already!I found Diana Rigg absolutely brilliant (overacting and drama don't make a good Lady Dedlock but if you think they do try the Gillian Anderson version).It's ADA and Rick not "Kate"!
I can only amplify its basic arguments.Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work.
When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time.
In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen.
As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow).
A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.I don't want to overstate these two problems.
You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production.
Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted.
For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie.
McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements.
This would not be possible with Bleak House.
A few random examples will illustrate the problems.The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce.
In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.This is only a selection: there are others.
Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points.
However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away.
It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick.
This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous.
It happens off screen.Despite all of this, it is still a very good production.
I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production.
I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time.
It's sometimes said that 99 percent of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes.
We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this.
Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way.
It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system.
Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson.
The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens.
"Bleak" house is the right title.
But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways.
Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow. |
tt0117918 | Tin Cup | Roy "Tin Cup" McAvoy (Kevin Costner) is a former golf prodigy who has little ambition. He owns a driving range in West Texas, where he drinks and hangs out with his pal Romeo Posar (Cheech Marin) and their friends. Dr. Molly Griswold (Rene Russo), a clinical psychologist, wants a golf lesson. She asks Roy because he knows her boyfriend David Simms (Don Johnson), a top professional golfer. They were both on the golf team at the University of Houston. Roy is immediately attracted to her, but she sees through his charm and resists.
Simms shows up at Roy's trailer ahead of a local benefit tournament. Roy thinks he is being invited to play, but Simms actually wants to hire him as a caddy (since Roy knows the course). During the round, Roy needles Simms about "laying up" instead of having the nerve to take a 230-yard shot over a water hazard. Simms fires back that Roy's problem is playing recklessly instead of playing the percentages. Roy brags that he could make it, and spectators make bets among themselves. Simms warns Roy that he'll fire him if he tries, but Roy does anyway, hitting a brilliant shot onto the green. Simms immediately fires Roy.
To get even, Roy decides to try to qualify for the U.S. Open. He makes a play for Molly, also seeking her professional help. Molly agrees to help Roy rebuild his self-confidence in exchange for the golf lessons. In two qualifying rounds, with Romeo as his caddy, Roy's game is excellent but his head needs help. Roy insists on breaking the course record, but Romeo inplores him to play safely to qualify for the U.S. Open. When Roy demands his driver, Romeo snaps it in half. Roy asks for the 3-Wood and Romeo snaps it in half as well. Then Roy begins snapping every club in his bag in a fit except the 7-Iron "Then there’s the 7-Iron. I never miss with the 7-Iron" This causes Romeo to walk off the course and quit. Roy challenges anyone to a bet that he can finish the Back-9 with only a 7-Iron and everyone reluctantly refuses, but he amazingly still manages to qualify. He loses his car on a bet with Simms. He persuades Romeo to caddy again, but develops a problem with his swing. On the first day of the tournament in North Carolina he shoots a horrible 83. Meanwhile, Molly sees Simms' unpleasant side when he arrogantly refuses a child an autograph.
Seeing that trying to change Roy is a mistake, Molly encourages him to be himself. At her suggestion, Roy wins another wager with Simms, the leader after the first round. With renewed confidence, "Tin Cup", a nobody from nowhere, shocks the golf world by breaking the U.S. Open record for a single round by shooting a 62, thus making the cut. His third round is also excellent and moves him into contention, but on all three rounds, he refuses to lay up on the par-5 18th hole, hitting the ball into the water hazard each time.
On the last day of the tournament, Roy, Simms, and real-life PGA Tour pro Peter Jacobsen (playing himself) are in a three-way battle to win the Open. Jacobsen finishes with a par on 18, tied for the lead with Roy and one shot ahead of Simms. Simms yet again lays up at the 18th hole, playing it safe, although this takes him out of championship contention. Romeo urges that he do likewise to birdie and win the U.S. Open, but is urged by Molly to "go for it". Roy, for the 4th day in a row, takes his shot and it reaches the green, but then "a little gust from the gods"—a sudden contrary wind—starts his ball rolling back, downhill into the water hazard. Reminiscent of his blow-up back in college when he failed to qualify for the Tour, Roy tries repeatedly to hit the same shot, not realizing that he has lost the tournament, but with the same heart-breaking result, splashing in the water hazard. Down to his last ball and risking not only humiliation but also disqualification, he still goes for the green, and on his 12th shot, his final shot finally clears the water hazard and amazingly rolls into the hole. After a wild celebration, Roy realizes that he has blown winning the U.S. Open, but Molly re-assures him about the immortality of what just happened, "Five years from now nobody will remember who won or lost, but they're gonna remember your 12!"
Back in Texas, Molly tells Roy that because he finished in the top 15, he automatically qualifies for next year's Open. Molly further suggests that Roy go back to the qualifying school and get on the Tour. Molly, who gained several clients at the tournament, prepares for a career of helping players with the mental portion of the game. They kiss passionately as the movie ends. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1621446 | The Task | Six terrified people, Shoe (Ashley Mulheron), Randall (Marc Pickering), Toni (Amara Karan), Dixon (Texas Battle) and brother and sister Stanton (Tom Payne) and Angel (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), are kidnapped to take part in a new reality show which will see them spending a night in an abandoned prison to win $20,000. Show host, Taylor (Adam Rayner) handcuffs the contestants together, removes their belongings and sends them into the prison.
The contestants find their way to the Warden's office, where they unlock themselves. Soon after, a TV monitor turns on, revealing an evil clown who warns the contestants of the Warden (Valentin Ganev) who used to work at the prison, before being sentenced to death for murdering inmates. Randall is set a task to travel to the chapel of the prison. With a microphone to communicate with the others, Randall ventures to the chapel and reads a prayer backwards to summon the spirit of the Warden. After completing his task, Randall returns to the others. Outside, the show's team, including Connie (Alexandra Staden), Sclezi (Sam Stockman), Big Daddy (Victor McGuire) and Snow (Sean Mcconaghy) begin to lose connection to some of the cameras inside the prison. Sclezi is sent in to fix them, however, he is stabbed in the eye by the Warden.
Dixon is set a task, to remain lying in a hole in the ground. Once he is inside the hole, the Warden arrives and locks him in. Connie, Big Daddy and Snow see this, but believe the network had twisted the show to also make them contestants. They let the game continue. Shoe and Randall are set a challenge to eat a meat believed to be human flesh, which they complete. Toni and Stanton are sent to the gas chamber for their task. Stanton locks Toni in a chair in the gas chamber, and puts a gas mask on her. As the chamber fills with gas, Stanton is instructed to find the switch to stop the gas somewhere in the prison. When he leaves, the Warden appears in the chamber and removes Toni's mask. While Randall and Shoe make their way back to base, they come across the Warden, who stabs them to death. As Stanton turns off the gas, the Warden knocks him unconscious.
Connie starts to become worried and sends Big Daddy and Taylor into the prison to check up on the contestants. They are soon attacked, and Connie attempts to warn Angel to get out of the prison. Angel believes this to be part of the game, as she has just been given the task to free Toni and Dixon. She enters a cell and finds a knife before the Warden appears with the key. She stabs him with what she thinks is a fake knife, and retrieves the key. She then finds Stanton hanging by his ankles in a cell, but before she can help him, the Warden stabs him in the neck and the abused inmates devour him.
Angel flees, and runs into Connie, who has entered the prison. The Warden returns, and as Angel runs, the Warden catches up with Connie. As Connie prepares to be stabbed, two more Wardens, Shoe, Randall, Taylor and Big Daddy reveal the show was a set up, and Connie was the real contestant. After the initial shock, Connie is sent to retrieve Toni, Taylor to get Dixon, and the others to leave the prison. Taylor finds Dixon murdered in the hole, and Connie realizes Toni is dead. The Warden locks Connie in the gas chamber and gases her, while the others are sealed into the prison. Angel manages to escape out of the prison to Snow, having discovered people were being murdered by the real Warden. Snow follows Angel with his camera asking her for a final word; not knowing the rest of the cast and crew are trapped in the prison, Angel responds by breaking his camera. | paranormal, plot twist, murder, haunting | train | wikipedia | So basically this movie is a mix between the film "Are you scared" and an old MTV show called "Fear", and lets just say that mix doesn't work very well in this case.The film is insanely slow, things really don't pick up until about an hour in, and even then its nothing special.
The first hour is basically just a bunch of shots of the annoying main characters walking through dark hallways while they talk about how scared they are.The gore is basically non existent so even the gore hounds won't find something to like in this one.
Honestly this could have been a PG-13 horror film, not sure why it was given an R rating.I do regret watching this flick because all in all it was a pretty big waste.
Take a very spooky place where a bunch of game show participants choose to spend the night for major cash prizes, make a creepy TV reality show of it, and then introduce a couple of plot twists just when you are collecting your things together ready to leave.
The kind of film that makes you reel in horror after watching it because you could have been doing something better with your inane life, like punching yourself in the balls.I can't believe that this film actually got through my eyeballs to my brain without my body throwing up.Bad cast, bad script, bad plot, bad dog.Should be advertised with the warning of 'slightly less mildly perilous than "Finding Nemo"'Don't watch this unless you're on Mescaline.
The Task is like Halloween : Resurrection but ten times better and the film is on a low budget where as Halloween : Resurrection had $15,000,000 (estimated) budget.
I was really surprised by how good the ending was.!!I agree with most of the reviews, this films has a good concept and good ideas, but not executed as well as they could of been, yet saying this I still enjoyed the film.Its not the best film I've seen but its worth the watch and I suggest horror fans to watch this,put it this way its like Halloween xIts not as corny as you would expect, this film could of been a lot better by editing certain parts of the film and editing some dialogue and removing it out of the film to make it less corny.Overall I think it is worth the watch, some films I watch for 15 minutes and turn straight off, if this movie wasn't worth watching i would of turned it off lol..And I give the film extra credit for been on a low budget..Peace From The U.K. Silly Screenplay with Unbelievable Plot Point.
One of them gives up, but the gay Randall (Marc Pickering); the nerd Toni (Amara Karan); the blonde Shoe (Ashley Mulheron); the strong Dixon (Texas Battle); and the siblings Stanton (Tom Payne) and Angel (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) accept the invitation expecting to receive US$ 20,000.00 each.The six contestants also learn that the former warden had killed eighty-five inmates many years ago, and they are assigned to accomplish with tasks that explore the fear of each one of them that they had confessed in the interview.
Is it?"The Task" is a horror film with a good acting but a silly screenplay, with an unbelievable plot point.
Yes I know its been done before, but as a horror fan I live in hope a movie will deliver the jumps and scares like they used to when I was growing up in the 80's!
This movie is without a doubt the worst 'attempted' horror I have seen in a long time.
I am amazed that someone made this, looked back on it and though "Wow what a great horror film." Like many horror fans it takes a lot nowadays to scare people, this film wouldn't scare my 7 year old nephew..
Nonetheless, it does manage to just about hold your attention long enough to see the twist near the end, which surprisingly wasn't as predictable as is standard with these cheap horror films.I wouldn't rush out to buy/watch this one, but if you have a spare hour and a half and a group of friends that fancy a laugh it is worth a go.
Yes, a good mystery keeps your mind going while you're watching a film.
Anyway, the producers (of which there are four of them - apparently you only need four people to stage a TV show - Big Brother must waste loads of money on runners and editors etc) lock these six English-American teenagers in an abandoned prison and tell them they'll get paid if they stay the night.Well, you probably already know it's a horror film, so, guess what, they start getting picked off one by one.
The first hour and four minutes is made up of the six teens wandering round darkened corridors completing (completely non-lethal) tasks.I guess the main trouble is that this is too much like real reality TV.
I couldn't wait for the main characters to die - at least it meant they could stop pretending to be from the deep south of Arizona (as opposed to West Kensington).It also says a lot about the movie when the person you recognise the most is 'Jack' from the eighties sit-com 'Bread' (now, Nellie Boswell - she was truly scary - The Task just isn't)..
When a group of reality show contestants arrive to participate in a horror reality show at an abandoned prison, a series of gruesome accidents has them believing that the site's resident ghosts might be the ones responsible and not the show's fear-based antics.This one here manages to become somewhat watchable as there are several really good points on display.
Several of them are rather freaky and definitely enjoyable, especially the first one in the chapel as the activity required here to raise the spirit inside the utter darkness is truly chilling, the later player being forced into the tank of sludge that signals the first of the ghostly activities and the team trapped in the gas chamber are incredibly fun scenes that utilize the prison's layout effectively while being extra creepy for how they're woven into the game, and the biggest part here is the finale where he's finally been uncovered and allowed to really focus on the ghostly figure running loose interfering with the show as these are really fun moments.
The last plus here is the concept of the show and how it deals with fear, since it tends to skip over some when it comes to going wrong so that there's a lot of anticipation as to when it'll go sour, which is a great feeling and keeps it interesting.
The biggest factor here is the last half, which is where the film gets a little off-track since it tends to pile on twist after twist in attempt to try something new, but gets way too overblown thinking there's a rather big reveal to its twists.
Nudity: 0 out of 10 (nothing even close to a female disrobing in this one) Gore: 1.5 out of 10 (this movie could have been rated PG-13) - Six young adults have been hand-selected to participate in a reality television show.1) Shoe (the luscious Ashley Mulheron who was part of the 2009 effort, "Lesbian Vampire Killers"): The ambitious, ditsy one of the bunch.2) Dixon (Texas Battle who was an expendable character in Final Destination 3): The muscular, masculine presence in the film.
As the doors open to the prison early in the movie, he affirms, "And I thought coming out of the closet was scary..." - These six characters, in exchange for $20,000, agree to spend the night in an abandoned prison.
It looks like an untoward place.Once inside, each of the six characters has to perform a task or two that is revealed by a barbed wire-wrapped television set.If they make it through the night, the cash is theirs.But is the warden still around to "welcome" his visitors?
- "The Task" is an odd duck.In January of 2011, when the After Dark original movies hit the theaters, this one was curiously left off the roster.
The darkest elements of the movie are only hinted at (like what the warden did to his female prisoners), but they are never explored.If you've seen the execrable Halloween Resurrection, you know the drill.
How far are the viewers willing to let it go?To its credit, "The Task" does try to shake things up a little bit at the end.
I was weary of watching this because I wasn't familiar with many of the actors or the companies that had produced the movie.
Only the twist at the end makes it worth watching because you can't see that one coming.it's so strange that I didn't get into the characters because the actors aren't unknown in the genre, Ashley Mulheron for example played in The Lesbian Vampire Killers and I enjoyed that one a lot.I'm intending to see all 8 flicks out there in the After Dark series but this was the worst so far and I have seen 4 of them so far..
"The Task" seemed at first like a good movie, albeit somewhat formulaic - the characters seemed played and written quite enthusiastically, although they still were archetypal characters.Unfortunately although there's some sense of fun during scenes focusing on the contestants and crew members, the horror aspect is handled somewhat poorly - it has slow pacing without the atmosphere or suspense that makes slow burn horror effective.There's also not much here that would satisfy gorehounds - partially because little happens plot-wise for large portions of runtime, but also because these kills aren't very imaginative - generally stabbings and such.It's still not terrible, its just lacking strength in any particular area that would make the film worthwhile.
So I went into watching this film, thinking it'll be a great original horror film.
I think it's the kind of film, which would only be watched the once, not several times.
I Really Enjoyed It. I don't understand why this movie got so many poor reviews, outside of the fact possibly that the genre of horror has become a pretty abysmal thing (and so many people think that's what horror is really meant to be.) This movie was done to the stage of classic horror -- if you enjoy Vincent Price and Alfred Hitchcock; who didn't use senseless gore or torture or muzak (music altered to get a psychological effect from someone where something otherwise may not be scary) to get the point across; then you will enjoy this.This movie is almost entirely a rip off of Vincent Price's house on haunted hill, everywhere down to certain twists that occur.
It made me enjoy myself, and it was worth the watch.While I couldn't compare this film as a great classic like Beethoven, if I were to compare it to music, I could certainly compare modern horror (and many modern movies) to modern music -- which is talentless, relies almost wholly on machines, and for the better part soul-less.
Apart from that, what you have is a film that involving some fuds that have signed up for some reality TV show and are 'kidnapped' and taken to an abandoned prison, where they are set some tasks and etc.You know the drill, some guy keeps showing up on the TV folks footage, people get killed, blah blah.
Oh, I don't know, I suppose that depends on how you like your horror movies.
Do you like a lot of the 'cut-em-up' Friday The 13th style horror films?
I loved the fact that the contestants in the ersatz gameshow worked together instead of being pitted against one another as in so many of these like-themed films.
'THE TASK': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five) An 'After Dark Original' about a reality TV show staged at a prison with a dark past where six students must survive the night accomplishing random spooky tasks.
The students must then take part in terrifying tasks assigned to them by the TV show while mysterious things continue to happen all around them, it's just never quite clear whether it's part of the show or something else.The movie is stylishly shot and edited and like I said the actors all look good and so does the scenery.
The problem is that the movie is never really that spooky, until the end but it takes way too long to get there.
For too long were kept in the dark on what is really happening and the characters never really seem like they're in that much danger.
For 2011 I'd place it right in the middle of the bunch; it's an average horror film that gives us something but nothing worth getting too excited about.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhQaTxuL7SQ.
i thought that the movie was good but also Not good for some reasons, first of all i like the idea of reality show "fake" turns into "real" but i really think it would of been better if they worked more on the story and ending, the ending was nice but it was bit to expected and i expected more before the movie ended, they could of come up with a better ending besides that i like the idea and the actor it looks like it might get a sequel but if they do they must do a lot of edits A Lot !i gave it 5 rating because of the great effects, the idea of the movie which i liked, and it just left me confused and wanting answers to my question, 5/10.
It's unusual to find good writing or much of anything that isn't predictable in a film like this, and I really didn't expect it to be as entertaining as it was.
A movie like the Task really comes down to the cast, because if they're not believable the movie ends up being only good for a few laughs.
The cast was good, the plot was great, but what really put the film over the top was it's terrific ending, which was very reminiscent of another Lionsgate classic, Saw. It's an ending you shouldn't see coming, but one that really brings the whole thing together..
The idea was looking interesting, but sadly the movie has almost nothing in term of scare factors...
You would think for a movie set up in an abandoned prison, it would, but no.
Also he is supposed to be a ghost in the movie, yet totally act like a "slasher movie killer".In any case i had good hope it would be a bit scary, it wasn't at all, another movie for the pawnshop pile..
There are no Horror Elements in this movie yet I Enjoyed it,.
I was excepting this movie to be really poor.I found the start a little odd, people are being kidnapped, only to be told they going to be spending the day in abandoned prison.They did not seem to care that were kidnapped expect for one of them, who soon leaves.I found move really entertaining and did not find it boring at all, nothing much really happens and people in this movie did not annoy me at all.There also had just hint of descent atmosphere, if they tried a little hard, it could have made this movie creepy.As this movie was not scary or creepy and it wasn't even that bloody, yet I still enjoyed it!I was shocked with that twist, , I had no idea that would happen, I think it worked really well with the rest of the movie.
to sum it up for everybody: DON'T DO IT!There is "real life" game show, a film crew, some random candidates, a spooky prison, a clown (i don't think he's relevant - but hey, he looks cool in the trailer!
Let's do stuff with a mad looking clown, dancing in front of a poorly animated wall of fire - kinda like an 80s video but not that well executed), dark floors, a pothead (who is basically part of the film crew - but never mind...), a warden ghost who isn't really a ghost at first but then he is ...
An old prison, some warden ghost who is pi***d, because he got caught f*****g female inmates like 50 years ago...
As some other reviewers have said already, this movie actually has a fairly original plot idea.
The basic premise is that a group of people signed up for a reality game show, and are "kidnapped", and then taken to a deserted prison with a nasty history.
The way the idea is portrayed, it actually would make a good "reality" TV show.Strange things begin to happen, of course, but are they supernatural, or part of the show?
Seems like it would be pretty predictable, but it has a few unexpected twists.Basically this movie uses tension and atmosphere to drive it for the most part, although there is some occasional blood.
I have to say it surprises me how many people will crap on a decent horror movie just because it doesn't have tons of blood and violence happening every ten minutes.
The game show uses a clown video to deliver the tasks to the participants, and its pretty stupid, but hey blame that on the game show producers, not on the movie.
Some of the tasks are kind of stupid too, but again just what you'd expect from a reality game show.
Finally, I agree that the ending wasn't very satisfying.In summary, if you are looking for a horror movie with lots of gore and/or jumps, this is not it.
If you are looking for a story where everything gets explained, and you learn all about the characters to the point where you know their family history (exaggeration), this isn't it either.But if you are looking for a movie with a decent plot, and some tension and atmosphere, don't let the negative reviews put you off. |
tt1468829 | Cherry Tree Lane | In a house at Cherry Tree Lane, distant couple Christine (Rachael Blake) and Mike (Tom Butcher) are eating dinner while their son, Sebastian, is out at football practice. When the doorbell rings and Christine goes to answer it, the couple is attacked by Rian (Jumayn Hunter), Asad (Ashley Chin), and Teddy (Sonny Muslim), who hold them both hostage and tie them up in their front room. Knowing Sebastian will be returning at 9:00PM, the group waits for his return so that they can get revenge on him for grassing on Rian's cousin and getting him sent to prison; Teddy leaves with Mike's credit cards to find a cash machine.
Rian suddenly drags Christine into another room to presumably rape her, leaving Asad to guard a frustrated Mike. Asad allows Mike to have a drink and explains that he is not as violent as Rian, and tells Mike details about his life. Rian's school friends, Beth (Jennie Jacques) and Charman (Corinne Douglas), and Beth's younger brother Oscar, then arrive with an axe for Rian to use on Sebastian. Oscar gets sent into the kitchen, while Teddy returns with Mike's money for Rian to send to his cousin.
Sebastian returns home and is dragged upstairs to his room by the teenagers who begin to torture and beat him. Hearing his son's screams, Mike desperately struggles to free himself, and is able to knock a knife off the dinner table so that he can cut his wrists free. He goes into the next room to find a traumatised Christine tied up and naked underneath a blanket. Arming himself with a candlestick, he attempts to sneak upstairs, but his presence is alerted by Charman who was exiting the bathroom. Asad, Teddy, Charman, and Beth flee from the house, while Mike grapples with Rian, before finally beating him down with the candlestick and then his fists. Christine comes upstairs to comfort a bloodied Sebastian who slowly loses consciousness in her arms, while she hysterically screams for Mike to do something. Mike goes downstairs to call 999, then goes into the kitchen to drink from the tap, when he senses someone behind him and turns around to see Oscar standing there. The film ends with Mike, knife in hand, and Oscar both staring at each other, unsure of what to do next. | revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | I was tricked into watching this film by a review, so I feel obligated to give my own so there will be no more casualties..!This movie can not really be called a thriller: there is no real suspense and nothing is surprising;you can tell how things will evolve from the first minute that the actual "plot" starts.I actually fast forward it many times and compelled to rerun it, only to find that nothing had happened in between.All in all, this was a wooden, disturbing presentation of a lower class youth, with a completely unsuccessful attempt to portray a dysfunctional family, lacking all definitions of any meaning of film..
Leaving the second screening the audience were shocked at how bad the film was and for the second half, people were laughing at moments of apparent tension due to the complete lack of any substance or idea.
Cherry Tree Lane is an urban thriller about a couple whose home is invaded one night by a gang of youths who wish to harm their absent son.
Like all house-invasion movies this is a very disturbing film.
Nevertheless, the introduction of these characters does allow for the set-up in the final scene in the movie, in which things are left hanging on an unanswered question that leaves the viewer wondering if the horror of the night has in fact ended at all.Overall this is not an easy film.
In fact the only redemption of this movie was the feeling that this film could be used as a perfect example of how not to do crime.The only horror in this film was the acting, script and randomly thrown in spurts of unnecessary crude violence.
Plot finds middle-class couple Christine (Blake) & Mike (Butcher) suffering the ultimate home invasion hell when one night three youths force their way into the house looking for their informant son.It's the sort of plot that could have been gleaned from The News Of The World on a Sunday morning.
Told in real time, Cherry Tree Lane's story never leaves the house, claustrophobia reins as our couple are trussed up and subjected to a terrifying ordeal.
Where Cherry Tree Lane differs from other film's of its ilk is that the violence is mostly done off camera, mercifully so during one extreme passage.
Williams also faces the problem of trying to avoid comparisons with the afore mentioned other film's, the likes of Funny Games and The Strangers.
Cherry Tree Lane is a 70 minute Funny Games/Eden lake-esque 'horror' that sees a bunch of teens terrorising a not-very-happily married couple in North London.
Overall, it's not the worst film in the world, but it's definitely not the best of it's type; Eden Lake and Funny Games are a lot better..and the teenagers seem too stupid in Cherry Tree Lane to carry out anything too horrific..
It seems that British horror fans and perhaps horror fans in general simply DON'T like realistic horror films, as this director's first feature, which was absolutely ridiculous, received a great rating, whereas this film apparently left a lot of people bored.
It's frankly understandable why, since it's basically a film for people who like real life mundanity brought to extreme and desperate situations "pain, horror, and torture mixed with mundane and lengthy dialogue.", and I suppose if you just want to see blood and gore, you don't necessarily care if it's realistic or not.
If however you like close knit tension, accept that people say more than 2 sentences in a scene to each other before leaving, and like seeing extreme situations on film, you will like this film.There is no question that it is nowhere near as ambitious as a similarly themed film such as "Sequestrados" or "Eden Lake", which have multiple locations and much more impressive camera work, but in the end, they fall short in terms of believability, because they make more mistakes, and in it's simplicity with "Cherry Tree Lane", you get a solid plot line that doesn't devolve into idiocy like a lot of horror that bothers me in trying TOO hard to be creative.
It's quite comical because I find the one aspect that so many directors have a problem with is picturing how sound travels in the CONCEPTUALIZED location, and rather think only within the bounds of their actual present shooting location.In the end, I was never bored during this film, and I was relieved that there WEREN'T tonnes of early futile escape attempts crammed in just to please all the morons out there who get bored of people talking, or simply to needlessly increase the running time.
In addition, the ending, at least to me, was completely worth it, mildly shocking, nothing over the top, but enough to really make you think about how something like this, despite all the questioning of the character's actions, really could go down this way in real life; a frightening aspect which many more ambitious films simply cannot get across because they go too far.
Was not impressed with this film , the majority of the acting was poor although Ashley Chin who plays 'Asad' in this film was very good and played a very convincing character and he should receive a great deal of credit for this film, as he was the only person in the film that didn't look like a 'first timer'.The film had a slight impact on me and has a good story line for the majority of the film which did keep me on edge and eager to find out what is next, but then ends bluntly which made me feel like I'd wasted my time watching it as there's no summary to the story line and in my opinion is a complete fail.
You know that feeling when the film suddenly stops short, you're left with no closure or satisfaction, and as the credits start to roll you begin to wonder why you watched this movie in the first place?
Out of all the horror/thriller/realistic films that I have seen I have never ever thought that there would be a movie that would bring me to skip most scenes and still know what will be happening within the film.
A middle-class couple Christine and Mike is abused by a trio of hoodies who use a supposed betrayal by their son.The father is savagely beaten and the mother is raped by knife-wielding black youth named Rian."Cherry Tree Lane" is not as intense and brutal as similarly themed "Kidnapped".I enjoyed it due to its remarkable acting and gritty social realism.The violence is mostly off-screen but the atmosphere is quite unsettling.The climax is abrupt and there are some implausible moments,but if you like terror cinema you can't go wrong with "Cherry Tree Lanes".It's a chilling little thriller in the vein of "Eden Lake" that will disturb you.Better think twice the next time you go to answer the door.8 hoodies out of 10..
A middle class couple's dinner is interrupted when three young men, looking for their son, take them hostage in their suburb home.Recently, many gritty thrillers mixing elements of horror have originated from the UK portraying the tension and clashes between the middle class and young criminals referred to as "chavs".
Eden Lake was a stellar example of this, mixing element of a youth crime thriller and survival.Cherry Tree Lane is the latest offering of this sub genre, playing on fears of these so-called "chavs", a term that spread like wildfire throughout Britain around 2005 and has been the cause of many debates since then.
The whole film takes place inside the house, most scenes involving action of some kind are implied and take place off camera and the actors were unknown to me, which suggests a relatively small budget.Cherry Tree Lane feels terribly clinical as far as the writing and direction is concerned.
Where other films exploring similar themes (Clockwork Orange, Funny Games, Eden Lake, Straw Dogs) are percussive and expansive, this one seems like a bit of a waste despite good intentions.
Like hoodie-horror Eden Lake before it, Cherry Tree Lane attempts to scare the viewer by tapping into their innate fear of the yob generation, depicting a law-abiding, middle-class, suburban couple at the mercy of a vicious gang of 'yoofs' (before the tables are eventually turned for a brief but satisfying slice of retribution).Writer/director Paul Andrew Williams handles the material confidently enough (certainly better than the dreadful black comedy of his previous film The Cottage) and commands solid performances from his cast, young and old, but while I cannot deny that the film packs a powerful emotional wallop, largely thanks to its unsettling sense of realism, I do feel that the extremely thin plot isn't quite strong enough to sustain an entire feature film.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Christine (Rachael Blake) and Michael (Tom Butcher) are a suburban middle class couple who are settling down to have dinner, when Rian (Jumyan Hunter) and his gang of thugs force their way into their home and hold them hostage until their son arrives home.
This is the latest addition to the 'real time' thriller genre (basically where events are playing out as they are happening), of the sort done in films like John Badham's 1995 flop Nick of Time.
It's blissfully short, though, and if you can manage it through to the end, the denouement pays off and you are left with a pretty satisfying revenge film that leaves the viewer pondering over an ethical and practical problem that makes you wonder if the judgement has been affected by the circumstances.
This is a typical home invasion type movie but the screenplay stuff was not so strong enough to hold the story.The whole story happens inside a house.
So the main revenge reference was just missing.Acting was just OK.The whole film seems like one scene just developed in a not so interesting manner.I would say last house on the left and the strangers were good compared to this.Just don't watch this with some expectations .I would give 4 on 10.
You can say what you want about Haneke's effort (I didn't really like Funny Games, but that was the point!), but it made any other movie that tried to do anything in that direction look really ridiculous.It tries really hard to do good, but if you have seen Funny Games you might feel the same way as me and think that you would have never have to watch something like that again.
The film is such a nail biter because the viewer for most of the time doesn't know what's going to happen next and when it does it's off screen, but you hear the horror and that is even more disturbing.
Everything flowed in a tense, natural, gripping matter that made the viewing experience a mostly effective one.Director and writer, Paul Andrew Williams has already established a pretty promising career so far in this genre, with films like London to Brighton, which I really want to see now, and his other works such as the pretty decent but not great The Cottage and the very solid and chilling, killer kids flick The Children, which he wrote the story for.
Overall, the film treads on a tired formula and doesn't have as much action, chaos or scares as some other more superior home invasion movies.
Cherry Tree lane tries to make a horror about strangers invading a house but this time it's more about some hoodlums who are after the son of the house who has been clicking to the police.
Just watch Inside (À l'intérieur (2007) instead if you want a gory disturbing house-invasion movie.Mixed feelings about Cherry Tree Lane and I can understand why.
CHERRY TREE LANE is a British addition to the over-crowded sub-genre of the 'home invasion' thriller.
The film itself isn't really the best 'home invasion' flick out there, but there was some suspense to be had mostly later in the movie (which truth be told is rather short)The acting was merely passable by most of all involved.
This is basically a movie about a home invasion caused by the couple's teenage son and his involvement with drug dealers.
I guess a lot of people will be disappointed by the movie expecting either a funny games rip off or a modern day torture-porn movie by the straight plot of "Cherry Tree Lane".
At first I thought the idea of introducing 2 girls and their little brother in the mid of the movie was a bit off reality but it made total sense in taking hints (like the constant tossing of things) in how they all are as ignorant towards each other as they are to the couple and the situation itself to a more direct level.Its quite a different approach for this subject and many will focus on the violence itself or complain about a lack of on screen violence.
And although I wouldn't put Funny Games and Cherry Tree Lane in one drawer this is a movie that serves many Haneke elements up until an end that does not resolve anything.
"Cherry Tree Lane" explores the horrors of a home invasion.
"Cherry Tree Lane" gives us a "glass house" view of what many people would consider one of the most frightening horrors they could experience: the home invasion.An ordinary middle-class couple named Christine (Rachel Blake) and Mike (Tom Butcher) arrive at home and settle in for an evening together.
It seems Sebastian is running with a rough crowd and turned in one of the young delinquent's brothers."Cherry Tree Lane" is a slow-burning and tense movie that does its best to explore every aspect of a home invasion.
"Cherry Tree Lane" shows audiences that it doesn't take too much time for lives to be destroyed and bad decisions to change the course of one's future forever.Williams does a great job showing how messed up these thugs are throughout the film.
It's also not something you probably want your teenager or young children watching."Cherry Tree Lane" only comes in a regular format DVD edition.
It would've been nice to see a "Making of" featurette and get a little background on the project from director / writer Paul Andrew Williams.At first, I felt "Cherry Tree Lane" was a bit slow-moving for my taste.
I found the whole thing rather revolting and it taught me nothing new, no new or original insights, no unexpected twists, no meaningful character analysis.What is more important is that many people watching this movie will feel uneasy and threatened at the thought of young criminals breaking into their homes and causing similar suffering to innocent victims.
The cast is made up of a stereotype youth gang that break in to the house and stereotype middle class couple, I would say family but you don't see the son until the very last few scenes when he has been beaten to a pulp.
Prosperous professional couple Mike and Christine are settling in for a standard evening of wine, TV and low-level marital hostility when a ring on their doorbell changes everything.Their son Sebastian is in a little trouble with some local boys, who are quite prepared to camp out and wait for him to get home.The resulting culture-clash is raw, revealing and nerve-split-tingly tense......Be warned viewers, this is a grim and depressing movie, one not to be viewed with someone you have not known long.The claustrophobic setting only mounts to the tension, and the feeling of dread right from the moment we see the boiling broccoli, stays with you right until the last reel.There are some predictable moments in the film, The two main gang members are like good cop, bad cop.
One having complex/complexion issues, the other being apologetic when the other isn't there.The acting is good, and the camera-work and set is haunting and sometimes quite visceral.There is no way out for anyone in this movie, and even the innocent are doubted in this, many will ask about the final frame 'did he have the knife/axe' or 'was he scared'.The film doesn't let up for the duration, and there were many times i had to heavy sigh, as it was very uncomfortable to watch.But coming from the director of 'from London to Brighton' and 'The cottage', I had a good idea it wasn't going to be a happy experience.Be warned though, if you do want to see this piece, it is good, but you won't feel very good after watching it..
In my opinion Cherry Lane Tree is not a movie worth watching and has been overrated.
After watching Funny Games (US Version) and reading Cherry Lane Tree plot I was willing to give it a go.
A group of youths hold a couple of parents under siege while they wait for their son to return so they can "teach him a lesson".I can see from other reviews that people found the film boring and waste of time.
British, the acting was okay by each "thug" and the parents of course.I don't know I just found it quite disturbing to be honest, first these thugs rush into the house, attack the parents looking for their son, beat the dad to a pulp, rape the mum and then have the cheek to sit there watch their TV, drink their squash and go to the cash machine to get some of their money?Like I said it was a good film, a little over the top and shocking but British movies do have that reputation.Would I recommend this film, not sure, if your into that raw British thing then yes, if not don't bother, definitely not one of the best British made films.I was also left at the end feel kind of numb and thinking what the hell just happened and what the hell is going to go on now? |
tt0042619 | Journal d'un curé de campagne | An idealistic young priest arrives at Ambricourt, his new parish. He is not welcome. The girls of the catechism class laugh at him in a prank, whereby only one of them pretends to know the Scriptural basis of the Eucharist so that the rest of them can laugh at their private conversation. His colleagues criticize his diet of bread and wine, and his ascetic lifestyle. Concerned about Chantal, the daughter of the Countess, the priest visits the Countess at the family chateau, and appears to help her resume communion with God after a period of doubt. The Countess dies during the following night, and her daughter spreads false rumors that the priest's harsh words had tormented her to death. Refusing confession, Chantal had previously spoken to the priest about her hatred of her parents.
The older priest from Torcy talks to his younger colleague about his poor diet and lack of prayer, but the younger man seems unable to make changes. After his health worsens, the young priest goes to the city to visit a doctor, who diagnoses him with stomach cancer. The priest goes for refuge to a former colleague, who has lapsed and now works as an apothecary, while living with a woman outside wedlock. The priest dies in the house of his colleague after being absolved by him.
Two famous lines from the film include "God is not a torturer" (Martin Scorsese's favorite line) and "All is grace." | bleak | train | wikipedia | Journal d'un cure de Campagne is about a young priest who, whilst suffering from an illness, is assigned to a new parish in a French country village.
As he becomes estranged, and to an extend outcast by the townspeople, he increasingly relies on his faith for strength and comfort, however even this begins to fade as he witnesses the townspeople purvey sinful and malicous behaviour, damaging his faith in human nature.The films of Robert Bresson, although wonderful, can at times seem austere almost to the point of being drained of any emotion.
In Diary of a Country Priest, Bresson had Claude Laydu repeat scenes many times in order so that he would rid himself of all natural desire to perform.
I was especially thankful to Bresson for having left us with a film about a priest which didn't involve his tiresome sexual issues in any shape or form - what a refreshing change!
In the role of the young parish priest of Ambricourt, young Claude Laydu was in his debut role here - though he very occasionally shows his inexperience as an actor, he is nonetheless remarkable in the title role, and his sensitive, silently suffering, candid boyish face will remain with me for quite a while.
It depicts, very well, the life of a young man (who appears very boyish throughout the entirety of the film) not just living as a Priest, but also living as a sort of outcast -- it shows very well what the inter-workings of this Priest's, this outcast's brain is like, and it shows the human emotionality very well.From the beginning to the end of the film I was fascinated with the main character, and his goals and his aims, his beliefs and his passionate inclination to helping others -- rarely do you see such great work done in putting the spotlight on the character.
a profound reflection of way to be, portrait of a community, Dostoievsky scene of conversion, and impressive Claude Laydu in role of priest of Ambricourt.ladder of nuances, cruel exploration of reality, shadow of a delicate work, image of lost place, a cast out of tricks and air of a society who remains a huge prey animal.
Based on a 1930's novel by a right-wing Euro novelist, *Diary* details the sad experiences of a young priest with health problems who is assigned to a new parish.
Robert Bresson's masterfully composed film, Diary of a Country Priest, is in complete alinement with his other work.
Bresson was a very spiritual filmmaker, and he weaves the fascinating tale of a young parish priest who sets up shop in a hostile environment with such grave and minimalistic purity.
Alongside the biggest artistic achievements in French cinema of the fifties such as Henri-Georges Clouzot's "Les Diaboliques" (1955) or Julien Duvivier's "Voici Le Temps Des Assassins" (1956), one has to reserve a first-class place for Robert Bresson's third long-feature film where he proves that Georges Bernanos' universe is his.
Bresson's piece of work makes it justice in its own special way and deeply involves the audience in the battle led by this young priest to keep the faith.Although the filmmaker later disowned this jewel because it didn't really answer his cinematographic demands, the most constitutive elements of his cinematographic approach are already here: a straightforward style, an austere black and white cinematography, a rigorous, hieratic directing which give many shots, the form of little paintings.
Through the young priest's inner turmoil and his confrontations with the inhabitants of the village, it's quite easy to detect one of Bresson's recurrent themes: the opposition between a subjective mind and a cruel objectivity.
Unsurprisingly it is truer of the semi-epistolary novel than of the film, but as one who was outside the fold of traditional Catholicism for most of his life and is slowly being brought in I think it is safe to say that Cawkwell is on to something.Robert Bresson's film strips out most of the (already spare) political context sprinkled into the original story--"democratic priests" (read: Jansenists, Gallicans, Revolutionaries/leftists), the Church in distress, a moribund and apathetic Christianity (and while it is often supposed that the French uninterested have simply abandoned the Church, in some quarters this apathy remains a serious problem among practicing and believing Catholics)--to focus on the spiritual battle of a pious priest who should have been completely unremarkable and these days would be remarkably controversial for reasons not related to those depicted in the film: the Curé d'Ambricourt (Monsieur l'Abbé...
It is fascinating to see the treatment of this character: a priest, as an imperfect man, acts as the rightful Vicar of Christ all along the Way of the Cross, right up to the bitter end, and without being sacrosanct, imitates his Master in a manner fitting, without parallel, his religious vocation.Claude Laydu, the lead actor, was not in fact an actor but a comedian for children.
I am told Bresson made it a point to use a non-actor and to have this latter repeat scenes over and over to remove any desire to "act." Indeed, he succeeded: the spiritual torment, interior and exterior, is ever-present on the Curé's face and we have no doubt that he suffers by souls, as did our Master.
Only a handful of movies have ever been made with the power to move a viewer on so many levels with such a simplistic delivery.This story of a rookie priest serving a small, French parish is similar to Ingmar Bergman's "Winter Light" in that it addresses the trials of a priest in his quest to reach a largely unresponsive community as well as the priests faltering faith in God, but Bresson's work exceeds Bergman's in the fact that while "Winter Light" has 3 or 4 very powerful and moving scenes, "Diary of a Country Priest" has 13 or 14.The film is a brilliant exploration of how one man deals with failure in spite of his greatest efforts to succeed.
I know of a more eloquent "resignation" (which he preaches) in Buddhist non-attachment; a cessation of ego that doesn't demand self-mortification.Another possible reading is too tantalizing to ignore but would go against the grain of why the film is lauded as pure and deep.We see a young man who is well-meaning but a little befuddled in his efforts to be pure; he drives himself to sickness by his ascetic lifestyle and begins gradually to confuse the pain of that sickness with a pious torment of the soul in the course of doing the right thing, a surrogate Christ bearing the sins of mankind.
Every scene in the film shows a moment in the life of the young, idealistic priest as a depiction of his being, his disease, his questions and his silence.
The only reason I don't give it a higher rating is that I feel that it is perhaps about 20-30 minutes too long.Claude Laydu's wonderfully understated performance (so natural that the term "performance" is almost an exaggeration) underpins this film, but alongside this are the wonderfully unaffected portrayals Bresson gets from, among others, André Guibert and Martine Lemaire (both appearing in their one and only film according to this database) as the fellow priest and catechism class member respectively.Although on the whole the proceedings are very understated there is a moment of high drama when the young priest takes on La Comtesse, over the way she is coping with a bereavement, quite a scene!In my view it is important in any film or play that at least one of the characters has our sympathy and Laydu carries you along with him.
I find Bresson's exploration of faith and the priest's pursuit of the meaning of life and existence interesting, but I find Bresson's distant style with the coldness of movement(both in terms of acting and storytelling) very jarring considering the intimate nature of the subject itself.Bresson remains a director that I respect and whose importance in the history of French cinema, I acknowledge.
Though tough to watch, it seemed very real and the priest somehow worked through this quite well.Do not be put off by how depressed and screwed up the priest seems--the conclusion, though sad, helps to explain and put everything into perspective.FYI--in some ways this movie is similar to Bergman's Winter Light but overall I thought Diary was a better film.
A young priest (Claude Laydu) taking over the parish at Ambricourt tries to fulfill his duties even as he fights a mysterious stomach ailment.Two other French scriptwriters, Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost, had wanted to make film adaptations of the novel.
The film revolves around a young, dying priest in Ambricourt, whose attempts to get close to the people have failed repeatedly.
His many attempts to be open and available to them are shown in a sympathetic light, and we see this young man's yearning for people and ultimately for God. Touching less on God's silence and more on the individual's inability to hear, Diary of a Country Priest is able to attain one of the most touchingly real portraits of individuals without a real spiritual sense.What stood out the most to me in this film was the slow pace, which brought in our ability to take the time to become familiar with this young man.
This young man has a thirst and desire for God, and to give God to others, yet he cannot and the barrenness of his existence grows clearer and clearer.Diary of a Country Priest is trademark of Bresson; it's slow and requires patience, but when you begin to form connections to the plot and characters it can be one of the most moving experiences you will ever have.
In "Diary Of A Country Priest", Robert Bresson has made an almost impeccable film.
I always found this film to be profoundly moving.A very true work about the human spirit.It honestly reflects a person's feelings about their life.If you like this you should also see 'Taste of cherry'.
The young, dying priest (played eloquently by Claude Laydu) must put up with a stomach that will only tolerate hard bread soaked in wine and sugar which sets the villagers of Ambricourt's tongues wagging about his being alcoholic.
With 'Diary of a Country Priest', his fourth film, director Robert Bresson began to establish his philosophical and religious motifs, shown beautifully through his style.
This film depicts the physical, mental, and spiritual demise of a minister in a rural town.Arriving in the village of Ambricourt, the young priest nervously hopes to make a good impression on the public.
With a young girl as his only ally, the man finds it nearly impossible to carry on.Bresson's use of stark, Black & White photography augments this tale of sorrow and suffering.
"Diary of a Country Priest" (French, 1950): This is a slow, evenly paced, thoughtful, introspective story by Robert Bresson, shot in exquisite black/white, lit and composed like a series of paintings (with beautiful, slight movements).
While the beauty and power of this film can appeal to viewers of any religion or denomination (or none), I especially recommend it for Catholics.The original novel by Georges Bernanos is a splendid and often-forgotten jewel of Catholic literature, and I feel that this film does an outstanding job of "distilling" the story, capturing the essentials of the characters, atmosphere, and themes.It is one of the most genuine and realistic stories of life as a Catholic I've encountered.
Although the priest has his own particular struggles, he is also a Catholic "everyman." Watching this film, I feel that I enter into an intimate and privileged relationship with a friend, brother, and father.This story reminds us that being a Christian and achieving holiness is often a very difficult and very lonely journey.
Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being.
Yes, a dark, depressing film, but an amazing study of an alienated young man, who happens to be a priest, who struggles to find his voice and identity and ultimately comes to find peace and grace.
Diary of a Country Priest, Bresson's third feature, was the first time the French director would fully embrace this approach, going so far as hiring non- professional actors for the bulk of his cast.
Scenes would be re-shot if Bresson felt his actors were, well, acting too much, and Laydu often looks like he's suppressing so much he's going to explode.When you understand what Bresson's goal was with Diary of a Country Priest, Laydu's performance becomes almost transcendent.
Alongside Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc and Rossellini's Francesco, giullare di Dio, Diary of a Country Priest is a masterpiece about Catholicism made by an agnostic or atheist, using the Bible's teachings and the institution itself as a way to tell more humanistic story of human anguish and struggle..
A young and insecure Priest was sent a parish church in a small village iin countryside of French ,there he faces a kind of animosities and suspicious from the villagers after they realized such dry and laconic behavior of newcomer,a frugal dietary patten supplied by just hard bread with wine gave to him a poor health and taking worst his mental thoughts already confusing regarding such internal struggles,meanwhile he has involved inside of powerful family matter which end up in a premature death of a old lady,after these strong events he was under aware watch from their superiors clerics, among others pontual bad experiences all them written in a journal,a sort of second character,one most powerful drama from religious matter ever....deep and cruel that make us think about faith and spiritual state,near masterpiece to be watch alone!!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 9.5.
A young priest unknowingly dying of stomach cancer inherits a church in a village that has seemingly turned its back on the Catholic faith.
The lead character goes through so much that I can just imagine many will ask themselves, "Can something good happen to this guy???" The film techniques applied by director Robert Bresson might also be questioned.
Constant narration is used repeatedly as is the reference to the priest writing in his diary (hence, the title of the film and how its writer uses this as a means to open candidly and honestly about what he goes through on a daily basis) as he contends with ordeals not of his own making as much as his pious, dedicated ministry (unorthodox, his methods might be, he holds onto his principles and never fails to allow those that might provoke him gain advantage; his struggle is real, though, as his suffering does weaken him spiritually at times) seems to attract attention from those who might like to see him falter and fail.If anything, he might have died in the little impoverished room of his seminary pal and buddy's scrubwoman girlfriend, but at least in this place he was in the company of folks who cared about him.
The community of the small town does not accept him, and although having a serious disease in the stomach, the inexperienced and frail priest tries to help the dwellers, and has a situation with the wealthy family of the location."Journal d'un Curé de Campagne" is a very depressive, human and impressive movie about faith, sin, religion, guilt, love and hate.
The story is centered in a tormented and naive priest, very human and therefore having flaws inclusive in his character, who tries to help people of his parish through his best efforts.
I did not read the novel of George Bernanos, but in accordance with the information in the DVD, Robert Bresson changed the personality of the priest in his adaptation to the cinema, but reaching the same objective of the original character.
Robert Bresson's 1950 breakthrough film, Diary Of A Country Priest (Journal D'Un Cure De Campagne), is one of those films that is absolutely antithetical to everything a Hollywood film stands for.
Whereas Bergman's film transcends religion and cores into universal human behavior, Diary Of A Country Priest merely presents its simple narrative, and if one cannot get into it- for its religious-specific ideas, so be it.
Also, the film never gets truly inside the young priest.
Yet, the film likens the priest to a Christ-like character, rather than a mere outcast.
I enjoy French movies, but this is one that was completely absurd.Diary of a Country Priest is filmed in beautiful black and white photography but, that alone cannot save this deadly dull tripe.
That's because director Robert Bresson's modern day Jesus figure, the Priest of Ambricourt, becomes a martyr after being rejected by the Church establishment.Diary of a Country Priest is based on a novel written by George Bernanos in the early 30s.
The Priest (who is never named in the film) is an intense young man played by Claude Laydu (in his first film role).
The final image is one of the cross and like Jesus, the Priest maintains his faith despite all the suffering.Bresson curiously has been described as an 'agnostic' but I think that's a misnomer.
Diary of a Country Priest is worth watching a number of times, especially in terms of the gripping cinematography (reminiscent of films from the silent era) as well as the superb use of off-screen audio.
This is the story of a young country priest who lives on wine and bread and tries to help people.
I think Bresson in a way is trying to say that alienation of the church/god and men is because of the church practices.Our priest is only a representation of a good man in a wrong place to magnify its defects.
I found this French film in the book of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, with it being rated five stars out of five by critics I was hoping I would agree with that recommendation as well, from director Robert Bresson (A Man Escaped, Pickpocket, Au Hasard Balthazar, L'Argent). |
tt0092105 | Tough Guys | Harry Doyle (Lancaster) and Archie Long (Douglas) are gangsters who've served a 30-year prison sentence for hijacking a Southern Pacific train called The Gold Coast Flyer, ready to collect Social Security.
Their parole officer, Richie Evans (Carvey), who seems to be more of a fan of historically notable criminals than a representative of law enforcement, meets Harry and Archie at the gates and offers them a ride. Meanwhile, Leon B. Little (Eli Wallach), an elderly hit man with bad eyesight who still has an outstanding contract on them, immediately tries to kill them. Harry and Archie manage to get away.
At Richie's office, they are informed of the conditions of their parole. Harry, at age 72, is committed to a retirement community; despite his desire to work, he's past the mandatory retirement age of 70. Archie, still allowed to work at age 67, takes a job at an ice cream parlor and later a restaurant. They are told not to have further contact with each other for at least three years.
Both are in for a shock at how much the world has changed from 1956 to 1986—clothing, sexual lifestyles (their favorite bar is now a gay club for men), lack of respect from the younger generation, and the advance of technology. Archie's young restaurant manager treats him poorly while Harry is denied proper food by a nasty orderly and is given even worse treatment by the retirement home's even nastier manager.
Harry reconnects with an old flame named Belle (Alexis Smith), and reminisces about old times. Archie embraces the contemporary scene, listening to new wave music, asking out a much younger woman, Skye (Darlanne Fluegel), and dressing in faddish clothes. Though both their relationships go well, neither Archie nor Harry seems to fit in society anymore.
Tired of trying to adjust, Harry and Archie go back to their old ways. First they try to rob a bank with members of their old gang, but all are now either crippled, invalids or dead. Then they hijack an armored truck, only to find it empty except for a roll of quarters. When the media mock them for their blunder and mistake them for younger men in masks, Archie decides to hijack the Gold Coast Flyer again as it makes its final southbound run. Harry refuses, but Archie decides to do it anyway with or without his help.
Archie stops the Flyer just as it's leaving the railyard and is soon joined by Harry. The media and dignitaries aboard are surprised, but Harry and Archie gladly answer their questions and pose for pictures. To their surprise, Leon arrives and explains why he's after them: an old enemy of theirs paid him $25,000 and he has waited 30 years for them to get out of jail. Deke Yablonski (Charles Durning), the police officer who first arrested Harry and Archie, soon arrives with a full SWAT team. Richie, disguised as a SWAT officer, boards the train and starts it moving again.
Harry, Archie, Richie and Leon temporarily join forces. They decide to take the train to Mexico, but unfortunately the tracks end a few feet from the border. Harry throws Leon from the cab; the hit man vows to get them even if it takes another 30 years. Archie then takes Richie back to the coaches and uncouples the train, advising Richie to tell the police that he was kidnapped. Harry and Archie drive 4449 at full throttle through a fusillade of bullets from U.S. border police. They crash through, burying the engine partially in the soil of Mexico a few feet across the border. A Mexican border patrol arrives to arrest them. A tough guy till the end, Archie kicks the lead officer in the groin. | violence | train | wikipedia | It was too bad, because it was a funny film, and would turn out to be the best comedy buddy film of the films that they did together.Harry and Archie (Lancaster and Douglas) pulled off one of the smoothest and most impressive railway train robberies in American history back in 1947.
That in the end, the battle of youth and old age unites Lancaster, Douglas, Wallach, and even Durning should not surprise anyone.
The film has some nice moments, such as Douglas almost going in for dirty dancing with a young chippy, and Lancaster protesting the slop he has to eat in an old age home, and memorably showing his teeth to advantage for a purpose (for a change).
I've watched it many times and what's more my grand-daughters enjoy it too, and they don't even know the two stars like I do.It's funny, with a good pacey script.
It's got comedy (see Kirk trying on "hot" clothes taking advice from a CCTV shop assistant) and also it has some touching scenes of Burt in the old people's home, where he's forced to live.The supporting cast has class - Eli Wallach, Dana Carvey, Charles Durning and Alexis Smith.
Of course Kirk Douglas did quite a few more films after this but he didn't do em with this kind of fun in mind.Two former train robbers get parole after 30 years.
Burt Lancaster is the straight man and Kirk Douglas has all the good lines.
Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas were inexorably linked not just by their co-starring films together, but by the fact that Hedda Hopper in one of her books did a chapter on both of them.
Go into the production end and take total responsibility for the work they did.It would never have worked had not Lancaster and Douglas not been good judges of the roles they were best suited for.
Robert Taylor was widely quoted that he stayed with MGM as long as he did because he felt they knew best how to present him and what were good film properties.But Burt and Kirk knew their minds and made their own careers work.
As Harry Doyle and Archie Long two elderly crooks released after a thirty year stretch for robbing the West Coast Flyer train, they find roles perfectly suited to their age and personality.Lancaster's old and he knows it, but he still wants to be treated with some dignity.
And then they decide on one spectacular coda to their lives and careers in the wonderful world of crime.The two men are in great form and they get some able support from Alexis Smith, Charles Durning and Dana Carvey in the supporting cast.
I wasn't disappointed when in 1986, Burt Lancaster announced on BBC's Wogan show that his new movie was going to star himself and his long time friend and frequent co-star Kirk Douglas.
The answer is brilliant.Harry Doyle (Lancaster), and Archie Long (Douglas) are released from prison after a 30 years sentence after being caught dead bang robbing a train.
After being humiliated, patronised, and generally treated like dirt for the better part of a week, The two ageing gangsters decide that a life of crime has to be better then honest work, and predictably they revert to their previous careers as train robbers.The film is enjoyable there's no escaping it, but there are more holes in the plot than there are in a grannies cardigan, and is also SOoooo predictable in fact the films outcome is more predictable than the outcome of a fight betwix elephant and duck.
Co-incidentally the day the get out of prison is 1 week before the train they were caught robbing is making it's farewell run.This aside the film IS enjoyable, and Lancaster and Douglas play their parts wonderfully and you enjoy the film more for their presence.
Other cast members also rate highly, Eli Wallach is by far the funniest character, and his wonderful performance in some ways steals the film from it's intended stars.
and finally there is (Pre Wayne's World) Dana Carvey as the Youthful Idealistic Parole Officer, but it's a shame that Carvey is restricted to playing pretty much a straight character, especially considering he is probably one of the funniest men working in Hollywood today.Tough Guys should have been better, but I feel Kanew spent most of the budget on getting the perfect Sterling cast, rather than to hire a good script writer.
You could still see the occasional flashes of the old Kirk D, chilling look etc and Burt still has the movement of an athlete even at age 73, and his trade mark mirthless laugh but it was Eli Wallach who stole the film, absolutely brilliant.
I think his character was stolen by the writers of a BBC TV comedy called "Last of the Summer Wine" which has a very short sighted character called Eli. So many scenes were so good that it makes it difficult to pick the best but I think the scene outside the old folks home is excellent when Leon B.
As two train robbers, released from prison after a 30 year stretch, this dynamic duo try to adjust to life in the '80's and all the changes that have taken place.
Eli Wallach contributes some funny scenes as a near-sighted hit-man who has waited 30 years to fulfill a contract to kill the duo.
Despite the thin script, this is a very enjoyable film that may best be viewed with a senior citizen family member who can both identify with the characters and who remembers Lancaster and Douglas when they were A-List actors.
Tough Guys re-unites after a near 30 year gap the screen pairing of Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster and as such it's a wonderful piece of nostalgia.
The premise suits the stars very well Archie Long and Harry Doyle after 30 years in prison for a train robbery are released into society and find things aren't want the used to be back in the old neighbourhood.
The duo are soon mixed up with a short sighted hit-man (a scene stealing Eli Wallach), a hero worshipping parole officer (Dana Cavey), an old time cop convinced they'll rob again (Charles Durning) and some seriously 80's style thugs.
Add to this just dealing with Archies day job and Harry's new life in a retirement home and their is a recipe for comedy and some surprisingly touching moments as the pair come to terms with old age.The film is fun and well paced although there are some big plot holes and inconsistencies you can overlook these as its not a serious film.
Douglas and Lancaster are clearly having a blast making the movie and seeing them on screen again one last time is great.
I'd recommend this film for a feel good comedy or a bit of nostalgia for older movie fans.
These 'Tough guys' got it all along with a few bad guys and one old near-sighted hit-man, (played by: Eli Wallach) that has had a contract on these two for over thirty years and he is itching to collect on it.
And if it weren't rough enough that these two 'grampa's' (the gang member referred to Archie and Harry as) knocked these guys confidence down and gave them a little pain to remember them by, leave and then the hit-man who's hot on their trail suddenly shows up and asks the gang members where the two old guys went?
"Don't let the goggles fool ya, he's a 'Sharp shooter!" That scene is a modern day comedy, 'classic' that I loved from the moment the movie previews were showing the 'coming attractions'.
The thing that offended me was Kirk (or Archie) 'dropped trow' showing his 'bum' when he was on top of the train making his get away, although it was funny and some of the women said, that was 'cute'.
Tough Guys is the 7th and final film legendary actors Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster made together .
They play Harry Doyle ( Lancaster ) and Archie Long ( Douglas ) , the last American train robbers who just finished a 30 year prison sentence.
A lot has changed since the 1950's as they attempt to adjust to civilian life in 1980's Los Angeles.Tough Guys as a film holds up real well due to the great chemistry of Lancaster and Douglas .Eli Wallach nearly steals the show as an aging hit-man who 's waited 30 years to kill Doyle and Long .Charles Durning and Dana Carvie are great as well in this fast paced ,nostalgic action comedy .
Definitely needs a US DVD release as my VHS tape won't last forever.Tough Guys is a great comedy classic that should satisfy fans of the 80's..
Legends Douglas and Lancaster play two aging ex-train robbers who set out to prove they're not over the hill for one more heist.
While Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster turn in engaging performances, the movie is stolen by Eli Wallach, whose character is nothing if not persistent!
It was nice to see aging superstars Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas together as a pair of old train robbers back on the streets after 30 years in jail.
However, the story is a little hard to take with any credibility and - call me old-fashioned - I didn't care to see and hear a couple of "classic film" stars involved in modern-day sleaze.As someone who has seen thousands of classic films, it just seems odd to see two famous actors in a film like this with the profanity and sex, although I had already seen Lancaster in "Atlantic City" (1980).
Still, seeing a hot 25-year-old falling for Douglas and the two having sex all night, was a little strange to witness.
The Legends Make it a Must See. Tough Guys (1986) *** (out of 4) Lifelong friends Harry Doyle (Burt Lancaster) and Archie Long (Kirk Douglas) are being released from prison after thirty-years.
They find it hard fitting in with the current world so that's when Archie gets the idea of robbing the train one last time.If you're looking for a hard-hitting drama or some sort of nasty comedy then TOUGH GUYS certainly won't be for you.
Look, I'll admit that this isn't a masterpiece or a classic but at the same time it's great getting to see Lancaster and Douglas working together.
It's not like they were given countless great roles later in their careers so getting to see them having some fun together makes this movie worth watching.As far as the comedy goes, I thought a lot of it was rather funny.
With Lancaster, he plays it more straight and this includes a relationship with an old fling (Alexis Smith) of his.The reason to watch this movie is for the actors.
Eli Wallach plays a nutbag trying to kill the boys and he too adds a lot of fun.TOUGH GUYS isn't a masterpiece and there's no question that it overstays its welcome with the extended running time.
Harry Doyle (Burt Lancaster) and Archie Long (Kirk Douglas) are old gangsters who were sentenced together to 30 years in prison for a famous train robbery of The Gold Coast Flyer.
It almost seems surreal to see these great timeless actors to show up in this film, years later, if like just popped out of the blue.
After a thirty year stretch for robbing a train, ex cons, Archie (Douglas) and the older and wiser Harry (Lancaster) are released, where everything has changed.
Eli Wallach is a frickin' cool hoot, as a really p..s poor sighted hit-man, who always sees a job through, no matter how long, lets say, bumbling repeatedly, in his efforts to take out our famous duo.
Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas were two great actors who entertained millions of moviegoers since the mid-1940s.
Here they play two convicts being released from prison after 30 years.But times have changed and Harry Doyle (Lancaster) and Archie Long (Douglas) have more than a little difficulty adjusting.
None of us know until the very end of the film why this guy has been gunning for the two ex-cons since the day they were released from prison.
In their younger days, Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster made six films together, and in their final pairing Tough Guys, they're absolutely adorable.
And you girls who had crushes on Kirk Douglas will delight in seeing him adapt to his new surroundings, including 80s fashions, nightclubs, and a relationship with a younger woman.Tough Guys is hilarious and super cute, and a must-see for Burt or Kirk fans.
They're both wonderful in this classic "old guys still got it" movie.
Legendary Hollywood Actors Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster And Eli Wallach Immortalized In This Timeless Classic..
My favorite Kirk Douglas films: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), Lust For Life(1956) and Spartacus(1960), Burt Lancaster: On Wings of Eagles (1986) and Eli Wallach: The Good The Bad And The Ugly (1966).Watch these films if you haven't yet.
Back to this film the film concerns two crooks Harry Doyle (Lancaster) and Archie Long (Douglas), have botched a hijack on Southern Pacific train called The Gold Coast Flyer, ready to collect Social Security.
More comedy films you may like: Ruthless People (1986), Soul Man (1986), Planes Trains & Automobiles (1987)..
The teaming of stars Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas is really the only reason to watch this thin comedy caper.
United on screen for the sixth time (and, let it be noted, their first movie work together since Seven Days in May in 1964), Lancaster and Douglas breeze through this nonsensical fluff with tongues firmly in cheek.
You will never see Tough Guys on anybody's top-100 list, but it is a likable time filler that doesn't particularly tax the patience.Train robbers Archie Long (Douglas) and Harry Doyle (Lancaster) are released from jail after serving thirty years for their misdemeanours.
Eventually, Archie and Harry decide to complete the train robbery for which they were captured all those years ago.
But rob it they do, just for the sheer thrill of it, hurtling full steam for the Mexican border with old law adversary Deke Yablonski (Charles Durning) hot on their trail.Tough Guys never amounts to anything more than harmless fun.
Not only did they make this film but also Stakeout and the very poor, even though it was a minor hit, Outrageous Fortune.Here we have Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster.
Although, Kirk Douglas is given first credit, the emphasis is on Burt Lancaster's character, Harry Doyle.
As a man who has been in prison for most of his adult life and is getting old, you could go a lot of directions with the character.
Not for one moment can you take him serious as a hit-man but Douglas and Lancaster, gents as they are, do let him think so..
Director Jeff Kanew's crime comedy "Tough Guys" gave Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas the big-send-off.
Comparatively, "Tough Guys" surpasses "The List of Adrian Messenger" and "Victory at Entebbe." Lancaster and Douglas were cast as two old-time convicts who spent 30 years in prison for robbing a train and ultimately received parole.
The scene in the old folks home when Harry leads the protest against the inadequate food is reminiscent of "White Heat." Eli Wallach has supporting role as a bespectacled hit-man who has waited 30 years to carry out a contract on our protagonists.
Train robbers Harry Doyle (marvelously played by Burt Lancaster) and Archie Long (an excellent and vigorous Kirk Douglas) get paroled from prison after serving a three decade sentence.
The witty script by James Orr and Jim Cruickshank delivers plenty of funny gags concerning Harry and Archie's difficulty in dealing with life's limited options and the radical changes that have happened in the world thirty years down the road as well as makes a few valid points about society's prejudice towards and lack of respect for the elderly (Harry's scenes in which he clashes with the patronizing staff at a hellish retirement home are absolute gold).
Douglas and Lancaster display a natural and engaging chemistry in the lead roles; they receive fine support from Charles Durning as bitter and grouchy detective Deke Yablonski, Alexis Smith as Harry's adoring old flame Belle, Dana Carvey as friendly probation officer Richie Evans, and Darlanne Fluegel as perky oversexed gym owner Skye.
Two years after he brought us "Revenge of the Nerds", director Jeff Kanew presented us with a film that could have been entitled "Revenge of the Elderly Ex-cons", as two senior citizens who have just completed a thirty year jail sentence find themselves at odds with the society that they have been forced to re-enter.Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas are Harry Doyle and Archie Long, the last two "Tough Guys" to rob a train, way back in 1955.
Douglas and Lancaster appear to enjoy themselves, but neither is capable of any inspiration, in a show which displays similarities to "Cocoon", with its theme of the oldies showing the young ones how its done.Fans of the two veteran actors may get the odd laugh from "Tough Guys", but don't expect too much form this B-grade comedy.Sunday, June 26, 1994 - Video.
This film was made in 1986 but had more of an older feeling to it something you might see on PBS, but it still is very entertaining funny.The plot has Harry Doyle (Burt Lancaster) and Archie Long (Kirk Douglas) as two old guys finishing a 30 year prison sentence for robbing a train, and now have to face a new world.
Little (Eli Wallach) who's trying to kill them.Of course being on parole is really like being on a leash, Archie Long is given a job whilst luckily Harry gets retirement checks but has to live in a very boring rest home.
1986; Great Year Of US Comedy - Crocodile Dundee; Ruthless People; TOUGH GUYS !.
Plenty of hilarious spontaneous anarchic mayhem acted out by Kirk Douglas + Burt Lancaster as our 2 crooks. |
tt0043040 | This Side of the Law | David Cummins (Kent Smith) is trapped in a dry cistern and wondering whether he will die there. The largest portion of the rest of the film is a flashback to a week earlier then forward, detailing the events that landed him in that precarious pit.
A bright but down-and-out vagrant is tapped by a police officer for looking longingly in a pawn shop window at a revolver. A smart retort to the officer's question has him carted off to jail for "no visible means of support." The following day he's in court hearing "$50 dollars or 30 days."
Listening to the exchange is cagey lawyer Philip Cagle (Robert Douglas), who pays his fine. After a meal and a taxi ride the pair enter the attorney's office, where he explains why. The counselor is the executor of the estate of a wealthy man whom the bum just happens to resemble exactly. The rich man has been missing for seven years minus two weeks and is about to be declared legally dead, which would be inconvenient for the lawyer. (Though it's unclear why).
If David will agree to impersonate the missing man he'll be paid $500. Holding out for $5,000 the pair come to terms then ride to a huge house near a cliff belonging to the missing man. During the journey the lawyer adds some information about the man's task. He must fool three people — the man's wife, his brother and the brother's wife. He adds at the end of the trip, just as they arrive: "By the way, your brother hates you."
David soon finds that it isn't just the brother who is none too fond. His wife Evelyn (Viveca Lindfors) is more than a little estranged, apparently as a result of the husband's many affairs and general callousness before his disappearance. Fortunately, Evelyn doesn't know that husband Malcolm Taylor's most recent affair was with his brother's wife, Nadine Taylor (Janis Paige).
The impersonation comes off well for some time as David insinuates himself into the family until Nadine notices his hands, which lack some tell-tale scars. David tells Philip and the lawyer connives to have her meet him at a lonely spot on the estate, then shoves her off the cliff.
Things move rapidly ahead from this point, past various confusing scenes that ultimately result in Philip tossing David into the cistern. His plan all along was to continue to act as the executor of the estate in order to control the money. (Which, incidentally, makes it somewhat baffling why he wanted to delay the wealthy man being declared legally dead in the first place. Apparently, he needed more time to arrange for Evelyn's death.)
No matter, for David will soon find the will and ability to crawl out of the dry well — but not before discovering the skeletal remains of Malcolm Taylor. He reaches the top just in time to hear the screams of Evelyn, with whom David is now completely besotted. He rushes to rescue her just in time to avoid her suffering the same fate at Philip's hands as Nadine.
All is confessed to the puzzled police and all resolved, with Taylor's wife showing that she now returns David's feelings. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | Fun Thriller.
This Side Of the Law is a rather fun thriller from the early fifties and concerns a man hired to impersonate someone else, a greedy family and other unwholesome things.
The cast is decidedly of the second-string variety; however that doesn't make it bad.
Kent Smith and Viveca Lindfors were both talented performers and play their starring roles well.
It's particularly nice to see Smith in a leading role for a change, as he was a decent actor who never quite made the cut in Hollywood.
Character actor John Alvin does nicely in a showy supporting part.
I wouldn't quite call the movie film noir, though it's close.
It plays somewhat like an episode of the Perry Mason TV series, as it's full of similar plot twists and surprises.
If one likes dark mysteries this is a good one to look for..
pretty good black & white thriller.
At the beginning, a narrator speaks as we are shown a residence and the dog named "Angel" that guards it.
The viewer is shown the top of a cistern, with "David" the narrator (played by Kent Smith) at the bottom of the cistern.
Here's the flashback to tell his story...When David is picked up for vagrancy, someone pays his fine, and has a proposition for him: He is to pretend to be a millionaire, who had disappeared several years prior.
Even the millionaire's wife can't tell he is an impostor, but things start to go wrong.
The man he is impersonating wasn't very well liked, and David must find out why.
Viveca Lindfors gets top billing as "the wife", but it's Janis Paige as the sister- in-law who (rightfully) steals the show.
Watch for Monte Blue as the Sheriff.
The acting isn't anything special, but the story is mildly compelling, and since we know right from the start that David ends up in the well, we get hooked on finding out how he ends up there.Written by Richard Sale, who had several novels and screenplays made into films.
This one IS available on DVD, although you can catch it on Turner Classic Channel about once a year.
Directed by Richard Bare, who wrote a book on the proper technique on film directing..
a vagrant is hired to impersonate a millionaire.
Kent Smith, Viveca Lindfors, Janis Paige, Robert Douglas, and John Alvin star in "This Side of the Law," a 1950 film directed by Richard L.
Smith plays David Cummins, a vagrant who is baled out by an attorney named Phillip Cagle (Douglas) who wants him to impersonate a missing millionaire in order to divide a $3,000,000 estate.
Cummings agrees to do it for $5,000, but he walks into a hornet's nest: a wife (Viveca Lindfors) who doesn't seem to like him much, a brother (Alvin) who detests him, and a sister-in-law (Paige) who likes him a little too much.
It's all pretty confusing, as Cummins tries to do the right thing by the millionaire's obviously hurt wife.
Then murder complicates the situation further.The story is told in flashback, as we see in the beginning that Cummins is in grave danger -- as he tries to save himself, he goes over the events that brought him to his present problems.Fairly interesting story.
I'm sure for Lindfors, a wonderful actress brought over from Sweden, this was hardly the stuff of star-making, but she does a good job.
Paige is gorgeous.All in all, fast-moving and satisfying..
Solid Little Noir.
A vagrant is bribed into impersonating a millionaire as part of an inheritance scheme.
The trouble is he gets more than he bargained for.I'm not sure why this little noir-- and it is a noir (hand of fate, a web of intrigue, a spider woman, & dark atmosphere)-- remains so obscure.
This Warner Bros.
entry may not be top-flight, but it is respectable.
That opening scene with the pin-light on Cummins' (Smith) ravaged face is a grabber.
Several other moody scenes emerge along the way, plus a neat plot twist, that makes this thriller an entertaining 70-minutes.I'm guessing one reason for the film's obscurity is the cast, especially the lead, Kent Smith.
He performs well enough.
The trouble is he lacks screen presence, almost fading into the background at times.
On the other hand, Lindfors and Paige split the women's time, such that neither is able to establish much presence of her own.
John Alvin, however, comes across vividly in the thankless role of the weakling brother.
Also, I'm surprised director Bare manages the dark material as well as he does, given that his previous career was exclusively with comedy shorts.
(Note, for example, how Cummins has to work at getting a name off the ID bracelet—a good realistic touch.)Nothing memorable here, just a solid little noir..
Nice Thriller..
THIS SIDE OF THE LAW - 1950 This one has it all, greed, cross and double-cross, twists, turns, a cliff-side mansion and a couple of murders.Kent Smith plays a down on his luck drifter who hits town and is grabbed up by the local police.
He is given 30 days or 30 dollars on a vagrancy charge.
Smith figures 30 days worth of free grub and a roof over his head is pretty good.
But before he hits the cells, he is bailed out.Meeting him at the jail-house doors is lawyer Robert Douglas.
Douglas gives Smith a ride to his office in order to discuss a business arrangement.
Douglas offers Smith 500 dollars for a small favour.
"And what kind of favour costs 500 bucks?" Asks Smith.
Douglas shows Smith a photo of a well-dressed man who looks just like Smith.
"I represent this man, Mal Taylor's 3 million dollar estate.He has been missing for 7 years and is about to be declared legally dead.
I do not want that to happen." Says Douglas.
Douglas explains that he thinks one of three people might have killed Taylor.
He believes that the wife, Viveca Lindfors, his brother, John Alvin, or the sister in-law, Janis Paige, might have done the deed.Douglas wants Smith to "reappear" and see what reactions result.
Smith agrees but demands $5,000 for the work.
Douglas gives him an evil look but agrees.
Douglas spends the next two days filling Smith in on Taylor's habits etc.
Taylor it seems was a womanizing cad who treated everyone like dirt.
Lindfors was on the verge of divorcing Taylor when he disappeared.Smith does his Taylor bit and the family is needless to say rattled.
Lindfors tells him he is an ass while brother Alvin obliviously hates him.
He spends the next few days snooping for Douglas and of course falling in love with Lindfors.
Smith quickly finds out the reason for the brotherly hate feast.It seems Taylor had been stepping out with dear sister in-law Paige.
Paige puts the moves on Smith and quickly realizes he is a phony.
She figures he is a con man after the fortune and offers to keep quiet for a price.
Smith calls Douglas to tell him Paige has tumbled to the act.
Douglas tells him to play along with Paige.Now we find out that Paige is also doing the horizontal cha-cha with Douglas.
It looks like Douglas is the one making a play for the estate.
Douglas now figures Paige is doing an end run for a slice of her own.
Douglas dashes out to the mansion and confronts Paige about Smith.
This little talk ends with Paige being dropped off the handy cliff edge.Now the ball is really rolling as the body is discovered the next day and the local law called.
They conclude that she stumbled and fell.
Alvin however accuses Smith of pushing her off.
The cops put Alvin's rant down to grief and call Paige's death an accident.Douglas tells Smith his job is over except for one more item.
He has Smith forge Taylor's name to a document signing over the estate to Lindfors.
Douglas and Smith head off to town.
They are not 100 yards down the road when Douglas gives Smith the butt end of a pistol.
He then hauls Smith out into the woods and dumps him down an old well.Douglas now speeds back to the mansion.
There, he tells Alvin he believes it was really Lindfors who killed Paige.
Alvin decides he will get his revenge and drop Lindfors over the same cliff.
He asks Lindfors to come out for a "walk".
As soon as they leave Douglas calls the police.
He tells them he is convinced Alvin has gone mad and is going to kill Lindfors.
If Alvin kills Lindfors, then is locked away, Douglas, as the family lawyer, will have complete control of the estate.While all this is going on, Smith, though somewhat worse for wear, has survived the thirty-foot drop.
He finds the remains of the real Taylor, and quickly realizes he has been played for a world-class chump.
At the cost of some broken nails and the like, he manages to clamber his way out of the well.
Just as he reaches the top, he hears Lindfors screaming.
Smith does the old hundred-yard dash in record time and drops Alvin with a few solid punches.Smith takes Lindfors back to the mansion where a less than amused Douglas is waiting.
He pulls a gun and starts blasting.
The police now show and the chase is on.
Douglas makes a run through the woods where needless to say he tumbles into the same hole Smith had just exited.
A broken neck puts an end to Douglas and his plans.
Smith comes clean with Lindfors and the two embrace.
She prefers Smith anyway.Smith was in CAT PEOPLE, THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE, NORA PRENTICE, THE DAMNED DON'T CRY.
Lindfors walked the dark side in BACKFIRE, DARK CITY and THE HALLIDAY BRAND.
Douglas was in HOMICIDE, SPY HUNT, FLIGHT TO TANGIER.
Alvin had bits in ILLEGAL, THE NAKED ALIBI, DIAL 1119, HIGHWAY 301, OPEN SECRET and THE BREAKING POINT.The director was Richard L.
Bare.
Bare.
His work includes SMART GIRLS DON'T TALK, and FLAXY MARTIN.
The d of p was Carl Guthrie.
THE BIG PUNCH, FLAXY MARTIN, BACKFIRE, CAGED, IRON MAN, THE TATTERED DRESS, DEATH IN SMALL DOSES, Hollywood STORY, UNDERCOVER GIRL, HIGHWAY 301, STORM WARNING.
Story was by Richard Sale who was involved in LADY AT MIDNIGHT, THE INSIDE STORY and SUDDENLY.
This film was made in 1948 but not released till 1950.
I've seen this story before, but here it has a gender change..
Reminding me of the 1945 film noir sleeper "My Name is Julia Ross", this interesting film noir deals with a vagrant (Kent Smith) bailed out of jail and utilized in a lawyer's scheme to defraud a wealthy family.
Resembling the missing black sheep of the family, the prodigal son who never returned before his father died, Smith finds that he's bitten off more than he bargained for when he finds a brother (John Alvin) who hated him, a wife (Viveca Lindfors) who is terrified of him, and a sister-in-law (Janis Paige) whose relationship with him was far more than platonic.
They live in a gloomy mansion overlooking the ocean from a high cliff, just like the wealthy mother and son in "My Name is Julia Ross", so it is very apparent that there is danger about, if not the cliffs, then the yapping dog who snarls at practically everybody and could tear them to bits, as well as an abandoned well where Smith is seen in the opening scene of the film.
As the clever family attorney, Robert Douglas is an obvious villain from the start, using the vulnerable Smith for his own purpose.
The opening sequence of a beat cop simply arresting Smith for looking in a gun shop window is disturbing because it gives the sense that beat cops during this era could arrest anybody for anything they wanted to charge them with.
Certainly, research of the law indicates that vagrancy was an arrestable offense, and Smith does look like a hobo in the opening scene.
But cleaned up and put in the missing brother's alleged designer suits makes him the perfect doppelganger for the presumably dead brother (by Douglas's hands, I will imagine, although that is never established), Smith's arrival at the gloomy family home is not without despair for the three members of the family.
Fights soon begin between Alvin and Smith over Paige's lingering feelings for the dead brother, and when Paige makes a discovery, it leads to Douglas taking horrific action with the entire family just so he can get his hands on the family estate.
This is one of the rare opportunities to see the usually vivacious Janis Paige in a serious, dramatic role (other than the 1946 remake of "Of Human Bondage" and perhaps a few others), and her perky voice is missing from her characterization.
She's closer to a vixen here than the flirtatious good time gals she played in all those Warner Brothers and MGM musicals (as well as on Broadway and later on T.V.), and it is fascinating to see her in such a unique part.
Lindfors is brooding and quiet, suspicious and scared of Smith, while Alvin is not really as well established character wise as the two women and Smith and Douglas are.
The scenery around the estate is brooding, nearly dead looking (like one of those 1960's Vincent Price American International horror films), and as Lindfors explains, the grounds and the house are beyond evil.
It is suspenseful but predictable, saved by the performances and the brooding atmosphere..
The man who wasn't really there.
***SPOILERS*** Almost unknown little film noir gem involving this down and out vagrant David Cunmmins, Kent Smith, who's made to impersonate ,for a cool $5,000.00, this missing millionaire Malcolm Taylor whom he has a striking resemblance to.
Spotted at the L.A courthouse by shyster lawyer Philip Cagel, Robert Douglas, who pays his $50.00 fine Cummins is given all the information about the missing Malcolm Taylor and sent to his pad, mansion, on the Pacific Ocean coast to convince both his brother Calder, John Alvin,sister in law Nadine, Janis Page,as well as wife Evelyn, Viveca Lindfors, that he's the real deal or real McCoy the missing for some seven years Malcolm Taylor.
Even though the three all fall for Cummins act the pet dog Angel doesn't and that's to make things later difficult for him as well as the person who put him up to this sham Philip Cagel.We already saw that Cummins was double crossed by Cagel at the very beginning of the film so we knew what a phony he, Cagel, was and how he was just using Cummins for his own greedy and selfish purposes.
But what we don't know and later find out is that Cagel knows a lot more about the missing Malcolm Taylor then he lets on.
And the biggest secret that he has is that he not only knows where Malcolm is, at the Taylor Sans Souci estate, but also how he got there.***SPOILERS*** As Cummins puts two and two together Cagel changes his plans to get his hands on he Taylor fortune, all three million dollars worth of it, by getting his partner in crime knocked off so he won't have to split the money with him.
As Cummins gets out of his deep and pressing predicament, that Cagel put him into, he's forced to confront Calder who's been brainwashed by Cagel that he and Evelyn murdered his wife Nadine, by throwing her off a cliff, with Cagel trying to check out before he's noticed.
It's then that the real hero in the movie the family dog Angel goes into action and puts an end to Cagel's evil plans together with Cagel himself. |
tt0083530 | Airplane II: The Sequel | In the near future, the Moon has been colonized and supports a station on its surface. A lunar shuttle known as Mayflower One is being rushed to launch from Houston. The head of the ground crew, The Sarge (Chuck Connors), does not like what is occurring, but he defers to the airline's management.
On the flight crew are Captain Clarence Oveur (Peter Graves), navigator/co-pilot Unger (Kent McCord) and first officer/flight engineer Dunn (James A. Watson, Jr.). Also on board is computer officer Elaine Dickinson (Julie Hagerty). Elaine has long left Ted Striker (Robert Hays) and is now engaged to one of the flight crew, Simon Kurtz (Chad Everett). Striker has in the meantime been committed to an insane asylum, as he was declared mentally incompetent in a lawsuit following a test flight that Ted piloted and in which the lunar shuttle crashed. Striker believes that the lawsuit was used to silence him, because he knew there were problems with the lunar shuttle that made it unsafe, and he is once more haunted by his actions in "The War" - causing a relapse of his "drinking problem", specifically the events that took place over "Macho Grande", where he lost his entire squadron. When Striker reads of the upcoming lunar shuttle launch, he escapes the asylum and buys a ticket for the flight.
During the flight, Mayflower One suffers a short circuit, causing the artificially intelligent computer ROK to go insane and send the ship toward the Sun. Unger and Dunn try to deactivate the computer, but are blown out of an airlock. Oveur tries to stop ROK, but the computer gasses him. Kurtz abandons Elaine and leaves in the only escape pod. Once again, Striker is called upon to save the day, but first he has to figure out how to make the computer relinquish control. Steve McCroskey (Lloyd Bridges), the air traffic controller, reveals that a passenger named Joe Seluchi (Sonny Bono) had boarded Mayflower One with a bomb in a briefcase, intending to commit suicide so that his wife can collect on insurance money. Striker manages to wrestle the bomb from Seluchi and uses it to blow up ROK and set course for the Moon as originally intended.
Using the bomb to destroy the computer causes collateral damage to the shuttle, meaning the flight is not out of danger yet. On the way to the Moon, control of the flight is shifted to a lunar base, commanded by Commander Buck Murdock (William Shatner). He has a high level of contempt for Striker because of Macho Grande, but agrees to help anyway. They manage to land the craft on the Moon. Ted and Elaine fall back in love and are married at the end. After the wedding, Seluchi looks into the cockpit and asks for his briefcase back.
A postcredit scene shows a screen that says "Coming From Paramount Pictures: "Airplane III". Murdock is then seen saying "That's exactly what they'll be expecting us to do!" | entertaining, flashback | train | wikipedia | More-of-the-same sequel sees Robert Hays, Julie Haggerty, and Lloyd Bridges(among a few others) return as they are now involved with the first lunar space shuttle that is accidentally sent into a collision course with the sun after a computer malfunction.
Once again only Ted Striker can land the ship, and save their lives, with help from the airport crew(this time William Shatner as Buck Murdoch).Sequel tries awfully hard for laughs but comes up short; most are either recycled from the first, or outright fail, though William Shatner is the highlight here, successfully spoofing his "Star Trek" action hero persona well(Watch out for the Enterprise...) Promises a Part III that never materialized, so we'll likely never know if that was a good or bad thing!.
Airplane II - The sequel is quite literally more of the same, same cast (I'm glad to say) except Leslie Nielson (shame that) same jokes (Most of which still work well) same plot (Only this time we are in space) and the same hero.Given all of the above, you may wonder why bother?
Another hilarious spoof of disaster films, this one takes most of the cast of the original "Airplane!" and puts them in the future where space shuttle travel is the hot new thing.
Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty reprise their roles as Ted Stryker and Elaine Dickinson, two bumbling and likeable characters who fall in love (like so many times before...) during the inevitable breakdown of...
There are one or two good moments, though (some William Shatner scenes and the 2001 waltz spoof) and it's a good thing that the main cast (excluding Leslie Nielsen & Robert Stack) from "Airplane!" returned for this one.
Or maybe saying that most of the jokes are repeated from the first movie.Robert Hays yet again plays Ted Striker, but he doesn't have Elaine (Julie Hagerty).
The film refers about the first journey headed to the moon by means of the space shuttle ¨The Mayflower I ¨.Hilarious as well as silly spoof is loaded with nutty situations , irony , slapdash , slapstick , comedy with tongue-in-cheek , bad taste jokes , rapid flash thrilling choreography , funny situations and with a distinctly American sense of humor .
Basically a rehash of the first genius film, 'Airplane II' recycles the same old jokes over and the few new ones that are there fall flat on their face.
I thought it was really funny that they went into space this time, and they could have done a lot more science fiction movie related jokes, but they didn't, and I suppose that's okay.
In this case I laughed out loud even more.Both are great examples of modern slapstick films - full of numerous obvious gags which means that, if you like this sort of movie, they stand watching many times over, often revealing subtle little visual or audio jokes you didn't spot first time.
In Airplane 2 the visual gags were even better and towards the end William Shatner gave an inspired performance.These films were the first in a long line of similar spoof movies from the same makers, and although there is some tailing off, most of them are very funny in the same way as 'Airplane'..
It has all of the same types of jokes, the same writing style, the same filming style, and a hilarious cast of people who understand exactly what it takes to make a movie funny.The site gags, the plays on words, the silly facial expressions and the overall humor of this movie works so well that I can watch it over and over without losing any real fun value.I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who liked the first movie or who can watch a funny movie without taking it seriously at all.I think that this is one of the first movies that William Shatner was in that I really liked, and he helped add a lot to the fun value of the movie.
Most of the time the sequel rides the wave that the first movie created and the writer/director of this movie did nothing to help it, only hurt it.This time the ridiculously silly movie starts off like the last Airplane movie except that this time it's the first commercial shuttle flight to the first colony on the moon.
Doing it once or twice, say like in Austin Powers, its OK, but if most of your jokes are based on the original jokes from the first movie, then it quickly becomes tiresome and unfunny.There are a few jokes that are funny, the beginning with the Iran Air Courtesy shuttle is one, and most of the stuff with William Shatner was funny until the very end.
This is great fun, and a ton of laughs.....if you are an atheist, Democrat and generally a person of few morals.Yes, if you can laugh at all the sleazy jokes and naked breasts, chuckle at the priests and nuns looking like fools, along with the reference to some nut-case thinking he was Jesus Christ; laugh at child molestation gags, Ronald Reagan insults, etc., then this movie is for you!Hey, I love outrageous humor but make SOME attempt and being "fair and balanced." Why are there no Liberals trashed in here?
You wonder how they found the jokes, it's weird Leslie Nielsen doesn't play in it!How can a movie be this funny, it isn't normal anymore!
The sequel is funny, and that's all that matters.The film may lack ideas and originality but it makes up for it with plenty of laughs.
'Flying High II' - or as it is better known, 'Airplane II: The Sequel' - this follow-up feature takes place in the near future and this time involves disaster on a plane trip to the moon.
Yes, this sequel may not be as fresh and original as its predecessor, but it is very decent of its sort - even if the film was made without the blessing of the original movie's writer-directors..
The on-board computer then goes wrong killing the crew leaving Striker the man to save the day once again.The best way of describing this film, is like going to watch a stand up comedian new show and finding out that the three quarters of the show is the same jokes as the one you saw last time.
The new jokes are very funny, but you just wish there was more of them.Another disappointing thing on the film was Stephen Stucker character (Jonny in the first, Jacobs in this).
Of course, this isn't on the same level as the first "Airplane!", but it's a good parody movie, even without the ZAZ team around.The main actors reprise their roles and that makes it seem like a legit sequel (Sorry - no Leslie Nielsen here).
However, many jokes are recycled from the first one - they're still funny, but this means that "Airplane II" just doesn't have the same staying power as the original - I liked it, but I'm not in a hurry to rewatch it again anytime soon.
It's like, without ZAZ, they just couldn't figure out when to stop at the right time, and that makes some jokes not so funny after a while.But if you forget there was a first movie, you will have fun with this silly little comedy.
Not the worst comedy ever, but not exactly something you should rush out and watch immediately.Copying some jokes from the original film, then overusing its own new jokes, this gets a bit daunting at times.
The main differences are that they're going into space, Leslie Nielsen is only in archival footage, and there is a bit of nudity.Striker (Robert Hays) escapes from the loonie bin to come rescue Elaine (Julie Hagerty) on the inaugural flight of the space shuttle Mayflower.
Captain Oveur (Peter Graves) is piloting the shuttle, and Striker is forced to fly the plane once again.The repeating of many of the jokes from the first movie is probably very necessary.
A new face in this one is William Shatner as Buck Murdoch, Striker's commander.Of course, it wouldn't be a silly spoof without a joke and/or sight gag every couple of seconds.
While it's just a space copy of the original it still has some funny jokes that keeps me watching.
Paramount decided to go ahead and make one anyway despite the protestations of the creators, and hired the writer of Grease 2 (1982) to make the magic happen once again.Predictably, Airplane II - amusingly subtitled The Sequel - doesn't come close to matching the hilarity of the original, doing what most bad comedy sequels do and re-hashing most of the humour that worked so well previously, only without the same conviction or execution.
It short-circuits, causing its on-board AI to go insane and change course for the Sun. Ted Stryker (Robert Hays), the hero from the first movie, escapes from the insane asylum he was placed in by his employers after he discovered technical problems with the space shuttles, and boards the Mayflower in the hope of averting disaster.
Also on board is his old flame Elaine (Julie Hagerty), who is now engaged to one of the flight crew, Simon Kurtz (Chad Everett).Despite the absence of the original writers, there are still a few laughs to be had throughout the film, namely in the form of the permanently stressed and chain-smoking air traffic controller Steve McCroskey (Lloyd Bridges) and his incessantly chirpy assistant Jacobs (Stephen Strucker).
But the saddest thing is that the best jokes are the ones re-worked from the original, with writer/director Ken Finkleman failing to inject enough humour to make this one stand out on its own and not just be remembered as the weak sequel to one of the funniest farces ever made.
Most importantly, is that enough of the lines/gags worked to make this movie good.On the minus side, the plot is a little too similar to the first movie, the characters duplicate their roles - unfortunately to the point of repeating virtually the same lines (no longer that funny).
to use as blueprint, without anything new to add.Well, there is of course a major difference between the two Airplanes: this time, the story takes place on a space shuttle.
Ted Striker (Robert Hays), who just HAPPENS to be on board!That said, there are some funny moments in Airplane II: The Sequel.
There are a few new entries (Raymond Burr as a judge and William Shatner playing an astronaut) who may induce a smile in film-buffs, but sadly, no laughter.Those who haven't seen the original Airplane!
Airplane II: The Sequel is another disaster spoof film except it wasn't made by ZAZ.
Overall good spoof movie but needed some new jokes.
I nearly wet my pants watching Airplane and the same thing happened whilst watching Airplane II:The Sequel.Straight faced Robert Hays is back as Ted Striker, a top pilot who has had a few mental problems along the way.
Just like in Airplane, it's up to Ted Striker to save the day.A good comedy is one that you can watch many many years after you first saw it and still find it amusing.
While it's slower-paced than the gut-bustingly funny AIRPLANE and re-uses some of the same material, AIRPLANE II packs more science fiction movie in-jokes into its length than any other film I've seen, and stands up to repeated viewings better.
This is a good sequel, but a lot of funny things that could have happened didn't.
somehow, i managed to get through all 84 minutes of airplane 2.however,i found it more tedious than airplane 1,which i thought was impossible.i think i cracked a smile once during the first one,but not even close in this one.the jokes were even more stale and unfunny.i'm sure there are people who have enjoyed and will enjoy this movie,but i am not one of those people.interestingly,ken finkleman wrote and directed this movie and would years later go on to create and write the very funny show the newsroom.but i digress.after watching airplane 2, i decided i have to do something fun and entertaining.so' i'voe booked myself into a four day insurance seminar.maybe i'll get more laughs out of it.unless you're a hardcore fan you should avoid this movie.
Koch takes the plots, characters and gags from the first film (1980) and recycles them in a spoof that has intrepid pilot Striker (Robert Hays) and his faithful assistant Elaine (Julie Hagerty) trying their best to stop a passenger-laden aircraft from being incinerated by the sun.
It is booked with passengers and sent to space on a first ever voyage, and also on board are the stars from the previous film: Ted Striker (Robert Hays), Elaine (Julie Hagerty) and Captain Oveur (Peter Graves).
While at first a smooth ride, a faulty computer causes the shuttle to head straight for the Sun.Probably not as popular or as funny as the first movie, but jokes, absurd humor and slapstick comedy are still in abundance.
But it's a weird follow up where the main characters were reduced to some funny gags (the majority of jokes simply doesn't work) while the background figures are responsible for the outstanding moments of joy this movie has to offer.
The film is worthy enough but not as nearly funny or brilliant as it's original but it's always worth to watch the cast again.
The jokes come at a fast pace and for the most part they are pretty funny, though a lot of them are just the same ones from the first airplane movie.
Like the first movie it does suffer from the fact that some of the jokes would have been topical at the time, but are mostly meaningless now.The two leads, Robert Hays and Julie Hagarty, reprise their roles from the first movie., and do a good job.
Despite the sorely-missed presence of Leslie Nielsen for the first film, this is generally a whole heap of fun, a comedy laden with funny gags.As in the first movie, there's always something going on in AIRPLANE II.
"Airplane II: The Sequel" is a typical ZAZ-style sequel affair - not nearly as good as the original (think "Naked Gun II" and "III") but still entertaining and funny.
For some reason a lot of people seem to hate "Airplane II" with a vengeance but it's really not all that bad - you just have to watch it with low expectations and not expecting a sequel on-par with the original.Of course the novelty has worn off, and that's part of the problem.
Every time it gets close to the original it only makes me think of how good the original was and how much I want to be watching that instead of this.I still laughed plenty of times and they have tried to change the nature of the jokes to be slightly different from the original but it is clear that even many of the characters are the same even if played by different actors (Murdock being a space-age Kramer).
The cameos (Burr, Torn, Shatner) are all good value though.Overall this is a funny film, but it will be funnier to those who have not seen the original.
Wow, how many other sequels have this level of character development between movies?Anyway, this time the problem is that the new shuttle has been poorly designed and this has been covered up while Ted Striker has had a nervous breakdown fighting the system while Elaine has moved on to the guy who was responsible for the cover up.Once again things play out the way they did in the first movie with Ted getting on the space flight with other commercial passengers and when the crew is sucked out into space he has to take over and land the plane.The beginning and end of this movie are good if not great with William Shatner being the man who has to talk down Ted Striker using nothing but the power of over acting and flashing lights.
Of course he can but not without a few more jokes and gags to help him and the audience along.If you liked Airplane!
then you are sure to enjoy Airplane II The Sequel - it really is almost as funny as the first film.Recommended similar humored comedy movies: "Mars Attack!", "Galaxy Quest", "Spaceballs", and "Men in Black".9/10.
I will watch any of the Airplane movies again they are not funny.
It's basically a recycling of "Airplane" with some of the same actors in the same roles, but this time we're dealing not with an airplane but some kind of lunar shuttle that carries passengers.Like most sequels, it's not up to the original.
The premise is almost identical (substituting a space shuttle in trouble for the earlier 707), as is the cast list with Robert Hays and Julie Haggerty reprising their lead roles as the hapless pilot and air-stewardess, with the likes of Lloyd Bridges, Peter Graves and Steve Stucker also present, although Leslie Nielson is greatly missed.The same rat-a-tat gag-per-minute ratio is kept up, but it has to be said the humour thus time is a little coarser and lacking in originality.
OK, so it was quite funny, but I found that most of the times that I laughed it was simply about how awful the film was.
The jokes are all what I call environmentally friendly- reduced, reused, and recycled, from the original airplane movie and elsewhere.
Problem starts to arise when there's a passenger carrying a bomb and a faulty computer leading the ship their way to the Sun. Could Ted Striker land the shuttle safely...again?This movie looks like a promising sequel with most of the cast returning but having a different crew.
Mostly, all the jokes were recycled, making the movie feeling like a repeat on the original, with an exception on some parts of the film.Having said that, most of the re-used and new jokes were funny.
Airplane II: The Sequel is NEARLY as good as the original. |
tt0384819 | Azumi | Azumi focuses upon the life of the titular young female assassin. The manga begins an indeterminate number of years after the Battle of Sekigahara. As Azumi begins her duty, the manga introduces its characters into mainstream history. Many of the early missions that Azumi undertakes are the assassinations of the prominent supporters and generals of the Toyotomi Clan, against whom Tokugawa Ieyasu expected to again go to war. The manga 'reveals' that many of the Toyotomi leaders who conveniently died of diseases or accidents prior to the final confrontation between the Toyotomi and Tokugawa were actually victims of assassinations by Azumi and her comrades, thus indicating to the reader when the events were taking place.
Azumi is raised by an old man known as Jiji (Grandfather), whose name is later revealed to be Gensai Obata, as the only girl among ten students. They are secluded from the society in a tiny valley called Kiridani (Fog Valley) to such an extent that they do not know the difference between men and women, what a baby is, or customs like marriage. Early in the manga, as part of their training, Azumi and her comrades are ordered to go to Shimotani, a hidden community of ninja who became farmers, to learn the basics of ninjutsu. The manga sets a very chilling tone early on. The 10 erabareta senshi (chosen warriors), who are all young children (Azumi has her first period well after her first missions, so she appears to be somewhere between 10–12 years of age at the onset of the manga) are told by Jiji that they have completed their training. For their first mission, they are to form a pair with whomever among the 10 that they feel the closest. Azumi pairs with Nachi, and all others pair with their closest friends. Having formed the pairs, Jiji tells them their first mission is to kill their partner—whoever is too weak to kill their partner is too weak to fulfill their life's missions, and will not be allowed to survive. The ten children each fight their respective duels, and Azumi slays Nachi, an event which appears to deeply traumatize Azumi, but she hides her feelings, as do the others. Then, their second mission was to massacre all 53 residents of the peaceful ninja village, including their teacher, women and children, as they know of the group's existence. Azumi slays three men and four teenagers but is unable to kill a woman with baby, a task which one of her comrades quickly accomplishes.
The remaining five warriors proceed to go on assassination missions of the various important supporters of the Toyotomi faction. As the manga proceeds, it evokes various moral concepts such as the morality of assassinations (and killing in general), the dehumanization effect of politics, as well as leading the reader to question basic assumptions of right and wrong. For example, throughout much of the middle volumes of the manga (Vol. 8-19), Azumi frequently fights and kills many bandits—many of whom are depicted robbing, murdering, and raping innocent victims. Azumi does not question that her killing such bandits is right, and few readers probably question her righteousness. Later on in the manga, the political background to the reason for the banditry is revealed. The Tokugawa ruling family deposed and ended many previously prominent daimyo feudal lords who opposed them leaving the samurai and mercenaries in their employ without work or any means to live—therefore they resorted to banditry. Azumi questions whether it was right for her to have killed so many men who had been driven to banditry not by their own choice.
A consistent recurring theme is the contrast between Azumi and other prominent characters. Azumi is compared to a bodhisattva—a kind of enlightened being. This is indicative of the theme in Azumi where characters around Azumi are motivated by a variety of obsessions. Some are motivated by a kind of blind idealism, others by religion, others by a lust for battle, greed, or even normally sanctified motivations like honor. Not all the forces (particularly those motivated by more noble incentives, like a pair of ninja assassins whom Azumi kills, who are participating in the planning of a revolt as the only way for a ninja community to survive) are depicted as if their single-minded drive towards their goals are somehow evil. However, nonetheless, in each case, those who are attached intensely to something in the world are killed by Azumi, while she, who seemingly has little attachment to the earthly world and few personal desires, survives. | revenge, murder, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | As things start going downhill for the assassins, Azumi begins to doubt herself and begins to long for the life of a normal Japanese woman.This film is all about sword-fights and Kitamura delivers more than he probably should.
I really think if 10 minutes of slow-motion sword fights were cut this movie would flow much better.Now, "Azumi" is not a bad movie, by any means.
Adapted from the manga by Yu Koyama, directed by Ryuhei "Versus" Kitamura, and starring the ultra cute Aya Ueto in the title role, Azumi is a highly enjoyable period/fantasy samurai epic.
Azumi takes itself much more seriously, and, for the most part, it works.It's nice to see that Kitamura is now getting a modest budget for his film, as this looks noticeably better than the somewhat juvenile "Versus".
It also shows how small is the "life value" in their world.The acting is good, the dialogs are all in place ( no scenes where the characters are saying things that are pretty obvious for themselves, and make them look stupid) and most of the characters are great.
It fits the movie perfectly and keeps you alert.There is some resemblance to the Chinese "Hero" with jet Li. The main idea of both of the films is the same: A bunch of assassins tries to kill warlord(s).
Although the visual effects in Hero are much better and the fights are impressive also, I still got lost in the movie's dialogs trying to understand the meaning of what was said and sometimes looked for the watch.
Azumi "compensates" the philosophy time with ongoing plot and a lot of action, also providing us with some feelings for the characters.If I had to choose between the two, I definitely would choose the Japanese movie.Overall i enjoyed it much and would recommend it to anyone that likes action and does care for the plot..
I think I can see this movie a million times for the man in white and the woman in black...to understand which of them is the good one and what is evil one...to understand the power of red color...The Japanese made from this film a paint same as "Hero"..
I'm not too familiar with Japanese cinema especially the Chambara genre but I had come across director Ryuhei Kitamura's cult favourite Versus a couple of weeks before viewing this flick, so I wasn't expecting great things.
Sometimes, the term 'cult' seems to be a euphemism for 'popular with undemanding teen horror-fiends'.Luckily, Kitamura handed over the writing duties to Yu Koyama, creator of the Manga comic script upon which it's based, and producer Mataichiro Yamamoto, and I only hope Kitamura steers clear of his lap-top from now on, because Azumi is an absolute pearl of a movie that seems to revel in the mythical warrior story it relates.
True, there is a huge amount of bloodletting (the death toll runs into the multiple-hundreds, and we get to see them all in vibrant in-your-face bloody colour), but there is also a reasonable if a tad simple and clichéd storyline, and, for this type of movie, a lot of attention is given to character development.Japanese teen-star Aya Ueto plays the eponymous heroine, an orphaned waif rescued from the roadside by a master warrior and his small entourage of equally waif-like protégés.
Hidden from the world until they reach their late teens, this unlikely 'family' is trained in the art of swordplay by their master as preparation for their mission to rid the country of three troublesome warlords who are committing wholesale slaughter throughout the land.Half of these orphans are killed within fifteen minutes of the opening credits, and the manner in which their deaths are contrived serves notice that this is to be no ordinary mindless action flick.
By subjecting the survivors to such a horrifying ordeal, the writers slickly manoeuvre the audience into identifying with the previously nondescript bunch in a matter of minutes, where less accomplished writers would have needed half-a-dozen scenes to achieve anything approaching the same result and probably convey little of the emotional impact created by Koyama and Yamamoto.Ueto, while looking far too cute to be a fierce warrior, gives a good account of herself.
This film is crammed with memorable characters and scenes: the fey but deadly bad guy, Bijomaru (Jo Odagiri, looking like an undernourished Phil Oakey, c.1983), decked out in flowing white robes and carrying a red rose, who giggles with glee when fighting a worthy foe, and swishes his sword distractedly through the long grass as he observes the effect of the latest wound he has inflicted upon his adversary; Saru, the warlord's sidekick, possessor of an astounding hairdo and a habit of uttering monkey noises as he fights, and Azumi herself, who is never just a cipher, but who questions the validity of her mission at every turn, and resists, futilely, the life that has been mapped out for her.
Cinematographer Takumi Furuya's kinetic camera-work is also worth mentioning especially the astounding sequence in the climactic battle between Azumi and Bijomaru, during which the camera vertically rotates 360 degrees around the action.Azumi is a real barnstormer of a movie; great fun to watch, and deserving of a much larger audience than it has received in the West..
As we all know, what usually makes these films good is a profound story about trust and betrayal, coupled with the showcase of sword-fighting skills and war strategies.
If you are looking for an action movie and you don't really care about the story that much, then you may find this film thrilling; although you might be disappointed if you are looking for realistic fight scenes.
I would have liked to see a heroine who had a little more substance beyond her sword fighting skills, but Azumi's definitely worth a look for action fans.
The story is about a little orphan girl who is raised with 9 other boys to become assassins and carry out their 'mission'.The movie is basically a coverstory for a whole lot of unconvincing sword fighting, cheap green-screen shots, and gallons of fake blood.
But it works for two reasons: (1) it follows the rules it establishes for its world (2) it succeeds in creating an atmosphere in which those kind of feats seem possible (as long as you are able to suspend your disbelief as anyone must in order to enjoy something like it, or the Avengers films, or Lord of the Rings, etc).Azumi failed in both of those aspects, and on top of that was probably as contrived as a movie could get.
No matter which genre we see her first, she will no doubt win us over with her beauty, intelligence, vigour and maturity.Azumi is a movie set in early Japanese society were the Samurai, the Ninja, the Warlords, Honour and the way of the Sword still presides, a time of death, destruction, and the Wars between the three feuding Warlords of Japan have turned this great Country into a battlefield of hate, misery, and mistrust.Azumi is a highly detailed period action movie, with a meticulous setting to both costumes and set design, production and art designer Yuji Hayashida studied Cowboy movies to get the right feel for his masterpiece at the climax of Azumi, this is definitely not a thrown together hastily movie, time, thought and effort have gone into the making of Azumi.
Ryuhei Kitamura can take credit for his fine role in nurturing and developing the acting skills of Ms. Aya Ueto, playing the lead role here, into a wonderful and charismatic Azumi, with her supporting actors adding drive and emotion to a movie of such brutal ferocity.
This magnificent choreographed action movie with its many fight scenes and battles are very well placed and put together, driven along with a finely tuned musical score, both classical and modern, that sets both pace and emotion.The Awards of the Japanese Academy, in 2004, have given awards to both Aya Ueto and Jô Odagiri for Newcomer of the Year, along with Ms. Ueto Popularity Award for Most Popular Performer and a nomination for Best Actress too.
While VERSUS is a drawn (way) out, laughable, mindless, B-rated zombie/action spoof, AZUMI is a very serious swordplay/martial arts film about a band of teenagers trained from a young age to assassinate those who would start another bloody civil war.I could easily figure out that this was a Kitamura film by spotting out similarites between this and his past films.
Like BATTLE ROYALE, AZUMI has one too many mushy mushy scenes.Another Kitamura trademark is how this film is way too drawn out.
movies that do not get the kind of play that they could on my side of the ocean but films, nonetheless, that are as powerful, insightful, and complex as any of Hollywood's best.AZUMI is a tremendous step forward for the folks behind VERSUS.
But AZUMI is the kind of film that'll earn the talent far more respectability around the world -- as this experience deserves to be discovered by as broad an audience as it can.The story is classic: a group of warriors head on to fight one final quest to rid their lands of evil ...
In the end, only Azumi -- a petite samurai who lost her faith along the way -- storms the stronghold to save her mentor, facing over 200 enemies in a sword-to-sword battle as much for redemption as it is for survival.Granted, the film is not without a handful of campy moments, but they are easily dismissed against the backdrop of the warrior's epic struggle to accept the fact that -- regardless of how hard she tries -- she cannot escape her destiny.AZUMI sports some of the best swordplay I've seen from anything I've purchased at AZN, and that includes the stellar ZATOICHI rebirth at the genius of Takeshi Kitano.
There are only 2 things memorable to mention in favour of this film.1 = Aya Ueto, breathtakingly beautiful and the camera loves looking at her, save your time though and download her screen saver as she is utterly hopeless in the role of action heroine.2 = During one of the fight scenes there is a very impressive camera shot where the camera rotates several times 360 degrees over and under a one on one fight with Azumi but you can see this on the trailer so there is no need to waste time on the film..
Hell, the kindergarten gang-bangers in City of God had a higher life expectancy than this...If you can say one thing about the juveniles in Azumi though it's this: they certainly kick a lot more ass than their Hollywood counterparts who do nothing but go to proms, flash award winning smiles and have names like 'Ryan.'Set in an unspecified moment in Japanese history, the story revolves around a group of youngsters who have been raised in seclusion in the mountains by a wise, battle scarred and really rather cruel old Samurai, instructed by his master to train them to be assassins.
I've enjoyed films with low budget and good thinking, but I will never back movies that have a relatively high budget and a bad story..
Don't expect Kill Bill fighting scenes that get you on the tip of your seat, and don't expect choreography like in Hero, or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon either.In the end, the plot doesn't look like much either, it is hard to explain without spoilers, but you will see what I mean if you do choose to watch it.Poor acting, no plot, endlessly long fighting scenes, it may seem like a kids movie, but I wouldn't recommend that either.
The movie is not as bloody as Kill Bill, but the fighting is still very bloody, dozens of men get sliced or mutilated, and there are some dirty men trying to rape some girls in it.So I recommend you don't waste your time on this, and if you really want to, just put your brains on zero, try to ignore as much of the poorly acted dialog and watch the fighting scenes like video clips..
With the highly tuned and masterful direction of such action films as "House of Flying Daggers" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", the fight scenes in this movie seemed half- baked.
If you're looking for a nice change to the regular martial arts fare coming from Hollywood these days, Azumi is a refreshing film.The Villains, while still a little stereotypical are just psychotic enough to be fun.The action is well paced, and the story adequate to drive the film towards it's inevitable climatic scenes.The timing used during many of the fight scenes feels a little different to your typical Hollywood work, it's hard to pick the exactly difference, but it leaves you with a strangely different feel to the action on screen.
After having a good impression on Japanese films i decided to watch Ryuhei Kitamura newly made "Azumi".
The end result being I saw both the good qualities and flaws in the film.By the end I had come to the conclusion that how well you receive "Azumi" is based centrally on how you look at it.If you go in expecting some serious "Seven Samurai"-like fare and being told this movie rivals the great Kurosawa films then you'll be sorely disappointed.
Looking at "Azumi" in this light will make every scene look ridiculous the acting, the script, the plot, the cinematography, the effects, the costumes, the camera work, the direction all of it will have Kurosawa fans walking out within the first 15 minutes.By contrast if you go in expecting a movie based on a manga comic book (and this is key to understanding why the film is the way it is) then you'll receive an enjoyable ride of samurai mayhem based on comic book storytelling.
But before that in 2000s Japanese movies took world with great blockbusters like Battle Royale, K20, And this little gem Azumi, and epic action adventure with samurai.Azumi get trained in assassins martial art as a child together with other orphans, their master is a former soldier who lost his son in battle knows there is a lot of evil in this world and only his students can save the world.
The only films that feel this way for me are films that have one great scene after another and Azumi delivers exactly that.Character development, while not slight, takes a backseat to the action and atmosphere.
You might think that you've seen enough Sword-fighting movies in the past few years but Azumi really does out-do Kill Bill, House of Flying Daggers and The Last Samurai.
Especially the final fight scene.Definitely worth getting if you want a bloody good movie!.
For the moments of peace, the director uses calm and beautiful landscapes, but for the fight scenes the landscape changes from beautiful into a sad one, like the desert landscape when the film begins and we find Azumi next to her dead mother.Acting is also great.
Kiyomasa now aware that he's being targeted for assassination, plans a counter strike on Azumi and her team.The sword fight and the general carnage that follows at the end somewhat resembles Kill Bill 1, although I think Uyeto Aya is several notches better looking than Uma Thurman.If you liked the style of Kill Bill, you'll be entertained by this movie.
I've heard there should be an 148 min version of the film also, but weather or not seeing this version, would be an eye opener like in the case of the Leon directors cut, I dare not say, but one thing is certain: In all three versions of Azumi there is a standout scene, which catches the essence of the movie, and thus pushes it past being strictly an action flick, but still not a full character study: The scene is mesmerizing and doesn't even has the protagonist in it: In a field of yellow, a young man in love has to battle to the death with a devil in white, and as the battle becomes a ballet of blood, an emotional tension even stronger than the whirling swords, are created by the fact, that the young girl is watching and neither she, the young man who loves her or the audience has any clue as to weather or not, she will survive whatever the outcome of the duel might become.
The film makes good use of flashy and over-the-top (and sometimes anachronistic) tactics to make the battles fun to watch.Aya Ueto does a pretty good job portraying an innocent girl whose only skill is to kill people and, while most of her supporting cast are somewhat dorky, they do okay with the roles they're given.The best part is the villains, however.
A master samurai trains 10 children to grow up to be the ultimate assassins whose mission is to kill these warlords and restore peace to the land.The only girl amongst the 10 is Azumi.This is a wonderful movie - well paced,with a competent cast and some truly spectacular action set-pieces.Aya Ueto (17 when she did the movie) makes for an unlikely but extremely engaging lead.Cute and charismatic,she alone is worth the price of a rental.Mention must be made of Jo Odagiri,who nearly steals the show as the maniacal Bijomaru Mogami - an assassin sent by one of the warlords to assassinate his potential assassins!
Azumi reminded me in bits and bobs of the 1950's samurai flicks of Akira Kurosawa, the Evil Dead films of Sam Raimi and the Chinese blockbuster Hero.Like Hero, this is set in medieval times - Japan not China.
I'm not as well versed in the genre, but I enjoyed the film greatly.There was enough story to keep me interested, but lacked the deep, well developed characters and plot that make great movies.
This film gets a very high recommendation to fans of sword fights and just having fun while watching a movie..
If you want a good Samurai action-packed movie I recommend "13 Assassins".
If you'd like a satisfying action flick with a very pretty girl as the lead and a few genuinely sad moments, this is a good movie to try.. |
tt1327935 | Maniac Cop | In New York City, a waitress on her way home is assaulted by two muggers and seeks aid from a police officer, who breaks her neck. Over the next two nights, this "Maniac Cop" commits more murders, prompting Lieutenant McCrae (Tom Atkins), who was told by his superiors to suppress eyewitness accounts that the killer was wearing a police uniform, to pass on information to a journalist, in an attempt to protect civilians. Unfortunately, this causes panic and dissent among the city and results in innocent patrolmen being shot to death or avoided on the streets by paranoid people.
Ellen Forrest (Victoria Catlin), who suspects that her husband Jack (Bruce Campbell) may be the Maniac Cop, follows him to a motel, where she catches him in bed with a fellow officer, Theresa Mallory (Laurene Landon). Distraught, Ellen runs out of the room, and is slain by the murderer. Jack is arrested under suspicion of murder, but McCrae believes Jack has been framed. McCrae gets Jack to tell him about his relationship with Mallory, who is attacked by the Maniac Cop while working undercover as a prostitute. Mallory and McCrae fight off the killer, who is deathly cold even through his gloves and does not appear to breathe; though they shoot him several times, the killer appears unfazed.
Mallory hides out in McCrae's apartment while he investigates Sally Noland (Sheree North), the only person Mallory told about her affair. McCrae follows Noland to a warehouse, where she meets with the Maniac Cop and refers to him as "Matt". Returning to police headquarters, McCrae discovers files on Matthew Cordell, a fellow officer who was imprisoned in Sing Sing for police brutality and closing in on corruption in city hall. While McCrae is looking into his past, Cordell flashes back to being mutilated and killed in a shower room in Sing Sing.
When McCrae and Mallory visit Jack, they tell him that they think Cordell is the real killer and plan to visit the chief medical examiner at Sing Sing. McCrae leaves to go to the clerical room, and he is attacked by Sally, who is in hysterics, convinced that Cordell is going to turn on her. After finding a policeman hanging in a noose, Sally is grabbed by Cordell and beaten to death. Hearing the commotion, Jack and Mallory break out of the interrogation room and find the corpses of numerous officers strewn about the halls of the building. Jack tells Mallory to go to McCrae's car while he searches for Cordell, who disappears after throwing McCrae out a window, killing him. Jack, who looks like the one responsible for the carnage to responding officers, flees with Mallory.
The two go to see Sing Sing's medical examiner, who admits that while he was preparing to autopsy Cordell, the officer showed faint signs of life. The examiner secretly released Cordell into Sally's care, convinced he was completely brain dead. During the 50th Annual St. Patrick's Day Parade, Jack waits outside as Mallory warns Commissioner Pike (Richard Roundtree) and Captain Ripley (William Smith) about Cordell, but the two refuse to believe her and have her arrested. Cordell stabs Pike and Ripley to death, then targets Mallory, knifing the policeman left to guard her. Mallory escapes through a window, while Jack is arrested and placed in a van, which Cordell hijacks.
Mallory and another officer chase the van, which Cordell takes to his warehouse hideout, running over the watchman on the way in. Cordell attacks Mallory and Jack, kills the other officer, and tries to escape in the van when backup arrives. Jacks clings to the side of the van and fights for control of it, distracting Cordell and causing him to drive into a suspended pipe, which impales him. Cordell loses control of the vehicle, which crashes into the river, and sinks. The van is fished out, and, as it is searched, Cordell's hand shoots out of the water. Everyone then realizes that Jack Forrest didn't commit the murders.
In the extended cut, corrupt mayor Jerry Killium relaxes in his office, content Cordell is gone. After Killium's assistant leaves, Cordell, who was hiding behind a curtain, murders the mayor offscreen as the credits roll. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2146960 | Vazhakku Enn 18/9 | The story is narrated through flashbacks. Velu (Sri), a teenager, works in a roadside shop. He meets Jyothi (Urmila Mahanta), who is a maidservant at a few of the nearby apartments. Velu falls in love with Jyothi. Aarthy (Manisha Yadav) lives in one of the apartment buildings. Dinesh (Mithun Murali) is a student who resides in the same building. Dinesh is a spoilt brat. As luck would have it, Aarthy falls for him without knowing his true intentions. Dinesh too is attracted to Aarthy. He seizes the opportunity and shoots video clips of her private moments on his mobile phone and even circulates them among his friends via MMS. When Aarthy finds out, she is aghast and threatens to approach the police. An angry Dinesh tries to murder Aarthy, but Jyothi intervenes accidentally and saves her. She sustains serious injuries in the process. The movie picks up speed as the corrupt Police Inspector Kumaravel (Muthuraman) begins investigations. Kumaravel negotiates with Dinesh's mother, who is a school correspondent but refuses to later due to her stubborn character and completes the investigation with Dinesh as the culprit of the murder attempt. But Dinesh's mother approaches a minister with whom she has an affair with and he intervenes with Kumaravel for a negotiation between them. They agree on for an amount of ten lakh rupees. Kumaravel then talks with Velu to stand in the shoes of Dhinesh, if he wants to cure Jyothi. Velu accepts and is sentenced for several years in prison. Kumaravel with the money he got completes the construction of his house and gives nothing to Jyothi. Later it is informed to Jyothi that Velu did not commit the crime and is falsely accused in order that she must be cured. She realises that Kumaravel has cheated her and Velu, she gets to the court and throws acid on Kumaravel. Jyothi is arrested and as enquiries run course the judiciary finds Velu as innocent and releases him. Dinesh is arrested and Jyothi is sentenced for years in prison. In the final scene Velu meets Jyothi in prison and proposes his love and tells he will be waiting for her and leaves the cell as the door closes with the disfigured face of Jyothi is shown on screen. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0297162 | Half Past Dead | In San Francisco, Sasha Petrosevitch (Steven Seagal) is a Russian car thief who's brought in by criminal Nick Frazier (Ja Rule) to work for crime boss Sonny Eckvall (Richard Bremmer), who apparently shot and killed Sasha's wife. After some time, FBI Special Agent Ellen "E. Z." Williams (Claudia Christian) and her team show up to nail Nick, but things go bad, and Sasha gets shot.
After eight months of recovery following his brief bout of being clinically dead from the shooting, Sasha is incarcerated along with Nick in the newly reopened Alcatraz prison. Run by the charismatic warden, Juan Ruiz "El Fuego" Escarzaga (Tony Plana), the place is known for its new state of the art death chamber where the condemned can choose from five different ways to die: lethal injection, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad, or electric chair.
Lester McKenna (Bruce Weitz), is the first death row prisoner brought to the new Alcatraz and also the first prisoner scheduled to be executed. An older man, he stole $200,000,000 worth of gold bricks in a heist that resulted in five deaths, and hid the loot at an unknown location. Federal Bureau of Prisons head Frank Hubbard (Stephen J. Cannell) and Supreme Court Justice June McPherson (Linda Thorson) have arrived to witness the execution, which is a result of June sentencing Lester.
But she's not the only one interested in Lester. A small but well equipped team of terrorists who call themselves the "49ers" have parachuted onto the Alcatraz island, and gained control of it. Led by 49er One, a.k.a. Hubbard's assistant Donny Johnson (Morris Chestnut), and 49er Six (Nia Peeples), the team finds Lester, and they want him to give up the location of his hidden stash of gold. When Lester will not tell them, Donny shoots a nearby priest (Eva-Maria Schönecker), and threatens to kill others if the information is not delivered.
Donny's plan is disrupted, however, when Sascha decides to step in and fight back. It turns out that Sasha is actually an undercover FBI agent who has been trying to use Nick to get to Sonny Eckvall. When Sasha rescues Lester, the 49ers strap June to the electric chair and threaten to kill her, all while Ellen and her team prepare a rescue plan from the mainland.
With the help of Nick and some of the other inmates such as Twitch (Kurupt) and Little Joe (Michael "Bear" Taliferro), Sasha sets out to rescue June and bring Donny down, before Alcatraz becomes everyone's final resting place. | violence, comedy, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Back before she got to the high court, Thorson was the judge who tried and sentenced Weitz and she's there as a witness to the execution that gets delayed.Fortunately for all concerned Steven Segall is in the joint with his criminal buddy Ja Rule and he organizes the cons to resist.People who go to see Steven Segall movies go for the action and violence and not a coherent and realistic plot.
He shouldn't be surprised that it's his career that's half past dead.The director, Don Michael Paul, seems to have no ability to direct an action scene, martial art OR weapon-oriented.
The scene is so stupid they might as well have been playing hopscotch.So some guy is being sentenced to be the first person ever to be executed in Alcatraz's state of the art execution chamber, evidently not for stealing $200 million dollars in gold, but for not telling where it was hidden once he was caught.Hey, good thinking, people.
I just thought that was funny.The only good scene in the movie is the one in the prison where Ja Rule is getting slapped around the prison like a sack of cotton balls by this little Asian woman.
That was the funniest thing I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.You know, I work for the company that produced this film (which I why I watched it), and I still don't have a single positive thing to say about it, except, of course, for that one scene with Ja Rule getting spanked by that Asian woman.So read my review of Malena and you will see how strongly I sometimes disagree with professional film critics like Roger Ebert, but in his review of this movie Ebert wrote something that I agreed with as much as anything else he's ever written:"I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated 'Half Past Dead' PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie 'Bowling for Columbine' an R."Way to go, guys..
Anyway, the female who played the Supreme Court Justice member was actually enjoyable to watch.All in all, Half Past Dead is just mindless fun, pretty good.7/10.
So, take his old-school 1980s fighting techniques and combine it with a modern day rap artist like Ja-Rule (especially after his popularity with DMX in Exit Wounds), and you have the film Half Past Dead.
This film is the perfect example of a movie made just to get rap artists some screen time and attempt to bring an overweight action start from the 80s into the new generation.
Hey, Half Past Dead isn't Oscar material, but if you're looking for a fun action movie it's pretty darn good.
Steven Seagal and Ja Rule star as prisoners who must save hostages taken at the new Alcatraz.
Steven Seagal, who has a proud history of creating some of the most realistic and exciting fight scenes in his past work is completely wasted in this movie.
Leave your expectations for great story telling, and insightfulness at the door, and just enjoy a fairly entertaining film.What it's got: Good actors and casting, action, noise, snappy lines, simple morality, and escapism to an unusual setting.
The only bad part of this film is Steven Seagal,who now is old and fat so 1star off.Otherwise pure fantasy rush like the older more fit Seagal flicks.Who cares about plot in a good Seagal flick?
Here he plays a DEEP FBI undercover agent,Sasha Petrosevitch, who becomes tight with Ja Rule as Nicolas 'Nick' Frazier as a way to get to the guy that killed his wife.Along the way they wind up in Alcatraz now run by Tony Plana as Warden El Fuego who is about to execute Bruce Weitz as Lester McKenna who is to die for a gold robbery of 200 million that left 5 federal agents dead.From there the plot really goes wild as you'd expect in a pure action flick.Add Morris Chestnut as bad guy 49er One / Donald Robert Johnson and Nia Peeples as sexy badass 49er Six and Seagals boss Claudia Christian as Special Agent Ellen Williams and a once really sexy from my youth Linda Thorson (tv series the avengers) but now a older woman as Judge Jane McPherson and good supporting actors, what more do you want??Oh even a closing credits for laughs scene with Kurupt and Mo'Nique.
I saw Half Past Dead back in 2003 and I forgot about it.I've been getting into Seagal again recently and I watched this film a few weeks ago.Most of Seagal's films were Rated R.This is his only PG-13-rated film to date(though "Fire Down Below" was a very tame R, could have easily been PG-13).I was surprised at the low score.Sure this film is no "Above The Law", "Under Siege" or any of Seagal's earlier works, but it is a fairly entertaining action film.It was better than "Fire Down Below", "On Deadly Ground" and the majority of his straight to video fare.The film is about an FBI agent who goes undercover in a new Alcatraz-like prison.A man who buried a large amount of money years ago is to be executed.However some terrorists break into the prison and force the man to tell them where the money is.Part of the film involves the terrorists(led by Morris Chestnut who previously was in Under Siege 2 and plays a fairly good role) playing mind games with the police officers and the hostages, one of whom is a supreme court judge.The other part involves Seagal, Ja Rule and the other prisoners trying to save everybody.Half Past Dead is a fairly underrated and decent enough Seagal film.Too bad that after this, he was reduced to crappy straight to video fare..
In close-up shots he looks very seriously and that is everything we get from him.Normally I try to avoid movies like this and 'Half Past Dead' helped me remember why that is.
His film Fire Down Below, while not an Oscar contender, remains a favorite of mine for excellent hand-to-hand battles throughout the movie.That said, I walked into the sneak preview of Half Past Dead hoping to see some serious Seagal-type fights, but alas there was but one decent one, with too much moving camerawork.As a standalone film, it's fairly entertaining, with some funny dialogue provided by rapper Kurupt.
but what makes half past dead such a terrible film are the acting, the action sequences, which in contrast to under siege were rather poor(which was a good film) and that some of the dialogue was almost painfully laughable to hear.
Even the main villain has one of the most ridiculous deaths that is nothing like a big cop out for a finale.What does heroes escaping in a car from nothing, people shooting at nothing and the hero and villain of an action film not even having one fight all add up to?
I consciously watched Half Past Dead full well knowing I've hated other films for less, but still got a kick out of what I observed on the screen.
With that out the way, HALF PAST DEAD is one of STEVEN SEAGAL's most stylish movies to date.
JA RULE (who is certainly a notch up from DMX) has just as many fight scenes, and doesn't mind getting his ass kicked by the lovely miss PEEPLES (in a very MATRIX-like sequence) MORRIS CHESTNUT puts in a good performance, proving that he has more to offer than 'spare wheel' to SEAGAL (a'la UNDER SIEGE 2) Good to see LINDA THORSON (where has she been all these years?) in a great role as a sympathetic (and all-too human) supreme court judge.
Taken for what it is, the movie comes across as DIE HARD meets THE A TEAM So, if you like your movies fast paced, laced with hip-hop music (and attitude) but zero gore, then HALF PAST DEAD is the movie, you've always needed, to introduce your girlfriend to the (many) pleasures of a STEVEN SEAGAL movie.
But imagine her shock, when you show her (the extremely violent and profane) OUT FOR JUSTICE!Great film, stylishly shot, modestly budgeted, great performances, minimum violence and profanity and a killer soundtrack (comprising mostly of hip-hop/nu metal) and you have a perfect nights entertainment, courtesy of STEVEN SEAGAL (still the 'baddest' man on the planet known as 'action movie')9 out of 10 (could have been a 10, with more violence!
you know,i actually enjoyed this movie.really had a blast.it may be full of plot holes and illogical moments,but i never really thought about it.it was fast paced and fun.lots of action,a few fight scenes that were adequate,not great but not horrible.lots of gun battles.there were some funny moment,some of which might have been unintentional,but some were intentional.i don't think this was trying too hard to be a serious movie.sometimes you just need to shut off your brain for awhile and allow yourself to be entertained.but you have to been in the mood.if you're not,you won't enjoy it.luckily i was.for 95 minutes or so,i forgot about everything else and enjoyed the ride.for me,Half Past Dead is a 7/10.
i think that this is the second worst film i ever seen just listen to the way it begins: Steven Seagal and some black guy drive in a car (by the way Seagal doesn't look at the road he is looking at the black man sitting next to him all the drive long) than after about a minute of driving Seagal stop the car suddenly for no particular reason the black guy is pushed out of the car and crashed in the car that parking in front of them (god knows what she did there) than they both goes to jail and Steven Seagal only with legs kick all the cops in the jail and take control over it.guys tell me it isn't sounds like piece of crap but you better see it so when they ask you what is the 3 worst things you ever saw at least one of them (that one) will be really bad.i really don't understand why this crap isn't in the bottom 100 it should be there.i still compare who's badder this one or "to the sun" which is another Seagal film (which by the way containing a scene which Steven Seagal actually SINGS!!!(guys trust me you don't want to see Steven Seagal sings it isn't a pleasant thing it comes with a lot of pain for the ears and a lot of suffer to the mind).i've seen "half past dead" on T.V. usually i would stop few minuets after the beginning (i described the beginning you know what i mean when i say it sucks) but on this one i wanted to stay and watch (for the reason i mentioned above with the 3 worst films you ever saw) and i wasn't disappointed.
Half Past Dead was unlike any Steven Segal film I've ever seen.
After starring in admittedly enjoyable crowd-pleasing films like UNDER SIEGE and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Seagal hits the low grounds of the bad movie abyss.
All of which are sometimes tedious and predictable.Although predictability seemed to be a welcome asset in summer action films, predictability has never tasted more sour in ones that aren't fun, and HALF PAST DEAD is never really fun, a lot of times it's just a pain in the head (hearing the bad rap music repeat over and over again throughout this film makes me yearn for an aspirin every second I hear them).
Seagal's character is also provided with a sidekick (played by rap star Ja Rule) and a bunch of amigo inmates, and there's no chemistry going on here.If starring in a series of other forgotten action vehicles (what were those films again?) killed of Seagal's career for good, HALF PAST DEAD is overkill.
Half Past Dead, must also refer to Seagal's martial arts skills that are on vacation in this pitiful movie.
Steven Seagal,, who cares if there wasn't no showdown fight scene he was funny,, talked bad azz , did his thing,, what more can you ask,, i mean folks you have a decent story,, a cop ..
We want bone-crunching in-your face-action sprinkled with a dose of humour, and this is what we get with Half Past Dead.I saw this film on HBO last week and enjoyed it from beginning to end.
For me it had all the typical ingredients of a Seagal film, aided by a director who knows how to make action films, unlike Michael Oblowitz who made the truly awful Out for a Kill.Half Past Dead is 98 mins of pure mindless entertainment, nothing more, nothing less..
I think it is all the way dead, just like Steven Seagal's career.
If your a Steven Seagal fan you know whats there to be expected, the film obviously due to the budget wasn't very successful but i have that feeling if it had more funding I'm sure it could have been a good decent film by Steve Seagal.Never the less the film is based about "someone" (not giving too many hints) who is at death-row the story plays its plots with a few twists and turns.
'Half Past Dead' delivers enough fights and explosions to please anyone who enjoys a good, well-made movie that has lots of fights and explosions.
perfect weekday evening guy movie...there's not much else to say other than this film is a lot of fun, there's some great action sequences, some comedy, a seriously hot chick and a simple-easy story line to follow and enjoy.
The action seqeunces in the film are okay, I think there could have been more martial arts fights and Ja Rule is good as alwayas.
I enjoy Steven Seagal films, and I even expected some good stuff from Ja Rule, but this was absoltely TERRIBLE.
Ja Rule looked perfect for the comedy sidekick, instead we have the usual comic rapper slang and bad acting.Half Past Dead was average, definatly not Seagals best but certainly much better then Ticker, Foreigner and even xXx.
I am a Steven Seagal fan since his first movies, and I was seeing how they were getting better and better until the 1996 movie The Glimmerman, but after that I don't know why Steven did so bad movies, movies where he played characters that didn't match with him at all.But in 2001 with Exit Wounds Steven made a good movie, so I was expecting a good movie again, but HALF PAST DEAD, is a very, very bad movie.First, the story, that is a complete confusion, where did you see the prisoners fight against the invaders of a prison???
But in the movie, the prisoners love so much the prison that they continue there fighting against the invaders!There are so few scenes of fights on this movie, and Steven is one of the best Aikido fighters on the world, and a movie with Steven Seagal with few fights, can't be a good movie!!!The end, I can't tell how the movie ends, but I can sure you that is terrible.Well, I hope (like every Steven fan) that he in the future could make better movies with more action and credible stories....
I also don't know if Seagal can act much beyond his basic character-thing, but he's always had a very workable tough cop/agent/action kind of guy going for him.
Having enjoyed action movies and Seagal films in the past and in the absence of similar fare I took a chance.
Half Past Dead *** out of ****Starring Steven Seagal ("Exit Wounds," 2001), Morris Chestnut ("Two Can Play at that Game," 2001), and rapper, Ja Rule, "Half Past Dead" was a well-scripted, entertaining action movie that, although not perfect, had the right dose of humor and excitement to hold my interest for most of its ninety-nine minutes.Again we found Steven Seagal under siege, only this time he was in a prison as opposed to on a train or a cruise ship, as in two of his previous films.
The villains, led by Donny, included Sophia, played by Yasmina Filali-Bohnen, whose bright blue eye-shadow helped to set her apart as one high kicking, gun toting female, who perhaps offered the most enjoyable fight scene of the film.Even with a still overweight Steven Seagal, whose limited fight scenes were hardly comparable to those from his earlier films ("Hard to Kill," "Marked for Death"), I enjoyed "Half Past Dead," as it offered a better than expected script, shot well, with a conscious awareness of just how the audience would perceive it..
Half Past Dead is just a fall-flat action film that doesn't deserve to be watched by anyone2/10 - very bland.
This is one of the worst movies from Steven Seagal, personally I like him, his not a great actor, Arnie is better, but he has a calm over him, and an cool fighting technic, but here he don't uses it, the fighting is left for Ja Rule, and he CAN'T fight, and he's even worse in the acting department, and he tries to act as cool as he can, it's patheticThe whole movie is filled with unbelievable bad dialog, just check out when the Feds first make contact with the terrorists, the first the womans says is "Didn't your mother lover you enought", and tries to be so cool, it horrific, and this goes on from almost all of the actors, only one that comes from it ok is, Nia Peebles, she don't act much, but the fighting is actually good.The director has clearly watched a ton of movies, and instead of learning from them he steals the things he thought was cool, and he can't ever decide if the movie is a plain action movie, or one with a lot of camera style, just check out after the terrorist team lands, and Nia Peebles character turns around and her coath flies around, it just idiotic, and there is not any type of that shot again in the movie.2/10.
I've come to expect a lot worse from Steven Seagal's movies, so I was pleasantly surprised by Half Past Dead. |
tt0377981 | Gnomeo & Juliet | Mrs. Montague and Mr. Capulet (Julie Walters and Richard Wilson) are two elderly neighbours who despise each other. When they leave their respective gardens, their garden gnomes come alive. The Montague garden is filled with blue-hat gnomes, and the Capulet garden has red-hat gnomes. Like their human gardeners, the gnomes also despise each other.
The gnomes hold a back alley lawnmower race, with Gnomeo (James McAvoy) driving for the blues and Tybalt (Jason Statham) for the reds. Tybalt cheats to win the race, destroying Gnomeo's lawnmower. Gnomeo and his best friend, Benny (Matt Lucas), are disappointed to see Mrs. Montague ordering a new "kitty" lawnmower.
That night, Gnomeo and Benny infiltrate the red garden in black disguise. Benny sprays Tybalt's well and accidentally triggers a security light. During the escape Gnomeo ends up in a nearby garden where he bumps into a disguised Juliet (Emily Blunt), the daughter of the red gnomes leader Lord Redbrick (Michael Caine). Juliet is attempting to retrieve a unique orchid, and the two romantically fight over it. They each discover the other's color before fleeing the garden. When they both go back to their own gardens, Juliet tells her frog-sprinkler friend Nanette (Ashley Jensen) about her newfound love. Nanette states that the relationship is romantically tragic.
Gnomeo and Juliet have secret meetings in the nearby garden, where they meet a pink plastic flamingo named Featherstone (Jim Cummings) who encourages their love. Lord Redbrick pairs Juliet with a Red Gnome named Paris (Stephen Merchant), but Juliet isn't interested in him and distracts him with Nanette who has feelings for him.
Gnomeo's mother and the blue gnomes leader Lady Bluebury (Maggie Smith), is distraught after the reds infiltrate the garden and destroy the plant nurtured by Gnomeo's deceased father. The blues want Gnomeo to take revenge on the reds, and he realizes that he cannot refuse unless he tells his secret. Just as he is about to spray the prized tulips of the reds, Juliet sees him and he backs out of the attack.
When he and Juliet meet up again, they argue until Featherstone stops them, telling them he lost his wife when the two people living in the house, where the garden is, broke up and never saw each other again. Benny sees them and runs into the alleyway, where Tybalt is waiting with his lawnmower, attempting to run Benny down and chops off his hat. Gnomeo intervenes, and he and Tybalt fight on the red lawnmower until the lawnmower runs into the wall. Gnomeo jumps off at the last minute, but Tybalt crashes into the wall, destroying himself. The reds attempt to attack Gnomeo, thinking that Tybalt died because of him, but Juliet, to the surprise of her clan, defends Gnomeo, saying that she loves him. Gnomeo ends up on a road, and everyone believes he was run over by a truck. Lord Redbrick and the red gnomes glue Juliet's feet to her fountain because he does not want to lose her as she lost her mother.
Shroom, Gnomeo's mushroom friend finds out that Gnomeo is still alive (A blue teapot fell out of the truck that 'ran him over', which all the gnomes came to believe was Gnomeo), as he eventually reaches a park where he climbs onto a statue of William Shakespeare (Patrick Stewart) and tells him his story. Shakespeare tells Gnomeo that his story is very similar to Romeo and Juliet and that it is likely Gnomeo's will have a sad ending as well.
Benny gets onto Mrs Montague's computer and changes her lawnmower order to a powerful Terrafirminator unit, intending to get revenge on the reds. However, the Terrafirminator goes out of control, destroys most of the two gardens, and gets itself stuck while the gnomes wage a full-scale war. Gnomeo returns to Juliet with the help of Featherstone. However, when he arrives, the Terrafirminator frees itself, sending it flying. Gnomeo tries to un-glue Juliet, but is unable to. She tells him to go, but he refuses. The two share a passionate kiss just as the lawnmower crashes into the fountain, self-destructing in the process. When everyone believes that both are dead, Lord Redbrick and Lady Bluebury decide to end the feud. Miraculously, Gnomeo and Juliet emerge from the ruins and the two clans celebrate.
The film ends happily with the red and blue gnomes finally coming together to celebrate their newfound peace. Tybalt is revealed to still be alive having been glued back together, Featherstone is reunited with his wife after Benny finds and orders her online, Gnomeo and Juliet are married on a purple lawnmower, which symbolizes the new union of both gnome clans. | revenge | train | wikipedia | Yes, the movie is predictable from start to finish, but I say: "So what!" It's supposed to be a family/kids movie and we all know that this movie is not going to end like the real Romeo and Juliet.
Gnomeo and Juliet meet, and the rest is history as they say.Of course, the film can't follow the original play exactly - this is a kids movie!
The ending of Shakespeare's original story would prove awfully dark for the young audiences that would be naturally drawn to this.So, with these reservations in mind I saw the film last night with my 7 and 10 year old daughters, and found myself enjoying the movie much more than I expected to.
An age old feud - of which the reason has long since been forgotten - is keeping them apart, but unexpected events might just be enough to get them back together again.Loosely based on the Shakespearean tragedy Romeo And Juliet this animation film keeps the middle line between tragicomedy and romance.
Like many animation films being made these last years it combines fun things for kids with fun things for adults - without hurting either group (the innuendo that is fun for adults is not seen by kids whose innocence protects them from it, the deviation from the original tales to make it fun for kids is not so warped that it makes it unrecognisable for them parents).The animation is great - the gnomes and the gardens are just lovely to watch.
No other writer lends himself to so many different film interpretations as William Shakespeare, whose plays have spawned musicals (West Side Story), teen comedies (10 Things I Hate About You), even cartoons (though not credited as such, Hamlet is an obvious source of inspiration for The Lion King).
Their mission is to find new ways to make the enemy garden look bad, and it all goes well - so to speak - until a full-scale war erupts, and star-crossed lovers Gnomeo (James McAvoy) and Juliet (Emily Blunt) find themselves caught in the middle...The material is an unusual choice for Disney, which traditionally favors straightforward adaptations of popular stories (albeit with necessary alterations) over postmodern riffs that combine tribute and spoof.
Sure, there are in-jokes galore (the house numbers 2B and Not 2B are the standout), but the third act is particularly underwhelming, with too much screen-time for the mandatory talking animal sidekick (an annoying flamingo, voiced by Disney mainstay Jim Cummings) and a climax that has inevitably been altered - presumably - to keep the kids from crying.When it works, however, Gnomeo & Juliet is an absolute joy: the opening send-up of the play's prologue set the tone quite nicely, Elton John's contribution to the soundtrack is faultless, and the voice cast is a hoot.
Aside from the filmmakers having the nerve of putting Jason Statham and Ozzy Osbourne in the same film as Smith and Caine (surely a once in a lifetime kind of thing), the idea of incorporating Shakespeare himself as a character (voiced by Patrick Stewart) and having him criticize the film's plot detours is the self-mocking stroke of genius there should be more of throughout the movie.All in all, this is a nice little film that is worth watching for entertainment value.
The lite-version for kids, part of the fun here is the identification of the actual Romeo and Juliet references from names used right down to the incidents based upon William Shakespeare's most romantic tragedy, because it is quite ingenious of the entire team of scriptwriters (the many cooks here not spoiling the broth, thankfully) to have taken key elements and painting quite a different, uplifting film if you will, since this is after all something for the young ones to appreciate.Taking place between garden gnomes of adjacent gardens of bickering neighbours, the Reds (Capulets) and the Blues (Montagues) have this long standing feud that will make the romance of their children Gnomeo (voiced by James McAvoy) and Juliet (Emily Blunt) quite impossible, if not for the lovers to meet in secret.
The A-list voices will also be top draw, although animation may look a little stiff since it's modelled to perfection the porcelain clay that the gnomes are possibly made out of.Elton John's music got touted out loud through the film's marketing machinery, but frankly they don't really stand out unlike a musical since they were mostly used in the background, nor were inventively utilized such as those in the mold of Across the Universe which had plenty of The Beatles' tunes gelled together seamlessly into the narrative..
Anyway staying on subject what odds if this isn't entirelly faithful to Romeo and Julliet there's already adaptions that exist that are completely faithful to this well known story anyway :)This film is underrated if you ask me; it definitely succeeds in entertaining it's target audience and has a lot of good laughs on the way; my younger cousins loved it and even I laughed too; one particular scene I really liked was when Julliet said "Swim away be free" to a clay fish and then when she puts it into the water it just sinks to the bottom :) People whine far too much these days it's no wonder making a film is a lot harder than it was back then and I can't help but feel a lot of things that are considered classics would be nowhere near as successful if they were released in this day and age..
Gnomeo and Juliet is a good animation movie for kids.
With child-friendly alternatives to character names such as Gnomeo and Juliet and not forgetting Nanette the Frog playing Juliet's nurse and Featherstone the pink plastic flamingo occupying the role of Friar Lawrence, this movie has clear resemblances to the classic version of Romeo and Juliet, but in a way that an audience of any age can understand and enjoy.
While the movie is aimed at families with young children, it can be enjoyed by children of any age and in particular, older viewers who have read Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' in the past.
The plot of the original Shakespeare novel was well changed and flipped to match the whole "gnome" feature, and the animation and details put into the film were great, even for an animated movie.
And it's a lot less tragic.Act 1 – The voices of Gnomeo and Juliet consist of a popular cast mostly made up of Britons – James McAvoy as Gnomeo, Emily Blunt as Juliet, Michael Caine as Lord Redbrick, Matt Lucas as Benny, and Jason Statham as Tybalt plus the voices of Hulk Hogan, Ozzy Osborne, and Maggie Smith.Act 2 – Also quite clearly as an animation, this film was created for a young target audience.
This is exciting for those who enjoyed Toy Story, to see similar characters but certainly not as likable (alas), but to others it may just be considered a B grade rip-off.The final Act - Either one of two reactions could be predicted from everyone going to see Gnomeo and Juliet.
Judging from the reactions of the children in the same theatre, the latter reaction is the more likely one, and in that case Gnomeo and Juliet is actually a good film for the kids, which is honestly what it intended to be.Verdict: It isn't really Shakespeare, but does the young target audience care if it isn't?.
Gnomeo and Juliet was better than I thought, it is not among the best animated films of all time and it never tried to be, but it isn't among the worst.The story loosely based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is predictable with not that many surprises, but at least it didn't have a jarring change of tone and at least it went somewhere.
Adults will love or at least admire the voice cast, as all of them from Maggie Smith, Ashley Jenssen and Michael Caine to Patrick Stewart, Julie Walters and Jim Cummings are terrific.Overall, a decent movie that didn't try to be anything more than it was other than a fun and entertaining film.
I think what makes this movie so cute is the majority of the characters are garden gnomes that come to life when the humans aren't looking.
But for me, I'm not into William Shakespeare's work nor Romeo and Juliet.But a couple months ago, Touchstone studios released an animated retelling of the classic story except with...Gnomes.The movie was really good and it was really funny.
The music was also good because it was done by Elton John.The problems I have with this film is that the film feels a bit rushed at time's and the movie can be pretty boring."Gnomeo and Juliet", is a great animated film for the whole family to enjoy..
And a good tell of a great time, the audience clapped for the movie and stayed to watch credits even tho there were no bonus scenes as if no one wanted to the ride to end.Okay there are those who criticize it, and No this is NOT Shakespeare and it clearly lets you know that in the beginning!
This is particularly true when the bravos on each team decide to rev up their power mowers and do a little dirt-trackin' in the nabors' garden.There are some B+ names in the voice cast — James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Maggie Smith, Patrick Stewart, Jason Statham — but the animation looks cheap (often using either completely immobile scenery or just a plain pastel backdrop), and the story is ludicrous.
Gnomeo & JulietThe hardest part of reinterpreting William Shakespeare's tragic love story starring fabled forest creatures is finding two suicidal gnomes.Fortunately, the makers of this animated adaptation were able to find melancholy munchkins.Raised on opposite sides of Mr. Capulet and Mrs. Montague's fence, a blue garden gnome, Gnomeo (James McAvoy), and a red garden gnome, Juliet (Emily Blunt), are sworn enemies, though they've never met.It's not until Gnomeo seeks revenge against Juliet's cousin (Jason Statham), after an ill-fated lawnmower race, that the star-crossed lovers meet.Though both families denounce the union, the two continue to meet in an overrun garden, where a lovesick flamingo fosters their relationship.Adhering to the bard's prose, while simultaneously lampooning it, this star-studded interpretation is amusing and inventive.Luckily, this story doesn't take place on a white trash lawn, because then Romeo would be a talking couch and Juliet, an abandoned car.
But that doesn't mean it can't be a cute, enjoyable, witty spin on Romeo and Juliet, with two backyards full of garden gnomes (and other garden features like frog fountains) at war with each other, and star-crossed lovers from each side falling in love in spite of it all.And who can dislike the voice cast?
James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Michael Caine, Maggie Smith - some of Britain's very best bring character and comedy to their parts -- as do, in their own weird way Ozzy Osborne and Hulk Hogan in cameo roles (For that matter who could resist any film that brought such a surreal bunch of voices together?).Yes, this isn't an all-time classic.
James McAvoy as Gnomeo, and Emily Blunt for Juliet - they even brought in Ozzy Osbourne and Jason Statham.The movie will have you laughing at times, and sad at others - it definitely does a great job of bringing out the emotions.
Little changes like this make the film more accessible to younger audiences while offering extra gags to adults who know the story of Romeo and Juliet.
I would say perhaps and while it was a good try it just felt to rushed and detached, even for a family movie.Everyone knows that story of Romeo and Juliet so when a family version was planned, with cute looking garden gnomes substituting for people, it was inevitable that certain parts would changed.
But the down sides far outweigh the good.Benny's scene time is too short, the love story between Gnomeo and Juliet is too rushed not giving us enough time to actually find out how likable either character is, leaving me to care for neither one.
Various lines of classic Shakespearean dialog (not just from Romeo and Juliet) make sporadic appearances throughout.I was expecting this film to be quite cute for kids, like most animations, but a quiet payout of Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet for the adults - it actually opens doing just that and I got all excited hearing a little garden gnome saying "Before this story is this large introduction" He then reads about 4 lines of the opening of R&J and then says something along the lines of "Blah Blah Blah - let's just get on with it".
For young kids this is fine as they can get a very VERY remote piece of Shakespearean education in some cute colors but for me none of the characters get even close to the likability of any of the characters from Toy Story plus R&J is one of my all time favorite stories and films (I love you Leo).There is some good music from Elton John spread throughout the film that lifts it a bit and while I did not watch it in 3D I could seem some scenes that could be good in 3D.
My husband & I have an ongoing joke...that he's gonna be the size of a gnome by the time he's 90.So when we saw the ad for Gnomeo & Juliet,of course we couldn't wait for the movie to come to town.We haven't seen it yet because we're waiting for Tuesday 1/2 price night (that way if it wasn't as good as we hope then it wasn't a complete waste of money & better yet,it was a date night with my hard working man).
I gotta say some people's comments on here just goes to show people nowadays have no sense of humour & take things WAY to seriously.How anyone could think this movie would be a play by play account of the real Romeo & Juliet we have no idea.The title alone shows it's going to be a comedy not to mention it's animated.Anyone watching the ad on TV would also see it's not a tragedy...sheesh it has Ozzy Osbourne in it...how serious could it be??
We think people need to lighten up...I come to this sight to see if there's a consensus on a certain movie we wanna see(we live almost 40kms from our theatre so it's very rarely we treat ourselves to one)and today we found a lot more positives than negatives.I especially appreciated the 1 comment that says any adult innuendo goes unnoticed by children (which I've seen numerous times with animated movies in the past) because my girls never caught onto any of it back then and now that they're grown they love watching them & laughing at what they "missed".
In this CG-animated feature film Gnomeo and Juliet (parody of Romeo and Juliet), the garden gnomes of two elderly neighbors, Mrs. Montague and Mr. Capulet who dislike each other, come alive when they leave.
As for the story, I couldn't help but feel this film was weighed down by the all too familiar aspects of the Romeo and Juliet plot, but I suppose this could be a good intro to the play for the kids.
GNOMEO AND JULIETAnother animated film for the holidays.This film is basically Romeo and Juliet
but with garden gnomes as the characters.
With the gnomes version of Toy Story characters and smart writing added with Elton John's soundtrack, Gnomeo and Juliet is a kid version of Shakespeare's love tragedy..
I'm a fan of the story of Romeo and Juliet in all kinds of adaptions and think there were some clever ways of feeding in original lines and keeping with the traditional mix up alive without disturbing young children.With an all star cast, it was amusing and fun for the young, but perhaps not quite up there with some of the great animated tales..
Pretty Bland, Very Meh. The neighboring gardens of Montague and Capulet are at war, but the gnomes, Gnomeo and Juliet, are in love.As they point out in the beginning, the story of Romeo and Juliet has been done many times...
Film makers :if you are making movies aimed at children then rewatch the toy stories and keep things basic.fair enough older kids will get gnomeo and Juliet, but all ages get and enjoy toy story!.
Yes, garden gnomes and decorations come to life but that's were the similarity between the two ends.I did not go in expecting to see a cartoon version of Romeo and Juliet so I was not disappointed one bit and thankfully, this story does not share the tragic end of the original tale.
I honestly don't know why someone would think that it would be a great idea to recreate a Shakespeare play with garden gnomes, but apparently somebody in Hollywood considered that this idiotic premise would work in some way.Well, as everyone expected, this didn't work.Besides of the extremely idiotic premise, this movie failed to be remotely funny or interesting, and had many lame and clichéd characters.
Apart from its leading characters (Gnomeo voiced by James McAvoy and Juliet by Emily Blunt), Nanette, Featherstone and even the Shroom add fun to the movie.
An animated take on the classic tale of Romeo and Juliet, this children's tale tells the story of two feuding gardens – the red gnomes of the Capulet house versus the blue gnomes of the Montague house – as they battle with each other and the film itself battles with adapting one of the best known stories in history.
One example of how she does this is the opening scene when the gnome begins reading out the prologue and in one way it seem this film may be mocking Shakespeare's original play of Romeo and Juliet as the prologue is described as boring. |
tt0051874 | La llorona | Jacques comes back after a long absence to his wife Dominique and their daughter Lola in their isolated house, located on a hill in Haute-Provence. Dominique cry. She had driven him because she can not stand the way he cry. Jacques helplessly to the excesses of his emotion. She understand this time he loves another woman and returns again. Following a minor accident suffered by Lola, recalls Dominique and realizes that she can not continue living alone. She asks to meet Haydee, the new woman, tries to love, the couple settled in his house and then fled. During his absence Jacques Haydée and caring for Lola. Upon his return, the discomfort grows. Haydée may be pregnant. But the test is negative. Haydee understands she has no hope of her affair with Jacques and goes. Dominique, in a crazy gesture, tries to kill her with his car. Jacques and Dominique are alone face to face but face a reconciliation impossible. Dominique share with Lola, leaving Jacques in his solitude. | murder | train | wikipedia | La Llorona. This is a literal retelling of the Crying Woman legend, present in many Latin American countries, a symbol of the native woman who "betrayed" her people by becoming the mistress of a conquistador, and also of the "bad mother" –in this case, a VERY bad mother, "a la Medea"– who kills the children she had with her Spanish lover. Taking parts from Carmen Toscano's stage play, the film is set in contemporary México, but goes back a few centuries to tell Llorona's sad story. She is now the nanny of the grandson of a descendant of those who punished her, and plans to kill the kid. One curious detail (typical of Mexican horror films): the part of the little boy, Jorgito, is played by a girl. María Elena Marqués leads a cast of distinguished performers.. Incredibly overwrought and troubling effort. After betraying her people to become the mistress of a malevolent Spanish conquistador, a Mexican woman finds herself reincarnated centuries later as the nanny of her lover's descendant and tries to right the wrong of her past by killing the child in her care.An utterly slow-moving and barely-there Horror film doesn't have a whole lot going for it as it's a drama for the majority of the time and never gives itself off as a horror film until the last act, where she tries to kill off the child. This, though, is done in some of the most seemingly innocuous and utterly ridiculous manners possible, never laying a hand on the child but persuading the child to put itself in danger only to be luckily saved each time. While it may work the first few times, after the fifth save from the harrowing death, it just grows tiresome and really works against itself, especially the ludicrous manners she tries to accomplish it under but also because each one doesn't work through her inactivity in killing the child, effectively killing most of it's suspense. That this is the only reason why it gives itself off as a horror film makes this one terribly boring and hardly worthwhile.Today's Rating-Unrated/PG: Mild Violence and children-in-jeopardy. |
tt0353324 | The Crow: Wicked Prayer | James "Jimmy" Cuervo (Edward Furlong), paroled after serving a prison sentence for killing a rapist in a fight, lives with his dog in a mobile home in Lake Ravasu on the Raven Aztec reservation. Jimmy plans to start a new life with his girlfriend, Lily (Emmanuelle Chriqui), and leave the town for good. Lily's priest father, Harold (Danny Trejo), and Lily's brother, local cop Tanner (Dave Ortiz), both despise Jimmy, however.
The town is home to a Satanic biker gang led by escaped convict Luc "Death" Crash (David Boreanaz) and his fiancée Lola Byrne (Tara Reid). Along with their three confederates "Pestilence" (Yuji Okumoto), "Famine" (Tito Ortiz) and "War" (Marcus Chong), Luc and Lola murder Lily and Jimmy in a brutal ritual that they hope will conjure the rebirth of the Antichrist. The ritual includes removing Lily's eyes — bestowing precognitive powers upon Lola — and Jimmy's heart. They dump the bodies inside an old freezer.
The Crow then appears and returns Jimmy to life. Jimmy discovers his newfound invincibility after attempting to shoot himself. He takes Lily's body and leaves it on her bed so it can be found. Tanner and Harold find the body and assume it was Jimmy who killed Lily.
On the night of a local festivity, Jimmy dons a gothic costume and make-up he wore to the celebration a previous year. He finds and kills Pestilence in a bar. He then seizes the hearse carrying Lily's body, and buries her near the tree where he carved a love symbol for them both. Jimmy goes to a casino and kills Famine in front of Luc. A fight ensues between Jimmy and Luc during which the crow, the source of Jimmy's power, is injured, thereby weakening Jimmy. Tanner finds Jimmy and accuses him of killing Lily, but Jimmy shows Tanner telepathically what really happened.
Luc and Lola visit El Niño (Dennis Hopper), the head of their order, at a Catholic church which has been abandoned by Christians and has been modified for use by the satanic cult. Tanner and Harold and a group of men assemble outside to confront them. As El Niño is performing the marriage ceremony that will bring Luc closer to the power he craves, Jimmy, Tanner, Harold, and the other men arrive and shoot War. El Niño completes the ceremony as Jimmy enters the church. Luc, now a host for Lucifer himself, telekinetically hangs Jimmy from a cross, while Lola kills El Niño. Luc and Lola leave the church and head to a nearby burial ground where they must consummate their ritual before sunrise in order for Lucifer to fully manifest.
Harold, Tanner, and the others free Jimmy, who tells them the crow is dying. In order to heal the bird and restore Jimmy's powers, Harold performs the Crow Dance. Weakened, Jimmy heads to the graveyard and stops Luc from having sex with Lola. Luc and Jimmy engage in a fight and the revived crow returns, restoring Jimmy's invulnerability. The sun rises and Luc's ritual is destroyed. Jimmy then kills Luc by impaling him on a wooden spike and cutting his throat. Lola loses her sight and tries to repent by praying to the Virgin Mary, but it is too late: Harold apprehends her and takes her to prison. Jimmy and Lily's spirits find each other in the afterlife. | comedy, suspenseful, gothic, murder, neo noir, paranormal, cult, violence, flashback, good versus evil, insanity, psychedelic, humor, romantic, tragedy, revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | I don't think it was his fault; what he could do, he did do but the role just didn't have much.The plot is lacking seriously, the mythology is entirely corrupted (The Crows power does NOT come from love thank you very much), and the fight scenes, aside from the initial murder, are pathetic.Which is a shame really because there was a half hearted effort to make the four bad guys, Famine, Pestilence, War and Death more than just another series of bad guys like T-Bird's gang, and Curve's boys or those cops in the underrated third movie.
Not, at least, without my jaw hitting the floor before I follow after holding my ribs in a fit of hysterics.I was incredibly sceptical of Eddie Furlong in the title role but heard good things from the crew on the film and, having seen him in the irony mask, felt my concern ebb.
Everything from the look of the film, the characters (especially Lee as the Crow), the phenomenal soundtrack and the overall story of love being stronger than death - I was hooked!
Badly acted, badly filmed, badly directed and very badly written!I love the first movie, but I have not yet seen the second two...
Just plain old bad) Edward, David, Tara, Danny and Dennis all reach a new low in this movie..
I think I blame the writers) Also; David, Danny, Edward and Tara have all appeared in good movies before, proving their ability to act...
Back in the day Alex Proyas brought us the relatively low budget actioner The crow, after that a sequel that wasn't too bad followed, after that yet another not great but not too terrible sequel came...and now this.What on earth went wrong, and why was this movie ever made?
It is one thing making a bad movie that had the potential of being a good movie, but this movie never had potential whatsoever.It was awful to watch, the script were terrible and it was almost as if the director wasn't quite sure what he wanned the movie to look like, he tried to give it a 2000's MTV hip-hop feel in the beginning and then tried to do something quite different and then everything went to hell and everything got so cheesy that I only needed a patty and a bun and I would have had a cheeseburger, it actually bordered on slapstick comedy.Yes this film should not be watched and its lightyears away from the classic helmed by Alex Proyas..
David Boreanaz's over-the-top, Nicholson-esquire performance doesn't help matters, and Edward Furlong simply doesn't have the acting chops or the charisma to make up for the film's numerous flaws.
How wrong i was the plot makes no sense at all, unlike the original film the actors are all wooden and seem to have no sense of what the legacy and style of the Crow is all about.
My almost top ten favorite movie is since I'm 14 "The Crow" with B.Lee. I love it too much, to say there is a good sequel from it.
No. David Boreanez is a great actor, I think he did an amazing job as Angel in Buffy and Angel, Tara Reid is great in all her other movies...
The special effects were lousy to say the least and it seemed the director was too interested I'm piling up the body count than making a genuine love/revenge story that the entire crow fiction centres upon.I honestly have to steer people away, as only the true die-hard fans would want to see it, for the sake of saying they have seen it.
However there were some good performances considering a poor script and talented acting by Furlong and in some ways Boreanaz made the movie worth watching.
Looks like David Boreanaz is already type-cast as the wise cracking evil cool dude maybe he should have swapped characters with Furlong to rid himself of this mould.Tara Reid walks around trying to be the evil witch but her talents lie in her looks not her acting ability.
Dennis Hopper, well , devil worshipping homeboy very strange casting.Overall not a great movie but no great disgrace to the genre .Watch it and make your own mind up its worth 90 minutes..
Furlong did an excellent job especially, he really was a sort of angry/ apathetic crow hybrid, and i was very impressed.Contrary to the first reviewer, I think the only bad thing about this flick WAS Dennis Hopper, I don't know if it was how he was scripted, if he ad libbed, or if they just cast the wrong person, either way, you will find yourself asking the timeless question, "what the ****?" See it, and pay for it, especially if you are a fan and you'd like to see quality sequels made, when they are actually good it's up to us to support what we demand when it's delivered.
Brandon Lee's Crow will always be toppers, but this movie is so different, so fresh, how can you compare and call it crap unless you're just stuck on the original.
What was the idea?" - Top Dollar (Michael Wincott) in the original "The Crow"So, a murdered ex-con comes back from the dead, paints himself up like a member of the KISS Army, and goes after the Satanic cult that killed him and his girlfriend - a cult led by the blonde girl from "American Pie" and the guy from "Bones".
That, and the late Brandon Lee's iconic performance, made the film a wonderful experience, one of those rare movies you can watch over and over again, each time finding something new.Then Edward R.
"The Crow: Wicked Prayer" has the dubious distinction of being far and away the worst of these sequels.A certain amount of melodrama is to be expected in the revenge movie genre, but "Wicked Prayer" is as histrionic as a teenager's dream journal.
Should you actually decide to watch this movie, it's my duty to warn you that you'll have to listen to lines like "Revenge is easy - forgetting is hard", "You owe me two lives and a pair of perfect blue eyes", and my personal favorite, "Quoth the raven nevermore, motherf---er!".It doesn't help that director Lance Muniga doesn't seem to know the difference between a film and a music video; he substitutes explosions, pointless jump cuts and imitation "Matrix" fight choreography for plot, character and dialog.He doesn't know how to cast or work with actors, either.
Edward Furlong is horribly miscast as an undead avenger: he pouts, whines, and looks like a trick-or-treater in the Crow makeup.
And poor Dennis Hopper just looks embarrassed in a cameo as a Satanic priest who speaks in Ebonics ("The devil will be your homey forevermore!").Like the "Jaws" sequels and the Joel Schumacher "Batman" movies, "The Crow: Wicked Prayer" is depressing to watch.
Even Danny trejo surprised me with his subtlety, i felt him, i liked that no one was a clear good or bad, especially the crow.
I think Edward is a great actor and he portrayed the crow character with great emotion and talent, and to me it turned out to be a great movie.
Rather great original telling of the crow mythology-Furlong was amazing in the film....
He's got a life-long fan in me thanks to "ANGEL", and I will continue to support anything he does, including his upcoming series "Bones".The film was all right, a bit sloppy in places, a few plot points (such as the past history of the characters) could have been explained a little more, and I understand the budget wasn't very high, but damn if Boreanaz steals the show with an intense insanity that is a joy to watch.
I saw this movie after reading the novel that it was supposed to be based off of and follow-yet what they did to it was massacre it to a point of which you cannot reognize anything about the bookThe Acting was terrible, over dramatized and hammed up every second to make you pretty much wanna jam a pencil through your eardrums so you wouldn't have to listen to it anymore, and well as jus was all around terribly and damn well goofy.Edward Furlong was a Terrible Crow, David Borneanz-sucked...no other words to describe it, and Tara Reid-well shes Tara Reid-she was horrible what do you expect.I watched this once on Video then had to sit through it again with friends and nearly used some blunt metal object to knock myself out to spare me from enduring it.Overall this is generally crappy movie-not worth the money that was used to make it....some of the pple who were in this movie should have their careers buried along with this trash of a movie...(Tara)let the story end here-they've massacred the legacy behind the story, and I'm sure anyone that is a fan of the movies and/or graphic novel will surely agree this film needs to be burned and buried to never be found.
Set in the Southwest, the fourth film of the Crow tells the story of an ex-con Jimmy Cuervo (Edward Furlong) and his girl-friend Lily (Emmanuelle Chriqui).
Most disappointing thing of the movie is Dennis Hopper is a real under-written role in a bit part is a waste, too bad.
This doesn't work either because the bad guys are not interesting or evil enough to really spend time focusing on.The other crow films featured outstanding villains and more of a sense of reason for killing them.
The other villains have back-stories, sure, but they don't have any spirit in their parts.Speaking of which, the normally good Dennis Hopper is terrible in this film as an annoying Ebonics worshiping boss man.
There is some light sexual content, though on nudity, or anything like that.Substance Abuse: There is a scene in which the characters get high off of peyote, but it is done in a very stylish way.Overall: The Crow: Wicked Prayer is by far the best of the sequels.
"Caw Caw, Bang, F**k, I'm Dead!" It was about three years ago that I first saw the CROW, and I instantly fell in love with Brandon Lee. So being the obsessed movie nut that I am, I went out and rented the two sequels that were out.
Tara Reid was really creepy in this movie playing the bad guy with David B..
I was skeptical at first, but aside from the obvious over-use of the lines used in the other films "To make things right" etc., and the hokeyness of how those words were put into the film, I would say overall the film ranked a good 8 out of 10 in my book.The Crow: City of Angels, in my opinion was worse than Wicked Prayer in my opinion, but I still have a love for them all.I read one reviewers statement here about not having the funds for makeup.
In fact each movie is different from the other, with a common thread, but different story line.If anyone rents or buys this DVD,be sure to look at the making of the film,and all the "extras" before watching the film to get a good idea of what the director, crew, and actors were thinking while making this movie.Oddly, this series of films rate far better with me than re-makes we are getting of classic television shows and films of the past.
Yes, we all know City of Angels was horrible compared to the original and due to the story being slightly related to the original(through Sarah) it was bound to come off badly but then Salvation was an unrelated story about a different crow and though it had some bad acting and cheesy lines in places...i still enjoyed it for the fact it was a separate story and i think that is the key.
Eddie Furlong did a good job as a believable person trying to come to terms with what has happened to him and the majority of the other actors did OK though Dennis Hopper's character was fairly awful surprisingly.
Imagine a "Crow" movie in where Dennis Hopper appears as a Satanic priest who speaks like an 80's kid that is trying to emulate a 50's greaser (that's the best explanation I have).
Devolution at it's absolute worst...David Boreanaz as the arch villain in a Crow movie?
I've seen deeper, more exciting Burger King commercials.Edward Furlong was actually creepy and passively interesting enough to have made a pretty good "Crow", but unfortunately he was far too bogged down by idiotic writing, poor direction, lousy stunt choreography, derivative costuming, horrible production values, and a sheepish budget to have effectively gotten any revision of the character properly off of the ground.
I think that he may have been able to go places with this character - had his creative vehicle been slightly better than a rusted out junker with four flat tires.The entire movie seemed like it was written and shot in a single afternoon.
Edward Furlong and David Boreanaz put forth the best acting effort in the movie, the music was pretty good and so was the plot.
I will still agree with some reviews and say YES, it was an incredibly bad idea to put Dennis Hopper as a pimp in a Crow film.
even the third one).it lacked atmosphere(flashbacks in glowing green and red does not count as atmosphere).it lacked acting.it feels like a poor direct to video sequel.I admit, it had it's moments.the murder scene lacked the shock factor.i'm very sad that this is what happened to the crow series.
The Crow Wicked Prayer is a very different movie than the other three.
I was wrong; The Crow Salvation is probably even closer to the original two movies than The Crow Wicked Prayer.I watched it once, and I am going to finally buy it.
Eddie Fingerlongerer looks like a weird lizard (a weird lizard that can't act, that is), and any love that David Bornoreaz and Tara Reid might have might have generated from previous roles (Angel and Josie and The Pussycats, respectively) will be sorely tested by this film.Special mention must go to Dennis Hopper and Macy Gray (you heard me) who must have been way behind on the rent or had just recently developed an expensive drug habit.
Edward Furlong is the kind of anti-hero in a sense, bit of a bad ass (then again isn't that what the crow is about?) and he pulls it off big style looking to revenge the foes who took away his true love.
Like I said the kindest thing I can say about this movie is it's not as bad as 'City of Angels', take that as a warning and stay away..
I've seen nativity plays with better performances.Edward Furlong as the crow?
but these people know better than this.The attempts to define the characters of War, Famine, and Pestilence were worse than a B movie horror flick made by film students.If you love the crow as a character don't watch this...it ruins it.
However, after watching this flick, City of Angels seems as though it is worth a million bucks.Now this film actually seems like it was made by a 16 year old fan of The Crow who cooked up a script after school.
Really poor Dialogue Laughable Characters Bad Directing And just about anything else that makes a bad movie worse.So please watch this film.
being such a huge fan of the first 'Brandon Lee' crow movie by Alex Proyas, it has been hard to watch the subsequent releases come out onto DVD and tarnish the work completed on the first.
Wicked Prayer rushes through a lot of the important parts of the film that make up each Crow movie and the acting from Furlong and Reid is abysmal.
At first when I heard they were making this movie, I though David Boreanaz was going to be the next Crow.
Native Americans believe in spirits like this so it nice to see a crow film about it's origins.
Where Brandon Lee portrayed an painful soul brought back to avenge his love, Furlong is portraying an little brat coming into puberty, worst performance everReally sad to see The Crow franchise getting buried in this way, sometimes its better to stop on a good note, than to keep playing until everyone is fleeing..
From the Crow being a messenger of God (since when?) to him having to fight Satan (even though David Boreanaz character doesn't change at all) Edward Furlong actually seems like he might had been a good Crow if he was given a better script and if he laid off the drugs.
I am a fan of the TV shows, "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel," so I was totally psyched about David Boreanaz being in this movie: what a disappointment.The story leaves a lot to be desired, the direction was terrible, sets & costumes were unbelievably bad and the performances could have been phoned in.
Even my favorite, David Boreanaz, put in the worst performance I've ever seen from him.Don't bother watching this unless you are a huge fan of the Crow series.
What can I say about this film, I just looked at the trailer movie looks like it was shot and ninety-two, Edward Furlong looks like a fag, Tara Ried looks like a prostitute from Las Vegas, Dennis Hooper "Please what," David Boreanza think he is Satan, "Wait a minute," the entire film seems to be actors preparing for Halloween, I did not watch film because it would be even more disappointed, because I recommend others to not watch this garbage.First Crow with Brandon Lee is awesome,but this.......................crap.
Like all fans of the original Crow movie, I've learned not to expect anything good out of the sequels.
Edward Furlong looks like an emo version of the Crow.
Tara Reid would have been a better Crow and Edward Furlong.4.
Good on its own, but not as a Crow movie. |
tt1555747 | Fubar II | In Calgary, Terry (David Lawrence) and Dean (Paul Spence) are tired of barely scraping by on menial jobs. Recently evicted from their rented house, they are out of options until their old buddy and "party leader", Troy (better known as Tron) (Andrew Sparacino) gets them high-paying jobs laying oil pipeline in Fort McMurray.
While Terry quickly becomes a welcome member of the pipeline crew, Dean cannot take the pace of work and decides to injure himself for the Workers’ compensation money with Tron's help, however he quickly finds that the money offered is much less than he had expected. Flush with money and confidence, Terry starts dating Trish (Terra Hazelton), a waitress at the local strip bar who has slept with every member of the pipeline crew at one time or another. When Terry quickly moves in with Trish, Dean does his best to save his friend from fading into a domestic lifestyle.
When layoffs hit the pipeline crew, Terry's fast-spending lifestyle quickly catches up with him, putting heavy strain on his relationship with Trish, who soon reveals she is pregnant. This only makes things worse, as it was revealed in the first film that Terry is infertile, meaning that the father is another member of the pipeline crew. Meanwhile, Dean's latest medical checkup for his Workers' compensation claim reveals that his cancer has returned in more aggressive form, due to his failure to attend a single follow-up treatment over the past five years. Terry, in a rage over an incident that occurred while Dean was drunk, ends their friendship, adding insult to injury. Dean reveals his condition only to Tron, who since being laid off has developed a serious crack habit. Each despondent for his own reason, Dean and Tron form a suicide pact, planning to end their lives the day after Christmas.
As Christmas fast approaches, Terry finds out from another member of the pipeline crew that Dean has lost his other testicle due to cancer. Terry rethinks his decision and goes to pick Dean up from a Hobo colony, where he has been living out of his car. Terry welcomes Dean into his home for Christmas. On Christmas Eve, Dean's family arrives, showing him there are things worth living for, and he decides to forego committing suicide, however, Tron shows up at Terry's house, intent on fulfilling the pact. Tron attempts to smother Dean with a pillow, but Dean fights back and ends up in a scuffle with Tron, in which Tron soils himself. Dean's daughter Chaz is awakened by the whole ordeal, and walks into the living room finding Tron dressed in a red suit and a Santa hat. Believing him to be Santa, she gives Tron a hug.
The film ends with Dean discovering that his complete lack of testicles has allowed him to sing higher notes than ever before, and he performs as the wedding singer for Terry and Trish. The two leave the reception and are showered by friends and family, including Tron, who also decided not to commit suicide. The film ends with a family photo of Terry, Dean, Trish and the new baby, who bears a striking resemblance to Dean. | satire | train | wikipedia | Enjoyed that!.
I'm a big fan of the original, so naturally i was quite sceptical going into this film.In a lot of sequels the characters are being exploited for the sake of gags and to disguise a lack of story.
in this case it was the opposite, because the story here feels much more prominent and thought through than in part 1, which is a good thing.
it took a while to get into at first, but as soon as the 2 start their new job, i really started to enjoy this film.
the characters (especially "Tron"), atmosphere, development and especially the finale really drew me in and made me laugh out loud.
it also pulls it off to be really funny and a feel-good movie at the same time, without ever feeling forced or cheesy.the "more than a feeling" scene had me in tears (of laughter).not even sure, which one part i like better now - maybe because i've seen the first one too many times already.
good job - i give it 7,5 out of 10..
Dean and Terry still given'r, with more laughs and chaos.
Canadian filmmaker Michael Dowse made his feature-length debut in 2002 with "Fubar", a cult hit mockumentary about two Alberta headbangers played by Paul Spence and David Lawrence.
When I first saw that movie in 2005, I didn't think it was bad, but it wasn't exactly what I was expecting, and may have left me a bit puzzled.
I have watched it again twice since then, and I definitely thought it was better during those two viewings, good enough to make me interested in seeing this sequel when I heard about it.
The only movie I saw in theatres in 2010 was Tim Burton's version of "Alice in Wonderland", which I didn't even like.
I didn't see "Fubar II" on the silver screen, but have since seen it on DVD, and now think both "Fubar" films are pretty funny.It appears Dean Murdoch has now been free of testicular cancer for five years, but he and his friend, Terry Cahill, are continuing their self-destructive partying lifestyle.
At a party to celebrate Dean's five post-cancer years, Terry is informed by Tron, the duo's friend and "party leader," that they could make a lot of money working with him as oil pipeliners in Fort McMurray.
During this conversation outside, Dean happens to be wasted in his bedroom and accidentally sets the place on fire, so he has to be rescued from the house as it is destroyed!
The now homeless Dean and Terry then head up north to start their pipeline laying jobs.
It isn't long before they begin to receive their high wages, putting an end to their financial trouble.
They soon meet Trish, a local strip bar waitress whom every member of the pipeline crew claims to have had sex with!
Terry begins to date this woman, and seems to be getting into a serious relationship with her, but this ends up threatening his longtime friendship with Dean.The 2002 mockumentary features lots of raunchiness, insanity, and bizarre dialogue, and in case you were wondering, none of this has changed in the sequel!
It didn't have me consistently laughing throughout, but I sure did find a lot of laughs, some bigger than others, and when the antics of the characters weren't quite enough to make me laugh, I think I was usually still smiling.
With all the rapid dialogue, I'm sure I didn't catch all the jokes (I think that's been the case every time I've seen the original "Fubar"), but certainly still caught a lot of them, and the dialogue is very often the reason for the laughs, which is good, since it's such a major part of the humour.
There may have been parts around the beginning which made it look to me like this sequel was going to be inferior to the original, but this didn't last long, and viewers may find some surprises later in the plot.
David Lawrence (Terry) and Paul Spence (Dean) again put on good comical performances as the two leads, and another cast highlight is singer Terra Hazelton making her film acting debut as the Trish character.
The arguments Terry and Trish have are definitely among the parts of this sequel that made me laugh.It seems that movie sequels usually aren't as well liked as their predecessors, and maybe that's the case with this one, but I'm still rating it a seven out of ten, the same rating I gave the original.
After watching "Fubar" for the first time, I knew what to expect during my second and third viewings, which was probably the main reason why it was funnier with those subsequent viewings.
Even though it took eight years for this sequel to come, I was still expecting "Fubar II" to be a very similar idea to Michael Dowse's 2002 feature-length debut, which it is, and as such, it did not disappoint me.
If you saw the original "Fubar" and didn't like it at all or were maybe even disgusted by it, I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't feel any differently about this 2010 sequel, so I suggest you avoid it at all costs.
However, for the fans of the cult hit from eight years earlier, I really think this sequel to it is well worth checking out..
the boys are back.
Terry Cahill and Dean Murdoch are idiot slackers, head-banging best friends in Calgary.
Dean is 5 years cancer free and a deadbeat dad.
They get evicted and head out to Fort McMurray to make some money.
Their friend Tron is dismayed to take them on his work crew.
The boys drink and go to the strip club.
Terry starts dating barmaid Trish.
Dean works the workers' comp angle.
His cancer's back to take his other testicle.Other than being a deadbeat dad, the guys have created a great pair of characters.
At least, the ex-wife seems at peace with him.
They do need somebody to give the production some structure and better comedy.
It does ramble around as the story lacks a driving plot.
The boys would probably work better as a half hour comedy TV show.
They are fun in smaller doses..
For once, a worthy follow-up!.
If you have been watching this movie, I assume that you saw the first Fubar as well.
Otherwise you would probably miss out on a lot of details that are useful for the entertainment of this sequel.The main thing about this movie, in contrast to the first Fubar, is that the concept has changed.
This is no longer a mockumentary of the decadent Headbangers Dean and Terry, but instead it evolves into a regular acting-movie.
Which is an idea that I absolutely can cope with.
Too often you see the sequels of various films just copying the concept right off (The Paranormal Activity-series is a perfect example of just that) and rarely leaving any space for innovation and fresh ideas.Fubar II is just the opposite of the average half-ass sequel!
By turning the concept of Fubar into a sort of regular movie (with some moments of documentary-like filming) they automatically gained room for more than just the perspective of one persons eyes.
We can follow the plot through multiple angles and everything melts together perfectly!
The head actors David Lawrence and Paul Spence are keeping the cemented picture of Dean and Terry true to it's origin, and these two characters fits perfect for the plot in this film.Basically, the story begins with a house party that goes out of control in every way.
Everything except for Dean and Terry has changed in the past ten years, they are still the same decadent Headbangers that love to party and sees no need for a life better than the one they already have...
Until their house burns down.
Their old friend "Tron", in his drunken haze, offers them employment at an oil-plant in Fort McMurray, also referred to as "The Mac", in northern Canada.The two Headbangers immediately set off to work at 'The Mac' the morning after and there they meet a not-very-happy to see them 'Tron'.
Either way, they manage to find themselves working and finally making the big bucks.I feel no need to further guide you through the story, as this is a review and not the back of a DVD-box.Great acting, many laughable moments and in general a great movie, enjoyable for most people blessed with a sense of humor.
It's original, ironic and at times emotional.
If you liked the first Fubar, you will definitely enjoy this sequel..
Not bad, as sequels go..
I admit, I was very much looking forward to this sequel as I was a fan of the first.
I will admit that although I did enjoy this film, it did feel a bit lacking.
Perhaps I was hoping for more of a documentary approach as its predecessor had.
That aside however, the movie did deliver some laughs and enjoyment and it was nice to see the duo of Terry and Deaner back together again.
It's also note worthy that a lot of the dialogue was improvised which adds to the genuine feel of the characters which in turn gives the film a more natural and fluid feel.Another thing I found quite interesting was the footage of the Oil Sands where the two secured employment.
Now, I am far from being an environmentalist but, even in the few shot, you could see how disgusting that area is.
I realize that this place keeps a lot of Canadians employed but the environmental impact (just by seeing all the emissions from the area) has to be severely negative.Bottom Line: This film is recommended to those of you with a silly sense of humour, viewers who are simply looking for some light hearted laughter..
Wonderful,wonderful trip....
Deaner & Terry take you on a trip that feels so innocent life..small quanta of happiness.Down the road you start identifying with them and it feels like you are living the movie...
kudos for the director who made the movie like a simple running fountain...i mean who needs to be Bill gates if you can live like this...this sequel has added some background music and songs unlike the first one.Only problem is brevity of the movie...cos when you are start to enjoy it, it starts ending on you...and you wish they had made two sequels together so that you could enjoy it a little bit more...
all in all, its a magical small trip of carefreeness,and joy.and i am eagerly waiting for next sequel already....
Well, this was 'unique', in lack of better words....
Alright, just having seen "Fubar II", I wasn't aware of it being a sequel, as the DVD I got hold of was titled "Fubar: Balls to the Wall".
So I am not sure how badly you needed to have seen the first one in order to fully appreciate the sequel.I must say that this particular movie is somewhat of an acquired taste.
I had initially expected more comedy from it, but that wasn't to be.
The movie did, however, have lots of irony, sarcasm and witty dialogue.
Plus the quirky characters really helped the movie along as well.I actually don't think I laughed a single time throughout this entire movie, which is why I am only giving it a 4/10 rating.The story itself was actually decent enough, though bordering on being a bit too extreme.
However, what helped make the movie bearable to watch was the quirky extremes of the characters in the movie.
The two main characters Terry (played by David Lawrence) and Dean (played by Paul Spence) were like live-action-rendering of Beavis and Butthead.
Most funny was the likeness they had to some of the people that I actually know.The movie was nicely shot, great camera work and some really good places and locations used for filming.However, labeled as comedy, but being unable to even bring a smirk to my lips, this movie was somewhat of a disappointment to me.
Or as I said earlier, something of an acquired taste - which wasn't particularly my taste, though.
I assume you have to have a particular mentality in order to fully appreciate this movie, and I am sure that there is an audience out there for it somewhere, I just am not part of that particular audience..
Hilarious, heartfelt and wonderfully Canadian.
Dean and Terry are back and better than ever.
This time they've been evicted from their home and travel out west to the Alberta oil sands looking for work with their unhinged buddy Tron.
Terry falls for a woman who is nothing less than the village bicycle and him and Deaner struggle to make ends meet, to keep their jobs, and to keep from killing each other.
This movie is non-stop laughs from start to finish.
If you liked the original Fubar or are a fan of Canadian cinema, or you just like shotgunning a few beers and kicking back with some tunes, I highly recommend this movie.
The plot is also surprisingly well developed and poignant with some great twists as well.
And they show you what happens when you try to microwave a turkey for 17 or 18 minutes eh...
I can't believe it took me this long to watch this movie.
Fubar 2: Balls to the Wall is nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece.
Dean and Terry will keep givin'r even harder in Fubar 3!
*fingers crossed* |
tt0044851 | Lost in Alaska | The time is the 1890s, and the place is San Francisco. George Ball (Lou Costello) and Tom Watson (Bud Abbott) are firemen who rescue 'Nugget' Joe McDermott (Tom Ewell) from committing suicide by drowning. Joe wants to die because his girlfriend, Rosette (Mitzi Green) no longer loves him. The boys keep an eye on him and Joe is thankful for it after receiving a telegram the next morning from Rosette claiming that she still loves him. George and Tom take their gold reward to the bank when they learn the police mistakenly believe Joe was murdered for his gold that night by the two men who actually rescued. They catch up to Joe on his boat for the Yukon and try to get him down to the police station only to see the ship depart San Francisco with all three of them on it.
Joe returns to Alaska, with George and Tom anxious to get him back to San Francisco to clear their names. Once they arrive, it is learned that many people want to kill Joe, as he was once the local sheriff who had many people hanged. They also find that a group of Joe's old friends also want him dead as they are the beneficiaries of his will. Rosette works at a casino whose owner, Jake Stillman (Bruce Cabot), demands that she marry Joe, whom Jake also plans to kill once he is married to Rosette, so that he can gain the fortune in gold.
Rosette reveals Jake's intent to George and Tom, who hide Joe and Rosette by sending them out of town. Jake is not happy about this turn of events and sends his gang to deal with George and Tom, who manage to outwit them. In the ensuing melee, the gold falls into a deep crevice in the ice, and is lost. Everyone manages to overcome their greed for the sake of friendship, and Joe and Rosette marry. | suicidal | train | wikipedia | Did you do something to your hair?"Costello: "Yeah, she put it on her head"!"Lost in Alaska" does have some inspired moments, and most of them are in the first half, like the "sleeping in 2-hour shifts" routine, or Costello's response to a sign that says "Use the axe only in case of fire" ("Got a match?").
But when A&C actually do get Lost in Alaska, the comedy gets largely reduced to elementary, childish slapstick (Costello falling down on the snow a lot, etc).
I did laugh a couple of times, but overall the film is pretty tiresome, despite its short running time.
The creative juices at Universal were grinding to a halt when Abbott and Costello made Lost In Alaska.
The film is obviously taken from the classic Road To Utopia that Bing and Bob did at Paramount a few years back.The Dottie Lamour role in this film went to Mitzi Green, but the boys aren't fighting over here.
She's the squeeze of Tom Ewell a poor sad sack sourdough who wants to kill himself because she gave him in the air.
Bud and Lou begin the film as volunteer firemen in San Francisco who save Ewell from drowning himself though Costello nearly goes down in the effort.
Then they accompany Ewell to Alaska to maybe get a share of his gold if they can straighten his love life out.Ewell's a popular guy in Skagway, everyone wants to see him dead because of his strike.
Keeping him alive is a full time job for Bud and Lou.The best routine in the film is Bud putting one over on Lou when they agree to take one hour shifts keeping tabs on Ewell.
Poor Costello can't figure out why he's so drowsy.
I wish the rest of the film were as good.Universal no longer was being kept alive by Abbott&Costello, their box office was assured by a crop of new leading men like Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis, and Jeff Chandler.
The quality of their films declined in the Fifties and Lost In Alaska is an example of same..
Abbott and Costello, who are firemen in the 1890s save life of Alaskan suicidal millionaire 'nugget' Joe from drowning himself.( An idea from Chaplin's City lights perhaps?).
(How he ended up in San Fransisco from Alaska though is a mystery).
The morning after (after a lenthy routine which sees Abbott con Costello out of his night's sleep)Joe receives a letter from his love, Rosette stating she wants him back.
In gratitude, he gives A+C the gold he has on him.At the bank, 2 men tell them that a gold prospector was found murdered last night and the police suspect 2 volunteer firemen.
They find Joe on his boat and tell him that the police think they murderd him.
Naturally this cheers Joe up and sends him into hysterics.(!) They ask him to come down the station to set the record straight but he can't hear them properly as the whistles from the boat are to loud.
It's to late anyhow as the boat has set sail taking them all to Alaska!
When they arrive it turns out that a lot of people want Joe dead(including himself again when he finds out that Rosette didn't write the note) and it's A+C's job to keep him alive as they want to take him home to prove he's still alive.
It turns out that Joe has wrote a will which leaves his £2 million fortune to his 'buddies' when he dies and they are all trying to bump him off.
It turns out Mr Stillman, who owns the saloon, wrote the letter and asks Lucette to marry Joe so she becomes his only heir then he'll bump him off and then they split the gold...Bad Abbott and Costello vehicle makes no use of their talents.
Strange scenes including one which has the boys trying to cheer up Nugget Joe and do the routine they did 'at the fireman's ball'.
3 terrible 'jokes' occur and you don't know whether they are supposed to be funny or not.
Nugget Joe doesn't laugh and who can blame him?
The 2 songs are actually quite good and the actors aren't bad either.
The peculiar finale isn't funny at all and when the film finishes the viewer can't help but feel there's something missing.If you want to see Abbott and Costello as they were in the 50s, watch one of their hilarious TV shows instead..
Abbott and Costello totally adrift!.
Known pretty much everywhere outside the US as ABBOTT AND COSTELLO LOST IN ALASKA this just never gels.
The boys never look comfortable.Flimsy tale of a couple of New York firemen in the late 1890's who inadvertently "rescue" a suicidal prospector and through circumstance, find themselves heading back to Alaska with him, when they have a more pressing need to get back to San Francisco, to allay suspicions that they have actually murdered him.For the most part, it just AIN'T funny.
Abbott and Costello's 50s offerings do nothing other than make you hanker for the halcyon days of the 40s where their best efforts are to be found.
Sure there are a couple of decent films in the 50s such as Meet Jekyll/Hyde & The Mummy, but in the main you sense the boys are tired, you sense that the once glowing genius is a shadow of its former self, we sense right because it's true, never more so proved than with this barely average piece.There are a couple of decent scenes in here, and sure enough the pratfalling antics off Costello will raise a smile, but the writing doesn't give them much to work with, the co stars are suitably bored with the plot, and the biggest crime of all is that we don't get a remotely mirthful ending to save the picture.5/10 out of loyalty to a couple of comic geniuses going thru the motions, oh and a crab that stole the film..
Abbott & Costello play Tom Watson & George Bell, two volunteer firemen in 1890's San Francisco who rescue a suicidal gold prospector('Nugget' Joe McDermott, played by Tom Ewell) from drowning.
Unfortunately, they are then mistakenly believed to have been his murderers, so accompany him back to Alaska in search of his gold, and his girl.
Upon arrival, they are dismayed to learn that everyone wants Joe dead, and so end up in the tundra, where they try to survive assassins and the elements...
Another weak comedy from the team has a few good comedic bits scattered about, but otherwise is not that funny, with awful songs and indifferent handling.
I saw that one reviewer felt like the studio and Abbott and Costello just didn't care when they made this film and I am inclined to agree.
The problem is that the film was painfully unfunny--and had one of the limpest endings I've ever seen.
Maybe I was expecting too much, but a comedy should make you laugh and be entertaining.In the only funny moments in the film, Bud and Lou rescue a man who is bent on killing himself (Tom Ewell).
In addition, when Bud and Lou take this guy back to Alaska, everyone seems to be trying to kill their new friend to get his gold.
Sadly, however, this is about as funny as it got.
Once the plot was established, too much time was spent running about an obvious fake set in obviously fake snow doing things that, frankly, make no sense and weren't funny.
Fake looking crabs, a guy in a polar bear suit and the like made this a film where it was obvious that no one particularly cared if any of this mess makes sense.
To make things worse, the ending is just horrible--unfunny, illogical and unsatisfying.While this is not the worst Abbott and Costello film, it is close.
Nugget Joe is the best part.
Abbott and Costello play two volunteer firemen who save the life of suicidal prospector Nugget Joe (Tom Ewell), only to find themselves accused of his murder.
Joe heads back to Alaska for his girlfriend and the boys tag along.
They soon find everybody wants Nugget Joe dead and they have to keep him alive so they can prove their innocence.
Tom Ewell is great as Nugget Joe. His constant suicide attempts are the funniest bits in the movie.
This is a rare case of a supporting actor outshining Bud and Lou. Bruce Cabot plays the villain.
Most of the funny stuff is early in the movie.
Once they get to Alaska, it's not as good..
To describe this film, just quote the man behind the dog sled with a whip, "Mush!".
If you want to see a truly great comedy about life way up north, take in Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in "Road to Utopia" which tells basically the same story as this but through an adult point of view, not the juvenile manner in which Abbott and Costello do with this slapstick farce.
I guess Hollywood assumed that Alaska was overloaded with gold because practically every film of the golden age surrounded quests for those yellow rocks.
The film opens with Bud and Lou saving suicidal Tom Ewell from drowning himself and their efforts over the course of a night to keep him from repeating it.
Bud cruelly arranges for each of them to take two-hour shifts to keep an eye on Ewell, then after a minute during his shift, changes the clock to make Lou think that 2 hours have gone by.
This mean-spirited and selfish gag is topped by his telling Lou to go pick up Ewell's belongings so they can head up to Alaska to lay claim to his gold and reunite him with the woman he had tried to commit suicide over.Mitzi Green, the child comic singer of the early 1930's, plays the saloon singer whom Ewell had been engaged to, dumping him over his violent jealousies.
It appears that she is in cahoots with a local lawman (Bruce Cabot) to get their hands on the location of the gold mine which means marrying him then having him killed so, as his widow, she will inherit it and split it all down the middle with Cabot.
Green is obviously trying to emulate Dietrich in "Destry Rides Again", and while she belts her songs with gusto, she is as close to Dietrich as Minerva Urecal (who has a funny cameo as Bud and Lou's San Francisco landlady) is.
There are some funny moments, including Lou's efforts to fish with interference from a playful seal (whom Lou thinks is some kind of dog) and another where he becomes a human bridge.
Overall, however, it's pretty juvenile, giving the indication that over a decade into their film teaming, Abbott and Costello and their bevy of writers were running out of ideas..
U.K. release through General Film Distributors: 6 October 1952.
76 minutes.Alternate title: ABBOTT AND COSTELLO LOST IN ALASKA.
SYNOPSIS: Two firemen become involved with a group of killers when they follow a wealthy prospector to Alaska in 1898.NOTES: Child star Mitzi Green's first adult role, and her second last film appearance.
The team's usual writer, John Grant, may not be credited on this one, but he is certainly present in spirit, for the boys go through some mighty familiar routines, including a reprise of the squirting oyster from "The Naughty Nineties" (1945) which was also directed by Jean Yarbrough.Admittedly, our boys are below their best, and director Yarbrough seems equally uninspired.
But the film is well produced.
I also like the film because some curious people are in it, including Tom Ewell as the love-sick schnook (much the same type of role in fact he was later to play with such acclaim in "The Seven Year Itch"); Mitzi Green, the former child star of such classics as "Tom Sawyer" (1930), "Skippy" (1931) and "Huckleberry Finn" (1931), making a comeback after a screen absence of eighteen years.
This is a great Abbott and Costello film.
So many people enjoy hating on this sweet and funny film.
I'll admit off the bat that I love these romantic kind of "Klondike Gold" stories, where men/women go into wild places to find their fortunes so I'm a bit biased.
However, I think this stands up just fine with similar films like Road to Utopia.
Road to Utopia is the better film but Lost in Alaska still has a lot to offer.
Bud and Lou play volunteer firemen who happen upon Nugget Joe McDermott committing suicide.
They save him and find out he's got a mountain of gold in the Yukon but it's all meaningless to him without his girl (who's not interested in being his girl), Rosette.
Nugget Joe is believed dead but is actually about to go back to Alaska after believing Rosette has taken him back.
Bud and Lou are suspected of killing him and, while trying to get the live Nugget Joe to help clear them, end up going with the capricious, unstable man to Alaska where almost everyone in town wants to kill Nugget Joe and shady dealers want to get his gold.
A lot of the longer bits and smaller jokes in the film just work for me.
The landlady comes calling looking for Bud and Lou's rent and, when she threatens to go call the police," Bud responds: "Oh, it's too cold a night to go out riding on a broom." The bit where Abbott fools Costello into getting almost no sleep while Bud gets a night full is great.
I love the idea that everyone in town wants to kill Nugget Joe when they arrive in Skagway and Lou needs to keep a notepad full of their names (which he misspells.) That leads into a great bit in a casino when Bud and Lou go looking for legal help and Lou almost ends up breaking the bank!
I'll have to go with the consensus of reviewers here on IMDb and agree this was not one of Abbott and Costello's finer efforts.
And yet, and yet, when I add this title to the list of A&C movies I've watched and reviewed, and sort them in IMDb rating order, it comes out #14 out of thirty one films (so far).
So a little bit of a contradiction there, which might mean only the critical viewers showed up to make comments.The story is better in the first half with it's set up of George Bell (Costello) and Tom Watson (Abbott) hooking up with a sullen Nugget Joe McDermott (Tom Ewell) contemplating suicide over a saloon gal (Mitzi Green) he can't win over to marry him.
But there's plenty of takers who want to kill him themselves up in Skagway, where Joe put away a whole slew of outlaws when he was a former sheriff.
When it's revealed that Joe has a two million dollar inheritance in gold besides, it ups the ante for the number of gunmen who want to see him dead.There are a few good bits here, like Bud's tampering with an alarm clock to get some extra sleep time at his partner's expense, and the roulette wheel scene in which Lou wins and loses a fortune without ever knowing it.
Movie fans of the era must have gotten delight out of goofy stuff like that, as the boys used a similar bit in 1947's "The Wistful Widow of Wagon Gap" using a frog in a soup bowl, and later replacing the frog with a fish in 1950's "Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion".
It must have worked for a while, but by this time it comes across as pretty corny.Looking for a way out of the story, the film makers ended things kind of abruptly with a huge question mark.
When all of Nugget Joe's gold sinks on a dog sled, baddie Jake Stillman (Bruce Cabot) winds up throwing a big wedding party for Joe and Rosette, who Jake tried to conspire with to take Joe out of the picture from the outset.
With a little thought I think the writers could have come up with something that made more sense, but it appears they didn't even try.One saving grace, and only because he's a personal favorite, Iron Eyes Cody makes an appearance in the story as Mukaluk Eskimo chief Canook.
He looked the part, as he always did portraying a Native American in Western movies, but did you know he was really Italian?
I'm surprised at the relatively high(7.2) mean rating given this subpar Abbott and Costello(A&C) offering.
It begins with 2 off-duty San Francisco firemen, at night, trying to save a man who jumped into the harbor, evidently as a suicide(they guess).
Lou , who can't swim worth a lick, jumps in and lands on a motor boat, which promptly splits in half and sinks.
Abbott tries to rescue Lou, but the rope he throws goes over his head and forms a noose around his neck, nearly strangling him.
The next night, Abbott says they must sleep in 2 hr shifts to keep an eye on 'Nugget' Joe, who gave them a small bag of gold for their trouble.
But Abbott cheats, turning the clock up 2 hrs.
each time it was his turn to stand watch.
Later, A&C find they are wanted for the murder of Joe, since no one has seen Joe lately(he's been in their apt.).The captain of a boat going to Alaska delivers a letter to Joe saying that his girlfriend in Skagway is lonesome for him(Actually, the letter was written by a male associate, and is untrue).
Thus, Joe arranges for tickets for the 3 to Skagway, as the ship is about ready to leave.
Thus, Joe says he doesn't have time to go to the police and show he's alive.
When they get to Skagway, seems many people want to shoot Joe, as he used to be a 'hanging judge'.
I will let you see the remainder of the film for yourselves, if you wish. |
tt0043554 | Fort Defiance | A stranger, Ben Shelby, rides up to a ranch outside Fort Defiance, Arizona, looking for Johnny Tallon. He meets Johnny's blind brother, Ned, and saves him from being trampled by a horse.
Ned and his Uncle Charlie run the ranch in Johnny's absence. Ben becomes better acquainted with them but declines their offer to stay, being married. In town, others including ruthless Dave Parker discover that Ben was at the Battle of Tennessee Ridge, where a treasonous act by Johnny caused the death of many soldiers, including Ben's brother.
Johnny, a gunslinger and robber, arrives and wants Ned to accompany him to San Francisco for an eye operation. Ned refuses to accept his brother's ill-found gains. While fighting off an Indian attack, Ned falls for passenger Julie, a dancehall girl. Johnny is shot dead in Fort Defiance, and after Parker is killed by Ben, the others are free to begin a new life. Ben's wife arrives by stagecoach to join them. | revenge | train | wikipedia | We should all have a friend like Ben Shelby!.
Nice guy, Ned Tallon, now blind, is waiting for older brother, Johnny, to come home from the war and help get the ranch back on its feet.
A newly arrived stranger, Ben Shelby, reports that Johnny deserted his outfit, costing many men their lives, then became a bank robber and was killed.
When the desertion story gets out, relatives of several men who died want brother Ned buried, too.
Ben steps in to save Ned by helping him skedaddle to Navajo territory -- but the Navajo have just been told that its Reservation Time, and they're none to pleased.
...now guess who shows up!Pretty good yarn.
Fair amount of action.
Rugged Arizona scenery.
A good Ben Johnson role.
Interesting to see Peter Graves in one of his earliest films..
Just Misses.
The first half is a fine slice of emotional clarity, that stubborn homestead squatting like a tiny island on an ocean of redrock.
The movie itself turns on Peter Graves's sightless Ned. If he's not likably appealing, then the plot doesn't work.
But fortunately Graves hits the right notes without being maudlin, so we understand why others would sacrifice to help him.
And when Ben (Johnson) finally turns around to help, we know there's more to family than blood kin.I wish the second half were as streamlined and inventive.
But instead, it falls back on a series of clichés.
What purpose, for example, is that gunning down of Parker's men except to show how fast Johnny (Clark) is.
Then there's the badly clichéd Indian attack.
Sure, it's panoramic and I assume that was the real purpose.
However, the attack is unimaginatively staged as though the circling Redmen have no other desire than to give the Whites some live target practice.
It's like they have no military sense at all.
And instead of the stereotypical good- hearted hooker, why not pair the sightless Ned with a homely girl.
For glamour obsessed Hollywood that would have been a real departure.
In a lesser Western, such shopworn episodes are expected.
But for a movie that starts off so well, these are clichés pulling events down to the merely routine.Nonetheless, the acting is first-rate, and I especially like George Cleveland's grizzled old Uncle Charlie.
The chemistry between Ned and Ben and him is simply superb, and when he collapses in the doorway, there's a genuine sense of loss unusual for any Western.
Then too, was there ever a better cowboy than the under-stated Ben Johnson with his authentic western twang.
His gradual reconciliation with Johnny is both compelling and believable.
I'm only sorry that this story of family parts finally fitting together just misses being a real sleeper..
worth seeing, unusual story, good actors, and a lot of action..
This western has a good story by Louis Lantz, it is not an average western story, it is quite unusual.
The main characters are a blind man, Ned Tallon (Peter Graves), and two other men who are trying to help him, his brother Johnny Tallon (Dane Clark) and Ben Shelby (Ben Johnson).
Shelby wants to kill Johnny Tallon whom he blames for his brother's death.
The three of them have as enemies the Navajos and Dave Parker and his men.
There is a lot of action and up to the last part the film goes surprisingly well considering the low production budget.
The color process, Cinecolor was used in some B western and is far inferior to Technicolor.
In the last part it becomes too sentimental, and also the final shootout is not on the same level as the rest of the film.
But it is worth seeing..
A 1950's western sleeper with a complex plot and complex characters...
and action.
It is several months after the end of the civil war, and Ben Shelby (Ben Johnson) shows up at the Tallon Ranch to kill John Tallon (Dane Clark).
Tallon had given himself up to the confederates just before the war ended and this led to a company of the Arizona volunteers being wiped out, Ben's brother among them.
He meets John's young, blind brother Ned (Peter Graves) and Uncle Charlie.
John is not around and Ben ,saying he knows John from the war, decides to wait for him.
A problem comes up when he gets very close and Ned and Uncle Charlie.
John has become a bank robber and a killer which Uncle Charlie has kept from Ned and asks Ben to also keep the secret because Ned worships his brother who supposedly was a war hero.
Word finally reaches them that John is dead and Uncle Charlie and Ben have to tell Ned.There are additional problems.
The Indians find out they are going to be moved to Oklahoma, don't like the idea and go on the warpath.
Local land baron Dave Parker, who also lost brothers in the Arizona volunteers, finds out about John Tallon's act of cowardice and wants all Tallon's dead.
This is just an excuse to get their ranch.AS you might guess.
John Tallon finally shows up, but he is not the coward and killer you might expect, and Ben, besides fighting Dave Parker and the Indians, must face the possibility of killing a close friend's brother This is not exactly a B western.
It was shot in New Mexico, has a cast of superb actors, more plot than there is in two current films( actually a plot worth of a major film) and complex, conflicted characters.
I saw this film when I was very young and found out recently that it has not aged.
It is well worth tracking down and watching.
A very good sleeperThere is a problem with the color.
The film was shot in Cinecolor, and it is just not as good as Technncolor of even Eastman color.The colors fade and blues and greens are lost.
This film deserves a restoration..
one of the last 2-color Cinecolor movies.
'Ft. Defiance' is a B-movie western that in terms of story is quite a cut above the typical Saturday matinée fare.
But, this is a description of the Cinecolor process it was shot in.3-strip Technicolor was the first technically viable, full color film process commercially available to the U.S. film industry.
Although technically elaborate and expensive, for about a 15 year period (ca.
1935-50) it was also the only full color process available (Kodachrome, a reversal process yielding a positive image from the camera stock, was not regarded as suitable for studio film production).During Technicolor's reign there were a number of alternative low-budget color film processes based on the 2-color principle of color reproduction.
Although 3 primary colors are required to obtain a full color gamut, a surprisingly natural-looking color image can be achieved by using only 2 primary colors, basically, a warm primary and a cool primary.Instead of dividing the spectrum into 3 bands (red, green, blue), it is split into 2 regions, representing the warm colors (red, orange, yellow) and the cool colors (green, blue, violet).
In the photography, red and green color separation filters are used to obtain the 2 primary color images.
Because of the technical complexity of full 3-color requirements, the first successful color motion picture processes (Kinemacolor and others) from the 1910's onward, were 2- color processes.
Technicolor started out as a 2-color process itself.As with other 2-color processes (Trucolor being its main competitor) the Cinecolor process used Mitchell cameras adapted for bi-pack filming where 2 rolls of film are run through the camera simultaneously.
The camera's magazines had 4 chambers, 2 feed and 2 take-up.
Each roll of black & white film captured one of the 2 'primary' images.A Cinecolor film print contained 2 primary color images, a reddish-orange and a cyan, printed on opposite sides of the film base.
In making splices, the projectionist had to scrape emulsion off BOTH sides of the film so the cement could form a proper bond.
Focus was achieved by focusing at the center of the film base as a compromise (instead of on the emulsion).When Kodak and other companies introduced single-strip negative-positive color film systems around 1950 -- which meant that standard production cameras could be used for full- color filming without special adaptations or apparatus -- the raison d'etre for 2-color systems was eliminated, with 'Ft. Defiance' being among the last of its kind.
3-strip Technicolor itself survived only a few more years as a production process, although the lab continued providing imbibition film prints to the industry for more than a decade afterwards.Like other 2-color processes, Cinecolor suffered from a limited palette, where bright greens, yellows, and purples were not achievable.
Most other colors could be represented with fairly reasonable approximations.
It also suffered from a bit of variability in color densities.
Nevertheless, it was the most natural looking of all the 2-color processes.Considering its 2-color limitations, what's remarkable about Cinecolor is how natural-looking it could be.Some other 2-color Cinecolor titles are: Black Gold (1947) Albuquerque (1948) Strawberry Roan (1948) Flight to Mars (1951) Flat Top (1952) ..
Interesting, But Not Well Developed.
Fort Defiance is an independent western from United Artists, more interesting than good.
It was an attempt at some adult themes in a western that would become more commonplace in the future.
Sad to say though its characters are not developed fully.Ben Johnson arrives at the ranch of George Cleveland and his two nephews, Peter Graves and Dane Clark.
He's looking for Clark who has not made it home from the Civil War yet.
Supposedly Clark ran out on his troops while on a mission to deliver a message and nearly everyone died in the command he served with.
Johnson was one of the few survivors, his brother wasn't and he's out to get Clark.As his big rancher Craig Wood who had running feud with Cleveland, Clark, and Graves before the Civil War, heightened by the loss of two brothers.
He wants the whole family dead, including Graves who is blind.Johnson, feeling sorry for Graves and Cleveland throws in with them before Clark arrives.
They face an attack on the ranch, a stagecoach massacre from some Navajos before the inevitable showdown.
Possibly in the hands of a major studio with a better script Fort Defiance could have been a better film.
As it is some of the character motivations just don't make sense fitted into the overall framework of the story.Still this cast of good professionals feels at home in westerns with the exception of Dane Clark who was way too urban a character for a western.Interesting film, but not as good as it could have been..
Oh Brother!.
Fort Defiance is directed by John Rawlins and written by Louis Lantz.
It stars Dane Clark, Ben Johnson, Peter Graves and Tracey Roberts.
Music is by Paul Sawtell and cinematography by Stanley Cortez.Plot has Clark as sharp shooting Johnny Tallon, a feared man he may be, but after a dreadful incident in the Civil War he is a wanted man.
Upon returning to the family ranch where his blind brother Ned (Graves) resides, he finds one of his pursuers, Ben Shelby (Johnson), has befriended Ned and become more of a brother to Ned than Johnny ever was.
With the Indians on the warpath and saloon impresario Dave Parker (Craig Woods) out to kill of the Tallon family, something's got to give...There's a degree of complexity on show with the writing here, where the family strife and fall out from the Civil War makes for an always interesting viewing.
Also refreshing to find that Graves' blind character is not a heart string tugging token, it's a meaty portrayal by Graves, the character not trying to garner sympathy.
There's a richness to the key characterisations in general, ensuring that at least when the story treads familiar Westerns pathways (Indian attacks shoehorned in - Roberts' token saloon gal love interest) all outcomes are anticipated with interest.The location landscapes are gorgeous, which renders the use of Cinecolor as being annoying.
The pronounced reds and blues detracting from the natural beauty of the surroundings, though thankfully the print shown on TCM-HD is of a decent quality.
The action sequences are only competently staged, but there's enough gun shots and stunt working bodily thunder to perk up the pic, while acting across the board is on the good side of good.Strong plotting and super scenery help to keep this one above average and thus worth seeking out by Westerns lovers.
Cliched, sure, but Ben Johnson is always fun to watch on a horse, Peter Graves and the ensemble are well cast and do a fine acting job.
The movie is both well acted and we'll written.
If only they had a decent cinematographer and director, but as a typical "B" feature of the era, this is what you get.
Better than most, and with a good photographer even better, especially as locations include incredible Utah canyon country and a old-west town called Fort Defiance.
Good story:unusual and action-packed, with Ben Johnson.
I like westerns that starred Ben Johnson as a relatively young man.
"Wagon Master" is a well known example.
I came across this obscure film, released about the same time.
In it, Ben plays Ben(Shelby, that is): an ex-Union soldier, who rides to the Tallon ranch in AZ, hoping to kill Johnny Tallon, whom he blames for his brother's death in battle, due to Johnny's said cowardice.
The problem is, according to Ned, Johnny's blind brother, and his Uncle Charlie, Johnny is already dead, executed for bank robberies.
This is the gossip in nearby Fort Defiance.
Dave Parker, who owns a neighboring spread, also comes to kill Johnny, because his 2 brothers were killed in that same incident.
No Johnny, so Parker decides to kill Ned instead.
Ben doesn't think this is right, so we have a shootout, with Uncle Charlie, rather than Ned, a victim.
Ben suggests that he and Ned form a partnership at the ranch.
Before this, some Navajos showed up, saying they would take all the Tallon cattle.
The Tallons + Ben didn't put up a fight.
The Navajos were angry because the US government said thy had to move to a reservation.Eventually, Johnny shows up, to everyone's amazement, with $5000.
he stole from a bank.
He wants to use some of this money to get Ned to an eye doctor in San Francisco.
But , Ned doesn't want to go.
He wants to stay with Ben and the ranch....I will stop here, and let you see the film.
There's a good amount of action, with several hostile encounters with Indians, as well with Parker and his bunch.
There are several fist fights in the open, and a de facto suicide.
Dane Clark, as Johnny, has a decided cocky attitude most of the time, which seems to be largely based on his very quick draw and accurate shooting.
Peter Graves ably plays Ned Tallon, while white haired, bewhiskered, George Cleveland plays Uncle Charlie.
Craig Woods plays Dave Parker, while Tracey Roberts plays Julie: Ned's surprising romantic interest.When Navajos attack a stagecoach, the horses are decoupled from the stage, which is used as a primitive barricade.
The Indians are sitting ducks for a good rifle shooter as they circle around in daylight.
They should have been able to kill all the defenders, but don't, before a cavalry arrives to shoo them away.
They could have killed the horses or run off with them, thus disabling the coach.In one segment, the guys are complaining they can't get out the side of this long canyon.
Yet, I saw several places where there was no canyon wall, and they should have been able to get out.I have to wonder about the scriptwriter's knowledge of geography, as the stage driver claims that San Francisco is only a day's travel from Navajoland!I have to wonder about Johnny's last act.
Seems he was depressed over Ned's loyalty to Ben as opposed to him.This was one of the last films shot in 2-color Cinecolor: a cheaper alternative to 3-strip Technicolor...
Shooting took place in parts of NM, southern Utah, and CA.
See it at Youtube |
tt0084591 | Reuben, Reuben | Gowan McGland (Tom Conti) is a creatively blocked Scottish poet who ekes out a day-to-day existence by exploiting the generosity of strangers in an affluent Connecticut suburb, where he recites his verse to various arts groups and women's clubs. Gowan is something of a leech, cadging expensive dinners from well-off patrons (usually stealing the tips afterward) while seducing their bored wives and affecting a superior attitude toward the smug bourgeois types he exploits.
Although a talented poet, he is also a chronic drunk, indifferent to the wounds he can casually inflict with his wit. (When one of Gowan's middle-aged conquests undresses for him, he mutters, "Deprived of their support, her breasts dropped like hanged men," reducing her to tears.)
Gowan falls in love with a young college student, Geneva Spofford (Kelly McGillis), who has everything to lose from a relationship with a drunken deadbeat poet unable to hold a job. Gowan instigates two ugly incidents that eventually cause their breakup: first, a bar fight from which Geneva rescues him, and later, when he causes a scene in a fancy restaurant where the waiters know he's stolen their tips.
He also suffers an ironic comeuppance from Dr. Jack Haxby (Joel Fabiani). The dentist, after finding out about the poet's affair with his wife, uses the ruse of free dental care for ruining Gowan's smile and forcing him to wear dentures. When Gowan finds out, it is already too late, and the damage is irrevocable. (Gowan fears losing his teeth, equating it with death.)
Gowan prepares to hang himself, but while dictating his last thoughts into a tape recorder, he comes up with some good lines and regains his will to write. Unfortunately, his host's pet dog, an old English sheepdog named Reuben, comes bounding into the room, causing Gowan to lose his balance before he can undo the noose, turning the aborted suicide into accidental asphyxiation. The film's title comprises Gowan's final words, an unsuccessful attempt to halt the dog. | romantic | train | wikipedia | A genuinely funny and moving comic tragedy.
On paper, a comic fable about a randy, drunken, fading poet sounds like a recipe for disaster, but to the enormous credit of all involved, this film works very well indeed.
Obviously a strong central performance is essential in films like this, and Tom Conti provides just that as the bedraggled Scottish writer charming his way into the beds of frustrated New England wives.
Although the screenplay is consistently witty from start to finish, it is mainly in the second half of the film that it is also extremely moving.
The romance between Conti and Kelly McGillis's young student is as obviously doomed as that of Romeo and Juliet, but just as heartbreaking too.
The denouement is as sad and shocking as any in cinematic history, yet this film with its warmth and beauty and insight will surely light a fire in even the coldest of hearts..
The most underrated film of our time- pure genius..
Tom Conti,(who was nominated for an Oscar for this role as Gowan Mcland), gives one of the most brilliant acting performances I have ever seen.
I was looking forward to more meaty roles from this great actor, but he seems to have disappeared, leaving this film as his greatest legacy.
His character is a genius who is out of control, but Conti's talent depicts his situation as comic and tragic at the same time-no small feat-- while being absolutely sympathetic.
To today's audiences, the pace may seen slow, but all is redeemed by the ending.
This has by far the best ending of any motion picture, ever.
The fact that this film is not out on DVD is shameful.
Interestingly, this is Kelly McGillis' "introducing" film; she was showcased and it was made clear that she was expected to be a great star.
She does shine in this role.
The more relevant social commentary is the portrayal of women, after they have lost that flush of young love, tend to become disillusioned.
We are left wondering whether Geneva Spofford (McGillis' character) will become like the other sad society women around her.
See this movie if you have the chance-it won't disappoint..
One memorable scene after another.
This film is a delight from first frame to last.
Tom Conti delivers an Oscar-worthy performance, and after seeing this movie you'll be wondering why you haven't seen more of him in the ensuing years.
One memorable scene after another and some lines of dialogue which have been indelibly imprinted on my brain ever since.
I had a hard time finding this film on tape.
A shame that so many inferior movies can be had by the bushel, and gems like this get lost....
A Forgotten Gem from a Forgotten Time.
If you are not familiar with movie history, then you do not know that thousands of films have been lost over time, from the silent era onwards.
And many of these movies were landmarks, because they so perfectly captured a unique time or place, or because of technical achievements or great acting.
Some lost movies were even blockbusters in their time but then began to seem dated and were quickly forgotten.
Reuben, Reuben is an example of a relatively modern movie that is getting that age old treatment.Tom Conti gives a brilliant performance in this movie, and the supporting cast is great.
The screenplay and direction are brilliant.
And the subject matter is meaty, something adults can think on and discuss seriously.
So, why is this movie virtually unheard of now?Reuben, Reuben is of its time - the early eighties - just before excessive style, slickness, and silly 50s-style moralism and hokeyness took hold.
A number of brilliant movies were release in 1983 alone - Educating Rita, Local Hero, The Big Chill, Terms of Endearment.
This was a period when story telling was paramount, and movies unfolded gently, with a respect for both real and theatrical time.I have come to believe that many of these great movies are slowly being forgotten on some conscious level; we the viewing public does not want to remember the best, as it will make us realize the amount of dreck that is now released, and make us maudlin and mournful.
This pleases the movie industry no end - it would prefer to have us come back again and again for sugary confections rather than supply us with something nutritious into which we can sink our teeth.Hopefully, the Internet and sites like IMDb will help to promote near-forgotten gems like Reuben, Reuben, encouraging young movie fans to seek them out and then spread the word of their excellence.
And, possibly, with growing recognition of really good cinema, the movie industry will not be so careless and neglectful..
Casadrunka.
This movie wasn't just written by Julius Epstein - as executive producer, and with another Epstein co-producing, he clearly midwifed it as well.
So this would be a fairly unmediated labour of love from the man who penned Casablanca 40 years earlier, and damn if I don't like it better than Casablanca - if there's one thing I wanted to see it's a portrait of the lapsed poet as an old womanizing souse.
Making him a Scot run amuck in New England is another great touch, gives the milieu a specificity you don't see every day.
And that's not mentioning Tom Conti's very specific, and brilliant, performance - no wonder he never did anything comparable, he LIVES inside this thing.
His hilarious portrayal of the sad-eyed loser Epstein has written him is the opposite of maudlin.
As his doomed infatuation with young 'un Kelly McGillis approaches its inevitable demise, you wonder how on earth they are going to wrap things up - redemption would be corny, but despair would be hopeless and wrong.
The answer he comes up with is a head-spinner, but it's also a perfect answer to this dilemma, and answers your lingering questions about the movie's name..
Intrigues, Humors & Surprises.
REUBEN, REUBEN ****1/2 Tom Conti's role--Gowan McGland, a philandering Scottish poet suffering from writer's block and a depression--is drinking away his fears and tears in wanting something more.
He finds fulfillment, however, on one of his gallivanting book tours when he falls in love with a youthful, spirited college student named Geneva.
The impressive turns from Conti, Kelly McGillis (debuting here as Gowan's girlfriend), and Roberts Blossom (as Geneva's grandfather) are a must-see, but it's Julius J.
Epstein's screen writing that drives the picture.
This film, which opened in New York with a bang but petered into obscurity extremely quickly, will intrigue, humor, and often surprise you.
Rated R.
1983Rating System***** Excellent **** Good *** Fair ** Poor * Bad. A rare gem.
This is one of my favorite movies of all times.
It's funny, moving, tragic, hilarious, just all in one.
Tom Conti gives a memorable world-class performance and the stunning beauty of Kelly Mc Gillis is a feast for the eyes.
I wish this one-of-a-kind masterpiece were available on DVD..
Great film.
This is a real gem of a movie from the early 80s.
The script which is very funny and witty, expertly oscillates between comedy and tragedy.
It reminds me of many great John Irving novels.
Conti's performance as Gowan McGland, a washed up Scottish poet, is at the heart of this film.
Conti's portrayal is so good that I can't think of anyone else doing it.
We're charmed by this tragic and comic figure.
Kelly McGillis also gives a good performance as the college student who gets mixed up with the world-renowned poet.
The relationship is realistic and adult - they both know it will end.
What they don't know is the shocking way in which it does end.
It's a highly entertaining, thought-provoking and powerful classic.
It's mind-boggling that it isn't available on DVD..
A portrait of a narcissistic intellectual.
This film is probably best known for having launched the screen career of Kelly McGillis, who charmingly and winsomely plays the young female lead in this story, a character whose name is Geneva (she is not Swiss but lives in New England, nor is she a banker).
The lead role in this film is played by British actor Tom Conti, who had 24 years of film experience behind him already by this time.
He still at this stage had an amazing head of curly hair, like a little boy.
Conti has always been a consummate actor, as he proved so spectacularly to a mesmerised British public when he appeared in the remarkable TV series THE GLITTERING PRIZES in 1976, when he became for some time a kind of national cuddly icon.
Conti does not play someone called Reuben.
Reuben is the name of Kelly McGillis's dog (the real dog's name was Jamie), who plays a crucial role in the film at the ending, which I cannot reveal because of IMDb rules.
Conti gives ones of his typically brilliant performances here, albeit of a highly unsympathetic character.
He is a serial seducer of women and when he meets McGillis and falls in love for the first time, his habit of non-commitment means that he misses the chance of marrying the girl of his dreams because marrying is just not the sort of thing he wants to do again (having messed up a marriage with a very nice woman the first time round).
Conti plays a famous British poet on a lecture and poetry-reading tour of New England, and remember that this is the 1980s when people could still become famous for being poets and they could actually travel round being admired, and rooms full of adoring American women would swoon over them.
Conti has insufferable affectations, such as leaving a huge silk pocket handkerchief hanging perilously out of his tweed jacket breast pocket by as much as a foot in length, trailing in the breeze.
It is meant to be 'a touch of the poet'.
Nobody laughs at his handkerchief, and everybody takes him terribly seriously.
He is brilliantly witty and a master of words, entrancing people with his word-play, ironic jokes, endless witticisms, and dazzling verbosity.
There is one amazing scene where Conti is persuaded to go to church by Geneva (no, she is not a Calvinist either, but an Episcopalian).
He goes up to the altar rail with his hands in his pockets, kneels down, and when the priest comes to him with the host and says: 'The body of Christ', Conti says: 'No thank you, I'm on a diet.' Everything for Conti is an excuse for a joke.
The only thing he takes seriously is himself, being hopelessly narcissistic and hence all empty inside.
This film is 'kind of a downer', even though it is extraordinarily funny and has an excellent script full of non-stop wit and irony by Julius Epstein and Herman Shumlin, based on a Peter de Vries novel.
As a portrait of this type of narcissistic intellectual individual, it is an excellent film, exposing the hollowness of excessive self-love with merciless honesty.
It is extremely well directed by Robert Ellis Miller, whose best film in my opinion was the emotionally devastating THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER (1968), which was one of the outstanding films of the 1960s and introduced Sondra Locke as a teenager.
It should be mentioned that Tom Conti's performance here was so highly regarded when the film came out that he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor, and he well deserved that recognition..
"Chick flick" train wreck .......
Womanizing Scottish poet drinking himself into oblivion, is strictly one for females needing a fantasy fix.
Males should most definitely steer clear of this "Lifetime Channel" material.
With few praiseworthy traits visible in Gowan McGland's character, it is possible even some women will be turned off by his boorish behavior.
I fail to see where all the praise being heaped upon "Reuben, Reuben" comes from?
The one redeeming quality might be the presence of the always interesting great character actor, Roberts Blossom.
Otherwise, the film is nothing more than a "chick flick" train wreck, with some pretty good performances wasted on such trite material.
- MERK.
Tom Conti's Oscar-Nominated Performance.
Reuben, Reuben!
Tom Conti is Gowan McGland - a drunk, burnt-out has-been poet who's been slowly drinking himself to death.
So why, as one of his acquaintances asks, does he get to "bed" 'so many women?
What do they find so attractive?
He's a charmer and a poet.
Need we say more.
As they said in "Dead Poets Society," why was poetry created - to woo women, of course.
As the movie opens, we see him giving a reading of his work to a group of women.
Some of them obviously piqued by his naughty little self and the way he scrutinizes himself and others under a microscope to find what really makes us tick and what turns us on, on all levels.
He uses this theme of an awakening of self in his work, an arousal of all senses.
The film centers on him trying to write and at the same time finding women to....
Enter Kelly McGillis who sees him on a train unable to pay his ticket, so she offers to pay and then bumps into him again later in the little Massachusetts town.
Gowan tries to find semblance of order of his life, when he's told by an ex that she's writing a book about her marriage to him and he dictates some feelings into a tape recorder for her use.
There's not any real action, but there's plenty of stimulation, great acting by Tom Conti, and extraordinarily insightful writing in this film.
I was very impressed with screenwriter Epstein's script.
The thoughts and ideas and feelings here were told in such a way as to be clear and simple, while they are representative of deep, multi-layered people and their mores.
Epstein has the talent to be succinct.
No other film has touched me or made such a profound impact on me, since I discovered "Ordinary People." The ending is a bit abrupt and almost unexpected, almost.
But, when I see it again, I'm sure it will seem like it flows together.
Everything was thoughtful and deliberate and those who love film like that will fall in love with Reuben, Reuben.
But, wait, his character is Gowan McGland.
So who or what is Reuben?
What DOES it mean?.
What DOES it mean?.
Why is this rare jewel of tragic comedy lost?.
Possible Spoilers.
One of my decent prayers to our Lord: The day of resurrection of this lovable study on DVD cometh.I enjoyed it first some 13 years ago in Münster, Westfalia.Since then ,I have seen it probably 50 times or so.It cares about the last short period of Scottish poet Gowan Mc Land`s life.He had a dismissal from a professorship of poetry and now unfortunately is condemned to earn money with celebrating his artwork in clubs of interested housewives, New England.The housewives, which are shown there, don`t have real ambitions with artistry or poetry;they hope it could be entertaining to watch a person, whose only purpose is to make weird things like poems.This becomes very clear at the end of one of Gowan`s public readings;no one in the audience becomes aware when the performance is over, except the artist himself;he has to give his "fans" permission to applause.
That`s a main subjekt here.The span beetween Gowan`s art and the demandings of ordinary life are heavy to handle for him.But,God almighty, suddenly,at a point,an artist can be overwhelmed by the power of profanity ;when falling in love with a beautiful young student-Geneva.
The comical grandeur of this flic is in the splendid deconstruction of bourgeois mainstream opinions and the securities of conventionalism.For example,McLand has an invitation to a restaurant; there he points out that it`s one of the great deficits of the "old" Europe(to evoke a term of our beloved Donald Rumsfeld),not to be able to overrule the cultural degeneration of the"new"world(USA)(!).Such provoking black jokes you are invited to enjoy one after another.
I am in the mood to praise the handling of entire human problems in this underrated,forgotten and adorable genius stroke for ever, but judge for yourself.This is the stuff celluloid was made for.10 stars of 10. |
tt1774580 | Splatterhouse | Two college students, Rick Taylor and Jennifer Willis, take refuge from a storm in West Mansion, a local landmark known as "Splatterhouse" for the rumors of hideous experiments purportedly conducted there by Dr. West, a renowned and missing parapsychologist. As they enter the mansion and the door shuts behind them, Jennifer screams.
Rick awakens in a dungeon under the mansion having been resurrected thanks to the influence of the "Terror Mask", or in some versions, the "Hell Mask", a Mayan sacrificial artifact from West's house which is capable of sentient thought. The mask attaches itself to Rick, fusing with his body and transforming him into a monster with superhuman strength. With the mask's encouragement, Rick goes on a rampage through the dungeon and the mansion grounds, killing hordes of monsters. Inside the mansion, Rick finds Jennifer, prone on a couch and surrounded by a throng of creatures that retreat upon his arrival. After their departure, Jennifer transforms into a giant, fanged monster that attempts to kill Rick while begging him for help. Rick is forced to kill Jennifer, who transforms back to normal and thanks him before she dies. Infuriated, Rick tracks the remaining monsters to a giant, bloody hole in the mansion's floor. Upon entering it, Rick discovers that the mansion itself is alive. He follows a bloody hallway to the house's "womb", which produces fetus-like monsters that attack him. Rick destroys the womb, which causes the house to burst into flames as it "dies".
Escaping the burning mansion, Rick comes across a grave marker. The Terror Mask releases energy into the grave, reviving a giant monster named "Hell Chaos" that claws its way up from the earth and attempts to kill Rick. Rick destroys the creature, which unleashes a tormented ghost that dissipates into a series of bright lights. As the lights vanish, the mask shatters, turning Rick back to normal, and he flees as the house burns to the ground and the credits roll. However, after he leaves and the credits end, the Terror Mask reassembles itself and laughs evilly, staying there for 45 seconds, with the word "END" appearing on the bottom right corner of the screen. | violence, comedy | train | wikipedia | 'I'm the only chance you've got, Rick-o'.
Nerdy, weakling college student Rick Taylor lies dying on the floor in the lobby of the massive West Mansion.
His girlfriend Jennifer has been kidnapped (the plot of every beat-em-up ever) by the maniacal Doctor West.
A mask topples out of a nearby sarcophagus, it speaks to him, promising an extension to his life, and, more importantly, revenge.
Upon donning the mask, Rick is not transformed into a green-faced party animal in a yellow suit, but a muscle-bound raging hulk ready to take on any monsters the West Mansion has to offer.
There's plenty of splatter, and plenty of house, so, if nothing else, it certainly lives up to the title.Fortunately there IS a lot more to enjoy.
Splatterhouse is probably the bloodiest game of all time and is a great beat-em-up, but it does begin to wither by your third play-through.
The gameplay is very.
very similar to that of Batman: Arkham Asylum, though nowhere near as polished.
And a lot of Rick abilities are similar to that of Alex Mercer from Prototype.
It's no secret that the game had a troubled production.
Bottle Rocket Games was fired (and rendered defunct as a result) by Namco around early 2009, and it took Namco's in-house team nearly a year and a half to fill in the rest.
The game still feels rushed and unfinished.
The biggest problem lies with the fact that the game does not install to your PS3, but merely loads off the Blu Ray disc.
This creates very, very long loading times that will REALLY drive you mad.
Aside from that, you'll have an absolute ton of fun with Splatterhouse.Pros:Great script.
Great dialogue/characters.
Nude pictures of Jennifer.
Lots of satisfying blood and gore.
Contains the arcade version of the original Splatterhouse as well as Splatterhouse 2 and Splatterhouse 3, which were exclusive to the Mega Drive and extremely hard to come by.
It's worth buying for these two alone.Cons:Extremely long loading times.
Graphics are only in 720p.
Some really cheap deaths (wouldn't be such a problem if it were not for the loading times).
Seriously...the loading times are a killer.
THIS GAME REALLY SHOULD HAVE INSTALLED ONTO THE PS3!!!Graphics B Sound B Gameplay B Lasting Appeal B+.
You will most certainly see the blood spatter as you play this one..
This game features, as did the original, a young man named Rick who must venture into an old mansion to save his girlfriend who has been taken by the deranged Dr. West.
He is basically bleeding and left for dead when we meet poor Rick, but he is offered assistance by a mask that offers him the power to save his girl.
Well he puts on the mask and grows into a super sized hulking dude that can tear his opponents limb from limb.
Along your quest you will also be able to use pipes, meat cleavers, shotguns, and chainsaws to get you through the strange mansion and at times other locales.
For the most part the game is fun, just needs work as it seems the makers of this game rushed its release or something.
Along with the fun mayhem you also have to go through some very long loading times and a few glitches that will have you turning off your video gaming console.
However, should they make a sequel I think they can do what the Uncharted franchise did.
The first one was good, but very flawed, then the second one came out and it quite frankly seemed to read all my complaints and improved upon all of them.
They can do that with this one too, as it is fun and simple enough to master as you simply push a couple of buttons and follow the prompts to pummel you opponents into a gooey mess.
The monsters you face look cool, though they do repeat a bit to much near the end with nothing really new coming at you the last few levels.
My favorite level had to be the fun house level as it was just really fun and had the most interesting level design.
I also enjoyed the inclusion of many H.P. Lovecraft references throughout the game such as Dr. West.
Seeing the wickerman was cool to.
If the makers had only polished this one a bit more I would have given it a higher score, however as it was it was a fun little splatter filled game..
well done remake.
As I played through this I really noticed the attention to detail that was taken in its creation.
While at times it feels very much like a ride on rails with a one track story, it is revealed that your girlfriend is not the main motive of the story.
Granted if you have ever played a Splatterhouse game before you know that the terror mask is not exactly a kind being.
The reality being that in all the games it has an ulterior motive outside of helping you save your beloved.
The game the first time around through Savage difficulty was frustrating.
The monsters were balanced, but at times the horde aspect of the fights became overwhelming to the point where fighting sometimes seemed pointless.
On a replay through on brutal keeping all of my abilities the game is noticeably easier despite the difficulty increase.
The idea of keeping the learned abilities is a nice add to this game genre.
It makes a replay more fun than normal.
The survival mode is by far the most fun and challenging.Also this game is not family friendly in any way they are not kidding about the rating.
This is as close to an AO game as they will ever come without the rating.
Where as the original Splatterhouse has cartooned violence and was rather harmless this game could be disturbing at times.
It has a "drawn" look but that does not change the fact that monsters are having their lungs torn out, and their spines torn out through their asses.On a side note if you are an achievement/trophy hunter and are planning on getting all the photos be prepared to play through on savage and brutal difficulties because photo shards are not available on some levels until you play through them on brutal..
ever wanted to be Jason Vorheese combined with the hulk?.
its hard to find a good horror game now or days.
Resident evil and silent hill have devolved into action games and it hasn't worked out as well as hoped for both of them but what if there was a game born in action horror and i think we just found it.on the game play side splatter-house has some fun combat even if sometimes you find yourself button mashing for weaker foes.platforming could use some work but soon you find yourself learning the tricks and it becomes less of a hassle.
weapons litter the game ranging from lead pipe to shotgun to even your own arm all are fun to use and violent.
splatter kills are the highlight and are fun to pull off ending an enemy in a fountain of gore.
upgrades are standard in the game and turn you into a murder god.
sometime the game switches into 2.5D game play that calls back to the classic games and are awesome to play in.graphically the game is not bad but it doesn't stack up with big title games.
but the art style and cell shading gives the game merits to be one of the most interestingly crafted worlds i have ever seen.
monsters and environments look horrifying...
and gooey.
sound-wise the game sounds fantastic the monsters screech and the voice acting rocks.
standout voice work from Jim Cummings who plays the mask everything he says will make you burst into laughter.
the music sounds awesome if your into metal and side-scrolling sections have 80s style horror music thats awesome to.the story is not what you would expect for this game what seems simple has some surprising twist and turns that help this game become something a little less standard.
no MP but they have stages and leader boards to play and extend your time.
the game also comes with the first 3 splatter-houses and they are awesome to.
oh and nude photos of Jen for all the nasty people out there.in the end some issues but they are overcome by massive seas of blood game-play 8/10 graphics 7/10 story 8/10 non fans 7/10 people new to this may be thrown off by the platforming but there is a lot to enjoy here.
fans 9/10 fans of the sires will find a lot to love with the classics included and the in jokes and the easter eggs of pop horror and the gore lots and lots of gore.
overall 8/10.
This is madness, but beautiful madness..
A classic love story, the man having to save his girlfriend from certain doom/ an evil lover.
Romance at it's best, where he valiantly fights all that oppose him, eliminating his enemies, before finishing with a nice blood soaked finisher.
For the faint of heart?
This is the story of Rick Taylor, a nerdy college student, looking to rescue his girlfriend, the beautiful Jennifer Willis, from an untimely end.
While some heroes grab a sword and fight through castles (ala Prince of Persia), or grab a hammer and climb ladders (ala Donkey Kong), a rather different approach is taken.
Donning an ancient Mayan mask, Rick is transformed into an uber powerful, humanoid like man with ungodly strength and an amazing healing ability.
With these new powers, he goes forth to slaughter all he hell spawn that lies in his path.
A slight twist on a classic tale (the hero having to rescue his girlfriend), the story is both easy to understand and worth following.
the graphics aren't perfect, but that observation is really based on what others have said, for I've always been to captured by the game to notice.
The music is all rock, which, truly, is a hit or miss depending on what you like.
I found it heightened the experience, and kind of added to the mood.
The mood is both creepy and awesome.
I started playing one of the later levels at around 6:00 PM, and played until it started getting dark.
I had kept the light off, not having expected to play so long, but the darkness was kind of freaky after what I just faced.
Not terrible, just mildly creepy.
The awesome part of the mood came from the incredible backgrounds, which personally reminded me of an incredibly gritty haunted house (based on my own work at one, it reminded me immensely of my own experiences whilst working there) that didn't really have any limits.
One particular instance is an Easter egg featuring famed horror icon Freddy Krueger's hat and glove on a burnt corpse.
Classic stuff.
I'm kind of rambling by this point I'm guessing, so let me just end by saying, why the heck have you not bought this game yet?
I'm timing you, go on, get!
and have fun, because this is one good game. |
tt0326862 | Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem | The action in Eternal Darkness is divided between four principal locations. The game skips back and forth through time when the player begins or ends each chapter. The locations include the Forbidden City in Persia, a Cambodian temple in Angkor Thom, the Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France, and the Roivas family mansion with the Ruined City of Ehn'gha in Rhode Island, United States.
=== Story ===
The plot of the game revolves around Alexandra Roivas, who is investigating the mysterious murder of her grandfather Edward Roivas. While exploring his Rhode Island mansion, she discovers a secret room containing, among other odd items, a book bound with human skin and bone. When she reads this book, The Tome of Eternal Darkness, she experiences a scene in the life of Pious Augustus, a respected Roman military commander in 26 BC. Pious is led by mysterious voices to an underground temple, where he chooses one of three mysterious artifacts. The artifact transforms him into an undead warlock, the Liche, and makes him slave to one of three Ancients, powerful godlike beings whose "Essences" are incarnated as the artifacts. As the plot unfolds, it becomes clear that Pious is attempting to summon his Ancient into this reality, while the powerful fourth "Corpse God" Mantorok is bound on Earth already, apparently helpless to stop it. If this summoning came to pass, the Ancient would feast on the bodies and souls of all living beings, and cast the universe into the horror of eternal darkness.
As she searches for and finds chapters of the Tome scattered throughout the mansion, Alex finds herself reliving the experiences of several (player controlled) individuals who have crossed paths with Pious or other servants of the Ancients over the centuries, and as a result came into contact with the Tome itself. While many of these individuals meet a sinister fate, their cooperation ultimately gathers the Essences of the three remaining Ancients in the mansion. Alex's own ancestors discover the long-deserted City of Ehn'gha beneath the family mansion, and powerful magickal machinery inside. Alex powers up this mechanism with the Ancients' essences, and summons a rival Ancient to fight Pious'.
While the two Ancients fight, Alex engages in combat with Pious with the aid of the spirits of his victims, the souls played in previous chapters, ultimately destroying his Ancient's essence. It loses the fight above as Alex kills Pious. Then, realizing that the Roivases and their allies have just brought another powerful Ancient into the world, Edward's spirit quickly uses the mechanism in Ehn'gha to send the other Ancient back where it came from. He expresses pride in his granddaughter before he disappears.
After completing the game under all three alignments, it is revealed that all three Ancients have been destroyed — "All at once, separate and simultaneous, for the universe is made of many timestreams, many possibilities, all in harmonious synchronicity." Because he was bound, and not powerful enough to stop Pious Augustus himself, Mantorok manipulated the Roivas family into completing the work for him. He orchestrates the deaths of all three Ancients, in separate timestreams, and then connects them all, resulting in the annihilation of all three alignments. In the end, only the corpse god Mantorok is still alive, "festering in its tomb... plotting."
=== Playable characters ===
The player controls the following characters in the years noted next to their names. The game does not introduce them in chronological order and they are listed in the order the player first takes control of them.
Alexandra Roivas (2000) - A student at a university in Washington. The game's main protagonist, she is investigating her grandfather's gruesome death in Rhode Island. Finding the Tome, she reads about the past struggles against The Darkness, and of the plan to prevent Pious from summoning the Ancient. The player controls her during the intro, the finale, and in between the other chapters. Voiced by Jennifer Hale, her surname is "savior" spelled backwards.
Pious Augustus (26 BC) - A Roman Centurion in his late 20s, at war in Ancient Persia. He becomes the game's chief antagonist after being corrupted by one of the Ancients' essences while examining the ruins he stumbles upon. Alexandra Roivas defeats and kills him in 2000 AD. There is a bad ending in which the character dies and the darkness prevails, in which Pious defeats Roivas. This ending is obtained if the character dies while fighting Pious. Voiced by Richard Doyle.
Ellia (1150 AD) - A Khmer slave girl and court dancer for Suryavarman II. She yearns for adventure after reading passages from the Tome. After finding herself locked in a temple imprisoning the former Khmer fertility god, she is chosen to bear Mantorok's essence. Pious kills her for her resistance to him shortly afterwards, but she remains half-alive because the essence is inside her body. Eight hundred years later, she gives it to Edwin Lindsey and then finally dies. Voiced by Kim Mai Guest.
Anthony (814 AD) - A Frankish messenger for Charlemagne, ordered to deliver a message to his liege, a message that consumes Anthony in some corrosive magick which alludes to treachery in store for the Frankish emperor. He learns that the monks are plotting against the emperor, but is too late to save him. When Paul Luther finds him centuries later, he rises as a zombie-like creature, under the control of the Darkness. Paul defeats him, prays for the boy's soul, and takes his sword and a gem needed to proceed. Voiced by Cam Clarke.
Karim (565 AD) - A Persian swordsman, sent into the desert to find a treasure (one of the Ancients' essences) for his love, Chandra. Chandra, however, is not faithful. She is mutilated and killed by a nobleman's jealous mistress, and her ghost warns Karim about the artifact's true nature. Although initially reluctant to believe her, he sacrifices himself so that he can watch over the artifact. Voiced by Rino Romano.
Dr. Maximillian Roivas (1760 AD) - A rich doctor in colonial Rhode Island, ancestor of both Edward and Alex. Something is amiss in the mansion he recently inherited from his father, Aaron. Max eventually finds the city of Ehn'gha under the mansion, and after realizing how powerful the denizens are after barely defeating a Lesser Guardian in single combat, he attempts to warn the world, but fails. It is implied that he was committed to an insane asylum for that, but later revealed that he killed four of his servants, suspecting they were possessed by Bonethieves. Alex, surveying the room where the servants' remains lie sealed, notes that one of the corpses was missing its head, and there are only three sets of bones. Voiced by William Hootkins.
Dr. Edwin Lindsey (1983) - An archaeologist exploring Cambodian ruins under the auspices of a mysterious benefactor named Paul Augustine. Paul Augustine, revealing himself to be Pious in disguise, tries to kill Lindsey, but he escapes and makes his way through Angkor Thom. Eventually he finds the undead remains of Ellia, who gives him Mantorok's essence; Lindsey returns to the United States and delivers it to Edward. Lindsey is one of the few characters to escape the Eternal Darkness without any physical or mental harm. Voiced by Neil Ross.
Paul Luther (1485 AD) - A Franciscan monk on a pilgrimage to see a holy relic, the Hand of Jude. He is detained in Amiens by the Inquisition (led by Pious in disguise) on a pretense of suspicion in the murder of Brother Andrew. A custodian frees him, and helps him to find Brother Andrew's journals, which reveals that Andrew was killed to protect a secret: the dominant Ancient's Relic is hidden in the Cathedral. The Hand of Jude was a fake to lure victims to sacrifice. Paul ventures deeper into the Amiens Cathedral, finding a metal statue of the custodian near a door. Paul must "kill" the statue with a magical dagger to open the door, but as he does so he hears a wail from nearby, and finds the custodian has been killed with a similar dagger. Later, Paul finds the Black Guardian, who violently kills him on the orders of Pious. Voiced by Paul Eiding.
Roberto Bianchi (1460 AD) - A traveling Venetian artist and architect, taken as a prisoner of war while roaming abroad. He is forced to work for a warlord (revealed as Pious Augustus in a pre-level cinematic), helping with the construction of the Pillar of Flesh by surveying the foundations. He acquires the artifact from Karim while surveying the monster-infested site, and when his work is complete, he is thrown into the pillar and buried alive. Voiced by Phil Proctor.
Peter Jacob (1916) - A field reporter during World War I, staying at Oublié Cathedral, which has been converted into a field hospital. He notices that people are mysteriously disappearing, and investigates the lower levels when monsters attack. He defeats the Black Guardian, and keeps the artifact for many years until he delivers it to Edward. Besides sleepless nights, he is one of the few characters who does not suffer a tragic end as a result of the Tome. Voiced by Michael Bell.
Edward Roivas (1952) - A clinical psychologist, Alex's grandfather, led to the Tome by Max's ghost. His servants are attacked by a dreadful presence, the Vampire. Edward eventually defeats it and wipes out the garrisoned forces of Ehn'gha with a massive Dispel Magick spell from the city's nine-point spell circle (formed by the towers of the city). Years later, he is killed by a Lesser Guardian. Edward is the game's primary narrator, introducing each Tome chapter (with the exception of Pious') and narrating the epilogue. Voiced by Neil Dickson.
Michael Edwards (1991) - A Canadian firefighter sent to extinguish oil fires ignited by Iraqi troops in Kuwait after the Gulf War. An explosion at one well leaves him trapped in the Forbidden City as the only survivor. He receives the Essence of an Ancient from Roberto and destroys the City with magickally-enhanced C-4 plastic explosives placed at the bridge. A few years after his return, he meets up with Edward in a city at night. Mike gives Dr. Roivas a package, believing that he himself will soon be killed by the Guardians (though his ultimate fate is not revealed). The package's contents are unknown, as the Essence and the Enchanted Gladius (if the player has acquired it) were later sent to Alex in a hastily wrapped and unmarked package dropped inside the mansion's front door, hinting at Michael's possible survival (also the fact that his statue in the Hall of the Tome of Eternal Darkness is missing, possibly meaning that his life did not end in the hands of the Ancients). Voiced by Greg Eagles.
=== The Ancients ===
The Ancients are depicted as godlike beings that existed on Earth before humanity. The three Ancients that Pious may align with were expelled from this universe, and Pious works to bring about the return of his Ancient. The featured Ancients are:
Ulyaoth, whose powers focus on magick and the dimensional planes: his creations and spells are tinged blue. Ulyaoth's form is reminiscent of a jellyfish.
Xel'lotath, whose powers focus on the mind and insanity: her underlings and enchantments are tinged green, and have an affinity for affecting sanity. Xel'lotath has an eel-like lower body, with four slender arms connected to a torso with a large eye in the center.
Chattur'gha, whose powers focus on physical strength and matter: his troops and powers are tinged red. Chattur'gha is crustacean-like in appearance, and has two large claws.
Mantorok is described as the "Corpse God" and the "God of Chaos", and is the only Ancient known to have a physical presence on Earth. Its minions are tinged black and its magick is purple. Mantorok is a massive, amorphous being with countless eyes and mouths, somewhat reminiscent of a shoggoth. The murals of its temple depict it as once having a more defined, but still very grotesque shape.
Mantorok appears to be in a position of both superiority and inferiority to the other Ancients depending on context. It is described as the "Keeper of the Ancients", and it's implied that Mantorok alone binds the other three Ancients and traps them outside of reality. Maintaining equilibrium among them, and ensuring that they are bound to fight against and destroy one another. However, due to a powerful binding spell cast by Pious, it has been weakened and its powers over the others has been waning for eons.
A fifth alignment, colored yellow, was confirmed to be the alignment of another Ancient that was not included in the game. In-game, yellow appears on unaligned runes and disintegrating enemies, and was responsible for the cursing of Anthony (intended for Charlemagne).
Fan theories surrounding the obscure fifth alignment and Montorok suggest: that while Mantorok would have been in a position of superiority to the primary other three, the unused yellow deity would have been in a position of inferiority to them, but while also being superior to Mantorok. However, the exclusion of the fifth alignment could be the reason behind Mantorok fulfilling both superior and inferior roles at the same time in the plot. | insanity, cult, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0145600 | Brave New World | The novel opens in London in AF 632 (AD 2540 in the Gregorian calendar). The society is illuminated by the activities of the novel's central characters, Lenina Crowne and Bernard Marx, and others. Lenina, a hatchery worker, is socially accepted and contented, but Bernard, a psychologist in the Directorate of Hatcheries and Conditioning, is not. He is shorter in stature than the average of his Alpha caste—a quality shared by the lower castes, which gives him an inferiority complex. His intelligence and his work with hypnopaedia allow him to understand, and disapprove of, the methods by which society is sustained. Courting disaster, he is vocal and arrogant about his differences. Bernard is mocked by other Alphas because of his stature, as well as for his individualistic tendencies, and is threatened with exile to Iceland because of his nonconformity. His only friend is Helmholtz Watson, a lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering. The friendship is based on their feelings of being misfits (in the context of the World State), but unlike Bernard, Watson's sense of alienation stems from being exceptionally gifted, intelligent, handsome, and physically strong. Helmholtz is drawn to Bernard as a confidant.
Bernard takes a holiday with Lenina at a Savage Reservation in New Mexico. (The culture of the village folk resembles the contemporary Native American groups of the region, descendants of the Anasazi, including the Puebloan peoples of Acoma, Laguna and Zuni.) There they observe ceremonies, including a ritual in which a village boy is whipped into unconsciousness. They encounter Linda, a woman originally from the World State who is living on the reservation with her son John, now a young man. She too visited the reservation on a holiday, and became separated from her group and was left behind. She had meanwhile become pregnant by a fellow-holidaymaker (who is revealed to be Bernard's boss, the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning). She did not try to return to "civilization" because of her shame at her pregnancy. Neither Linda nor John are accepted by the villagers, and their life has been hard and unpleasant. Linda has taught John to read, although from only two books: a scientific manual from his mother's job in the hatchery and the collected works of Shakespeare. Ostracised by the villagers, John is able to articulate his feelings only in terms of Shakespearean drama, especially the tragedies of Othello, Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Linda now wants to return to London, while John wants to see the "brave new world" his mother has told him about. Bernard sees an opportunity to thwart plans to exile him, and gets permission to take Linda and John back. On his return to London, Bernard is confronted by the Director, but turns the tables by presenting him with his long-lost lover and unknown son. John calls the Director his "father", a vulgarity which causes a roar of laughter. The humiliated Director resigns in shame.
Bernard, as "custodian" of the "savage" John who is now treated as a celebrity, is fawned on by the highest members of society and revels in attention he once scorned. However, his triumph is short-lived. Decrepit and friendless, Linda goes on a permanent soma, that is, drugged, holiday while John refuses to attend social events organised by Bernard, appalled by what he perceives to be an empty society. Society drops Bernard as swiftly as it had taken him. Lenina and John are physically attracted to each other, but John's view of courtship and romance, based on Shakespeare, is utterly incompatible with Lenina's freewheeling attitude to sex. Lenina tries to seduce John, but he attacks her for being an "impudent strumpet". John is then informed that his mother is extremely ill. He rushes to her bedside, causing a scandal as this is not the "correct" attitude to death. Some Delta children who enter the ward for "death-conditioning" irritate John to the point where he attacks one physically. He then tries to break up a distribution of soma to a lower-caste group and is set upon by the outraged recipients. Helmholtz, who has been called by Bernard, also becomes involved in the fracas.
Bernard, Helmholtz and John are brought before Mustapha Mond, the Resident "World Controller for Western Europe". Bernard and Helmholtz are told they are to be exiled to islands, seen by society at large as a punishment for antisocial activity. Bernard pleads grovelling for a second chance, but Helmholtz welcomes the opportunity to be an individual, and chooses the Falkland Islands as his destination, believing that their bad weather will inspire his writing. Mond says that Bernard does not know that exile is actually a reward. The islands are full of the most interesting people in the world, individuals who did not fit in the World State community. Mond outlines for John the events that led to the present society and his arguments for a caste system and social control. John rejects Mond's arguments, and Mond sums up by saying that John demands "the right to be unhappy". John asks if he may go to the islands as well but Mond refuses, saying he wishes to "continue the experiment".
John moves to an abandoned hilltop "air-lighthouse" (meant to warn and guide helicopters) there, near the village of Puttenham, where he intends to adopt an ascetic lifestyle in order to purify himself of civilization and make amends for his mistreatment of his mother. He practises self-mortification, and his self-flagellation is witnessed by bystanders, turning him into a sensational spectacle. Hundreds of sightseers, hoping to witness his behaviour, arrive at John's lighthouse; one of them is Lenina. At the sight of the woman he both adores and loathes, John attacks her with his whip. The onlookers are whipped into a frenzy by the display and John is caught up in a soma-fueled orgy. The next morning, John remembers the previous night's events and is stricken with remorse. Onlookers and journalists who arrive that evening find that he has hanged himself, his body twisting aimlessly in the lighthouse. | satire, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | Initially John is taken by the society but gradually he begins to see that the world is not as he wants it.For a major film to attempt to bring a major novel to the screen is a brave move, but for a cheap TVM to have a stab at it is even more of a risk.
Films should make you think - but surely not to the point where your thoughts are actually better than what's on the screen!So yes it says lots of stuff about social classes (which we have - workers and middlemen and top men), consumerism, slogans, media saturation and loss of individualism.
This Hollywood makeover stylistically embodies many of the points made in the text; the victory of shallowness over sincerity, style over substance, sloganism over communication -- the movie is less than the book in so many of the ways that mankind is made less in the Brave New World.
The movie DOES make many valid and thoughtful statements that just don't get a lot of airplay in this society and deserves credit for making some bold statements - especially right before commercials.I think the purists are being too harsh.
This version of Brave New World reaches the most important audience - the uninitiated - in a way that's entertaining and understandable.
This is especially true in the case of Lenina, the central female character who is supposed to be typical of her time (no brains, just fun, thank you) in the novel while in the movie has a more complex personality.
This change ends up altering the plot and was probably caused by that big stupidity of our times, political correctness.This adaptation of the novel for TV mass consumption also includes several other changes such as an assassination plot (unthinkable in the original) and the inclusion of a happy ending, which completely distort the message.
'Brave New World', the 1932 novel by Aldous Huxley, told of a new world where babies were decanted as Alphas, Betas, Deltas, Epsilons, or Gammas, all designed to know their places in society, and in the case of the lower classes, decanted as multiple identical twins to staff entire factories and production lines.
Their God is Ford (as in Henry) and their motto is 'history is bunk'.In the book, Bernard Marx is a fish out of water, an Alpha of stunted growth who has dangerous ideas, who refuses to act like he is expected to, and is generally despised.
Already there's been some tampering done with the source.With Rya Kihlstedt as a colourless Lenina (again nothing like the book's character, who is conventional to a 't') and Leonard Nimoy as the Controller, Mustapha Mond, the film loses impact and goes downhill very quickly.Nods can be given (grudingly) at the attempts to develop computer generated conditioning forms, and to give some sense of a futuristic world.
The savage reservation is simply full of young Americans out to pick a fight, while John (the savage child of Linda, a Beta stranded in the reservation) does speak Shakespeare, but is otherwise of little interest and very unlike the book.A disappointment and a huge bore, missing both the humour and the science-fiction/faction innovations of Huxley's novel..
Okay, I realize that I'm probably going to get labeled as either a moron or a heretic for this, but I'm not going to let that put me off!Y'see, the fact is I LOVED this version of Huxley's classic!!!The main reason for contempt aimed at this film appears to concern the matter of deviation from the original text.
John is rendered here more mentally stable and exhibits none of the religious fervor for guilt and self flagellation.Right, so why were these changes necessary?In the study version of the text, the notes state "Thus however tempting it may be to base a reading of brave new world on a sympathetic identification with the characters, it would be a distortion of the novel to do so." It also postulates that the "characters are static, incapable of learning, changing and developing in the way real people do".
It is simply a matter of adapting format to work successfully.As for John, and again with reference to the study text, Huxley himself states "...the most serious defect in the story, which is this, the savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in Utopia...(or that) his native Penetente-ism reasserts its authority and he ends in maniacal self torture and suicide." He goes on to assert "if I were to rewrite the book, I would offer the savage a third alternative.
Although this movie version of 'Brave New World' was quite different from the novel, I still enjoyed it.
The "Brave New World (TV Movie 1980)" from the BBC was a billion times better, you can find references to that adaptation in IMDbJust watch the BBC version or read the book, there is nothing in this one to redeem itself, awful.The 3 hours long BBC version and the book can be found in the website Huxley dot net at the very bottom, there are the links to the book and the movie Sadly the copy came from a bad VHS, but watchable.
But in most ways the real world has turned out worse than BNW - Huxley predicted the pornography of sex but not the pornography of violence, Betas (or worse) are running things, not Alphas, and every attempt at Soma (ecstasy, Valium) has turned out to have a dark side..
BRAVE NEW WORLD is one of many classic novels I have never got round to reading .
If I remember correctly the 1980 mini series version of the book suffered badly from having all the characters dressed up in silver foil costumes like in an extremely bad B movie but here thankfully everyone dresses in an entirely sensible and recognisable manner .
This also no doubt explains why the directors were hired due to their drugs orientated episode of OZIn many ways this version of BRAVE NEW WORLD plays out like an episode of the classic BBC series BLAKE`S 7 , a series where the main recreational drug is also called Soma ( Bet you never knew that ) and just like all but the very worst episodes of BLAKE`S 7 this TVM is rather watchable but no doubt Huxley fans will detest it.
I mean, I read the novel and the whole time I was thinking, "This is exactly how the world is today mostly", so I found this updated version to be brilliant.Production wise, the sets were fine, the lighting great, not sure about the audio, and the actors fit pretty well, and acted okay...
When I first read "Brave New World" five or six years ago now, I remember thinking about how Huxley was a genius.
However for a book which would influence me in such a powerful way, it's disappointing they didn't realise that it's better to not touch something rather than create a half decent version.
John doesn't fit the mold; he is poor but intelligent and doesn't want any part of your brave new world, thanks.
Bernard Marx has an run-in with a disgruntled Delta who "goes postal." In an encounter between John and Mustapha Mond, the latter reveals that (unlike in the book) classical literature isn't forbidden at all; people simply don't read it because the culture doesn't equip them to understand it.The strength of this adaptation rests on the fact that it is examining a real social trend, the development American baby-boomer culture.
I first read Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD at 13 and I enjoy the classic novel.
However, there is no question in my mind that this innovative, dark, and sexy retelling of the Huxley classic is only strengthened by the major changes in plot and characterization.Let's face it, in Huxley's version the main characters are much less interesting than the ideas he presents.
This is a bold new cast for a bold new vision of Huxley's classic.In this version, Bernard and Lenina have the makings of a true, adult relationship, and they don't back away from danger in order to help their friend, the Savage.
But even this change works, in that it shows how bland the world is without culture, religion, and Shakespeare.In conclusion, this movie, like Michael Mann's LAST OF THE MOHICANS, is a legitimate example of what happens when a film maker truly captures the spirit of a literary classic -- without being tied to the exact letter of the text.Would love to see a DVD release of this modern television classic!.
The soundtrack is pretty poor as well.However, Leonard Nimoy definitely fit the role he had in this movie well and actually helped make the film somewhat watchable.
This movie had potential to be good, if the script had only stuck to the book more closely, and better actors/actresses were cast..
For those of you students out there looking to get away with not having to read Huxley's novel, this film version will definitely do you more harm than good.
The most interesting aspect of the novel for me is analyzing Bernard's motives and beliefs and how he sells out after returning from the reservation with John, but that is not part of this movie at all.
The movie uses well know actors that fit the characters (Peter Gallagher as Bernard Marx and Leonard Nimoy as Mustapha Mond).
In this teleplay rewritten by Dan Mazur and David Tausik the Brave new World is just a society of sex-crazed drudges and John just trips and accidentally falls to his death.
This TV film should not be called Brave New World, as it is different from Huxley's vision of Utopia in the novel.
The film has never been made into a faithful version of the book because the rights to the book are in dispute.People who view the TV version think that they are watching a film made of the book, but they most certainly are not.The acting and directing are poor, and the sets are cheesy.Read the book, and hope that some day, a good director will be able to make the actual events in the novel come to life.Marlynn Alkins.
Huxley's book made us see Bernard and the DHC as flawed men in a flawed society by giving us the character of the Savage, who connects to the reader despite coming from a place that most people can't relate to.
Minus the terrible ending, this movie was generally true to the book, but it lacked the proper focus to convey the spirit of the novel..
We watched this movie in school because we didn't have time to read the book and I thought that it was well made.
The book by Aldous Huxley is a classic, not just for its intrigueing plot and characters, but its prediction of the future which seems eerily like our own.
So many terrible choices...the book is a classic, but they have completely lost the feel of it by trying to update everything (which didn't need to be done anyway, it was set in the future!).Not only is it very badly made and written, the people that that they have chosen for the roles are completely wrong for them, as are their costumes.Complete and utter disgrace.
Having been a fan of the book, I really wanted to watch a movie of "brave new world", and when by chance I came across and I saw this video from a second-hand movie store I duely brought it.
As soon as the movie was finished however I was extremely disappointed, not because the movie was awful (which it was), it was the fact that 95% of the scenes did not happen, in fact they changed the story so much that it hardly resembled the book at all and you would not of reconised it if the movie had another title, and the worse part of it all was they changed the ending, what was all this b**l s**t with lenina and bernard falling in love and having a child in the reservation, did the directors not read the book?
I could go on forever with the number of changes they did in this movie (no mention of ford or hermholz, bernard starting of popular and sha**ng lenina), and what I also would say were pointless changes that lost the meaning of the book, but im not going to waste my time.
In summary if you have read the book and you want to watch this movie all I can say is don't put you hopes to high with this pile of c**p, because you will be disappointed, be be frank I would recommend that you don't even waste your time watching it, as its that bad and ruins the book.
Brave New World was a wonderful book, and this cinematic version utterly missed the point.
I had previously thought about Gary Sinise to play Bernard (because he is a great shorter actor- how he became short was never revealed in the movie by the way), but I think Sinise may be too old now.
Rya Kihlstedt is certainly sexy and better than what's she's given to work with.The fact that this is an adaptation is no excuse for its weaknesses, furthermore, none of the changes enhanced the story, anyway.On the plus side, this is one of the funniest damn movies about a dystopian future that has ever been released.
Those who have actually read the book and understood it will see that this version is very true to the book and the only adaptations made were to address minor things that Huxley got wrong like GM takes the place of chemical conditioning, which helps because otherwise they would get in the way of an uncanny prediction of the future - made in 1932.The fact is that over-dramatic performances would not have fitted the story from the original book, nor would action violence, nor would an obvious moral criticism of the world described by Huxley.
There were no strong morals to be learned, just a vision of the future.On the surface, to some, the film may appear weak, but give some deeper thought and watched in its whole and taken with the book this is a very worthy rendition.It's a shame more films can't be made like this, where the picture/world painted is more interesting and takes precedence over yet another cliched, predictable storyline.Chris Bartlett 2004.
This version of Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel is one of the worst examples of a book turned into a film.
I had thought if Brave New World was ever made into a movie, that chances are it would be disappointing, at the least.
Huxley's cynicism about the future was huge and grotesque.I can only wonder if the movie brought that out to his level.But, the ending, in my thoughts, should have ended with John away from the insanity, living a good life as a "savage." The others, fulfilling their potential.
Beyond the borders of the Brave New World there live the "normal" people who are not conditioned and live a life like we do.
John is going to be the most interesting man there and this will change his life and the life of some other inhabitants of the Brave New World.
So would recommend this movie only to people who have read the novel or to people who doesn't care about things like that and are just interested in the subject..
There are already other utopian films like "Brave New World".
In the film the producers concentrated more on Lenina than on John, like it was in the novel.
They really changed Huxley's flat characters into round characters and the ending is quite different in the film, than in the novel.
I only recommend this film to people who like this genere and want to see what could happen if mandkind wants to create a perfect society without wars and real feelings.
But I really hate this movie, I like the novel better.
In 'Brave New World' Tim Guinee plays 'John Cooper' or 'the Savage' as he is known.
They're not aliens, but citizens of this Brave New World think differently than we do and this movie takes their viewpoint.
John, the savage, does influence this Brave New World he visits.
Good production values, acting, and an overall cheerful creepiness.If you want to watch a filmed version of Huxley's Brave New World, an extremely significant science fiction novel, this is not the film for you.
It also clearly shows the mundane emptiness of life when the thoughts, feelings and emotions of love are eradicated from society minus Bernard Marx who helps to show us that.The idea of a future where the government controls all your thoughts, feelings, emotions, habits, movements, love-life and more through technology and their own love of power and control is well done in this film adaptation of Huxley's Brave New World.The film and book will leave you with thought-provoking questions and help one to define their own beliefs: total freedom, total control, or somewhere in between.Note: If you like this film then you may like THX 1138 (1971) 9/10.
His relationship with Lenina and the consequent developed "Love Story" between her rises when John the Savage arrives the "Brave New World".With reference to the visual representation Libman and Williams (2nd director) have to be extolled.
This movie is really interesting and shows you for 87 minutes a "Brave New World"..
This movie gets some of it's ideas from Huxley's book, but basically they just pick and choose certain things they want.
They make up story lines that completely go against Huxley's story, actually made me so irritated to watch this movie.To name a few points which I found most disturbing: Bernard and Lenina's relationship is portrayed to be way more than it should be.
**SPOILERS MAY BE AHEAD.I just watched the movie, "BRAVE NEW WORLD" on the SCI-FI Channel.
The Brave New World is a dystopia.The film didn't get into the whole story. |
tt0038007 | The Purple Monster Strikes | Astronomer Cyrus Layton is working late one night on his new airplane design in his observatory. He witnesses what he believes is a meteorite landing in the far distance. He contacts his niece Sheila and asks her to bring Craig Foster to the observatory to help analyze his discovery; he then sets out to search for the meteorite crater. Layton instead discovers a crashed spaceship; the ship's pilot emerges and explains that he is from the planet Mars.
Mistakenly thinking the alien is friendly, Layton takes him back to the observatory. Once there the Martian, calling himself "The Purple Monster," wishes to see Layton's designs for the new airplane/spaceship. He proudly shows the alien his designs until the alien explains that he is now stealing them, to build a spaceship for himself to fly back to Mars, where a fleet of the ships will then be used invade the Earth. When Dr. Layton objects, the Martian murders him with a weapon that emits a "carbo-oxide" gas, which kills instantly. The alien then transforms into a ghost and takes over Dr Layton's body. Doing so fools the astronomer's niece Sheila and criminologist Craig Foster, both of whom work with Dr. Layton's foundation, which is responsible for commissioning the spaceship project.
Inhabiting Dr. Layton allows the Martian to witness the unrelated theft of the plans by a gangster named Garrett. The Martian convinces Garrett and his gang to aid in the invasion plot. With the criminals' help the alien begins building the spaceship. Eventually, however, the Martian's efforts at pretending to be Dr Layton fall apart, and Foster and Sheila realize what is happening. A series of action scenes show the pair trying to figure out and stop whatever the alien is doing on Earth. Craig and Sheila constantly battle the Purple Monster's henchmen, who use mind-control poisons, carjackings, and even a booby-trapped vacant lot to dispose of Craig and Sheila.
The closest the criminals come to succeeding is in Chapter 7 ("The Evil Eye"), when Sheila is lured into a trap at the gang's hideout. Foster gets the information out of a captured gang member and speeds to the house to save Sheila, who has been tied up and gagged inside a room filled with explosives set to detonate after an electric eye is tripped.
At the end of Chapter 7, Foster steps into the electric eye, triggering the explosives and detonating the building. However, at the beginning of Chapter 8, Shelia manages to remove her gag and alert Foster about the eye, allowing him to jump over it. Once safely out of the building, Foster shoots a henchman, causing him to fall into the electric eye, triggering the bomb.
In the last chapter Craig and Sheila realize that the Purple Monster is using Professor Layton's body; they devise a plan to uncover the truth. While Sheila gets the supposed Doctor Layton to come downtown to sign some papers needed for funding, Craig slips into Layton's office and secretly installs a movie camera which will be remotely activated when the telephone is used. Foster then escapes and calls the office to advise him that he will be bringing reinforcements to search the observatory, which he has discovered is the Purple Monster's hideout. Craig and Sheila arrive to find the observatory deserted. Sheila goes to the basement where she stumbles upon Purple Monster's subterranean lair and is kidnapped. Foster goes to check on Sheila and finds the basement empty. He then discovers the secret lair where Sheila has been bound and gagged. The Purple Monster orders his henchmen to dispose of her and destroy the observatory once he escapes.
The story ends with Craig Foster using a part of the spaceship, a sonic pulse cannon used to shatter meteors. He destroys the alien spaceship with the Purple Monster inside as he attempts to fly back to Mars to lead an invasion fleet against Earth. | mystery, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0114885 | Waiting to Exhale | "Friends are the People who let you be yourself—and Never let you forget it"
Waiting to Exhale is a story about four African-American women—Savannah, Robin, Bernadine, and Gloria—who go through different stages of love and life.
Savannah "’Vannah" Jackson is a successful television producer who holds on to the belief that one day her married lover will leave his wife for her. She later comes to find that he will never leave his wife and she must find her own man who will love her for her.
Bernadine "Bernie" Harris abandons her own career dreams and desire of having a catering business to raise a family, and support her husband, who leaves her for a white woman.
Robin Stokes is a high-powered executive and the long-time mistress of married Russell. She has problems finding a decent man of her own after dumping him.
Gloria "Glo" Matthews is a beauty salon owner and single mother. After years alone, and finding out that her ex-husband, who is also the father of her son, has come out of the closet as bisexual, she falls in love with a new neighbor, Marvin King.
The four friends get together to provide support, listen to each other vent about life and love, and have fun, as they go through life's trials and tribulations.
Savannah ends up dumping her married lover for good. Bernadine gets a large divorce settlement from her ex-husband and moved on to a single father who lost his wife. He encourages Bernie to pursue her catering dreams
Robin ends up pregnant by her married lover, but dumps him and decides to raise the baby on her own.
Gloria lets her son go on the "Up With People" trip to Spain and apologizes to her neighbor for snapping at him when he suggested that she should let her son grow up and experience the world. | revenge | train | wikipedia | This movie (while have some "man-bashing" elements) is more about the friendship of four strong real black women who represent a little part of most women in society.
It's nice to see that black women had a movie about them, and thanks to the star power of Whitney Houston it became no.1 and was a big hit.
I am actually tired of reading little comments saying that Whitney isn't that good of an actress because all of those comments are based on the fact that she's a singer.
While this movie truly is bound to be more appealing to women than men, it is a touching story of four best friends.
So all I know is I love this movie, and every time I watch it, it gives me great pleasure.
It's not a great movie but it is enjoyable and as has been pointed out by others, it feels good to see a movie about women of color for a change.
Angela Bassett as Bernadine, Lela Rochon as Robin; Loretta Devine as Gloria; could not have been better casted, if the movie were done over a thousand times!Unfortunately Terry MacMillan allowed the project to get too commercial, thus compromising her craft!
(Maybe I should watch 'Homeward Bound' again, as I LOVED that movie the first time I saw it) The only actress really to impress in this movie is of course the amazing Angela Bassett who growls and hisses every chance she gets!
The other character I liked was the one played by Loretta Devine, who was cute as the overweight mother who unexpectedly falls in love.
This film brought me to tears not because it was so emotional I had to cry but being a Black man and a working actor making a living for 20 + years, It was the first time a big budget, well shot, well acted (Whitney is still weak at times), well directed film about "most" black lives got a big theatrical release.
It's nice to know that someone has made a movie with four strong, independent African-American women.
Angela Bassett, Whitney Houston, Lela Rochon and Loretta Devine, as well as the supporting cast, are all talented and do commendable jobs.
However, as Leonard Maltin said it so beautifully, this film ultimately reminds one too much of the easy listening jazz that plays under nearly every scene."Waiting To Exhale" had the potential to be an interesting movie.
Unfortunately, in the end, the movie is a repetitive drone.It tells the story of four African-American females (played by Angela Bassett, Whitney Houston, Loretta Divine, and Lela Rochon) as they struggle to find the men in life that can satisfy there needs.
The only problem, in the world of this movie, men are nothing but complete ass-holes who wouldn't know the word "feelings" if they looked it up in the dictionary.
It's not great, it's not bad, but it's frustrating to watch, and the fact that I'm of the male persuasion undoubtedly had something to do with it.Now, let me be the first to say that I did enjoy seeing a group of strong black women portrayed onscreen.
Both Savannah and Robin manage to find themselves involved with the most shady characters (a married man and a dope fiend, respectively), yet they complain about the lack of good men out there.
The sad thing is that there are fellas out there who have little to no regard for women ("the scum of the f__king earth", to quote Savannah), and women who fall for fellas like that for the most silly, shallow reasons.If it wasn't for Bassett, Devine, and Babyface's score, this movie would barely be watchable.
Angela Bassett was brilliant in her portrayal of an angry, heart broken wife, whilst Whitney Housten seems rather emotionless throughout the film- and no i'm not only saying this because she's a singer.Furthermore, i don't understand why all black movies have to include such explicit sex!
However, unlike the book which also deals with the sisterhood of Black women, the movie becomes a long "Men are pigs" tirade that gets weary after a while.
Overall, Waiting to Exhale, is basically a sorely-needed bonding movie for African-American women that, while a little biased, is good escapist fun..
This film is simply about a bunch of women who pick men who's behaviors they claim to hate & then spend the rest of their time complaining about them.
It feels good to see a movie about women of color for a change.
His character was a decent, good man and I'm glad this was addressed in the movie.Angela Bassett has always been one of my favorite actors.
His character was a decent, good man and I'm glad this was addressed in the movie.Angela Bassett has always been one of my favorite actors.
She was so much better off without that reprehensible excuse for a husband in her life - she could now start her catering business, she had a possible new love in her future and she had good friends that would always be there for her.
She was so much better off without that reprehensible excuse for a husband in her life - she could now start her catering business, she had a possible new love in her future and she had good friends that would always be there for her.
I was as happy for her as if I were really one of her girlfriends when things turned out well for her in the end.Lela Rochon didn't display any acting talent here and wasn't quite up to the job of conveying Robin's vulnerability and immaturity.
I was as happy for her as if I were really one of her girlfriends when things turned out well for her in the end.Lela Rochon didn't display any acting talent here and wasn't quite up to the job of conveying Robin's vulnerability and immaturity.
In the book, you realized that Robin had a lot of love to give a man and didn't seem to know how to choose a good one to bestow it on.
In the book, you realized that Robin had a lot of love to give a man and didn't seem to know how to choose a good one to bestow it on.
Every character she attempts to portray is exactly the same -- Whitney Houston being well groomed, pretending to be well spoken and classy, and looking cow eyed at whatever male actor she is paired with.
Every character she attempts to portray is exactly the same -- Whitney Houston being well groomed, pretending to be well spoken and classy, and looking cow eyed at whatever male actor she is paired with.
She deserved to be by herself at the end.This movie might have been better with a female director, as Forest Whitaker didn't "tell this story" properly at all.
We ended up not liking or caring about the characters because we really didn't get a strong sense of who they were.Also, was it me, or was everything in this movie either orange or blue?.
We ended up not liking or caring about the characters because we really didn't get a strong sense of who they were.Also, was it me, or was everything in this movie either orange or blue?.
this movie and its story are quite good on the whole..........Ms Bassett is the leading and the best actress,for sure.I get her character.she's beautiful and I guess she's blown people away with her beauty and the EASE WITH WHICH SHE FASCINATES.Ms HOUSTON IS NOT TO NEGLECT NEITHER.She looks natural in this one.And despite her little experience as far as her actress career is concerned,she is good even though her story is a bit common .Loretta is divine!Anyways,this motion picture is merely good.There's nothing amazing.And it don't stand out from all the other movies.the only thing that makes me stick to the screen is the complicity and the crude humor on men of the four ladies!.
In the end, as became my lesson in life, the movie is about four different women dealing with male problems in different ways.
So, watching this movie some two decades after going through a healing process, I could laugh at the realities that were portrayed while celebrating that being alive leads us through various situations because we are indeed different as men and women.
What some fail to realize is that although this seems to be a "Male Bashing convention", it in fact accurately portrays what has become very common outcomes of a lot of relationships now-a-days.Now, I don't say that just men cheat or are all in all bad people, but the fact remains that there are a ton of situations just like the ones in this movie.
I feel that these situations are very well shown in this movie.The movie in my opinion shows motivation and support to those that are in situations like these, that you don't have to be miserable and you CAN be strong and pull yourself together and "Exhale" instead of putting yourself in a stressful environment feeling unable to take another breath.Yes, there may be characters that may are a bit extreme, but there are also plenty of people in this world the exact same way.I do agree with ones previous comment portraying the image that if it were a black woman he cheated on her with, it would be OK was a bit too far, but then again, there are still those that still to this day are against other races.
I thought it a very good movie and motivational to people on the outside in these types of situations..
It is a non stop male bashfest.Wear a fire proof suit to this drivel guys.The acting was bad.The story was ludicrous.Every scene was basically the same.A conversation among several women about how bad men suck.So, if you're feminist or a man hater you will love this gem.Whitney Houston was my favorite plastic statue in this one.I like Hale Berry but she never should have got roped into this.I'd love to have those 90 minutes back of my life.Please..
Her first thought was probably to burn him, but she felt that burning his things would be better, particularly since he'd be alive to suffer.I was generally disappointed by the film and frustrated by the characters.
The plot is pure soap opera, the lives and loves of our 4 women, however it is still involving as the four stories all have strengths as well as weaknesses.
I watched the movie before i read the book and it may be the reason why i loved the movie so much.Sure Whitney's acting could have been better but she managed to do a pretty decent job overall.
The image of Black men in the movie is very negative but in a sens it pushed to be the exact opposite so it kinda shaped my vision and my life, and "deepend" my love of black women.Some parts of the movie are just so classic like the break up between Robin and troy on the balcony and the soundtrack at that moment was some kind of a symphony..anyways great great movie ..
Directed by Forest Whitaker and adapted from a smash best selling novel by Terry McMillan, WAITING TO EXHALE is a glossy, but one-sided look at the relationship between four strong black women and the various men in their lives.
Whitney Houston made an impressive film debut as Savannah, an ambitious television executive caught in a dead-end affair with a married man (Dennis Haysbert).
Angela Basset does Oscar-worthy work as Bernadine, a woman who has spent her life being the best wife and mother she knows how to be, who has her world rocked when her wealthy husband (Michael Beach) calmly announces one night before a formal dinner party that he's in love with someone else and wants a divorce.
If you can accept the fact that in the world of these four women, all men are pigs, then this film can be very entertaining but the top-notch performances by the cast cannot be overlooked..
While the movie is supposed to highlight the women, and have males as supporting characters, the plot so demonized the men that even the "nice" men such as Gregory Hines and Wesley Snipes seem entirely out of place and more token goodness than believeable characters.
Why the director didn't see this, I don't know.Weak film, waste of acting talent by wonderful actresses like Angela Bassett, and a brutal waste of an excellent soundtrack by Babyface.4/10.
I thought that Savannah (Whitney Houston - THE BODYGUARD), Bernadine (Angela Bassett - WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT), Robin (Lela Rochon - BOOMERANG), and Gloria (Loretta Devine - THE PREACHER'S WIFE) looked very beautiful in their fancy dresses.
I thought that Angela Bassett's performance was just as good as it was in WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT.
Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "When I said that this was a sweet, funny, tear-jerking, heartwarming, touching, and romantic movie, I only cried on the inside." Now, in conclusion, if you are a fan of Whitney Houston, Angela Bassett, Lela Rochon, or Loretta Devine, I recommend this movie.
All of the main characters in this film however are black, and a few of the supporting cast is white, but that's it!
Anyway, about the plot....The story deals with four 30 something black women who cannot find a good man who isn't already married.
By the end of the film, only two of the four seem to have found good men, while the other two have at least come to their senses about the men they liked best.
The acting in this film is phenomenal, especially on the part of Angela Bassett who always does an amazing job (see What's Love Got To Do With It).
Looking for love in all the wrong places"Waiting to Exhaled" depicts four black females who have special friendships.
The movie shows each one of the women trying to find true love.
Each character has a different situation going on in her life as they are trying to find true love and happiness.
The first character named Bernadine (Angela Bassett) was married until her husband left her for his white secretary.
Robin (Lela Rochon), the third character, has a relationship with a married man.
Savannah (Whitney Houston), the last woman, had a mother who was trying to make sure her daughter's life is not without a man.
I did not like that these women seem to have to think that married men were the answer to finding happiness.
This film used very beautiful black women as their characters.
It covers every situation: The unworthy co-worker, The drug-addict boyfriend, the gay husband, the cheating husband, the married man, the New Years fling, the sweet attractive neighbor, the teenage son....but most importantly, it show how women react and deal with the lies, the cheating, and the friendships between both men AND women...and how to survive from that.Any woman who has ever gone through a relationship can relate to this movie, regardless of race, situation, or age.
You will want to scream, cry and laugh throughout the whole movie, and I can guarantee that every woman has got a little Angela Bassett in her, especially when she rips through her ex-husbands belongings.Two thumbs up...A definite must-see for any woman with a wounded heart..
Well, what a nice way to put a movie together about the lives of four African-American Women.
With Whitney's business minded and Basset's strong, no mess taking characters, you can't help but to love the movie.
This is probably Whitney's best performance, and I recommend this movie to anyone, male or female of age.
The movie is not focused on bashing on degrading men, but on the empowerment of women.
Many women can use a movie like this to give them the strength to leave unhealthy situations, such as cheating husbands..
I read the book when I was about 15 or 16 and I liked it, but I really love the movie, maybe because I see it less as a reflection of the book and more as a kind of extension.
The next time you watch it, just look for the humorous aspects (even in the serious scenes) and believe me, you will better appreciate this movie..
If you know black people, especially black women, this is a very entertaining, realistic and adult movie.
So I finally got around to watching "Waiting to Exhale" on Encore the other night and I don't understand why this became a hit.(Note: spoilers ahead) As far as I can tell, the basic premise of this film is that all men are insensitive, callous and unfeeling; especially towards women.Okay, well and good.
Of course all the women are fantastically beautiful; you wouldn't put up with this movie if they looked like real, every-day women.
The saddest thing about the movie is how beautiful Whitney Houston used to be before drugs and her husband ruined her..
I thought It was a great movie, although it is a lot of sleeping with other women husband that are taken, we all have to be honest, this goes on a lot in reality.
One fairly long scene in one of the characters' living room in which they all state their opinions of men flabbergasted me; why would any self-respecting man WANT any of these whining, narcissistic victims in the first place?
It's interesting to me that when films like this come out portraying women in the same way, there's quite a brouhaha; when the tables get turned, it's "groundbreaking.".
Waiting to Exhale stars Angela Bassett, Whitney Houston, Loretta Devine, and Lela Rochon.
One woman, Bernadine (Bassett) thought she had love in her life until she found out from her husband that he was leaving her for a white woman (Whoa, hello!!
The soundtrack album to this movie is okay; I only like the Whitney tracks, especially the first one Exhale (Shoop, Shoop), which has a neat easy listening sound to it. |
tt0026742 | Murder in the Fleet | Captain John Winslow (Arthur Byron) is notified by the Secretary of the Navy that his cruiser will be receiving a new firing control gear manufactured by World Electric company, which is supposed to revolutionize naval warfare. The gear vanishes and is quickly located by intelligence officers where it is being transported across the Mexican border.
When the gear is returned to the ship the secrecy surrounding the events catches the notice of reporter Walter Drake (J. Anthony Hughes). Lieutenant Tom Randolph (Robert Taylor) and Captain Winslow welcome visitors Al Duval (Raymond Hatton), who works for World Electric Company, and Victor Hanson (Jean Hersholt) from the Navy Department, aboard while the gear is installed. Meanwhile, Sailor Spud Burke (Nat Pendleton) gets caught between his sweetheart Toots Timmons (Una Merkel) and an old flame Betty Lansing (Jean Parker).
When the new gear is being lifted into place a cable breaks and it is dropped, later this is found to be an act of sabotage. To add to the confusion, Al Duval is murdered during a gun salute. The investigation begins and suspicions are running high when a second murder takes place, this time it is the chief electrician.
The Captain devises a plot to trap the murderer and the trail soon leads to the powder magazine, where Victor Hanson threatens to blow up the ship. Hanson claims that World Electric Company had stolen the idea and he wants revenge. Ultimately Hanson is captured and the gear is installed. | revenge, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | Entertaining mystery set aboard navy cruiser.
Someone aboard the USS Carolina is attempting to sabotage an important, secret gunnery system's field test...
by murdering those installing it.
Plenty of suspects abound as there are many visitors aboard the ship while it is in port.
Overall an entertaining mystery set aboard a US naval cruiser.
Robert Taylor stars as Lt. Randolph, in command of the gunnery test, with Jean Parker as his rich, spoiled love interest.
Nat Pendleton plays Randolph's CPO, who, with the aid of Una Merkel and Ted Healy (of stooges fame), provides the comic relief.
Look for an uncredited Ward Bond as a sailor-murder victim and Keye Luke as aid to the visiting Manchukan Consul..
Robert Taylor after a few loan outs and small parts got his career launched in this entertaining film about some murders done on a naval vessel.
Someone will stop at nothing to see that the Navy does not carry out some tests of a new naval gun.Frank W.
Wead who was the subject of John Ford's Wings of Eagles wrote this story and while there's no threat to Agatha Christie posed by Wead, still it is a most entertaining story.There are enough red herrings in this story to be a catch for a whole fishing trip.
One of the better suspects was Mischa Auer, made up as an Oriental, to play the part of a visiting Asian dignitary.
No names mentioned, but he looks very suspiciously like one of the Japanese diplomats photographed at places like the London Naval Disarmament Conference.
I think Spig Wead was trying to tell us something there.We've also got a reporter who can't file his story, an industrialist trying to bribe Taylor, his girlfriend who wants Taylor to leave the Navy, and a few more.
When you reach the end it won't be who you might have thought.Murder in the Fleet was a B picture, running only 70 minutes.
Very soon Taylor would be an A list star.
With those looks, how could he miss?.
Support for Naval Budgets & Fair Entertainment.
Between the 1921 Washington Naval Conference (which effectively limited the international arms race for over a decade) and the start of the crank up before World War II, the U.S. Navy co-operated with Hollywood studios on a regular basis providing locations and facilities for dozens of major and minor films showing off the country's ships (both sea and air) and service men to keep them in the minds of the general population as the admirals fought for ever constricting budgets with an isolationist minded Congress.
Also well worth checking out are THE FLYING FLEET and HERE COMES THE NAVY (in which feuding Jimmy Cagney and Pat O'Brien serve everywhere from the Arizona to the airship Macon - both to meet famous ends in later years).MURDER IN THE FLEET may be among the least of these info-tainment efforts, but from the golden age of the classic murder mystery, it offers an enjoyable, more or less workable plot, an "about to be 'A List'" cast and some fascinating shots of actual elements of the U.S. fleet (the entire film is set on the USS Carolina aside from a few studio interiors and includes a number of exteriors of the ship under way including the actual crew).Of special interest may be Key Luke's fleeting appearance as an aide to an ambassador/suspect from a (renamed to avoid "offence," but made-up to leave no doubt) fictionalized Japanese Empire.
Someone might do a fun afternoon's mini-film festival of "Key Luke Afloat" with this, the 1936 ANYTHING GOES (Luke played one of a pair of gambling "Chinamen" on a civilian Atlantic crossing with Ethel Merman and Bing Crosby - a role somewhat reduced from the Broadway original) and (a year later) in his most famous role as Charlie Chan's "Number One Son" in CHARLIE CHAN AT THE OLYMPICS where Luke travels to Europe (these were the Berlin Olympics where Jesse Owens won Gold to Hitler's great displeasure and film clips of that race are included in the movie) by ship with the U.S. Olympic Team (he's competing as a relay swimmer)while his "Pop" rushes over on The Hindenberg.The biggest "special effect" in MURDER IN THE FLEET is probably the flooding of a powder magazine with the film's hero in it - tame stuff by modern standards, but pretty exciting as played nonetheless.
The film's McGuffin, the scientific equipment being installed on the Carolina, is pretty much science fiction (though finally, 70 years later, becoming less so), and as shown in action in the film it looks a bit silly, but it was good enough for its day, and in the spirit of the style of the film it doesn't distract.Minor, but fun.
Worth a look..
This is not a movie.
This poorly made film should never have been made.
It is not a Navy film (although Taylor's Navy film, 'Stand by for Action', was boring), and it is not a murder-mystery.
I don't know what it is, but I do know that it is not a movie.
It fails to provide any interesting characters or a compelling storyline.
Taylor's performance is good, but good performances don't necessarily make a good film.
You need more than a good performance.
You need a good script, and this poorly written script lets the film down.
All I can say is that this must have been made to add to Taylor's credit list rather than making a worthwhile film.
Don't bother watching it if you're a Taylor fan as it comes nowhere near the quality of his later films..
Too Much Navy, Not Enough Mystery.
If you enjoy such WWII promotional movies as "Your Navy At Work Today" (hypothetical title), you will enjoy this movie.
Otherwise, you probably won't.There are only two things that raise it even slightly out of the muck: Nat Pendleton and the girl he is chasing, Una Merkel.Nat Pendleton, of whom I am a fan and have enjoyed as the dumb cop in many other films, is funny here, but not given much to work with, even though his part is bigger than usual.
Mostly he grumpily gives orders to the enlisted men.
His "repartee" with Ted Healy is without exception annoying.
In fact, the main idea of "comedy" in this movie seems to be sailors yelling at one another, something that happens again and again.Una Merkel, who was wonderful in The Bank Dick (1940), is the other highlight, although she is quite different here from the sweet innocent she played in that film.
Her rough, low-life character is not particularly likable (although it is very enjoyable to watch), and she has too little on-screen time to come anywhere near saving the film.Robert Taylor, at the peak of his youthful handsomeness, doesn't do much except stand around looking macho and break up the sailors who are yelling at each other.
His girlfriend, played by Jean Parker, is repulsive throughout.
I couldn't imagine what he saw in her.
Money, I guess.Arthur Byron is also good as the captain, but it is barely more than a cameo role.
He does manage to give the spoiled Jean Parker a good lecture, though.Taylor doesn't solve the case.
He literally stumbles on the perp, who, to my sorrow, turned out to be one of the only other likable characters in the film.A few great wisecracks from John Hyams as a fed-up husband.
He has the only line in the whole movie that made me laugh out loud.All in all, not worth the time it takes to watch it..
Murders on a cruiser.
Murders on a cruiser.
This movie makes me wonder anew how it was that Robert Taylor became such a star.
It has to be his looks as his screen persona is, to me, always bland.
That said, I'm glad I saw this movie.
I found the best part to be the verbal sparring between Nat Pendleton and Ted Healy.
Although I recognized many in the cast (especially fun seeing Keye Luke and Ward Bond), I missed reading the opening credits and quite frankly did not recognize Ted Healy and even had I seen his name, I would not have recalled the Three Stooges connection.
I remember thinking during the movie "Gee, this guy is really good." So my favorite part of the movie is the one another reviewer found most annoying.
Una Merkel as Toots was good but too overtly grasping and Jean Parker was inadequate to the task.
I liked Parker in the Kitty O'Day movies but not in this one.
The mystery itself is uninspired and basically uninteresting – the culprit was unexpected but logical..
Rather routine despite the cast....
I would like to first point out that it is a darn shame that Ted Healy is in this film but his 'Stooges' are not.
In the early 1930s, this act WAS signed by MGM but after a falling out because Healy was reportedly an obnoxious drunk as well as his taking the lion's share of the money, these Stooges left and signed with Columbia--thus becoming the Three Stooges.
They can be seen in a few MGM films together (such as "Dancing Lady") but alas they are not in this film--only Healy and it's a shame as I would have LOVED to see Moe, Curly and Larry in the middle of this murder mystery on the open seas!
As far as this picture goes, despite being made by a premier studio, MGM, as well as some big-name actors, it sure bears the look and feel of a B-movie--and I think it is, as Robert Taylor is still young and this is one of his earliest roles.
The plot is only fair and the film lacks the polish you would see in Taylor films made only a year or two later.The plot involves some murders aboard a Naval ship, the USS Carolina.
Who is doing it and why is the mystery that must be unraveled.
However, as another reviewer pointed out, solving the mystery seems secondary to hi-jinx as well as routine tasks on the ship.
If this is the sort of Navy we had in the 1930s, it's a wonder the US won WWII!
Ironically, the person who is the maniacal killer happens to be played by the same person for whom the Academy later named its humanitarian award that is given annually for service to the community and/or motion pictures!!
By the way, listen carefully to Jean Parker as she delivers her lines to Taylor early in the film--she's, at times, simply awful.
She flubs lines and gives poor deliveries repeatedly and I can't see why they didn't re-shoot this.
To top this off, they made her character too annoying and selfish to be realistic..
The screaming in this movie killed my ear drum..
A navy boat becomes a co-ed lodge for the suspects in a rather uninteresting movie that occurs after an argument between naval lieutenant Robert Taylor and civilian equipment inspector Raymond Hatton.
Following the stabbing of a crew member, everybody is forced to remain aboard, including Taylor's socialite fiancee (Jean Parker) and the overly chatty Una Merkel, girlfriend of typical dumb sailor Nat Pendleton.
Comedy relief between Merkel, Pendleton and Ted Healy just gets more annoying with each scene they have, and leading man Taylor is pretty underwhelming.
There are far too many supporting actors including Jean Hersholt, Walter Byron and Mischa Auer, creating far too many suspects and red herrings.
A few good fight sequences gives this a higher rating from me, but I felt that this ship ran out of steam early on, making this often dull and uninteresting.
By the time the murderer and motive were rebealre, I just found I didn't really care anymore..
Spig Wead is not my favorite writer!.
Producer: Lucien Hubbard.
Copyright 21 May 1935 by Metro Goldwyn Mayer Corp.
New York opening at Loew's State: 2 June 1935.
Australian release: 24 December 1935.
7 reels.
70 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A killer is loose on a U.S. Navy cruiser.COMMENT: Producer Lucien Hubbard has managed to give this one a feeling of opulence by cleverly using stock shots and process screens, as well as by employing such a large number of cameo players and extras to mill about, one often has the feeling they are spilling over the edges of the frame.
There's also a grand climax, in which Taylor battles the mysterious killer who is revealed to be just about the last person you might expect.
Young Taylor, Arthur Byron, Jean Hersholt and Mischa Auer contribute fine performances.
On the other hand,Ted Healy, Nat Pendleton and Una Merkel are an absolute pain.
Not entirely their fault.
It's the lousy script that intersperses the drama with a lot of ridiculous verbal and visual horseplay.
Even director Edward Sedgwick who was known as an expert handler of comedy can do absolutely nothing to relieve the tedium of the many boring Healy-Pendleton-Merkel encounters.
The "comedy" also acts to destroy much of the atmosphere on the cruiser, which otherwise seemed such a promising setting for a mystery thriller.
A bit of "romance" doesn't help either.
Especially when Jean Parker is given such atrocious "Spig" Wead lines as her fade-out realization that Navy men are men who relate in a special way to each other and their ship. |
tt0423195 | Sigaw | Marvin is protagonist savors his independence in a newly acquired unit of an old apartment building. He is frequently visited by his girlfriend Pinky. Except for the occasional noise from an apartment unit down the hallway, the place is almost perfect for Marvin. At the end of the hallway is where Anna lives with her young daughter Lara, and Bert, her jealous husband. Bert is a cop, and he has always suspected Anna of two-timing him. His frequent jealous outbursts would always lead to beatings that could be heard throughout the whole floor. Marvin would usually be awakened at night by the sound of screaming and beating from Anna's unit. Marvin complains to the building caretaker, a drunk, who would just tell him to ignore the disturbance from the apartment down the hall. Anna and her daughter would usually ask for help from Jude, who lives in an apartment unit in the middle of the hallway. Jude's apartment becomes a temporary refuge for the little girl Lara.
One day, Pinky drops by Marvin's apartment and is shocked to see a woman knocking on his door. Pinky suspects Marvin is seeing another girl, which could explain why he has been acting strange lately. Marvin vehemently denies seeing another woman. It is the strange occurrences in his apartment that is making him act strange lately. Meanwhile, the beatings down the hall intensify. Jude is getting scared because the cruel cop Bert is beginning to suspect that Jude is having an affair with Anna, which isn't true. Marvin gets drawn to the couple's frequent quarrels. He even witnesses Bert chasing Anna and beating her up in the corridor. All that violence affects Marvin. At length, he musters the courage to find out more about the quarreling couple. What he finds out shocks him. Marvin uncovers a secret that will change his life and Pinky's as well. The discovery sets into motion a series of hauntings that follow him and Pinky around. He decides to leave his apartment but the hauntings follow them wherever they go. Marvin finally decides to confront the problem. He returns to the old apartment building to face the evil that dwells in it. What happens next shakes the very core of his beliefs about life, love and the spirit world. | haunting | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0038477 | The Diary of a Chambermaid | In Normandy at the end of the 19th Century, a beautiful and ambitious young chambermaid named Célestine (Lea Seydoux) enters the service of her new employers, the Lanlaire family, which consists of a bitter wife and her perverted husband. Monsieur Lanlaire has a reputation for molesting and impregnating his chambermaids, while Madame Lanlaire is known for her domineering attitude over her servants and often fires her chambermaids. She also meets the other servants: Marianne, the overweight and homely cook and the mysterious, older Joseph (Vincent Lindon), the groom, who shares a mutual attraction with Célestine.
Throughout the film, Célestine reflects on her past positions, such as to a middle-aged woman with an elderly husband who was humiliated at a train customs stop after being forced to open a box revealing her dildo. Another significant post was her satisfying employment with the sickly young Georges and his kindly grandmother. Georges became infatuated with Célestine as she took care of him and after resisting his advances at first, Célestine has sex with him, only for him to succumb to his illness and die during the act, horrifying her. Numb from the experience, she leaves the position.
In the Lanlaire household, Célestine chafes under the demanding and often unreasonable Madame Lanlaire, who frequently derides Célestine for any delay or error and refuses to let her attend the funeral of her mother. Monsieur Lanlaire quickly sets his sights on Célestine, who rebuffs his advances while secretly plotting to manipulate him. The neighbor, Captain Mauger (Patrick d'Assumçao), who has apparently bequeathed his estate to the servant, Rose after his wife left him for sleeping with her, is also interested in her. Célestine also plots to use Capt Mauger for her own ambitions, but Rose becomes jealous after Capt Mauger kills his obedient pet ferret named Kleber after a comment Célestine makes about the pet.
Célestine finds respite in gossip at the house of the village abortionist and in commiserating with Marianne. In one conversation with Marianne, she learns that Marianne was attracted to one of her old masters, but was kicked out after becoming pregnant by him and was forced to kill her baby; later, she reveals that Monsieur Lanlaire has been raping her regularly and she must get an abortion done. One night, after talking with Marianne, Célestine hears agonized screams coming from the forest, which unsettle her.
The next day, she visits Joseph and learns that he is a rabid anti-Semite and propagates anti-Dreyfus propaganda on behalf of local priests. He dreams of owning a business where he can provide a rendezvous for militant right-wing nationalists and acknowledges that he needs a woman like Célestine to make his plan a success. Later, while gossiping with the other women, Célestine learns that a local prepubescent peasant girl was violently raped, disemboweled and murdered, explaining the screams Célestine had heard at night. Célestine suspects that Joseph is the murderer, as he could be placed at the scene of the crime, but this only makes her more fascinated with him.
Rose dies and Capt Mauger admits to Célestine that Rose had disappointed him after getting a servant of her own and failed to keep up the chores she had when she was a servant. He had hoped to die before her, as he had secretly made a second will nullifying the first, ensuring that Rose would inherit nothing. Capt Mauger offers for Célestine to work for him in the same work and sexual arrangement than Rose had with him, but Célestine only promises to think about it, satisfied with her manipulation of him.
Ultimately, she professes her attraction to Joseph and begs to join him. After having sex with her, he has Célestine assist him in the theft of the Lanlaire's silverware that would fund his plan, a theft which is blamed on a pair of famous French thieves. Joseph shoots dead both the dogs. Police start the probe into the dacoity. The police ask Lanlaires whether they suspected anyone from the household , especially Joseph but they give him a clean chit saying that he had been with them for 15 years and he is very devoted and trustworthy. The police get no clues even after several days of investigation. The case is closed unsolved. Joseph quits his position later and Célestine bides her time waiting for him, befriending Madame Lanlaire to get in her good graces before telling her that she is engaged to be married and must soon quit. One night, she sees Joseph's signal through her window and joins him, ruminating that she has been out-manipulated, acknowledging that he is a devil, but he has her completely in his grasp. They leave for Cherbourg and the carriage disappears into the darkness. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0050549 | Island in the Sun | The film follows several characters, black, white and mixed race, and their relationships. It also chronicles the social inequality between the British who colonized the island, and the native population. Maxwell Fleury (James Mason) is a white plantation owner's son who suffers from an inferiority complex and makes rash decisions to prove his worth. He is tormented by jealousy of his wife, Sylvia (Patricia Owens), and is envious of his younger sister Jocelyn (Joan Collins), who is being courted by the Oxford-bound Euan Templeton (Stephen Boyd), a war hero visiting the Governor of the island, his father Lord Templeton (Ronald Squire).
David Boyeur (Harry Belafonte), a young black man emerging as a powerful politician, represents the common people and is seen by some as a threat to the white ruling class. Mavis Norman (Joan Fontaine), a woman from the elite white class, strikes up a romantic interest in Boyeur and much of the story explores the tension between these two.
There is also an interracial romance between Margot Seaton (Dorothy Dandridge), a mixed-race drugstore clerk, and Denis Archer (John Justin), aide to the Governor.
Maxwell believes that Hilary Carson (Michael Rennie) is having an affair with his wife. He strangles Carson during a quarrel, then tries to make it look like a robbery. Colonel Whittingham (John Williams), the head of police, investigates the murder.
A journalist named Bradshaw (Hartley Power) writes an expose revealing that Maxwell's grandmother was part black. Maxwell has decided to run for the legislature, but is jeered by the crowd, then insults everyone there.
Jocelyn learns she is pregnant, but does not wish to burden Euan with a child of mixed race. Her mother reveals that Jocelyn's father was actually a white man, the result of an undisclosed affair. She and Euan board a plane to England, as do Margot and Denis, to begin new lives.
Maxwell, a broken man, contemplates suicide, then decides to go to Whittingham to confess. Mavis wishes to marry Boyeur and begin a new life of her own, but he decides the needs of the island and his people must come first. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0092240 | The Wraith | Bright lights descend from the night sky, revealing a sleek, all black Dodge M4S Turbo Interceptor, driven by a helmeted, black-clad figure, who will be come to known as "The Wraith."
In the town of Brooks, Arizona, Packard Walsh (Nick Cassavetes) is the insane evil leader of a gang of car thieves that coerces people with sporty cars into racing for pink slips. He controls everyone through intimidation, including Keri Johnson (Sherilyn Fenn), whom he views as his property. Keri's boyfriend James "Jamie" Hankins (Christopher Bradley) has been mysteriously murdered, leaving no trace; Keri, who was with him, was hospitalized with no memory of the traumatic event.
Jacob "Jake" Kesey (Charlie Sheen) arrives in Brooks riding a Honda XL350R Enduro dirt bike. He befriends both Keri and Jamie's brother William "Billy" Hankins (Matthew Barry), who both work at Big Kay's, the local burger drive-in; they later meet up at a sun-and-swim gathering on a local river, where Jake is seen to have knife scars on his neck and back.
Packard's control of the illegal races is suddenly over when the Turbo Interceptor appears out of nowhere. The mysterious driver of this supercar is covered head-to-toe in black body armor and a black race helmet. The armor is adorned with metal braces resembling those worn by victims recovering from severe physical trauma. The driver challenges Packard's gang to race, explosively killing Oggie Fisher (Griffin O'Neal) and later Minty (Chris Nash) in high-speed, fiery crashes which leave their bodies untouched except for burned-out eye sockets. Sheriff Loomis (Randy Quaid) and his lawmen are always in hot pursuit, but the Turbo vanishes in a cloud of glowing light.
Two more gang members, Skank (David Sherrill) and Gutterboy (Jamie Bozian), who are always too high on drugs to believe in the supernatural, are later obliterated when the Wraith races his supercar through the gang's isolated warehouse garage, causing a huge explosion. With Packard's gang destroyed, Rughead (Clint Howard), the gang's tech-geek, who alone among them had not participated in Jamie's murder, realizes too why the gang had been targeted and talks it over with Sheriff Loomis.
After Packard witnesses Keri kissing Jake, he kidnaps her from the burger joint and beats and kicks Billy when he tries to intervene. When Packard tells her they are going to California, Keri stands up to him and says she will never love him--and divulges her realization that Packard had had Jamie murdered. Just as he gets out of the car and draws his flick knife, the Turbo arrives, and Packard takes up the challenge, only to be killed too. Sheriff Loomis calls off the hunt for the mysterious driver, observing, "[You] can't stop something that can't be stopped.”
As Keri arrives home that night, the Turbo pulls up, and the armored driver emerges, transforming into Jake. Keri realizes that Jake is actually a returned version of her dead boyfriend Jamie, who admits, "This is as close as I could come to who I once was." He then asks her to wait for him because he has one last thing to do.
Jake startles Billy by driving the Turbo to Big Kay's and handing him the keys. He then tells Billy that his work is finished and when Billy asks, "Who are you, bro?” Jake wryly replies, "You said it, Billy.” As Jake rides off on his dirt bike, Billy calls after him “Jake,” and then, realizing at last, “Jamie!”
Jake picks up Keri, who is now being watched from a distance by Sheriff Loomis, and together they ride off along the desert highway under a huge moon, leaving the past behind. | violence, revenge, cult, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0038959 | So Goes My Love | Farmer's daughter Jane Budden (Myrna Loy) sells her entire pig herd and moves to Brooklyn to find a husband. On the way to the home of her cousin, Garnet Allison (Molly Lamont), Jane runs into Hiram Maxim (Don Ameche), an eccentric inventor who is her cousin's neighbor. Jane scandalizes local society by saying she will not marry for love; she merely wants a rich husband who can give her the life of ease and culture she has long dreamed of.
Amused by Jane's announcement, Hiram visits Jane and tells her she can forget about marrying him. Jane is attracted to Hiram, but angered at his effrontery. She is amused when one of Hiram's inventions turns out badly and Hiram is publicly humiliated. Jane goes to a dance, where Hiram makes negative comments on each of her suitors, especially rich real estate developer and attorney Josephus Ford (Richard Gaines). Jane agrees to marry Josephus. Hiram gate crashes Jane's engagement party, where Jane is dismayed to learn that Josephus wants her to sign a prenuptial agreement and believes Jane should be frugal, silent, and matronly. When Jane learns that Josephus has just invested in a pork-packing plant, she breaks her engagement, rushes to Hiram's home, and proposes to him herself.
Hiram and Jane marry. Even though Hiram's inventions are only marginally profitable, the couple is happy. Jane gives birth to a son, Percy (Bobby Driscoll), whom Hiram raises in an unusual, freestyle manner to encourage his creativity and confidence. With Jane's constant encouragement, Hiram finally begins inventing things which meet practical needs and bring in a sizable income. A local organization decides to honor Hiram for his inventions by asking him to sit for a portrait. Hiram refuses. Jane, pregnant with a second child, hires the eccentric artist Magel (Rhys Williams) to paint the portrait anyway. Shortly thereafter, Percy, tries to be amusing by adorning his dog Skipper with a baby bonnet, which Jane had received as a gift for the expected new arrival. When Percy and his mother chase the dog to retrieve the bonnet, Jane moves a piece of furniture and jeopardizes her pregnancy. Her physician fears she may lose the baby and her life, and Percy feels extremely guilty, thinking he has caused his mother to nearly die. Jane does recover and gives birth to a healthy son. An ecstatic Hiram has the entire family sit for Magel and a portrait. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Really a biopic, not a comedy..
Based on Hiram Percy Maxim's memoir, 'A Genius in the Family,' this film attempts, rather poorly, to explore the comedic aspects of Maxim's relationship to his father, Hiram Steven Maxim.
Taken by itself, it's a rather superficial film about the man who revolutionized the machine gun, by inventing the version that operates on the power of the bullets' expelled gases.
Maxim's accomplishments are hardly mentioned, instead depending on the fictionalized relationships between his wife and son.
The younger Maxim, by the way, founded the American Radio Relay League, the national organization of radio hams.
While he he is famous to that particular fraternity, he is virtually unknown elsewhere, and even his father's fame is now largely forgotten..
What Was Universal Thinking....
...in giving the 'Green Light' to this picture.
As a mid-19th Century Family Comedy it succeeds in those respects.
It Stars Don Ameche (Hiram Maxim) and Myrna Loy (Jane Budden), his 1st Wife, making a attractive and winning couple.
The film is a polished piece, backed by a fine musical score by Hans J.
Who showed he could do more then just provide background music for the Universal stable of Monsters.Basically 'Maxim' is shown as a 'absent minded professor' who with the push from his Wife becomes a successful Inventor.
Though what he invented is barely touched upon.
Other then some minor domestic issues the film comes across as a discount LIFE WITH FATHER (1947).
Pleasing to watch (one time) and that is about it.The 'real' MAXIM was the inventor of many useful tools, his most noted one, the MAXIM MACHINE GUN.
How did he come up with this?
A friend suggested to make a real financial killing that he "...invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others throats with greater facility".
In this he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams making a fortune, gaining a Knighthood and fulfilling his friends foresight as WWI would show.A pity the movie did not cover the latter part of his life.
The Machine Gun, Amusement Rides, a 2nd Wife and charges of Bigamy would have made a more fascinating film..
Obscure domestic comedy that deserves to be much better known.
As a longtime classic film buff, it's great to come across a worthwhile film from Hollywood's golden age that I've never knew existed, yet alone have seen.
Doubly nice to find that Don Ameche made a few films in the years immediately following his departure from Fox; I think there was no better light comedian in movies.This one is an expensively mounted romantic comedy-family comedy, shown in a beautiful new print on TCM.
It's very much in the idiom of "Life With Father" (Myrna Loy was NOT in that one, despite what another reviewer said here) and Lubitsch's "Heaven Can Wait".
Ameche and Loy do a masterful job with their light comedy roles, so much so that I could almost ignore that they were too old for the parts they were playing.
Loy easily manged to be sexy, charming and beautiful, despite the handicap of overly heavy make up used for the entire film (obviously to hide that she was probably around 40 at the time)..
Loy and Ameche at the top of their game in humorous biopic.
Ameche and Loy are playing roles not unlike more brilliant performances in more brilliant movies during the 1940's.
That doesn't make So Goes My Love any less enjoyable despite the unnecessarily esoteric title.
A more appropriate title would have been The Unconventional Hiram Maxim - a British-born inventor who lived in Brooklyn and, according to this movie, was fond of eschewing dignity.
Loy is as successful here in engaging her co-star in remarkable chemistry and holding her own on the comic front (her smoking of a cigar is hilarious) as she was to be in her upcoming masterpieces Life with Father and Mr. Blanding Builds His Dream House.
Ameche, fresh off Heaven Can Wait - one of my personal all-time favorites - and having perfected the inventor biopic in his essay of Alexander Graham Bell, is ideally cast as Maxim and has excellent chemistry with Loy. Add in highly competent support by Bobby Driscoll as Loy and Rhys WIlliams as an equally eccentric portrait painter and you have a highly amusing if episodic 80 minutes of entertainment..
Thoroughly enjoyable film!.
Since I'm partial to almost any Myrna Loy film, I recorded "So Goes My Love" with the intention that I might watch the first 10 minutes and then hit delete.
However, to my delight, this quirky comedy based on the early married life of Hiram Maxim (Don Ameche) turned out to be thoroughly enjoyable.Loy and Ameche made a wonderful screen pair.
Always elegantly coiffed and dressed, they are a very attractive couple with perfect chemistry.
They both play the "straight man" which makes the humor very subtle and underplayed.
It is the opposite of the screwball comedies that I so dearly love.
Its quirkiness makes most every scene tongue in cheek funny more so than laugh out loud funny and it works well.
I particularly enjoyed the casting of the extremely talented Loy and Ameche as well as a young Bobby Driscoll who plays their son, Percy, with such a natural talent that even he could underplay the humor appropriately.The movie is actually based on the 1936 book by Percy called "A Genius in the Family." The book was a series of family anecdotes that Percy recounted from his early life.
The plot is actually the tying of each anecdote together to make a precious story.
There is little focus on what Hiram was inventing as that was not the point of the film since it is really more of a family film.
Further reading (which I easily found on the Internet) is necessary if you really want to learn more of the actual Maxim family history.
Meanwhile, if you want to relax and enjoy a cute film that was probably laced with lots of Hollywood glamour and fiction, then I recommend this enjoyable gem..
Light comedy romance that had possibilities.
"So Goes My Love" is a film that one wishes had been better than it is.
It's a fictional biopic about Hiram S.
Maxim who invented a machine gun, curling iron and other things.
The film is based on a story by his son, Hiram Percy Maxim, who was himself a prolific inventor.
Maxim's inventions get little attention in this film.
Instead, it's more about his personal life, meeting his first wife, and their family.
It's supposed to be a comedy, drama and biopic.However humorless Hiram senior may have been, Hollywood surely could infuse enough energy and humor into his character to make the story more interesting.
With Myrna Loy and Don Ameche in the leads, and a good idea for a plot, this film had potential.
But, unfortunately, it turns out to be slow and just so-so for entertaining.
I think the fault lies in a weak script, poor direction, and a lame acting job by Don Ameche.
Some pep shots of humor in the script would have put life into the screenplay.
And, a pep pill for breakfast each day of shooting for Ameche might have brought his character to life.
I understand that his Hiram Maxim is supposed to be a deadpan character.
But that doesn't mean that he has to move about as though he were a robot with a recorder playing his lines.
He underplays the part so much that it stretches the credibility of the audience to think that Loy's character could see anything in the man.
Ameche could act and could do comedy very well.
He was absolutely hilarious at Tibor Czerny, a deadpan role opposite Claudette Colbert in "Midnight" of 1939.
One can imagine Fred MacMurray in the part of Maxim.
He was among the best – if not the number one leading man in deadpan comedy.
And, he played a number of roles as a tinkerer.
The only thing that earns this film my six stars is Myrna Loy's Jane Budden Maxim.
Her knowing glances, looks of polite shock and other expressions are priceless.
These are the things that made her a perfect film companion in so many wonderful comedies with William Powell.
The camera catches them here, but unfortunately, the rest of the film is quite flat.
It's too bad some of Jane's energy and enthusiasm didn't wear off on Ameche's Hiram..
Country goldigger moves to Brroklyn to snare a rich husband but ends up marrying eccentric inventor instead..
Not much of a plot after the marriage, more of a series of barely connected events in their home life.
Much of the events centre around their son, Percy.
They should have styled Loy's hair this way more often.
She looks absolutely beautiful, as do her gowns.
Don Ameche was no slouch in the looks department either.
There is quite a bit of humour throughout the movie which holds up very well decades later.
I laughed out loud at the rice throwing comment.
Also the pull back while a jilted fiancé is giving a break -up speech.
Contemporary humour in a movie set in the 19th century is rare.
I actually wish they had made it a little longer as I really enjoyed watching Loy and Ameche together..
based on a true story.
This subtle comedy, "So Goes My Love" from 1946 is based on a book by Hiram Percy Maxim, who is a character in the film, about his family.Jane Budden (Myrna Loy) comes to the city from a farm life in order to find and marry a rich man.
It doesn't quite work out that way.
She marries her cousin's neighbor, Herman Maxim (Don Ameche), who is an inventor - of what, we don't know.Jane is determined that Herman find success, and in fact, with her encouragement, he does.
They also have a family.That's really all there is to it, but the humor in the film is delightful from the cast, including Bobby Driscoll as Percy.
Myrna Loy and Don Ameche both approach their roles seriously, which makes the humor even better.This is a film Ameche made after his career with 20th Century Fox; Loy at the time was 41, an advanced age for a woman to play a leading lady who wasn't in a character role in those days.Lovely film that will leave you with a smile on your face.
Bobby Driscoll is a sad reminder that Hollywood can chew you up and spit you out.
After all his success as a child actor, his body was found in an alley and he was buried as a homeless person.
The real Hiram Percy Maxim fared better..
Enjoyable but nothing special.
Jane Budden (Myrna Loy) has decided to leave her farm and move to the big city in order to find a husband.
Unlike some women, Jane is very open about wanting a successful husband and why she ends up marrying the far from successful Hiram Maxim (Dno Ameche) is perplexing.
However, over time, this crackpot inventor actually turns out to be very successful.
This film is about their life together and the family.
Interestingly, unlike many other films of the era, this one is relatively uneventful--more a slice of life film instead of one with any great events or crazy happenings.
Instead, it's just a nice little showcase for two actors away from their home studios (Loy with MGM and Ameche with 20th Century Fox) and doing a film for Universal.
Nothing great, nothing bad about this one...just a nice story and nice acting..
good for passing time without thinking.
There isn't much of a plot, this film just recounts the trials and tribulations of a gold-digging women who falls for a unusual inventor (who isn't that rich) - but they get married anyway.
This isn't a bad film, it just isn't anything spectacular, sometimes it does feel like it isn't going anywhere.
That is probably because it isn't actually going anywhere...not that it doesn't make it enjoyable.
Maybe it was funny in 1946 - it certainly isn't funny now - but if it's being repeated on television it is good to pass a few hours immersing yourself in this tale.
Like many films of this time, it is probably just worth watching it for the interesting old sets..
Myrna Loy Comes Off the Farm.
Myrna Loy and Don Ameche star in this excellent comedy/drama based on stories about real-life inventor Hiram Maxim's life.
Episodic storyline has Loy leaving her rural pig farm and heading to the city to marry a rich man.
Instead she meets and marries a poor would-be inventor and raises a family.Loy looks great and is excellent as Jane.
She gives a warm and funny performance.
Ameche is also good as Maxim, the slightly off-center inventor who marches to his own drummer.
His inventions are mentioned in passing but show that he becomes a famous and wealthy man.
The real story of Maxim and his legal problems with women and many failed inventions is not told.Bobby Driscoll gives a solid performance as son Percy (who would eventually write the stories the film is based on), a boy definitely in the mold of his father.
Others in the cast are Molly Lamont as the cousin, Richard Gaines as blowhard Josephus, Rhys Williams as the artist, Sara Padden and Renie Riano as maids, and Howard Freeman as the committee chairman.Excellent period production sets and costumes and two star performances make this one a unknown gem worth looking for..
Odd but pleasing period piece about a real inventor.
This is an odd film.
It's a biopic of a real inventor, though in the film we learn nothing about his inventions.
Instead, we learn about his family life.
There's almost no real plot.
Just a series of portraits of three lives -- Hiram Maxim (very nicely portrayed by Don Amece), his wife (Myrna Loy, who also is wonderful here), and their son (the tragic Bobby Driscoll).
I wish I could tell you what the plot was...but I can't.
It's just a very charming, nicely acted, somewhat lavishly set period piece.
There is a bit more humor than would be realistic, but the movie is more about relationships.I guess what makes this film so appealing is the acting.
I always felt that Don Ameche had a very strong and likable screen personality, and that is very evident here.
The same can be said of Myrna Loy.I feel at a loss to describe why you should watch this film...yet I recommend you watch it..
Marrying purely for money is nuts, as are the lovers who marry for love, not money..
In the mid-late 1800's, a young lady from a farm near Boston decides to move far away and get as far away from pigs as possible.
A city named Brooklyn.
To find a rich man, hopefully fall in love with him, and marry him.
Your destiny is to end up with somebody as nutty as you are and live a very unconventional life.She's Myrna Loy. He's Don Ameche.
He rushes off the buggy to throw rise at some newlyweds he's never met before.
Ironically, she is going to the same street he is, and he graciously offers to carry his bag.
Also ironically, he happens to live right next door to her cousin, and she interrupts his cousin's wife's tea party where she explains her reasons for moving to the very exclusive Brooklyn neighborhood.
Ameche's landlady (Clara Blandick) rushes back and warns him about the social-climbing Loy, so what does Ameche do?
He pays a visit on Loy and tells her that if she intends to go after somebody just because they are rich, then he is not her man.
Tossing the bouquet of flowers he brought her.Between wearing a curly wig he's just styled with his new invention (the curling iron) on the balcony for Loy to spot then practically setting Blandick's house on fire with the smoking invention, it is only a matter of time before Ameche and Loy fall in love.
She becomes engaged to the prominent Richard Gaines only to find out that he intends to become a hog farmer.
Watch as Loy rushes out to reveal her true feelings to Ameche then Gaines' confrontation of the two whom he finds kissing.
Period comedy has never been as funny or irreverent, but when you've got comic legends like Ameche and Loy paired together for the only time, what else can you expect?
Their marriage is an unconventional one too with an equally unconventional young son (Bobby Driscoll) who is due for a date with the switch when he plants a yarn ball with protruding knitting needles on a visitor's chair.
Ameche and Driscoll pick out switches from the tree outside and Ameche strikes fear into the loving mother Loy as he sets to teach Driscoll a lesson which he'll never forget.
Punishment with a true moral lesson which goes against "Spare the rod.
Spoil the child" and will have you both laughing and possibly crying at the same time.Then there's the presence of eccentric artist Rhys Williams who is interrupted by every possible interruption as he prepares to paint the portrait of the annoyed Ameche.
Pickle-pussed maid Renie Riano offers her two cents, then Driscoll comes in, and finally the family pooch.
Poor Williams is on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
This documents the episodic nature of the structure of this film, somewhat plot less, but never boring.
Each segment provides a lesson as well as laughs, sort of a variation of "Life With Father" as told from the point of view of the couple as newly married.
The film's last few minutes take more of a serious turn, but that too has a twist.
This is totally enjoyable on every level, a nice obscure comedy about a real life inventor that doesn't profess to be anything close to accuracy, but as fiction, it is a ton of fun. |
tt0023382 | Red Dust | On a rubber plantation in French Indochina during the monsoon season, the plantation's owner/manager Dennis Carson (Gable), a prostitute named Vantine (Harlow), and Barbara Willis (Astor), the wife of an engineer named Gary Willis (Gene Raymond) are involved in a love triangle. Carson abandons an informal relationship with Vantine to pursue Barbara, but he has a change of heart and returns to Vantine.
Vantine arrives at the plantation first, on the lam from the authorities in Saigon. She displays an easy comfort in the plantation's harsh environment, wisecracks continually, and begins playfully teasing Carson as soon as she meets him. He resists her charm at first, but soon gives in, and they quickly develop a friendly, casual relationship in which they tease each other and pretend to be too tough for affection. One of their favorite games is to call each other "Fred" and "Lily", as though neither can be bothered to remember the other's name.
However, Carson loses interest in Vantine when the Willises arrive. Gary Willis is a young, inexperienced engineer, and his wife Barbara is a classy, ladylike beauty. Carson is immediately attracted to Barbara, and, after sending Gary on a lengthy surveying trip, he spends the next week seducing Barbara as Vantine watches jealously. He successfully persuades Barbara to leave Gary for him but recants after visiting Gary in the swamp and learning how deeply he loves Barbara. Carson has also seen that Barbara is unsuited for the primitive conditions on the plantation, as is Gary, and he has a painful memory of his own mother's death on the plantation when he was a boy. He decides to send both of them back to more civilized surroundings.
At the story's climax, Carson turns Barbara's feelings against himself by pretending that he never loved her, at which point she shoots him. This provides a cover for Vantine and Carson to save Barbara's marriage and reputation by insisting to Gary that Barbara rejected Carson's advances. The film ends after Carson has sent the Willises away, with Vantine reading bedtime stories to him as he recuperates from the gunshot wound, and he playfully tries to fondle her. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0487037 | Mammoth | Leo and Ellen are a successful New York couple, totally immersed in their work. Leo is the creator of a booming gaming website, and has stumbled into a world of money and big decisions. He has to board a business flight to Thailand in order to sign a contract. What ensues in the next few days is a critique on the social dilemmas that result from globalization.
Ellen is a dedicated emergency surgeon who devotes her long shifts to saving lives. During her work, she becomes attached to a dying boy who has been stabbed in the stomach by his mother. Leo and Ellen have a seven-year-old daughter named Jackie. Due to her parents' absence in the household, she spends most of her time with her Filipino nanny, Gloria, who introduces the girl to her Filipino culture and reads about Jackie's favorite subject, astronomy. Even with the little time that Ellen has for her, Jackie often prefers to be with Gloria, which provokes jealousy on Ellen's part.
Gloria has two children of her own, young boys residing in the Philippines with their grandmother. The older boy, Salvador, who misses his mother dearly, makes frequent phone calls to her and begs her to come home. His grandmother scolds him for calling his mother so much; she urges her daughter to stay in America to make money for a better life for her family. Salvador tries to find a job so that Gloria does not have to work abroad. One night Salvador is robbed by homeless children then lured and molested by a pedophile who saves him from his attackers. The next morning he is found unconscious under a bridge and is rushed to a hospital. When Gloria is informed of this incident she quits her job immediately and leaves to the airport to return to her country.
In Bangkok, Leo finds out that his colleague has to spend additional time in negotiations, which creates time for him to travel to Thailand. Leo's trip so far has been uneventful. At a club, Leo meets a prostitute named Cookie and pays her to not have sex with any client that evening. Later on Leo reluctantly has a romantic fling with the girl but regrets it afterwards. He has his colleague accept the terms offered so that he can finish the work and return to his family in the US as soon as possible. We find out at the end that Cookie is a working class single mother who is also living apart from her baby girl. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Not a *good* movie exactly, but a significant improvement over most Sci-Fi Channel original movies.
The more serious scenes tended to just slow the movie down.If you like Vincent Ventresca (Invisible Man), he does some decent work with a not too great script.
There are some other good actors too, but they don't quite manage to rise above the script as much.Unfortunately, the best that can be said about Mammoth is that it is an improvement for Sci-Fi Channel.
I read the first review here after the original airing on April 21st 2006 and was flabbergasted at the negative response.Having just rewatched it and then returning here to reread that review and those posted since, I can't help but feel that some people just don't appreciate fine cheese at its smelliness.This is a great movie!
Great CGI effects giving way to traditional animation (of cave drawings) that gave us a taste of the backstory, with fun, appropriately theramin-heavy music - it could have been the opening to a theatrical film, it was just that good!
I can tell what the director/writers/producers were going for with the rest of the film, with the over-the-top plot, characters, and humorous lines and references to classic 50s sci- fi schlock.
If you're looking for a movie to take your mind off life for an hour and a half, you could do a lot worse than Mammoth.
OK, you could also do a lot better but this film doesn't pretend to be anything other than a low-budget cheesy horror.In fact, part of the charm of Mammoth was that everyone had their tongue firmly in their cheek making this film, especially the delightfully nerdy scientist played by Vincent Ventresca.
Not that bad Sci-Fi Channel film.
"Mammoth" is a pretty decent Sci-Fi Creature feature.**SPOILERS**Dr. Frank Abernathy, (Vincent Ventresca) is beyond thrilled that his museum acquires a frozen Wooly Mammoth, especially when he pulls a strange blue object out of it.
They team up together to put it's rampage to a stop.The Good News: This wasn't all that bad of a film.
It does have the typical fast-pace to it, so something is always happening in here that will keep your attention.The Bad News: As usual with the Sci-Fi Channel's works, the title creature is so obviously CGI that it loses the impact it could've had.
The thunderous footsteps are also heard way too close to people and places that a creature of it's size normally wouldn't do.The Final Verdict: A couple lapses in logic and a pretty fake title creature hold this one back, but all Sci-Fi features have that as well.
Does anyone actually expect Sci-fi to make a good made for TV movie that is not a miniseries?).
The movie is bad, but because everyone involved knows this, it actually becomes very funny at points.
some out there is comparing this movie with other sci-fi channel movies and thinks that compared to them this is not that bad.
And claiming that the humor makes up for the bad acting and extremely poor effects is a joke.
Critters and Gremlins).Short summary: bad movie, don't waste your time..
Sure, it's all over the map story-wise, and the Mammoth isn't very scary or visually impressive, but I laughed quite a bit and enjoyed the performances.
I kept thinking that I'd like to see these characters return in another movie or a series.
They don't have a very good track record when it comes to movies, but I'm beginning to think that this one shows they know it.The actors, mostly B-movie and TV types, with Summer Glau probably being the biggest name in it, aren't the worst actors SciFi has put in a movie.
The special effects are bad for modern era CGI, but we're talking about a low budget horror film.
So, if you like the corniness of so many horror films from the 50s and 60s, or maybe the camp of the Killer Tomatoes series or perhaps Tremors, you will actually enjoy this movie..
I admit that SCI FI has set the bar mighty low when it comes to its original movies.
Well, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I really enjoyed this movie.Vincent Ventresca as Dr. Frank Abernathy is the main reason the movie works.
He is sort of a cross between Bruce Campbell and the Absent Minded Professor, and brings a much needed dose of comedy to the story.The Mammoth itself is an unimpressive, not scary, CGI mess.
In Louisiana, the clumsy director of the local museum, Dr. Frank Abernathy (Vincent Ventresca), removes a weird device from a frozen 17 ton mammoth, actually a GPS that brings a spacecraft with an alien entity to Earth that falls into the local museum and revives the mammoth that hosts the lifeforce.
Special Agents Powers (Leila Arcieri) and Whitaker (Marcus Lyle Brown) seek out the paleontologist Dr. Frank to help them to destroy the mammoth; otherwise the government will blast the town.
Dr. Frank concludes that the animal must be frozen and together with his father and fan of sci-fi movies, Simon Abernathy (Tom Skerritt) and his sixteen year-old daughter (Summer Glau), they plot a plan to capture the mammoth.The forgettable "Mammoth" is an attempt of remaking those sci-fi movies from the 50's and 60's that unfortunately fails.
There are references to many sci-fi classics, but the silly story does not work well alternating humor that is not funny and fiction.
If they are going to make it like a Roger Corman, campy, Saturday afternoon at the movies, well, get better plots and keep out the comedy.
Never taking itself seriously, never cute, never funny, never scary, never interesting, never logical, never believable, never making any sense, is the only way to describe this unbelievably BAD movie.
In fact, Mammoth is more like a feature movie and I would love to see it on the big screen.
Vincent Ventresca plays a slightly mad scientist whose main concern isn't fighting the monster, he's far more worried about his daughter (Summer Glau from 'Serenity') dating her first boyfriend while his dad (Tom Skerritt) is chasing UFOs. All three members of this family are really sympathetic and turn "Mammoth" into a delightful comedy.
The clumsily animated mammoth doesn't look real in any shot, and then the whole idea with the alien sucking people's life energy (that's seemingly a kind of white gas inside humans) is somewhat unconvincing, to put it mildly.
Another made for the Sci-fi channel feature, which sees an alien-carrying meteor crash in a museum where the alien life form transports itself into a century's old frozen mammoth and virtually goes on the rampage in the quiet little town.
It's up to Dr. Frank Abernathy, his daughter, father and two federal agents to find a way to stop it, before their time is up and the town would be no longer.A total kooky throwback to the b-grade sci-fi 50's alien invasion / monsters on the rampage with the screenplay keeping it tongue-in-cheek, even with somewhat a lousy script.
Vincent Ventresca nicely laps it up as the nervous, work-minded Dr. Frank Abernathy and Summer Glau brings brashness to her part as his daughter.
Tom Skerritt looks like his having a good time and Leila Arcieri brings a calm intensity to her role.Director Tim Cox does a moderate job blending the large dose of comical elements with sub-standard CGI effects (the gigantic mammoth) and cartoonish action.
Anyhow, the mammoth shows up and starts stomping on people and generally making a real nuisance of himself, dad arrives with a couple of CIA agents in tow, starts making bad movie puns and...I really don't need to tell you the rest of the plot, do I?
If you've ever seen a low budget creature movie before, you know what happens in each scene for the rest of the movie.Like I say, it was vaguely humorous.
Vincent Ventresca does a fairly good job with his "funny" character in this thing, and he comes off as fairly likable.
You're in a Sci-Fi Channel original movie.
The mammoth looked pretty typical for a Sci-Fi Channel original, which is to say, cheap CGI.
Bad Acting+Tom Skerrit+Awful directors, writers, producers=MAMMOTH.
Sci-fi channel should REALLY put back some better cult-classic films, instead of these MADE-FOR-TV movie loads of sh*t.
It thinks it's a funny, futuristic film but honestly it is a bad attempt.
This movie looked like it was thrown together at the last minute, very typical of most Sci Fi channel originals.
The acting was horrible, and some parts of the movie tried way too hard to show that this flick was "hip" and "with the times".
Was this a movie or a real life versions of Looney Toons?The government agents were totally unbelievable, and the fact that the Sci Fi channel has bombarded me all week with hyped up previews of this flick makes me sick now that I've seen it.
If you don't like the type of humor presented, then the movie can be somewhat annoying.
The intro is also a bit bizarre (almost confusing), but the movie finally settles into a pretty standard sci-fi "find and destroy" plot.The film is essentially about an alien presence that takes over a mammoth carcass in a museum.
It sounded like a hokey, 60's style sci-fi movie that might turn out to be fun by the time that it was over.
The idea of a revived woolly mammoth on a rampage in a small town seemed to have potential - especially since there are in fact scientists today hoping to use recovered mammoth DNA to bring back the species, for reasons known only to themselves.
But this just turned out to be silly - especially the hole "alien entity inside the mammoth" twist.But the "best" line of the movie had to have been spoken by one of the government agents as they were looking for the mammoth.
"If we don't find a way to contain or destroy this creature before the time is up the government is going to destroy this whole town." Setting aside that that's a pretty precise countdown for such a thing, um, well, it's a MAMMOTH!
And all sorts of other "wonderful" things like that - including futuristic looking weapons pulled out by the agent near the end of the movie with the words "these won't stop the mammoth, but they'll slow it down." Why won't they stop the mammoth?
There are definitely worse looking creatures in other movies, but the mammoth does look very fake and un-menacing, and the editing does betray this at times.
The script mostly is lazy, any attempts at humour come across as cheesy and unfunny, while the story suffers from predictability and one too many ridiculous scenes like the mammoth soul-sucking with its trunk and it managing to sneak up behind its victims without them hearing it(either it was a logic lapse, a case of character stupidity or both).
The direction is competent enough and the acting is better than average, especially from Summer Glau and Tom Skerritt.
In conclusion, a reasonably fun movie, cheesy, predictable and ridiculous and the mammoth is not convincing enough, but the acting, the fact that it never bored me, the music and the references and homages were enough to enable me to stick with it.
I'll give honourable mentions to; Vincent Ventresca as Dr. Frank Abernathy, Cole Williams as Squirrelly, Charles Carroll as Sheriff Marion Morrison (that's John Wayne's real name for those that don't know), Leila Arcieri as Agent Powers and Marcus Lyle Brown as Agent Whitaker.For a script that was meant to be playing for laughs, I found very little to laugh about.
Actually, the CGI in this one isn't all that bad, and no one takes the plot too seriously.
It would be doing a justice to the species, something that this TV sci-fi channel flick does not do, and while Mammoth sounds about as absurd as they come, the makers embrace the absurdity and take a somewhat comedic approach to this.
It is still long way from great, and with so many of these movies out and about (somewhere) in the world, Mammoth is in no way unique, but it is amusing..
This movie is about giant mammoth exhibit that comes to life.
I love a good bad movie but this was so, so bad there wasn't even a single moment that made me glad to be watching it.
This is what makes the classic B-movies so great to watch.In the modern B-movies, we see all sorts of stupidity surrounding the people involved.
I get it that the actor was channeling a Bruce Campbell type of character, but only Bruce Campbell is good at that and making it work.The other thing so annoying in these modern B-movies is the incredibly ridiculous stereotyping of any type of authority or political figure that doesn't meet with the filmmakers' approval.
Some alien toy that looks like an xbox360 is used to animate a Wolly Mammoth from some bones on display at the local museum.
Truly brilliant movies are plausible and terrifyingly authentic
like "Mammoth", for example!
He goes after the mammoth, along with his sweet sixteen daughter and her horny boyfriend, a CIA agent with beautiful big boobies, a retarded redneck sheriff and his own B-movie obsessed father (oh Tom Skerritt, whatever happened to your career?).
Maybe you can break the code, to why this movie was so fun to watch.Well, that's it for this time.Paladin Steelbreaker.
It did remind me somewhat of Men in Black with its "Alien Detectives" with a little bit of the corniness of the movies from the 50's and 60's.ZombieSteak.com - Discover a new world of horror films, designed just for you..
The Sci-Fi Channel presents one of its finest movies.
A frozen mammoth is brought back to life by aliens and starts causing havoc.It actually looks pretty darn good in terms of cinematography.
Mammoth knows when to poke fun at itself, and has some of the best dialogue you're ever likely to hear.
So there's a alien possessed zombie Mammoth running around Blackwater taking people's life essence to stay alive, in come Government agents Powers (Leila Arcieri) & Whitaker (Marcus Lyle Brown) who ask for Abernathy's help as if they can't kill the Mammoth the Government will drop a bomb on Blackwater destroying the whole town & everyone in it...This made-for-TV Sci-Fi Channel original was co-executive produced, co-written & directed by Tim Cox & is pretty much like any other low budget creature feature flick that the Sci-Fi Channel seem to pump out endlessly.
The character's are pretty poor & clichéd, the man who spends more time on his job than with his family, the resentful daughter, two shameless Men in Black (1997) rip-off secret Governemnt agents who dress in black suits & carry alien guns, the small town Sheriff & the daughter's boyfriend who the father doesn't like.
The actual story isn't that good either, I mean an alien possessed Mammoth could have been fun but the whole film is so routine, dull & somewhat random it isn't.
I don't know, I've seen loads of these Sci-Fi Channel originals & Mammoth isn't anything special, in fact I didn't really like it at all.Director Cox films with competence but not much else, the opening sequence with the alien space probe energetically whizzing through space is quite fun I suppose but otherwise Mammoth is fairly forgettable in all departments.
Thats the sort of thing the makers of Mammoth considers funny.With a supposed budget of about $2,300,000 one has to say this is reasonably well made but utterly forgettable.
Tom 'I was in the original Alien' Skerritt is the 'name' actor although not much of a name.Mammoth isn't a film that I liked, it rip-off lots of other much better films & considering it's a comedy it's spectacularly unfunny.
Paleontologist Dr. Frank Abernathy(Vincent Ventresca), who has made this mammoth on display his life's work, is called on to help Special Government Agents Powers(Leila Arcieri)and Whitaker(Marcus Lyle Brown)track down the rampaging creature.
Part of the rescue team is Abernathy's father(Tom Skerritt), who is a B-movie and UFO fanatic.Special effects are a joke; to be exact the movie comes off as a comedy more than horror flick.
This film shows you how and it's a real shame.I appreciate that the film is not taking itself seriously (the Spaghetti Western showing it's intention for fun) but it takes ages for the comedy timing to hit form (in fact the autopsy room scene much later in the film) and most viewers will probably have lost track of the plot due to time spent flicking through TV pages, getting a brew etc.This shows a lack of concentration by the development team and jokes that may have seemed funny during the writing process clearly fail on the screen.Somewhat like The Faculty the film self references movies of its genre but unlike the aforementioned film Mammoth does this badly except on a few occasions (The Jurassic Park and "Werewolf howls" - Mammoth trumpeting parts).
Having someone make movie references can work but they have to be logical choices and not used all the time.Too many good ideas are not fully realised and the film needs to decide if it wants to be a comedy horror or played straight as different actors seem to have different ideas.It is by no means the worst movie I have ever seen but it's definitely one for a very rainy afternoon..
The premise is silly - aliens causes a woolly mammoth to come to life which then stalks the land .
MAMMOTH is a particularly bad comedy horror flick from the Sci Fi Channel, shot in Romania so looking cheaper than ever.
Tom Skerritt and Summer Glau play a father and daughter team and this is a low point in both of their resumes..
This Movie is a very very very good movie I showed the trailer to someone I know they think it's just like Black Sheep but this is way way better |
tt0995863 | Rest Stop: Don't Look Back | In 1972, the Winnebago family encounters the Driver (Brionne Davis) standing on the side of the road next to the yellow pickup, out of gas. Once in the R.V., Mrs. Winnebago begins to flirt heavily with the Driver, asking Scotty, her physically deformed child, to take a picture with his camera.
Later that night, Mr. Winnebago finds the Driver having sexual intercourse with his wife. His wife then claims she is being raped (which she was not) and prompts her husband to attack, torture, and kill the Driver. The Driver's ghost later kills the family across the street from the rest stop.
35 years later and one year after Jesse and Nicole disappeared. In Argyle, Texas, Jesse's brother Tom (Tillman) returns from Iraq. Tom decides to go looking for his brother with his girlfriend Marilyn (Ward) and one of Nicole's friends, Jared (Norris), who has had a long time crush on Nicole.
Once they get to California, the trio gets direction from a strange gas station attendant (Steve Railsback). Jared finds a horseriding badge that belonged to Nicole, prompting Tom to demand information from the attendant, who tells them that the Old Highway is a mile up the road.
Not long afterwards, Jared stops at a construction site Porta-potty which the Driver rams into, covering Jared in feces causing him to strip down to his briefs. Tom and Marilyn arrive at the rest stop where, while Marilyn is using the bathroom, Tom is kidnapped by the Driver. Inside the bathroom, Marilyn sees Nicole's ghost (Julie Mond), in an adjacent stall. She rushes out of the bathroom to look for Tom, but all signs of him and their truck are vanished.
As night falls, Jared changes clothes (they got covered in feces during the Driver's attack) and as he gets in his car sees Nicole's ghost, which he believes is real. They then have sex during while Nicole vomits blood and disappears. Jared then runs into the road and comes across the Winnebago family, who give him a ride to the rest stop. Jared relays what he knows to Marilyn who, in turn, tells him Tom is missing. They decide to hike back to the gas station to find out everything the attendant knows.
Meanwhile, Tom is being tortured by the Driver in the school bus, but escapes while the Driver is gone. He searches for his brother, finding him tied up in a cage. He frees him and carries him to his truck. Jesse turns to his brother and says "you should have saved me?" before disappearing, leaving Tom confused before heading back to the rest stop.
Marilyn and Jared learn from the attendant that to put the Driver to rest, they need to burn his eyeballs. But the Driver set a trap for them. When Jared awakes, The Driver claims, using the attendant to talk for him, that Marilyn was unfaithful to Tom and needed to be "cleansed". Jared refuses and has his right eye cut out by the Driver. Jared then gives in and uses a drill to "cleanse" Marilyn by drilling into her thighs.
Tom arrives at the gas station to find Marilyn alone. They exit the station, just as day breaks, to find the Winnebago parked outside. Scotty tells them that the twins have the Driver's eyeballs. Tom loads up with an assault rifle he kept in his backseat to take on the Driver. Marilyn finds Jared inside the R.V. with a patch on his eye. He assists her in setting fire to the Winnebago, destroying it. Just before the Driver kills Tom, he disappears as the Winnebago explodes.
On the way home, Jared discovers a picture of Nicole that he kept on his visor is missing. Just as he tries to tell Tom, he smashes into the Winnebago.
Sometime later that day, Tom ponders Jared's disappearance and emotes to Marilyn, who is crying next to him. When Tom asks what is wrong, Marilyn responds, "You should have saved me." Tom begins to ask what she is talking about, only to be interrupted by the Driver revving his engine. Tom looks out the window and into the truck's cab, seeing Marilyn in the passenger's seat next to the Driver. Tom rushes out onto the empty highway and looks around, realizing that Marilyn is dead.
The Driver is then seen driving down a different highway. | violence | train | wikipedia | The corporal Tom Hilts (Richard Tillman) returns from overseas to his hometown Argyle, Texas, for a ten days leave with the intention to seek our his brother Jess (Joey Mendicino), who disappeared one year ago while heading to California with his girl-friend Nicole (Julie Mond).
He drives his truck with his girlfriend Marilyn (Jessie Ward) and followed by his friend Jared (Graham Norris) in his old car to California trying to track his brother.
While in the old highway California, Jared needs to stop his car in an old rest stop to go to the toilet and is attacked by the driver of a yellow truck.
Meanwhile Tom and Marilyn wait for him in the next rest stop where Tom is also attacked and kidnapped by the driver of the yellow truck.
Marilyn sees the ghost of Nicole in the restroom and realizes that they are facing supernatural evil forces."Rest Room" had a good premise but the writer did not know how to end the story.
However "Rest Stop: Don't Look Back" is a disappointing mess, with a non-likable lead characters Tom, Jared and Marilyn and an invincible sadistic ghost.
The greatest "attraction" of this flick is the sick tortures inflicted by the driver to his victims, removing eyes and drilling knees and legs, with lots of gore and pain.
Sequel That Doesn't Really Accomplish What It Aims To. One year after the disappearance of Jesse and Nicole, Jesse's brother Tom (a corporal in the Army, fresh on leave from Iraq) and two friends are on the trail.
I really enjoyed "Rest Stop" and seeing that the same people -- most of the original cast (Jaime Alexander is noticeably absent), plus John Shiban and Shawn Papazian -- had returned, I figured this one couldn't be too bad.
Both Tom Hilts (Richard Tillman) and his friend Jared (Graham Norris) weren't overly likable, and they came across as awkward.
And for those who liked the first film, this fills in some blanks that may have been lingering in the minds of viewers.Overall, "Rest Stop: Don't Look Back" was not a necessary part of the series and could have gone without being made.
At the same time, the film sets the stage for a "Rest Stop 3", since now there's bound to be questions needing answers for some people.
Two years ago,low-budget film Rest Stop had some success in the DVD market,in spite of telling a completely incoherent story.I found that movie tedious and full of repetitive and irrelevant scenes which revealed director and screenwriter John Shiban's desperation to "inflate" the movie with the porpoise of fulfilling running time and to simulate drama the weak characters could not generate.And now,we have the repulsive and disastrous sequel of that bad film.Rest Stop : Don't Look Back is a crap of enormous proportions.This "film" is a pathetic combination of the style of the Asian horror cinema and the modern torture cinema.For one sight,we have the mysterious villain who tortures young people on an isolated place; we have manifestations from ghosts; and we also have an enormously boring and unbearably slow story which is completely improvised.Instead of provoking horror,this film provokes a big impatience.Plus,the characters from this movie are deeply stupid,so much that I wanted them to get killed.On this crap,we also have terribly bad performances and insipid violence.Rest Stop : Don't Look Back is an unbearable experience.This repulsive piece of crap should immediately be destroyed.Be very far away from it.Don't make the same mistake I did and do not loose the time with this thing..
I enjoyed the first Rest Stop movie- considering it was a straight to video, low budget horror, I felt it was a tense off-the-beaten track film, with some nice, and unexpected, supernatural elements.
Though I'm not claiming it's a horror classic, it was a fun film, and certainly felt like one of the fresher films in this sub-genre of horror, especially when compared to the tired Texas Chainsaw prequel and Hills Have Eyes sequel- both of which were out around the same time.I think the sequel is equally fun- if not more so.
The sequel fleshes out some of the history of the freakish family, we find out what happened to the characters from the last film- all in all, it does what a good sequel is supposed to!
It's a nice feeling when a straight-to-DVD film demonstrates a lot of what is missing in big budget cinematic horror films today- bring on Rest Stop 3!!!.
Direct-to-video torture porn for people who just can't get enough of Rest Stop's killer ghost..
The plot: Searching for his missing brother, a soldier runs into the killer ghost from Rest Stop, with predictable results for him and his friends.Rest Stop 2 follows many of the conventions of the first movie, but manages to excise some of the pointless filler, replacing it with extended scenes of gory torture.
If you were dying to know these things, then I can understand why you'd want to see Rest Stop 2, but there really isn't much reason to subject yourself to this movie, when you can just read the synopsis on Wikipedia or the IMDb.One of the saving graces of the original Rest Stop was its atmosphere and judicial use of gore.
In Rest Stop 2, the gore is pretty much its sole reason for being.
As a result, I would recommend this movie only to fans of Rest Stop, gorehounds, and torture porn enthusiasts.
It's no masterpiece, but the gore effects are pretty good, for a low budget, direct-to-video sequel.
I realize I may be in the minority liking the first, then again the IMDb boards seem to be there only to complain.Rest Stop was a bit of slasher with a ghost story thrown in.
In part 2, it seems like they tried to duplicate those, but after seeing the first one, they didn't have the oh-wow value.The ghost sequences were all pretty obvious (sans one) and the whole Family is a known from the first one so that wasn't a surprise.As for the background they tried to give the people from the first one, while somewhat interesting, it just didn't seem to fit or feel quite right.
Very weird, hard to understand and a lot of problems with it, but it's better than the first, and at least worth a rent.One of my main problems is the characters were annoying, and I often kept wanting to smack Marilyn across the face.But, considering a lot of the straight-to-DVD crap that gets put out, this was an okay film that I actually enjoyed, maybe a little more than I should have....
You would think that given the fact that this movie happens in present day the characters would at least acknowledge.."Hey we are dealing with spooky bad people.
I just feel as though if I spend any more time on it then the "Driver" has claimed too much of my life as well.My rating for this flick....I give it an "A-holes" Means avoid this movie.
They run into the typical creepy gas station guy, they find the rest stop, not before the driver finds them and gives them a hard time.
The girlfriend and the geek start having visions of the girl from part I and the geek will be delivered to the weirdo family which also makes a comeback in this movie.The girlfriend will confront the driver and she will get tortured and later, army guy fights the driver.
Several times we see the weirdo family driving around bothering people with their religious talk.The second half of Rest Stop II is just as dismal as all of the first movie.
This follow up for the original "Rest Stop" is fast paced, entertaining, humorous (Jared taking a crap and being ambushed by a truck by later getting a crap shower!
in the likes of "Slumdog Millonaire" or the having sex with a ghost scene), and gory at some points.The plot twist that worked in the original tries to repeat the success in this sequel but it didn't make an impact at all.The whole explanation towards the legend of death is pretty interesting and gruesome if you take in account the opening murder.
I liked how it kept connected with the events of the original.The "ends here" line was pure gold and gave a darker tone to the movie.Watch it if you're fan of direct to video horror.
The first time I watched Rest Stop, i was like wow, i couldn't believe the amount of violence and carnage in it.
Im just glad that it follows the first one, where a returning soldier Richard Tillman(The Day The Earth Stood Still) and his girlfriend Jessie Ward(Wicked Wicked Games), set out to look for his missing brother Joey Mendicino(Rest Stop) and his girlfriend, and wind up encountering the psychotic fanatical family and the murderous truck driver.
The first Rest Stop is cinema at it's worst, so when the sequel came along, I expected the same thing, horror trying to be art.
Well, to say least, I was a little surprised.The story follows the brother of the man killed in the first part, he decides to go to California to look for his brother and his girlfriend.
Soon, the come upon the rest stop where the two people perished, and soon the same supernatural crap that happened in the first one starts happening to them.First of all, this film actually wallows in the supernatural crap, so it's not annoying or confusing like in the first.
After hearing of the disappearance of the victims at the rest stop, his brother and friends journey out to find him only to come across the same supernaturally-powered killer and must try to put an end to his reign of terror at before others fall victim to his wrath.This here turned out to be a thoroughly uninviting mess, literally filled with lots of different issues that are nowhere near interesting enough to really carry itself out of the mire it utilized previously in the original.
"Rest Stop: Don't Look Back" is a horror movie and is the sequel of the "Rest Stop" movie of 2006 and I think that it was a really worse movie than the first.In this movie we have the brother of Jesse who is looking for him and in his quest he captured from the same maniac serial killer who we have in the first movie.I believe that this sequel it was a disaster and it demolished everything that the first movie built even though there was few.
Saw 'Rest Stop: Don't Look Back', being fond of horror regardless of budget (even if not my favourite genre) and being intrigued somewhat by the idea.
Despite not caring for the first 'Rest Stop', saw the sequel anyway with curiosity.Giving 'Rest Stop: Don't Look Back' a fair chance with being interest and apprehension, it turned out to be a little better than expected with having the same strengths and flaws of the first 'Rest Stop' and being about the same in quality (basically not caring for either).
Won't say that 'Rest Stop: Don't Look Back' is a great film (mediocre actually) because it isn't and the potential, while not wasted, is not fully lived up to.
Considering the large number of films seen recently being mediocre and less and wasting potential, was expecting worse and was relieved that while wanting in a fair few areas it was actually one of my better recent low-budget viewings if not by much.'Rest Stop: Don't Look Back' started off quite well, the first twenty minutes or so starting the film off on a promising, unsettling and atmospheric note that really does intrigue.
Admired that it tried to be more than a standard slasher film, the supernatural element does intrigue but that it's open to interpretation so divisively says a lot for things feeling confused and muddled too often.
Instead of doing something different from the first 'Rest Stop', meaning giving some freshness while maintaining the spirit and with chance of improvement, it is too more of the same-like and with even less imagination.Ending is unsatisfying, on top of feeling hasty there are too many loose ends hanging in the air and it all felt abrupt.
REST STOP: DON'T LOOK BACK is the sequel to a low budget horror flick I never saw.
After a brief bit of back story, we join up with a trio of characters who venture into a hostile desert landscape in search of some missing people, and who soon find themselves falling foul of a sinister presence with murder in mind.This film does have promise, I'll give it that.
Everywhere else, the story is a mix of torture porn, toilet humour, and random ghost scares which don't make a whole lot of sense when it comes down to it.For the most part, REST STOP: DON'T LOOK BACK sits firmly within unpleasant torture porn territory, as violence is meted out to innocent characters.
But the rest of the plot makes little sense either and you don't really care for the characters anyway.
I love B horror films, they're among m favorite sub-genre, but that being said...Tom, on leave from the Army, goes to find out who killed his sister and her boyfriend (as told in the superior yet merely watchable first Rest Stop film) The original was incredibly clichéd and unoriginal, but it went about its task we'll enough.
I would call this Rest Stop 2: Don't Bother to Look.
I would call this Rest Stop 2: Don't Bother to Look.
The couple ends up at the infamous rest stop, where they battle the restroom ghost and the creepy family of nuts and the school bus.
It was predictable and one thing died throughout the whole movie.The plot started off good and then turned to rubbish.
The amount of plot-holes and unrelated dialog was so stupid and it just made the filming pointless.The acting was surprisingly good, with a believable cast, take 1.
One year after couple Jesse (Joey Mendicino) and Nicole (Julie Mond) disappeared, Jesse's brother, Tom (Richard Tillman), asks his friends (Jessie Ward, Graham Norris) to join him on a search for his brother.
In the first film, an average idea (a couple gets stranded at an isolated rest stop and a crazed killer stalks them down) is ruined by an impossible twist (and you thought Haute Tension's was unbelievable), subpar performances by actors we've seen do better, and a script so contrived my head was pounding in annoyance.
One major thing holds back the sequel before even it even begins: there's not a lot you can do at a rest stop.
Therefore, as Rest Stop: Don't Look Back progressed, it felt kind of like Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning in comparison to the remake.
Unfortunately, we missed some of the best violence (eye gouging and the like) due to scene cutaways, but I attribute that to a low budget.
The girlfriend Marilyn (Jessie Ward) wasn't a good hot chick, she is better described as the average chick, who was so annoying i found myself wishing she'd die a horribly painful and bloody death after the first 20 minutes.
Overall, I would recommend it to anyone who likes a good horror flick..
The story established in "Rest Stop" continues with this movie, in which Richard Tillman plays Tom Hilts, a Corporal returned from Iraq who learns that his younger brother Jesse (Joseph George Mendicino), the protagonist of the first film, has gone missing.
One year after his brother and girlfriend disappeared, Tom (Richard Tillman) and his girlfriend Marilyn (Jessie Ward) decide to go to California to find them.
Tom's geeky friend Jared (Graham Norris) travels with them.The same guy who killed his brother is still haunting the highway, and finds and tortures the new breed of travelers, and also returning is the RV filled with the walking corpses.This movie reminds me of "Joy Ride 2"...another needless sequel with subpar acting, story, and effects.
It has been a year since Jess and Nicole went missing at a rundown rest stop on California's Old Highway.
Jess' brother Tom(Richard Tillman), a soldier back from Iraq and his girlfriend Marilyn(Jessie Ward)and an idiot pal Jared(Graham Norris)go searching for the missing lovers.
OK this is the confusing part how did the bathroom ghost in the first rest stop go missing and got killed in 1971 if the serial killer was killed in 1972?...doesn't even make sense and the dates doesn't match up just confusing.And what was the point of the ghost sex???...and how did eyeballs come into plan like it was a clue in the first movie it really wasn't so what was the point of speaking about eyeballs they never said anything in the first movie about him taking out his victims eyeballs and never seen taking out eyeballs being his mark on victims, so why is it relevant?...this plot is just twisted and changing into something it wasn't in the beginning.All of the things happening has nothing to do with what happened in the first movie and did he forget about his girlfriend and his friend *funny*..but I guess some of the movie was OK..
The Rest Stop Series:Part 2-Don't Look Back..
After finding the first Rest Stop film to be a surprisingly gripping Horror,I was pleased to find out that a sequel had been made,which led to me,once again taking a turn for the rest stop.The plot:Since his brother Jesse and his girlfriend Nicole have been missing for a year, Tom Hilts,his girlfriend Marilyn and Hilts friend Jared decide to go in search for Nicole & Jesse.During their search,Hilts and Marilyn try to sleep in a motel room.
Attempting to build a mythology out of the films,Shiban runs over any tension built in Hilts,Marilyn and Jared's search for the truth,by taking the movie in a dazed and confused supernatural Horror direction,which leads to a left-field ending which completely goes against everything that the film has been building towards. |
tt0037136 | None Shall Escape | The film centres on the trial of Wilhelm Grimm as a war criminal. Each character witness provides a flashback scene to a previous part of Grimm's life. In the trial, it is revealed that Grimm (Alexander Knox), who fought for Germany in the First World War and lost a leg in battle, returns after the war to the small German village of Litzbark (now in newly independent Poland) where he had been a teacher. Despite the recent hostilities, he is welcomed back into the community and resumes his teaching. He also resumes his relationship with Marja Pacierkowski, a local Polish girl to whom he had become engaged before the war.
He is bitter about Germany losing the war and it is obvious he has been changed by the experience. He treats the villagers with disdain, and his upcoming marriage is cancelled. He calls his fiancée a "peasant" only interested in her wedding dowry.
Taunted by the school's pupils, who say he is not fit to marry any Polish woman, he molests one of them, Anna, a young girl. The rape is blamed on her young male friend, Jan Stys, but Wilhelm's fiancée accidentally stumbles on the truth from Anna. The girl subsequently drowns herself in the lake. A mob gathers seeking vengeance, but a trial is required. Nevertheless, Jan throws a stone, putting out Wilhelm's left eye. After the trial fails to convict him, he returns to Germany, after borrowing money from the priest and the rabbi.
In Germany he goes to Munich to the house of his brother Karl, who is married with a young family. Karl clearly despises the Nazis, referring scornfully to "that Hitler creature". Karl cannot dissuade Wilhelm, though, and Wilhelm joins the Nazi Party and rises through its ranks. In 1929 he is sought by the police after the Nazi Party is made illegal. His nephew keeps the police at bay and Wilhelm rewards him with a swastika badge. As the Nazis grow in strength Karl decides he has no option but to leave Germany and go to Vienna. He threatens to reveal Wilhelm's part in the Reichstag fire unless he joins them, but instead of doing so, Wilhelm turns them over to the authorities, sending his own brother to a concentration camp. He then arranges that Karl's son enters the Hitler Youth.
When the Second World War starts, Grimm becomes the commander of the occupying force of the same village where he had previously lived. He treats the villagers brutally. He forces Marja, now a schoolteacher, to burn the children's books, saying they will be replaced by German books. He cruelly says that time has not treated her well and taunts her for rejecting him due to his leg injury. His nephew Willi, whom Wilhelm asserts that he treats as his own son, is now serving under him and pursuing Marja's daughter, Janina.
Grimm, who is now a Reichs Commissioner, next becomes involved in the large-scale deportation of the Jews and other minority groups. He commands the rabbi to quell dissent among the crowd as they are placed on the trains. The rabbi, knowing that they are going to die, instructs the crowd to rebel instead, upon which the Nazis turn machine guns onto the crowd. Wilhelm kills the rabbi with his pistol. Father Warecki exchanges final words with him as he dies.
Willi finds Marja and Janina hiding Jan Stys, who is injured, but he leaves without Jan when Marja rebukes him, and seems to soften in his attitude. Wilhelm sends Janina to work at the "officers' club", the Nazi name for enforced prostitution. Willi begs that she be released, to no avail. When Janina also dies, Grimm's nephew renounces his Nazi allegiance, having realised what an evil path Wilhelm has led him on. While Willi is praying by the side of Janina's body in the church, Wilhelm shoots him in the back.
We return to the courtroom. Wilhelm refuses to accept the authority of the court and continues to spout Nazi propaganda. The judge leaves it to the people to decide Grimm's fate. | flashback | train | wikipedia | That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau.
It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews.
The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities).
Knox as the Nazi is brilliant.
He charts the course of a Nazi career.
That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless.
That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out.
A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended..
Great Classic Film.
Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway.
The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates.
Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town.
He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either.
As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind.
Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm.
There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives.
The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers.
If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly..
A Good Little Unknown Movie.
The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect.
This little B picture is a taut story, well told.
I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies.
Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster.
Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars.
I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil.
But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer.
I still can't get over it.Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too.
Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career.
Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played.
But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film..
An amazing film that was ahead of its time.
This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed.
While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945).
In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes.
Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks.
At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis.
However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster.
These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors.
There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears.
It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first.
Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger".
This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper.
This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI.
This is a neat little B picture where World War II has already been one and Nuremberg
like trials are taking place.
One such trial is that of SS officer Alexander Knox
and is told in flashback by several witnesses to his barbarism and cruelty.Knox was a soldier in World War I and was wounded in the trenches and lost a
Before the war he lived in German occupied Poland as a school teacher and
Now that Poland has been reconstituted a nation Knox is even
So he makes his way to the new Weimar Republic in Germany and lives in Munich where another WW1 veteran is organizing a new
Nazi party that excites Knox.Even in this country many things can push someone into those kind of extreme
Knox's individual story is never lost against the background of
Knox is fascinating portrait of studied and
As he rises in the party when war is declared and over in a manner of weeks in 1939 against Poland he makes sure he's assigned
The film notes the friendship of
Catholic priest Henry Travers and Rabbi Richard Hale.
The film deserves praise
But in pre WW2 Poland ain't no way Travers and Hale would be any kind of friends.
The film
was written by Lester Cole of the Hollywood 10 and it got an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay.
On that point Cole was truly fantasizing.Others to note in the cast are Marsha Hunt as the village schoolteacher who was a teen back when Knox was the teacher, Richard Crane as Knox's nephew
grown version of a kid who hated Knox when he was the schoolteacher.Maybe without big name stars this film has managed better than most wartime films to still be relevant today.
Very relevant when looking at today's
I love the way this movie covers a rage of characters..
Not many movies of Wold War 2 covers how a person comes to join a Nazi Patry.
What makes someone turn to such extremes.
I Think this movie doesn't get enough credit for that .
I'm not sympathizing with any type of Nazi but this movie gives a wide range of outlooks.
I think it's an excellent teaching tool of what can happen to all people when they become angry and frustrated.
I wish more movies would cover this topic.
I think it's import to understand the mind of people who are seemingly loving and normal to turn to a party with such hatred.
I think a lot of them were tricked and we need to know about this so it can never happen again !!
It does not happen overnight and this movie does a great job of building up to that !.
It may feel a bit dated (no pun intended) and the effects certainly are, but the story is what counts and that is pretty strong indeed.The acting is more than good, though you can see where it does lead to most of the time.
So while there won't be too many surprises, hopefully the drama itself and maybe a bit of the back-story of this movie will entice you.
Don't be appalled by the court aspect of the movie, because very little of it actually plays in it..
An astonishing film, not only for its time; as relevant today as ever..
Inevitably, when one sees this film a comparison with "Judgment at Nuremburg" made twenty years later comes to mind.
The second war crimes trial movie, of course, was a grand production peopled with star actors.
It makes a powerful impact.
It is a great film.
But I find the impact of this earlier gem even more profound, not just because it was made while the war was still ongoing and not just because it was the first Hollywood production to admit, and show on screen, the genocide of Jewish people.
That, of course, is a powerful reason to see the film.
It is extraordinary that Rabbi David in the film (Richard Hale) not only exhorts his people to resist - as in the Warsaw ghetto - but he recites, before dying, the words of the Kaddish, in Hebrew.
But the true genius of "None Shall Escape" and its difference from "Judgment at Nuremburg" lie in the motivations of the characters.
In "Judgment" the accused criminal (Burt Lancaster) is a decent man.
Certainly that was the case for masses of people.
That is an ancient dilemma; what is a good person to do when his society turns evil?
Socrates himself, the great philosopher, faced the dilemma when his own students overthrew Athenian democracy and turned it into a bloody dictatorship.
(Spoiler: he did a Burt Lancaster) It is a vital question even today.
"None Shall Escape" addresses a more fundamental question.
What makes a society, or an individual, turn evil?The movie, needless to say, has no answer.
We see the proto-Nazi in his larval stage.
We see his metamorphosis, then his emergence as a fully-formed monster.
He is, unlike Burt Lancaster's later version, entirely unrepentant - a far more plausible end.
Many currents feed it: a need to belong - the alienation he feels as an outsider in the Polish community; a feeling of inadequacy - he sees himself as half a man since his war wound, for which he compensates by rape and brutality; a fragile ego which requires to be fed - he incarcerates his brother and kills his own nephew when he fears their acts will reflect badly upon him.
His last two crimes, prostituting Marja's daughter and shooting down his nephew, are imposed upon him by the whispered words of his subordinate (Kurt Kreuger).
We come perilously close to sympathy for the monster.
But in the end he is irredeemable.All this Alexander Knox brilliantly but subtly allows to come through.
Note how, in the second half of his characterization he indulges more and more in alcohol, as if he needs to steady himself to keep his life going.
Marsha Hunt too gives us a luminous and subtle portrayal.
At first she presents us a strong, determined woman.
By the end she presents us a lost look.
I see an earlier comment expresses surprise that Marsha Hunt could play such a serious role.
See the depth of her performances in "Smash-Up" and "Raw Deal."Marsha Hunt and Lester Cole the screenwriter (and also Art Smith who has a small role) were destroyed a few years later by the blacklist.
Ayn Rand and her cohort, the Motion Picture Alliance for American Ideas made sure that groupthink prevailed in American ideas.
They condemned "The Best Years of Our Lives" for some mild criticism of businessmen (allusions which if you reach for a handful of popcorn you'll miss entirely).
They condemned "A Song to Remember" (biopic on he life of Frederic Chopin) because he sacrifices himself for his country - instead of, as Ayn insisted, putting individual interest ahead of "collectivist" ideology.
Lester Cole slipped one through.
Gauleiter Grimm's brother (Erik Rolf) says in so many words that he is a Socialist.
Lester could have written in any number of reasons to have the character persecuted (or blacklisted) without mentioning the s-word.
Yet another reason to applaud the courage of "None Shall Escape.".
This is not a great movie.
You have only to compare it with another, later movie about the trial of Nazi war criminals, Judgement at Nuremberg (1961), which is a great if flawed movie, to see how far this one falls short of greatness.That said, however, this movie is very workmanlike.
There are no real surprises, but it moves along effectively and makes all the expected points.
The war criminal here, Wilhelm Grimm, very well played by Alexander Knox, is an understated monster with no surprising complications.
I suppose in 1944 there would have been no other way to depict him, but it makes his character predictable and not very interesting.
Hannah Arendt's study of "the banality of evil" would later show that these monsters, though indeed true monsters, were often not monstrous in everything, which made their monstrosity harder to understand.The final, short scene, in which the judges address the world after the war, might have made sense in 1944 before Germany had been defeated, but it seems very hokey now.It's worth a watch, but it's not particularly memorable..
German accents?.
Never been a fan of German soilders speaking perfect English.
A title borrowed from Bible (book of Jeremy).This is an unique movie among the propaganda movies which were made in those dark years :history-fi best describes its screenplay ,for it depicts events that are still to come,predating Nürnberg (and the movie which dealt with the trials).The ending is astounding ,as the judge leaves the verdict to all of us.The screenplay is very intelligent since it follows a man's destiny since the end of WW1 and the doomed Traité De Versailles and explains WHY an embittered crippled man can turn into a Nazi.When the first world war is over ,Wilhem's (a sensational portrayal by Alexander Knox) fight has just begun:his fiancée Marja (a sensitive Marsha Hunt)feels it " so she walks out on me and makes me the town's laughingstock".Admirable sequences : -The two women in the tall grass:Marja trying to learn what really happened to Anna.-Karl at the ceremony :Wilhem,following Cain's and Joseph's brothers ' footsteps ,sends his own brother to a concentration camp,because he may endanger his career.-Some may regret the romantic affair between Marja's daughter and Wilhem's nephew ,call it corny :but it gives the movie its apex: Willie ,walking down the Church aisles while throwing his Nazis emblems on the ground ,a scene you will always remember..
Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes.
Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense.
The film ends after the court sums up....The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand.
The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man.
Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest.
This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished..
A chilling portrait of evil.
None Shall Escape is directed by Andre De Toth, has a screenplay by Lester Cole, is based on a story by Alfred Neumann and Joseph Thann and stars Alexander Knox, Marsha Hunt, Henry Travers and Richard Hale.This film was released just a year before the end of the Second World War. It shows the war being won by the allies and the Nazis going on trial before the world for their horrific crimes.The film opens with several high ranking Nazi officers standing trial.
The first one to step before the judges is Wilhelm Grimm(Alexander Knox).
Grimm refuses to apologise for his crimes.
Through witnesses called to testify we are shown in flashback the terrible things he has done or ordered to be done by others.
We also quite interestingly see what led to him becoming such a monster in the first place, he certainly wasn't born evil but he became so over the years.One of those testifying against him include his own brother who Grimm betrayed to the Gestapo.
Other witnesses include Grimm's former fiancé Marja (Marsha Hunt)and Father Warecki(Henry Travers)the Priest of the town Grimm commanded during the war.Featuring strong performances and some quite graphic (for the time)and realistic scenes of violence this one stays with you long after it's finished.
The entire cast are superb and Knox is excellent in the lead role, I think he's quite an underrated actor who should be better known today. |
tt0104782 | Léolo | In Mile End, Montreal, Léo Lauzon is a young boy living in a tenement with his dysfunctional family, who serves as the unreliable narrator. He uses his active fantasy life and the book L'avalée des avalés by Québécois novelist Réjean Ducharme to escape the reality of his life. He feels his father is insane and denies being his son. After having a dream revealing his mother was impregnated after falling into a cart of tomatoes contaminated by an Italian man's semen, Léo identifies as Italian rather than French Canadian and adopts the name Léolo Lozone.
Léolo observes a neighbouring young woman named Bianca and imagines her singing to him from a closet, emitting a white light. His grandfather, who Léolo believes attempted to murder him by holding him under a pool, helps her financially and extorts her for sexual favours, revealing her breasts and putting his feet in her mouth. Léolo begins to fantasize about Bianca sexually and discovers masturbation. His brother Fernand, after being beaten by a bully and failed in a special education class, builds up impressive muscles. However, upon being confronted by the bully for a second time, Fernand is overwhelmed with fear and is beaten again while Léolo watches in shock. Finally convinced his grandfather is responsible for all of the family's troubles, Léolo attempts to lower a noose and hang his grandfather while he is in the bath. His grandfather sees Léolo doing it and is choked, before finally being freed, with Léolo injured in the process. Léolo subsequently goes to the hospital, where he is told his actions could constitute attempted murder. He is not charged, but upon later becoming ill, ends up in the same institution where many other members of his family have been treated at. | insanity, psychedelic, dark | train | wikipedia | This was only director Jean-Claude Lauzon's second film, and sadly he never got to make more than two; he died in a plane crash while he was preparing his third film.A beautiful, unforgettable work of art, albeit not one for the easily offended.My vote: 10 out of 10Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/Favorite Low-Budget and B-movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/.
Why was this movie made?A boy is coming of age in a totally dysfunctional family.
And what an inspiring thing it is to see a young boy having sex with a cat.I felt like taking a shower after watching this movie.
The boy, Léolo, finds his family so difficult to deal with that he escapes into dreams, fantasy, and writing.
There is a mixture of things like Tom Waits' "Cold Cold Ground," Tallis' "Spem in Allum," the Stones' "You can't always get what you want," and chanting.Much of the movie is told in a voice-over and sections of the novel "L'avalée des avallés" by the Canadian Réjean DuCharme are read - this is a book that Léolo is reading and it is the only book in his house.
A recurring quote is, "Because I dream, I'm not." I think the idea behind that is that we dream to escape reality, but your guess is as good as mine.I have to give this movie credit for coming out of nowhere to give us something like we have never seen before, but that doesn't mean that we will like it.
A beauty I feel was intentionally and successfully accented by the sordid scenarios stitched together.It would be an interesting test for someone to read the poetry from the screenplay first and then watch the film.
Would the words be strong enough without the sights, sounds and implied smells of Leolo's world to suffice?While I cannot honestly recommend this film (too many times I found myself hoping that a fade-to-black was final), it would be interesting to hear/read others' comments.
I caught this late one night on the Independent film channel i caught the first few minutes and was amazed when i had finally seen the whole thing I loved it rarely have i seen a more poetic or brilliantly told portrait of any person young or old personified on screen the film is French-Canadian but transcends language Maxime Collin's performance is stellar.
Echoes of the magnificent THE TIN DRUM reverberate through the stunning, lyrical French-Canadian LEOLO.The late Jean-Claud Lauzon's masterwork filters a dysfunctional family through the eyes of a dreamer who imagines himself to be Italian.The film is filled with gorgeous cinematic studies of childhood cruelty, sexual abuse, eccentricity, first love, first self-love, insanity, obsession, unusual uses for meat products, and familial bonds.As Leolo, Maxime Collin is without peer, delivering a truly amazing performance as a young boy on a difficult journey of discovery and exploration.A wonderful Tom Waits cue anchors the soundtrack and eccentric supporting performances bring vivid color to the drama.The film is photographed and directed with such amazing precision and passion that you can not help but be propelled by it.In every sense an original, emotional work, and one of the best films ever made.An obscure modern classic..
Sometimes it had me laughing (like in the beginning with the tomato, later when Leolo trades his flies for his sister's turd, etc); And then sometimes I was totally grossed out (like the cat scene).
There's definitely some "toilet" humour throughout this film.Almost always I watch movies for enjoyment and I try not to analyse too much because it often spoils my enjoyment.
(Maybe I'm the ignorant savage in the art museum.).I wouldn't really class this movie as a comedy although it has some humorous scenes (very dark humour).
I got rid of it for that reason: overall - just too sick and too strange.It gets ugly because a 12-year-old kid, whom the story is centered around, starts to lose it.
People think Hollywood is morally bankrupt....well, the rest of the world, especially in the film-making business, is worse and this is a prime example..
(In this respect in reminds me a bit of Milan Kundera's novels, during the reading of which I often find myself embarrassed for the characters that I am there intruding on their privacy.) I think what myself and my friends (then still young adults) feared was revealing something about ourselves--a kind of fragility and ambivalence in one's own self-relation that one normally represses, but which this film repeatedly draws to the surface.
The first time I watched it, in a movie theater, I just sat there after the film had ended, emotionally exhausted.
'I loved Fernand for his ignorance...because I dream I am not' I watched Leolo again on IFC few nights ago (after what is now more then ten years when I first saw it in a theater) and realized that this film was one of the catalysts for my entrance into the world of cinema.
I saw GUMMO before LEOLO, which is why I'm calling this review GUMMO part 0.And I have to say that what struck me first while watching LEOLO is the similarities between both films: a kid surrounded by crazy people.
The end result of the movie is like a narcissistic mobius strip: kid writing journal in his youth.
Just like GUMMO.LEOLO and GUMMO would make a great double feature for masochists of phony cinema.If you want to see a great Canadian movie about a kid and her dysfunctional family, watch LES BONS DEBARRAS instead.
Leolo spends his spare time reading and writing, but when he tries to interact with children his own age, he realizes how little he has in common with them.
Leolo still tries to overcome the horror of his life, but the family curse is something he can't evade.What's more saddening than the conclusion to this film, is the tragic death of the films director Jean-Claude Lauzon.
The tragic accident that claimed his life seems so ironic when considering Leolo's tragic end.I loved everything about this film, especially the soundtrack.
According to the IMDb, the actor who played Leolo, Maxime Collin, was about 12 years old at the time of the filming.
We can say that they are "just acting", but the reason pedophile behavior is wrong is because children are too young to know what is going on and in no position to say no to an adult.This movie reflects a film industry that encourages perverted and morally-reprehensible films, and an audience that just doesn't seem to care.
I shut the movie off, saving myself the torment of watching what someone told me was in the 2nd half: more masturbation, sex with animals, more people taking dumps, sex with 12-year-old-boys, and probably a few farts for good measure.American Pie 2.I'm sorry to say that this is the first Canadian movie I've seen that royally bit the big one.
Sadly, Lauzon died in a plane crash shortly after Leolo's release, but he left us with a film that has more heart, life and originality than 50 Hollywood films put together.
A film like this reminds us of everything that is wrong with Hollywood, in that it participates in none of the usual big-budget antics seen in mainstream movies.
The story about a young boy surrounded by his strange and bizarre family is full with poetry and magic moments.
My mother offered us a beautiful rose made of plastic.Supposedly to brighten up the room because a flower is an image,orrather, an idea of nature.The scarlet red is muted by the dust that buries it more and moreevery day.If only someone in the family would realize How unnatural this floweris with its little golden ''made in Hong Kong'' tag glued under apetal.Yet, all it takes is an effortless gesture from me to take off thetag and begin to believe in the illusion.But I refuse to touch it.I don't want to rest in the cemetery of the living dead.And now, my toes remind me I'm still here..."Why so unhappy?.
The films jumps from one time to an other (leolos birth, as a small child, as a young boy and to the present as an 12 year old) and the only help you get in following the story is a poetic voice over and an very nice soundtrack.
But once you have survived the first half hour, the film gets some more structure, and you fall into a wonderful story of a boy who hates his family because they are stupid, poor and mental unstable, but on the other hand loves his family for beïng his family.
It is tru, and leolo is way better than both very good film classics.
Jean-Claude Lauzon's semi-autobiographical Leolo, the last film he made before his death in a plane crash in 1995, is a powerful and unique masterpiece that, for me, will never grow old.
Dramatizing the thin line between art and madness, Leolo is one of the most unique films ever made: vulgar, audacious, imaginative, disturbing, yet deeply compassionate.
Though Leolo feels very personal to me, it is a film made for every outsider whose environment is so devoid of the things that nurture their souls, that, to survive, they must escape into a world of dreams, surviving only by being a spectator to their own life.12-year-old Leolo (Maxime Collin) lives in a squalid tenement in Montreal, Canada, yet to him, he is no longer Leo Lozeau but an expatriate Sicilian named Leolo Lozone.
Dreaming of his neighbor Bianca, a few years older than him, he navigates between his adolescent urges and the reality of his sordid existence, surviving only by resting his head "between two worlds, in the valley of the vanquished." He reads in the basement with only the light from a half-opened refrigerator door and writes in his journal whenever he can, finding his "only real joy in solitude.
A complex film, in French, of the genesis of a love life of a 12-year old in a miserable, tragic family afflicted by some unknown genetic disease.
With a fantastic visual style, reminiscent of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Fellini ("Amarcord", especially), but also a complete original, and a mind-blowing soundtrack (that includes Tom Waits and The Rolling Stones), Jean-Claude Lauzon created the two worlds of young Leo Lauzon (played by Maxime Collin; the name Lauzon is not a coincidence): his real life with his (very) dysfunctional family in Montréal, and his imaginary life as Léolo Lozone, son of a Sicilian peasant."Léolo" isn't, however, a cute story of a child with vivid imagination.
Do not miss this movie.One of the most original films I've ever seen.
The film's protagonist, Leolo Lauzon, is a young French Canadian boy who claims to be a son of Italy, a notion he accredits to a miraculous encounter between his mother and a tomato grown in Italy.
In his spare time, he escapes the daily dysfunction of growing up by writing eloquently on scraps of paper, which he then discards, and which are then read by a local homeless man: the texts serve as the film's narration.
Though essentially a story about growing up, this is a film that can be read from many angles, and whose thematic depths span everywhere between the themes of family, fear, hate, lust, and love.
Excuse the obscurity of that analogy, but if you watch the film I think you'll find that it applies quite nicely.Some might find Leolo alienating, others revolting, and some just plane weird.
I find this odd, as many of the movies I claim to love do not do this very same thing, which I think says a lot about the substance and strength of this film.
This is a heartwarming yet powerful coming-of-age story about a boy named Leolo, spawned by accident from a bizarre union between an Italian villager, a tomato, and a fat woman!Although he's a thin, almost sickly underdog of a kid, Leolo's spirit surpasses all.Warning: When it comes to "discovering ones' sexuality," American Pie has NOTHING on this movie!.
I really liked the films complexity, brilliantly directed, with nice background soundtrack..Leo adopts Italian name Leolo.
There are many dream sequences set in Sicily Italy, the country of his beautiful neighbour Bianca.Save for young Leo and his mother during the course of this film; their entire family are in and out of institutions for the mentally disordered.We move quickly between totally unrelated scenes.
The narrative consists of many flashbacks, but does follow a loose chronology of Leo's life, a boy who is so different from his (mostly insane) family that he carefully constructs a fantasy that explains how he is not Canadian but actually Italian.
Some people may hate it because it is too crude, but it is simply genius, and amazing the way to match the poetry with the image, showing the inner world of a kid who doesn´t want to be where he is, and he makes this possible by dreaming.
The segment, in retrospect, showed what the film was about, life as seen through Leolo's eyes.
I just this minute finished watching "Léolo" and thought I'd write a few comments here to begin the process of expunging this film from my memory - this film that I just can't imagine being called "comedy" (though there was a racy but funny scene at the very beginning describing how a "contaminated" tomato from Italy several days later accidentally impregnated Léolo's mother, as the boy's fantasy of how he came to be).The film is about a boy, Léolo (Maxime Collin) from a strange, dysfunctional family lacking in warmth, emotion, or any interest in even basic reading or writing.
They are more in than out of a mental institution.During the course of the film, young Léolo drools over the buxom Sicilian girl living next door, attempts to kill his grandfather because he blames him for all the family's problems.
Léolo masturbates himself using a piece of liver...which his mom later cooks up for the family dinner.Out of all this bizarre material, director Jean-Claude Lauzon, who died since the making of this masterpiece, has fashioned a complex, mesmerizing work of art that is semi-autobiographical, and at once a labor of love and virtuosic skill.
The director could have included a few of the bathroom scenes at the beginning of the movie to give viewers a sense of how this poor kid grew up, but it was unnecessary to interrogate people with these preverted images..
Be forewarned that there is a shocking scene late in the movie in which a live cat is abused "for the sake of"--art, the film, the story, whatever.I patiently watched the movie up to the cat scene, appreciating some of the interesting approach to storytelling and some of the beautifully shot imagery.
By the time the cat scene appeared I was already pretty fed up with the "I'm wallowing in filth and I want you to wallow in it with me" approach the director seemed to take (with a beautiful, poetic gloss to lure the viewer into this bait-and-switch movie), so it was an easy decision to turn the DVD off at that point with no regrets other than to wish the director had not felt it necessary to abuse a live animal and film the animal's obvious pain and panic for the sake of the enjoyment?
*Contains Spoilers*There are many themes presented in the stunning Quebecois film Leolo, an offbeat portrayal of a child growing up in a dysfunctional family.
Early in the film it is seen that Leo is rebellious and different than the rest of his family.
Leo's most interesting moments throughout the film come when he is alone.
The film ends with Leo alone and further isolated from his family in the hospital.
The theme of isolation serves Leolo well and helps Leo's character establish independence and appear more `normal' than his family.
Léolo is one of the most unique, and unusual films I have ever seen.
There are some particularly unpleasant scenes, including an attempted murder, the `rape' of a cat, by a group of beer swilling, glue sniffing, leather clad youths, and Léolo himself having a sexual experience with what appears to be a piece of liver.Throughout the film, these images are neatly juxtaposed with a poetic, and in places, almost lyrical dialogue.There is a lot to take on board in one viewing.
Light hearted entertainment it most certainly isn't, but it is ultimately rewarding, albeit as a sad reflection of a young boy's progression into sexual awareness, and eventual descent into the madness that, through his writing, he is continually trying to escape.This film walks a fine line between a sick and depraved collection of perverse imagery, and a poetic, gentle and yet devastating account of life.
The early tragic death of the director (who died shortly after the making of this film) prevented it from getting promoted, and the attention that it deserves.Why I think that Léolo has the recipes to perfect art:1.
It tells stories of maximum perversity that still can concern a healthy child, I don't think we are dealing with a demented individual per se.The film isn't just pulp, which it could be seen as because of the extreme material that, no doubt is supposed to shock, but there are a lot of moments and observations that ring true, like for example crazy, irrational ideas that somehow run in a family and which the children are forced to live by.
In the end all that is left of a human being, at best, is a story that is told and remembered for a moment in time.
He longs for his paramour Bianca, believes his grandfather is the source of his family's little tragedies amongst other things, and insists of being called Léolo Lazone, instead of his French-Canadian name.This is an indescribable comedy, textured with bizarre characters and unusual observations from the narrator of this film, young Léolo.
Witty, bizarre, and completely unique, this film takes some very strange turns along the way as we see how his family life effects him negatively to the point where he feels he doesn't belong anywhere near them. |
tt0029310 | Night Must Fall | Mrs. Bramson (Dame May Whitty) is an irascible elderly woman who holds court in a small English village. She pretends to need a wheelchair, and impulsively threatens to fire her maid, Dora (Merle Tottenham), for allegedly stealing and breaking china. Meanwhile, the household learns that the police have searched a nearby river looking for the missing villager, Mrs. Shellbrook. Dora then introduces her Irish boyfriend, Danny (Robert Montgomery), who works for Mrs. Shellbrook. Perceiving that Mrs. Bramson is a hypochondriac who only affects her need for a wheelchair, Danny is charming toward her and says that she reminds him of his mother. He tells Mrs. Bramson that he loves Dora and would marry her if he had a better job. Mrs. Bramson obliges and he becomes her servant.
Mrs. Bramson's niece and companion, Olivia Grayne (Rosalind Russell), is suspicious of Danny, but Mrs. Bramson dismisses her concerns. When Mrs. Bramson's attorney, Justin Laurie (Alan Marshal), arrives to give his client money, he warns her not to keep so much cash in her possession; but she dismisses his concerns, as well. Meanwhile, Justin, who is in love with Olivia, asks her to marry him, but she refuses because their relationship lacks any true romance. Justin leaves feeling dejected, and Danny sees Mrs. Bramson putting the cash into her safe. Olivia's concerns are heightened when she catches Danny lying to Mrs. Bramson about a shawl that allegedly belonged to his mother, noticing that the price tag is still on the shawl. Still, Olivia cannot help being attracted to Danny.
Dora discovers Mrs. Shellbrook's decapitated body in the forest. Though Olivia accuses Danny of the murder, he denies it. Again, Mrs. Bramson dismisses her niece's concerns because she has grown very fond of Danny. The rest of the household does not feel comfortable being in the house while a killer is at large, but Mrs. Bramson feels safe enough to stay with Danny. Later that night, Mrs. Bramson hears noises and becomes frightened. When she screams for Danny, he comes in and calms her down by giving her something to drink and lulling her to sleep. Danny then suffocates her to death and empties the safe.
Olivia arrives unexpectedly and admits to Danny that she was attracted to him in the past, but no longer. He references his poor childhood and being looked down upon being a servant, and threatens to kill her, too, so that no one can incriminate him in Mrs. Bramson's murder. Olivia said she understands if he kills her, but she wanted him to know that she is no longer drawn to him. But just then the police arrive, called by Justin when he could not reach Olivia by phone, and arrest Danny. As he leaves, Danny says, "I'll hang in the end, but they'll get their money's worth at the trial." Finally, Justin and Olivia embrace. | murder | train | wikipedia | Dame May Whitty also gives an excellent performance as the abrasive but gullible and neurotic Mrs. Bramson.A good movie doesn't have to have a lot of action and chase scenes.
Roz Russell, in plain-Jane getups, plays a definite third wheel to Robert Montgomery's charming psycho and Dame May Whitty's steely but dependent old battleaxe.
Whitty walks away with the movie even though wheelchair-bound; she's amusingly annoying and in almost every scene, but at the end, when panic strikes her and she skitters off into hysteria, she shows what a great old trouper she was -- almost the British version of Marie Dressler.
Russell plays the penniless and somewhat dowdy niece of crotchety, cranky Witty, a wealthy, feisty old woman confined to a wheelchair (possibly by her own hypochondria!) When one of the maids of the house is made pregnant, Witty interviews the guilty party (Montgomery) in order to scold him and pressure him into marrying the wayward girl, but instead is charmed to the point of hiring him on as an assistant and care-giver to herself.
Incidentally, in certain scenes and in some long shots, he resembles Jude Law (even on the video cover.) Witty is magnificent in her role as the bitter, lonely old woman whose ice is melted by the new surrogate son in her life.
The remainder of the cast is solid and helpful to the ambiance with the possible exception of Russell's rather gooey love interest Marshal (though there isn't much he could have done with that part.) Definitely showing its age and its stage roots, (and clocking in a bit too lengthily) the film is nonetheless entertaining and intriguing for the most part.
Interestingly, Montgomery's career as a leading man was not affected by this dark role, yet a couple of years later Cary Grant was prevented from playing one that was far less deranged in "Suspicion" (thus rendering that film's storyline somewhat ridiculous.) Montgomery even scored an Oscar nomination.
It's interesting to wonder whether Grant could have gotten one if his character weren't toyed with and how his career path may have changed if he had played the darker aspects (but he could hardly complain about his film success!).
This film is intelligent in every respect and requires the viewer to watch with his/her brain switched "ON." "Night Must Fall" is the epitome of an intelligent horror film.The first time I saw this film I was initially and completely mesmerized by Robert Montgomery's performance.
I always enjoyed his films, but after seeing "Night Must Fall" I began to pay attention to his acting in other films and developed a greater appreciation for his skill as an actor.Rosalind Russell is a talented, gorgeous actor/wit/comedienne, and is able to fully-utilize her skill in her role.
Following a grisly murder, a pushy stranger worms his way into a rich, old lady's remote household, much to disapproval of her uptight secretary.What a good touch when Danny (Montgomery) roughly shoves the house cat and then smilingly tells Mrs. Bramson (Witty) how much he likes the little four-footed critters—a neat introduction to his devious nature.
Now, the movie's key scene is in the kitchen where Danny boldly confronts Olivia's repressed attraction.
Still and all, the idea of Danny's acting out for the benefit of his "double"— the one that emerges in the mirror scene at the end-- remains a provocative one.Where Danny's blustery, overdone charm really works is with tyrannical old Mrs. Bramson.
At the same time, Witty steals the film with a rock solid performance, especially during that exhausting breakdown scene that even had me gasping for breath.
I watched it the other night on Turner Movie Classics.Robert Montgomery is amazing in this role.
He is totally immersed in this role.Rosalind Russell is not that impressive until about the middle of the movie.Her unwilling attraction to Babyface finally makes sense.The other great performance was by Dame May Witty.
"Night Must Fall," which was originally a play by Emlyn Williams, contains three fantastic roles for actors, and as a film, it has been beautifully cast, directed (by Richard Thorpe), and photographed.
What transpires is an intriguing mystery and psychological drama.Robert Montgomery was a wonderful actor, adept at many kinds of roles but most often cast in the light comedies so often made in the '30s.
Russell gives a beautiful, underplayed performance as an unhappy young woman, dating a man she's not sure she loves, attracted to this stranger and to the possibility of something interesting happening to her.
Witty reverse morality story of an obnoxious old woman (Whitty) who takes in a lodger/servant to help her (and to spite her live-in niece, Russell, who doesn't know her aunt is leaving her $100 in her rich estate).
Somewhat forgotten, uniquely entertaining "thriller" about the happenings of an old English cottage when news of a missing then discovered murdered woman surrounds household.
She takes orders from the wonderful Dame May Witty giving a grand performance as an imperious woman in a wheelchair trying to clutch on to anything in her life that will still give it meaning.
Her household is visited upon by a young man that has been seeing one of the servant girls - Robert Montgomery - and he manages through his "charm" to worm his way into her home.
Russell is very good, and Montgomery gives what might be his best performance.
His light Cockney-like accent is believable, and although I found his character despicable from the very beginning - that credit for making what many perceived as a charming local initially affable and then later very detestable is a credit to Montgomery's acting craft.
Robert Montgomery, (Danny 'Babyface'), "Lady in the Lake",'47, played a rather strange fellow who became quite involved with Rosalind Russell,(Olivia Grayne), "Wonderful Town", '58 who lived with her Aunt, Dame May Witty, (Mrs. Bramson), "The White Cliffs of Dover",'44.
The movie opened up the one-set play a bit, which helped vary the surroundings, but it still felt like a filmed play.
The two saving graces were in the performances of Oscar nominees Dame May Whitty and Robert Montgomery, both a pleasure to watch.
And, because of all the very serious plot problems, I am amazed so many people saw this as a perfect or near-perfect film with many reviews giving it a 9 or 10.What I liked, at least initially, was Robert Montgomery's characterization.
Likewise, at times the atmosphere of the film was very dark and foreboding--it really set you on edge.However, there was so much to dislike if you actually paid attention to the characters.
As it is, it just seemed stupid.Other things to dislike is Montgomery's performance late in the film where he transforms from smart and evil to silly--like a kid in a high school play trying to pretend to be crazy!
What makes him so good is that during the film you know he's bad but he doesn't come off that way.
It may have flopped at the box office for several reasons but certainly not for lack of quality: the acting is superb (the US actors actually making an effort to sound British alongside national British treasures like Dame May Witty, Kathleen Harrison and E.E. Clive), the pacing is vivid and the dynamic music score (by the almost forgotten Edward Ward) was nothing if not prophetic of things to come.
In an English village, roguishly Irish Robert Montgomery (as Danny) worms his way into the household of wealthy hypochondriac May Witty (as Mrs. Bramson).
Witty's beautiful straight-laced niece, Rosalind Russell (as Olivia Grayne), suspects Montgomery is the killer, and wonders if Witty is next.
Yet, Ms. Russell is strangely attracted to Montgomery, even more than handsome lawyer Alan Marshal (as Justin Laurie)."Night Must Fall" entertains greatly due to the Oscar-nominated "Best Actor" performance from Montgomery; he didn't get many roles like this one, but sure knew what to do with it when he had one.
At the time, Montgomery served as a romantic attachment to MGM's female leads; here, he shows he can carry a film with the best of them.
The film made several year-end honor rolls, topping the "National Board of Review" as "Best Picture" of 1937.******** Night Must Fall (4/30/37) Richard Thorpe ~ Robert Montgomery, May Witty, Rosalind Russell, Alan Marshal.
Mayer for this role.Montgomery got great critical acclaim, deservedly so for playing the homicidal and charming Danny who carries a souvenir trophy of one of his earlier kills in a hat box.
He worms his way into the household of Dame May Witty whose current companion, niece Rosalind Russell is getting irritated with the crotchety old biddy.
Dame May Witty who did the old lady part in London, New York and now Hollywood got an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Alice Brady for In Old Chicago.The other Oscar nod for this film went to Robert Montgomery.
Rosalind Russell is wonderful playing a demure, somewhat repressed secretary, working for her crotchety old auntie in a country estate, who suspects the charming Irish houseboy of being a killer; worse still, her odd attraction to the man stops her from alerting the police.
ROSALIND RUSSELL plays a low-key role in this tepid "thriller" based on a stage play and showing its stage origins from beginning to end.ROBERT MONTGOMERY is the nominal star with the central role of a deceptive serial killer who charms his way into a household run by crotchety DAME MAY WHITTY, superb as a wheelchair bound old woman.
Robert Montgomery plays the killer, May Whitty the wretched old lady who befriends him, and Rosalind Russell, frumped up to resemble a bookish school marm, the one who's got his number.
The suspense isn't of the "did he or didn't he?" variety, since we know early on that he did, but rather in seeing whether or not Russell's character, who both wants to see him get his and is enticed by the sexy danger he arouses, will end up being his accomplice or executioner.Montgomery received a Best Actor Academy Award nomination and Whitty was nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category.
Probably one of Rosalind Russell earliest roles finds her suspecting Robert Montgomery's cheery psychopath to the contrary of everyone else.
Robert Montgomery's great performance illuminates film.
Now to the movie, I've only seen it once, so I don't know how qualified I am to speak on it, but I do know that Robert Montgomery's performance as a psychotic killer is one of the all time greats in the category, certainly the equal in its sinister qualities to the better performances along these lines of actors like Lon Chaney, Robert Ryan, and Anthony Hopkins.
Yes, it is basically a filmed stage play, not really opened out, but the performances of the 3 leads are so magnificent, it doesn't really matter.Dame May Whitty plays a woman you love to hate very well in this one.
Mrs. Bramson, her character, is so nasty, smug and self-satisfied, that you can't help but cheer when Bob Montgomery's Danny smothers her good show!
-- Impressive!What can I say about Robert Montgomery's performance, except that I thought it was fantastic, and such a large step away from many of his roles, especially up to that point.
As good as Montgomery was in comedy, I would love to have seen him in more roles similar to this (as in The Big House and A Rage in Heaven).Rosalind Russell was the perfect choice for the role of Olivia Grayne, Whitty's niece, as we see her blossom from a backward, repressed, shy woman into a more self-assured, no-nonsenser unafraid to speak her mind by the movie's end -- both types of roles that Russell has always been able to pull off with ease.The lengthly scene in the kitchen between Danny and Olivia (the actors make a good pair) is very sexy, yet does not even contain a single kiss.
Olivia Grayne (Rosalind Russell), a prim-looking, bespectacled young woman in tweed skirts, twinsets, and sensible shoes, lives in a country house with her crabby aunt Mrs. Bramson (Dame May Witty) and suffers the indignity of being treated like a servant while employed as her aunt's companion.
Into their lives comes Danny (Robert Montgomery), a strutting Irish charmer whose silver tongue so enchants the old lady, she offers him a job.
It doesn't quite hold up to thriller standards by today's viewpoint but still atmospheric, and the set design is beautiful and the performances, especially Montgomery's, are well worth seeing.
If all you know of him is the fluffy romantic movies where he waltzed around pretty women and said things like, "I love you, and you love me too, admit it," do see him acting quite differently in this film..
I have seen this film a couple of times, if only for the sinister, multi-faceted performance of Robert Montgomery (Elizabeth's father), but, as someone previously noted, it is an old play and it certainly creaks from time to time.
Rosalind Russell is a prim, bookish young woman staying with Dame May Witty, her petulant, wheelchair-bound aunt.
Robert Montgomery appears on the scene as Danny, an Irish dandy who is dating one of the old lady's maids.
Due to some problem with the heads of MGM, Montgomery was given the role of "Danny" in NIGHT MUST FALL as punishment.
However, after 1937 Montgomery had a better selection of different roles in his career.NIGHT MUST FALL was a play about a small household in an English village, made up of Mrs. Bramson (Dame May Witty), her niece/secretary/punching bag Olivia (Roselind Russell), Emily the Cook (Kathleen Harrison), and Dora the Maid (Merle Tottingham).
The sharp tongued and harsh old lady finds herself liking the young man, and he is hired to work in the cottage.It's just as well for Danny.
But before they can check a mysterious large hat-box Danny brought with him, he silently enters the room and confronts them.The film has an excellent atmosphere due to it's concentration (except in a handful of scenes) on the rooms of the cottage.
Witty is wonderful as an apparently wheelchair bound old woman who has little warmth in her toward her niece (we later learn she hated Olivia's mother), and is only interested in her own comfort.
Russell plays Olivia as nearly neurotic - used to being her aunt's servant and punching bag, yet civil and trying to be of use and of warning the old lady.
Whether Williams used them or not, he created a great acting part in "Danny", and a wonderful melodrama in NIGHT MUST FALL..
About the same time, an itinerant young man shows up, charms the crotchety old lady who runs the household, as well as most of her staff, with the sole exception of her dedicated personal assistant, who is also her niece and who can't stand her.
A charming, handsome handyman (Robert Montgomery) wheedles his way into the home of a wealthy old woman (Dame May Witty).
Her niece (Rosalind Russell) is suspicious of him and eventually pieces together that he is a murderer the police are looking for.
Entertaining thriller with a standout performance from Robert Montgomery, who clearly has fun with his part.
Her character does a few things that are hard to explain, such as covering for Montgomery even though she knows he's got a severed head in a hatbox!
Living in very violent times when there seems to be an epidemic of psychopaths from every direction, I am especially impressed by Robert Montgomery's complex portrayal of Danny, a manipulating con artist with a psychological condition that is, under the circumstances, believably complicated and unpredictable.
With the exception of the World War II drama "They Were Expendable", many of Montgomery's films unfortunately never allowed him the opportunity to demonstrate his true skill as an actor as this one did.To a slightly lesser extent, the same holds true for Rosalind Russell here, who brings intricacy to the role of Olivia, another complex character, as she is simultaneously attracted to Danny while she also loathes him.
The niece probably felt the same way and may in fact have facilitated the final outcome as at least one other IMDb reviewer believes.Richard Thorpe, as director, and Edward Ward, as musical composer, accumulated hundreds of film credits to their names, and their extensive movie experience combined to produce excellent results here .
Always a great set-up for a slasher movie.Then Robert Montgomery shows up.
He's loaded with this fey charm and it's easy for him to worm his way into the brutal old lady's graces so that, after some initial protests, she happily hires him as something between a personal attendant and a son.It isn't as though Robert Montgomery didn't have problems, though.
Impressive character study of Robert Montgomery's role as the servant Danny.
His audience for the most part consists of the old lady and her niece Olivia (Rosalind Russell).
Olivia's character could've been fleshed out more to take some of the focus off Danny.I agree with those who note the pleasing look of the film--both interiors of the house, and the woodsy surroundings (sometimes aptly foggy) Actually, I expected some dark-and-stormy-nights.
Robert Montgomery (Danny), Rosalind Russell (Olivia), Dame May Witty (Mrs Bramson), Alan Marshal (Justin Laurie), Kathleen Harrison (Mrs Terence), Eily Malyon (nurse), Matthew Boulton (inspector), E.E. Clive (guide), Merle Tottenham (Dora).Director: RICHARD THORPE.
Just before Danny showed up a local woman Mrs.Shellbrook ended up missing in the woods and was feared to have been murdered by a escaped psycho from a nearby mental institution.
It seemed that the only person who suspected Danny of being the murderer was Mrs. Barmson's niece Olivia Grayne, Rosaland Russell, who like her aunt and boss Mrs. Bramson fell under Danny's spell.Danny for his part kept on pushing his luck in his relationship with Mrs. Bramson is getting in real tight with the wheelchair ridden old lady where she soon looked upon him as her new found friend sweet Danny the Sailor Boy. Even though it later turned out that Danny's wasn't a sailor at all but in fact a butcher in how he treated his victim, Mrs. Shellbrook, or later victims. |
tt0443496 | Edmond | Edmond Burke is a middle-aged Seattle businessman who visits a tarot fortune teller on the way home. She claims Edmond "is not where [he] belongs." He decides to make changes in his life, beginning by leaving his wife. At a bar, Edmond tells a fellow patron he hasn't had sex in a while and that marriage took away his masculinity. The man gives him the address to a strip club, where Edmond is kicked out by a bouncer for not paying for a stripper's drink. Now even more sexually frustrated, Edmond goes to a peep show; having never been to such a place before, he is disappointed when he realizes that he isn't allowed to have actual sex with the performer.
Next he goes to a white-collar bordello, but can't afford a hooker. Edmond needs money, so he plays a three-card Monte game with a street dealer. When Edmond accuses the dealer of cheating, the dealer and his shill beat him up and steal his money. Edmond becomes enraged by what he sees as the contempt, prejudice and greed of society. He pawns his wedding ring in exchange for a knife. He is approached by a pimp who offers Edmond a "clean girl" and lures him to an alleyway, where the pimp attempts to mug him. In a wild rage, Edmond attacks the pimp with his knife while hurling racial slurs at him. He leaves him wounded and possibly dying in the alley.
Suddenly euphoric, Edmond enters a coffee shop and tells a young waitress, Glenna, his newfound worldview of instant gratification. They end up having sex at her apartment. Glenna likes him at first, but she is soon frightened by his increasingly erratic behavior and calls for help. An enraged Edmond slashes her to death, blaming her own insecurity for her murder. On a subway train, he has an angry confrontation with a female passenger. Edmond comes across a church service where a minister preaches about respect and faith. Edmond feels the urge to preach about his own experiences, and as he stands in the doorway of the church, the woman from the subway recognizes him and calls into the street for the police. The responding officer pats Edmond down to find the knife in his front jacket pocket. Edmond is arrested.
In jail, Edmond begins to appreciate the security of his old life, but it is too late; the police have reason to believe that the knife found in Edmond's pocket may be the weapon used in Glenna's murder. The interrogating officer bluntly asks Edmond why he killed Glenna, to Edmond's shock and disbelief. He is sent to prison for her murder. There, Edmond is paired with a black cellmate. He likes prison because it is simple. He speaks of how he has always feared black people, but now that he shares a room with one, he can finally feel a bond. The indifferent cellmate then forces Edmond to perform oral sex on him. Edmond tells a prison minister what happened, but goes off on a tangent, shouting that God has been unfair to him. When the minister asks why he murdered the waitress, he has no answer.
Years pass. Edmond has cut connections with the outside world, refusing to see visitors. He talks to his cellmate, with whom he has developed a friendly relationship, about the human ego and how life should not be taken for granted. He concludes that by conquering his fears, he might lead a better life. Both men ponder the afterlife. Edmond then goes to sleep comfortably alongside his cellmate. True to the tarot fortune teller's words, Edmond might well have found the place where he belongs. | murder, cult, philosophical, violence | train | wikipedia | At first glance, horror meister Stuart Gordon would not seem the obvious choice to direct an emotional psycho-drama cinematic rendering of a David Mamet play, yet with Edmond, he displays a deft touch for the material and allows the actors to carry the day.Originally penned as a stage play, Edmond tells the story of namesake Edmond Burke (William H.
From there he begins a slow spiral into depravity and insanity that begins with telling his wife he's leaving her and progresses to an outback-like dreamwalk into New York City's seedy underbelly of bars pimps and prostitutes.Written in the wake of a divorce, Mamet infuses the script with racial discourse and epithets that are stunning in their caustic vulgarity as Edmond pours out years of pent up hatred on one of his muggers revealing a window into his shallow soul that only becomes more intensely evident as the movie reaches its conclusion.In the scene where Edmond tells his wife their marriage is over, he explains to her that she hasn't satisfied him spiritually or emotionally for quite some time.
Yet, after watching his progression trough the course of the story, it becomes clear that spiritually he has no soul, and emotionally he's a shallow but volatile cauldron of disjointed thoughts.The film is a tour-de-force for Macy, who is in every scene and morphs from a character of Caspar Milquetoast proportions to unhinged bigoted psychopath and back again by the movie's end.
As if in a wink and nudge to his own work, Gordon even manages to insinuate longtime stalwart Jeffrey Combs into a small but telling scene during Edmond's descent into insanity.By the time Edmond arrives at the end of that journey, however; at that place where he ought to be; I couldn't help but think he had merely wasted his life catching up to where his soul was long ago..
Macy's life begins to unravel, and he ends up falling into an urban hell where he encounters and sometimes gets rough with, or roughed up by, various seedy characters (this is supposed to be New York, but was shot in Hollywood).
Much like Mamet's Oleanna, also based on his own play, Edmond features a tour de force performance from lead actor and real life friend William H.
You have not seen a crisis of identity lead a man to the depths of the hell within himself like you do here.Gordon shoots the film with a bit of an off-kilter unease, showing the audience how fragile each moment is.
Where that trail ends may be surprising and also fitting at the same time, but if nothing else, it is the place he has been searching for his entire life.This is definitely Macy, Mamet, and Gordon's film, but it wouldn't be as successful as it is without an abundance of name actors in extremely small roles helping to keep the adventure going.
Mamet's wife Rebecca Pidgeon is great as always playing the wife Macy leaves; Mena Suvari and Julia Stiles are believable as two of the women he crosses paths with, both of whom are introduced as one thing but eventually allow their true colors to come through; and Joe Mantegna once again shows that he became an actor only to show the world how Mamet's words should be spoken.
The first time I watched it alone and found I missed a lot of important dialog and imagery that was crucial to the story because I was thinking about the previous scene...so when the end hit me, I found my head was spinning and I couldn't believe what I was seeing and thought I must have missed something.
For a film that approaches a gritty New York night with style and ease, with a scriptwriter as esteemed and knowledgeable as David Mamet, it was a shame to see some of the later scenes become a pulpit for Mr. Mamet to talk through instead of more subtle suggestion, but it is still far from making this movie avoidable.
With some of William H Macy's most powerful work, Edmond is still a triumph of a character based thriller, leaving me satisfied with it's profound conclusion..
A frightening expose' of madness, Edmond is one of those rare stories to come along in a long time that actually shows us a man's downfall with the straightforward horror and self-humiliation that Macy displays.
I wasn't really sure what to expect of this film going into it; it sounded nothing like the gory horror movies that Stuart Gordon made his name with, and I had little faith for him branching out after seeing the disappointing King of the Ants.
It may be presumptuous to say that this is similar to the great film Crash, but it deals with the same themes of prejudice and intolerance.Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator, Body Snatchers) takes a David Maumet (Ronin, Wag the Dog) play and has a stellar cast led by William H.
In a bravura performance he embodies the strange creature created by David Mamet, triumphs in the extended monologues that include hate, racism, homophobia, hopelessness, and fear and serves them up in a near stoic way that allows the viewer to accompany the dissociating man into the depths of hell - but with an absolutely solid ending.
It may not be an easy movie to watch, but it is clearly one actor's tour de force that deserves attention.Edmond (Macy) is a bored, frustrated, angry robot of a worker who happens on a fortune teller who reads his Tarot cards and tells him he is in the wrong place.
As he ultimately finds his prison cell the only place of rest he can tolerate, in comes a cellmate (African American of course) and after an abusive start, Edmond shaves his head, gets tattooed and the story closes in a rather tender fashion.The cast is superb: the vignettes of the characters Edmond encounters include Mena Suvari, Julia Stiles, Bokeem Woodbine, Rebecca Pidgeon, along with other less well known but equally fine actors.
Stuart Gordon directs Mamet's play-to-film story with the right amount of bluntness and dark, smarmy street situations.
Now, I know you'd be a rich person if you had a dime for every time someone said that about a movie, but Macy's performance as Edmond Burke, your typical, upper-middle-class white business man who goes over the deep end and delves further and further into it as the film develops, is so good that if you didn't know any better you probably wouldn't think the guy was acting.
I saw the high rating, read a couple of reviews and decided to spend my time watching this movie.Needless to say, I feel compelled to warn other people that this film is so overrated and has so many 'what the heck?' moments that you walk out completely baffled.Predictable - Could the fortune teller draw any more cards with swords?
The main character is supposed to be 47 but he looks like he is 57 years old.He acts as he has never been on the street before.Never been to the whores.Too bad,if money is an issue.And all those tricky card games are so hard to figure out especially when rigged.Is this the kind of guy who would somehow manage to get a pretty waitress in bed with him?They are sometimes artistic,but they never do such blatant mistakes.The street has its charms ,sometimes, but the idiots get punished.If you have to would punish some idiot what would you advise?Sodomy?Of course.Sodomy seems to be the fate that awaits those who are leaving their wives in order to wander the streets at night.Stay with your wife,or get sodomized,is the rule for the 57 years old idiots..
The story, courtesy of David Mamet, is comparable to both "After Hours" (less the comedy) and "Falling Down", only the nightly odyssey of this film's protagonist takes place in New York's red light districts and decaying alleys.
MACY for at least trying to get inside the poorly developed character shown here and make this poor soul believable.He's a middle-aged business man who isn't savvy enough to recognize a phony card game when he sees it even when a stranger gives him a clue, nor realize that he's being taken for a sap by would-be robbers in back alleys just waiting to pull out a knife or peep show personnel looking for an easy buck.
He's dull to the extreme and yet spouts a lot of psycho-babble talk that is supposed to explain his character.The only really intense scene and well-played scene is between Macy and JULIA STYLES as a luckless waitress foolish enough to invite him home after he's already exhibited a dangerously off kilter mind and bragged about killing a man.But overall, it's more like a cheap exploitation film that gets real bloody once Macy loses his cool and rages against society's manipulations.
It's a familiar refrain, the alienation of the psyche, done to death by a succession of philosophers and social scientists since the time of the ancient Greeks.This specific type of film has also been done before, in a fashion, with Falling Down (1993), a film which also exploits the violence that lies beneath civilization's veneer of genteel respectability and sociability.In short, as we begin to look over Edmond's shoulder, we find out he's about to explore and explode, all on one night, when he decides he needs more stimulation than he's been getting at home, on the job or wherever.
Falling Down, in contrast, is 113 minutes, allowing for more back story and character development; besides, as a film, Falling Down worked better, I think, as an exposition of one man's mental anguish and his response to adversity.Hence, Edmond is a deceit, in a sense.
He isn't nuts...just a person who decides he is going to change himself and everyone else all at once...only to find out, most people live in their own lanes and have their reasons for being that way...the underbelly side of NYC is the conduit that defines the notion that everyone is different, some good, some bad...Edmond becomes trapped in that lane and won't get out until he is vindicated on his terms...which spirals out of control.
"Edmond" is a good and very interesting film from writer David Mamet (adapted from his one-act play) and, amazingly, director Stuart Gordon (who made two of my favourite schlock horror films of all time - "Re-Animator" and "From Beyond" - and nothing of consequence that I have seen, ever since).
Mamet favourite Joe Mantegna, Gordon favourite Jeffery Combs, Denise Richards, the Goddess Julia Stiles, Mena Suvari, Debi Mazar, Dulé Hill, et al.Not a film for everybody, but I thought it was great.I'm not too sure about Edmond's image choices by the end of the film, though..
At the end of the day, making this film from a play and then note really creating no subplots or diversion such as full characters gives us the feeling were watching a play but it also shows that Mamet was too lazy to update his play into a movie.
I had a lot of interest in watching Edmond because it represented the collaboration between Stuart Gordon(director)and David Mamet(writer),two excellent filmmakers who have their beginnings in the theater.The combination between them was mediocre and not nearly as good as I expected.Mamet may not be very famous as a director,but he is as a screenwriter and playwright.He usually puts in his works great dialogs and a perfect characterization of the characters.In Edmond,he changed brilliant dialogs for cheap psychology.Gordon is known for being the director of excellent horror films(Re-Animator and From Beyond)and he has a beginning in the experimental theater.In Edmond,his precise direction cannot rescue a too simple story.The film starts very well but,after that,it looses force.I would have preferred in Edmond a deeper message and more intelligent drama.Edmond is an interesting movie but it is not totally satisfactory.Maybe,my expectations were too high because of Mamet's and Gordon's brilliant work in various previous movies,and I could not totally enjoy it.I can slightyl recommend it as an moderately interesting movie but not very satisfactory..
Playing like a more philosophical version of FALLING DOWN (1993) but done on a more intimate scale, this character drama resolves itself into a series of interesting vignettes where a good cast is allowed to leave its mark: David Mamet (who wrote the script, based on his own play) regular Joe Mantegna and a surprising amount of female roles (including, as is his fashion, one for Mamet's wife Rebecca Pidgeon) - with the most impressive, perhaps, being Mena Suvari (as a high-class hooker) and Julia Stiles (as an aspiring actress doubling as a waitress).
Always great dialogue from Mamet, a play Gordon has been trying to bring to the silver screen for years.If your into edgy dramas like American History X, then I think you will like Edmond.
One of the the best character-driven movies of 2006 (released in 2005), Edmond projects a sensational performance by William Macy that goes more deeply into the human psyche and mental and ephemeral glimpses of the raw, gritty, and brutal individual destruction possible.
This movie may be some 3rd year film maker's dream, and may speak to some people who applaud Macy for his acting or Mamet for his brave dialogue, or an array of other actors for their brave performances, but as a film it fails..
Unlike Falling Down this movie actually portrays a character, Edmond, which could exist in real life, and we understand what motivates him.
As the night progresses, years of social conditioning are slowly stripped away, revealing pent-up anger, resentment and bigotry, leading Edmond on a downward spiral that ends in madness and murder.For much of the time, Stuart Gordon's Edmond is like Joel Schumacher's Falling Down blessed with the dark fairy-tale vibe of After Hours, reason enough to seek out this brave and disturbing film from one of America's best 'unsung' directors.
Sadly, this unique atmosphere is not carried through to the final credits: although the night-time scenes leading up to the murder are quite mesmerising, with stylish direction from Gordon, a bravura central performance from Macy, and excellent turns from a talented supporting cast, the film loses momentum towards the end, eventually buckling under the weight of writer David Mamet's awkward philosophising (something which belies the theatrical origins of the work).Still, the complexity of the plot and depth of the characters means that there is plenty to chew over after the film has finished, for those who enjoy that kind of thing: is our destiny pre-ordained; why does Edmond continually haggle over cash (especially when it involves having sex with Denise Richards or Mena Suvari); what is the relevance of the number 115; would you 'get on his body'?
While I have no interest in talking poorly about writer David Mamet, this film is much like "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas, another white-collar man who goes through a mental break.
In fact, Edmond's original text has existed since the early 1980s at which time it was a David Mamet play, meaning that director Stuart Gordon has transformed Edmond to the screen very impressively; incorporating the necessary feel; atmosphere and cinematography.The film carries that same temperament American Psycho had in it being a piece that looks at identity within a capitalist driven world, which is then filtered through a close to psychotic perspective.
Other characters come and go but all are well portrayed.When the film ended, I realized that I did not move a bit and never wondered what time it was.There are movies I dream the night I see them.
Edmond might deal with horrific things, but it's not Re-Animator.Edmond would work as a short film; it's an excellent play, but I don't even really like Mamet's screenplay for the film--it goes on and on way past the point it should, though again this may be my problem with Gordon's direction.
David Mamet's play "Edmond" becomes on the hands of the "Re-Animator" director Stuart Gordon a strange portrayal about human degradation and the loss of everything, a man who lost everything and most important, his inner self into sex, crimes, lies and more; a man who went spiraling out of control believing this was the path he should be traveling by.
Macy playing Edmond does almost the same except this time his disenchanted character leaves his wife and his house, he doesn't love her anymore and he wants something new, something exciting in his life.
The film isn't fair with us by showing Edmond became the way he did; it isn't fair also because he barely realizes that his life was full of good things, it simply throws to us that he hated how the world was like, hated his wife and all.
Perhaps the plot was going way absurd or the way the scene was edited, something happened to me during this part; the plot twists to some bizarre things that to some might look ridiculous; another thing that bothers concerns about Edmond's racist attacks, it goes way too much, less could work effectively, and is something that shouldn't be here if the movie seems to demand from us that we like this guy (and we do, no matter what because William H.
Macy.But the thing with this movie (which is adapted from a play as I read after I watched it), is that you never really can sympathize with it's main character.
Macy director Stuart Gordon claim that Edmond does not, at any point in the film, go crazy.
Edmond (2005) *** 1/2 (out of 4) David Mamet adapted his own play about a lonely man (William H.
You can look at the box office records and the fact that the movie never played in over five theaters to see that this isn't going to be for everyone but if you like a strange and surreal character study then this one offers a lot of great things..
Macy is "Edmond", a man who comes to the conclusion that his life has been a terrible waste and it's time he did something about it. |
tt0109116 | Andaz | This film tells the story of a widow Sheetal (Hema Malini) who is left devastated after the death of her husband Raj, (Rajesh Khanna). She is left with a son to look after and teaches in a school. One of her students is the daughter of widower Ravi (Shammi Kapoor). The children become instrumental in getting the single parents to meet and fall in love with each other.
Andaz was one of the last movies for which the great music directors duo, Shankar- Jaikishan composed music together. Jaikishan died of liver cirrhosis on 12 September 1971 at the young age of 42. "Zindagi Ek Safar Hai Suhana" (Life is a beautiful journey) turned out to be the last song that Jaikishan recorded before his death.
Andaz also proved to be the last hit for Shammi Kapoor as a lead. The success of this movie is credited to the Rajesh Khanna Mania of the 70s, as Rajesh Khanna only appeared for 15 minutes in the movie, and still created a stir. However, Shammi's performance was well received and it is considered to have been one of the most uncharacteristic roles in his acting career. So also, Ajit played a sympathetic man who repents for his mistake not to accept Hema Malini as his daughter in law after the death of his son Rajesh Khanna. | prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0284110 | Fainaru fantajî X | === Setting and characters ===
Final Fantasy X is set in the fictional world of Spira, consisting of one large landmass divided into three subcontinents, surrounded by small tropical islands. It features diverse climates, ranging from the tropical Besaid and Kilika islands, to the temperate Mi'ihen region, to the frigid Macalania and Mt. Gagazet areas. Although predominantly populated by humans, Spira features a variety of races. Among them are the Al Bhed, a technologically advanced but disenfranchised sub-group of humans with distinctive green eyes and unique language. The Guado, which are less human in appearance, with elongated fingers and other arboreal features. Still less human are the lion-like Ronso and the frog-like Hypello. A subset of Spira's sentient races are the "unsent", the strong-willed spirits of the dead that remain in corporeal form. In Spira, the dead who are not sent to the Farplane by a summoner come to envy the living and transform into "fiends", the monsters that are encountered throughout the game; however, unsent with strong attachments to the world of the living may retain their human form. Other fauna in Spira, aside from those drawn from real animals, such as cats, dogs, birds, and butterflies, include the gigantic, amphibious shoopufs (which are similar to elephants); and the emu-like chocobo, which appears in most Final Fantasy games. Spira is very different from the mainly European-style worlds found in previous Final Fantasy games, being much more closely modeled on Southeast Asia, most notably with respect to vegetation, topography, architecture, and names.
There are seven main playable characters in Final Fantasy X, starting with Tidus, a cheerful young teenager and a star blitzball player from Zanarkand, who seeks a way home after an encounter with Sin transported him to Spira. To do so, he joins Yuna, a summoner on a journey to obtain the Final Aeon and defeat the enormous whale-like "Sin". Journeying with them are: Kimahri Ronso, a young warrior of the Ronso tribe who watched over Yuna during her childhood; Wakka, a blitzball player whose younger brother was killed by Sin; and Lulu, a stoic black mage close to Yuna and Wakka. During the journey, they are joined by Auron, a former warrior monk, who worked with both Tidus' and Yuna's fathers to defeat Sin 10 years prior; and Rikku, Yuna's cousin, a perky Al Bhed girl and the first friendly person Tidus meets upon arriving in Spira.
=== Story ===
The main protagonist Tidus waits with his allies outside the ruins of an ancient city. Tidus narrates the events that led to the present, spanning most of the game's storyline. It begins in Tidus's home city, the high-tech metropolis of Zanarkand, where he is a renowned star of the underwater sport blitzball, and son of the famous blitzball star, Jecht. During a blitzball tournament, the city is attacked by an immense creature that Auron, a man not originally from Zanarkand, calls "Sin". Sin destroys Zanarkand, taking Tidus and Auron to the world of Spira.
Upon arriving in Spira, Tidus is rescued by Al Bhed salvagers in the area, who speak a language that is foreign to Tidus. Upon asking him where he is from, one of them, Rikku, who speaks the same language as Tidus, tells him that Sin destroyed Zanarkand 1,000 years ago. After Sin attacks again, Tidus is separated from the divers and drifts to the tropical island of Besaid, where he meets Wakka, captain of the local blitzball team, when he impresses them with his blitzball skills. Wakka introduces Tidus to Yuna, a young summoner about to go on a pilgrimage to obtain the Final Aeon and defeat Sin with her guardians Lulu, a mage of black magic, and Kimahri, a member of the Ronso tribe. Meanwhile, Tidus joins to help Wakka in the upcoming blitzball tournament to find a way back home. The party travels across Spira to gather aeons, defending against attacks by Sin and its "offspring"—fiends called Sinspawn. After the tournament, they are joined by Auron, who convinces Tidus to become Yuna's guardian. He reveals to Tidus that Yuna's father, Lord Braska; Tidus's father, Jecht; and himself made the same pilgrimage to defeat Sin ten years ago. Tidus thought his father had died at sea ten years earlier. Following another attack from Sin, they are joined by Rikku, later revealed to be Yuna's cousin.
When the party arrives in the city of Guadosalam, the leader of the Guado, Seymour Guado, proposes to Yuna, saying that it will ease Spira's sorrow. At Macalania Temple, the group sees a message from Seymour's father Jyscal's spirit, who declares he was killed by his son, who now aims to destroy Spira. The group reunites with Yuna to engage Seymour in battle, killing him; soon afterward, Sin attacks, separating Yuna from the others. While searching for her on Bikanel Island, the homeland of the Al Bhed where they had surfaced, Tidus has an emotional breakdown when he learns that summoners die after summoning the Final Aeon, leading to his desire to find a way to defeat Sin while keeping Yuna alive. The group finds Yuna in Bevelle, where she is being forced to marry the unsent Seymour. They crash the wedding and escape with Yuna. The group is captured at the Bevelle temple, and are ordered to stand trial. After escaping from their sentence, the group heads towards the ruins of Zanarkand, seen in the introduction of the game.
On the way there, Tidus learns that he, Jecht, and the Zanarkand they hail from are summoned entities akin to aeons based on the original Zanarkand and its people. Long ago, the original Zanarkand battled Bevelle in a machina war, in which the former was defeated. Zanarkand's survivors became "fayth" so that they could use their memories of Zanarkand to create a new city in their image, removed from the reality of Spira. One thousand years after its creation, the fayth have become exhausted from "dreaming" their Zanarkand, but are unable to stop due to Sin's influence.
Once they reach Zanarkand, Yunalesca—the first summoner to defeat Sin and unsent ever since—tells the group that the Final Aeon is created from the fayth of one close to the summoner. After defeating Sin, the Final Aeon kills the summoner and transforms into a new Sin, which has caused its cycle of rebirth to continue. Yuna decides against using the Final Aeon, due to the futile sacrifices it carries and the fact that Sin would still be reborn. Disappointed by their resolution, Yunalesca tries to kill Tidus' group, but she is defeated and vanishes, ending hope of ever attaining the Final Aeon. After the fight, the group learns that Yu Yevon, a summoner who lost his humanity and mind, is behind Sin's cycle of rebirth. This leads the group to infiltrate Sin's body to battle Seymour, and Jecht's imprisoned spirit. With Sin's host defeated, Tidus' group battles and defeats Yu Yevon. Sin's cycle of rebirth ends, and the spirits of Spira's fayth are freed from their imprisonment. Auron, who had earlier been revealed to be unsent, goes to the Farplane. Just then, Dream Zanarkand and Tidus disappear, now that the freed fayth stopped the summoning. Afterward, in a speech to the citizens of Spira, Yuna resolves to help rebuild their world now that it is free of Sin. In a post-credits scene, Tidus awakens under water. He then swims towards the ocean surface, and the screen fades to white. | good versus evil, psychedelic, plot twist, romantic | train | wikipedia | Final Fantasy, considered by many to be the greatest video game RPG series ever, hell even having been one of the first and defining ones, makes the jump to the Playstation 2 with it's God-Knows-How-Many bits of power.
Video game RPGs were once known for sacrificing graphics in favor of a lenghtly story and intricate combat system; however, the final fantasy series has been gradually defeating that steriotype with each new game.
I mean, just look at Tidus' outfit!)Graphics aside, Final Fantasy X dwelves into new territory previously unseen in any FF game: Voice acting!
The principal characters are all handled quite proffessionaly, especially Wakka, as performed by John Di Maggio.The story of final fantasy is also quite complex and engrossing, as Tidus, the cheery Blitzball player of the futuristic fantasy land of Zanarkand is transported a thousand years into the future by an entity called "Sin." He finds himself in a quasi-medieval world of Spira, where machinery is outlawed by the religion of Yevon, and the land is ravaged by Sin as a punishment for mankind's missdeeds of the past.
As a character moves along, he can activate "nodes", which boost different abilities, using spheres earned in battle.Overall, Final Fantasy X is a big change from previous FF games, while also retaining familiar aspects enough to be a FF game.
A welcome addition, now every character can get in on a fight and gain points to use on the Sphere Grid.Last but not least, the storyline of Final Fantasy X is wonderful.
He's outgoing, adventurous, humorous and has a full range of emotions, making him feel more like the average guy rather than yet another tragic hero.In short, Final Fantasy X is an excellent game and shouldn't be missed.
Final Fantasy is easily one of the most celebrated game franchises in history, and the way Square Enix develop their games are almost suspiciously in the order of story first and game play second.
The love story between Yuna and Tidus, for video game characters, was true to the point of physical pain.
He uses words like 'traitor' and 'heathen' to describe the Al-Bhed, almost in the same way a Christian might describe a homosexual, or a Scientologist might describe a Suppressive Person.Through the actions of these characters, we discover that there is so much more than what meets the eye, and through thoughtful speculation we discover that Final Fantasy X is much, much more than a mere video game, and much more than an artful masterpiece.
We watch as their individual stories combine into an epic tale of love, camaraderie, sorrow, sacrifice, and triumph.In a business filled with shoot-em-ups and car crashes, it's wonderful to see a series that tries to stretch the form in ways that resemble art and literature, truly exploring the possibility of video game as an art form.As to the voice work that so many people complain of, I can only believe that these people were looking for big-name Hollywood stars to provide the voices of the characters--take a look at the resumes of the actors who provide voices for FFX and you'll find a history of American animation for the last 10 years.
I grew up with them and therefore I have a real soft spot for them.Make no mistake that is not me saying that they're all flawless, or even good for that matter but they do have that magic and that charm I can't dispute.Final Fantasy 10 following 7, 8 and 9 had huge boots to fill but it not only filled them but knocked the boots, the foot and the entire damn leg right out of the park.It tells the story of young Tidus, a Blitzball player who during a horrific attack on his home city of Zanarkand by a mysterious creature bumps into an old friend of his long absent father.
This begins the most epic adventure I have ever been fortunate enough to be a part of.Final Fantasy X IS a flawless game, from the visuals, cut scenes, outstanding score, excellent voice acting, combat systems and story this is the pinnacle of RPG's and remains my favourite game of all time even 17yrs after its release.This is one of those titles I could rant about at length, I truly adore it.
So many memorable moments, a heartbreaking finale, an addictive side game and SO much to it's credit.I'll resist the urge to fawn over FFX anymore and merely say that for me it had never been better, has never been better and I can't wait until something beats it because that'll have to be something out of this world.Flawless, masterpiece.The Good:Incredible storyLooks amazing especially the cutscenesWonderful scoreSolid voice actingThe Bad:Blitzball could have been a tad betterThings I Learnt From This Game:I can fall in love with a video game characterIt just doesn't get any better than thisIn Spira, hugging a living cactus is perfectly normal.
This entry into the Final Fantasy series came as the last entry in an incredible run of games in a very short span of time.
Sure, I sort of liked Final Fantasy X-2, but it seemed some of the things they did in that game were kind of lazy such as not changing the appearances of some of the characters and not really adding a few more locations to explore in Spira.
Still, I found that game more enjoyable than Final Fantasy XII (never played XI) which had a combat system I did not care for at all and characters that seemed like rehashes of characters in this particular game.
This one takes a bit more realistic approach as far as character design, but it works and this one also features actual voices for the characters during cut scenes and all through the adventure.The story has a young man named Tidus who is the son of a man who was a star blitz ball player (the popular sport of this world).
Soon Tidus joins this girl and her guardians as they go on a quest to Zanarkand to defeat the all powerful Sin as the summoner must go to various temples to gain the power to summon the final Aeon.This game does a couple of things differently than other FF games as there are several playable characters and like most FF games only a certain number can be in the battle, in this case three.
The villain in this one is a bit different in that it is almost a mindless creature (Sin); however, like many Final Fantasy games a true enemy will be revealed at the end and there is another villain named Seymour who just oozes bad guy from the moment you see him.
Yes, the voice acting hurts (due to the fact that the lips were modeled after Japanese and not English, unlike MGS2) but the great cast, incredible story-line and beautiful cut-scenes (CG and FMV) make this game a must own and true pleasure to play..
I like this game the best out of the series because it has good graphics, battle scenes, and a good story.
Blitzball is also a plus in the game, because I love to play it a lot when I feel like taking a break from leveling up a good bit.
And I have my reasons: Firstly, it has a Soundtrack that is better even than some great Hollywood Movies.Secondly, it has the best seven characters ever seen in a video game (each one has its own personality, I can't explain it well).And last, it has the best storyline ever seen.Actually I have more reasons, but I can't write all them.In conclusion, you MUST have this wonder even if you hate videogames..
FFX truly brings some great things to the table while keeping the best of the old school Final Fantasy.Sadly though, the story can't really hold up to the gameplay.
She sounds and acts like she's on life support or some kind of pain killer.The rest of the characters don't fare much better, but at least they have fairly good to great voices.
From the gruff and overly serious Auron to the charming and surprisingly non-irritating Rikku, everyone has an endearing personality of his or her own, and the love story between Tidus and Yuna is one of the most heartbreakingly believable things I've ever seen -- game, movie television, or otherwise.
Smith's /brilliant/ translation/localisation, the English voices sound as though the characters had been written for them Like any other Final Fantasy game, FFX is dark -- it's just a whole lot less subtle about it.
The relationship between the characters, I never encountered a game in which I loved the plot more than the game itself, even though the game itself is the best I have played - from the perfect battle system, through "strengthening" the genius characters through the "sphere grid," the weapons, Everything.
Or is it just my wild imagination, lol.As I said, this is the only and first video game that I've played that I actually thought was a work of brilliant art in the way the story was told and crafted.
Throughout the game, I found myself relating to and identifying with all of the main characters and their search for a deeper meaning with their existence, purpose and world view, became my search as well.Final Fantasy X goes beyond superficial entertainment and digs deeper and more extensively into human life.Wonderful movie, uhh - I mean game..
The game is fantastic and I love playing it.The characters, including Tidus, Yuna, Rikku, Lulu, Wakka, Auron, and Kimahri, are all very deep characters with definite pasts and experiences.
I say I am a very large fan of Square Enix and all of their games, but the best one is none other then Final Fantasy 10.This game has the best graphics, the best storyline, the best characters and even the best boss.
Sin.Definitely one of the best games they have ever made, apart from Final Fantasy 7, it has an amazing storyline, better than any game I have ever seen, and it is very challenging especially when you have to try to find all of the Legendary weapons and their Crests and Sigils.My favorite character in this game is none other than Tidus, only still a teenager, Tidus is an amazing when it comes to Blitzball, his swift attacks can knock out even then fastest of foe, and even has a chance against aerial enemies.
Especially when you want to plan what to do next.And if you did not know, this is the first ever (I mean EVER) game to have characters with voices, though the speech may be a bit slow, it is better then reading it off the screen like many other Final Fantasy games.Everything about this game is good to me, and probably to everyone that is obsessed with Final Fantasy as me.And this game deserves a 10 out of 10..
Final Fantasy x is one of the best game I played so far.
I like his character better than most of the final fantasy game I played he comes second from Cloud.
In the tenth installment of the series, Final Fantasy X introduces vocal dialog which is incredibly out outstanding, albeit the sync is not great.STORY: Tidus is the Zanarkand Abes' star Blitzball player, when he is sucked 1000 years into the future he meets various friends & fiends from all over Spira.
Perfect in each and every way - the graphics, the story line, the characters - the music - an interactive movie and a game all in one.
Final Fantasy 8, while some didnt think it could anywhere near rival FF7, was still a very very good game, and much better graphically.
Waking up, you realize you're in the middle of a plot that escalates just right to think that it indeed merits the game play time of 40 hours.All in all, Final Fantasy X is a must have for every PlayStation 2 owner out there.
Most won't understand Japanese and the voices but at least the screenshots and movie clips will leave you drooling for this games release.And once again sorry to new FF fans but the one great constant of the Final Fantasy series is that it never repeats a storyline.
This is an RPG that has everything: complex, colorful characters, extremely well-crafted storyline, great voice acting, exciting battle system and game-play, beautiful backgrounds, good music, and lots of mini-games..
I mean, the blitzball mini-game was awesome to play (I am a blitz whiz), the Final Fantasy staples return (chocobo racing, a character named Cid, a pretty-boy as a main character), but I thought the way they took a mythylogical civilization dedicated to machinery (Zanadu) and put their own spin on it (they called the civilization "Zanarkand" (pronounced "Zahn-ahr-kahnd)) and named the bad guy after a bad thing (Sins are the worst thing you could do, so why not call the big, bad thing "Sin"?) and employed a colorful cast of voice actors who did a beautiful job blanketing the storyline with more twists than a pretzel factory.
However, I think a game like Final Fantasy X would make a good movie.
Before FFX, I had never played or watched a final fantasy game (i did see the movie).
I, what the hell where they thinking, I have been expecting for six long years to play this game, I was only able to play the sequel when I was 14 and I loved it, it's really entertaining, has a lot of replay value, not annoying characters, and it FEELS like a FF, how can ANYBODY say that it is not a worthy sequel, is ten times better than the original!!!Have you ever played a FF besides FFX?
I don't think so, I mean, I don't "hated" all FFX, it has some great characters, awesome music, incredible videos, revolutionary battling and leveling system, but there're 4 things that ruined a HUUUGE part of the game:1 - Tidus: Oh my god, I think I never, EVER have seen a more horrible character in all FF history or in Video Game History than Tidus, MY GOD, I don't even know how to describe it, he just, cries all the time, acts like a retard, and the laugh, MY GOD his laugh, I have never seen a more horrible voice acting, nobody say nothing to him while he was doing that awful performance?
and every time thet get even MORE boring, I almost died doing the first temple, I couldn't believe a FF could have such a senseless mandatory test to pass.4 - Story development: This is BY FAR the worst aspect of the game, the game has a great story, it's very original and well thought, but OMG, how can such a great story be so horribly developed?, this was the most linear FF ever, and I'm not kidding, it's PAINFULLY linear, in all the previous FF you always had the opportunity to go back to the other towns, walk freely over the world, and it looked like an epic travel to save the world, in FFX the world feels like it is 20km long and the epic travels of Yuna happens in like a week, what-the-hell.To sum up, it is a good entertaining game yes, but it is also the worst Final Fantasy game yet.
I myself am a great RPG lover, and the best RPGs of our time are without a doubt the Final Fantasy series.The story begins with Tidus, a young blitzball player, who is looking forward to his brilliant career when a monster called Sin shows up and destroys his home town Zanarkand.
To do this she must travel to the ancient and sacred city, Zanarkand.Here comes my rating:Graphics and music: 2/2 Plot: 2/2 Game play: 5/6Final Fantasy X is another typical work in the series, with great FMVs and great music.
Having played every Final Fantasy game, I am able to say they almost all improve over time.
In December 2001 Square released there loved game series on their new game system The problem with Final Fantasy X is that the main character Tidus is not a interesting character at all.
I've played and beaten all the games and consider myself a Final Fantasy super fan and I've often said I'd give up naming characters if I could just hear them talk.The graphics were also awesome.
This is my favorite game of all time simply because all the characters are characterized perfectly by the actors playing them, it has the best adventure game plot that I have ever encountered, the way that all the twists and turns are carefully planned out just shock me and excite me even more to reach the conclusion of the non-stop entertaining game, and that it can bring out every emotion known to man in you while you're playing it.Final Fantasy X is a greatly marvelous game that sets an unbeatable reputation for video games everywhere.
Later just like his father he ends up in Spira 1,OOO years later and finds friends such as Wakka, Lulu, Rikku, Auron, Kimahri, and the wonderful summoner Yuna who embarks on a mission to defeat the destructive monster known only as Sin. This Video Game has wonderful characters that you are bond not to forget for a while including very great enemies.
The story is really interesting but I was confused though out the game.I liked the turn based battle system that's much like Final Fantasy 1, 2, 3 and Mystic Quest where you can take your time to plan to attack enemies.
My advice is play the other Final Fantasy 1-9 as they're far better than this hard tedious RPG game..
I honestly do think this was the last great final fantasy game to come out of Square before the series turned mediocre.
There's character voices (finally!), which the IN-GAME characters actually have different facial expressions which makes this look like a real movie.... |
tt0024866 | Beauty and the Beast | A widower merchant lives in a mansion with his six children, three sons and three daughters. All his daughters are very beautiful, but the youngest, Beauty, is the most lovely, as well as kind, well-read, and pure of heart; while the two elder sisters, in contrast, are wicked, selfish, vain, and spoiled. They secretly taunt Beauty and treat her more like a servant than a sister. The merchant eventually loses all of his wealth in a tempest at sea which sinks most of his merchant fleet. He and his children are consequently forced to live in a small farmhouse and work for their living.
Some years later, the merchant hears that one of the trade ships he had sent off has arrived back in port, having escaped the destruction of its compatriots. Before leaving, he asks his children if they wish for him to bring any gifts back for them. The sons ask for weaponry and horses to hunt with, whereas his oldest daughters ask for clothing, jewels, and the finest dresses possible as they think his wealth has returned. Beauty is satisfied with the promise of a rose as none grow in their part of the country. The merchant, to his dismay, finds that his ship's cargo has been seized to pay his debts, leaving him penniless and unable to buy his children's presents.
During his return, the merchant becomes lost during a storm. Seeking shelter, he enters a dazzling palace. A hidden figure opens the giant doors and silently invites him in. The merchant finds tables inside laden with food and drink, which seem to have been left for him by the palace's invisible owner. The merchant accepts this gift and spends the night there. The next morning, as the merchant is about to leave, he sees a rose garden and recalls that Beauty had desired a rose. Upon picking the loveliest rose he can find, the merchant is confronted by a hideous "Beast" which tells him that for taking his most precious possession after accepting his hospitality, the merchant must die. The merchant begs to be set free, arguing that he had only picked the rose as a gift for his youngest daughter. The Beast agrees to let him give the rose to Beauty, but only if the merchant or one of his daughters will return.
The merchant is upset but accepts this condition. The Beast sends him on his way, with wealth, jewels and fine clothes for his sons and daughters, and stresses that Beauty must never know about his deal. The merchant, upon arriving home, tries to hide the secret from Beauty, but she pries it from him. Her brothers say they will go to the castle and fight the Beast, but the merchant dissuades them, saying they will stand no chance against the monster. Beauty then agrees to go to the Beast's castle. The Beast receives her graciously and informs her that she is now mistress of the castle, and he is her servant. He gives her lavish clothing and food and carries on lengthy conversations with her. Every night, the Beast asks Beauty to marry him, only to be refused each time. After each refusal, Beauty dreams of a handsome prince who pleads with her to answer why she keeps refusing him, to which she replies that she cannot marry the Beast because she loves him only as a friend. Beauty does not make the connection between the handsome prince and the Beast and becomes convinced that the Beast is holding the prince captive somewhere in the castle. She searches and discovers multiple enchanted rooms, but never the prince from her dreams.
For several months, Beauty lives a life of luxury at the Beast's palace, having every whim catered to by invisible servants, with no end of riches to amuse her and an endless supply of exquisite finery to wear. Eventually, she becomes homesick and begs the Beast to allow her to go see her family. He allows it on the condition that she returns exactly a week later. Beauty agrees to this and sets off for home with an enchanted mirror and ring. The mirror allows her to see what is going on back at the Beast's castle, and the ring allows her to return to the castle in an instant when turned three times around her finger. Her older sisters are surprised to find her well fed and dressed in finery. Beauty tries to share the magnificent gowns and jewels the Beast gave her with her sisters, but they turn into rags at her sisters' touch, and are restored to their splendour when returned to Beauty, as the Beast meant them only for her. Her sisters are envious when they hear of her happy life at the castle, and, hearing that she must return to the Beast on a certain day, beg her to stay another day, even putting onion in their eyes to make it appear as though they are weeping. They hope that the Beast will be angry with Beauty for breaking her promise and eat her alive. Beauty's heart is moved by her sisters' false show of love, and she agrees to stay.
Beauty begins to feel guilty about breaking her promise to the Beast and uses the mirror to see him back at the castle. She is horrified to discover that the Beast is lying half-dead from heartbreak near the rose bushes from which her father plucked the rose, and she immediately uses the ring to return to the Beast.
Beauty weeps over the Beast, saying that she loves him. When her tears strike him, the Beast is transformed into the handsome prince from Beauty's dreams. The Prince informs her that long ago a fairy turned him into a hideous beast after he refused to let her in from the rain and that only by finding true love, despite his ugliness, could the curse be broken. He and Beauty are married and they live happily ever after together. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | Mary Jane???.
There is some controversy in the world of Looney Tune & Merrie Melody fandom if the main character of this short, the little girl who enters The Land of Slumber, is indeed the long-running comic book character Mary Jane.Sniffles the mouse was once described as "Chuck Jones' first star", but he only appeared in about a dozen Merrie Melodies and one Looney Tune in the 1930s and 1940s.
He did have a cameo appearance in 1994's "Space Jam", but the fans who remember him at all generally remember his backup feature in the comic book "Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies" (later simply "Looney Tunes") that ran continuously from 1941 thru 1961, a run matched only by Bugs and Porky.
The feature had him teamed up with a little girl named Mary Jane, and in fact after the first issue was re-titled "Sniffles and Mary Jane".
(In the 1950s this was renamed "Mary Jane and Sniffles".)So is the "Beauty" of "Beauty and the Beast" in fact Mary Jane?
The evidence in its favor includes: 1) The little girl looks like Mary Jane as she was drawn in the very first comic books; 2) She enters Dreamland the same way in the short and the comics, by having magic sand sprinkled on her; 3) In her adventures, she shrinks to toy (or mouse) size; and 4) In her adventures, toys and dolls come to life.
Furthermore, although she is not called (or credited as) "Mary Jane" in the short, she is not called any other name either, so the short does not rule out that she MIGHT be the Mary Jane of comic fame.In fairness, the creator of Mary Jane for the comics, editor Chase Craig (who named the character after his wife) never claimed to have seen "Beauty and the Beast".
(In fact, when he developed the series, only three "Sniffles" cartoons existed and he had only seen one of them!)Officially, the similarity of "Beauty" to Mary Jane is considered a bit of a coincidence, nothing more.
But fans will always wonder if perhaps, in the back of the creator's mind, the little girl with the late night snack became Sniffles' longstanding friend.(For the record, both the little girl and her tin soldier friend from this short make a return appearance in "Those Beautiful Dames" later that same year.).
In Toyland.
Love animation, it was a big part of my life as a child, particularly Disney, Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry, and still love it whether it's film, television or cartoons.
Actually appreciate it even more through young adults eyes, due to having more knowledge of it, various animation styles, studios, directors and how it all works.'Beauty and the Beast' is not one of Friz Freleng's, a director who did many great cartoons and a director held in high admiration by me, best, not being one of his funniest, wittiest or freshest.
For relatively early Freleng, 'Beauty and the Beast' is worth watching though he would do much better later.
It is never what one would call properly hilarious (but is never unfunny), Freleng's later efforts show more evenness and confidence in directing and the story.
It is quite thin in terms of story and the structure is basically an excuse to string the events along.
It is not terribly imaginative and occasionally momentum is not always there.
Not all the characters are given enough time or personality to properly shine.However, many of the characters are fun, Humpty Dumpty in particular, and the protagonist is appealing.The cartoon has a lot of very amusing moments, especially with Humpty Dumpty and the ducks, some variety and there is a good deal of liveliness.
The conflict is nicely done and while there is a good deal of cuteness and charm the sentimentality doesn't kick in too much.Animation is very good, it's fluid in movement, crisp in shading, vibrant and very meticulous in detail.
The music is lovely on the ears, lushly orchestrated, full of lively energy and characterful in rhythm, not only adding to the action but also enhancing it.Overall, worth watching.
7/10 Bethany Cox. Fairy Tale Fantasy.
Leon Schlesinger reportedly resisted making the jump to color, since it was an added expense.
This was a factor as to why Harman and Ising walked out on him.
Disney made the jump to color in 1932 and Harman and Ising immediately started upon arrival to MGM in mid 1934.Schlesinger's first color short was HONEYMOON HOTEL which was processed in Cinecolor and released in 1934, just prior to the enforcement of the censorship code.
The next color release was a few months later.In contrast to the adult nature of their first entry in color, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST delves into a child's dreamland.
A little girl is visited by the sandman and is taken away to a wonderful fantasy land with many nursery rhyme characters.The premise was likely inspired by the Silly Symphony LULLABY LAND, which came out the previous year.
This short doesn't have the lush visuals, especially due to the limited palette that cinecolor offered.
However this still manages to be a very charming cartoon.
It is interesting that the Schlesinger studio produced a cartoon like this, but cartoons like this were in vogue during this timeframe..
"He wants to snatch her; he's such an awful curse!
. Warner Bros.' prophetic Animated Shorts Seers division artists warn America in song here about the advent of self-confessed serial finger rapist Don Juan Rump.
Warner's prophets predicted that America would be DOOMED if a court-documented marital sexual assaulter was allowed to squat--no matter how briefly--in Our People's White House.
Warner had no stronger term to apply to such a thrice-wed Deplorable than "Beast," so naturally the Looney Tunes crew drew Rump as one of the title characters in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.
To drive home their point about how vulnerable ALL Americans would be IF the Public Majority who'd never actually vote for a Game-Show-Host-in-Chief ALLOWED a Red Commie KGB Strongman such as Vlad "The Mad Russian" Putin to rig Our Election utilizing Our Racist Constitution's vestigial "Electoral College" Self-Destruct Clause as a glorified Suicide Pact to inaugurate his Geriatric Goon Puppet as a Leader of the Free World, Warner's cartoonists show their youthful at-risk Flower of American Womanhood landing in Trump Land WITH A BARE BUTT (1:49).
Even AFTER she seems to wake up in her own bed from the nightmare of Rump in power, there's a gratuitous final shot of her butt again being nude and vulnerable even there (7:22)!
This is Warner's way of reminding We Americans of the 21st Century that Chester-the-Molester Rump (he'd be on the National Sex Offender Registry if he belonged to any OTHER political party besides that of the Rich People!) bought BEAUTY Pageants just so he could waltz UNANNOUNCED into female dressing rooms full of naked teen girls, as he's confessed (or bragged) on tape many times.
By purging the screen of all of this BEAST's familiars (7:12) at the end, Warner is warning us that if we DO allow Rump to take power, there must be Swift Justice for EVERY card-carrying member of his Rich People Party when America comes to her senses.
Their ill-gotten weapons, property, and other assets MUST be seized for equal redistribution to the majority of normal, average Americans who would never enable a sex pervert in all his acts of High Treason through Jan. 31, 2017, and all the future atrocities that continue to occur daily.
After the 50 million Deplorables, from Queen of Spades Melancholia Rump, Queen of Diamonds Iwanna Rump, and Queen of Clubs Quicksand Causeway right on down, are stripped of their unearned goods, they must ALL be deported to Canada for a seven-generation cooling off period.
Otherwise, the next bare derriere exposed to further abuse may be YOURS!.
Cute, if rather simple, short and the second Cinecolor short done by Warner Brothers.
This short is rather cute, but not terribly remarkable, save for the novelty found in its being the second cartoon Warner Brothers did in a process called Cinecolor.
As I want to talk about the short, there will be spoilers: A little girl gets out of bed late at night and eats a great deal of food, including the better part of a box of candy, before the "Sandman" comes in and sprinkles sand in her eyes, causing her to fall asleep.
She soon finds herself in a combination toy land/fairy tale book.This struck me as a fairly predictable, run-of-the-mill cartoon, with the best gag involving Humpty Dumpty and a line of dancing toy ducks.
Everything else is fairly mundane, basically girl meets boy, girl kisses boy, girl gets grabbed by monster, boy tries to save girl, girl wakes up from a nightmare-the end.
The animation is nice, even interesting in places, but, frankly, Warner's animation department had done better work then this prior to this cartoon and within two years had seriously improved over this by a country mile.
Worth watching, in any case. |
tt0084395 | Class Reunion | The novel is about 43-year-old Dr. Ernst Sebastian, a lawyer who works as an Untersuchungsrichter (investigating judge) in the fictional town of Sankt Nikolaus during 1927. One Saturday afternoon a middle-aged man called Franz Adler, who has been arrested for the murder of a prostitute, is brought before him. During the interview—a preliminary hearing during which the two men are alone in Sebastian's office—Sebastian recognizes Adler as his old classmate, who attended the secondary school in Sankt Nikolaus, which was then in Austria-Hungary, for two years when they were both 16 and 17. Adler, however, who appears to him fearful and beaten by life, does not seem to recognize the judge, and Sebastian decides to postpone any private talk with Adler till the following Monday.
As it happens, that same Saturday night Sebastian attends a class reunion (the Abituriententag of the title) occasioned by the 25th anniversary of his Matura (Class of '02), a meeting he knows he will regret going to as it will bring back both a plethora of unpleasant memories and a confrontation with the bourgeois self-satisfaction of his former classmates.
That night, Sebastian does not go to sleep. Rather, upset by his chance meeting with Adler and the enervating talk at the class reunion, he sits down at his desk and writes down a confession in shorthand, which on the following morning turns out to be indecipherable to everyone including himself—except to the reader, who can read Sebastian's confession as the middle part of the novel).
At the age of 16, Sebastian, on the command of his father, the highest-ranking judge in Austria-Hungary, has to leave the prestigious Schottengymnasium in Vienna due to poor grades and is forced to continue his education in the provincial town of Sankt Nikolaus, where he stays with two aunts of his. A mediocre pupil, he tries desperately to attract the attention of his new classmates, who turn out to be very reluctant to accept the new boy into their close-knit community. In the course of one school year, however, Sebastian succeeds in tempting, and eventually seducing, many of his classmates to truancy, stay up late on a regular basis, lie to their teachers and parents, drink excessive amounts of alcohol, and eventually associate with prostitutes.
In particular, although he is aware of his mediocre performance at school and also of his own abominable character, Sebastian, rather than repent for his sins, sets out to conquer the intellectual superiority of his classmate Adler, a red-haired Jew who writes dramas and philosophical treatises, though he is only 17. To get rid of his rival once and for all, Sebastian pushes him into forging a document. The truth comes out, and before Adler can be expelled, Sebastian helps him escape to Germany, thus ensuring that his own part in the crime will never be revealed.
On the Monday following the class reunion, Adler is again brought before Sebastian. This time the judge does reveal his identity to Adler, but on closer inspection of the file in front of him he finds out that the man's assertion that he has never gone to school in Sankt Nikolaus is true. | murder, prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0301196 | Die Hard | On Christmas Eve, NYPD Detective John McClane arrives in Los Angeles. He aims to reconcile with his estranged wife, Holly, at the Christmas party of her employer, the fictional Nakatomi corporation. McClane is driven to the party by Argyle, an airport limousine driver. While McClane changes clothes, the party is disrupted by the arrival of a German terrorist named Hans Gruber and his heavily armed team: Karl, Tony, Franco, Theo, Alexander, Marco, Kristoff, Eddie, Uli, Heinrich, Fritz, and James. The group seizes the tower and secures those inside as hostages, except for McClane, who manages to slip away.
Gruber singles out Nakatomi executive Joseph Takagi, and says he intends to teach the corporation a lesson for its greed. Isolated from the hostages, Gruber interrogates Takagi for the code to the building's vault and reveals that his endgame is to attempt to steal $640 million in bearer bonds in the vault, with terrorism merely being used as a distraction. Takagi refuses to cooperate and is murdered by Gruber. McClane, who had been secretly watching, accidentally gives himself away and is pursued by Tony. McClane manages to kill Tony, pocketing his weapon and radio, which he uses to contact the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). As Sgt. Al Powell is sent to investigate, Gruber sends Heinrich and Marco to stop McClane, who kills them both. Powell arrives and is greeted by Eddie, who is posing as a concierge; he finds nothing strange about the building. As Powell turns to leave, McClane drops Marco's corpse onto his patrol car to get his attention. Powell summons the LAPD, who lays siege to the building. McClane steals Heinrich's bag containing C-4 explosives and detonators.
James and Alexander use anti-tank missiles to knock out a SWAT Greyhound armored car, but before they can finish its destruction, they are killed when their building floor is blown up by C-4 that McClane dropped. Holly's coworker Harry Ellis attempts to mediate between Hans and McClane for the return of the detonators. McClane refuses to return them, causing Gruber to murder Ellis. While checking explosives attached to the roof, Gruber is confronted by McClane. Gruber passes himself off as an escaped hostage and is given a gun by McClane. Gruber attempts to shoot McClane but finds that the gun is empty. Before McClane can act, Karl, Franco, and Fritz arrive. McClane kills Fritz and Franco, but is forced to flee, leaving the detonators behind.
FBI agents arrive and take command of the police situation outside, ordering the building's power be shut off. The loss of power—as Gruber had anticipated—disables the vault's final lock. Gruber demands that a helicopter arrive on the roof for transport, and the FBI prepare to double-cross him by sending helicopter gunships to take down the terrorists. However, McClane discovers that Gruber's true intention is to detonate the explosives on the roof, thus faking the deaths of his men and himself so they can escape with the bearer bonds, a plan that would also kill the hostages. Meanwhile, Gruber sees a news report by intrusive reporter Richard Thornburg that features McClane's children, and deduces that McClane is Holly's husband. The criminals order the hostages to the roof, but Gruber takes Holly with him to use against McClane. McClane defeats Karl in a fight, kills Uli, and sends the hostages back downstairs before the explosives detonate, destroying the roof and the FBI helicopter.
Theo goes to the parking garage to retrieve their getaway vehicle but is knocked unconscious by Argyle, who had been trapped in the garage throughout the siege. A weary McClane finds Holly with Gruber and his remaining men, and knocks Kristoff unconscious. McClane surrenders his machine gun to spare Holly, but then distracts Gruber and Eddie by laughing, allowing him to grab a concealed pistol (still with two bullets) taped to his back. McClane shoots Gruber in the shoulder and then kills Eddie with his final shot. Gruber crashes through a window, and while he momentarily saves himself by grabbing Holly's watch, McClane removes it and Gruber falls to his death.
McClane and Holly are escorted from the building and meet Powell in person. Karl emerges from the building disguised as a hostage and attempts to shoot McClane, but is gunned down by Powell. Argyle crashes through the parking garage door in the limo. Thornburg arrives and attempts to interview McClane, but is punched by Holly. McClane and Holly are then driven away by Argyle. | good versus evil, suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | Excellent game for its time. 10/10, Console: NESStoryline: For New York City cop, John McClane, facing Christmas without his estranged wife and two children was too much to take. Armed with presents, McClane boards a plane for Los Angeles, hoping to patch up his marriage.McClane arrives at his wife's office building, the newly constructed Nakatomi Plaza, and relaxes while she and her fellow co-workers celebrate Christmas and their most successful year in the history of the company.
But, success has its drawbacks. Enter Hans Gruber, the stylish and cool terrorist who has left behind his once political agenda for a more profitable one--stealing $600 million in negotiable bearer bonds from Nakatomi's vault. What follows is a truly epic confrontation between a team of highly trained, armed and motivated terrorists and a barefoot cop armed with his 9mm, his wits and his determination.NES Version Gameplay: Made in early 1990 for the Nintendo Entertainment System(NES), this was the very first Die Hard game every. Its a overhead view with John McClane as a little sprite guy withone leg that moves so it looks as if he has two. The graphics are okay but could be better. The areas consist of tiles to show that its a floor, and a slight 3D look. There are 40 terrorists in the building, which is composed of seven floors. You can only visit four at first - you start at the 32nd Floor (or 31st, maybe something else on Advanced Difficulty), which has two enemies to start out with, and another will eventually come to help. With the elevator you can visit floors 30-34. However, the terrorists have hostages on the 30th floor, so you can't go there until they're out. From the 34th Floor you can go up the stairs to the 35th floor. You can go to the roof from there, but you need a key from an enemy on that floor. The other floor is the 4th floor, which you can reach via express elevator before the 2nd lockdown. This is where other objectives come into play - you can do other things as well. You can blow up the main computer with a rocket, contact the police, all things that may help you. You could go through the game straightforward, but remember this - There are multiple endings.There are several weapons to use. You start out with a Hand gun, if you kill a certian enemy you get a machine gun. Theres C-4, and you need the detonators to use them. When you kill a enemy, they usually have several goodies to get. Like Stun Grenades and machine guns. Power ups come in a form of a pop-can and will give you alittle health which is the side bar on the top left side.The 1st ending is easy, all you need to do is die. Theres 2 other endings if you complete the game, one is the bad guys getting away and the other is the ending of the movie.When all of the locks are down, you must go to the 30th floor, where you will battle with the enemies you may have missed (the staircases are safety areas - if you like, you can fight all 40 enemies after standing in the stairwell the whole game), and the leader of the group.DOS Version Gameplay: In this version, they used a 3D point of view, you move around in a linear format, killing every bad guy you find. Inbetween levels were a scene from the movie. McClane has a weird redish shirt and strange bajamma looking pants. The camera is lowered to a back of McClane view, and the graphics are alittle better with more detail and 3D graphics. |
tt0233043 | Destinos: An Introduction to Spanish | === Summary ===
Destinos recounts the story of Los Angeles-based lawyer Raquel Rodríguez who is hired by the family of Fernando Castillo (Augusto Benedico). He had discovered that his first wife, Rosario, did not die in the Spanish Civil War as he had believed, but had survived and had an unknown child. In the course of her investigation of the case, Raquel travels to a number of Spanish-speaking areas — Seville and Madrid, Spain; Buenos Aires, Argentina; San Juan and San Germán, Puerto Rico; and Mexico — has a number of adventures and mishaps, meets a love interest (Arturo Puig) and faces a number of melodramatic conflicts.
Recurring plot elements include Raquel traveling in pursuit of the investigation, letters (primarily to determine last known addresses of people), comic mix-ups, and death (although nobody dies during the series, many characters are found to have died and Don Fernando is on the verge of dying).
=== Details ===
The Beginning: In a large estate called La Gavia outside Mexico City, a very old Don Fernando has been keeping a secret for some time: he received a letter, from one Señora Teresa Suárez of Seville, Spain, stating that his first wife, Rosario, did not die in the Spanish Civil War as he had thought.
Fernando's (unspecified) medical problems are increasing, however, and when he starts seeing hallucinations of Rosario he finally decides to act. He gathers his entire extended family, which includes the families of his children, Juan, Carlos, Ramon, and Mercedes, together and explains to them that he wants to find out what happened to Rosario, who was pregnant when they lost contact. His brother Pedro hires Raquel, a lawyer of his acquaintance, to investigate.
Spain Arc: Raquel first travels to Seville to meet Sra. Suárez. She meets and spends time with family members, son Miguel, and Sra. Suarez' grandson Jaime, and soon learns from them that Sra. Suárez has since moved to Madrid and won't talk by telephone. Raquel travels to Madrid; after a comic mix-up of identities and hotel rooms, where she is thought to be the winner of the Spanish lottery, she then meets Sra. Suárez's son and is taken to see Sra. Suárez. She learns that Rosario has moved to Buenos Aires, Argentina and is given the address from Rosario's last letter. She also learns that Rosario had likewise thought Fernando had died in the war and that Rosario and Fernando have a son named Angel. In parting, Sra. Suárez's last words to Raquel prove prophetic: "Life is not all work: you also need to dedicate some time to your heart!"
Argentina Arc: Raquel then travels to Argentina to search for Rosario. When she finds that Rosario no longer lives at the address on the letter Sra. Suárez gave her (the Estancia Santa Susana, a real tourist ranch near Buenos Aires), she follows a lead from a local gaucho, happens upon the office of psychiatrist Dr. Arturo Iglesias, and soon finds out he is Angel's half-brother and a son of Rosario. Arturo takes Raquel to the family crypt, and there, Raquel discovers that Rosario had actually died. For years, Arturo has been estranged from Angel, whom he blamed for his father's deadly heart attack. Arturo and Raquel begin a long search for acquaintances of Angel in his last known location, an Italian sea port neighborhood of Buenos Aires called La Boca. Armed only with a 20-year-old picture, they eventually find an outgoing old sailor named Héctor Condotti who remembers his good friend Angel. After several days, during which Raquel and Arturo start to develop a romance, Héctor produces a letter with Angel's address in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico Arc: Raquel then flies to San Juan and goes to the address in Old San Juan. From a neighbor, Raquel finds out that Angel died only a few months ago and had a wife who died several years before. While photographing the grave of Angel, Raquel runs into Angel's daughter, Angela. Raquel tells Angela the whole story, including that she has a grandfather in Mexico and Uncle in Argentina she's never heard of. Raquel also finds out that Angela has a brother, Roberto, living in Mexico. Angela's stern aunt Olga doesn't want her to travel to Mexico with Raquel, but after a trip to see her grandmother in San Germán, her grandmother gives her blessing to travel. Along the two-hour trip to San Germán, they have car trouble and must stay overnight in Ponce.
Finally, we meet Angela's boyfriend and nauseating mujeriego ("womanizer"), Jorge. He makes several clumsy passes at Raquel. A mild fight between Raquel and Angela ensues; not because Raquel tells Angela about the passes (she decides not to based on advice from her mother), but because Angela thinks the world of him and wants to give him a significant amount of money to start a theater. Nonetheless, Raquel and Angela are about to travel together to Mexico when they learn that Angela's brother Roberto has been trapped in an archaeological excavation in Mexico.
Mexico/Rescuing Roberto Arc: Raquel and Angela travel to Mexico, where they quickly drive to a small town where Roberto is trapped in a pre-Columbian excavation. Arturo was to meet them in Mexico City, but they cannot get in contact with him, so he spends several days in Mexico City wondering what happened to them, while they stay at a local church. Several episodes (possibly the slowest in the series) pass where Raquel and Angela are waiting for Roberto to be rescued, and Arturo is wondering what happened to Raquel. Finally, Roberto is rescued and Angela and Roberto meet their uncle Arturo.
Love Triangle Arc: After Raquel calls her mother back in Los Angeles to catch up, her mother hatches a scheme to get Raquel back together with Luis, an old boyfriend. Luis called and talked to Raquel's mother and began trying to get back into Raquel's life. Luis impressed Raquel's mother with his apparent maturity and wealth, so, despite her advice to Raquel not to get mixed up in other people's lives, and despite her husbands misgivings, she invites Luis down to Mexico unbeknownst to Raquel. Arturo and Luis meet, resulting in some tense moments, but they generally get along well, leaving Raquel wondering what's happening.
Finally, Arturo meets Raquel's parents. Arturo finds Raquel's father is amiable but her mother is clearly not. Raquel had by now figured out that her mother asked Luis to come down to Mexico, and a fight between the two ensues. Her mother finally admits that the only reason she's opposed to Arturo is that she's afraid that Raquel, their only daughter, will move to Argentina with Arturo. After Raquel assures her she will not leave her parents alone, her mother has a change of heart. When Luis presents Raquel with tickets to go away for a romantic weekend with him, she tells him that there's no chance. Luis leaves a good-bye note for Raquel and returns to the United States.
Family Problems Arc: Meanwhile, after Don Fernando is transported to Guadalajara to see a medical specialist, a financial irregularity comes to light. Don Fernando's son Carlos has been embezzling money from the family company's office in Miami. It turns out that his wife, Gloria, is a gambling addict and Carlos took the money to bail her out. The whole family company (including the La Gavia ranch) is endangered. Because of this, they close the Miami office and consider selling the ranch. Another monetary difficulty arises, this time between Angela and Roberto, over the fact that she wants to give her part of the money from the sale of their father's home to her Jorge. Avuncular Arturo starts playing mediator and tries to talk them through the situation.
Doubts (Review Arc): Finally, they all meet Don Fernando. It's a happy meeting, though Fernando is near death, so when Don Fernando suddenly walks in on their reunion dinner fully dressed and looking quite a bit stronger, they're all confused. To their amazement, Don Fernando tells them that he doubts their story: he does not believe that Arturo is really his step-son and Angela and Roberto are really his grandchildren. This device gives Raquel an opportunity to review the entire series, which takes four episodes.
At Long Last (Final Arc): At last, Don Fernando is convinced, not just because of Raquel's recounting and documentation, but because Angela produces a matching wedding cup that was passed from Rosario to Angel, to Angela's grandmother, to Angela. Another plot element is tied up when it turns out that Don Fernando has been squirreling away money all along, with the intention of turning the family ranch into an orphanage after his death. Carlos loves kids, having taken care of their kids while Gloria was out gambling, so they name Carlos the leader of the new orphanage.
Finale: To wrap up the series, Arturo decides to move to Los Angeles to be with Raquel, since he has no family and few friends in Argentina. | melodrama, flashback | train | wikipedia | Sure, everyone in our class pretends to hate "Destinos," and I'm sure our Spanish-speaking foreign exchange student is comatose through these things, but I think they're rather fun.
The story itself could probably have been played out in a half hour, but they drag the plot out so much it keeps you in suspense.
I seriously care what happens to Raquel in the next episode, though it's rather frustrating in how roundabout a way they choose to present the story.
One mustn't forget these are, above all, educational, rather than taut thrilling dramas, and they serve the former purpose quite well.
I think they really have helped to improve my Spanish, especially my listening skills.And they're funny.
They're not really supposed to be, but they are -- like any soap opera, the acting is bad and the story is a little overdramatic.
Throw in Raquel's hideous outfits, the ineptitude of the characters, the repetitiveness, and the number of episodes that are entirely about food or numbers, and you've got some wonderful opportunities for mockery -- and I don't say this disparagingly; it's endearing how cheesy it is.So, if you're a Spanish teacher or just someone who'd like to improve their Spanish listening skills, I'd give this series a thumbs-up.
OK, I admit it: I love this series.
But it's a cheesy soap opera that teaches you to understand the language.
Let me deal with each objection one at a time:Poor plot: As an actual telenovela, it probably fares pretty poorly.
This is primarily a LANGUAGE LEARNING TOOL.
It just happens to take the form of a telenovela, in fitting with the goal of introducing the viewer to Hispanic culture as well as language.Cheesy: What telenovela isn't cheesy?
If you want cheesy, try Rubi or Tres Mujeres.No budget: Unfortunately, the authors of these comments know nothing about TV/movie production.
And Destinos does it effectively - I honestly want to visit most of the places they filmed.Raquel's horrible wardrobe: While I agree that her "clown suit" is a little over-the-top, she was pretty fashionable for 1991.
Something to think about: ten+ years from now, if you consider yourself fashionably-dressed, what you're wearing today will look as bad as Raquel's wardrobe does today.Sleazy characters: Luis is supposed to be greasy.
He's trying to show Raquel his affection in the only way he knows how.Boring: I think this comment pretty much sums up my view on the series.
If you accept Destinos for what it is and actually learn from it, I guarantee you won't be bored.
You may even learn to love it like I have!.
sort of a novela but the goal is to teach Spanish, not just entertain.
I am fascinated with how they managed to include a story, drama, comedy, romance, history and a few others to work around Spanish vocabulary for the new-er student.
They also were able to show differences in various Latino/Hispanic countries.
I thought the location shots were pretty good considering, again, the purpose of the series.
It wasn't the most exciting story I've ever seen but if it were, I probably wouldn't understand it in Spanish!
I felt that I gained some confidence that I could follow the story.I enjoyed it!
While I will certainly concede that this program had its comic moments, I would hardly call it "campy" or "comedic." Dying grandfathers, wealthy gentlemen, and interfering mothers are hardly laughing matters.
This program enables the viewer to learn effectively and at a comfortable pace; observing characters shopping, eating, and making introductions certainly beats lists of words in a column on a blackboard with their English translations on the other side.
No one came out of my high school French class able to have a conversation; after this program I was negotiating over antique blouses in a Madrid flea market.Anyone interested in learning Spanish for everyday living will love this program, which is also lots more fun than sitting in a classroom.
I now watch at least two every day.For those ladies who enjoyed this program: Start watching the real thing.
I started watching Destinos last year when i was seventh grade.
But this year I'm realizing that it does teach Spanish and despite what others may say, I think it's extremely entertaining.
Yeah, that acting sucks and it's cheesy in the most annoying way, but it's funny.
It's not supposed to be, but, come on, I don't a single person who didn't laugh some time during the show.
It will show you the same scene what feels like hundred times.
All in all it's pretty fun to watch and it teaches you Spanish.
With the exception of Seinfeld, Destinos is probably my favorite television show of all time.
It is a Spanish soap opera that entertains students as it teaches them the rudiments of the language and culture of Spanish speaking countries.Destinos is one of the most intriguing and interesting shows I've yet had the privilege to watch, and I plan on paying the $400 to get the entire video series for myself.
It has every ingredient necessary in the recipe for "television muy bueno"!Watching Destinos is kind of like watching the Blair Witch Project, except it is about 12-13 times longer, and had what seems like 1/5 the budget.
You would think this would hamper the effectiveness of the program, but it only makes it more campy and fun!
Watching our heroine Raquel Rodriguez run around in goodwill clothes never gets old, and it is obvious the producers of the program didn't hire a writer who bothered with proofreading or continuity, as there are more holes in the plot of Destinos than in a block of Swiss cheese.
Also consider the fact that Liliana Abud, who played the star of the show Raquel, quit acting to be a television writer after Destinos began airing.
TO COMEDIC EFFECT!The campy aspect of this hilarious soap is good enough, but where would we be without a cadre of smarmy and ridiculous characters to fill the show out?
There's Arturo, a bumbling middle aged sugar daddy who woos Raquel with expensive gifts and suave come-ons!
Don Fernando, a sick old man who spends most of his on-screen time coughing up phlegm rather than talking!
Ay caramba!All in all, Destinos is a great experience.
Watch Destinos, kids!
An Educational Spanish Soap Opera.
Destinos is the best!!
We started watching it in school when i was a sophmore and finished it my junior year.
It's a show that is just so much fun to learn from.
I mean, how many educational videos give you characters you actually care about?
Una carta importante!" One can never forget the ever greasy Luis or the super-suave Arturo....or even Raquel's horrible outfits!
the entire series is just a blast and the best way to learn spanish if you can't actually visit a spanish speaking country.
"Hola Raquel!" "Luis?!".
we used to watch this in my years of junior high.
i'm now able to catch up to the videos now.
If you are a Spanish teacher, your students should love these videos.
It was my first time hearing people from those areas actually speak.
Also, it provides a nice relaxing time for students and teachers and it still teaches!!.
Fantastic way to learn Spanish.
This is a fantastic production and a fun and comprehensive way for beginners to learn to speak Spanish.
Not only do you hear actual conversation but they included history lessons and grammar.
Solid educational series.
The series is a strictly educational one, so whoever writes about its cinematic pluses and minuses distorts the very idea of why people, wishing to learn or improve Spanish, should watch it.Of course, watching it today is kind of weird: the world has changed since the early 1990s and so many things seem totally obsolete and, sometimes, ridiculous, but I don't know of many other similar educational series, at least for Spanish learners, so I would recommend watching Destinos - along with reading the attached grammar and other notes on the Annenberg website, if you access the series online.At the beginning, there is more English than Spanish, but by the end of the series it is Spanish only.
Some episodes sum up the previous episodes with emphasis on new words and expressions, so you can remember them better.
I watched one or two episodes every day and found this to be the optimum way - for me - to remember new words, expressions and grammar forms..
Excellent Tool for Learning Spanish.
"Destinos" is an excellent tool for learning Spanish.
Based on tried- and-true pedagogical techniques, the carefully written script lets a beginner or intermediate student follow the story while developing a nice vocabulary.Don't be distracted by old clothing styles!!
The story line may seem overly dramatic, but this is a telenovela, after all.
These programs (now online at http://www.learner.org/resources/series75.html#) give you a great opportunity to learn a language without suffering though hours of grammar drills.
You will be amazed by how fast you pick up "real Spanish" spoken by native speakers..
I am glad that I watched Destinos on my own volition, as a middle-aged adult, using various resources that are now freely available for learning Spanish.
Luckily, I did not have fellow students telling me the punch lines beforehand, so the intended surprises actually were.
There is an interesting transition between the first few episodes which seem like standard educational films with a flimsy premise to carry the educational material to the final episodes that are carried by characters and a story line that you have come to care about.Destinos seemed like a pretty painless way to learn or improve Spanish, but it was more than that.
The story actually sucked me in, which was, of course, the higher educational purpose, namely learning a language by immersion.
Fight it, and its value diminishes.For the overly sophisticated, bored viewers who may be forced to watch Destinos, I suggest you look for the hidden "Easter eggs" in the form of sly jokes you might easily miss.
Google "Gioachino Rossini" and you might see what I mean.I understand and remember that, at eighteen, long, lost love is just a concept.
If you did not like Destinos at that age, try it again in thirty years after fate has left a few marks on you..
It is quite enjoyable to mock the horribly pathetic acting and to laugh one's head off in class.
No doubt it teaches us much Spanish subconsciously.In terms of actual, real entertainment value: the acting sucks, the budget seems to be nil (or less), and the plot is so full of holes that it might as well be plotless."Si, la tumba de MIIIIIIIISSSSSSSS padres." That's rich.
this show is highly entertaining, it has grade-A acting, a compelling plot, and complex story arch's.
there's nothing to hate about this show...EXCEPT EVERYTHING.This show makes me contemplate suicide every time i watch it...and i even followed through once.10/10well, IMDb says i need 10 lines of text, so lets talk a little bit...ehsoooo...how was your day?mine was fine, excellent even.feel free to e-mail me if you wanna tell me how your day went...i probably wont reply...or even read it for that matter..
Destinos son burritos.
Destinos has been a grueling experience.
Endowed with a exceptionally boring plot, the show attempts to drag on this atrocity for as long as it can.
OF course it is the producers right to create stuff like this, but to forcefully coerce a innocent student body to endure the travesty is a crime.
Every Friday, when we are mercifully granted a reprieve from her discordant voice and UGLY face, we are instead subjected to the cruel monotony of Destinos.
Bad or Worst-Destinos.
Upon arriving to my Spanish 102 class, I knew I was in for a daunting time.
My teacher, whom shall remain anonymous, did not seem to know Spanish, or for that matter be humane.
His whole life had seemingly been spent learning Spanish and nothing else.
Destinos began with a few corny comedic moments, Gandalf the Grey laying in a bed, the turtle neck around his living son, and of course the storyline that he had practically cheated on his wife and started a new family (Arnold Schwarzenagger).
From what I remember (Most of my time watching it, my head was buried in the cavern known as my arm) the Spanish was of the most advanced i had ever seen.
By advanced I mean anyone whom had even seen someone from a Spanish speaking country would have known what was going on.
In all i actually learned more Spanish from sleeping and talking to other kids (in English) than from watching this series..
This soap opera is absolutely hilarious in an I'd-sooner-die-than-watch-this sort of way.
The acting is awful, the plot is full of holes, and the educational tidbits (like the saleslady hanging up shirts and saying, "azul...verde...rojo, etc.") seem ridiculous; if you don't know enough Spanish to count to ten, why are you watching Destinos in the first place?
Watching the characters run around with their dorky hair and clothes is fun, though.
Overall, the best thing about watching Destinos was that it saved my Spanish class from having to do something even worse instead!
However, it's not as bad as 'La Catrina', the 'introduction to Spanish' telenovela my class got stuck with last semester!.
Destinos....blah blah blah.
OK so I am in Spanish 3 and in my fourth quarter of my sophomore year and my classmates and I know everything that they go through like numbers, letters, food, etc etc.
It is really a waste of valuable time where we could actually learn something.
I think I only stayed awake once during the entire season and that was when raquel and arturo "hooked up".
It may be helpful when you are starting Spanish but I have taken 4 years of Spanish and this is stupid, weird, horrible, awful, irrelevant, and BORING!!!!!!!!!!
I SUGGEST NO ONE EVER WATCH IT....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
"Destinos" es muy mal!.
We started watching "Destinos" when I was a freshmen in spanish 1 now im in spanish 3 and a junior.
From day one everyone knew this was going to be one long and "abburido" series.
Destinos has got to be the WORST "educational" video i have ever seen.
Basically its about some old man,Don Fernado, on his death bed,and he asks Raquel,the dective,to go find his first wife and son.
So Raquel goes out in search.
The poor old man is dying and Raquel spends all his money on buying clothes and other things and flirting with every guy she comes across!I dont even think Raquels told Don Fernado his 1st wife and kid are dead yet!
I swear,she spends 95% of the time doing other things then searching for the dying old mans realtives!
I think the people who made this series should've made Raquel more of a "detective" to give the show somewhat of a realistic feel!Anyways,the videos are annoying,they repeat things over and over and its so boring my whole class practically falls asleep.
I wish Don Fernado would hurry up and die,Raquel would give up and this whole hideous series would come to an end!!.
Destinos--an oasis in Spanish class.
Destinos is the best way to teach people Spanish along with the standard teaching methods.
It offers an entertaining break away from the monotony of worksheets, readings, and hearing the teacher drone on and on.
What's great about Destinos, along with learning new regional vocabulary, is the humor.
Situations are, if not drop dead funny, humorous in their repetition and the trademark phrases someone can learn such as "Deje mi carterra en el taxi!", "Nunca...jamaassss...", "Rosario...no murio...en la guerra.", and one must not forget "Si no quieres una esposa profesionista, es SU asunto!" Raquel's shoulder pads, her kilts, her toying with Arturo and the theme song become an ever-present memory once the show has finished, and the facts about places to see in Latin American and Spain fill one with the urge to see the places Raquel once stepped.
Destinos will live with me and other people in my class forever.
(In addition, Liliana Abud, who plays Raquel, is still going strong.
I love this series.
I don't know anything like 'Destinos' for learning Spanish, especially for learning to hear the spoken word.
Anyone who tries to learn Spanish (or another language) will know that watching movies or TV programs in the language is frustrating, just a little beyond comprehension--if only they'd speak more slowly!
Of course 'Destinos' is a sort of soap opera, but a soap opera with a lot of cultural and historical information and some great music to boot.
There are many locations and it's like a travelogue throughout the Spanish speaking world.I found Raquel to be a compelling character especially because she speaks very clearly and doesn't use a difficult vocabulary.
Neither do I think she's a bad actress, she's doing very precise, deliberate dramatic gestures in order to convey information to aid comprehension of the language.
This has a rather comic effect at times, but I loved it.
I think Raquel is adorable.
Yes, the plot proceeds rather slowly, it takes forever to get Roberto out of the mine, but the point is the language, not the drama.
I was thrilled when I found I could actually follow what the characters were saying and that gave me confidence.
I think it's a beautifully done series..
Destinos Changed My Life..
I was just a simple girl trying to learn Spanish when I watched the first episode.
I now understand Spanish better than I had ever in the past, but I also connected and fell in love with every character.Raquel is amazing and I loved watching her visit every place.
I was deeply saddened by the end of the show and wish to watch the sequel as well.
I'm not ready to give up this show or Raquel's outfits!
Also the filming on location let the scenery include some beautiful places. |
tt0115243 | Lexx: The Dark Zone | The main characters of the series are the Lexx and its crew. The crew consists of the captain of the Lexx, Stanley H. Tweedle, the love slave Zev/Xev, the undead former assassin Kai, last of the Brunnen-G, and the love-crazed robot head 790. Together they are looking for a new home. The background conflict of the series is the war between Mankind and the Insect Civilization, in which each side seeks the annihilation of the other. It was foretold to Kai that one day he will destroy the last remnant of the Insect Civilization.
The plot unfolds across a time span of over 6,000 years. Kai's death (or undeath) occurs 2,008 years before the beginning of the events of the series. For the first two seasons, each episode is focused on space travel and usually one different planet. Each of the last two seasons has a single location for all episodes. At the beginning of Season 3 the crew spends about 4,000 years in cryostats before arriving at the twin planets of Fire and Water. In Season 4, the Lexx reaches our Earth in the present.
=== First season ===
Stan, Zev and Kai accidentally steal the Lexx, the most powerful destructive weapon in the two universes. After successfully fleeing from the Cluster, the main planet of the League of the 20,000 Planets, they are looking for a new home.
Kai needs protoblood to live outside of his cryochamber. Looking for protoblood, the Lexx returns to the Cluster to learn that a huge insect survived. This insect had controlled The Divine Order and His Divine Shadow in order to eat all human inhabitants of the 20,000 planets. The insect then begins a metamorphosis into the Gigashadow. Gigashadow produces protoblood. With the help of Zev, Kai manages to fill up his store of protoblood. Kai places the cluster lizard Squish in the brain of the insect and thus is able to destroy it.
=== Second season ===
The main conflict of the second season is the fight against Mantrid, the former Bio-Vizier of His Divine Shadow. The crew had inadvertently helped him transfer his mind into a machine in the first episode of the season while accidentally fusing it with a remnant of His Shadow. Mantrid's goal is to transform all matter in the Light Universe into Mantrid Drones.
In the meantime the crew keeps getting into difficult situations and is usually rescued by Kai. At the end of the season they destroy Mantrid. Unfortunately, the Light Universe is also destroyed. The crew flees into the Dark Zone.
=== Third season ===
The Lexx is running out of food and must fly slowly to conserve energy. 790 computes that it might take thousands of years to reach an inhabited planet. The crew enters cryostasis to survive the voyage. After 4,000 years in cryostasis, they reach the twin planets Fire and Water. The entire third season takes place on these two planets.
The crew meets people they knew from the Light Universe. These survivors cannot remember their past in the parallel universe, though their personalities are still the same. Fire is ruled by the charismatic Prince. Water doesn't seem to have a ruler. The inhabitants of both planets live in isolated towns. On Water they live on islands in a huge ocean and on Fire there are big towers separated by desert.
Prince wants to win the crew over to his side, especially Xev. He tests their sense of morality through various temptations. The crew members are frequently separated, forcing them to act individually. After jumping from the Lexx to the surface of Water, Kai has trouble functioning normally without the other crew members. On Water, deep beneath its surface, Kai encounters his soul essence, which awaits rebirth. Stanley dies and a trial is held over the destination of his soul. All his bad decisions are weighted against his good deeds and he is sentenced to eternal punishment on Fire.
At the end of the season both planets, Fire and Water, are destroyed. Stan's soul is set free, and is able to return into his body, though he cannot remember what happened to him on Fire. The souls of all inhabitants of Fire and Water are also released, then travel to a planet that looks like Earth.
=== Fourth and final season ===
The Lexx travels to Earth looking for food. It is located in the very center of the Dark Universe and the crew assumes that it must be a very dangerous place. The crew again meet people they knew from the Light Universe, and from Fire and Water. Only Prince and Priest are able to remember their lives on Fire (though presumably Priest can do this only because Prince allows him to).
Kai's soul is stuck because he is undead, and he decides to die to release his soul. To do this, he must regain his mortality. He plays chess with Prince to regain mortality and wins, but remains undead.
The Earth is threatened by a being who resembles Lyekka. The crew finds out that the fake "Lyekka" destroyed all human life on her way through the Dark Zone. Kai decides to destroy the asteroid that is the source of the entity. Prince keeps his promise and restores Kai's mortality. Minutes later, Kai finally dies destroying the asteroid, saving all inhabitants of the Dark Zone. 790 destroys the Earth using the senile and dying Lexx. Prince, Priest, and Bunny escape on a rocket filled with Catholic schoolgirls, and Xev and Stan fly off together on the Lexx's offspring, "Little Lexx" to find a new home. | psychedelic, comedy, gothic, humor | train | wikipedia | The first episode sees Stanley H Tweedle (A security guard who accidently destroyed 94 reform planets, played to perfection by Brian Downey), Zev Belringer of B3k (A young woman who was transformed into a love slave forfailing to perform her wifely duties, a freak accident occured during her transformation leaving her part Cluster lizard; portrayed in her first incarnation by Eva Habermann), Kai (an emotionless undead assasin, played by Michael McManus) and 790 (the robot who worked on Zev was decapitated and it's head given the "falling-in-love" part of the transformation thus 790 fell madly in love with his subject; voiced to perfection by series writer Jeffery Hirschfield) unite by chance on "The Cluster" the planet ruled by almost eternal His Divine shadow who rules the universe, and accidently steal the LEXX (a 10 kilometre long dragonfly, also the most powerful weapon ever built/grown).
Although often dismissed as hoky and low-budget (and it can be both), the Lexx series has strong characterizations, good solid writing with multiple story lines that always seem to come together seamlessly at the end (and that is NOT easy), and plenty of eye candy.
Has more of a personality than Data, in love with Zev, how's that for originality???4) Kai, the 2000 year old dead Brunnen G 'anti-hero'.
But then there are the half-lizard nymphomaniac, the unintelligent "dirty old man" (who somehow became the Captain of the Lexx through an accident), the robot head driven by love-psychosis, and the sentient, organic Lexx itself, a living ship and slave to the Captain who, if unchecked, would be content in destroying or feeding on organic life in the form of other space ships or entire planets.The questionable desires of the crew are usually left unfulfilled in the episodes, and morality and good win out in the end over immorality and evil, but not before a thorough exploration of self-indulgent natures and evil.True, the low-budget nature of the series may make it ideal for viewing in late night hours as an alternative to infomercials, but the series is nothing if not imaginative.
Other series have cropped up since, with similar themes of a powerful space ship crewed by fools and lechers, but "Lexx" is definitely unique in that its flawed characters are so familiar that they become endearing..
In the vast ocean of blandness of (sci-fi and) regular television, this is easily the most enjoyable show I've ever watched.As counter to the stuffy, sterile and stale space operas of the Star Trek series as this could be; its a refreshingly imaginative take on the wandering starship plot.This show is either hit or miss with most people.
If you love absurd, bizarre scenarios and a touch of dark humour you'll love this show.It's a mix of the original Star Trek series, with a seriously dark and foreboding air to it; with hysterical and upsetting plots and characters that keep you from feeling secure.
Although the episodes in the marathon didn't make a lot of sense (Sci-Fi aired the Season 2 episodes out of order) we were hooked by the black humor, the funky music, and the show's overall stylishness.I think the show was a lot smarter than most people realize.In a nutshell, Lexx is the American Red Dwarf.
Sure, there MIGHT be another Lexx someday, but the conclusion of Season 4 didn't leave any loose ends or nagging issues.Warts and all, Lexx stands as one of the most interesting and innovative sci-fi shows ever attempted.
The story and costumes are completely new, the acting perfectly suited for what is needed, and the effects certainly enough to fascinate viewers.One of the scenes I liked best was in Episode One, which has a His Shadow ship attacking the homeworld of the Brunnen-G.
The very story is just hilariously cool, as we see the talking spaceship, Lexx, which is in fact a living insect, but a huge one and unbearably droopy and always praising Stanley Tweedle, an unlikely hero, who owns it and is always willing Xev. Xev is a nice sweet space woman, and then there is Kai, the last of the dead people race, and he is cool, handsome and never shows any sense of humor or irony, but can help hapless Stan whenever he is in deep trouble.
The first season is very specific, with 4 larger series, each looking more like a real full movie.
The second season is mostly a collection of shorter mini series, about Lexx's team long wanderings in space, looking for some good planet, some food and some sex for Stan and Zev. We see the Nook - planet of men only and then we are worried by impossibly evil Mantrid who seeks Lexx all the time, and then we laugh heartily when the whole series is a Opera show.
i highly recommend it to people who like science fiction that thinks outside normal sci-fi convention..
Eva Habermann as Zev is one of the most luscious looking characters ever, she was better than Xenia Seeberg (no disrespect to Xenia), Kai is so cool, and 790 is a love crazed robot head.The supporting cast is also brilliant, especially the 2 mercenaries, who add an extra touch of dark humor.
After so many other scifi shows that can't ever seem to get away from earth-based humans as the main backdrop, we have a completely new and original universe with a refreshing lack of moral conviction as a basis for plot building.
Lexx has to be the craziest, strangest, and most bizarre shows in TV history.It's about 4 characters: Zev/Xev is a love slave.
Apart from the comedy, sexual themes feature very heavily on Lexx, it's in most episodes and a strong motivational force for the characters and drives some of the story lines.
It's a really refreshing alternative to the more "serious" sci-fi-shows out there (like Star Trek and so on, although a absolutely adore DS9), and has some really fascinating plots and characters.
I started watching in the middle of the seasons, and only later discovered, in my eyes, my favorite sci-fi-actress of all time (Eva Habermann).
I was able to watch the first 2 seasons of Lexx when it was first shown here in the UK, late at night on the fairly new Channel 5.
Even then, its quirkiness made it watchable.Now, with full knowledge of the overlying plot and background I must say this is probably the most impressive sci-fi epic I've ever seen.I had no idea the tale itself was so captivating, the background history of the universes involved so superbly imagined.It's adult, dark, violent and frequently tongue-in-cheek.It reminds me of the groundbreaking sci-fi comic book epics of the 2000ad comic back in the 70s and 80s - genuine enthusiasm and love put into developing the tale and characters; nothing done by committee nor with an eye on sell-thru merchandising.So the story itself is deserving of praise before the execution, limited by TV budgets and tech available at the time, can be considered.The effects overall are pretty decent given the former, the sets and acting above TV average - more than convincing in its entirety for you to suspend disbelief and invest time in a truly memorable bit of sci-fi.Truly, though, it is the epic story - the most crucial fundament - which carries the day; so worthy that it would still deserve praise had the whole thing been played out only with hand puppets.If half the integrity and belief had been invested into the Star Wars franchise it would have avoided its ultimate descent into deserved derision.Lexx is the Star Wars they never made but should have; the more deserving, more adult and more talented sibling that will only take the limelight and plaudits in retrospect.There is, however, still plenty time to give us the big-budget movie version.
The music, as others have eluded to, is great and the concept of the Lexx and the Dark Zone as a Parallel Universe, interesting.
All in all, it is a great series of movies and are worth watching ..
Well, Lexx certainly had that covered, and it was also wildly original and almost cliché-free.It's basically about a fugitive coward who accidentally gets control of the most powerful and destructive space ship in the known universe: a planet destroying, living insectoid starship.
Well, this show was really strange and bizarre, with moments of brutality, sexuality, and dark humor absent in most sci-fi series.
The first series (my favourite) was mind blowing full of wacky and original ideas, a great music score as well as a brilliant script.
The whole look and feel of the series is wildly original, but consistent with its own tenets.For those who complain about the plots: this is a series you need to watch carefully, or you'll miss seemingly unimportant little bits that turn out to be major elements.
The satire is lovely, too--for instance, the jab at Star Wars (A New Hope) in the opening scenes of 'Lafftrak' and the interior of the space shuttle in 'Little Blue Planet.'I prefer Xenia as Xev, because she makes the character more three-dimensional than Eva.
And Michael McManus does a superb job in *not* making Kai into a Spock-like character.Lexx combines horror, terror, humor, sex, gore and warmth.
The last season of Lexx got quite silly but the series is definitely worth watching..
In a genre choked to mediocrity by a flood of american sci-fi garbage, Lexx is completely refreshing.Sexy, funny, dark and deep, this show breaks the stale mold and establishes some exciting new directions for science fiction into the next century.
Cast do a great job, especially Xenia Seeberg a.k.a. Xev. Kai is also portrayed quite good, however the script doesn't give him a chance for a proper character development.
In a sense, it is the life journey of its sole human protagonist, surrounded by super-human good and evil characters and temptations.Lexx is a very human show about human flaws, human desires, and occasionally doing the right thing.I give it a 10 not because it is perfectly executed (the quality of the episodes is variable), but because the overall effort is so innovative and entertaining compared to the rather boring derivative scuff shows that come and go every few years and that don't know when to quit..
LEXX is a unique Sci-Fi show and is simply in a different -love it or hate it- universe from anything else that has been made.Normally we have impossibly good guys and totally evil bad guys -here we have flawed characters who are each a bit selfish but have formed a family and in not learning from experience create havoc wherever they go.
Catching the initial episodes is a must to have any idea of character motivations-the show is stylish and the goth soundtrack fits perfectly.Took me a long time to realise that I really liked this show and now I love catching back episodes as its just so different..
I've actually only seen episodes from the fourth series and i've fallen completely in love with Lexx.
What Lexx does so well that few others shows can do is introduce you to a completely new world, something so fresh and bizarre that you can watch the same episode several times in different moods and have different experiences as a result.
But it's good fun.The aspect that is worst is the (apparently necessary) substitution of Xenia Seeberg (Xev) for Eva Habermann (Zev) at the beginning of the series (after the 4 movies that comprised the first season).
Bizarrely, despite the fact that the budgets aren't obviously what other shows have, Lexx keeps you entertained, and is most like Red Dwarf, or older episodes of Dr Who. The show is very character driven, all four characters have fairly interesting motivations and attributes, and are all completely atypical of standard Sci Fi writing.Lexx is an odd mix that somehow works.
This definitely seems to give it a non formulaic character.While somewhat odd, out of all Science Fiction TV, Lexx is probably the most unusual, especially considering four seasons of it were produced..
Its like a nightmare/dream come true.How often do we get a series that isn't preachy especially in Sci Fi. I highly recommend LEXX to anyone who has ever watched Dr.Who. Farscape is nice but LEXX is the BOMB!.
Lexx is a bizarre sci-fi series mixed with dark humor.
Canada's best Sci-Fi. Based on the miniseries Lexx is about a strange group of travellers on their way to find a new home.
In my personal opinion, I consider the Lexx movies (better known under the alternate title Tales from Parallel Universe) to be way better than the lexx t.v. series that aired on the Sci-Fi channel a few years back.The reason I think this because I thought the series (particluarly during it's fourth and last season) got slowed down by too much bathroom humor and the writers decision to keep the characters in one setting for long periods of time.
The things I enjoy about this show are: the opening theme'O-a-yo'(which lures you in like a good theme should), Stanley Tweedle (who Brian Downey portrays greatly) relates to the unsure part of us trying to be heroic but is too normal, and the strange and creative plots.
I think she kicks ass on the original Xev(or Zev) who i have seen a few times in the series' common flashbacks.
The Lexx loses its memories and can only be controlled with Stanley Tweedle's hand.This is one of the most unusual looking sci-fi with a crazy story background.
For years I been hearing about how original and good is this show, but after watch the first 4 Tv movies I just a found just a few pieces of trash with nothing new except there is anything less science.
As many other stories of science fiction this saga begins with one prophecy of one warrior who will kill the ultimate evil who destroys his world, then all the classic elements are changed just to put a bunch of laments characters commanding a big space ship of an ancient insect race who manifest in the end of the fourth movie with the form of a human(at least the face).
Those looking for something different or fans of the original series will really like it.
If you watch the shows regularly and often then you'll begin to understand the context of it and the people like Stan, Kai, Zev and that robot thing.
i don't like him, annoying little thing.The special effects are great though not as good as Star Trek's i'll will have to admit that but all in all it's pretty good.My favourite character is Zev Bellringer.
She's very sensible at times but has also a great sense of fun in which Stan and Kai don't.It's an exceptional Sci-Fi series and does fit the bill on many accounts.
I hope the series doesn't end where it did and that the Lexx crew continue on their adventures for a few more years..
Xenia Seeberg is possibly the best actress in Sci-fi at the moment.It is the most original series on TV and some of the later episodes surpass even the best of the movies..
.......one of the best sci-fi movies i've ever seen.....the music is great, cast characters played at their best, & the compostion of movies is thrilling......good maked film.....i'll buy it soon, & offer ya to do the same......!.
The concept of insect based organic technology is a nice touch.I think what makes this show hard for people to like, aside from the shallow scripts and bad special effects are the sexual aspects.The comedy is somewhat funny, in a juvenile bathroom kind of way.
BUT - for any sci-fi fan who has up to his or her neck of Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek or Stargare Universe THIS 1'st season of Lexx with its 4 episodes will be a very refreshing treat.
Don't expect much in the way of good CG though (or a budget for that matter), but for everything the series lacks it compensates generously with an original storyline and very unusual characters..
I really like the idea of Lexx, but I just think that there could have been so much more to it, it could have been a great Sci-Fi comedy.I am still not really sure about the whole thing, the main characters are not the greatest (possibly through casting decisions?
Lexx is a one of a kind show with character and ideas that are absolutely unique and excellent!A twisted a clasic humorus series set in the setting of Space.
And there are other characters that just make the show hillarius, LEXX is a sexy comedy sci-fi that will just make your day more exiting.
Lexx is great scifi with brilliant effects that are mainly CGI based like Babylon 5 but much more inventive and bizarre.
Lexx is a non-PC version of Star Trek with elements of horror, comedy and drama all mixed into one to form one of the most amazing sci-fi series around today.
The worst sci-fi series I've seen, I cant think of anything I can compare it too that makes it look good.
After seeing only one episode of Lexx I'm convinced this is really not able to be in the shadow of the original and very witty Science Fiction series Red Dwarf.
Even the effects are cheap and not convincing.The only thing I liked were the original decors in Lexx.
Now the great movie turned into cheap Star Trek which, if you look at it closely, lives on characters and ideas from The Dark Zone and really hasn't got much of it's own.
A clean, fresh movie on a good budget with great ideas and original characters would have made the day.
A series will never be better than a movie - ideas are depletable.Also, sometimes things that seem little are very important, and people who watch it without too much attention will get wondering about how come the security guard gets the key or why the star started shining. |
tt0494652 | Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins | Dr. R.J. (Roscoe) Stevens (Martin Lawrence) is a talk-show sensation who has discarded his simple Southern awkward-boy past and the awkward boy he used to be to dispense motivational advice to millions of adoring fans. With reality TV series Survivor winner, Bianca Kittles (Joy Bryant) on his arm and enough cash in his pocket to easily afford expensive gifts for his parents, he feels like there's nothing he hasn't achieved.
When his parents request that he come home for their 50th wedding anniversary, R.J. packs up his 10-year-old son, Jamaal (Damani Roberts) and his fiancée, Bianca and heads back to his sleepy Southern hometown. Ready to impress his down-home kin with how much he’s changed, R.J. will prove he’s no longer the walking disaster they used to pick on. When they arrive in Georgia, he is first greeted by his pick pocketing cousin, Reggie (Mike Epps), who asks him for $300 to buy ice for the family barbecue. At the family home, Roscoe is greeted by his parents, Roscoe Sr. (James Earl Jones) and Mama Jenkins (Margaret Avery); his brother, Otis (Michael Clarke Duncan), the town sheriff; Otis' wife, Ruthie (Liz Mikel) and their overgrown kids, Junior (Brandin Jenkins) and Callie (Krystal Marea Braud); and Roscoe's loud, rowdy sister, Betty (Mo'Nique). Before long, Roscoe's cousin, Clyde (Cedric the Entertainer) drops in, bringing the old spark of competition with Roscoe, he is also escorting Lucinda (Nicole Ari Parker), a past love interest of Roscoe's.
During the visit, Roscoe endures much self-humiliation such as accidentally hitting his mother in the head with a softball during a softball game, getting beaten up by Otis and Betty after he insults them, constantly getting blackmailed by Reggie, and getting sprayed by a skunk while sleeping. It becomes obvious that he still holds a grudge against his father for how he treated him when he was younger such as showing such preference for Clyde that he wouldn't even fully discipline him. Roscoe Sr. resents his son for changing his name and distancing himself from his family. Meanwhile, Bianca doesn't fit in well with the family and Roscoe and Lucinda get reacquainted.
On the day of the Jenkins' anniversary, the whole family gathers for the traditional Jenkins-family obstacle course. Roscoe is determined to defeat Clyde when he challenges him and the two become even more competitive. As the race begins, Roscoe and Clyde aggressively make their way through the obstacles, sometimes hurting themselves and other contestants. While climbing over a wall with ropes, Roscoe begins to help his son over, but Bianca tells him to leave him and he does, much to his parents' shock. Roscoe and Clyde race to the finish line, and Roscoe wins. As Bianca cheers for him, Roscoe, overjoyed by the victory, begins to berate everyone reminding them that it is all about "the team of me" (him). The family is angry about his actions during the obstacle course, Jamaal refuses to go near his father, and Roscoe Sr. chastises his son. Unable to contain his resentment, Roscoe lashes out at his father, saying that although Clyde's father died, he Roscoe felt he lost his father because he favored Clyde over him and chastises him for always crediting Clyde for things he's done while never acknowledging any of his successes or accomplishments. Stunned and distraught by this admission, Roscoe Sr. walks away; feeling hurt. Clyde walks up to Roscoe and says he never tried to take his place. He tries to shake Roscoe's hand to make amends, but Bianca tells him to back off, and Roscoe decides he, Bianca, and Jamaal should start for home. Before he leaves, his mother reminds him that his family still loves him. As they drive to the airport, Bianca proposes not inviting the family to their wedding. Roscoe seems to agree, which upsets Jamaal and despite Bianca wanting him to get on board the "Team of Me," he proudly declares himself a Jenkins. Bianca continues to say mean things about the Jenkins clan and Roscoe pretends to agree with her, but at the airport, he thanks her for finally letting him see her true colors and then he dumps her. Angrily, feeling humiliated by Roscoe and Jamaal, she gets out of the car. As they pull away from the airport, he pulls the rope holding her bags on top of the car; dumping them into the airport driveway. Roscoe and Jamaal head back to the family home; keeping Bianca's pet Pomeranian Fifi, who had turned against Bianca and joined the Jenkins clan to pursue a relationship with the family's over-aged dog, Bucky (25 in dog years = 175 in human years).
During the anniversary celebration, Clyde cries during his speech for Mama and Papa Jenkins; admitting that he cared a lot about Roscoe. Roscoe suddenly appears, apologizes to his family, and congratulates his parents. He and his father make amends, then Roscoe asks Lucinda to dance. After the celebration, the family watches it on a hi-def television while Roscoe and Lucinda make love—but find a nasty surprise (Bucky and Fifi in his bedroom having had intercourse like before). During the credits, Roscoe is seen interviewing his family on his show, renamed The Roscoe Jenkins Show. | flashback | train | wikipedia | A successful talk show host leaves Los Angeles to reunite with his family in the Deep South.By the end of this movie's trailer, you would've thought "Oh, not again." No, that's what you were thinking.
Also, this movie had some pretty decent jokes, much better than many other comedies released this time who use clichéd and predictable jokes.What I also admired about this movie was the family matter and moral this movie was trying to give out.
Some scenes in the movie just ruin the sweets scenes before it because it felt like the filmmakers just want to make people laugh.Like I said, the characters were memorable.
The jokes were actually funny, the characters memorable, and the moral is very touching for anyone who has a family.
Successful Talk Show Host RJ (Lawrence) is besieged to come back home for his parents' 50th Wedding Anniversary.I was skeptical, I was wary, I wasn't sure, but this time the promos didn't let me down.
Also, the music throughout was perfect.This was without a doubt a cast of characters, and not your usual every day family members and each character member had his or her own shtick and this helped make this a fun movie.
Last year when I saw the trailer for Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins, I wasn't expecting much, I'm not a fan by any means with Martin Lawrence.
When I looked at the rating here on IMDb at the time of it's theatrical release, it was low, I wasn't sure if that's because people just had low expectations or if it really was that bad of a movie.
Well I watched it the other day and honestly Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins is not as bad as I was expecting, I laughed more than a few times.
The script is also semi-insulting with the stereotypes, so I can understand why a lot of people hate this movie, but I think everyone just needs to let go with this film while watching it.
The story is typical but you have to admit there are some good laughs in it.Roscoe Jenkins is a very successful man, he's a host of a new talk show and author of a self help book, everyone loves him pretty much, including his Survivor wanna be star fiancée, Bianca.
But when his son wants to go to his family's big BBQ reunion down in Atlanta, Roscoe decides that it's time for them to meet his new fiancée and life.
But Roscoe sees an old crush with his "brother like" enemy, Clyde, flames spark up again, questioning what Roscoe's true roots are.While Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins is typical, has some interesting cast members, and can be a bit insulting, I still feel like this movie really didn't mean to hurt anyone, just to have fun and deliver a few laughs.
Like I said, just this movie has been done before so many times with the crazy family and you can predict what will happen at the end, but still, I enjoyed this movie and thought it was fun at best.
Just the only thing I didn't get was how the whole family picked on him about his success, I mean, I'd get into his good graces to share some that fun money he must be rolling around in, lol.
But I would recommend this movie, just you have to be open to it and just have fun, I guarantee you'll get a few good laughs.5/10.
African American family values movies have matured into a distinct and popular genre and, Martin Lawrence traverses familiar territory with this awkwardly-titled movie.He plays RJ Stevens, a big city motivational guru who has taken the concept of "self-help" too far, leaving him somewhat estranged from his family in the Deep South.In an inelegant plot device, his parents' 50th anniversary serves as an exploitable marketing opportunity sufficiently enticing to lure him back to his hometown.From there, things unfold fairly formulaicly to RJ's rekindling of his true identity, Roscoe Steven Jenkins.Although Lawrence is the lead around whom the story revolves, it does feel slightly like an ensemble piece.
Everything else was either already shown in the preview (so it was no longer funny) or so stupid that it didn't even deserve a laugh.This film totally lacks creativity and, with the exception of all the gross and tacky sexual references, looks as if it were written by a 4th grader (seriously).
I wasn't necessarily expecting it to be a great movie (I mean, it is supposed to be a comedy), but since Malcolm D.
Lee wrote the Best Man (a very enjoyable film), I thought this movie would at least be worthy of my time and money.
I am sure he'll still make money because many people will go to see it (with false hopes of a comic relief), but for those of you reading this....I'd recommend waiting for the DVD - or better yet, why not just wait for a movie that is actually deserving of your attention.
Margaret Avery, Cedric the Entertainer, Mo'nique and Michael Clarke Duncan are all funny and good at puncturing the bubble of Roscoe's believed importance.
However, being a fan of Martin Lawrence for a long time lead me to watch it.When it started out, it was a bit bumpy, but soon mellowed out to something more.
The cast is great, the jokes are funny, and it just reminds you of a regular family.
Everyone seems to forget that comedies are generally never rated real high, simply because people go in expecting some kind of serious performance..
I did not have high expectations for this film at first and I truly do not know why because I think Martin Lawrence is very talented and funny.
Some of the cast members are great actors of the past--- James Earl Jones, Michael Clarke Duncan, for example.
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins was extremely funny.
All and all this was a great movie and will probably be the best comedy of the year..
The unrestrained (and unnecessary) profanity, explicit sex scenes (with the dogs) and the rude, uncouth and vulgar mouth of Monique (who comes off as just plain ol' trashy) does not do the movie, the actors or the message any justice.Every one of these actors has portrayed highly memorable characters in other works, yet this was a break from good, wholesome fun, into raunchy, loudmouthed, predictable, almost cartoonish antics.
This movie's 15 minutes of redeeming qualities was overshadowed by a constant flow of expletives, sexual innuendos, mockeries of Christianity, and overall bad, perverted behavior not fitting as a positive influence for young people.It was especially disappointing to see an actor of James Earl Jones' caliber in such a trashy movie.If you are looking for a movie experience with more uplifting than negative messages; then, 'Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins' is not for you.
Roscoe Jenkins was a fairly decent movie and as for laughs Mike Epps stole the show.
This movie has a widely all-star cast such as James Earl Jones who play Martin's (Roscoe Jenkins) dad and Margaret Avery his mom,Michael Clarke Duncan his brother,Nicole Parker who Roscoe had a childhood crush on,and Joy Bryant Roscoe's fiancé.
After watching this movie not only speaking for myself I know most people can relate to this film.
This movie teaches you that,it's not only where you come from it's who you are,and you wouldn't know that if it wasn't for family..
One critic said ;"There was no way they could have raised this family." Of course none of us know dysfunctional people who came from gracious loving parents.
Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins is absolutely a harmless and colourful comedy on the surface with pratfalls and family ties scenarios most people with large families will be able to identify with.
It features a bumbling and inept hero who spends most of the time alienated from the rest of his family but has a beautiful wife accompanying him as back up for good measure; it uses animals, in this case the old failsafe that are dogs, as a means of crude humour and it bizarrely assumes the audience will find meek racial jokes as well as overweight people generally funny.I'm sure there's a good film in Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins somewhere, isn't there?
It wants to tell us about the value of families and I'm sure its heart is in the right place but it comes off as an insulting and down right crazy film that, in the process, sets African-American cinema back a few years.The film sees Martin Lawrence take on the title role of Roscoe Jenkins, a successful talk show host in the urban world that is Los Angles, who travels to the rural deep south for a family reunification complete with BBQ and general re-acquaintances.
James Earl Jones must have wondered what the Hell he was thinking when he saw the finished film as he plays nameless 'Papa' Jenkins alongside Margaret Avery who is 'Mama' Jenkins.
The film is a window into another world; a window into another culture that nobody should ever want to experience, a sort of 'one up' on family members turning brotherly love into intense rivalry bordering on hatred for the sake of a few laughs.
The film is the kind that sees its characters talk throughout about how grown up they are and how things have changed and they've changed with them, but for all the 'talk' about maturity and moving on, Roscoe and his relatives certainly act as childish as they possibly can.Another battle in the film is between the slim and attractive city girl Bianca and her binary opposition Betty (Mo'Nique), an obese, loud, egotistical, rural type who comes across as the butt of many-a jokes.
Then there are the jokes revolving around shaven pubic hair and the 'dogs having intercourse gag' card is played three or so times before it's halted.A lot of the humour in the middle is played off these set ups but the reoccurring gag is that Roscoe and Lucinda have finally hit it off after all this time, despite only having seen each other for a few hours for the first time in ages – any fool can see there's nothing going on between them and it's only the sex-driven minds of certain idiot family members that prolong this joke.
Papa Jenkins himself states that Lucinda is 'not a prize to be won' but by the end and by the time we've had the film flip on us, delivering the "No, families are actually a really good thing" lecture, she's already adopted that role – what a shame..
I'm glad I didn't pay (other than cable and time) to see this reverse positive message of what family and relationships should be like.
It wasn't funny to me and Roscoe had every cause to feel dissed by his family except for his mother.
Their was overall good actors in it which put this movie on the mark, I personally don't watch movies twice but Im going to buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD.=]The movie was heart warming and gave you every intention of going home and making your family just like the Jenkins family.
They were funny, dysfunctional, loving, and very southern, everything a good family should be!
If those people commenting that this is "one of Martin Lawrence's best performances", are accurate, I can only thank God that I had the wisdom not to see any of his other movies.
Maybe if you are 10 years old or have the mental capacity of a 10 year old, you will like this movie, but I cannot imagine anyone with half a functioning brain finding this film humorous.The characters are so predictable and stereotyped that they make Amos and Andy look complimentary of the African American race.
did a good job "truly acting" in this movie - even better than the ol pro - j e jones..
"If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance." George Bernard ShawWelcome Home Roscoe Jenkins is not Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, but it will have to do for the graveyard shift between New Year's and Oscars.
Martin Lawrence's Roscoe Jenkins, a TV guru by a different name with a show that crosses between Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil, is a lost soul whose fame leaves him alienated from his family and a stranger to his loving little son.
This movie was better than recent Martin Lawrence films.
The family reunion turns into another contest between RJ and Clyde and Bianca sees she doesn't have much in common with RJ's family.Some of the funny scenes include Bianca saying sweet tea is like liquid diabetes, Bianca's dog with RJ's dog, the skunk, anything cousin Betty did.FINAL VERDICT: Give it a try, Martin Lawrence is funny again..
"Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins" does offer some laughs, but how much and/or whether you find them funny will depend on your comedic tastes and standards.
The misbegotten comedy "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins" features Martin Lawrence as a "Trash-TV" talk show host who, against his better judgment, attends a family get-together commemorating the 50th wedding anniversary of his parents (played by James Earl Jones and Margeret Avery, who are both way too classy for this enterprise).
The movie probably would have been better had it dispensed with the family reunion concept altogether and, instead, focused on satirizing Jenkins' day job.
And without that angle to distinguish the movie from every other run-of-the-mill family comedy of recent vintage, any possible interest the film might have generated dies aborning.Well worth skipping..
A movie I can rate as not just a little, but far superior to comedies with mostly all African-American casts, including all prior formula Martin Lawrence comedies, beauty/barber shops, etc.
It's obvious that welcome home Roscoe Jenkins is very underrated.
A successful self-help L.A. talk show host (Martin Lawrence) is been invited to his parents (James Earl Jones and Margaret Avery) 50th anniversary of marriage.
OK, I am not a big fan of Martin Lawrence or Cedric the Entertainer, but this looked like an interesting diversion for Saturday afternoon, and it did have Nicole Ari Parker (The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love), so what the heck.There is nothing like those family reunions where old rivalries are never settled, and everyone is trying to one-up each other.R.J.
(Martin Lawrence) has always felt like a loser, and his rivalry with Clyde (Cedric the Entertainer) is the focus of his parents (James Earl Jones & Margaret Avery) 50th Anniversary get together.
Even though he is engaged to Bianca (Joy Bryant), he is still in love with Lucinda (Parker), and that complicates matters.There are some great characters in this film to keep the laughs coming.
Bottom line: no football on TV, and with no other good movies on, this was out-loud funny, and I didn't once find myself channel surfing (but I did miss the first 15 minutes).
While I too agree that the character "Roscoe Jenkins" was justified in his position to leave home so that he could arise above the negativity in his family environment, I also feel that the movie showed his final obligation to accept family as they are.No matter how successful we are in our careers nothing can compare to being successful in our family relationships.
This MOVIE was funny beginning to end.
If you went to enjoy a funny movie with a good purpose you probably enjoyed it.
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins is exactly what you might expect.
In an attempt to mimic the recent inexplicable success of the Tyler Perry films and TV Series, it's all about African American family getting together and they all have wacky different personalities and enter slapstick comedy, one liners, stereotypes, and sexual jokes.
I mean the film has some good laughs it just doesn't hold your attention very long.
So the film really does rely on the comedic talents of it's star and the physical comedy which does manage to get a few chuckles.Martin Lawrence stars as Roscoe "RJ" Jenkins.
I do like Lawrence, he does always seem to play the same sort of character but he does have great comedic timing and he really is terrific at physical comedy which I love and I have great respect for a comedian who does it right.
Cedric The Entertainer who I also think can be a very funny guy plays Lawrence's rival and cousin.
The real charm in the film is the incredible supporting cast that make up the wild family including the incredible James Earl Jones, Margaret Avery, and Michael Clarke Duncan (who is terrific as Roscoe's older stronger brother.) The two members of the cast who significantly drag this cast down are Mo'Nique as a stereotypical, trashy, sleazy girl who wants nothing more than to have a lot of sex.
You can never go wrong in a movie with crazy Martin Lawrence, crazy Mike Epps, crazy Cedric the Entertainer, fly Nicole Parker and fly Joy Bryant.
Let's not forget James Earl Jones and Margaret "Shug" Avery playing the parents in this movie.
Why wasn't Roscoe's son's mother shown in this movie?
And why was Cedric's character finally touched at the end of the movie?
As for me, I'm on the positive side of things.Let me say from the start that I've pretty much avoided anything with Martin Lawrence, whether it was his television sitcom, or his stand-up, or his movies.
Michael Clarke Duncan was an interesting actor in everything I ever saw him in; a great loss at his early passing.If you watch this film, think about what I've said about how the director and writes balanced comedy, sentimentality, and family drama.
Disgusting, vulgar film that is supposedly dealing with family relations.What Martin Lawrence, who portrays successful talk-show host Roscoe Jenkins, goes home to visit his estranged family after 9 years, all hell breaks loose.Must the stereotyping of a black dysfunctional, vulgar family ensue? |
tt0111080 | Savate | 1865. Joseph Charlegrand is a former French soldier whose best friend and comrade was murdered by an officer of the French Foreign Legion in Mexico. Looking for the murderer, Charlegrand is heading for a martial arts tournament in the United States because the murderer takes his pride in being a skilled fighter.
On his way from Mexico to Texas some American rogues take him for a Yankee and ambush him. He can fight them off but loses his horse. On foot he runs out of water and eventually breaks down. Two young farmers (Ashley Laurence and Ian Ziering as Mary and Cain Parker) save his life.
When the farmers go to town for purchases they are molested and eventually seriously attacked by the roustabouts of a local business man who wants their land very badly. The film's protagonist returns the farmer's favour by applying his savate. Yet it is obvious they need further support.
Consequently he stays with them and even instructs Cain how to fight, so that he might win the martial arts tournament and hereby earn the money they need to pay the new taxes. But during one night masked riders burn their barn and one of them loses a precision dice. Cain recognises this object, follows the culprit into town and confronts him. After Cain has been shot dead, all farmers are ready to sell out.
The hero decides he mustn't let that happen, hence he takes the dead farmer's place in the tournament and tells the farmers to bet all their money on him. In order to prevent him from being successful, his friend's murderer, the German-speaking von Trotta (Marc Singer) is hired.
But the bad guys leave nothing to chance and also take Mary Parker as hostage. Charlegrand manages to cause enough confusion to disappear between two fights, so that he can free Mary and force Colonel Jones (James Brolin) to spill the beans. The alleged new taxes turn out to be a hoax but the farmer's savings are on Charlegrand and so they still need him to win the tournament.
Therefore his final battle with von Trotta mustn't be postponed, even though Charlegrand has been shot in the course of action. | violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0341495 | Chek law dak gung | The movie opens with the assassination of a man of unknown identity. A team of three CIA officers, including Jack Chen (Daniel Wu), a rookie, watch through surveillance as a sexy female assassin named Fiona Birch (Marit Thoresen) enters the man's heavily guarded apartment suite and, after having sex with him, kills him by breaking his spine with her bare hands. As she makes her escape in her white Porsche 911 GT3, her car is hit by a rocket. As the officers rush over to extricate her from the wreckage, a woman in a limousine shoots her to death.
The woman in the limousine is revealed to be Madam M (Almen Wong), the leader of a mysterious assassin organization, to which the killed assassin belonged. After the incident, young girls across the globe start disappearing one after another. The only relationship among them is that they are all trained in martial arts or sports. As Jack correctly theorizes, these girls have been abducted by Madam M and transported to an island to be trained to become professional assassins. After six years of gruesome training, only Charlene Ching (Maggie Q), Katt (Anya Wu) and Jing (Jewel Lee) survive and "graduate". The last test in order for them to graduate was a fight for survival/to the death test. Katt and Charlene, being friends, could not kill each other, and so each is accepted as a survivor. To celebrate, Madame M gives them all different wines which have drugs in them. As the drugs take effect Madame M calls her guards to brutally rape the girls, thus (in Madame M's words) making them ready for what was to come.
The three girls are then sent on several missions around the world. During one of her missions in Hong Kong, Charlene coincidentally runs into her long-lost mother, Faye Ching (Cheng Pei-pei). Jack, who has been following Madam M's case for the last six years, tracks Charlene down, but Charlene manages to knock him out and escape. Believing that Charlene would return to seek her mother, Jack waits outside Faye's house. However, Jing shows up first and stabs Faye. Jack tries to fend her off but he is no match for her. Charlene shows up and kills Jing after a fierce fight. She and Jack then escort the wounded Faye to the hospital.
In order to regain their freedom, Charlene and Katt accept a final mission from Madam M. A yakuza boss, Ryuichi (Andrew Lin), has contracted Madam M to eliminate a traitor in his gang. The mission turns out to be Ryuichi's trap to avenge his partner, who was assassinated previously by one of Madam M's girls (Charlene). Ryuichi kills Madam M and captures Katt, while Charlene escapes.
While Jack is at the hospital, Charlene calls him to meet her at the beach. They end up making love, and the next morning she leaves a note in his shoe saying if they are destined, then they will meet again. When Charlene returns the next day to rescue Katt, she watches helplessly through a bullet-proof glass as Katt, after being tortured, is killed by Ryuichi with a sword. The enraged Charlene battles Ryuichi in an intense fight, and finally manages to kill him using the technique used by Fiona Birch.
Jack and Faye are at a Chinese temple offering prayers. Faye jokingly says that these things (the gods that she has been praying to) must have been all nonsense in Jack's point of view. But Jack tells her that although he never had a religion, he feels peace every time he is in the temple. Faye commends his behavior and says that he should visit the temple more often. Meanwhile, Charlene is in a different temple praying for Katt's soul to rest in peace, and she tells the deity that she wishes to be with the one she truly loves, Jack.
Jack claims at the end of the movie that there are times when he is sure that Charlene is beside him; the last scene of the movie is Charlene watching Jack rush through the crowd looking for her. | violence, revenge, murder, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0893532 | Kill Theory | An unnamed man is sitting in a psychiatrist's office, being released from an insane asylum. Three years ago, he and three friends were mountain climbing, when an accident left them all suspended on one rope that was fraying. Being the closest to the top, the man chose to cut the rope to save himself and dropped the other three to their death. He says that he knows his actions were wrong, but that he had to make the choice he did if he wanted to survive. The doctor reminds him that while his actions are almost understandable, they resulted in death, something that is never acceptable. This causes the patient to become upset and more insistent that other people in the same situation would make the same choices as he did.
Meanwhile, seven young adults are driving to their friend Brent's house to celebrate their upcoming college graduation. While the group gets along for the most part, there are obvious moments of tension between people, most notably Amber trying to be with Michael despite his relationship with Jennifer. Amber briefly refers to unspecified events that imply she and Michael were intimate at one point. As the night progresses, Brent's stepsister Alex unexpectedly shows up. She and Brent argue, her calling Brent a spoiled rich kid and him calling her mother a gold-digger who only married his father for his money. The group convinces Brent to let Alex stay, and in the spirit of maintaining the cheery atmosphere, several people try to fix her up with another boy named Freddy.
They all party and later that night when everyone else is asleep, Nicole is grabbed by a strange man as she goes for a beer. Her body is then thrown through the window onto a sleeping Freddy, who screams and alerts the rest of the group. The letters 'TV' carved into her stomach indicates for them to watch a video taken earlier, where Nicole is given a gun and told to shoot the sleeping Carlos to save her own life. Nicole refuses and is killed. The unnamed man tells the seven on the video that they will have to kill each other until only one person remains. If more than one person is still alive at 6:00 am, he will kill everyone left.
The group panics and Brent and Carlos go to try to find a way to escape. The boat Brent showed Carlos earlier has been sunk, but the gun on board is in the keybox, so Brent takes it. Carlos seeks an ax and goes to get it, but is caught in a giant bear trap. Brent tries to help, but then leaves him, saying to the others that he died. Unbeknownst to him, the killer bandages Carlos and leaves him at the house. When he tells Jennifer that Brent left him, she loses all trust in Brent.
Now that everyone's back, Michael leads them to the van to try and escape, but the van is caught by something and can't move. Over the radio, the unnamed man says that they must now throw one person out to die or they will all die. Brent decides to throw the mortally injured Carlos out and he is shot through the head with the rifle stolen from the basement. Everyone splits up and runs back to the house. Brent and Amber separate and Brent is caught by the killer, but is let go when he promises to kill someone.
Alex ran off on her own to get her motorcycle, but the killer fires at her and she's forced to hide. Brent discovers her and drowns her in the lake. He sneaks back to the house to talk to Freddy alone, saying that the boat is okay and they can escape if he can get the gun from Michael. Freddy fakes a panic attack to get the gun and Brent comes in, but Amber reveals that the boat is inoperable. Freddy realizes he's been tricked and shoots Brent, and tries to force everyone else out of the house. Michael convinces Freddy to drop the gun, just as Brent skewers him through the head with a poker, killing him.
Brent grabs the gun and chases Michael and Jennifer down to the basement, but as they're cornered, Amber attacks Brent with a shovel and beats him to death. Jennifer grabs the gun and takes Michael upstairs. Amber finds a gun in her pill bag and draws on Jennifer, arguing with her over Michael, saying she loves him. It is revealed that Michael and Amber once slept together and that she has been in love with him ever since. Jennifer is not surprised by this news, saying that she forgave Michael when he confessed to the infidelity the day after it happened. Outraged, Jennifer shoots Amber in the stomach, but Michael takes them down in the basement as the unnamed man approaches. They hide under the staircase and shoot at the approaching figure, but it turns out to be Alex who survived Brent's first attack. She dies from the gunshot wounds. Jennifer then turns traitor and stabs Michael in the stomach, saying that she has to in order to survive. She tries to kill him, but Amber attacks her and strangles her to death. Amber crawls next to Michael, intent on staying with him until the end. As the clock chimes six and the man approaches, Michael kills himself in order to save Amber. As the man passes, Amber says she'll never be like him, and though he expresses skepticism, he leaves her alive and departs from the house.
The killer leaves a voice mail in the psychiatrist's office, saying he's proved his theory that desperate people would resort to murder and the camera pans along a photograph to reveal Brent was the doctor's son. The killer laughs and says he's now found closure. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | A welcome new take on the slasher genre, Kill Theory starts out quite well, but soon deteriorates into TV teen-soap territory because of the ill thought out character relationships.The titular kill theory of the villain only works because the characters are pretty shallow and have a common backstory straight out of a bad Gossip Girl story strand.
What it DOES do, and well I might add, is take everything that has made slashers work in the past, and incorporate that into a very competently made modern slasher flick.One of the things I liked most about Kill Theory, is that there really isn't a main character.
You don't see the "Killer's" face until the end of the film, but it doesn't make it a big "Reveal" moment,and those of us who have been keeping up to date on slashers, will immediately recognize his voice.If you're thirsting for a slasher film, and if you're like me, and are sick of the "Saw" franchise, and it's imitators, give Kill Theory a shot.
Kill Theory is the best horror film i have seen in a long time.
Carly Pope fans are in for a disappointment as she is only featured in a picture (deleted scenes?) given the quality of the film it is a wonder that lions-gate has shelved this for so long since it could become the next Saw. The running time is somewhat short at about 80 minutes but the film makes up for that with its fast pacing..
Kill Theory is one of the best Horror films in ages.
After all, this is LionsGate.Kill Theory is about a group of 6 college friends who head off to a secluded vacation home for fun and...
I also couldn't believe the last-minute twist which is executed so well that I was left just gaping at the screen.The acting is good and so are the production values, so half the time you don't even feel like you're watching a DTV flick.Honestly, if LionsGate doesn't give this movie the treatment it deserves, then something's definitely outta wack.
If they can give wide releases to crap like Disaster Movie, then they should have no problem with this solid slasher flick.I highly recommend this movie if you're a fan of teen slice 'em ups or even if you're not.
Fans of the Saw series should like it also since it has quite a few similarities to those movies.Final Verdict: 10/10, 2009 looks set to be a good year for Horror with movies such as My Bloody Valentine 3-D (also distributed by LionsGate) and the reboot of Friday the 13th..
In spite of a potentially generous premise (demented killer doing none of the dirty work but instead relying upon victims to turn against one another), Kill Theory is nothing but a 75 min long streak of fits of hysteria and oh so much yelling and cursing.
OK...I think it was a cool movie..cool premise and a cool script for the most part.The actors, the gore, the setting, even the "scary" music was all good.However...why are teens always so well off?
Give it something special.Sure it 's nice to see tits and ass and pretty girls topless and buff guys, but it's boring..and overdone.I would love to see a 400 pound person who has a hard time walking up a flight of stairs come crashing down on somebody and crushing them underneath a table or something.Yes, sometimes even the "ugly" people can be interesting as well.Having the mute person try to scream...just flawless.Having the blind person try to defend themselves - true masterpiece.Havig different cultures aside from just the pretty white boys and girls makes it so much more interesting.And...having a slew of household weapons in a garage or basement is far more entertaining than just having a kid pull a gun and use up 15 shots.Imagine all the gore you can do with a circsaw or weed whacker; a tree pruner or a band saw or something that is used in a real day to day setting.Car tools, electrical cords, hair dryers....oh all the fun toys that we use on a daily basis which can mutilate us, decapitate us, burn us and over all do some nasty carnage.Even the simple thing as having a broomstick and a frying pan or a fireplace poker.Walk around the hardware store and take a good look at your next weapon of choice...it's so much more fun than just pulling a trigger.Using a butane torch, paint stripper, garden shears, pitchfork, vise grips and every other tool known to an is so much more intense rather than just a bullet to the gut or forehead.Guns are overused and for the people who have no skill or vision in writing.Really...let yourself go and become insane for a weekend...your last weapon will be a gun..
Kill Theory is a film that looked really bad in my opinion, the trailers were not very good and the film didn't get very good reviews and it honestly seemed like another torture porn, ,,Saw wannabe" However that is not what you get.
The thing that i didn't expect from the film was the psychological horror, which was very good.
I thought this was decent and better than expected bloody thriller with solid acting but this horror theme is very tiresome and recycled now and is no longer thrilling or scary.
I thought it was well paced and had ordinary but very brutal kills but what really stands out in this movie and what makes it interesting is the psychological mind games the characters play on each other and the hard decisions they make in order to survive this twisted cat and mouse game.
I does have better production values than previous slashers from after dark horrorfest but like most movies from that fest you won't even remember the name of it in a few years.
Overall it had an intriguing tagline, decent but as expected leads, ruthless violence and a harsh psychological, cat and mouse game the characters are forced to play and the final twist which is both the highlight of this otherwise forgettable thriller.
KILL THEORY has an interesting premise - which has been done many times before - but aside from one or two actors, the general cast is full of pretty boys and girls who were very amateurish actors.
How's this for a typical, bad, teen horror film: a bunch of horny, booze-swilling college kids meet up at a secluded house in the woods (with no cell phone reception, of course), spend the first fifteen minutes of the film saying stupid things to each other and are then menaced by a psycho killer whose motivation makes no sense.
This movie is an awesome teenage slasher film , which centers on a group of college friends who stay the weekend at a friends home deep in the wilderness for a weekend to remember, which becomes a bloody fight for survival.
Seriously, how do some people think they'll get noticed and earn lots of money and respect with such an average and formulaic movie such as this one.Yes, I'll admit that I'm definitely fed up at this point by horror/slasher movies that feature a group of young, perfect looking, college students.
Whenever you think someone is good and the movie is going to focus on him/her and treat him/her as the hero of the movie, he/she does something incredibly immoral and you start to no longer care for any of the characters and whether or not they are going to survive.But still, it remains a pretty decent made genre movie, that is certainly good looking and also features some nice gore and killings.
It doesn't save the movie, it just spices up things a little at times.And it's a real shame, since the movie gives you the feeling that it still could had been a pretty original and interesting one, had it done more with its concept and perhaps had some better written characters in it.
Then I watched it again last night and this time I knew what was going to happen so I thought it would be even worse, but then I watched it and it turned out to be one of my favorite movies.
Since I went in the first time with such high expectations, it kind of sucked because I wasn't "watching the movie".
They find themselves in a very difficult situation when a psychopathic killer gets in touch with them and plays a deadly game where the participants are forced to kill each other in order to survive.I found the plot to be good and very thrilling.
So if you're looking for some ordinary horror movie with a lot of killing, this movie would be a good candidate..
Whilst celebrating a graduation at a secluded vacation home, a group of college students find themselves targeted by a sadistic killer who forces them to play a deadly game of killing one another in order to survive.I was pleasantly surprised to see Agnes Bruckner (who plays Jennifer) was in the cast, being a fan of "The Woods".
Hmmm.This movie is a lot like "Saw" (or maybe "Saw II") in that it has people forced to kill others rather than the madman doing the work himself.
Watching with friends, you can pick your favorite character and see if they are the one to be remaining.The twists and turns are here, too, and you never know who is dead until you are absolutely sure.
A formulaic American slasher movie, "Kill Theory" is populated by conveniently photogenic college students on vacation in some remote spot with a big house, blissfully unaware of impending danger.
And "Kill Theory" at least has that.Aside from lack of originality, I would rate this film average for its genre.
If you don't expect too much, the film can be mildly enjoyable, but only if you are into slasher movies and lots of gore..
This sounds a little like SAW, but a distinction is that in this movie, they have to kill their best friends, girl friends, boyfriends and character development along with the plot is so good that you do not know what will happen next and who the sole survivor will be.
I had that same hope watching this movie as a maniac tried to force friends to kill on another.There was a lot of intensity as the band of mates collaborated to escape.
I think the plot for the movie was decent twist on normal cabin in the woods movies There had some decent actors, who don't over act their scenes.There were decent Bloodly moment in this movie, they could have been more bloody for slasher movie.I felt this movie a bit too much like Donkey Punch that came year before, Which I didn't really like at all, (Not seen it that movie for while, May need to re-watch that, I didn't really like that at the time) I didn't like how the movie ended at all, I thought it decent twist on normal slasher movie but don't think there anything that really stood out their for this movie to get notice.
I honestly have no idea why this movie has such a low rate.It was one of the best movies I've seen recently especially because,let's face it,there are a lot of movies these days that suck.Finding a good movie to watch is like finding a needle in a haystack,and today I found it.I was entertained throughout the whole movie,not one bit was boring,and that's the whole point,isn't it?The acting was OK,it could have been better,but it was far from bad and the acting is I think the only reason why I didn't give this movie a 10.The movie was exciting,intense and the ending was unexpected,but not in an annoying way (when I say annoying I mean like one of those movies where it turns out that everything was just in the main character's mind,which has become totally expected because there are so many movies that end like that)..
The acting is good right up until the scenes where they are forced to use emotion then some of the actors are shaky.This movie is about a man who its just getting out of jail on a manslaughter charge.
His lawyer said normal people wouldn't make the same choice and this man set out to prove him wrong using a group of college kids as his test subjects.I actually really enjoyed this movie and I think it deserves more then a measly 5.6.
All I have to say is Kill Theory is a surprising movie.
Group of teenagers/young 20 somethings going away on some trip to a secluded area where cell service doesn't seem to work - you have the usual interaction between the characters to set up who is who, the usual make out sessions to show you who is coupled with who, a few remarks about things that happened prior to the trip you don't care about to give you back story and it's all just a waiting game until the villain strikes.
When they arrive, they find Alex, Brent's half sister (her Mother married his rich Father) who was also planning on staying at the home for the weekend so of course she joins the core group bringing the total number of people staying in the home to 8.The premise of the movie is that there is a deranged mad man who has apparently been stalking the main group for weeks who followed them to the home and has now demanded that by 6am the next morning only one of them be alive - they must kill each other to survive.
Kill Theory has a lot of blood and a lot of screaming but not a lot of good acting, not a lot of great dialogue and not a lot of realism given how some people die..or don't die.Daniel Franzese plays Freddy who, for me, was unbearably annoying throughout the film.
There is a twist at the end that was decent I guess but the majority of the film is your usual formulaic slasher stuff and none of it is spectacular.SPOILERS - I didn't have a problem when Brent was shot and then was able to get back up to kill Freddy because he was shot on his side and may not have been fatally wounded but just pretended he was.
That was plot motivated since Amber was the one who was going to survive at the end, not character driven because it makes no sense at all why Michael would kill himself just so that girl could live.The whole sequence at the end hurt my head it was so dumb..
The potentials for a fun weekend are there: nice babes, a lake and boat, plenty of beer ...and a gun.There are plenty of bare midriffs, suggestive talk then blood soaked clothing and various amputated human limbs.Some evil mastermind is watching over the entire scene and provides miscellaneous electronic communication via walkie talkies, video tapes and the like.The mastermind is trying to get the twenty-somethings to kill each other.
The people are killed one by one and you can pretty much predict who will die next.So, the movie isn't bad, it's just not anything new.
And, if you want to see something from this horror genre, there are better movies out there..
The characters they portrayed were strikingly similar to those in the 'Friday the 13th' interquel (though I'm fairly certain 'Kill Theory' was filmed first), including the group of pretty rich kids and the 'outsider' who enters on their good time.
There are some glaring problems and the story could've used a couple more twists & turns to keep it more exciting; but, overall, 'Kill Theory' is a strong thriller that can definitely hold its own in the modern horror game.
then you completely missed the entire point of the end of the movie, which by the way was a GREAT twist that I did not see coming...very well planned out.
Kill Theory is a movie with a gruesome concept, though in any context its nothing more than just another slasher movie still its plot, I guess makes it interesting but disturbing also.
A maniac returns from mental asylum to plot a dangerous game for a group of friends and force them to kill each other as that was the only mode of survival.
During the evening, the kids, who seemed to be in high spirits and anxious for the prominent future, will be given a choice, one will be able to survive while the others must perish, cut off as the killer's friends were, his testing a "kill theory" where he sees how much one values his/her life, willing to sacrifice their own in order to make it out alive.
Like the Saw movies and the genre as a whole where we see humankind's true nature when facing death first-hand, "Kill Theory" follows a select group of individuals and how they react to a crisis.
I think movies like "Kill Theory" and "Saw" series will always appeal to a certain crowd who enjoy seeing characters turn on each other, tearing each other apart through actions and words, while hoping to escape the killer's trap(s), falling prey to their own frailties and weaknesses, attempting to resolve a very difficult dilemma which has them in a stranglehold.
Eight college friends Brent, Amber, Michael, Jennifer, Freddi, Alex, Carlos, Nicole spend one last weekend together before graduating and going there separate ways.
And because the characters became well-defined, you actually started to care for all of them in one way or another and understand them.The main plot point that bugged me though is that we're supposed to accept at face value that the killer can foresee ALL of his preys' actions and can tell how each one is going to act and react, which is a bit far-fetched.
The ending has a couple of twists and turns, but I actually think that even knowing the twists, I still wouldn't mind watching KILL THEORY again. |
tt0295725 | Time Changer | Bible professor Russell Carlisle (D. David Morin) confronts and lectures a boy who has stolen marbles from his neighbors, calling his action unjust. The year is 1890 and Carlisle has written a new manuscript entitled The Changing Times, which promotes good morals without discussing Christ. The book is on track to receive a unanimous endorsement from the board of the Grace Bible Seminary. That is, until colleague Dr. Norris Anderson (Gavin MacLeod) objects. Without unanimous endorsement, his book might not do so well. Carlisle and another professor seek a unanimity rule change, but the dean insists that Carlisle discuss the disagreement with Anderson privately.
Dr. Anderson fears that Carlisle's book could harm coming generations, arguing that teaching good moral values without mentioning Christ is wrong. Using a secret time machine, Anderson sends Carlisle over 100 years into the future, offering him a glimpse of where his beliefs will lead.
Arriving in the early 21st century, Carlisle is shocked to find that half of all marriages end in divorce (instead of 5% in 1890), teenagers talk openly about deceiving their parents, movies contain blasphemous language and people who go to church are so bored by the sermons that they need extra activities. He tries to convince a laundromat worker, Eddie Martinez (Paul Rodriguez), to go to church and read the Bible. Two churchgoing men grow suspicious of Carlisle, who acts as if he's seeing everything for the first time. They confront him as he is about to be transported back to the past. As the sky grows thunderous, Carlisle seems delirious as he talks about how the second coming of Christ is drawing near. Carlisle vanishes. The men look at where he vanished and one of the men says with dread, "I think we just missed the Rapture."
Carlisle rematerializes in 1890 and excitedly tells Anderson he will revise his book. He gives the thieving boy his own set of marbles and explains that it is Jesus Christ who demands honesty. Anderson tries to learn when the world will come to an end, by trying to send a Bible to the future. The machine won't operate with a target date of 2100, so he tries with progressively earlier decades 2090, 2080 and 2070, which fail. As the film ends, he makes at least two more failed attempts, aiming earlier and earlier, suggesting that either humanity cannot know when the End comes, or that the End will come before the mid-21st century. | christian film | train | wikipedia | Accordingly, I would suspect that TIME CHANGER will be strongly embraced by the Christian community and fans of movies such as "LEFT BEHIND" and "THE OMEGA CODE." The film is well made and especially well acted with a fine cast.
Not only that, but the film focuses on obedience to the Jesus of the Bible, which includes total allegiance to HIM and not to any sort of morals that have replaced Him. This in essence IS the movie, and because of that, it is quite profound.
Saying that Jesus Christ is the only source of truth is like saying Buddha or Mohammed can only show correct morals; in this modern era, that kind of attitude belongs in 1890.This is a Christian movie for diehard Christians.
I've just seen this film, and being a non-Christian, in fact, non-religious, some things almost made me laugh.According to the main character, all scientific teachings are false if they contradict the Bible.Are we REALLY meant to expect that the Bible is the Truth, no matter what?
If so, when should we start stoning people for committing adultery?Times have moved on - they have changed - without certain points, this film would have been a lot better, but it's almost humorous the way that it's blaming the state of society on films, that the Bible is 100% correct on everything.And is America REALLY the state of the whole world?
When I was 12, I remember watching scary Christian films in the 70's about the last days, the rapture and who gets left behind.I'm 38 now and I felt that this movie delivered a better message.
They have no shame.This movie is a wake up call to the world.It's not about how good it was to live in the 19th century - it's about how bad it is to live today without spiritual guidance from a Christian point of view.
I have seen many "Christian" movies over the years and often I am left a bit disappointed with the production and acting quality.
Time Changer gives this message.This movie puts several well known faces on the screen with performances that are rather unconventional and refreshing.
If you need to watch something which is basically preaching at you that you need to worship a god the way we do or your all dammed then this is the flick for you and your bible study group to watch.If your a free thinking person who is not in the mood to be preached at, but want a entertainment film move to the next box on the shelf.Even in movies who have a religious message or theme, there is usually a battle between good and evil, such as the End of Days or The Word that a viewer can get into and follow for the simple sake of a good story.
The movie ends on a note that we are all doomed with the attempts to send a bible forward into the late 21st century and it will not transmit, suggesting that there is no future because people of earth have forgotten Christ.Gee, the poor poor souls of the world who are not reborn and fundamentalist Christians, your all going into the fires.
I can see where people of other faiths can be offended by this movie.I am not reborn even though at one time I was Pentacostal and dunked, raised as a Congregational Protestant with a Catholic father, I enjoy the religious themed movies such as the 10 Commandments, Barabras, even Ben Hur. They tell a good story with out preaching and damming people for not following the path of the movie maker.If you want to watch a movie move on if you want to go to church and hear a sermon rent or buy it..
Even a Christian audience knows the difference between good film-making and bad film-making, although they may be reluctant, from fear of God, to admit that Joe Esterhas has more talent in his pinky toenail than Rich Christiano has in his entire body (and eternal soul, apparently.) Religiousity aside, this film is bad.
Instead, the film takes itself too seriously and fails to portray an adventure in any sense of the words "fun" and stimulating.The plot is predictable and the main characters are stereotypical Christian fundamentalists in the worst sense of that expression.
The movie assumes that every one in the 1890s was a moral, Bible-believing Christian, and everyone in 2003 is living in sin.
On the positive side (for Christian viewers), the movie expressed that morals taught apart from the authority of Jesus Christ cannot reform society.
But, the DVD cover plainly talks about what this movie is about and no one should wonder if it is about God and Jesus Christ and his message to all of us.
This movie offended me.It pretends to be a Science Fiction movie, but is really a Christian proselytizing film claiming the only way anything good can exist is if it comes from their god.The movie itself is a piece of junk.
His son inherits it and a couple of bible scholars use it to come to the future and complain about the lack of religion in everyday life.They bash the ideas of freedom, freedom from religion, and pretty much everything about modern society.The time machine is a joke, the script lame, but the acting is simply boring and tedious.I regret watching this thing and hope to save you from the same..
Though this is a Christian one and not the kind of movie for those willing to watch some action or fun, it is still a good one for those willing to think about another insight of the society.
Otherwise if u are not a Christian and wanna skip that heaven part, it still pops up a question for those wanting to know and intelligently study and research where did many of the good values that mark the modern man, like solidarity,...
We were at points laughing hysterically, criticizing the movie for any number of mistakes, (bad acting, bad writing, bad pretty much everything) and really asking ourselves, what the hell were those rotating squares in Norris' time machine room?But, nevertheless, the movie did not garner two fans that day, partially for it's horrible quality, and partially for the message that being a good person has nothing to do with living your life well.
OK, let me preface this by saying that I am a spirit-filled born again believer, so this is not an anti-Christian thing at all.This is easily one of the worst movies I have ever scene in my life (and I have seen a few real bad ones).
I would just like to be able to say nice things about a christian movie but it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon.
More and more often movies seem family safe on the outside and then you take your kids and are shocked by the content (Shrek 2, Spongebob).I am shocked to read the comments others left who say they are Christians but that the message of this film is outdated!!!!
This is certainly not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong and it is not the teaching of many mainstream Protestant denominations who are not among the evangelicals or fundamentalist categories.The only remotely valid argument that appears in this film is that churches often become more social organizations than places of worship.This film has acting, bad science, and bad Christianity throughout.I just want people reading these commentaries to understand that not all Christians believe this way so do not condemn us for our ridiculous views because there are Christians out here who do have common sense.
Basically, if you are a Bush loving, good Christian you will like this movie cause you are probably obsessed over the moral decline in society and are convinced only Jesus can stop this.
The men sit around the table thrilled at the idea, hopeful that it should be able to collectively improve the lives of people who would like to lead moral lives but are not inclined toward believing in Jesus or God. The younger audience are particularly targeted by this idea.There are six or seven or so of these men, all excited to publish the book as soon as possible, but one of them shows up late, vehemently denouncing the novel and fighting against its publication.
He eventually does, and comes face to face with normal modern society, and finds himself appalled at what has become of the church.Personally, I don't believe that someone living a moral life but without the fear of God is doing a thing in the world wrong.
The acting is absolutely awful across the board, and the idea of a time machine invented in the 1890s (even if only because the idea of time travel, more than a century later, is so astronomical that it is not even attempted by serious modern scientists) is childish, at best.I'm willing to accept the premise of a time machine being invented and used in the 1890s in order to travel into the future and see what kind of world a book like the one presented would help to create, but only from a pure entertainment standpoint.
I would love to see a movie about Einstein inventing a time machine and traveling to the future and seeing what he thinks of space travel and the Back to the Future movies and whatnot, but Time Changer is trying to take itself and be taken more seriously than it deserves.I will grant credit to the fact that society at large may hold religious beliefs that are certain to be horrifying to the religious community of 110 years ago, but I am not willing to admit that someone who lives a moral life but does not connect their morals with Jesus is living in sin or, even more ludicrous, has any chance of spending an eternity in Hell.
I know far too many people who live happily, have wonderful families, and are good and civil to their fellow man to have the ability to believe or ever be convinced that they will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire because they do not attend church regularly or make Jesus or God a significant portion of their lives, and I do not feel obliged to believe in a God who is so self righteous that He would damn people like that.
Not being familiar with US television stations, when I flicked onto this on my in-laws' cable, first I thought it was just a low-budget sci-fi film, then after a couple of minutes I started thinking it might be a clever satire on the worst excesses of Christian fundamentalist, and then it dawned on me - good grief, these people are serious!
Born Again Christian Propaganda Disguised as SciFi. I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by "Reefer Madness." That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach "Christian" principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century!.
This film looked really fun and interesting on Netflix.....next time I'll be more careful about reading the label.First, and I want to be emphatic about this, I have no issue with the overtly fundamentalist Christian message of this movie.
To a very large number of people who might view this movie, if you want to get the message across, it needs excellent acting to accomplish it...and while I didn't sympathize with the message, the blunt and amateurish way it was presented put me off completely.Can there be any material richer than the Bible.
To finally see a movie that had a good message, and doesn't have any gratuitous sex, violence, or bad language was refreshing.Unlike the other review of this film, many Christians do believe in the message presented by the film.
The Bible that Christians are supposed to believe in states that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life.
Although unlikely to appeal to non-believers, this movie is excellent entertainment for Christians.
(you can get the full story from the other reviews)My main point is that during one of his conversations with a female Christian librarian, she says that the cinema started off as being full of Jesus' message but goes on to say that Satan got his grubby little paws on it and made it secular and forced all these negative images on to the populous...I mean, come on here...she's obviously talking about the Jewish influence on the film industry!Shame on you!Into the bargain it just has Zealots written all over it..
It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen but the message of what a 19th century theologian professor would see if he travels to the future is very thought provoking.
"Time Changers" caught my attention and someone at our local video store had even placed a "Recommended Viewing" sticker on the box-cover.As I watched the film progress, I could not believe my eyes and ears.
Everything from the special effects to the acting, the costumes, the cinematography and even the sound were outstanding.It's true that if you have not done what the Bible tells you to do and accepted Jesus as your savior, and you do not believe in heaven and hell, you probably will not like this movie.
This film was produced to promote a malignant lie: that the 1890's, thanks to the far greater influence of Christian churches, were a more moral time in America than the present.
If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film.
A movie such as Star Wars and the Matrix use relgious themes but give the audience time to make up their mind on how their own morale beliefs are linked to religion - this movie doesn't do either.In the movie a Christian fundamentalist from the 1890's travels to the future and gets p***ed off at how the future earth is "evil" and how "sin rules the world".
That is because society & mankind needs *way* more movies like Time Changer if it is to have *any* hope of getting back on track.
This used to premise to try to persuade you to become more in touch with your day to day self and to include God in your life like they may have at the turn of the century ...while this is not a bad thing I just did not want it thrown at me in a movie disguised as entertainment when it was really a revival meeting such a billy Graham or ( pardon me) An Assy of God sunday worship service.
the whole movie was this seminary teacher going back in time telling who ever would listen that we need to have Christ in our lives ..He had a whole long speech as he was supposed to be telling people at a church ( which was a probably accurate depiction of today church life in some ways.
Watching after her, Carlisle realizes that his reprimand has held no meaning with her because she does not know or fear the Lord.This and other encounters with sinful situations drive Carlisle to the very conclusion Dr. Anderson insisted upon: The teaching of morals without the authority of Jesus Christ is dangerous in the way it convinces people that Good Works are enough for a happy existence and a positive afterlife.
Carlisle returns to his own time with his eyes opened.This is by far the best-looking Christian film I have seen.
I felt, at long last, like I was watching a real film that happened to be Christian.
If you're some sort of religious nut who likes to push your beliefs on normal people who quite frankly don't care then you'll probably love it.If like me, you're a normal member of the human race with capabilities of independent thought then i would recommend either not watching it, or watching it with the idea that, it's a ridiculous comedy with purposefully bad lines and acting, that way you'll really enjoy it.I can't believe for one second that the main character in real life would go for more than 5 minutes in modern day life without getting pistol whipped.
Only after watching this for a while I started suspecting this was Christian propaganda.I truly enjoyed this movie, it has a good plot line and it is very well acted, for a CP that is.
But it is not that important in this film.This is a movie about Christians and the Word of God. It is about how times have changed for the Christians from past to the future.
I get upset when people say all these negative and rude comments towards Christianity and such films as "Time Changer," but I forgive them and love them.
I love this movie, to me the message is clear and true, good morals without the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ are subjective and therefore do not hold,just look at our society today.
My husband and I have watched this together a few times and we also had the pleasure of meeting D.David Moran (Russell Carlisle) and Rich Christiano at a Christian Film Festival two years ago near where we live. |
tt0056553 | Tall in the Trap | In the Old West town of Dry Gulp, Jerry - wanted for "cheese rustlin'" - steals a piece of cheese at the general store. When the shopkeeper angrily demands action, the sheriff hires the "fastest trap in the West" to Jerry's horror, a dramatic scene shown before the start. This turns out to be Tom, who comes to town riding spurs like skates. He crashes into the sheriff's office and gives him a card saying "Have Trap, will Travel". He then gives a poor demonstration of how he is quick on the draw with mousetraps.
Tom and Jerry gather for a confrontation of drawing their weapons, but when Tom draws his weapons, he accidentally breaks his belt and the bottom half of his fur falls down, revealing his boxers. Tom hops away while Jerry breaks into a fit of laughter. Once Tom has recovered, he gives chase until they reach Jerry's hideout. Jerry rushes inside, but Tom puts his hand through the door, trying to grab him. Jerry then puts a large bag of flour in Tom's hand to fool him into thinking it's him. As Tom tries to yank it out, Jerry opens another door above Tom's head and hits him with a mallet. An angry Tom then chases Jerry to Rocky's Saloon, where he gets his head caught in the clapping doors before finding him in the basement.
Tom is now armed with a rifle and as he prepares to take aim, Jerry tricks Tom into a game of turning the light on and off, until Tom finally falls down to the bottom of the stairs when the light is left off. After it comes back on, Tom's rifle is aimed at him by Jerry, who then shoots him.
The chase continues with Jerry running into another hole. Tom draws one of his traps and lines it with cheese, hoping to catch Jerry, but the mouse opens a door behind Tom, pulling his tail into the trap. When the trap snaps, Tom realizes too late that his own tail is in it and leaps into the air with a scream.
Finally, Tom brings a powder keg from the general store, hoping to get rid of Jerry once and for all. Jerry drills a hole in the bottom of the keg and the gunpowder trickles out before Tom lights the fuse at the top. Seeing this, Tom pushes the barrel into a water hole near the sheriff's office. But the fuse at the top is still burning and the keg explodes, destroying the Sheriff's office. The Sheriff angrily aims his six shooter at Tom and chases him out of town, while Jerry steals the last piece of cheese from the general store. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0093435 | Lung foo fong wan | William Dudley (Leslie Nielsen) is a corrupt mayor of a nameless Midwestern U.S. city who has allowed an oil refinery to be built right in the center of town, far from any river, lake or reservoir. On one typical hot summer day, Herman Stover (Jonathan Welsh), a dangerously disturbed employee at the works has been denied an expected promotion and in addition, finds himself fired. He then decides to take his revenge against the works by opening the valves to the storage vats and their interconnecting pipes, flooding the area and sewers with gasoline and chemicals. It doesn't take long for this act of petty vandalism to start a fire, which starts a chain reaction that causes massive explosions at the refinery, destroying it and spreading a mushroom-cloud of flame that soon engulfs the entire metropolis. The drama focuses on a newly built hospital which, like the refinery and all civic buildings that went up during the mayor's crooked administration, is shoddily built and poorly equipped where the head doctor, Frank Whitman (Barry Newman), and his staff treat thousands of casualties from the fire while the city fire chief Risley (Henry Fonda) keeps in constant contact with the fire companies fighting a losing battle against the fires, and Maggie Grayson (Ava Gardner), an alcoholic reporter, sees it as her chance to make it nationwide with her coverage of the story of the "city on fire".
A major subplot of the film involves Diana Brockhurst-Lautrec (Susan Clark) a wealthy socialite who is currently and secretly involved with Mayor Dudley to further advance her rank up the social circles and whom also finds herself, along with the mayor, at the hospital assisting the head nurse Andrea Harper (Shelley Winters) with treating the large number of casualties. The womanizing Dr. Whitman also becomes smitten with Diana after meeting her during the hospital's dedication ceremony prior to the fire. Herman Stover also arrives at the hospital having left the refinery before the explosion to stalk Diana, having known her since attending high school. No one ever finds out that Stover is the one responsible for the citywide fire, and on top of that, Stover is not sane enough to understand or regret his actions.
When the hospital becomes surrounded by the fire, Chief Risley orders his son, Harrison (Richard Donat), assemble a fire company to create a "water tunnel" composing of firemen creating a channel across a burning street to evacuate the hospital. Despite some casualties of the hospital staff and patients, the evacuation is successful. Stover is one of the casualties when, distraught and in a daze after Diana rejects him, is killed by falling debris from a building. Nurse Harper is also killed when she attempts to rescue Stover. Diana, Mayor Dudley, and Dr. Whitman are the last ones to make it out of the hospital.
The final scene is set the following day at a quarry outside the city which is set up as a makeshift camp for the thousands of people rendered homeless by the fire as it is finally brought under control. There, Dr. Whitman and Diana acknowledge their love for each other, while Mayor Dudley gives a press statement about his actions and of his intention now to run for governor. Maggie Grayson, still reporting from the studio, signs off her broadcast and leaves with her assistant Jimbo (James Franciscus) on a date for assisting her throughout her coverage. The final scene shows Chief Risley leaving his headquarters with his staff telling them that it takes only one man to set fire and destroy a city. | cult, neo noir, murder, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | John Woo's films, and his subsequent transplant to Hollywood is probably the most publicized outcome of the phenomenon, but there are other, more obscure directors and films that have guided some of today's action film success stories.Ringo Lam is a contemporary of John Woo, and it seems that his 1987 film CITY ON FIRE was an inspiration, if not out-and-out rip-off source material for Quentin Tarantino's RESERVOIR DOGS.
Chow Yun Fat, the ubiquitous star of the John Woo films A BETTER TOMORROW, THE KILLER, and HARD BOILED, plays Ko Chow, a layabout petty criminal railroaded into service as an undercover agent for the Hong Kong police by the aging, almost washed up Inspector Kwong (Sun Yueh).
One can readily pick out what Tarantino culled from this film, and it has a way of clarifying his creative process in that it is possible to see how he molded it into RESERVOIR DOGS using his own sensibilities..
Chow supplies the gang with guns to prove he is `one of them', however as the job approaches, a special unit of the police begins to close in on the gang and put Chow at risk.I didn't watch this film because it was the inspiration for Reservoir Dogs.
No, I watched it because I'm a big Chow Yun Fat fan and I'm watching some of his films to get me in the mood for Bullet-Proof Monk.
For information, Reservoir Dogs really only focuses on the final part of the film, whereas Longhu Fengyun covers longer story where we always know who the cop is.
The rest of the cast are all good but it is difficult to judge performances when it is all subtitled (I find it hard anyway), however there are no weak links.Overall this is a stylish thriller from Hong Kong.
It was Quentin Tarantino's inspiration for his Reservoir Dogs (1992), and Quentin wanted to express his admiration and passion for Hong Kong film makers and their films by updating Lam's themes for his debut film.
Chow Yun-Fat plays cop Chow, who has traumatic past as he betrayed his criminal friend to the police force.
Unfortunately, Chow notices it is too late to undo what he's done again, and again he finds himself betraying a friend, but this time the results are more horrific.The theme of the film is friendship and loyalty between two people at opposite sides of the law.
Two years later Danny Lee and Chow Yun-Fat would play similar roles in John Woo's The Killer (1989), in which Lee is the cop and Chow the criminal/killer.
These themes are very usual in Hong Kong action thrillers, in which people love and value their friends and are ready to die for them.
Never have I seen such a strong use of atmospheric smoke and blue than in these Hong Kong films, and the finale of CITY ON FIRE is as gorgeous looking as the scenes in Danny Lee's true crime thriller Dr. Lamb, 1992.
CITY ON FIRE, however, suffers a little because of weak characters and that especially Chow isn't too well written and doesn't act as believably as possible.
Ringo Lam is among my favorite Hong Kong directors and his real, unbelievable, masterpiece FULL CONTACT (1992, starring again Chow) finally established him among the greatest Hong Kong directors and in the action genre, at the same position with John Woo..
"City on Fire" develops the characters more, and gives them a background.But other than that, the major difference between the 2 movies is that, ultimately, there's a very different take on the notions of honor, loyalty, and brotherhood - I was surprised by both endings, in very different ways.This movie is also a good companion piece to "The Killer" by John Woo. Chow Yun-Fat and Danny Lee star in both movies, but in reversed roles of cop and thief..
chow yun-fat worked very hard for the best actor award he got for this film.
first of all tarantino gives credit to chow yun-fat as an influence at the start of the screenplay for reservior dogs.
This is certainly an inspiration that deserves credit, but it is Tarantino's skill as a writer and director, as well as the amazing actors, that made Reservoir Dogs as great as it is.
It is a very dangerous mission, not just because the gang might discover his true identity but because many of the police suspect he may well be a criminal.The movie that inspired Tarantino's superb Reservoir Dogs, and, as it turns out, that's the only possible reason to watch City On Fire.
I'm gonna try to keep my comments relatively brief, this is a huge point I'm trying to come across with) and direct them at the issue of Quentin Tarantino's (with Avary) Reservoir Dogs, not at my opinion that City on Fire stands as great film of noteable orginality.This is about a relationship which exists, between two films by different directors from different backgrounds, solely because Tarantino 'borrowed' ideas from Ringo Lam.After seeing Reservoir Dogs for the first time many years ago, I was blown away.
The latter evokes some laughter on my part, because having a cult film being based on the original work of another cult film, really says something about the audience who follows such an unoriginal film without trying to truly discover its roots.Now, does this take anything away from Reservoir Dogs or City on Fire for that matter?
I have seen this movie and it really shows Chow Yun Fat's acting ability.
Chow Yun-Fat plays the cop with his usual style and class.
Director Ringo Lam has created an explosive actionmovie that inspired Tarantino to make "Reservoir Dogs".
CITY ON FIRE is a rough and ready crime thriller from celebrated Hong Kong director Ringo Lam, featuring Chow Yun Fat in another of his star-making performances.
Eventually he's coerced into going undercover and joining the gang himself, with violent consequences.This is a noticeably lower budgeted production than much later fare by Lam, but the rough and tumble nature of the story means it doesn't matter and in some cases the gritty, shoot-on-the-street style of filming makes it more realistic than a slicker production might have been.
The various heist sequences are very well filmed, and there's a neat turn from Danny Lee as the leader of the gang; the two would later pair up to famed effect in Woo's THE KILLER.
Tarantino loved this film so much he borrowed copiously from the climax for his own RESERVOIR DOGS..
This is a no frills undercover cop story directed by Ringo Lam. With an average budget the film tells its story quite tightly with fine performances.
Chow Yun Fat stars as the undercover policeman who is also having relationship problems.
Yueh Sun Stars as an older cop who has lost his son years ago in the force and is bending the rules to have Chow undercover.I think Ringo Lam takes inspiration as much from French New Wave cinema as he douse from Hong Kong.
This approach is effective.We all know what film it ended up inspiring and Ringo Lams comparisons with his contemporary John Woo, Rather than ad to the subject dominance of the former I will just comment on the latter in That Woo only made one film better than this and it was The KIller.
Take risks like they do with stunt-work.The script is way above average for a Hong Kong cop drama.
It was due to its interesting music, shoot outs, superior cinematography and a brilliant performance by Chow-Yun Fat as the undercover agent sent to join a gang headed by the excellent Danny Lee. Only the ending bears comparison to Reservoir Dogs with the rest of the film building up to this moment.
Quinten Tarantino ripped off Ringo Lam. I saw Reservoir dogs and thought that it is one the best films I had ever seen.
Now even though they Reservoir Dogs ends different the bulk of the film is what Ringo Lam did with City on Fire except since City on Fire is longer Lam gave the characters more of a story and made the viewer feel for both sides of the law he also put the notion to the viewer what would you do you were a criminal and your best friend who you thought was on your side turned out to be a policeman or to put that in a more everyday circumstance what would you do if you thought someone was your best friend and they turned out to be using you..
Brooding, dark and intense cop film from director Ringo Lam. City On Fire is a gritty and bombastic action packed thriller and the first in the "On Fire" series by director Ringo Lam. The "On Fire" series also includes Prison On Fire 1 and 2(which also star Chow Yun Fat) and School On Fire.
Roy Cheung appears in all four films and in this installment he is an overzealous cop at odds with Chow Yun Fat's character (Ko Chow)who is an undercover cop infiltrating a gang of violent jewel thieves.
Chow Yun Fat gives a scathing and electrifying performance of an undercover cop who's life and career is on the edge of collapse.
From his strained relationship with his girlfriend, to his reluctant undercover work with Danny Lee's gang and dealing with Roy Cheung's group of cops following and chasing him all over Hong Kong.
He and Chow Yun Fat have great chemistry and work well here and a year later in John Woo's classic The Killer.
Chow Yun Fat worked frequently with both directors, giving amazing performances for both parties.
Instead of spending the entire movie in the warehouse, this film goes and shows more of the undercover cop's life and his relationship with his girlfriend.
A far superior film to Reservoir Dogs not least because of its originality but also because its character study is far more involved.
The story seems to have been lifted en masse, the only obvious differences being the colour naming of characters, the cop torture scene and the films portrayal in very few locations whilst looking back on the disastrous robbery.
Ringo Lam remains a far more thoughtful director compared to John Woo and this brings out the best in Chow Yun-fat..
The interplay of the side story makes Chow Yun-Fat's life even harder.The ending of this movie is the basis for Resivoir dogs with some scenes virtually identical..
City On Fire is an average crime drama from Hong Kong that is raised above the level of obscurity because of it's final forty minutes remarkable similarities to Reservoir Dogs.
That's here, though it's slightly different.Despite the fact that it's such a blatant rip-off, Reservoir Dogs is still probably the better of the two films.
From beginning to end, it featured a well-painted character played by Chow Yun-Fat. So, you're wondering, why have I given it only 7/10?
However, City on Fire unnecessarily introduces a feminine character who Chow Yun-Fat must take as a bride.This problem is very vividly seen in South Indian action films like Thupakki (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2187153/?ref_=nv_sr_2).
I'm not saying these films are necessarily bad, I am just stating that the pace and tension of these films are blown apart by silly, unnecessary drama.City on Fire is otherwise a great film, having it's remarkable plot extend to one of the greatest films of all times: Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs..
City on Fire is another classic Hong Kong cinematic experience, but Reservoir Dogs is definitely not a rip off.
People question Tarantino's originality because of this film, but other than the similarities in the ending gunpoint scene and the 'undercover cop' story their different movies entirely.City on Fire focuses on one man and only one man, we follow his struggle through the intensity and risk of being undercover and the slightly less focused point of balancing work and relationships.
Yun Fat Chow is again outstanding, from the Hong Kong cinema I have seen there is no one quite like that man, and in City on Fire he really does show that he is a leading man and not a supporting one.
His performance is up their with Hard Boiled and that is saying something.One thing Hong Kong crime thrillers seem to do so well is music and action, and City on Fire really does mix the slow paced, relaxing jazz with the powerful action and grittiness of the characters and plot.It's no wonder Tarantino got his 'inspiration' from this film because its a good watch with strong acting from the lead roll and also captures Hong Kong perfectly especially the underbelly of the crime world.
Chow yun fat made this movie for me.
I saw some of this in the movies he had done for America, but never in this extended range.This movie is centered around Chow yun fat who plays a cop whose in deep deep cover attempting to balance his real life relationship with his girlfriend with being toss in to deeper cover by his superiors to catch a criminal.If this sounds like every Kung Fu film made in the 80's with an English dub, that's because it is, but unlike the police Drama Police Story in which Jacky Chan plays a man dedicated to his heroics to a fault, Chow yun Fat plays a man who wants out but his boss needs to keep him in as he's the only one who can capture the main villain.
"Long hu feng yun" ("City on Fire") is a pretty damn cool action film.
This film is directed by Ringo Lam and stars Chow Yun Fat.
I myself need to check out MORE films starring Chow Yun Fat and ones directed by Ringo Lam.
Not only was it the basis for a great american film (reservoir dogs, Tarantino), but it's an example of how greatly americans have been influenced by great hong kong directors..
Great performances are given by Chow Yun Fat and Danny Lee who play in roles that are atypical.
Chow Yun Fat shows here why he is an awesome actor and Danny Lee in the role of Fu shows that he is a solid actor.
Resevoir Dogs(1992) is not a rip off of City on Fire(1987) despite some similarities between the two films.
However the action is what Lam is usually noted for, and he handles the gunplay here very effectively with his usual stylish skill.At times, the film feels like it's weighing itself down with too much baggage, mainly with the romance between Chow and his fiancée.
It's a drama about the emotional pressures an undercover police officer faces when he is ordered, against his better judgement, to infiltrate a gang of violent, gun-toting jewel robbers.That Ko Chow (Chow Yun Fat) is having problems with his fiancée makes the situation all the more difficult for him.
It just doesn't convince that one conversation between them about their childhoods would make them so close that one would die for the other.In this respect, the script construction of CITY ON FIRE is a little weak.However, credit should be given to director/writer Ringo Lam for bringing the theme of misplaced loyalty to the undercover cop genre.And though RESERVOIR DOGS is criticised here for stealing the core plot elements of CITY ON FIRE, it has to be said that the structure of Taratino's film is far superior to Lam's.
Long Hu Feng Yun/City on Fire(1987) is the film that put director Ringo Lam's name on the map for it would put him on a par with action guru John Woo.
Chow Yun Fat performance in the movie tops the one he gave in A Better Tomorrow(1986) as he gives his character a sense of doomed loyality.
Ringo Lam wanted to depict violence in City on Fire(1987) that was much more realistic then that seen in John Woo's groundbreaking gangster classic.
One excellent scene in the movie is the jewel robbery that ends with Fat's undercover cop taking a bullet for Danny Lee.
One difference in the two films is that Danny Lee's character survives in City on Fire(1987) while the same character in Resevoir Dogs(1992) played by Harvey Kitel is killed off at the end of the movie..
Chow Yun-Fat Stars In Early Ringo Lam Action Film.
Chow Yun-Fat stars in one of Hong Kong Director Ringo Lam's earlier action films: City On Fire.
The characters are short on development, but Chow Yun-Fat impresses as the man that wants to leave police work, only to face conflicting loyalties between his job and the gang he infiltrates; he carries the whole film.
This is the famous scene that inspired Quentin Tarantino to make Reservoir Dogs.
Ringo Lam is a master on filmmaking, in this film he builds a story of friendship and betray and a new vision of the crime world..Chow yun fat is amazing as always that he works on China, his character an undercover cop who finally become friend with one of the guys that he must betray.
This film is one of my all time favorite, the action, the plot, the acting everything is great.
Where as Prison on Fire is an action film, City on Fire is a thriller.
He earns his living by robbing jewelry stores while the police officer earns his living by arresting criminals.City on Fire is a dark, tragic movie that looks at the pain of the life of an undercover cop.
Inspiration for Reservoir Dogs is a much more complex film, but not necessarily better.
This is the film that was supposed to have been ripped off by Quentin Tarantino for Reservoir Dogs, though to be fair now having seen the film Tarantino's film is essentially an expansion of the final fifteen minutes to half an hour of the film.The plot here concerns Chow Yun Fat who is a cop working undercover.
I like the film in its gritty hard edged Hong Kong way, but at the same time I think I'd prefer to re-watch Tarantino's film. |
tt0013086 | Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler | Part I — The Great Gambler: A Picture of the Time (Part I - Der große Spieler: Ein Bild der Zeit)
Dr. Mabuse is a criminal mastermind, doctor of psychology, and master of disguise, armed with the powers of hypnosis and mind control, who oversees the counterfeiting and gambling rackets of the Berlin underworld. He visits gambling dens by night under various guises and aliases, using the power of suggestion to win at cards and finance his plans. Among his many henchmen are: Spoerri, his cocaine-addicted manservant; Georg, his chauffeur and sometime assassin; Pesch, an inept goon; Hawasch, who employs a gang of blind men in a counterfeiting operation; Fine, a woman who serves as a lookout; and Folies Bergère dancer Cara Carozza, who loves him.
As the film opens, Mabuse orchestrates the theft of a commercial contract in order to create a temporary panic in the stock market, which he exploits to make huge profits.
Edgar Hull, the son of a millionaire industrialist, becomes Mabuse's next victim. As "Hugo Balling", Mabuse gains access to Hull's gentlemen's club and wins a small fortune at cards from the hypnotized Hull, who is made to play badly and recklessly. Afterwards, Hull is unable to account for his behavior.
State prosecutor Norbert von Wenk takes an interest in Hull, believing he is the latest in a string of victims similarly tricked by the elusive "Great Unknown". Von Wenk goes undercover at a gambling den, where he encounters a disguised Dr. Mabuse. Mabuse attempts to hypnotize von Wenk, but he effectively resists. Mabuse flees. Von Wenk, quickly regaining his faculties, gives chase through the city, but the doctor escapes. Boarding a taxicab driven by Georg, von Wenk is gassed, robbed, and set adrift in a rowboat.
Dr. Mabuse realizes that Hull is assisting the state prosecutor, and resolves to eliminate both men. Carozza, who has been romancing Hull on Mabuse's orders, lures the young man to a new illegal casino; when von Wenk calls in the police to raid the place, Carozza, Hull and a police bodyguard exit through the back door, where Georg awaits. He kills Hull, but Carozza is caught and jailed. Von Wenk questions her for information about the "Great Unknown", but she refuses to speak. Von Wenk enlists the aid of Countess Told (nicknamed the "Passive Lady"), an aristocrat bored by her dull husband and seeking thrills wherever she can find them, to try to get the information by trickery. The Countess is placed in the same cell, an apparent victim of another raid, but Carozza is not fooled. Carozza reveals only her great love for Mabuse, ensuring her silence. The Countess, moved by Carozza's passion, tells von Wenk that she cannot continue to assist him.
Dr. Mabuse does nothing to extricate Carozza from jail. He instead attends a séance where he meets Countess Told, who (while under his hypnotic influence) invites him to her house. Once there, Mabuse, taken by the Countess's beauty, decides to display his power by telepathically inducing her husband, Count Told, to cheat at poker. His guests are outraged when they detect it, and the Countess faints. Dr. Mabuse uses the distraction to abduct her and imprison her in his lair.
Part II — Inferno: A Game for the People of our Age (Part II - Inferno: Ein Spiel von Menschen unserer Zeit)
A sick and disgraced Count Told seeks the help of Dr. Mabuse to treat his depression; Mabuse uses this chance to isolate the Count in his manor and cut off any inquiries about the Countess's whereabouts. The Count's condition worsens, and he is tormented by hallucinations.
Meanwhile, Carozza is moved to a women's prison and again interrogated by von Wenk. Fearing betrayal, Mabuse sanctions Carozza's death. Georg smuggles poison to her cell, which she takes out of loyalty. Another of Mabuse's henchmen, Pesch, bombs von Wenk's office while posing as an electrician, but von Wenk is unharmed and Pesch detained. Mabuse – again fearing betrayal – arranges for Pesch to be killed by a sniper while being transported in a police wagon.
Intent on leaving town, Mabuse gives the captive Countess the choice of going with him voluntarily. Her refusal angers him, and Mabuse vows that he will kill the Count. Through his powers of suggestion, he induces the Count to commit suicide with a razor blade. When von Wenk investigates his death, he questions Dr. Mabuse as the Count's psychoanalyst. Dr. Mabuse speculates that the Count had fallen under the control of a hostile will, and asks von Wenk if he is familiar with the experiments of one "Sandor Weltemann", who will be performing a public demonstration of telepathy and mass hypnosis at a local theater.
Von Wenk and his men attend Weltemann's show. Weltemann is none other than Mabuse in disguise, and his magic show provides him an opportunity to hypnotize von Wenk, who falls into a trance. Mabuse's secret command to von Wenk is to leave the auditorium, get in his car, and drive off a cliff, but von Wenk's men intercede just in time. Coming to his senses, von Wenk orders a siege of Mabuse's house.
Dr. Mabuse and his men make a final stand. In the ensuing gunfight, Hawasch and Fine are killed, Spoerri and Georg are taken into custody, and the Countess is rescued. Dr. Mabuse flees through an underground sewer to Hawasch's counterfeiting workshop, where he becomes trapped, as the doors cannot be opened from the inside. There, Mabuse is confronted by the ghosts of his victims and various demonic illusions.
Spoerri, under interrogation, identifies a key found at Mabuse's mansion as being for the workshop. Von Wenk and the police break in and take the now-insane Dr. Mabuse away. In Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse (The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, known also as The Last Will of Dr. Mabuse) it is revealed that he is confined to an insane asylum. | paranormal, cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1833844 | Berberian Sound Studio | British sound engineer Gilderoy (Toby Jones) arrives at the Berberian film studio in Italy to work on what he believes is a film about horses. During a surreal meeting with Francesco, the film's producer, Gilderoy is shocked to find the film is actually an Italian giallo film, The Equestrian Vortex. He nonetheless begins work in the studio, at one point made to do Foley work, using vegetables to create sound effects for the film's increasingly gory torture sequences, and mixing voiceovers from session artists, Silvia and Claudia, into the score.
As time passes, and Gilderoy feels more and more disconnected from his mother at home, he begins to fear he's out of his depth. His colleagues seem increasingly rude – to both himself and to each other. The horror sequences grow ever more shocking, yet Santini, the director, refuses to admit they are working on a horror film. And, after a long passage through the bureaucracy of the film studio's accounts department, it turns out the plane ticket Gilderoy submitted for a refund can't be processed because the flight didn't actually exist.
The plot, from here on in, grows increasingly erratic. Gilderoy hears and sees things in the night. He discovers Silvia, the voiceover artist, was molested by Santini. She storms out, destroying much of their work, forcing Gilderoy to re-record the dialogue with a new actress, Elisa. As Silvia's recording sequences are revisited again, and tension grows between Gilderoy and the others, the boundaries between the blood-drenched giallo thriller and real life begin to erode. Gilderoy imagines he himself is in a film about his life – suddenly fluent in Italian and increasingly detached and vicious. After he and Francesco essentially torture Elisa during a recording session, she walks out, leaving history to repeat itself yet again, and Gilderoy to contemplate the monster he has become. | insanity, psychedelic, horror, psychological, atmospheric | train | wikipedia | 'Berberian Sound Studio' is a film about an English sound technician (Toby Jones) who is used to creating sound effects for children's TV shows, who travels to Italy to work on a horror film.
The atmosphere created by the soundtrack was electric and it felt like hearing the world with new ears when I left the picture house at the end.Don't expect a neat narrative, this film plays with your senses and your understanding of whose doing what to who and why.
You can feel that there is a good film in there somewhere, but the director and the writers failed to bring it out and Berberian Sound studio ended up a boring slow film that is better avoided.
the plot as many have mentioned revolves around a British sound engineer hired by an Italian director to work on editing a Horror Italian film, once arrived and started working on the studio, he starts to feel homesick and lost with the people around him.
the biggest problem with the film is that it repeats itself with the same sort of scenes over and over, usually of actors working in the studio and the British engineer working on the editing looking confused and depressed with an aggressive Italian sound director along side him, with no clear goal or target for the film and ending up so confusing, slow and boring.
Lynch could in a more powerful way.The story is that a shy sound-man goes to work on an Italian exploitation movie, this is to establish him as a creative person who will have to imagine things, and to establish the things he's going to imagine as of some darkness.
Technically the film has its merits, and it might be relevant for someone who has worked as a sound effects technician and editor in movies, but for the general population it is probably a waste of time.
The 1970s: Gilderoy (Toby Jones), a meek English sound mixer, travels to Italy to work on an 'equestrian' film (as it is described to him) which turns out to be a shockingly violent horror movie.
With constant exposure to the horrific images on-screen, and an increasingly unfriendly co-worker to contend with, the pressure starts to get to Gilderoy
As a big fan of Italian horror and an avid supporter of home-grown movies, I really wanted to like Berberian Sound Studio, a UK production that centres around the making of a splattery supernatural giallo.
The dark, claustrophobic setting (the whole film takes place within the confines of the studio) and the nature of the film on which Gilderoy is working on make for some moody moments, but the soporific pacing, lack of scares, and completely baffling pay-off (there are several attempts at explaining matters on the film's IMDb message board, none of them very convincing) go to make the movie an excruciating test of endurance.I was equal parts bored and confused by this dismally dull and possibly pretentious snooze-fest (I watched the film over the course of three nights because I kept falling asleep) and am at a complete loss to see how this has gleaned so many positive reviews (IMDb current rating: 6.2/10).My rating: 1/10.
The movie was also super knowledgeable about all of the equipment and methods used in creating sound in film back in the seventies.Now, what brings me to write this review is to just give fair warning to the person that decides they want to shell out the money to see this on the big screen as I did at my local art-house theater (these are hard times, and so when you don't feel like you got what you paid for, it does indeed hurt).
I was attracted to see this film by the idea that it was a movie about the sound studio of some 1970's Italian grind-house horror film.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy art house films and I can appreciate the themes and ideas that make it one, but Sound Studio was just so tedious in it's delivery that I was having a hard time caring about what I was seeing.
A number of times I found myself checking my watch, but in between I was absolutely riveted to the beautiful cinematography and incredible sound work.Is it an outright horror film?
BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO, is centred on a British sound engineer Gilderoy (Jones), who previously works on projects such as pastoral documents, arrives in Italy to work in a new project from Italian director Giancarlo Santini (Mancino) in the titular studio, which he has no idea is a spooky giallo about witches, anyway he stays and engages in working with the obnoxious producer Francesco (Fusco), but due to the barrier of language and the rude behaviour received from his new colleagues, Gilderoy is incapable of blending in with the team and begins to question his professional competence, hallucinations and dreamlike sequences ensue, what is the real deal to bring him to the studio?
Is he one of the characters in the giallo flick or an unwitting guinea pig of a bigger but secret project?Everything will end in a befuddling concussion and here is my main gripe, it is a 93-minutes film, stuffed with minute details towards the omnipresence of sound (both lifeless objects and human voice including screaming and post-dub process), and striking shots of various apparatus and items (mainly vegetables) used to create specific sound in a claustrophobic working environment, lumbers drearily until the last 15 minutes or so (the most banal part is the stereotyped depiction of the Italian crew), the storyline finally begins to project an uncanny angle which piques curiosity, but as if Strickland doesn't have a clear train-of- thought of what has happened, the picture comes to a halt abruptly, provokes the frustration due to one's unquenched satisfaction mixed with a sense of deception, obviously something rotten is festering (other than the vegetables), but there are so little clues being offered for us to conjecture a plausible upshot.
After a futile effort to purchase a tailor-made bed or a human toilet (I cannot even imagine what it is), Evelyn's request escalates to be locked up in an antique chest with hands tied up for the night as a punishment she enjoys, their relationship is under severe strain, until a corny set piece of betrayal opportunely emerges (by cleaning other woman's boots).Meritoriously Strickland doesn't resort to hyperbole, he sticks to the eerie atmosphere, picturesque location, tonal device, to decipher Cynthia's incubus and Evelyn's controlling nature, butterflies and specimens are deployed with staggering beauty and the finale, a rotation to the beginning, is a hymn celebrating the delicate equilibrium between two lovers, love demands sacrifice, both parties can take one step back and strive to re-connect from the very start, that is a profound meditation on the nature of love, however cinematically contrived the story is, this end-note remarkably hits the bull's eye.Both films feature strong leading performances, Toby Jones in BSS, is an outsider awkwardly boxed up in a bizarrely sonic space, helplessly struggles to get a grip with his own sense while forcibly keeping the appearance of sobriety, and his stern look during a prolonged close-up is a defiant testimony of the perseverance from an unattractive character thespian, if the camera lingers on him longer, he can be an attention-grabber too.Danish actress Sidse Babett Knudsen, mostly known for Susanne Bier's Oscar-nominated foreign picture AFTER THE WEDDING (2006, 7/10) expresses in fluent English and lights up the screen with a sympathetic presentation of a woman plagued by her lover's gruelling quest to challenge the limbo of human lust.
I had had the pleasure of watching Berberian Sound Studio at first in Thessaloniki film festival, and I was greatly satisfied and surprised with the real cinematic freshness this films brings in the fields of horror movies and art cinema(if there is such a field) at the same time.Genuine and enigmatic, it does not succumb to the trendy ways in which directors usually manipulate their material these days,and does not seek to impress for nothing, but creates its own universe with completely original means, despite the fact that it is certainly referring to a certain era, that of the Italian Giallo, reproducing a feeling that belongs to that era, but at the same time creating something new.I consider this film one of the best I have watched over the last five years and a very serious candidate for the list of the ten best movies of the decade, when the moment comes.I understand that it is not for all tastes-as I realized by the reactions of many spectators-but I believe it's a film worth fighting for that will have its place as a classic in the future.In the meantime, I can't wait to watch the new film by Peter Strickland in this year's Thessaloniki film festival, all the more as his films do not seem to have release in Greece beyond the festival.At least Berberian sound studio never did, so I bought it from Amazon to watch it again and again..
'Berberian Sound Studio' begins as a banal comedy, a 1970s set story about an inadequate Englishman abroad, working as a sound-man in an Italian horror movie studio.
On a simple level, it's an homage to the great, art-inspired Italian horror movies of the seventies (films with evocatively ridiculous names like Lizard in a Woman's Skin, Iguana With the Tongue of Fire, and my all-time favorite title, Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key), but it's a bloodless one.
I can understand how a lot of the frustration I've heard mentioned with this film stems from these dashed expectations, and that's because it sort of plays around with and teases the audience by disingenuously making the genre of the film within the film that the main character (a reserved, mild-mannered, and tightly-wound sound editor played by Toby Jones) a 1970s Italian Nunsploitation/Torture/Black Magic Horror film.
Berberian Sound Studio started out a bit slow for me, but as I tend to be a bit cerebral when it comes to certain genres of motion pictures I saw the premise and the promise of what turned out to be a good thinking man's movie.I was quickly engrossed into Toby Jones' character the sound engineer, Gilderoy and was quickly captivated thereafter by the story.Toby known by most flick fans from his character Dr. Arnim Zola in Captain America: The First Avenger and CA: The Winter Soldier.
A sound engineer's work for an Italian horror studio becomes a terrifying case of life imitating art.This is the sort of film that jaded horror fans will love.
Indeed I felt this to the point that even as it ended I felt like I should have enjoyed it more and thus started to rationalize myself towards that position, but it isn't the case because while I appreciated aspects of this film, generally I found it pretty dull and lacking a sharp edge.The plot is that a British sound engineer comes to Italy for a project and finds himself doing ADR and Foley for a film containing a lot of graphic violence; as he works he finds his grip on his sense slipping, with his days spent not understanding what is being said around him and acting out violent acts on vegetables while watching women be brutalized on film over and over again.
It stars the hapless Toby Jones as a mild-mannered sound engineer who travels to Rome to work on the soundtrack of a sinister giallo film and soon finds himself getting sucked into the movie's mystique and repellent atmosphere.Technically, this film is a gem, with excellent sound design and good visuals; for a film set almost entirely in a sound studio, it's atmospheric and engaging, and it helps that the underrated Jones gives an excellent turn in a rare leading role.
The problem with BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO, then, is that it's one of those 'style over substance' movies where there's very little meat behind what's up on screen.This feels almost like one of those films that's made up as it goes along.
Berberian Sound Studio seems to gather inspiration from the Italian giallo films of the 1970's without actually being one itself.
The film centers around an English sound engineer called Gilderoy who travels to Italy to work on the soundtrack of a horror/giallo film.
The most admirable aspect of Berberian Sound Studio is that it uses the giallo style of film making to tell a story that is outside the original scope of the genre.
The rest is the same entirely surface scare formula - and a recording studio is perhaps the least scary place to watch people scream for a movie - as theyre doing it to create a film.Toby Jones is clearly a good actor, and can play reactions at several levels of subtlety, and its fleetingly interesting to see how sound effects are made.
I don't know who wrote the summary, that Gilderoy begins working in the sound studio of a horror movie when life begins to terrifyingly imitate art.
Berberian Sound Studio centers on Gilderoy (played by Toby Jones), a British foley artist working on the audio track for an Italian giallo film, The Equestrian Vortex, takes a wrong turn as life starts to imitate art.Berberian Sound Studio subverts the usual visual experience of watching a horror film and shows you the creation of a horror film in sequences where you see the foley effects, voice and music being added to a film that is omitted from the audience.
Berberian Sound Studio is a film I would highly recommend to serious film buffs but not advise a casual movie-goer to venture out and watch as very little happens in this psychological horror flick ...
It is not a film for everyone and this isn't a bad thing -- we all have different tastes and likes.Toby Jones (The Mist, The Hunger Games, Snow White and the Huntsman) stars as Gilderoy, a masterful British foley artist (sound effects) who has come to Italy to work on the audio track of the film, The Equestrian Vortex -- a seedy, grisly, bloody and pulpy giallo film (a genre of Italian mystery films known for cheap and erotically-charged horror-fiction).
The film is set in a sound recording studio for movie audio effects and dubbing.
So, this sound engineer goes to Italy to act as an effect expert on an Italian horror film.
well, does it drive him mad, or is what we are watching real (within the content of the film) or is itself a film being made about this sound engineer who goes to Italy to act as an effect expert on an Italian horror film.Now, there are some good things to be said about this film - Toby Jones as said sound engineer, about whom the film may be about or not as the case may be, is very good, and the use of sound is well done - but, having laid out a most promising situation, and apparently leading to a shock ending, the film suddenly disappears up its own backside.
The films director Santini (Antonio Mancino) hires Gilderoy (Toby Jones), an English sound engineer who had previously worked on children's television programmes and natural history documentaries.Gilderoy assumes that the Italian film was about horses, but when he is greeted by the films producer Francesco (Cosimo Fusco) he discovers that the film is actually a horror movie.
The claustrophobia of working and sleeping in the studio brilliantly feeds into Gilderoys state of mind, the ever dependable Jones giving yet another fine performance.Sound is at the heart of the film, from its production to recording and mixing.
You never get to see any of the actual horror film, but you still feel you are watching it through listening to the dialogue and sound effects of the production.
Its a clever manipulation, further still by seeing the violence within the horror film through Gilderoys eyes.Director Peter Strickland doesn't just concentrate on the analogue sound of the 70′s but pays a great homage to many films of the time, not least the Italian Giallo films which 'The Equestrian Vortex' is based upon and made famous by the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci.
As things get more and more strange, one starts to realize that some of the things going on might be just him dreaming
This film is meant to be a homage to the atmospheric Italian horror movies of the 70s, the so called giallos.
I really wanted to like this film.Actually, I wanted to love it - I'm a big horror fan and a sound engineer, so I was really looking forward to seeing Berberian Sound Studio.It started off so promisingly, it was an excellent premise, looked beautiful and obviously (as you would expect) the sound design was superb.*Warning, spoilers after this point*Around half way through I started to wonder when something was going to happen.
"Berberian Sound Studio" tells the story of a conservative British sound engineer, who finds himself trapped in the production of a rather obscene Italian horror movie.
Toby Jones' sound man travels to Italy to work on a horror film, and slowly becomes overwhelmed by his experiences.Unfortunately this does not happen to the viewer.
Sound effects technician Gilderoy travels to Italy to work on what appears to be a horror film.
We may not see the film he is working on but the sound effects and screaming combined with the claustrophobic way the action stays in the studio and Gilderoy's small room create an uncomfortable feeling
I almost expected it to turn into a horror film rather than just a film about the making of one
there are certainly uncomfortable moments.Toby Jones does a great job as Gilderoy; a man totally out of his comfort zone; conveying his disturbance with his expression rather than always giving voice to them.
But I was pleasantly surprised at the plot execution, for the first hour anyway.A man, Gilderoy, works as a sound engineer for an Italian horror film, but you never actually get to see any graphic scenes. |
tt0064158 | Che! | === Part 1: The Argentine ===
In Havana 1964, Che Guevara is interviewed by Lisa Howard who asks him if reform throughout Latin America might not blunt the "message of the Cuban Revolution."
In 1955, at a gathering in Mexico City, Guevara first meets Fidel Castro. He listens to Castro’s plans and signs on as a member of the July 26th Movement.
There is a return to 1964 for Guevara’s address before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, where he makes an impassioned speech against American imperialism, and defends the executions his regime has committed, declaring "this is a battle to the death."
March 1957. Guevara deals with debilitating bouts of asthma as his group of revolutionaries meet up with Castro’s. Together, they attack an army barracks in the Sierra Maestra on May 28, 1957.
On October 15, 1958, the guerrillas approach the town of Las Villas. The Battle of Santa Clara is depicted with Guevara demonstrating his tactical skill as the guerrillas engage in street-to-street fighting and derail a train carrying Cuban soldiers and armaments. Near the film‘s end, they are victorious. With the Cuban Revolution now over, Guevara heads to Havana, remarking "we won the war, the revolution starts now."
=== Part 2: Guerrilla ===
The second part begins on November 3, 1966 with Guevara arriving in Bolivia disguised as a middle-aged representative of the Organization of American States hailing from Uruguay, who subsequently drives into the mountains to meet his men. The film is organized by the number of days that he was in the country. On Day 26, there is solidarity among Guevara's men despite his status as foreigner. By Day 67, Guevara has been set up for betrayal. He tries to recruit some peasants only to be mistaken for a cocaine smuggler. On Day 100, there is a shortage of food and Guevara exercises discipline to resolve conflicts between his Cuban and Bolivian followers.
By Day 113, some of the guerrillas have deserted and the Bolivian Army has discovered their base camp. Much to Che's disappointment Tamara "Tania" Bunke, Guevara's revolutionary contact, has botched elaborate preparations and given away their identity. On Day 141, the guerrillas capture Bolivian soldiers that refuse to join the revolution and are free to return to their villages. CIA advisers arrive to supervise anti-insurgent activity and training. On Day 169, Guevara's visiting friend, the French intellectual Régis Debray, is captured at Muyupampa by the Bolivian Army, which launches an aerial attack on Day 219.
Guevara grows sick and by Day 280 can barely breathe as a result of his acute asthma. On Day 302, the Bolivian Army kills Tania Bunke, Juan Acuña Ñunez, and several others in Che's forces in an ambush as they attempt to cross the Vado del Yeso after a local informant tells the Bolivian troops about the movements of the rebels. By Day 340, Guevara is trapped by the Bolivian Army in the Yuro Ravine near the village of La Higuera. Che is wounded and captured. The next day, a helicopter lands and a Cuban American CIA agent Félix Rodríguez emerges. The Bolivian high command are then phoned and give approval for Guevara's execution. He is shot on 9 October 1967, and his corpse lashed to a helicopter's landing skids and flown out.
In a final flashback scene, Guevara is aboard the Granma in 1956, looking out over the ocean. He sees the Castro brothers alone at the bow of the ship; Fidel is talking and Raúl is taking notes. Guevara hands a peeled orange to one of his comrades and returns his gaze to the lone brothers before the scene fades to black. | melodrama, violence, avant garde, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | A few months ago I saw the highly acclaimed docudrama on Fidel on Showtime, and this film, while not as good as the Showtime drama, is not all that much worse either.First the bad stuff.
Jack Palance's portrayal of Fidel Castro must rank as one of the worst performances ever to appear on screen.
no matter what, I highly suggest you first pick up and read a good book about the man, Fidel Castro, and the Cuban revolution itself.
The movie starts with the rebel invasion of Cuba, without giving us any idea about what Che had been doing up to that point of time.
(How can we understand the rebels if we don't know what they are fighting against?) The movie continues to be confusing by subsequently not making it clear just how the rebels were able to build in force after being almost completely wiped out...
And with Richard Fleischer at the helm - a director who was usually only as good as his script - the movie sinks deeper into badness.
Reports at the time of filming state that Palance asked that Castro's "buffoonery" in the script be changed.
Given the times, any depiction of Guevara and Fidel Castro showing them as human was a bold move.
Naturally, Castro's role will be a secondary one, a decision Castro's supporters seem unable to forgive.Everyone knows how the story ends, and that is where the movie starts, with Che Guevara's body being transported by helicopter down from the one-room schoolhouse where he was apparently executed after being wounded and captured by an elite unit of the Bolivian Army.
Some of the Comrades, visibly aged, give their interviews from prison cells.While Guevara's early life in Argentina isn't depicted, there is a soundless, striking scene early in the film of Cuban women protesting the dictatorial Battista regime, only to be massacred by Cuban soldiers ("We heard you calling, Cuba and we came...") that well explains what motivated young Ernesto and other youths from Latin America's upper classes to join the Cuban revolutionaries.
From there we trace Che's transformation from idealistic medical graduate to hardened guerrilla fighter--summed up in a moment when in the heat of battle he picks up a rifle and leaves his doctor's kit on the ground.I also disagree with the many criticisms of the portrayal of Fidel Castro by Jack Palance.
Omar Sharif brilliant as Che Guevara, Jack Palance less brilliant as Castro but good enough..
Omar Sharif as Che makes a convincing character of great controversy and self-contradictoriness, while it is possible at the same time to understand him - why he abandoned the Castro regime as a hopeless case of either becoming a puppet of Russia or of America, to try to make an inter-South-American revolution of his own.
Of course, it was utterly unrealistic, which he failed to realize, having no detachment but rather an obsession with any revolution at any cost.Jack Palance has been criticized for his almost caricature of Castro, but he has made the best of it, Castro was actually like that, and Palance has studied him carefully.There is nothing wrong with the film as film either.
The quality has its flaws, but the direction and cinematic realization is practically flawless.The greatest credit of the film, though, is the unmasking of Che as the tragic megalomaniac he was, a sick man gone wrong from the beginning and getting stuck in a vicious circle of violence going irrevocably from bad to worse, his pride outgrowing him into arrogance and inhumanity leading only one way into self-destruction, a man obsessed with constantly worsening his own tragedy, made clear enough by Omar Sharif.In brief, an underrated film of great documentary objectivity charting the psychology of man at his most destructive..
How could this movie work as a factual representation or artistic vision?1) it comes at the height of an anti-Castro obsession this country had and in many ways, still does (see, the US liked the harshly oppressive Cuban Government that preceded Castro, because we were allowed to profit from it's fascism).
The very tagline of the movie shows one of it's main objectives - to paint Castro or at least his economic model as cartoonish villainy.2) The Hollywood of the time not wanting to go to the risk of having actual Cubans or even people of closely related nationalities in the leading roles, we have very American leading men doing laughable Cuban impressions.
Jack Palance as Fidel Castro?
If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!".
Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade.
With more than it's fair share of wooden acting 'Che!' seems doomed from the word go.Omar Shariff attempts to breathe life into his overtly asthmatic portrayal of the revolutionary icon, Ernesto Che Guevaro, but is held back by the sheer lack of factual references.
Jack Palance portrays Fidel Castro, in a manner that could almost have been written by the US government, as a man not able to fully think things through for himself.
The film portrays the July 26th movement as an inept band of unwashed desperados who want to take over Cuba, but with only sheer luck, & government ineptitude, helping them to ultimately win through.Covering the period of time from Che's first arrival on Cuban soil in 1956 until his Bolivian death in 1967, 'Che!' struggles with both poor screenplay and locations, but still trys to maintain a sense of purpose throughout.
Constant monologues, as a means to link scenes, prove to be more irritating than useful, and you find yourself wishing for the what little action there is to resume.The film truly dies when Guevara leaves Cuba for Bolivia, with Shariff becoming more asthmatic and psychotic by the minute, until his ultimate capture in the mountains and his eventual murder in the backroom of La Higuera's village schoolhouse.Any half decent film director would probably relish the chance to make a bio-pic of the legend that is Che Guevara.
is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film.
It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid "true stories" relayed by a variety of yutzes.This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted.
Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che "Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!".
Superficial biographical flick about international revolutionary and Castro's second in command Che Guevara, Omar Sharif.
The movie gives you the impression that if it wasn't for Che Fidel Castro, Jack Palance, would never have taken over Cuba in what's called the Great Peasant Revolution of 1959.
Che, an Argentinian doctor and one-world revolutionary, did in fact land with Castro and his contingent of 82 men off the west coast of Cuba on December 2, 1956.After being ambushed by Batista's, the Cuban dictator, men only a dozen, including Che & Castro, survived.
This left a victorious Castro & Co. to enter the capital city without as much as a shot being fired on New Years Day.The movie shows how Che became a ruthless and blood-thirsty disciplinarian to the troops.
Che as a command-ante is shown without as much as flinching ordering the execution of traitors, many times in the movie doing it himself, that even his leader Fidel didn't have the heart to do.
After the Castro take-over of Cuba Che held around the clock military trials and executions of former Batista political and military personal.
This would result in many innocent, far more then those proved guilty by his military tribunals, people ending up being slaughtered by rampaging mindless and vengeful mobs.The movie "Che" goes on to show that it was Che who gave Fidel Castro the idea of not only declaring himself a Marxist which outraged the United States Government and turned it against him but in establishing diplomatic and military relations with the Soviet Union.
This irresponsible action, on Castro and the USSR's part, almost brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the autumn of 1962.Feeling betrayed by his friend Fidel and his Soviet allies for backing down to the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis Che, calling Castro a Soviet dupe, decided to leave the safety of Cuba and go out in the dangerous hills and valleys of Bolivia to start a revolution of his own.
Since in reality Che left for Bolivia in late 1966 or early 1967 the event, in the movie, of Che's break with Castro,in 1962, seems a bit premature.In Bolivia Che lost his revolutionary persona as well as his ability to rally peasants, like he did in Cuba ten years earlier, to his aid.
Going against his own writings and principles about how a guerrilla/revolutionary war should be fought had Che's men, mostly Bolivian rebels, desert him because of his mindless and brutal tactics to whip up both support and recruits among the peasant population.The hard life as a guerrilla fighter coupled with his deteriorating asthmatic condition, smoking Cuban cigars didn't help Che's asthma either, took a heavy toll on Che's health.
Fate eventually caught up with Che as well as the Bolivian army and on October 9, 1967 in an ambush at the Quebrada del Yuro ravine the life-long revolutionary was shot and captured.
Omar Sharif in many of the battle and strenuous jungle mountain climbing scenes in the movie is heard breathing and wheezing, because of his asthma condition, like someone making an obscene phone-call.
The final scene when Che's confronted by an elderly Bolivian peasant berating him about how his guerrilla actions in and around his village have caused his goats to cease from giving milk.
The scene looks like something straight out of a Mystery Science 3000 parody of an unintentionally and hilariously funny movie.
Jack Palance as Fidel Castro with his fake plastic nose and acting as if he'd be lost without Che makes the guy, Castro, look like a totally helpless dolt as well as alcoholic buffoon.
Castro who seems to drink as many bottles of booze as the cigars that he smokes that it's a wonder that he's still around now; some forty after Che left him to run Cuba on his own!
It wasn't until after word of mouth, as well as critics reviews, about how awful the film really was that it was decided that "Che" instead of ingratiating Castro's Cuba was in fact the United States revenge for it's defeat by Castro's army and militia at "the Bay of Pigs"!.
Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world.
So much for shunning the materialist life style.Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it.
Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively.
While watching this movie you'll have no idea what Che and his buddies are all fighting for and what they want to achieve, if you know nothing to little about Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution.
Only 2 years after Che's death, so his story was still fresh back in the minds of the audiences at time.
But this movie was already much hated back in its day, so of course there is plenty more wrong with this movie.Not only the story won't learn you anything but you also won't learn a thing about the person Che. Nothing in this movie justifies why he is globally regarded still such an icon, since the movie doesn't show anything great or heroic that he ever achieved and his personality in his movie is just very bland as well.I can't really blame Omar Sharif for it though, while many other still seem to do so.
The story is already bad to begin with by the entire way it gets told makes it all the more worse.What I also really didn't like about the storytelling was the random insertion of random people narration the events straight into the cam, as if this was a documentary.
It comes across as incredibly cheap and lame, also since often the actors just aren't the greatest ones.Even Jack Palance is real bad in his role.
He is supposed to play Fidel Castro but instead he seems more like a caricature of him.
I of course love "The A-Team" but this doesn't really seem like a compliment for a movie that tries to tell a serious, historically relevant story.Perhaps the movie is not as bad to watch as its reputation might suggest but still it's truly really far from a good movie.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
The movie grows better in the second half when Che tries to lead a guerrilla party in Bolivia.
A Bolivian Army officer calls in a village goat-herder , points towards wretched Guevara and asks the peasant : "Can't you see ?
Watching "Che!", I didn't interpret it as a particularly bad movie.
It's just that, aside from all the overacting, Omar Sharif as Che Guevara looks silly and Jack Palance as Fidel Castro always looks as if he's about to fall asleep.
In fact, Fidel adopts Che's comments as his own, just like Daffy Duck does with Porky Pig's suggestion in "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century"!
His performance is a possible career-worst(even worse than that in Outlaw of Gor), being little more than a buffoonish caricature, chewing the scenery to shreds and I am sure that Fidel Castro in real life didn't behave like this much of an idiot.The way the characters are written is never compelling and they never come over as real people either, coming over instead as caricatures with the cast attempting and failing to give them life or realism.
At the end of the day it felt like there was no point in the film being made, it tries to cover a lot but says very little and we learn next to nothing about what made Che Guevara famous and also learn just as little about him as a person as well.
Not helped by that the film while mostly one-sided didn't seem to make its mind as to whether we should feel sympathy for Guevara or not.All in all, not that dire but a miscalculated failure all the same that sees two wholly dependable actors giving very bad performances.
Some people say that the movie is idolizing Che. What?
Castro's role in the revolution is probably understated, but I suppose it had to be done or otherwise the film would never pass the censors.It seems to me that most of the reviewers saw what the critics said, and then formed their own opinions before even giving the movie a chance.
Another good picture that have bad reputation by IMDB's users,in my humble opinion because the movie show up so clear who really was Che Guevara by Sy Bartlett and David Kapp,this butcher tried made the same thing in Bolivia but there he wasn't successful with your communist ideas in a peaceful people mostly indians whom not to easy handling for the get the power....so Guevara realize in that country didn't have the same conditions to raise a true revolution,then he begining steal the own people who swore protect....this bloody killer was godlike by the reds as hero and later becames a legend for those who raise a red flag!!
What to expect of a "Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment" produced "documentary film" on Che Guevara in 1969?
Certainly not the enthusiasm millions of left wing (or pro Latin America) people around the world share for the famous revolutionary until these days, but in this special case even not a sense of objectivity.Instead, Che!
Or a Che Guevara who prefers sitting in a dark room signing death sentences instead of celebrating the revolution with the masses on the street.A fairly accurate story, mixed with poorly playing actors, and less South than rather North American perspectives on how the world should be (as an example, in one scene a Bolivian farmer talks in front of Che about the revolutionaries: "(They came) to free me?
This "judgement" pronounced by "the people" causes that Che deliberately stands up, passes the farmer and the officer to walk to his execution).If your interested in the "anti Gue perspective", watch this movie.
"Che!" clearly deserves a place all its own in any discussion of entertainingly bad movies.
I'm biased because I never bought a Che T-shirt or admired Fidel Castro.
Jack Palance is the greatest, but his portrayal of Fidel must be seen to be believed.
Omar Sharif just wheezes and gasps during all his screen time, in order to emphasize Che's real-life asthma.
Though Shariff is better looking than the real Guevara, some of his outbursts made this movie look bad.
The only cool choice on this picture is Jack Palance representation of the old Cuban jerk who messed up that island's history for five decades.Good thing his days are numbered and the old bum has quit. |
tt0906788 | Zombies! Zombies! Zombies! | Searching for the cure for cancer, a scientist creates a chemical that promotes cell growth. After being visited by a drug addict, the drugs and the cure are mixed up and misused by him and several prostitutes. They become zombified and begin biting people nearby. A small group of exotic dancers team up with the prostitutes' former pimp to defend their strip club, the Grindhouse, against a horde of blood-thirsty zombies.
Four strippers in a nightclub, after their dance routines are over and the club is closing for the night, walk over to a nearby cafeteria for breakfast, when some hookers turn into zombies and attack them. Except for one stripper Pandora, played by Juliet Reeves, who couldn't make it till the end, the other 3 ladies manage to fight and decimate all the zombies and survive through it all.
The prettiest and tallest of the 3 surviving strippers is Dakota, played by Playboy playmate Jessica Barton. She is the most popular (and most tipped) stripper of the club, but that comes with quite some attitude. During the course of the movie, she gives a lap dance to one of her lovers, but then he gets bitten and turns into a zombie. Dakota has to blow this lover-turned-zombie (as well as her boyfriend cop-turned-zombie) with her gun.
The second stripper is Dallas, played by Miss Oahu Lyanna Tumaneng. She is clearly the most courageous of the trio, as she braved zombie attacks to get the zombie antidote from the laboratory. The male lead Chris, played by Sean Harriman, was on the same mission alongside Dallas and managed to inject himself with the zombie antidote that they found in the lab. Eventually, Chris falls in love with her.
The third stripper is Chris' sister Harley, played by Playboy playmate Hollie Winnard. She is a single mom of a little daughter and they stay with Chris and their grandmother. This was Harley's very first night at the club, where she plays a nervous rookie and she performs a quick but funny tease.
During the beginning of the film the strippers have a difficult time identifying themselves to each other. They awkwardly introduce each other by their stage name, and their real names. Their indecisiveness in their career lead to differences in how strippers should be treated by themselves, others, and of course zombies.
As the battle between the zombies and the remaining survivors heats up, the zombies start to get the upper hand. Though the survivors are locked inside a safe room, the buxom hooker-turned-zombie named Pamela, as played by Stephanie Miller, manages to get inside. In the skirmish, Chris loses to her strength, as Pamela bites him and takes a chunk off his forehead. But thanks to the zombie antidote in his blood, Pamela is soon blown to smithereens. Harley and Dakota do not understand what happened, so Dallas explains that exposing Chris' blood to the zombies is a sure way to destroy them all. To test the idea, Chris offers his right hand to a zombie outside the door, and upon biting Chris, that zombie is blown apart as well.
Seeing the plan work so well, Dakota suggests that they should let 2 zombies into the room. The plan works well for the first couple of times, as 2 zombies are let into the room at a time, and after biting the shoulders of Chris, they are blown apart. But soon, a very weakened Chris collapses on the floor. Hell breaks loose, as all the remaining zombies manage to break into the room and attack them. With no other option to save the 3 girls, Chris gets up for his final action. He requests his sister Harley to take care of her daughter Jenna, whom Chris used to babysit back at home. He then gives a farewell kiss to his love interest Dallas. Chris offers himself to the pack of zombies, with the girls making no effort at all to stop him from doing so. At the outset, the zombies cut through Chris' ribs and eat up his heart, as the girls look on. Within a very short time, the zombies finish him off and then blow themselves apart as expected. The devouring of Chris by the zombies happens at a pretty high speed, instead of his arms, legs, torso, etc. being chomped step-by-step. Finally, all that is left of Chris are just some blood and flesh splattered on the club floor, along with that of the exploded zombies.
With all zombies finally eliminated, the 3 girls wipe the goo off their hair and walk out of the nightclub in supermodel catwalk style, smiles of victory writ large on their face. Their outfits are still smeared with flesh and blood of zombies and Chris alike. Out in the open daylight, Dallas smilingly comments to Harley that they had a rough last night. Harley replies that it wasn't as much fun as she had hoped. | violence | train | wikipedia | Low Budget...some bad reviews...but I liked it!.
I had read a few negative reviews about this movie, so maybe I wasn't expecting much...but I liked it.
From reading the Horror sites, I already knew that this was made by some first-time filmmakers, horror fans, who had funded the entire movie on their personal credit cards...so i was interested to see how bad it was going to be.To my surprise, I actually thought they did a pretty good job considering the ultra-low budget.
It is slow to get started, it's shot on HD not film, some of the acting is a little stiff, and a lot of the fx are kinda cheesy...but I have seen some really craptastic low-budget movies in my day, and this one actually comes out as much more professional than most.The budget is apparent with things like fx and production quality, but the filmmakers seemed to really put a lot of thought and work into the story and characters.
The girls are smoking hot playboy models, and the comedy is...well, actually pretty funny, which is rare in most self proclaimed horror-comedy movies.Anyway, to sum it up...if you are expecting a Hollywood grade movie...you will be sadly disappointed, and probably hate the movie.
But, if you are a fan of low-budget horror, get the jokes, and support horror fans that have the guts to risk their own money to make a movie...then this may be a treat for you.
For those zombie movie purists appalled by this film, what did you expect with a tag line of "strippers vs.
I'll bet you also pour out a glass of clotted milk after having noticed that it was expired, drink it, and then complain that it was bad.As far a plots go, this movie had a hell of a lot better plot than a lot of classic cult films.
Poor special effects are to be expected with a plot line like this and I would have been disappointed if the FX were outstanding.This is movie is great for those who appreciate cheesy movies.
News Flash: It's a zombie horror film complete with all the expected things that make a zombie movie.
The good thing about this film is that it's laced with some genuinely funny moments that make fun of the zombie clichés.The special effects are better than average for a low budget film.
Sure, the character is a bit over-the-top but this is as much a comedy as it is a horror film.
You know, I'm not against low budget or indie films, far from it.
But when people put together trash like this with horrible effects, bad acting, and painful dialog...no amount of boobies can cover for it.It's actually a little insulting to throw together crap like this and expect people to enjoy it because you included strippers.
As if you think the public doesn't have enough common sense to know a bad movie because you put attractive women on the screen.
Zombie Strippers didn't have a huge budget but that movie was funny at least, and it had way more nudity.
I'll make this short and sweet.People that gave this 1 star need to watch more movies.That being said, this is an average low-budget flick.
There are some decent "low-tech" effects scattered throughout.Also, it is shot in HD and not on film, which only makes it look cheaper.The acting is a mixed bag with some really good acting and some really bad acting, but mostly the acting is average.The writing is quite good, which is refreshing for a low-budget zombie movie.
It seems like the writers actually bothered to come up with some plot twists of their own, which is uncommon for the ridiculously derivative zombie genre.
Even if some of their ideas didn't pan out so well in the film, they still get points for not just puking out the same mind-numbing crap you usually get with these kind of movies.The characters are well-developed and actually seem like real people.Overall, worth a rent if you have some time to kill, but I wouldn't buy it..
is not at all scary, and only amusing thanks to the surprisingly good acting from a mostly unknown cast.The story behind the zombie outbreak in this film is quickly explained and rather funny.
For some reason, this guy mixes the scientist's concoctions and creates some new drug which turns people into zombies.
Eventually, a group of strippers, prostitutes, their friends and a pimp are all holed up in a strip club fending off against a horde of the undead.No, the plot is not award winning, but it suits this no-budget movie.
Also, oddly enough, for a movie set in a strip club and whose main characters are strippers, there is very little nudity.Anyway, this is a decent enough effort that is marred by a few glaring issues.
The FX are what we've come to expect from straight to DVD films - token prosthetics and budget-bound CGI.It's not all bad though.
The strippers are attractive enough in a plastic casting couch kind of way, and they get their funbags out and jiggle them around a contractual once each during the movie.
Pay more and I think you'll be pretty disappointed.I was expecting cheesy and hoping for a laugh or two in the company of some hot babes, kinda like Lesbian Vampire Killers just with Zombies, but it was more like Land of the Dead with Jam for blood.
I wouldn't really call it funny, but I chuckled a bit and had a few laughs at the movie.It's about on par with a very good school play, but in the hands of professionals I think it could have been a pretty good show..
For a low-budget "zom-com" (zombie-comedy) this film wasn't too bad.
One thing leads to another and soon he and some prostitutes are flesh eating zombies who are trying to get into a strip club to satisfy their hunger.
So in essence what this film offers is a little humor, sexy women and plentiful special effects.
Unfortunately, the acting simply wasn't good enough to differentiate this film from a host of other low-budget zombie comedies that are currently flooding the market.
If you're after a really fun stripper horror, try Vamp (1986) or the film it inspired, Quentin Tarantino's From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)..
An experimental drug designed to cure cancer is half-inched from a laboratory and winds up being smoked by crack whores who turn into flesh eating zombies that attack the sexy dancers of a nearby strip-club.Take the initials of Zombies!, Zombies!, Zombies!, and what you have is 'ZZZ', which is kinda apt, because the first act of this low-budget zombie comedy horror is in danger of sending the viewer to sleep, despite the sight of several gorgeous women gyrating their goods in front of the camera.
The comedy side of things is sorely lacking.Once the flesh-eating begins, the film begins to get a bit more entertaining, with some enthusiastic gore, but an over-reliance on cheap CGI does tend to ruin matters a bit.
The film's few practical effects mightn't be that convincing, but they're a damn sight better than the poorly rendered digital effects, best moment being a chainsaw rammed through a zombie's head.
I was so excited to see this movie since I'm a horror maniac & curious to see how those chicks deals with the zombies.
Almost everything were familiar like other zombie movies, it resembles to Night of the living dead in the scene of Dallas & Chris getting away from zombies to find some help, & Dawn of the dead in the scene of hiding themself into the night club(mall in DOTD).
As for the CGI & the effects I'll be honest that they were poorly made especially the blood which looks exactly like strawberry jam, some stabbed zombie, & some zombie explosion.
Well, I guess that's all I can say 'bout this movie but my personal thought is I'd really expecting some sequel that shown more of Jessica Barton's acting, because I really like her.
& as long as she's there, who cares if the movie would be low budget or terribly made..
That is the problem for new zombie movie directors and writers, they need to come up with a hook to spin the 'accepted' lore to create new interest..
The film-makes say it's a 'zombie comedy.' Yes, there are zombies, but not much in the way of laughs.Some people say it's terrible.
Yeah yeah, it is an attack in a strip club called Grindhouse so you know that nudity will play a big role but what really went wrong is the acting, it is really terrible.
ZZZ isn't the worst low budget movie ever made, by a long shot.
The actors, for the most part, actually seem quite competent, and do their best to make this movie entertaining- making the best of a bad situation, as it were.
Extremely fun low-budget shlock horror.
Locked up in a strip club, a group of exotic dancers must fight for their lives against the horde of undead or fall victim to the infectious bite of the rotting ghouls.Rookie director Jason Murphy brings another installment in the 'Undead Exotic Dancer' subsubgenre (being released just before Zombie Strippers!
While I wasn't such a fan of the mildly entertaining Zombie Strippers!, I thought I would give this one a look to help viewers choose which Naked Flesheaters (title for the next one?) were more worth the watch.
Horror-comedies make up a good amount of my favourite films (from Freaked to Shaun of the Dead, I'll take 'em all).
Toss in zombies (the best subgenre in horror) and naked, blood-soaked women and you've got it made.
Also, the cheap shot-on-video look is something that has been putting off a lot of horror fans from modern low-budget cinema.
It's something that needs to be looked past, however, in order to enjoy a film like this.
Beyond the a/v problems, the rest of the problems of low-budget film-making show, but the filmmakers knew how to utilize them in a way that makes them funny enough to laugh WITH instead of laugh AT.
True horror devotees only need apply, but if you know what to expect and get off on that sort of thing, you'll enjoy this a lot..
Surprisingly decent, gory zombie film.
When they manage to run into local pimp Johnny 'BackHand' Vegas, (Anthony Headen) afterward, they realize that some of his charges have become zombies and return back to the strip club along with friends Chris, (Sean Harriman) Clive, (Valensky Sylvain) and Steven, (Landon Ashworth) and try to find a way out.
Finding out that the zombies are the result of exposure to a new experimental drug that was supposed to cure cancer, they try to survive the onslaught from the ever-growing masses of the undead.The Good News: This here was a pretty enjoyable effort with a lot to like about it.
Even some of the stuff with the zombies manages to get a chuckle, such as their constant tactic of managing to sneak up from twenty feet away of the victim unaware of their condition and the attack being watched through the closed-circuit cameras and a remark is made each time, as well as the different encounters that generate a few good chuckle-worthy moments here and there.
Beyond the humor, there's also some fun to be had from the zombies, which look nice enough.
It even has some nice work within the strip club, with those scenes coming out with some effective moments at offering up some fun.
These here make this one quite enjoyable and entertaining.The Bad News: There wasn't a whole lot really wrong with this one.
Granted, what's there isn't bad at all, but it really could've used a little more in terms of overall amount considering where it's taking place and what's happening in the course of the film.
These are done in the still-alive-with-just-bloody-wounds visible approach, which isn't that great and doesn't look that good compared to other zombie efforts out there.
While not the funniest movie I've ever seen, it made me laugh a few times and certainly wasn't painful.Instead of trying to make this a city wide epidemic the movie is filmed in just a few locations, mostly inside and around the strip club.
Instead of bad CGI rely on practical effects until the climax (thank you!) The acting ranges from average to good.
The weaker acting comes from the minor characters, who are mostly the eye candy anyway.This isn't meant to be a masterpiece, but it's proof that low budget movies don't have to be awful..
is yet another low budget horror comedy mixing strippers with zombies; I have no idea why the two subjects are so often put together, but there you go.
The emphasis of this one is definitely on the strippers, with endless scenes at the strip joint with unpleasant pimps and the like; zombie action is thin on the ground and the attempted - and woeful - comedy is endless.
Since, presumably many of the extras were friends (contributors, whatever) to the production, you can also have more fun with enjoying the excruciatingly poorly timed delivered lines e.g. like as soon as Pandora banters with 'first bar patron / Hercules' (Brad Tremoroli as with multiple crew help credits, too), especially!And so to that genre adding denouement: the aforesaid dispatch method is worth catching to add to your knowledge of the genre (like all the ways vampires can be done away with) as in so doing, the zombies' (ah, all zombies, zombies) demise begin to betray the no doubt budget limitations with some, in effect, great, poor CGI: prior to that, other zombies (all of those 'Zombies, Zombies') are dispatched with in amusing stunt prop destruction cameos, including the great one 'featured' (coz it's on the box cover pix) stiletto in the head zombie!Thus despite its somewhat reprehensible misogynistic (possibly even borderline racist?!) undertones, nevertheless, overall, still enjoyably for its sheer ineptness!** who gets his homage nod in having the clip ice skating rink named after him.
And just in passing: so who would allow a toddler to watch a zombie film - and a 3D 'come out of the screen at ya', type, too - on her own, then only part through it, put her down to sleep?!
Unfortunately the drug has the unwanted side-effect of turning anyone who takes it into flesh eating zombies.
Lucas owes money to pimp Johnny 'Backhand' Vegas (Anthony Headen) who takes the drugs as payment & a couple of his hooker girls steal some & quickly turn into flesh eating zombies & attack some of the girls from the local strip bar who lock themselves inside the bar but are trapped.
Zombies (the version I saw had this title on the opening credits) this cheap low budget zombie film was directed by Jason Murphy & while it tries to be gory & funny & sexy I didn't think it worked that well & anyone with any level of expectation is going to be disappointed with it.
The script is poor really with a lacklustre reason behind the zombie outbreak, all of it's female character's are either prostitutes or strippers, the dialogue is occasionally amusing but the swearing & lame one-liners get tedious & even at only 80 odd minutes in length it's pretty slow going at times.
One part of the script I couldn't get my head around was when two of the character's decided to make a run for it to Dr. Stewart's laboratory to try & find a cure & I was sat there thinking why doesn't everyone stuck in the strip club just jump in the car with them & get as far away from the zombies as possible rather then trapping themselves inside the club & why do those two character's even bother going back?
The film plays like The Night of the Living Dead (1968) only the human survivors are trapped inside a strip club rather than a farmhouse & there's lots of childish humour that is meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator.The special make-up effects are poor, the CGI effects are terrible with some awful exploding zombies that look really bad & there's not that much gore either.
The film has that cheap low budget shot on a camcorder look to it & the entire film seems to take place in & around a car park.
There are no scares or tension & because of the low budget no sort of atmosphere.The IMDb reckons Zombies!
had a budget of about $30,000 which is low & it does show at times with poor effects, a single location & cheap production values.
is a poor low budget zombie film that tries to mix horror, gore, nudity, comedy & girls with large breast's which is fine I suppose but as a film it's just not very good & none of those elements are done justice..
This Film Vs Zombie Strippers.
And the gore/blood was clearly pink paint and fake (I know, it's a zombie film and it's never going to be 100% real.) It just didn't work for me.
Just like ZS, this film was centered around a strip club; however unlike ZS, the 'strippers' in ZZZ spent more time talking about their mums and boyfriends, arguing and getting slapped by their over-the-top pimp than they did actually stripping - for the record, I'm not that shallow, it is just expected from a stripper-based Zomcom.
For a low budget film (especially one with a budget as low as this) it did the job, I watched it from start to finish and did enjoy it, but it wasn't how I expected; especially after watching ZS prior.
Poor acting, poor effects, poor plot and poor film I'm afraid. |
tt0131704 | The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle | 35 years since their show's cancellation in 1964, Rocket "Rocky" J. Squirrel and Bullwinkle J. Moose have been relegated to reruns. Their home, Frostbite Falls, has been destroyed by deforestation, Rocky has lost his ability to fly and the show's unseen Narrator now lives with his mother, spending his time narrating his own mundane life. Meanwhile, their enemies Fearless Leader, Boris Badenov, and Natasha Fatale have lost power in Pottsylvania following the end of the Cold War. However, the three escape to a real-world Hollywood film studio, where they trick executive Minnie Mogul into signing a contract giving her rights to the show, transforming the villains from their two-dimensional cel-animated forms into live-action characters. Klutzy but well-meaning FBI agent Karen Sympathy and her superior, Cappy von Trapment, inform President Signoff that Fearless Leader intends to make himself President of the United States by brainwashing television viewers using his own cable television network named "RBTV" ("Really Bad Television"), which airs mind-numbing programming designed to zombify the public and persuade them to elect him as president. Karen is sent to a special lighthouse to bring Rocky and Bullwinkle to the real world by literally greenlighting a film starring the pair. She succeeds, with the Narrator being brought along as well but never being physically seen.
Fearless Leader is informed that Rocky and Bullwinkle have returned and sends Boris and Natasha to destroy them. The two are given a weapon called the CDI ("Computer Degenerating Imagery"), which removes cartoon characters from the real world by sending them to the Internet. Karen steals Boris and Natasha's truck, but gets arrested by an Oklahoma state trooper. Natasha and Boris in turn steal a helicopter to pursue Rocky and Bullwinkle. Rocky and Bullwinkle are given a ride by Martin and Lewis, two students at Bullwinkle's old university, Wossamotta U. Boris and Natasha get there first and make a large donation to the university in Bullwinkle's name. In return, the head of the university gives Bullwinkle an honorary "Mooster's Degree" and Bullwinkle addresses the student body, whilst Boris attempts to kill him with the CDI from a water tower. Rocky recovers his lost ability to fly and saves the oblivious Bullwinkle.
Martin and Lewis lend the two their car, which Bullwinkle drives to Chicago. Boris and Natasha once again attempt to kill the two, but instead accidentally destroy their helicopter. Meanwhile, Karen escapes prison with the help from a love-struck Swedish guard named Ole. Karen, Rocky, and Bullwinkle are reunited, but are quickly arrested for various misdemeanors that they have committed during their journey. The three are put on trial, where Bullwinkle inadvertently sabotages their case by cross-examining Karen as the prosecutor, not the defense attorney. However, the presiding Judge Cameo dismisses their case upon recognizing Rocky and Bullwinkle, stating to the District Attorney that celebrities are above the law.
The three obtain a biplane from a man named Old Jeb and escape Boris and Natasha once again. The duo consider quitting their evil occupations and getting married, but are interrupted by a call from Fearless Leader. Afraid to admit they have failed, they lie and tell him they have killed Rocky and Bullwinkle. Fearless Leader initiates his plan, brainwashing the entire country. Meanwhile, the plane is unable to carry the weight of all three aboard. Rocky flies Karen to New York City to stop Fearless Leader, but gets captured. Bullwinkle accidentally flies the plane to Washington, D.C., confusing it for New York, and lands at the White House. To get Bullwinkle to New York in time to stop Fearless Leader, Cappy scans Bullwinkle into the White House's computer and emails him to RBTV's headquarters, where he interrupts the broadcast and save Karen and Rocky. Karen knocks Boris and Natasha together, Bullwinkle throws Fearless Leader to his comrades, and Rocky ties the three villains together with the cable's wire. The heroes convince the American public to vote for whomever they want, as well as replant Frostbite Falls' trees. Bullwinkle accidentally activates the CDI, and zaps Natasha, Boris and Fearless Leader, reverting them back to their two-dimensional forms and banishing them to the Internet once and for all.
RBTV is changed from "Really Bad Television" to "Rocky and Bullwinkle Television", Karen and Ole start dating, and Rocky, Bullwinkle, and the Narrator return home to a rejuvenated Frostbite Falls. | satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0104645 | Kshatriya | The story is about two warring royal Kshatriya Rajput families in Rajasthan, India, based in Mirtagarh and Surjangarh. The Mirtagarh family is headed by Maharaja Bhavani Singh (Sunil Dutt), his wife Maheshwari Devi (Raakhee), his daughter Divya (Dolly Minhas) and younger brother Jaswant Singh (Vinod Khanna). Surjangarh's family is headed by Prithvi Singh (Dharmendra), his wife Suman (Sumalatha), his brother Devendra Pratab Singh and Devendra's son Vijay Pratab Singh. Vijay falls in love with Divya but both families are against them marrying and Mirtagarh's minister Ajay Singh (Prem Chopra) adds fuel to fire by getting Vijay killed even though Bhavani never wanted him dead. Divya commits suicide after hearing of Vijay's death and Prithvi shoots and kills Bhavani in revenge. Jaswant Singh (Vinod Khanna) returns from England and kills Devendra in revenge and vows to kill Prithvi when he is released. Prithvi's son Vinay (Sunny Deol) and Bhavani's son Vikram (Sanjay Dutt) are sent to England as children to get away from the bloody feud between their families.
Twenty years later, Vinay and Vikram are the best of friends living in England. Vikram's cousin and Jaswant's daughter Neelima (Raveena Tandon) also live in London. Vinay and Neelima fall in love and want to marry. This could signal the end of the Mirtagarh and Surjangarh feud. But as soon as Prithvi is released from prison, Jaswant challenges him to a sword battle. Vinay and Neelima intervene them while battling and stop them from killing each other. The truth behind the feud between both families is revealed and Vinay and Neelima are forbidden from marrying. Vinay is told the truth of his father killing Vikram's father and then tells Vikram. Vikram bursts into Surjangarh's mansion and shoots Prithvi and Vinay in a fit of rage shoots back at Vikram. While Prithvi and Vikram survive and are recovering in hospital from their wounds, Vinay and Neelima break off her relationship realising this feud will never end. Vinay decides to visit Jaswant and plead him to let him take Neelima away and end this feud. Jaswant refuses and tells Vinay to leave. As Vinay leaves, he is attacked by Shakti Singh. It is then revealed that Shakti and his father Ajay Singh had killed Vinay's cousin Vijay Pratab Singh and want to kill him too. As Shakti tries to attack Vinay, Vinay kills him with his own sword. Jaswant realises that Ajay and Shakti were the conspirators behind all these deaths between both families. He decides to let Vinay and Neelima go and they decide to return to England and settle there.
Vikram recovers from hospital and challenges Prithvi to a sword battle. Maheshwari prevents Prithvi from accepting Vikram's challenge after she tells him she has forgiven him for killing her husband Bhavani and he should remember that. Vinay decides to accept Vikram's challenge instead to keep his father's honour. As Vinay and Vikram are duelling, their mothers Suman and Maheshwari intervene and decide to hurt themselves to stop their sons fighting. Eventually they do stop and finally the feud ends. | murder | train | wikipedia | A True Indian Epic!. In my humble opinion, this is one of India's greatest films of the 1990s. The wealth on talent on show has never been equalled in any other indian film.The story is basically about two warring families in Rajisthan, and how various members of each family try to end this feud. The film climaxes with a brilliantly choreographed fight sequence between Sunny Deol and Sanjay Dutt. The scenery and musical score during this fight is magnificent, as it is during most of the duration of the movie. My only gripe is the slightly corny scenes set in the UK.Considering the epic storyline being told over two generations, and the large number of characters involved, I get the feeling that the version I saw (which runs for about 180 minutes) had been edited significantly to reduce it to a sensible running time. I would love to see the full version as it would help to flesh out some of the characters.All in all, its another brilliant movie from one of my favourite directors, J P Dutta.. excellent, Fantastic and Superb. Kshatriya is a masterpiece of an Indian film with a heavyweight star cast. Sunny Deol is a actor i wasn't too fond of, but he was good in this film. Sanjay Dutt was superb in this film, he should of been in it for longer. Raveena Tandon looked quite pretty in this film and does a decent job. Divya Bharti looks wasted, but she was nice in this film, rest in piece. Dharmendra is a classic Bollywood actor and plays his role to standards. Vinod Khanna was quite good in this film and gave a good performance. Their are many other supporting actors in this film which include Sunil Dutt. Meenakshi is in this film as well as Kabir Bedi and Rakhee, I don't know if i left anyone out. Best thing about this film is Dharmendra is playing Father to real life son Sunny and Sunil plays father to real life son Sanjay. Its amazing, and is superb.. An Epic of Indian Cinema. JP Dutta dislikes the movie himself! However, with the exception of some corny scenes in London, this move is as good and Epic you can get from Bollywood.The problem with this film is JP was lured into implementing commercial aspects instead of his usual authenticity into this film. Maybe he was trying to win over the mass after their failure of his earlier films.Despite this, the movie is still visually stunning. The action is probably the best ever seen in Bollywood alongside Sholay. The performances are good as in all Dutta films. An Epic of Indian Cinema. |
tt0185481 | Meikyû monogatari | === Labyrinth Labyrinthos ===
The short follows Sachi (Hideko Yoshida/Cheryl Chase), a girl locked in a game of hide-and-seek with her cat Cicerone. Her search leads her to an old longcase clock which doubles as a doorway to a labyrinth world. The world is filled with supernatural oddities and characters, such as cardboard working class citizens, an invisible dog, a skeleton-led train and a weird circus. Eventually, Sachi and Cicerone arrive at a circus tent where a viewing screen is displayed, leading to the following segments.
=== Running Man ===
Zack Hugh (Banjō Ginga) is the titular "Running Man," the undefeated champion of the "Death Circus" racing circuit and has raced for 10 years. Competitors race in high-speed Formula One-like craft, and spectators bet on the lives of these people for huge winnings. A Marlowe-esque reporter (Masane Tsukayama/Michael McConnohie) is sent to interview the mysterious Zack outside of the track and watches one of his races. He soon discovers Hugh has telekinetic abilities which he uses to destroy the other racers, after quietly observing him in the dark chronically over-using a training interface inside his penthouse. As the race ends in his favor, the monitors in the pit displays "LIFE FUNCTIONS TERMINATED." Mysteriously, though seemingly dead, Hugh continues around the track and is overtaken by a spectral racer. He attempts to employ the same strategy, straining to destroy the opponent, but in truth it is against his own mind. The force of the telekinesis is directed inward which rapidly tears both Hugh and his car apart. The Death Circus is permanently shut down afterwards; the reporter believing the event's true draw was the spectators need to see how long Hugh could beat death.
=== Construction Cancellation Order ===
A revolution in the fictional South American country of the Aloana Republic has resulted in a new government being installed; this new government refuses to accept a contract detailing the construction of Facility 444. The company responsible for the construction has begun to lose millions, so salaryman Tsutomu Sugioka (Yū Mizushima/Robert Axelrod) is sent to stop production. The work is completely automated, carried out by robots programmed to finish the job no matter the consequences and led by a robot identified as 444-1 (Hiroshi Ōtake/Jeff Winkless). Witnessing the destruction of several robots and Robot 444-1's refusal to cease operations, Tsutomu begins to lose his patience and is nearly killed by 444-1 who was programmed to eliminate anything that poses a threat to the project. He retaliates by destroying 444-1 and follows its powercord that leads to the energy source of the robots in an attempt to finally end the production. Unknown to Tsutomu, the old government has been restored and they have agreed to honor the contract once more. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0041838 | Samson and Delilah | Samson, a Danite Hebrew placed under Nazirite vows from birth by his mother Hazelelponit, is engaged to a Philistine woman named Semadar. At their wedding feast, Samson loses a bet with his wedding guests because of Semadar and attacks 30 Philistines to strip them of their cloaks to pay his betting debt. When his deeds become known, Semadar and her father Tubal are killed; Samson becomes a hunted man and in his fury he begins fighting the Philistines. The Saran of Gaza imposes heavy taxes on the Danites, with the purpose of having Samson betrayed by his own people. The Saran's plan works, and frustrated Danites hand over Samson to the Philistines, much to the joy of Delilah, Semadar's younger sister. Samson is taken by Prince Ahtur, the military governor of the land of Dan, and a regiment of Philistine troops. En route back to Gaza, Ahtur decides to taunt Samson. Samson rips apart his chains and ropes and begins to combat the Philistines, toppling Ahtur's war chariot and using the jawbone of an ass to club the Philistine soldiers to death.
News of the defeat of Ahtur at the hands of Samson reaches the Saran. The Saran ponders how to defeat Samson. Delilah comes up with the idea of seducing Samson, thus having him reveal the secret of his strength and then deliver him for punishment. Her plan works; she cuts his hair, which he feels gives him his strength. To fully neutralize him, Samson is blinded by his captors and put to slave work, and is eventually brought to the temple of Dagon for the entertainment of the Philistines and the Saran.
However, Delilah has been in love with Samson ever since his engagement with Semadar, and his blindness and torture make her feel deep remorse over her betrayal. She initially had betrayed him because she wanted to avenge the deaths of her father and sister, which she thought were caused "because of Samson."
Delilah later attends the public torture of Samson wielding a whip which he uses to be guided by her to the temple of Dagon's main support pillars. Once he stands between them, he tells Delilah to flee, but she remains, unseen by him, as he pushes the pillars apart. The pillars give way and the temple collapses, burying Samson, Delilah, and all the Philistines inside alive, including the court. In the end, the temple lies in rubble, and Saul and Miriam, his two closest Danite Hebrew friends, are left to mourn Samson's passing.
It is implied that the disaster has caused utter chaos among the Philistines, who are then forced to give up Israel to deal with their internal crisis. | good versus evil, revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | DeMille took off a couple of years now between films to create the opulent splendor that typifies his work.Well Samson and Delilah abounds in opulence.
She never had much acting skill, but all she has to do is be seductive and that no one could do better.And Victor Mature away from his home studio of 20th Century Fox where he was languishing, Samson and Delilah provided a whole new vista for him with roles in spectacle pictures where he could truly be that beautiful hunk of man.Fay Holden is good as Samson's mother.
It wasn't just that the bible pictures gave him some of his biggest hits; it was in these features that DeMille seemed most at home, and the one genre in which he had unique ability.Samson and Delilah brought an end to a long phase of epic-cum-adventure movies from DeMille.
Some of the effects may be a little dubious; whenever Victor Mature lifts up something heavy it's obvious it's being hoisted from offscreen, and that woolly-rug/lion tamer scene is actually betrayed by bad editing, but overall this is a solid, high-quality production.Yes, Samson and Delilah is as corny as anything, but it looks great, and above all it entertains.
Paramount did not spend big bucks for this movie, this is quite obvious; but with Lamarr as Delilah and Mature's Samson, this became a major example star-power.
Opulent costume design, good casting and excellent cinematography make this one of the better biblical epics that were being produced at the time.Victor Mature, a fine physical specimen of the male physique, seems to fit perfectly into the role of the brooding and oft-troubled Samson.
One of the other reviewers on this website said he portrayed a "sophisticated cad" which is the best description I have ever heard of Mr Sanders in this role or any other for that matter.The absolute star of the show is the movie's other lead actor, Hedy Lamarr.
The story about the Hebrew Hercules Samson, Victor Mature, who redeemed himself from a life of foolhardiness and slavery by taking down the Temple of Dagon, the Philistine Idol God. Samson not only destroyed Dagon's temple he took the lives, together with his own, of 3,000 of his bitter enemies and tormentors in the movies', Samson and Delilah, spectacular and ground shaking final scene.Never living up to what God wanted from him, to lead his people the ancient Israelites against the hated and occupying Philistines, Samson instead lead a life of womanizing and partying mostly with the Philistines who more then anything else wanted him dead.
Because of his super-human strength Samson felt safe from anything that the Philistines could do to him, killing hundreds who tried, in capturing or killing the biblical strongman.It's when the Philistine temptress the drop-dead gorgeous Delilah, Hedy Lamarr, got to work on the big guy that he left himself open to be captured, by the Philistine army, in revealing the source of his strength; His black curly locks of hair on his head.
Blinded, with a red hot iron put to his eyes, Samson was then forced to pull the grind-mill and made to look helpless as he was brutally mocked and tortured by his Philistine captors.As the days weeks and months went by and his hair, the source of his great strength, grew back Samson with Delilah's, who had since repented what she did to him, help then planned to finish the job that he never really started; annihilate his and his peoples enslavers the hated Philistines.
Hedy Lamarr plays the seductive temptress and conniving Courteson, Delilah, while Angela Lansbury plays Semadar, Samson's love interest.
Spectacular hokey Bible epic produced and directed by the great Cecil B Mille concerning about Samson (Victor Mature won the role over Burt Lancaster) and Delilah (Hedy Lamarr , among most serious candidates for the role were Jean Simmons , Lana Turner and Rita Hayworth) who plans to seduce him into revealing his secret and then to betray him to the Philistine leader, the Saran (George Sanders) , as she robs Samson his incredible strength .
According to the biblical account , Samson was given supernatural strength by God in order to combat his enemies Philistines ,and perform heroic feats such as killing a lion , slaying an entire army with only the jawbone of an ass, and destroying a pagan temple .
Victor Mature is surprisingly nice as Samson along with a young Angela Lansbury as Semadar and a cynical Saran of Gaza well incarnated by George Sanders .
Surely if Paramount can release "The Ten Commandments" and other DeMille pictures, then why not this wonderful piece of entertainment???If it is a question of restoration, that is fine, but in this era of every type of film being on DVD, I don't understand why this movie is not among them.I have the Paramount laserdisc version, but of course, it doesn't compare to a DVD of the same film.Come on, Paramount, get it out!.
Also the acing is not bad at all, Victor Mature is a dashing Samson and Hedy Lamarr pretty much steals the film as the beautifully captivating Delilah, it somehow reminded me of Rita Hayworth in Salome.
That little reference was enough to lure me into watching Samson and Delilah.I've always thought Lamarr was the most beautiful woman in films, (though she looked pretty ordinary in 'Ecstasy', before MGM got its hands on her), but she was wooden, with an annoying accent, which somewhat cancelled out the magnetism of her beauty.
Hedy was 35 during production and physically in her prime, wearing gorgeous figure revealing costumes that not one woman in a thousand could wear, and that includes Lana Turner, even more scantily clad in that colossal biblical bore, The Prodigal.The Victor and the Lion scene looked like the real thing to me.
de Mille's biblical epics, "Samson and Delilah" tells the story of the strong Hebrew judge that fought his people's oppressors.
No doubt that de Mille's usual luxurious and expensive touch is in this film and it is clear once more that the man didn't care about expenses whenever he entered a project and so the movie doesn't lack a sense of greatness and spectacle.The special effects are excellent for 1949, mainly the final sequences when a blind Samson demolishes the pagan temple with the only strength of his arms.
There is also a fine musical score by Victor Young.Though not too gifted when it came to acting Hedy Lamarr was indeed a beautiful woman and she comes out acceptably as the treacherous Delilah.
George Sanders brings an interesting performance as the "Saran" carrying the role of a ruler with dignity and class, and a young Angela Lansbury is good as Delilah's sister Semadar, "Samson and Delilah" turns out as an entertaining and watchable film in its genre though, in my opinion, inferior to the almost contemporary "Quo Vadis" by Mervin Leroy or de Mille's later product "The Ten Commandments" in which he was aided by an all star cast..
Delilah herself was a weaver according to the Bible (you see her loom in one scene after Samson breaks it) so you can imagine her making some of her own outfits.With a great cast (even the bit players were good!) and exquisite cinematography, this is one of DeMille's best and should be out on DVD.
In addition, Demille always crafted and screened his movies for the wide cinema scope format with color technology, which can still mesmerize an audience, if they happen to watch for the first time.This said, Victor Mature provided a remarkably effective persona to the physically stout and towering personality of the Old Testament protagonist, Samson.
Probably the best film made about this biblical story.Victor Mature's most memorable film and Hedy Lamarr's role of her life.She is simply born to play Delilah!George Sanders,even in a biblical epic remains the original English scoundrel and gentleman!The acting of others is equally professional and convincing.Thr direction and editing is brilliant.The story moves at a very plausible rate and events fold out in tact with it.The later part of the film has a lot of passion and pathos with Mature excelling as the blind Samson.Sympathy for Delilah is purely an Hollywood twisting of the original story where Delilah is described as a corrupt,wicked woman.The destruction of the temple still evokes wonder and awe even after 58 years.A very fine and enjoyable film,one of the best of its kind..
I first saw this movie in 1949 when it was released in Amsterdam I remember it well it was in the Tuchinsky movie theater and it has always stuck with me as being the best movie I have ever seen in my live I own over the 300 DVD's and I am 70 years old and I did have the movie on Video for along time but loaned it out and never got it back I am now trying to get it on DVD but with an pension its hard to obtain ,still think that with all the modern movies and computer enhancements they still don't measure up to this MOVIE.Peter Jackson's Movie comes somewhat close with the making of King King but the actors that portray Samson (victor Mature) and Heddy Lamarr as Delilah are hard to be equaled ,I hope that this movies will be released on DVD and I am looking once again forwards to see all the splender of a good Technicolor Production ..
A true masterpiece.Exactly the right people in the right role.Hedy Lamarr(when she gets it right)is one of the greatest of all time.A truly remarkable person who was also an outstanding scientist.Hedy portrays the very image of a scheming yet stunningly beautiful Delilah.Victor Mature/George Sanders/Angela Lansbury are all class actors with a strong track record and ideally suited to play such historical/mythological figures.George Sanders has his own dry sense of humour which is carried on in the 10 commandments.Cecile B De Mille is a true master when it comes to portraying such classical movies.One can only think of how this spectacle must have appeared to viewers when they first witnessed it in 1949.It looks pretty good even now.They portray the classics with a touch of panache Worth seeing again and again for connoisseurs of acting who are interested in real quality stuff and not just cheap showbiz!!.
He is distracted from this task by the temptations of Delilah (Hedy Lamarr), a sultry vixen out to avenge the death of her family and destruction of her home which was partly Samson's doing (in the film only, not the actual Testament, her role was much smaller though still crucial).
But then his hair grows back and, though blinded, he ultimately has the last laugh when he tears down the stone pillars holding up the temple, killing most - if not all - of the Philistines, including Delilah and himself.Looking like a less muscular though taller Sylvester Stallone, Victor Mature is pretty good in the role of the biblical beef cake Samson, and Hedy Lamarr is a sight to behold as the temptress Delilah.
Like a lot of kids I went away from this movie dreaming of someday being as beautiful as Hedy Lamarr(she was absolutely stunning) and seducing some man as handsome as Victor Mature.
(Mature, who'd fought rear-projection reptiles nine years earlier in ONE MILLION B.C., valiantly wrestles with a stuffed lion skin.) I know modern effects technology did not exist in 1949, but I doubt SAMSON AND DELILAH employs cutting-edge techniques, even for the time.
The film was a box office hit.One thing the movie does have is the beauty of Hedy Lamarr in the role of the wicked seductress Delilah.
Lamarr may never have looked better than in the revealing Old Testament costumes of this film, and in glorious Technicolor.Victor Mature plays the lead role of Samson, a Hebrew shepherd with superhuman strength, which he attributes to his devotion to God. After a spoiled wedding night (and much bloodshed), Samson becomes Public Enemy No. 1 among the Philistines.
Here is his very colorful biblical semi-epic, SAMSON AND DELILAH, a flawed film but with occasionally powerful moments, starring Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr as the two title leads.
Yet he wishes to marry the Philistine Semadar (Angela Lansbury), the older sister of the stealthy Delilah, who loves Samson and wants him for herself.
Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr surely look just right for their roles, and I don't think Mature's performance is bad in the film (though his character seems rather selfish and unagreeable and thus not as heroic as he should be).
It stars Hedy Lamarr (Delilah), Victor Mature (Samson), George Sanders (Saran of Gaza) & Angela Lansbury (Semadar).Late to the party in terms of classic DeMille historical recreations, Samson & Delilah made four times its budget back in the day but now plays out as an agonising chore to get thru.
DeMille's silent "Ten Commandments", made nearly thirty years earlier, which intertwined both biblical story and modern narrative, holds up far better today than this poorly conceived outing into Bible-land voyeurism.The script is the birth place of most pictures: here, the script is the film's death.
Victor Mature might be a good choice for an amateur passion play, but on film he looks and acts like a human ox.
In fact, if you have a Blu-ray player, you could do as I did and play this "regular" DVD film in your Blu-ray player and enjoy a slight boost in image clarity sharpness, making it very "close" to a Blu-ray film.And here's one final advantage of the "S & D" DVD: it does offer scene selection, so if you want to thrill again and again to any of the big action scenes of this film (and there are many!), you can just press a button and go instantly and directly to one of those spectacular scenes.So, my rating is 10 out of 10 for this DVD treatment of DeMille's great "Samson and Delilah." It will hold us very nicely until Paramount or some other studio makes a true Blu-ray version of it containing running commentary and documentaries.
Victor Mature plays Samson and Hedy Lamarr Delilah.
DeMille's "Samson and Delilah" was the most successful film of 1950 and the third highest-grossing picture up to that point.
Lamarr makes a stunning Delilah and the film is decked out in gorgeous color, sets and costumes, but it's Victor Mature who really delivers a solid performance as the stalwart Samson blinded (literally) by love.
(I can't think of many functional and heterosexual males who would be that obtuse.) Although Victor Mature wasn't as beefy as later male stars like Steve Reeves or Arnold Schwarzennegger, this was okay because his strength was miraculous.Naturally, the finale was spectacular, and that is what people went to theaters to see in a Demille film..
Henry Wilcoxon, who was with DeMille from the silent era, was also in both pictures, both he and Ms. Deering had better parts in this film as compared to 'Commandments,' though the Sam & Delilah was not nearly as good as the latter.Hedi LaMarr was wonderful as the temptress Delilah.
She does this by tricking him into trusting her then having his hair cut.Victor Mature famously plays Samson and it was also fun to see a 20- something Angela Lansbury as Semadar, Samson's wife that was killed before he became attached to Delilah.
DeMille that depicts the biblical story of Samson, a strongman whose secret lies in his uncut hair, and his love for Delilah, the woman who seduces him, discovers his secret and then betrays him to the Philistines.
It stars Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr together with George Sanders,Angela Lansbury and Henry Wilcoxon.This was definitely a biblical film classic that would still be enjoyed today by people who love films from the Good Book.
The star of the later film is the great Charlton Heston, the actor who more than any other has come to symbolise the epic style, and DeMille could also call upon some fine supporting performances from the likes of Yul Brynner, Edward G Robinson, Cedric Hardwicke and Anne Baxter.Victor Mature certainly had the right looks for Samson; he was a man for whom the expression "beefcake" could have been invented, and his imposing physique and screen presence helped him win roles in later epics such as "The Robe", "Demetrius and the Gladiators" and "The Egyptian".
Reeves was later to become a well-known epic actor, perhaps most famous for playing Hercules, another legendary strongman with many similarities to Samson, but Lancaster was never to star in an epic although his style of acting seemed well-suited to the genre.As one of the most beautiful actresses of the forties, Hedy Lamarr equally had the right looks for Delilah.
It came as a surprise to see Angela Lansbury, best-known for playing characters considerably older than her real age, as the glamorous young Semadar, although even here she is supposed to be Lamarr's older sister whereas in reality Lamarr was older than Lansbury by twelve years.Visually, the film is certainly spectacular, particularly the final scene in which Samson destroys the temple of the Philistine god Dagon.
"Samson and Delilah" is another of Producer/Director's biblical epics with a cast of thousands and impressive set pieces and this time in glorious Technicolor .
It tells the story of strong man Samson (Victor Mature) and his betrayal by the seductive Delilah (Hedy Lammar).Samson is in pursuit of Philistine beauty Semadar (Angela Lansbury).
DeMille's tour de force, "The Ten Commandments", is truly a beautiful, entertaining, and impeccable film; it reenacts a famous biblical story of love, hate, betrayal, remorse, faith, vengeance, and self-sacrifice: the story of Samson and Delilah.
As for SAMSON AND DELILAH, I did not know about this movie for a long time.
This was the first of a string of films over the next 5 years rooted in the ancient world that Mature would star in...Hedy Lamarr was perfect as Delilah, although I don't consider her quite the beauty some others do. |
tt0825245 | Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight | The film begins with the return of a group of friends consisting of Tanis Half-Elven, Sturm Brightblade, Caramon Majere, Raistlin Majere, Flint Fireforge, Tasslehoff Burrfoot. Kitiara Uth Matar, the half sister of the twins Caramon and Raistlin, was supposed to be there as well, but for reasons unexplained at the time could only send a mysterious note. The Companions had separated five years previously to pursue their own quests.
On the eve of their reunion, the Companions discover that Solace, the village where many of them made their home, is very different from the peaceful village they had left five years previous. Solace has been taken over by a religious order called the Seekers. They are collaborating with the Dragon Highlords who are preparing for the conquest of the continent of Ansalon. Solace is now an armed camp as hobgoblin soldiers patrol the once peaceful village. Tanis, Flint and Tasslehoff meet up outside of Solace, and as they enter the village, they are accosted by Fewmaaster Toede: a hobgoblin commander, and some of his minions. Forced to fight, the threesome kill Toede's minions, and continue to the Inn of the Last Home to meet up with their friends, and, as circumstance would have it, two barbarians, Riverwind and Goldmoon. Kitiara Uth Matar is absent, having sent a letter to Tanis saying that "her new lord is keeping her busy".
The Companions soon discover that the Seekers are searching for a Blue Crystal Staff. When Hederick, a Seeker, is accidentally burnt when Riverwind pushes him into the fireplace, Goldmoon heals him with her Blue Crystal Staff, a holy artifact of the goddess Mishakal which possesses healing powers. Upon seeing Goldmoon with the item he had been searching for, Hederick calls for the guards, causing the Companions to flee Solace. Unknown to them at the time, this pulls the Companions into a great struggle against the goddess Takhisis, the Queen of Darkness and leader of the enemy forces.
The companions cross a nearby lake by boat in their escape, and Raistlin notes that the constellations known as “The Valiant Warrior” and “The Queen of Darkness” (representations of the True Gods Paladine and Takhisis) are absent from the sky, which he claims means that the two gods, the heads of good and evil, respectively, have come to Krynn. The next day, the group is attacked by Draconians. These creatures are numerous among the Dark Queen's armies, and often serve as foot soldiers. The Companions are driven into the woods known as "Darken Wood" where they encounter undead warriors who, upon seeing the staff, make them go to the Forestmaster. The Forestmaster charges the group to go to the ruined city of Xak Tsaroth to retrieve the Disks of Mishakal, containing the teaching of the True Gods and instrumental for the restoration of the faith in the True Gods.
After a trip on the backs of pegasi, the companions enter Xak Tsaroth and eventually meet some gully dwarves, diminutive and stupid creatures. One of the dwarves, Bupu, leads them to the dragon Onyx, who is killed by the holy power of the Blue Crystal Staff. When this happens, Goldmoon is consumed by its flame and presumed dead. However, they find her later resting at the foot of a statue of Mishakal, which now bears the Blue Crystal Staff, having blessed Goldmoon with true clerical powers. The Companions leave with the Disks of Mishakal, and Bupu also gives an ancient spellbook (formerly belonging to the archmage, Fistandantilus) to Raistlin and then returns home to her fellow gully dwarves. After returning to Solace to look for someone who might be able to read the Disks, and finding it occupied, the Companions are captured by the evil armies and, along with an elf named Gilthanas, the son of the leader of the elven nation of Qualinesti, are captured and chained in a slave caravan.
En route to the fortress and mining site of Pax Tharkas, the group is freed by Gilthanas's brother Porthios. They escape to Qualinesti and decide to incite a rebellion in Pax Tharkas and free the slaves of Dragon Highlord Verminaard's control. The Companions journey through a secret passage underground to Pax Tharkas and devise a plan to free the slaves. They also heal Elistan, a dying Seeker, and the leader of the slaves. Trying to sneak women and children away from Pax Tharkas, the Dragonlord Verminaard and his dragon attack the Companions. However, his dragon is killed by another, insane, dragon. After his dark goddess Takhisis turns away from him in order to battle with Paladine, Verminaard is killed by Tanis and Sturm. Elistan is able to read the Disks, and Goldmoon and Riverwind are married. | cult | train | wikipedia | Actually, my great hope is that this is just the setting stage for a feature film that knows it's audience.I implore wizards of the coast to stop making things that suck for the sake of money.
The story works, but no thanks to the movie makers.I really like the books, Hickman and Weis write good fiction, the Dragonlance universe is nice.
Though, if Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were to actually see this, I'm sure they'd want to be buried so they could start rolling over.All-in-all, I'd recommend sticking to the book and avoiding this "movie", else you run the risk of ruining a great story you once held in your mind.
Then again, due to the stiffness of the arted characters' animation, even if the voices had more spunk in them it would not have helped.It would be nice to see someone put some dollars into re-doing this movie as was spent on the artwork for the DVD jacket cover.
There were rumours of a Dragonlance film from almost the start of it being published with many fans submitting their preffered cast list.Having now seen the entire film (not just the rushed out trailer) I have to say even Dragonlance fan that i was a little disappointed in the effort put into this.With the quality of animation and CGI available today this could have been absolutely massive, with a worldwide fan base of the books to easily rival the Harry Potter franchise why do we get cartoon style graphics that weren't even as good as the '80s DUngeons & Dragons cartoons (which should have been given their final episode but thats another criticism for another day).The only highlights for me were the voice talents of Keifer Sutherland (though being a big Raistlin fan may have biased me).A below average attempt at a brilliant story but I don't expect them to follow it up..
Whilst the film does remain very faithful to the story and the events within, its severely limited by its 90 minute run-time, the characterisation other than Tanis is lacking, the story simplified and compressed to the degree where the characters hurtle from one event to another, without the breathing space and reflection of the book it becomes very convoluted.Furthermore the film makers decided to use a mixture of 2d and 3d animation , with the dragons and draconians represented by a dated 3d animation, that makes the fighting sequences look very poor and overall the 3d sections look very plastic.
The animation is of such poor quality it makes the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon series of the 80s look like Golden Age Disney by comparison.
This small screen adaptation of the timeless novel from Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman tells the story of Tanis Half-Elven and his cadre of friends in their quest to find the Disks of Mishakal and stop the Dark Goddess Takhisis from taking over the world of Krynn.Tanis Half-Elven, voiced by Michael Rosenbaum (Lex Luthor of Smallville fame), is a man trying to come to grips with being, as the book claimed it "half of two things, and all of nothing".
this sets forth a chain of events that remains remarkably faithful to the book, yet still compressed enough to remain within the 90 minute time span.Semi-decent animation and a few corny lines of dialogue as well as okay delivery are the only things separating this from being a 10.Dragons of Autumn Twilight - 9/10..
You know, fantasy fans already feel - to a greater or lesser degree - like dorks; I can remember reading the "Dragonlance" novels and trying to convince others that the writing was pretty entertaining.
1) Kiefer Sutherland as Raistlin 2) Some of the music was decent 3) They only took away useful scenes, at least they didn't add any new ones to make the movie worst.If they do decide to make Dragons of Winter Night, a new voice director, a new director, a better penned screenplay and don't bother with the 2D-3D mix, if it's going to look that awful then just stick with 2D animation.I feel bad for Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis, they've waited 20 years for something like this and DragonLance receives this 'adaption' At least Lord of the Rings bounced back...
drawing?) with the bad guys -- dragons, draconians, etc -- of clunky 3D proportions meshes horribly where the resultant contrast in technique creates anachronistic and incongruous elements that move at different speeds, and it is just so ugly and flat you wish someone had drowned the poor thing at birth.Storywise, a barbarian woman named Goldmoon (Lucy Lawless) seeks the help of a fellowship in protecting/escorting her as she carries a blue crystal healing staff awarded by the gods, as their very presence is hedged around by a war that is getting increasingly close to home.
The awkward mix of cell animation and CGI didn't always fit but all in all this really felt like the book and I actually quite enjoyed it.
The characterisation of several characters was cut down quite a bit but I think they were pretty much spot on with what they chose to omit and what they chose to leave in, after all they had to cram it all into 90 minutes.Kiefer Sutherland does quite a good job at portraying Raistlin (my favourite character) even if the movie doesn't quite go in to the ambiguous nature of his character as much as the book does although it does hint at future episodes and even Fistandantilus gets a mention.
This series would be some ambitious studios ideal response to the challenge that Lord of the Rings laid down so come on, which of you big movie players is game enough...It's been nearly 20 years since I read the book and this movie adaptation got enough right to give me warm feelings of nostalgia.It's not perfect by a long shot but it's all the Dragonlance we've got so far outside of the literary world (and to a lesser extent the gaming world).
Yes we all know the animation was something my pet monkey's monkey could make but the voices were over acted and the addition of some sort of second hand low resolution 16 color CGI for dragons was shameful.I will give it this: The characters were written as they were in the books and the story was for the most part accurate from what I can remember.I hope they don't create the other two parts, let this cartoon rest in peace (or pieces on the editing room floor)..
I am a fantasy lover, I love animations, I like Dragonlance saga, I love books by Weis and Hickman but this is just a piece of wood.
However, the cartoon series "Dungeons & Dragons" (maybe their target audience for the nostalgic dollar) was much better than this.As a fan I definitely had to watch the whole thing, and I admit that they were faithful to the storyline and dialogue.
OK, so this is a great story and the voice acting was rather good, that earns them some points but, unfortunately an audio tape of the book would probably be more interesting...
Seriously, I recently saw Akira from 1988 and that had better graphics
I didn't expect them to hire a company in Japan to do the animation, but I think they didn't hire any animation specialists at all
I recently wrote a small animation scene for a class in college and even that looked better
Either they had no budget or didn't care about this movie and didn't care if it sold or was watched at all
In this day and age of special effects you can't expect to sell a visual product with no visuals, studio executives should understand this and not use 20th century technology from 20 years ago
If you want a good well voiced story than you may enjoy this movie, if you expect this to go along with something interesting to see then you should probably avoid this as you will be disappointed.
I mean, to actually do all of that painstaking research on how not only to produce a pre-Disney animation of outstandingly shoddy quality in these days of digital genius but to completely and utterly destroy all respect that you once had for Kiefer Sutherland, the Dragonlance franchise itself and the entire movie business.
To see that someone made this movie and took something so beautifully and ingeniously written and turned it into this abomination is truly a shame.I'm not going to comment on the animation (ok it was terrible), but even though the movie contains most of the main plot from the book, but it misses everything that made the story great.
It has none of the intrigue, none of the character development, no back story to explain why the characters are interacting with each other the way they are, in fact none of the story makes any sense if you haven't read the books and can remember why things are happening.I won't go into detail with spoilers and such, but unless you're a huge fan of the series I would not touch this movie with a ten foot pole (and to be honest even if you are a fan you should consider not getting this movie anyway).
This disastrous production has animation quality that makes a low budget cartoon from the 80s, such as He-Man, look like an artistic masterpiece.
The movie made it seem like a Disney's version of it.The voice do not match the lip movements, the action (if any) was very stolid, the animation has no emotion of any kind, the humor is non- existent.I was just glad that they did not make the part 2 of the series!.
As a long time fan of the Dragonlance novels, I waited years for even the rumor of a movie to emerge.
The quality of the animation was pretty poor: the robotic movements of the characters as well as certain inconsistencies made me feel like I was watching an early 1990's children's cartoon.
I personally will keep my fingers crossed for a second movie, even if the quality is as bad as the first.Mr. Meugniot, Mr. Hickman, Ms. Weis, Dragonlance Fans: Better luck next time..
This is better than the two dungeons and dragons films by a long way but the animation is of a low quality (like old style cartoons) even so its about time that the dragonlance story was put onto the screen and for that alone it earns a few points.Follows the book quite well keeping the main points but missing a lot.
but then dungeons and dragons is now owned by toy makers so i don't think we will ever see that.Any true fantasy fan should watch this once just to see for yourself, the quality may not be great but everything else is just fine and if a bad quality cartoon can out do the d&d films there must be something seriously wrong with the people behind the scenes.make some adult dragonlance films for crying out loud and lets see blood death and dragons!.
I'm about halfway through this thing, and it's just too painful to watch anymore.This film looks like one of the mid to late 1980s after school offerings, where major US toy makers contracted with Japanese or Korean anime studios to crank out cheap fast cartoons to promote their products for market.
I mention that because that's what this thing needed in order to sell it.But again, like I say, the other issue here is that the source material isn't that good in the first place, so it is perhaps fitting that some Korean company took on the project and gave a quality animated film befitting Weiss and Hickman's novel.The reason my review here is so long is that I just can't help but shake my head as to how this stuff gets made.
Just ignore those negative posts, either those folks haven't even read the books or are hopeless in generally.I'm huge fan of series and enjoyed it a lot, luckily i don't put much weight on those negative "reviews".I liked small things what makers have added on movie and sure there was some corny stuff on it and some characters was just out of boxes but reason for that was probably that its only 90 mins long so just cant focus everyone.Give it a shot and you will enjoy it, hopefully we will see more of these since its huge universe!
Six Companions - a dwarf, half-elf, warrior, mage, knight and kender reunite amid rumours of war and growing evil, horrors that will either destroy them or forge them into heroes of the world of Krynn.Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight, directed by Will Meugniot is a standard affair especially given the voice talent involved, the CGI animation hampers the traditionally drawn cells.
Even the voice- acting talents of Kiefer Sutherland and Lucy Lawless can lift the mix of traditional 2D animation and computer-generated 3D elements It's a Dungeons & Dragons tale, even with the wealth of Dragonlance's source material that I know is out there from Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, George Strayton's screenplay is quite skimming.
It is utterly awful.The animation is so bad it reminds me of the cartoons I watched as a kid in the 1980's; with nowhere near enough cels being used so the movements of the characters are jerky and there are clearly very jumpy moments during many of the scenes.The voice actors did try, some of them way too much, to compensate for the badly penned script but in the end it's still just cringe-worthy for most of the animation.
Those who are giving this such bad reviews should watch the late 70's and early 80's Lord of the Rings animated movies.
But I felt they really kept the spirit of the characters and story alive, and the actors did a very good job with the characters they were give.No, the animation isn't like super up to date.
Plus, the dubbing was so poor that it sounded like the characters were reaching out from a different world:( All in all they have been faithful to the story-line, but I still cannot understand why it was produced as an animation rather than in flesh and blood, or why they bothered at all in shooting it in such an amateurish way..
I mean the book has been butchered, the animation is bad, the voice acting is bad, the best part of this movie is that it ends.There is nothing to redeem this production, it completely lacks in everything, it rather reminds me of 80's TV cartoons both in technical execution and plot, that is to say both are gone presumed dead.Terrible adaptation that doesn't do any justice to the book or it's characters, if you like the books do yourself a favor and don't ruin your life watching this.Avoid at all costs..
The disappointment is that the majority of films/animation do a poor job of bringing great novels to the screen.The Dragonlance series is a favorite among many fans, myself included, and the word of a feature animation was being made had me very excited.
With what is possible with todays technology it is a shame they choose to go with such poor animation.The writing itself was so out of place with the original story and paced so fast, that any true fan that has read the novel will be truly disappointed.
I enjoyed the Saturday morning cartoon feel to the movie and felt the music and voice acting was almost bang on, save Tasselhoff, who wasn't what I imagined from the book at all.
With a $20 million budget, Dragonlance fans have been handed a horribly animated short 'epic' that has only one saving grace, and that is the voice work.You've seen the trailer.
A fan of the original series myself, I found myself glad that the show had finally been made into a movie, but sad that this was created instead.Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight certainly stayed as faithful as it could to its material (given time restraints) and the voice actors were great, but the animation made this a monstrosity.
It was an amazing experience to be able to watch the companion's adventures no matter what it looked like.I agree with some of my fellow posters that the movie does feel a bit rushed and that the animation left much to be desired.
OK a few months ago i told fans of dragonlance to chill and give the movie a chance.i an so sorry to all.i was wrong.the movie was horrid.low budget no feeling and they change the story so much any fan can pick out what was changed at any given point in the movie.I've made better home movies.i understand that when you turn a book to a movie things get changed and cut but this was a hack job.i would be ashamed to put my name anywhere on this movie what was wizards of the coast thinking when they OK'd this dungheap.they need to redo it with real live actors and a better budget and please fire the people that wrote the script.implore all the fans of the books to write e-mail or call them and let them know what we want .that would be a better movie.one that would be worth 20 dollars..
As a big fan of the books for many years I was looking forward to seeing this movie.
I think if they'd done like say Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, it would have been a lot easier to watch, even though they did totally mess up the story.Of course it would have to have been more than one movie to satisfy those of us who hate seeing deviations from the original books.Added..
This review is coming from some who has never read the book but watched the movie.
The animation in this movie is worse than most 80s cartoons.Like most Dragonlance fans Raistlin is my favorite character.
Not counting the fact that there are some actors that are definitely rooted in the Anime style of screaming every ten seconds.But when you watch a movie like this, it's for the story, and everything in there is correct.
It did have the feel of the old D&D cartoon.If you are interested in re-living the story and don't have the time to read the book, I think this film is an acceptable substitute. |
tt0308426 | Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy | === Setting ===
The game is set on a fictional planet incorporating fantasy elements, which consists of small and not very technically advanced settlements, surrounded by varying environments and abandoned ruins. One major hub is Sandover Village, home of the two protagonists; Jak, a silent 15-year-old boy and his best friend Daxter, a loudmouth who is transformed at the beginning of the game into a fictional hybrid of an otter and a weasel, called an ottsel.
"Eco" is a type of energy which dominates the world and was created by an ancient race of beings known only as "Precursors", implied by Samos Hagai at the beginning to be the masters of the universe and creators of all life on the planet. The two boys live with Samos, the Sage of Green Eco, and father of Keira, who is implied to be Jak's love interest. She builds the flying Zoomer vehicle that Jak and Daxter use multiple times throughout their adventure.
The primary enemies of the game consist of beasts known as "Lurkers" led by the antagonists Sage Gol Acheron (voiced by Dee Snider) and his sister Maia, who have been turned evil by the effects of the Dark Eco they studied. Their goal is to open a giant silo full of Dark Eco and use it to shape the universe to their liking. Other characters are the Blue, Red, and Yellow Sages, all of whom are masters of the Eco they take their name from.
=== Story ===
Against Samos's warnings, Jak and Daxter make their way to the forbidden Misty Island. There, they see two unknown figures ordering the Lurkers to gather Dark Eco. The duo, worried by what they are seeing, prepare to leave, but are soon discovered by a Lurker guard. Jak manages to kill it in an explosion, but Daxter ends up falling into a pool of Dark Eco. He emerges transformed into an ottsel (a hybrid of an otter and a weasel), but is otherwise unharmed. Returning to their home of Sandover Village, they seek help from Samos. Samos explains that only Gol Acheron, the Dark Sage, can reverse the transformation.
As Gol lives in the north, the boys look for a means of crossing the deadly Fire Canyon. Samos's daughter Keira, a skilled engineer, offers to let them use her Zoomer (essentially a hoverbike) in exchange for enough Power Cells to operate it. After collecting enough cells (and defeating a mutated plant cutting off the village's power supply) they make their way through Fire Canyon to the home of the Blue Sage. To their horror, the neighboring village has been destroyed by a massive Lurker known as Klaww, and the Blue Sage has vanished. With the path forward blocked by Klaww, the boys look for more cells, exploring an abandoned Precursor city filled with Lurkers searching for salvageable technology. Using the collected cells, Keira clears the path, allowing Jak and Daxter to defeat Klaww and make their way into the ancient volcano where the Red Sage dwells.
With the Red Sage missing as well, Samos sends the boys to hunt for enough cells so Keira can upgrade the Zoomer's heat shield. While exploring the nearby mines, the two come across a massive Precursor automaton being unearthed by the Lurkers. Upon their return, Samos disappears and the truth is revealed: The Sages have been abducted by Gol and his sister Maia, who intend to harness their combined power to extract the Dark Eco in their possession and use it to remake the world.
Making their way through the tunnels leading to Gol's Citadel, the boys run into Keira, who reveals that the Yellow Sage has also been captured. With the four Sages now under their control, the Acheron siblings begin restoring the excavated automaton so they can release the Dark Eco from its silo. Rescuing the Sages from captivity, Jak and Daxter intercept the machine and engage it in battle. However, they only manage to destroy its Eco weapons. Realizing that a greater power is needed to defeat Gol and Maia, Samos directs Jak to combine the four different types of Eco into one, creating Light Eco. Daxter contemplates using the Light Eco to return himself to normal, but ultimately allows Jak to use it instead.
Unable to escape their crumbling machine, Gol and Maia fall into the silo and are presumed dead. With the world saved, the group focuses its attention on unlocking the fabled Precursor Door, which can only open with the energy of 100 Power Cells. Once the door is opened, it reveals a large, mysterious object enveloped in a blinding light. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | A worthy successor to Crash Bandicoot..
Naughty Dog, a company that makes games exclusively for the PlayStation 2, delivered a worthy replacement for the loss of their great Crash Bandicoot series with Jak And Daxter: The Precursor Legacy.
I own this game and I love it.Made in the vein of a Disney cartoon, and featuring some good voice acting, led by Max Casella of "Doogie Howser" fame, the story is about Daxter falling into a vat of black eco and turning from the elf-like creature he was into a otter/weasel combination.
His strong but silent friend Jak and he must find the only person who can turn Daxter back.
So in a game that blows away what Super Mario 64 first brought in (the huge 3D worlds) Jak and Daxter visit many interconnected worlds to find Power Cels that will allow them to get Daxter returned to normal.The game features gorgeous graphics, complete with changing times of the day.
Great voice acting (Casella delivers some hilarious lines), great gameplay, and plenty of fun.
The game is easy to play (you get unlimited lives), constantly saves your progress any time (computer gamers always want that) and challenges you without being cheap.
Only the music is a weak spot, with much of it sounding too much like Crash's.
One great addition is if Jak and Daxter walk by a character, you will hear them talking to themselves about certain things or the characters themselves.
Throw in that the Keira character is one of the spunkiest characters ever created (What?
Paige Davis in a video game?!?) and you've got a must-buy.
Almost antiquated in today's world, "Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy" is fun, action-packed platform gaming at its finest!.
Ah, "Jak and Daxter", a game that it shockingly already 12 years old.
(Making me feel like quite the old man, having played it not long after its original release.) It is a nostalgic remnant and figment of my teen-aged years, huddled around an old 19" standard-def television in my room, playing my trusty old PS2 through those clunky yellow-red-white AV cables, staring at a grainy, pixelated image that seems almost neanderthalian by today's standards.Those truly were the days, weren't they?Created by Naughty Dog, the same company who later went on to create classics like the iconic "Uncharted" series, and the stunning zombie- horror game "The Last of Us", "Jak and Daxter" follows...
Jak and Daxter, two heroes who are forced to save the world from an evil force.At the start of the game, best buds Jak (a silent, but still oddly compelling teenager) and Daxter (a fast-talking smart-alec) go to the mysterious "Misty Island" to have a look around, despite being told repeatedly not to go.
However, after an accident, Daxter is knocked into a vat of a mysterious substance called "Dark Eco", which transforms him into a strange weasel-like animal.
The duo also see two mysterious figured plotting possible dastardly deeds with an army of monsters.
Troubled by the turn of events, the two are then sent on a mission to stop the creatures and try to figure out a way to restore Daxter back to his human (well, "humanoid") form.Yes, it's a simple set-up, but this is a game based almost exclusively on impressive gameplay and exploration, so I can forgive a less developed storyline.And that gameplay is impressive, and the game itself a well-constructed piece of software from yester-year.The graphics for the time were a blast.
Able to cover not only bright and colorful scenes almost reminiscent of a Warner Bros.
cartoon, but also dark, dreary sequences when the game is at more critical moments, the visuals are a feast for the eyes.
(Although they haven't aged well and are a bit blockier than later PS2 releases) And the visual design is just fun, fun, fun!
The voice acting, though limited, is very nice, particularly from Daxter.
Some complain that they found him annoying, but I found Daxter's mile-a-minute mouth to be charming and amusing.
The controls are also perfect, making the 3D platform gaming tight and intuitive.The difficulty level is also just right.
It's simple and fun, yet also is able to provide some nice challenges, particularly for completionists who want to discover every secret of the game.The only place this game loses a point is in the fact that that many missions do get repetitive, and at times, certain elements and goals feel tacked on and underdeveloped.
But this is only a small error in a game that otherwise feels pretty much flawless."Jak and Daxter" is a darned great game.
And it is well worth playing.
(As are it's darker, grittier sequels) I give it a great 9 out of 10.
It's a blast, and you should definitely give it a shot!.
Completely Great!.
2 Thumbs Way, Way, Way UP!
5 Stars or higher!This games has it all: Action; Romance; Adventure; and Cute, Fuzzy Creatures that want to eat you.
I swear, it's the best Play Station 2 game ever created!
I hope they make a sequel, a movie, and another version for Game Cube.
They did that with Sonic Adventure 2, why not this?.
A rare game for all ages!.
This game is packed with things to do and also a nice introduction to more open world adventure games for kids!
It's a family friendly game that I've played as a kid and as an adult and was enjoyable both times!.
Fun game with lush environments...best one of the series..
Yes, of the games featuring these characters this one is still my favorite of them all.
Granted the story is not as dark, however I as a gamer do not necessarily like my games dark all the time.
They made the same mistake in the Prince of Persia saga too, trying to cater to the Grand Theft Auto set of people.
This game features two buddies snooping where they should not, the one named Daxter soon falls into a vat of something called dark eco and is transformed into a fuzzier version, granted this does not stop his wisecracking which is the highlight for me for the entire series.
Jak is the silent protagonist here and I prefer that a bit more to the talker he becomes.
Well Jak and Daxter must navigate the world finding the legendary sages so that they might help not only Daxter, but the world from a dark threat looming in the background.
The graphics are great as they really show distance very well.
At the beginning you go to an island from the island you can see the mainland, from the mainland you can see the island.
The game is filled with areas where you can see in the distance where you must go and where you were.
The action is performed via standard platform gaming with your jumping and spin attacks on enemies.
The controls are simple and for the most part the game is not the type to make you pull your hair out.
The environments are great as you navigate tropical locals, snowy mountain tops, and fire filled mine shafts and you get some top notch boss fights too.
It is a shame they did not stick to this formula for future games though.
Not that the others are bad, but they just do not match this one in fun. |
tt0097531 | How to Get Ahead in Advertising | The movie is a farce about a mentally unstable advertising executive, Denis Dimbleby Bagley (played by Grant), who suffers a nervous breakdown while making an advert for pimple cream. Ward plays his long-suffering but sympathetic wife. Richard Wilson plays John Bristol, Bagley's boss.
Bagley has a crisis of conscience about the ethics of advertising, which leads to mania. He then develops a boil on his right shoulder that comes to life with a face and voice. The voice of the boil, although uncredited, is that of Bruce Robinson. The boil takes a cynical and unscrupulous view of the advertising profession in contrast to Bagley's new-found ethical concerns. Eventually, Bagley decides to have the boil removed in hospital but moments before he is taken into the operating room, the boil quickly grows into a replica of Bagley's head (only with a moustache) and covers Bagley's original head, asking doctors to lance it, which is done since nobody has noticed the switch from left to right nor the new moustache. Bagley, now with the boil head, moustache, and personality (the movie's third personification from Grant after the stressed executive and the raving lunatic) returns home to celebrate his wedding anniversary, with the original head merely resembling a boil on his left shoulder. The "boil" eventually withers but doesn't die, yet Bagley resumes his advertising career rejuvenated and ruthless, although without his wife, who decides to leave his new cruel persona. | comedy, dark, insanity, absurd, psychedelic, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0116477 | Hamlet | === Act I ===
The protagonist of Hamlet is Prince Hamlet of Denmark, son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and nephew of King Claudius, his father's brother and successor. Claudius hastily married King Hamlet's widow, Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, and took the throne for himself. Denmark has a long-standing feud with neighboring Norway, which culminated when King Hamlet slew King Fortinbras of Norway in a battle years ago. Although Denmark defeated Norway, and the Norwegian throne fell to King Fortinbras's infirm brother, Denmark fears that an invasion led by the dead Norwegian king's son, Prince Fortinbras, is imminent.
On a cold night on the ramparts of Elsinore, the Danish royal castle, the sentries Bernardo and Marcellus and Hamlet's friend Horatio encounter a ghost that looks like the late King Hamlet. They vow to tell Prince Hamlet what they have witnessed.
As the court gathers the next day, while King Claudius and Queen Gertrude discuss affairs of state with their elderly adviser Polonius, Hamlet looks on glumly. After the court exits, Hamlet despairs of his father's death and his mother's hasty remarriage. Learning of the ghost from Horatio, Hamlet resolves to see it himself.
As Polonius's son Laertes prepares to depart for a visit to France, Polonius gives him contradictory advice that culminates in the ironic maxim "to thine own self be true". Polonius's daughter, Ophelia, admits her interest in Hamlet, but both Polonius and Laertes warn her against seeking the prince's attention. That night on the rampart, the ghost appears to Hamlet, telling the prince that he was murdered by Claudius and demanding that Hamlet avenge him. Hamlet agrees and the ghost vanishes. The prince confides to Horatio and the sentries that from now on he plans to "put an antic disposition on" and forces them to swear to keep his plans for revenge secret. Privately, however, he remains uncertain of the ghost's reliability.
=== Act II ===
Soon thereafter, Ophelia rushes to her father, telling him that Hamlet arrived at her door the prior night half-undressed and behaving crazily. Polonius blames love for Hamlet's madness and resolves to inform Claudius and Gertrude. As he enters to do so, the king and queen finish welcoming Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two student acquaintances of Hamlet, to Elsinore. The royal couple has requested that the students investigate the cause of Hamlet's mood and behavior. Additional news requires that Polonius wait to be heard: messengers from Norway inform Claudius that the King of Norway has rebuked Prince Fortinbras for attempting to re-fight his father's battles. The forces that Fortinbras conscripted to march against Denmark will instead be sent against Poland, though they will pass through a portion of Denmark to get there.
Polonius tells Claudius and Gertrude his theory regarding Hamlet's behavior, and speaks to Hamlet in a hall of the castle to try to uncover more information. Hamlet feigns madness but subtly insults Polonius all the while. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive, Hamlet greets his friends warmly, but quickly discerns that they are spies. Hamlet becomes bitter, admitting that he is upset at his situation but refusing to give the true reason why, instead commenting on "what a piece of work" humanity is. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tell Hamlet that they have brought along a troupe of actors that they met while traveling to Elsinore. Hamlet, after welcoming the actors and dismissing his friends-turned-spies, plots to stage a play featuring a death in the style of his father's murder, thereby determining the truth of the ghost's story, as well as Claudius's guilt or innocence, by studying Claudius's reaction.
=== Act III ===
Polonius forces Ophelia to return Hamlet's love letters and tokens of affection to the prince while he and Claudius watch from afar to evaluate Hamlet's reaction. Hamlet is walking alone in the hall as the King and Polonius await Ophelia's entrance, musing whether "to be or not to be". When Ophelia enters and tries to return Hamlet's things, Hamlet accuses her of immodesty and cries "get thee to a nunnery," though it is unclear whether this, too, is a show of madness or genuine distress. His reaction convinces Claudius that Hamlet is not mad for love. Shortly thereafter, the court assembles to watch the play Hamlet has commissioned. After seeing the Player King murdered by his rival pouring poison in his ear, Claudius abruptly rises and runs from the room: proof positive for Hamlet of his uncle's guilt.
Gertrude summons Hamlet to her room to demand an explanation. Meanwhile, Claudius talks to himself about the impossibility of repenting, since he still has possession of his ill-gotten goods: his brother's crown and wife. He sinks to his knees. Hamlet, on his way to visit his mother, sneaks up behind him, but does not kill him, reasoning that killing Claudius while he is praying will send him straight to heaven while his father's ghost is stuck in purgatory. In the queen's bedchamber, Hamlet and Gertrude fight bitterly. Polonius, spying on the conversation from behind a tapestry, makes a noise.
Hamlet, believing it is Claudius, stabs wildly, killing Polonius, but pulls aside the curtain and sees his mistake. In a rage, Hamlet brutally insults his mother for her apparent ignorance of Claudius's villainy, but the ghost enters and reprimands Hamlet for his inaction and harsh words. Unable to see or hear the ghost herself, Gertrude takes Hamlet's conversation with it as further evidence of madness. After begging the queen to stop sleeping with Claudius, Hamlet leaves, dragging Polonius's corpse away.
=== Act IV ===
Hamlet jokes with Claudius about where he has hidden Polonius's body, and the king, fearing for his life, sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to accompany Hamlet to England with a sealed letter to the English king requesting that Hamlet be executed immediately.
Demented by grief at Polonius's death, Ophelia wanders Elsinore. Laertes arrives back from France, enraged by his father's death and his sister's madness. Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is solely responsible, but a letter soon arrives indicating that Hamlet has returned to Denmark, foiling Claudius's plan. Claudius switches tactics, proposing a fencing match between Laertes and Hamlet to settle their differences. Laertes will be given a poison-tipped foil, and Claudius will offer Hamlet poisoned wine as a congratulation if that fails. Gertrude interrupts to report that Ophelia has drowned, though it is unclear whether it was suicide or an accident exacerbated by her madness.
=== Act V ===
Horatio has received a letter from Hamlet, explaining that the prince escaped by negotiating with pirates who attempted to attack his England-bound ship, and the friends reunite offstage. Two gravediggers discuss Ophelia's apparent suicide while digging her grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of the gravediggers, who unearths the skull of a jester from Hamlet's childhood, Yorick. Hamlet picks up the skull, saying "alas, poor Yorick" as he contemplates mortality. Ophelia's funeral procession approaches, led by Laertes. Hamlet and Horatio initially hide, but when Hamlet realizes that Ophelia is the one being buried, he reveals himself, proclaiming his love for her. Laertes and Hamlet fight by Ophelia's graveside, but the brawl is broken up.
Back at Elsinore, Hamlet explains to Horatio that he had discovered Claudius's letter with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's belongings and replaced it with a forged copy indicating that his former friends should be killed instead. A foppish courtier, Osric, interrupts the conversation to deliver the fencing challenge to Hamlet. Hamlet, despite Horatio's pleas, accepts it. Hamlet does well at first, leading the match by two hits to none, and Gertrude raises a toast to him using the poisoned glass of wine Claudius had set aside for Hamlet. Claudius tries to stop her, but is too late: she drinks, and Laertes realizes the plot will be revealed. Laertes slashes Hamlet with his poisoned blade. In the ensuing scuffle, they switch weapons and Hamlet wounds Laertes with his own poisoned sword. Gertrude collapses and, claiming she has been poisoned, dies. In his dying moments, Laertes reconciles with Hamlet and reveals Claudius's plan. Hamlet rushes at Claudius and kills him. As the poison takes effect, Hamlet, hearing that Fortinbras is marching through the area, names the Norwegian prince as his successor. Horatio, distraught at the thought of being the last survivor and living whilst Hamlet does not, says he will commit suicide by drinking the dregs of Gertrude's poisoned wine, but Hamlet begs him to live on and tell his story. Hamlet dies in Horatio's arms, proclaiming "the rest is silence". Fortinbras, who was ostensibly marching towards Poland with his army, arrives at the palace, along with an English ambassador bringing news of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deaths. Horatio promises to recount the full story of what happened, and Fortinbras, seeing the entire Danish royal family dead, takes the crown for himself. | murder, dramatic, insanity, romantic, tragedy, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0250371 | The Other Side of Heaven | During the 1950s, John Groberg, who grew up in Idaho Falls, is called on a mission to Tonga. There he will spend three years as Elder Groberg teaching about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His first adventures are just in getting there, including a short time in a Fijian jail.
When Elder Groberg does get to Tonga, he is sent to a group of remote islands. There he is partnered with a Tongan, Feki, who speaks English. But Elder Groberg finds that what he has learned of the Tongan language is severely deficient, so he studies intensely to become proficient. He also learns the culture.
The island's minister tells the people not to listen to the missionaries. Later, he even sends three men to beat up the missionaries. But one of them, Tomasi, had been baptized a Mormon, so Elder Groberg and Feki were spared. This man later begins coming to the meetings and is chosen by Elder Groberg to be one of his counselors to the local congregations.
A local young woman, at the behest of her family, attempts to seduce Elder Groberg. She wants "a half white baby." She eventually relents because he is saving himself for Jean, the young woman he left back home, who communicates to him through letters.
While travelling at sea, Elder Groberg and his two counselors are caught in a large storm. He is washed overboard and is in fear of his life. He is later rescued and returned to Fiji.
A hurricane hits the island. Many of the trees are stripped bare, homes are destroyed and many people are killed. The remaining leaders have people gather up what food and fresh water is available so that rationing can begin. But the supply boat takes much longer than anticipated. The inhabitants of the island begin dying of starvation and dehydration. Elder Groberg is himself close to death when the island's minister gives him the last of his food, because he is old and Elder Groberg is young. When the supply boat does arrive, the minister is found to have died. The minister is given an honorable funeral. | romantic | train | wikipedia | No, I'm not Mormon, I'm actually an Assembly of God Christian, however that does not overshadow my appreciation for this movie.The depiction of the people of Tonga is accurate.
The crying and grieving took place for 1 full day (24 hours - day and night) while different groups of people from all the villages on the island, came to pay their last respects.Hats off to Disney for going out on a limb to bring the story of one young man's journey of faith and trials and tribulations of his mission to the big screen!
Considering that this movie was neither made by, nor endorsed by, the LDS church, The Other Side of Heaven is an endearing, uplifting movie that celebrates and pays respect to Mormon missionaries without going too deep into LDS philosophy or beliefs.
Produced in part by the same producer who brought us such cinematic gems as Schindler's List and Jurassic Park, Heaven is refreshingly devoid of many "blockbuster"-style elements and is a very low-key presentation of a young man's struggle to survive, adapt, and succeed in a world far far away from his familiar hometown in Idaho.In the early 1950's Elder John Groberg from Idaho Falls accepts a call to serve a three-year LDS mission to Tonga.
Yet his faith and determination to do what he believes is right are shown throughout this movie as his motivation to stay through the hardships, the loneliness, and the difficulties that are faced during his mission.The Other Side of Heaven is essentially a chronicle of Elder Groberg's true life mission.
At times spiritual, humorous, frightening, and uplifting, the movie is a tribute to a young man who faced overwhelming odds and setbacks to continually overcome some of the most difficult situations ever beset a young missionary.
There is another bit of Mormon tradition which is very poorly explained, but I can't tell you what it is without giving away a fairly poignant moment of the film's ending.Nevertheless, The Other Side of Heaven is not just a Mormon movie.
His profound failure to "get it" is an embarrassment.First of all, this is about a young man of "white-bread" heritage casting aside all he has and all he is, even leaving the love of his life for two and a half years, in order to immerse himself in a culture about which he is totally ignorant so that he can offer them the greatest gift he has to offer: His faith.Rather than "looking down" on the people he has come to SERVE, he bears great hardships, and exerts himself in ways he could never have conceived, in order to connect with these people.
He DID travel from Idaho to Tonga, he did live among the people there, he did come to gain their trust, he did bring to them a precious gift of faith, and he did return often throughout the rest of his life, with his wife and family, to be among these people whom he loved.That anyone could be so callously dismissive of this truth is a sad commentary on our "post-Christian" society.But I found this film to be deeply moving and very satisfying, and I recommend it highly to those who enjoy inspiring film..
I really did enjoy this film, although it is certainly no cinematic masterpiece, however I do think it would be of fairly limited appeal to a non-Mormon audience.
I was certainly surprised to see it as a Disney movie and was mortified to see other posters suggesting that the advertising for the film was less than forthcoming on the true nature of the storyline.
I am not a Mormon but thought this movie was a fine example of a good, clean, wholesome, interesting, and very enjoyable film.
Incidentally, we have friends who are (non-Mormon) missionaries in a location very much like Tonga, and they have experienced many, many of the same things portrayed in the film...even the rats!.
Even if you don't believe in the miracles that occurred in the film, you can appreciate the poignant message behind the story of a young man and his struggles to help the people he fell in love with.
For the rest of us, Mormon or not (I am not Mormon myself), it's a wonderful story of human determination, and an inspired young person with a full, multifaceted life, living out an amazing, eye-opening adventure.It does an excellent job reflecting and honoring Polynesian culture as well.
This film brought me back to some island adventures of my own.In short, if I had kids, I'd definitely want them to see this movie...but since I don't, I really enjoyed it all by myself!.
It was full of beautiful messages that we as a human race have so sadly forgotten If once in a while we all took a moment and thought of life like the young man in this movie, this would be a wondrous world.
It's refreshing to see economic success come for a family centered movie.The special effects in the hurricane scenes were as good as any big budget movie production, yet maintained their focus on the central characters in the film.
it supposedly is a coming-of-age story, but honestly i was so blinded by all the mormon propaganda that the "coming-of-age" part was all but a mute point.This movie, in a nutshell, is the tale of a Mormon missionary preaching preaching LDS and western values to this indigenous tribe on the small island of Tonga.I mean you have all the stock "inspirational" stories in this film.
The hurricane that destroys a lot of the island....the rebuilding effort....the missionary almost dying....but no no....it was the powerful message of Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon that pulled him through and, of course, the love of all those poor indigenous people he brainwashed as well.Just to clear up one thing....I have NO problem with people doing and saying and believing what they want to believe.....but I HATE it being pushed on me.
I mean what if a jewish or islamic, or any non-mormon or non-christian couple picked up the movie thinking it was good for their kids to see because it was a disney family film?
(And I might add that they are not real Christians, compare the tenants) This film was steeped in touchy moments that act to enforce the mormon-fed ideal that they are all perfect people that lead perfect lives and are in the perfect faith.
The fact that it will inevitably lead people to take interest in the mormon church is disturbing, considering the lack of enthusiasm presented by Disney towards the actual Christian faith.
The Tongans, who the lead character (the story is based on his actual memoirs) initially describes as (paraphrased here) "the people I grew to love" are simply portrayed as carefree savages saved by the attentive, miraculous attention of the Mormon missionary sent to convert them.There's no mystery and subtlety, either: the most beautiful Tonga literally drops her skirt for him, her mother begs him for a "half-white baby," he brings a dead child back to life, the music swells when his feet are inexplicably "eaten" in the middle of the night -- and he takes his first steps toward a cheering, loving, docile tribe.
There's little doubt who he'll have romance with, where he'll end up and how the experience with this "primitive" non-Mormon universe will change him forever (after all, not only did he manage to get a book published, he also got this movie produced by Disney).In short, it's tremendously irritating -- it's insulting, it's racist, it's condescending.
It was personally inspiring.This film is not filled with sex or violence or gore; it's simply a good story well-told.
Although people who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints might be sceptical of the ability of a missionary to heal the sick, I think that it is important to depict a true story in its truest form, and John Groberg truly worked miracles in Tonga.
I think that the majority of believers in the world (and most critics seem not to be!) believe in miracles, whether they be through a young mormon missionary or any other faithful follower of God, and I think this would have only enhanced the story.
Although it was not clearly stated, I think they were insinuating that the Lord was helping him, and it was nice to see they didn't ignore that aspect altogether.Anyway, aside from all of that, it was an enjoyable movie that I think the whole family can watch and marvel at the difficulties people can face, and overcome, in their lives if they have the courage to try..
It reminded me of one of my favorite stories of all time...James Michener's "Hawaii", yet it had its own sweetness and own story.I will put this on down as one of my top ten movies and highly recommend it to anyone who loves drama, hope, truth and love...amidst a beautiful island people.I give this 10 stars wholeheartedly!.
Normally LDS subject films like The Other Side Of Heaven are usually produced in Salt Lake City by Mormons.
But this film, the true life adventure of a missionary in the South Pacific island kingdom of Tonga was done by the Disney Studios.
Still it's something if not required, expected of him to do his two year bit before he marries Anne Hathaway.Stories about Mormon Missionaries and I've reviewed a few of them now have one common thread, it's the culture shock.
That's what films like God's Army, The Best Two Years and this film have in common.The Pacific Islands have always held special interest for the LDS church.
With disease and tidal waves to battle among other things, the Magic Kingdom did a great job with the special effects in The Other Side Of Heaven.Anne Hathaway does appear in the film, but it's her voice in the letters they exchange that is her real contribution.
Good lord.A missionary goes to the pacific islands and converts the islanders, and even makes them wear those short-sleeved dress shirts and ties!!!!I have a feeling most of the people reviewing it on IMDB went to see it because it's a christian movie, but for those who don't need a sermon, be forewarned!!
However, when I put my own feelings with the church aside, this film is a peek into the profound experiences and trials of one very hard working missionary.
One of those things most people don't realize about this, is this movie is a true story.This young man left his home for more than 2 years to do what he believed to be right and gave up everything.
It also shows what it's like to leave everything your used to behind, and go someplace completely strange, and then after being there for a while how hard it can be to readjust to life at home.Please don't disregard this movie simply because it's about a Mormon missionary Mission.
The film shows the missionary and his girlfriend in probably a more mature way than a typical missionary would be, but the actor Christopher Gorham does an excellent job portraying the actual person...whether or not it is actually true to form.
I mean, to think, anyone with a religious message should save it for only white folks in the neighborhood and not take it to all men and women."Groberg struggles to learn Tongan only to have the native cast spend the rest of the movie speaking English." -- Quick, name all the Hollywood movies with story lines in foreign countries where you were forced to read subtitles while the actors spoke another language.
Oh, and the picture of Queen Elizabeth in the telegraph/post office may have been an indication more than a few natives actually knew how to speak English."Simplistic plot has convenient/immediate solutions to the parade of disasters." -- I'll grant you, many different approaches could have been taken but this director decided on an episodic format...one mini tale after another...to compress three years of a young man's life into 2 hours."The main character dares to preach his version of morality (in this case, saving intimacy for marriage) as what God wants." -- Let's face it...the only way most critics would consider Groberg's mission relevant would be if he had bedded the local girl, denied his faith, and sailed with her to a remote, speck of an island to begin a new society of 'nonjudgemental,' 'enlightened' people.I could go on but, why.
This movie 1) Is about a Mormon missionary's trials during 3 years of life among people of a different culture...to expect him to be a proponent of another faith's doctrine is more than a little ridiculous, 2) Is limited by a very small budget by Hollywood standards (around $7-8 million)...despite the paltry sum, the cinematography is outstanding and the acting and supporting cast are excellent, as well, 3) Will not receive picture of the year honors...but, who cares?Whether you are of the Mormon faith or not, this movie is worth the price of admission.
Although the main character is a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon), the themes of this film are not exclusive to people who practice that faith.
Mitch Davis' work is truly worthy of considerable recognition with this effort.Christopher Gorham's lead-role performance as LDS missionary John Groberg serving his three-year mission in the Tongan islands in the early 1950s is genuine and compelling.
"The Other Side of Heaven" is a movie that I liked as a younger person with much less appreciation of what appeals to my particular film tastes.
It just doesn't fit into my belief system that you should try to convert someone to yours, so it makes it very difficult for me to relate to this film's main character (a real-life person).Plus, the movie is badly mangled (oops...
This film is a true story that shows only a few of his vast adventures, which change his life.
I think it made a lot of people look at the LDS Church in a different way.I next watched "God's Army".
Of course, it was a movie about missionaries who spend two years of their lives preaching about their church, so I guess that I should've expected that.Because of "God's Army", I waited awhile before I decided to watch "The Other Side of Heaven".
Of course, if you go into this movie thinking that it's a Mormon propaganda film, you will feel like it is, but if you go watch it with an open mind, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with this movie about a Christian missionary and his desire to be with the people of Tonga..
But what was great about "The Other Side of Heaven" was that you weren't bombarded with all the LDS dogma that you wouldn't understand unless you were already a part of the "Mormon" culture.It was just a story of a missionary (to use a generic use of the term) who goes to another country and faces all the difficulties that we all would experience if we were to go to another country trying to express what is most important to us.The love story was believable, since it was true.
And it wasn't overdone like the droning love story in "Pearl Harbour" where the man had too decided to leave his woman for a while.Mostly, as a former missionary myself, it brought back a load of great memories from my own mission and my own experiences.I highly recommend it for all..
Admittedly, mormons will flock to see this movie picture look into the life of one of their own, however, the film's appeal shouldn't stop there.
While based on the experiences of a mormon, "The Other Side of Heaven" doesn't come off as "preachy" or "religious", but rather, it entertains and brings to the silver screen the incredible story of this young American as he ventures out to an unfamiliar place and culture."The Other Side of Heaven" is a true-story journey that everyone can enjoy!.
There takes something to make a good movie that well represents the feelings that come through special experiences.
God's Army, a movie that was also made to depict the life of an LDS missionary, was good at introducing the LDS culture to those who do not share that faith.
The things that happened to the main character, Elder Groberg, while getting to know the people from the new culture are very similar to others who have done the same.
Although many may not experience all the extremities Elder Groberg went through, much of his interactions with the people are similar.I hope to see more movies based on true stories do their best to portray the feelings and experiences that come from the story of what actually happened.
Only complaint was that I think it was a bit TOO vague on the missionary selection process in the beginning of the movie - but did a great job avoiding the "dogma" aspect and staying true to the story.
Great adventure movie with serious thoughtful moments true life experiences..
I really enjoyed this film as it brought back the true to life experiences of going to other cultures and learning a new language and working with new people.
A great family movie about coming of age, love, family, strength, and having faith in God. Christopher Gorham plays John H.
A must see movie for every Christian.Just what our youth needs.Carefully filmed to appeal all audiences.Based on a true story,told in diaries,hardly to match.Finally on the big screen..
This movie recounts the adventurous mission of a simple young man from Idaho as he teaches the people of Tonga.
Just because it is a film about a Mormon Missionary doesn't mean it's not relatable to everyone.
The movie is not even about the religion, but it is about the experience of living with a culture unlike your own and learning that everyone has a mission in this world.
Mormons are normal people!As for the movie. |
tt0114371 | Search and Destroy | Middle-aged Martin Mirkhein (Griffin Dunne) is a complete failure. He's run a successful business into debt, his marriage is falling apart, and now he owes the IRS $147,956 in back taxes. Martin may not have much going for him but he has read "Daniel Strong," a best-selling, self-help novel by the popular TV guru Dr. Waxling (Dennis Hopper). Now he wants to turn the novel into a major motion picture. To do that, Martin needs the rights and the revenue. Given his grating personality and terrible track record, it won't be easy to get hold of either. He sets out to meet with Dr. Waxling but ends up sleeping with Waxling's screenwriter-assistant Marie (Illeana Douglas) instead. Determined to make a movie, Martin and Marie move to New York. There, they get involved with wealthy Kim Ulander (Christopher Walken), an enigmatic businessman with quirky tendencies and a repressed desire to live dangerously. If they aren't careful, this daring duo may not come out of this deal alive. | satire | train | wikipedia | A great movie that somehow slipped under everyones radar..
Hope it sits well with you....I have to say that this movie is one of the rare pieces of film that shows what can be accomplished with no money at all, or little money.Scene to scene, moment to moment, it is the essence of what a "low budget movie" can accomplish, it does not wallow in what it cant do, and focuses on what it needs to do, to tell a story.
There are moments in it, where you totally don't realize how little it took to create the scene, and its because your lost in the story, and thats what gives the film so much strength.True enough, if you have the cast this film has, you can do little wrong.
But its great to see that each member does their part, and keeps up with the story, and makes it all seamless.The travel scene to NYC with Douglas and Dunn is a perfect example of what can be accomplished with creative thinking and attention to character.
without a airport being shut down to accommodate a production schedule that is based more on ego than need.There are moments of sheer perfection in this film that i, as a avid lover of film and movies have rarely seen.
for over ten years now i have proudly listed this film in my top favorites, as its eccentricities grow more and more lovely upon each watching.The arc is there, and so is the commitment to the ideas that it presents almost immediately as its thesis.
Waxling is the truth sayer in this piece of fiction, and he lets you know right away what to expect.i remember being up late, watching HBO, High, Bored, and finding this film.
As it is a complete work, not quirky for the sake of it, as so many other movies rely on...
but quirky due to the fact that life is quirky, off, odd.You can be what you want, you can do what you want, this movie sums that up in a rare way that i have not often seen, and i appreciate upon each watching...Dr Waxlings comments are gold.
All and all i am proud to be in the small group of people that promote this film to no advantage of self, as it addresses many of the same issues that other films like Fight Club go in to in a more serious, bigger budget way.Check it out.
The first time I saw this film I thought that it was bizarre, yet in some odd way compelling.
The humor is dark and unconventional, and the dialog is odd in that it is difficult to determine whether or not its meant to be funny or is simply poor writing, I still have not figured that out which is probably one of the reasons I love this film.The cast is of course outstanding, which is why I first rented this film knowing nothing about it.
Dennis Hopper, Ethan Hawke and produced by Martin Scorcese, how could you go wrong?
But the truly outstanding performance, and the majority of the quotable lines are spoken by Christopher Walken.
His characters name is Kim Ulander, classic, and walken does what walken does best in this role, he plays a psychopath.
It's got fantastic dialog and terrific performances from Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper.
But so did Glengarry Glen Ross, and that too was a terrific movie.I don't know if the film is really any sort of meaningful commentary on modern life.
I can't say enough good things about this movie.
Great movie, probably one my favorites, although I'm not sure why.
Technically, it's pretty sloppy but I just love the cast, the crazy rapid-fire delivery of Turturo, the eerie deadpan Walken, the manic Dunne.
Griffin Dunne performs a souped reprise of his role in "After Hours", although he overacts at times, he has the desperate loser role down pat.
The movie title, to me, is about searching for what you love and then destroying it, something most of us seem to do over and over again.
I like this movie more and more each time I see it, although the sloppiness bugs me increasingly as well.
This movie seemed to be a snowballing sequence of mishaps - similar to what happens in "After Hours" from 1985.
Dennis Hopper is an interesting character in this one.
As usual, Chris Walken steals the show as a business man and somewhat "off-kilter" character who enjoys an evening of Karaoke.
I would recommend it to people who enjoy strange movies.
Why the hell has David Salle never done another movie?
He got famous as a painter back in the 80s and, like his contemporary, Julian Schnabel, got signed on to direct a film with a great cast and decent distribution.
This movie is as fun as a trip to Coney Island!This is a really nice ensemble comedy with surprises lurking around every turn.
If you're a fan of Illeana Douglas, John Turturro, or Christopher Walken, this is certainly not to be missed..
This is indeed a quirky movie, so Walken is clearly in his element.
Griffen Dunne does seem like he's playing the same character in After Hours, only he has fallen on hard times.
Dennis Hopper's character, Dunne thinks, holds the key to a brighter future, but only if he can raise the money to turn Hopper's book into a film.
That's where Walken's character comes in.
He's read Hopper's book too, and wants to help Dunne empower himself, by finding a deal that can help Dunne raise the money, which is where Taturo character comes in.
If quirky comedies that chug there way over the top are your thing, this movie is for you!.
This is surely one of the funniest comedies I´ve ever seen - especially in terms of strange characters.
Those who compared this movie to Mr. Scorseses "After Hours" are right!
best movie ever.
this movie is great.
Walkens best performance ever.hopper is great.it's flawless.
not a bad scene in it.levels upon levels.the more you watch it the more you get from it.iv'e seen it over ten times and have never fast forward in any parts.
Also John Turturro is hilarious.great great great this movie should be huge.I wish David Salle would make another movie.i love the way its directed.
when Walken, Dougless, and Dunne are sitting at the table in the restaurant a different color comes up behind them i love that.and when Dunne is running and they repeat it over and over i love that..
but the film is way less than the sum of it's parts .......
Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke.
Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts.
"Search and Destroy" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull..........
christopher walken.
christopher walkens best preformance ever!!!
if you are a fan of walken or dennis hopper you must see this movie.it's weird but never boring.
and you can read into it endlessly if you want to know what it's trying to say,or you cad just sit back for the ride.
Search And Destroy is an exceptionally weird, nearly impenetrable satire of Hollywood, produced by Martin Scorsese (he also cameos).
It's essentially just a series of odd, puzzling vignettes vaguely based on business and movie archetypes we've all come to know, and love to make fun of.
You may however enjoy it's oddball characters, and you've got to do a double take when you see how many awesome actors are in the cast, in a film you've probably never heard of.
Griffin Dunne, who started in Scorsese's excellent After Hours, plays Martin Mirkheim, a shameless moronic suck up desperately trying to get his awful script sold to some show business bigwigs.
Along the way he meets a host of hives inducing freaks that one might expect to find in early 1990's film scene.
Dennis Hopper lurks into the frame as Dr. Luther Waxling, a batty self help guru and author of a pretentious psychobabble book starring an allegorical man (Robert Knepper).
Roseanne Arquette is Dunne's hampered wife, Illeana Douglas is great as Hopper's oddball girlfriend who takes up with Mirkheim.
Stealing the show, however, and can we expect anything less from him, is Christopher Walken.
He plays Kim Ulander, a wondrous Walken creation, a shady, pleasant mannered ad exec who goes absolutely postal at the drop of a hat, the funniest sociopath you could ever hope to meet.
Enjoy it for its abstract, absurd dialogue, weirdo fucknut characters, and darkly silly, nonsensical, self destructive aura.
Just because it happened to you...doesn't make it interesting...That's right.The international name for this movie "The Four Rules" (the above being one of them) is infinitely more closer to the truth than "Search and Destroy" which sounds like a Dolph Lundgren vehicle and must bear some responsibility for this golden nugget to be relegated to the movie alternate reality version of the "missing sock syndrome".Turrito is better here than in Barton Fink, Hopper is at his merciless best, while Walken steals the show.If all movies contained the relentless WIT of this screenplay...well...it would be a wittier world.And a world full of wits is decidedly more humorous and fun than a world full of half-wits....*sigh* oh well....
I think this is a very underrated movie.
I think this is a very underrated movie, unfortunately i've noticed so few people seem to have really enjoyed it.
It's a typical 90's indie movie, with odd characters and something to say, not the usual blockbuster automatic pilot.
Our 60's rock stars, for instance, could be represented by the Dennis Hopper character, only interested nowadays with the movie producer's wallet and the money he can offer for his book's rights.
And the bored grown up kid, leading a tedious life as an executive, trying to get rid of his yuppie routine by following the book's rules by every word, even if it means killing someone.
Christopher Walken in one of his best maniac performances.
Turturro's performance is outstandingly quirky; Walken is frighteningly strange and unhinged.
petty good (but same old Walken).
Very nasty satire on the problems with having a single vision when approaching the art - and business - of film-making.Most of it is quite good - neatly written, acted, filmed, and nicely paced.The film has a big weakness - Christopher Walken.
I won't tell the whole story here - but his character should have been offed in the first third of the movie.
Unfortunately, that character is pivotal - and that's a big mistake - he's too slimly to carry this film, he drags it down.In the bit with the IRS accountant, nicely played by executive producer Martin Scorcese, I couldn't help thinking of the brilliant, and long forgot, comedy "A New Leaf" with Walter Matthau.
And there are enough chops in the script, and among the other actors, to have produced a film to rival that one.But it's the same old same old Christopher Walken, isn't it?
All your scenes are the only good parts of this dreary, unpleasant story.OK, the start is OK, but then it gets simply boring.
So funny.Illeanna is the receptionist to some weirdo who has written a book that some guy wants the rights of to make a movie, but he doesn't have any money to buy the rights, so, he meets up with a drug dealer.
Griffin Dunne plays a out of luck businessman filled with debts and no money at all who has the brilliant idea of become a film producer in Hollywood and finally do something that will last, to do something that people will remember him.
His dream project is to adapt a famous book written by a guru (Dennis Hopper) into the screen.
While on his way to adapt the book he'll meet the potential investors that includes Kim a friendly but suspect businessman (Christopher Walken) and another strange guy (John Turturro), some drug dealers and work with Marie (Illeanna Douglas) former secretary of the guru who wants to write and direct her own film, a bizarre horror story.In "Search and Destroy" things move like a Coen's brother movie but without the cleverness and the sinister side of one of them.
Turturro made the film funnier with his fast talking character and Walken made the story more and more tense, funny sometimes.
And because of this moments and the great cast I'll give a positive review for this film, the only directed by the famous artist David Salle.
To many people out there it might seen a boring film where almost nothing happens, looks like empty but it's not.
It tells a story of overcoming bad things and creating another crazy situations, the whole thing mentioned by the guru about the rules of life, things that he included on the book and are mentioned over and over by the characters are very sarcastic (things such as "the past is meaningless" and "never say you're sorry").
8/10For movie comments, talks and etc follow me on Twitter at @wortzik and reply at me about some of the reviews I'm writing here..
Movie Making the Easy Way. DETAILED PLOT SUMMARY AND SPOILERS (if that's possible for a 1995 movie)The first time I saw Search and Destroy, I disliked it.
Then I thought about what I'd seen and it truly affected me the way the lead character in the film is affected by a certain book he reads.His name is Martin Mirkheim, played brilliantly by Griffin Dunne, and he is a truly unique film character in that he believes in himself.
The book is about a child who goes on an adventure to find his strengths, test & eliminate his weaknesses, and learn about the world the way it really is.
Most importantly, having learned about the world the child now can understand his place in the world and how he can initiate change.The author, Dr. Luther Waxling, played by Dennis Hopper, is a down & out cable access show host who wrote the book many years ago in his glory.
Back then, Waxling may have believed in himself but now he just wants to make money through his TV show and from his self-improvement classes.
At that point in the movie, I figured I had the plot down: Martin was going to show Waxling where he went wrong.
You know; the ol' student-teaches-the-teacher gag (yawwn) but I was glad to be wrong.Instead, Martin wants to buy the rights to Waxling's book and make a movie out of it but Martin doesn't have any money to give him.
Martin calls Kim Ulander, played by Christopher Walken, whom he met earlier at a party.
Walken is the type of actor who doesn't get bothered at the fact that he's typecast as the wacko.
Walken has accepted it and I think at this point in his life he embraces it.
There's one scene where he's in a kareoke bar and he performs a lounge song that made me want to slit my wrists.
Martin and his assistant Marie, played by Illeanna Douglass, hook up with Kim. Together they try to raise capital to buy the rights to the book.Martin's journey to reach his goal mirrors what's portrayed in the Waxling book but that's the obvious side.
There is a second variable that makes it more interesting: Walken.
Walken's character, Kim, has read the book too.
Kim is also a big Waxling fan but he has interpreted the book's message a little more literally than Martin.
With each new conflict we get two different reactions; Martin's and Kim's.
The interaction between these two characters is what makes the movie shine to the very end.Watching Search and Destroy is a bit like sitting through one of those inspirational seminars.
This movie is full of really quotable material, but its used merely as the background for the story, as so many other expression forms i have only come to see reasonably applied in this particular movie.In my opinion, the stories backbone is made of the relationship between the two characters Martin and Kim, as mentioned in another comment both have read the famous "Daniel Strong" book and have been inspired by it.
The strong Martin kills Kim who just bit off more then he could chew.It is this for that i think the performance of both Dunne and Walken can not be compared, nor could they have been more appropriate for this purpose.
You know, if we all accepted ourselves playfully as the planet of hypocrits we truly are by never taking ourselves too seriously, then the only bad actors in our dramas about life would be those intolerant audience members in the movie who get up to storm off in a huffy right before the true meaning of it is revealed!
Back during this absurd age of making lots of movies with dialog, we are talking the likes of Pulp Fiction (1994) here, in comparison, the nonsense written in this movie flows along gorgeously!
And, speaking of gorgeous, check out the inward beauty that pretty Illeana Douglas so wonderfully expresses in this movie.
Griffin Dunne plays a Woody Allen part so brilliantly that he out Woody Allens the great Woody Allen himself.
In my opinion, this movie is better than any produced and directed by Woody Allen.
In fact, if the comedian actor had written, directed, and starred in it, the movie would have gone down as an all time classic.
I really liked this movie.
I would have even considered paying $10.00 for this movie which is a lot in my world.
All toes point upward on this movie. |
tt0756573 | October Road | Nick Garrett (Bryan Greenberg) left home ten years ago to go backpacking in Europe for a few weeks—and the brief trip ended up lasting for a decade. He left behind his girlfriend Hannah (Laura Prepon), best friend Eddie (Geoff Stults), and his family. Garrett is now a famous author and screenwriter living in New York City. Between the parties, social engagements, and living in a beautiful loft-style apartment, Garrett is suffering writer's block while working on his next story. His agent books him to do a one-day writing seminar at the local college in his picturesque hometown of Knights Ridge, Massachusetts. Nick is excited about coming home, but realizes the feeling isn't completely mutual although his family and most of his friends welcome him back effusively. Hannah has a son, Sam, 10, and due to his age Nick questions if the child might be his biological son. Eddie is upset with Nick for walking out on their business plans and for depicting him as a fool in his book. Others are also upset with things Nick wrote in his book about the town. Nick will soon learn that it will be quite a readjustment coming home and that nothing will ever be the same again.
When Nick learns that Sam has a nut allergy like all male members of his family he decides to stay in Knights Ridge and persistently tries to obtain a job at that local college ("The Doof") despite botching the one-day seminar with a bad case of nerves. He eventually wears down the college Dean by pleading for the job on her lawn late at night. She finally relents after he badly sings "Where is Love?" from the musical Oliver!. Nick seeks out the boy, Sam, but backs off when Hannah reproaches him. Nick's father also becomes convinced of Sam's paternity when he sees the boy has similar eyes to those of the widower's late wife.
Nick eventually confronts Hannah with his belief about her boy's paternity. She disputes his view, pointing out how common peanut allergies are by asking patrons at the local bar for a show of hands of those with the allergy. Many people raise their hands. In the next few episodes. Nick and Hannah's feelings continue to develop. Hannah decides to break up with her boyfriend, prompting him to swear revenge on Nick. In the episodes to follow, Hannah's son, Sam, has an allergic reaction to a birthday cake made of nuts. In the tense episode that follows, Nick and Hannah are observed behaving like a couple in love. In the season finale, Nick rushes to her house to proclaim his love for her. They almost kiss, but are interrupted by Sam's supposed biological father.
While some people believe the show is based on the novel The Book of Joe by Jonathan Tropper, which was written in 2004, it is in fact based in the world of the 1996 movie Beautiful Girls which also takes place in the fictional small town of Knights Ridge.
Both Beautiful Girls and October Road were written by Scott Rosenberg, and semi-autobiographically based on his life and friends. October Road is loosely based on events following the release of Beautiful Girls. | flashback | train | wikipedia | I stumbled across October Road after watching Grey's Anatomy last Thursday.
I wasn't immediately hooked from the first moment like I was with Grey's Anatomy but it was definitely one of the better pilot episodes that I've seen in my life.
Being right after Grey's is going to help it a lot I think.
I hope that ABC will it give it a chance to grow because the story lines are interesting (even if they have been done before).
Overall, worth the watch and I'm looking forward to seeing where they take it.
Too bad this show is not getting the same executive support as Heroes for example.For those that get the subplots and subtle allusions there is clearly much more going on with these characters than meets the eye.
It brings back the kind of writing that one came to expect from Twin Peaks, but with a more engaging and alluring cast.Losing this show would be a mistake - not giving it better exposure and a better time slot will greatly reduce the ROI for this show!
To me, there are many shows and series out there that may start off rather slow and boring.
However, I tivo'd the other episodes, have watched them,and have LOVED them!
I personally think that given the chance, it will turn out to be a great show that should stick around for a while to come.....I'm behind you October Road!.
While October Road is not one of my all time favorites I still give it an 8.
It has a good cast of believable characters who for the most part seem pretty real.
The writing may be a little weak which is why I gave it an 8 as some of the story lines have been a bit unbelievable and the characters not given enough depth but the actors have done their best to make it work.
The veteran actors are really talented and the new faces were good characters who seemed very real.
With so many loser shows given so many chances they need to give decent shows a real chance and time for the show to really click and gain an audience.Watch this show on ABC videos if you have not seen it yet and let ABC know they need to give it another chance..
the dialogs and the characters are wonderful....there was no stuff happening on the big scale, everything is pretty ordinary and believable and no clichés...
and the show is original...and one of the few shows that i look forward to watching (another being brothers and sisters).
In contrast to serials like one tree hill and others which get too dramatic and too much keeps happening, this was a pleasant change and most definitely a good watch....
I mean, it isn't The West Wing or the OC I know, but it's got some really great elements.
The plot line can be a bit cheesy at times but the dialogue more than makes up for it.
I loved the show, I found the characters very interested, and can't wait to see what will happen next.
I loved all the other shows like Grey's anatomy, but I find it is turning into a soap opera.
I think all the characters are interesting, and you can't wait to see what will happen next.
The Pilot episode wasn't as strong as it could have been I only tuned in the next week because I was a fan of Bryan Greenburg from his performance on One Tree Hill, and of course Laura Prepon from That 70s Show.
The appeal of the show is not so much on the main characters but on its subplots; Phil, the man who never leaves the house (which I'm curious if we will find out exactly why), the aforementioned Eddie/Janet goings-on, and Ikey's secret love affair which his best friends wife.
I am pretty much the same age as the characters and I loved Kurt Cobain and Nirvana - yet my vinyl collection includes Boston, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc.
But I recognize not everyone does that and some only listen to Top 40 pop and rock...so not understanding the mixture of Kurt Cobain and Boston would make sense.My high school friends and I were remarkably similar to the October Road group and I think that cast-wise, this show's great.
There are those who never leave town...some get married, some don't...some hold grudges, some don't...you get the idea.Compared to a lot of other shows on television, October Road is a bit more realistic (not completely, as prime time television is rarely a mirror of reality) and I'm enjoying the direction it's taking.
I started watching it when they were all leaving his room and going down to say goodbye to him.
And I sincerely hope that they actually put an ending to the show and not leave me hanging and wondering for the rest of my life what happens!
Laura Prepon's acting is now in sync with her character and has improved tremendously.
She finally looks just as good (better) as when she was a teenager and before she died her hair blond.
It has a very likable cast and seems like the kind of show that could really pick up steam if given the chance.
Hopefully they'll get behind it with advertising and it will have a nice long life.It's a great contrast to the Lost and Heroes type shows for me.
Granted, If that's the kind of show that you're looking for you will definitely be disappointed, but this is a nice laid back show that my wife and I can enjoy together.
Good actors, bad writing.
A fresh cast, a beautiful small town setting and a story with a lot of potential for growth.
It's a very elementary mistake to make when you start writing a script without imagining what they would actually sound like coming out of someone's mouth.
Much of the dialogue sounds like something straight out of a text book instead of actual conversation.
Not to mention, the writers often like to demonstrate their inflated egos when they constantly indulge in using long, twisted and complex sentences for every single character (including the friend with a most likely below average IQ).
The result is that either every one of these country town characters (including the little boy) had some kind of an Arts degree from a tertiary institution, or they are merely the result of a failed imagination.The characters themselves are actually quite believable, due to the decent acting done by most of the cast, but the awkward lines written for them made everything an uphill battle.
I get the feeling the show or the network is paying people to come on IMDb and vote it tens and write great reviews because there is no way this show deserves an 8.1 out of ten.
Or maybe it's the people who work for the show, or their relatives, or just some insane fans who actually like this awful show.
It has been a long time since I have found a show that makes you feel like part of the family.
I thoroughly enjoyed every character and plot twist.
Just started watching 2 season series last night, on Hulu, and I'm almost done.
However...The main character were awful actors, and needed to be recast.
The rest of the cast was great.The writing was weird, and wasn't how people talk in real life.The story of a guy coming back home and in all the drama of small town life was a great idea.The creators and writers destroyed the show.
THe good looking dumb landscaper said, " arusia ink" Why would a dumb guy know that word?
Well this is just a really great set of characters possibly you could say guy based (I'm a guy BTW), but really the women are well represented too.
Not all the acting is bad, but everyone manages to deliver at least some lines as if they had never seen them before and with no character interaction.
Jay Paulson and Tom Berenger are pretty good, despite having inept lines much of the time.
If you do enjoy it, and want to see it hang around, you better get your friends to start watching, since its viewership numbers may need some help to see another season..
The acting was average, although the story line was so fresh, after all how many shows have there been about somebody returning back home after being gone for ten years?
If you are almost 30 (&) or still have a heart and is full of your childhood dreams then this show will make you laugh and cry.The acting and the directing are of a very high quality.If it is violence, brainwashing politics and crime that turns you on then stick with CSI and 24.(I do not approve of this websites mandatory ten lines of text to submit a review I think men and women differ in the amount of words required to communicate.
I gave October Road a two because, even though it is really really awful, it taught me something.If you came across this show, like I did, by way of the excellent 1996 film Beautiful Girls, written by Rosenberg, then you will suddenly realise what a difference good acting, casting and direction make!
I thought Beautiful Girls was a very well put together film and had a great cast that gelled together really well (apparently Ted Demme, the director, made the entire cast live together for three weeks so they could bond and convey a sense of lifelong buddies).
So I liked Beautiful Girls and figured that was down to Scott Rosenberg's writing.
Even though the script is basically by the same guy, following a very similar premise, and written since he's had the experience of writing for a Hollywood production, October Road sucks.
It is so bad I don't know where to begin criticising it.I would say the camera work is bad, for example, but it wouldn't be fair on the cameramen as they probably went blind from watching such bad acting!
Clearly, though, Greenberg was cast for his male-eye-candy skills rather than his ability to deliver lines or show any emotion beyond, "do I look good in this shot?" The direction is also palpably bad.
In October Road its as though the director said, "Great, you delivered that randomly verbose line (which is so out of keeping with the fact that your character is a small town construction worker) without showing even the slightest sign of human emotion or natural intonation."Even though October Road is basically unwatchable, I recommend you watch it to compare it to Beautiful Girls.
The comparison should be a textbook example of what a difference good acting and direction can make to an unexceptional (or, in the case of October Road, completely inept) script..
We'll see if it gets better, but it is not looking promising..
I only wanted to watch this show because of Laura(she was so funny on that 70's show), but this show disappoints me.
The more I read comments about the line "rock the stadium of her heart", the more I liked the line and now think it's actually pretty cool!
These characters have shown more heart in 6 episodes than some have in a few seasons.
As for the acting, I think they are all doing a great job.
I think that Bryan Greenberg and Laura Prepon have great chemistry, and you can actually believe their characters were once a couple by their acting abilities.
I really like this show and love the time slot after Grey's.
Not many people talk like the characters and use the metaphors that these people use.
I think that once the writers find their groove and figure out the makings of each character, this will hopefully ease up.
I'd like to see how it develops and I look forward to it each Thursday night!.
Most of all, October Road is a show that reminds people a little bit of their own lives.
October Road is worth watching because the writers do a great job of making you fall in love with these characters.
If you are a person that really likes stories about friendships, family, love, mystery, and memories of past days, October Road is the show for you!
There is fun, silliness, music, one liners, and unique people on October Road, come on over to The Road!
I watched about 10 minutes of this and I knew it was not going to be, you know, good, or even adequate, or even watchable for that matter.
And I get the feeling the whole point of this show is relate-ability, especially to people like me.
Also, on "That 70's Show) Laura Prepon wasn't a great actress, but that was OK, 'cause it didn't need acting, but whoa!
When her character started speaking, I actually started laughing, her voice was so flat, I can't even pretend to act that bad.
Watch "Raines" instead, it's a much more interesting show, with, like, good writing and acting and characters and all that good stuff a show should have.
That is if, the applecart represents the thousands of viewers flipping their channel to ABC every Thursday, hoping that the small-town drama would get at least a little bit better.
Because when a show is so awful that you have a hard time sticking it out till the end, consistent is the last thing that said show wants to be.
I find anymore that I am watching CBS more than ABC and in the last few years I have always watched ABC more, but boy they are just getting ridiculous with the canceling of good shows and bring some weirder ones on!
This show was just getting good and why the people at ABC can't figure that out and give it a chance is beyond me!
Like I said before get us hooked just to take it away from us.
Why not some good clean fun and soap like series.
Looking only to be on for like 5 years.
SO, I decided to just watch October Road because I TOTALLY fell in love with it.
On the day that I found out about this show, they were playing reruns, the whole first season, so I just watched all 7 episodes.
I NEVER have been able to keep up with TV shows, but now, I just HAVE to watch 2 TV shows, Gossip Girl, and October Road.
These two shows are awesome, and hopefully, if more people watch, there will be a season 3 of October Road, because I REALLY LOVE this show, so please people, give it a chance, I'm SURE you will like it!.
October Road off to a good start.
They gave us enough insight into each character to keep us coming back for more.
There are enough characters, that they could give each one an episode to themselves.
There is so much going on in everyone's lives, that the writers should keep us happy for years to come.
When I saw the previews for this show I thought I should check it out cause it seemed like the kind of show that could keep you intrigued without dozens of plot twists thrown into the mix.I mean, I TRIED to watch the OC because I just love dramas, but it was just too out there for me and made me feel completely unsympathetic to all of the characters no matter how many bad things happened to them.
But this show makes me sympathize with all the characters case this is stuff that people really do go through.
If you go into any small town across America you will run into people just like this and fact that they can just throw real life on screen and keep you interested without throwing a bunch of useless drama into makes you want to just stay tuned..
I have watched only two episodes so far and I am not thrilled.
I was bored to near death watching these two episodes.
It is way off base when it comes to plot lines, and not at all believable either.
The girl he left has another man and yet she wants to kiss him with love in her heart after a decade of living another life and not hearing from the guy, yea right.
Only now his dad wants to take a good look at this kid and tells his son that the boy has "your mothers eyes".
I read that they are ending "October Road" and I am so bummed if that is the case!
Everyone I talk to watches and LOVES the program so why are they so quick to end it.
It's unique, funny, entertaining, it has great looking actors and actresses and most of all it keeps you hooked.
Why tease myself with the reality that "October Road" ended before it even began.
I was so hoping this wasn't going to happen here and I was overconfident to believe it wasn't going to happen with this program...I thought this show was way too good!.
But this show had a warm, endearingly personal quality that I'm not sure many others have ever had.The setting and cinematography were, again, incredibly gorgeous, and the cast of lovable (or occasionally hate-able) characters won a place in my heart.
If you could use some friends, or something that watches like a cup of warm soup on a clear, cold day, this series is well worth checking out..
The story is about a writer who returns to his hometown to face the people whom he based his book on.I was expecting more considering Laura Prepon and Tom Berenger were in the cast.
I see/feel no chemistry between any of the characters.
If the lead was a better actor, perhaps he could have pulled off the character, but this guy is about as interesting and compelling as watching paint dry.Sorry I wasted my time on this. |
tt0059170 | Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! | Three wild, uninhibited go-go dancers—Billie, Rosie, and Varla, dance at a club before racing their sports cars across the California desert. They play a high-speed game of chicken on the salt flats and encounter a young couple, Tommy and Linda, out to run a time trial. After breaking Tommy's neck in a fight, Varla kidnaps and drugs Linda.
In a small desert town, they stop at a gas station where they see a wheelchair-bound old man and his muscular, dim-witted son. The gas station attendant tells the women that the old man was crippled in a railway accident, “going nuts" as a result, and that he received a large settlement of money that is hidden somewhere around his decrepit house in the desert. Intrigued, Varla hatches a scheme to rob the old man, and the three women follow him back to the ranch, with their captive in tow.
At the ranch they encounter the old man, his younger son (who they learn is called "The Vegetable" due to his feeblemindedness) and his elder son, Kirk. The group all have lunch together, and Billie taunts Rosie when Varla leaves with Kirk, hoping to seduce him into revealing the location of the money. Linda subsequently escapes the drunken Billie and runs away into the desert. The old man and the younger son pursue in their truck. The younger son catches Linda and seems about to assault her, but he collapses in tears as Varla and Kirk arrive. Kirk finally acknowledges his father’s lecherous nature and the old man’s hold over his younger brother, and he vows to have his younger brother institutionalized. He tries to take the hysterical Linda into town in the truck, but the old man says that he has thrown away the keys, and Kirk and Linda set out across the desert on foot.
Varla drives back to the house and tells Billie and Rosie that they should kill the men and the girl to cover up Linda’s kidnapping and the murder of her boyfriend. Billie refuses, but as she walks away, Varla throws a knife into her back just as the old man and his younger son arrive. Rosie and Varla hit the old man with their car, killing him and knocking over his wheelchair to reveal the money hidden inside. Rosie is stabbed and killed by the younger son while trying to retrieve the knife from Billie's body. Varla tries to ram him into a wall with her car, injuring him. She drives off in the truck and overtakes Kirk and Linda, chasing them into a gully. Varla and Kirk fight hand-to-hand. She gets the better of him until Linda hits her with the truck, and she dies. Kirk and Linda drive off together in the truck. | pornographic, comedy, grindhouse film, murder, cult, violence, atmospheric | train | wikipedia | Then things move to the barren California desert for drag races, catfights, murders, straining blouses, and a lot of torrid action and satirically overwrought melodrama.Tura Satana, Haji, and Lori Williams have terrific screen presence as the three tough-as-nails villainesses.
Three go-go dancers - Varla (Tura Satana), Rosie (Haji) and Billie (Lori Williams) - are racing their sports cars out in the desert when they meet up with a young man named Tommy (Ray Barlow) and his girlfriend Linda (Susan Bernard).
They will have to rely on their own deadly talents and the possible decency of the old man's other son Kirk (Paul Trinka).Russ Meyer's black and white "ode to the violence in women" made little impact when first released in 1965.
Yet Tura Satana in her tight black jeans, half-exposed breasts practically bursting free as she eyes up a man like a side of beef or takes him out with karate chop to the neck, distills any amount of sex and violence into a single unforgettable mythic figure.
Add to this the brilliant build-up of the opening monologue, Meyer's masterful editing and Jack Moran's eminently quotable and often hilariously funny camp dialogue and you have a trash film masterpiece that just gets better and better the more times you watch it..
However, it isn't long before Russ Meyer's film takes off - and before I knew it, I was watching one of the greatest pieces of trash ever to hit the silver screen!
He's got some money hidden, and the lead chick wants it...only the old man and his sons stand in her way.It's immediately clear that acting isn't this film's strongpoint; the dialogue sounds forced and ridiculous, and none of the cast do good jobs of making their characters real - yet in true trash fashion, it's the ensemble that is this film's main asset.
These three would make any film worth watching, and the way that Russ Meyer ensures that the girls are always the strongest presence on screen gives Faster Pussycat a lot of its cult value.
While there are some who argue that it is a pro-feminist flick with lots of social significance, truth is FASTER PUSSYCAT KILL KILL is a very deliberately made bit of ultra-drive-in trash, a movie that glories in all things low-brow, low-rent, and low-neck lined.
But the real attraction here are the "pussycats." It isn't often that you see a 2D movie with 3D effects, but that's exactly what happens when Tura, Haji, Lori, and their six talents hit the screen.
They actually come across as a feminist empowerment fantasy, which is consistent with Meyer's almost exclusive career focus on situations in which women wreak their will upon men.If they are too extreme for your tastes there is blonde free spirit Lori Williams and air-headed sweet young thing Susan Bernard.
Interestingly, it was the sweet-faced Bernard who became a Playboy centerfold just a few months after the movie (December 1966).But "Pussycat's" greatness comes from the visceral power of Meyer's unusual images (can you say Fellini).
The old man is apparently sitting on a pile of cash and the girls do their best to separate him from it.Knowing Russ Meyers' later movies I wasn't expecting too much from this movie.
It has the hallmarks of Russ Meyer movies: incredibly beautiful women as the heroes (or main characters, at least), a trashy sort of feel and mediocre performances.
– but still Meyer regular Stuart Lancaster is once again very good in the role as a wheelchair-bound nasty misogynist, while it would be remiss not to mention that he has a simple minded son who is known simply as The Vegetable.But Faster Pussycat is not all about the visuals.
Russ Meyer was probably one of the first - and few - filmmakers to deal explicitly with the link between sex and violence and to reverse the roles of the standard action movies, but technically his film is too cheap and amateurish - apart from a really gripping final fight scene.
Russ Meyer's "Faster Pussycat" has echoes of other, more popular films in its set-up and design, certainly in its overall impact--yet this picture is the precursor to those, and as influential cult flicks go, it still stuns today.
(1965) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Russ Meyer film about three big breasted strippers who murder a man, kidnap his girlfriend and then hold up at an old cripple man's house so that they can steal some money from him.
We all know that Russ Meyer had a thing for big-breasted women, so why is Tura Satana the villain?
GO GO GIRLS GO WILD & WREAK MAYHEM ON MEN!!!One of the all time classic trash B-movies and in my humble opinion Russ Meyer's greatest work (one of the few that had an actual plot).
Before Arnold Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Van Damme and Seagal, and before Thelma and Louise, there was Varla, Rosie and Billie.Russ Meyer, who peppered his "B" movie trash with big-breasted women serves up a cult classic with three buxom strippers driving fast cars through the desert in search of adventure.
Noted for its three chesty leads Tura Satana, Lori Williams and Haji, its classically "so BAD its GOOD" complete with sexploitive romps, drag racing, a lecherous old cripple, nubile innocent, musclebound moron, liquid eyeliner, and doped and drunk beauties.
Although I've wanted to see it for years, I only just saw Faster Pussycat, Kill Kill, and it's my first film by Russ Meyer.If they're all similar to this, I can't wait to see more.
The storyline is pretty dodgy, and so is the acting, but if you're watching a movie called Faster Pussycat, Kill Kill, you are probably after a bit of weirdness and campy fun.
This movie looks like an erotic comic strip of the sixties.Today,it's priceless delightful trash .If you have a chance to see it -which is not easy- do not think twice.It could be the granddaddy of "pulp fiction" "Texas chain saw massacre" or "Born killers" with more humor than the three former works put together.The three girls act like men,they do not seem to like them -with the exception of the "vegetable" whom they despise anyway-.There 're probably in love with bubble head girl Linda (they are caricatures of the dyke in the imagination of narrow-minded people) who spends the whole movie in bikini and whom they bind and gag with an intense pleasure!
Like Burnett, or Monty Python, Director Russ Meyer and lead Actress Tura Satana have a true flair for absurd overstatement, though in their case it is carried out with a naive innocence that makes this movie stratospherically trashy camp.To quote another of the characters in the film: "It's a gas!"Tura Satana is now a grandmother.
What I've heard Russ Meyer is known for nudity on his films but this is different and that's why I like it.I'm the kind of man who thinks revealing skin and sex scenes belong to only XXX-movies.
(Sadly other Russ Meyer's movies might not be for me because of their nudity but hopefully there are other movies somewhere hitting the right spot.) As a conclusion, all I can say is: Anyone even potentially liking old films should watch it.
My main fascination with this film is not the acting or plot, most is definitely drive-in stuff, but the fact that Russ Meyer dared to portray women as openly aggressive (ie., like men).
The victim falls bloodless to the ground, but I guess there's a little redness on the knife?).I think Faster Pussycat might really have been meant as a straight comedy instead of an exploitation thriller; the "fight" scenes are laughable (such as a large woman "karate-chopping" a guy hard enough to give him a slight massage--but it kills him anyway), and the dialogue is inane.The story is slight, the scenery is humdrum (arid landscape for most of it) and the acting is horrible.
Not very much in terms of real solid plot, actually: it's about a few hot-riding chicks (yes, I'll call them chicks, feminists) who ride around in their cars fast, drinking "hard" stuff, and wearing clothes that make some (i.e. old Republican in the wheelchair), and some other straight-laced guy and his chick come by in another car, and a race ensues and when the race is lost a fight breaks out, the guy is karate-chopped to death, and the rest of the girls high-tail it out of their to some farm where a rotten old man in a wheelchair and two sons (one a muscle-bound Spartan with two brain cells and a million times more brawn, the other just a regular "cute" guy Satara wants to have her way with) take them in reluctantly.So just from that little description, you can see where this might go.
Depends on what you think of Satara with a voice that usually goes up to yelling level to get dramatic and often acts tough enough that Clint Eastwood might be liable to pee himself, while the big galut barely utters a word and one of the girls (the blonde one, I forget her name) usually dances and makes comments like "Me Jane, you Tarzan." But really, what's on display here isn't masterpiece theater: it's what the audience wants and wants so bad that they can taste it through their drive-in mirrors, their sticky low-rent theater seats, through their (unfortunate) bootleg DVDs.This movie simply has, even by Russ Meyer standards, more intentional and/or unintentional comedy and more kick-ass take-no-damn-prisoners violence and not-really-X-rated sexual content than any other movie I can think of from its period.
To sum it all up, if you like beautiful busty girls, fast cars, great catch phrases and lots of action, then you will not be disappointed by this film!
Again, on the other hand, it is a film with incredible action pictures, erotic vision and tasty jazz background, which opens the door to a certain type of production.Three wild go-go dancers Varla, Billie and Rosie enjoy their sports car across the California desert.
Ray Barlow plays a "nice boy" desert racer while Michael Finn is on hand as a gabby gas station attendant.The movie has a big reputation as a cult flick and Meyer's definitive film, along with 1970's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," so I was very interested in finally viewing it.
Russ Meyer made a masterpiece of this film which will entertainment many generations of movie goers..
Faster Pussycat is about beautiful women that kick ass and drive fast cars, and there is nothing more I really expect out of a movie.
There's also plenty of action and violence.This is considered to be Russ Meyers best film.
i have only seen a few Russ Meyer films,this one and beyond the valley of the dolls.but faster pussycat kill kill is a great one,and ahead of its time for 1965.its about three sexy go go dancers(tura satana,Lori Williams,hajj)involved in causing mayhem and even murder.there's enough violence to give this an r rating,but when i saw it on rob zombies underground on turner classics it was rated m,it was uncut,there's no nudity but tura satana,hajj,and Lori Williams look sexy throughout the whole movie.tura satana always looks like shes going to bust out of her top,and this was before breast implants,Russ Meyer delivers a real good sexy violent b movie with a lot of action.and a cult following,I'm surprised they did'nt try to remake this.i remember tura satana in a really bad movie called astro zombies starring the great john carradine, but ill have to say faster pussycat kill kill was a great Russ Meyer movie.filmed in glorious black and white.10 out of 10..
This is a classic a total art in pop culture.Three thrill-seeking go-go dancers Billie (Lori Williams), Rosie (Haji), and their leader, Varla (Tura Satana)are criminals(Billie not so much)they have a drag racing in desert and Varla kill one man and they kidnapped his girlfriend and hide herself all in one rancho and there meet one old-man and his two son's one is ordinary man,but other is stupid bodybuilder who afraid trains.Varla is very aggressive,draconian and felonious.I didn't liked this character,but all characters were without a doubt charismatics and Varla evil too that she killed Billie and made much hurt to vegetable.in the end Varla appears to win the fight and is about to kill Kirk.
If Meyer believed that a movie just needed to have speed, sex and violence, then he sure accomplished it with "Faster, Pussycat!
Lori Williams is also great as Billie, the blonde "good girl" who breaks into go-go dancing fits, seduces musclemen, and gets into a wet wrestling bout with Rosie!While plenty of people will not only accuse Russ Meyer of being a pornographer, but as being misogynistic, "Faster Pussycat!" and plenty of his other films are strongly the opposite.
It is a true original, perhaps too "different" for many tastes, but certainly one of the quintessential films within the exploitation genre.Three sexy go-go dancers Varla (Tura Santana), Rosie (Haji), and Billie (Lori Williams) spend their spare time car-racing in the Californian desert.
Before picking up a boxset of his films in the Christmas sales last year,I had heard about 2 Russ Meyer movies,due to both of the titles later being used as the name for some bands,with Mudhoney being one of the earliest bands from the Grunge sub-genre,and Faster Pussycat being a Hard Rock band,whose music video for the single "Don't change that song" was directed by Russ Meyer!.With having found Mudhoney to be a great,southern-fried Drama,I decided to find out how wild Meyer's cats could be.The plot:Searching round for a place to do some test laps before a big race,Tommy and Linda are pleased to find a deserted desert area,that will give Tommy all the room he needs to run his test laps.Reaching the centre of the area,Tommy and Linda discover 3 parked up cars,that belong to a group of go-go dancers called Varla,Rosie and Billie.Attempting to politely introduce themselves,Tommy and Linda are instead pushed around by the gang,who tell Tommy that if he wants to prove the he is a "real man",then he must go against them in a race,right now.Aggreing to the challenge,Tommy is left dazed and confused after the gang reveal their less than "traditional" driving skills.Taking advantage of the situation,Varla,Rosie and Billie grab Linda,and tell her that they are going to kidnap her,so that they can put Linda up for ransom.Rushing to save his girlfriend from being kidnapped,Tommy inadvertently runs into Varla's deadly karate chops,which lead to Tommy being left for dead,face down in the desert.Filling Linda up with sleeping pills so that she keeps her mouth shut,the gang head to a peteral station,so that they can fill the cars up,and get of there with Linda as quickly as possible.Waiting for the peteral station guy to finish filling up the cars,the gang notice a fellow,wealthy-looking,wheel-chair bound customer being helped into a truck by the man's son.Keeping their interest under wraps,the girls ask the peteral station attendant if he knows anything at all about the man.Taken by the girls sudden interest in local knowledge,the attendant tells the gang that the man lives in an isolated farm house with his two sons,and that their have been rumours going around the town for years that the man is sitting on a suitcase full of cash.Excited over the opportunity of grabbing more cash then she originally expected,Varla tells Rosie and Billie,that before they run off with their bounty in Linda,that it might be a good idea,if they pay this kind,wealthy old man a surprise visit.View on the film:Reuniting with co- screenwriter Jack Moran, (who wrote one of the last titles from Russ Meyer's "Nudie-Cutie" era with Wild Girls of the Naked West)co-writer/co-producer/editor and directing auteur Russ Meyer shows in his eye-catching stylised directing a tremendous skill in combining the cartoon style aspects of his Nudie-Cutie movies,with the Film Noir path that he is currently on,so that Meyer can create an unforgettably wild,cartoon-bonkers,deranged Film Noir.Introducing each of the rough'n tumble amazonian women, (played by the splendid,and very easy on the eye's Haji,Lori Williams and Tura Satana) in a go-go dancing nightclub,Meyer bravely keeps away from building a "safe" centre-ground that the movie can relay on,to instead push everything contained within the film right to the edge of the sanity,with each of the actress's delivering their cracking dialogue with extremely over exaggerated pronunciation,which helps to create an irresistible animated atmosphere.Keeping away from making any of the stunning girls mere 2D characters,Meyer shows a surprising amount of subtly in the way that he reveals the "true" relationship that Varla,Rosie and Billie have with each other,with the relationship between Varla and Rosie being one the is filled with glances that last just that bit too long,which become much more noticeably on repeat viewings of the film.
Lurid, gritty, and malevolent best describe director Russ Meyer' cult classic "Faster Pussycat Kill Kill" with Tura Satana, Haji, and Lori Williams as three bodaciously breasted go-go dancers who careen around the desert, murder guys, and kidnap a sixteen-year old for kicks.
And Stuart Lancaster perfectly captures the Old Man's pathetic situation as well as his vileness.And Meyer had a keen eye for the action that was as unique as his gander for the female form; just look at the scene where Varla tries to crush the muscle bound Vegetable with her car, there's nothing quite like in any other movie.To answer my question, yes, FASTER, PUSSYCAT!
When concocting her crazy scheme, Satana's character Varla tells Billie, "you don't have to believe it, just act it" or words to that effect, which sounds like the voice of Russ Meyer.
Russ Meyer (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Supervixens) was a cult director of "sexploitation" and titillation films, and this one, with no real nudity, appears in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Basically three busty strippers, Femme Fetale leader Varla (Tura Satana), Rosie (Haji) and Billie (Lori Williams) are thrill-seeking in the desert. |
tt2140037 | Jane Got a Gun | Jane and her husband Bill "Ham" Hammond live in an isolated house with their five-year-old daughter Katie. One day Ham returns home with several serious bullet wounds. As Jane is attending to his injuries, Ham tells her that "the Bishop Boys are coming". This is a gang of vicious criminals, led by John Bishop, that Ham himself used to ride with.
Realizing that she is going to need help in order to defend her home and family from the Bishops, as Ham's injuries have rendered him helpless, Jane takes her daughter to a place of safety, with a woman friend whom she trusts. She then rides to the home of a neighbor, Dan Frost, and asks him if he will help her to protect her property from the Bishop Boys. Dan, a somewhat surly man who lives in a squalid, dirty house, refuses to help. It is obvious from their brief conversation that there is some past history – and bitterness - between Dan and Jane.
Jane rides into town to buy guns and ammunition and hopefully find someone who will help her family. As she is leaving the gun shop, she is waylaid and dragged into an alley by one of the Bishop gang. He threatens her at gunpoint and – despite Jane protesting that she "hasn't seen Hammond in years" – he demands that she take him back to her house, as he is convinced that Ham is there, having recognized the gun Jane is carrying as one belonging to Hammond. However, at this point Dan Frost suddenly appears and tells the thug to leave Jane alone. While the two men are distracted, Jane draws her gun and kills the outlaw.
Leaving the body in the alley, Jane and Dan ride back to her house. Ham is still alive, but very weak. Dan has changed his mind about helping Jane, so they start preparing for the expected attack from the Bishop gang.
Meanwhile, Bishop has already set out with his gang to find Ham. His men spread out over the area to extend their search, and one of them chances upon Jane's house. He recognizes Jane, but Dan kills him before he can raise the alarm.
Dan digs a shallow trench in Jane's front yard, and they fill this with jars containing kerosene, nails and pieces of glass. As they work, we see flashbacks of their previous lives. Jane and Dan were once engaged, but he enlisted in the army to fight in the American Civil War. Captured by the enemy, he was held for years in a prison camp, and when he finally returned home, Jane had left. He travelled from state to state trying to find her, showing her photograph in every town. Eventually, he heard that she had moved west on a wagon train led by John Bishop. Dan talked to Bishop, who told him that during the journey Ham and Jane ran off together. He said he would gladly help Dan to track them down, as he had his own scores to settle with Ham, but Dan refused, saying that he preferred to ride alone.
Dan eventually found Jane, but by then she was married to Ham, and they had had a child. Dan realized that he had lost her forever and was left broken-hearted by the discovery.
Later, Jane tells Dan her side of the story. After Dan left to enlist, she discovered she was pregnant. When Dan did not return, or write, she assumed he was dead. By the time their child, a little girl called Mary, was two or three years old, life in Jane's war-torn town had become so wretched that she decided to take Mary and move West on the Bishop wagon train. Too late, she and the other women on the wagon train realized that Bishop's intention was to start a brothel in another town, and he intended to force the helpless women into prostitution.
A further flashback shows that Ham, having taken a fancy to Jane during the wagon train journey, tells Bishop that he would like to marry her. But Bishop tells Ham that Jane is his "property". Later, Ham finds that Jane and her daughter have gone missing; searching for Mary, he sees a child's boot in the river, and thinks the child has drowned. He goes to the brothel where Jane has been forced to work, and rescues her. Jane is distraught when Ham tells her that Mary is dead.
Back in the present time, the Bishop gang finally arrive at Jane's house, under cover of darkness. Dan and Jane fire into the booby-trapped ditch, igniting the kerosene "bombs". Most of the gang are killed, but some – including Bishop himself – escape. Jane and Dan manage to move the dying Ham into a shallow storage space beneath the floor, to protect him from the gunfire, but the strain is too much for him and he dies. Dan and Jane continue to fight it out with the remaining gang members, although both are wounded. Finally, Bishop (the only gang member left alive) manages to corner Dan and is about to kill him, when Jane sneaks up behind Bishop and draws her gun on him. Trying to persuade her not to kill him, Bishop tells Jane that Mary is not dead, as she had thought. Jane shoots him several times, wounding him badly, until in his agony he reveals that Mary lives at the brothel. Jane then kills Bishop.
Jane and Dan go to the brothel and find their daughter, Mary, who is working as a servant. Jane takes the body of John Bishop to the sheriff and collects a huge reward. Then she, Dan, Mary and Katie ride off together to start a new life as a family. | revenge, suspenseful, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | She has picked some stinker roles in the past however she proved IMO she is no longer just the pretty face and she has honed her craft to be a very good actor.Blows my mind that IMDb is only giving this movie a rating of 5.9 I am a big fan of westerns and I don't hand out high ratings with a whim or fancy.Good to see Ewan McGregor in a small role.
The premise is somewhat simple initially, that a woman finds that her husband (Natalie Portman and Noah Emmerich respectively) has been shot and though she's tending to her wounds she realizes from him more men are coming after him, so she goes and hires a man (Joel Edgerton) who she used to know...
But the bigger issue is that the movie has just a lot of peaks and valleys as far as compelling scenes; when people do pull guns on one another and there's set-up with that we see (the plan to fortify the outside of Jane's home with liquid explosives and such is clever), it's exciting.What seemed to not work quite so well are the quieter scenes, where confessions are made and that drama has to be tapped as to who did what to who in relationships and the old wounds being scorched.
And it's not so much the actors at fault - Portman and Edgerton are formidable, and McGregor makes a fine figure with that mustache (a bit of a chip off the Val Kilmer in Tombstone block), and one of America's underrated character actors, Noah Emmerich, is terrific even as a lot of his performance is post-shooting in a bed - but with the script.Strange since the screenplay was originally on the "Black-List" (best scripts produced that got submitted, across the world basically), and Edgerton actually did work on the script too (whether this was before the production problems or during I'm sure I don't know).
It's hard to know if it was due to the producers not allowing final cut - a big reason why Ramsey left, which might have been wise - but as a Weinstein Company release it seems a little fishy, like there may have been better material that got left out or moments put together that don't quite fit.And yet for all these odd feelings watching it, overall I would recommend it to fans of Westerns (believe me, I've seen weaker offerings), and the climax is really solid.
I went in barely seeing any of the trailers or TV spots (were there any?) and with barely any expectations, so perhaps that improved my likeness of Jane Got a Gun. The film stars Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, and Ewan McGregor in a production that once had names like Bradley Cooper, Michael Fassbender, and Jude Law attached among others.
No matter, I definitely enjoyed my experience watching Jane Got a Gun.+Portman and Edgerton+Tense finale+Much better than expectations after a troubled production-Still doesn't feel finished-No need for flashbacks7.2/10.
While many have seen or rather predicted the death of the Western "genre" (some might argue it's not a genre itself, just putting this out there), it's still alive and kicking and this movie is testament to that fact.Natalie Portman is a great actress and she saw something in the character here, that made her want to play the role.
Music is by Marcello De Francisci and Lisa Gerrard and cinematography is by Mandy Walker.Jane Hammond (Portman) has to turn to her ex lover, Dan Frost (Edgerton), for help when it's revealed that the notorious Bishop gang are heading her way in search of her husband Bill (Emmerich).It's going to be one of those films more talked about for what it could have been than what it is.
However, it may not be the perfect way to build the principal characters, but they are worth the investment for there's a big emotional pull there.Having laid the foundation for the first two thirds of the pic, we shift to good old honest violence, for siege read backs against the wall, and not without invention, in fact there's much resourcefulness on show, with Jane at times very much leading the way.
Cast are dandy and turning in perfs of note, though it needed more of McGregor's John Bishop, because with what little he gets he does make a villainous mark.It looks terrific, Walker's photography bringing to mind the genre work of Roger Deakins, with the New Mexico locations blistering in their beauty, and while the sound mix for dialogue exchanges is a little poor, the musical score is thumping in its tonal appreciations.
Also, having high caliber actor and actress such as Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman doesn't elevate the movie beyond average frontier drama.Jane (Natalie Portman) is searching for a bouncer to protect her and her wounded husband from a gang of outlaws.
Now, let us consider the very reasonable possibility that Portman, Edgerton, McGregor, Santoro, et al, can bring us an entertaining western in "Jane Got a Gun" (R, 1:38).Portman plays Jane Hammond, a wife and mother living in a small house in Middle-of-nowhere, New Mexico in 1871, six years after the Civil War ended.
As the big confrontation with John Bishop and company draws ever closer, flashbacks progressively tell us more about the past interactions among these four characters – including some well-kept secrets that, once revealed, will change everything."Jane Got a Gun" is a very well-told, very human story.
In 2011 director Gavin O'Connor delivered a very special film in the form of the on face value generic sporting themed family drama Warrior, a film that despite low end box office takings has since gone onto become a well-liked and respected tale featuring memorable turns by its three leads Nick Nolte, Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton.Warrior was a film with heart, relatable characters and a cinematic energy that burst out from the screen, it is in many ways then a completely opposite film to O'Connor's troubled remake Jane Got a Gun, a film completed in 2013 but only emerging this year to little to no fanfare.Taking over the reins at quite literally the last minute from the film's original director Lynne Ramsey (who perhaps realised there was no saving this sinking ship), O'Connor's take on the classic tale of farm girl Jane taking it to the gang out to kill her husband and ruin her life is so devoid of purpose and life that its mightily hard to even envisage what this film was aiming for and from the lacklustre start through to its long gestating yet disappointing fire fight finale, Jane Got a Gun struggles to make any form of impact on the viewer and bares all the hallmarks of a film that's behind the scenes actions impacted badly on its final product.O'Conner has for some time now with films like the aforementioned Warrior and others like Miracle and Pride and Glory has shown himself to be a fine director of both action and actors but Jane Got a Gun fails in both these elements.
O'Connor try's hard to liven the film up with sporadic yet bloodthirsty violence but it's all played out in such a generic nature that it matters little while the films competent cast all fail to make a dent with Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton delivering some downright average performances as Jane and Dan respectively while the seemingly fake tanned Ewan McGregor stumbles his way along as the films big bad John Bishop.Devoid of any spirit, Jane Got a Gun is tiresome and impact free remake.
Watched Jane Got A Gun featuring My Favorite Actress Natalie Portman(Star Wars:Revenge Of The Sith) as Jane Hammond, Joel Edgerton(The Gift) as Dan Frost, Noah Emmerich(Super 8) as Bill "Ham" Hammond, Rodrigo Santoro(The Last Stand) as Fitchum , and Ewan McGregor(The Impossible) as John Bishop,Boyd Holbrook(Run All Night) as Vic , I enjoyed The film despite it being hampered By Delays and Changing of Directors ,while it wasn't 3:10 To Yuma(2007) it was great story also it was story driven, Natalie Portman gave one of her best performances since her Oscar Winning role in Black Swan also Joel Edgertons Dan Frost was compelling character, Ewan McGregor played a Great Villain in John Bishop and Great Music By Lisa Gerrard(Gladiator) & Marcello De Francisci(Balibo) Costume Design by Terry Anderson(Focus) & Catherine George(Snowpiercer) , Cinematography By Mandy Walker(Red Riding Hood) great direction from Gavin O'Connor(Warrior) A Potential Cult Western Film 8/10.
It's seems one more modern western released in near past, but l realize that it has a hidden message with it, misleading think it with an average neo western as suppose to be, Portman put the subject on a slight way, in fact when the west was colonized by americans and built those small cities they needs a large portion of white slaves even mexicans too to ensure a carnal pleasure under so lonely places which l had heard somewhere, a non-linearity of the some many flashbacks confuse a bit the viewers, leaving the movie in a slow pace, the final scenes is hard to gulp, thus stay clear to be an average production with the great cast that won't bothered anyone!!Resume:First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6.75.
Jane (played by Natalie Portman) is actually a very interesting character, and her story is slowly (very slowly) revealed in a series of flashbacks.
Dry. Was looking forward do a decent western and sadly very disapointed.it starts of it seemed to me in riddles , you begin wondering how it came to the situation it does,its quite confusing andbi found it very dry.everything in the movie had been done before and it lacked atmosphere.i would actually class it as a barbara cartland novel rather than a western ,the main stars spend to much time looking over the past to make the present film intersting.after about an hour of reminissing we actually get to some action and then it seems the film is all over.also as a person who has shot pistols i find it very annoying when you have a looking down the barrel scene you can clearly see the gun is empty.anyway i cant tell you a lot more because there is nothing to tell ,in fact it was so dull i cant even remember the ending and i only saw it last night.no where near brutal enough for a western ,and an uninteresting story..
To me, this movie makes a significant impression as it is being in our age of fewer western films because it plays realistically like an old authentic cowboy story used to be and supplies good scenery and props too.
While Jane Got a Gun isn't the trainwreck I expected it to be, it's still a snooze of a western that won't do any favors to reigniting a dead genre.The two things that helped keep me from falling asleep are the performances and the production.
Combine this with a sluggish pace, there is almost nothing to invest in.As someone who want's to see more westerns in the mainstream, I really wanted to like Jane Got a Gun and somewhere in it there's a decent film, but it's trapped behind a poor script and weak direction.
The central characters were good ones and both Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton were excellent, as was Ewan McGregor, as the requisite evil gang-leader, who amazingly, I hadn't even recognised until after the movie and I looked at the cast list - what a great job he did!
'JANE GOT A GUN': Three Stars (Out of Five)Natalie Portman's triumphant return to the big screen (or so it first seems), is (the lead) in this western-action flick!
Despite the great cast and crew, the film is pretty disappointing.Portman plays Jane Hammond; an extremely resourceful woman, living in the old west, who's started a new life with her family.
Jane then turns to the only man she can think of, for help; her ex-lover Dan Frost (Edgerton).The first thing I hated, about the movie, is that Natalie Portman is not the tough heroine, advertisements sold her to be.
In the end "Jane got a Gun" was a not so good film, which is quite surprising, hence it's directed by Gavin O'Connor.
I enjoyed all the leads especially Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor, and Noah Emmerich and some of the minor characters which are handled beautifully and memorably.All in all I've new respect for Natalie Portman and am sorry I didn't see this film much earlier..
The screenplay is simple, but it offers a good balance of drama and violence; I particularly liked the flashbacks which gradually reveal the cause of the enmity between Edgerton's character and Bill, Jane's husband, solidly played by Noah Emmerich.
It's a very good slow western starring Natalie Portman as Jane, a woman trying to protect her husband from his old outlaw gang who he got into trouble with saving Jane from them.
Making things complicated, she hires a gunslinger who just happens to be her ex-finance who she thought was dead which is why she moved on.It's a good western tale about a complicated relationship between the two main characters with burst of Wild West violence long in-between.I liked the look of the film.
Jane Got a GunNo one has a problem with women owning guns as long as they're disarmed before that time of the month.Mind you, some premenstrual rage might benefit the homesteader in this Western.Frontierswoman Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) is forced to defend her family farm from outlaws when her bandit husband (Noah Emmerich) riles up the Bishop Boys and their devious leader (Ewan McGregor).But to have a fighting chance against the posse, Jane must enlist her ex-fiancé (Joel Edgerton).
Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) asks Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) - her former fiancé - to help save husband Bill (Noah Emmerich) from his former gang who are trying to kill him.
-Jane Got a Gun is a 2016 American action-drama western film directed by Gavin O'Connor and written by Brian Duffield, Joel Edgerton and Anthony Tambakis.
The film stars Natalie Portman as Jane Hammond, a woman who asks her ex-lover, Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) for help in order to save her outlaw husband, Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) from a gang led by John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) out to kill him.
Although the movie is called Jane Got A Gun, it's really Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) who saves the day, because he is hired by Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) to save her and her husband, Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) from a bunch of bounty hunters who are hunting down Bill, so they can get the reward.
On the plus side, there was some depth to the film, which gave the whole storyline some meaning but apart from that, it just seemed like a mediocre western with an average storyline.Budget: $25million Worldwide Gross: $3millionI recommend this movie to people who are into their action/drama/westerns, starring Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor, Noah Emmerich, Rodrigo Santoro, Alex Manette and Boyd Holbrook.
Chilled by his directing debut The Gift,and very impressed with the story he came up for the post-apocalypse film The Rover,I decided to look at co-writer/(along with Brian Duffield & Anthony Tambakis) lead actor Joel Edgerton IMDb credits,where I found out he had recently made a Western with Natalie Portman,which led to me getting ready to see Jane get her gun.The plot:Seeing her husband Bill Hammond return home filled with bullets from the Bishop Boys gang, Jane Hammond realises that they have tracked her down.Putting her child into hiding,Hammond decides to put an end to the gang.As Hammond places the fact that she will have to get her revenge on the Bishop Gang on her own,Jane's "long lost" fiancé Dan Frost rides into town.View on the film:Backed by a thumping score from Marcello De Francisci and Lisa Gerrard,director Gavin O'Connor (who replaced original director Lynne Ramsay,after Ramsay got sacked over not showing up,whilst cinematographer Darius Khondji and stars Michael Fassbender,Jude Law and Bradley Cooper all quit the film!) and cinematographer Mandy Walker grill a choice cut of Western pulp.Entering the salon 3 years after filming,O'Connor and Walker fans the flames of Jane's fight with the Bishop Boys gang by soaking the film in blazing yellow which locks a brittle atmosphere over the film.Despite having to re-write the movie during production,the screenplay by Duffield/Tambakis & Edgerton does very well at setting up an uneasy alliance between Hammond and Frost,as flowing flashbacks reveal Frost's wild west adventures and the horrors that Hammond faces.Hanging in the background,the writers gradually bring the Brishop Boys to the front of the shooting range,as Jane gets her gun.Joined by a grisly cameo from his brother Nash, Joel Edgerton gives a terrific performance as Frost,thanks to Edgerton softening Frost's husky image,as Frost and Hammond draw guns.Looking ultra-stylish in a long leather coat, Natalie Portman gives a great performance as Hammond,thanks to Portman peeling the gravitas of the horrors inflicted upon Hammond across the screen,which is wonderfully crossed with a bad ass grin,as Jane loads up her gun..
And this week another released this year makes its way to DVD, JANE GOT A GUN.Said to be loosely inspired by the 1971 film HANNIE CAULDER (and if it is trust me lose is the main term to consider here) the movie tells the story of Jane Hammond, a woman on the old frontier whose husband Bill (Noah Emmerich) returns home wounded and in need of help, letting her know that John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) and his gang are on their way.
Unable to so much as stand to help or to leave, Jane takes their daughter to a nearby friend and seeks out assistance from Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton).As the movie unfolds we learn the past history of these main characters.
Take for instance when Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) and her hired gun Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) take her outlaw husband Bill "Ham" Hammond (Noah Emmerich) down into the cellar when John Bishop's (Ewan McGregor) gang show up hell bent on killing the three of them. |
tt0853096 | Death of a President | Broadcast in the year 2008, the film is presented in a TV documentary style format, combining talking head interviews, news coverage clips and video surveillance footage surrounding the assassination of U.S. President George W. Bush in Chicago around a year earlier on 19 October 2007. The president is fatally shot by a sniper after he addresses an economic forum at the Chicago Sheraton Hotel, before which an anti-war rally had taken place. News outlets immediately begin reporting on the incident along with its political ramifications. After authorities earlier arrest and interrogate war-protesting detainees, Jamal Abu Zikri (Malik Bader), an IT professional of Syrian origin, becomes the prime suspect.
Vice President Dick Cheney, now president, uses the possible al-Qaeda relationship in connection with the suspected assassin, Zikri, to push his own domestic political security agenda. He calls for the legislation of PATRIOT Act III, trying to increase the investigative powers of the FBI, the police, and other government agencies over U.S. citizens and resident aliens as he contemplates attacking Syria.
As his wife Zahra (Hend Ayoub) listens to the verdict with family attorney Dawn Norton (Patricia Buckley) in a packed courtroom, Zikri is convicted of killing the U.S. President and sentenced to death based upon dubious forensic evidence. Meanwhile, a new report which surfaces, substantiated by interviews with Marianne Claybon (Chavez Ravine), indicates that the perpetrator is most likely her husband Al Claybon (Tony Dale), a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, who lived in Rock Island, Illinois, and who also was the father of David Claybon, a U.S. soldier recently killed in the Iraq War. The assassin, who blames President Bush for the death of his son, killed himself after Bush's assassination. Claybon's suicide note, addressed to a second son, Casey Claybon (Neko Parham), an Iraq War veteran living in Chicago who was previously considered as a suspect, reads:
Ten months after President Bush's assassination, Zikri remains on death row at the Stateville Correctional Center, because government officials are deliberately delaying his legal appeal. Moreover, in his dead father's Rock Island house, Casey Claybon finds evidence of his father's planning of the shooting. The most incriminating piece of evidence is a copy of a top secret presidential itinerary outlining, to the minute, President Bush's Chicago whereabouts on 19 October 2007. The news report ends while the U.S. Government continues investigating how presidential assassin Al Claybon obtained that top secret document.
The final closing titles of the film inform the viewer that President Cheney's USA PATRIOT Act III was signed into permanent law in the U.S., stating the following: "It has granted investigators unprecedented powers of detention and surveillance, and further expanded the powers of the executive branch". | anti war, revenge, alternate reality, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | A lot of these reviews seem to be by either US Americans who have yet to see this film, and are so insecure about their patriotism they have to come on to IMDb and slate it, or seemingly by people who made up their mind before watching it and refuse to change their stance after doing so.The point of the film is NOT some perverse fantasy about killing the current President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush Jr. People who say otherwise either haven't seen it or are wanting to purposely misguide you.It is a drama in the style of a documentary (one that would air on television rather then a cinema screen) that looks at a possible run up to an assassination of the president, as well as how the investigation might be handled afterwards with the involvement of Dick Cheney (who would take over the Presidency if George Bush was assassinated).The drama does not dwell or linger on the death of the president at all, in fact apart from Bush being crammed into his presidential car by secret service and whizzed away at high speed, that is all the viewer sees.
Hardly a sordid gratification from a 'perverse' director.The drama is convincing as a documentary by realistic interviews with decent unknown actors playing their roles just right without hyperbole as could quite easily be the case.Without spoiling exact plot points, the drama makes a point in how the government may be more interested in finding a suspect and making the evidence fit the profile because it is more politically advantageous then actually running an investigation to find out exactly what happened, and draw suspects that way.
Bush in a Chicago hotel.That future time is portrayed with an escalation of the anti-war fervor and a growing concern over the dangers posed by North Korea.The film flips between staged scenes, real footage & documentary style interviews.
The actors, who range from a close assistant to the President and First Lady to a spouse who may never see their innocent partner again, are all excellently cast.Contrary to popular belief, Death of a President does not advocate the killing of a leader; instead it takes a credible look at America and the possible events following such an occurrence.Trust me - this one you don't want to miss..
Death Of A President is an excellent film and is in no way anti-American or Anti-George Bush.
With the fictional scenario of Death of a President, though, we know exactly how things play out.Whether you are a President, an assassin, an FBI agent, or just a movie-goer, realizing that actions have consequences - often unforeseen consequences, of course - is something we all need to be reminded of from time to time..
Title and premise of "Death of a President" led me, and probably others, to expect either a shallow Bush-bashing hack-job or some sort of bizarre, "24"-like "we against the evildoers" hero-epic in a cheap documentary costume.I'm happy to report: I was wrong.
How can it be anything but controversial when it concerns a speculation about a future crime - and the crime concerns the person who is likely to be one of most controversial US presidents this century.But given the administration and its leader have been quite overt in courting controversy and have often appeared to care little for opinion outside their electoral and other power bases in the USA it can count for little that suddenly some creative team somewhere outside the USA provokes discomfort in the heartland of that political grouping.This film can be regarded as both as a straight ahead thriller but also as a device to explore your own attitudes and those of others to certain key political issues.
With bag checks and guys with night vision scanning the audience for the entire screening looking for pirates (argh!), it felt like I was seeing the Prez himself.Gabriel Range's mockumentary that is set 3 years after the assassination of President George Bush.
The music was awful Hollywood nonsense.A much better film that explores the purpose and consequences of violent political action in a human way is the The Weather Underground, and that documentary is real.Last year in Chicago a man burned himself in view of one of the freeways during the day as political protest.
The Best Mockumentary You Will Never See. There is nothing more predictable than first response to this sentence: "Gabriel Range's new film, 'Death of a President,' is about the assassination of George W.
Bush, the President of the United States, and the assassination in question is his very own.Unfortunately people will probably stay away from this movie imagining some cruel and insulting vengeance "wetdream", see Bush get shot, payback time etc.
Bush, nor does it propose or encourage that such action, as depicted in the movie, should be undertaken.Quite to the contrary, the movie goes out of its way to present the story from multiple points of view, with characters that cover a range of opinions, feelings, ideas, beliefs and so on.This film asks some pointed and poignant questions as to why would such an event take place, what would drive someone to get to the point of going through with such an ultimate act.
It does not smack of treason, or gross indecency or any other morally infused controversy to ask questions of our leaders, to hold them responsible for their actions, policies, ideas and any other factors that make up their leadership.After all George Walker Bush, as all Presidents before him, has ONE boss that is above him, that is THE American PEOPLE, all 300 million of them, not only those that agree with him and voted for him.Take that for whatever you think it is worth, see this movie and decide for yourself what its relevance is, don't let others do that for you, your voice and opinion is just as important!.
The first half of the movie is told entirely (except for the opening interview, which foreshadows the later turn that the film will take) from the points of view of those close to President George W.
No, we don't like Bush, but seeing his assassination foreshadowed in a movie is eerie, uncomfortable, and disconcerting, and I believe we reserve the right to express that without being labeled as blind, patriotic, "typical Americans".
The most effective message is how politics warps the American justice system.I recommend this film to anyone who likes political thrillers, speculative explorations, or movies dealing with the Presidency.
What it IS about is: Big Brother, the Patriot Act, loss of civil liberties, racial profiling, corrupt and hidden political agendas, etc.But what is fantastic is that ALL of this important information is presented in a highly entertaining film with excellent production values, great editing and truly believable roles.Should be seen in every Civics class in this country.
This one wasn't.The movie had a great premise, but that's only when you look at the film as a hypothetical lesson: For some people (probably really extreme and equally disillusioned liberals), killing President Bush may seem like a good idea given his presidency is officially the most controversial in U.S. History.
The movie seemed to imply that should President Bush be killed by an assassin's bullet, no one except Dick Cheney and other Republicans would care about his death.
All the participants are - including the assassin.The movie uses a tragic event like the President as a way to demonstrate how polarized and biased in objective investigation and reporting would be.
And no, it is not as some have it a 'how to manual' on killing the president but rather a treatise on how a police-state (a la escalating powers given under various Patriot Acts)can arrest, charge, fix the evidence and convict an innocent man of assassination and use this as a scapegoat to attack yet another sovereign nation.Completely chilling and thought provoking as to giving those in government absolute jurisdiction over the laws of the land, habeas corpus - extinct, fair trial - extinct, free press - extinct.
We can't argue over issues such as 'truth' since it deals in purely fictitious scenarios; in this case, the assassination of President Bush and its aftermath, or rather simply on who did it.That it sides with a right-thinking, open-minded liberal 'Left' is admirable and that it is very well made of its kind is to be applauded, but as someone who sympathizes with its political point-of-view I was somewhat disappointed by the sheer bland matter-of-factness of its arguments.
So the film is a laboratory itself in image altering with profound implications.More than the authenticity of washed out images that complement the security camera images agents scour to find suspects, Death of a President ends up a subtle screed against versions of the Patriot Act that in the future may seriously compromise the rights of innocent internationals who are caught in investigations with political agendas far outweighing the justice our constitution seemed to promise to those who come ashore.
Of course, the subtext could be that none of these injustices would have happened if W had not been president, but the film takes the high road to show a generic scenario given the circumstance leading to such a tragedy a year from now.An Arabic-speaking woman opens the film with the question about the assassin, "Why didn't he think about the consequences of his actions?" That's what Death of a President is about: the effects of acts such as violations of a president and a constitution..
The movie makers are not being just anti-Bush in the most obvious way, they construct a very plausible outcome of such an act.The actors, mostly Americans are extremely believable and add an eerie touch of authenticity to this grim proceedings.This whole thing is probably in a very poor taste, but claiming to lead the Free world opens us up for all kinds of speculations.
I heard of the movie last year and was of course quite curious about it and while on vacation in June in SanFrancisco found it in a video store and when I came back to purchase it the next day it was already gone.And after searching in my neighborhood for it was able to find it and was able to get a copy of it and watched it today.And it was excellent because it looked so real that it was hard to believe that none of it was true.And the way the real footage of President Bush and VicePresident Cheney was put in the story made it all more believable.
The style of the film is terrible; from obviously photo shopped images of interviewed actors appearing with the President, to lame mock-ups of anti-Bush protests, the movie consistently comes across as childish and amateur.
Using real Bush footage and not making the movie based on a fictional character is just stupid and also inviting if not inciting assassination as a glorified and approved method of action.
You know, I thought I had seen it all--San Franciscans protesting going into Afghanistan after witnessing the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, the daily drum-beat of every metropolitan newspaper blaming the US for all the world's atrocities (led by the fanatical liberals at the NYT), the Cindy Sheehans of the world blaming our president for war crimes, and on, and on, and on-- but I will never understand the likes of people that claim they "love this country," "support the troops," and believe in national security, meanwhile stabbing our leaders in the back every chance they get with the daily gratuitous, ad hominem attacks and movies like Death of a President.
Again, it's a wonderful way to argue historical turning points.This film utilizes the death of President Bush as a means to rehash old arguments and nothing more.
Maybe after the presumed question was asked, Range and Finch discussed how news outlets would report it, how certain hot button issues, like civil liberties and racial profiling, would be affected, and how life as we know it in the United States of America would change.Death of a President is an intriguing motion picture, and if you get caught up or offended by the assassination of George W.
Following the assassination, Jamal Abu Zikri (Malik Bader), an Syrian man who works as an IT professional, becomes the prime suspect in a costly and widespread investigation as to the motives and the events leading up to the assassination.Range expertly paces the film from the get-go, establishing the "who, what, where, when, and how's" of the environment Bush was in and takes its time to build up suspense, despite this being a documentary.
The intriguing part about this mockumentary is that, obviously, if this happened, many would know the story and know the details surrounding the assassination; however, being that this is fictional, we are essentially watching a monumental event unfold a year after it has happened, which makes us feel like we were frozen in time and are being told how all this occurred and how we are now effected by such a ghastly event.Range and Finch then use news clips to address how the nation reacts to the death of George W.
Following the assassination, the US Patriot Act III is signed into law, a continuation of the controversial US Patriot Act, which permitted the wiretapping of US citizens' phone calls, which heightened such wiretapping practices and grants the United States Government national detention of its citizens in an effort to control the population.Such events portrayed in Death of a President are that of incredibly taunt and frightening science-fiction, and only more frightening is the fact they are executed in such a believable manner.
Death of a President is a terrific mockumentary, thoughtful and engaging, as it details a fictional event in a way that almost makes you believe something like this happened or could very well occur.
This is a movie shot in a documentary-format telling the fictional assassination of the president George W.
The story of the movie is essentially how the investigation of the death of a president led to evidence being forced to fit like a square peg in a round hole, just so that the accused, who fit the preconceived notions of what an assassin would be, would be convicted.As has been said numerous times already, the subject of Bush's death is not gloated over or glorified - it is really hardly touched on.
I was a little bit disappointed of the way creators decided to handle this movie - for me the American way of presenting documentary by listening to endless list of boring people is one of the worst ways there could be - but what was the major disappointment is that the story told was really flat.I know that it's hard to compete with such masterpieces like "JFK" or "I comme Icare" and this wasn't the goal for creators, but what was the point of use president assassination as a base for the point they were heading??
Really it's like creating a movie similar to "Godfather" just to point out that alcohol is bad for your health.For me "Death of a president" is major disappointment because creators simply wasted a good opportunity to tell their story in interesting way - instead of involving plot we get bunch of people with their memories that doesn't even look like they care about whet they are saying.
If we need to put it in a category it would belong into political fiction - the story of a political crime that luckily was never committed, but takes inspiration from the political killings in American and world history of the 20th century, from the assassination of president Kennedy and up to Yitzhak Rabin.As a political fiction movie the film is quite well made, with credible shots that make it look like a TV documentary made a few years after the crime.
Years later, a documentary crew interview those in the know about that fateful day and try to root out who the real assassin was.Most rulers have had their fair share of controversy but George Bush is one who's probably choked up more hate from certain people than any before him.
The most interesting fact is that the film doesn't take a political stance (neither left nor right) but simply explores what might happen if President Bush were assassinated.
In ways it echoes the JFK assassination, an event that still is under scrutiny as to why it happened and who was ultimately responsible.Using actual footage of President Bush at an Economic conference in Chicago along with reporters and actors who supply the drama, the film 'shows' the assassination and the aftermath with the subsequent frightening state of Cheney as President.
What we have here is a well made and thought provoking piece of what might happen, in today's society and with public feeling the way it is, if President Bush was assassinated.In fact, what director Gabriel Range manages to pull off very well, in my opinion, is actually managing to show as little of the actual "event" as possible.
its just a story about the build up and aftermath of a fictional assassination of President Bush, the actual assassination its self only takes up 5% of the movie.Its a very well done film and the assassination itself looks very realistic.This film is more about the American system and the way it acts against situations like an assassination (be that a President or something as horrid as 9/11).Americans...
That said, I do not particularly want to see him assassinated, and living in the UK, it is not really my problem - it is up to the American people.With this in mind, there was no way I was going to miss the movie, and when More4 screened it in the UK, I set the record button.This is an excellent film, not because it kills Bush - which would just be gratuitous and not worth watching - but of the way it looks at how the US responds. |
tt0022403 | Smart Money | Nick Venizelos (Robinson), a prosperous small-town barber, provides his customers with gambling in his back room. He is so lucky that one suggests he go to the big city to take on famous gambler named Hickory Short. Not lacking in self-confidence, Nick puts up half of the $10,000 stake himself, while the others raise the rest. He leaves the shop under the supervision of his assistant, Jack (Cagney), and takes the train into the city.
He learns from Marie, the pretty blonde working at the hotel cigar stand, where Hickory is holding his illegal, high-stakes poker game. Nick sits down at the game, but loses all his money. Later, however, he sees a newspaper article reporting that the real Hickory Short has just been released from prison far away in Florida. The man he thought was Hickory is actually conman Sleepy Sam (Ralf Harolde), and Marie is his girlfriend and accomplice. When Nick foolishly tries to get his money back, Sleepy Sam and the other fake poker players beat him up. After he gets out of the hospital, he vows to get revenge.
Nick goes back to barbering and raises another stake. Six months later, he tracks down Sleepy Sam and his gang in another city. He proposes a one-on-one game, each man putting up $50,000 and playing until one man has all the money. Sam accepts. Nick insists on sending out for fresh decks of cards, just to be safe. When Nick wins and tries to leave, the con artists reach for their guns, but Jack and another man burst in with their guns already drawn. Nick then gloats, pointing out that he simply cheated better than Sam by using shaved cards.
Nick becomes very successful. He finally gets to play the real Hickory Short; a Walter Winchell column reports the rumor that Nick beat Hickory to the tune of $300,000. Nick becomes the king of illegal gambling in the city, with Jack as his right-hand man.
However, he still has a weakness for women, particularly blondes. As they are driving by, they are stopped and asked to take a young woman (Evalyn Knapp) who has been fished half drowned out of the river to the hospital. Irene revives during the ride, but Nick insists she stay at his mansion until she is fully recovered, over the very suspicious Jack's protests. Eventually, she is so touched by Nick's kindness, she confesses she is fleeing from a charge of blackmail, but he is unconcerned.
Nick is so brazen that public outrage puts pressure on District Attorney Black (an uncredited Morgan Wallace), who is up for re-election soon. He has Irene picked up. Black threatens to prosecute her unless she cooperates in incriminating Nick, but she refuses at first. Finally, he gets her to agree to put a racing form in Nick's coat, which will be enough to put Nick in jail for a month. Jack finds out, but when he tries to warn his friend, Nick becomes furious and knocks him to the floor. The police raid the illegal casino, and Black arrests Nick. Then they discover that Jack is dead. Aghast, Irene begs Nick for forgiveness, which he generously gives. He is sentenced to ten years. As he is boarding the train to go to prison, he offers to bet that he will be out in five. | revenge | train | wikipedia | While he was well-known for his gangster roles, this character isn't a saint by any stretch, but he's far from vicious or deadly like "Little Caesar".
Cagney, at this point, was the lesser star and has a rather small role in the film as Robinson's right-hand man.
The breakout film, THE PUBLIC ENEMY, was released just before SMART MONEY and at the point of making this second film, the studio didn't know that he was now a mega-star.Robinson is a barber with an uncanny ability to gamble and win.
Eventually, he and his friends pool their money and send him to "the big city" and even though he at first is bankrupted, he eventually becomes the biggest and most famous gambler around the country.
Plus, there are a few neat scenes that took place since the film was created before the strict Production Code was created--so you get to see Eddie kick a woman in the rear as well as have another lady try to offer him sex to pay off her debt to him!
Just a good drama with some nice twists and decent acting.PS--When you watch the film, look for a brief cameo by Boris Karloff.
The only film ever to star both Edward G and Jimmy Cagney together.
Made in 1931 during the Warner Bros heyday of gangster blood and guts, it represents a slight departure for them both.Eddie G plays a small town gambler - a big fish in a little pond so to speak - with big ideas.
He is then humiliated by the sexy blonde and Sleepy Sam, played with delicious menace by Ralf Harolde.He is joined by his pal Jimmy Cagney, and they put together another grubstake.
1931's "Smart Money" is the only time Edward G.
Robinson and James Cagney were paired in a film.
Robinson plays Nick the barber, who gets 10K together to gamble in one of the syndicate's big games.
This turns out the way you'd expect when a small time guy goes up against the mob and expects them to play on the level.
At this point he begins to attract the attention of law enforcement.Don't expect Robinson's Little Caesar character to show up here - Nick the Barber is a kinder gentler gangster.
Robinson (as usual), and supporting roles by a young James Cagney and a series of blondes who will more or less look alike at first.
It might have been something of a formula production for the cast and crew, but it's during the lively pre-1934 sound era where, especially at a studio like Warner Bros., things manage to pop one way or another.As much as this is a very good film, completely engaging and without gaffes or sentimental slow downs, it remains secondary for 1931 because of several interesting things.
First, Robinson had just become famous for "Little Caesar" where he had a shining (and roughly similar) role as a sort of good guy gangster.
But you should watch "Smart Money" for what it does so well--tells a fast, multi-layered story with economy and life, and with great performances by the leads.
This is a nicely tailored story about the rise of Nick the Barber( a real barber)from the small gambling environs of Irontown to his rise to the big time gambling scene.
Robinson's Nick is one of the kindest, most liked, and honest "crime" bosses you will ever see in film.
Nick is a sweet, at times naive, resilient guy with a weak/blind spot for pretty blondes.
Aiding Eddie is none other than Jimmy Cagney playing Jack his friend and fellow business associate.
It's a treat seeing Karloff and Robinson and Cagney in a brief yet memorable scene..
Well, maybe a little more Cagney, as he is just a supporting player here, but overall I had no complaints watching this 1931 film.Robinson was great in the lead as "Nick the Barber," (full name "Nick Venizelos.") Cagney is "Jack," an old friend who is employed by Nick.
The Greek is a barber, but he's really a full-time gambler or evolves into that role quickly during this story.
He gets taken by the big crook in town twice, gets hustled by a couple of blondes (Nick's real weakness) but overcomes all of them to be gambling czar.After Nick's successful jaunts at revenge are completed, the last third of the film is devoted to the city's district attorney trying to get some goods on Nick and put him away and get him out of his city.This movie, as expected considering the year it was made, is very dated but another of those early '30s films that has a lot of snap, crackle and pop to it.
The dialog is crisp and edgy with the expressions of the day and everybody is just nasty enough to make them all interesting characters.Robinson, as in "Little Caesar," is super in here, much like the cocky gangster roles Cagney also would play in the same period ("The Public Enemy," "Lady Killer," etc.).The blondes all look similar with the short curly hair of the period and the sexism, racism and other "isms" are all on display here in this fun "gangster movie." The ending was odd but that, too, was the mark of these Pre-Code films which certainly were different.
Robinson and James Cagney in the only time they shared the screen.
Of the two of them, Robinson comes off far the better.I'm not sure why Cagney did this film, more than likely because he was told to and was not yet rebelling against Jack Warner.
Cagney plays the best friend of Greek barber Edward G.
He likes to play, but when friends raise a bankroll for him to try his luck in the big city he gets good and clipped.Robinson's down, but not out.
I would like to have seen them both in a film with a more typical Jimmy Cagney.Still when it's broadcast it should not be missed..
Robinson is a barber who owns his own barbershop, but who goes off to gamble with some real card-sharks.
Of course Robinson, as the barber, is great, and James Cagney is a secondary character with not much development to make him really interesting.
But, it's Robinson that makes this film worth watching.
Robinson and Jimmy Cagney team up in their only picture together(strangely enough).
Robinson plays Nick, an immigrant Greek barber who loves to gamble and can't stay away from a poker game or betting.
Cagney plays Jack, his good friend who is amused by him, and he and their other friends bankroll him in a big betting game in the city, though Nick's weakness for women gets him cleaned out in a rigged game, Nick decides to get even by joining in on the racket, which makes him rich at first, but of course things later go wrong, though Jack does what he can to help.
The same year that he starred in Little Caesar and Five Star Final, Robinson made the Oscar-nominated film that shows the rise of a small-town gambler that goes to the big city and gets suckered.
Six months later he is back vowing to never let that happen again and he rises to the top of the gambling world.With James Cagney (Yankee Doodle Dandy, Angels With Dirty faces)at his side to watch out for him, he manages to elude capture by the authorities - mainly because he has bought off most of them.
That will prove his down fall.It was not the "Little Caesar" Robinson, but a happy-go-lucky guy that just seemed to take things as they come.
Smart Money offers viewers a chance to see two well-known stars of the 1930s gangster film cycle, together in action: Edward G.
Mr. Robinson plays the lead in this picture, with Mr. Cagney offering excellent support.
Smart Money (1931) *** (out of 4) Nick the Barber (Edward G.
Robinson) is a whiz gambler but doesn't have the money to enter the big time.
His friends (one played by James Cagney) eventually raise the money, which sends Nick to NYC where he soon takes over.
This is a very entertaining early gem from Warner, which was clearly the studios attempt at making a gangster film with cards instead of alcohol.
Cagney and Robinson
Only Screen Pairing
It's Pre-Code Gangster Lite.
Fluffy and Breezy Pre-Code Star-Combo Featuring Robinson and Cagney in a Somewhat Whimsical Tale of a Small Town Gambler Pooling Friends and Money to Score Big Time.
Made on the Coat Tails of Little Caesar (1931) and Shot Simultaneously with Public Enemy (1931) Robinson was a "Shooting" Star and Cagney's Signature Role was Yet to be Released.
It Emphasizes Character and Both Cagney and Robison Bring It All Home, Supported by a Bevy of Blondes and Some Sharp Story Turns.Pre-Code Stuff is Evident Throughout, the Most Glaring is the Racial Rubbing of a Negroes Head for Luck, Not Once, Not Twice, but Three Times.
Small-town barber Nick Venizelos (Edward G.
So lucky that his friends pool their money and send him to a high-stakes poker game in the city.
Together with his friend Jack (James Cagney), Nick gets even and then rises to the top of the gambling empire.
Not sure exactly what that means since the movie is pretty vague about what Nick is doing besides playing poker.
Robinson and James Cagney, two of WB's biggest stars of the 1930s.
Robinson's the lead here, with Cagney in a supporting role.
So here we get to see the first and last time James Cagney and Edward G Robinson are teamed up, simply two of the best and the reasons?
Alongside these two greats we get a small cameo with Boris Karloff and Evalyn Knapp, a good crowd to be with.The story is of Mick the Barber {Robinson} a small time gambler who is itching to make his fortune but along the ways he gets Hustled by the women and stitched up by those he is gambling with.
Cagney has a smaller role as he was only into his 5th film with warner but he plays that part well.its a great little film filled with not the gangster you would normally expect from the two big stars but a little humour and a soft side.overall a great print with some great acting..
Robinson as barber turned big shot gambler.
Robinson is flashy but vulnerable as a lucky barber who aspires to become a big city gambler.
Encouraged by his success in the backroom dice game in his barber shop, Robinson convinces his friends that he's got the touch, borrows a stake, and heads off to make his fortune.
at the top of his profession: Nick the Barber runs the biggest gambling joint in town.
James Cagney is fine in what is definitely a secondary role as Robinson's friend and chief assistant.
Cagney is sure she's a spy working for the D.A. and looking for evidence; Robinson trusts her completely.
Whom can you trust, anyway?Like many of these early 30s dramas, this film offers no pat ending or definite moral message...it's a tale about taking a shot and stopping at nothing.
Robinson's performance, self-assured and stubbornly optimistic, makes it worth watching.Quick cast note: Boris Karloff has a bit as a shadowy figure who loses $100 to Edward G.
Robinson and Cagney in their only film..
Whilst "Smart Money" was being filmed, Edward G.
Robinson had become a star at "Warner Bros," thanks to his film, "Little Caesar." James Cagney had just finished making "The Public Enemy" and that film hadn't yet been released.
"Smart Money" isn't another gangster film as the story doesn't allow for that kind of character and Robinson isn't a hoodlum either.
For a while in the film, Robinson is small time but after avenging himself upon the con men who took all his money, he carves out a gambling empire with Cagney as his right hand man.
Robinson dominates "Smart Money" but James Cagney is right there after the half way stage.
A talented gambler moves up from small town action to big city, where a string of blondes can't be trusted.Not so much a gangster film as a Robinson charm fest.
I like the early part best, when the super-confident Nick (Robinson) gets fleeced in a crooked poker game by a guy named Hickory Short (great name).
Robinson and James Cagney would appear together on the silver-screen.
The established Robinson and the soon emerging star Cagney play together quite well.
Robinson plays an immigrant Greek barber, Nick Venizelos; a guys guy hooked on poker.
But not satisfied being the 'big fish in a little pond'; Nick is backed with money from his friends and goes to "the city" to play with the big boys and bigger money.
But not totally down on his luck, one of his best pals, Jack(Cagney), shows up in time to turn the tables on the sleazy operator, who cheated Nick out of his bankroll.Story line well constructed with better than average dialogue(for the times.) It appears obvious that Cagney does not want to take anything away from Robinson in the scenes they share.
Smart Money is essentially a tale about the evils of gambling, and demonstrates the truth in the phrase "The higher you climb the further you fall" Edward G Robinson plays Nick 'The Barber' a guy who's two main loves in life are blonde's and gambling.
However, the rules of probability does not apply to him as he seemingly never loses.James Cagney plays Jack, his sidekick, who's loyalty to Nick is so strong that tragic consequences are bound to arise.After many of the local gamblers pool their wealth to send Nick to the City to partake in a high stakes poker game with known gambling big shot Hicory Short, (later to be unmasked as Sleepy Sam, a professional conman), the arrogant but big hearted Nick feels he can't lose.His pride comes before a very large fall, and he is cleaned out by the gamblers.
The next day he realises that he's been cheated with shaved cards and vows to get even with the crooks.He opens another Barber shop to raise funds for his 'rematch' and when the time comes, cheats the cheaters by using shaved cards himself, essentially becoming the Mr Big of the gambling world.However, this brings unwanted attention for the District Attorney's office who although not a gangster, murderer or even bootlegger, still views Nick as part of the City's 'undesirable' element.After helping in the rescue of a young blonde lady who's just been fished out of the river after a failed suicide attempt, Nick, who's still a kind decent man at heart takes her under his wing.
Much to the chagrin of right hand man Jack, who neither likes nor trusts Nick's new companion.Playing on Nick's love of beautiful blonde's, (and one in particular), the DA's office set up a 'honey trap' to bring him down a peg or two.Smart Money is not a brilliant movie by any stretch of the imagination.
It's a shame that Robinson's and Cagney's only pairing together wasn't a little better.At the time of filming, Cagney was still trying to fight his way out of the supporting player 'sidekick' roles and just before the film was released, The Public Enemy made only a few short months before, had already cemented Cagney's superstar status.One major criticism I do have about the film is the blatant racism shown toward the black characters.
Immigrant Nick(Eddie Robinson) runs a barber shop in a small town, but there's a gambling operation in the back room.
Nick rubs the head of an African American for luck, has Cigars made in Cuba to his specification, always dresses smartly, takes pride in his manicured finger nails, has a weakness for cute blonds, is pleasant to everyone except those who cross him, and likes to be recognized as a famous hood who always outsmarts the cops.Nick and his pall Jack(James Cagney) are out riding when they are asked to take care of a nearly drowned young woman(Irene) who has been fished out of the river.
Nick's right hand man, Jack(Jimmy Cagney), doesn't trust her and wants her to leave.
Cagney's best scene is when he does a pantomime for Nick describing who's at the front door.
So, how do they, as a group, make any money at gambling?When Sleepy's gang beat up Nick when he wants to run with his earnings, Nick only shows a small cut on his forehead and a sore jaw.
Robinson and James Cagney to be a hard edged gangster drama on the order of Robinson's own "Little Caesar" or Cagney's "Public Enemy".
In fact, "Smart Money" isn't a gangster flick per se, though it has it's seamy under world characters like Sleepy Sam (Ralf Harolde) and Hickory Short.
Robinson even has a colorful handle of his own - Nick the Barber.
When his buddy Jack (Cagney) comes up with the idea to stake him for ten grand to go big time, Nick sees it as an opportunity to rise above his meager Irontown surroundings.That's where the story gets a little sloppy for my taste.
I got a bit of a kick out of that actually, why not just call 'Another City' New York, since 'Walter Winchell on Broadway' headed one of his columns on the fast rising card sharp Nick the Barber.
Robinson gets to play against a number of pretty blonds in the picture as he fancies himself a ladies man, but boy, the lines they came up with in the 1930's were something else.
There's also the blatant racism of the era; when Nick tears a bill in half for the black porter on the train, he states that the other half would be "at the other end of the line, if you're a good boy".Back to Robinson and Cagney together in this film.
I almost hate to say it, but Cagney's character was a bit swishy in the story, getting touchy feely with Nick more than once.
Robinson's best SMART MONEY effort to warn us! |
tt0126004 | La rose de fer | A young woman and man meet at a wedding reception and arrange a date. They meet at a railway station and go for a picnic and bike ride. They arrive at the entrance of a lonely cemetery and go inside.
Once inside the huge cemetery, the woman becomes anxious. The man calms her and persuades her to enter a crypt with him. A strange man watches the couple. The man and the woman make love in the crypt. A clown places some flowers on a nearby grave and leaves. An old woman closes the cemetery gates.
When the couple finally exit the crypt, night has fallen and they cannot find their way out. They begin to panic. They discover a small building; inside are several child-sized coffins holding small skeletons. The woman becomes moody and exhibits bizarre behavior and personality changes. She locks her lover in the crypt and he suffocates. Dawn finds the woman dancing around the cemetery, and later entering the crypt herself. The old woman reopens the cemetery gates. Finding the crypt closed, she puts flowers on top of it. | insanity, cult, psychedelic, gothic | train | wikipedia | La Rose De Fer (the Iron Rose) is one of the most sensual and beautiful horror films I've ever seen.
When the characters eventually enter the cemetery, 'The Iron Rose' gets somehwat tedious, with the heroes merely wondering amid the tombstones, uttering nonsensical lines from time to time.
The film was clearly made purely out of Rollin's love for cemetery ambiance,its decay and desolation: multiple shots of crosses and tombstones, strange characters who don't understand each other.
Rollin populates the cemetery with his favourite heroes: a vampire is seen entering the crypt, and a creepy clown bringing some flowers to one of the graves.
Although lacking any dramatic tension, 'The Iron Rose' is a very beautiful and atmospheric film..
The fairly simplistic, but multi-layered plot follows a young couple getting trapped in a cemetery after-hours, unable to find the way out as the girl slowly succumbs to madness.
"The Rose of Iron" is a difficult film and thus not for everyone, as even Rollin fans might find themselves disappointed, as there is none of his trademark vampire girl-on-girl action nor is there the slightest bit of gore and camp.
Although most Euro-horrors of it's time were criticized for poor acting, "Rose..." proves otherwise by having brilliant performances from Françoise Pascal and Hugues Quester as the young couple.
Rollin's passion for crumbling, ancient grounds also mirrors this ideal dreamland, and he makes the best out of this often-used setting, bringing it to life through some delirious camera-work that would make Argento envious, and an equally foreboding, experimental musical score by Pierre Raph.
Overall, if you dare give yourself up to the unique, morbidly beautiful dream-world of France's most underrated filmmaker, "The Rose of Iron" is the film for you..
He claims the film was inspired by a real life incident.Rollin refers to Rose of Iron as an art film.
As time progresses, fear gives way to madness.There is much to recommend this film.
Rose of Iron seems very much like a cautionary tale of old as opposed to a straight forward horror film.
The films drips with dark atmospheric, from the morbid poet who charms the female lead, to the foggy and creepy aesthetics of locations such as the train yard and the graveyard.The plot navigates around a young man falling for a pretty girl, they meet at party where his poetry (need I remind you that not all poetry is rose are red) wins him the attention of an attractive girl.
Rose of Iron is at the very least, a very enigmatic film.A purely psychological horror, with few actual elements of the supernatural.
I cannot claim to be a connoisseur of the man's work so far, but personally I do not even nearly understand the enthusiasm that many of my fellow Eurohorror/cult fans seem to have about the films of Jean Rollin.
At least Rollin's lesbian vampire films were entertaining and made up for a lack of substance with gratuitous female nudity.
In one aspect, however, the film is phenomenal: The film is fantastically shot in a an old cemetery, which is arguably one of the most beautiful, eeriest and most fascinating Horror settings of all time.
The film begins when a creepy-looking guy and a pretty girl fall in love and make arrangements to go bike-riding the next day.
As night falls, both of them begin to act strangely (or should I say: annoyingly)...As said above, the film's setting is fantastic, eerie, and unspeakably beautiful, and I would certainly like to visit the depicted cemetery some day.
This is arguably why so many people seem to love this film - it is visually flawless, the trees and the beautiful tombstones and grave statues create a wonderful, fairy-tale-like atmosphere.
"The Rose of Iron" is easily one of the most hauntingly beautiful horror flicks made by French maestro Jean Rollin.The film tells the story of a young couple,who venture into a very old and very large cemetery,eventually getting lost within it's walls.Throughout this time,a mind game between the two arises and begins to battle.Eventually Francoise Pascal's character adopts to her surroundings."The Rose of Iron" is a wonderfully Gothic mood piece,which is primarily set in a cemetery.The film is loaded with hauntingly dark atmosphere of utter hopelessness and there are some surreal situations for example lonely clown walking through the cemetery corridors.Give this lovingly poetic horror flick a look.9 out of 10..
They have sex in a tomb and when they are ready to leave the night has put its dark cloak over the place and they can't find their way out.Somehow 'La rose de fer' aka 'The Iron Rose' took me back to my childhood when the dead seemed a lot more present than they are now.
Looking at the sinister beauty of the cemetery that holds her captive and the iron rose she finds she apparently figures that death is the way of everything, it far outlasts life and it even has beauty going for it.
From the point of view of a human being stone and iron are practically eternal.The unquestionable star of the show is the apparently HUGE, old, unkempt cemetery with a forest-like autumn vegetation.
But that's exactly what the characters do and it does look like the real thing.Before 'The Iron Rose' gets to that location however we have a pre-credit sequence which shows the girl on Jean Rollin's favorite beach.
The girl later finds an identical iron rose on the cemetery and at one point she fantasizes about being on the same beach (this time with a bunch of iron crosses standing around) when she's actually still on the cemetery.To me the most poignant but wonderfully subtle connection is made in a little scene in which the boy suddenly stops walking and says relieved to the girl: "Can you hear?
So while 'The Iron Rose' certainly doesn't newly define night shooting it still looks pretty good and atmospherically the visuals work too.This gem is different in many ways to the other Rollin films I've seen.
The film involves the couple walking through a cemetery while lost, getting scared, increasingly fighting and the girl increasing losing her head.
Look at Requiem For A Vampire, that had longer and far more beautiful takes and it never got boring.The good pieces in this movie were few and far between, it was a truly dreadful hour and a quarter.
Most of these people are my fellow moronic Americans with the attention spans of gnats and the intelligence of rocks.If you're looking for a horror movie and you pick this up, you probably wont like this, and that I can actually understand, it helps to know of this movie going in.
Its different, doesn't have blood or gore, and very little nudity with no lame, constant music.If you actually read books, understand that there was a decade called the 1970s and films looked different then (because no digital technology existed), and also understand there are people and places that exist outside of 'merica (in this case a French couple in a European cemetery), then you might be able to like this movie.If you are a fan of Rollin, then you do need to see this too.
I had really high hopes that "The Rose of Iron" would be Jean Rollin's absolute BEST film and finally something different than those stupid lesbian-vampire films he always makes.
Dig this: a beautiful girl falls head over heels in love with a bizarre guy after he reads a morbid poem to her during some party where none of the guests seem to know each other.
The next day, the young couple agrees to bike riding near an abandoned and ominous looking train-station
Okay, maybe a bit eccentric, but still acceptable.
The graveyard where 90% of the movie takes place is probably the most macabre filming location in horror-history ever.
A young couple gets lost at a country churchyard one night and lots of panic, statues and typical Rollin-doomed romanticism follows.
Iron Rose, The (1973) *** (out of 4) A man (Hugues Quester) and woman (Francoise Pascal) meet at a wedding reception and sneak off to talk where they agree to meet the next day for a bike ride.
The two ride past a cemetery and decide to enter so that they can have sex in an underground tomb but when they come up it is now dark and they soon find themselves lost and unable to get out.
This is certainly an art house film and a departure for Rollin as there are no vampires, zombies, lesbians, gore and even the sex is tame and there's only one sequence of nudity.
No lesbian vampires in sight, but still not a good film from Jean Rollin!.
Jean Rollin is best known for his lesbian vampire films.
If The Iron Rose were another lesbian vampire flick, I would never have seen it; but strangely, the non-lesbian vampire efforts I've seen from Jean Rollin (The Living Dead Girl, The Grapes of Wrath) were quite good so I figured maybe his work outside of his favourite genre might be decent, but on the strength of this film; I have to say that I think I was wrong!
The Iron Rose takes the atmosphere from Rollin's lesbian vampire flicks (often the best attribute) and fuses it with a bizarre plot that sees a couple trapped in a graveyard.
The location shots are nice, with the graveyard itself being a particularly outstanding place to set a horror movie with its Gothic gravestones and foreboding atmosphere so it's a shame that Rollin couldn't make more out of it.
The film feels like it should have some profound and deep message but if it did, it's buried so far under the boredom that I wouldn't know where to start looking for it.
A young horny couple go to what must be one of the largest cemeteries in France for a bit of hanky panky during the day but end up getting locked in after dark & struggle to find their way back out.
Unusual for a Rollin film of this time there are no vampires to be found, instead this film centres around fear, sex obviously & a poem.
There's also a lot of pretty fun sequences running through the whole landscape, but the main problem here is the very over-done and incredibly irritating manner of yakking on about everything with a very philosophical manner, almost like it's an art film instead of a sleazy horror film which continues throughout the whole film and gets old very fast, and combines with the slow, dragged-out pace to lower it but otherwise this isn't that bad of a film.Rated Unrated/R: Adult Language, Full Nudity and Mild Violence..
Film begins at same seaside locations as Rollin's own The Rape of the Vampire, giving a familiar, yet alien, look to the landscape, as a guy and girl meet, followed by eerie images of the girl in bright yellow walking in fog-enshrouded fields, and next to a huge freight train, enveloped in a thick cloud of fog.The film takes its time setting up the premise, as the bored guy and girl walk aimlessly through beaches and train yards, and ultimately, a cemetery.
A beautiful Gothic cemetery, peopled by a surreal clown, and caretakers cloaked in what appear to be burlap sacks.Unlike Rollin's earlier black-and-white The Rape of The Vampire, which used its black-and-white photography to build atmosphere, this could not have worked in black-and-white: good colour composition of the girl in bright yellow and the guy in bright red turtleneck, to set them apart from the grey surroundings of the cemetery, and surreal images of clown walking around and laying flowers on graveside needed colour photography for the characters to stand out from surroundings.After nightfall, when they are finished banging, they try to leave the cemetery.
It's a good movie, in a bewildering, Jean Rollin type of way, but I think it would have benefited from a shorter run time..
First they visit what appears to be a graveyard for old steam trains (a joy for the train spotters I should think), then off to the local cemetery, because it is quiet.The girl is somewhat scared when he wants to enter a tomb, and he seems to enjoy this.
But see, the cemetery was a place for peaceful solitary reflection, and at the time was relatively safe since nobody in their right minds would walk out into a cemetery at 2 in the morning to look for someone to mess with.So right away in Jean Rollin's NIGHT IN THE CEMETERY (which is a much better title than ROSE OF IRON) the guy blows it when he picks a dalliance in a local overgrown run down French cemetery as the place to bring a young lady he meets at a wedding party.
Later, they realize it's gotten dark outside and they find themselves lost within a cemetery that actually looks like several bone yards that have been combined into one using clever cross cutting.This is actually where the film gets interesting, because there literally is no end to the place.
Jean Rollin is not my favorite of directors and this isn't quite my favorite of his films -- try FRISSONS LES VAMPIRES for some real fireworks -- but it's got something going on that's quite unique even amongst his catalog of work.
Like LET'S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH (one of the greatest if most often underrated vampire movies ever made), ROSE OF IRON is a quiet, subtle little exercise in terror.
They decide to have a small picnic inside a cemetery and are so drawn to each other sexually, that the couple will seek out a warm spot to make love..that being an underground crypt(..yes, certainly a bit morbid, but just wait until the next place they find for a make-out session).
The young woman, in the opening of the film, found a peculiar iron rose in the ocean of a beach.
A love affair between the young female and the cemetery blossoms as we watch her orchestrate balletic movement throughout the grounds, embracing death now fully conceived as the only true way towards happiness.Now, I do realize a film such as this will certainly frustrate many, but I found it stunning.
While the plot is simple, I felt Rollin's goal was to embrace the macabre atmosphere of the cemetery in every way possible.
To be honest, I can't think of a better location to set a horror film than in a graveyard with those ancient tombstones, dying railings, rusty gates that screech and moan, & deteriorating crucifixes lining the grounds as masses of shrubbery and night invade and engulf.
Rollin's camera lovingly captures the female actress in shots around angel statues that have seen better days, holding skulls, gently caressing her iron rose, and dancing in a state of bliss throughout the cemetery..even when she's lost to insanity, her beauty glistens.
Some haunting dream-like shots of the cemetery as dawn begins to appear, the ocean with the naked female lead and her rose, etc.
The most morbid and wild scene in the film, I believe, is the one where the couple make out in a burial pit of scattered skulls and bones, the male lead fell into while trying, in a state of panic, to find his way out.
Various interlopers walking the grounds during the daytime(each a little wink from Rollin such as the sad clown dragging his flowers toward the grave of a loved one or a familiar vampire barely glimpsed entering a crypt)add some bonus oddness to this Gothic extravaganza.
It's as if the cast and crew were given a night to film in a shabby thanatopolis and made up stuff as they went along.I gather -- okay, I'll take a stab at it -- I gather that the pretty young girl goes mad.
I had recorded it late at night from TCM.It's categorized as a "horror" film by the IMDb. The story involves a young couple who meet at a wedding noticing each other across the room.
Deliberately paced, graced by plenty of strikingly bizarre moments (a vampire returning to his crypt, a melancholy clown placing flowers on a grave, etc.), and given a real substantial extra impact and potency by a powerfully spooky and unsettling midnight-in-the-boneyard gloom-doom atmosphere that positively drips with a strong feeling of dread, despair, and madness, writer/director Jean Rollin's unusual and intriguing cinematic meditation on life, love, death, and mortality possesses a dreamy, lyrical, and elegant quality which makes watching this movie a truly hypnotic experience.
Opening on the beach that must be familiar even to casual Jean Rollin fans, "The Iron Rose" might be the director's most acclaimed film.
While making love in a crypt, the gates are closed and the two are locked in.At night, the cemetery becomes an otherworldly place.
Given the fixed location and small cast, the movie plays more like an allegory the longer it goes on."The Iron Rose" has gorgeous Gothic atmosphere.
How could anyone resist making a horror film in this setting?
I maintain that Rollin's goofier, vampire-filled, nudity-and-imagery driven films are his best..
"Rose of Iron" (1973) is a film I was not familiar at all.
I guess the director was trying to leave it up to the viewer of the film: does the young woman simply go mad out of fright, or is she possessed by some spirit?
Like a horror film made by Buñuel...and a bit slow..
Here in "Rose of Iron", a young couple enters a cemetery for some sex (an odd place for this, I know) and when they are done they are unable to find their way out despite trying all night.Here in "Rose of Iron" it just seems to go on a bit too long--like it would have been better left as a short segment in an anthology film or ending it sooner. |
tt0113303 | Hideaway | After killing two women and ritualistically arranging their bodies as a sacrifice to Satan, a Devil worshipper (Sisto) invokes a Satanic verse in a room filled with candles and Satanic imagery. He then commits suicide by throwing himself onto an athame in order to damn his soul.
Hatch Harrison (Goldblum) is on a drive with his family. Harrison gets into a car accident and is pronounced dead, only to be revived two hours later by specialist Dr. Jonas Nyebern (Molina). His wife Lindsay (Lahti), and daughter Regina (Silverstone), were also involved in the car accident but escaped without serious injuries.
After the accident and subsequent revival, Harrison begins to experience mysterious visions. These involve him seeing murders through the eyes of a killer. Harrison realizes that the murders are actually happening when the women he sees being murdered are announced as missing in news reports. The character Harrison sees committing the murders is later shown to be the same character who committed suicide in the opening sequence. The man, who is identified as "Vassago", talks to Harrison's daughter at a night club, which Harrison sees in his visions.
Harrison attempts to stop Vassago from murdering only to be told that he is experiencing mental problems by his family, his psychiatrist, and the police. Harrison visits a psychic (Chong) who confirms his beliefs and tells him that Vassago is also having visions in which he can see through Harrison's eyes. It is then revealed that Vassago, whose real name is Jeremy Nyebern, is the son of Dr. Nyebern and he had killed his mother and sister. After his suicide, he had been revived from the dead by his father.
Vassago then kidnaps Regina, taking her to an abandoned amusement park where he kills his father after being confronted by him. As Harrison and his wife find them, the souls of Vassago and Harrison collide in battle. Harrison (revealing himself to Vassago as "Uriel," Vassago's antithesis) is the victor, killing Vassago and saving Regina. With his family safe, he exits the park with them.
The final scene after the credits shows Vassago being pulled in to be revived again. The operation is a success, but Vassago wakes up, takes a scalpel, and slits a nurse's throat. Hatch wakes up in his bed, realizing he was only dreaming. He then hugs Lindsay and falls back to sleep. | murder, paranormal, cult, horror, violence, insanity, sadist | train | wikipedia | Okay, maybe the scripting wasn't pure Shakespeare, maybe the plot was a little tenuous, or a little unoriginal, but still, a little credit where it's due please.I admit, I was expecting from the write-up a second rate TV movie, but ended up with a deranged grin plastered across my face.
I haven't read Dean Koontz's novel, but most of this movie's faults can be traced back to predictable and simplistic script, which bears a strong resemblance to "The Eyes Of Laura Mars".
Otherwise, this is an entertaining horror thriller, with trippy "tunnel vision" (literally) sequences, flashes of dark humor and the usual good performance by Jeff Goldblum.
I've seen earlier Brett Leonard's horror film "The Dead Pit"(1989-check out my comment of it!)and this director is incredibly overlooked and talented."Hideawy" is excellent-fast-paced,violent and really dark.The visuals(especially the vision of Hell)are really impressive,and Jeremy Sisto as a satanic killer Vassago is outstanding-he is pure evil!Great soundtrack bu such industrial/metal bands like KMFDM,Fear Factory,Godflesh("Nihil"-I love this song!)and Front Line Assembly.My absolute recommendation..
I have never seen effects that were as utterly ridiculous to end a movie with.This is the sort of movie that reminded me,"Oh, yeah,THIS is why I hate special effects." However, aside from the mind-blowingly bad effects and the predictable plot, there is one very, diamond-bright spot in the movie, and that is Jeremy Sisto as the killer Vassago.
Jeff's quirky speech patterns have been the saviour of many a dull movie over the years - here, it almost takes second place to Brett Leonard's jaw dropping visual effects.
Jeff Goldblum is always, er, 'interesting' to watch, and the same goes for Brett Leonard films (try as he might to cripple them with whatever bottom-of-the-barrel SFX company he keeps hiring - the effects here are practically carbon copies of those in The Lawnmower Man, and seeing as they're supposed to represent ethereal spiritual journeys rather than clunky virtual reality environments, it doesn't exactly work wonders).
I see the movie here in Monterrey and like too very much ...the movie offers an good approach about the moment of dead and the consequences of human acts, maybe no like to every body but have a good special effects and the director offer a different perspective of the God and Devil struggle.Hideaway offers a good suspense from the beginning and mix the lives of the actors very well, good photography and f/x, the movie have some nudity but no too strong.Hideway is a rare movie from Jeff Goldblum between Jurassic Park and Independence Day, have a good story with some of terror and classic thriller sequences..
It's not a "novel brought to the big screen." There are at least 3 film precedents for the terror, the struggle between Good and Evil, & the rejection of plot that, oddly, work well together, as they do here in "Hideaway:": 1st) Phantasm, 2nd, Phantasm II, and 3rd) Jacob's Ladder.
The scene switches to the Harrison family- Hatch (Jeff Goldblum- INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978), THE FLY), Lindsey (Christine Lahti), and daughter Regina (Alicia Silverstone).
One night, while driving home with his wife and daughter, Hatch (Jeff Goldblum) gets into a car accident which results in his temporary death.
Alicia Silverstone's daughter character was limited in scope as well; mainly serving as a plot gimmick for the killer to prey on.There are far better and scarier horror films out there, Hideaway is not one of them.
It's pretty laughably bad.From that happy family, we go to Jeff Goldblum and his wife Christine Lahti on vacation with their daughter, Alicia Silverstone.
Goldblum worries for the safety of his daughter, who the killer takes an interest in.In the end, there's a big CGI battle between good and evil.
It has a somewhat good cast for a horror movie as along with Goldblum you have Alicia Silverstone and Alfred Molino, but one just can not get the lame effects out of one's head..
Both Goldblum and Jeremy Sisto give fine performances, but the special effects keep me from grading this film any higher than a five.The climax was nail biting, and lasted for quite awhile, though the conclusion was a big disappointment.
Not long after losing one of his two daughters in a car accident, family man and antique store owner Jeff Goldblum suffers his own car trauma and literally dies momentarily; a doctor brings him back to life, but it seems Goldblum has brought good and evil powers back with him from the other side: he is now telepathically entwined with a psychopath who hunts young women.
Just back from the hospital, Goldblum begins having nightmares that look like bits and pieces of a heavy metal video; the viewer is cued up for the obligatory waking-up-with-a-jolt-from-a-nightmare close-up (and the movie doesn't disappoint).
Of course, nobody takes note that Sisto's latest victim looks like Goldblum's other daughter (Alicia Silverstone, who does nothing but whine), nor does wife Lahti take into account that just maybe her husband knows what he's talking about when he says their kid is in danger.
The movie makes absolutely no sense from a logical stand-point, though all of this is rendered inconsequential once Jeff and Christine arrive for a showdown with Sisto near the park's Big Slide ride.
You should know it right from the beginning when the film starts out with a cheesy special effects feast taking the viewer, literally, to hell.
Christine Lahti remains pale as the worrying mother and wife, Alicia Silverstone´s dialogue consists to 50% in the word "Daddy!" (she isn´t even as cute as usual in this movie) and the absolute low is Jeremy Sisto as the bad guy whose acting is, to put it politely, wooden and unconvincing.
The end is meant to be a gigantic battle between heaven and hell, good and evil and is one of the most ridiculous film climaxes I have EVER seen.
Hatch Harrison (Jeff Goldblum) seems to be connected with the mind of a murderer after a fatal car accident kills him (he gets better as doctors bring him back to the land of the living after around 2 hours of being not on this mortal coil.
Now suffering from terrifying visions, he has to solve this mystery before the killer strikes someone close to him (namely his daughter played by Alicia Silverstone) even as everyone thinks he's crazy.When anyone claims that "Batman and Robin" contained the worst acting by Silverstone, I point them to this sorry little flick which she is atrocious in.
It's the best part of this movie(and watch out when it's enmeshed with that classical piece from the beginning of the film!).
Hopefully someone with talent and vision can find a way to make a movie, truly based on the book with Dean Koontz seal of approval, because I would love to see it..
But my real point is this: As I watched the movie, I was at first almost certain that Jeremy "Jesus" Sisto's character intentionally resembled lead actor Jeff Goldblum.
It would be improper to put a Regina who had some physical disabilities in a Hollywood film, wouldn't it??!I don't usually compare movies and the books they are based on, but unintelligent changes of events and characters have taken out all the fun out of this one.
Hideaway(1995) is a bad and forgettable movie that doesn't attempt to be any good.
You never see him again, but you decide that, in two weeks, when you've forgotten that you've ever eaten the "Hideaway" omelet, with its synthetic ingredients, confusing recipe, messy eggs and overwhelming cheesiness, you'll remember who it was that gave it to you: Jeff Goldblum.So maybe you'll be back to that diner to eat another meal with him, but you know one thing for sure: You're never going to order that goddamned omelet again..
But in the novel, Koontz went to great length to explain that today's music was no good and should end up in a garbage can while only sixties music was the real stuff (Yeah, right.) when this movie's soundtrack feature the best industrial bands in activity !
Jeff Goldblum and Christine Lahti deserve better that this, but I guess it's their fault for picking this horrible movie.
Another thing that struck me is that Alicia Silverstone, although pretty good looking, sucked in this film as well in all others I have seen her in (Clueless, The Babysitter and Batman and Robin).
While traveling on the road with his wife Lindsay (Christine Lahti) and his daughter Regina (Alicia Silverstone), Hatch Harrison (Jeff Goldblum) has a car accident, hitting a truck and falling with his wife in a river.
Hatch has some weird premonitions and becomes able to see through the eyes of the psychopath serial killer Vassago (Jeremy Sisto), a young man that killed his mother and his sister and committed suicide and was also brought back to life and now is killing young women and teenagers.
When he foresees that Vassago is trying to capture his daughter, Hatch tries to find the criminal first, in spite of Lindsay, Regina and the detective in charge of the investigation believe that he needs psychiatric help."Hideaway" is another rip-off of "Eye of Laura Mars", I believe the first movie to explore the idea of a person connected to a serial killer through his eyes.
Hidaway tells the tale of the Harrison family, husband & wife Hatch (Jeff Goldblum) & Lindsey (Christine Lahti) plus their teenage daughter Regina (Alicia Silverstone).
The visions continue as Hatch begins to think that he may have a psychic link with a serial killer named Vassago (Jeremy Sisto) but at the same time Vassago has a link with him & decides he'll pay Hatch's family a nice friendly visit...Directed by Brett Leonard I thought Hideaway was a decent enough horror/thriller but in the end nothing spectacular.
On a positive note I thought the film was entertaining for what it was, there's an average twist at the end which isn't brilliant but is better than nothing I suppose & it maintained my interest in where it was going.Director Leonard doesn't do much to impress, Hideaway is a well made but has little in the way of scares or tension.
Sure you have to pay stars Goldblum & Silverstone but apart from that there's no big action scenes, limited special effects, no exotic locations & the thing looks like a TV film on occasion.
The acting is pretty good & Goldblum is always good to watch although I thought Lahti as his wife was awful.Hideaway is a decent way to pass the time, it's not the best film ever but it's not the worst.
The only thing that remains the same is Hatch (Goldblum) and the circumstances which surround his amazing new "gift." Koontz's earlier works, as was the work upon which this movie was based, had little detail, although his characters are very well developed and his story lines/plots move along with little or no distraction at all.
However good the movie itself may be (or may not, depending on your point of view), Jeff Goldblum's performance completely redeems the horrid rewrite and inept direction of this production.
Even the slightest attention to scene settings and props make for a much more enjoyable finished product.Christine Lahti is very convincing as Hatch's (Goldblum's) wife, Lindsey Harrison, and Alicia Silverstone is believable and fun to watch, in her portrayal of the Harrison's younger daughter.
I'm not a fan of Ms. Silverstone's, but I must say her performance in this role is about the best I've ever seen from her.The twists and turns in this movie are a bit predictable, but there are a few surprises which leave you saying, "Wow..."...but what saved this production was Jeff Goldblum's marvelous talent.
Jeremy Sisto was a nice bit of eye candy for those who are interested in that, but it was Goldblum's wonderful gift for acting that put this movie in my horror collection.It was a good book, and is a good movie; it's just not enough like the book for me to feel comfortable with the adaptation, and the direction was completely lacking.
"Hideaway" really wasn't as bad as it could've been, but it's not all that great as it is.**SPOILERS**Coming home from their ski-top resort, Hatch, (Jeff Goldblum) and Lindsey Harrison, (Christine Lahti) and his troubled daughter Regina, (Alicia Silverstone) are involved in a horrific car accident, and Hatch is brought back from the dead afterwards.
As he begins a city-wide rampage that includes Regina in his targets, Hatch races to stop him before he can fully return from the dark side.The Good News: This wasn't all that bad of a film and did contain some nice moments.
The final battle, with the turns in the tide of the fight and the setting placed provide some really nice action scenes that effectively end the movie on a high note.
good movie, exciting thriller, nice to watch.
I did enjoy this thriller, it was very suspenseful throughout, climaxing in a marvellous finish.Having read the book (which was brilliant) as well, I must say certain key aspects have been changed for the movie, like for example Regina's character.In the movie, Regina is Hatch's biological daughter - a blonde, green eyed, carefree, flirty teenager, while in Koontz' book Regina is a crippled, small-for-her-age but very smart ten year old orphan with "grey eyes and beautiful deep auburn hair", who is later adopted by Hatch and his wife Lindsey.Also, Hatch dies in a traffic accident in the movie and is resuscitated after two hours.
Jeff Goldblum, who plays him in the film, is much taller at six foot four and a half and significantly heavier as well.Lindsey is blonde in the movie, but in the book she is described as a woman with "dark hair".So much for authenticity!
At least they made an excellent choice with Jeremy Sisto, who played the mad serial killer Vassago very convincingly.If you happen to have read the book first, you can't help but notice the dissimilarities, but that surely didn't stop me from enjoying this movie a great deal.
After Stephen King's short story "The Lawnmower Man" was adapted to the screen in the Brett Leonard's 1992-film of the same name and in such a way that the author himself tried everything possible to detach his name from the project, curiously the same thing was about to happen only three years later, when Leonard this time set on to direct an adaption of a novel of one of King's main competitors in the horror/thriller genre - Dean R.
Then we are introduced to our main protagonist Hatch Harrison (Jeff Goldblum), of whom we know relatively little - for example the film never bothers to explain what he does for a living (in the book he is an antiques dealer).
We see that he has a loving family - wife Lindsey (Christine Lahti) and teenage daughter Regina (Alicia Silverstone) and only later do we find out that Hatch and Lindsey had another daughter, who died tragically in a car accident.
And speaking of car accident, shortly after we are introduced to the Harrisons (a cute little scene actually in which Regina's parents are playing a game of movie associations and try to get her to participate), another one takes place immediately after.
Coming back from the dead has come with a price - Hatch begins to have flashes of brutal murders as they are taking place, and seeing them through the eyes of the killer, not unlike the film "Eyes Of Laura Mars" from 1978.
This is the basic plot of "Hideaway" and although the story itself is interesting, there are many problems with the film.For starters everyone besides Christine Lahti (who really gives an amazing performance) was terribly miscast.
While not an absolute disgrace (it does have some good moments here and there - the car accident scene in the beginning I thought was handled pretty well) "Hideaway" remains a justly forgotten film, because it does not know how to convincingly tell a possibly good story, populates its' world with abysmally flat characters, loses tempo along the way, just to bring us to an absurd ending, devoid of any real payoff.
Hideaway is action supernantel film it the movie has a very good soundtrack it is one of best movies i seen.
First I read the book Hideaway then saw the movie later.
Based on a Dean R Koontz novel (obviously not one of his best) and scripted by the screenwriter of SE7EN, Andrew Kevin Walker, the film at least had something going for it, but it totally lacks any of the disturbing force that SE7EN may have had.The use of a psychic link to a serial killer is nothing new and goes back decades, it has been done much better in the past.
Alfred Molina and Rae Dawn Chong appear in small roles and are not given much to do.The thing I didn't like about this film was that it obviously thinks it's good, and it isn't.
Koontz novelisation, which bestows a capable bunch of actors in the likes of Jeff Goldblum, Christine Lahti, Alicia Silverstone (a wholesome turn before making herself big in "Clueless"), Jeremy Sisto and Alfred Molina.
Director Brett Leonard (from the "The Dead Pit") brings to the feature the computer special effects that shrouded his previous sci-fi film "The Lawnmower Man", but for "Hideaway" it's only used in minor doses in the sequences involving the afterlife / out of body experiences.
Jeremy Sisto and Jeff Goldblum's characters have both had near death experiences and are brought back with a connection.
The story is that of a man, played by Jeff Goldblum, who, following a near-death experience, finds he is psychically linked with a serial killer, played by Jeremy Sisto, who decides to go after Goldblum's daughter (Alicia Silverstone).
"Hideaway" was one of the worst films I have ever seen (and not in a "so bad it's good" way, either). |
tt0119802 | Snitch | The film opens with Jason Collins (Rafi Gavron) video-chatting with his childhood best friend Craig Johnson (James Allen McCune). Craig brings up a box drugs that he is attempting to move and attempts to persuade Jason to let Craig ship the drugs to his house, offering him a share of the profit. Despite Jason's reluctance, Craig texts him the tracking number for the package. Meanwhile, John Matthews (Dwayne Johnson), Jason's estranged father and owner of a construction company, sees Daniel James (Jon Bernthal), a new employee, doing overtime work, and helps him with it.
A courier delivers Craig's package to the Collins's house. Jason signs for the package and brings it to his room, discovering that it contains a large amount of pills in a bag, as well as a tracking device. DEA officers arrive and break into the house; Jason flees but is chased down by Agent Cooper (Barry Pepper).
While at a barbecue, John receives a call from his ex-wife Sylvie (Melina Kanakaredes) about Jason having been arrested. John and Sylvie meet at the police station and have a tense discussion while waiting to be allowed to speak to Jason. An investigator speaks with them, saying that Craig set Jason up in a sting operation to reduce his own sentence after being caught. Jason's charges carry a minimum of 10 years in prison.
Jason is arraigned in court where he is denied bail. He is put in an interview room with, John, Sylvie, and the investigator, who pressures Jason to plead guilty to narcotics trafficking and set up one of his own friends for trafficking in order to reduce his own sentence, as Craig had done.
Using his connections, John arranges to meet with local US Attorney Joanne Keeghan (Susan Sarandon), who is running a very aggressive anti-drug campaign to bolster her chances for election to Congress. Keeghan agrees to reduce Jason's sentence if John will inform on a drug dealer, but states that he'll receive little help from her and that the risk will be all his.
John visits Jason in prison, observing that Jason is being brutalized by other prisoners. John feels responsible because he was not there for his son, and realizes that Jason may be killed before he finishes his prison sentence.
Agent Cooper leads a task force which will monitor any dealings John arranges to use as evidence for an arrest. John searches through his employee records and finds that Daniel James has two prior distribution convictions. Daniel is currently leading a clean life to avoid a third strike, because he now has a wife and young son to care for. John offers twenty thousand dollars if Daniel will simply introduce him to a dealer; Daniel initially refuses, but later agrees so that he can move his family to a safer apartment, though he is unaware that John is acting as an informant.
Daniel introduces John to Malik (Michael Kenneth Williams), an extremely dangerous, high-ranking local drug dealer, who like Daniel has two strikes. Explaining that his construction business cannot stay afloat in the current economy without a supplement to its revenues, John offers to run nearly limitless amounts of drugs at almost zero risk in his freight trucks. Because his is a legitimate business, the trucks avoid suspicion and carry too much freight to be thoroughly searched. Malik agrees under the condition that John and Daniel drive the initial run themselves.
John and Agent Cooper arrange for several wire taps to be put in place to record the transactions involved. John drives to the pick-up point near the Mexican border. In the process, a rival gang ambushes the pick-up, but John manages a daring escape, impressing cartel kingpin Juan Carlos "El Topo" Pintera (Benjamin Bratt), whose men fight off the hijackers. John successfully completes his end of the deal, delivering the drugs to Malik while under surveillance by Agent Cooper.
Malik mentions a meeting with cartel members higher than himself; Cooper, hoping to catch the higher priority targets, does not move to arrest Malik as agreed. Keeghan claims Cooper did the right thing and reneges on her promise to reduce Jason's sentence, unless John cooperates in the second meeting. John, outraged, demands in turn that Jason be released when the job is completed. Daniel learns of John's arrangement with the DEA and is furious, saying that the cartel will kill John, Daniel, and their families if the truth comes out. John and Daniel send their families into hiding.
John meets with Pintera, who wants him to run nearly $100 million in drug profits into Mexico, where the cartel's base of operations is located, and offers to make John a member of the cartel's inner circle if he succeeds. Keeghan is ecstatic about the prospect of arresting such a high-profile dealer, but Cooper has a change of heart and tries to talk John out of doing the run, suspecting the cartel will kill him afterward.
John devises a plan to free himself and Daniel from both the government and the cartel. During the run, John is able to escape Cooper's surveillance. At the same time, Daniel raids Malik's house, killing his guards and mortally wounding him. Before dying, Malik reveals Pintera's cell phone number to Daniel. John calls Cooper and has him track both his new cell phone and Pintera's phone, effectively giving Cooper both the money and the kingpin at once. The cartel realize John is an informant and he leads them on a highway chase and shoot-out before escaping. Cartel members and the money are seized by Cooper's men. Pintera is surrounded by federal agents; unwilling to engage in a gun battle because his young son is with him, he surrenders.
Jason is released the next day. John and his family go into the witness protection program; Daniel refuses, saying he and his family will go into hiding on their own. Because Daniel has lost his job, John leaves Daniel the large reward check that John was supposed to receive for the capture of Pintera. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0103251 | White Palace | 27-year-old St. Louis advertising executive, Max Baron (James Spader), has completely shut himself off from the world in the two years since the auto accident that killed his wife Janey (Maria Pitillo). On the way to his friend's bachelor party, Neil (Jason Alexander), Max picks up 50 burgers from a diner called White Palace. At the party, he discovers that the order is six burgers short and, to the ridicule of his friends, returns to the restaurant to complain. In a moment that defines his initial character, Max declares, "It's the principle." He is roundly mocked by his cohorts.
At the White Palace diner, after a heated exchange occurs between Max and a 43-year-old waitress, Nora Baker (Susan Sarandon), she exasperatedly refunds him. Max returns to the party but leaves upset and heads to a bar, where he runs into Nora. Drunk, she flirts with him, but he pushes her advances away and starts to leave. She senses he's upset, asks why, and discovers his wife died in a car crash. She discloses that she lost her young son to leukemia. The 'connection' prevents him from leaving. They have a few drinks and eventually he gives her a lift home to East St. Louis, but drunkenly crashes his car into her mailbox. She invites him to spend the night at her house, with the couch as his bed. Max starts dreaming about his late wife, then wakes up to find Nora performing fellatio on him. They end up having passionate sex.
After visiting his wife's grave on the second anniversary of her death, Max returns to White Palace to watch a busy Nora from a distance. He visits her at home with the pretext of replacing the broken mailbox, but instead they begin a relationship. Max becomes more relaxed and cheerful around Nora and at his work, but remains reluctant to reveal their relationship to his family and friends. At one point, he gets frustrated that all he and Nora do are sit and watch TV in her house. She firmly reminds him of their differences in age and social backgrounds.
Nora is angry after Max has lied to her about his friend Neil's wedding and that he didn't take her. They argue about how Max keeps their relationship a secret and that he is probably ashamed of being seen with her. Nora's sister, Judy (Eileen Brennan), meets Max the following day and explains to him, in Nora's absence, how they were abandoned as children and that she left a young Nora to fend for herself. Judy also explains that Nora's son drowned.
While at the supermarket with Nora, Max leaves her at the counter and runs into Neil's wife, Rachel (Rachel Chagall), who invites him and his "mystery woman" to Thanksgiving. At Max's apartment, Nora hears a message on his answering machine inviting them to the Horowitz's for Thanksgiving. Nora brings up the subject to an initially hesitant Max; however, they resolve to attend as a couple. At the Thanksgiving dinner with Neil, Rachel, Mrs. Baron (Renee Taylor), Max's friends, and the Horowitz extended family make Nora uncomfortable. Following an argument between Nora and Neil's father, she walks out, Max and his mother following. After the dinner, Nora and Max argue in her house over what had happened and she tells him to leave.
Some time later, Max finds Nora's house empty and a note explaining to him that she left and that he shouldn't come looking for her. He visits White Palace and is informed that Nora quit. He goes to a brunch with friends and meets Heidi Solomon (Kim Myers), but cannot stop thinking about Nora. He then realizes that everyone around him seem stuck-up with their "perfect" upper-middle class lives. He travels to New York to find Judy and is informed that Nora is waitressing in a restaurant. Max finds Nora there and confesses his love to her, revealing that he quit his job and moved to New York to be with her. They reunite, kissing tenderly as patrons of the restaurant look on. Max playfully clears the table of its contents and lays a laughing Nora down on it, climbing on top of her and passionately kissing her, while the whole restaurant cheers and applauds. | paranormal, romantic | train | wikipedia | White palace has a great sexual dynamic, clearly Susan Sarandon's character (Nora Baker) is a sexually charged self confident woman who is at least 10 years or so older than James Spader's character (Max Baron).
This movie shows how deep attraction and passion can change people's lives (perhaps for the better) and overcome class/personality and age differences.The first and perhaps most noticeable aspect is one of the hottest and more believable seduction scenes in a movie, where Nora shows a raw animal passion for Max rarely shown in movies (and when it is is shown in an unfavorable light, e.g. Single White Female).
Susan Sarandon pulls off this challenging scene with great passion AND dignity.The May/December romance with the older lady is shown in a healthy light (not like say The Graduate).But more important than the age dynamic, is the deep attraction between Nora and Max, which goes strongly across traditional cultural differences.
This movie has a much more interesting love story than say "Pretty Woman"..
The loss and love Spader communicates with just his eyes is a sight to behold and Sarandon projects a dichotomy of neediness and strength.This movie contains one of the best endings in movie history, right up there with Green Card.
If anyone can carry off a believable and appealing older woman/younger man romance to a mass audience, it's Susan Sarandon.
It is just a simple tale of a younger rich man who shacks up with an older much poorer, working class woman who works at a hamburger joint called White Palace.
Susan Sarandon picks up a drunk James Spader in a bar and takes him home for a night of sweet lovin'.
Like it said on the poster of this movie: "The story of a younger man and a bolder woman.".
The story is about a young man ( Yuppie)who falls in love with a woman who is 15 years his senior.
A perfectly happy end.The reason why I watched this movie was because I'm truly one of the biggest Susan Sarandon fans.
She shines absolutely beautiful in this movie.And James Spader has performed one of his bests roles ever.
I bet you do"and Nora answers: "And I bet you don't" You must see the look on Sherri's faceI think it's a great movie because normally hollywood is afraid of a love story about a young man and an older woman.There should be more of those movies because some people think it's strange when a older woman has a love relation with a much younger man.
Sarandon is very good; she is a "down-at-heel" waitress, almost twenty years older than the character portrayed by Spader.
Spader's background is respectable, white-collar but bored, he meets Sarandon after missing his deceased wife.Films like this are sometimes underrated.
Life doesn't always work out how we want, "perfect couples" aren't necessarily happy, and the Spader character was actually quite good, not being the negative insensitive character here.
Truth to tell I only watched this movie recently because I consider Susan Sarandon one of our finest actors.
Everyone is writing here about excellent acting of Susan Sarandon here, I agree, but I want to say about James Spader.
In this movie his performing is brilliant, he looks very convincingly in the role of young Jewish guy, white-collar worker, who is trying to cope with the loss of his beloved wife.
I regret that young James Spader hadn't been filmed enough by really good directors and in the pairings with really high-class actresses, like here, in "White palace".
James spader's night after rejection of her rings true, and for most people it would end there....but he goes on and they really learn off each other...maybe as i have found in real life it would end, but i think that love is about two people coming together having contact being together loving and learning from each other.So may people that i see staying together in so called sensible compatible marriages don't have what you see these two having together for however long........
"White Palace" is one of my favorite movies, and I am amazed at the negative comments about Susan Sarandon's armpits.
"White Palace" is a very moving and sexually energetic movie that shows you can be happy in your own way.
After a raucous bachelor party, he goes to a bar on the wrong side of town, and there he meets Nora(Susan Sarandon), a worker at White Palace, who refunded Max earlier, asks him what he's doing at this place.
Susan Sarandon and James Spader are excellent actors, and their performances *almost* save it from the source material.Almost.
I would have a hard time believing that ANY self respecting guy would put up with being treated like Sarandon's character treats Spader's.
We're clearly expected to think that Spader's character has come down to Earth and recognized what's really important, but the only thing the movie proves is that (maybe) he's a masochist in search of a sadist.
If you removed Sarandon's character's difference in age, coarse language, and casual racism, you'd still have someone I wouldn't want to be in the room with: I'd have a difficult time believing that Spader would tolerate her character if if she were a hot 19 year old.
It's creepy there, and it's creepy here.Every aspect of this film is based on seeing Sarandon's character's world as preferable to Spader's, and it absolutely is not...not because of disrespect to older women, poor women, or unrefined women, but because she's simply irritating.
The fact that there is a 20 year disparity to Entrapment's 40 says more about Hollywood's tolerance of old men than it does about its condescension towards older women: this movie screws up so badly that in some scenes the shallow rich people are considerably more sympathetic than the "earthy" heroine.I suppose that middle aged women are every bit as entitled to wish fulfillment as middle aged men, but creepy is creepy.
In this movie, the powerful Susan Sarandon plays a waitress at this cheesy little hamburger joint and gets hooked up with James Spader, a clueless rich guy who is controlled by the combination of his weak will and his overbearing parents.
But who really cares about any of this?The real reason to see this movie is that, while sleeping next to Spader, Sarandon wakes up in the middle of the night and decides to seduce him.
Yes she does.I must say that since watching this movie at its original release, I have had a steady stream of impure thoughts about Susan Sarandon.
At its core is the relationship of a young man (Max, played by Spader) of high social standing with a poor, much older woman (Nora, played by Sarandon).
But problems arise for them, because of the social and age differences, which are the main twists in the romance.The White Palace is a basically a simple love story, with above average acting (Sarandon and Spader both have their high and low points) and moderately interesting characters.
Just a lovely, believable story of boy-girl love transcending class.Good production; crisp writing; good direction and actors who can follow that direction, and then some.The only remonstrance I have is offset by the simplicity of the straight-up story, as it stands: The basic scenario is pretty simple, and I don't consider it a "spoiler" to outline it here: Professional man suffering from personal love-loss meets working class gal 16(?) years his senior.
They start an affair based on their shared losses despite their differences.These are two good performances from great actors of interesting damaged people.
This has all of that.I won't go saying that this is a fantastic film, it's not going to be on the top 250 list with Shawshank, but what it does attempt to do it does very well, tell a compelling story about two lonely people in different stages of life from two different socioeconomic levels finding each other first for a physical relationship and over time that relationship deepens into something quite beautiful.Spader is a white collar ad exec who seemingly has everything a 27 year old would want, except he lost his wife two years prior and is still quite depressed and mourning her loss.
His friends want to see him find someone new, but it doesn't seem to work for him as he just isn't receptive to the women he is paired with.He find Susan Sarandon in a bar, she's drinking and they start off awkwardly but there is a palatable connection that these two actors have that is unmistakable.
A quite sexy (in my opinion) love scene occurs and in the next morning while Spader is trying his best to be a gentleman but still get out of her home after what he believes is a one night stand there is something there that these two wounded people connect on.The thing that I love about this movie is it's honesty.
It's the theme of social expectations and the burdens they cause (rightfully or not) and the impact they can have on a relationship.It really is a shame that films like this just don't get produced any longer as it's nice to see good actors bring interesting characters to life in a very well produced slice of life film..
So when an acquaintance--really, a friend of a friend of mine living in the dorms--one night heard me glow over that movie, he scoffed at that and said that it wasn't as good as White Palace, which had just come out recently, in terms of the love scenes and scenarios involved.That stuck with me for a long time, LONG past my infatuation with Miss Roberts, and when I would years later, read another(sadly,I believe the last)novel from Glenn Savan, the author of the book for which White palace was adapted, I was so impressed with it that I decided that if I had a chance to catch White Palace, I would.Just recently, I ran across a copy at the local Video store, and while I probably SHOULD'VE bought it(it was going VERY cheap), I instead rented it and finally checked it out.
While I cannot say I was overly impressed with the WHOLE package of the movie, I WAS taken by the chemistry between James Spader(as a numbed, still-grieving widower architect) and Susan Sarandon(as a Burger joint waitress/cashier whose blythe spirit veils an unhappy past of her own)and found the interpersonal dynamic of the two characters interesting.
I cannot help but feel that there may've been layers to the novel and story that were truncated(and thus shorting potentially interesting story buttresses such as Jason Alexander as Spader's longtime and newly married pal and the keen, palmist sister of Sarandon's played by the late Eileen Brennan)in order to focus in on the meet, date, escalation, conflict and resolution of the romance/relationship between Max(Spader) and Nora(Sarandon).Overall, an appealing, sexy story that might lack the "zazz" of a Pretty Woman or Ghost(the two biggies of calendar year 1990), but a very worthy--if not superior--offering in regards to a romance movie.
I feel like if I ever spoke to that gentleman again, I'd say that while White Palace ISN'T quite everything I might've wanted to see when I was eighteen, it was a much better "grown-up" movie.
(Sarandon so often seems to play that kind of a self-righteous character.) Spader was compelling in this film--at least until the last ridiculous scene.
There is one sequence, when Spader and Sarandon visit his "intellectual", upper-class friends, where the movie produces genuine tension and discomfort, just like it's supposed to.
I know I don't watch movies because of people's looks but if it wasn't for Spader I'd have never seen this one...
Well, let me just get this out of the way -- I sure as hell hope I can look half as great at "40-something" as Susan does in this film!
Mostly a feel good but definitely not just fluff -- wondered if I would find those two believable as a couple and ended up thinking they were a great match...
Oh my goodness, I wanna make love to Susan Sarandon!.
Good romance and Spader and Sarandon do have a certain chemistry on-screen.
I will be frank: if Susan Sarandon had not been in this movie, I would not have watched.
First of all, because Susan Sarandon is so unattractive in this film (yes, I know she's supposed to be unattractive) I had no rooting interest in seeing these two characters get together.
The bumpy progress of their affair plays convincingly, largely due to the sensitive, nuanced performance of Susan Sarandon, who articulates her character's complexities through body language and facial expression (watch those eyes at all times).
When I first saw this film, I was closer to Max's twenty-seven than to Nora's forty-three, and I understood the characters in a different way than I did yesterday, when Nora is now a young woman to me.
Etc. As different as day and night and against all odds, Spader and Sarandon fall in love in "White Palace", a sort of misguided upside-down and improbable Cinderella story.
Sarandon and Spader are good as usual and the film is artistically and technically up to snuff.
There is a huge hump to get over in this movie, suspending disbelief at the relationship between Max and Nora.
The problem is not just them coming from such different social backgrounds; it is she is such an unlikeable character.The prolonged soft-porn scenes early in the movie made me squirm.
Please get on with the movie." I turned away until these scenes were over.When you meet Max's mother, his shallow old girlfriends and friends you begin to see why Nora's shoot-from-the-lip directness could have some appeal (but certainly not enough for his obsessive sexual attraction.) Perhaps pity has some part of the appeal but again nothing to explain the obsession.Spader is always a treat to watch and that applies to this film as well, even though he grossed me out with the sex scenes..
Sarandon's character is so rough, crude and repulsive (the older part didn't bother me) and it was embarrassing to watch too-fancy-and-fluffy James Spader gaze longingly at her and ache for her.
This movie has some very nice scenes in it, especially the early ones between Spader & Sarandon, but by the second half it dithers away its potential with sitcom scenes of stereotypical jewish characters (the mother especially) that are embarrassing and entirely gratuitous.
This is a straightforward and touching film, and a treat for anyone who enjoys watching actors - especially either of these two - playing small scale scenes recognisable from every day life.
Well aside from the obvious point that Susan Sarandon (Nora,) looks radiant most of the time, and probably never looked better on film, Spader's character (Max,) is not quite as preppy as he appears, and has more in common with Nora than first meets the eye.
It has some inspired comic touches - "the sandwich" springs to mind - a solid chemistry between the two stars, and some touching pieces of observation such as when Max tenderly explores Nora's belongings reminiscently of Garbo in Queen Christina.If you fancy a touching love story, well acted, with stand back and don't get in the way direction, and with gentle undercurrents of social commentary, then The White Palace is worth a shot.
I know everyone has a right to their opinion but this movie is so little known I truly hope at least one person reads some POSITVE reviews on here and gives it a shot.I do NOT think Sarandon looked unattractive here as people have said but if she did, it really doesn't matter because the focus of the story has little to do with physical attractiveness.
While I don't believe the end result for a second, this film will do whatever it takes to make us believe the relationship between 44 year old Nora Baker and 27 year old Max Baron can work.
It's the idea of who and what they are outside the personal relationship.Susan Sarandon's performance as the waitress is a winner because she shows her as fearless, dynamic, and flawed..but she doesn't ask for pity and accepts that life doesn't always deal everyone a great hand.
It's often 3 things that make a movie: a story, interesting characters, and competent actors.
Well, actually, one out of three is bad.The one thing this movie has going for it is good acting.
There are some good performances (though not much screen time) by supporting actors -- Jason Alexander, Kathy Bates, and Eileen Brennan (perhaps the best characterization in the film).
The performances by Susan Sarandon and James Spader were top-rate which made their respective characters quite believable.
I really like the fact Susan Sarandon and James Spader teamed up together because they did make a good fine couple.
Now the reason why I gave this movie a 7/10 because, I didn't like how Sarandon's character Nora, was being a complete smart *** and just a slob.
I would rather see the personality more calmer and more smarter, Sarandon should've been better off if she did act that way for the film!Apart from that complaint, it was an alright movie!.
There are many occasions when I feel that I've been watching a different movie from the majority of people who submit a review to IMDb so it's very pleasant to be able to endorse the other positive opinions for this really fine film.
James Spader is also spot on as the twenty-seven year old yuppie widower who falls genuinely in love with Sarandon's forty-three year old waitress at the eponymous White Palace(clearly based on the White Castle hamburger chain).
I really, really, really, liked this movie and watch it every couple of months.
James Spader is great (and surprisingly sexy) in this movie.
Susan Sarandon plays just the right character.
The story is actually believable - that this young man could fall for an older woman.
I love James Spader - that's why I sat through this movie - not once (years ago), but twice (very recently). |
tt0279781 | Sorority Boys | The story starts out with the regular lives of three friends—Dave (Barry Watson), Adam (Michael Rosenbaum), and Doofer (Harland Williams)—who are head of the Social Committee in a frat house called KOK (Kappa Omicron Kappa). Spence, the socially-awkward KOK President, is hazing a group of new pledges, when Adam and Dave interrupt his ceremony, because they need the space for further partying. The KOK are known for throwing heavy parties and socially discriminating against the members of the sorority DOG (Delta Omicron Gamma), who regularly protest the actions of the KOK. The KOK in retaliation to the protests, launch plastic sex-toys at their sorority house. The next morning, the three are accused by the KOK President Spence, of squandering the other fraternity brothers' tuition money. They are then run out of the house for ruining the KOK members futures.
Doofer suggests that the secret video camera in Adam's room in the frat house, which Adam uses to record having sex with the Tri Pi's, may show who stole the money. In order to infiltrate the house, the three follow Doofer's plan of dressing up as women (however unattractive) to get inside. They are, however, unsuccessful as Adam's younger brother Jimmy, has moved into their room, and develops a crush on Adina (aka Adam). Then they are thrown out of the house when they are mistaken for members of DOG, which the KOK call "DOG-Catcher".
Adam, as Adina, tries to seduce his brother Jimmy to get the tape, by giving him a date-rape drug-laced drink while Jimmy does the same. Daisy (a.k.a. Dave) was supposed to back Adam up, but is falling for the DOG president Leah. Dave and Leah meet on the first night when Dave gets up in the middle of the night to take a shower thinking he will be alone and can shower as a man. However Leah, without her glasses, decides to shower as well and an awkward situation causes Daisy(Dave) to make a hasty escape back to his room. His relationship with Leah gets in the way of Adam's attempts to get the tape back. The DOG sisters end up on the KOK-Tail Cruise after they win the powder puff football game against the Tri Pis, which includes a ticket on the ship. The Tri Pi's get on the boat before the DOG girls can, saying "No DOGS Allowed!!". Doofer then "acquires" a speedboat and delivers the girls to the boat, who then "help" the Tri Pi's off the boat.
Leah dances with "Daisy", when she confesses that though it will be hard to have a lesbian relationship with Daisy, she is willing to commit if Daisy is. Daisy then tells Leah she is moving back to Minnesota. The two come to mutual understanding. While on the ship Dave needs to get out of his dress so he can meet with John Kloss and get a job in his company. He successfully gets John Kloss to accept his, Adam's, and Doofer's employment. While getting re-dressed as "Daisy" with Adam trying to help, Leah walks in and mistakenly thinks that Daisy(Dave)and Adina(Adam) are in a relationship, and the "Minnesota" excuse is fake. She storms out with Daisy following her.
Jimmy finds Adina(Adam) and asks her to dance. Afterward John Kloss grabs Leah on the butt cheek and she slaps him across the face. He then organizes another "DOG-Catcher" session to throw Leah overboard, for not being receptive to his advances. Dave, as Daisy, reveals who he is to stop them throwing her overboard, while Spence catches Doofer trying to find the tape, and Adina(Adam) shows he's male too. Both the KOK and the DOG are shocked at the situation. The KOK "High Council" is convened to determine their fate, when Dave accuses Spence of stealing the money, and Doofer produces the tape to prove it. The tapes shows Spence stealing the money while saying to himself "I'll teach them for humiliating me". He is then thrown overboard.
Later, back at the KOK house, Adam is named President. Afterward, he asks his brother Jimmy what happened the night they were "together", and tries to get reassurance that "nothing" happened, which Jimmy replies "Right". Dave meets with Leah and starts their relationship over, truthfully this time.
Sometime later, a life raft with all the Tri Pi's is still floating in the ocean somewhere, with every one of them severely sun burned. | humor, prank | train | wikipedia | Naturally, much of the laughs come as the "girls" are forced to adjust to their new roles and dealing with stuff like leg shaving and walking (badly) in heels, although in the process these formerly crude horndogs learn to start appreciating women as more than just object to either lust after (if they're hot) or make fun of (if they're not).
Her character's a bit of a modern movie cliche, like Julia Stiles in "10 Things I Hate About You" she's supposed to be this bitchy, angry, ugly man hating feminist but is simply too good natured and good looking to really fool anyone.
This is by no means a great comedy, it's definitely a "rent, don't buy" kind of movie, but considering I had no real expectations other that to get about 90 minutes of shut-off-your-brain entertainment, I must say it wasn't bad.6/10.
Most thought it was another mindless sex comedy , but actually I found it to be more better than some of the other gross out college comedies.When best friends Dave (Watson), Adam (Rosenbaum) & Doofer (Williams) are accused of stealing money for an end of the year party they are kicked out of their fraternity Kappa Omicron Kappa .
I have read a few other reviews for SORORITY BOYS in which the reviewer states that the movie is horribly written, cheesy acting, lame gags, etc...
My only response to those comments is, "What were you expecting?" A moving piece of great proportions, likely to be nominated for 10 Oscars???This movie is nothing more than an attempt to make some money off of those who are fans of "teen sex romps." Those who walked into this movie expecting a sophisticated film, you missed the point!!!
This movie is about cross-dressing guys, it's supposed to be cheesy and lame; and that is what makes it so funny.If taken at face value and appreciate it for what it is worth, SORORITY BOYS is a laugh riot.
While it is definitely not the milestone movie for the 2002 year, it is funny and worth the time (if you like these types of movies).Lesson Learned: Do not go see "teen" movies expecting to be moved, these movies are made for one reason and that is to make money off an audience.
For some good laughs, SORORITY BOYS rates a 6/10..
All in all, it was a feel-good comedy, and by the end of the movie you saw a lot of character development.
There are many people who are far too critical of movies and don't believe that they can be just for fun (you know who you are) but think they should have some deep philosophical meaning.
Ya, while ya wonder why nobody notices that they are guys, and Barry's love interest doesn't recognize that it's him, even though she is his study partner by day and they are "girlfriends" by night, but overlook that and enjoy an entertaining movie.
I mean, come'on, girls knocking guys out on the field is a little far fetched but it's a movie...you know..
If ya not looking for an Academy Award winner, and ya just want to be entertained and have a good laugh, this is the movie..
Sorority Boys is a meeting of Animal House and Some Like It Hot. Sad to say the mix didn't benefit the film.
Even Animal House looks like Hamlet by comparison.Barry Watson, Michael Rosenbaum, and Harland Williams are a trio of shallow fraternity boys who have the sexist attitudes so prevalent in college fraternities.
Our boys still in drag bond with the women in ways they never expected.You know the thing that struck me here is that Barry Watson has a nice growth of chest hair which was on display a few times on Seventh Heaven and other films.
Was this film worthy of that sacrifice Barry.Sorority Boys is strictly for the crowd that likes American Pie, Porky's, and Animal House.
This movie is probably for 12 year old boys and people who like the actors.
Long story short, there are just SO many things wrong with this movie that if you aren't the type who can shut off the critical or easily offended portions of your brain and just enjoy Michael Rosenbaum looking pretty in a mini-skirt and heels (or skinny girls in wet t-shirts for some of you) then you don't want to watch this movie..
This film has the most offensive RAPE scene in any movie I have ever watched.
He seemed quite good as a woman, really is a pretty boy.Good laughs in this film, it's cute, rude, funny, and just idiotic and I loved every minute of it - do it again!, do it again!
But, one thing I can't get over with movies like this is that the 3 guys are obvious male and not women, but everyone they see falls for the drag get-up.
I recommend it if you are wanting some semi-raunchy fun, but it is no where near as good as raunchy comedies like American Pie..
It's kind of brainless and stupid at times, but it's also really funny watching guys trying to be girls.
Three college guys temporarily pose as girls and join the Delta Omicron Gamma (DOG) sorority for free rent.
"Sorority Boys" is about three frat guys who go drag and pledge a sorority for reasons which, like most of the plot, are unimportant.
It is likely you have read other viewers' comments on Sorority Boys, so you will already know the plot summary.
The DVD includes a filmmaker's angle feature and a very funny behind-the-scenes featurette which shows the boy-to-girl transformation process (including leg waxing - hope the guys got paid extra for that).
No, I wasn't expecting "The Age of Innocence" from this film, but there have been some "guys in drag" classics over the years and I thought maybe this might be fun.
Am I the only person getting sick and tired of these pathetic attempts at humor?The surprising thing about Sorority Boys is how much potential the story actually has.
The plot is so handicapped of ideas, it becomes wound up in a love story so out of place, even the actors involved look as if they think it belongs in a different movie altogether.
Although we've seen guys in drag before (in much better movies), this film is not without unique humorous intentions.
Sorority Boys simply expects us to laugh at the utter stupidity of the characters.
My 10/10 may well be a sympathy vote, but who cares, the movie was hilarious and irresistible.The movie stars Barry Watson from 7th Heaven and Michael Rosenbaum from Smallville star as Dave and Adam, two high-standing people from the KOK Fraternity.
They then dress up as women under the names Daisy, Adina, and Roberta and pledge the DOG Sorority, where all the ugly and weird girls go.
This isn't a must own or highly recommended, just the perfect movie to watch if you want to kill time or crave something simple-yet-funny..
And I just can't stop laughing when I see guys try to act like girls.
The subject matter can actually be thought of seriously in a way, if you think about what is going on on college campuses today.The thing that makes this film is the acting, and the unaffected way the guys get into it.
All the actors did so well with their roles (I especially like Michael Rosenbaum; he's also my favorite in "Smallville) and I loved the fact they had actors from "Animal House" in it!
The soundtrack is great, too!This movie reminds me of a cross between "Bosom Buddies" and "Some Like It Hot." I also think the guys pull off their drag costumes pretty well and are able to be in touch with their "feminine" side.
I have seen this movie 3 times and it never gets old.I always catch this movie on the TV and I laugh and laugh at all the jokes.It is a really good gross out comedy (one of the best gross out college comedies actually) and this movie is worth renting out if you haven't seen already.I don't think I have seen any of the actors in any other movies before seeing Sorority Boys.I thought the ending was really weird.Don't believe the negative reviews until you have seen this movie then you will have a different opinion.It had a good plot also and I really liked the soundtrack for this movie.10/10 is my rating..
Sorority Boys was never about that.That being said, if you have enough humility, you'll admit that this movie is pretty darn funny!
Sure, the emphasis on sex might seem unnecessary sometimes, but that's very little compared to all the other scenes that make us cry from laughing!Harland Williams is hilarious in the role of Doofer/Roberta (who strangely resembles the Sorority founder!), who becomes the best friend of all the D.O.G. sisters.
You can never know if it really was in the original script or if he made everything up, but it sure is working and the timing is perfect (and how about the way he takes care of the blaring alarm clock in the morning!)!Michael Rosenbaum (Adam/Adina) as the macho-but-willing-to-do-anything-to-get-him-back-in-the-K.O.K.-house guy also gives a great performance, trying to walk on high heels, looking as sexy has he can be under those circumstances (ie : not very gracious!).
The movie was completly hilarious, a lot of humor a la Porky's/American Pie/Animal House.
> Funny (low brow) movie....cheap sex jokes, but a film with no morals that > gains morals at the end....kind of...
> but there are many points to this film that make it funny, (the nasty > stuff aside) > bunch of guys dressing as girls to get back into the frat house...
I have a weakness for teen movies, and Sorority Boys gave me the laugh I needed.
In what apparently passes for high concept these days, three fraternity brothers of the Kappa Omega Kappa are accused of ripping off the fraternal members dues (kept conveniently in huge wads of cash in an upstairs safe) and are tossed out in a fit of revenge by the spurned pledgemaster (who has the hair of Buster Poindexter and the voice of Dan Aykroyd in Caddyshack II.)Like wolves in women's clothing, the guys unsuccessfully try to break back in to retrieve a potentially incriminating videotape and are thrown out on their wigs and high heels to the doorstep of the Delta Omicron Gamma sorority where they are immediately welcomed with open arms.
The boys will learn valuable lessons about what its like to be a woman while at the same time teaching the `DOGs' how to stand up for themselves against the hot pink ladies from that "other" sorority.Truly disgusting!!!!.
Dave (BARRY WATSON), Adam (MICHAEL ROSENBAUM) and Doofer (HARLAND WILLIAMS) are three guys who enjoy living in the Kappa Omicron Kappa house and throwing wild and sexist parties that irritate Leah (MELISSA SAGEMILLER), an outspoken feminist and head of the local chapter of Delta Omicron Gamma.Yet, when Spence (BRAD BEYER), the KOK president, announces that the money the fraternity has been collecting for an important alumni cruise has been stolen by the three, they're immediately chased from the premises.
While there, they meet other sorority sisters including Patty (KATHRYN STOCKWOOD), who thinks she's a freak because of her height, Katie (HEATHER MATARAZZO) who has a rather loud speaking voice, and Frederique (YVONNE SCIO), a rather hairy French student.As the men try to keep up their ruse, they soon learn the trials and tribulation of being a less than attractive woman at the college, all while Dave begins to fall for Leah who sees him as a compassionate female friend and possible lover.
The story is something I will not discuss because when other things are right in a movie like this, the story doesn't need to be very good.
Those things can be pretty funny but not when the three guys look like guys in women clothes.
The movie has done nothing to actually make these guys look like girls.
The guys who do not look like girls end up in a house where only girls live.
The other two guys are called Adam (Michael Rosenbaum) and Doofer (Harland Williams), just for the record.If this movie could be good in another way I don't know.
If you want to see a funny movie about a man in women clothes you better watch something like 'Tootsie' or' Mrs. Doubtfire'..
Seriously, you've seen it before, there are better movies out (finally), and even if you like cheap humor and eye candy, this either does it badly or lacks it nearly entirely.
I gave it a 9 out of 10 for the great acting of many and for the funny bits in the script making me laugh out loud.*****spoiler*****At the very, very end of the movie when the Tri-Pi's are adrift at sea, one Tri - Pi asks another , "Are you through with (name)'s leg?" making one think that they were grooming each other.
Sorority Boys (2002) Barry Watson, Michael Rosenbaum, Harland Williams, Melissa Sagemiller, Tony Denman, Brad Beyer, Kathryn Stockwood, Heather Matarazzo, D: Wallace Wolodarsky.
Sorority Boys is nothing more than a good time waster.The film does have some funny moments and the three male leads all have good chemistry together.
a movie where men are forced to act and behave like women?
We want to see our women as sexual objects which is why we can only see Sorority Boys as a crude sex comedy.
Granted their are a lot of lousy movies with good message (e.g. The New Guy and Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo) but Sorority Boys has a strong story that wasn't haphazardly constructed.
Overall, Sorority Boys is a shallow movie - cheap humor, sight gags, and hammy acting reign supreme here.
A silly college sex farse with a trio of frat boys having to pretend to be sorority girls in order to clear their names.
You look like a man!"And the biggest laugh was right at the end of the credits, the girls ate each other!!!
3 Popular college frat guys dressing as ugly girls to get into a sorority house?
I guarantee you will laugh all the way watching the 88 minutes movie.
Barry Watson, Michael Rosenbaum, Harland WilliamsI liked the set-up of the movie, Three disorderly college guys are banished from there frat house for theft, (Which they didn't do, of course).
I thought this movie would have been another boring, typical American comedy, consisting of corny laughs at everyday things that aren't funny, but I was wrong!This comedy sees three fraternity boys kicked out of their house (K.O.K) for stealing.
There are great comical moments (sword-fighting with dildo's, beating the hell out of some horny guy who's trying to get it on with one of the guys), some interesting looks at the French (all French girls are very hairy is implied strongly!) and a kick-ass Football game where the three guys actually take on girls!!Sure, the movie is one of your typical teen-comedies, but better.
this is a real movie about 3 college dudes getting kicked out of thier frat house cause they were framed for stealing money, so they must dress up like girls to get back in and get evidence.
Sorority Boys is about 20% Tootsie, 30% Animal House, 30% Lame Plug for then WB Stars Rosenbaum and Barry Watson (WB's Baskets Full of Puppies Romp Seventh Heaven), and 20 more percent Lame-Ass Missed Joke "Comedy" in the vein of Tomcats!
it adds up!Which is more than I can say for the Plot of Sorority Boys, unfortunately!Barry Watson plays Dave, a Senior in College with a Penchant for using women for sex and superficiality to excel in socitey.
I think we're all used to these by now though!In short Sorority Boys isn't one of those films you should buy on DVD immediately, but passing an evening while watching it on cable can't be bad.
unlike so many other brain-dead college flicks, the humor in this movie actually compels you to laugh out loud and then keep going - now isn't that the goal of comedy?
Getting cheap laughs by putting men in frocks.Other people have commented how the three boys in this movie still look like guys in drag.
It wouldn't be funny if the actors actually looked like women when in drag, would it.But this is the same old tired formula of men experiencing things from a women's perspective and becoming the better person for it.
Neither should we I suppose.The boys,(Barry Watson, Harland Williams and Michael Rosenbaum) have been kicked out of their men's, Fraternity House at University and in drag have been accepted into a women's or Sorority house.
Cheap laughs are just that, easily won and if the P.C. cap is left at the door, as it is usually these days, Sorority Boys will provide some chuckles.Adam's (Michael Rosenbaum) tryst with his erstwhile little brother Jimmy (Tony Denman) at the Frat House was good for a giggle or two but it was hard to buy the rest.
And it's obvious that films like Sorority Boys do little to entice people to behave more nicely towards one another.
SORORITY BOYS STARRING: Barry Watson, Harland Williams, and Michael RosenbaumSorority Boys is the perfect teen movie.
Frat boys, sorority girls, crazy parties, drinking, drugs, sex, college scene.
Guys dressed as girls ((And actually look pretty convincing!)) Sorority Boys is one of the funniest - and perverted- teen movies to come out in a long time.
Three obnoxious college boys (Barry Watson, Michael Rosenbaum, Harland Williams) treat girls like dirt and enjoy it.
I saw SORORITY BOYS last night and the first thing I noticed about the movie was how great the comedic performances by Barry Watson (Teaching Mrs. Tingle), Harland Williams (Dumb & Dumber, There's Something About Mary, Half Baked, and Freddy Got Fingered), and Michael Rosenbaum (TV's Smallville) were. |
tt0019422 | Steamboat Willie | Mickey Mouse pilots a river steamboat, suggesting that he himself is the captain. He cheerfully whistles "Steamboat Bill" and sounds the boat's three whistles. Soon the real captain, Pete, appears and orders Mickey off the bridge. Mickey blows a raspberry at Pete, and then Pete attempts to kick him but Mickey rushes away in time and Pete kicks himself in the rear accidentally. Mickey rushes down the stairs, slips on a bar of soap on the boat's deck and lands in a bucket of water. A parrot laughs at him, and Mickey throws the bucket at it.
Pete, who has been watching the whole thing, pilots the steamboat himself. He bites off some chewing tobacco and spits into the wind. The spit flies backward and rings the boat's bell. Amused by this Pete spits again, but it hits himself in the face, making him fuss.
The steamboat makes a stop at "Podunk Landing" to pick up a cargo of various livestock. Just as they set off again, Minnie appears, running to catch the boat before it leaves. Mickey does not see her in time, but she runs after the boat along the shore and Mickey takes her on board by hooking the cargo crane to her underwear.
Landing on deck, Minnie accidentally drops a guitar and some sheet music for the song "Turkey in the Straw" which are eaten by a goat. The two mice use the goat's body as a phonograph which they play by turning its tail like a crank. Mickey uses various objects on the boat as percussion accompaniment and "plays" the animals like musical instruments. This ends with them using a cow's teeth to play the song as a xylophone.
Finally Captain Pete is unamused and puts Mickey to work peeling potatoes. In the potato bin, another parrot appears in the port hole and laughs at him again. The mouse throws a peeled potato at him, knocking him into the river below. The film ends with Mickey laughing. | revenge, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0083111 | Southern Comfort | The film begins in the spring and documents Eads' life through the following winter. Eads falls in love with Lola, a transgender woman. He spends those remaining warm days in the company of his "chosen family": Maxwell, Cas, and "the rest". That summer, his mother and father drive ten hours to visit Robert, who is still their daughter in their eyes. Later that year, Eads makes his last appearance at the Southern Comfort Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, a prominent transgender gathering. Already feeling ill, he addresses a crowd of 500 and takes Lola to what is for them a prom that never was. Shortly after the conference, Eads dies in a nursing home with his chosen family.
After Eads' death, his ashes were spread across the family farm around a lone Christmas tree which was to symbolize Robert's many changes and blossomings in life.
Eads' friends, Tom and Debbie King, also appear in the film. They saved Eads' life when he collapsed in a pool of his own blood while staying with them. They initially sought treatment for Eads but were unable to locate a doctor willing to treat a transgender man.
Robert's lifelong struggle to have his outer appearance match his inner self is a salient theme in the movie. All persons portrayed in the movie wrestle with themes of rejection from others, rejection of self, feeling ostracized from humanity and ultimately crafting their own lives and personal support systems. | tragedy, violence, humor | train | wikipedia | I have been an enthusiastic fan of Walter Hill's 1981 film, Southern Comfort, since childhood, and I believe that it is one of the most perfect movies of that decade in terms of its ability to maintain intensity to a nail-biting conclusion.
Unlike contemporary survival horror movies where one never gets the impression that the characters are actually outdoors at any point in the film, Southern Comfort is rugged to an extreme, with the actors constantly wading ankle-deep through swamp lands in the middle of winter, since filmmakers quickly determined that the filming location would be too hazardous during the summer season.
A National Guard squad gets stranded in Cajun country swamps, and are victim to attacks from the locals who consider that it's their land, and the film predictably proceeds in having the soldiers killed one at a time while they also destroy each-other because of their increasing paranoia.The score and cinematography are great, as is the acting.
A bizarre yet excellent paranoia thriller that takes place in a swamp in the Louisana where eight National Guard members who are on a routine reconnaissance excerise, unwillingly and intentionally start an exhausting battle of wills and survival with some Cajuns who know the swamps like if their own backyard.Director Walter Hill ("48 Hours", "Undisputed") and his screen-writers (David Giler and Michael Kane) have unveiled an expected surprise that surpasses even my expectations of a top-notch thriller.
The look, the feel, and especially - the music fit the atmosphere like it should be and I was satisfied with that.Plus, the movie ads for "Southern Comfort" don't lie here and what happens in the film shows very clearly why..
Most of them are just a cheap excuse to make fun of stereotypical rednecks and depict gratuitous violence, but some are truly great films that come damn near to the quality level of "Deliverance" itself, like Walter Hill's "Southern Comfort".
A group of National Guardsmen led by Hardin(Powers Boothe)and Spencer(Keith Carradine)get on the bad side of swamp-dwelling Cajuns while conducting maneuvers in the bayou.Bloodshed ensues.Hardin and Spencer must then go on the run through the Louisiana swamps if they're to survive.This violent and exciting survival thriller owes a lot to John Boorman's fantastic "Deliverance".Walter Hill does a fine job of showing how an area as large as a bayou can be claustrophobic and the ultra-intense finale shows some top-notch editing.The acting is great and the script raises some serious questions about the behaviour of man."Southern Comfort" can also be seen as an allegorical treatment of the Vietnam conflict.8 out of 10.A must-see!.
This little gem is a moral story about how things can go wrong, very badly, when someone for a lark opens fire with blanks - those you shoot at have no chance to know that and thus rightfully shoot back, which starts a killing spree from both sides.One side is a troop out of the Loisiana National Guard on exercise in the swamps, the other is the locals, who enjoy their French culture and life out in the swamp.None is more evil than the other, none is more mad than the other, but the soldiers are far from home, and out of their element.Walter Hill, the director and co-writer of Southern Comfort, does a very good job in this tale clearly inspired by the events in Viet Nam. Hill is maybe more known for such diverse films as 48 hours, Brewster's millions and Last Man Standing, and as the producer of Alien and Tales from the Crypt,.Andrew Laszlo, for many known as the cinematographer of films like Rambo: First Blood and the TV-series Shogun, does a fantastic job here - very poetic photography in this grim setting.Many of the actors have never been better, before, or after.
He has never been better since, Keith Carradine (who some of us remember from 'Hair' on Braodway, or 'Nashville' - which earned him an Oscar for a song!) is the intellectual, Fred Ward (Escape from Alcatraz, Short Cuts) is the cool killer type, Peter Coyote ('Keys' in E.T.) is the staff sergeant lost in the woods, Alan Autry ('Bubba' in 'In the heat of the night') freaks out, completely, Brion James (Bladerunner) excellently plays a one-armed Cajun trapper whose life take a turn for the bad when he is blamed for the first death, and Les Lannon (Silkwood, in which Fred Ward also appeared) is the sergeant that is totally out of his league in the swamp.
Upon first viewing this film seems to just be another above average entry to the bayou sub-genre.Added to the likes of Deliverance and the first Rambo.However look closely and this tale of unexperienced guardsmen fighting off psychotic cajuns takes on another meaning.
So what at first sight seems an action packed thriller is also a gritty metaphor for one of the horrors of the last century.The film is well directed and paced.Right from the start the pace doesn't flag.The fact that the cast are mostly unknowns only adds to the tension,the audience not knowing who will bite it next.All in all an exciting thriller and well worth watching..
An unit of National Guardsmen commanded by officer(Peter Coyote) and various soldiers(Boothe, Carradine,Fred Ward,TK Carter,Carlos Brown among others)find on weekend exercises in the swamps of Louisiana.
Southern Comfort's best feature is its casting because there are no superstars in this film, just good, solid actors like Keith Carradine and Powers Boothe who get your sympathy as the men-in-peril right to the end.
Taking some moored canoes to cross a river, leaving a note of explanation, they find that within a short space of time they are in a fight for their lives against a Cajun foe whose territory they are now completely at the mercy of.The comparisons to Deliverance are obvious and fair, the metaphor for Vietnam, too, is rightly associated to Walter Hill's movie, but it's a good enough picture across the board to stand proudly on its own two feet.
Narratively as well the film is always strong, where the group dynamic of uniformed men trying to survive in a hostile environment, is tossed about like a rag doll amongst the swampy bayous of Louisiana.As evidenced by much of his CV, Hill is a master of action choreography, and Southern Comfort finds him on top form.
A pleasant surprise it was when I saw that Powers Boothe actually was cool as hell in SOUTHERN COMFORT, giving a dead-serious performance and acting really tough when it's called for.Now, compared to DELIVERANCE, the main characters in SOUTHERN COMFORT have a little less background, so it's a bit harder to like them.
But when a redneck prank goes horribly wrong these soldiers will learn what it's truly like to be hunted.Walter Hill (48 Hrs / The Warriors / Streets of Fire) directs this solid action thriller that moves a bit slow at times but never gets boring.
The constant failure of intelligent choices is a large part of what makes the movie scary.In Southern Comfort you have a group of National Guardsmen, a few of whom seem to have a pretty good grip on things, and five or so who are flat out stupid.
Watch it for the setting, action, and some Cajun slice of life scenes at the end, and maybe watch it to see Walter Hill playing with some ideas he'd make work better in his 80s movies, but don't expect Southern Comfort to thrill you..
"Southern Comfort," a story about National Guardsmen who tick off some Cajuns and are then picked off one by one, creates great tension by balancing the themes of "stranger in a strange land" and "who can you trust?" It's not until the final frame of the film that you find out how things turn out for the two protagonists, well played by Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine..
Southern Comfort Is an excellent drama, suspense about a rag- tag group of National Guardsman who are out in the Louisiana bayous practicing maneuvers in the swamps, which is inhabited by Cajun's, All is routine Until the guardsman display their macho side to the locals, The locals Don't take too kindly to these redneck outsider's when they Appropriate some of the local's canoes, unfortunately one of the men Stupidly makes the mistake of firing 'blanks at the Cajun's Who naturally return fire, killing their Captain, The guardsman find Themselves at odds in this strange visceral, almost Vietnam like environment with their pursuers Who are relentless in stalking The 8 men who are all ill equipped, are put to the ultimate test with Their survival skills, Southern Comfort boasts a superb ensemble cast, And an equally superb Ry Cooder score which makes good use of Cajun instruments..
The tensions are not always up high and the very ending is trivial; its preceding events in a Cajun village could have been entirely avoided.The cast is evenly strong (leading with Keith Carradine, Powers Boothe, Fred Ward), but it seems that their characters were not very versatile to be performed.
Further, the Cajun village festival near the film's end is pleasantly unorthodox and quaint, in a cultural sort of way.But the problem with "Southern Comfort" is the script's characters, plot, and dialogue.
This is one of Walter Hill's best films,one of my favorite movies and in my opinion an Underrated classic.Set in the Louisiana Bayou Swamps in 1973,Southern Comfort tells the story about a squad of Army National Guardsmen who are planning a weekend adventure.
Armed with just blanks and a few real bullets,the guardsmen now have to figure out how to survive and get out of swamps alive.Southern Comfort is a film that works not just as an Action-Thriller,but a tale of survival and fear.
The final 15-20 minutes of the film is one of the best endings in movie history and is so flawless and well-done and truly shows viewers how to make a suspenseful ending and is one of the things that makes Southern Comfort a classic.The whole ensemble cast is excellent.
Brion James is wonderful as the Cajun trapper the man the squad captures.Walter Hill's direction for the film is excellent,with Hill giving the film a great style and energy,showing the Bayou and Swamp in a frightening and creepy way.
I also love the Cajun music by Dewey Balfa(Parlez-nous a'Boire)which is used to great effect at the end.In final word,if you love Walter Hill,Action films,Thrillers,survival films or films like Deliverance,I truly suggest you see Southern Comfort,a great Underrated Action-Thriller you can watch again and again and is one of Walter Hill's best films.
And considering it doesn't actually take place in a 'proper' war-zone, it makes for an interesting watch that is part war movie, part horror film and part action thriller, yet never seems forced or unfocused.Set in the bayou swamps of Louisiana, the film follows a squad of National Guardsmen on a weekend training mission.
Walter Hill may best be known as director of The Warriors, but Southern Comfort is definitely the better movie.
This film introduced me to Cajun music, Ry Cooder's fabulous soundtrack and it has long been one of my cult favourites.I would recommend it to any film lover.And if anyone knows where I can buy the soundtrack, please leave a message.For me, the film is right up there with Deliverance and it's no surprise that the director's did the Warriors too, another film I can watch at least once a year.I would put this one in the don't miss category with some great performances, though I agree the script could have been tighter.Can anyone explain exactly why this film stays with you when big budget ones very often don't?.
which got him a big laugh but scared the hell out of the Cajuns.They return the gesture by shooting dead the leader (Poole - Peter Coyote) and chasing the company further and further into the depths of the Swamps.....hunting them.....scaring them......killing them!What was going to be just another boring day of National Guard tactical wargames now turns into something far more real as they live off their wits, instincts and the limited amount of skills learnt from their time with the NG.Of course many other reviewers have associated this film with Deliverence, Rambo, Predator and nodding references towards America's wars in Vietnam.
Filmed back in the early 80s when director, Walter Hill was at his prime (IMHO - must also mention 48Hours), Southern Comfort holds together very well from start to finish.But the logic of the script is a little uneven at times.
I don't think Cooder has produced a better soundtrack than this, and really sets the mood & tone for the film.The ending is perhaps a little overdone and could have been handled in a far more intelligent way, and the length of the movie is perhaps 10 minutes or so too long.But for all that I think Southern Comfort deserves a wider audience & certainly a lot more credit than when it first released back in 81/82.****/*****.
Keith Carradine, Powers Boothe,Fred Ward star as National guardsmen who find themselves hunted in the backwoods bayous, where Cajuns are hunting them, since one of the guardsmen stole their canoes and shot blanks at them, of course this leads to a suspenseful and viscous finale where the guardsmen armed with only a few bullets don't put up much of a fight against the Cajuns who know the land and have a seemingly never ending supply of bullets in this intense thriller.
Most of all a film with great tension (that includes the Ry Cooder music themes) with good characterizations (especially that of Powers Booth as the Texan guy and Keith Carradine's in his last appearance in a above average film) from an "auteur" of the American Film Industry (Walter Hill in one of his best films among with "The Warriors" and "48th Hours") about the routine exercise of National Guardsmen in a swamp and the fatal battle with the local Cajuns.
I saw this one when it was released in 81-82......I've also seen it on TV several times since----It seems that I always notice some new detail that I missed on earlier viewings---This movie works well on several different levels---I wonder how many of the people who watch it actually pick up on the Vietnam metaphor---I notice that viewers that I know either get the idea right away or not at all----which I believe is actually a credit to the clear and active pacing of the film --this could be anyone's idea of a smooth but intense action/adventure movie (albeit a rather grim and dark flick)---Not many laughs here as a group of National Guardsmen get lost in a Louisiana swamp and accidently/on purpose pick a fight with some cajun poachers----Its not clear until the very last 5 seconds of the movie that any of the Guardsman will survive this encounter---The cast here is first rate--What can you say about a movie that boasts both Powers Booth and Fred Ward in the same National Guard squad----?.
But don't let the simplistic plot fool you; this film is actually an allegory of the Vietnam War. Set during 1973, it seems all that was changed was the location from Southeast Asia to southern Louisiana.The story starts with a squad of Weekend Warriors who get lost in the swamps during a manuevers training exercise.
It's perhaps telling that this movie improves every time a character dies.The only redeeming value of this film is the last 20-30 minutes, when the surviving pair finally crawl out of the swamp and into a Cajun party.
In Walter Hill's 1981 film, a Louisiana National Guard unit's weekend exercise in the Bayou swamps turns into a fight for survival against some local Cajuns, after the Guardsmen fire at the locals with blank ammunition.
A squad of National Guard soldiers on a training exercise in a Louisiana swamp must fight for their lives after they incur the wrath of some Cajun trappers.I love the backwoods/survival genre, and with this one featuring an exceptional cast (Keith Carradine, Powers Boothe, Fred Ward, Peter Coyote, Brion James), it certainly had a lot of potential.Sadly, this Deliverance-inspired thriller failed to impress: Walter Hill's direction is sluggish and the film is overlong, with the majority of the action consisting of tedious slogging through the wetlands, the obnoxious characters behaving in a manner that doesn't seem at all credible given their training and predicament.Unlike Deliverance, which delivered plenty of tension and at least two bona fide classic scenes (duelling banjos, squeal like a pig), there is little noteworthy about Southern Comfort beyond the authentic swampy location, Ry Cooder's atmospheric music, and the final few minutes in which Hill finally injects some life into proceedings (too little, too late).4.5/10, rounded up to 5 for IMDb..
Southern Comfort is well directed,exciting,believable(I think so) and creepy(the swamps of Louisiana makes up for that).One point extra for Ry Cooders fine soundtrack;it`s perfect for the movie`s atmosphere!
Certainly this movie is derivative from "Deliverance" and there doesn't have to be any speculation about it being a Vietnam allegory---I remember when it came out and that was precisely how Walter Hill, the director, described it himself.The movie has a great look to it as the Nat'l Guardsmen wander around lost in a Louisiana swamp while being hunted by Cajuns.
Even Carradine is not good here.A shame really as the story and the idea behind it could have made a great movie.I wouldn't say I've spent my best 75 minutes of my life watching ''Southern Comfort''.
1981's "Southern Comfort" mostly falls into the mediocre category but it definitely has a great ending.THE PLOT: A group of National Guardsmen get lost in the Louisianna swamps and steal some Cajun boats to paddle out.
Powers Boothe, Keith Carradine, Brion James, and Fred Ward all put out some decent performances.I didn't really put a lot of thought into the film being a metaphor for bigger things like Vietnam, I was just looking for the movie to deliver a couple tense moments, which it does. |
tt0120478 | Star Kid | Spencer Griffith (Joseph Mazzello) is a shy seventh grader and 12-year-old boy. He has a crush on a school girl named Michelle (Lauren Eckstrom). Spencer's life changes when a mysterious meteorite crashes into a nearby junkyard. Investigating the site, he finds that the "meteorite" is actually a small rocket carrying a "Cyborsuit.", a prototype exoskeletal-suit with AI (short for Artificial Intelligence) from another galaxy. Spencer then decides to try the suit on and melds with the suit AI, who Spencer calls "Cy". After testing most of the functions and abilities of the suit, he then goes around town doing whatever he wants, such as getting back at a school bully Turbo (Joey Simmrin), rescuing Michelle and her friends from a damaged ferris wheel, and ordering food from a fast-food restaurant drive-thru, along with a few hilarious antics such as trashing his house while getting his head stuck in a refrigerator, figuring out how to eat a hamburger through the suit and wanting to get out of the suit to pee when Cy wouldn't let him.
During this time, Earth gets visited by a Broodwarrior (Brian Simpson), a member of an alien race of insectoids waging a war against the creator of the Cyborsuit, Tenris De'Thar and his fellow Trelkins. The Broodwarrior's mission is to capture the Cyborsuit so that his race can analyze it. After his first encounter with the Broodwarrior, Spencer escapes, forces Cy to eject him out of the suit and then abandons Cy telling him that he's afraid that he might not live to see his next birthday if he "engages" the Broodwarrior. Back at home, after Spencer looks over his comic book titled MidKnight Warrior and thinking about what kind of person he wants to be, he goes back out to find Cy only to find out that Cy was captured by the Broodwarrior. Spencer begins searching for Cy accompanied by Turbo, now becoming his friend. As they head to the junkyard, where Cy is about to be taken off-world by the Broodwarrior, they create a plan to distract the Broodwarrior long enough for Spencer to rescue Cy. Spencer gets Cy back and begins battling with the Broodwarrior.
During the battle, the Broodwarrior gets the upper hand and defeats Cy and Spencer. After getting bashed multiple times by the Broodwarrior's mace and severely damaging the suit, Cy is forced to eject Spencer out before going completely offline. Spencer covers the suit with scrap metal to hide it from the Broodwarrior, takes a piece of the suit and continues to fight the Broodwarrior, who was later trying to chase down Turbo. Spencer confronts the Broodwarrior before getting chased himself and is suddenly cornered in a junked RV. Just when the Broodwarrior is about to dispose of Spencer, Turbo finds a control panel and activates the car crusher the RV is sitting in, revealing the whole thing to be a trap. Spencer escapes while the Broodwarrior is compressed along with the RV into a solid metal cube, killing the Broodwarrior.
With the Broodwarrior now destroyed, they return to Cy but it appears they were too late to save him. Just when Spencer begins to lose hope, Cy's creator Tenris De'Thar and Trelkin soldiers appear from a giant UFO and quickly repair him, bringing him back to life. After Cy and Spencer say goodbye to one another, one of the aliens gives Spencer a badge for his bravery and courage before their departure back to their home-world. The next day at school, a now confident Spencer, with encouragement from his new friend Turbo, starts up a conversation with Michelle. | good versus evil, revenge, psychedelic, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.